Last year I took a film history course called American Masterworks. It really turned me on to the New Hollywood of the late 1960s and 1970s. I had seen most of the films we watched in class, but I saw them and analyzed them from a academic perspective. I think it was a good class to take. Perhaps I'm going against the grain, but I think the academic study of Cinema has merit. After the class I bought Peter Biskind's book about the New Hollywood and read it pretty thoroughly, maybe I should read it again. The book is great. One story that I latched on to from the book is about the making of the Godfather. I really like the Godfather I and II, the third one is okay, but not as good as the first two. Biskind talks about the relationship between Bob Evans, the subject of the film The Kid Stays in the Picture, and the director of the Godfather Francis Coppola. It was a tumultuous relationship, but in the end it produced, perhaps, the best film of the 1970s. I did some amazon and google searches and started reading more about Coppola and Evans. From reading the Biskind book and with a name like Evans, I thought Bob Evans was some kind of WASP. It turns out though he was an Jewsih from Manhattan. His father was a dentist, one of the first to accept African-American patients. So, I became more interested in Bob Evans.
The film is very well done. From a artistic standpoint it has many creative montage sequences that blend in well with old interviews and clips from movies. Yet it's Evans' story that makes the film a good one. Rising improbably from acting to studio head, he was the biggest film executive of the New Hollywood. Not only did he work on the Godfather, he also had a hand in Love Story, which I haven't seen, and Chinatown which I've seen many times, read the screenplay, and blogged about. He was also the film executive who made Roman Polanski a star. Polanski got his big break in Hollywood with Rosemary's Baby which Evans had a hand in. Evans was also married to Ali McGraw. It was at this point that Evans is on the top of his profession. Leading the New Hollywood movement from Paramount Studios he could do no wrong. He had the magic touch.
Yet after Chinatown and McGraw leaving him, Evans goes into a tailspin of addiction, failure, and depression. He continued to make films, but he was just riding the New Hollywood wave. I don't think he thought that his lucky would ever run out, yet it did. He was busted for drugs, lost his fortune, and stayed at a mental hospital for a while before escaping. Eventually he would return to making films
I'm an aspiring screenwriter and director. I study film in all it's aspects thinking that it will make my work better. Yet as part of that education, I've tasked myself with learning some things about the film business. I think without people like Bob Evans quality films would never get made, or films that are good would not be great. Clearly Evans had a tremendous eye for talent. He picked Roman Polanski, he selected the Godfather to be produced into a film, and, after some hesitation, gave Francis Coppola his big break. As Larry Turman who wrote the book, So You Want to be a Producer, emphasized repeatedly, producers must have taste and tenacity. Bob Evans embodies those qualities as good as any other producer of the New Hollywood. The films he made are almost as legendary as he is.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Review of Kiarostami's Ten
This was the first film I've watched by Kiarostami. I had learned about Iranian Cinema from Mark Cousins' The Story of Film which is great, probably the best documentary about the history of Cinema I've ever seen. It talked about Iranian Cinema's adherence to traditional film and how, even in the face of Islamic restrictions, Iranian filmmakers were making high quality films. Ten is no exception. It shows Iranian society in flux, perhaps, even in crisis.
The film revolves around a woman who has recently divorced and remarried. The film is dialogue driven. The entire film takes place in the woman's car. She drives around Tehran talking to her son about the divorce, to her friends about their love lifes, and to a prostitute. These conversations bring out Iranians lives. For a country that is repressed and strictly controlled, Ten reveals Iranians living life through divorce, through bratty kids, and social change. At times, especially the scene with the prostitute I was, not shocked, but jarred by the frankness and utter humanism of the dialogue of the film. With the exception of the little boy, the rest of the characters are women. In the discussion between the woman and her son we get a clear picture of the way Iranian women are treated. She is totally deferential to her son. Perhaps she is afraid she will lose him to her former husband, perhaps it is because she cannot stand up to a male, even a ten year old boy.
