1994, Danny Boyle
Pure shot of narrative
largely telephoto, bit of a mixture
script as a nice tone, period stylings
if all the lines don't quite work
very conventional, so when the story sags, gets a little tedious
doesn't really use lighting very effectively; opportunities, at most a few light/shade contrasts
creation of space too flat, if not flat itself
strong continuity does jump the narrative in a lean manner, but not a huge amount of space
simple, good fun at times, British version of the Cpen brothers tone
also, use of MacGuffin of money. 'Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia' ish
pretty good
Friday 31 December 2010
Don't Look Now
1973 Nicolas Roeg
Clearly very influential, on Lynch etc
use of camera to flick against the actors
always movement either by camera or in frame
constant reframings, taking little bits of the person, from close by. Claustrophobic
use of variety of soundtracks, confusions
Enhanced by use of dark palates, frequent low key on face, backlighting
mixture of out of focus with telephoto, and a bit of wide angled distortion
narrative crosscutting led to associational montage, well restrained
use of red to draw eye, erotic tension, frequently in frame
whole first half brings up a great atmosphere
story sags slightly, suggesting it is a stylistic exercise early on
acting is very good, sexual politics of male P.O.V.
still, a very impressive film
Clearly very influential, on Lynch etc
use of camera to flick against the actors
always movement either by camera or in frame
constant reframings, taking little bits of the person, from close by. Claustrophobic
use of variety of soundtracks, confusions
Enhanced by use of dark palates, frequent low key on face, backlighting
mixture of out of focus with telephoto, and a bit of wide angled distortion
narrative crosscutting led to associational montage, well restrained
use of red to draw eye, erotic tension, frequently in frame
whole first half brings up a great atmosphere
story sags slightly, suggesting it is a stylistic exercise early on
acting is very good, sexual politics of male P.O.V.
still, a very impressive film
Shadows Of Forgotten Ancestors
Stunning, genuinely new-seeming Sergei Parajanov, 1966
looks stunning, use of hot, saturated colours on barren landscape
different skin tones from usual
low contrast, low key lighting? Use of deep focus, but no real sensation of depth
wide angled lenses
shot often handheld, from underneath
absolutely no continuity, no one-eighty rule
no scene to scene matching graphically, almost none narratively
great advance is use of space
not composed symmetrically, disorientates, genuinely exciting
makes one have to postulate off screen space
use of discordant sound, comes from all angles. Music disorientates
constant movement, characters (non continuity) intrude from outside frame)
constant references to what is not in the frame
creates sense of camera not creating space, but in space
use of non-symmetrical, lack of continuity, manages to do this
feels as though genuinely part of the world
maybe only cinema can do this; makes this film at the heights of the cinema
use of fragmented space/ assymetry in a less cool manner than Antonioni, but not dissimilar
watched by Fellini, likely, but use of wide angles more dreamy, more movement
the deep space without space, constant intrusions, make this a true dream
the associational story builds up with spectacular images
a sensational film, pushing at what we believed cinema can be
looks stunning, use of hot, saturated colours on barren landscape
different skin tones from usual
low contrast, low key lighting? Use of deep focus, but no real sensation of depth
wide angled lenses
shot often handheld, from underneath
absolutely no continuity, no one-eighty rule
no scene to scene matching graphically, almost none narratively
great advance is use of space
not composed symmetrically, disorientates, genuinely exciting
makes one have to postulate off screen space
use of discordant sound, comes from all angles. Music disorientates
constant movement, characters (non continuity) intrude from outside frame)
constant references to what is not in the frame
creates sense of camera not creating space, but in space
use of non-symmetrical, lack of continuity, manages to do this
feels as though genuinely part of the world
maybe only cinema can do this; makes this film at the heights of the cinema
use of fragmented space/ assymetry in a less cool manner than Antonioni, but not dissimilar
watched by Fellini, likely, but use of wide angles more dreamy, more movement
the deep space without space, constant intrusions, make this a true dream
the associational story builds up with spectacular images
a sensational film, pushing at what we believed cinema can be
Thursday 30 December 2010
Les Enfants Du Paradis
Marcel Carne, hugely popular 1945 epic
Fast-paced plot, Dickensian level of twists and detail, doesn't sag
characters are manoevred nicely, the plots runs well, each scene has something of interest
the acting is fine, the themes of dream and reality are shown to us
left to meditate on the idea that Baptiste may be better off with love only being on stage
technically, the sets are interesting, rich detail, and poetic with some nearly expressionist shapes in a few scenes
mix of styles, no really one unifying feature
probably most often uses wide angled lens, depth of focus gives sense of largeness to some interiors
largely people interacting in rooms, with three point lighting and continuity
entertaining enough, worth seeing, but no great step anywhere. Slightly inconsequential, for all it epic qualities
Fast-paced plot, Dickensian level of twists and detail, doesn't sag
characters are manoevred nicely, the plots runs well, each scene has something of interest
the acting is fine, the themes of dream and reality are shown to us
left to meditate on the idea that Baptiste may be better off with love only being on stage
technically, the sets are interesting, rich detail, and poetic with some nearly expressionist shapes in a few scenes
mix of styles, no really one unifying feature
probably most often uses wide angled lens, depth of focus gives sense of largeness to some interiors
largely people interacting in rooms, with three point lighting and continuity
entertaining enough, worth seeing, but no great step anywhere. Slightly inconsequential, for all it epic qualities
La Peau Douce (Soft Skin)
1964, Francois Truffaut
Pretty conventional stuff
remarkably small ASL, quick, rythmic editing to convey excitement
good use of backs of head, to make it very Hitchocky (also some sillouhettes)
Clearly Hitchcock influenced all around, with the fast edits and music to indicate suspense (clear uses of audience omniscience suspense, with cross-cutting)
Of course, there is more of a casualness in some of the characterisation
low contrast and pretty high key lighting give it a commercial sheen
which does stop it being able to quite have, again, that sense of horror in Hitchcock
Similarity with 'Jules Et Jim' in the unknowability of the women, the slightly pathetic men
reasonably entertaining, but no great work
Pretty conventional stuff
remarkably small ASL, quick, rythmic editing to convey excitement
good use of backs of head, to make it very Hitchocky (also some sillouhettes)
Clearly Hitchcock influenced all around, with the fast edits and music to indicate suspense (clear uses of audience omniscience suspense, with cross-cutting)
Of course, there is more of a casualness in some of the characterisation
low contrast and pretty high key lighting give it a commercial sheen
which does stop it being able to quite have, again, that sense of horror in Hitchcock
Similarity with 'Jules Et Jim' in the unknowability of the women, the slightly pathetic men
reasonably entertaining, but no great work
Tirez Sur Le Pianiste (Shoot The Pianist)
1960 Francois Truffaut, straight after 'Les Quatre Cents Coups'
story darts about a bit, very Nouvelle Vague
long takes, often with unobtrusive pans
use of mid-shots, also almost Bresson-esque focus on body parts (hands etc) when relevent
As in 'Les Quatre Cents Coups', much street shooting in this style
gives space of city with walking along streets, and back of heads in cars
Noir-ish elements of sudden violence, guns, as well as low key lighting
But tone always remains quite fresh. not mounting horror
Means the film doesn't really reach a high pitch anywhere
not that it isn't good fun, a fine character study
Truffaut's study of outsiders/ civilized trying to fit into the uncivilized
a good fine, not great
story darts about a bit, very Nouvelle Vague
long takes, often with unobtrusive pans
use of mid-shots, also almost Bresson-esque focus on body parts (hands etc) when relevent
As in 'Les Quatre Cents Coups', much street shooting in this style
gives space of city with walking along streets, and back of heads in cars
Noir-ish elements of sudden violence, guns, as well as low key lighting
But tone always remains quite fresh. not mounting horror
Means the film doesn't really reach a high pitch anywhere
not that it isn't good fun, a fine character study
Truffaut's study of outsiders/ civilized trying to fit into the uncivilized
a good fine, not great
Wednesday 29 December 2010
There Will Be Blood
2007 Paul Thomas Anderson, regarded as one of the finest films off the past decade
yes, it's very impressive, but let's not get too carried away
The use of images to tell the story is fine
in parts the cinematography is excellent; long pans
Anderson has great, simple, creation of space around Plainview
washed out backdrops and low key interiors
repeat use of colour schemes; red, for example are well done
as are certain sillouhetted compostions
it is a taut story, excellent in that plot brings out character
problem is that a few scenes seem to come a little from knowehere; random violence
as though the editing was down from too much; unmotivated, but not random (presumption of justification)
the film would be more interesting if viewed from liking/ identifying with Plainview more
Day-Lewis is of course excellent, sidelit with his red face, is given long takes at times
space and edit fragments as it goes on, showing shattering worldview
but the moment is never really reached, we really have a road that lacks an understanding (Anderson presumes we have reached an end, that Plainview is shown as nuts; but this never really happens)
nothing wrong with open endings, but inconsequential, especially in a film about character, is a problem
music is intrusive and loses tension, loses realism, really not impressive
a fine film, which doesn't quite reach the huge expectations it set itself
Of course unfair to compare with 'Kane', but similar arc, this film is excellent but not in that class
rather compare with 'The Murder Of Jesse James'...an interesting comparison, both led by plot,
yes, it's very impressive, but let's not get too carried away
The use of images to tell the story is fine
in parts the cinematography is excellent; long pans
Anderson has great, simple, creation of space around Plainview
washed out backdrops and low key interiors
repeat use of colour schemes; red, for example are well done
as are certain sillouhetted compostions
it is a taut story, excellent in that plot brings out character
problem is that a few scenes seem to come a little from knowehere; random violence
as though the editing was down from too much; unmotivated, but not random (presumption of justification)
the film would be more interesting if viewed from liking/ identifying with Plainview more
Day-Lewis is of course excellent, sidelit with his red face, is given long takes at times
space and edit fragments as it goes on, showing shattering worldview
but the moment is never really reached, we really have a road that lacks an understanding (Anderson presumes we have reached an end, that Plainview is shown as nuts; but this never really happens)
nothing wrong with open endings, but inconsequential, especially in a film about character, is a problem
music is intrusive and loses tension, loses realism, really not impressive
a fine film, which doesn't quite reach the huge expectations it set itself
Of course unfair to compare with 'Kane', but similar arc, this film is excellent but not in that class
rather compare with 'The Murder Of Jesse James'...an interesting comparison, both led by plot,
Whiskey Galore
Not The Best Ealing Comedy, 1949 (Alexander Mackendrick), but a good little piece of fun
accents and a few details, along with melodrama, has a nice biting tone
the story is good fun, at times heartwarming
slightly let down by its structure of too many acts
and is a rather parodied view of Scotland
classic British traditions of three point lighting, zero depth of set etc
nice bit of fun, but not the best
accents and a few details, along with melodrama, has a nice biting tone
the story is good fun, at times heartwarming
slightly let down by its structure of too many acts
and is a rather parodied view of Scotland
classic British traditions of three point lighting, zero depth of set etc
nice bit of fun, but not the best
The Way Back
Really dissapointing new Peter Weir film
Straightforward narrative, entirely lacking in detail
shot of seeing mountain, shot of climbing mountain, shot of over mountain
entirely predictable attempts at characterisation
overly functional one-trait-to-each
nothing particularly interesting in the acting
a few nice shots, but nothing too expert
dull, really poor
Straightforward narrative, entirely lacking in detail
shot of seeing mountain, shot of climbing mountain, shot of over mountain
entirely predictable attempts at characterisation
overly functional one-trait-to-each
nothing particularly interesting in the acting
a few nice shots, but nothing too expert
dull, really poor
A Woman Under The Influence
1974, John Cassavates, American independent
Down at home dispay of acting, psychological depth
use of master shots yes, long takes, but perhaps surprising number of cuts for 'pure acting'
direction really is pretty pragmatic; telephoto refocusses when necessary, also wide angle for stiller scenes
long scenes, stay on the dialgoue
more abstract than the Leigh film, exploring the limits of the social conditions rather than the realities
performances are pitch perfect, go with verite feel of camerawork and film stock (natural lighting)
clear reverses of sanity/ madness/ love/ hate
lack of narrative thrust is impressive
fine, stronger than pure naturalism
Down at home dispay of acting, psychological depth
use of master shots yes, long takes, but perhaps surprising number of cuts for 'pure acting'
direction really is pretty pragmatic; telephoto refocusses when necessary, also wide angle for stiller scenes
long scenes, stay on the dialgoue
more abstract than the Leigh film, exploring the limits of the social conditions rather than the realities
performances are pitch perfect, go with verite feel of camerawork and film stock (natural lighting)
clear reverses of sanity/ madness/ love/ hate
lack of narrative thrust is impressive
fine, stronger than pure naturalism
L'Eclisse
1962 Michelangelo Antonioni
Last of trilogy; L'Avenntura, La Notte- absolutely incredible
use of harsh black and whites at the start, setting off
not at all neat, expressionist, cubist almost
fragmentation, key in the fragmented space
initially have scenes (on roads, in her room) where we get a kamikaze roundness of space
use of entrance/exit, a few sounds, and non continuity cuts to get a sense of the whole space
space is beyond what we see; characters sink into backdrop with costume
stock-market scene; use of longer shots throughout, mid shots here
the mid shots mean we know what's going on, but the space is then utterly fragmented
lack of continuity; not Hollywood close-ups, just confusion, loss of sense of place
time stops making sense, in chaos of market shot from a thousand angles
use of deep focus and differing contrasts give wider space again
characters as unexplainable, part of backdrops
actions that we can't explain; stay with Monica Vitta
She makes one of the great performances, hedonistic but self-knowing, blank
doesn't know what she wants herself
tip into hysteria, lose herself, then return (Blacking-up / lovemaking)
distance between characters in assymetrical framing, small touches
in the stunning final sequence, space takes centre stage
as does light
wonderful, gives time to think (relate to Ozu), but also powerful in itself
A film that gets the deepest into the pauses that makes up relationships
then goes beyond that, in graphic abstraction, to the heights of the cinema
Last of trilogy; L'Avenntura, La Notte- absolutely incredible
use of harsh black and whites at the start, setting off
not at all neat, expressionist, cubist almost
fragmentation, key in the fragmented space
initially have scenes (on roads, in her room) where we get a kamikaze roundness of space
use of entrance/exit, a few sounds, and non continuity cuts to get a sense of the whole space
space is beyond what we see; characters sink into backdrop with costume
stock-market scene; use of longer shots throughout, mid shots here
the mid shots mean we know what's going on, but the space is then utterly fragmented
lack of continuity; not Hollywood close-ups, just confusion, loss of sense of place
time stops making sense, in chaos of market shot from a thousand angles
use of deep focus and differing contrasts give wider space again
characters as unexplainable, part of backdrops
actions that we can't explain; stay with Monica Vitta
She makes one of the great performances, hedonistic but self-knowing, blank
doesn't know what she wants herself
tip into hysteria, lose herself, then return (Blacking-up / lovemaking)
distance between characters in assymetrical framing, small touches
in the stunning final sequence, space takes centre stage
as does light
wonderful, gives time to think (relate to Ozu), but also powerful in itself
A film that gets the deepest into the pauses that makes up relationships
then goes beyond that, in graphic abstraction, to the heights of the cinema
Tuesday 28 December 2010
Another Year
New Mike Leigh film
Tough, tough watch, interesting, leaves much to think on
use of long conversational close ups, continuity style
mixed with a few, not very interesting, wider shots
to Leigh's credit, he is King of psychological 'naturalist' detail
stays long on scenes, brings out deep pyschology, makes it afecting/agonising
Is this just filmed theatre? Yes- dialogue, formally dull?
No- use of close up
certainly not very interesting
relates to what is the point in this exercise?
just shows 'foul given'; suffering of individuals
use of cliches and pretty dull characters, however miserable they might be
central two as emotional vampires
what is the point? Just shows some horrible things happening, in a theatrical model
Leigh makes great strides in a kind of naturalism, use of dialogue/characterisation/duration all important advances, but not ultimately succesful in itself (however engrossing)
Tough, tough watch, interesting, leaves much to think on
use of long conversational close ups, continuity style
mixed with a few, not very interesting, wider shots
to Leigh's credit, he is King of psychological 'naturalist' detail
stays long on scenes, brings out deep pyschology, makes it afecting/agonising
Is this just filmed theatre? Yes- dialogue, formally dull?
No- use of close up
certainly not very interesting
relates to what is the point in this exercise?
just shows 'foul given'; suffering of individuals
use of cliches and pretty dull characters, however miserable they might be
central two as emotional vampires
what is the point? Just shows some horrible things happening, in a theatrical model
Leigh makes great strides in a kind of naturalism, use of dialogue/characterisation/duration all important advances, but not ultimately succesful in itself (however engrossing)
The Lady From Shanghai
Jaw-droppingly good/brilliant/ genius from Orson Welles (starring him and Rita Hayworth), 1947
use of narration
one of many examples of Welles taking the film form beyond what anyone else would do
use of montage most confident, fastest, most aggressive since Eisenstein
throwing images in the face
courtroom scene, Joan of Arc esque isolation of Welles in dock
acting of Hayworth as femme fatale, expressionistic performances from all
accentuated by the super close-ups using the wide angled lens
looming over
gives the Wellesian depth of field, along with those huge contrasts (sillouhettes, beach, aquarium)
dramatic high and low angles
if the ASL lessens at the end, early longer takes with some whip-crack camera movements
Welles also has his swoop in- cross of omniscience with Noirish confusion (like 'Kane')
A bamboozling Noir, quite deliberately, story makes little sense
deliberately bringing to logical culmination the insanity/ self-destructiveness of Noir
Welles recognises that noir is the apocalpyptic genre
deliberately overdone, overwild
final sequences around the funfare is beyond stunning (precursor in 'Kane'?)
use of multiple images to show loss of identity/ confusion/ appearance
Welles creates stunning images, bringing the film form to his limit
the deceptively omniscient tone, then the chaos, leads to the world, even in long-view, seen as terror
as a noir, up there with 'Falcon'
As cinema, can anyone even compete with Welles?
use of narration
one of many examples of Welles taking the film form beyond what anyone else would do
use of montage most confident, fastest, most aggressive since Eisenstein
throwing images in the face
courtroom scene, Joan of Arc esque isolation of Welles in dock
acting of Hayworth as femme fatale, expressionistic performances from all
accentuated by the super close-ups using the wide angled lens
looming over
gives the Wellesian depth of field, along with those huge contrasts (sillouhettes, beach, aquarium)
dramatic high and low angles
if the ASL lessens at the end, early longer takes with some whip-crack camera movements
Welles also has his swoop in- cross of omniscience with Noirish confusion (like 'Kane')
A bamboozling Noir, quite deliberately, story makes little sense
deliberately bringing to logical culmination the insanity/ self-destructiveness of Noir
Welles recognises that noir is the apocalpyptic genre
deliberately overdone, overwild
final sequences around the funfare is beyond stunning (precursor in 'Kane'?)
use of multiple images to show loss of identity/ confusion/ appearance
Welles creates stunning images, bringing the film form to his limit
the deceptively omniscient tone, then the chaos, leads to the world, even in long-view, seen as terror
as a noir, up there with 'Falcon'
As cinema, can anyone even compete with Welles?
