Black Book (2007), Paul Verhoeven, D
The other day I was asked by someone to list my favorite filmmakers. As the names Polanski, Coen Brothers, Billy Wilder, Woody Allen, Cronenberg, Bergman and others came spilling out I also included Paul Verhoeven. I mean, the maker of “Starship Troopers” and “RoboCop” (and, to a lesser extent, “Total Recall”) deserves all the laurels in the world. Then I thought, gee, if I am such a Verhoeven fan, why have I not seen “Black Book,” which is out in the theaters right now, even if three friends independently said it was no good?
Guess what — it is no good.
Not just for the reasons that Jurgen points out — it is. It is exploitative, yes. Plus it asks us to fall in love with a Gestapo commander who never really shows that much remorse for his career up to this point (it is 1944 already) but, hey, he is nice to our leading lady — I mean, after all, she gets naked a lot.
The biggest problem for me, though, is that “Black Book” is trying to do two things at once. It starts out as a “Pianist”-esque survival story, then switches into a fun & dopey sexy spy tale (with whole sequences lifted direct from “The Dirty Dozen”) then swings back to brutal survival story. I am all for the blending of genres. . .but some genres are just impossible to blend. The visciousness of the brutal sequences make it hard to enjoy the fun stuff, and the fun stuff makes the brutal stuff seem unreal and, thus, you just don’t care about the suffering. Hence: derisive laughter from me at the screening. At more than one occasion.
Here’s the rub, though — Paul Verhoeven is a master filmmaker, so there are individual sequences in the film (in “both films” if you will) that are terrific. Viewed on an island, they are quite extraordinary. Best are the scenes of total social upheaval after Holland is liberated and all the ex-Nazis (and their collaborators) are paraded through the streets. It is a harrowing moment with Abu Ghraib-like implications — and if you are willing to wait two hours and ten minutes, you can see it. (Did I mention “Black Book” was a loooooooong movie?)
By the time the black book of the title was uncovered (the missing clue in some conspiracy implicating something. . .who could follow all these ridiculous criss-crosses?!?) I had checked-out mentally. What a honkin’ shame. Verhoeven’s other WWII resistance film, “Soldier of Orange,” was more straightforward and worked better. “Black Book” tries to do too much and fails as a result.
Haven’t yet seen the film, so can’t form a definite opinion; but many of the reviews I’ve read really bite into Verhoeven for his exploitation, sympathetic Nazis, revisionism, etc. Especially because he’s dealing with a “sacred cow” topic. Precious little about much else that it’s those reviews, though.
So, its’ nice to see a review, though still critical of the film, that actually criticizes it as a film.
Comment by Pacze Moj — May 12, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Fer fux sake, Jordan, I’ve been telling you for years – Verhoven is a Nazi at heart, and not one of those “I joined to get ahead” Nazis, but one of the ones who really dug the idea of stomping someone’s guts out while wearing a cool hat. The vicousness of the brutal sequences is happiness to him.
he still gets to cinema heaven though because of the Starship Troopers shower scene.
Comment by rozger — May 14, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
[...] Many cry foul at this movie. They say the movie is evil and that Verhoeven is a sick, demanted man who is sympathetic to rapists. Being a swaggering dick is what Verhoeven does best. Sometimes this envelope-pushing works brilliantly, as in RoboCop and Starship Troopers. Sometimes the text itself doesn’t merit the transgression, as in the unfortunate Black Book. Hollow Man is probably somewhere in between in this regard. But if you turn your brain off completely, it also works as a pure popcorn flick. I think it is worth your time. [...]
Pingback by Jordan Hoffman Dot Com » Hollow Man (2000), Paul Verhoeven, B+ — November 4, 2007 @ 11:53 am