Quite, quite remarkable film for Dreyer, 1928
what is there to say? A real blow to the cortol
the close-up, Jean looks up, the grotesques look down
vivdly highlighting just one level, with frontlighting
an incredible study of the face; the texture, the sweat, the ringing of flesh
the use of the close-up in various parts around the screen; it is trapped, it is subjected
but also here we have Dreyer's transcendental; the pure affect, against the white of the back wall. Away from all else. The extra dimension that Dreyer can produce
Space is almost entirely in the viewer's creation; from one to another. Takes it to an almost literal unreality, a space beyond earth, purgatory
use of a few beautifully smooth pans (see 'Day Of Wrath') add to atmopshere of flies against a wall, swatting about, starnge two dimensional, though opens up two more...
huge canted angles throughout, remarkably experimental in nearly every shot (which could be hung on a wall, but remain fast, gritty, so sudden)
as though what it is to film was being constantly refound. Dynamic
Snappy, shoots along. Goes at the jugular from the first close-up, and keeps it there, at a quite incomprehensible level of pace and effect
manages to balance every shot, of the inquisitors and town, as well as Joan, in this status beyond normal life. All is at once questioned in this new 'reality'
the use of space clearly influenced Bresson (not least his version of the same story), as the close-up options opened up space for Bergman ('Persona'), and even Godard ('Vivre Sa Vie')
rightly seen as one of the most distinctive films of the silent era, and perhaps in the canon of European cinema. Quite, quite astonishing
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Tabu
F.W. Murnau, 1931 with the (also great) R.J. Flaherty, go to the South Seas
Stunning to look at; immediate questions of the documentary nature; seeing people as they are
And what is unreal? What is real? Incredibly difficult to say. Some things done seem astonishing
The pure locale holds a fascination, a balance of celebration and sheer implacability
The, again, whiteness, the body, the orgy of the dancing, all are on show
Around the plot, constant cut aways to people (never solo shots) and the locale
This is also the minimalist Muranu’s de-dramatization technique; the ellipses, the underplaying, the refusal to show emotion. The single action that means so much. The stubbornly still camera
Saying that, there are some wonderful lazy pans in this picture, though no pyrotechnics
Especially noticeable is the shot of the islander with feet touching bottom of the screen (i.e. first shot), which is constantly repeated. Stands out as a beautiful framing, the at once upright and coiled body
Among the island, there is actually quite a standard, heavily editing-driven story
Murnau manages to use all his usual tactics; shadowplay, especially of the evil male, and the deluded male lead
Also the close-ups, shots of pure emotion, as the only singles in the film, the decentered framings
It’s a strange balance, the first half in particular as this fascinating look, with this story going on meanwhiles
There are endless analyses of colonialism, the myth of the ‘happy savage’, that can come out here
However that comes out, this is a at times very powerful film, with two such disparate strands to it that it truly is a fascinating piece; a metaphysicians return to nature, the cinema put into the sun and the sand
Stunning to look at; immediate questions of the documentary nature; seeing people as they are
And what is unreal? What is real? Incredibly difficult to say. Some things done seem astonishing
The pure locale holds a fascination, a balance of celebration and sheer implacability
The, again, whiteness, the body, the orgy of the dancing, all are on show
Around the plot, constant cut aways to people (never solo shots) and the locale
This is also the minimalist Muranu’s de-dramatization technique; the ellipses, the underplaying, the refusal to show emotion. The single action that means so much. The stubbornly still camera
Saying that, there are some wonderful lazy pans in this picture, though no pyrotechnics
Especially noticeable is the shot of the islander with feet touching bottom of the screen (i.e. first shot), which is constantly repeated. Stands out as a beautiful framing, the at once upright and coiled body
Among the island, there is actually quite a standard, heavily editing-driven story
Murnau manages to use all his usual tactics; shadowplay, especially of the evil male, and the deluded male lead
Also the close-ups, shots of pure emotion, as the only singles in the film, the decentered framings
It’s a strange balance, the first half in particular as this fascinating look, with this story going on meanwhiles
There are endless analyses of colonialism, the myth of the ‘happy savage’, that can come out here
However that comes out, this is a at times very powerful film, with two such disparate strands to it that it truly is a fascinating piece; a metaphysicians return to nature, the cinema put into the sun and the sand
Faust
Groundbreaking in its effects, F.W. Murnau in 1926
Slightly faster pace, in a very free adaption
Again the use of the blazing light and the darkness
Very expressionist. Particularly in the set design. Can see why the budget overran...