Three Times
2005, acclaimed Hou Hsiao-hsien
really enjoyed this tryptich, teased out parts of each other, and stood alone
long takes, luscious smooth camera movements
use of colour and lighting to set off stark images with telephoto lens
first story has costume standing out against backdrop
backlighting emphasised starkness
two dimensional , not much space
second story uses distance more, fist use of near and far space, wider shots
characters costumes dissappear into the setting
third story racks up the space, large distances, dislocations
also the most fragmented, bitty story, with washed out clothes
actors obviously show great variety
music in fist two segments as well done as can be
each segement shows change, through asking to compare similarities
if the final third is the weakest, still an excellent collection
really enjoyed this tryptich, teased out parts of each other, and stood alone
long takes, luscious smooth camera movements
use of colour and lighting to set off stark images with telephoto lens
first story has costume standing out against backdrop
backlighting emphasised starkness
two dimensional , not much space
second story uses distance more, fist use of near and far space, wider shots
characters costumes dissappear into the setting
third story racks up the space, large distances, dislocations
also the most fragmented, bitty story, with washed out clothes
actors obviously show great variety
music in fist two segments as well done as can be
each segement shows change, through asking to compare similarities
if the final third is the weakest, still an excellent collection
The Exterminating Angel
Luis Bunuel 1962
Wicked satire, repeated and developed in his later work
higher contrast, sharper images that 'Viridiana'
use of confined space; again little depth initially but moves around to create it
narrative of fragements of stories
relief of move to outside
as straightforwardly absurdist as Bunuel gets; though at once low-key and believable
again means this isn't symbolism; just intrusions of anarchy
great physical transformation of actors
second to last sequence is a chuckling parable
but doesn't let the viewer get complacent; final scenes are stunning and baffling. Violent
Wicked satire, repeated and developed in his later work
higher contrast, sharper images that 'Viridiana'
use of confined space; again little depth initially but moves around to create it
narrative of fragements of stories
relief of move to outside
as straightforwardly absurdist as Bunuel gets; though at once low-key and believable
again means this isn't symbolism; just intrusions of anarchy
great physical transformation of actors
second to last sequence is a chuckling parable
but doesn't let the viewer get complacent; final scenes are stunning and baffling. Violent
Sunday 26 December 2010
Viridiana
1961 Luis Bunuel
classic Bunuel in that incredibly overdeterminded/ baffling
also use of obscenity
and bourgeios hiding deep psychonanalsed fetishishes etc
use of low contrast
and telephoto lens, stagey sets
Bunuel though creates space by a constant fluid movement of the camera
swooping in and out, using it as the eye of the viewer to notice
use of fetishised women and serene acting style
a sense of horror, demanding of the viewer
as always with the great Bunuel, very watchable and very difficult to get a hold on
Cries out for multiple views
classic Bunuel in that incredibly overdeterminded/ baffling
also use of obscenity
and bourgeios hiding deep psychonanalsed fetishishes etc
use of low contrast
and telephoto lens, stagey sets
Bunuel though creates space by a constant fluid movement of the camera
swooping in and out, using it as the eye of the viewer to notice
use of fetishised women and serene acting style
a sense of horror, demanding of the viewer
as always with the great Bunuel, very watchable and very difficult to get a hold on
Cries out for multiple views
The Sand Pebbles
Robert Wise movie of 1966, Steve McQueen getting the lead
big epic with the kitchen sink; foreign locales, romance, action, war, all that
very standard in just about every way; not bad or good
starts well, nice us of deep focus, backlighting
space of the ship is usually too flat, but a couple of good edits
McQueen's character wonderfully delineated; man obsessed with machinery, taken away in anti-imperialist move
could read the whole film as anti-imperialist, showing failure of that (ending)
but simply too much shooting of foreigners, too anglo-centric characterisation
indeed, pretty racist in depiction of Chinese as other, not given characters
deep mundanity of direction and plot arcs
just runs through standard, pretty offensive arcs. Ciphers of foreigners and women
ending doesn't really make up for this
good to watch now and again, but this is nothing more really that deeply average standard Hollywood fare
big epic with the kitchen sink; foreign locales, romance, action, war, all that
very standard in just about every way; not bad or good
starts well, nice us of deep focus, backlighting
space of the ship is usually too flat, but a couple of good edits
McQueen's character wonderfully delineated; man obsessed with machinery, taken away in anti-imperialist move
could read the whole film as anti-imperialist, showing failure of that (ending)
but simply too much shooting of foreigners, too anglo-centric characterisation
indeed, pretty racist in depiction of Chinese as other, not given characters
deep mundanity of direction and plot arcs
just runs through standard, pretty offensive arcs. Ciphers of foreigners and women
ending doesn't really make up for this
good to watch now and again, but this is nothing more really that deeply average standard Hollywood fare
True Grit
1969 John Wayne, Henry Hathaway
can see why the Coen Brothers are remaking- downright weird
starts really very engaging; offbeat use of girl with hangings etc
Wayne is better than usual, less board-like
editing a little haphazard, bu rolls along
character development is minimal; leads to not caring
ergo dull last half hour
but still weird; farcical action sequences
an interesting curio, if not a very good film
can see why the Coen Brothers are remaking- downright weird
starts really very engaging; offbeat use of girl with hangings etc
Wayne is better than usual, less board-like
editing a little haphazard, bu rolls along
character development is minimal; leads to not caring
ergo dull last half hour
but still weird; farcical action sequences
an interesting curio, if not a very good film
The Sons Of Katie Elder
1965, John Wayne (Henry Hathaway)
John Wayne is a lump, and a little wooden in everything, but strong beyond reason
pretty good fun, especially at the start
always the wide shots
pretty down the line direction, not much there
story can't quite build up pathos, but halfway decent
gets a bit dull, but not bad at all
John Wayne is a lump, and a little wooden in everything, but strong beyond reason
pretty good fun, especially at the start
always the wide shots
pretty down the line direction, not much there
story can't quite build up pathos, but halfway decent
gets a bit dull, but not bad at all
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, John Ford- Wow!
One of the better, modern Westernes
simple use of contrasting characters- Wayne/Stewart
Strong use of negative characterisation, gives a little edge
story is simple, if cattle but not entirely necessary (end a little obvious?)
Direction is on sets, but is seemless usually
not scared to occassionaly break continuity, but largely invisible
low contrast cinematography
wonderful direction of shooting scene- use of shadows
well told story, exciting
Ford clearly a master
One of the better, modern Westernes
simple use of contrasting characters- Wayne/Stewart
Strong use of negative characterisation, gives a little edge
story is simple, if cattle but not entirely necessary (end a little obvious?)
Direction is on sets, but is seemless usually
not scared to occassionaly break continuity, but largely invisible
low contrast cinematography
wonderful direction of shooting scene- use of shadows
well told story, exciting
Ford clearly a master
Bande a Part
1964, Jean-Luc Cinema Godard
more classically shot
apart from high high indoor contrast (natural otherwise)
long pans, though not tracking
classical in sense of wider takes, full bodies. Gun Crazy (end of Vivre Sa Vie)
Most Bout de Souffle- ish
deconstructive homage to gangsterism
great fun, all the same
some bits work better than others, there you are
not anti woman, just analysing that strand
Godard is cinema
more classically shot
apart from high high indoor contrast (natural otherwise)
long pans, though not tracking
classical in sense of wider takes, full bodies. Gun Crazy (end of Vivre Sa Vie)
Most Bout de Souffle- ish
deconstructive homage to gangsterism
great fun, all the same
some bits work better than others, there you are
not anti woman, just analysing that strand
Godard is cinema
Friday 24 December 2010
La Chinoise
Jean-Luc Godard, 1967
very entertaining, really flys by
(generally) hard lighting. Use of red, blue, yellow colours
interesting political debate
very funny, moving
Leaud as fantastic, really get something out of the others too
Godard at once sympathising and seeing beyond
use of intellectual on train (lit differently) really shows Godard's critique
self-reflexivity justified and well used- turns it into a genuine debate
one of Godard's most satisfying films, perhaps most entertaining. Has some immense scenes, involving relationships, too
very entertaining, really flys by
(generally) hard lighting. Use of red, blue, yellow colours
interesting political debate
very funny, moving
Leaud as fantastic, really get something out of the others too
Godard at once sympathising and seeing beyond
use of intellectual on train (lit differently) really shows Godard's critique
self-reflexivity justified and well used- turns it into a genuine debate
one of Godard's most satisfying films, perhaps most entertaining. Has some immense scenes, involving relationships, too
Two Or Three Things I Know About Her
1967, Jean-Luc Godard
fragmented narrative, many long shots
some more arresting than others, generally good dialogue
striking images
heavily lit, more than before
shots of industry
genuinely invites thought, brings into conversation
maybe needs a few watches
fragmented narrative, many long shots
some more arresting than others, generally good dialogue
striking images
heavily lit, more than before
shots of industry
genuinely invites thought, brings into conversation
maybe needs a few watches
The Bishop's Wife
1947 from Henry Koster, or Cary Grant and David Niven
masses of accents
continuity ahoy, stage sets obvious
everyone lit fully
Grant as rather bizarre, but electric; like as a star he is the angel
Niven is rather more believable
enjoyable, if a bit perfunctory, hurry up at times
magical scene on the ice
but no big emotional payoff
masses of accents
continuity ahoy, stage sets obvious
everyone lit fully
Grant as rather bizarre, but electric; like as a star he is the angel
Niven is rather more believable
enjoyable, if a bit perfunctory, hurry up at times
magical scene on the ice
but no big emotional payoff
Gertrud
1964 Carl Theodor Dreyer
downright bizarre cast movement- dreamworld
more stagey than ever
use of light, again, for faces
few powerful moments with overexposure
plot is classic scandanavian tradition
difficult to see much, filmically, beyond that
downright bizarre cast movement- dreamworld
more stagey than ever
use of light, again, for faces
few powerful moments with overexposure
plot is classic scandanavian tradition
difficult to see much, filmically, beyond that
Wednesday 22 December 2010
Ordet
Carl Theodor Dreyer 1955
very stagey
use of light again
off stage sound (in Day Of Wrath) too
shows how what isn't there that matters
swinging back and forth with religious themesthough underplayed, in simplicity really makes it clear
is the end deserved? Doubtless powerful, but need to really invest to get it
Really very much like a stage (part from couple of headshots)
very stagey
use of light again
off stage sound (in Day Of Wrath) too
shows how what isn't there that matters
swinging back and forth with religious themesthough underplayed, in simplicity really makes it clear
is the end deserved? Doubtless powerful, but need to really invest to get it
Really very much like a stage (part from couple of headshots)
Day Of Wrath
1943 Carl Theodor Dreyer
Changing characters
more than just one way on the sympathy, though ends more clearly
use of light to show attention. Trope of white around the face
huge, high contrast
sensational, baroque framing
very realist despite these touches
long pans
a steady story, concentrate hard as underplayed
a few sensational scenes, light, slow walking
looks great at times, if a little stagey
Changing characters
more than just one way on the sympathy, though ends more clearly
use of light to show attention. Trope of white around the face
huge, high contrast
sensational, baroque framing
very realist despite these touches
long pans
a steady story, concentrate hard as underplayed
a few sensational scenes, light, slow walking
looks great at times, if a little stagey
Detective
Jean-Luc Godard 1985
Fragments of the story
incredibly confusing, occassionally dull, some nice moments
good acting from the superstars, though always tough to keep up interest
sharp contrasts
the end of the narrative cinema? Forefront of theory
impressive at times, but needs a lot of work
Fragments of the story
incredibly confusing, occassionally dull, some nice moments
good acting from the superstars, though always tough to keep up interest
sharp contrasts
the end of the narrative cinema? Forefront of theory
impressive at times, but needs a lot of work
Boudu Saved From Drowning
Use of depth
more enjoyable second time
yes, Renoir loves every character, but really very biting
use of Boudu at the start; comedy sequence? Comment?
Lovely, funny at times, very good (not technically perfect as 'Regle De Jeu'
more enjoyable second time
yes, Renoir loves every character, but really very biting
use of Boudu at the start; comedy sequence? Comment?
Lovely, funny at times, very good (not technically perfect as 'Regle De Jeu'
Masculin Feminin
Jean-Luc Godard, 1966
Great first half
mix of political conversation and striking images
stills on faces and tracking shots. Fast film
not cold, but very personal
use of guns to confuse
use of sound to mess with perceptions and to create space
politics and the personal intersect
Leaud is intense, young
runs out a bit, not political enough?
tough to keep interest up minus narrative
Great first half
mix of political conversation and striking images
stills on faces and tracking shots. Fast film
not cold, but very personal
use of guns to confuse
use of sound to mess with perceptions and to create space
politics and the personal intersect
Leaud is intense, young
runs out a bit, not political enough?
tough to keep interest up minus narrative
Tuesday 21 December 2010
Helas Pour Moi
Jean-Luc Godard, 1993
difficuly to follow, understand, poetic
Godard's horizontal space in long pans
mix this with heavy backlighting
use of sound, to create self-reference, demonstrate artifice, take off guard
opaque, but with moments
difficuly to follow, understand, poetic
Godard's horizontal space in long pans
mix this with heavy backlighting
use of sound, to create self-reference, demonstrate artifice, take off guard
opaque, but with moments
Somewhere
Sophia Coppola, new
long images, wide shots much of the time
lets them act, gets into a rythm
graphic matches withing the scenes and without
a few good compositions, using deep space
idea of inability to communicate, be good
not self-indulgent, portrait of all modern life
trying to be good where the concept of good doesn't exist
use of crane shot- hedonism as La Dolce Vita
a few missteps, but generally very impressive, unHollywood style
best Hollywood filmmaker working?
long images, wide shots much of the time
lets them act, gets into a rythm
graphic matches withing the scenes and without
a few good compositions, using deep space
idea of inability to communicate, be good
not self-indulgent, portrait of all modern life
trying to be good where the concept of good doesn't exist
use of crane shot- hedonism as La Dolce Vita
a few missteps, but generally very impressive, unHollywood style
best Hollywood filmmaker working?
Vivre Sa Vie
1962 movie from Jean-Luc Godard, and likely the favourite of his movies that we have seen.
Opening shot; obscures faces, keeps depth through mirror use. And dark contrasts
relation of showing a face to Jeanne D'Arc, idea of the close up
narrative just about follows
use of long takes with moving camera. Pans, reframings, stay aware of camera
use of mirrors
use of sound; cutting out, showing artifice. Subtitled section indicating its a 'fake'- a movie
idea of life versus thought, the relation
comes to self-reflexivity, naturally and well
we are asked if we should mind that this is (only) a film. Is this part a film, or reality
great ending, shot in the master-take to make it U.S. exploitation filmic
impressive reflexivity
Opening shot; obscures faces, keeps depth through mirror use. And dark contrasts
relation of showing a face to Jeanne D'Arc, idea of the close up
narrative just about follows
use of long takes with moving camera. Pans, reframings, stay aware of camera
use of mirrors
use of sound; cutting out, showing artifice. Subtitled section indicating its a 'fake'- a movie
idea of life versus thought, the relation
comes to self-reflexivity, naturally and well
we are asked if we should mind that this is (only) a film. Is this part a film, or reality
great ending, shot in the master-take to make it U.S. exploitation filmic
impressive reflexivity
Monday 20 December 2010
The Thing
John Carpenter
Not very interesting direction
blood n guts and gore
nice build up and so on
really good bit was the narrative switch
couple of funny lines
shit, but a few things to learn
Not very interesting direction
blood n guts and gore
nice build up and so on
really good bit was the narrative switch
couple of funny lines
shit, but a few things to learn
Monsters
Super low budget-indie ish feel
but still hollywood crap in script in plot
nice graphics
beautiful moment at one point
still rather hokum, if exciting on occassion
but still hollywood crap in script in plot
nice graphics
beautiful moment at one point
still rather hokum, if exciting on occassion
An Ordinary Execution
not very believable, but quite good
why the wide angled lens? Russian? Otherwordly, often used for totalitarianism
note also deep compositions, low angles
cuts too much, but still creates some nice compositions
still quite good, nice shots
wonderfully dream like at times, wonderful exit scene
low contrast
random, story bits
why the wide angled lens? Russian? Otherwordly, often used for totalitarianism
note also deep compositions, low angles
cuts too much, but still creates some nice compositions
still quite good, nice shots
wonderfully dream like at times, wonderful exit scene
low contrast
random, story bits
Carlos
Bond Movie, basil exposition
Fast filmstock, darkish contrasts
bit of moving around, mixed with continuity editing
episodic, clearly ofr bigger part
not exactly in depth
bit one damn thing after another, but really quite entertaining
Fast filmstock, darkish contrasts
bit of moving around, mixed with continuity editing
episodic, clearly ofr bigger part
not exactly in depth
bit one damn thing after another, but really quite entertaining
Sunday 19 December 2010
Des Hommes et Des Dieux (Of Gods And Men)
New film- Xavier Beauvois
Use of vertical/ horizontal. depth inside, blacklighting, monks/ horizontal pans
relate to landscape- telephot lens means has to be shot in daytime
creates geometry of monks
use of turning towards the light. Break ups of symmetry
hardowrking film, very very fragemented narrative
builds up, works hard to reach monstrous music scene
witnesses, rather than lives. Too documentarian?
Very good, but not perfect
Use of vertical/ horizontal. depth inside, blacklighting, monks/ horizontal pans
relate to landscape- telephot lens means has to be shot in daytime
creates geometry of monks
use of turning towards the light. Break ups of symmetry
hardowrking film, very very fragemented narrative
builds up, works hard to reach monstrous music scene
witnesses, rather than lives. Too documentarian?
Very good, but not perfect
Boudu Saved From Drowning
Renoir 1932
Renoir sympathyic to every character, even double crossing bourgeois
Use of Boudu as central/ in relation to others
planting traps around the ouse. low contrast
dreamy interiors, faster film outside
Boudu taking the outside inside/ mixes of this
use of deep space
not realistic in any way
Renoir-elegance hides a fragmented, almost impressionistic narrative
looks easy, but layers and layers make it difficult
Renoir sympathyic to every character, even double crossing bourgeois
Use of Boudu as central/ in relation to others
planting traps around the ouse. low contrast
dreamy interiors, faster film outside
Boudu taking the outside inside/ mixes of this
use of deep space
not realistic in any way
Renoir-elegance hides a fragmented, almost impressionistic narrative
looks easy, but layers and layers make it difficult
The Shop Around The Corner
Ernst Lubitsch 1940
Shadowless lightening
Stewarts face as bright, soft focus. Younger. Electric
Couple of jumos, classic continuity
Quite funny, pleasurable
Builds up tension, big ending
Themes?
