Land of Plenty (2004) User Reviews

Flags, flags, everywhere...

[frankenbenz · 5/10 · 3 January 2009]

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.

American Reality

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 27 March 2007]

The American daughter of missionaries Lana (Michelle Williams) returns to Los Angeles from Palestine to work in a mission helping homeless people. Lana was born in Ohio and raised in South Africa and Middle East, and she is an authentic citizen of the world, connected through Internet and aware of how other people see the lack of culture and knowledge and exaggerated patriotism of average American people. Her unique relative is her unknown uncle Paul (John Diehl), a veteran of Vietnam War that cut relationships with his family and is bigot and paranoid. Paul lives in a surveillance van, lives as if he were a secret agent, sees conspiracy and terrorist cells everywhere, and has a great prejudice against Arabs and other non-American breeds after the September, 11th. They meet each other, and when they see the murder of a poor Pakistanis nearby the mission, they travel together to the small town of Trone to deliver his corpse to the family, where Paul sees a different reality.

"Land of Plenty" is a very well acted low budget movie, with great performances of Michelle Williams and John Diehl. Wim Wenders tries to picture the reality of North America unknown for foreigners and even common Americans, with homeless and alienated people living with fear, angst and prejudice, totally disconnected of the world, instead of the land of opportunities and plenty of the American Dream shown in most of the American movies. In this regard, he is very well succeeded, but in my opinion I found the character of Paul absolutely exaggerated, using many apparatuses and gadgets in his "work". The beautiful and shining character of Michelle Williams gives the hope that the world can be a better place someday. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Medo e Obsessão" ("Fear and Obsession")

Affecting and disturbing

[vacaville-shane · 7/10 · 22 November 2005]

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.

outside view

[pflipflopb · 17 October 2004]

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.

Superb characterization, questionable pacing

[oneloveall · 6/10 · 7 October 2006]

Interesting mixture of character study, suspense, U.S. sociology, and comedy thrown together competently in a way only Wim Wenders can somehow sustain. Flawed though it may be, Land of Plenty is still the most interesting piece of post-9/11 fiction I have yet to see. Exactly one year after that fateful day, across the other side of the country, two family members will connect in a most bizarre yet relevant manner, while each one deals with aftermath in their respective ways. Filmed one year earlier then, although released to DVD a few months after, Wenders offers the antithesis to his quirky, subtle, arty melodrama "Don't Come Knockin", defying most of his usual style until the last act of the story. Guided by time honored and often neglected traditions of a strong commitment to singularly personified characters, viewers are led on an insiders journey through a one of a kind portrait, solidified by unknown but seasoned actor John Diehl as the gung-ho patriot veteran. Gently and less memorable in walks Michelle Williams's role to sprinkle some much needed humanity and contrast to the crazed antics. Much of the darker urgency in the first half eventually subsides into more familiar motifs, opening up the gritty feel into lighter fare. Satisfying and memorable in a brilliant climax, the overall pace from bleak drama to typical Wenders soulful dramedy does lessen the impact, no more as when the conveniently written final antidote improperly bids these characters adieu. With an open mind and a slight suspension of disbelief intact, Land of Plenty still offers engaging and thought provoking material while transforming itself into something less heavy in the process.

Land of Plenty: Film of Deficiency

[simpletonistic · 7/10 · 4 April 2005]

"Land of Plenty" is a thought-provoking film. How couldn't it be? Wenders, a provocative director, taking on 9/11 and its aftermath? Truly, not to disparage Wenders, a monkey with a digital camera and a placard reading "Tell me about 9/11" could create something worth watching given the subject.

In Wenders case, he has made an insular film focusing on two people, Lana (Michelle Williams) and her Uncle Paul (John Diehl), and the after effects of 9/11 upon both. Lana is a painfully naive 20 yr. old Christian who has just returned from a missionary stint in Palestine (where she witnessed 9/11) to work in a Los Angeles mission while searching for evidence justifying vehement, anti-American sentiment abroad. In her possession is a letter written by her recently deceased mom, Paul's sister. Deliverance of the letter compels here to track down her wayward uncle, the letter's addressee. Paul is in his 50s, a shell-shocked, paranoid Vietnam vet, intent on keeping this country safe from the free-roaming terrorists who are, in his eyes, ubiquitous within the City of Angels.

