I Never Broke The Law, I Am The Law!: Judge Dredd (1995)

In the wake of what appears to be an endless amount of remakes, or what may be called rehashings, I have come to realize their is a considerable list of sci-fi classics, or at the very least well-regarded films for their time, that I have failed to see, one such being Judge Dredd, which has recently found a new version in the midst of the current 3D craze, while I am told that it is not necessarily a remake, the name Dredd made me realize that while I have no desire to see this new version, what memories I do have of the original are very vague and relate more to the video game I played inspired by the film and comic, as opposed to the movie.  As such, I felt it necessary to revisit this work, not expecting to enjoy it per se, but to reconsider a relationship to what I found cool at hip as somebody of seven years age, as opposed to now being twenty four.  Popping in Judge Dredd did begin with an initial degree of excitement because thematically it falls into the distopian film genre, a personal favorite of mine and manages to adhere to this context quite brilliantly.  Furthermore, for about the first forty five minutes to an hour I was blown away by how well executed and realized the film was and found myself contemplating why it had not been more well regarded as years had passed, however, as the movie wrapped up it dove into a world of grandioseness and absurdism that completely ruined its great philosophical underpinnings in the name of terrible counter one-liners and explosions.  Of course, these factors were not off putting, as they might have been in something like a Michael Bay movie and would not have seemed obnoxious were they incorporated evenly throughout the film, tragically, it goes from a great pace to frantic by the films close causing viewers to be rather disconnected as the climax builds to early and points of resolve seem secondary.  Suffice to say, Judge Dredd gets close to being a damn good movie only to throw caution to the wind without realizing that it cannot afford such frivolous actions.  All criticism aside the film deserves a fair amount of credit for some cool special effects and some great cinematic references and I am glad to see that Danny Cannon has gone on to have heavy control in the CSI franchise.  Judge Dredd is very much a product of the 90's and like so many things from the era, excluding the music, revisiting the piece rarely proves to aid in the nostalgia.

It is the future, everything really sucks and the earth is a desolate and inhabitable wasteland, an occurrence we can only assume is directly tied to nuclear warfare.  While most of the world is occupied by pirate like bands of deformed humans, a few cities have popped up, mostly existing within the former United States, one such city is Mega City 1, which is presided over by a set of persons known as Judges, persons whose sole purpose is to dispense justice to an unruly people, often doing so in very forceful and violent manners.  We are shown one such Judge, Judge Dredd (Sylvester Stallone) using his heavy hand to arrest a recently released criminal named Herman Ferguson (Rob Schneider) for computer hacking.  Along with the help of Judge Hershey (Diane Lane) Dredd incarcerates Ferguson and returns to work, only to be told that he needs to take a break from working the streets to reflect on teaching ethics, as many in the academy find Dredd's swift hand of justice a bit to eager.  Meanwhile it is revealed that an ex-Judge named Rico (Armand Assante) has broken free from a maximum security penal colony and is out and about on killing sprees in Mega City 1, much to everyone's concern.  Dredd is then implicated in the murder of an activist oriented reporter, despite having no recollection of the events, leading to his being sent to the prison, despite various pleas of innocence.  While on his way to the prison, Dredd encounter Ferguson once again, who cannot help but note the irony in the situation.  Meanwhile it is revealed that Dredd, as well as Rico were part of a government project to create a genetically perfect police force, Dredd being a positive result and Rico being prove of its negative implications.  Recruiting the aid of Ferguson, Dredd manages to escape the prison and return to Mega City to face Rico in an attempt to save Mega City 1.  After a successful destruction of Rico and his evolving clones, Dredd is able to once again take up his role as a procurer of justice, although we are led to believe that he does so with a slightly different frame of reference, one that now considers the possibilities of innocence.

The concepts of law and ethics and who has the right to dispense justice are more than apparently the concept of Judge Dredd, as if the title of the film alone were not enough of a clue.  However, while some of the film certainly exist to reflect on how the individual code of ethics is contested and accommodated by a larger set of guidelines, I would argue that Judge Dredd is far more concerned with considering what role symbols of power play into dispensing authority and a vague notion of justice.  It is no coincidence that the uniforms donned by the various judges cause them to be somewhat hard to identify beyond clear gender and racial signifiers, giving a certain faceless nature to police power, suggesting it larger or more abstract that human nature.  It is also no coincidence that the uniforms reflect a very totalitarian imagery, almost reminiscent of Fascist era Europe, also suggesting that justice as a means of symbolic power is tied to a state force, something that is further heightened by the large robed figure that is created when shown the architectural nature of the Judge's Academy in Mega City 1.  The film does go on to consider what problems arise when one creates a replica of the symbols of justice, as occurs when Rico passes as Dredd.  Does one then completely dismiss these power images altogether, or does it require a reconsideration and reconstruction of the images from the ground up.  In one of the films better scenes, Dredd comments on the presence of the female depiction of justice as "the blind lady," yet this film suggest that justice is anything but blind and, in fact, depends quite heavily on images and symbols as a means of visual enforcement.