Shadowless lightening
Stewarts face as bright, soft focus. Younger. Electric
Couple of jumos, classic continuity
Quite funny, pleasurable
Builds up tension, big ending
Themes?
Saturday 18 December 2010
BFI Short Films: Beginnings
Amelia and the Angel; Ken Russell, 1958; This is a terrific little piece, genuinely innovative, using the image in ways embarrassingly rare among British filmmakers. Undoubtedly a part of some kind of new-wave, this is playful, with street shooting and an emphasis on character, childlike simplicity. It adopts impressionist images, giving us a sense of interiority similar to earlier French work. The sharp constrasts, the casting shadows gives it a legacy in some of the European Poe-like adaptations, bit it quickly changes to more fairytale registers, moving out of focus. O.K, some of the symbols are a little heavy handed, but generally it is nicely ambiguous, the dancing adults and dog are well portrayed curios. Notice also the sound and image disjunction, again showing the non-reliance on narrative, drawing attention to the fine images. In taking real care for the form, a better path for British film.
Boy and Bicycle; Ridley Scott, 1956; This film shows some good inventiveness, angled camera shots and a concern for objects. However, it quickly reveals that it really only has 3 camera moves. This makes it predictable and a little mawkish, heightened by the awful modernist voiceover. There are a few good evocations of feeling, but this is not too great.
The Burning; Stephen Frears; 1967; A Straight narrative, which is fitfully interesting for the character of the boy, but one would really rather read a book. It is generally dull, not taking much care for the medium. Note also the poor use of space for narrative purposes, characters walking int places where nothing should exist. Fine for stylish films, this just hems in the supposedly socially conscious narrative.
I’m British But....; Gurinder Chadha, 1989
Where’s the Money Ronnie!; Shane Meadows, 1996
Boy and Bicycle; Ridley Scott, 1956; This film shows some good inventiveness, angled camera shots and a concern for objects. However, it quickly reveals that it really only has 3 camera moves. This makes it predictable and a little mawkish, heightened by the awful modernist voiceover. There are a few good evocations of feeling, but this is not too great.
The Burning; Stephen Frears; 1967; A Straight narrative, which is fitfully interesting for the character of the boy, but one would really rather read a book. It is generally dull, not taking much care for the medium. Note also the poor use of space for narrative purposes, characters walking int places where nothing should exist. Fine for stylish films, this just hems in the supposedly socially conscious narrative.
I’m British But....; Gurinder Chadha, 1989
Where’s the Money Ronnie!; Shane Meadows, 1996
Thursday 16 December 2010
Taste Of Cherry
1997 Abbas Kiarostami
Sharp, dark people against yellow. white/ sand,backgrounds
3 or f camera uses; claustrophobia. Move out to longer shots. Frames within frames
usual Kiarostami; long takes, driving, still
Use of language, simple, poetic
Clearer, less opaque than usual. Direct
Normal people, sometimes ugly
the right ending, if difficult. Avoid easy route. Time to think in the last few shots
Sharp, dark people against yellow. white/ sand,backgrounds
3 or f camera uses; claustrophobia. Move out to longer shots. Frames within frames
usual Kiarostami; long takes, driving, still
Use of language, simple, poetic
Clearer, less opaque than usual. Direct
Normal people, sometimes ugly
the right ending, if difficult. Avoid easy route. Time to think in the last few shots
Wednesday 15 December 2010
One Flew Over The Cukoo's Nest
Milos Forman 1975
flat, telephoto.No focus Similarity of colours
more shadows as went on, all round lighting earlier
muck around editing; no sense of space created. Claustrophobic
huge contrast with the dark colours outside (Mc murphy hat inside)
Ignore last few shots
political; best moment when he passes out, long shot of the face
flat, telephoto.No focus Similarity of colours
more shadows as went on, all round lighting earlier
muck around editing; no sense of space created. Claustrophobic
huge contrast with the dark colours outside (Mc murphy hat inside)
Ignore last few shots
political; best moment when he passes out, long shot of the face
Tuesday 14 December 2010
Ladri Di Biciclette (Bicycle Thieves)
Vittorio de Sica 1948
Wide open space created by long shots
use of horizintal streets, and axis towards camera. Contribute to cityscape (as Rosselini, of the city, but different techniques)
film of performances; tense, hard hands
back lighting, generally hard lit
panning shots from the side
rules broken, investigative shooting
bare interiors
scenes- epileptic, final, rain- all hugely overdetermined
deceptively simple, ans simple, byt more themes shooting off than Rosselini
Wide open space created by long shots
use of horizintal streets, and axis towards camera. Contribute to cityscape (as Rosselini, of the city, but different techniques)
film of performances; tense, hard hands
back lighting, generally hard lit
panning shots from the side
rules broken, investigative shooting
bare interiors
scenes- epileptic, final, rain- all hugely overdetermined
deceptively simple, ans simple, byt more themes shooting off than Rosselini
Roma, Cita Aperta(Rome, Open City)
Roberto Rossellini 1945
Fast
lighting on faces, and in the rooms
relatively conventionally put together
narrow, all stuffed together, quite deep
quality of film stock, quite close camera but many different locations give cityscape
shock character
mix of stories/ ambiguities of character. Unconventional, short goals (ramps up at end)
big hearted humanism, not mawkish
Fast
lighting on faces, and in the rooms
relatively conventionally put together
narrow, all stuffed together, quite deep
quality of film stock, quite close camera but many different locations give cityscape
shock character
mix of stories/ ambiguities of character. Unconventional, short goals (ramps up at end)
big hearted humanism, not mawkish
Friday 10 December 2010
Picnic At Hanging Rock
Peter Weir's 1975 movie, that appears to have aged very well, that is being revived and popular in recent years. It is not without fault, but is a film of deep themes, well made.
The early shots use costume and non-backlighting to make the girls sink into the walls. This contrasted with the hugely exposed outdoor from the windows, and the red of the skin that burns throughout the whole film. This signals the main theme of the film; the female sexuality that explodes on the order, that can't be contained.
It is almost the image of the mythical ur-woman, the earth female who can't be portrayed on the screen. The English gentleman is the signifier for the filmmaker; who desperately attempts to capture some kind of view, but is left only with enigmatic traces. The scene of the cloth is the finest moment of the film, put perhaps this theme comes a little bit too quickly. The film is slightly too taken up with extreme expressionist angles, which can rather overcook it. We would rather this wasn't combined with the music also, leading to it being rather overdone on occassion.
Reading the signs of the female body are fascinating. The relations to cyclical time, the sexual organ symbols of the settings and props. There are good use of these, also in the character of Mrs Appleyard, who is a well set character, nicely set off against Queen Victoria in a dim nod towards colonialism.
The plot changes are interesting enough, largely quite readable after the initial problems (a late death). Perhaps even more mystery would have helped, but then that would have dpreived us of some fine late scenes of contrasting colours of the girl who can leave, and she who can't.
So, an impressive film, not perfect, but with many interesting compositions and themes.
The early shots use costume and non-backlighting to make the girls sink into the walls. This contrasted with the hugely exposed outdoor from the windows, and the red of the skin that burns throughout the whole film. This signals the main theme of the film; the female sexuality that explodes on the order, that can't be contained.
It is almost the image of the mythical ur-woman, the earth female who can't be portrayed on the screen. The English gentleman is the signifier for the filmmaker; who desperately attempts to capture some kind of view, but is left only with enigmatic traces. The scene of the cloth is the finest moment of the film, put perhaps this theme comes a little bit too quickly. The film is slightly too taken up with extreme expressionist angles, which can rather overcook it. We would rather this wasn't combined with the music also, leading to it being rather overdone on occassion.
Reading the signs of the female body are fascinating. The relations to cyclical time, the sexual organ symbols of the settings and props. There are good use of these, also in the character of Mrs Appleyard, who is a well set character, nicely set off against Queen Victoria in a dim nod towards colonialism.
The plot changes are interesting enough, largely quite readable after the initial problems (a late death). Perhaps even more mystery would have helped, but then that would have dpreived us of some fine late scenes of contrasting colours of the girl who can leave, and she who can't.
So, an impressive film, not perfect, but with many interesting compositions and themes.
Le Boucher (The Butcher)
The late Claude Chabrol, seen as perhaps the most 'mainstream' of the key new wave directors, made this fine little film in 1970. Wr found it precidely at the axis of the point where Alfred Hitchcock and Luis Bunuel intersect.
The Hitchockian elements; that is the slow build up of tension, the atmosphere of creeking unease. We don't have the Bernard Hermann brass band, but from the very beginning the soundtrack gives us a presentiment. Indeed, there is something slightly delicious of the violence here. The viewer feels a glee at picking it apart, a kind of fun in the violence. There is a sharp little stab of black humour here, very Hitchcockian.
The Luis Bunuel line is the flat surface where tensions boil, but are ultimately completely unseen. The way the characters are manipulating each other, putting each other to horrendous acts, but there is no sign of anything. This cool surface, in the way they walk and the muted, bare sets of the small town, give us a film of surfaces, which makes the viewer wish to really examine the whole screen.
There are a couple of nice twists, and some excellent shots at the end, particularly on the trolley. This was a great personal device, the difference and closeness in tone really bringing out strong emphasis. They, like the film as a whole, was a stab of real pleasure and interest.
The Hitchockian elements; that is the slow build up of tension, the atmosphere of creeking unease. We don't have the Bernard Hermann brass band, but from the very beginning the soundtrack gives us a presentiment. Indeed, there is something slightly delicious of the violence here. The viewer feels a glee at picking it apart, a kind of fun in the violence. There is a sharp little stab of black humour here, very Hitchcockian.
The Luis Bunuel line is the flat surface where tensions boil, but are ultimately completely unseen. The way the characters are manipulating each other, putting each other to horrendous acts, but there is no sign of anything. This cool surface, in the way they walk and the muted, bare sets of the small town, give us a film of surfaces, which makes the viewer wish to really examine the whole screen.
There are a couple of nice twists, and some excellent shots at the end, particularly on the trolley. This was a great personal device, the difference and closeness in tone really bringing out strong emphasis. They, like the film as a whole, was a stab of real pleasure and interest.
La Salaire De La Peur (The Wages Of Fear)
Henri-Georges Clouzot's 1953 movie, that proved hugely popular and it seen as one of the totems of a fine career. We weren't completely sold, but would be hesitant to criticis it too much; a total criticism is difficult, considering how different the two halves of the film are (in content, perhaps more than thematically).
The opening uses some nice tracking and camera movements, giving us long shots that really convey a sense of passing time. Space is not (generally) cut up, and this bleeds into the general atmosphere. That is of a kind of dry sweat, a dusty heat, and parching, with white to yellow heavily exposed areas (contrasted with the low-key lighting of the interiors). The finest performance in this is the at once petulant, but with a sharp radiance, of the female lead, Vera Clouzot. One of the problems we had of this film is how she effectively dissappers.
Our problem with the second half is that it all becomes a little standard, a little hoary. Except for a not particularly built up masculinity, it is difficult to find too much of a reason to care. It is too easy to sink in and frankly forget what went before. It seems to turn into just various set pieces, and, oddly considering how incredibly Clouzot built up tension in 'Les Diaboliques', suspense didn't seem to feature too heavily here.
Perhaps something was missed, perhaps we will engage more on examination of greater detail, emphasising and identifying with thw characters more, to be brought into the second half. For now, we were rather underwhelmed.
The opening uses some nice tracking and camera movements, giving us long shots that really convey a sense of passing time. Space is not (generally) cut up, and this bleeds into the general atmosphere. That is of a kind of dry sweat, a dusty heat, and parching, with white to yellow heavily exposed areas (contrasted with the low-key lighting of the interiors). The finest performance in this is the at once petulant, but with a sharp radiance, of the female lead, Vera Clouzot. One of the problems we had of this film is how she effectively dissappers.
Our problem with the second half is that it all becomes a little standard, a little hoary. Except for a not particularly built up masculinity, it is difficult to find too much of a reason to care. It is too easy to sink in and frankly forget what went before. It seems to turn into just various set pieces, and, oddly considering how incredibly Clouzot built up tension in 'Les Diaboliques', suspense didn't seem to feature too heavily here.
Perhaps something was missed, perhaps we will engage more on examination of greater detail, emphasising and identifying with thw characters more, to be brought into the second half. For now, we were rather underwhelmed.
The Birth Of A Nation
1915 movie from D. W. Griffiths. Seen as perhaps the fist proper film, one of the most important, perhaps, as the first, the primary narrative film and epic. The touchstone, a masterful piece of work. Also completely vile.
The narrative cross-cutting is masterful. Even as this film is obviously 'only' laying the foundations, it balances its omniscient narrative stance great pace for each scene. It rythmically allows us not to forget any particular line. The film increasingly focusses on the Cameron film, as though to draw us in on to an increasingly personal view.
The detail of the mis-en-scene is also incredible. The interiors are at once simple, not distracting, but each element adds new interest. Think particularly of the 'ermine' dress; a beautiful touch, not entirely necessary, but without having to introduce anything extraneous deepens our understanding. This makes the film not at all drag; their is a wonderful momentun, due to all the factors, in the edit.
Then we have the content of the film. Griffiths attitude is absolutely mystifying; how can someone who is clearly aware that he is making this film (the intertitles), go ahead and make it so vile? Charicature, dreadful cop-outs, nearly worse than unmentioned racism, because it tries to make an argument.
This does severely effect it as a film. At first it is a curiousity; watch how this happens. But then it, frankly, become sickening, because one has to constantly resist the cavalcade of ugliness. It breeds an aggressive attitude towards the film, and certainly makes one want to turn off.
This precludes it from being a great work of art, as it effects the form in the exhibition. There are endless lessons here, and for that it is sensational. But, once lessons learned, the film is best forgotten.
The narrative cross-cutting is masterful. Even as this film is obviously 'only' laying the foundations, it balances its omniscient narrative stance great pace for each scene. It rythmically allows us not to forget any particular line. The film increasingly focusses on the Cameron film, as though to draw us in on to an increasingly personal view.
The detail of the mis-en-scene is also incredible. The interiors are at once simple, not distracting, but each element adds new interest. Think particularly of the 'ermine' dress; a beautiful touch, not entirely necessary, but without having to introduce anything extraneous deepens our understanding. This makes the film not at all drag; their is a wonderful momentun, due to all the factors, in the edit.
Then we have the content of the film. Griffiths attitude is absolutely mystifying; how can someone who is clearly aware that he is making this film (the intertitles), go ahead and make it so vile? Charicature, dreadful cop-outs, nearly worse than unmentioned racism, because it tries to make an argument.
This does severely effect it as a film. At first it is a curiousity; watch how this happens. But then it, frankly, become sickening, because one has to constantly resist the cavalcade of ugliness. It breeds an aggressive attitude towards the film, and certainly makes one want to turn off.
This precludes it from being a great work of art, as it effects the form in the exhibition. There are endless lessons here, and for that it is sensational. But, once lessons learned, the film is best forgotten.
Friday 3 December 2010
Eden
It's been quite a while since we've seen a real piece of crap, this isn't the nastiest thing ever, but it's pretty darn poor.
The camerawork is incredibly obvious, with banal shots flicking backward and forthward at lengths of no interest.
This is visually dull, with the same shots of Gregoire at the table, eating, bit of emotion close up, blah blah blah.
There are, added to this a few straightforward bad moves from scene to scene, some bad cuts that get the view of the scene all wrong. We are left hanging, the last one ended wrongly.
The acting and the relationships have a kind of crappy unnaturalism, the lead has too much make-up, it is almsot laughable how certain things just happen wierdly. The script is a mixture of actors explaining bits of the contrived story (one especially funny explanation in the park).
The acting is rather cardboard, unbelievable. It is simply of no interest. The relationship, along with the situations and th general plot structure, is cliched beyond redemption. Even the 'surprises' add little.
This isn't the worst film ever, we have been a little cruel perhaps, in certain ways it is not all that different from the kind of fare that generally packs into most French, Italian, and Spanish cinema. It plinks along, there's one good joke, and it wasn't, as a whole, particularly boring. Just not very good; even rather bad.
The camerawork is incredibly obvious, with banal shots flicking backward and forthward at lengths of no interest.
This is visually dull, with the same shots of Gregoire at the table, eating, bit of emotion close up, blah blah blah.
There are, added to this a few straightforward bad moves from scene to scene, some bad cuts that get the view of the scene all wrong. We are left hanging, the last one ended wrongly.
The acting and the relationships have a kind of crappy unnaturalism, the lead has too much make-up, it is almsot laughable how certain things just happen wierdly. The script is a mixture of actors explaining bits of the contrived story (one especially funny explanation in the park).
The acting is rather cardboard, unbelievable. It is simply of no interest. The relationship, along with the situations and th general plot structure, is cliched beyond redemption. Even the 'surprises' add little.
This isn't the worst film ever, we have been a little cruel perhaps, in certain ways it is not all that different from the kind of fare that generally packs into most French, Italian, and Spanish cinema. It plinks along, there's one good joke, and it wasn't, as a whole, particularly boring. Just not very good; even rather bad.
Lola
1981 movie, BRD3, from Fassbinder.
This movie is bright, colourful, gaudy, sickening lurid greens and reds that pour out of the screen, through the senses, in shaded areas. His mixes with the thematic gaudiness, but again more underneath that. A kind of grounding of artifice, entire appearance that suggests depths visible, but not communicable. It is our sense that prove inadequate, not the colour.
This is the most obviously related to old hollywood, particularly Sternberg's 'Blue Angel', and again plays with the themes.
The central characters are well played, fascinating. There is at time something Bunuel esque about their internal lives expressed through a kind of closed off, flatness, which is the product of their own over-reactions.
Fassbinder is a master of strong individual scenes, often with the addition of a central character adding an excess that determines the whole. Thus quite straightforward narratives are given an extra element, even as Fassbinder has quite a mainstream narrative flow.
This is the continuation of themes, dialectics of money represented through the stages that in this film in particular are all shown, chronologically.
Fassbinder has his usual tracking shots, mixtures of mid and wider with a few close ups, for a slightly flat style that every now and again finds us at an interesting view.
We have enjoyed Fassbinder's films. They haven't completely thrown our lives into chaos with their brilliance, being formally quite simple and fast, but there are layers and great cinema references that really let meanings conjeal. We look forward to seeing more of his (large) oeuvre.
This movie is bright, colourful, gaudy, sickening lurid greens and reds that pour out of the screen, through the senses, in shaded areas. His mixes with the thematic gaudiness, but again more underneath that. A kind of grounding of artifice, entire appearance that suggests depths visible, but not communicable. It is our sense that prove inadequate, not the colour.
This is the most obviously related to old hollywood, particularly Sternberg's 'Blue Angel', and again plays with the themes.
The central characters are well played, fascinating. There is at time something Bunuel esque about their internal lives expressed through a kind of closed off, flatness, which is the product of their own over-reactions.
Fassbinder is a master of strong individual scenes, often with the addition of a central character adding an excess that determines the whole. Thus quite straightforward narratives are given an extra element, even as Fassbinder has quite a mainstream narrative flow.
