Mortality Rates For The Navy 2010

This article is divided into two parts. Initially, the long version of the film by Olivier Assayas - long being a mild euphemism for a film lasting about six hours and aired as a miniseries on Canal + - will be analyzed and criticized by a guest: Joe, founder and editor of the famous musical webzine Heard It . And in a second time, Writing has dared tackle the short version of Carlos , dedicated to the major cinema screens. But first, here is the detailed and reasoned opinion of Joe, our first guest editor: Carlos

(long version):

It must be said that this is not a biopic. Assayas has not tried to copy reality, or at least I do not think so. It is not Mesrine much less La Vie . It is a historical film and politics. Assayas has placed its point of view, he who proclaims and situationist who was there at the time, a young man who could judge the events. Moreover, Carlos, from prison, and has protested lugging Assayas court for the money (we used her life as a film about profit) but also apparently non-compliance of the facts (it does Gaddafi is not Hussein but who have sponsored the hostage taking of OPEC, etc.) and finally of course, because the facts presented in the film (including the bombings in France for the release of Kopp and Breguet) tend to incriminate Carlos when the trial related to these crimes has not yet been opened. It is not a biopic, it film history and politics.

And it is one fun to watch. Because qu'Assayas is a good director, obviously, with which even the supporting roles are the second most important wild (and most importantly, they are played by actors that are not necessarily used to seeing ALL in feature films within seconds roles, and these people seem real, they are not characters, caricatures, "reds" are the common people: think of the pair linked to the embassy of France from Syria who is gun down at one time or even the police or the DST OPEC delegates), and who knows highlight what it takes. When an event occurs and it is important to point out to better understand the result of the plot (Carlos descends a member of the Libyan delegation, Angie has doubts about the operation, an inspector told a DST another that it is not necessary to take his service weapon to get Rue Toss ...), Assayas does not force the line: it includes but is not obsessed with details and we do not printing a brainwashing. Then the rhythm management could not be more successful: no need for sensationalism in the bombings or hostage taking, nor to show more than necessary, but the action is gripping and fast RAM. Instead, the last part of the film, slow, painfully, is a reflection of the life of Carlos, the life of the Revolution which he represents. The end of the Cold War, the end of Carlos is a slow decline and Assayas does not try to make it more interesting, anyway it would serve his thesis, which does not hide us, is that of the failure of the Revolution.

From a historical perspective, anyone who has not lived through that period with eyes open will find satisfaction in the revelation causes of death. Like those American cop shows where a corpse is found and where they send experts to discover who killed him, when, how and why. When I was a child one day, I was told that the USSR no longer existed and that the Berlin Wall fell. Obviously I did not understand, even if later, the ins and outs were communicated to me, it is a historical film with such a guy like me who has not had the courage to read books on the Cold War could understand how and why.

As the film begins, we come to say qu'Assayas account glorify Carlos make a Che, an icon, and indeed, we would not say no. Edgar Ramirez is a talented actor whose fluency and have given me want to speak English, German and Arabic as well as himself, including English and French are also perfect (it must be understood pronounced "petty bourgeois" ). Not Hollywood (loosely or outrageously pedantic hero king of pathos, even when it takes many pounds "for the role), Edgar Ramirez is right when he states and big words leftists they believe him, but did idolatry because his character is not a failure from the start. Ilich Ramirez Sanchez is the son of a wealthy lawyer, high London in a socialist family, and sent to Moscow, and his revolutionary spirit is undermined from the outset by its comfort and desire of vainglory. The point of no return is obviously reached when Carlos agrees to meet Boumediene and Bouteflika in Algiers, before accepting the ransom. The simple fact of the meeting forced him to abandon his ideals. From there, it seems that no act, terrorist or not, his group has no other meaning than to preserve its own existence. Weinrich and Ali are only his aides and Carlos is an arms dealer, not a revolutionary. Moreover, when at last, the group seems to be back on a more active failure is straightforward: Kopp and Breguet are stopped before they even leave the parking the car bomb attacks and the following cases are not intended to convey a revolutionary message or fight capitalism: the explosion of the car bomb outside the Arabic newspaper is a "job" for the Syrians and the attacks on trains are designed to free Kopp and Breguet, ie to save two soldiers, ill soldiers. The personal interest, absent from the revolutionary Communist rule, is the only thing that turned to Carlos and his men.

It would have been easy to make this film a nostalgic and romantic ode to the Revolution, to Communism, but it is not the case. Besides Carlos is not a heroic figure. The hostage-taking of OPEC, I'm not (on principle, not the facts), as the attempted murder of one of the President of the British clothing chain, which was a Zionist. These are politically motivated. Bomber the Drugstore, bulging trains to save his soldiers, and so on, it's not the Revolution. That may be one reason why Carlos (the real, whose ego should not be very small) did not like what he saw Film: his life is presented as a failure and worse, as a symbol of the defeat that led to the New World Order at the time. Weinrich told him, in the end, with tears in his eyes: "The war is over ..... and we lost."