Wenders draws these characters in such vivid Blue and Red colors that you would have to have your head up your butt not to see that they represent the mindset of Democrats (Lana) and Republicans (Paul). In fact, in various interviews, and during a Q & A after the 3/31/05 screening I attended, Wenders asserted that this film IS "a political film."

Though he feels he has not made a polemical film: he has. You will be hard-pressed not to choose sides while watching the film.

As for Wenders, he leaves little doubt as to his choice: true Blue.

To that end, one need only take into consideration Wenders' mocking presentation of Paul as a hyper-vigilant nut case roaming L.A. in a beat-up, surveillance-equipment-crammed van in search of terrorist activity. Paul undertakes this toothless work functioning as a self-appointed renegade operative for Homeland Security, who have no connection with him. Paul's right hand man, Jimmy, is a grungy garage mechanic whose only connections to top-secret sources are Internet search engines. They bring to mind as Beavis & Butthead, with not much more at their disposal than Harriet-the-Spy in terms of fruitful resources. But for one scene showing Paul suffering the ill effects of post-war syndrome during a gripping nightmare, Wenders shows him to be something of a lunatic rube--a virtual laughing stock. Indeed, most of the movie's laughs come at Paul's expense because just about every action he undertakes furthers one's opinion of him as a maligned, pathetic xenophobe. (No doubt, if this movie finds a US distributor, most patriotic Vietnam vets will express their outrage at being presented as loose cannon extremists.)

Wenders' presentation of Paul clearly displays his loathing for such Reds: the pro-war, high-angst, flag-waving, Dubbya-backing, kill'-em-all-and-let-God-sort-'em out folk who tote, and vote for, the conservative line.

It's a credit to John Diehl that his intense, career-defining portrayal of Paul embellishes the shallow character created by Wenders. Diehl never allows Paul to breakdown completely, despite the various defeats he suffers, and has suffered. You want to like him for to see him overcome his burdens. He's troubled but not entirely lacking heart.

As for Michelle Williams, she is god-awful as Lana. Wenders wrote the part for her, but one wonders if he did so just so that he could see her face on the big screen. With her bobbed black hair and perpetual doe-in-the-headlights countenance, she brings to mind a fifth-rate imitation of Audrey Tattou ("Amelie") and the poor man's Gweneth Paltrow, Scarlett Johannson ("Lost in Translation"). For the most part, she functions as eye candy. At other times she's a distraction. And, in one embarrassing scene--a testament to Wenders' music video work furthering my belief that he had other things in mind when he wrote the part for her--where Lana is seen in isolation wearing headphones while bopping to a tune emanating from her MP3, you beg for someone to push her off the mission's rooftop. In short, Williams fails to ACT, neither adding nuance to Lana's emotions nor any inventive idiosyncrasy to Lana's physical being.

Where Diehl took what he was given and ran with it like a crazed wolverine, Williams was unable to enhance her character, instead, opting to stand around, a vapid clothes horse.

Wenders' presentation of his two main characters in such unmistakable hues ends up reducing Lana and Paul to one-dimensional cardboard cut-outs, relegating them to ancillary evidence supporting his messages that mental, spiritual, social and political poverty are bad, and that the USA's polemical political system, which has reduced and divided citizens into two opposing factions, sucks.

The title comes from a Leonard Cohen song, "The Land of Plenty." Cohen's lyrics--And I don't really know who sent me/to raise my voice and say/May the lights in the Land of Plenty/Shine on the truth some day--influence Wenders' directional choices. He employs the song strategically throughout the film, right up to the very end where truncated lyrics: "Shine on/The Truth," float in a slate gray New York skyline above Ground Zero, as if sky-written by a passing plane.

An epitaph? An invocation? A critique? A prayer?

Probably, all of the above.

