Tierra de abundancia

http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/

There isn't too much to like about Wim Wenders' films over the last twenty years. There have been a few bright spots, but for the most part, Wenders' obsession with America has gotten the worst of him. In his prime, few directors since Antonioni were as adept at depicting inner monologues through silence. Wenders' characters were complicated men of few words.

Over time Wenders love affair with America somehow convinced him that the 'less is more' approach was failing. Wenders threw his greatest strength out the door and substituted it with what would become, over time and many films, his achilles heel: big ideas.

The characters in Land of Plenty aren't really individual people, they are ideas. These characters represent something grander, something excruciatingly ambitious: the American conscience. Lofty goals of this sort often end up as preachy and pretentious and LOP's screenplay is just that. Shot on the cheap, on digital video, LOP feels like noble idea rushed into production without the benefit of enough revisions to weed out the heavy handedness. Films concerned with the traumatic effects of 9/11 are compelled to be both profound and reverential, the problem is profound and reverential seldom make for a worthwhile movie going experience. If there was a rating system based on the number of American flags displayed in a movie, LOP would score full points, as it is, LOP rates very low.

This is a sort of anti-Wenders film. While most of his films are uplifting, beautiful and spiritual, _Land of Plenty_ is a brutal and unpleasant exposé of American paranoia. It's very well done, and it's frighteningly accurate. Still, I can't imagine any Americans will enjoy watching it.

If you're in denial, then you will be offended by this movie (like most of the negative reviewers here). So don't bother.

If you're familiar with the paranoia and bigotry that has enveloped this country then this movie will upset you, just as if you had a big wart on your nose, and someone made a film about it. So don't bother.

I believe the only people who could possibly enjoy this film are objective (non-American) viewers who do not feel the shame that this movie exposes.

I'm rating this film an 8 because it was well done, but I can't recommend it to anyone. It was just too excruciating for me (as it should be for all Americans who share the burden of what our country has turned into). Another film which falls into this category is _House of Sand and Fog_ which one critic called "the feel-bad movie of the year".

This movie made me feel like crap. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch _Lisbon Story_ 1000 times and try to recover from this.

Having lived in several places and now again in LA, I see more of myself and people I know in this film. It seemed that both characters were extreme in their beliefs and actions. I had to ask whether I knew these characters and the answer was scarily "yes". I related to the young lady as a peace seeker more than the older man as a paranoid vet, but as the film moved forward, I became sympathetic for him, as well. Utterly unexpected, considering my political and cultural beliefs! This film could have been a "B" film. Perhaps on the surface it is. But let it sink in. What's underneath is more than what is obvious in its visual/audio texture. What some may disregard because it is barely palpable is what takes this film beyond the expected. It's been three days since I viewed it. It is still with me.

Superb film. The digital gives the footage a nice effect. There were some great tight shots, and then wide angle landscape. A lot of effort has been put into the paranoia paraphernalia of Paul, and the way Wenders brings this out. I simply adored the way Wenders slotted the characters into a simple plot. I thought the character of Lana was a touch stale, but since she was meant to be the pacifist missionary I'm not sure how else the part could have been played. The social conditions present in the story did tend to be a bit reductionist and instructive, but far from annoying. I will agree with previous comments that it will appeal to European audiences more than American. However, I would disagree that the characters would have been like that before 9/11. It is precisely this tragedy that launches Paul into his hyper-paranoia, the beginnings of which emerged after his experience in the Vietnam war. I did laugh many times at Paul's lunacy. While very different characters, I enjoyed following the film through the eyes of both Lana and Paul. This film is ultimately a Wim Wenders comment on the US, pre and post-9/11. He deserves congrats for tackling the subject, and admiration for the way he went about telling some sides of the story. I will prefer this film to any Moore production, any day.

A beautiful movie. With both main characters one could relate not to their viewpoints or naïve ways but to the persons themselves. I admit that this movie might just work better with European audiences but I feel that the leading roles were more inspired by an ideal than just by the American cliché. Also I understand that Lena and Paul were initially ideas who now live in that movie. There's more to them than just the missionary and the lunatic patriot. Even though it shows things that go wrong, it's very positive. For an outsider who has seen a bit of this country it's a mixture between reality and the imagination about that country. Maybe this movie is stronger in its pictures and moments of interpersonal relations than in its political dialogs.