From a personal perspective, as a scathing critique of the capitalist world order (and especially its failure, for him, especially moral), and as pro-Palestinian crossing I find myself captivated by this film before the collision between big ideas and sad egos, between big projects and sad interest. I tell myself that I found interesting live this period but the disappointment was certainly worse than the hippies fifteen years earlier. I console myself with a director, actors and film fun and the icing on the cake, a habit with Assayas, a dream soundtrack, since these are songs of Wire, one of the best British bands of all time and probably the one I listen to the most right now, that illustrate the key passages of the film without the music takes precedence over the images or not romanticize the script. They only serve to help build tension or atmosphere. What joy.

_______________________________________________________________

Writing And now he takes over dared to follow up on the movie version of this film.

Carlos (short version): A short version

long anyway to 3 hours, which looks good and that sometimes follows with interest because Assayas is a gifted filmmaker, even when poured into this other for most American cinema. At first the story is rather catchy and at the same time quite annoying, especially because this way the filmmaker's body of Carlos naked in the shower background music "New Wave". The music, obviously adored The filmmaker's doubtful becomes almost criminal to illustrate the life of a pathetic pseudo-revolutionary terrorist, turned into a playboy for the purpose of adaptation. Edgar Ramirez, a handsome man, who carries the film on his shoulders by a flawless work of incarnation, makes us cudgel, and it's embarrassing to cudgel on a guy. I talk about the sequence where our man begins swinging a bomb in a public place, exploding in the back with great fanfare cries torn, then kneaded his beautiful cock in front of a cracked-mirror, naked and prominent, beautiful like a god, ass bomb at the window, while the background music "cool", which makes a sort of icon Carlos, a hero class too, a great gangster, what we have already seen and reviewed a thousand times elsewhere, especially among the Yanks. This sequence, which we guess it is there to dramatize the character's megalomania, he wore the beautiful at this time of his life, or status as an instant star of terrorism, is nevertheless slightly disturbing, even a little depressing.

But soon you begin to understand that the hero of this movie is not one, as his feats are limited to the murder of a handful of cops and a trade policy terrorist borked (Since spleen, but also in the sense that the revolution was already a tenure to assassinate the oil ministers of the countries opposed to Iraq under the guise of idealism, anti-capitalist), and that 'In fact what we are told is the story of an asshole that party revolutionary ideals, has returned to lack of a better interest much lower personal and the beautiful bandit venerable media Carlos went to fatso stashed and destitute, captured after an illness of balls. And we understand better the idea of the film and the reason that drove the first film to Assayas Carlos as an attractive celebrity to better tell the truth in the second half of his film. But that does not seriously be bored. We are bored

first because the whole end of the movie is boring as it is not allowed. We are bored because since it is a true story, Assayas, as any biographer, felt obliged to incorporate its too long movie sequences that have no interest and that the filmmaker never filmed, never mounted or, if he himself had written this story. We guess that these sequences actually come from the extra long version, or if they were justified in a six-hour film certainly much more complex and rich in historical and political, they are quickly becoming irrelevant in a short version should say a lot less relevant. There is no doubt that this movie was filmed for television and to last six hours, and that is the movie version is a condensed awkward. We are bored because we finally see that the whole point of the film lies in this metamorphosis due to failure of the hero, or the staging remains with the opening of the story, the kind still in series and a regrettable vein biopic, it does not change and is hardly exciting, and this even if the film is signed Assayas and is therefore a thousand times better realized that all the World Series. Assayas has not completely lost his personal touch in this operation and his film, which still finds a good balance between action scenes and sequences quieter, can sometimes make you think an American film of the 70's, in the Lumet's kind of when he was still in shape. Nevertheless we follow the movie without really be interested, without really finding his account. Not sure that ale desire to see him. Not sure that is slow to forget ...

However

I will never forget that this plan when the terrorists led by Carlos, finally leaving the conference of OPEC leadership the airport, with all the hostages held at gunpoint in the bus they were granted, and where we see the coach in question, drawn curtains, move away slowly, led by an Arab terrorist these nihilists, when suddenly the flashing light to indicate that the bus will turn left. This guy who drives the bus, part of a handful of suicide terrorists convicted of the murder of a statesman and Austrian police, ready to carry weapons by the leaders of several countries in the world that he and his comrades to take hostages Baghdad, the guy who drives this bus with all the TV shows filmed and endorsed by dozens of police, this great murderer political fathom that death look, this guy at this point, he put the flashing on the left before turning. That I will never forget.


Carlos Olivier Assayas with Edgar Ramirez (2010)