Despite Michelle Williams' abysmal performance, the conceptual limitations inherent in the rapid creation and completion of the film and the shortcomings of Wenders' obvious one-dimensional characters and biased message, "Land of Plenty" remains a provocative film worth viewing. If for no other reason than to remind us that life ain't always pretty, even here in the land of plenty. One hopes that one U.S. distributor will have the courage to pick up the film and disseminate it nationwide. If nothing else, viewers will come away thinking about just how divisive our Red and Blue political system is and maybe, just maybe, start thinking of how to change it.

paranoid

[wrlang · 6/10 · 15 January 2007]

Land of Plenty is about an Viet Nam Vet looking for terrorists around every corner. His naive niece from Palestine visits at the behest of her dead mother to get an education about America and Americans. The majority of the film is about the vet imagining all kinds of terrorist plots as he goes from place to place in LA following people and making all kinds of assumptions to support his neurosis brought on by agent pink which was the precursor to agent orange. The niece learns that America is a land of plenty that not everyone gets a piece of as she takes up residence in a mission while looking for her uncle. A drive by shooting of a homeless Pakistani brings them together as she looks for the next of kin and he looks for the terrorist cell. Upon meeting the Pakistani relative, they come to the realization that while America is a great country, the real America is not the stuff of legend, it is the struggle of its people to make their way through their lives and through the world.

genius

[stinky-37 · 10/10 · 13 January 2005]

I saw this film at a pre-screening, and apparently it was several minutes longer than the theater release. In any case, it is unquestionably the most intelligent, sensitive and understanding look at the consequences of Sept 11 on the mentality of individuals in the US I have seen.

To place myself on the political spectrum, I'm an American and a fervent opponent of the policies of George W Bush.

The film looks at the psychological damage inflicted upon a broad spectrum of Americans (from young leftist humanitarian activists to mentally unstable right-wing militia-types) with an understanding and an acceptance which goes far beyond political debates to look at the consequences of 9-11 on Americans as individuals - something done by no other film I have seen with the possible exception of Sean Penn's short film in the anthology "9-11".

What astonished me most about the film was that a non-American like Wenders could have such a profound understanding of the American psyche. Wenders looks at America without aggression, without anger, without a shred of intolerance - but with affection, understanding and an appreciation for the damage done by 9-11.

Personally I felt a tremendous amount of frustration throughout the first 2/3rds of the film. It wasn't enough of an anti-war statement for my tastes. But by the end, the much greater depth of the message this film carries had penetrated my left-wing reactionary preconceptions and I felt - to put it simply - that Wenders had shown me my own self. The message is universal, powerful, and tolerant in the extreme.

If your opinions are strong concerning 9-11, the 2nd gulf war, or the homeland security program and it's consequence - no matter what side of the fence you sit on - you should see this film. If you can watch it with an open mind, you might find the world and America are both a better place for it.

Thank you, Mr. Wenders. You're brilliant.

An Absurd movie that takes itself seriously

[mule66 · 4/10 · 5 April 2007]

I get it the Diehl character is s'posed to be a microcosm of America itself - seeing Arab terrorists under every rock, only to find out at the end that it's his own actions all along that got him into that siege state and truly if he practices good-will to all men everything will be rainbows and lollipops. Sorry Wim you have made amazing movies in the past that stay neutral of the politics and for good reason, polemics are your weak point and they weaken this a well-made, amazingly filmed movie with absurd characters, dialog and plotting. Better luck on your next flick. Another thing that yanked my crank was the belabored point of the homeless section of LA being there for reasons of hunger, these people don't get enough to eat. Truly these folks aren't eating regally but the real hunger these folks is a spiritual hunger, an emotional hunger, a mental hunger. They need self-respect, self-worth, dignity which you can't give a man. Yeah those folks are hungry and if they need it it is available. Less the center for hunger in America, I would say it's more the center for alcoholism, drug-abuse, mental suffering and economic devastation. Dealing with hunger although a noble endeavor is band-aiding a more profoundly systematic societal and age-old human problem of homelessness. Bill Diehl was good though and Michelle Williams was cute as the young yet (cliched) old soul.

Plenty Provoking

[vickers-1 · 9/10 · 19 January 2005]

Somewhere in Trona, a near-ghost town you pass through on the road to Death Valley, the full extent of Uncle Paul's delusions is demonstrated. And at that same moment, I realized he was the personification of post-9/11 America, raging, raving, striking blindly at false targets, and kidding ourselves that we are safer now that we've invaded Iraq without justification and reelected the worst U.S. president in history. The film promises there may be some hope for us. But only if we have the courage to stand on the edge of the abyss. The line that resonated most for me was that the 3,000 innocent people who died in 9/11 could not have wanted their deaths to lead to more dying. This movie was a masterpiece. It finally offered me a way to think about 9/11 and subsequent events without making me crazy and despairing.

