You already have seen them (or you haven't), and you probably don't care why I think they are my top five for the year (nor should you.) Thus, in the interest of being in the fringe, I am going to attempt an explanation as to how this movie is speaking to us about the current political and social landscape, as all good movies should (except super stylish genre flicks, those are timeless.)
Do I think these films were intentionally made to be elaborate extended metaphors? Unlikely, though who knows. Either way, every artist projects more than they intend.
Number Five: In Bruges
Bruges is a sort of fantasy land. It reminds us of the past. It is a medieval themed tourist trap. Its streets are laden with history yet is occupied with visitors. Bruges is a distraction for the protagonists, and the people trying to bring the protagonists to justice. To me, it is the Middle East. Or Death. Well, really, what's the difference, now a days?
Colin Farrell and some old guy are hit men who get sent there after they did what they do best in London. They were violent in London. Too violent. They must be sent abroad. Together, they are the soldiers we send overseas.
Colin Farrell has committed an atrocity at home, though he had good intentions. Well, they weren't "good" but he didn't mean to kill the kid. He has immense guilt over it. He hates being in Bruges, and wants to leave as soon as possible. And when a future race war is brought up, he says he will fight with the blacks. He is the western liberal.
Some old guy did not commit "the" atrocity, but has done his fair share of damage. He isn't filled with guilt. He is more or less a company man. He generally does what he is told. He is not rebellious. He is trying to make the best of his stay there. He is the one with the most direct contact with the boss. He is the western conservative.
Ralph Fiennes is their boss in London. The prototypical crime boss who dresses nice, gets things done, and has (compared to the protagonists) near ultimate power. He is even more violent, but because he is the boss, he gets to stay in London, and only goes to Bruges at his convenience, apparently to relax. And, of course, let's not forget his warped and conflicted sense of morality. This murder is ok, but this one is not. He is the politician who is above politics and in it for himself (or his bosses.)
While in Bruges, events become a tad surreal. The normal rules don't apply. The characters, especially Colin Farrell, are not taking their trip well. This is culture shock. Or Death.
The characters do not know how to handle their new environment, and their short trip is indefinite. The plot eventually comes to the the boss ordering some old guy to kill Colin Farrell. He wants one side to take out the other, as if this will achieve anything. The movie throws us into a cycle of violence in a strange land. What should be an almost spiritual, and wholly good, place, becomes a horrible place. Death and destruction, even though most of the characters have relatively good intentions.
Also, Peter Dinklage plays a racist midget actor in an art film. I just wanted to add that in, because it is great.
Oh, and I forgot to put above ***SPOILER ALERT***
Do I think these films were intentionally made to be elaborate extended metaphors? Unlikely, though who knows. Either way, every artist projects more than they intend.
Number Five: In Bruges
Bruges is a sort of fantasy land. It reminds us of the past. It is a medieval themed tourist trap. Its streets are laden with history yet is occupied with visitors. Bruges is a distraction for the protagonists, and the people trying to bring the protagonists to justice. To me, it is the Middle East. Or Death. Well, really, what's the difference, now a days?
Colin Farrell and some old guy are hit men who get sent there after they did what they do best in London. They were violent in London. Too violent. They must be sent abroad. Together, they are the soldiers we send overseas.
Colin Farrell has committed an atrocity at home, though he had good intentions. Well, they weren't "good" but he didn't mean to kill the kid. He has immense guilt over it. He hates being in Bruges, and wants to leave as soon as possible. And when a future race war is brought up, he says he will fight with the blacks. He is the western liberal.
Some old guy did not commit "the" atrocity, but has done his fair share of damage. He isn't filled with guilt. He is more or less a company man. He generally does what he is told. He is not rebellious. He is trying to make the best of his stay there. He is the one with the most direct contact with the boss. He is the western conservative.
Ralph Fiennes is their boss in London. The prototypical crime boss who dresses nice, gets things done, and has (compared to the protagonists) near ultimate power. He is even more violent, but because he is the boss, he gets to stay in London, and only goes to Bruges at his convenience, apparently to relax. And, of course, let's not forget his warped and conflicted sense of morality. This murder is ok, but this one is not. He is the politician who is above politics and in it for himself (or his bosses.)
While in Bruges, events become a tad surreal. The normal rules don't apply. The characters, especially Colin Farrell, are not taking their trip well. This is culture shock. Or Death.
The characters do not know how to handle their new environment, and their short trip is indefinite. The plot eventually comes to the the boss ordering some old guy to kill Colin Farrell. He wants one side to take out the other, as if this will achieve anything. The movie throws us into a cycle of violence in a strange land. What should be an almost spiritual, and wholly good, place, becomes a horrible place. Death and destruction, even though most of the characters have relatively good intentions.
Also, Peter Dinklage plays a racist midget actor in an art film. I just wanted to add that in, because it is great.
Oh, and I forgot to put above ***SPOILER ALERT***
1 comment:
but most important, is there action?
Post a Comment