Category Archives: Iraq

Movie Review: The Devil’s Double

The most frightening villains are not the ones who are imagined, nor the ones who are merely real, but the ones in which it frightens us that they actually existed. One of these people is Uday Hussein, the most infamous of Saddam’s two sons. Here is a man so frighteningly sadistic that even the man who is hired (or should I say, forced) to be his double can’t do it.

“The Devil’s Double” is the true story of the man who would be Hussein’s body double, Latif Yahia (Dominic Cooper), and how he eventually escaped with one of Uday’s women (Ludivine Sagnier). Yahia went to the same privileged school as Uday (Dominic Cooper, again), and the two were deemed lookalikes by their classmates. After Uday threatens to harm Latif’s family, Latif reluctantly accepts Uday’s offer. It is not the promise of getting everything he wants, but rather the need to save his family, that brings him into this dangerous world. This is the first hint that “The Devil’s Double” is not quite the Iraqi “Scarface” that the television spots make it out to be.
Latif realizes from the moment he is told about the job that being Uday’s double would require him to “extinguish himself.” This is easier said than done, because of the magnitude of change Latif would have to go to in order to transform himself into Uday. Latif is a selfless man from modest means who nearly died for his country. Uday has enough money for a collection of diamond-studded gold watches.
Uday spends his time rounding up as many women as possible, some of age and some not. He lusts, and never desires, any of these women. Collecting women seems less a need to fulfill sexual desire and more a need to show off his power. This comes to light during a horrifying bit when he steals the bride a friend of his had just married.
In a challenging bit that requires him to play two very different people, Cooper steals the show. Then again, there really isn’t anyone to steal the show from. He really steals it from himself. He portrays two very different people not just through the modulation of his voice. He is able to channel both good and evil through his eyes. When looking at Latiff, it is as if an angel exists through his pupils. Uday’s eyes convey someone who is constantly disgruntled and never satisfied with anything besides himself. There is an endless fire burning in his eyes.
“The Devil’s Double” never really bothers to explain or justify Uday’s insane antics. There is a lot to explain, but nothing to justify. As the movie shows, and since we are in the world of film that means what the movie shows is absolute truth, Uday lived a sheltered life. Since his father was Saddam, whatever he want, he got. He could get away with murder, literally.
There are many movies that use a decent person’s perspective in order to portray the mind and madness of a psychotic ruler. “The Last King of Scotland” did this most effectively. The problem in “The Devil’s Double” is that Latif’s story is interesting, but his character is not. Cooper as Uday totally overpowers Cooper as Latif.
“The Devil’s Double” never has a dull moment. It provides an enthralling story from the beginning and never slows down the endless adrenaline that flows through it. Maybe it runs on too much adrenaline, and it tries too hard to make its subject matter mainstream. In this day and age, casting no Iraqis and not allowing the characters to speak in their native tongue. Most of the actors are British and contrary to prior belief, British people and people from Muslim countries are not similar. However, it is a step up from the brown faces that mark the fatal flaw of “Lawrence of Arabia.”
Scenes such as the one where Uday cuts open a man’s stomach, and his organs and his organs are exposed rather graphically, lack clear vision and rely on the weakness of showing everything in order to shock. The beginning, which is devoid of dialogue, intertwined with real footage, and somewhat ambiguous (is that Uday? Or Latif?) is a completely different movie. Uday’s strange relationship with his mother is briefly alluded to, but never brought into fruition. The thoughts that Uday either learned his habits from his father, or was continually trying to anger him, come to mind throughout.
These problems undermine the flashes of brilliance throughout. The scene in which Saddam confronts his son over one of his worst offenses is chilling because of what could have happened.
The film’s weak ending, which comes a few minutes too soon, is a reminder that this is no probe of history but rather an escape action film. It eventually becomes a noteworthy film for its powerful central performance and the uncannily privileged world it brings the audience into. If ever there was a category for this film, “The Devil’s Double” would be called pop history.