This is the continuation of themes, dialectics of money represented through the stages that in this film in particular are all shown, chronologically.
Fassbinder has his usual tracking shots, mixtures of mid and wider with a few close ups, for a slightly flat style that every now and again finds us at an interesting view.
We have enjoyed Fassbinder's films. They haven't completely thrown our lives into chaos with their brilliance, being formally quite simple and fast, but there are layers and great cinema references that really let meanings conjeal. We look forward to seeing more of his (large) oeuvre.
Veronika Voss
1982, chronologically last but second entry in the BRD trilogy from Rainer Werner Fassbinder. The black and white shots are well concieved. They use sharp, sharp contrasts, giving a two-dimensional artificiality to the use of depth. It is the most accurate use of the old Hollywood aethetic we have seen. The film is over and under exposed; deep unconstrasted blacks and overexposed whites. Again, old hollywood.
The plot is similar, with the relation to hollywood meoldrama in the acting style, and directly referenced. It has all the best aspects of that tradition; the unreal formalism is taken out of its rather worrying ideological context, at the time, and made into a pure aesthetic here.
As in 'Maria Braun', we again have a fractured narrative, the centre of the movie dances from the reporter to Veronika and back again. It creates an uneasiness, but is needed so we have a entrire reworking, not just an update, of its precursors.
This film operates at the crossroads of noir, melodrama,and the European art film. It has the dark, idea of internal chaos, with the extreme acting of the glycoreine tears. Yet all through the Fassbinder perspective; an intelligent filmmaker who again offers up more layers. He is a filmmaker to be watched in conjunction with the history of cinema; his spin-offs are of the best kind.
The plot is similar, with the relation to hollywood meoldrama in the acting style, and directly referenced. It has all the best aspects of that tradition; the unreal formalism is taken out of its rather worrying ideological context, at the time, and made into a pure aesthetic here.
As in 'Maria Braun', we again have a fractured narrative, the centre of the movie dances from the reporter to Veronika and back again. It creates an uneasiness, but is needed so we have a entrire reworking, not just an update, of its precursors.
This film operates at the crossroads of noir, melodrama,and the European art film. It has the dark, idea of internal chaos, with the extreme acting of the glycoreine tears. Yet all through the Fassbinder perspective; an intelligent filmmaker who again offers up more layers. He is a filmmaker to be watched in conjunction with the history of cinema; his spin-offs are of the best kind.
The Marriage Of Maria Braun
First film of the loosely collected BRD strand (three films) from Rainer Werner Fassbinder, this was 1979. All related for Germany's post-war 'miracle', the moral compromises, how the political is the personal.
Warm colours are used by Fassbinder, the suggestion that they are washed out is true to an extent but shouldn't be overdone. This is a 70's film, full of that era's simplistic spaces in its use of film stock that gives a certain bright blankness.
The use of music and the radio to obscure sound is interesting here, as though the changing world and the industrial clangs are overwhelming the attempt at communication.
This is further emphasised in the obscuring camera uses, where we can at times fail to see the front of faces or what wethe singified of the story is. This works with the long dolly shots that track across distances, not quite voyeuristically but in a manner of a frind, rather than direct indentification. This non-direct identification is mirrored in the story, where we have a variety of different strands. Maria is the centre but the camera and scenes don't always follow her. The woman as the centre of the piece is good early feminist cinema, though as more of a symbol than a character, it can seem so at times. The again, most of them are.
The content at its most obvious is quite clear; high capitalism effecting personal relations, driving to mania, combined with psychonanalytic fetishes that have an object which, at the last analysis, they don't really want.
There are some sensational constructions and individual scenes in this film. When the husband returns, nearly every scene with the G.I., has a slightly uneasy, wondrous transcendental sense. As a whole, there's a lot here, but also the sense that there may be even more than the sum of its (impressive) parts. Fassbinder, for all his impressive shots, is also playing hide and seek to an extent here.
An impressive film, not too far from the mainstream, with the suggestion of more.
Warm colours are used by Fassbinder, the suggestion that they are washed out is true to an extent but shouldn't be overdone. This is a 70's film, full of that era's simplistic spaces in its use of film stock that gives a certain bright blankness.
The use of music and the radio to obscure sound is interesting here, as though the changing world and the industrial clangs are overwhelming the attempt at communication.
This is further emphasised in the obscuring camera uses, where we can at times fail to see the front of faces or what wethe singified of the story is. This works with the long dolly shots that track across distances, not quite voyeuristically but in a manner of a frind, rather than direct indentification. This non-direct identification is mirrored in the story, where we have a variety of different strands. Maria is the centre but the camera and scenes don't always follow her. The woman as the centre of the piece is good early feminist cinema, though as more of a symbol than a character, it can seem so at times. The again, most of them are.
The content at its most obvious is quite clear; high capitalism effecting personal relations, driving to mania, combined with psychonanalytic fetishes that have an object which, at the last analysis, they don't really want.
There are some sensational constructions and individual scenes in this film. When the husband returns, nearly every scene with the G.I., has a slightly uneasy, wondrous transcendental sense. As a whole, there's a lot here, but also the sense that there may be even more than the sum of its (impressive) parts. Fassbinder, for all his impressive shots, is also playing hide and seek to an extent here.
An impressive film, not too far from the mainstream, with the suggestion of more.
Friday 26 November 2010
The Battle Of Algiers
Another chance to see one of the all time great (from 1966) films; has there been better films with the content of war as its subject.
We immeditely cast our minds to 'Waltz With Bashir'. These films can't be directly compared to each other, that is not the intention. What one could argue has happened is that there has been a movement in the experience of sanctioned violence. It now no longer has this street style, the dirty compromises and so on. It is now all completely unreal, the round edges and complete unreality. Even for when it is being lived, war is now a memory, now something that no one ever experiences except through songs and slightly waspish mediation of others, that one can look at, read about, but can't touch. Even for those 'soldiers'. It is a new kind of space, no longer concrete but now cut apart by the camera, it is a sort of floating space far far away from the street and the houses that, in 'Algiers', the actors can and do constanly dissapear into.
'The Battle Of Algiers' was just as powerful on second watching. It remains the truth of the horrible cliche, 'unbearably tense', it has identification, even-handedness, but still an immensely powerful message? Is the music a little overheated? It adds great atmosphere, boduly feelings are engaged enough as it is, but all the more so.
Despite it being a repeat view, the final scenes still bring one to tears of power. The overwhelming power of the people remains in this film, and in our experience of watching it. But where else?
We immeditely cast our minds to 'Waltz With Bashir'. These films can't be directly compared to each other, that is not the intention. What one could argue has happened is that there has been a movement in the experience of sanctioned violence. It now no longer has this street style, the dirty compromises and so on. It is now all completely unreal, the round edges and complete unreality. Even for when it is being lived, war is now a memory, now something that no one ever experiences except through songs and slightly waspish mediation of others, that one can look at, read about, but can't touch. Even for those 'soldiers'. It is a new kind of space, no longer concrete but now cut apart by the camera, it is a sort of floating space far far away from the street and the houses that, in 'Algiers', the actors can and do constanly dissapear into.
'The Battle Of Algiers' was just as powerful on second watching. It remains the truth of the horrible cliche, 'unbearably tense', it has identification, even-handedness, but still an immensely powerful message? Is the music a little overheated? It adds great atmosphere, boduly feelings are engaged enough as it is, but all the more so.
Despite it being a repeat view, the final scenes still bring one to tears of power. The overwhelming power of the people remains in this film, and in our experience of watching it. But where else?
Delicatessen
This 1991 film from Caro and Jeunet, we realised about half an hour in, is amazingly good. Really, frankly very surprisingly, it turns into a great work. Where did that come from?
The directors are formally interesting enough to use cuts (the clock tick rythms) and more particularly colours, to convey something beyond the content; why the formalism of cinema is the justification of cinema. The yellowish, dark sand blasted outsides provides the house as a microcosm and at once connected, as the wind blows. The post-apocalyptic setting works very well on a double level. It at once means they aren't tied to anything, but certainly evokes memories of collaboration, and the hell people will inflict in such siutations. This film is, in a way, about responsibility, intelligently smuggled into what could be seen as a slice of macabre.
The dream character of the heightened colours is at times funny and involving, but certainly keeps the powerful atmosphere going. Excellent, excellent, excellent, a joyful surprise.
The directors are formally interesting enough to use cuts (the clock tick rythms) and more particularly colours, to convey something beyond the content; why the formalism of cinema is the justification of cinema. The yellowish, dark sand blasted outsides provides the house as a microcosm and at once connected, as the wind blows. The post-apocalyptic setting works very well on a double level. It at once means they aren't tied to anything, but certainly evokes memories of collaboration, and the hell people will inflict in such siutations. This film is, in a way, about responsibility, intelligently smuggled into what could be seen as a slice of macabre.
The dream character of the heightened colours is at times funny and involving, but certainly keeps the powerful atmosphere going. Excellent, excellent, excellent, a joyful surprise.
Sunrise: A Song Of Two Humans
This famous work (1927) from F.W. Murnau is amazing to see; an exciting and surprisingly violent (tonally) silent film, full of lessons in the making of the film, of storytelling, how you can put content together, and the changing fashions.
The opening of this film uses very clear stereotypes of good and evil. Murnau uses similar techniques to what he did in 'Nosferatu', with the use of shade on the faces of )every) evil charatcer, and those lurching backs.
It is next to unbelievable that our hero, at one point, attempts to murder his wife. This shows a different in gender relations, no doubt, but also shows a shift in the kinf of realism; for an early master like Murnau, cinema is more clearly seen as a kind of fantasia, a dream, where the usual rules don't apply.
The seamless but, from modern perspectives, odd shoft to the city represents a particular high moment. There are a number of great technical issues of lighting and focus in how Murnau shoots the whole wide city. We don't know directors before Murnau who used cuts so often, manipulating and falsifying space on occassion, to create, again, a dream world.
This story is told in a wonderful tight manner. It is simple enough to induce real emotional power in the viewer. We have been blessed to see another example of the greatness of cinema, a perfection of its type.
The opening of this film uses very clear stereotypes of good and evil. Murnau uses similar techniques to what he did in 'Nosferatu', with the use of shade on the faces of )every) evil charatcer, and those lurching backs.
It is next to unbelievable that our hero, at one point, attempts to murder his wife. This shows a different in gender relations, no doubt, but also shows a shift in the kinf of realism; for an early master like Murnau, cinema is more clearly seen as a kind of fantasia, a dream, where the usual rules don't apply.
The seamless but, from modern perspectives, odd shoft to the city represents a particular high moment. There are a number of great technical issues of lighting and focus in how Murnau shoots the whole wide city. We don't know directors before Murnau who used cuts so often, manipulating and falsifying space on occassion, to create, again, a dream world.
This story is told in a wonderful tight manner. It is simple enough to induce real emotional power in the viewer. We have been blessed to see another example of the greatness of cinema, a perfection of its type.
Berlin: Symphony Of A Great City
Classic city symphony, from 1927, to go with the truly marvellous 'Man With A Movie Character'.
We watched this film without a soundtrack, which didn't help, but all the same it is clearly a great work of art, of brilliance. How does it differ from Vertov's masterwork? It is less violent formally, using montage more rarely as a technique for effecting the very visual aparatus of the viewer.
It is also rather more sympathetic, though still focussing on the object rather than the person it is more cuddly, to a small extent, more playful. This may be as it concentrates more on the actual way the exposure levels are used; the wonderful heavy, uncontrasted blacks of the nighttime shots are magical rather than sharp.
They also have the train shots, and amazing shots of the street we saw from Vertov. It is more structured, more particular, making it easier to parse, with the positives and negatives so entailed.
This, obviously, is a film of a higher level; a treasure.
We watched this film without a soundtrack, which didn't help, but all the same it is clearly a great work of art, of brilliance. How does it differ from Vertov's masterwork? It is less violent formally, using montage more rarely as a technique for effecting the very visual aparatus of the viewer.
It is also rather more sympathetic, though still focussing on the object rather than the person it is more cuddly, to a small extent, more playful. This may be as it concentrates more on the actual way the exposure levels are used; the wonderful heavy, uncontrasted blacks of the nighttime shots are magical rather than sharp.
They also have the train shots, and amazing shots of the street we saw from Vertov. It is more structured, more particular, making it easier to parse, with the positives and negatives so entailed.
This, obviously, is a film of a higher level; a treasure.
The Firebird & Les Noces
Two performers of Diaghilev Ballet Russes, shot in modern performances, designed by Goncharova.
The Firebird; The ballet, in a fascinating manner, uses the foregrounding and the backgrounding. The firebird is initially in front, Ivan as the voyeur. The rest of the piece is the male attempt to win the powerful symbolic position, to retain his lone ability to enter from the right. The key trope here is that he has to realise that he can't keep this power; it is selfish, phallo-centric. The reveal of this is wonderful.
Also interesting is the use of depth in this piece. The way that the bodies of the other dancers are used to illustrate the inability of the lovers to communicate, how they must be within the crowd and are at once held from a unsustainable immediacy through it.
Les Noces; A sharp little piece. To note here is the assymety of the sides of the stage. As we may also see the extremely cramped stage use, around the balck outlines. What actually squeezes up here is surprisingly messy fiddly; if the people are clockwork machines, then they are the thousands of un-understandable cogs of the watch. The final thing we want to say here is the brilliant way every single aspect of the piece is mediated. When some are violently moving, others stay dead still, eerily so. The stage is the stage, again, of the voyeur, it is a great move towards self-awareness, and promotes a kind of Checkovian sadness.
These were enjoyable to watch, and we look forward to seeing more ballet (on stage rather than chopped up by cameras, hopefully).
The Firebird; The ballet, in a fascinating manner, uses the foregrounding and the backgrounding. The firebird is initially in front, Ivan as the voyeur. The rest of the piece is the male attempt to win the powerful symbolic position, to retain his lone ability to enter from the right. The key trope here is that he has to realise that he can't keep this power; it is selfish, phallo-centric. The reveal of this is wonderful.
Also interesting is the use of depth in this piece. The way that the bodies of the other dancers are used to illustrate the inability of the lovers to communicate, how they must be within the crowd and are at once held from a unsustainable immediacy through it.
Les Noces; A sharp little piece. To note here is the assymety of the sides of the stage. As we may also see the extremely cramped stage use, around the balck outlines. What actually squeezes up here is surprisingly messy fiddly; if the people are clockwork machines, then they are the thousands of un-understandable cogs of the watch. The final thing we want to say here is the brilliant way every single aspect of the piece is mediated. When some are violently moving, others stay dead still, eerily so. The stage is the stage, again, of the voyeur, it is a great move towards self-awareness, and promotes a kind of Checkovian sadness.
These were enjoyable to watch, and we look forward to seeing more ballet (on stage rather than chopped up by cameras, hopefully).
Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia
This 1974 film is the first film we have seen from Sam Peckinpah. It truly impressed us, up there with some of the very finest moments from Hollywood, that congealed around that boundaries-breaking period.
As with all even close to mainstream Hollywood, this isn't exactly shot in an avant-garde manner, but still does have its own distinctive style. One of the first we have here is the dreamy shot. The floating, abstract quality, which changes the entire colour tone of the film, has a special kind of psychoanalytic magic to it.
Peckinpah has a few nice wide compositions throughout. We have some stark shadows of the lone figure, the long man, caught among the contrasts of the rocks and the detritus of Mexico.
An easy thing to say about Pecknipah is to accuse him of sexism, or rather misogyny; and there is undoubtedly more than a question of this. Their are too many shots of the lead female topless, and, though the casual violence has a purpose (showing how it infiltrates from top to bottom, the way they can't have proper relationships in this world, even if they liked) there is perhaps a bit too much dwelling, an undoubted fascination which seems erotic in its gaze.
The key element of this film is how it is one of the perfect, perhaps the very purest we can see committed to film in a clear manner, show of commodity fetishism. The love of the dead object is quite literal. The obsession with the use-value over exchange-value, how it makes what it does make out of personal relations. This can be explicated right up to a very specific point. The raising of the dead as the bringing of violence, how there is simply no way out.
We again have how the individual's world collapses in on him; the classic trope of every single great Hollywood movie. For that reason we are in a variety of minds about the end of the film; is it too much, a wish fulfillent. Or maybe that is the point, the ridiculous scream, that of course blows up in the face.
This is a film of violence and almost the absurd. It is both entertaining, occassionally beautiful, and heated almost beyond belief. Skirting on the edges of the great Hollywood movies.
As with all even close to mainstream Hollywood, this isn't exactly shot in an avant-garde manner, but still does have its own distinctive style. One of the first we have here is the dreamy shot. The floating, abstract quality, which changes the entire colour tone of the film, has a special kind of psychoanalytic magic to it.
Peckinpah has a few nice wide compositions throughout. We have some stark shadows of the lone figure, the long man, caught among the contrasts of the rocks and the detritus of Mexico.
An easy thing to say about Pecknipah is to accuse him of sexism, or rather misogyny; and there is undoubtedly more than a question of this. Their are too many shots of the lead female topless, and, though the casual violence has a purpose (showing how it infiltrates from top to bottom, the way they can't have proper relationships in this world, even if they liked) there is perhaps a bit too much dwelling, an undoubted fascination which seems erotic in its gaze.
The key element of this film is how it is one of the perfect, perhaps the very purest we can see committed to film in a clear manner, show of commodity fetishism. The love of the dead object is quite literal. The obsession with the use-value over exchange-value, how it makes what it does make out of personal relations. This can be explicated right up to a very specific point. The raising of the dead as the bringing of violence, how there is simply no way out.
We again have how the individual's world collapses in on him; the classic trope of every single great Hollywood movie. For that reason we are in a variety of minds about the end of the film; is it too much, a wish fulfillent. Or maybe that is the point, the ridiculous scream, that of course blows up in the face.
This is a film of violence and almost the absurd. It is both entertaining, occassionally beautiful, and heated almost beyond belief. Skirting on the edges of the great Hollywood movies.
Belleville Rendez Vous
This short little piece from Sylvain Chomet, made in 2003, is a fun enough little piece of work, though it is unlikely something that will be returned to all that often.
Like 'The Illusionist' it is nearly silent, and again much information is conveyed through a sense of the grotesque, of the extreme. This leads to some certainly aggressive images, in what is generally an alienated picture. The real lack of identification mixes with the use of the dog as an mediated device. The fact that what we have the closest relation to is something that is seen as utterly idiotic makes for a difficuly picture.
This picture is more primatively animated than 'The Illusionist', and doesn't wuite employ the same long shots. It also has less of a deeper sense of grief and character, the jokes here are clearly antecedents in the slightly off beat stereotypes, but the way they are used differently, that is in a different perspective, leads to a less thoughtful, but slightly more direct film.
So, we quite enjoyed this, though it wouldn't last too long.
