Flame & Citron (2009) ***1/2Directed by Ole Christian Madsen
My tweet:
Flame and Citron (2009)- Gritty and compelling, though a bit overstuffed and self-serious. ***1/2 out of 5
Other thoughts:
The visual style of this 130 minute Danish thriller about the underground resistance movement against the Nazi occupiers of Denmark in World War II earns the right to be compared to some of the slick Hollywood thrillers of recent years such as Public Enemies. Flame & Citron is the most expensive film ever to come out of Denmark, a country with one of the most vibrant and interesting cinematic movements around. It captures the scope of a film like Public Enemies, but it retains the patience and deliberate, reflective pacing for which Danish movies are known. The plot centers around two very different members of the resistance whose job simply involves carrying out orders to assassinate mid-level players in the German army. Flame starts out a cold, fresh-faced killer with nothing to weigh him down until he meets a femme fatale who distracts him with sex and makes him question the loyalties of key players within the movement, while Citron starts out a timid, weather-beaten husband and father who only accompanies on the killings, never pulling the trigger himself and ends up an angry, depressed radical gladly putting himself in harm's way for the movement. The two main characters are meant to showcase two different looks at the concept of heroism, though they both kill so brutally that it's hard to really root for them, even though their victims are (usually) Nazi supporters. Thure Lindhardt plays the redheaded Flame who is supposed to be instantly menacing and worthy of instant respect. Considering the fact that he looks like a mixture between David Bowie from The Man Who Fell to Earth and Leo DiCaprio from Romeo and Juliet, I didn't quite buy his menace. Did Flame & Citron need to be over two hours? Nope, but then it might have run the risk of losing its Danish identity. Overall, this tale of extreme justice and brutal violence comes well-packaged and provides an entertaining film-going experience.
We Live in Public (2009) **Directed by Ondi Timoner
My tweet:
We Live in Public (2009)- I came to hate Joshua Harris. This film panders to the whim of a terrible person. Disturbing and infuriating. **/5
Other thoughts:
We Live in Public infuriated me; I can't think of too many films that provoked the same kind of frustration and anger from me as this ridiculously slanted and naive documentary about a man who's portrayed as an eccentric prophet when in reality, he's a narcissistic, borderline sociopath whose dystopian views of the future go so ridiculously beyond the pail that they ought not to be taken seriously whatsoever. Yet, I'm almost tempted to give We Live in Public as much as four stars, and there's no part of me that even considered giving it one star or zero stars. Ondi Timoner's Sundance winning documentary showcases fifteen years in the life of Josh Harris, and the result is edge-of-your-seat compelling. With countless boring, prepackaged, shallow offerings each week at the local multiplex, there's something to be said for a movie of a certain film making quality that really penetrates the viewer emotionally, even if the emotions that result are not positive.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let me focus once again on how much I despised both Timoner and Harris by the time the credits rolled accompanied by Jamiroquai's Virtual Insanity. Josh Harris was one of the early pioneers of the internet in the late 1980s, ultimately making upwards of 80 million dollars through his work with developing chat platforms on Prodigy. In December 1999, he carried out an experiment based on his views that the internet will one day result in everyone having every single aspect of their lives available for viewing on the internet. People volunteered for the opportunity to be selected to live in an underground pod society without the ability to leave where they would have all corners of their lives taped. Timoner was one of the bohemians who volunteered, and herein lies the ultimate problem with We Live in Public. What kind of person would allow himself to be filmed in the shower and the bathroom while being forced to wear a uniform under the streets of New York City? Can that person be expected to present an objective look at a man who has compulsions that could easily be described as fascist in their philosophy? We Live in Public is a freak show presented by a man all too happy to be one of the freaks.
In our Facebook age when a 29 year old teacher spends perhaps too much time sharing his film opinions on a blog, it might seem like Harris' prediction that we will all someday completely give up our rights to privacy to online lurkers has in fact already reached fruition. Yet, there's a big difference between having a Twitter page and having a camera installed at the bottom of one's toilet, as Harris did when he had his life filmed with his live-in girlfriend. Harris went too far, and it destroyed him. Timoner is all-too-willing to show Harris' psychoses, but he doesn't see them as such; instead, he ultimately judges these actions as the quirks of a sage. Society hasn't even come close to giving up the right to shower in private. Timoner shows a disturbing lack of rational judgment when he claims that we're living in the world Harris foresaw.
We Live in Public is so very watchable, and it can start some great debates and discussions. On the other hand, there's another movie about Josh Harris that can be made by someone not part of his inner circle, and at the end of that film, Harris might just be portrayed as the jackass he truly became.
