Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts

Saturday, April 15, 2017



Random Fuzzy

Brief observations:

- In her petition, she asked for her "earnings and accumulations from and after the date of separation."   I doubt if her earnings in the 7 months since they separated would be sufficient to pay for the $20+ million estate.  As noted below, if the purchase money was earned during the marriage or domestic partnership, the property belongs to the community.

- As I noted in my previous post, they have not amended the petition and response to comply with asset and income disclosure requirements.  Other than "Miscellaneous jewelry and other personal effects"  she did not list any separate property assets.  No legal property agreement between them has been filed.  Those documents should have been filed with the court before she considered buying the property if she wanted to claim it as separate property purchased with separate funds.  Even though all documents are now sealed, all filings are listed in the case summary. 

-  They would normally also be required to account to the court for all extraordinary expenditures, but they may have previously acted to set aside all the ATROs together with the one on the children's out-of-state travel. 

- In light of the above and as discussed in the article below, this property will likely end up not as her separate property but still part of their community property.  In other words, this will be their house. 

-  As discussed previously and explained again below, failure to provide the court with the necessary income, asset and debt disclosures will lead the court to dismiss the petition.

- The DeMille estate didn't find a buyer the last time it was listed despite multiple price cuts -- from $26.25M to $23.95M.   It seems unlikely that there are other interested buyers but she wanted to be sure her offer was accepted and offered just under the $24.95M asking.   She wasn't interested in bargaining and it didn't matter that she was almost doubling the previous record sale in the area.  Getting the property quickly was more important.  The issues with purchasing property while the petition was pending didn't matter either.

- The Los Feliz area is Brad's preferred neighborhood whereas she seemed to like Malibu -- but she bought in Los Feliz.  The DeMille is the only estate of its size available in the area.  The next nearest are in Beverly Hills and Bel Air.

- There were no reports that she was viewing properties to purchase.  It was immediately that she wants to make the DeMille estate her new home.  It doesn't appear as though she considered any other property.

- The DeMille offered her something no other available estate in L.A. did -- a location in the Hollywood Hills / Los Feliz area, minutes away from their compound -- and she was eager to get it as soon as it was listed.   It was officially listed on March 27 and by April 13 she had made a formal offer and entered escrow.

 -  It's a very public purchase for someone who is normally very private and secretive.  There was no attempt to shield her identity behind trusts.   She acted fast and she did it publicly.   They lost no time in confirming the purchase with People and Vanity Fair.  She wanted people to know immediately that she is buying this property.  The DeMille henceforth will be known as their family residence so there was no point in hiding it.

- The estate is much brighter and has more lawn space than their Hollywood Hills compound and has a wide flat section the children can play ball in.  The two properties have a number of things in common: similar land size:  2.1 acres for DeMille vs. 1.8 acres in Hollywood Hills, a gated community, city views, and they're just over a mile apart.

- The value of this property will be close to double that of their Hollywood Hills compound and almost half what they paid for Miraval.

- We have not seen much of the inside of their compound in Hollywood Hills but thanks to the listing, we have photos from every vantage point plus a video.

- After Angelina and the kids left after the incident, Brad also moved out of their Hollywood Hills compound.  The entire family has since been back.  Richie, their security head, fetched them from the airport when they arrived from London and they had a movie night the next day (March 18) with Brad's Missouri-based family.



A puzzle with only some of the pieces visible to us.  I imagine we will get answers soon enough. 


"Angelina Jolie Pitt has filed for dissolution of the marriage. This decision was made for the health of the family.

 "Angelina will always do what's in the best interest of taking care of her family.

“An incident took place and prompted [Angelina] to act and file.” the insider tells Us that it “affected the entire family.” She still says Brad is the love of her life, and the decision has weighed heavy on her heart,” the source adds. “Her priority now is the children.” 

E! News has learned that the actor found out Angelina was going to file one to two days ago, but did not know before that.
"Brad did not want the marriage to end," a source shared with E! News. "He was committed to doing what he needed to make it work. He was open to counseling."
Another insider added, "He is emotionally torn. Right now, he is devastated. He still loved Angelina and would have preferred they fight to make the marriage work. He was willing to do whatever it took to save the marriage

He is beside himself and has been crying.  He was completely caught off guard and blindsided and had no idea she would do this,” the source tells Us of Pitt’s fragile emotional state after Jolie filed divorce documents on Monday, September 19.
The source adds: “He is completely devastated and beside himself. He is a shattered man."
"He’s extremely upset," another source tells Us. "But he is totally focused on just being helpful and making sure his kids are doing as well as possible."

Brad Pitt is under investigation for child abuse after he got "verbally abusive" and "physical" in a fight involving one of his children with Angelina Jolie, while their other kids were also present.
The report allegedly indicates he had been drinking at the time of the incident.
Another source says that Pitt did not return to the L.A. family home with Jolie and the children after the incident. That wasn't unusual, says the source – Pitt would often spend the night at a hotel after arguments with Jolie.

If the Juvenile Division decides that it is necessary to remove a child from the home, several possibilities exist:
- the child may be placed with the other parent, if they are separated or divorced

“Something happened last week ... that’s why on Thursday she separated from him, on Friday she went to a lawyer, on Monday they had filed for divorce, it happened like that,”Levin said in a Facebook video.

