This film is great. It is one of the progenitor of Science Fiction film. along with Griffith's masterpieces like Birth of a Nation, and more importantly Intolerance, Fritz Lang can be considered a legend of Cinema.
His film Metropolis presents all the worries of his contemporary era in film form. Even more so are his references to biblic themes such as resurrection and redemption. The futuristic setting is phenomenal even to this day. In the 1920s and silent film era, audiences must have been astounded. I can see some similarity between Lang's Metropolis and Blade Runner.
Yet Metropolis captures the fear of the 1920s better than any other film of it's era. Class conflict, revolutionary struggle, the correct path to social advancement are all addressed in this film. The conflict between the master of metropolis and the workers presents class conflict in the 1920s in starkest terms. Although filmmakers in America rarely touched on such a concept, filmmakers in Germany had a free hand to address such concerns, and with the emergence of the Soviet Union, those concerns were at the forefront of public debate.
This film is set in the future, but it is an obvious reference to the 1920s. Germany was in the midst of economic catastrophe in the Weimar years. There was constant struggle between the working class and management. Like so many other sci fi films to follow the idea of revolution takes paramount importance. It is only further complicated by the fact that the messianic figure is an evil robot set out to lead the workers to their own destruction. I think this film is a precursor to other films of the dystopian, revolutionary genre. George Lucas's THX evokes such ideas of revolt against an all powerfuly, all controlling state. As does some themes in the Waichowski's laest film Cloud Atlas.
I am seriously considering showing this film in the class I'm going to teach about Cinema and Digital Technology. I know, it has nothing to do with Cinema and Digital Technology, but it is so relevant to the genre of Sci- fi films. It one of the first, perhaps the first, in the myriad of dystopian films that have been released.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Thoughts on German Expressionist Cinema
I have watched several German Expressionist Cinema films. These include the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (twice) and Metropolis both by Fritz Lang. The former is the shortest and, perhaps, most stylish and abstract of the, at least, three Expressionist films I have seen.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is short and very artistic. The sets a done in a manner which can be seen is an Otto Dix painting. I like the style of the German Expressionists and Dr. Caligari does not let down in style. Yet the film is short, only fifty-two minutes.
The Testament of Dr. Mabuse is longer. I'm not even sure if it can be considered Expressionist, because it is after the Weimar period, 1933, but before the Nazis and the post WWII period. It is also a talkie, which Cabinet and Metropolis are not. I have seen Mabuse twice, once before this post and once specifically for this post. Everything about the film is of high quality. It is probably comparable to any James Gagne films or Gangster movies of the times. The narrative is full of twists and turns and has several expressionistic flourishes.
Metropolis is, perhaps, the best Expressionist film made during the Weimar period. It's camera work is beyond average, and the futuristic models create an atmosphere unlike any film for it's time period. It's theme pre-dates other films that deal with the crisis of Capitalism and class conflict. The film is futuristic but very relevant to the 1920s. I have seen the film at least twice and each time I have been mesmerized by its stage designs and narrative. A great film.
German Expressionist Cinema came about during the inter-war years. It significantly reflects the painting style of German Expressionism. The warped stage designs are no accident. As well as the dark lighting. It amazed me how much these films resembled the painting of Dix and others. I really enjoyed watching the films They were such a departure from other films of it's era.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is short and very artistic. The sets a done in a manner which can be seen is an Otto Dix painting. I like the style of the German Expressionists and Dr. Caligari does not let down in style. Yet the film is short, only fifty-two minutes.
The Testament of Dr. Mabuse is longer. I'm not even sure if it can be considered Expressionist, because it is after the Weimar period, 1933, but before the Nazis and the post WWII period. It is also a talkie, which Cabinet and Metropolis are not. I have seen Mabuse twice, once before this post and once specifically for this post. Everything about the film is of high quality. It is probably comparable to any James Gagne films or Gangster movies of the times. The narrative is full of twists and turns and has several expressionistic flourishes.
Metropolis is, perhaps, the best Expressionist film made during the Weimar period. It's camera work is beyond average, and the futuristic models create an atmosphere unlike any film for it's time period. It's theme pre-dates other films that deal with the crisis of Capitalism and class conflict. The film is futuristic but very relevant to the 1920s. I have seen the film at least twice and each time I have been mesmerized by its stage designs and narrative. A great film.