Is the well running dry?

[Locoloko · 2/10 · 21 January 2007]

Watching "Der himmel über Berlin" as a teen in the late 80's was a profound experience for me - "so this was what the movies could be". Along with "Paris, Texas" and "Until the End of the World" it still holds a special place in my heart and mind - a testament to the genius of Wim Wenders.

Unfortunately later years has seen a steady decline in the quality of his work with "Million Dollar Hotel" and "Land of Plenty" hitting a terrible low point. Gone are the captivating pictures or music. No search for or display of great insight. All that is left are characters and thinly veiled political statements, that boils down to nothing but clichés, and quite frankly mock the intelligence of a mature audience.

Has the well run dry? Whatever the reason, it's time for Mr. Wenders to either step it up or stop altogether.

This is just too painful to watch.

[rooprect · 8/10 · 27 September 2007]

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.

portrait

[Kirpianuscus · 29 July 2019]

A realistic and sensitive portrait of near reality after September 11. Not a manifesto, not a pledge. Only a fine, inspired work, mixing, in inspired manner, fears, traumas, family connections, death, paranoia and deep poverty, splendid performances and the courage to assume the truth. I adore the bitter delicacy, the honest, profound perspective, the air and the great job of Michelle Williams and John Diehl and the force of talent and exploration of nuances of Wim Wenders. Short, a beautiful, touching work.

Goodbye, Wim Wenders

[world2you · 1/10 · 21 October 2004]

"Land of Plenty" is not a film. It is a tombstone for the directorial career of German Director Wim Wenders.

Many felt it in "The Million Dollar Hotel" and now "Land of Plenty" makes it perfectly clear; not only has Wenders lost it, he's actually turned into a BAD director, creating horribly weak and superficial stories and scenes.

One might argue that the "time you lose it" comes for every director, but Wenders' case is extreme. It's as if he completely forget everything he knew about cinema and started all over again - only to get sloppish results.

In a few words, this film does not deserve your time.

Paris, France

[randalx · 9/10 · 4 October 2004]

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.

Wenders is a consistent disappointment

[hbotis · 3/10 · 8 July 2005]

With a tendency to repeat himself, Wenders has been a consistent disappointment ever since he hit it big with 'Paris Texas'.

'Land of plenty' is no exception. Taking into the fact that I anticipated an average-mediocre film even before I went in, Wenders' ambitions seem to always get the better of him. It's taken for grated now his films are heavy-handed and bombastic.

I weren't sure if I was watching a comedy that mocks Middle America or some thriller. The outcome of Diehl's character is wholly predicable. Wender's insistence on layering many many scenes with some rock song is also intensely annoying. He was covering up the holes in his script and direction by jazzing up the scenes.

I am certain that many people will find this film important and resonant but in all honestly, this clumsy and didactic effort only speaks of poor direction.

Interesting that Wenders professed that while making 'Paris Texas', he had great help from Sam Sheppard with the script. Yes, that was Wenders' best and he should understand now he needs a good scriptwriter. His films from the past 15 years+ were a total mess.

An American allegory

[dennisr2000 · 8/10 · 27 March 2005]

This is for me the most coherent of the Wim Wenders films I've seen and it's to-date the best attempt to depict post-9/11 America on film. The not-so-subtle symbolism, the superb acting (especially by Michelle Williams), and moving story line, which concerns an attempt to give a homeless Pakistani man a decent burial after he is gunned down in a drive-by shooting, come together to paint a portrait of an America left stunned and somewhat confused.

I was moved by the one scene in which John Diehl's character Paul is informed by his friend that "It's not who we thought," and we see on his face, the hope fading away of ever finding any relief for his vague need for some kind of justice--and this is mirrored by the fading desert sun in the background.

I agree with the other reviewer that these completely American characters may make sense mostly to non-Americans--but that's only a result of the films unflinching objectivity. Watch and learn.

