Written by David D’Alessandro, John Heffernan, Sheldon Turner, directed by David R. Ellis and starring Samuel L. Jackson. The film finished filming principal photography in September of 2005 including five days of additional re-shooting to raise the MPAA film rating system rating from a PG-13 to an R[1]. It is now unofficially the biggest buzzed film of all time with tremors going back as early, as the Blair Witch Project era in 99. Buzzed is the right word and for once, it is not down to cast, crew or script,…and has anyone approaching the phenomenon quite taken aback by the way it all started. SOAP, as it is now known, started as a quirky little film on a plane, post 9/11. It was difficult for any respectable producer to think about green lighting a high-profile project involving planes flying.

Sam was brought into the picture – ‘because of the title’ – and all of sudden, the producers (Craig Berenson, Gary Levinsohn and Don Granger), realized that they were sitting on a good film. The film’s working title was then changed to ‘Pacific Air flight 121′

Perceptive fans – Hollywood insiders? Outsiders? – picked up on this change of name and started writing poems, songs, bloggs, trailers,…to ‘protect’ the title? Revive it? It started a cult followed by many and like the great men once said ‘Never was so much owed by so many to so few’
How and why it started will remain a webmystery. However, the title has now became in Internet-lingo an explanation for fatalistic feelings ranging from ‘c’est la vie’ to “shit happens.” …

Here is one of those poem by SuperMatricks:

Snake On A Plane or SOAP…

Internet aphorism…
Sentence precluded of any serious meaning
If only the very serious…meaning of life….
Over-reaching the foremost tentacles
Down the deep end of the wide web
Cruising like the riding zeitgeist.

For this is the Google age, we enter a new page
Clicking away at every turning point.
We are mere mortals and should not be on a plane
For this is the moment when running from the joint

The only ghost moved on the femme fatale
She, bless her, decided to refuse the rascal

Fixing up and looking sharp
Holding the mirror like a true lady
I unleashed my lyrics in a welcoming park
I have your snake down in my plane.
I never said it would be so easy
Her smile made you feel alive
Is it possible for a snake to be on two different planes?
Was my opening chat-up line…
I could never see the reality sign
Will Hoxton ever, ever, ever be cool again?
And my head never felt so much pain
I could never, never, see, she was a real dame

And she replies: Are you always so sneaky?
Maybe cheeky, never monkey!

She smirked….almost…
Am I in?
At any cost
Magic grin…I am the boss
Think…positive like a butterfly

She gazes…Make a move?
She oozes…should I fade

I start campaigning…for my own party:
Word flowing like a proper arty..

You are the candidate, of my heart…
I’ll fly your colors to the other end of the earth
…..
.
It’s alright I’ll stay on the plane, for the rest of the flight.
She replied
Tough cookie I thought…
Browne sausage she replied
D’you know a Chinese bookie? I uttered
‘My favorite dish’ she smiled

Like I said, the snake was not for turning…hmmm just maybe for fuming
First the snake then the plane…how did it get sooo lame?
She asked.
My cover was blown ‘pff’ confetti-style…
My pride? Down the sink… ‘Sssh’ Linguini style
I’ve been plucking chicken like you all my life.
I’ve been staring at you all the flight
‘Get your snake out of here!’
The plane was still full …of other Snakes…
END.
As published on the official fanblogg: http://www.snakesonablog.com/Soooo.

Green Light

You saw the movie…liked it? Enjoyed the theater or your home cinema…? Not yet! The only problem is you haven’t seen a single frame of the film so far. The problem is the film has started a bizarre internet fever never seen before in the Google age. The problem is chat rooms, news rooms, blogg, super-community website, fansites alike…are full of it. Full of stories about the filming, the press is at it, and the growing legions of fans as well…to the point where they’ve actually been able to reorder the shooting of a few scenes and the addition of dialogues of their choice to satisfy their browsing egos. To add to the insult, I will therefore write the first review of a movie I have never seen!

Before you asked yourself, is he mad? Remember that some even made a movie of how the audition was conducted, without being there! … So let me now do my mo#*#* fu#*#*#** review!