German Expressionist Cinema came about during the inter-war years. It significantly reflects the painting style of German Expressionism. The warped stage designs are no accident. As well as the dark lighting. It amazed me how much these films resembled the painting of Dix and others. I really enjoyed watching the films They were such a departure from other films of it's era.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Review of The Girl Who Played With Fire
I have seen the first in the this trilogy and I must say that the first in the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo trilogy was much better than the second film. I will be writing a subsequent blog post comparing and contrasting all three films. Yet, this blog is about the second in the trilogy, the Girl Who Played With Fire.
First of all let me say how much I like the style of these films. I really like to cyber-punk style of each film. It gives the films a post-modern style that is copied, but never repeated by any other film. Yet this second installment leaves viewers wanting more. It is not suspenseful, even when Lisbeth is buried alive, you know she's going to win, somehow. All that is obvious from the first movie. Yet the plot twists and turns are entertaining. It is a good film, but not as great as the first one.
Lesbian sex scenes aside, this film could of used some more action. Noomi Rapace doesn't talk so much. The narrative is interesting, but the degenerates into a James Bondesque film when Noomi's character is revealed to have the roots of an ex-KGB officer. No wonder why she is so elusive and consequential. She is clearly the hero in a perverted, white-male dominated world. She works against the male dominated world to overthrow all of the power structures that are so firmly in place to keep her down. That is the most interesting part of the film. How she gets revenge against her rapist social work, her father, and the system that does nothing to help her, only lets her be abused and almost killed.
The proto-feminist narrative is the best thing about this film. A woman, odds stacked against her finds a way to come out on top against her enemies who seem to have every advantage against her. She exposes the underworld, corruption in the government, and the keystone cops who are too slow or incompetent to solve a setup against her. Yet, the film comes off as too predictable. Even as she is shot several times, you know she is going to triumph. Perhaps it isn't inevitable, there is some doubt, but, alas, how can you kill of the main protagonist? Maybe the ending of this film was spoiled by the fact that I knew there was a third installment?
Anyway, this film doesn't stack up to the suspense and thrilling conclusion of its predecessor. The ending is all too obvious and the lead up isn't climatic at all.
First of all let me say how much I like the style of these films. I really like to cyber-punk style of each film. It gives the films a post-modern style that is copied, but never repeated by any other film. Yet this second installment leaves viewers wanting more. It is not suspenseful, even when Lisbeth is buried alive, you know she's going to win, somehow. All that is obvious from the first movie. Yet the plot twists and turns are entertaining. It is a good film, but not as great as the first one.
Lesbian sex scenes aside, this film could of used some more action. Noomi Rapace doesn't talk so much. The narrative is interesting, but the degenerates into a James Bondesque film when Noomi's character is revealed to have the roots of an ex-KGB officer. No wonder why she is so elusive and consequential. She is clearly the hero in a perverted, white-male dominated world. She works against the male dominated world to overthrow all of the power structures that are so firmly in place to keep her down. That is the most interesting part of the film. How she gets revenge against her rapist social work, her father, and the system that does nothing to help her, only lets her be abused and almost killed.
The proto-feminist narrative is the best thing about this film. A woman, odds stacked against her finds a way to come out on top against her enemies who seem to have every advantage against her. She exposes the underworld, corruption in the government, and the keystone cops who are too slow or incompetent to solve a setup against her. Yet, the film comes off as too predictable. Even as she is shot several times, you know she is going to triumph. Perhaps it isn't inevitable, there is some doubt, but, alas, how can you kill of the main protagonist? Maybe the ending of this film was spoiled by the fact that I knew there was a third installment?
Anyway, this film doesn't stack up to the suspense and thrilling conclusion of its predecessor. The ending is all too obvious and the lead up isn't climatic at all.
Review of Minority Report
This was antother adaptation of a Philip K. Dick novel. It was an entertaining story that was good in the beginning, but, in my opinion, flagged towards the end. I don't know exactly what it was. maybe an all too obvious ending, a Tom Cruise vehicle, or something I can't verbalise. I liked the film until I knew the ending then all became inevitable. It was a Tom Cruise picture where he was going to solve the murder and end up on the side of good, having another child with his wife. Perhaps if Tom Cruise hadn't been cast I would have like the picture more. Perhaps if he wasn't in the movies I wouldn't have liked the picture.