Something Missing Here

[jemenfoutisme · 29 September 2004]

Wim Wenders is a great director and a really honest artist. What he lacks though is a real feel for the US....Going back to his early use of Dennis Hopper, woefully miscast as Tom Ripley, in Our American Friend, Wenders has a weakness for clichés about America rather than finding the real thing. This movie doesn't change that fact. What is essentially a tone poem about the loss of innocence (and maybe common sense) in post 9-11 America turns into a melancholy family drama about two lost souls who would probably have been just as lost before 9/11 as after it. Europeans might find the American 'types' portrayed in this film a validation of how they view the U.S. but most thoughtful Americans will probably be irritated by the simple reductions of the characters. I found Michelle Williams particularly annoying for some reason...maybe it was her blind faith or maybe it was just her complete lack of edge...they don't make women like that in America these days and probably never did. I really admire Mr. Wenders for tackling this subject as American filmmakers seem not to have the courage to do so themselves. In the end though, this is more a European film that will appeal to Euro audiences...whereas it would have been a better project if it were directed more this way. (I saw the film in Paris last week.)

Wenders has lost his way

[tzero · 1/10 · 9 August 2005]

The End of Violence and certainly the Million Dollar hotel hinted at the idea the Wenders has lost his vision, his ability to tell compelling stories through a map of the moving picture. The Land of Plenty seals the coffin, I'm afraid, by being a vastly unimaginative, obviously sentimental and cliché'd film. The characters are entirely flat and stereotyped, the writing, plot and direction are amateurish, at best. For the first time in quite a while, I was impatient for the film to end so I could get on with my life. The war-torn delirium of the uncle, the patriotic abstract gazing at the sky at the conclusion...it all just struck me as being so simple and pathetic, hardly the work of a filmmaker who once made some compelling magic on screen. What happened? The days of experimentation, perceptive writing and interesting filming possibilities are long behind him, I'm afraid. Let's hope he finds his inspiration again... At the Toronto film festival, which is where I saw the film, Wenders was there to introduce it. Completely lacking in humility, he offered us the following: "I hope...no, wait...I KNOW you're going to enjoy the next two hours." I'm afraid he couldn't be more wrong...

Why so bad?

[dadie · 8/10 · 6 November 2004]

I really disagree with some American comments here, maybe just because I am European, I don't know, but anyway I liked that movie. It is stupid to think that Wenders wanted to represent into the main character a typical American, obviously it is just an extreme position about the fear of anything (common in USA), but it doesn't reflex the society, it is a product of it. It doesn't take a wonderful picture of USA, but at the same time it doesn't distruct it, it want just show the paradoxes of that land, it want to be watched like the "land of plenty" and it is not, but it doesn't mean to be the hell. I understand when Americans find only cliché inside, but some of them are true, your country has fear mania, not all of you but some. In Italy as well we say that everybody dislike Berlusconi, but he is prime minister. But now it's time to speak about the movie: it is nice, characters' work is well-made and elaborated, Location are incredible, they show another USA, different from other movies. I didn't like Michelle Williams because of dowson's creek, but here she is not bad, her character is understood by people, but I think it is the work of Wim.

Plenty of what?

[roxieandjjroco · 4/10 · 16 January 2005]

The hysterical thing about this movie is that, according to the director, it has difficulty finding a distributor in the U.S. because most of them that viewed it couldn't reconcile the seemingly conflicting messages of Christianity and American angst. The thought of anyone seeing this as a religious film in anyway is laughable.

Because a minister at a mission prays with the homeless or wishes someone "Godspeed" this makes it a "Christian" movie? One could interpret that it is actually mocking religion for in the "Land of Plenty" with all of its material excess, the best an organized mission can do is hand out a bowl of soup and a bible verse. Plenty of unfortunate or downtrodden maybe? Plenty of useless homeless missions? How about plenty of psycho Vietnam vets? As a pill-popping delusional survivor of agent "pink" are we to think America is a "Land of Plenty" of paranoid patriots? Maybe we have plenty of psychiatric patients? Certainly we don't have plenty of people concerned about Palestine politics based on the main characters phone conversation in the film. Of course if you worked in a German homeless shelter the unfortunate there would be much more concerned about peace in a distant land than their own personal survival as the world knows how Europe is the "Continent of Plenty" when it comes to sophistication.