The women in the film all wear headscarves. They wear little to no makeup. Yet, they speak candidly about their lives, specifically about their relations with men. It is this insight into the life of an Iranian woman which makes the film so good. To learn what they think about divorce, about how they relate to men in Iran takes away some concealment of an Iranian woman's life. In the West we are often shown how women in the Middle East are badly mistreated. Ten reveals a deeper, humanistic portrait of an Iranian woman's struggle to get a divorce, raise a child, and help her friends. She does drive a car, she is independent, so she has attained some level of liberation from the patriarchal Iranian society.
I learned about this movie from Nicholas Rombes' book Cinema in the Digital Age. I had heard about Kiarostami previously from his other movies. The book writes about how Kiarostami used a "nondirected' technique to make the film. In the film he just attached two simple cameras to the dashboard of the car. The cameras are the only angle from which we see the actors; the boy, the woman, the woman's friends, the prostitute, they are all presented from the same angle. At times I thought it was like Taxi Cab confessions. I don't know which came first, but they are similar. It gives the film a very different perspective. The camera doesn't move. It is stationary. It creates a very simple style. At times I was a little bored. Yet, the dialogue kept me attentive.
Kiarostami has been hailed as a great auteur. I'm looking forward to watching more of his films.
The film revolves around a woman who has recently divorced and remarried. The film is dialogue driven. The entire film takes place in the woman's car. She drives around Tehran talking to her son about the divorce, to her friends about their love lifes, and to a prostitute. These conversations bring out Iranians lives. For a country that is repressed and strictly controlled, Ten reveals Iranians living life through divorce, through bratty kids, and social change. At times, especially the scene with the prostitute I was, not shocked, but jarred by the frankness and utter humanism of the dialogue of the film. With the exception of the little boy, the rest of the characters are women. In the discussion between the woman and her son we get a clear picture of the way Iranian women are treated. She is totally deferential to her son. Perhaps she is afraid she will lose him to her former husband, perhaps it is because she cannot stand up to a male, even a ten year old boy.
The women in the film all wear headscarves. They wear little to no makeup. Yet, they speak candidly about their lives, specifically about their relations with men. It is this insight into the life of an Iranian woman which makes the film so good. To learn what they think about divorce, about how they relate to men in Iran takes away some concealment of an Iranian woman's life. In the West we are often shown how women in the Middle East are badly mistreated. Ten reveals a deeper, humanistic portrait of an Iranian woman's struggle to get a divorce, raise a child, and help her friends. She does drive a car, she is independent, so she has attained some level of liberation from the patriarchal Iranian society.
I learned about this movie from Nicholas Rombes' book Cinema in the Digital Age. I had heard about Kiarostami previously from his other movies. The book writes about how Kiarostami used a "nondirected' technique to make the film. In the film he just attached two simple cameras to the dashboard of the car. The cameras are the only angle from which we see the actors; the boy, the woman, the woman's friends, the prostitute, they are all presented from the same angle. At times I thought it was like Taxi Cab confessions. I don't know which came first, but they are similar. It gives the film a very different perspective. The camera doesn't move. It is stationary. It creates a very simple style. At times I was a little bored. Yet, the dialogue kept me attentive.
Kiarostami has been hailed as a great auteur. I'm looking forward to watching more of his films.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Discussion about Biskind's book about The Rise of Independent Cinema in the 90s
This book is a another triumphant effort by Biskind. He really knows how to write. The narrative is quick, the information is revealing, and the gossip and anecdotes are juicy. I had read his book about the New Hollywood which I really like and got a whole lot of information about directors, producers, actors, and, of course, the films of the New Hollywood. This book is all about the 90s independent film movement. So far, I've read about 150 pages, the book has discussed in significant detail the creation and gradual rise of the Sundance film festival and the struggles and successes of the Miramax film company. The book provides big dish about Robert Redford and the first star of Sundance Steven Soderbergh. This discussion of what is now the biggest venue for indie film makers is good. Yet, I liked, for whatever reason, the portrayal of Harvey and Bob Weinstein, particularly Harvey Wienstein. He is a larger than life character. The descriptions of his tantrums, his view that he would never let the Nazis put him on a train without a fight, and his refusal to answer lawsuits against him make him a very colorful character.
