I saw this film at the local arthouse film theater near where I live. I chose to watch the film rather than watch the New York Giants vs. Dallas Cowboys football game. I think my father was somewhat disappointed that I chose to see a French film about young lesbian love rather than watch a football game. I thought this predicament to be a humorous choice that I had to make. I'm sure some of my cousins who are Cowboys fans would hold me in contempt for my choice to watch the movies instead of the game. Yet, I think I made the better choice. The movie was very good and I could see why it won the top prize at the Cannes film festival. I'm so glad that we have an arthouse film theater in my home town to bring works like Blue is the Warmest Color to places outside of major cities. On to the film.
The most effective scenes in the film were the love scenes. They were not hardcore porn. More like softcore. Yet, you really feel the emotion that the lovers loved each other with which makes the, spoiler alert, breakup between the two women so much harder to bare. Aesthetically, the sex scenes were not glamorous. They were suited to an Arthouse crowd. The scenes were full of passion. It was young lesbian love in full display. Like in Bertolucci's Stealing Beauty, the first time with a woman for the young woman was full of ecstasy and discovery.
The film raises awareness about what it's like to be a young lesbian in France. The main character Adele experiences hardship because she fantasizes being with a woman. She gets into fights with students at school, she doesn't tell her parents she is a lesbian, and she lives in shame about the fact that she likes girls. Through her we see how difficult life is for someone who lives in the closet, ashamed about who they are. Yet the film is not a total dramatization about lesbians. There are some scenes that celebrate being a lesbian. Of course, as I've already mentioned, the sex scenes, but there are also art exhibition gatherings, dinners, etc.
This film is more concerned with narrative and theme rather than style and technique. There is nothing special about any of the aesthetics of the film. The cinematography is typical. The camera is pretty much just there, recording events. The story is a linear one. It follows a chronological path. So why did the film win the top prize at Cannes? My speculation is that the content, the story more than made up for what was lacking in camera or editing techniques. It was one of the first films in which lesbians were portrayed in a serious light. The passion the characters had for each other and the heartbreak that comes because Adele is unable to accept being a lesbian are intense drama some of the best I've seen so far this year during the serious season for cinema.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Review of The Counselor by Scott
I had some high hopes for this film. Ridley Scott and Cormac McCarthy working together along with a star studded cast would probably make for a very good film. Yet, it wasn't that great. I completely lost it when Cameron Diaz does a nude split on top of a Ferrari and humps the windshield. I suppose it conveys the theme of the film; these characters live a life of utter excess. They have no morals left. All they want is material pleasures like cars or cougars which we saw a lot of, and of course drugs. Not that the film wasn't without it's entertaining points, it just wasn't great. The ending is deeply disturbing, but it's a little cliche to have the pure-hearted slaughtered by the evil. Perhaps it's even biblical?
I suppose this film could engender a discussion about the stylized violence that made up so much of the film. There are several decapitations, shooting, and strangulations. Throughout the whole movie I like Javier Bardem's character the most. With the gaudy clothing and wild hair style he comes across as the most entertaining character of the film. Brad Pitt's character has some memorable lines but he is inconsequential to the film. As I"ve said before Cameron Diaz plays a role which displays a lack of moral compass, an obsession with materialistic possessions, and a ruthless demeanor in becoming a big time drug dealer. Perhaps she is returning to her role in Gangs of New York, rather than the major flop of, what was it called? Bad Teacher? Awful. She does add sex appeal, but my friend and I were both mutually dismissive of Diaz's performance as overly glamourized, and, at least in my case, hard to believe.
The last 45 minutes of the film contain all of the good action. It is when the Mexican mob starts killing everyone, the drug deal goes bad, and Penelope Cruz is kidnapped and killed in a snuff film. On further reflection, the violence is what makes the film. Without it, the film would be a noirish gangster movies set in the southwest.
I suppose this film could engender a discussion about the stylized violence that made up so much of the film. There are several decapitations, shooting, and strangulations. Throughout the whole movie I like Javier Bardem's character the most. With the gaudy clothing and wild hair style he comes across as the most entertaining character of the film. Brad Pitt's character has some memorable lines but he is inconsequential to the film. As I"ve said before Cameron Diaz plays a role which displays a lack of moral compass, an obsession with materialistic possessions, and a ruthless demeanor in becoming a big time drug dealer. Perhaps she is returning to her role in Gangs of New York, rather than the major flop of, what was it called? Bad Teacher? Awful. She does add sex appeal, but my friend and I were both mutually dismissive of Diaz's performance as overly glamourized, and, at least in my case, hard to believe.
