tieman64
Jane Campion's "Holy Smoke" stars Kate Winslet as Ruth Barron, a young Australian who travels to India and joins a religions cult. Worried, Ruth's parents hire P.J Waters (Harvey Keitel), an American exit counsellor and cult expert. Waters isolates Ruth in a remote cabin and successfully "deprograms" her.The film's another of Campion's feminist parables. Burnt by several relationships with men, resentful of her father's infidelities and tired of being sexually objectified, Ruth runs away and latches onto a religious guru. This guru, she believes, wants nothing from her. The reality is that the guru's cult is as exploitative, patriarchal and demanding as the outside world, but Ruth doesn't see this. Her blinders are up, denial is sweet and she wholeheartedly believes that the cult does nothing but profess and practise absolute, unconditional love.Waters, meanwhile, is everything Ruth finds abhorrent. He's a man's man, Campion painting him as a figure of masculine excess, with cowboy boots, a cocksure swagger and a bucket full of charm. Ruth thinks he's the devil, speaking in forked tongues and sent by Satan to steal her away from God's sweet embrace. When the duo consign themselves to a cabin in the wilderness, a bizarre battle of the sexes then begins. Waters breaks Ruth down, rebuilds her into a good, docile, obedient little woman and has sex with her. He conforms to Ruth's caricatural vision of men; men want nothing but control, to deny a woman's desires. Ruth then fights back. She belittles Waters, attacks his age, his masculinity, undermines his machismo, and goes so far as to dress him up in lipstick, mascara, high-heels and a dress. When the battle's over, women have been masculinzied, men feminized, a free-for-all in which gender codes are now ripe for appropriation by all. Waters is humbled and Ruth likewise, the latter learning that men can genuinely love, genuinely be hurt (Waters was sexually abused by a man), genuinely care and genuinely protect. Waters then writes the words "be kind" on Ruth's forehead, encapsulating the film's final, quasi-religious message: transcend gender stereotypes and love all. The film then ends with both Ruth and Waters becoming rounded, 21st century post-feminists. He's married to blaxploitation actress Pam Grier, symbolically chosen by Campion to represent Waters' "relinguishing of control" (he's now both breadwinner and stay at home house wife, a baby strapped to his chest), whilst Ruth's returned to India to do "good work" for a charity (with a new man whom she's allowed to get close).The film's very much a prequel to Campion's underrated "In The Cut". Its plot is rather original, and it sports exquisite cinematography by Dion Beebe ("Collaeral", "Miami Vice", "In The Cut"). Unfortunately the film also frequently missteps with moments of humour (better to treat the material as straight drama), is preoccupied with gender issues which are virtually meaningless when ripped free from the context of class, power and economics, and its treatment of new religious movements and exit counselling will no doubt offend persons knowledgeable of these fields (exit counsellors aren't remotely like Waters, would never do anything he does here). The film also wastes the opportunity to explore a far more interesting theme; when you deprogram a subject, what do you substitute in the absence of religion? Is it ethical to substitute anything? This is a spiritual as well as political problem. Indeed, many ex cult members, when deprogrammed, lapse into depression and self-destruction, unlike Ruth, who recovers immediately.8/10 – Interesting idea, undermined by some moments of comedy and some obvious, on-the-nose writing. Campion doesn't know how to be subtle. Worth one viewing.
Panantheist
"Deprogramming" has been one of the features of the counter-cult movement in USA, in the 1980s. The movie revolves around that subject, although seemingly dealing with sex and seduction. I found it rather well documented (despite some common place about the spiritual quest) and an eye opener for anyone with a manicheist vision on the subject. Both actors are doing a good job in bringing liveliness to a difficult subject. I found that too many viewers missed the point, and it might be that some background on the theme is necessary to catch the drift (the scene where Keitel has visions near the end is meaningless without understanding of the context).
jytou
It's so hard to find a philosophical movie about India. When I took this movie from the local library (fortunately I didn't pay for it), I was hoping to see a teaser about Buddhism, or at least something funny about sects, but again I was wrong, and once again I understand that nobody in the film industry can make a real movie about India, Buddhism, or inner vacation. It doesn't even get close to this point. Don't search any philosophical ideas in this movie, you'll much more find every kind of porn fantasy: peeing naked woman, two men and women half naked, old man and young woman sex, man having makeup, gay/lesbians, etc. As they couldn't make a real movie, they tried the cheapest catches with naked women. My biggest movie mistake in my life, I watched it until the end to make sure and warn everyone not to watch it and waste 140 minutes from your lifetime, unless you're willing to wake up some sick feelings from strange fantasies. I was shocked seeing Kate Winslet in this movie, I really wonder how they made her sign the contract, it's definitely not the same woman who made Titanic a few years before. If your goal if to see her naked (and more), I'm not even sure it's worth renting this movie. Actors are overacting, I kept asking myself during the whole movie if it was the director's mistake or the actor's mistake, but the result is really bad, I guess they really smoked something while making this movie.