Some extremely dynamic framings (influence of Lang?) Harsh dark objects close to camera
Throughout his work, Murnau not afraid to use depth
Frequent uses of superimpositions and various in-camera work
Faster cut, with space generally created by the viewer
Saying that, a lot of two-work, with sensual aspects lingered upon. This film isn’t lying; it really is about love
Many individual shots are works in themselves; perhaps more in the visual side than what can be a rather uneven ride story-wise
For that, an astonishing film on frequent occassions
Slightly faster pace, in a very free adaption
Again the use of the blazing light and the darkness
Very expressionist. Particularly in the set design. Can see why the budget overran...
Some extremely dynamic framings (influence of Lang?) Harsh dark objects close to camera
Throughout his work, Murnau not afraid to use depth
Frequent uses of superimpositions and various in-camera work
Faster cut, with space generally created by the viewer
Saying that, a lot of two-work, with sensual aspects lingered upon. This film isn’t lying; it really is about love
Many individual shots are works in themselves; perhaps more in the visual side than what can be a rather uneven ride story-wise
For that, an astonishing film on frequent occassions
The Last Laugh
F.W. Murnau, 1924, innovative, but that seems almost besides the point....
Manichean black and white stock, shocking, and photography
Use of light and shining/ out of dark, into light
Almost as though wanting to hide from the light
Constant themes of smoke and fire. As though hell burned within
‘Nosferatu’ / ‘Sunrise’ like poses of the male lead. Another of Murnau’s flawed men
A kinf od terror on the work, towards this fire, within the seemingly parochial setting
Hugely atmospheric, even the use of the famous shadows
The pacing makes this incredibly powerful; clinging to walls, slow walks
Shots that linger; we don’t see some of the crucial action, deep sadness
Low angle shots of huge amounts of the city; prefigures much
These harsh contrasts provide a stunning backdrop; combined with often unncentered framings, and the lighting, have the figure lost in the city
The occasional uses of the track forward add to this feeling
Though what they really do is add to the almost animalistic part; the rage, the smoke, the whiteness
As though there is an urge for the camera to move forward, a demonic part of Murnau’s work
This really is exceptionally powerful for its milleu
Masterfully told, without intertitles, and deliriously smooth early continuity work, with almost no repititions
Use of impressionist gauzes and superimpositions also add to this
While creating another theme; the two locations, the ‘heaven’ / ‘hell’? ‘Earth’ / ‘Hell’? Dream / Real?
The ending, after the harsh tone, is a surprise
This is really a sensational work; at time brooding, always as though an unassailable power is at work...
Manichean black and white stock, shocking, and photography
Use of light and shining/ out of dark, into light
Almost as though wanting to hide from the light
Constant themes of smoke and fire. As though hell burned within
‘Nosferatu’ / ‘Sunrise’ like poses of the male lead. Another of Murnau’s flawed men
A kinf od terror on the work, towards this fire, within the seemingly parochial setting
Hugely atmospheric, even the use of the famous shadows
The pacing makes this incredibly powerful; clinging to walls, slow walks
Shots that linger; we don’t see some of the crucial action, deep sadness
Low angle shots of huge amounts of the city; prefigures much
These harsh contrasts provide a stunning backdrop; combined with often unncentered framings, and the lighting, have the figure lost in the city
The occasional uses of the track forward add to this feeling
Though what they really do is add to the almost animalistic part; the rage, the smoke, the whiteness
As though there is an urge for the camera to move forward, a demonic part of Murnau’s work
This really is exceptionally powerful for its milleu
Masterfully told, without intertitles, and deliriously smooth early continuity work, with almost no repititions
Use of impressionist gauzes and superimpositions also add to this
While creating another theme; the two locations, the ‘heaven’ / ‘hell’? ‘Earth’ / ‘Hell’? Dream / Real?
