Two New Reviews For Brian DePalma’s Enormously Controversial REDACTED!

Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here. ... and I don’t think it’s “controversial” in the way that was intended. The controversy isn’t over the political content of Brian De Palma’s new film so much as it’s over the artistic merit. Or lack thereof. His work’s always divided critics, but in this particular case, even some of his staunchest supporters seem conflicted or even openly hostile. I haven’t had a chance to see it yet, but I love CASUALTIES OF WAR by De Palma, and it sounds like this covers similar ground. No matter how rabid the response, I’m still curious... I can’t help myself...

Here we are, more than four years into the Iraq war, and the much dreaded 'liberal Hollywood' has begun to throw it's creative hat into the ring. What moviegoers have been given thus far are 'war at home' scenarios -- all carefully calibrated, easily digestable, and handled with the most delicate of kid's gloves. The majority of these films, like the media outlets who cover the war with slick graphics and tidy soundbites, choose to play at a safe distance. After watching Brian De Palma's new film -- the impassioned, infuriating and overwhelmingly powerful "Redacted" -- you're tempted to look at these other sugar-coated treatments as a series of smug and self-congratulatory efforts. Because unlike the swell of turgid product that only claim to proport an enlightened view on the war, 'Redacted' weaves an invaluable and vital cinematic experience; one that demands to be seen right now. There is an urgency to 'Redacted' that was understandably missing from De Palma's last battleground film 'Casualties of War'. That picture, like the new one, plays out like the most painful and tortured cry for mercy ever committed to film. But 'Casualities' was produced well over a decade from the end of the Vietnam era and, in assuming the role of its protagonist, it was seeped in the past memories that will forever haunt the nation. ‘Redacted' recounts a thinly veiled 'fictionalization' of a real life incident involving four American soldiers who perpetrated the rape and murder of a 14-year old Iraqi girl, as well as the murder of her parents and five-year old sister. A startling similarity erupts between 'Redacted' and 'Casualites' as both cover an almost identical real life incident. As a companion piece to the previous film, it sets a strong case that we have not yet learned from our mistakes. But the very fact that 'Redacted' is playing out as we are still embroiled in the Iraq conflict lends the film an immediacy that 'Casualties' lacks, and in turn it urges us to step up and break the error of our ways now before more lives are needlessly lost. 'Redacted' is the work of an undeniable visual arist -- one who provokes, enrages and challenges the viewer (have we forgotten that's what the role of an artist should be?) -- but it is also a work of persuasive activism. For this reason, De Palma cannot be bothered by his naysayers that cry 'too soon!', because his only hope in making the picture is that it's not too late. The other side of the critical outrage over the film deals with the supposed harm the film could impose upon our American soldiers who are still fighting bravely in a tense and gravely dangerous situation. This argument ignores the bigger picture and the shades of grey that exist in a war-time environment. The fact that we have invaded a country, De Palma argues, is far more toxic an instigation than a movie could ever be. In that sense, the rape and murder at the center of 'Redacted' serves a larger purpose; it relates metaphorically to the rape of a country and to the humanity of all involved. Shades of grey. No drama can exist without conflict and De Palma, a 40-year veteran of the film business, knows this as well as anyone. Our soldiers exist in an environment we cannot truly comprehend, one in which morally complex and life-and-death quagmires could erupt at any moment. In a key early sequence from the film, a car attempts to speed through a checkpoint, failing to heed the commands of the soldiers who stand guard. A soldier opens fire, critically wounding the occupants of the vehicle who, unbenownst to him, include a pregnant woman about to give birth and her husband who was merely attempting to rush her to the hospital. What transpires after this scene is a tense conversation between the young man behind the trigger and a soldier who stood by and watched the incident unfold in horror. The observer preaches shame on the shooter. The shooter returns, defiantly, with an affirmation of the possible consequences if he didn't fire the weapon. It is his job. Remorse is a luxury in which he cannot afford to wallow. In the confused landscape of war, both men express completely relatable and valid views. These same voices exist in the film's brutal centerpiece -- the rape itself -- as one soldier protests, one soldier caves in to pressure, while the others remain too venomous and motivated by rage at the losses they've already suffered at the hands of the Iraqi insurgents. Of course, 'Redacted' is about much more than this grueling event. Like all great De Palma films, it exists as an investigation of the power of the image as well. In Vietnam, De Palma has stated, we were given nightly photo'graphic' accounts of the war's devastation. As a result, we began an uprising to end the conflict. Today, thanks to a media and a people that have largely shut their eyes and closed their minds, you have to explore the farthest reaches of the internet to observe the consequences of countless bombs and bullets. Or you could just watch 'Redacted', a film that you may not want to see, but one that must be seen regardless. A Submitted by: Jamey Please include the following if you run with this review: Brian De Palma will appear on the internet podcast show Movie Geeks United! this Wednesday, November 7 at 10pm EST. Listeners may tune in live (and submit questions via the chat room) or anytime on replay. Follow this link to listen in.