Indeed I agreed with the title in the end as the United States is the "Land of Plenty" and in this particular case it refers to the abundance of poor scripts, amateur acting and dispassionately directed films. Life is too short and one, even an American, doesn't have "plenty" of time to waste watching this piece.

An insight into American fears and hopes ...

[mateusz80 · 8/10 · 8 October 2005]

A must-see for anyone who is either a Wim Wenders fan or a person interested in the fears and hopes of contemporary America. German director in a brilliant way makes us ponder upon all the issues so essential to understanding American reality after 9/11. Ethnic prejudices, stereotypes, homelessness,terrorism, Vietnam war, pursuit for an identity, search for lost relatives - all these components are omnipresent, smoothly woven. Wenders mastery reveals in the fact that he manages to touch upon serious topics and in the same time introduce elements of humor and even grotesque.

"Land of plenty" leaves us with the voice of Leonard Cohen and plenty of thoughts about relation between individual and contemporary world.

Williams is wonderful, in Wim Wenders' best film in years

[tieman64 · 23 May 2011]

Wim Wenders' "Land of Plenty", a loose sequel to his underrated "The End of Violence", stars Michelle Williams as Lana, a young woman who has returned to the United States after working as a missionary abroad. After leaving behind the war torn borders of Palestine and Israel, she is shocked to find America in a similar state. "Welcome to the hunger capital of America," a pastor, played by "The Wire's" Wendell Pierce tells her, referring to the slums of downtown Los Angeles.

Penniless, but armed with her winning optimism and the fearlessness of youth, Lana begins serving the pastor's Mission, helping the poor and handing out food to the homeless. It's a drop in the ocean, but she does it nonetheless.

The film takes place in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and paints a landscape of fear, paranoia, poverty, alienation, misguided aggression, dispossession and hopelessness. While America's war machine – sold to the public as a Christian Crusade - gears up to bulldoze the Middle East, at home people suffer. In this dour world, Lana's character is the only bright light. Contrasted to her angelic, graceful, almost saintly acts, are the actions of her uncle Paul, played unconvincingly by John Diehl. Paul, a symbol of right-wing, warmongering power-figures like Dick Cheney and George Bush, is a Vietnam veteran who spends his days roaming the streets in a surveillance van, illegally spying on others, disregarding murderous Humvee drivers and stalking anyone with a beard. He's an obsessive patriot on a mission from God: to protect the Land of the Free from Ay-rabs and terrorism. At night he has nightmares. Vietnam still scars his psyche.

Note that while Paul echoes illegal spy programs like PRISM, MSUCULAR and ECHELON, he also recalls both the "angels" of Wenders' previous films, and the demented national surveillance crews of "End of Violence". It's a neat shift, compassion dovetailing into outright fascism. Regardless, the film draws very simple parallels between Lana and Paul. "Lana has a very innocent, almost childlike faith in God and the power of love," Wenders himself says, "whereas Paul is not really a spiritual person. His religion is America. And America over the last few years has become very similar, in that nationalism has become a kind of religion. It's almost as though Christianity these days can only become defined by certain right-wing politics."

So at its core the film is concerned about the perversion of Christian values. Wenders paints a land of plenty where the poor are routinely exploited whilst Christian hallmarks are perverted by administrations to make subjugation, foreign and state-side, all the more palatable. Like Paul, the US sees itself as a country under siege while ignoring all the deeper problems closer to home.

Unsurprisingly, the film ends with Lana teaching her uncle to love and let go of his anger, whilst Paul himself must confront the fact that the suspicious "Arabs" he stalks and bullies are just innocent guys going about their business. The film is very very reductive, politically, philosophically and ideologically naive, wrestling superficially with questions greater artists themselves struggle to unravel, but Wenders, himself a devout Christian, seems to know this: "In order to make people identify fully with a character you have to stay in a traditional narrative," he says. "I needed a linear narrative to say what I needed to say in this film."

