dsh26
Joined Aug 2003
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews3
dsh26's rating
There is a lot of sadness in this film artfully rendered, and a measure of grace too, which feels hard-earned. The writer-director Thom Fitzgerald, at the NY screening, said that the reality he encountered while researching it was probably even worse than he could bear to show. (Amazingly, the renowned Dr. David Ho was also present at the screening, which added another hopeful touch: HIV/AIDS progress is being made but, as the film shows, funding and education are still lacking in poor countries, and attitudes are often still messed up in rich ones.) There is a didactic purpose in 3 Needles, but fortunately Fitzgerald has the storytelling skills and the director's talent to bear the load. You may not buy everything in it, and you may be angry at him for some of the tough images and choices, but the human emotion and pain, the weakness and strength are gripping and undeniable. And many of the secondary observations, about characters and place, feel sharp and well-observed.
The prologue is a perfect example of a warm, vibrant image giving way to a shocking one: Teenage boys of an African tribe cover their bodies with a pale paste, un-self-consciously helping each other, though they are naked. It is an ancient ritual and they appear eager, joking around but purposeful. Later they are to be circumcised, the passageway into becoming men. The image of the knife, for reasons which will be instantly clear, is uniquely jolting. Surprisingly the movie manages to sustain the intensity, asking questions while shining a light on different corners of the world.
The acting and cinematography are uniformly good, the latter especially considering the low budget. Most of the South Africans were non-actors, including tribespeople who had never even seen a film. Fitzgerald called this version "the director's cut" since his Canadian distributor previously showed a much different version which cut several scenes, and jumbled the stories together. This might have made sense in another movie, but with the stories on 3 different continents, this version, with each played discretely, seemed much better. Also, Fitzgerald said he shot a 4th scenario which he cut, probably for length. See this on the big screen and it will very likely stay with you.
The prologue is a perfect example of a warm, vibrant image giving way to a shocking one: Teenage boys of an African tribe cover their bodies with a pale paste, un-self-consciously helping each other, though they are naked. It is an ancient ritual and they appear eager, joking around but purposeful. Later they are to be circumcised, the passageway into becoming men. The image of the knife, for reasons which will be instantly clear, is uniquely jolting. Surprisingly the movie manages to sustain the intensity, asking questions while shining a light on different corners of the world.
The acting and cinematography are uniformly good, the latter especially considering the low budget. Most of the South Africans were non-actors, including tribespeople who had never even seen a film. Fitzgerald called this version "the director's cut" since his Canadian distributor previously showed a much different version which cut several scenes, and jumbled the stories together. This might have made sense in another movie, but with the stories on 3 different continents, this version, with each played discretely, seemed much better. Also, Fitzgerald said he shot a 4th scenario which he cut, probably for length. See this on the big screen and it will very likely stay with you.
If you're not Jewish or have not been to Israel and you're looking for a film that will give you a flavor of either, skip this one entirely. Not only is it full of clichés and stereotypes, but it's simply incoherent. And not in a good way.
Why does this film have distribution at all? It has a juicy one-liner which makes it easy to advertise: "Orthodox yeshiva boy falls for Russian prostitute..." And because there's a whiff of controversy and some T&A, I'm sure some festival judges and distributors were taken in. Don't you be.
The writer-director has nothing to say except that Israel can be a crazy place, and no technique with which to say it. The acting is mostly horrendous. The woman who plays the prostitute is interesting, but since there's hardly any character development or narrative arc she's treading water most of the time. The rest of the cast is unbearably amateurish. Not a single element of the setting is believable--not the Jewish home, the Yeshiva setting, or the Jerusalem bar. It's all low, low budget (though that's never an excuse not to have vitality) and hermetically sealed from the real world. I could list the inconsistencies and improbabilities, but why bother? What an enervated mess.
Why does this film have distribution at all? It has a juicy one-liner which makes it easy to advertise: "Orthodox yeshiva boy falls for Russian prostitute..." And because there's a whiff of controversy and some T&A, I'm sure some festival judges and distributors were taken in. Don't you be.
The writer-director has nothing to say except that Israel can be a crazy place, and no technique with which to say it. The acting is mostly horrendous. The woman who plays the prostitute is interesting, but since there's hardly any character development or narrative arc she's treading water most of the time. The rest of the cast is unbearably amateurish. Not a single element of the setting is believable--not the Jewish home, the Yeshiva setting, or the Jerusalem bar. It's all low, low budget (though that's never an excuse not to have vitality) and hermetically sealed from the real world. I could list the inconsistencies and improbabilities, but why bother? What an enervated mess.