My main issue with Rachel Getting Married (Jonathan Demme, 2008) is not even the film itself. Starring Anne Hathaway, and with a title that consists of a woman's name, and marriage one immediately expects a chick flick. This film is not that.
This trickery of audiences presumably to fill the seats of the multiplex with couples ('cause you know that's two seats, not one) is not too subtle, nor clever.
With a rather boring story, and not a single character to relate to Rachel subjects its audience to nearly two hours of excruciatingly painful moments. This is where I think Demme really accomplishes his goal.
In a scene of extraordinary awkwardness, Kym (Hathaway) gives a self-centered speech at the rehearsal dinner for her sister, Rachel's (Rosemarie DeWitt) wedding. During the course of this speech, the viewer experiences a vast array of emotions, and by the end of it you are angry and painfully frustrated. To create such an intense response from an otherwise emotionally disconnected viewer is impressive. Other than re-painting the picture that this family is screwed up beyond belief though, I am not sure what it does for the film. But Demme's effort to piss off his audience did the trick.
I must mention the camera work. Having watched this film just days after watching Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003) I noticed quite a similar style. Demme uses this style (of smash zooms, fumbling hand-held movements, and focus hunting) to give a sense of realism, immediacy, and also use the fact that one of the characters spends the entire film wielding a camcorder. Rather than accomplish this, the cinematography seems to annoy the viewer more than anything (especially the couple in the multiplex expecting Anne Hathaway, as Rachel, to have a touching love life). Von Trier on the other hand uses almost the exact same style five years earlier for a very applicable reason. Dogville is extremely Brechtian, and this sort of cinematography constantly brings attention to the fact that you are, indeed, watching a film. Demmes application of much the same style (with in fact the same camera) is much more for the aesthetic style, than for any real reason.
As a movie to watch for fun, I do not think this is it. As a movie for something to think about, I also do not really think this is it. Rachel falls short in both respects, but attempts both in an interesting way. I also wonder if it is more than coincidence that Kym's haunting history of her dead brother is extremely reminiscent of the much more thought out 2007 film The Tracey Fragments, starring Ellen Page, by Canadian filmmaker Bruce McDonald.
27 January 2010
26 January 2010
The Wind that Shakes the Barley (Loach, 2006)
The Wind that Shakes the Barley (Ken Loach, 2006) uses characters of common Irish people to depict the beginnings of Ireland's war with itself. An issue this intense is often reduced in our minds to a political situation, that indirectly affects human beings, especially when it began over 100 years ago. Rather than it focusing on the political figures, like Neil Jordan's Michael Collins from ten years earlier, Barley deals with how this situation impacted the lives of Irish families.
The treaty splitting the two brothers, Damien and Teddy, shows how divided Ireland was and remains. The country is split down to its very core. Even two brothers, fighting for the same thing, end up against one another. The impact of seeing this is much stronger to the viewer, emotionally, than seeing what it was like in Dublin on the political front.
The relative absence of religion in this film is intriguing. There is only one major seen that involves religion at all, and it is when Damien argues with the priest at mass, and storms out of the church. Religion is a huge part of Irish life, as seen through cinema, that it is strange to see a film the nearly omits it. This may be an attempt to show that it is not a religious war being fought. It is a bit strange that it is Damien that storms out, because generally it is the Irish Republic that is associated with Catholicism, and the Loyalists that are associated with Protestantism. But, Teddy stays in the church, and Damien leaves.
The depiction of the British is a bit strange as well. They are completely demonized, which would make some sense, if Ken Loach wasn't English himself. The British soldiers are seen as always in the wrong, torturing and murdering innocent people. This may be the way the British see their history. They see that what their government did to the Irish was wrong.
The treaty splitting the two brothers, Damien and Teddy, shows how divided Ireland was and remains. The country is split down to its very core. Even two brothers, fighting for the same thing, end up against one another. The impact of seeing this is much stronger to the viewer, emotionally, than seeing what it was like in Dublin on the political front.
The relative absence of religion in this film is intriguing. There is only one major seen that involves religion at all, and it is when Damien argues with the priest at mass, and storms out of the church. Religion is a huge part of Irish life, as seen through cinema, that it is strange to see a film the nearly omits it. This may be an attempt to show that it is not a religious war being fought. It is a bit strange that it is Damien that storms out, because generally it is the Irish Republic that is associated with Catholicism, and the Loyalists that are associated with Protestantism. But, Teddy stays in the church, and Damien leaves.
The depiction of the British is a bit strange as well. They are completely demonized, which would make some sense, if Ken Loach wasn't English himself. The British soldiers are seen as always in the wrong, torturing and murdering innocent people. This may be the way the British see their history. They see that what their government did to the Irish was wrong.
No Man's Land (Tanovic, 2001)
The cinematography in No Man's Land (Danis Tanovic, 2001) is rather interesting. It follows many of the conventions of the genre, but transgresses others. When an artillery shell is fired at Ciki and Cera, the camera shakes as the shell explodes, and throws their bodies flying. This is quite common in war films; it makes the explosion seem more real, and gets the viewer further immersed into the story. There are also POV shots, which I believe also fall well into the generic conventions, again creating a sense of realism.