Movie Review: In the Loop

Some things are too ridiculous to be true. Other things, when put into the right context, are too ridiculous to not be true. This is the very case for “In the Loop.” Its a very relevant political satire about ridiculous characters and situations during a very ridiculous period in history.

“In the Loop” might be so brilliant because of its stunning realism, or just because of how funny it is. The film is shot in a mockumentary style and spans a wide range of characters across an entire ocean. It takes place in the days leading up to a major war with a Middle Eastern country (no name is mentioned, but the film is obviously alluding to Iraq).
The film follows the lives of incompetent bureaucrats as the US and Britain prepare for war. The British side is headed by the Prime Minister’s enforcer Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi), a man who curses more than he thinks. The war plans are constantly compromised by Minister for International Development Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) and his new assistant Toby (Chris Addison).
On the American front, Liza Weld (Anna Chlumsky) writes an anti-war report. As the two countries try and thwart the invasion, the more they work together, the less they get done.
“In the Loop” works so well for so many reasons. For one, it does not encompass one single style of humor, but rather a very broad comedic range. The film seems to have a combination of humor from both sides of the pond, which is a perfect fit. At times, it embraces British deadpan and visual humor. At other times, it uses the American humor of awkwardness and slapstick.
The great thing is that it doesn’t restrict British humor to the British characters and American humor to the American characters. One of the best examples in the film is when Toby stumbles into a meeting late, and he uncomfortably tries to find a good excuse. Of course, he has no clue what he’s talking about.
“In the Loop” is also blessed by hilarious dialogue from writer Jesse Armstrong. At times, some of the lines seem too natural to be scripted; I would not be surprised if improv took place in this film. The lines contain many pop culture references, and a fair amount of cursing. However, the cursing is not just thrown in for the sake of being there. It seems to have a purpose. At times, it can reveal frustration. Other times, it shows abundant emotional immaturity. Mainly though, it just manages to make you laugh. Rarely has the f-word been used this creatively.
“In the Loop” is boosted by an incredible ensemble. No one actor dominates. Rather, each is given a moment to shine. James Gandolfini shines as a US general. He manages to be hilarious by being intimidating at some times, and at other times delivering lines about murdering kittens and puppies without sounding angry.
The strength of the cast lies not just in the strength of each actor, but in the way they all communicate with each other. While great chemistry between actors is usually defined by how convincing it is that they like each other, the great chemistry in “In the Loop” is defined by how well the characters fight with each other. The fact that this was passed on by SAG for the Best Ensemble Award is something of a crime.
“In the Loop” works not just as comedy, but as spot-on political commentary. Armando Iannucci has created a satire worthy of being mentioned alongside “Dr. Strangelove,” the greatest political satire of all time. Like “Strangelove,” “In the Loop” shows miscommunication as the most powerful starter of war. However, unlike “Strangelove,” “In the Loop” is based more off something that actually happened rather than something that could’ve happened. Both are inevitably about trying to stop a crisis that’s already started.
All joking aside, “In the Loop” does have a very serious message to tell. Of course, it does this through humor. It portrays a world in which everything we’re told is essentially a lie, and the real, dirty business goes on way behind closed doors. Also, by having pretty much every person working for the US and British government be way too young, Iannucci is saying that Iraq War might as well have been planned by children. This balance of humor and serious message is something we don’t see enough in modern American comedies.
I really hope in the next two weeks, Oscar voters take this film into some serious consideration. Mainly, a surprise nomination for Capaldi and a Screenplay nomination for the bleeding gums scene alone would be just fine.
In the end, there is really one reason you should go and see “In the Loop”: it’s the most intelligent comedy you’ll see involving diarrhea jokes.

Movie Review: The Hurt Locker

Sometimes, the only way to understand tragedy is to face it–especially when it’s projected on film. The War in Iraq has been going on for just over six years now. Over the past few years, many fine filmmakers have tried to tackle the subject, but none have come close to truly understanding it. Kathryn Bigelow, however, has perhaps come closest. Her latest film, “The Hurt Locker,” is a masterpiece, and one that may define this generation for some time to come.

