Training Log Archive: cedarcreek

Ran/Walked around the north part of Sharon Woods Lake, plus a little more. Felt Terrible. I'm hoping it's just allergies, but as I'm writing this on Monday, I think I have a cold.

Black Book (1) (Dutch: "Zwartboek", 2006)
I tried to avoid every review of this movie after I read the first paragraph of one that seemed to be negative. I did see a few blurbs. One said that the idea that the main character, a Jewish woman, could be falling in love with a Nazi was just completely unbelievable. Another said the movie is misogynistic, which I completely disagree with---There is a difference between a movie that "is misogynistic" and a movie that depicts misogyny.

A few weeks ago I rewatched "Soldier of Orange", a 1977 movie by the same director. It was completely coincidental. Black Book is much different, and much better. It's more serious and more realistic. I am certainly no expert on WWII or Nazis, but for some reason it's been the primary focus of my reading and movie watching for the last 6 months.

We're used to movies that simplify the truth and stereotype characters. Need a character that is Evil Personified? Use a Nazi. Need a character that's good? Use anyone who fights against Nazis. Good or Bad. Patriot or Collaborator. Tolerant (?) or Antisemite. Freedom Fighter or Terrorist. With us or Against us.

In Soldier of Orange, Verhoeven shows post-liberation revenge, but really pulls the punches, for example, hair in the street rather than showing a crowd cutting off a woman's hair. Black Book pulls few punches. The post-liberation revenge ranges from hard-to-watch to so-disgusting-it-doesn't-really-register.

The biggest problem I have with the movie is also its biggest strength. I felt the way the movie showed characters to have alterior motives was clumsy. A character does something suspicious. Why did he do that? Is he not who is says he is? Is that suspicious, or not? At the same time, I loved that. Often in movies, they massage the script so much that the little coincidences seem tied up in a little package with a bow on top. This movie seemed much more realistic because of the clumsiness of certain moments---it claims to be based on "true events", and it feels like they're being true to those events.

I hope this movie is Paul Verhoeven's attempt to accurately show a part of Dutch history, and to show that the accepted history is not black and white (or even true), and that the truth is "really complicated."

I loved this movie. It's a good action movie, a good spy movie, and a good drama. It's got some graphic violence (with blood) and a lot more nudity than any movie I've seen in years. (I'm guessing some of the negative reviews are due to the nudity, which I chalk up to American prudishness.) {Edit: I hope I haven't made it sound boringly pedantic. It's a really fun movie, that is also serious.}

Now I'm going to read those reviews. {Edit: Hmmmm. "Melodrama" seems to be a common word. Yeah, I can see that.}

{Edit: One reviewer called it "a repugnant exercise in moral relativism." I didn't see it that way. It certainly doesn't see good and evil as black and white. I am increasingly suspicious of people who believe there is a sharp line between good and evil. Certainly good and evil exist, but there is often a large gray area between them.}

IFC Blog: Critic's Wrangle (scroll down)

Rotten Tomatoes (tomato=good)