What he's really doing is making a modern version of Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc", where a young woman's tortured, wide eyed, steadfast faith in God is designed to touch the hearts of we the audience. The film's political baggage and Bush bashing are almost besides the point. Like Dreyer did with Maria Falconetti, the film is designed around Michaelle William's radiant but wounded eyes, and the near-monastic cut of her hair. It's about Williams expressive face, specifically the doubts, fears, loneliness and anxieties hidden almost imperceptibly behind her optimistic outer facade. The question is whether her faith in humanity is enough, whether her radiance will fade with age, or whether, like Joan of Arc, she's destined to be crushed.

The film was written quickly, and shot in 16 days on a minuscule budget using the Panasonic DVX100, a cheap digital camera. To date it's the best film shot using the DVX100, a camera which was once touted as the saviour of independent film, before being quickly supplanted by HD. The digital look of Wenders' film creates an intimate, warm environment, as well as a sense of immediacy.

Wenders has always been adept at bringing the insights of an outsider to bear on the American experience. "Plenty" echoes some of his previous films - "The American Friend", "Vilence", "The Sate of Things" and "Paris Texas" - but carries with it a greater sense of urgency.

8.5/10 – Michelle Williams and the always likable Wendell Pierce turn in very good performances. John Diehl is not convincing, perhaps because his character was conceived as a raging caricature. The film hinges, I think, on a familiarity with Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc". Ignore the film's politics; it's all about Lana's face.

Worth one viewing. Makes a good companion-piece to "Wendy and Lucy" and "35 Shots of Rum".

Post 9/11 America

[kokkinoskitrinosmple · 5/10 · 18 March 2024]

Land of Plenty is the initially funny but ultimately extremely sad story of Paul (John Diehl), a Vietnam veteran who survived the war, but has to live the rest of his life in a world full of crushed dreams, pain, terror, paranoia and conspiracy, just like post 9/11 America.

The message is simple and not that subtle. Still, the movie does a decent job at balancing the political commentary with the personal drama of Paul. Also, it's nice that the events are viewed from two different perspectives, Paul's, a tortured individual and a die-hard patriot, and Lana's (Michelle Williams), an eternal optimist and a committed pacifist.

Despite the limited budget, the setting is also key, as in pretty much any Wim Wenders movie. It starts with the dark and ugly side of Los Angeles and then we are out in the wild and desolated landscapes of Trona.

True statement

[pommesmitsalbe · 9/10 · 9 March 2007]

So, what I read here is criticism on one side and admiration on the other. The critics unfortunately hardly have anything to say about the contents of the movie. For them its more about the making of it, that they find to be annoying. For those guys it does not seem to be artistic enough. Those are the same people who joyfully analyze the music of their latest progressive rock album even months after its release.

But there are exceptions among the critics, who are certainly just as paranoid as Uncle Paul. There is a complaint about foreigners, who have visited the States a half dozen times, making critical movies about it. I guess that Wim Wenders spend sufficient time over here to be able to figure out the stereotype American. Besides we get a lot of news and facts about America and the world in the media in Europe. So unlike Americans who call "World News" the news about the wars of the world we actually tend to know stuff about other countries.

The movie by the way is not only about 9-11, in my opinion, but American foreign politics over decades. Uncle Paul supports this policy, all the useless warfare, from the very depth of his heart. He is afraid, he is brainwashed. But he represents a good deal of US citizens. One could possibly even say, American society. Think about this. Brainwashing starts in Elementary school: Bla, bla, bla, ..., and justice for all! Man, what a lie. It should say: Bla, bla, bla, ..., and justice for all people who can afford justice = Whites.

But that is only my opinion. However, Wim Wenders is a believer when it comes to American ideas. He wants America to actually stand for, for what it is "supposed to stand". He is an American patriot longing for a better world, led by the strongest country on earth. But led in a different way, the peaceful and fearless way. Sadly enough, a lot of Americans will not understand that massage because they are too stupid and brainwashed by a government (Democratic and Republican alike), that only longs for more wars to be able to get more tax money out of the sales of the weapon industry.

I do not even share Wim Wenders' view. If it were up to me the US may blow up in its entirety and I would even give my poor little temporary-American life for that. However, I enjoyed the movie a lot because of reasons that were already mentioned by other people. It is worth watching.

Thanks Wim!