“The Hurt Locker” takes place in Baghdad in 2004. It begins with Sergeant Thompson (Guy Pearce), a bomb disarmer. After Thompson is killed in an explosion, he is replaced by William James (Jeremy Renner). James is different from his fellow soldiers. During his military career, he disarmed over 840 bombs, and thus has become fearless. The word “dangerous” certainly does not appear in his vocabulary.
The movie doesn’t really have a plot. It is not about a major assassination attempt or a mission to destroy an enemy target. It is simply about soldiers trying to survive in Iraq; trying to survive a war where with no distinct enemy. It is a war where any civilian walking down the street could be carrying a case of C4.
At times, “The Hurt Locker” doesn’t even feel like a movie. Maybe that’s because of the grainy, shaky-cam style in which it is shot. But it could also be that every situation feels so real and so scary that it might as well have been real footage someone shipped back from Baghdad.
Maybe the reason previous films about Iraq never connected with mainstream audiences is because it was too soon to be trying to figure out the War while it was still going strong. As the War seems to finally be winding down, now seems like the time to start reflecting on it. After all, the best films about Vietnam didn’t come out until years after the conflict ended. “The Deer Hunter” was released three years after the war ended, “Apocalypse Now” was released four years after the war ended, “Platoon” eleven years, and “Full Metal Jacket” twelve years. “The Hurt Locker” is to date the best film made about Iraq. I believe though, that it may not remain that way; the film has opened up a new era of how war is portrayed on film.
In addition to being the best film made about Iraq, I believe that it is not an understatement to say that “The Hurt Locker” is one of the best war movies ever made. At times, it is scarier than any horror film. Every gun shot and every explosion send an immediate jolt to the heart.
Unlike most action films today which seem to go through every scene as quickly as possible, “The Hurt Locker” has no problem slowing things down. The scenes of a bullet being fired and a bomb blowing up are both shot in real time. When the first bomb blows up, things are slowed down so much that you can literally see metal melting and the sidewalk lift off up the ground. It is nothing short of stunning. Perhaps the scene that stuck out most was the sniper shootout. This scene takes no restraints in showing the effects of violence, and both sides are so far off that literally anything could happen at any moment.
I believe “The Hurt Locker” is a movie that can be both enjoyable and moving to anyone. It does not matter whether or not you support the War, because “The Hurt Locker” does what a good war film should do: it leaves politics out. It doesn’t say we should be there. It doesn’t say we shouldn’t be there. But it does seem to ask why we are there.
The real issue at hand though, is the idea of war in general and what it does to the human soul. In one of the film’s pivotal scenes, James admires the way his infant son seems to love everything. James remarks that as one ages, you can’t love everything like that. You only stick to one, two things at most. For him, that thing is war. In a way, director Kathryn Bigelow shapes the character of William James to be something like Willard from “Apocalypse Now,” or John Rambo. That is, the soldier that has been through war so much that he now depends on it. At this point, killing (or in James’s case, disarming bombs) has become the only thing they are good at, and the only thing they really have to live for.
Many people seem to forget the true difficulties our men and women face in Iraq. “The Hurt Locker” shows it in a way that no news report could. It portrays a world in which everything is a potential danger, and anything can be made into a weapon. At one point, Sergeant Sanborn (Anthony Mackie, in an unforgettable performance) reveals that he feels that so few people care about him, and his fear of being forgotten. This comment is not referring to his friends and family, but to the country in general. News everyday of soldiers being killed by car bombs seems typical to the point that no one even notices anymore. “The Hurt Locker” shows that no matter what, we must not forget.
I believe “The Hurt Locker” is this year’s top contender for a Best Picture nomination. And in a year where there will be ten nominees instead of five, snubbing this unforgettable film would be almost impossible.