FILM REVIEW: CITIZEN KOCH

A scene from Citizen Koch.

To divide they spend

By John Esther

Since the birth of this nation, the rich have held great sway over our government. If it were not for the people participating in the democratic process, namely voting, there would be no stopping the rich from infiltrating every aspect of government – starting with the campaign process. 

However, that changed in 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens vs. United. A backhanded ruling engineered by the rich neoconservatives, the ruling essentially diluted the influence of working classes in the political process by equating unlimited and often undisclosed campaign contributions with free speech. 

Embolden by the new ruling, billionaires such as Charles and David Koch (AKA the Koch bros.) started this new weapon in class warfare against the working classes in Wisconsin with the 2010 election of Governor Scott Walker, a staunch Republican fixing to dismantle the unions in his state. As a result, a recall movement is born in 2011. People realize the importance of unions. 

Then the Americans for Prosperity from Virginia steps in, becoming Walker’s biggest donor while recruiting Teabagger dupes to back a policy clearly against their best self-interests. Meanwhile Republican members of public unions begin to question his and her longstanding beliefs regarding the GOP just like former Louisiana governor and US Congressman Buddy Roemer did as he ran a different kind of campaign during last year’s Republican primaries. 

Capturing this whirlwind of activity leading up to the historical failure in 2012 to recall Walker, co-directors Carl Deal and Tia Lessin (Trouble the Water) cohesively illustrate what happens when the bad financial powers-that-be cannot be stopped. 

FILM REVIEW: HANNAH ARENDT

Hannah Arendt (Barbara Sukowa) in Hannah Arendt.

Paying for the privilege of owning herself

By Don Simpson

Hannah Arendt begins as Adolf Eichmann is captured during a covert action by the Israeli police. Eichmann is whisked away to Jerusalem to be tried and punished for the war crimes committed against Jewish people by the Nazi government during World War II. Hannah Arendt (Barbara Sukowa) immediately submits a pitch to the New Yorker to travel to Israel to cover the trial. The New Yorker editor William Shawn (Nicolas Woodeson) jumps at the opportunity to have the highly regarded New School political theory professor -- and author of The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) and The Human Condition (1958) -- covering such a landmark story for them.

A German Jew, Arendt was interned during WWII in a concentration camp in France but escaped, eventually emigrating to the United States with her husband, Heinrich Blücher (Axel Milberg). Despite her firsthand experience with the Nazis, Arendt's approach to the Eichmann trial is nothing short of humanist. Arendt sees Eichmann as a government employee who took an oath in which he promised to blindly abide by the Nazi agenda. Even as a high-ranking SS officer, Eichmann merely played a small-yet-integral part of a much larger bureaucratic machine. Eichmann coordinated the transportation of Jews during WWII to various concentration camps, but it could not be proven that he ever participated firsthand in the gruesome mass murders. He was just a paper-pusher, rendered unable to think for himself by the Nazi system. Eichmann's thoughtlessness is precisely what attracted Arendt to his case.

Witnessing Eichmann's trial led Arendt to conclude that evil grew from the thoughtlessness of ordinary people who obeyed orders without consideration of the consequences of their actions. The problem was that a hyper-intellectualized lecture about "the banality of evil" was not exactly the type of coverage of Eichmann's trial that people -- especially Jews -- wanted to read in the New Yorker. They wanted journalistic reporting on the trial, not a philosophy lesson on the nature of evil. Arendt was also quite critical of the actions of some Jewish leaders during the Holocaust, thus igniting tremendous controversy and animosity toward her. Arendt was considered to be snobbish, cold and unsympathetic towards Jews. But, in her own defense, Arendt explained that anyone who writes about the Nazis and the Holocaust should attempt to understand what turns seemingly ordinary people such as Eichmann into tools of totalitarianism.

Writer-director Margarethe von Trotta's approach to Arendt is as calculated and pragmatic as the philosophies of the subject it so minutely contemplates. Rather than functioning as a frothy bio-pic, Hannah Arendt focuses on the shaping of Arendt's concept of the "the banality of evil." Practically every line of dialogue serves as a building block for Arendt's ideologies and philosophies. By way of the fiery debates that Arendt enjoys with her colleagues and friends, we witness as Arendt forms her hypotheses; and as we observe Arendt slowly digesting the transcripts from Eichmann's trial, we practically see the proverbial wheels turning inside her brain. 

FILM REVIEW: COMPLIANCE

A scene from Compliance.