In the wake of child abuse allegations leveled against Pitt, the Department of Children and Family Services reportedly implemented a child safety plan. ET confirms that, given the safety plan, it's unlikely the 52-year-old star has been in contact with Jolie directly, as any communication would likely need to go through both parties' attorneys.

“Angelina has blocked all incoming text messages and also Brad’s numbers,” the insider tells Us.

A source connected with Angelina says this is not about alcohol ... she would never leave Brad if it was just a substance abuse problem.
 "This wasn't because he was drinking.  This was more serious than that.  She did what she felt she had to do to protect the safety of the kids."  A family source said, "Angelina decided what she was going to do.  She felt her hand was forced."

"A family member exclusively tells PEOPLE "Her family is broken and she is in agony. Her children are recovering from the events that brought about the filing of the divorce"

The protective order against the actor, 52, has been extended as investigators look into whether there are additional incidents or a pattern that may suggest a history of abuse that involves more than one of Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s six children.

"We can confirm that childcare professionals have encouraged a legal agreement accepted and signed by both sides over a week ago. In accordance with this agreement, the six children will stay in their mother's custody, and the children will continue therapeutic visits with their father. This has been determined by childcare professionals to be in the children's best interest.

"We are not in a position to discuss the details. We hope now that it is clear that the events which led to the dissolution filing involved minor children and their wellbeing, there will be understanding of the sensitivity of the family situation. We believe that all sides are committed to healing the family and ask for your consideration during this difficult time."

“Back when Angelina first filed for divorce, she said that the reason she filed was for the safety and health and well-being of the kids and that has been her consistent point of view from the beginning,” the source explained. “Nothing has changed.”

Brad Pitt has been cleared by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services after being investigated for alleged child abuse, Us Weekly can confirm.

 "The job of the DCFS is to make sure the children are in a safe and secure situation. As we said earlier this week, childcare professionals encouraged a legal agreement accepted and signed by both sides that was in the best interest of the children. Angelina said from the beginning that she felt she had to take action for the health of the family and is relieved that after their 8-week involvement, the DCFS is now satisfied the safeguards are put in place that will allow the children to heal."


STIPULATION AND ORDER RE CHILD CUSTODY AND THERAPY

Petitioner and Respondent ...hereby stipulate to the following temporary orders:

Pending written agreement of the parties or further order of the court -

- Petitioner shall have physical custody of the children

- Respondent shall continue to have agreed upon therapeutic visitation.  The frequency and conditions of the visits are determined by Ian Russ, PhD.  Prior to making such determination, Dr. Russ shall consult with Lisa Hacker, Judy Goldman, Angela Bissada and Catherine Green.  Dr. Russ shall at all times consider the best interests of the minor children.

- Respondent will continue to participate in individual therapy a minimum of once a week for no less than 50 minutes per session.  At the end of each month he shall provide Dr. Russ with proof of his participation.

- Respondent will continue to participate in group therapy once a week and will provide Dr. Russ with proof of his participation at the end of each month.

- Respondent will continue to submit to random drug and alcohol testing by Dr. Robert Waldman.  The tests will not exceed one per week with a minimum of 4 every 30 days.  Dr. Waldman will provide Dr. Russ with the results within 24 hours of receipt.

- the children will continue to participate in individual counseling, the frequency and duration of which will be recommended by Angela Bissada and Catherine Green.

- Petitioner, Respondent and the children will continue to participate in joint sessions.


On Tuesday, a source confirmed to ET that the Allied star spent Thanksgiving weekend in the Turks and Caicos.
According to the source, the 52-year-old actor stayed at Amanyara Villas, a secluded luxury resort. He was joined by a male friend.

Dear Lance
With regard to the frequency of therapy sessions, you state that they need to be increased to at least twice a week and that Brad wants to designate the location for these sessions in order to facilitate consistency. I am wondering about your choice of the word "need" and again defer to the therapists to determine frequency. As to location, I am certain that the parties, with the help of their security team, can come up with a venue that makes sense for this family.
I think that in order to be good liaisons between our clients and the mental health professionals, it is important we hear what they have to say firsthand and at the same time.  Perhaps such a meeting could prove helpful in resolving some, if not all, of the issues raised in your letters

Dear Laura:
Our client has made a major effort and commitment to the ongoing therapy efforts.  However, his limited access to the children is not acceptable.  My original message was and is that unless there are changes to the process, it is not going to accomplish its objectives.

Between now and the start of the holidays/school break, Brad is requesting 30 to 60 minutes sessions to be scheduled as follows:  1 session with the twins, 1 sessions with the middle kids, 1 session with all 4, one session with the older boys and if they are not going to participate, another session with the 4 younger kids.
Darren, Michael O. or Richie can be present.  The sessions will be at a home that is approximately 10 minutes from your clients residence.
There will be a request for a step-up in connection with the holidays/school break

Good morning Lance,
Are we confirmed for a meeting with the children's therapists on Monday at our office at 9:30AM?  I understand that their impressions and opinions will not be dispositive of whether there is a shift in the status quo which increases Brad's interaction with the children and begins visits which are in a non-therapeutic setting, I do think that we ought to hear what they have to say and give some weight to their expertise.