Like 'The Illusionist' it is nearly silent, and again much information is conveyed through a sense of the grotesque, of the extreme. This leads to some certainly aggressive images, in what is generally an alienated picture. The real lack of identification mixes with the use of the dog as an mediated device. The fact that what we have the closest relation to is something that is seen as utterly idiotic makes for a difficuly picture.
This picture is more primatively animated than 'The Illusionist', and doesn't wuite employ the same long shots. It also has less of a deeper sense of grief and character, the jokes here are clearly antecedents in the slightly off beat stereotypes, but the way they are used differently, that is in a different perspective, leads to a less thoughtful, but slightly more direct film.
So, we quite enjoyed this, though it wouldn't last too long.
Friday 19 November 2010
Sympathy For Mr Vengeance
This 2002 movie is known as the first part of an incredibly popular cross-over trilogy, the next part being 'Oldboy'. It's a good film, good looking, but too difficult to get too excited by.
We couldn't help but being constantly reminded of 'Mother', which is a better film, with more psychoanalytic depth, and more of a slant on things. The visuals are similar, with the vibrant, clear colours, especially light greens and a very bright white sunshine. The use of the city, the cross of the still quite brazen shanty-towns, also takes us back to 'Mother'. As do the kinds of characters that are portrayed. The very clear off beatness, here occassionally falling into 'quirky'.
The basic tenet of this film is, outside of the all the trappings, actually quite simple. It is all about the extents to which people fit in to society, with those who rebel against the symbolic order moving against it, and those who thought they were safe, ideology-less, finding their worlds falling apart. Everyone though is trapped in a kind of self-centredness, that makes the violence completely inevitable.
There are some interesting images here which adds to this. The reverse 'Antigone' of the burial outside the order, and the general fall of the unthinking capitalist, are well done. The political allusions are underdeveloped, but there's something there.
This film though doesn't really offer solutions, and does find itself going around in circles, running out of themes a bit. It turns into a bloodbath which can, frankly, become a little dull.
This film has interesting themes and a decent enough visual style, but as art and politically (the same) it is a bit of closed circle. It would be silly to say this film isn't quite good, but a stretch to say a lot more.
We couldn't help but being constantly reminded of 'Mother', which is a better film, with more psychoanalytic depth, and more of a slant on things. The visuals are similar, with the vibrant, clear colours, especially light greens and a very bright white sunshine. The use of the city, the cross of the still quite brazen shanty-towns, also takes us back to 'Mother'. As do the kinds of characters that are portrayed. The very clear off beatness, here occassionally falling into 'quirky'.
The basic tenet of this film is, outside of the all the trappings, actually quite simple. It is all about the extents to which people fit in to society, with those who rebel against the symbolic order moving against it, and those who thought they were safe, ideology-less, finding their worlds falling apart. Everyone though is trapped in a kind of self-centredness, that makes the violence completely inevitable.
There are some interesting images here which adds to this. The reverse 'Antigone' of the burial outside the order, and the general fall of the unthinking capitalist, are well done. The political allusions are underdeveloped, but there's something there.
This film though doesn't really offer solutions, and does find itself going around in circles, running out of themes a bit. It turns into a bloodbath which can, frankly, become a little dull.
This film has interesting themes and a decent enough visual style, but as art and politically (the same) it is a bit of closed circle. It would be silly to say this film isn't quite good, but a stretch to say a lot more.
The Mirror (Zerkalo)
1975 film from Tarkovskiy, this is known as his most difficult, and perhaps his most audacious film. We found it indeed very, very difficult, but at the same time a complete work, where greatness lies.
The image takes precedence in this movie. The shots of the wheatfield, the yellows and the wind and smoke that fly through them, supplies some moments of sublimity. The long, wide shots convey this well. As does a kind of emptiness, a kind of use of blank spaces and empty air. Their are moments of great beauty, as this technique really lets nature come out, without having to be drawn. In particular we remember the woodpile, and we remember the bird that floats. Again, we have two very difficult images to compute, which again may be better on re-watching.
The juxtapostions of memory, with the at time drawling alter-ego of the director giving us a tour (this is the closest Tarkovskiy will get to identifying witha character; his floating camera stops this largely).
Tarkovskiy's long scenes aren't particularly noticeable, because of these movements. His films don't intrude on one, despite the high levels of difficulty and symbolic/allegorical opaqueness.
This is another film we look greatly forward to seeing again, on the greatest size of screen we possibly can. It will reveal more, in its propulsive imagery and multi-layered manner. We remain curious.
The image takes precedence in this movie. The shots of the wheatfield, the yellows and the wind and smoke that fly through them, supplies some moments of sublimity. The long, wide shots convey this well. As does a kind of emptiness, a kind of use of blank spaces and empty air. Their are moments of great beauty, as this technique really lets nature come out, without having to be drawn. In particular we remember the woodpile, and we remember the bird that floats. Again, we have two very difficult images to compute, which again may be better on re-watching.
The juxtapostions of memory, with the at time drawling alter-ego of the director giving us a tour (this is the closest Tarkovskiy will get to identifying witha character; his floating camera stops this largely).
Tarkovskiy's long scenes aren't particularly noticeable, because of these movements. His films don't intrude on one, despite the high levels of difficulty and symbolic/allegorical opaqueness.
This is another film we look greatly forward to seeing again, on the greatest size of screen we possibly can. It will reveal more, in its propulsive imagery and multi-layered manner. We remain curious.
Andrei Rublev
This 1966, epically long and epically concieved, film from Andriy Tarkovskiy is, well, epic.
It is very difficult to get a grasp on. It reminded us, if it is fair to compare such a monstrous piece of work, with 'Marketa Lazarova'. This can, undoubtedly, be rather frustrating. The episodic structure is a slow, slow buildup.
It does though come together. The time is very long, but to be fair it is entirely necessary. Any less and the historical sweep would be lacking. But Tarkovskiy does manage to show time, genuinely, passing. The long scenes, and indeed periods, where frankly very little happens, to characters we sometimes do not at all know too well, gives us a real experience, a feeling that is rare in the homogenous world of temporal form.
The themes of the artist's struggles, indeed the individual against the collective, is brilliant in some excerpts (the bell creator is a wonderful story), and sometimes just very good.
As for the camerawork, we now come to terms with Tarkovskiy's style. We have no particular character held on to, but we have long shots. Tarkovskiy does not however have static shots. He moves his camera round, not at a crawling pace but still at a pretty slow one. His shots remind us, as much as any, of the great Flemish village painters (Brueghel, above all). This is in the dark tones, the very blank, in some respects, use of colours, but with subtle differences of contrast that build up and up. He uses mid shots, and he uses some long shots, of the field.
One the subject of colour, Tarkovskiy introduces his striking technicolour at the end. This seems especially vivd, and at first Tarkovskiy uses simple phenomenological excitement at the pure colour. As we move out, we further see the fine images we have not seen before (a smart move; scenes of mental inspiration are next to impossible).
The music nicely sets off the historical time as well. Tarkovskiy is clearly a great examiner of the past, he shares in equal genius with perhaps only Kurosawa the ability to realise that only a kind of blank simplicity, that doesn't impose but is at once harsh, is the way to show the past as it must be.
This is a gargantuan work of art, and difficult to unravel, at times to fully engage with. The bigger the screen the better, to understand the images, in their initial coyness, at once penetrating out. Excellent.
It is very difficult to get a grasp on. It reminded us, if it is fair to compare such a monstrous piece of work, with 'Marketa Lazarova'. This can, undoubtedly, be rather frustrating. The episodic structure is a slow, slow buildup.
It does though come together. The time is very long, but to be fair it is entirely necessary. Any less and the historical sweep would be lacking. But Tarkovskiy does manage to show time, genuinely, passing. The long scenes, and indeed periods, where frankly very little happens, to characters we sometimes do not at all know too well, gives us a real experience, a feeling that is rare in the homogenous world of temporal form.
The themes of the artist's struggles, indeed the individual against the collective, is brilliant in some excerpts (the bell creator is a wonderful story), and sometimes just very good.
As for the camerawork, we now come to terms with Tarkovskiy's style. We have no particular character held on to, but we have long shots. Tarkovskiy does not however have static shots. He moves his camera round, not at a crawling pace but still at a pretty slow one. His shots remind us, as much as any, of the great Flemish village painters (Brueghel, above all). This is in the dark tones, the very blank, in some respects, use of colours, but with subtle differences of contrast that build up and up. He uses mid shots, and he uses some long shots, of the field.
One the subject of colour, Tarkovskiy introduces his striking technicolour at the end. This seems especially vivd, and at first Tarkovskiy uses simple phenomenological excitement at the pure colour. As we move out, we further see the fine images we have not seen before (a smart move; scenes of mental inspiration are next to impossible).
The music nicely sets off the historical time as well. Tarkovskiy is clearly a great examiner of the past, he shares in equal genius with perhaps only Kurosawa the ability to realise that only a kind of blank simplicity, that doesn't impose but is at once harsh, is the way to show the past as it must be.
This is a gargantuan work of art, and difficult to unravel, at times to fully engage with. The bigger the screen the better, to understand the images, in their initial coyness, at once penetrating out. Excellent.
(Ivanovo Detstvo) Ivan's Childhood
This 1962 film was the first but who is known as one of the finest directors of the era, Andriy Tarkovskiy.
This is a deceptively simple film. In some odd ways it is not actually very far at all from quite a traditional war movie, in that it examines the fate of a young biy at war. There are some interesting things in the background of this story though, indicating more at work.
The central character of Ivan is not just initially recalcitrant, but his sheer incorrigablilty right to the very end makes him almost remarkable. The narrative structure follows no one in particular, but that doesn't mean the conclusion becomes any less electric; the absence of Ivan to be followed, the way he is an empty concept, means he haunts the film before he does that final house.
The story does show things from a variety of perspectives, and has enough tropes of almost surreal, dreamlike behaviour to show here something damaged beyond the traditional fallout from war. Tarkovskiy may not, in this film, have let this idea fully flower, but it's there.
Tarkovskiy's camera work is floating, very elegant. There isn't a huge amount of identification, but there is quite a prominent number of Soviet style huge-face shots to go with this. The use of colour and contrast is sharp and, at times, remarkable. Tarkovskiy's traditional rolling smoke, the dark and wooden blacks of the forest, create some fine images.
This is a deceptively simple film in some ways. Underneath the complications, though, lie much, much more, perhaps latent. A little bit of a tease, but still rather good.
This is a deceptively simple film. In some odd ways it is not actually very far at all from quite a traditional war movie, in that it examines the fate of a young biy at war. There are some interesting things in the background of this story though, indicating more at work.
The central character of Ivan is not just initially recalcitrant, but his sheer incorrigablilty right to the very end makes him almost remarkable. The narrative structure follows no one in particular, but that doesn't mean the conclusion becomes any less electric; the absence of Ivan to be followed, the way he is an empty concept, means he haunts the film before he does that final house.
The story does show things from a variety of perspectives, and has enough tropes of almost surreal, dreamlike behaviour to show here something damaged beyond the traditional fallout from war. Tarkovskiy may not, in this film, have let this idea fully flower, but it's there.
Tarkovskiy's camera work is floating, very elegant. There isn't a huge amount of identification, but there is quite a prominent number of Soviet style huge-face shots to go with this. The use of colour and contrast is sharp and, at times, remarkable. Tarkovskiy's traditional rolling smoke, the dark and wooden blacks of the forest, create some fine images.
This is a deceptively simple film in some ways. Underneath the complications, though, lie much, much more, perhaps latent. A little bit of a tease, but still rather good.
Friday 12 November 2010
Tulpan
This film, set in and really all about the steppes of Kazakhstan, is a curious bit of cinema, one that is certainly worth watching, generally something a little different.
The first thing we thought about this film is the strange discontinuity in the very camerawork. It is shot in a narrow ratio, and follows, in very much a handheld, at home, and indeed probably not all too expensive manner, personal stories. Yet, it is set in these huge, barren, wide, horizontal steppes. It even has pretensions to capture this landscape; and here the tension lies, because it can't quite capture that.
The film uses some nice long shots, slow camerwork, that really lets the animal and the yurts come out. The fact that the singing and the little child are so incredibly annoying is either a price we have to pay, or deliberate.
The actual plot, the relationships of the family itself, are kept extremely opaque. Frankly, we're still not entirely sure what the relationships between the characters are. The use of the concept of the women, Tulpan, gives us some of the few personal moments, in a film that is more about the object than the subject.
The wider socio-political reality of the situation is an interesting one. There are elements of the outside intruding here; we can't escape from the fact that there is a certain level of stupidity in the lifestyles that we see, this is more than just simple rural bucolia. The floating camera work means that we, again, don't have a particularly personal film, but this does, on the other hand, allow some nice shots to be picked out, that fit well with the politics. A smart move in this is the few moves we have to the lead female; she is almost representative of a wider injustice, the stabs of outside values on this inward-looking world.
There are some amazing scenes; early morning sun, slow, slow scenes that twist with the wind. There is an incredible, aching scene (the physical apex of the film) where the lamb is borne; an amazing film, only available in this ind of low-budget work.
A really interesting film, not completely stunning due to certain camera constraints, but one of those that are always worth seeing.
The first thing we thought about this film is the strange discontinuity in the very camerawork. It is shot in a narrow ratio, and follows, in very much a handheld, at home, and indeed probably not all too expensive manner, personal stories. Yet, it is set in these huge, barren, wide, horizontal steppes. It even has pretensions to capture this landscape; and here the tension lies, because it can't quite capture that.
The film uses some nice long shots, slow camerwork, that really lets the animal and the yurts come out. The fact that the singing and the little child are so incredibly annoying is either a price we have to pay, or deliberate.
The actual plot, the relationships of the family itself, are kept extremely opaque. Frankly, we're still not entirely sure what the relationships between the characters are. The use of the concept of the women, Tulpan, gives us some of the few personal moments, in a film that is more about the object than the subject.
The wider socio-political reality of the situation is an interesting one. There are elements of the outside intruding here; we can't escape from the fact that there is a certain level of stupidity in the lifestyles that we see, this is more than just simple rural bucolia. The floating camera work means that we, again, don't have a particularly personal film, but this does, on the other hand, allow some nice shots to be picked out, that fit well with the politics. A smart move in this is the few moves we have to the lead female; she is almost representative of a wider injustice, the stabs of outside values on this inward-looking world.
There are some amazing scenes; early morning sun, slow, slow scenes that twist with the wind. There is an incredible, aching scene (the physical apex of the film) where the lamb is borne; an amazing film, only available in this ind of low-budget work.
A really interesting film, not completely stunning due to certain camera constraints, but one of those that are always worth seeing.
A Scene At The Sea
Early, 1991 film, from a director whose two films we have before seen and found absolutely stunning; Takeshi Kitano. This film is obviously an early work; and doesn't really get off the first few stages of its journey; not that it's a bad film.
We know this is a Kitano film because of the slowness, the fresh silences. The fact that our lead is deaf certainly helps this. Their is a massive lack of dialogue in this film; we know this is Kitano due to this, and we see how he has developed from there, into using sounds and diagetic sound more than the direct music here.
The music here isn't the films finest point. It has aged rather badly, sounding a bit like a computer game.
The surfing theme is sweet, as of course is the traditional Kitano kind of quiet pathos, a naiveness, that runs through the themes. Kitano knows he is doing this, but does some interesting caputring of this feeling, more than anything else.
Also, we have the colour schemes Kitano develops so well. Shot in an early morning light, the pale yellows. This isn't taken on to a particularly high level, but it is one of the features of the film that make it, all round, a mild pleasure to watch.
We know this is a Kitano film because of the slowness, the fresh silences. The fact that our lead is deaf certainly helps this. Their is a massive lack of dialogue in this film; we know this is Kitano due to this, and we see how he has developed from there, into using sounds and diagetic sound more than the direct music here.
The music here isn't the films finest point. It has aged rather badly, sounding a bit like a computer game.
The surfing theme is sweet, as of course is the traditional Kitano kind of quiet pathos, a naiveness, that runs through the themes. Kitano knows he is doing this, but does some interesting caputring of this feeling, more than anything else.
Also, we have the colour schemes Kitano develops so well. Shot in an early morning light, the pale yellows. This isn't taken on to a particularly high level, but it is one of the features of the film that make it, all round, a mild pleasure to watch.
Tony Manero
This Chilean dark stab, by Pablo Larrain, is a fascinating film.
It reminded us, and isn't in some ways (apart from the mild absurdity), entirely different from '4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days'. What we mean by this is partly the washed out exteriors. Some of the finest scenes in the film are those whenever the lead character is in the streets. The way he runs from location to location, the quiet that speaks terror, a kind of rustling through the colourless streets. The camerawork is of a handheld, following, almost shaky manner. We see the back of our lead's head, the grubby, fusty demeanour. This means the film isn't spectacularly distinguished visually, but it does build up an atmosphere, less of strangulation than of airlessness.
As for the politics of the film, these are fascinatingly evoked. The individual family plot is horrendous, but the film has to really be seen in a wider perspective. The idea of a dictatorial figure who all follow, all pathetically grovel under. It is difficult to analyse too much directly as symbols, but the general mood is well evoked. As for the stabs of violence, we again have to read it politically; stupid, pointless.
This is a good film, with perhaps not the visual capacity to stick in the mind as long as it could, but for its run time a potent message.
It reminded us, and isn't in some ways (apart from the mild absurdity), entirely different from '4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days'. What we mean by this is partly the washed out exteriors. Some of the finest scenes in the film are those whenever the lead character is in the streets. The way he runs from location to location, the quiet that speaks terror, a kind of rustling through the colourless streets. The camerawork is of a handheld, following, almost shaky manner. We see the back of our lead's head, the grubby, fusty demeanour. This means the film isn't spectacularly distinguished visually, but it does build up an atmosphere, less of strangulation than of airlessness.
As for the politics of the film, these are fascinatingly evoked. The individual family plot is horrendous, but the film has to really be seen in a wider perspective. The idea of a dictatorial figure who all follow, all pathetically grovel under. It is difficult to analyse too much directly as symbols, but the general mood is well evoked. As for the stabs of violence, we again have to read it politically; stupid, pointless.
This is a good film, with perhaps not the visual capacity to stick in the mind as long as it could, but for its run time a potent message.
Chun Gwong Cha Sit (Happy Together)
This 1997 movie from Wong Kar Wai, being by Wong Kar Wai, is, of course, completely brilliant.
The film has the director's traditional open, direct style. That is, he doesn't feel the need to show things that he can perfectly as well say. This is particularly satifying from an artistic point of view; a genuinely honest director. The relationship is also done in his traditional, simple way. The relationship is linear, without any need to take us on too many twists in upon itself. It follows a great rythm, never contrived. For all his visual flair and excitement, Wong Kar Wai, it is easy to forget, is one of the very finest storytellers. He he again has his repeated underlying sadness. A realisation that the circle does not always meet its other side; something things just end.
