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.
Friday, 29 October 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)