March 29, 2014

ART REVIEWS

THE SUMTER ITEM

SATURDAY, MARCH 29, 2014

|

A5

‘Five Came Back’ recalls day Hollywood went to war DOUGLASS K. DANIEL The Associated Press

(“The African Queen” and “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre”) shared a penchant for embellishing their personal war stories. Huston went well Hollywood was never the same after beyond the accepted practices of the taking up the fight to defeat Nazi Gerdocumentarian when he passed off remany and Imperial Japan — just like enactments for “The Battle of San Pithe rest of the world. Many of the film etro” as actual battle footage. He was industry’s greatest talents put aside on more stable ground with his piece their careers to join the military and on shell-shocked troops and their turn the movies into a weapon for victreatments, “Let There Be Light,” tory. which proved unsettling enough that Films were developed to boost pubthe government kept it under wraps lic morale, educate millions of troops for decades. and stoke anti-German and anti-JapaWilliam Wyler learned that he had nese sentiment. The studios cooperatreceived an Oscar for the wartime ed with the government to ensure that drama “Mrs. Miniver” while serving dramas and comedies — entertainoverseas. He and his film crew flew on ment polished with propaganda — B-17 missions over Europe for one of carried the right message. Besides the war’s best-received documentachurning out training films, filmmakries, “The Memphis Belle.” Its fakery ers in uniform also sought to tell inwas forgivable: Wyler used footage spiring stories through documentafrom multiple bombing runs and asries, some of them mostly real and sembled the plane’s crew in Hollysome of them mostly made up. wood to record dialogue for the movie In his engaging book “Five Came because their words couldn’t be heard Back,” author Mark Harris follows over the roar of the bomber’s four enthe wartime experiences of a handful gines. Wyler (“The Best Years of Our of movie directors to explore this Lives” and “Ben-Hur”) lost much of unique intersection of entertainment his hearing while trying to film and war. His compelling narrative is aboard a B-25 flight. first-rate in all respects, a war story George Stevens (“Giant” and for film fans and a miniseries-like “Shane”) was less interested in maktreatment of American history for ing documentaries than in filming those interested in World War II. events as they happened to create a Director Frank Capra (“It Happened record of the war. For example, he One Night” and “It’s a Wonderful was in Normandy for D-Day and in Life”) joined up shortly after the atParis during the celebration of its libtack on Pearl Harbor. His major coneration. Most significant, Stevens and tribution was the “Why We Fight” sehis cameras passed through the gates ries, lessons in history and politics deof the concentration camp at Dachau signed to explain to recruits why they two days after its liberation. Stevens were being asked to go to war. As Harspent weeks there filming life and ris points out, Capra and his coldeath among the tens of thousands leagues were challenged to come up still at the camp, footage he later used with persuasive arguments aimed at in assembling two documentaries that black recruits given segregation. served as evidence during the NuremTheir depictions of the Japanese were berg trials. so racist that even the U.S. governIn Harris’ telling, these directors ment balked at approving such a film, faced their wartime fears with little knowing it would complicate the lives THE ASSOCIATED PRESS more than cameras and courage. of Japanese Americans and postwar This book cover image released by Penguin Press shows “Five Came Back: A Story of Hol- Their frustrations were due mostly to relations with Japan. lywood and the Second World War,” by Mark Harris. a kind of friendly fire. Time and again Director John Ford (“The Searchthe indifference of government buers” and “The Quiet Man”) was under spent three days drunk while bunking reaucracy, including in the military itgoing on an obliterating bender befire at the battle of Midway Island, self, made it exceedingly difficult for at a house along the French coast, getting a memorable documentary out tween movie assignments could have them to obtain the equipment and leaving his bed only to buy or steal ended Ford’s military career. In one of his color footage, and again at supplies required for them to do their more booze and pick a fight or two.

Omaha Beach when the Allies invaded sorry instance, a few weeks after the jobs.

Ford and director John Huston Normandy landings, the filmmaker Europe on D-Day. An old habit of

Aronofsky’s ‘Noah’ is everything — except boring JOCELYN NOVECK AP National Writer What to make of Darren Aronofsky’s “Noah”? Perhaps that’s the wrong question. Indeed, what NOT to make of “Noah”? Because it is so many things.

It is, of course, a biblical blockbuster, a 21st-century answer to Cecil B. DeMille. It’s also a disaster movie — the original disaster, you might say. It’s an intense family drama. Part sci-fi film. An action flick? Definitely, along the lines of “The Lord of the Rings.” At times you might also think of “Transformers,” and at one point, even “The Shining.”

But there’s one thing “Noah” is not, for a moment: Dull. So, what to make of “Noah”? It’s a movie that, with all its occasional excess, is utterly worth your time — 138 minutes of it.

Although the real star of the film is its visual ingenuity, particularly in a few stunning sequences, one must give ample credit to Russell Crowe, who lends Noah the moral heft and groundedness we need to believe everything that ends up happening to him. Noah’s near-descent into madness would not be nearly as effective had Crowe not already convinced us of his essential decency. At the same time, the actor is believable when pondering the most heinous crime imaginable. It’s one of Crowe’s more effective performances.

It wouldn’t have been possible, though, without considerable liberties taken by Aronofsky and his co-screenwriter, Ari Handel, in framing Noah’s story. There’s been controversy here, but if you glance at the Bible, you’ll see why liberties are necessary: the story takes up only a few passages, hardly enough for a featurelength script.

And yet, it’s one of the bestknown tales in the Bible, if most of us only remember the children’s version, with visions of brightly painted animals standing two-by-two on the ark. But there’s a much

more serious backdrop: Man’s wickedness and God’s desire to purge the earth of that wickedness. Aronofsky dives headlong into this story of good vs. evil, not only between men, but within one man’s soul.

We meet Noah and his family as they’re attempting to live peacefully off the land and ward off the greedy, violent descendants of Cain. Noah has three sons and a wife, Naameh (Jennifer Connelly, genuine and appealing). Along the way they pick up Ila, an injured young girl who will grow to love Noah’s son Shem (an invented character, played with sensitivity by Emma Watson.)

Noah visits his grandfather, Methuselah, embodied with scene-stealing vigor by Anthony Hopkins. The old man —

and by the way, this is relative, because Noah himself is already over 500 years old, according to the Bible — helps him induce a hallucination, which brings a vision. The Creator will destroy the Earth in a great flood. Noah’s job, of course, is to build that great ark, and get out of Dixie.

It’s a monumental task, but Noah has help: the Watchers, huge, lumbering creatures made of rock, who, for Aronofsky, represent the biblical Nephilim. Are they angels, giants or men? Interpretation varies.

But it is here that the movie courts ridicule. These creatures look a little too much like Transformers and detract from the mystical feel of the film. A giggle is surely not what the director was going

for here, but he may get a few.

But that ark? It’s a wondrous thing — constructed on a Long Island field, according to measurements specified in Genesis, and finished up digitally.

Also stunning: the flood itself, more chilling than any you’ve seen in a disaster flick.

It’s also rather magical to

watch the animals arrive, two by two (and by virtue of CGI) at the ark.

But for sheer cinematic beauty, it’s hard to beat the dreamlike sequence in which Aronofsky illustrates the story of creation, as recounted by Noah. At this moment, you may well forgive any excesses in the film.