1978 drama from Woody Allen, with a pointed lack of jokes that make it perhaps more sincere than any other film we can remember seeing. For this, it is a good film, a gripping film, and a flawed film. It did give us a good opportunity to consider Allen's art, stripped of the comedy he himself knows and notes is often used as a defence mechanism.
The family drama is hard hitting, bleak, and slightly open to parody. It also takes liberally from O'Neill's 'Long Day's Journey Into Night'. Indeed, it is remarkably like a play. Without the gags to distract, we seen even more that all of Allen's film scripts are in fact those of the theatre. This makes the dialogue seem sometimes stilted and certainly not exactly realist. This isn't necessarilly a criticism of the dialogue, which can be excellent, though it can fall into over-wordy explanations.
Allen is though a realist in that he paints very accurate characters. He examines the actual though processes, not always genius or high-fallutin', of actual people. This is where his characterisation is so effective, expecially in portraying relationships.
Allen's filming style is ocasionally pretty, largely unobtrusive, but fails to truly linger on and create images of outstanding beauty like the all time masters do (a ridiculous standard to hold anyone by). He does not quite succeed in unifying symbolically or an images; instead he has an impression of a lack of universailty.
For all this, the plot is interesting and the great portraits keep us gripped. The plot rather collapses/goes off the rails at the end, and the whole thing becomes slightly thrown together and hysterical. Yet we're not here to see pin point precision; we're here to see Allen's people (especially Keaton, again the centre of all attention and outshining the others in emotional depth and vibrancy). He shows us these, and he makes supremely watchable films.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
Manhattan
1979 classic from Woody Allen, along with 'Annie Hall' one of his two perhaps most lauded films, both falling loosely into a genre of spohisticated romance and comedy (it would seem bizarre to call either a 'rom-com').
It is the most beautiful of Allen's films we have come across, hands down. The black and white cinematography, the shots of the smoky bridge. The cars and the lights behind them. Allen is perhaps not a painter in the beauty he creates, but he still shows us the (often insides of) a beautiful city with its shimmering daytime lights. The larger artistic sweep is exacerbated by the Gershwin score, which may only come in to stir at the beginning and the end but is memorable none the less. The scene in the planetarium is photographically beutiful, even in not one unified symbol perhaps comes out.
Thematically, this is also one of his more intelligent works. It does not follow the so traditional template, and the famous and curious ending offers us possibilities beyond what is perhaps otherwise in Allen. Se around this are some decent, if occasionally a little stilted performances (though never from the still-wonderful Keaton). The jokes are never set ups, but flow naturally, and are good.
THis film isn't perhaps quite so straightforward snappy and entertaining as others, but can lay claim to be Allen's best work for its memorable artistry, intelligent plotting, and fascinating conclusion. A wonderful fim, enjoyed this time as much as last.
It is the most beautiful of Allen's films we have come across, hands down. The black and white cinematography, the shots of the smoky bridge. The cars and the lights behind them. Allen is perhaps not a painter in the beauty he creates, but he still shows us the (often insides of) a beautiful city with its shimmering daytime lights. The larger artistic sweep is exacerbated by the Gershwin score, which may only come in to stir at the beginning and the end but is memorable none the less. The scene in the planetarium is photographically beutiful, even in not one unified symbol perhaps comes out.
Thematically, this is also one of his more intelligent works. It does not follow the so traditional template, and the famous and curious ending offers us possibilities beyond what is perhaps otherwise in Allen. Se around this are some decent, if occasionally a little stilted performances (though never from the still-wonderful Keaton). The jokes are never set ups, but flow naturally, and are good.
THis film isn't perhaps quite so straightforward snappy and entertaining as others, but can lay claim to be Allen's best work for its memorable artistry, intelligent plotting, and fascinating conclusion. A wonderful fim, enjoyed this time as much as last.
Annie Hall
The 1977 Woody Allen classic, we watched it a few years back, liked it very much, and we still do.
This film is, to be trite, very sweet and very funny. It is also on ocassion beautiful.
The humour in non-early Allen is rarely quickfire, and perhaps on only two or three ocassions is wild and lasting (the set up gags like the cousin driving). But throughout he keeps a high standard of constant clowning, there is a great anticipatory skill in this.
The characters are marvellously sketched and, if not immediately coming into our hearts, do so, creeping up over time. In many ways Allen's films are sadder than one remembers them being; they have uplifting moments, one remembers the beautiful parts, but ultimately the wholes can be rather wistful, verging on the melancholy.
Allen plays his traditional part excellently, but the real star is Diane Keaton. Beautiful, heavily influential in her fashion, and changeable in a way that strikes as so much more realistic than the traditional mono-characters. She makes this film a classic, and her partnership with Allen is a great success.
One that has to be seen, and once seen, will be loved. Then it should be seen again.
This film is, to be trite, very sweet and very funny. It is also on ocassion beautiful.
The humour in non-early Allen is rarely quickfire, and perhaps on only two or three ocassions is wild and lasting (the set up gags like the cousin driving). But throughout he keeps a high standard of constant clowning, there is a great anticipatory skill in this.
