
One of the 78th Oscars clip montages was devoted to films about big social and cultural issues, and when the clips were done and the cheering muted, host Jon Stewart gave a resigned smile to the camera and delivered a cruel, cutting, it's-funny-because-it's-true joke about Hollywood high-mindedness: " ... And none of those issues were ever a problem again." And that moment came to mind watching In the Valley of Elah. You get a sense of what everyone involved, especially writer-director Paul Haggis, was trying to do -- to make a gripping, engaging drama about Iraq and America -- but as the movie stretches and grasps and strains with sweaty-palmed desperation and clumsiness, you can feel those aspirations slip out of reach. You can tell everyone involved wanted to make an important statement. What they would end up making was a fairly indifferent movie. But hey, if an expatriate Canadian Scientologist who used to write for The Facts of Life can't bring the boys home, who can?
And I may, perhaps, be a little over-the top in the above dismissal, but that might just be because In the Valley of Elah is one of a ever-growing class of movies -- released in the last quarter of the year, festooned with talent, and ostensibly about something -- that desperately want to be seen as 'political' and 'important' modern moviemaking. My initial revulsion at the clumsy coincidences and cardboard characters and cheap tricks in Haggis's previous directorial effort, Crash, gave way to a sort of grudging admiration for the fact that, all things considered, Haggis was trying to talk about race and class. The willingness to look at those topics -- so present in life, so absent on the mainstream big screen -- made Crash seem better than it actually was. And while heaping honors on Crash may not rank on the all-time list of Oscar's worst Best Picture Picks (Forrest Gump, Million Dollar Baby, Around the World in 80 Days, et al.), it's not exactly in the honor roll of Oscar's finest moments.
But we've already given Haggis rewards for his lazy storytelling, his cheap sentimentality, his glib and clumsy narrative tricks -- so who could fault him for coming back to them again and again? In the Valley of Elah is very much in the mold of Million Dollar Baby -- where an older man uses his lifetime of experience to try and do the right thing even though doing the wrong thing would be a hell of a lot easier. It's also got Crash's delusions of moral grandeur. Yes, In the Valley of Elah is about great and mighty topics, but it's somehow both self-satisfied and self-righteous, both preachy and predictable.
Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) used to be in the Army; now, he drives a truck. Army life's not far from Hank's mind, though; his boy Mike is in Iraq. Or, rather, he was; Mike (Jonathan Tucker) rotated back to America last week, but he hasn't called his mom and dad, and he hasn't reported for duty. Mike's AWOL. Hank, an ex-MP, used to track down AWOL soldiers all the time. ...
Shoe-leather, door-knocking and glad-handing only get Hank so far; he also tries to enlist local police detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) in the hunt for his boy. But what was a missing persons case takes a darker turn, and Hank makes a simple and terrible choice: If he can't have what he wants, then at least he'll have the truth. This is ironic, considering that Haggis fills In the Valley of Elah with the kind of feints and fumbles and deck-stacking cheats employed by the worst kind of liar. There are four separate elements of information -- the nature of a phone call, the contents of a package, scrambled cell-phone videos and financial papers -- in play as devices of In the Valley of Elah's plot. Every single one is delayed, held back, and stretched out to the breaking point until it comes to light not because that's when it logically would, but rather because that's precisely when those long-delayed revelations can have maximum dramatic effect.
And it's not so much that I object to storytelling tricks (indeed, you could make the case that all storytelling is a trick); it's that I object to cheap, clumsy and obvious ones. A chance encounter between Hank and a local resident at the start of the film drips with portent; you know we'll be returning to that image later on. When we do, at the finale, it's not a return to an early theme through carefully-plotted symbolism; it's a device as purely mechanical and jerky as a penny arcade automaton going though the motions.
There are some moments of brisk, brusque humor in In the Valley of Elah, mostly thanks to Jones; the sight of Hank reluctantly dragooned into bedtime reading is fairly funny. Some of the other things that get a laugh probably weren't supposed to, though: A returned military man notes ruefully "They shouldn't send heroes to a place like Iraq." Once again, Haggis can't restrain himself from his constant theme of turning subtext into text -- you know, in case we missed something.
In the Valley of Elah aspires to a sort of bumper-sticker bipartisanship: "We Support Our Troops." But war supporters might find something awry in the fact that every service person in the movie who goes to Iraq comes back an amoral psycho case or drug addict; critics of the war will no doubt be offended by the suggestion that the war on Iraq is a series of personal tragedies, and not a larger political or cultural crisis. In the Valley of Elah is apparently based on a true story, and that's a story I'd be interested in seeing on the big screen -- in a documentary; the ugly fact is that more people will see In the Valley of Elah on it's opening weekend than will see, for one example, the excellent and insightful documentary about the Iraq war No End in Sight during its entire release. We can handle the Iraq story if it involves the sympathies of movie stars; it seems we can't, or don't want to, handle it when it involves a real discussion of the problems and policies and politics involved. In the Valley of Elah doesn't actually say "Bring the boys home"; it mostly tells us how much Paul Haggis would like to take home another Oscar.













Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-06-2007 @ 9:52AM
Michael said...
This was an outstanding review James. I enjoy Paul Haggis' films for the most part but until this review I hadn't quite been able to put my finger on why they all left me a bit unsatisfied in the end. The not so subtle jabs and contrived scenes meant to manipulate the audience's emotions are always unavoidably there. I've really been looking forward to this one, mostly because of Tommy Lee and Charlize however it sounds like we're in for another preachy drama where the politics outshadow the performances. If only a film such as this could be made without scripting every word hammering home what we are SUPPOSED to feel while watching but I suppose it's too much to ask. Have the film makers really gotten to the point where they believe their audiences are too stupid to "get" what they are trying to say? Obviously, they have or we wouldn't be treated to it so frequently. Nothing ruins a film faster than personal politics in my opinion.
As you so clearly put it, it appears this film is more about the Oscar than it is about making a film that will stand the test of time. Too bad, it has everything it needs to be a classic but we'll forget about it soon enough.
Reply
9-06-2007 @ 5:13PM
bellyboy said...
Insightful review....The Haggis's of Hollywood essential make movies that fool you into thinking what you just saw, some how was meaningful and that your are a better person for experiencing it (the American Beauty effect)...when actual they are 24 frames a second posing as art and disingenuous in there effect. A college course couldn't clear up the fraud that is Crash.
Early on in Million Dollar Baby the Hilary Swank character enthusiastically says to Clint Eastwood some to the effect "look boss I am working the bag", he responds "looks like the bag is working you". I like to think he meant Haggis...
Reply
9-06-2007 @ 7:34PM
elessar said...
While your review was very well-written, James. I must STRONGLY disagree with your inclusion of Forrest Gump in the "worst best picture picks". I found it to be immensely enjoyable and deserving of the awards it received (Tom Hanks especially). What was your beef with it, and don't say "b/c it beat Pulp Fiction" because that won't wash: I saw PF on Bravo (sans the myriad obscenities that made my ears bleed when I read the original screenplay) and could not for the life of me understand its appeal.
Reply
9-06-2007 @ 11:41PM
Zach Isso said...
Forrest Gump, Worst Best Picture pick, inanity in its essence. The Departed easily takes that title.
Reply
9-11-2007 @ 1:22PM
Lisa Tsering said...
Thank you for not divulging any spoilers!
However I must say I felt the film was a success -- it pushed all MY buttons.
Reply
9-18-2007 @ 2:22PM
no1girl said...
Mr. Rocchi,
I find your review very pretentious. My review, however unintellectual and wordy as yours is this: The movie was meant to dramatize a tragedy that is Iraq. Jones captures that - with every gesture and lines in his face.
If what your trying to say is that Hagis failed to
include the cultural and political tragedies, then, you're looking at the wrong medium. The movie was meant to dramatize a narrow view - personal tragedy of a father who lost his son in a mindless war, and the government cover up. Hagis film was meant to reach me - my kind of movie goers, and not the super elitist "intelligencia" like you.
For me any, Jones performance captures them all - the personal, political and cultural tragedies that is Iraq.
You probably need more to reach that conclusion.
Reply
9-27-2007 @ 10:34PM
Pamela said...
Mr. Rocchi, I disagree with your review on so many levels. It seems to me that so many reviewers try as hard as they can to find what's wrong with films--and if they can't find something legit, they just make it up. Of course you're entitled to your opinions, but when there are so few films made that have are in any way socially responsible and attempt to make people think, it would be great if reviewers could applaud that.
My husband and I are huge film buffs and gravitate generally towards foreign and artsy films, are into Soiritual Cinema Circle, but do we see many other mainstream movies as well. We both loved this movie which was about a personal tragedy but that made the statement that sending men and women to war does indeed make monsters of them. Maybe it's heavy handed to suggest all of them come back that way, but maybe not. Even when it "appears" not to be the case, underneath it all maybe the person is really suffering. This happens to be my own view as I have known and seen the bravado of men who came back "okay," only to much later admit that the experience ruined them and their chances of happiness on many levels.
It would be refreshing if reviewers could find what's good about movies that have so much good in them rather than taking an arrogant, know-it-all stance. Do film critics criticize because that's just what they do? Are they so harsh because they themselves are not actors, script writers, directors, and that negativity, that way of attacking is their frustration? I wonder.
Reply