I thought about showing this film for a class I'm teaching. I thought I could show this film and relate it somehow to the hot topic in technology "big data." It has some relevance, but it doesn't quite make it. It wraps up everything very tidely. I was hoping for a more convoluted ending. I didn't want Tom Cruise's character to ending up solving the murder and having another child with his wife. That was just to sterile. Too predictable. Perhaps too much of a "Hollywood" ending?
Yet the first thirty minutes to an hour are science fiction film at it's best. The use of pre-cogs to identify future crime is very cutting edge. It brings to mind some of the debates about "Big Data." I'm sure Civil rights activits would have a field day if this film ever attempted to become reality. There is no way the Courts would allow human beings to be exploited to predict crime. And the dubiousness of the offense would sure cause an uprising against convictions for crimes that were committed in the future. Yet, currently, governments are using predictive analytics to predict human behavior. Anyway the film touches on some of these issues and illustrates there abuses, but I just didn't feel that much with this film. It was too predictable.
I may still use this film. But, I'm keeping my options open.
I thought about showing this film for a class I'm teaching. I thought I could show this film and relate it somehow to the hot topic in technology "big data." It has some relevance, but it doesn't quite make it. It wraps up everything very tidely. I was hoping for a more convoluted ending. I didn't want Tom Cruise's character to ending up solving the murder and having another child with his wife. That was just to sterile. Too predictable. Perhaps too much of a "Hollywood" ending?
Yet the first thirty minutes to an hour are science fiction film at it's best. The use of pre-cogs to identify future crime is very cutting edge. It brings to mind some of the debates about "Big Data." I'm sure Civil rights activits would have a field day if this film ever attempted to become reality. There is no way the Courts would allow human beings to be exploited to predict crime. And the dubiousness of the offense would sure cause an uprising against convictions for crimes that were committed in the future. Yet, currently, governments are using predictive analytics to predict human behavior. Anyway the film touches on some of these issues and illustrates there abuses, but I just didn't feel that much with this film. It was too predictable.
I may still use this film. But, I'm keeping my options open.
Review of The Great Gatsby
In spite of what the critics at the Rolling Stone and New Yorker have written I enjoyed the adaptation of Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. Although I thought some of the scenes were overplayed, particularly the scene where Gatsby throw some of his shirts on Daisy to be overplayed. Perhaps it could have been jewelry instead. I don't know, the scene just didn't work for me. Also the ending was somewhat long and drawn out. I didn't really notice it too much until my friend pointed it out. I think the ending was drawn out to point to the tragedy that Gatsby endured. Certainly you could not find a more romantic and wronged hero in all of literary history, and cinematic history. The character of Gatsby is comparable to the epic characters of Shakespeare. Hamlet and King Lear certainly endured some of the hardships that Gatsby endured.
Those hardships. Of which any viewer of the film is bound to think. Gatsby from dirt poor farmers who wants the hand of a rich girl for marriage. He is doomed from the start. But, he believes in the American dream in the promise of progress of advancement. Like so many people who believed the same dream back in the halcyon days of the 1920s, and like so many people, had his bubble burst. Gatsby strikes me as a tragic hero. He attains the highest of economic highs; he throws lavish parties, has the finest clothes, the fanciest car, he has everything that should qualify him for the highest class position in American society, but, alas, he is rejected by that very society. He cannot have Daisy. This emotion is showed most cleary when Gatsby utterly loses it when Tom Buchanon reveals his shadowy past. Gatsby flies off the handle and drives away Daisy. Poor Gatsby. All of this is fairly obvious to even the most lazy analysis of the film. Yet it is the presentation of the story that is unique. The film starts, refers back to, and closes with the character of Nick Carraway in a sanatorium. This was not included in the 1970s version of the film. Neither was the angry scene in which Gatsby flies off the handle and loses Daisy. Instead the 1970s version had Mia Farrow proclaim that awful, fateful line that "rich girls don't marry poor boys" and aside from that adhered closely to the book.
I thought the film had very high production qualities. The party scenes were incredible. The acting was good, some may say subpar, but aren't the character in this tale all phony? I think so. I thought the character of Tom Buchanon was well played, perhaps even upstaging Leo's character, a good casting choice. Many of the scenes were wonderfully shot. I can't imagine how much it cost. The CGI was somewhat out of place as was the documentary footage, but it lended a realist touch for the film.
