This was the first film I watched on Friday at the French Film Festival. It was a good film. I thought it would appeal more to women and upper middle class types from the suburbs. I thought my sister or sisters in law would really identify with this film. The film seemed to go on and on, and it seemed like it could go on about the utter banality of suburban life. The endless routine; wake, school, work, lunch, dinner, bed, repeat. I had just seen an art exhibit at the Whitney Museum of Art in New York. One of the sayings on one of the exhibits says "banality as savior" and I think this film really represents this idea. The character in the film are so addicted to the routine of life that it is their savior. They glory in their kids, their house, their cars, their friends, etc They need the routines, they need the social status. God forbid someone is different or misses lunch!
I grew up in the suburbs so, perhaps, I'm more cynical than most about life in the burbs. I really like a few of the characters. The women were really flaky. They wanted to shop, watch TV and gab. Only one of them worked as a free lance writer. They were so banal. So soulless. So empty. So smug in their affluence. So indifferent to anything outside the little burb World they inhabit.
Yet on reflection the film did bring in some of the fears of suburbia. It did present the possibility of a small child being kidnapped which was frightful. The kids also did misbehave. One of the wives was more flaky than the others. Yet, I can't escape from my conclusion that all the characters seem so shallow, so lacking in substance. Boring. Aesceptic. Banal.
I suppose the characters would change when the adults either stay together or divorce. When the kids grow into teenagers and become less dependent on their parents.
This was a different film. Great theme. Good characters. A strong criticism of suburbia.
Monday, July 28, 2014
Review of One of a Kind
I think I liked this film the most out of the films I saw at the French Film Festival. It started a man who had a "healing" gift. Of course I thought it was bogus from the start, but people came to see him. More than that it presented working class France in a way that I had never seen before. I am so used to high class costume dramas which have no relevance to contemporary society. It drives me crazy when my French teachers show another overblown costume drama. This was a much needed different perspective.
The main character lives in a trailer. Drives a motorcycle. Is divorced. Has a daughter. Works odd jobs and Finds love with an suicidal alcoholic. It is not a rosy picture. It doesn't debate the ideals of the French Revolution or some other ancient idea. What it does is present the lives of people working to survive. The ending, which I liked very much, shows the main character having just rescued the alcoholic from suicide, riding his motorcycle at sunset. She has been saved. He really is a healer. He does have a gift. He knew she was in trouble. He went to her. He saved her.
I think the film is great because it show how we all have problems. We, no matter what social class, have problems. Perhaps they are different problems, but the problems among the French working class are similar to those in the US. I really felt like I could relate to this film. The main character only had his father. He was only part time employed. He felt like he had a gift. I am in a similar predicament.
I enjoyed this film. I think it was really well written and shot.
The main character lives in a trailer. Drives a motorcycle. Is divorced. Has a daughter. Works odd jobs and Finds love with an suicidal alcoholic. It is not a rosy picture. It doesn't debate the ideals of the French Revolution or some other ancient idea. What it does is present the lives of people working to survive. The ending, which I liked very much, shows the main character having just rescued the alcoholic from suicide, riding his motorcycle at sunset. She has been saved. He really is a healer. He does have a gift. He knew she was in trouble. He went to her. He saved her.
I think the film is great because it show how we all have problems. We, no matter what social class, have problems. Perhaps they are different problems, but the problems among the French working class are similar to those in the US. I really felt like I could relate to this film. The main character only had his father. He was only part time employed. He felt like he had a gift. I am in a similar predicament.
I enjoyed this film. I think it was really well written and shot.
Review of If You Don't, I Will
I saw this film as the last of the films I watched in the French Film Festival at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, MA. It, like the other films I saw, was a very personal film. I think it was also a very feminist inflected film. The ending revealed how the main character finally had enough of her brow beating male husband and left him for good.
