Humberto Solas, 1986
This doesn't mess around with our space, but still works generally on closer shots, which is Solas' style. Many close-ups, though quite a few mediums as well, not always concerned with classical framing. This film resembles, in image and content, 'Il Conformista'. We here have nice balancing throughout, with gloomy fascist imagery countering the main character. Indeed, Solas' has a nice visual eye; using a bit of depth, angled cameras, and, generally, every shot is visually nicely balanced (not too much character centering also) and generally well composed.
After a slightly episodic beginning the narrative slots in nicely, and we have a fitfully well observed, if not over-complex, portrait of the penpusher/ fascist/ pragmist, or however you want to see him. It all makes for not a bad picture at all.
Showing posts with label Cuba. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cuba. Show all posts
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Monday, 9 May 2011
Amada
Humberto Solas melodrama, 1982
A wham-bam melodrama, one story, straight up cause-effect scene to scene, runs through various permuations. More classic also visually, with more of a wish for establishing shots. Depth isn't the main issue here, but a few examples. Note again the hints of gothic stylisings, the melodrama of the fearsomely dramatic woman, going completely nuts in the end. Put into a political framework as well, adding an edge certainly not there in the standard (if such a thing exists) Hollywood melodrama. Not exactly riveting viewing, but nothing too awful
A wham-bam melodrama, one story, straight up cause-effect scene to scene, runs through various permuations. More classic also visually, with more of a wish for establishing shots. Depth isn't the main issue here, but a few examples. Note again the hints of gothic stylisings, the melodrama of the fearsomely dramatic woman, going completely nuts in the end. Put into a political framework as well, adding an edge certainly not there in the standard (if such a thing exists) Hollywood melodrama. Not exactly riveting viewing, but nothing too awful
Cecilia
1981 melodrama from Humberto Solas
One gets the impression that Solas would rather do without establishing shots; not that he doesn't use them, but there is always the wish to go straight in to the face, often framed hapzardly (not a negative evaluation), as quickly as possible. This is straightforward affect-images, creating space (if any created) off of these, which is fine, his way of filmmaking. Combined with some distance tracking, and objects often coming in between us and the action, various rackings of focus, it is slightly reminiscent of Bertolucci.
The most immediately apparent feature here is the make-up; pale as death, partly down to the period, partly to do with the bourgeois who look like they are to be heroised at times, but are of course ultimately dead inside. Combined with high keylighting, with the key light really shining out, we have a reflective look that brings out all the crevices of the complexions.
The narratives run on two strands, neither particularly quickly. Along with our central slow-moving melodrama we have our politicial tale, which is rather confusingly told, though does allow some nice lines. The main melodrama really cranks it up at the end, and frankly the piece does fall apart a little, trying to connect the lines. It really becomes very overheated, with some very of-its-time dramatic stylisation. The end, where the fatal love, the gothic romance, comes to the fore, seems to be what Solas would really have liked to have done all along and is, of course, completely ridiculous. But there you go.
One gets the impression that Solas would rather do without establishing shots; not that he doesn't use them, but there is always the wish to go straight in to the face, often framed hapzardly (not a negative evaluation), as quickly as possible. This is straightforward affect-images, creating space (if any created) off of these, which is fine, his way of filmmaking. Combined with some distance tracking, and objects often coming in between us and the action, various rackings of focus, it is slightly reminiscent of Bertolucci.
The most immediately apparent feature here is the make-up; pale as death, partly down to the period, partly to do with the bourgeois who look like they are to be heroised at times, but are of course ultimately dead inside. Combined with high keylighting, with the key light really shining out, we have a reflective look that brings out all the crevices of the complexions.
The narratives run on two strands, neither particularly quickly. Along with our central slow-moving melodrama we have our politicial tale, which is rather confusingly told, though does allow some nice lines. The main melodrama really cranks it up at the end, and frankly the piece does fall apart a little, trying to connect the lines. It really becomes very overheated, with some very of-its-time dramatic stylisation. The end, where the fatal love, the gothic romance, comes to the fore, seems to be what Solas would really have liked to have done all along and is, of course, completely ridiculous. But there you go.
Sunday, 8 May 2011
The Adventures of Juan Quin Quin
Julio Garcia Espinosa, 1967
Shot in very much widescreen, this uses pretty high contrasts, and a lot of shoulder length framings. The camera moves around at a sharp pace, always though keen to keep quite a wide balance. It cuts quite fast, occassionally extremely fast (as in; you don't have time to adjust between cuts).
The interesting thing about this film is the narrative. It's discontinous, though I at least didn't realise this for the opening. It is a collection of episodes, and we eventually have the situation where we 'ultimately' know what is going to happen. This is, with the disconnection of the epsidoes even were thought taken linearally, perhaps not too far away from the 'montage of attractions'; the circus, the bullfight, the revoltuionaries, the instruction manual; there is certainly a comment here.