There are instances though, in which No Man's Land's cinematography strays from what I would expect form a war film. The film includes extreme long shots that display the beauty of Bosnia and Herzegovina (although it was actually shot in Slovenia). These and many other shots emphasize the lush green grass, and the stunningly blue sky. I would expect a film like this to aim for a color palette that would match the mood of war more closely.
Rather than detracting from the film, the transgression from generic norms serves its purpose well. Showing the area in its actual beauty, rather than justifying the war with muted colors, shows the absurdity of war. It is almost as if it begs the question "why fight in such a glorious place". It also shows an international audience that would not necessarily know, that it is a beautiful place.
In terms of the POV shots, they are mostly from Ciki's point of view. We seem to see the world through the Bosnian eye. While the film generally shows that neither side is right in this war, I get the feeling that the audience is meant to lean toward the Bosnian side. We are first introduced to the Bosnians, who are then attacked by the clearly more powerful Serbs. We do not just stay in the trench though. The camera goes to UNPROFOR headquarters and to the TV station. Our vision is not limited to Ciki's, but even though he seems the least willing to cooperate, and is the most violent, we tend to identify with him.
There are instances though, in which No Man's Land's cinematography strays from what I would expect form a war film. The film includes extreme long shots that display the beauty of Bosnia and Herzegovina (although it was actually shot in Slovenia). These and many other shots emphasize the lush green grass, and the stunningly blue sky. I would expect a film like this to aim for a color palette that would match the mood of war more closely.
Rather than detracting from the film, the transgression from generic norms serves its purpose well. Showing the area in its actual beauty, rather than justifying the war with muted colors, shows the absurdity of war. It is almost as if it begs the question "why fight in such a glorious place". It also shows an international audience that would not necessarily know, that it is a beautiful place.
In terms of the POV shots, they are mostly from Ciki's point of view. We seem to see the world through the Bosnian eye. While the film generally shows that neither side is right in this war, I get the feeling that the audience is meant to lean toward the Bosnian side. We are first introduced to the Bosnians, who are then attacked by the clearly more powerful Serbs. We do not just stay in the trench though. The camera goes to UNPROFOR headquarters and to the TV station. Our vision is not limited to Ciki's, but even though he seems the least willing to cooperate, and is the most violent, we tend to identify with him.
22 January 2010
Atanarjuat (Kunuk, 2001)
Atanarjuat (Zacharias Kunuk, 2001) - aka The Fast Runner -was the first feature film ever written in Inuktitut. It is acted and produced by an almost exclusively Inuit crew. It was shot in Igloolik in the territory we call Nunavut, Canada. It is the telling of a thousand plus year old story passed down through the generations.
This film really takes a lot of pondering, and digesting after the fact. It is three hours in duration, and is packed with an intense story, set in a world very foreign, to me at least. It is set 1000 years ago, in a place far from here, but it does not feel like it.
Atanarjuat was shot digitally, and with a rather hand-held feel. This, combined with the foreign location, and certainly other aspects that I cannon pinpoint, give it a kind of documentary feel. I most certainly is not a documentary though, being a fictional story deriving from a 1000 year old oral tradition.
It is indirectly educational, though. It gives viewers a chance to hear a language they would not otherwise here, for three hours. It also gives them a chance to see, and get intimate with a part of the world that is foreign, and harsh. It also lets us see and hear traditions, and stories from the point of view of the culture from which they come.
This film really takes a lot of pondering, and digesting after the fact. It is three hours in duration, and is packed with an intense story, set in a world very foreign, to me at least. It is set 1000 years ago, in a place far from here, but it does not feel like it.
Atanarjuat was shot digitally, and with a rather hand-held feel. This, combined with the foreign location, and certainly other aspects that I cannon pinpoint, give it a kind of documentary feel. I most certainly is not a documentary though, being a fictional story deriving from a 1000 year old oral tradition.
It is indirectly educational, though. It gives viewers a chance to hear a language they would not otherwise here, for three hours. It also gives them a chance to see, and get intimate with a part of the world that is foreign, and harsh. It also lets us see and hear traditions, and stories from the point of view of the culture from which they come.
The Point! (Wolf, 1971)
The Point! (Fred Wolf, 1971) is an animated feature film based on a story and music by Harry Nilsson. It stars the voice talents of Ringo Starr of the Beatles (for the home video release at least, the various telecast talents include: Dustin Hoffman, Alan Barzman, and Alan Thicke). This is an interesting connection because the animation is very reminiscent of Yellow Submarine (George Dunning, 1968). I could not find any common animators between the two, but they are very similar in style, and even content.
The Point is about a father telling his son a story about a place where everything and everyone "has a point", except one little boy named Oblio. Oblio is banished for having a rounded head, and him and his dog get sent to the Pointless Forest.