The ending, after the harsh tone, is a surprise
This is really a sensational work; at time brooding, always as though an unassailable power is at work...
Saturday, 26 February 2011
True Grit
Coen Brothers' latest, a remake of the Hathaway film (or at least sharing a source)
perhaps the Coen's poorest work; not a disaster, but very dissapointing
The huge frame (at least 2.35:1) is largely used for solo shots/ rather uninspired close ups
rarely have the Coen's used such a technique before; but they're not suited for close-ups, this film is about perception rather than affect. No character is able to sustain a close-up
the typical Coen (rather, Roger Deakin) telephoto pin-the-face-on-the-wall is used, but this time with backlighting rather than frontlighting
there really are very (comparitively) few shots of multimple characters in frame; a few wider ones, but generally rather dissapinting over the shoulder stuff
this is really stand and deliver; a lot of visually dull ping-pong (with characters framed slightly to the side of the screen to even things out)
the colour scheme (greens, browns) has a nice feel to it, and of course the Western landscape can't fail to have moments of beauty
but this is really underexplouted; don't get a feel of the landscape and the mis-en-scene is surpirsingly poor; everything looks a bit faked
For the plot, we are entirely with Mattie Ross, but this kind of single-view technique needs a faster plot
the problem arises that it isn't directed to give us a sense of character, but the plot is simply too slow/ the script is too interested in the characters
have certain scenes (way) too long, some too short, feels unbalanced in its parts
All that really saves this film is Bridges creating a distinct character (though not capable of some scenes, i.e. the action; he is an excellent character from another film)
the script will be seen as sweet, but it doesn't really work, especially in the wordier parts where it's nearly embarrasing watching the actors have to split out the lines
the characters, and the setting, deserve a better made film than this
so, despite decent characterisation, and the in-itself interesting milleu, this really left us wanting to watch the cooler, slower, more involved Hathaway film; which isn't all that great, anyway
perhaps the Coen's poorest work; not a disaster, but very dissapointing
The huge frame (at least 2.35:1) is largely used for solo shots/ rather uninspired close ups
rarely have the Coen's used such a technique before; but they're not suited for close-ups, this film is about perception rather than affect. No character is able to sustain a close-up
the typical Coen (rather, Roger Deakin) telephoto pin-the-face-on-the-wall is used, but this time with backlighting rather than frontlighting
there really are very (comparitively) few shots of multimple characters in frame; a few wider ones, but generally rather dissapinting over the shoulder stuff
this is really stand and deliver; a lot of visually dull ping-pong (with characters framed slightly to the side of the screen to even things out)
the colour scheme (greens, browns) has a nice feel to it, and of course the Western landscape can't fail to have moments of beauty
but this is really underexplouted; don't get a feel of the landscape and the mis-en-scene is surpirsingly poor; everything looks a bit faked
For the plot, we are entirely with Mattie Ross, but this kind of single-view technique needs a faster plot
the problem arises that it isn't directed to give us a sense of character, but the plot is simply too slow/ the script is too interested in the characters
have certain scenes (way) too long, some too short, feels unbalanced in its parts
All that really saves this film is Bridges creating a distinct character (though not capable of some scenes, i.e. the action; he is an excellent character from another film)
the script will be seen as sweet, but it doesn't really work, especially in the wordier parts where it's nearly embarrasing watching the actors have to split out the lines
the characters, and the setting, deserve a better made film than this
so, despite decent characterisation, and the in-itself interesting milleu, this really left us wanting to watch the cooler, slower, more involved Hathaway film; which isn't all that great, anyway
Friday, 25 February 2011
Turtles Can Fly
2004 film, the first released from Iraq since the occupation, by Bahman Ghobadi, who gave us the below-standard '...Persian Cats'. This is much better
the dialgoue generally veers above the level of annoying, the plot does not exactly fly along, but has a smooth enough arc to go with its main point, which is obviously a kind of reportage
use of various framings; rather standard singles, but some nicer medium shots, and the much more interesting extra-long shots, which are the closest to giving us a sense of the (largely neglected) landscape, by creating some space
the colour scheme is throughout an interesting one, with good browny/grey washed out work on the rubbish heap, mirrored in the water
this film isn't really about the style though;
this is realism, but it's not quite your standard misery film.