The film is also particularly notable for certain alienation devices. As well as in a sense knowing what is going to happen, the narration is self-conscious with some sarcastic intertitles and voiceover, with direct address to camera, and in the deliberate ridiculousness, and dissonance of action, of its 'hero'. The classic action, coming of age film is in a sense being mocked; being totally unsuited for the path to revolutionary consciousness. It also rather mocks Juan Quin Quin, which is more of a surprise.
Not every episode quite holds, but there are a number of interesting aspects, and surprising punches, in this film.
Shot in very much widescreen, this uses pretty high contrasts, and a lot of shoulder length framings. The camera moves around at a sharp pace, always though keen to keep quite a wide balance. It cuts quite fast, occassionally extremely fast (as in; you don't have time to adjust between cuts).
The interesting thing about this film is the narrative. It's discontinous, though I at least didn't realise this for the opening. It is a collection of episodes, and we eventually have the situation where we 'ultimately' know what is going to happen. This is, with the disconnection of the epsidoes even were thought taken linearally, perhaps not too far away from the 'montage of attractions'; the circus, the bullfight, the revoltuionaries, the instruction manual; there is certainly a comment here.
The film is also particularly notable for certain alienation devices. As well as in a sense knowing what is going to happen, the narration is self-conscious with some sarcastic intertitles and voiceover, with direct address to camera, and in the deliberate ridiculousness, and dissonance of action, of its 'hero'. The classic action, coming of age film is in a sense being mocked; being totally unsuited for the path to revolutionary consciousness. It also rather mocks Juan Quin Quin, which is more of a surprise.
Not every episode quite holds, but there are a number of interesting aspects, and surprising punches, in this film.
The Twelve Chairs
Tomas Gutierrez Alea, a comedy from 1962
Shot usually with a slowly tracking camera, often moving in. It establishes a space, or at least makes sures to do so, even when starting quite close. Their is a couple of nice gags from the background. It has rather long takes, which gives it a nice ar of classicism. All told, it looks decent enough; with quite a bit of shooting from a high angle, always reasonably balanced, and some nice long shots, especially at the end.
What we have here is a straightforward plot, with a few diversions, running through. But this is really very loose. Quite a few takes really have really little to do with the main story, or why they do is only revealed later. As I said, there is a goal at the end of this, but it is very much peripheral. This is also in that the characters are much more than this one goal. This is a fine character study; not overplayed, but with a clear general message, we don't have distinctive traits so much as a nice slow-brun of the atmosphere, as the two characters deal with socialism in their own way. Not outstanding, but an interesting and pleasurable film.
Shot usually with a slowly tracking camera, often moving in. It establishes a space, or at least makes sures to do so, even when starting quite close. Their is a couple of nice gags from the background. It has rather long takes, which gives it a nice ar of classicism. All told, it looks decent enough; with quite a bit of shooting from a high angle, always reasonably balanced, and some nice long shots, especially at the end.
What we have here is a straightforward plot, with a few diversions, running through. But this is really very loose. Quite a few takes really have really little to do with the main story, or why they do is only revealed later. As I said, there is a goal at the end of this, but it is very much peripheral. This is also in that the characters are much more than this one goal. This is a fine character study; not overplayed, but with a clear general message, we don't have distinctive traits so much as a nice slow-brun of the atmosphere, as the two characters deal with socialism in their own way. Not outstanding, but an interesting and pleasurable film.
Friday, 6 May 2011
Soy Cuba
1964 Mikhail Kalatozov
This is pretty wild stuff formally. Where to begin? Probably with the massively, beyond what I have seen before (well, Welles), 'distortion' of the image with the wide-angle lens. This is enhanced by having stuff chucked at us, careering into things, having a lot in the foreground. Oddly enough, depth isn't really the issue here; often there are only two planes, very distant and very far away, with not enough overlap, stuff in between, or lighting changes. So it can look quite flat, adding to the otherwordly appeal.
This wide-angle stuff is shot with extremely low angles, very high ones, nearly always canted, very much noticeably. What really stands out (what really really really stands out) is the mobility of the camera. Huge long takes, seemingly influenced heavily by Murnau (there is a real silent feel to this film) take us down buildings, throuhg swimming pools, flying through the air, somehow. The constant movements, sometimes very fast, means heads chopped off, bits of bodies and faces flying into the screen and dissappearing... it is all quite much.
Also note the sound; not really diagetic, clearly dubbed, with subjective breaks, and the level of the musuc gives it a dominating tone.
Narrative wise, here we have four parables connected more by theme than anything. The viewer only has very loose expectations, but even these are genuinely surprised. The formal elements foreground the air of the time, the passion, the way we are being shown around, perhaps as outsiders (the parable structure confirms this; are these more 'types' than actual people? The piece starts off nearly like a documentary). The scenes often start close and, in the general in and out, constant moving, establish a wider area, with more of a look at daily life than standard 'actions'. Most of the causation is good old economics.
A pretty remarable techinical achievement, with a rousing revolutionary message.