This was the first 3D film I have ever scene, or can remember seeing. I think it is the quintessential tale of 1920s America; driven by a bloodlust for money and success. In a time when the top book was how to make friends and influence people, Gatsby comes off as the most poignant criticism of the enormous lust for money that drove the 1920s boom and ended, like Nick Carraway, in a state of depression and deep introversion. I think Gatsby is not only a tale about 1920s America, but comments more broadly about America throught the years. The yearning for money and status has been found in every decade of American history, not just the 1920s. It is a commentary on the money elite, the striving for a conception of the American dream, that one can become a part of high society if one attains enough wealth, but alas, as become so tragically apparent in Gatsby, money can't buy everything.
Those hardships. Of which any viewer of the film is bound to think. Gatsby from dirt poor farmers who wants the hand of a rich girl for marriage. He is doomed from the start. But, he believes in the American dream in the promise of progress of advancement. Like so many people who believed the same dream back in the halcyon days of the 1920s, and like so many people, had his bubble burst. Gatsby strikes me as a tragic hero. He attains the highest of economic highs; he throws lavish parties, has the finest clothes, the fanciest car, he has everything that should qualify him for the highest class position in American society, but, alas, he is rejected by that very society. He cannot have Daisy. This emotion is showed most cleary when Gatsby utterly loses it when Tom Buchanon reveals his shadowy past. Gatsby flies off the handle and drives away Daisy. Poor Gatsby. All of this is fairly obvious to even the most lazy analysis of the film. Yet it is the presentation of the story that is unique. The film starts, refers back to, and closes with the character of Nick Carraway in a sanatorium. This was not included in the 1970s version of the film. Neither was the angry scene in which Gatsby flies off the handle and loses Daisy. Instead the 1970s version had Mia Farrow proclaim that awful, fateful line that "rich girls don't marry poor boys" and aside from that adhered closely to the book.
I thought the film had very high production qualities. The party scenes were incredible. The acting was good, some may say subpar, but aren't the character in this tale all phony? I think so. I thought the character of Tom Buchanon was well played, perhaps even upstaging Leo's character, a good casting choice. Many of the scenes were wonderfully shot. I can't imagine how much it cost. The CGI was somewhat out of place as was the documentary footage, but it lended a realist touch for the film.
This was the first 3D film I have ever scene, or can remember seeing. I think it is the quintessential tale of 1920s America; driven by a bloodlust for money and success. In a time when the top book was how to make friends and influence people, Gatsby comes off as the most poignant criticism of the enormous lust for money that drove the 1920s boom and ended, like Nick Carraway, in a state of depression and deep introversion. I think Gatsby is not only a tale about 1920s America, but comments more broadly about America throught the years. The yearning for money and status has been found in every decade of American history, not just the 1920s. It is a commentary on the money elite, the striving for a conception of the American dream, that one can become a part of high society if one attains enough wealth, but alas, as become so tragically apparent in Gatsby, money can't buy everything.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Review of Life of Pi
Another recent film that has been talked about and which was considered for many Oscars. I borrowed this from the local library because I missed the film when it was out. Again I may not add to the already voluminous reviews of this film but I like to scribble down some of my own thoughts.
The director of the film was Ang Lee. He won a best director Oscar for Life of Pi. As I was watching the film I thought to myself, "how does one recognize great directing?" I knew before the film started that Lee had won the award for best director in the most recent Oscars, so I was interested to see the film and see what the Academy had deemed so deserving of the best director Oscar.
Well after viewing the film I would so that it cleared up what thoughts I had about what great directing is. The film was beautiful. The tiger, the ocean, the fish were all great shots. If you can make a two hour film which the bulk of time is of a teenage boy floating around on life preservers attached to a life boat interesting and engaging then you should win the best director award. There were numerous shots in the film where I asked myself "how did he pull off that shot?" I was mesmerized, yet not terrified because we see that the boy survives to become a middle age man.