The characters are marvellously sketched and, if not immediately coming into our hearts, do so, creeping up over time. In many ways Allen's films are sadder than one remembers them being; they have uplifting moments, one remembers the beautiful parts, but ultimately the wholes can be rather wistful, verging on the melancholy.
Allen plays his traditional part excellently, but the real star is Diane Keaton. Beautiful, heavily influential in her fashion, and changeable in a way that strikes as so much more realistic than the traditional mono-characters. She makes this film a classic, and her partnership with Allen is a great success.
One that has to be seen, and once seen, will be loved. Then it should be seen again.
Dogtooth
This strange, entertaining and shocking film is a recent release.
The central story of the gated-children is at times very funny. Especially with the use of word games and visual imagery. However, the film is smart enough to not just let us laugh at what, on paper, does indeed seem like a form of terror. We can become uncomfortable at our own laughter, and our laughter can lead us to question what we are seeing. This kind of 'look again'/ 'double take' is key to the film; the subversion of language makes us often suspect things of the characters, leads us into a state of constant uncertainty. The sheer lighting adds to a slightly washed out feel of the piece.
Is this film about simulacrum and capitalsim? About corruption? About falsity? Or about all. It certaintly requires thought from the audience, even of the speed of the piece does not allow too much of this withing the ninety minutes itself.
The acting is excellent, though we are still slightly uncertain about the uses of violence. They are extremely shocking and starightforward within the context of the film, which takes away much of the dreamy atmosphere? How much does the film earn itself its violence? Nearly completely, but perhaps not quite. A few more follow up scenes on the consequences and the natue of the violence might have made the intrusions, though doubtless powerful, a little less aberrant.
Indeed, a few extra scenes, maybe twenty minutes, may have done this film some good. Not that we didn't enjoy the ending; it may have left most of the audience restless, but it was a smart way of exploring the issues, if not satisfying for the classic movie experience. But this film wasn't trying to tick all the traditional boxes.
A film at times fun, at times horrifying, and nearly always entertaining. Largely avoids being overly 'kooky', and instead is a fascinating comment. Recommended.
The central story of the gated-children is at times very funny. Especially with the use of word games and visual imagery. However, the film is smart enough to not just let us laugh at what, on paper, does indeed seem like a form of terror. We can become uncomfortable at our own laughter, and our laughter can lead us to question what we are seeing. This kind of 'look again'/ 'double take' is key to the film; the subversion of language makes us often suspect things of the characters, leads us into a state of constant uncertainty. The sheer lighting adds to a slightly washed out feel of the piece.
Is this film about simulacrum and capitalsim? About corruption? About falsity? Or about all. It certaintly requires thought from the audience, even of the speed of the piece does not allow too much of this withing the ninety minutes itself.
The acting is excellent, though we are still slightly uncertain about the uses of violence. They are extremely shocking and starightforward within the context of the film, which takes away much of the dreamy atmosphere? How much does the film earn itself its violence? Nearly completely, but perhaps not quite. A few more follow up scenes on the consequences and the natue of the violence might have made the intrusions, though doubtless powerful, a little less aberrant.
Indeed, a few extra scenes, maybe twenty minutes, may have done this film some good. Not that we didn't enjoy the ending; it may have left most of the audience restless, but it was a smart way of exploring the issues, if not satisfying for the classic movie experience. But this film wasn't trying to tick all the traditional boxes.
A film at times fun, at times horrifying, and nearly always entertaining. Largely avoids being overly 'kooky', and instead is a fascinating comment. Recommended.
Stardust Memories
This 1980 Woody Allen movie is a decent film.
We have Woody being Woody, not throwing out the big or quick-fire laughs he occasionally can but certainly being good enough to keep us entertained.
The interesting parts of it are really the plot, the themes, and the side characters.
We have a plot that explores a number of avenues Allen works in, the artistic vocation and the simultaneous difficulties and sillinesses of success. This is interestingly enough done, without really adding anything new.
Ditto to the themes which are really quite fundamental; well, it's the meaning of life largely. Presented in the Allen-centric way he finds it difficult to not go around in circles, but is honest enough to admit that.
The relationships are quite cute, and just about realistic, even if Allen does make his character rather more likely than could seem obviously possible. The film is classily shot if not beautifully. The scenes at the field near the end are clearly flirting with re-demonstrations of the seventh seal, this is all quite nice but not ground breaking.
An interesting and thoughtful piece from Allen.
We have Woody being Woody, not throwing out the big or quick-fire laughs he occasionally can but certainly being good enough to keep us entertained.
The interesting parts of it are really the plot, the themes, and the side characters.
We have a plot that explores a number of avenues Allen works in, the artistic vocation and the simultaneous difficulties and sillinesses of success. This is interestingly enough done, without really adding anything new.
Ditto to the themes which are really quite fundamental; well, it's the meaning of life largely. Presented in the Allen-centric way he finds it difficult to not go around in circles, but is honest enough to admit that.