It is a pretty simple story, clearly derived from a drug trip. It is rather fun though. The Harry Nilsson music acompanying some pretty crazy animation sequences are awesome.
It's a solid allegory for the civil right movement. You really pull for the kid that is shunned for being different. He realizes that he is not really different than anyone else. He realizes everything's got a point, even in the pointless forest, and himself with his rounded head.
The Point is about a father telling his son a story about a place where everything and everyone "has a point", except one little boy named Oblio. Oblio is banished for having a rounded head, and him and his dog get sent to the Pointless Forest.
It is a pretty simple story, clearly derived from a drug trip. It is rather fun though. The Harry Nilsson music acompanying some pretty crazy animation sequences are awesome.
It's a solid allegory for the civil right movement. You really pull for the kid that is shunned for being different. He realizes that he is not really different than anyone else. He realizes everything's got a point, even in the pointless forest, and himself with his rounded head.
20 January 2010
Dogville (Von Trier, 2003)
Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003) is a most unusual film stylistically speaking. The entire film is shot apparently in one room, with all four walls digitally-composited black or white depending on the time of day. There are no real buildings, and few props. Minus the few cars this film is minimalist even for a play. All walls in the cinematic world are imaginary, but are drawn on the ground. The audience cannot help but think of Bertolt Brecht, in the detached, self-reflective approach the audience is forced to take to the film.
The cinematography is almost as unconventional as the set design. Although there is a credited cinematographer, Lars von Trier himself gets the camera operator credit. This seems very strange and I wonder what that all means. In any case, the hand-held camera, smash zooms, and what I would call 'focus hunting' all bring a great deal of emphasis to the fact that you are watching a film.
Sound plays an interestingly meta-filmic role in this film as well. Although there are very few real set pieces and props, as in traditional cinema, there is a full foley team creating all of the sounds of a more traditional film. The particular sound that catches my ear is the sound of the doors. It is obvious that the sound is recorded from something much more solid than the floating doors on the set of Dogville.
Yet another unconventional aspect of this film is its duration. Dogville runs nearly a full three hours. If nothing else, this will remind the audience that they are watching a movie. Sitting for three hours is quite a long time, and most viewers are going to notice that they have been watching this movie for that long. The duration, however works quite well with the tone and the pace of the story. Unlike many other films that are far too long for their own good, Dogville rightfully reaches the 178th minute.
The unconventional style of Dogville certainly forces the audience to think. There is definitely a statement about society, and human nature. I am very unclear however, that even von Trier knows which side the film takes.
The cinematography is almost as unconventional as the set design. Although there is a credited cinematographer, Lars von Trier himself gets the camera operator credit. This seems very strange and I wonder what that all means. In any case, the hand-held camera, smash zooms, and what I would call 'focus hunting' all bring a great deal of emphasis to the fact that you are watching a film.
Sound plays an interestingly meta-filmic role in this film as well. Although there are very few real set pieces and props, as in traditional cinema, there is a full foley team creating all of the sounds of a more traditional film. The particular sound that catches my ear is the sound of the doors. It is obvious that the sound is recorded from something much more solid than the floating doors on the set of Dogville.
Yet another unconventional aspect of this film is its duration. Dogville runs nearly a full three hours. If nothing else, this will remind the audience that they are watching a movie. Sitting for three hours is quite a long time, and most viewers are going to notice that they have been watching this movie for that long. The duration, however works quite well with the tone and the pace of the story. Unlike many other films that are far too long for their own good, Dogville rightfully reaches the 178th minute.
The unconventional style of Dogville certainly forces the audience to think. There is definitely a statement about society, and human nature. I am very unclear however, that even von Trier knows which side the film takes.
19 January 2010
Downfall (Hirschbiegel, 2004)
While obviously the film is an interesting look into the last painful moments of a very troubled Adolf Hitler's life, there are three other things that I find very interesting about Downfall (Oliver Hirschbiegel, 2004). The first being the introduction and conclusion. The second is the way the film treats women. The third is the gratuitous suicide.
It is quite common for a historical film and/or biopic to give a recap of the events that happened in real life after the film ends it gives the film more historical credibility. The addition of interview footage with the real Traudl Junge is very interesting indeed. It comes surprisingly at the beginning and the end. Its effect really only goes that far. What she says is rather unimportant compared to the fact that she is there.
That ties in with the second aspect of this film that jumps out. I do not know whether it was an attempt to recreate the actual atmosphere at the time or not, but the women in this film are not treated well. They are portrayed as more blind than the incompetent military men around them. They are even portrayed as evil, as we painfully watch Magda Goebbels (Corinna Harfouch) kill all five of her children.
Finally, countless people die just by suicide, never mind all the casualties of war and the almost never talked about victims of the death camps. The audience becomes numb and the final climax of the film does not do much to the emotions. The film is just so full of death and destruction that the audience becomes desensitized and emotionally drained.
It is quite common for a historical film and/or biopic to give a recap of the events that happened in real life after the film ends it gives the film more historical credibility. The addition of interview footage with the real Traudl Junge is very interesting indeed. It comes surprisingly at the beginning and the end. Its effect really only goes that far. What she says is rather unimportant compared to the fact that she is there.