First let’s command the fine and subtle acting genius that is Samuel Lee Jackson the first, who in his inimitable fashion has been able to deliver a performance of the highest caliber for his legions of admiring fans. Second let us remember the premises of the film: There is a plane full of snake, Samuel Lee Jackson has to save the world, and will he do it? Sure he will, but before that he will have to deliver pin-point sharp one-liners, kick some a#*#* and stutter the sentence: Get the mo#*#*#* snakes out of my m#*#*# plane!
All in the name of poetry then….

What started as a movie made for popcorn lovers – The lead should have been younger; Think Fast and Furious – made in September 2005 in Canada, is now the biggest buzzed film of all time with tremors going back as early, as Blair Witch Project era in 99(post web 2.0 then) Sam was brought in and all of sudden, the producers (Craig Berenson, Gary Levinsohn and Don Granger), realized that they were sitting on a good film. The film’s working title was then changed to ‘Pacific Air flight 121′.

erceptive fans – Hollywood insiders? Outsiders? – picked up on this change of name and started writing poems, songs, bloggs, trailers,…to ‘protect’ the title? Revive it? It started a cult followed by many and like the great men once said ‘Never was so much owed by so many to so few’
How and why it started will remain a web-mystery. However, the title has now became in Internet-lingo an explanation speak for fatalistic sentiments that range from c’est la vie to “shit happens.”

Cut to the chase….
Sam is flying a key witness from Hawaii to LA on a plane. He is an FBI agent. Sam obviously enjoy playing law-enforcement character from Jedi knights, to SWAT team leader, to private eye, to simple cop,…His character is coming straight from the Die Hard book of widow and orphan rescuer, but where Nelville Flynn has the edge on John McLane it is in his ability to deliver badaaasss one-liners while remaining ultra-cool. A ‘tour-de-force’ done effortlessly thanks to the quiet and unassuming action-packed direction of David R. Ellis. D.R.E is known to be a surf enthusiast and was in a previous life stunt coordinator on ‘cult’ films like ‘Invasions of the body snatchers’ (1978) or action 2nd unit director on ‘Patriot games’ and ‘Clear and present danger’ (1994), both with Harrison Ford…

Have you said coincidence?
Woody Allen he ain’t. But that’s exactly the point, for he is well too aware of the danger of letting angst-ridden dialogues taking over the film’s subconscious message: ‘Kill all the muthaf#*#*#*#*# snakes’. A few additional characters complete the casting, sometimes as snakes-fodder like -Tyler (Kennan Thompson) and Ashley, a married couple; Cowboy Rick (David Koechner) from Texas; Cash Money, a gangsta rapper, his bodyguards Big Leroy (Keith Dallas) and Two-Ton; Mercedes, Rachel Blanchard as a Paris Hilton look-alike…some air hostesses, puppeteer (Adam Behr)…etc. And of course the snakes, stars of the films hissing their way through the cockpit with evocative names like Scarface or Hannibal with 20 foot long Kong stealing the show.
We leave you with a few lines dropped from the trailer and hope to hear from you soon:

Nelville Flynn: It’s my job to handle life and death situations on a daily basis. It’s what I do, and I’m very good at it. Now you can stand there and be the panicked, angry mob and blame him, me and the government for getting you into this, but if you want to survive tonight, you need to save your energy and start working together.
Or the most memorable one: I’ve had it with these mother fucking snakes on this mother fucking plane!

Tags

Related Articles

• THE RISING – Aamir Khan’s Influences & Politics
• SAYLES TECHNIQUE – A Social, Political & Emotional Travelogue
• RAHMANIAN RHAPSODY – Letting his Work do the Talking
• LOIN DU VIETNAM – Far From Vietnam
• HITCHCOCK’S EMD CINEMA – Injustice in Art & History

Paulo Gerbaudo looks at the parralels between film and war then and now Loin du Vietnam is both a failure and an inspiring experiment in war cinema. The film – a politically committed documentary dealing with the war in Vietnam – after its release in 1967 proved a commercial flop and was the victim of harsh critiques and early oblivion. One rare copy of the collaborative work of a number of great politically committed directors of the period such as the French Jean-Luc Godard, Alain Resnais Claude Lelouch, Chris Marker, William Klein, Agnés Varda and the Netherland’s director Joris Ivens has been recently screened at Cine Lumiére of the Institut Francais.