Visually, Wong Kar Wai is as great as ever. This film is more openly intriguing; its starts in black and white, with various dark contrasts. He moves to colour, always with a certain flare. He uses many fascinating shades, with filters on the cameras strikingly, often in dark contrasts. This creates a specially sharp film, one that almost glowers, but is prevented from being oppressive by a certain sense of duty.
As far as the use of the camera, Wong Kar Wai also uses the freeze frame on occassion. Again, Wong Kar Wai is adept at doing this without it seeming obtrusive; this is one of his aspects of genius; it is difficult to analyse, it is simply brilliant.
The framings and the images themselves are, of course, wonderful. The full body, the few mid shots. The smoke that twists in between them. Wonderful, modern, exciting compositions.
Wong Kar Wai is one of the very, very finest directors, certainly alive, perhaps he should be described, modern though as he is, to a wider scheme. This film isn't far off 'Chungking Express' and 'In The Mood For Love', it is difficult to evaluate now, but we look forward to seeing it again. Another great work.
The film has the director's traditional open, direct style. That is, he doesn't feel the need to show things that he can perfectly as well say. This is particularly satifying from an artistic point of view; a genuinely honest director. The relationship is also done in his traditional, simple way. The relationship is linear, without any need to take us on too many twists in upon itself. It follows a great rythm, never contrived. For all his visual flair and excitement, Wong Kar Wai, it is easy to forget, is one of the very finest storytellers. He he again has his repeated underlying sadness. A realisation that the circle does not always meet its other side; something things just end.
Visually, Wong Kar Wai is as great as ever. This film is more openly intriguing; its starts in black and white, with various dark contrasts. He moves to colour, always with a certain flare. He uses many fascinating shades, with filters on the cameras strikingly, often in dark contrasts. This creates a specially sharp film, one that almost glowers, but is prevented from being oppressive by a certain sense of duty.
As far as the use of the camera, Wong Kar Wai also uses the freeze frame on occassion. Again, Wong Kar Wai is adept at doing this without it seeming obtrusive; this is one of his aspects of genius; it is difficult to analyse, it is simply brilliant.
The framings and the images themselves are, of course, wonderful. The full body, the few mid shots. The smoke that twists in between them. Wonderful, modern, exciting compositions.
Wong Kar Wai is one of the very, very finest directors, certainly alive, perhaps he should be described, modern though as he is, to a wider scheme. This film isn't far off 'Chungking Express' and 'In The Mood For Love', it is difficult to evaluate now, but we look forward to seeing it again. Another great work.
Friday 5 November 2010
Voksne Mennesker (Dark Horse)
This quirky 2005 film, from the director (Dagur Kari) of the alright 'Noi The Albino', is a decent distraction.
It is filmed in a weird black and white, grainy style, giving it the feeling of a real low budget, indie, small enterprise, which it of course is. The shots aren't particularly amazing, but the general drained out look, as a visual effect,just about works.
This is a film about messing about, but it perhaps doesn't quite have the cojones to follow this through. It's not a pure portrait of slackerdom, there's a bit too much of a plot in it for that. This allows it a nice emotional moment at the end (the colour move), but the mediation is perhaps not quite worth that.
This film works better as a study of living in the present, with silliness. This could make it interesting and subjective study, though it perhaps is too keen to go for knockabout humour at times, which can dull the effect.
Overall? Diverting, but not much more.
It is filmed in a weird black and white, grainy style, giving it the feeling of a real low budget, indie, small enterprise, which it of course is. The shots aren't particularly amazing, but the general drained out look, as a visual effect,just about works.
This is a film about messing about, but it perhaps doesn't quite have the cojones to follow this through. It's not a pure portrait of slackerdom, there's a bit too much of a plot in it for that. This allows it a nice emotional moment at the end (the colour move), but the mediation is perhaps not quite worth that.
This film works better as a study of living in the present, with silliness. This could make it interesting and subjective study, though it perhaps is too keen to go for knockabout humour at times, which can dull the effect.
Overall? Diverting, but not much more.
El Laberinto Del Fauno (Pan's Labyrinth)
Seen as one of the finest films of, pretty much, the last decade, on rewatching we found it thoroughly excellent. It pretty much loves up to its exalted reputation.
We said most of what we wanted to say talking about 'The Devil's Backbone', which is thematically and visually a very similar film. 'Pan's Labyrinth' really just brings to fruition, even perfection, the elements developed in that film.
Aagain, we have the swooping visuals, the great panopoly of brooding, contrast-ful colours. And importantly we have that great divide of the child and the adult. Done visually, done thematically, done in tone. Here the child's phantasy is dominated even more by the outside world. The key thesis of this, again, very complicated film to analyse is really all about how the adult world will and must impinge upon the the dreams. There is no true escape, it is all just filtered through. The child's imagination cannot be kept seperate; it is conditioned by, destroyed.
The fact that this is a fable rather than a film of subjective identification works in its advantage, as differentiating it from most fare. The character of Ofelia is freed to have a kind of universality, yes she is a symbol, but that is only a criticism through blinkers. The quiet fable character gives this film, in correspondence with the form of Del Toro's direction, a powerful style.
Much to say, but the most important thing is that this is fine, fine, fine work.
We said most of what we wanted to say talking about 'The Devil's Backbone', which is thematically and visually a very similar film. 'Pan's Labyrinth' really just brings to fruition, even perfection, the elements developed in that film.
Aagain, we have the swooping visuals, the great panopoly of brooding, contrast-ful colours. And importantly we have that great divide of the child and the adult. Done visually, done thematically, done in tone. Here the child's phantasy is dominated even more by the outside world. The key thesis of this, again, very complicated film to analyse is really all about how the adult world will and must impinge upon the the dreams. There is no true escape, it is all just filtered through. The child's imagination cannot be kept seperate; it is conditioned by, destroyed.
The fact that this is a fable rather than a film of subjective identification works in its advantage, as differentiating it from most fare. The character of Ofelia is freed to have a kind of universality, yes she is a symbol, but that is only a criticism through blinkers. The quiet fable character gives this film, in correspondence with the form of Del Toro's direction, a powerful style.
Much to say, but the most important thing is that this is fine, fine, fine work.
El Espinazo Del Diablo (The Devil's Backbone)
2001 movie from Benicio Del Toro, recognised as one of the finer directors of his time.
Let's first look at Del Toro's use of the camera. It is big, wide, swooping. It follows everyone, on long, elegant shots. It has fun moving up and down the characters, not so much stroking as covering all the surfaces. This is a camera of omniscience, of onipresence, a rare return in these times of identification. Del Toro wants to create a truly story here. It is a genuine narrative rather than a character study, and gives the film part of its universal, fable like structure. Add to this the use of almost mythic symbols, the bomb and the casual transcendence. And of course the children.
Del Toro is another director who uses colour in a striking manner, yellows and sandblasted wide vistas. He is a man of the landscape, with great historical acuity.
Del Toro has a very hateful character in the film. Is this is perhaps slightly too simplistic, it may also be an interesting use of tropes; it should not be overdone. Of course this is a very political parable, but it should not be read as just 'those evil fascists'; their is an inhumanity in the old doctor also. The better reading is partly of inter-generational hells; the discontinuity of the wretched violence and the children, who seem far away from this, but cannot but encroach.
Del Toro uses many opaque symbols, which are difficult to decipher. The bomb, the wooden leg, amongst others. What Del Toro's overall purpose is remains difficult. Is it a recollection of the war, a witness, or is it related towards the future? Whatever it is, it is a good film. Visually interesting, if not with quite the sharpness to make it excellent.
Let's first look at Del Toro's use of the camera. It is big, wide, swooping. It follows everyone, on long, elegant shots. It has fun moving up and down the characters, not so much stroking as covering all the surfaces. This is a camera of omniscience, of onipresence, a rare return in these times of identification. Del Toro wants to create a truly story here. It is a genuine narrative rather than a character study, and gives the film part of its universal, fable like structure. Add to this the use of almost mythic symbols, the bomb and the casual transcendence. And of course the children.
Del Toro is another director who uses colour in a striking manner, yellows and sandblasted wide vistas. He is a man of the landscape, with great historical acuity.
Del Toro has a very hateful character in the film. Is this is perhaps slightly too simplistic, it may also be an interesting use of tropes; it should not be overdone. Of course this is a very political parable, but it should not be read as just 'those evil fascists'; their is an inhumanity in the old doctor also. The better reading is partly of inter-generational hells; the discontinuity of the wretched violence and the children, who seem far away from this, but cannot but encroach.
Del Toro uses many opaque symbols, which are difficult to decipher. The bomb, the wooden leg, amongst others. What Del Toro's overall purpose is remains difficult. Is it a recollection of the war, a witness, or is it related towards the future? Whatever it is, it is a good film. Visually interesting, if not with quite the sharpness to make it excellent.
The Social Network
One of the big new films of the year, directed by the respectable David Fincher and written by the renowned Aaron Sorkin.
Visually, it is a cut above the Hollywood norm. Fincher uses an interesting palate of colours, sharp greens and blacks jumping into moody angles. This is as close as modern Hollywood will get to expressionism, and all the better for it. It is a shame that Fincher does not take this further; it is very much background, a kind of visual flair he almost seems to want to hide, for commercial reasons. There is a suggestion that could have been developed more, a sort of grotesquery, that works well with the general themes of the harshness and leeriness of the characters to one another. There are some interesting shots in this film, some nice uses of sharp lighting and compositions, so we generally give Fincher thumbs up.
The plot really follws quite similarly, in that it has an interesting idea, but maybe doesn't carry it quite as far as it could have. This theme is the theme of hating everyone. The characters are pretty much entirely unsympathetic, again, they are really a cabinet of grotesques, though they never quite manage to be completely hateful cipher of a society a more biting portrait could have made them.
The dialogue keeps the entertainment, very fast, and we appreciate that. It occasionally falls into too much comedy, but that again reflects the general slight restrainedness of the film.
This film is about the loneliness of the individual, within the society, the technologies, the times. It is a picture of the times, but does perhaps pull its punches a little too much. Decent, better than most of the Hollywood dross.
Visually, it is a cut above the Hollywood norm. Fincher uses an interesting palate of colours, sharp greens and blacks jumping into moody angles. This is as close as modern Hollywood will get to expressionism, and all the better for it. It is a shame that Fincher does not take this further; it is very much background, a kind of visual flair he almost seems to want to hide, for commercial reasons. There is a suggestion that could have been developed more, a sort of grotesquery, that works well with the general themes of the harshness and leeriness of the characters to one another. There are some interesting shots in this film, some nice uses of sharp lighting and compositions, so we generally give Fincher thumbs up.
The plot really follws quite similarly, in that it has an interesting idea, but maybe doesn't carry it quite as far as it could have. This theme is the theme of hating everyone. The characters are pretty much entirely unsympathetic, again, they are really a cabinet of grotesques, though they never quite manage to be completely hateful cipher of a society a more biting portrait could have made them.
The dialogue keeps the entertainment, very fast, and we appreciate that. It occasionally falls into too much comedy, but that again reflects the general slight restrainedness of the film.
This film is about the loneliness of the individual, within the society, the technologies, the times. It is a picture of the times, but does perhaps pull its punches a little too much. Decent, better than most of the Hollywood dross.
Friday 29 October 2010
L'Heritage (The Legacy)
2006 movie, from the director whose most famous film is '13 Tzameti'.
This is a short little parable, which we grew into a rather enjoyed. In fact, it is very short. It seems like a short story, the way we have the lead up, the set up, the excitment, and the aftermath. A simple, linear structure. The characters are also deliberately not given much of a backing, much backdrop and 'deep' character scenes or action. In fact, they seem to come from the surface. We realise, as it comes towards the end, that this is a technique that is able to make a nice switch on us, that is able to suddenly turn and surprise us, as we realise the 'true' characterisation.
The shots are simple at first, but improve. We have lots of close-up, a complete loss of realistic space, which nicely balances the theme of how the lack of translation between the foreign environment and the cultural outsiders.
This theme deserves some explanation, and is perhaps the finest feature of the film. That fact that it turns out these French tourists really can't understand, really don't seem unable to be anything but in the way. It is a delicious little stab of a nice, a skewer, a sharp twist. This film changes perspective on us very cleverly, as we realise what's really going on here; about the Georgians, not about the French.
The colour also deserves a mention, the red faces really 'heating' up the atmosphere, really making things steam and sizzle with a sense of tension. Also notice with this the use of deep black tropes on both sides of the screen. The way it covers the windows and the backdrops.
This is a rather sweetly sharp film. Bitter, with a bit of tough to it, in its short short run time.
This is a short little parable, which we grew into a rather enjoyed. In fact, it is very short. It seems like a short story, the way we have the lead up, the set up, the excitment, and the aftermath. A simple, linear structure. The characters are also deliberately not given much of a backing, much backdrop and 'deep' character scenes or action. In fact, they seem to come from the surface. We realise, as it comes towards the end, that this is a technique that is able to make a nice switch on us, that is able to suddenly turn and surprise us, as we realise the 'true' characterisation.
The shots are simple at first, but improve. We have lots of close-up, a complete loss of realistic space, which nicely balances the theme of how the lack of translation between the foreign environment and the cultural outsiders.
This theme deserves some explanation, and is perhaps the finest feature of the film. That fact that it turns out these French tourists really can't understand, really don't seem unable to be anything but in the way. It is a delicious little stab of a nice, a skewer, a sharp twist. This film changes perspective on us very cleverly, as we realise what's really going on here; about the Georgians, not about the French.
The colour also deserves a mention, the red faces really 'heating' up the atmosphere, really making things steam and sizzle with a sense of tension. Also notice with this the use of deep black tropes on both sides of the screen. The way it covers the windows and the backdrops.
This is a rather sweetly sharp film. Bitter, with a bit of tough to it, in its short short run time.
Waltz Wth Bashir
Ari Folman's masterpiece from 2008. We remember it as one of our favourite films, full stop. On re-watching it surprised as, but remains stunning.
This film is largely about the aetheticisation of war. It is about the way war is portrayed through our false memories. It is, psychonanalytically, a fascinating film, with the backgrounds and symbols bleeding into the presence. This whole film bleeds background to foreground.
Visually, the film is quite simple. We know we are following Folman, we have wide or close shots or so on. The narrative pattern and structure is beautifully done though; deep and insightful, it shows how one bleeds into the next, of collective memory, and of totality.
The excitement and apparent sexiness of some of the actions scenes and the rock music certainly ramps up to a wild manner. The sharp lines really add to the modern, postmodern indeed, passage of what war is. Few films can be as close to dispaying the modern condition.
This film had a different overall tone than we remembered. We remembered the sexiness primarily. In fact this film is harsh, trenchant, unforgiving. What happened was disgusting, we ask ourselves; 'How can this happen? This is impossible'. This ending is a move from bleakness and twisting, which we must see, have to see. This is no cool and fast phatasy; this is bringing the unimaginable too light. Done, of course, through the imaginary animation. Still stunning.
This film is largely about the aetheticisation of war. It is about the way war is portrayed through our false memories. It is, psychonanalytically, a fascinating film, with the backgrounds and symbols bleeding into the presence. This whole film bleeds background to foreground.
Visually, the film is quite simple. We know we are following Folman, we have wide or close shots or so on. The narrative pattern and structure is beautifully done though; deep and insightful, it shows how one bleeds into the next, of collective memory, and of totality.
The excitement and apparent sexiness of some of the actions scenes and the rock music certainly ramps up to a wild manner. The sharp lines really add to the modern, postmodern indeed, passage of what war is. Few films can be as close to dispaying the modern condition.
This film had a different overall tone than we remembered. We remembered the sexiness primarily. In fact this film is harsh, trenchant, unforgiving. What happened was disgusting, we ask ourselves; 'How can this happen? This is impossible'. This ending is a move from bleakness and twisting, which we must see, have to see. This is no cool and fast phatasy; this is bringing the unimaginable too light. Done, of course, through the imaginary animation. Still stunning.
Lourdes
This has been one of our finest films of the year, and on re-watching it stands up to all that, and more.
The film was less stomach-grabbing than remembered, less awkward and nervous. What was instead found was an incredible sense of stillness and silenc; the shots could never go on too long, the laid out (but not drawing intention to themselves) composotions inviting endless looks. Some of the shots also look particularly interesting, in so far as they are peeks with some of the action obscured in a black; even half the screen.
The study of Catholicism is undoubtedly ambiguous. The path towards a critique though is more opened than we remembered, perhaps the film does come out in one direction. It does seem to have a message; that it is love, of Mr Carre for companionship, for togetherness, that is important.
As far as the content, we again sympathise hugely with Mrs Carre, who is in many ways the emotional heart of the film. Sylvie Testud's performance is quiet and cold, we study her as much as we feel with her.
Again, this film is one of the finest of, frankly, modern European film making. What may look slow from the outside is in fact never long enough; beautifully timed shots studying the look of life. The quiet, the in-betweens. We remain with some sensational final shots. The wonderfully entertaining and catchy, but idiotic, karaoke, and that look at Testud, whose thoughts we are asked to infer, the most powerful way.
The film was less stomach-grabbing than remembered, less awkward and nervous. What was instead found was an incredible sense of stillness and silenc; the shots could never go on too long, the laid out (but not drawing intention to themselves) composotions inviting endless looks. Some of the shots also look particularly interesting, in so far as they are peeks with some of the action obscured in a black; even half the screen.
The study of Catholicism is undoubtedly ambiguous. The path towards a critique though is more opened than we remembered, perhaps the film does come out in one direction. It does seem to have a message; that it is love, of Mr Carre for companionship, for togetherness, that is important.
As far as the content, we again sympathise hugely with Mrs Carre, who is in many ways the emotional heart of the film. Sylvie Testud's performance is quiet and cold, we study her as much as we feel with her.
Again, this film is one of the finest of, frankly, modern European film making. What may look slow from the outside is in fact never long enough; beautifully timed shots studying the look of life. The quiet, the in-betweens. We remain with some sensational final shots. The wonderfully entertaining and catchy, but idiotic, karaoke, and that look at Testud, whose thoughts we are asked to infer, the most powerful way.
A Man Escaped
1956 movie from Robert Bresson, seen as one of his finest films, and one of the more popular films he made.
This characterisation makes sense, as this is the Bresson film, perhaps, most easy to decipher. We are not caught in a kind of minimalist extinguishing of all the signs that could lead to meaning. Instead, we know what the central tension-filled excercise is, and what it represents; the religious symbolism is clear, the search for enlightenment and redemption, who can be taken with, how must one try, how may one get there?
The techniques are classic Bresson. The scenes are short, there are shots of inanimate objects which give a certain amount of woodenness to the whole proceeding. One of the more interesting aspects here is how much of the time is spent examing our hero's back; as almost though he wants to hide from us. In fact, the precise reasoning for this is difficult. The lighting effects also have an interest; Bresson may argue that he is simplistic in his shot selection (he is in fact not, his deliberate lack of artifice in fact draws attention to his direction more than usual), but that does not mean he is powerful, with great contrasts, in his lighting.