I thought the film was an interesting story. Perhaps not kin to a lot of what Hollywood mainstream features are all about today. Even though there was CGI effects the story is a very personal journey of survival against the odds. It is not a movie where you have to suspend belief. I'm not sure if it's a true story but parallels could be drawn to Castaway with Tom Hanks. Both movies deal with against the odds personal victories over nature. Both films are devoid of real suspense or action, yet there are both undeniably real.
I think it is a triumph for Lee. After his last two pictures; Lust Caution and Taking Woodstock I think he hit some rough spots after an astounding beginning with Crouching Tiger and Brokeback Mountain. I saw his Eat, Drink, Man, Woman which was delightful and I love his adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. I always like watching that film in the Springtime for some reason. Perhaps it reminds of the first time I was romantically involved with anyone. Or, perhaps, it reminds of the first time I saw it in Shanghai where I was teaching English. Yet, I digress.
Great film, great director.
The director of the film was Ang Lee. He won a best director Oscar for Life of Pi. As I was watching the film I thought to myself, "how does one recognize great directing?" I knew before the film started that Lee had won the award for best director in the most recent Oscars, so I was interested to see the film and see what the Academy had deemed so deserving of the best director Oscar.
Well after viewing the film I would so that it cleared up what thoughts I had about what great directing is. The film was beautiful. The tiger, the ocean, the fish were all great shots. If you can make a two hour film which the bulk of time is of a teenage boy floating around on life preservers attached to a life boat interesting and engaging then you should win the best director award. There were numerous shots in the film where I asked myself "how did he pull off that shot?" I was mesmerized, yet not terrified because we see that the boy survives to become a middle age man.
I thought the film was an interesting story. Perhaps not kin to a lot of what Hollywood mainstream features are all about today. Even though there was CGI effects the story is a very personal journey of survival against the odds. It is not a movie where you have to suspend belief. I'm not sure if it's a true story but parallels could be drawn to Castaway with Tom Hanks. Both movies deal with against the odds personal victories over nature. Both films are devoid of real suspense or action, yet there are both undeniably real.
I think it is a triumph for Lee. After his last two pictures; Lust Caution and Taking Woodstock I think he hit some rough spots after an astounding beginning with Crouching Tiger and Brokeback Mountain. I saw his Eat, Drink, Man, Woman which was delightful and I love his adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. I always like watching that film in the Springtime for some reason. Perhaps it reminds of the first time I was romantically involved with anyone. Or, perhaps, it reminds of the first time I saw it in Shanghai where I was teaching English. Yet, I digress.
Great film, great director.
Review of Argo
I know, I know, I know, it's way past Oscar season so what am I doing reviewing Argo which has been reviewed by all the major media outlets? I just wanted to scribble a little. Perhaps I can offer a different perspective, perhaps I'll only regurgitate other critics. Anyway here it goes.
The best scene in the film is the ending. Would they just get on the plane and away to safety! I was twisting and turning in anguish as I watched the fake film crew make it through customs on there way to freedom. The sense of relief was a great feeling. I clearly understand why it won best picture. The other scene I like in the film was where the Americans disguised as Canadians drive through central Tehran among protesters, this heightens the sense of panic that they might get caught. It is foreshadowing the big escape to come and Afleck does a great job building suspense showing little details that increase anxiety
I liked the film. I'm interested in Iranian Cinema. Reading a book called the Net Delusion which describes and analyzes the Green Revolution which occurred in Iran a few years ago. I've also seen a great animated film called Persopolis in an animated film course I took. Both films and the book deal with Iran's tumultuous past and it's current authoritarian government. If we compare the two films perhaps it will shed light on current depictions of Iran and Iranian history from two different perspectives. Argo is an American account that largely portrays Iran without much sympathy. We are bombarded with images of unruly protesters and revolutionary guards storming the American Embassy in Tehran. Ben Afleck is clearly the hero. The hostages are freed. The great Ayottolah has been tricked and there was something salvageable from the hostage crisis. It all makes for a very good story between clearly defined bad and good.
Yet, if we look at Persopolis we get a different view of Iran. We see a nation torn apart by political struggle and one authoritarian government after another. The protagonist is a girl who turns into a women and is forced to live in exile from Iran. In Persopolis we see a different more nuanced portrait of Iranian society; a society where people long to be free but are repeated subjected to authoritarianism.