The relationships are quite cute, and just about realistic, even if Allen does make his character rather more likely than could seem obviously possible. The film is classily shot if not beautifully. The scenes at the field near the end are clearly flirting with re-demonstrations of the seventh seal, this is all quite nice but not ground breaking.
An interesting and thoughtful piece from Allen.
Thursday, 3 June 2010
The End Of Summer
Another Ozu film. After our confused experiences of 'Tokyo Story', and our gradual enjoyment of 'Good Morning', we now feel we are really starting to enter into the greatness of Ozu's work.
The static cameras, the way the characters talk directly facing, all has a certain effect. It requires a thoughtfulness of the viewer not just intellectually, but also an engagement with the worker aesthetically and thematically. When the film appears not entirely natural, almost spaced out (but not quite) in its manners and pace, this is merely a recognition of the pace of life. And then, of course, it all passes in a flash, and all is gone.
The style and the lengths still take a certain amount of getting used to. An unthinking cynic would accuse it at times of slipping into over delicacy. Yet, we feel we have left the departure gate of this stage.
The Japanese style of 'mono no aware' ('the transient nature of things') is to the fore, with quiet moments that do not so much pack a punch, but gently unfold their truths across time. Ozu's films aren't about linear narrative or explanations. They're about watching the films across their timescales (no one scene can be abstracted) and understandign how this is the nature of things, this is not an explanation, but it is a reality). The same actors remain calm or otherwise, the breaks being extra affecting. When a line is allowed that expresses in some way the understanding of the situation, it largely avoids coming across as didactic. Instead, it just emphasises the clearness of the piece.
Certain scenes at the end, with the weight of the previous film behind them, have an entirely immanent grandeur. We shall have to re-watch and watch more of Ozu's work, to fully enter his world. For now, we are not only starting to enjoy his films, but strating to understand why we do so, as well.
The static cameras, the way the characters talk directly facing, all has a certain effect. It requires a thoughtfulness of the viewer not just intellectually, but also an engagement with the worker aesthetically and thematically. When the film appears not entirely natural, almost spaced out (but not quite) in its manners and pace, this is merely a recognition of the pace of life. And then, of course, it all passes in a flash, and all is gone.
The style and the lengths still take a certain amount of getting used to. An unthinking cynic would accuse it at times of slipping into over delicacy. Yet, we feel we have left the departure gate of this stage.
The Japanese style of 'mono no aware' ('the transient nature of things') is to the fore, with quiet moments that do not so much pack a punch, but gently unfold their truths across time. Ozu's films aren't about linear narrative or explanations. They're about watching the films across their timescales (no one scene can be abstracted) and understandign how this is the nature of things, this is not an explanation, but it is a reality). The same actors remain calm or otherwise, the breaks being extra affecting. When a line is allowed that expresses in some way the understanding of the situation, it largely avoids coming across as didactic. Instead, it just emphasises the clearness of the piece.
Certain scenes at the end, with the weight of the previous film behind them, have an entirely immanent grandeur. We shall have to re-watch and watch more of Ozu's work, to fully enter his world. For now, we are not only starting to enjoy his films, but strating to understand why we do so, as well.
The New World
This Terrence Malick film is hailed as either boring, or a transcendent masterpiece. We found it neither in particular, but rather a solid, fitfully thoughtful, interesting if never quite asending film.
The shots of nature are wonderful, and the best thing about it. Perhaps it would be even better on the big screen, able to daw one further into the forest atmosphere. As it was we enjoyed the running water, the beautiful rivers. There was great power in the contrast of the natural world with the settlers' arid wastelands. Perhaps the most effective moments linearly were when our heroine was being straightjacketed, almost literally, into the artifical and dirty ways of the English.
The performance of the female lead, whose true name is presumably 'Pocahontas', is indeed terrific. She is natural enough for her beauty not to be an obstacle. Colin Farrell does rather a lot of low-brows glowering, but both he and Christian Bale just about hold up their side of the bargain.
We were constantly waiting for this film to take off. Not that it is slow or boring, or aimless, but rather that it never quite turns the booster-engines on. Perhaps this, on a fifty foot screen, would have been provided by the sounds and colours of the forest. As it is we saw a good film, but one unlikely to affect our futures greatly.
The shots of nature are wonderful, and the best thing about it. Perhaps it would be even better on the big screen, able to daw one further into the forest atmosphere. As it was we enjoyed the running water, the beautiful rivers. There was great power in the contrast of the natural world with the settlers' arid wastelands. Perhaps the most effective moments linearly were when our heroine was being straightjacketed, almost literally, into the artifical and dirty ways of the English.
The performance of the female lead, whose true name is presumably 'Pocahontas', is indeed terrific. She is natural enough for her beauty not to be an obstacle. Colin Farrell does rather a lot of low-brows glowering, but both he and Christian Bale just about hold up their side of the bargain.
We were constantly waiting for this film to take off. Not that it is slow or boring, or aimless, but rather that it never quite turns the booster-engines on. Perhaps this, on a fifty foot screen, would have been provided by the sounds and colours of the forest. As it is we saw a good film, but one unlikely to affect our futures greatly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)