This film has a powerful sense of excitement, with a real lead up. In fact, the cumulative effect of such a lpowerful lead up makes the end all the more exciting; a particular thrill in the hugely difficult to access emotionally Bresson.
And we could not mention Bresson without the sound; here we have the keys that rattle, immensely powerfully. The sound is used as a source of tension here, the silences never just 'backdrop' but always a presenence in their quiet; something solid to be broken.
An accesible film from Bresson, making it simple and perhaps slightly less layered, but more pure enjoyable than usual.
This characterisation makes sense, as this is the Bresson film, perhaps, most easy to decipher. We are not caught in a kind of minimalist extinguishing of all the signs that could lead to meaning. Instead, we know what the central tension-filled excercise is, and what it represents; the religious symbolism is clear, the search for enlightenment and redemption, who can be taken with, how must one try, how may one get there?
The techniques are classic Bresson. The scenes are short, there are shots of inanimate objects which give a certain amount of woodenness to the whole proceeding. One of the more interesting aspects here is how much of the time is spent examing our hero's back; as almost though he wants to hide from us. In fact, the precise reasoning for this is difficult. The lighting effects also have an interest; Bresson may argue that he is simplistic in his shot selection (he is in fact not, his deliberate lack of artifice in fact draws attention to his direction more than usual), but that does not mean he is powerful, with great contrasts, in his lighting.
This film has a powerful sense of excitement, with a real lead up. In fact, the cumulative effect of such a lpowerful lead up makes the end all the more exciting; a particular thrill in the hugely difficult to access emotionally Bresson.
And we could not mention Bresson without the sound; here we have the keys that rattle, immensely powerfully. The sound is used as a source of tension here, the silences never just 'backdrop' but always a presenence in their quiet; something solid to be broken.
An accesible film from Bresson, making it simple and perhaps slightly less layered, but more pure enjoyable than usual.
Friday 22 October 2010
Katalin Varga
2009 film from Romania, but directed by the Brit Peter Strickland. Seen as one of the better tiny budget films of the past few years.
This is undoubtedly a gothic piece of work. It deliberately crackles onto us, both formally and in its content? How does it do this? The settings of the shadows striking, the cobwebby forests. The plot is in a way very stylised, our lead even referencing the idea of a witch.
Perhaps this film may have worked slightly better had it in fact gone the whole gothic hog; it does not though do so. We have some touching and interesting scenes of the lead's relationship with her son, along with interesting riffs on feminism, masculinty, other things. If the film had been pure and sharp like this (not any shorter; it's a little too short as it is) then perhaps it would have held the attention slightly better. Then again, it would have lost these interesting realist elements. Would it would have prevented, which is a problem, is how some scenes do individually drag. As a whole, the film paces itself very well, but some scenes, rather than shots, simply are too long, while others are too short. The film as a whole is actually a little short, more lead up may have added more weight, make it less gothic and spikey, though it would then have lost its fable quality.
Let us look at some of the interesting formal elements in this film. We love how the British director had the imagination to do this, really respect that he tried to do something. Perhaps we would have liked even more of this. The deliberate colour contrasts, of the sharp brights at the start moving to the greys as she must leave the idyll, is well done. It is one of a number of deliberately jarring effects, we're especially thinking about the cuts which is clearly meant to jolt, to 'snap' us, part of the gothic atmosphere. The difference between hand-held P.O.V. work, and the wide, brooding mountain scenes with smoke, is accentuated by the scene, the only connection scene, where one cascades into another. Sometimes, Stickland falls into a trap of chucking in some 'beautiful images' around a plot, so we especially appreciated when the two come together in this key shot.
The sounstrack is deliberately ratcheting up the diagetic sound, with cracks and clicks and various noises. This is partly just an effect, but on occassion works, if at other times its concatation with music can be melodramatic.
What about the themes? This is a film with an interesting feminist slant, which sits, perhaps a little uneasily, between its universal quality as a fable and its very much immanenet depiction of modern day Romania, the povery and the life there.
We didn't love this film, we appreciated the intelligent attempts formalism, but felt it couldn't quite find its way onto either of the two stools it sits between.
This is undoubtedly a gothic piece of work. It deliberately crackles onto us, both formally and in its content? How does it do this? The settings of the shadows striking, the cobwebby forests. The plot is in a way very stylised, our lead even referencing the idea of a witch.
Perhaps this film may have worked slightly better had it in fact gone the whole gothic hog; it does not though do so. We have some touching and interesting scenes of the lead's relationship with her son, along with interesting riffs on feminism, masculinty, other things. If the film had been pure and sharp like this (not any shorter; it's a little too short as it is) then perhaps it would have held the attention slightly better. Then again, it would have lost these interesting realist elements. Would it would have prevented, which is a problem, is how some scenes do individually drag. As a whole, the film paces itself very well, but some scenes, rather than shots, simply are too long, while others are too short. The film as a whole is actually a little short, more lead up may have added more weight, make it less gothic and spikey, though it would then have lost its fable quality.
Let us look at some of the interesting formal elements in this film. We love how the British director had the imagination to do this, really respect that he tried to do something. Perhaps we would have liked even more of this. The deliberate colour contrasts, of the sharp brights at the start moving to the greys as she must leave the idyll, is well done. It is one of a number of deliberately jarring effects, we're especially thinking about the cuts which is clearly meant to jolt, to 'snap' us, part of the gothic atmosphere. The difference between hand-held P.O.V. work, and the wide, brooding mountain scenes with smoke, is accentuated by the scene, the only connection scene, where one cascades into another. Sometimes, Stickland falls into a trap of chucking in some 'beautiful images' around a plot, so we especially appreciated when the two come together in this key shot.
The sounstrack is deliberately ratcheting up the diagetic sound, with cracks and clicks and various noises. This is partly just an effect, but on occassion works, if at other times its concatation with music can be melodramatic.
What about the themes? This is a film with an interesting feminist slant, which sits, perhaps a little uneasily, between its universal quality as a fable and its very much immanenet depiction of modern day Romania, the povery and the life there.
We didn't love this film, we appreciated the intelligent attempts formalism, but felt it couldn't quite find its way onto either of the two stools it sits between.
Wednesday 20 October 2010
Three Colours: Red
The final film, in 1994, of Kieslowski's trilogy. This is an excellent film, perhaps the most rounded and satisfying in the series. It is not necessarilly 'better', but it is at least the equal of each of the other films in the trilogy.
We have throughout been rather confused by the very simple nature of the direction, the close-ups and the wider shots, identifaction usually, not hugely excited formalism in framing. This simplicity extends to the montage; Kieslowski gives us quite a simple chronological time, nicely done. The entire film is, then, in the frame. The light and the action, the plot, it is all within the confines of the frame itself. This makes it peculiarly plot-centric. It shows Kieslowski is a master at a number of styles; 'Veronique' being one of the most ingenious arthouse films (with a capital A ) in its use of imagery, symbolism and montage, it is a real show of range, if a tiny little dissapointing in that it did not quite meet those expectations.
We again have the use of the title colour in the film. This has obvious emotional resonaces, even, if it is a little bit of a game Kieslowski is playing.
This films major theme is of how much do you really want to know? Where does public meet the private, where do the bounds of society lie? All tackled fascinatingly, much within a political perspective too. The lead female and male are both utterly terrific; their relationship is genuinely touching, it confounds expectations, it is a great relationship of realist understatement. It chimes utterly, it has a certain heaviness to it that is built up through small effects throughout the running time. We end up considering what is it like to live with others, what is a stranger, what is a fellow citizen. Yes, we must love, but what is this? Why?
The last five mintutes could perhaps be done without, a little bit overwrought and too neat.
This film has been very different from expected, much neater formally, much less arthouse than expected. We had three snappy and fast films, plot driven. In each, though, resonated wider hours which would take hours, lifetimes, never, to pull apart. Rightly recognised as a fine collection of work.
We have throughout been rather confused by the very simple nature of the direction, the close-ups and the wider shots, identifaction usually, not hugely excited formalism in framing. This simplicity extends to the montage; Kieslowski gives us quite a simple chronological time, nicely done. The entire film is, then, in the frame. The light and the action, the plot, it is all within the confines of the frame itself. This makes it peculiarly plot-centric. It shows Kieslowski is a master at a number of styles; 'Veronique' being one of the most ingenious arthouse films (with a capital A ) in its use of imagery, symbolism and montage, it is a real show of range, if a tiny little dissapointing in that it did not quite meet those expectations.
We again have the use of the title colour in the film. This has obvious emotional resonaces, even, if it is a little bit of a game Kieslowski is playing.
This films major theme is of how much do you really want to know? Where does public meet the private, where do the bounds of society lie? All tackled fascinatingly, much within a political perspective too. The lead female and male are both utterly terrific; their relationship is genuinely touching, it confounds expectations, it is a great relationship of realist understatement. It chimes utterly, it has a certain heaviness to it that is built up through small effects throughout the running time. We end up considering what is it like to live with others, what is a stranger, what is a fellow citizen. Yes, we must love, but what is this? Why?
The last five mintutes could perhaps be done without, a little bit overwrought and too neat.
This film has been very different from expected, much neater formally, much less arthouse than expected. We had three snappy and fast films, plot driven. In each, though, resonated wider hours which would take hours, lifetimes, never, to pull apart. Rightly recognised as a fine collection of work.
Tuesday 19 October 2010
Three Colours: White
The middle part, still in 1993, from Kieslowski. A slightly oddball picture, nearly even a comedy at times, with some weird psychological undercurrents.
Being white, we have the easiest way to have the colour scheme. We have the exposure technque, so that the white shines through, especially in the the snow. Thus we have a slightly hazy, even woozy feel to this at times, along with a slight delicacy, emphasised by the wonderfully shot blonde hair and pale palour of Julie Delpy.
This film is, again, technically, rather simple. Again, strange from the director one may think. Let us focus on the ideological and symbolic elements then. The key theme of this film is something out of nothing, something out of the whiteness. It is about wondering where things come from, and what we can create. Whether it is ever possible to have this something, coming from nothing.
This is a film about a man and his desires. It is about his phantasys in a properly Freudian sense, about his projections as he wishes to somehow create his desires. A political tone is certainbly here; in the conjunction of east and west, Poland and France, we have a man who has lost his desire in his move from the communist fold. We have the weird creation he must have. We have the incredible element of voyeurism; he is voyeur on every level, throughout every aspect of his relationship. He only seems able to function when he is a voyeur, that is the only time is repressed desire can be released in a culturally prescribed way.
This film is a kind of black comedy, and is in fact a little bit ridiculous. Probably remembered more as a curio, which one could write a Lacan essay about, it is nevertheless rather fun to sit through. Roll on the finale.
Being white, we have the easiest way to have the colour scheme. We have the exposure technque, so that the white shines through, especially in the the snow. Thus we have a slightly hazy, even woozy feel to this at times, along with a slight delicacy, emphasised by the wonderfully shot blonde hair and pale palour of Julie Delpy.
This film is, again, technically, rather simple. Again, strange from the director one may think. Let us focus on the ideological and symbolic elements then. The key theme of this film is something out of nothing, something out of the whiteness. It is about wondering where things come from, and what we can create. Whether it is ever possible to have this something, coming from nothing.
This is a film about a man and his desires. It is about his phantasys in a properly Freudian sense, about his projections as he wishes to somehow create his desires. A political tone is certainbly here; in the conjunction of east and west, Poland and France, we have a man who has lost his desire in his move from the communist fold. We have the weird creation he must have. We have the incredible element of voyeurism; he is voyeur on every level, throughout every aspect of his relationship. He only seems able to function when he is a voyeur, that is the only time is repressed desire can be released in a culturally prescribed way.
This film is a kind of black comedy, and is in fact a little bit ridiculous. Probably remembered more as a curio, which one could write a Lacan essay about, it is nevertheless rather fun to sit through. Roll on the finale.
Monday 18 October 2010
Three Colours: Blue
The first film in Kieslowski's 1993-1994 'Three Colours' trilogy, seen as one of the finest film series in modern cinema. This opening piece was a very good fine, enjoyed, with a fine central performance, well and not overdone, by Julliette Binoche.
Among Kieslowski's visual tics is his use of two seperate colours, in fact these are the key visual motifs of the film. The colours are the blue of the title, and a soft orange. In faact, all of Kieslowski's colours are rather soft. The blue clearly represents Binoche's inner coldness, after the disaster. The orange reflects a number of interesting motfs; the freedom and happiness in sunshine, to start. But as we see it happen in the case of the bottlebank scene, it is also the colour of forgetting, of ignoring what is immanent and should be important.
The lighting is often under Binoche, giving an interesting effect we haven't seen much elsewhere. There is softness and a beauty, with also a certain amount of substance and stature. An interesting combination. Kieslowski is also keen, with his use of two sidelights, to shadow Binoche's features, to give her face and body a depth. The way that this is shown is also through long shots, certainly through filters and perhaps even through glass, oddly. We have long exposures which makes the whole excercise grainy, soft. This allows a real play of light; often refracted light.
We are, with the help of this, and with the frequent close ups and camera behind her, getting on with some serious identification of the Binoche. The direction is pretty simple, with wider shots and then the close ups. After 'The Double Life Of Veronique', this more simplistic turn comes as a surprise, partly from the fact that this is one of three films, so less is thrown in the pot, even less time perhaps. The film, to go with this simple direction, is fast and surprisingly snappy. For all the art-house baggage, this is a sharp, snappily plotted. This makes the excercise avoid bathos, which a certainly dramatic musical score could eak on. Kieslowski is one of the masters of using classic music in his films (remembered from 'Veronique'), here in a shorter film it could be over the top, but it is saved.
What for the themes? This is the film of freedom and even selfishness. It is a film about ideology, that could even be read politically. What is the past? What does it want? Kieslowski is not going to make things simple, he realises the complexities of the issues of freedom. A film of layers.
So we enjoyed this film, and were surprised by the directness of it. A very good start.
Among Kieslowski's visual tics is his use of two seperate colours, in fact these are the key visual motifs of the film. The colours are the blue of the title, and a soft orange. In faact, all of Kieslowski's colours are rather soft. The blue clearly represents Binoche's inner coldness, after the disaster. The orange reflects a number of interesting motfs; the freedom and happiness in sunshine, to start. But as we see it happen in the case of the bottlebank scene, it is also the colour of forgetting, of ignoring what is immanent and should be important.
The lighting is often under Binoche, giving an interesting effect we haven't seen much elsewhere. There is softness and a beauty, with also a certain amount of substance and stature. An interesting combination. Kieslowski is also keen, with his use of two sidelights, to shadow Binoche's features, to give her face and body a depth. The way that this is shown is also through long shots, certainly through filters and perhaps even through glass, oddly. We have long exposures which makes the whole excercise grainy, soft. This allows a real play of light; often refracted light.
We are, with the help of this, and with the frequent close ups and camera behind her, getting on with some serious identification of the Binoche. The direction is pretty simple, with wider shots and then the close ups. After 'The Double Life Of Veronique', this more simplistic turn comes as a surprise, partly from the fact that this is one of three films, so less is thrown in the pot, even less time perhaps. The film, to go with this simple direction, is fast and surprisingly snappy. For all the art-house baggage, this is a sharp, snappily plotted. This makes the excercise avoid bathos, which a certainly dramatic musical score could eak on. Kieslowski is one of the masters of using classic music in his films (remembered from 'Veronique'), here in a shorter film it could be over the top, but it is saved.
What for the themes? This is the film of freedom and even selfishness. It is a film about ideology, that could even be read politically. What is the past? What does it want? Kieslowski is not going to make things simple, he realises the complexities of the issues of freedom. A film of layers.
So we enjoyed this film, and were surprised by the directness of it. A very good start.
Saturday 16 October 2010
Throne Of Blood
Kurosawa's 1957 adaption of Macbeth. It is a wonderful piece of cinema, a genuinely weighty and powerful masterpiece.
This is Kurosawa's coldest film, firstly we would say due to the mis-en scene. The grey fogs which scatters the light for no eyes to see. The endless confusion of the horse coming towards us, then going away. The characters are either caight in the rooms, or caught in this horribly flat, pale fog. The shots are wide and alienate the characters, again lost in the enviroment. Kurosawa allows little to no empathy, the cool and icy picturing being a change from his usual more active camera. We also have this sense from the music, more bare, certainly not over-intrusive or leading.
The acting is wonderful. Mifune looks older, but he does what he always does, seems to almost vibrate on screen. He does not steal the light always from Kurosawa's sets, but he does always demand attention among the humans. Other characters are equally well sketched, the 'witch' has a slow, horribly white transluscence. The most impressive performance though is by the character of Lady Macbeth. The slow, spidery feel of hers at once cuts to the bone and suggests, from the very outset, madness. The shuffling, with the sound effects and the slow, slow movement, is unnerving and creepy from the first. As is the make-up, and the eerily deliberate dialgoue. One of the scariest screen portrayals we can remember seeing.
With the greatest dramatist ever doing the pacing, Kurosawa couldn't really go wrong, and he doesn't, selecting the correct scenes. It is at once simple but, again, with layers.
Kurosawa's Shakespearean cinema, using the same styles of boldness which works on one level with the subtledties behind if one wishes to see. The images have endless reboundings; few more than the at once obscene, wild, overdramatic, and yet tragic, final scene.
This film is perhaps (with 'Ran', 'The Bad Sleep Well' and some Olivier) the finest Shakespeare adaption we know. Kurosawa, not making a typical Kurosawa film, but rising to around his best.
This is Kurosawa's coldest film, firstly we would say due to the mis-en scene. The grey fogs which scatters the light for no eyes to see. The endless confusion of the horse coming towards us, then going away. The characters are either caight in the rooms, or caught in this horribly flat, pale fog. The shots are wide and alienate the characters, again lost in the enviroment. Kurosawa allows little to no empathy, the cool and icy picturing being a change from his usual more active camera. We also have this sense from the music, more bare, certainly not over-intrusive or leading.
The acting is wonderful. Mifune looks older, but he does what he always does, seems to almost vibrate on screen. He does not steal the light always from Kurosawa's sets, but he does always demand attention among the humans. Other characters are equally well sketched, the 'witch' has a slow, horribly white transluscence. The most impressive performance though is by the character of Lady Macbeth. The slow, spidery feel of hers at once cuts to the bone and suggests, from the very outset, madness. The shuffling, with the sound effects and the slow, slow movement, is unnerving and creepy from the first. As is the make-up, and the eerily deliberate dialgoue. One of the scariest screen portrayals we can remember seeing.
With the greatest dramatist ever doing the pacing, Kurosawa couldn't really go wrong, and he doesn't, selecting the correct scenes. It is at once simple but, again, with layers.
Kurosawa's Shakespearean cinema, using the same styles of boldness which works on one level with the subtledties behind if one wishes to see. The images have endless reboundings; few more than the at once obscene, wild, overdramatic, and yet tragic, final scene.
This film is perhaps (with 'Ran', 'The Bad Sleep Well' and some Olivier) the finest Shakespeare adaption we know. Kurosawa, not making a typical Kurosawa film, but rising to around his best.