Laura,
For the past 3 months, Brad has complied with every aspect of the therapy process, notwithstanding ongoing concerns that the therapy team has ignored or disregarded issues that he has raised.
As I mentioned yesterday, it would be misleading for me to tell you that the request for access may be impacted by the opinions of the kids' therapists.  Regardless of their views, there is no reason for Brad not to request court orders that are likely to include more access than I proposed yesterday.  If your client is willing to agree to our proposal, we can avoid the necessity of filing an RFO and the meeting next week can be for the purpose of us telling the therapists that the parties have agreed to non-therapy access.

Dear Lance
Our meeting yesterday left me feeling disconcerted.  You have told us that you intend to file a request for additional non-therapeutic visitation and do not seem to have any regard for what the children's therapists feel is in their best interests.
I understand that Brad is frustrated but feel that it is incumbent upon us to help this family achieve their long-term reunification goals in a smooth and expeditious manner. Litigation absolutely does not effectuate that goal.
Is it not the end goal that within the next 6-12 months Brad is enjoying frequent and continuous contact with all of the children on a joint custodial basis? If we know that we will get to that point via either costly, ugly, protracted and public court battles or by virtue of out-of-court resolution and the therapeutic process upon which we all agreed less than a month ago, why would you opt to blow it all up and choose the former?
Please give the therapists a chance to tell us how the kids are feeling.
Angie's reluctance to enter into a stipulation to seal the file stems from her firm belief that litigation is the wrong decision.
We have discussed a custody evaluation in this matter. As we advised yesterday, we are agreeable and would like it to commence immediately. You have told us that you will not agree to the appointment of minor's counsel. We feel it is essential that the children have advocates who can communicate with the evaluator or the judge on their behalf. Will you reconsider? We also propose that the parties participate in joint sessions with a trauma specialist so that they may learn how to best support and interact with their children given their current state.

Dear Laura
The message that I attempted to deliver on Wednesday was that it is inconceivable to me that the court will not provide Brad with much greater access to the children than the time that I proposed earlier this week. It would be an extraordinary understatement to describe Brad as an involved parent. Based on evidence that has been corroborated by multiple sources (including public and private statements from your client), he has been a great father and there is no reason to exclude him from the children, including the isolated incident that was investigated and rejected by the DCFS.

Lance -
You have made it clear that Brad intends to file an RFO for increased custodial time next week and that nothing the therapists say during our meeting on Monday will change Brad's position.  Therefore, we will be filing the Stipulation & Order Re Custody and Therapy.  We have repeatedly attempted to avoid any court intervention.  Brad's position made that impossible.

"Brad was attempting to set up his own schedule with the children," the source further claimed. "He was not relying on the advice of the healthcare professionals [as to] what should be done. In order to keep everything in line with the custody agreement it had to be reinforced in court. Therefore that forced Angelina's side to file it within the courts."

"Originally, Pitt had volunteered to do the drug and alcohol testing himself," a source tells ET. "But now that a judge has signed off on these docs, it has become mandatory and cannot be reversed without another court filing."
“Brad has not seen his children alone without a monitored therapist since the plane incident,"

A separate source notes that Jolie has been attending her kids’ counseling sessions.  “Angie has been by the kids’ side nonstop since this happened. Their health and well-being has been her only priority. She hasn’t traveled, and she delayed completing [her new film] First They Killed My Father,” says the source,  She has been with them the whole time trying to make sure they heal."
The rep adds, Angelina wants to continue therapy with the kids and Brad. 

A second source tells Us that Jolie organized the holiday get-together and that the kids' therapist — who supervises their visits with the Allied actor — was also there.  "[Brad] gave them presents and it was cordial," the insider adds."

“The parties and their counsel have signed agreements to preserve the privacy rights of their children and family by keeping all court documents confidential and engaging a private judge to make any necessary legal decisions and to facilitate the expeditious resolution of any remaining issues. The parents are committed to act as a united front to effectuate recovery and reunification.”

“Private judges can’t order that an agreement be enforced so if you want to take action, you have to go back to the court system,”

"the foundation has no plans for dissolution.”

BBC: We know that an incident occurred that led to your separation. We also know you haven't said anything about this.  Would you like to say something now?
AJ: "Only that...I don't want to say very much about that, except to say it was a very difficult time. And, and we are a family and we will always be a family, and we will get through this time and hopefully be a stronger family for it,

GS: You filed for divorce, you said, for the health of your family.  Is your family healthier now?
AJ:  We are..we are ...focusing on the health of our family, and so..and so we will be.  We will be.  We will be stronger when we come out of this because that's what we're determined to do as a family."
GS: In the past you described Brad often as a wonderful father -- of course he's part of the family -- do you still believe that?
AJ: Of course. Of course. We will always be a family. Always.

"Miraval “is an investment for their family and their children. "

Overall, the lesson learned is that Brad Pitt can be one stealth flyer when he wants to be, and he and Angelina are as adept as ever at taking care of the truly important business behind the scenes, where the view isn't always clear.