Which leads me back to the Green Revolution. This movement was violently snuffed out by the theocratic regime. It was a grassroots movement to bring an end to authoritarianism in Iran. And as Evgeny Morozov writes in his book social media greatly affected the way the protest was staged. Perhaps it wasn't as big a force as disaffection with the fake elections, but it clearly led to greater participation and global awareness of what was going on in Iran.
Anyway, I digress. Both are great films. Both provide some insight into Iranian history and culture.
The best scene in the film is the ending. Would they just get on the plane and away to safety! I was twisting and turning in anguish as I watched the fake film crew make it through customs on there way to freedom. The sense of relief was a great feeling. I clearly understand why it won best picture. The other scene I like in the film was where the Americans disguised as Canadians drive through central Tehran among protesters, this heightens the sense of panic that they might get caught. It is foreshadowing the big escape to come and Afleck does a great job building suspense showing little details that increase anxiety
I liked the film. I'm interested in Iranian Cinema. Reading a book called the Net Delusion which describes and analyzes the Green Revolution which occurred in Iran a few years ago. I've also seen a great animated film called Persopolis in an animated film course I took. Both films and the book deal with Iran's tumultuous past and it's current authoritarian government. If we compare the two films perhaps it will shed light on current depictions of Iran and Iranian history from two different perspectives. Argo is an American account that largely portrays Iran without much sympathy. We are bombarded with images of unruly protesters and revolutionary guards storming the American Embassy in Tehran. Ben Afleck is clearly the hero. The hostages are freed. The great Ayottolah has been tricked and there was something salvageable from the hostage crisis. It all makes for a very good story between clearly defined bad and good.
Yet, if we look at Persopolis we get a different view of Iran. We see a nation torn apart by political struggle and one authoritarian government after another. The protagonist is a girl who turns into a women and is forced to live in exile from Iran. In Persopolis we see a different more nuanced portrait of Iranian society; a society where people long to be free but are repeated subjected to authoritarianism.
Which leads me back to the Green Revolution. This movement was violently snuffed out by the theocratic regime. It was a grassroots movement to bring an end to authoritarianism in Iran. And as Evgeny Morozov writes in his book social media greatly affected the way the protest was staged. Perhaps it wasn't as big a force as disaffection with the fake elections, but it clearly led to greater participation and global awareness of what was going on in Iran.
Anyway, I digress. Both are great films. Both provide some insight into Iranian history and culture.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Book Review of Peter Biskind's Easy Riders Raging Bulls
This book was great. Even the parts about Paul Schrader and Bob Rafealson were good and those were the parts that filled in the space between the big stories about Coppola, Scorsese, Lucas, and others. Learning about how what has come to be called "the New Hollywood Cinema" developed into a movement with Warren Beatty, Robert Towne, Billy Friedkin, and others all producing great Cinema that was supposed to be of high Cinematic quality. It was a break from the past. A stab at the heart of the old studio system era. It would turn the power of production over the directors like never before, and perhaps since. Sure there comes along some new talent, but not like during the late sixties and early seventies. Perhaps the Independent Cinema of the 90s is comparable.
This Fall I'm scheduled to teach a course about American Cinema called American Masterworks. I plan on using this book to assign readings and prepare lectures from. I had heard of many of the directors referenced in the book. I had also seen many of the films before, but it caused me to watch Bonnie and Clyde for the first time. We had watched Easy Rider in class and I had seen it once before back when I was 17. It brought back memories and provided more substance about the Godfather. I had screened the Godfather to my classes when I was teaching English in Shanghai. I'm not sure if I will show the Godfather II, which I think is, perhaps, the best film of the 70s.
Yet, I read the book until the end, up until Friedkin's The Sorcerer, Scorsese's Raging Bull, and Coppola's Apocalypse Now. Each fell from the peak of their careers, with the exception of Scorsese who went into a funk, but eventually came back to, perhaps, even bigger success then what he had tasted with Taxi Driver and New York, New York. Several of the filmmakers; producers, directors, screenwriters, actors, etc who were prominent in the period of the New Hollywood, 1968- 1980, fell off the earth in the 80s and the prevailing tastes of the Reagan-Bush years. Like Friedkin and Peter Bogdanovich, praised as auteurs there status quickly evaporated with flop after flop.