 

T-bag work, force

By Don Simpson

During the opening scene of writer-director Craig Zobel's Compliance, an irritated delivery man (Matt Servitto) exclaims to Sandra (Ann Dowd), the manager of ChickWich, "You are fucked without bacon!" You see, a freezer door was accidentally left open overnight and most of ChickWich's supplies have gone rancid. Luckily Sandra was able to get a rush delivery to replace most of the spoiled ingredients before their lunch rush, but can ChickWich survive an entire business day without the ingredients that could not be replaced, such as bacon and pickles?

The worries of a bacon-less and pickle-less day at Chickwich quickly dissolve into the ether when Sandra receives a phone call from Officer Daniels (Pat Healy) informing her that one of her employees -- a cute, 19-year-old blonde named Becky (Dreama Walker) -- is in a pickle of her own. You see, Becky has been fingered by a recent ChickWich customer as a thief. (It must be Monday, because crappy days like this one only happen on Mondays, right?) Until Officer Daniels and his team can get to ChickWich to apprehend the suspect, it is Sandra's appointed responsibility to keep Becky locked up in the back room. From this point on, the disembodied voice of Officer Daniels proceeds to conduct an interrogation of Becky by masterfully puppeteering the employees of ChickWich. Transferring his authority as a police officer to various fast food civilians, Officer Daniels utilizes the persuasive power of his position to get precisely what he needs out of Becky.

Compliance is an intriguing conversation starter on the manipulative power and control of authority figures. For all the Chickwich staff knows, Officer Daniels is just a voice on the other end of the telephone line barking orders at them; yet, never once does Sandra or any of her staff attempt to verify Officer Daniels' credentials. It seems pretty ridiculous, huh? Of course most of us probably believe that we would just say no if we found ourselves in this situation...but how many of us would actually question a police officer's judgment or motives? When given permission by an authority figure, how many of us would take full advantage of our newly found power? Then, there are the gender dynamics of power struggles... Would a male who is placed in a position of power treat an attractive young woman differently than a female would in the same position of power? On the flip-side of things, what about Becky's personal freedoms? Is it not Becky's prerogative to be considered innocent until proven guilty in court?

Besides guaranteeing some very heated post-screening debates on human psychology, Compliance serves up some really tasty acting performances. Dowd is masterfully conflicted and confused as Sandra, so much so that seems like it might be a bit too heavy-handed for Zobel to drown Sandra in such a shit storm of a day. Did Sandra really need to begin the day with the freezer snafu while simultaneously stressing over the possibility of a mystery shopper visiting her location? It is as if her horrendous day is intended to give Sandra an excuse for her behavior; because of all of the stress she is under, Sandra is obviously not thinking clearly. The same goes for Sandra's boyfriend. Van (Bill Camp), who is heard early on in the film asking Sandra for permission to go out drinking with his buddies. Even Sandra voices her opinion that Van's phone call is unnecessary, but again it is deemed necessary for the audience to understand that Van is drunk when he shows up at ChickWich later that evening. Van is therefore given an excuse for his behavior -- his inhibitions are lowered. These two characters raise questions regarding the effects of stress and alcohol (or drugs) on situations such as the one we find in Compliance. What would have happened if Sandra was having a great day when Officer Daniels called Chickwich? Would she have been able to think through the situation more clearly and logically?

I am not going to point out that Becky is too naturally beautiful to be a cashier for a fast food chain as that would be incredibly condescending to fast food workers, who are already working in some of the most thankless (and underpaid) jobs in the whole US of A. Gross over-generalizations regarding their physical appearance would be in very poor taste. As for Becky being the most attractive worker at this particular ChickWich location -- well, I believe that is exactly why she is targeted. (Of course, this depends heavily upon whether or not you believe the predator stalked out the ChickWich location beforehand. I believe that he did.) Besides, something I really appreciate about Zobel's approach to filming Becky is that he never exploits her, even though he has countless opportunities to do just that. In fact, by his choice of camera angles and framing, it is abundantly clear that Zobel is purposefully avoiding any overt sexualization of the situation. It also helps that Walker handles her character with a great deal of restraint. In Walker's hands, Becky comes off as the most realistic character in Compliance.

Healy is pitch-perfect as the disembodied voice of Officer Daniels, so I would have preferred if Zobel kept his identity concealed until much later in the narrative. By showing us Officer Daniels when he does, Zobel totally changes the tone of the story from a true crime thriller to a demented psychological study. For me, this narrative tactic definitely lessens the thrill of it all; but again, this is something that will probably be debated among cinema-goers post-Compliance.