The project of the film sprang out of the convulse atmosphere of 1967 during the escalation of military operation in Vietnam, and was the result of incipient ‘68 politics with their stress on participation, assemblies and direct democracy. The film, while dealing with a decisive political issue of the period, also aimed at questioning the French film industry and the one author canon to stress the importance of collaborative work of the film crew and of different directors. On the other hand the challenge was to realise an alternative representation of the war as seen in its multifaceted and often “distant” manifestations.

To do this Loin du Vietnam undertakes an expressive experiment in the documentary format by mixing together heterogeneous materials that compose an instable collage, notwithstanding the intelligent work of Chris Marker in the cutting room. In the film different inspirations and footage, documentary and fiction, converge. The long monologue scene by Godard about the political role of the cinematography in face of the war together with scenes from La Chinoise, interviews with Fidel Castro and Ho-chi Minh sided by brief visual clips and other cinematographic virtuosities. However some of the best moments of the film are the ones that stick more directly to documentary cinema, such as the war and everyday life in Hanoi under American bombings filmed by Joris Ivens and his wife, William Klein’s documentary footage about demonstrations in the United States and Lelouch’s sequences from an American carrier.

The film represents the war in Vietnam in the form of a historical tragedy staged on different scenes. Not only battlefields, but also North Vietnamese villages, American barracks, occupied cities, TV sets in living rooms, and demonstrations in the streets of Europe and America. Hence war emerges not as a simple military confrontation but rather as a mechanism of violence and conflict spreading its tentacles through supply lines, news programs, minds and hearts.

The two themes, evoked in the film’s title, Vietnam and distance, grasp a pair of great ideas which is what the film is all about. First of all, Vietnam within this film is not just a name for a particular country in South East Asia, 10 000 miles away from American shores, but also the name for a particular political, military, social and cultural conflict, characterised by harsh oppositions both in national and international politics. Thus the film represents Vietnam not only as a war between nations but also as a civil war, as any modern war has to be. In a long sequence by William Klein in front of Wall Street, during a huge peace demonstration in New York, a group of brokers shout “Bomb Hanoi! Bomb Hanoi!”. Demonstrants engage along the march path in harsh verbal confrontations with war supporters. New York appears kidnapped by a vibrant hysteria.

The film then slides along a theatre of operations that spans through the globe. Going from the streets of Paris crowded by demonstrants and policemen to a village in North Vietnam where people are assisting to a theatre show blaming Johnson and United States, to a paddy field where a unit of the National Liberation Army is training in hiding, to the mountains of Cuba. Distance, in turn, can be read as the description of the condition of civil populations in western country during such a war and its being exposed to a mediated war fought far away but capable, at the same time, of destabilising internal society and politics. As New Yorker reporter Michael Arlen put it, the Vietnam War, was a “living-room war”. Distance is also the principle that underlies the hypertechnological war machine deployed by the U.S. in Vietnam: a system controlling death and destruction from afar. The image that opens the film is a load of bombs being moved from a supply ship to a carrier. Lelouch’s camera follows those bombs while they are stored and eventually armed on the aircraft. In the middle of the ocean, far away from the dead bodies of the American bombings it enables, the carrier becomes a metaphor of a war machine that acts from afar. Distance thus emerges as instrumental to power. A removal of the horror of war through the media and thanks to its being out-of-sight. As one of the demonstrants appearing in the film says “Americans support the war because it is far away. Would they think the same, if their cities were attacked?”. The answer is as elusive today as it was then, best exemplified in the voting patterns of the American people post 9/11.

Notwithstanding the timely political rethorics that in some parts of the film tend to lean towards an apology to Vietnam, the work provides a vibrant description of the conflict in Vietnam and the social unrest that surrounded it. After the release the work was also criticised for its ‘easy ironies’, but it is actually through those ironies that the film shows the hypocritical goodwill justifying a distant war. This is also what the film does through the way it is cut. For example by joining a popular pro-war song with the reality of a Saigon populated by prostitutes, or by showing a speech of general Westmoreland through a damaged TV screen.

Viewing such a film today inspires a reflection about the similarities and differences between the media propagation of that war and of the current one, the war in Iraq in which the U.S. and its coalition are engaging in. Vietnam was a fortunate topic for cinema, and before that, it was extensively and crudely covered by television and newspapers. The American army had, at least initially, favoured the work of journalists and camera men on the front (much more than ever happened before and after that) for propaganda reasons. So Vietnam became the first televised war, and the war began losing consensus when too many dead corpses on the screen began to disgust the American public’s dinner time.