"He’s much happier.
He’s very relieved that things are not playing out in public anymore.
It was a rough time, but they were able to resolve it.  This is a work in progress.  The goal was to resolve everything for the kids and the whole family, and they’re working toward that.
He is spending more time with the kids when they are in L.A.  He has even spent some time with Maddox and Pax.
Things are definitely calming down.  Occasionally he still gets a bit down.  He went from having quite the chaotic, full house to a very quiet house. Waking up with the kids every morning seemed to make him very happy.
He’s always been extremely positive about how Angie’s a good mother."
The source reiterated what Jolie said about Pitt -- that he is a good father to their six children and that they will always be a family.
As for reports stating that Pitt and Jolie have spoken directly? The source tells ET, "They had already been talking directly to each other way before this anyways."
"His kids visited him at his Los Feliz home on the evening of April 2," possibly not "since the week before news broke."  A source tells ET that the 53-year-old actor had his first overnight stay with (the kids). The source adds that the children's nannies were also on hand during the overnight visit, as was recommended by the family therapist.
"Everything is going well; the family is getting along and keeping things private" Pitt has worked very hard to get his kids back and the whole family is in a much better place," the source says.



-- Fussy







legalzoom

If you are considering buying a new home before your divorce is final, carefully evaluate all the potential complications that can arise from acquiring such a significant asset while the divorce case is pending. If you buy a new house before the divorce is final and without taking proper precautions, the court might deem it marital property and divide it accordingly.
Asset Division and Legal Property Agreements
Buying a new house while the divorce is pending could jeopardize your sole ownership of the home. To prevent the house from being considered part of the marital assets, you must prove it is "separate property." Separate property includes assets you owned prior to the marriage, acquired by gift or inheritance during the marriage, or purchased with non-marital money. In California, all marital assets are considered "community property" and are divided equally. The majority of states use "equitable distribution" to divide marital property.  Both types of asset division recognize separate property as long as the spouse making the separate property claim can prove the asset is separate property, for example, by proving it was owned before the marriage took place or purchased with separate funds. To protect your home from being considered a marital asset, consider entering into a legal property agreement, which is signed by both spouses and approved by the court. The agreement should specifically address both spouses' ownership interests, along with equity and title -- stating that the home buyer's spouse will have no rights to the home.
Avoid Commingling
Because the home will be your separate property, you cannot use marital money for the purchase. Mixing marital funds with separate funds is referred to as "commingling" in legal terminology, and it can endanger your separate property. All stages of the sale, including the down payment, must be financed with your own money. You should also avoid using marital funds to pay for any maintenance and upkeep of the home.
Financial Considerations
If you buy a new house while the divorce is pending, the court will likely include it as part of your total assets when dividing marital property, which can affect the distribution of marital assets. Because you already own such a significant separate asset, the court might decrease your share of the marital property and award your spouse a larger percentage of the joint assets.

CA courts
Community Property and Separate Property
California is a community property state.  So property that the couple acquires during marriage/partnership is “community property.” And debt that the couple acquires during the marriage/partnership also belongs to the “community debt.”

Community property generally is everything that spouses or domestic partners own together. It includes everything you bought or got while you were married or in a domestic partnership — including debt — that is not a gift or inheritance.
Community property also includes all the earnings that either spouse or partner (or both of you) earned during the marriage and everything bought with those earnings.  If the purchase money was earned during the marriage, the property belongs to the community.

Separate property is anything you have that you owned before you were married or before you registered your domestic partnership. Inheritances and gifts to 1 spouse or domestic partner, even during the marriage or domestic partnership, are also separate property.

legalzoom

Failure to complete your divorce paperwork will stop your divorce proceeding. Whether or not your husband responds to your petition, you are required to file certain documents, including income, asset and debt disclosures, ...If you fail to file any of these forms, the court will not enter a divorce judgment. Continued inaction will ultimately lead the court to dismiss the petition for divorce whether or not the six-month waiting period has passed.


Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)
01/31/2017 Stipulation & Order
01/25/2017 Declaration (filed by Stan J. Katz, Ph.D. )
01/17/2017 Order
01/17/2017 Request
01/09/2017 Notice-Lodging  -  (Request to appoint minors' counsel and custody evaluator - Dr. Katz)
Filed by Petitioner
01/09/2017 Stipulation & Order (Honorable John W. Ouderkirk (Ret) )

Monday, June 30, 2014





SFX via teamjolie
Jayne Nelson

Thursday, May 29, 2014





















Sunday, December 25, 2011

Pete Hammond's Review

In the Land of Blood and Honey

Reviewed by Pete Hammond
December 23, 2011

Photo by Film District/Ken Regan
Often when superstar actors decide to go behind the camera, the results are not the best. Some actors-turned-directors have turned out great work, notably Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson, and others who have won Oscars for directing. In the case of Angelina Jolie, who makes an astonishing writing and directorial debut with the fiercely intense "In the Land of Blood and Honey," the results are encouraging for anyone hopeful that stars will use their clout in the name of serious cinematic efforts. Her debut is powerful, important, humane, and uncompromising. If you didn't know who made this movie, you might think it was the work of a great European auteur or an entry in the year's best foreign language film contests. It is ineligible for Oscar consideration in that category but has been deservedly nominated for a Golden Globe.

This no-holds-barred look at the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the first part of the 1990s, a war that involved genocide and ethnic cleansing, is seen largely through the eyes of women drawn into it. Jolie brings a welcome focus on humanity that distinguishes the film from other recent war movies, even Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker."