That ties in with the second aspect of this film that jumps out. I do not know whether it was an attempt to recreate the actual atmosphere at the time or not, but the women in this film are not treated well. They are portrayed as more blind than the incompetent military men around them. They are even portrayed as evil, as we painfully watch Magda Goebbels (Corinna Harfouch) kill all five of her children.
Finally, countless people die just by suicide, never mind all the casualties of war and the almost never talked about victims of the death camps. The audience becomes numb and the final climax of the film does not do much to the emotions. The film is just so full of death and destruction that the audience becomes desensitized and emotionally drained.
Walk on Water (Eytan Fox, 2004)
The Israeli film Walk on Water (Eytan Fox, 2004) deals with far too many immensely important issues to successfully make a meaningful statement on those issues. Among the issues addressed in the film are: World War II and the Holocaust as well as their implications today in Israel and Germany, conflicts in the Middle East, religious battles, terrorism, homosexuality, and I would even add that how the US plays into all of these is important as well. Clearly, how each one of these issues works in this film deserves its own lengthy essay, so I will necessarily be far too brief.
The film's main focus seems to be equally oriented around the relationship between Germans and Israeli's post WWII, and the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians including between organizations that represent them.
As far as the WWII aspect goes, the film is quite neutral. Well, at least politically correct(ish). Nazis are bad, and today's Germans and Israelis are good. We identify with both our protagonists, the Israeli/German Eyal (Lior Ashkenazi) of Jewish decent (although there is a streak of evil deeds, we sympathize with him), as well as the German Axel (Knut Berger). The film shows us that there is a deep internal struggle within the lives of both of these people and their families and neighbors.
The approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a bit more troublesome. Although Eyal is seen a bit as an extreme case, and Rafik (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid) as an alright guy, this film is clearly from the Israeli perspective. There is no understanding of why the people from the other side of the fence believe the things they do, and the film openly admits that. Yet I still get a sense of underlying hatred.
The homosexuality seems to be rather out of place, as if this film was not attempting to tackle enough important issues and had to pick up another. It just does not seem to work. The end is rather out of the blue. There is hardly any attraction throughout the film between Pia and Eyal, but him and Axel get very close. In addition, the scene in which Eyal beats up the German's who are harassing Axel's friends seems to be purely for the purpose of a fight scene. Maybe it shows Eyal can show compassion toward people he does think he likes.
Lastly, the repetition of Buffalo Springfield's song, "For What It's Worth" is a bit interesting. There is a cover version that is played twice, and the original is also heard. It is a song identified with the Vietnam War, and seems to be introducing the US into the already complex plot.
Not that I agree or disagree with the way Walk on Water portrays this situation, but I do believe that in order to watch a film like this, watching a film from the other perspective such as Paradise Now (Hany Abu-Assad, 2005) is important.
That being said, I think it makes a decent effort to confront these issues, and is worth seeing.
The film's main focus seems to be equally oriented around the relationship between Germans and Israeli's post WWII, and the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians including between organizations that represent them.
As far as the WWII aspect goes, the film is quite neutral. Well, at least politically correct(ish). Nazis are bad, and today's Germans and Israelis are good. We identify with both our protagonists, the Israeli/German Eyal (Lior Ashkenazi) of Jewish decent (although there is a streak of evil deeds, we sympathize with him), as well as the German Axel (Knut Berger). The film shows us that there is a deep internal struggle within the lives of both of these people and their families and neighbors.
The approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a bit more troublesome. Although Eyal is seen a bit as an extreme case, and Rafik (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid) as an alright guy, this film is clearly from the Israeli perspective. There is no understanding of why the people from the other side of the fence believe the things they do, and the film openly admits that. Yet I still get a sense of underlying hatred.
The homosexuality seems to be rather out of place, as if this film was not attempting to tackle enough important issues and had to pick up another. It just does not seem to work. The end is rather out of the blue. There is hardly any attraction throughout the film between Pia and Eyal, but him and Axel get very close. In addition, the scene in which Eyal beats up the German's who are harassing Axel's friends seems to be purely for the purpose of a fight scene. Maybe it shows Eyal can show compassion toward people he does think he likes.
Lastly, the repetition of Buffalo Springfield's song, "For What It's Worth" is a bit interesting. There is a cover version that is played twice, and the original is also heard. It is a song identified with the Vietnam War, and seems to be introducing the US into the already complex plot.
Not that I agree or disagree with the way Walk on Water portrays this situation, but I do believe that in order to watch a film like this, watching a film from the other perspective such as Paradise Now (Hany Abu-Assad, 2005) is important.
That being said, I think it makes a decent effort to confront these issues, and is worth seeing.
16 January 2010
Roger & Me (Moore, 1989)
Michael Moore's first film, Roger & Me (1989) clearly sets a precedent for his later work. Moore uses his own voice as a narration, and even interacts with people on-screen which has become his style of filmmaking over the last 20 years. His artful misrepresentation of facts in order to tell a more compelling story is also as dominant in Roger as it is in his subsequent films.