Lemon Tree
Palestinian film, recently released.
This film has two specially interesting aspects; firstly the great contrast of colours. This has the lemons standing out, it gives a sort of vivid hyperreal feel. It is part of the overarching thought of the film, that the director here may have an impressive career in front of them. The use of almost Renoir-esque elegance in camera movement, pushing between the groves, is smart. Most of the camera work may be simple back and forth, identificatory or P.O.V., but there are enough signs that more is going on elsewhere.
We'd also like to mention the pacing. This film very very quickly gives it set-up, which can mean it seems to rather lack weight as the more peripatetic central characterisation scenes. One rather wonders why the structural pacing wasn't reversed, but there we are.
This film has fine acting and an interesting political message. Maybe a little overcooked with all the parallels/ coincidences, but a few signs of a genuinely interesting visual sense holds out more than hope. A nice film.
This film has two specially interesting aspects; firstly the great contrast of colours. This has the lemons standing out, it gives a sort of vivid hyperreal feel. It is part of the overarching thought of the film, that the director here may have an impressive career in front of them. The use of almost Renoir-esque elegance in camera movement, pushing between the groves, is smart. Most of the camera work may be simple back and forth, identificatory or P.O.V., but there are enough signs that more is going on elsewhere.
We'd also like to mention the pacing. This film very very quickly gives it set-up, which can mean it seems to rather lack weight as the more peripatetic central characterisation scenes. One rather wonders why the structural pacing wasn't reversed, but there we are.
This film has fine acting and an interesting political message. Maybe a little overcooked with all the parallels/ coincidences, but a few signs of a genuinely interesting visual sense holds out more than hope. A nice film.
The Hidden Fortress
1958 Kurosawa film, so a couple of films before 'Yojimbo'. Not his best, but of course it is still fine, with some wonderful shots.
Again we have the bold images, many from below the character in question, where they stand out strongly against a plae and overexposed background. This is done especially strongly here with the evocation against the dirty and windswept background. There is also a sensational action scene on the steps, Kurosawa having the nerve to use a still camera amongst the fast action.
The reason this movie doesn't quite work as well as it could is the central conceit of following the farmers. These are the greedy fools we see elsewhere (in Shaekspeare, as others), who we think we are going to follow. Kurosawa though seems to realise there is only so much he can get out of these people, adn he eventually has to twist and turn and twist and turn that, ultimately, becomes rather too much. This film would be better off with a purer thesis in its analysis of greed, rather than the over-complex views we have at the end.
Kurosawa moves towards more the character of Mifune, who adopts a nice, distant, heroic stance. The structure is put together very nicely, though we feel that the producers may have added a few touches Kurosawa would not necessarily have himself.
A work also on the music. It is seemingly leading the audience, which isn't ideal, and can seem rather flippant and a little silly. It has two uses; to deliberately lighten the tone, and to again give an element of artifice.
As we said, it becomes a little too twisty and loses the purity of its moral message. But the road trip structure is fine, and there are interesting scenes.
Again we have the bold images, many from below the character in question, where they stand out strongly against a plae and overexposed background. This is done especially strongly here with the evocation against the dirty and windswept background. There is also a sensational action scene on the steps, Kurosawa having the nerve to use a still camera amongst the fast action.
The reason this movie doesn't quite work as well as it could is the central conceit of following the farmers. These are the greedy fools we see elsewhere (in Shaekspeare, as others), who we think we are going to follow. Kurosawa though seems to realise there is only so much he can get out of these people, adn he eventually has to twist and turn and twist and turn that, ultimately, becomes rather too much. This film would be better off with a purer thesis in its analysis of greed, rather than the over-complex views we have at the end.
Kurosawa moves towards more the character of Mifune, who adopts a nice, distant, heroic stance. The structure is put together very nicely, though we feel that the producers may have added a few touches Kurosawa would not necessarily have himself.
A work also on the music. It is seemingly leading the audience, which isn't ideal, and can seem rather flippant and a little silly. It has two uses; to deliberately lighten the tone, and to again give an element of artifice.
As we said, it becomes a little too twisty and loses the purity of its moral message. But the road trip structure is fine, and there are interesting scenes.
Tuesday 12 October 2010
Yojimbo
Kurosawa's 1961 movie, the inspiration for 'Fistful Of Dollars'. It is clearly a wonderful film, but not always entirely what one respects.
It is not a word we throw around lightly, but we will say it for Kurosawa; he is genuinely a Shakespearean director. This is in the boldness of his images, the fact that there is the surface lack of subtedly and the power of the images. Underneath that, of course there are as many layers as you like of intelligence and subtedly. There in those same mixtures of servants and kings, humour and pathos.
The bold images come much from underexposure. Rested against the pale backdrops, the dark characters quite literally loom large, with large faces. In 'Yojimbo' Kurosawa shoots froma mixture of identifying/mysterious hand-cam following our hero, and some portraiture. Indeed, he has a relation to Flemish and Baroque portraiture (wider than Fellini). There is some wonderful, humanistic balancing of the large shapes of the characters. The way he sets them up is wonderful, but the fact is that we are close enough for this not to impede with over-formalism on the plot.
Kurosawa is the great director also of using a mix of different shots. He is happy to have some of these severe close ups, behind or on the face. He uses rapid camera movement. The again, he has wonderful wide images, with the wind blowing the dust. This gives a wonderful sense of an out-of-shot quiet, of the whole world being still among the action and violence he loves.
This film is surprisingly funny. It has a lightness of tone, which add to the almost deliberate artifice of the piece. There is a certain staginess, a theatricality to the piece, even evident in the plot. This is a fascinating move; Kurosawa perhaps suggesting that each character is, in a way, dressing up.
This isn't Kurosawa's most weighty film on the surface, but in hindsight there is enough here for more careful study. A key film, and a real pleasure and joy to watch.
It is not a word we throw around lightly, but we will say it for Kurosawa; he is genuinely a Shakespearean director. This is in the boldness of his images, the fact that there is the surface lack of subtedly and the power of the images. Underneath that, of course there are as many layers as you like of intelligence and subtedly. There in those same mixtures of servants and kings, humour and pathos.
The bold images come much from underexposure. Rested against the pale backdrops, the dark characters quite literally loom large, with large faces. In 'Yojimbo' Kurosawa shoots froma mixture of identifying/mysterious hand-cam following our hero, and some portraiture. Indeed, he has a relation to Flemish and Baroque portraiture (wider than Fellini). There is some wonderful, humanistic balancing of the large shapes of the characters. The way he sets them up is wonderful, but the fact is that we are close enough for this not to impede with over-formalism on the plot.
Kurosawa is the great director also of using a mix of different shots. He is happy to have some of these severe close ups, behind or on the face. He uses rapid camera movement. The again, he has wonderful wide images, with the wind blowing the dust. This gives a wonderful sense of an out-of-shot quiet, of the whole world being still among the action and violence he loves.
This film is surprisingly funny. It has a lightness of tone, which add to the almost deliberate artifice of the piece. There is a certain staginess, a theatricality to the piece, even evident in the plot. This is a fascinating move; Kurosawa perhaps suggesting that each character is, in a way, dressing up.
This isn't Kurosawa's most weighty film on the surface, but in hindsight there is enough here for more careful study. A key film, and a real pleasure and joy to watch.
Saturday 9 October 2010
Weekend
A 1967 piece of deliberately provocative cinema from Jean-Luc Godard.
This really a very difficult film to get our heads around. It deliberately, and quite explictly tells us, it wants to do away with narrative and other particular strictures. The narrative flies in different directions, it has angry, agressive scenes which don't fit together. It speaks to us, it ignores us, it has non-sequiters with rarely going into surrealism.
There are some striking individual scenes, the long long shot of the car jam is exciting, is interesting. It is deliberately provocative of the audience.
In a similar vein is the idea that all the characters are trying to kill each other. The way they are otherwise portrayed normally is meant surely to shine back on the audience.
Frankly, we do not quite get Godard yet. We understand and appreciate how he is trying to be provocative, breaking down the montage and the nature of cinema when it tries to portray 'excitement' (the scene in the sillouhetted room, discussing the sexual encounter). We can struggle though to even get much of a thematic link, even one meant to annoy us. Would this be better on paper? One may need a sheet to follow it, but not necessarilly. More time, we think.
This really a very difficult film to get our heads around. It deliberately, and quite explictly tells us, it wants to do away with narrative and other particular strictures. The narrative flies in different directions, it has angry, agressive scenes which don't fit together. It speaks to us, it ignores us, it has non-sequiters with rarely going into surrealism.
There are some striking individual scenes, the long long shot of the car jam is exciting, is interesting. It is deliberately provocative of the audience.
In a similar vein is the idea that all the characters are trying to kill each other. The way they are otherwise portrayed normally is meant surely to shine back on the audience.
Frankly, we do not quite get Godard yet. We understand and appreciate how he is trying to be provocative, breaking down the montage and the nature of cinema when it tries to portray 'excitement' (the scene in the sillouhetted room, discussing the sexual encounter). We can struggle though to even get much of a thematic link, even one meant to annoy us. Would this be better on paper? One may need a sheet to follow it, but not necessarilly. More time, we think.
Thursday 7 October 2010
Idioterne (The Idiots)
Lars Von Trier's famous 1998 work, celebrated as the crucial, and one of the founding, sources in the 'Dogme 95' movement.
This film is a very well told narrative. That is, Von Trier simply knows how to cut at a good speed. He is smart at knowing when to begin and ened cuts and shots, or rather we mean smart in the sense that scenes taken on their own don't drag.
Due to the techincal aspects this film is shot in a, in fact, rather boring way. It is the wider shots when inside, then the mid shots on the outside, mixed in with close-ups for the emotional scenes. The deliberate limitations of the 'dispositif' of Dogme doesn't really change much at all (apart from production costs, which is an admirable goal). We have the same thoughts on the montage, the shot length and framing, as elsewhere.
The problem with this film is really that it is far too long. It is an idea that can simply only last an hour, and this film does really drag. This does not mean that there are not scenes at the end just as good as those at the start. Everything is done well, but parts of the general arc are simply not enough to sustain a 109 mintue narrative.
The ideas behind this film are really rather interesting. As a study of disability it deliberately shocks, it is also very self-relexive in so far as looking at the camera. Why are we doing this, why are we looking at them at all? The idea of hosting a revolution, and the failures of that, seem to be a comment on the Dogme style itself.
An interesting movie, but one that really needs one more idea to add to its already good ones.
This film is a very well told narrative. That is, Von Trier simply knows how to cut at a good speed. He is smart at knowing when to begin and ened cuts and shots, or rather we mean smart in the sense that scenes taken on their own don't drag.
Due to the techincal aspects this film is shot in a, in fact, rather boring way. It is the wider shots when inside, then the mid shots on the outside, mixed in with close-ups for the emotional scenes. The deliberate limitations of the 'dispositif' of Dogme doesn't really change much at all (apart from production costs, which is an admirable goal). We have the same thoughts on the montage, the shot length and framing, as elsewhere.
The problem with this film is really that it is far too long. It is an idea that can simply only last an hour, and this film does really drag. This does not mean that there are not scenes at the end just as good as those at the start. Everything is done well, but parts of the general arc are simply not enough to sustain a 109 mintue narrative.
The ideas behind this film are really rather interesting. As a study of disability it deliberately shocks, it is also very self-relexive in so far as looking at the camera. Why are we doing this, why are we looking at them at all? The idea of hosting a revolution, and the failures of that, seem to be a comment on the Dogme style itself.
An interesting movie, but one that really needs one more idea to add to its already good ones.
Wednesday 6 October 2010
Jean Vigo: Short Films
Three short films by the French director Jean Vigo, his only work (along with 'L'Atalante') due to his untimely death.
A Propos de Nice (1930, Documentary): A short documentary abour neice, silent. This isn't particularly engaging, but technically it is very interesting, and can become even mesmerising. The use of the eagle eye view is the ultimate use of the overhead angle. Indeed, again this film has a hug amount of interest i.e. angle. We have the overheads but here the most interesting shots are perhaps those that look up. A technique usually used to convey power, omniscience, on this occassion it is used to seemingly egg the people portrayed on, as they believe that they are above, but in fact are taken as simply objects. The camera, despite being in this position and not moving, seems to almost leer at the girls. It is the example of Vigo's belief in something beyond a simple humanism; the way he is able to let, from simply his P.O.V., the characters portray and fail themselves.
The use of montage is confusing but at times powerful. It is clearly expressionist, perhaps even surrealist, and often provocative. Suggestions of a Potemkin-like geometry are there, but as are other aspects we find it difficult to identify.
Again, with Vigo we notice the speed of the action, the again eerie nature of extra speed.
Taris (1931, Documentary): A very short film about a swimmer. This is a film which has some beautiful images of the water and the man in them. It seems to focus more on the water than on the man. The use of the underwater camera is stunning, Vigo has a wonderful underexposed way of letting these have a weight and power all to themselves, the bubble and the splash. We wonder if M. Taris knew he'd be portrayed, as seeimgly is Vigo's motif, as a part of the enviroment, all and only that, all else is hubris.
Zero De Conduite (1933): A longer piece about school. This is at once Vigo's most conventional and most humanistic piece. We have an interesting use of shadow on the face, as well as more close ups. Vigo places more emphasis on long images than usual, the speed displayed elsewhere has slowed. Not hugely interesting, though the story is sweet enough. This film is held in high regard, so we may have missed something.
To be honest, after the wonderful 'L'Atalante' we were a little dissapointed with these films. Examples of Vigo's technqiue they may be, but not a huge amount else.
A Propos de Nice (1930, Documentary): A short documentary abour neice, silent. This isn't particularly engaging, but technically it is very interesting, and can become even mesmerising. The use of the eagle eye view is the ultimate use of the overhead angle. Indeed, again this film has a hug amount of interest i.e. angle. We have the overheads but here the most interesting shots are perhaps those that look up. A technique usually used to convey power, omniscience, on this occassion it is used to seemingly egg the people portrayed on, as they believe that they are above, but in fact are taken as simply objects. The camera, despite being in this position and not moving, seems to almost leer at the girls. It is the example of Vigo's belief in something beyond a simple humanism; the way he is able to let, from simply his P.O.V., the characters portray and fail themselves.
The use of montage is confusing but at times powerful. It is clearly expressionist, perhaps even surrealist, and often provocative. Suggestions of a Potemkin-like geometry are there, but as are other aspects we find it difficult to identify.
Again, with Vigo we notice the speed of the action, the again eerie nature of extra speed.
Taris (1931, Documentary): A very short film about a swimmer. This is a film which has some beautiful images of the water and the man in them. It seems to focus more on the water than on the man. The use of the underwater camera is stunning, Vigo has a wonderful underexposed way of letting these have a weight and power all to themselves, the bubble and the splash. We wonder if M. Taris knew he'd be portrayed, as seeimgly is Vigo's motif, as a part of the enviroment, all and only that, all else is hubris.
Zero De Conduite (1933): A longer piece about school. This is at once Vigo's most conventional and most humanistic piece. We have an interesting use of shadow on the face, as well as more close ups. Vigo places more emphasis on long images than usual, the speed displayed elsewhere has slowed. Not hugely interesting, though the story is sweet enough. This film is held in high regard, so we may have missed something.
To be honest, after the wonderful 'L'Atalante' we were a little dissapointed with these films. Examples of Vigo's technqiue they may be, but not a huge amount else.
Tuesday 5 October 2010
L'Atalante
Jean Vigo's only full length work, his 1934 classic.
Firstly, the technical aspects Vigo uses. He harshly overexposes, leading to lurid white outs on looming dark backgrounds. This is the first of his moves to have the charaters seem unsympathetic, mechanical, manipulated. This is a sign of Vigo's post humanism; his insistence on a lack of agency, the sometimes out of focussed blurred white faces seeming a long long way away.
Indeed they almost literally are, with shots so long as to cause major surprise in a sound film. This is mixed with Vigo's trademark; the angle of shot. Either far above, making them as though puppets, looked down upon, tallying with the omniscient narrative stance that does judge. We also have the belows, that do not make look impressive but do set off against the sky.
Through these techniques Vigo makes for impressive looming images. They go with the nightmarish themes, the confusion and the idiocy. The surrealist flourishes add to a sense of confusion, things going wrong in a dark and irretrivable way. The captain's room scene is stunningl sudden outbursts of dark fleshy violence, constant confusion, the weird distance we feel as the female lead is strangely sexually dominated by all this nastiness.
Vigo also uses the a very quick montage and mis-en-scene. As in Murnau's 'Nosferatu' he recognises how disoonserting this can be, as though the characters come on rails. There is no time to observe or think, it is as though they fall from scene to scene in an ordered, controlled, mechanical drop that they themselves engineer. They do not evade responsbility.
As the film goes on Vigo becomes more sympathetic; some side lighting. He shows how they try, after chronicling the dirt and failure. The scene underwater has what are almost identifying shots; it is a wonderful burst of these lost figure's search, a dream world they must take air from and doesn't really exist. A great scene.
We greatly enjoyed this Vigo film, for its stylistic ability to show a world truly collapsing through its dirt, disharmony, mistakes. He shows how we await rescue, the futiity of the wait. Terrific cinema.
Firstly, the technical aspects Vigo uses. He harshly overexposes, leading to lurid white outs on looming dark backgrounds. This is the first of his moves to have the charaters seem unsympathetic, mechanical, manipulated. This is a sign of Vigo's post humanism; his insistence on a lack of agency, the sometimes out of focussed blurred white faces seeming a long long way away.
Indeed they almost literally are, with shots so long as to cause major surprise in a sound film. This is mixed with Vigo's trademark; the angle of shot. Either far above, making them as though puppets, looked down upon, tallying with the omniscient narrative stance that does judge. We also have the belows, that do not make look impressive but do set off against the sky.
Through these techniques Vigo makes for impressive looming images. They go with the nightmarish themes, the confusion and the idiocy. The surrealist flourishes add to a sense of confusion, things going wrong in a dark and irretrivable way. The captain's room scene is stunningl sudden outbursts of dark fleshy violence, constant confusion, the weird distance we feel as the female lead is strangely sexually dominated by all this nastiness.
Vigo also uses the a very quick montage and mis-en-scene. As in Murnau's 'Nosferatu' he recognises how disoonserting this can be, as though the characters come on rails. There is no time to observe or think, it is as though they fall from scene to scene in an ordered, controlled, mechanical drop that they themselves engineer. They do not evade responsbility.
As the film goes on Vigo becomes more sympathetic; some side lighting. He shows how they try, after chronicling the dirt and failure. The scene underwater has what are almost identifying shots; it is a wonderful burst of these lost figure's search, a dream world they must take air from and doesn't really exist. A great scene.
We greatly enjoyed this Vigo film, for its stylistic ability to show a world truly collapsing through its dirt, disharmony, mistakes. He shows how we await rescue, the futiity of the wait. Terrific cinema.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)