The film focuses on the relationship between one of those women, Ajla (Zana Marjanovic), a Bosnian who begins a romance with the Serbian Danijel (Goran Kostic), only to have it interrupted by a bomb blast in the crowded club where they are dancing. The film then jumps forward four months; he is running a camp at which she is a prisoner. It's a horrible place where women are lined up and raped, and she would be one of them were it not for his intervention. Unfortunately, Danijel is under the watchful eye of a demanding and determined father, a top Serbian commander named Nebojsa (Rade Serbedzija), who expects him to fall in line and commit the heinous acts in the name of the Serbs. The tricky relationship between captor and prisoner gets more complicated and the film more complex as it progresses and moves on in time to Sarajevo, where the violence escalates even more.

Jolie is known for her globetrotting humanitarian causes and work on behalf of the United Nations, but this focus on a tragic war swept under the rug and somewhat forgotten is commendable and a credit to someone who could coast on a big acting career but has much more to say. Of special note is the authentic, largely local cast she has brought in, including leads Marjanovic and Kostic, who are superb. Serbedzija, perhaps the best-known cast member, is also excellent, as is everyone in the smartly chosen ensemble. The film was shot in English and the native language of Bosnia, but the decision to release it, at least initially, in the original language is the right one, showing the integrity of its director in serving material that strives for authenticity.

"In the Land of Blood and Honey" is a gripping motion picture you won't soon, and should not ever, forget.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Vogue Review

Zana Marjanovic in In the Land of Blood and Honey
Photo: Dean Semler/ Courtesy of FilmDistrict and GK Films

I don’t exactly think of movie stars as an oppressed group, but sometimes they can’t win. When they make a big crowd-pleaser, they get faulted for playing it safe. But when they try something risky or uncommercial, they tend to get it even worse—they’re mocked for being pretentious or self-serious, or for serving up Oscar bait. Of course, some stars just don’t give a hoot what anyone says. They just do what they want to do. One of them is Angelina Jolie.

She’s making her feature filmmaking debut with In the Land of Blood and Honey, and to be honest, I dreaded it. Not only is this love story set during the Bosnian civil war of the early 1990s, a period of genuinely ghastly violence, but Jolie didn’t shoot it in English—we read the Bosnian dialogue in subtitles. All of which made me fear that this was one of those too-earnest, socially conscious movies you expect from well-meaning Hollywood liberals. In fact, I was wrong. Yes, Jolie’s film is earnest and, yes, it’s socially conscious, and, no, it isn’t complex enough. But it’s also an impressive piece of work—and I’m not grading it on some special movie-star curve. It’s a heckuva lot more honest about evil than The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

The action takes place in and around Sarajevo, the famously multicultural city that, during the messy breakup of the former Yugoslavia, became a battleground between the Serbian-controlled government and ethnic Muslims. The story centers on two people who meet at a nightclub before the war: lovely, dark Ajla (Zana Marjanovic), a Bosnian Muslim portrait painter who lives with her sister, and Danijel (Goran Kostic), a cop whose father Nebojsa Vukojevich (Rade Serbedzija) is a fanatically pro-Serbian general. Ajla and Danijel clearly have eyes for each other, but politics intervene: When the Serbian army takes over the city, Ajla is rounded up. She’s about to be publicly raped by a soldier when Danijel, now an officer, intervenes to take her under his protection. And so this Serbian man and Bosnian Muslim woman begin what you might hear called a Romeo and Juliet story, but it’s actually something more interesting. You see, Jolie not only follows this couple’s shifting feelings toward each another over the years—emotions that range from sexual ecstasy to stabbing mistrust to a furious sense of betrayal—but uses them to show what happens to decent people caught up in an indecent situation. Neither Ajla nor Danijel believes in the civil war—they don’t hate the other side—but gradually the historical tragedy that unfolds between them begins eating away at their tolerance.

If this sounds a bit schematic, it is, and I found myself wishing that Jolie’s script had more depth and variation; after a while, the movie begins to feel a tad repetitive both in its endless atrocities and the cloistered meetings beween Ajla and Danijel. That said, Jolie turns out to be a startlingly effective director. For starters, she does a terrific job with her actors, drawing on Serbedzija’s vainglory to win to create a shrewd portrait of a general who’s convinced himself that genocidal murder is actually justice. And she does even better with her lovers. Even as Danijel gives us a man buffeted by obvious emotions—desire, shame, fear of his old man—Marjanovic offers a performance of quiet subtlety, warily registering every nuance of her lover’s face as if her life’s depending on it, which, of course, it is.

It’s part of Jolie’s image that she’s a tough cookie, and that certainly comes out in her handling of the war, the churning ocean in which everyone must swim. Getting sharp, visceral work from the great Australian cinematographer Dean Semler, she offers an unflinching look at a shredded country so violent that babies get flung from balconies, snipers howl with delight when they pop off old folks scrounging for food, and captive women exist to be raped for sport—while their fellow female captives look on, unable to do anything knowing they will be next. This is disturbing stuff, and Jolie depicts it so vividly that the effects are paradoxical: The more skillfully she stages such scenes, the less you want to see them. I admire Jolie for being unafraid to remind us that this barbarism is precisely what happened in 90s Bosnia (nobody wanted to watch it back then either) yet I also suspect that here’s a case where less would surely be more. As the bird says in that old T. S. Eliot poem, “Humankind cannot bear too much reality.”