This is pretty wild stuff formally. Where to begin? Probably with the massively, beyond what I have seen before (well, Welles), 'distortion' of the image with the wide-angle lens. This is enhanced by having stuff chucked at us, careering into things, having a lot in the foreground. Oddly enough, depth isn't really the issue here; often there are only two planes, very distant and very far away, with not enough overlap, stuff in between, or lighting changes. So it can look quite flat, adding to the otherwordly appeal.
This wide-angle stuff is shot with extremely low angles, very high ones, nearly always canted, very much noticeably. What really stands out (what really really really stands out) is the mobility of the camera. Huge long takes, seemingly influenced heavily by Murnau (there is a real silent feel to this film) take us down buildings, throuhg swimming pools, flying through the air, somehow. The constant movements, sometimes very fast, means heads chopped off, bits of bodies and faces flying into the screen and dissappearing... it is all quite much.
Also note the sound; not really diagetic, clearly dubbed, with subjective breaks, and the level of the musuc gives it a dominating tone.
Narrative wise, here we have four parables connected more by theme than anything. The viewer only has very loose expectations, but even these are genuinely surprised. The formal elements foreground the air of the time, the passion, the way we are being shown around, perhaps as outsiders (the parable structure confirms this; are these more 'types' than actual people? The piece starts off nearly like a documentary). The scenes often start close and, in the general in and out, constant moving, establish a wider area, with more of a look at daily life than standard 'actions'. Most of the causation is good old economics.
A pretty remarable techinical achievement, with a rousing revolutionary message.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Sons Of Cuba
Documentary charting the progress of three young adolescents in a noted Cuban boxing academy, the Havana Club. A fine documentary, not overtly political but giving insight into not just one particular country's culture, but the universal practice of youthful sports stars, hopes, dreams, and hard work.
This film is shot and paced in a pretty standard manner, as is convention zeroing in one three particular boys in the run up to the National Championships. None of them have a particulalry ridiously entertaining arc or story to tell, but all are more or less engaging. We see the boys at home and at the academy, the director is though discrete in not poking his nose into some obvious very private moments that happen off camera. This can make it rather undramatic at times, but is immensely understandable and can give curious pathos to the simple reactions we are allowed to see (classic Greek tragedian trick). 'The Singer' is a funny little guy, 'The Dalmation' has some wonderful moments of tenderness but is clearly more fragile than we can understand. The star of this show is though 'The Old Man', whose relationship with his father makes for the finest parts of the documentary. Indeed, the father is one of the most fascinating characters we have come across. The champion on hard times, living on memories, is a cliche, but he invests it with a warmth, a stubborness, a relaisation but at once a lack of self-knowledge, and a ambiguos and odd relationship with his son that leads to a shatteringly good climax. Another interesting character is the coach, whose hugging of his bitter enemy at the end, along with his tenderness with the boys, shows a good character sometimes blown away by his own passion to win.
The depiction of Cuba is slanted slightly towards painting it as ridiculous, but didn't for us make it seem all that bad. Indeed, there is a great togetherness in the parades and idolastion of Castro, even of the antagonistic elements are uncomfortable. Does the academy push the kids too hard? At times, yes, but no more than any other practice which requires hard work does. The choice of boxing as subject rather loads the die on this one.
The director has been largely even-handed, though does stray into criticism occasionally. Despite this, he has created a powerful film with some deeply moving characters. Very good, indeed excellent.
This film is shot and paced in a pretty standard manner, as is convention zeroing in one three particular boys in the run up to the National Championships. None of them have a particulalry ridiously entertaining arc or story to tell, but all are more or less engaging. We see the boys at home and at the academy, the director is though discrete in not poking his nose into some obvious very private moments that happen off camera. This can make it rather undramatic at times, but is immensely understandable and can give curious pathos to the simple reactions we are allowed to see (classic Greek tragedian trick). 'The Singer' is a funny little guy, 'The Dalmation' has some wonderful moments of tenderness but is clearly more fragile than we can understand. The star of this show is though 'The Old Man', whose relationship with his father makes for the finest parts of the documentary. Indeed, the father is one of the most fascinating characters we have come across. The champion on hard times, living on memories, is a cliche, but he invests it with a warmth, a stubborness, a relaisation but at once a lack of self-knowledge, and a ambiguos and odd relationship with his son that leads to a shatteringly good climax. Another interesting character is the coach, whose hugging of his bitter enemy at the end, along with his tenderness with the boys, shows a good character sometimes blown away by his own passion to win.
The depiction of Cuba is slanted slightly towards painting it as ridiculous, but didn't for us make it seem all that bad. Indeed, there is a great togetherness in the parades and idolastion of Castro, even of the antagonistic elements are uncomfortable. Does the academy push the kids too hard? At times, yes, but no more than any other practice which requires hard work does. The choice of boxing as subject rather loads the die on this one.
The director has been largely even-handed, though does stray into criticism occasionally. Despite this, he has created a powerful film with some deeply moving characters. Very good, indeed excellent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)