The last 45 minutes of the film contain all of the good action. It is when the Mexican mob starts killing everyone, the drug deal goes bad, and Penelope Cruz is kidnapped and killed in a snuff film. On further reflection, the violence is what makes the film. Without it, the film would be a noirish gangster movies set in the southwest.
Review of 12 Years a Slave by McQueen
This is not the first Steve McQueen film I've seen. I also saw Hunger about the Bobby Sands hunger strike and I was not let down. 12 Years a Slave was a similar experience for me which is why the film will garner signifcant attention come awards season. I thought the film was flawless in terms of performances and story as well as in cinematography and editing. So I will discuss both of these in seperate paragraphs.
The acting was just great. I can't say enough about Micheal Fassbender's acting as the mean slave owner. He was so accurate in his emotion. Especially the scene where he whips the young slave girl whom he has sexual relations with. In that scene I felt that the whole apparatus of slavery was such an abomination of humanity. I felt shame to be an American and have that as part of our collective National past. The whipping, the shots of the blood dripping out of the girl, really were well done to incite such an utter disgust with slavery. I could stop here, but there is much to discuss about this film
The story structure was not unique, but it was creatively written. The film follows a circular narrative. The beginning shows scenes which I had no idea what they were about. Eventually the film moves back to the beginning and it all makes sense. I thought this was an innovative way to tell the story. I wonder if it could have been done with a linear story though. Would it have made the film better? I see this technique used in a lot of movies nowadays. Does it reflect the human experience? Or is it just a way to tell a story? To enable the audience to interact, to confuse, to guess about what will happen next in the story? My feeling is that it is the former. It is for entertainment value. I suppose it might be part of a recollection on behalf of the main character. Anyway, I like how 12 Years a Slave was structured. It kept me wondering about what the film was about and how it would be resolved.
Technically the film had a lot of high value shots. Aside from the whipping scene, the scene where the main character was almost lynched by a gang of whites was gripping. It was a long shot, showing him on his tippy toes, hanging by a rope from a tree, struggling to live. The shot was held for at least a minute the overseer cuts him down. As I've alreay mentioned the narrative structure of the film was non-linear, so the editing was crucial to the exposition of the film. The opening scenes revealed some clues, but they were cut so the viewer didn't know too much. One scene was of the main character writing a letter. This showed that he was trying to escape, but it didn't show where he was or any of the other context of his predicament.
I think this film is really well done. Like Hunger it tackles some controversial political topic and uncovers the barbaric actions of those in power. The British in Ireland, slave owners in the South, these are not superheroes who come to the rescue. McQueen exposes the shortcomings of humanity. He shows us who we have been, thus raising the question of who we are.
The acting was just great. I can't say enough about Micheal Fassbender's acting as the mean slave owner. He was so accurate in his emotion. Especially the scene where he whips the young slave girl whom he has sexual relations with. In that scene I felt that the whole apparatus of slavery was such an abomination of humanity. I felt shame to be an American and have that as part of our collective National past. The whipping, the shots of the blood dripping out of the girl, really were well done to incite such an utter disgust with slavery. I could stop here, but there is much to discuss about this film
The story structure was not unique, but it was creatively written. The film follows a circular narrative. The beginning shows scenes which I had no idea what they were about. Eventually the film moves back to the beginning and it all makes sense. I thought this was an innovative way to tell the story. I wonder if it could have been done with a linear story though. Would it have made the film better? I see this technique used in a lot of movies nowadays. Does it reflect the human experience? Or is it just a way to tell a story? To enable the audience to interact, to confuse, to guess about what will happen next in the story? My feeling is that it is the former. It is for entertainment value. I suppose it might be part of a recollection on behalf of the main character. Anyway, I like how 12 Years a Slave was structured. It kept me wondering about what the film was about and how it would be resolved.