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Marshall Fine's Review

December 22, 2011

‘In the Land of Blood and Honey’: The beast in me


You would think that, after World War II, Europe had seen all of the genocide it could stomach for a century or so. But, no, here came the Serbs in the early 1990s, with their ethnic cleansing and wholesale butchery and rape of the Bosniak and Muslim population.
There have been very few films that truly dealt with the subject, at least that have been released in the United States. Milcho Manchevski’s “Before the Rain” (1994), Michael Winterbottom’s “Welcome to Sarajevo” (1997) and Danis Tanovic’s “No Man’s Land” (2001) are among the best – and this year’s “The Whistleblower.” There have been several about the uncomfortable aftermath of Serbian brutality and cruelty, but the history itself remains almost an afterthought.
Angelina Jolie’s “In the Land of Blood and Honey” takes a tough look at the effects of that war as it was happening. Here is a populace that can’t quite believe that, in the era of satellite transmission and the 24-hour-cable-news culture, the world will sit idly by and let this kind of slaughter go on unchallenged (which it mostly did).
Jolie isn’t telling a “Romeo and Juliet” story here, though the lovers at the center of her story hail from opposite sides of the conflict in Sarajevo. Ajla (Zana Marjanovic) is an artist, out on a first date with Danijel (Goran Kostic) – or maybe it’s a second. There’s obviously a spark there, feelings or feelings about feelings.
They’re dancing close in a nightclub when a bomb goes off, destroying the club and killing several people – and the next thing we see, the war is on and the Serbs are rounding up the Bosniaks. Ajla is part of a group of women that has been gathered and taken away to be laborers and sex objects for the Serb army as it tries to take over Bosnia-Herzegovina.
But even as she is pulled out of a lineup by a soldier for rape, she is rescued by Danijel, the captain of this particular group of soldiers (and the son of a Serbian general, played by a menacing Rade Serbedzija). He claims her as his own in front of the soldiers and makes her his consort – then protects her, even as his men savage the rest of the women.
He helps her find an escape from the camp – then rescues her again when she is recaptured. But when he ensconces her in a private jail cell to which only he has the key, the word spreads to his father that Danijel has gone soft on an enemy.
As Jolie builds this tense story of a captive’s seemingly untenable relationship with her captor, she raises a crucial issue: What are you willing to do to survive? What can you live with? Where do your loyalties ultimately lie?
It becomes tangled and confused for both Danijel and Ajla, each betraying some part of their allegiance to their own group – and each wondering when the other person will commit what seems like an inevitable act of betrayal.
Jolie’s film is brutal and violent, without being sensationalistic. It remains a sore subject, because the crimes were so atrocious and the remorse for them so minimal. Jolie’s point is to remind us that these were shameful acts that twisted people’s values.
Marjanovic, as Ajla, has a sensitive quality – hey, she’s an artist – but also a toughness and resignation about the vicious physical attacks she can’t completely elude. Kostic finds the painful conflict within Danijel between his natural instincts of compassion and the brutal pragmatism his father, the general, demands of him.
“In the Land of Blood and Honey” is a painful, gripping story of the extremes of the survival instinct, in the face of human indifference. It’s a provocative drama that will fuel endless post-screening discussions.

Matt Patches' and TIME Review


Angelina Jolie's gut-wrenching look into the Bosnian War that must be seen.



In the Land of Blood and Honey adorns the name "Angelina Jolie" across its marketing materials, but don't expect to see the seraphic starlet pop up on screen. Jolie makes her directorial debut with the Bosnian war film, a powerful drama that strives for realism in its use of homegrown talent, the setting's native tongue and graphic depictions of violence. The goal of the movie is apparent: the genocide committed across the Balkan region in the early '90s was all but swept under the rug, and Jolie is ready to unleash those horrific truths upon willing audiences. In the Land of Blood and Honey pulls no punches. The movie is terrifying and provocative, telling a conventional love story only as a way of connecting with the mainstream. War is ugly, and Jolie's film presents it truthfully.
Ajla (Zana Marjanovic) and Danijel (Goran Kostic) are two Bosnians in the beginnings of a relationship—one that is eventually cut short by the eruption of conflict. Danijel, a Serb police officer, is recruited by his militant leader father Nebojsa (Rade Serbedzija) to join the Serb Army, whose goal is wipe the country clean of Bosnian Muslims. He's eventually reunited with Ajla, after she's captured by the Serbs and incarcerated in a concentration camp. There she is subjected to mental and physical torture, serving the Serbs as they return from systematically wiping out her people and routinely being the target of their sexual abuse. Before finding himself whisked away on reassignment, Danijel clues Ajla into an escape route, which sends the prisoner on a journey through the war-torn country, in hopes of reuniting with her family, and possibly, Danijel.
While the Romeo and Juliet-esque romance between Danijel and Ajla adds to the weight of the situation, it never feels like the focus of In the Land of Blood and Honey. Rather than developing the complexity of the duo, Jolie uses her characters as emotional proxies, which works as a window into the unimaginable events of the war. Marjanovic and Kostic deliver compelling performances as Danijel and Ajla–both characters struggle with what they're romantic actions with one another mean to their respective causes—but even with their thread, the real drama comes from the world around them.
There's no safety filter on the gut-wrenching atrocities Jolie puts on display: lines of Bosnian Muslims stripped naked and executed, women seized by the Serbs and used as human shields, and hidden refugees sacrificing their own just to remain concealed. The film is shot simply, but the images speak for themselves. At times, the character/dialogue-driven moments feel more like necessary pit stops before the next harrowing sequence—even in introspective moments, like a scene in which Danijel contemplates and resists sniping a nearby enemy—but without them, the movie would lack the necessary truth of the final product.
In the Land of Blood and Honey is a complicated film, one that doesn't entirely work as an act of storytelling, but whose end goal is a grisly success. Jolie's commitment to history makes the film a brave work of art and a must-see. Blood and Honey will leave you shaken, and it's an experience you owe yourself to have.