Wow. That’s not what I was expecting at all. Let’s see if this next guy agrees:

Hey Harry & Moriarty, Long time reader, first time reviewer. Well, in this forum at least. I caught a screening of Brian De Palma’s “Redacted” tonight and wanted to chime in on the film, which deserves a big audience, but will sadly not get it. “Redacted” is an extremely difficult film to watch. It is unrelenting in its progression towards the horrifying central scene, which is called out in the opening titles. We are watching a fictionalized version of the events that led to the rape and murder of a 15 year old Iraqi girl and the killing of her entire family by American soldiers stationed in Samara , Iraq . This may be the first time in is entire career that Brian De Palma is invisible as a director. Gone are the flashy camera moves and the candy-colored, perfectly lit set-pieces. Instead we get a series of handheld faux documentary-style eye witness clips, as shot by various people somehow involved in the proceedings. The main source of footage (at least until he meets a truly gruesome end) comes from the video camera of Angel Salazar (Izzy Dias), who is documenting his war experiences, hoping it’ll be his ticket to film school, when he returns from duty. Another part comes from a French documentary crew shooting an arty doc that showcases the extreme boredom interspersed with unpredictable acts of violence that is the reality for the American soldiers stationed in Iraq . All the footage in the film is from sources that could realistically have captured the moments they depict, whether it’s a surveillance camera, a video chat or an Arab TV news station. It’s this gritty style of story telling that makes the film so hard to watch, as it truly does feel like a documentary, pieced together from a variety of sources. The film follows a group of soldiers, focusing on Reno Flake (the excellent Patrick Carroll) and his sidekick B.B. Rush (Daniel Stewart Sherman). From the outset, this is nothing like the usual brothers-in-arms buddy movie. We get to know a few of the soldiers, but only superficially. This film is not a character study. Flake and Rush may not be the brightest sparks around, but they’re not necessarily evil either. Their heinous crime gets committed mostly because the opportunity presents itself, and they are bored, horny and drunk. So it’s premeditated, but only in the way that bored, horny and drunk idiots everywhere have a tendency to do extremely stupid things without considering the consequences of their actions. The main feeling the viewer is left with, aside from almost unbearable empathy for the killed and raped girl and her family, is the question of what the fuck we are doing in Iraq. De Palma closes the movie with a series of real life photographs of “collateral damage”; essentially horribly wounded or dead civilian Iraqis. This, he is saying, is the real result of the US being in Iraq . And it happens every day for as long as we stay there. The film is unquestionably a piece of art, and De Palma has made one of his best movies by deciding to leave all his directorial flourishes behind to serve the naturalism of the story. Sadly, as mentioned above, almost no one will see this film. It may have won De Palma a Silver Lion at the Berlin Film Festival for Best Director, but it is so unrelentingly bleak and down-right depressing that not even the art house crowd will give it positive word of mouth. It’ll get great reviews from intellectual reviewers, but like the recently released “Rendition” it feels like a chore to sit through. You know it is good and right and good for you to watch, but you really don’t enjoy it. It is certainly not entertainment. But it’s the kind of film every high school student should see before they decide to join the army. If you use this review, call me Bastman.