Whether he 'tells the truth' or not, he is extremely successful in this film. He set out to show anyone that would listen that Roger Smith, then chairman and CEO of General Motors, had chosen to close down all of GM's factories in Flint, Michigan where it all started and was unwilling to talk to acknowledge the devastation this created there. Roger & Me does that job.
Whether you take Moore's representation of the facts and chronology of the situation at face-value, or you dig deep to find that he does in fact misrepresent some of those facts, you still walk away from the film with a feeling that large corporations are bad for small towns. It does not hurt the film in the least that it also happens to be rather entertaining and enjoyable.
Moore's blurring of the line between educational and entertainment is well done. He is inviting you to dig deeper and seek out is fact-bending anachronisms, and in that way is getting the viewer to learn more about the issue plaguing his home town. It is a little deceiving to make the less critical viewers believe that what you are giving them is the truth, but I do not see anywhere in the film where he says that this is the whole truth.
Whether he 'tells the truth' or not, he is extremely successful in this film. He set out to show anyone that would listen that Roger Smith, then chairman and CEO of General Motors, had chosen to close down all of GM's factories in Flint, Michigan where it all started and was unwilling to talk to acknowledge the devastation this created there. Roger & Me does that job.
Whether you take Moore's representation of the facts and chronology of the situation at face-value, or you dig deep to find that he does in fact misrepresent some of those facts, you still walk away from the film with a feeling that large corporations are bad for small towns. It does not hurt the film in the least that it also happens to be rather entertaining and enjoyable.
Moore's blurring of the line between educational and entertainment is well done. He is inviting you to dig deeper and seek out is fact-bending anachronisms, and in that way is getting the viewer to learn more about the issue plaguing his home town. It is a little deceiving to make the less critical viewers believe that what you are giving them is the truth, but I do not see anywhere in the film where he says that this is the whole truth.
13 January 2010
Caché (Haneke, 2005)
For my European Cinema course we are to give 300 word analyses on every film we watch. This is the first of them. From now on I will not denote which post is for this class, but it will probably be pretty clear. As a result, this blog contains...SPOILERS... how I hate that word. But I do advise you see this film before reading this post. I think it is a really great film that challenges its audience and has some interesting things to say, so go rent Caché and then come right back here to read what I think of it.
One of the most striking elements of Caché (Michael Haneke, 2005) is the editing. In this film the editing does not merely serve the story as it does in many other films. Coupled with the cinematography, the editing of Caché guides the audience through the film shaping their emotions and reactions to each scene.
From the opening shot, which stares, unmoving, at the front of a house for several
minutes, leaves the audience confused and feeling a little voyeuristic. This feeling never leaves the viewer, especially not as the closing credits roll over a similarly stationary shot of the school. We soon learn that these awkwardly long takes are, within the cinematic world, video tapes sent to the characters. In this way the audience is right in feeling that they are spying, rather than watching a movie.
The powerful impact of the 'video' shots is heightened with the editing. After over a minute of watching essentially nothing happens; with no camera movement any cut is jarring. This is not the only instance of shock instilled in the audience. When Georges (Daniel Auteuil) goes to see Majid (Maurice Bénichou), who quickly pulls out a knife and slits his throat in a jaw-dropping explosion of blood, the audience is left as stunned as Georges. And that take continues to roll, as Georges walks off screen, then back on, letting the audience calm down. In the next sequence Georges goes home and there is a long quiet conversation in the dark bedroom. After this scene, the film cuts rather unexpectedly to a very brightly lit, extremely loud swim meet.
Haneke does not use these methods to 'scare' the audience. They are used more to heighten the sense of uneasiness of the characters, and that is already created by the story. He uses editing to get the audience comfortable with something and then drastically changes their perception of it, in a very shocking way.
12 January 2010
Driving Miss Daisy (Beresford, 1989)
Every so often, when looking for a movie to watch, I consult the list of Academy Award Best Picture winners. I have discovered that it is not quite the list of great movies that one might expect. Still, it is interesting to go through and see what films The Academy of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences deemed the best picture of their respective years.
This time we picked Driving Miss Daisy (Bruce Beresford, 1989). I honestly do not have much to say about this film. Driving Miss Daisy tells a story; it has a beginning, middle and end. Characters learn things and change. It also promotes acceptance and 'good' morals. However, by the end of it, I just wanted to ask "why?". This film fails to say why it is interesting or important. It is boring throughout. There will be a few uneventful scenes, and then some number of months or years will pass without any acknowledgment, and the same thing will happen again. It is a simple story with very little depth. The characters do change, but there is no depth to the character, and no real reason for the change.
