A Film Unfinished Review: Which Film is the Unfinished One?

In 1942, a Nazi film crew shot footage of Jewish life in the Warsaw Ghetto. The footage was stored in an underground vault in the forest. The unfinished film was simply titled, The Ghetto. For decades after World War II, the footage was presented as fact. However, in 1998 a missing reel was discovered, exposing the film to be Nazi propaganda.

This is the subject matter of Yael Hersonski’s documentary, A Film Unfinished. The film explores the contrast of the footage of The Ghetto - the presentation of Jewish life is that of luxury and complete poverty – as it tries to uncover the purpose of the film and who ordered its creation, for The Ghetto contains no narrative, no musical accompaniment, no clues to its purpose. As Hersonski pushes deeper into the film’s history, she discovers journals written by Adam Czerniakow, the head of the Jewish council put in place by the Nazis to run the Warsaw ghetto, and the transcript of Willy Wist's testimony from one of the post-war trials of Nazi officers. Wist was one of the cameramen that shot the footage for The Ghetto.

Combining the extra footage, the testimony, and the journals, Hersonski is able to piece together details of the film’s creation turning A Film Unfinished into more of a making-of documentary for the Nazi propaganda film rather than an account of life in the Warsaw ghetto.

Unfortunately, it takes the film quite a while to discover its story. The first third of the film is little more than a summary of history: the Nazis imprisoned Jews in overcrowded city blocks, these were called ghettos, this is what the Holocaust is. The opening of the film feels unnecessary and sets up the wrong expectations for the film. These expectations are further led astray by the inclusion of several Holocaust survivors that lived in the Warsaw ghetto. Hersonski shows the footage of The Ghetto to them and records their reactions.

The presence of the survivors and the historical refresher create the idea that this film is going to show the true depiction of life in the Warsaw ghetto. This is not what the film does. Instead, what Hersonki explores is the process of making The Ghetto and its intended purpose.

The actual footage the German soldiers shot is quite compelling. The picture it paints of the Warsaw ghetto is one of extreme disparity. There are seemingly only two levels of existence for the Jewish people living there: extreme wealth or extreme destitution. There are images of people dressed in fine suits and dresses walking past those in rags without ever looking at them. People are pulled around in handcarts by those less fortunate. It seems to create a depiction of complete callousness. Those that were wealthy cared nothing for the unfortunate people below them – those people were no better than the trash and filth littered across the street. This footage offers the idea that Jews were cruel people that didn’t even care for each other.

The discovery of the missing reel reveals the truth. On the reel is the unedited footage, which reveals scenes done over multiple times from different angles – different takes. Also, the filmmakers are caught by the lens on occasion, seen offering direction to the people in the film.

All of this is very polarizing. It is very fascinating to see the extent to which scenes were orchestrated, but at the same time it is horrible to see what these people were subjected to in the scenes. For instance, there is a scene in which crowds of people are forced to walk by the dead lying on the sidewalk, but are not allowed to look down, to acknowledge the dead’s presence or offer any kind of respect. Hersonki plays this footage multiple times throughout the film. It is at first shocking to see people act with such disregard for one another, but, once the true nature of the scene is revealed, it becomes tragic and heartbreaking to watch.

But the most polarizing element of the film is not one of the Nazi’s creation but of Hersonski’s.

The inclusion of the survivors of in the film feels not only unnecessary but quite cruel. Their purpose seems to be to reveal what life was truly like in the Warsaw ghetto. However, since the documentary is more about the creation of the Nazi propaganda rather than the ghetto itself, these accounts feel superfluous. Also, it is one thing to conduct an interview and ask these people to recall these horrors. It is quite another to put it up on a screen in front of them. It feels exploitive. Never more so than during the footage of the dead bodies being collected from the streets and buried in mass graves.

Hersonski films the survivors watching this footage (or not watching rather, as many could not bare to look at the screen) so that she can record their anguish. One must wonder why? Why subject these people to that? It serves no purpose to the goals of the documentary, which are about uncovering the truth of the creation of the film, not these people’s lives. At this moment, Hersonski’s film is on par with the Nazis' The Ghetto, exploiting the Jewish people to further the impact of the film.

Hersonski’s film is unsure of what it is. It tries to tell the story of creation of this film but also tries to be a Holocaust documentary at times. It sets up the idea of the Holocaust and ghettos and then abandons it to pursue the propaganda, only to clumsily return to those original ideas with the inclusion of the survivors.

These inconsistencies ask the question: with the title – A Film Unfinished – is Hersonski referring to the Nazi propaganda film or her own?

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World Review: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Sex Bob-Omb

With Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Edgar Wright has crafted a film that can unabashedly be called his best to date and possibly the most entertaining film of all time.

Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is a 22-year-old unemployed musician in Toronto trying to get over being dumped by his girlfriend. He does this by dating Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), a 17-year-old high schooler, much to the dismay of his sister Stacey (Anna Kendrick). But that all changes when he meets Romona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the girl - quite literally - of his dreams. However, in order to be with her, he must defeat her seven evil exes.

This film is a treasure. It is an absolute masterpiece that hits all the right notes from the opening Universal logo to the end credits.

