Skip to main content

DVD: Black Book (Zwartboek)

I confess, I am a Paul Verhoeven fan. Even when he stumbles, I'm still entertained. All right, I've never seen Showgirls, so it's possible, even probable, that he's made at least one totally irredeemable film. That said, I'm still a fan.

I discovered this wholly by accident. I saw Robocop, was surprised how much I enjoyed it, and saw that Verhoeven not only directed Robo but had also directed one of my favorite war films, A Soldier of Orange. I hadn't paid attention to who directed Soldier, and so this all came as a pleasant surprise. From then on, I kept a watchful eye for the next Verhoeven film, carefully avoiding Showgirls (which may or may not suck, though I am given to believe that it sucks pretty damn hard, pun possibly intended). And so I got a little depressed when he left the US in search of his cinematic roots. I heard about his next big thing, but until the DVD I wasn't able to at last catch up with Black Book (Dutch title, Zwartboek).

Black Book tells the tale of Rachel Stein (Carice van Houten), a Jewish woman hiding in occupied Holland during World War II. Everyone is on pins and needles in anticipation of the coming Allied liberation. Our heroine is no different; she's riding out the last days of the war hiding in a barn. (Her protectors, btw, are Christian. Their brief moments together are quietly touching.)

All of this comes to an end, though, when an Allied B-17 bomber rumbles overhead, pursued by a German fighter. To shed weight and climb to safety, the bomber is dumping its bombs, and one kills Rachel's benefactors and destroys her hiding place. Lucky for her, she'd just started flirting with a man who now takes her to his place to hide. From there she is lured to a boat that is ferrying Jews out of the country. This goes horribly wrong and she winds up with the Dutch resistance. Yes, it happens just about that fast and easy.

But that's all right because now the story really begins. Black Book is a story of betrayal, and not just a single betrayal but a succession of them. The film proceeds in straight, linear fashion, the twists and turns of the plot revealed to the audience as Rachel experiences them. There's very little that happens that we're allowed to see that she isn't. As a result, Verhoeven forces the audience to go through the same travails as our heroine.

She's not particularly admirable. For the most part, she just wants to stay alive. As a result, she's buffeted by demands on all sides, yielding to those which have the best chance of seeing her survive the day. This slowly becomes not enough and the plot evolves from survival to discovering who is the genuine traitor in their midst.

It's all great fun, in that in-your-face-brutal way that Verhoeven has. Verhoeven has never shied from violence, yet I've never found his films exploitive. Black Book is no exception. There is a particularly brutal and nauseating sequence involving Rachel, as degrading as it can be. What Verhoeven does with such material is present it in a direct, matter-of-fact fashion. He doesn't let his camera linger and he avoid slow motion like the plague that it is. The result is that's he's second only to Michael Mann in realistically depicting violence on the big screen.

That said, Black Book is not Verhoeven at his best, but it is certainly a return to form. It's an intense experience and one fans will applaud. Newcomers might be a little put off, but I think they'll find the experience worthwhile. I was happy to see him present a straight story, and never mind the half-baked allegories or analogies that weaken so many of his films. (For instance, did you know that Starship Troopers was satire? Didn't think so.)

I have a few complaints. First, the film opens in 1956 Israel, with Rachel living in a kibbutz. From there the film is a long flashback. I dislike this film technique in general because it shows a lack of faith in a film's actual opening act, and here it destroys any suspense that should have been growing from Rachel's worsening predicament. We already know she survives, so why should we worry when she's caught, tortured, etc.?

Second, Rachel seems a little too willing to go from one step to the next. Hide? Sure. Hide here? Sure. Jump on that boat? Sure. Join the resistance? Hey, it's the thing to do! Seduce and sleep with a Nazi? Oh, heck yes! On and on. Eventually you come to understand that this is her character, but at first it just seems oh ho-hum and convenient. You actually cheer when she finally says, "Hey, enough!"

Last, Verhoeven very deliberately has the Nazis refer to members of the Dutch resistance as "terrorists". This is in stark contrast to history and reality. It's a less than subtle way of making the inane and insane statement that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It's stupid, morally bankrupt, mentally lazy, and condescending. Every time a Nazi said, "Terrorist!" I was jarred straight out of the film.

I managed to make it through the film by mentally substituting "member of the resistance" whenever a Nazi said "terrorist". By ignoring the backhanded slap at the United States, I enjoyed Black Book as Verhoeven returning to form and style. If he can avoid silly political commentary, which was just as unsubtle as his films usually are, Black Book may mark the return of a great director.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...
1 comment
Read more

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

We pause now for a minor rant…

“My car has a flat tire.” “You should buy a new car.” Every time I hear President Obama and other Democrats talking about “health care reform,” that’s what the conversation sounds like. A health care crisis is declared and the only solution is to replace the entire system. At most, around 15% of the American population is without health care insurance. Ignoring the fact that for most of them, this is a matter of choice, it also means that 85% are insured. And of that 85%, something like 70+% like their current coverage and don’t want the government to touch it. So for the vast majority, the current system works and works great. Yet, because of the minority for whom it allegedly does not...toss it all, start again. Admittedly, regardless of insurance coverage, it all costs too much, but again, the only accepted approach to controlling costs are to throw out everything and turn it all over to the government. Tactics that are proposed to address specific cost issues are not consid...
Post a Comment
Read more