The Iraq war has undergone a more technically developed coverage that pretends to transmit battle images in real time (through embedded journalists) as if it were a football match and always jumps quickly to the site of an attack or a bombing. In this rapidity of news coverage something has been lost. The media war coverage of Iraq has not only censored the images of blood, tortures and body bags. It has also disminished the importance of other aspects of such a war: the conditions of the civil population in the occupied country and the unrest uniting millions of people across the world in the biggest anti-war protests ever. This erasure of such decisive aspects of war is what Au loin du Vietnam tries to overcome by following the many links that the war ties through conflicts and solidarities all around the globe.

Iraq wars have, until now, not been as fortunate as Vietnam in their representations within contemporary cinema. The only fiction titles deserving attention are David O. Russell’s Three Kings (1999), the recently released Jarhead (2005) by Sam Mendes both dealing with soldiers’ stories during the 1991 conflict in Kuwait when Iraq invaded. Also Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) and Robert Greenwalth’s Uncovered: The War On Iraq (2003), both documentary films, deal with the current war in Iraq even though focusing on its role in American politics. Moreover all these films and documentaries are somehow limited to an internal vision of war as seen through the individual experience of American soldiers, citizens and their nation’s destiny and fail in providing a radical representation of war in all its complexity.

With its real-time – as much tempestive as anaesthaetised – war representation, television has produced an overload of recurrent images about the war in Iraq, restraining any space for debate, comprehension and radical analysis. In this condition it is hard to develop a committed war cinema without getting lost in easy political pedagogy a là Michael Moore or in rank paternalism in Live 8 fashion. Au loin du Vietnam can, in contrast, be an inspiration for a cinema that intends to observe war and represent what the war in Iraq means not only in terms of military and political experiences and events, but also in everyday life’s impact, in London as in Baghdad. A cinema able to document its incumbence on western countries and its consequences on the civil population of Iraq. A cinema capable of seeing war at a distance.

Tags

Related Articles

• FLIRTING AT CANNES 2006
• THE RISING – Aamir Khan’s Influences & Politics
• SAYLES TECHNIQUE – A Social, Political & Emotional Travelogue
• SHOW ME THE MONEY – Who’s the Daddy?
• SHANGHAI ON SCREEN – Film Festival 2006

The story is an old one, the thought of a mother marrying her son and bearing him children is difficult to swallow, as is humorously portrayed by Alaka (Nick Oshiklanlu) in his cries of “pray woman let me eat in peace.” The horror of discovering that the wife you loved is in fact your mother is a burden too horrific to bear, King Odewales frenzied paranoia is an anguish to watch. The suffocating pain of the Queens sobs as she realises the husband she married is in fact her son and her silent, resolute exit from the room heightens the sheer force of the drama enfolding. Even through this most shocking of stories there is humour, in the tradition of Shakespearian tragedies, pathos is found. We laugh at the King and his Yoruba proverbs handed out in copious amounts, for instance “is it not ignorance that makes the rat attack the cat?” Led by Mo Sesay playing King Odewale the cast gave tantalising performances. The intimacy of the Arcola theatre, the still, stifling heat did not detract from the dynamic, energetic performance. The lilting, soul stirring chanting and melodies composed by Akintayo Akinbode evoked the senses and helped transport the audience to another time in a Nigerian place.

All great stories are timeless, as is this one. Rotimi was a master storyteller, cleverly placing the Oedipus Rex tragedy in Nigeria where it easily lends itself to the nuances and intricacies of the plot. Having written the play in the 1960s, Rotimis’ essential message is emphasised in King Odewales’ emphatic reply, “no, don’t blame the Gods,” to his brother, Aderopo (Kwaku Ankomah). It was an allegory to the devastating Nigerian civil war that Rotimi, writing in the 1960s was referring to, but the message is just as potent today: we are masters of our own destinies.

The Gods are not to blame: 8th June – 2nd July 2005 Arcola Theatre, 27 Arcola St, E8

Tags

Related Articles

• FLIRTING AT CANNES 2006
• THE RISING – Aamir Khan’s Influences & Politics
• LOIN DU VIETNAM – Far From Vietnam
• SPICE FESTIVAL 2005 – Music, Painting, Poetry & Drama
• SNAKES ON A PLANE – Green Light for Quirk