Technically the film had a lot of high value shots. Aside from the whipping scene, the scene where the main character was almost lynched by a gang of whites was gripping. It was a long shot, showing him on his tippy toes, hanging by a rope from a tree, struggling to live. The shot was held for at least a minute the overseer cuts him down. As I've alreay mentioned the narrative structure of the film was non-linear, so the editing was crucial to the exposition of the film. The opening scenes revealed some clues, but they were cut so the viewer didn't know too much. One scene was of the main character writing a letter. This showed that he was trying to escape, but it didn't show where he was or any of the other context of his predicament.
I think this film is really well done. Like Hunger it tackles some controversial political topic and uncovers the barbaric actions of those in power. The British in Ireland, slave owners in the South, these are not superheroes who come to the rescue. McQueen exposes the shortcomings of humanity. He shows us who we have been, thus raising the question of who we are.
Review of Pierrot Le Fou by Godard
I've returned to Godard, like encountering an old friend after a vacation to find he hasn't much changed. Pierrot Le Fou is a film that leaves the viewer with a sense of ambivalence. About where the characters are heading and about where Godard is taking film as an art form. The typical Godard style is there; the hyper closeup, the music, the car rides, the noirishness of the film. Godard is truely a cinematic master. The more I watch his films the more I understand, or at least think I understand, his style of filmmaking. I will refrain from any summation of the movies and just describe the best scenes of the film. As well as try to analyze what Godard did with cinema as an art form.
The beginning sequence of the film strikes the audience as colorful, now it strikes me as "retro." It has color taints which look very old from 2013, but they add style to the film. The next scene I found most interesting was the car scene between Belmondo and Karina. It reminded me, as did alot of the film, of a Hitchcock film. The two character are riding along talking, lights are flashing on Karina's face, they are plotting their escape. Belmondo strikes a classical face. He seems to be a cross between Bogart and the actor Steve McQueen. Always has that cigareette dangling from his mouth. Always bounding from place to place. Like in Breathless Belmondo comes off as a flawed character escaping the law, escaping from bourgeoisie banality, he chases women only to sink more and more into directionless wandering and further crime.
Where I think Godard does well, but was typical of French movies in the 1960s, is the self reflexivity. Godard almost asks the audience "to where should this movies go?" The sequence where Belmondo and Karina are alone on the island seems to be a display of Godard's inner thinking. Belmondo's character seems to want a studious life. Perhaps the line I liked best is when Karina says "enough with this Jules Verne life, we have to get back to the gangster film we are in with fast cars, guns, and explosions." I think this shows that Godard wants us to acknowledge that it is a film. The narrative is not so important as is the technique and style of the film. I agree with Roger Ebert when he says "Godard's films are exercises in style." Belmondo, Karina, reflections by Godard in the film, the shots, the cuts, the action, the self-reflexivity, all make Pierrot Le Fou one of Godard best films.
The beginning sequence of the film strikes the audience as colorful, now it strikes me as "retro." It has color taints which look very old from 2013, but they add style to the film. The next scene I found most interesting was the car scene between Belmondo and Karina. It reminded me, as did alot of the film, of a Hitchcock film. The two character are riding along talking, lights are flashing on Karina's face, they are plotting their escape. Belmondo strikes a classical face. He seems to be a cross between Bogart and the actor Steve McQueen. Always has that cigareette dangling from his mouth. Always bounding from place to place. Like in Breathless Belmondo comes off as a flawed character escaping the law, escaping from bourgeoisie banality, he chases women only to sink more and more into directionless wandering and further crime.
Where I think Godard does well, but was typical of French movies in the 1960s, is the self reflexivity. Godard almost asks the audience "to where should this movies go?" The sequence where Belmondo and Karina are alone on the island seems to be a display of Godard's inner thinking. Belmondo's character seems to want a studious life. Perhaps the line I liked best is when Karina says "enough with this Jules Verne life, we have to get back to the gangster film we are in with fast cars, guns, and explosions." I think this shows that Godard wants us to acknowledge that it is a film. The narrative is not so important as is the technique and style of the film. I agree with Roger Ebert when he says "Godard's films are exercises in style." Belmondo, Karina, reflections by Godard in the film, the shots, the cuts, the action, the self-reflexivity, all make Pierrot Le Fou one of Godard best films.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)