FilmCuckoo

This "documentary" looks and sounds like exactly what it is: A poorly disguised propaganda film, with only one purpose in mind: To provide justification for torture and other crimes against humanity and all the crimes committed by CIA and other US government agencies in their war against terrorism. We are having to put almost two hours to watch CIA employees one after another providing various excuses trying (mostly in vain) to provide justification, that there is nothing wrong in torture - or that there is nothing wrong with killing few thousand innocent civilians in a drone attacks, where both the decision maker and the button pusher are, what you could only call as "soccer moms", who are quite clearly obviously indifferent and unemphatic, with a certain type of ignorance and arrogance added for a good measure. Watching these people say on screen that there is nothing wrong with what they did makes this "documentary" an unbearable experience to watch. This is so blatantly fascist and evil in nature, that you can only wonder what happened to the idea of human rights in USA?

"In Dubious Battle" was one of the movies I wanted to see more than any other film from Hollywood in 2016. My original enthusiasm faded quickly only after 10 minutes into the film.

Let me explain: "In Dubious Battle" is one of the best Steinbeck novels, as important classic as its companion piece, the unforgettable "Grapes of Wrath", which not only happens during the same time period, also deals with the same issues of this era. "In Dubious Battle" hasn't been filmed before, for obvious reasons, as it has much more clear political message in it, as the main characters are members of the American Communist Party, who are sent on a mission to fight for fair wages among the apple pickers, who are mostly vagrant families and other victims in the downfall of the economic collapse, which lead to the Great Depression. Unlike "Grapes of Wrath", "In Dubious Battle" is mainly about how destructive and unfair the labour laws were during that time, which enabled rich land owners to exploit the destitute workers to the maximum, giving them basically wages which wouldn't have even covered the expenses of food and shelter.

However... I find it near inexcusable for what the writers and the director have actually done to this masterpiece of source material. Some of the most memorable scenes and events in the book, have been completely either written out or have been softened or edited into something completely different, which no longer does any justice to the original Steinbeck novel. This has lead to very visible and easily noticeable mistakes and clear errors in the production of the movie. There are totally unforgivable errors of fluid continuity via truly strange film editing, mainly in form of abrupt cutting, which even leave seriously weird time gaps: -As an example, one of the most memorable scenes in the book, is the first meeting between Al and the newly arrived Jim & Mac, has been butchered to a bare minimum, which fails to deliver any of the originally intended importance of this meeting. This is the first truly odd of really weird cuts throughout the film, which leaves in amateur like time-lapses. There should have been a complete scene, where Al prepares for them a free meal out of sympathy and after being flattered, a hamburger steak with mashed potatoes and thick brown gravy, which is described meticulously in detail by Steinbeck in the book, using almost two pages to underline both the hunger of Jim & Mac, and to establish the future important relationship between Al, his father and Jim & Mac.

I would see the main culprit for this travesty being mainly the director James Franco. His direction clearly shows he doesn't seem to have any emotional attachment for telling this important story, which is evident in how much has been actually left out from the original complete story. Franco hasn't done anything to cover the obvious and weird time gaps and missing events in this movie. It would be justified to say that Franco probably hasn't concentrated nearly as much as he should have. Could be out of interest or just lacking adequate motivation. In any case, I am not impressed with Franco's directorial work. He is still much better as an actor. As a director he has made silly mistakes and unforgivable editorial choices, which do effect the entire movie's atmosphere and how well the story is being delivered to the viewers. As it stands now, the movie lacks emotion, dynamic and empathy for the story or the characters.

The second fail point for this movie is its casting - Almost the entire cast of the main characters appear to be far from being motivated, and this has lead to a display of some of the most mediocre acting performances of 2016. The only exception to the rule is Vincent D'Onofrio, who is playing London, and even in his case, just barely. I find just about everything disappointing in this film, cinematography certainly isn't doing any justice to it either, and this could be possibly because the sets aren't in any way convincing that this is early 1930's, the camera angles are to put it mildly, unconventional, there are close shots, when the scene would have rather called for medium or even long shots and then there are long shots in place of close shots. In some places the seriously weird cutting disrupts even viewers ability to follow the story, as the cuts don't make any sense. The third low point is the soundtrack, which doesn't fit the movie, or the time-line, when the movie is supposedly happening.

Finally... Even with all the shortcomings in this movie, it is still watchable and even enjoyable (with strong reservations), but don't expect a clear and concise masterpiece. It works also much better for those people who haven't read Steinbeck's novel, but fails to convince most of the film scholars and academics, who will easily spot the many flaws in this production.

The reasons behind motivations for making this movie completely escapes me. Rarely (thankfully) do I come cross with this type of a movie, which from the outset has everything going for it's success. It has an incredible international ensemble cast, some of who are remarkably talented actors, setting is already stunning without having to even do "set decoration" as you are using one of the world's best restaurants as a stage... -And then you waste every single potential this movie ever had, by providing a completely clueless director, beyond boringly bland, meaningless script, screw up lighting, sound, cinematography, select an idiotic soundtrack with the most unfitting selection songs you can think of, plus you screw up the sound mixing where music is way too loud, and talking becomes almost muffled, then you give your incredible cast nothing but naïve, ridiculous, moronic lines to mull over in 4 languages, and you are bound to get this kind of pretentiousness served up with incredibly unremarkable Spanish/Catalan actors and actresses whose correct place would be in the dark corners of the local amateur theatre. What ever potential this movie had, was without any doubt lost in the hands of totally incompetent director and even more incompetent writer, who focus on things that have nothing to do with the weak plot, and then embellish it with even more incredibly pretentious, hypocritical presentation of a high-end haute cuisine. This movie starts to annoy you from the very first minute, and the source of annoyances just seem to pile up scene after another. If there is something meaningful to say about this movie, one could only hope, that all of this would actually been made on purpose, possibly to portray how pretentious the wealthy jet-set group concentrated around ridiculously exaggerated modern fusion molecular haute cuisine cooking actually can be, such as actually serving battered, deep fried fish bones, and charging 60 euros for a plate. If this isn't stupidity, I don't know what is. Some of the highly rated three star Michelin restaurants actually DO this kind of "cooking" day-in-day-out, all this being served to completely ignorant group of wealthy socialites, who wouldn't be able to tell 10 euro bottle of sparkling wine and 150 euro bottle champagne apart, if you present it to them as "exquisite". (BTW. I happen to know for a fact, this has happened for real at least once in a certain three star Michelin restaurant.) Thankfully, there are some three star Michelin restaurants, that actually do serve proper, well defined haute cuisine, but not the way it being presented on this movie, which belongs to the bargain basket at your local supermarket. This movie is nothing but an embarrassment for its makers.