Angelina Jolie Goes Dark in the Land of Blood and Honey

 By Mary Pols | @MaryPols

In Angelina Jolie’s respectful and more than respectable directorial debut, the grimly immersive In the Land of Blood and Honey, a woman ends up in a Serbian rape camp overseen by a man she had a fleeting romance with on the eve of civil war in the former Yugoslavia. On their last encounter before the war, the pair — Danijel, a Serb policeman (Goran Kostic) and Ajla (Zana Marjanovic), a Muslim who aspired to be a painter — seem like newcomers to each other, still strangers, but obviously entranced. This might have been their only date. They nuzzle, drink and dance to live music. Then a bomb blows out the walls of the club and put an end to everything promising between them. Their next encounter comes a few months later as Danijel bends Ajla over a table, pretending to rape her as part of his camp’s orientation process.
During production the movie, which Jolie also wrote, was plagued with rumors that it featured a character who falls in love with a rapist. But while some of the character’s motivations remain fuzzy, particularly those that spur a reconnection between the couple in a third setting, In the Land of Blood and Honey is not a love story. It’s more a study in self-preservation, for both of the parties involved. Ostensibly the sex between Ajla and Danijel is consensual, but can it ever really be so when she and her people are the prisoners of Danijel and his people? The movie’s strength lies in the provocative nature of this question, though Jolie’s answer lacks quite the force it should have, given the set-up.
That there would be rumors trickling out isn’t surprising, not just because of the enormity of Jolie’s fame but because the film does indeed explore the complicated grey areas between captor and captive; some word of that must have gotten out. The perspective of almost every other character in the film is without ambivalence – the Serbs are louts – but in Danijel, Ajla encounters some humanity, crippled though it may be. He cuts her from the herd on that first day to keep for himself. Yet the protection only goes so far; when she’s subject to another soldier’s sadism, Danijel doesn’t intervene, only offering comfort later, when he feels safe. His sincerity is not in question, but his courage is.
Because Jolie is known for her very public passions, which have progressed from the relative simplicity of the carnal to a globally-oriented expression of the maternal, the relatively sedate tone of In the Land of Blood and Honey is unexpected. The systematic use of rape as a weapon of war is depicted with discretion (the brutality was far more vivid in The Whistleblower, another 2011 Bosnian war-themed release). Jolie might show a shrieking woman being carried away by a soldier in the background, but she keeps much of the horror off screen, at a remove from Ajla.
Meanwhile, her scenes with Danijel read as lovers taking pleasure in each other’s company, legs and limbs tangled languidly in the sheets. Or maybe not entirely: “If only you had been born a Serb,” he says to Ajla in the aftermath of one session. Is that a storm brewing on her brow? It’s unclear because the woman remains something of a cipher – like her director, a dark haired beauty of regal bearing and poise. Yet she also remains worlds apart from the tough girl characters Jolie herself has specialized in, more of a lady in the tower. Danijel keeps her under lock and key in a spacious, pleasant room and as she gazes out of the window, with an air of the fairy tale princess or Gothic heroine about her, there is a discomforting romanticizing of captivity.
If there’s some element of Stockholm syndrome that plays into her relationship with Danijel, so be it. If she’s faking the attraction, her desire to survive by any means is admirable. There’s a hint that she’s operating as part of the resistance, along with her sister (Vanessa Glodjo, who has some of the film’s most touching scenes) but unfortunately those dots aren’t clearly connected. Going back over In The Land of Blood and Honey after its dramatic, tragic conclusion, the pieces of the puzzle don’t entirely track.
But then again, George Clooney’s first effort as a director, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, also ambitious (while hardly as emotionally grueling as this) didn’t entirely gel either. No one should be surprised that Angelina Jolie is as capable behind the camera as in front of it; why wouldn’t she be? Here’s an Oscar winner who travels the world on behalf of the United Nations listening to horror stories from refugees; processing pain is a regular sideline for her. She has been directed by the likes of Clint Eastwood and Michael Winterbottom and partakes in domestic bliss with a man once known primarily as a pretty face but who has quietly turned into one of the best actors of his generation. And she’s smart. All the components are there. No wonder In the Land of Blood and Honey is the most compelling, heartfelt movie Jolie has made in years. She isn’t in it, but she’s all over it.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

