One of the comments Stuart Townsend made regarding his inspiration for the film was the imbalance between those that go hungry and those that make billions of dollars. Disclaimer:  I am not saying that people should be rich at the expense of others in need. You should fight injustices of the world. I am aware that there are problems and, yes evils, to combat within corporations. However, how ironic that here sits a guy from Hollywood dating and living with Charlize Theron. While I do not personally know her salary I am guessing that as an Academy Award Winning ® working actress she makes pretty damn good money…millions…being an ACTOR! It isn’t that acting and filmmaking aren’t worthy professions. They are and I went to college to pursue such things. If you make .85 cents on every movie ticket sold and that turns into millions then that is the nature of your business and money you rightfully earned. But taking that into consideration, please spare me the lecture on wealth distribution. Filmmaking is an effort to communicate truths and inform mass groups of people and that it is an outrageously expensive endeavor. You know what is even more expensive? Drilling and refining oil so that the world can keep production going in order for millions of people to have and keep their jobs and, therefore eat and live. The irony continued as people applauded how bad corporations are as they took pictures of the Hollywood stars from their iPhone.

Oh and p.s. Thanks Target for sponsoring this event.

Charlize Theron being smart said, “We are not anti-corporation just pro responsible corporation.”  How can a corporation be evil or irresponsible? A corporation is nothing apart from the people who make up that corporation so evil or irresponsible ultimately lies within an individual. So to answer the film’s question…apparently an individual CAN make a difference…whether good or bad. This brings me to my final point. Michelle Rodriguez was actually very well spoken when answering questions from the audience regarding film content and the research of her character. At the end she is telling us about a funny moment when she was in jail (for a DUI). At that moment she negated everything she had previously said. Don’t talk to me about corporate irresponsibility (which as I just stated is individual irresponsibility) when you just nonchalantly and jokingly refer to your own lack of personal responsibility when getting behind the wheel and putting yourself and countless others in danger with your negligent choice.

And ask yourself where you would be and what state the world would be WITHOUT corporations. Keep this in mind and, at least, be willing to acknowledge your own hypocrisy from time to time.

I will do my best to review this movie based only on its merits as a film. The content is a hot button issue but I will not include comments regarding content in this review. I will review content as well as what the cast and crew had to say at a panel discussion in a separate post to immediately follow this one.

    This film fictionally portrays events that happened during protests against the WTO meetings in Seattle. This was intended as a peaceful protest that got out of hand when Anarchist protesters began destroying property. Because Bill Clinton was arriving in town the Mayor was pressured to use police force against protesters, call in The National Guard and declare a state of emergency.

            This was the directorial debut for Start Townsend. He wrote, directed and produced this independent film with a 7 million dollar budget. I think he did a fine job. Battle in Seattle was a film with political content and, quite frankly, I am over Hollywood and political content. With that said, I think Townsend attempted to give a fair view of all sides. I’m not telling you this film wasn’t skewed toward the protester’s point of view…I’m simply saying he tried. There were several main characters in this film. Charlize Theron plays the innocent bystander, five months pregnant, trying to fight her way through the mob of protesters before becoming a victim of police brutality. Woody Harrelson plays her husband who is on the police force simply trying to do his job. Ray Liotta portrays the Mayor faced with dilemma of how to deal with protesters amidst White House pressure and his own conscience. Martin Henderson, Michelle Rodriguez and Andre Benjamin portray activist devoting their life to making their voices heard in demonstrations against corporate injustices. Their successful, peaceful demonstration turns violent when Anarchist protesters break the agreement of change through peace and these characters spend the rest of the film in the chaos of aftermath.

To his credit, Townsend tries to touch on the idea of the indeterminate villain, that chaos and violence brings pain to all sides, the perseverance of your convictions and the individuals ability to make an impact for change . At the same time I could not help but think there was a message of America is bad, corporations are bad and the police are bad. The film uses 10 minutes of actual documentary footage. To have a seamless transition, a hand held camera was used during the scenes involving protestors. This was, of course, the wisest choice; however, both I and the guy sitting next to me (my husband) had to pull ours eyes from the screen for extended periods to avoid nausea. Overall, I think Townsend did a decent job for his first time out. The story was adequate; performers were believable and there was sufficient production quality (despite the nausea). It could have been a lot more cheesy, preachy and painful for a political movie by a first time writer/director so I say, “Good job Stuart.”   

Now, I love me some Martin Scorcese (who doesn’t) and I actually really like Willem DeFoe but, wowzers, I thought this movie was bad. I have never read Kazantzaki’s book. I actually really like the idea of portaying Jesus’ human side and his struggles in the role of being part man trying to do God’s will, but man, I didn’t get it. There were points that we just laughed out loud at the absurdity. The only moment I could almost take seriosuly was Jesus being tempted in the desert. I appreciate the idea of Satan renewing his image with every attemp to turn Jesus but then it was a talking cobra making seduction noises and there I was laughing again.

Every time Jesus spoke to the crowd I thought it was stupid. Who would follow such a hippie who could not get a complete thought out? Now, I admit that while the BIble does potray a whole lot of wisdom from Jesus there are times that I think Jesus said some things that were a little CRAY-ZEE. He would answere people’s questions with other werid questions. When I read over that part of the gospels I have to say, had I been there, I would have defintely thought this fella was a whack job. I know Paul Schrder is a well known scriptwriter but it almost seemed like there was no script. It was as if Willem DeFoe was given a brief account of one of Jesus’ sermons, then he took a hit from his bong and all he could say was, “Love man, just love.”

What are your thoughts?