Key Scene:  The hovercraft chase scene, while a bit dated still has a great degree of suspense and enjoyability.

This is a solid rental movie through and through and only if you truly love Sylvester Stallone should you buy this film.

God Made Me For A Purpose, But He Also Made Me Fast: Chariots Of Fire (1981)

While the film is probably best known for its theme song, Chariots of Fire did indeed win the Best Picture Oscar the year of its release.  While I know have  been critical of such a claim giving a film validity, I figured with the recent closing of the London Summer Olympics there was no time like the present to revisit this film, which as you may know is about British track athletes.  I knew the movie was going to be a traditional sports narrative of characters overcoming some social or physical obstacle in order to deliver a stunning feat of athleticism.  What I did not know going into this work is how terribly British the film would be overall.  While I have not seen Kes yet, I cannot help but suspect that this will serve as the penultimate definition of British filmmaking to me; however, there are a slew of Hitchcock films and David Lean works that could suffice.  Overall the dialogue and choice for what made the narrative cut simply is not that of an American sports film and in a surprising way the film really has very little to do with Track and Field and much more to do with individuals identities and their confrontations with a society that simply does not accept things that are different.  Chariots of Fire, is of course excellent as far as soundtracks are concerned, but beyond that obvious fact lies a well acted and incredibly shot film that inevitably causes viewers to reconsider their notions of a sporting film.  At a very basic level, it is a movie about competitive running, on a grand scale it is a commentary on human strife fully realized.

Chariots of Fire is set in the early twentieth century, beginning a few years before the 1924 Olympics which will be held in Paris.  The narrator of the film, Aubrey Montague (Nicholas Ferrell) serves as the eyes and voice of the story, although as it is made quite clear from the onset, his roles simply to observe and report the actions of Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross), a fellow Cambridge classmate who happens to also be Jewish, a label he caries with contentious pride.  Abrahams desires nothing more than to prove the deans of the school and pretty much the whole of society that he is just as capable as any other Englishman of competing in athletics and that his ethnic existence does not cause him the slightest disadvantage.  On the other side is and out of the narrative gaze of Montague is Eric Liddell (Ian Charleston) a famous Scottish rugby star who is devoutly Christian and finds joy and harmony serving as a missionary.  However, due to some rather forceful nudging by a family friend, Liddell is convinced to also compete for a spot on the Olympic team, something he deems acceptable because it will prove as a form of glorifying God.  The two men begin their quest for Olympic competition as they compete in various track meets eventually facing one another in a race.  Liddell wins by the slightest of margins, losing as he later discovers by making the mistake of turning to check on the place of Liddell in the race  Abrahams is quickly approached by the professional trainer Sam Mussabini (Ian Holm) who helps advance the young athlete considerably, despite the disdain of Cambridge's deans.  The two eventually  make the Olympic team, along with Montague and a handful of other Cambridge students and head off by boat to compete.  It is at this point that Liddell discovers his race will fall on a Sunday, his day of rest, a fact that causes him to refuse to run.  He is moved into a slot in the 400m race, which means that Abrahams has a clear shot to win his 100m race, something he does with vivacity.  All that remains is for Liddell to win his race, despite being far from a favorite in the sprint he manages to also win.  The narrative then ends with the two of them returning to their daily lives as new Olympic gold medalists, forever cemented in the history of Britain.

Interesting enough, for playing so heavily into the differences between Liddell and Abrahams religiously, it is quite surprising that the film does not cause this to be a point of division between both athletes.  While there are certainly moments of clear problems between the two culturally, they nonetheless manage to create a bond through athletics that makes them friends.  Considering this fact within the narrative, it is clear that Chariots of Fire is about the transitive power of sports to merge seemingly divided groups of people.  In a non-sports setting it would be improbable that Liddell would ever meet Abrahams, let alone engage with him in more than passing terms.  Furthermore, the placement on a national and global podium allows for both men to share their stories and personal opinions in such a way that the world is forced to acknowledge their concerns.  This is evident with Abrahams throughout the film, but comes full frontal when Liddell refuses to run on the Sabbath an action that makes national headlines.  By doing so he is praised by fellow Christians and is even allowed to deliver a sermon at a prestigious church as a result.  While the face of such abilities have change in the new century, one only needs to revisit the countless moments of courage and confrontation that occurred during the past few weeks of the Olympics.  Individuals like Oscar Pistorious and Kirani James used their moment in the global spotlight to give a voice to paraplegics and impovershed peoples respectively.  In a sense, they are this eras Abrahams and Liddell, both were out to prove something and both did so with great results.

Key Scene: Abraham's final race is an editing spectacle.

Chariots of Fire will always be a piece of must-see cinema, I suggest doing so while the aura of the Olympics is still fresh in your mind, however, owning this film is not necessary and renting it will more than suffice.