Hoke (Morgan Freeman) is meant to show that people can overcome their differences, and succeed in life and relationships. It seems to me though, a pretty racist representation. Freeman's performance is well executed, but the direction is pretty outlandish. Seeing Morgan Freeman play the black servant to the rich Jewish woman, with his best slave accent on was a little uncomfortable for me. But I guess it is all okay because of Hoke's unfaltering morals and good-natured demeanor that finally gains him acceptance from Miss Daisy (Jessica Tandy).... Sorry Beresford, but I'm not buying it. Nobody's perfect. (To put it in the words of Osgood Fielding).
Technically it is pretty solid. I noticed a few awkward cuts (which I doubt were intentional), but other than that it is pretty much 'invisibly' edited. It is not a bad movie, just plain boring. Maybe it deserves another chance, but I still have quite a few movies to see on the Academy's list so it'll have to wait a while.
This time we picked Driving Miss Daisy (Bruce Beresford, 1989). I honestly do not have much to say about this film. Driving Miss Daisy tells a story; it has a beginning, middle and end. Characters learn things and change. It also promotes acceptance and 'good' morals. However, by the end of it, I just wanted to ask "why?". This film fails to say why it is interesting or important. It is boring throughout. There will be a few uneventful scenes, and then some number of months or years will pass without any acknowledgment, and the same thing will happen again. It is a simple story with very little depth. The characters do change, but there is no depth to the character, and no real reason for the change.
Hoke (Morgan Freeman) is meant to show that people can overcome their differences, and succeed in life and relationships. It seems to me though, a pretty racist representation. Freeman's performance is well executed, but the direction is pretty outlandish. Seeing Morgan Freeman play the black servant to the rich Jewish woman, with his best slave accent on was a little uncomfortable for me. But I guess it is all okay because of Hoke's unfaltering morals and good-natured demeanor that finally gains him acceptance from Miss Daisy (Jessica Tandy).... Sorry Beresford, but I'm not buying it. Nobody's perfect. (To put it in the words of Osgood Fielding).
Technically it is pretty solid. I noticed a few awkward cuts (which I doubt were intentional), but other than that it is pretty much 'invisibly' edited. It is not a bad movie, just plain boring. Maybe it deserves another chance, but I still have quite a few movies to see on the Academy's list so it'll have to wait a while.
10 January 2010
Double Happiness (Shum, 1994)
Double Happiness (Mina Shum, 1994) was the first film screened in my Canadian Cinema course. It is the story of a Chinese-Canadian family, centered around the oldest daughter who aspires to be an actress. Interesting fact: Mina Shum is a UBC almuni.
After taking Can. Literature last semester, it is pretty clear to me that this is a common theme in Canada, especially in Vancouver. Quite a bit of Canadian literature deals with the notion of a hybrid or double identity, and especially with the children of theses families struggling with it. Shum does pretty well addressing this issue in Double Happiness. She also does it in a way that is enjoyable and accessible to all audiences. Although sometimes seeming over-the-top, the characters are believable and relateable.
As a Canadian film, one may expect a departure from conventional, Hollywood-style filmmaking. And Shum does provide this. From the opening shot, in which the main character Jade (Sandra Oh, now of Sideways and Grey's Anatomy fame) addresses the camera in an interview-style setting, to the next shot in which the camera circles the dinner table on a lazy susan, it is clear that this film is not your average film. These self-reflexive techniques work well with this picture. It is a film about self identity, so bringing to light the fact that it is a film helps reinforce the question of "who am I?".
Not just a Canadian film, this is Shum's first feature film. It is a beautifully done first film. She was not afraid to try things and break the norm. On great choice she makes is not being afraid of the dark. She uses shadow much to her advantage in this film. The colors are also strong, through costume and art direction as well as cinematography she paints a symbolic picture with the colors. Lastly camera movements (such as the lazy susan) are unconventional, yet work really well. It just goes to show that you do not need to copy what has been done before, and it pays to try new things to make a great film.
Double Happiness is by no means perfect, but it works. I am looking forward to diving deeper into the world of Canadian Cinema.
After taking Can. Literature last semester, it is pretty clear to me that this is a common theme in Canada, especially in Vancouver. Quite a bit of Canadian literature deals with the notion of a hybrid or double identity, and especially with the children of theses families struggling with it. Shum does pretty well addressing this issue in Double Happiness. She also does it in a way that is enjoyable and accessible to all audiences. Although sometimes seeming over-the-top, the characters are believable and relateable.
As a Canadian film, one may expect a departure from conventional, Hollywood-style filmmaking. And Shum does provide this. From the opening shot, in which the main character Jade (Sandra Oh, now of Sideways and Grey's Anatomy fame) addresses the camera in an interview-style setting, to the next shot in which the camera circles the dinner table on a lazy susan, it is clear that this film is not your average film. These self-reflexive techniques work well with this picture. It is a film about self identity, so bringing to light the fact that it is a film helps reinforce the question of "who am I?".
Not just a Canadian film, this is Shum's first feature film. It is a beautifully done first film. She was not afraid to try things and break the norm. On great choice she makes is not being afraid of the dark. She uses shadow much to her advantage in this film. The colors are also strong, through costume and art direction as well as cinematography she paints a symbolic picture with the colors. Lastly camera movements (such as the lazy susan) are unconventional, yet work really well. It just goes to show that you do not need to copy what has been done before, and it pays to try new things to make a great film.