Cera is fantastic as Scott Pilgrim. This is definitely his best performance to date. There are layers and depth here that are unusual for him to explore. It is very nice to see him branch out from the akward, nice, geeky kid, even if some of that is still retained in this performance. Mary Elizabeth Winstead definitely shines as Romona Flowers. She is such an interesting character: aloof yet caring, a victim and a fighter, strong but helpless. Winstead does great work here, making sure to pull no punches or guild the lilly. She has cemented herself as a geek crush for the rest of time along with Princess Leia. Ellen Wong is devastating and adorable as Knives. She is the embodiment of young teenage love: easily achieved and destroyed beyond sense when it ends.

To list all the great performances in this film is to list the entire cast. When thinking about the memorable lines and moments, every character has one. There is a sense of palpable joy that emanates from the cast, making it clear that every one loved being there.

The film itself is made with such love. Wright has crafted a film that is a love letter to comic books, video games, and what it is like to grow up. There are lightning bolts that fly out of guitars and samples of video game music. There are hearts that fly from lips when people kiss. There are Michael Cera's shirts: every single one is wonderful and speaks to his character and the scene. However, no matter how fantastical the film becomes, Wright keeps the story engaging and heartfelt by placing the focus on the characters and their relationships, and doing it with loving care. This is simply an amazing feat accomplished by Edgar Wright.

The sheer technical achievement of this film should alone justify its right to be considered a masterpiece. This is one of the most well-crafted films ever made. The structure of the film and the editing are incredible. The scenes move forward with the most brilliant uses of match cutting I have ever seen. The cinematography is stunning. Lighting constantly changes during the course of scenes and never ceases to be absolutely gorgeous. This is some of Bill Pope's best work as a cinematographer.

But this movie isn't all style, there is substance in the mix. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a wonderful coming of age story but it is also an incredible satire of the contemporary youth. Scott Pilgrim has the most exaggerated obstacles placed in his way that he has to overcome. He must literally do battle to win over the girl of his dreams. And that is all he cares about. He dismisses anything that isn't of any immediate interest to him. This not only makes him representative of the contemporary youth, but also makes him into a character with flaws, a character that is interesting to watch. There are also moments satirizing the over-connected generation: Scott's sister knows everything about Scott's life the moment it happens because his roommate texts her. Also, she has to whip out her cell phone the moment she finds out and call him, regardless of the fact that she is at work.

I have dispensed with the usual format of breaking down the good, the bad, and the ugly because there isn't any bad or ugly in this film to speak of. That said, there is one complaint to be registered.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World may be a film that is too good. There may be too much fun in this movie. The feeling of joy experienced while watching this movie and the feeling of living day to day life is dramatically stark in contrast. Watch the film and a few hours later you will be dying to watch it again, hoping to experience that same joy. And you will. The film delivers on repeat viewings.

It may have been irresponsible to make a film that is this good.

The Power of Cinema

Sometimes it seems as if my love of cinema is too much. Maybe unhealthy. Particularly for some of those that accompany me to the theatre. Why do I get so angry when a film is terrible? To the point where I actually get depressed. Why do I hit a level of ecstasy when I see a great film? As people say, "It's just a movie. It's not like it's curing cancer."

Maybe a film can't cure cancer but it can save a life. It can show you a corner of the world you never knew existed. It can let you hear a voice that you've never heard before. It can let you live a life you never would have. It can show you worlds beyond our's or the mystery and magic of our own. It can show you the horror and greatness of man. It can give you hope. It can let you know you are not alone. And the right film at the right time can define your life.

Nine years ago, when I was 13, I saw Memento. I didn't know it then but that film would change my life. From that point on, I dug deeper. Not just in film. I looked harder at literature. From watching movies, I learned symbolism. I learned how to think more deeply and examine life in ways I hadn't ever looked at it before. I began to concentrate on details more. Details are the defining things of our lives. A person's favorite color matters. How someone grips a hot mug to drink out of it says something about them.

All of this came from seeing one film. This film sent me down a path I'm not sure I would have gone down without it. I am who I am because of Memento.

But what about the event movies? The big tent poles where things blow up? Or the visuals are so epic the only way to really see them is in 3D on IMAX. Perhaps I hate these because they aren't intellectual enough? Nope.

There is nothing wrong with sitting in a movie to escape, to be entertained, to let a story wash over you and take you to a different world.

There is a reason why the movie industry doesn't die. Why during the Great Depression people still went to movies. Why in the middle of this awful recession box offices records are being set and broken.

Movies give people hope. And they do it for the masses. Populism isn't a weakness, it doesn't make cinema less artful or powerful, it makes it more so. Because cinema can shine a light to everyone in the darkness. It can show you best things people can do, the happy ending you want when the world is anything but.

Films can save lives. They saved mine. I have felt apart for most of my life, different from everyone else. Sometimes to the point of complete and total alienation. But then I go sit in a theatre and I feel like I am home. I feel better. Because in the darkness, we are all united, sharing an experience together, connected to people we've never met or talked to.

And in the darkness, with these complete strangers, I find hope.

And I believe there are happy endings.