So far, when I think about the book, I wonder to myself if I would ever want to work for Miramax. It seems like a way too stressful atmosphere. The Weinsteins are way too demanding and seem to be angry all the time. Yet, they were at the cusp of the independent film movement of the 90s. If you worked for them you could make quality films, take on Hollywood, and feel like you were changing the Hollywood system. This attitude to take on the big studios really interests me. I don't like the big films, the franchises, the exploitative nature of Hollywood. The Weinsteins from the 90s and Coppola and George Lucas with American Zoetrope in the 70s are great examples of film companies shaking up the system. Making great films, not just for profit, not just to exploit a niche, and to allow filmmakers a voice to express their personal stories and artistic ideas.
So far, when I think about the book, I wonder to myself if I would ever want to work for Miramax. It seems like a way too stressful atmosphere. The Weinsteins are way too demanding and seem to be angry all the time. Yet, they were at the cusp of the independent film movement of the 90s. If you worked for them you could make quality films, take on Hollywood, and feel like you were changing the Hollywood system. This attitude to take on the big studios really interests me. I don't like the big films, the franchises, the exploitative nature of Hollywood. The Weinsteins from the 90s and Coppola and George Lucas with American Zoetrope in the 70s are great examples of film companies shaking up the system. Making great films, not just for profit, not just to exploit a niche, and to allow filmmakers a voice to express their personal stories and artistic ideas.
Review of Oshima Nagisa's Violence at Noon
This film was good. It wasn't as good as Night and Fog in Japan. That one, I think, was much better. Perhaps it was because of the avant garde staging. The camera went around to each person and a light followed to reveal each person who was talking. Also the film was intensely poltiical. Violence at Noon is about a serial killer and a rapist. It has several intense scenes between the killer and his victims. The opening sequence lured me in. It was intense.
The rest of the movie revolves around finding the serial killer. Over the course of the film there is an attempted double suicide in which the man is successful at killing himself, but the woman fails. In a cruel twist of fate the serial killer happens on the scene and rapes the woman who is unconscious. The serial killer is confronted by the innocent, attractive, school teacher who knows who the serial killer is. Oshima builds up the school teacher's attack by the serial killer by portraying her with several flattering shots of her face in profile. When she is attacked it comes as a shock.
The film ends when the serial killer is caught and later sentenced to death. The end jumps around from the school teacher and the serial killers victim to an end sequence where the school teacher is tied to the victim and is dead. The film doesn't explain how they got tied up together or how the school teacher died. The film has a solid narrative with several scenes of intense action. It also has according to the criterion website 2000 cuts. The cutting was definitely there; very quick. Near the end of the film where the school teacher confronts the serial killer, the cutting becomes very rapid. In quick succession it shows the reactions of the school teacher. The cutting reflects the changes in emotion in the school teacher. This was the most innovative aesthetic aspect to film. It gave it a quickened pace and more intense visual quality.
I like the film but it has a big plot hole. I liked the dialogue between the school teacher and the serial killer best. A good film, but doesn't reach the standard of Night and Fog in Japan and certainly no where near In the Realm of the Senses.
The rest of the movie revolves around finding the serial killer. Over the course of the film there is an attempted double suicide in which the man is successful at killing himself, but the woman fails. In a cruel twist of fate the serial killer happens on the scene and rapes the woman who is unconscious. The serial killer is confronted by the innocent, attractive, school teacher who knows who the serial killer is. Oshima builds up the school teacher's attack by the serial killer by portraying her with several flattering shots of her face in profile. When she is attacked it comes as a shock.
The film ends when the serial killer is caught and later sentenced to death. The end jumps around from the school teacher and the serial killers victim to an end sequence where the school teacher is tied to the victim and is dead. The film doesn't explain how they got tied up together or how the school teacher died. The film has a solid narrative with several scenes of intense action. It also has according to the criterion website 2000 cuts. The cutting was definitely there; very quick. Near the end of the film where the school teacher confronts the serial killer, the cutting becomes very rapid. In quick succession it shows the reactions of the school teacher. The cutting reflects the changes in emotion in the school teacher. This was the most innovative aesthetic aspect to film. It gave it a quickened pace and more intense visual quality.
I like the film but it has a big plot hole. I liked the dialogue between the school teacher and the serial killer best. A good film, but doesn't reach the standard of Night and Fog in Japan and certainly no where near In the Realm of the Senses.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)