Double Happiness is by no means perfect, but it works. I am looking forward to diving deeper into the world of Canadian Cinema.
The Thin Blue Line (Morris, 1988)
I'll be doing quite a few of these blogs on documentaries for the next few months, because I am taking a Documentary Cinema course this term. The class focuses on Errol Morris and Michael Moore. The first film we screened was The Thin Blue Line (Errol Morris, 1988).
I've seen The Thin Blue Line credited in a few non-academic sources as being the first to use scripted re-enactment sequences in a documentary style, or the first to do so in a crime drama doc. This is interesting to me because the whole time I was watching it, I kept thinking that it seemed like a very well put together crime drama TV show, with interviews. The way in which Morris uses the scripted scenes is very clever. He only shows you things people say that Morris himself believes to be lies. Throughout the film it is clear that Morris' intention is to show that it was David Harris that killed the police officer that night, and that Randall Adams is innocent; yet we never see a re-enactment of Harris shooting the cop, it is always Adams.
The re-enactment scenes themselves are beautifully shot. In order to make clear that these are re-tellings and not the way it actually happened, Morris makes them extremely stylistic. Long shadows, pronounced colors, extreme close-ups, slow motion all combine to make clear that it is a memory, and even take away from the credibility of the memory with a surreal feel.
The Phillip Glass score is absolutely remarkable. It plays an eerie counterpart to the images and interviews. It goes almost unnoticed, yet is essential to the success of the film.
In this age of court dramas, and crime scene shows The Thin Blue Line can appear to fall in line with the rest. But bearing in mind it came out in 1988 and actually helped get a man out of prison that was apparently innocent it is a very effective piece of filmmaking.
I've seen The Thin Blue Line credited in a few non-academic sources as being the first to use scripted re-enactment sequences in a documentary style, or the first to do so in a crime drama doc. This is interesting to me because the whole time I was watching it, I kept thinking that it seemed like a very well put together crime drama TV show, with interviews. The way in which Morris uses the scripted scenes is very clever. He only shows you things people say that Morris himself believes to be lies. Throughout the film it is clear that Morris' intention is to show that it was David Harris that killed the police officer that night, and that Randall Adams is innocent; yet we never see a re-enactment of Harris shooting the cop, it is always Adams.
The re-enactment scenes themselves are beautifully shot. In order to make clear that these are re-tellings and not the way it actually happened, Morris makes them extremely stylistic. Long shadows, pronounced colors, extreme close-ups, slow motion all combine to make clear that it is a memory, and even take away from the credibility of the memory with a surreal feel.
The Phillip Glass score is absolutely remarkable. It plays an eerie counterpart to the images and interviews. It goes almost unnoticed, yet is essential to the success of the film.
In this age of court dramas, and crime scene shows The Thin Blue Line can appear to fall in line with the rest. But bearing in mind it came out in 1988 and actually helped get a man out of prison that was apparently innocent it is a very effective piece of filmmaking.
09 January 2010
The F Word (Weintrob, 2005)
On a search for some entertainment after packing up to head home for winter break, we stumbled upon a film called The F Word (Jed Weintrob, 2005). It would be classified among other things as "fictumentary". IMDB actually lists it as Drama. It follows a radio show host on his last day of broadcast because he is being shut down by the FCC for unpaid obscenity charges. He decides to hit the streets of Manhattan on what is coincidentally the last day of the Republican National Convention in 2004. The entire film is made up of fictional interactions between the radio host, Joe Pace (Josh Hamilton), and people on the street, all set among protesters of the RNC.
I could have done without the dream sequence near the end. The film could have been finished up nicely 15 minutes sooner without it. And the sequence was obnoxiously colorful with lame psychedelic drug effects.
The aim of the film is pretty unclear. On the start it is clearly about free speech, the whole 'plot' centers around the FCC. But about halfway through you realize that the only aspect of the first amendment around is the fact that there are protesters. The film becomes anti-Republican Party and stays that way, until the very end with a cute retrospective recap of what Pace has learned on his journey.
If you tend to hold liberal views on issues, especially social issues, you will enjoy this film. If not, you probably won't, unless you are a conservative that hates George W. There are some interesting exchanges and it is often unclear whether it is scripted or not. It is a cool flick that is worth a watch, even 5 years after its release. It is certainly political, but isn't all too serious about it.
I could have done without the dream sequence near the end. The film could have been finished up nicely 15 minutes sooner without it. And the sequence was obnoxiously colorful with lame psychedelic drug effects.
The aim of the film is pretty unclear. On the start it is clearly about free speech, the whole 'plot' centers around the FCC. But about halfway through you realize that the only aspect of the first amendment around is the fact that there are protesters. The film becomes anti-Republican Party and stays that way, until the very end with a cute retrospective recap of what Pace has learned on his journey.