There is so much to write about from this book. One blog post wouldn't do it justice. Biskind talks about George Lucas and Steven Spielberg and the enormous success they had. But, Biskind also talks about the costs that each endured; the critical rejection of their movies, how their circle of friends became smaller and smaller, how their movies changed Hollywood, perhaps for the worst in terms of Cinematic art. In perhaps his most poignant discussion of the film industry Biskind talks about how Star Wars was a total game changer for the industry. He present Lucas's side of the story; how he created a "Disney" movie that was unpretentious. But, he also presented some of the critical reception that the film received and that Lucas had to endure. Particularly harsh was Robert Altman who said Star Wars ruined movies. I hope to read further into Lucas's life and learn more about the changes in the film industry and how, perhaps I'm wrong, but I think Star Wars has become the model on which so many of the Superhero movies are based. The concept that film is like a publishing franchise begins, I think with Star Wars and I think Biskind makes the point that it was a not so subtle transition in how films were produced, marketed, and cross promoted.
Biskind gives the dish on many famous directors who crumbled on the pressure and substance abuse, particularly Scorsese and Hal Ashby. According to Biskind not a few didn't make out of the 70s alive. The last call for the New Hollywood movement came with Cimino's Heaven's Gate. This film caused all the studios and anyone with money to finance film production to become extremely risk averse, especially toward anyone associated with the New Hollywood. Heaven's Gate was a disaster. I don't know what the loss would be in today's dollars, but it would be massive. If the movement needed a clear ending point this was it. I suppose you could talk about changing political, social, and economic trends and that would be valid and the clearest expression of those trends would be the utter failure of Heaven's Gate. By 1980 many of the famous directors, like Coppola, were taking great risks and would fall into bankruptcy, not to make a return until the 90s, if even then.
To understand 80s Cinema I think you have to understand the New Hollywood movement. The 80s Cinema represented everything that the New Hollywood movement sought to destroy or at least render to a lesser power. The New Hollywood director reinvigorated a profitless, moribound industry that was producing large scale musicals to an audience that wanted new stories, not the recycled, bland tales of the previous era in Cinema History. The New Hollywood movement was a watershed period where young directors could rise to immense fortune and fame, only a few had lasting success.
Very interesting book. I'm looking forward to Biskind's other film history title about the 1990s Independent film movement.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Review of Bonnie and Clyde
Bonnie and Clyde was a short, violent film with a number of great shots of violence. It's intensity in 1967 must have been high. The almost non-stop action with robberies and shootings are highly entertaining. I was particularly taken with the scene early on in the movie where Beatty shoots the banker in the face and blood spurts all over the window. Truly another level of depictions of violence was reached with the scenes from this movie
I saw other movies that have borrowed from this one, namely Stone's Natural Born Killers. The driving sequences instantly recalled that film to my mind. Killers and Pulp Fiction, which also has some similarities to Bonnie and Clyde, set another marker for violence in films. Before Bonnie and Clyde violence in movies was muted, blood was rarely shown. Comparisons to other shoot 'em up movies always showed people getting shot in the stomach without much blood. I think Bonnie and Clyde changed the game. The film ushered in not only the start of "New Hollywood" but also a re-thinking of the boundaries of what was acceptable in depictions of violence.
I was led to watch Bonnie and Clyde by reading Peter Biskind's Easy Riders and Raging Bulls. In it he describes how Beatty had to lobby hard to get the picture made. Initially Bonnie and Clyde played only a few select theaters and was pulled after a short stint. Eventually it was re-released and went on to huge success.
I saw other movies that have borrowed from this one, namely Stone's Natural Born Killers. The driving sequences instantly recalled that film to my mind. Killers and Pulp Fiction, which also has some similarities to Bonnie and Clyde, set another marker for violence in films. Before Bonnie and Clyde violence in movies was muted, blood was rarely shown. Comparisons to other shoot 'em up movies always showed people getting shot in the stomach without much blood. I think Bonnie and Clyde changed the game. The film ushered in not only the start of "New Hollywood" but also a re-thinking of the boundaries of what was acceptable in depictions of violence.
I was led to watch Bonnie and Clyde by reading Peter Biskind's Easy Riders and Raging Bulls. In it he describes how Beatty had to lobby hard to get the picture made. Initially Bonnie and Clyde played only a few select theaters and was pulled after a short stint. Eventually it was re-released and went on to huge success.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)