Not just the mystical elements, by the strangely ordered way the action is moved around, almost a flippany seems to enter at times
the same sense of fatalism of 'Persian Cats'
the misery we're shown here may have been better dealt with in a documentary; especially considering the lack of context shown (few newsreel shots just beg the question)
alternatively, could have beena complete fantasia
what we ultimately have is a film that is not your standard realism, too jerky and staged for that, but at once is focussed on a very real happening
in no way a particularly good film, but interesting nonetheless
It would be patronising to congratulate it for simply being made; the greater complement is to analyse how it works
the dialgoue generally veers above the level of annoying, the plot does not exactly fly along, but has a smooth enough arc to go with its main point, which is obviously a kind of reportage
use of various framings; rather standard singles, but some nicer medium shots, and the much more interesting extra-long shots, which are the closest to giving us a sense of the (largely neglected) landscape, by creating some space
the colour scheme is throughout an interesting one, with good browny/grey washed out work on the rubbish heap, mirrored in the water
this film isn't really about the style though;
this is realism, but it's not quite your standard misery film.
Not just the mystical elements, by the strangely ordered way the action is moved around, almost a flippany seems to enter at times
the same sense of fatalism of 'Persian Cats'
the misery we're shown here may have been better dealt with in a documentary; especially considering the lack of context shown (few newsreel shots just beg the question)
alternatively, could have beena complete fantasia
what we ultimately have is a film that is not your standard realism, too jerky and staged for that, but at once is focussed on a very real happening
in no way a particularly good film, but interesting nonetheless
It would be patronising to congratulate it for simply being made; the greater complement is to analyse how it works
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Lovers Of The Arctic Circle
Julio Medem, 1998, pretty poor work....
Mild ADHD direction, hopping about, swishing the camera
Fast, intensified continuity. Pretty much close work, average takes, little noticeable variety
Saying that, really tries to punch on the visual style with colours and wacky framings. Remains dull
Very dull visually, completely fails to use ‘Scope for anything but pointless single shots
Heavy handed symbolism throughout. Slight strangeness just acts as a non-sequiter
Very perfunctory story, just getting the job done. Little to no characterisation beyond a bunch of clichés
A few half-decent ideas here; same thing seen differently from viewpoints
But the general theme is largely idiotic, the ending pretty much a case of ‘who cares?’
Shows that keeping things moving doesn’t not make a film boring
Any slight lag in plot is multiplied one hundred fold. Would pretty much have to work at hyperspeed to work at all
Pretty stupid cinema, in a thrall to deeply by-numbers direction and plotting, even if it’s not a blockbuster
Not exactly unpleasant to sit through, but really very poor, and on reflection quite depressing.
Mild ADHD direction, hopping about, swishing the camera
Fast, intensified continuity. Pretty much close work, average takes, little noticeable variety
Saying that, really tries to punch on the visual style with colours and wacky framings. Remains dull
Very dull visually, completely fails to use ‘Scope for anything but pointless single shots
Heavy handed symbolism throughout. Slight strangeness just acts as a non-sequiter
Very perfunctory story, just getting the job done. Little to no characterisation beyond a bunch of clichés
A few half-decent ideas here; same thing seen differently from viewpoints
But the general theme is largely idiotic, the ending pretty much a case of ‘who cares?’
Shows that keeping things moving doesn’t not make a film boring
Any slight lag in plot is multiplied one hundred fold. Would pretty much have to work at hyperspeed to work at all
Pretty stupid cinema, in a thrall to deeply by-numbers direction and plotting, even if it’s not a blockbuster
Not exactly unpleasant to sit through, but really very poor, and on reflection quite depressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)