If you tend to hold liberal views on issues, especially social issues, you will enjoy this film. If not, you probably won't, unless you are a conservative that hates George W. There are some interesting exchanges and it is often unclear whether it is scripted or not. It is a cool flick that is worth a watch, even 5 years after its release. It is certainly political, but isn't all too serious about it.
07 January 2010
Star Trek (Abrams, 2009)
While sci-fi and action movies are not at all my cup o' tea, I did not particularly hate Star Trek (J.J. Abrams, 2009) as I thought I might. I had expected the film to make very little sense to me as someone who has never watched any Star Trek of any kind. I was proven wrong on this count. The film does very well to cover the whole story and characters, so as not to leave the 'non-trekkies' out, while still I'm sure being entertaining to long time Trek fans.
I believe Star Trek ultimately accomplishes what it set out to do: entertain. It is a fun ride for sure. I did not find myself checking the clock, or wondering how much longer the film would be. I am definitely glad I watched it on Blu-ray on a 50" HDTV with good sound.
I must say though, there were a few ho-hum moments for me. Some of the explosions and hand to hand combat just went on far too long, and or did not relate to the story. The scene early on when James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is a child (Jimmy Bennett) is just ridiculous. I understand the purpose, it makes Kirk look like a badass who is really good at driving things. This was pretty unnecessary in my opinion.
Kirk was a huge problem for me throughout the film. I did not feel any emotion about him, ever, except that he is a jerk. I am pretty sure that Abrams meant the audience to feel some "Go Kirk!" emotions, but I most definitely did not. The two Spocks (Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nemoy) on the other hand did pull some heart strings, and I really was rooting for the Vulcans to get out safely.
The one thing that really bothered me with Star Trek is probably something that goes unnoticed by many viewers. It is the CG lens flair/artifacts. There is a weird streaking across the screen, usually blue tones, through a great portion of the film. It seems as if it is an aim at creating a lens flair effect, but the streaking acts nothing close to the way light reacts on a lenses surface. It is obnoxious and is distracting. It does not really obscure the frame so much as just take the viewer out of the story.
With its problems, I still enjoyed Star Trek more than I thought I would.
I believe Star Trek ultimately accomplishes what it set out to do: entertain. It is a fun ride for sure. I did not find myself checking the clock, or wondering how much longer the film would be. I am definitely glad I watched it on Blu-ray on a 50" HDTV with good sound.
I must say though, there were a few ho-hum moments for me. Some of the explosions and hand to hand combat just went on far too long, and or did not relate to the story. The scene early on when James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is a child (Jimmy Bennett) is just ridiculous. I understand the purpose, it makes Kirk look like a badass who is really good at driving things. This was pretty unnecessary in my opinion.
Kirk was a huge problem for me throughout the film. I did not feel any emotion about him, ever, except that he is a jerk. I am pretty sure that Abrams meant the audience to feel some "Go Kirk!" emotions, but I most definitely did not. The two Spocks (Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nemoy) on the other hand did pull some heart strings, and I really was rooting for the Vulcans to get out safely.
The one thing that really bothered me with Star Trek is probably something that goes unnoticed by many viewers. It is the CG lens flair/artifacts. There is a weird streaking across the screen, usually blue tones, through a great portion of the film. It seems as if it is an aim at creating a lens flair effect, but the streaking acts nothing close to the way light reacts on a lenses surface. It is obnoxious and is distracting. It does not really obscure the frame so much as just take the viewer out of the story.
With its problems, I still enjoyed Star Trek more than I thought I would.
Rashômon (Kurosawa, 1951)
I have seen Rashômon (Akira Kurosawa, 1951) once before, in Tony Kashani's Film Form class at SRJC. As I recall, I dozed a bit during the film and did not take much away from it. This is one of the reasons I decided to pick it up and watch it this time. Another reason I watched it was because I had been working through an idea of making a film with a framed narrative, and wanted to see how Kurosawa did it. Well, my film did not work out this time around, but I am sure glad I watched Rashômon. There has been so much said about this film, that without more research or thought into it I do not want to say much. I just want to share the thoughts that initially come to mind about this film.
In this relatively short film (88 minutes) Kurosawa delivers a critical look at memory, emotion, and human nature as well as a compelling story. Although it seems to highlight the inaccuracies inherent in perception, memory and eventually storytelling, I think this film also brings to light the importance of storytelling. Oral tradition is a huge part of all cultures. Through the form of the movie, Kurosawa is able to evoke that style of communication. I must also add that the last retelling of the story is hilarious, if you've seen it you know what I'm talking about, if not just go watch it.
In this relatively short film (88 minutes) Kurosawa delivers a critical look at memory, emotion, and human nature as well as a compelling story. Although it seems to highlight the inaccuracies inherent in perception, memory and eventually storytelling, I think this film also brings to light the importance of storytelling. Oral tradition is a huge part of all cultures. Through the form of the movie, Kurosawa is able to evoke that style of communication. I must also add that the last retelling of the story is hilarious, if you've seen it you know what I'm talking about, if not just go watch it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