The view from CFR


Movie Review: In the Land of Blood and Honey

Angelina Jolie talks to actors during the filming of her yet directorial debut in Budapest on August 11, 2010 (Courtesy Reuters/Laszlo Balogh).
Angelina Jolie talks to actors during the filming of her yet directorial debut in Budapest on August 11, 2010 (Courtesy Reuters/Laszlo Balogh).
In August, I wrote a review of the powerful and moving documentary, The Interrupters, which follows the work of Project CeaseFire, a grassroots organization that employs ex-gang members to attempt to mediate neighborhood disputes in Chicago before they turn violent. I wanted to share another movie that also deals with the ethical choices people make to try to survive in a conflict zone, In the Land of Blood and Honey, a fictionalized account of the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995. A conflict that is estimated to have cost 156,000 people their lives, with another 175,000 seriously injured or disabled.
The movie has received strong attention in the press, no doubt because it was written and directed by Angelina Jolie. (Full disclosure: Jolie is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.) Overall, it succeeds as the rare example of harnessing star power to get a movie made about a difficult and rarely-remembered event, including with Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian actors speaking in their native dialects. Moreover, it does not require the viewer to recall what happened in the Balkans in the early 1990s, since the complexities of the civil war are distilled into a narrative focused on two people and set in one location: Sarejevo.
The upside of this approach is that we can grasp and at times even sympathize with the difficult choices made by the actors. The downside is that by opting for an intimate and localized approach, the movie obviously cannot be a comprehensive and balanced account of the war. Yet, the film is a work of fiction and only 127 minutes long. What appears on screen is nevertheless recommended viewing for those interested in how combat impacts non-combatants, especially women who are targeted by regular army and paramilitary forces.
Much like The Battle for Algiers and Dr. Strangelove are shown to students for their cinematic portrayal of counterinsurgencies and civil-military relations, In the Land of Blood and Honey should be screened to attempt to convey the use of sexual violence as a tool of war to depopulate civilian areas, and as an organizing principle for armed forces in detention centers. In a February 2001 ruling, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) set a new judicial precedent by convicting three Serbian men for enslavement and sexual violence as crimes against humanity. In many ways, this film is a tribute to that landmark decision.
The civil war is told through the prism of a Serbian police officer (Danijel) and a Bosnian painter (Ajla) who were lovers before the war erupted. After the first indiscriminate attacks against civilians, ethnic communities that once lived together choose sides, or are forcibly displaced. The two are unexpectedly reconnected and their relationship develops in the tense environment of a Serb barracks/detention center for Bosnian Muslim women.  Daniel’s father is a general in the Serbian Army who wants is son to “do good work” by way of ethnic cleansing, while Ajla has friends in the Bosnian insurgency who want intelligence that can be used to target Serb forces. Their interactions are closely monitored, and both make micro-decisions with ostensibly macro-parallels, motivated by some combination of patriotism, resistance, and romance.
The international community is also featured, and early on deserves a Best Un-Supporting Actor nomination. In one gripping early scene, a Bosnian woman’s infant son is killed by rampaging Serbian soldiers ordered to clear an apartment complex of its civilian inhabitants. The camera lingers above the woman while she kneels in a snow-filled empty courtyard holding her deceased boy and weeping loudly. The image is intended to convey that the Bosnian people are suffering and alone, while the world watches but and does little other than provide aid and endlessly debate UN Security Council resolutions (there would be fifty-five of them regarding Bosnia-Herzegovina.)
There are numerous scenes depicting war crimes committed by Serbian armed forces: the repeated rape of Bosnian women; attacking a clearly marked Red Cross van with a rocket-propelled grenades; wearing a flak jacket clearly labeled “press;” using human shields in counterinsurgency operations; stationing a headquarters in culturally sensitive sites to avoid NATO airpower (as Danijel says “They’re not bombing churches, which works in our favor”); showing emaciated Bosnian men imprisoned in concentration camp settings; and the mass killing of captured Bosnian men.
The film does not apportion suffering in amounts that reflect the reality of the Bosnian civil war. In fact, I could not recall a definitive example of a Bosnian Muslim committing a war crime. Bosnian insurgent forces are portrayed as thoughtful, scrappy, and resourceful. While this was undoubtedly true about elements of the Bosnian resistance in Sarajevo and elsewhere, it must be noted that the ICTY has also convicted Bosnian Muslims and Croats for war crimes perpetrated against Serbs.
Moreover, the film does not show what happens on the battlefields outside of the capital city. In the winter of 1994, Danijel brags to Ajla: “We now control 80 percent if the territory.” By that time, however, Iran was smuggling plane-loads of weapons to the Bosnian Army—with the Clinton administration’s tacit approval—in open violation of UN-mandated arms embargos (which Serb forces also violated). In addition, the American private military contractor, Military Professional Resources Incorporated, was sanctioned to train the Croatian military. By the summer of 1995, artillery fire from British, French, and Dutch forces, NATO air strikes, and a Croatian ground offensive (that displaced hundreds of thousands of Serbs) reduced the amount of territory controlled by the Serbs to 50 percent.
When asked what was the most challenging aspect of making the film, Jolie answered: “Trying to find the balance in it. It is one of the most complicated conflicts to understand. I’ve studied it for years, and I’m still not sure I understand it.” Years ago, I was fortunate to be a research assistant to two books that covered Balkans conflicts, and later serve as a contributor to the State Department’s Kosovo History Project. After being immersed in the complex issues and later following them from a distance, I never understood what the motivations or outcomes were for all parties to the conflicts. If nothing else, In the Land of Blood and Honey forced me to think about the acute suffering faced by local communities in civil wars, and the potential international responsibilities and requirements for responding to them.