The film started out like a typical romcom or marriage dramedy. I guess it was a combination of the two or, perhaps, it evolved in it's genre from something lighthearted and comedic, poking fun at the funny things in married life. Yet, ultimately, it ends on a bittersweet note. After refusing to come back to civilization, the main character stays in the woods for several days. Her husband doesn't make much of an effort to bring her back. Doesn't beg and plead for her to return. Eventually, he gets in contact with the authorities, but by then, she is long gone.
In a scene which I thought was symbolic of the situation of the main character a young deer gets caught in a ditch. The main character helps the deer out of the ditch. I thought the deer symbolized the woman in the marriage. She was caught in a ditch, then set free.
This film was decent. It was a micro film. It showed the liberation of a woman who had a husband who constantly demeaned her. Everything she did her commented negatively on. At one point in the film I was saying to myself, why doesn't she just leave him? Why does she put up with him? She finally gets up the courage and does so by the end of the film. It shows that ending a marriage is still hard. It is difficult to come to grips with a situation which is just not working. Not a bad film.
The film started out like a typical romcom or marriage dramedy. I guess it was a combination of the two or, perhaps, it evolved in it's genre from something lighthearted and comedic, poking fun at the funny things in married life. Yet, ultimately, it ends on a bittersweet note. After refusing to come back to civilization, the main character stays in the woods for several days. Her husband doesn't make much of an effort to bring her back. Doesn't beg and plead for her to return. Eventually, he gets in contact with the authorities, but by then, she is long gone.
In a scene which I thought was symbolic of the situation of the main character a young deer gets caught in a ditch. The main character helps the deer out of the ditch. I thought the deer symbolized the woman in the marriage. She was caught in a ditch, then set free.
This film was decent. It was a micro film. It showed the liberation of a woman who had a husband who constantly demeaned her. Everything she did her commented negatively on. At one point in the film I was saying to myself, why doesn't she just leave him? Why does she put up with him? She finally gets up the courage and does so by the end of the film. It shows that ending a marriage is still hard. It is difficult to come to grips with a situation which is just not working. Not a bad film.
Review of Naked Lunch by Cronenberg
In continuing my study of Surealist film I watched Naked Lunch by Cronenberg. It is based on, but not a literal interpretation of William S. Burroughs novel of the same name. It loosely follows similar themese and locations, but isn't an adaptation of the book. Both are very explicit about homosexuality and drug addiction. From what I know, the book is even more frank than the film.
The film is interesting. Some scenes, like in so many Cronenberg films; the Fly, Existenz, and so on, there are several "gross-out" scenes. In Naked Lunch the typewriters morph into creatures that are sticky and look like oversized vaginas or mouths or something I can't describe. These parts are the most surreal aspects of the film from a visual stand point.
Thematically, the film develops from an exterminator's job to his pursuing a writing career while in Tangiers. The writer, and this did happen in real life to Burroughs, kills his wife accidentally, then flees. The writer, William Lee, is heavily involved with drugs and homosexuality. He becomes addicted to bug powder, then ends up with an "interzone" boy. The climax is when the character of the lesbian housekeeper is revealed to be the doctor who gave the writer a cure for bug powder addiction.
In the end the film seems more like an autobiography of Burroughs then a narrative film with substance. I enjoyed very much the intertwining of Burroughs life with narrative elements written in by the writers. Burroughs led an interesting life and I've had an interest in the Beat Generation since I was in High School, so I'm a little biased towards anything about them. The "gross out" scenes were done in way to present the withdrawal induced halucinations of the writer. They were well done, offering a glimpse into Burroughs creative process. I enjoyed watching the film, especially the scenes in Tangiers.
The film is interesting. Some scenes, like in so many Cronenberg films; the Fly, Existenz, and so on, there are several "gross-out" scenes. In Naked Lunch the typewriters morph into creatures that are sticky and look like oversized vaginas or mouths or something I can't describe. These parts are the most surreal aspects of the film from a visual stand point.
Thematically, the film develops from an exterminator's job to his pursuing a writing career while in Tangiers. The writer, and this did happen in real life to Burroughs, kills his wife accidentally, then flees. The writer, William Lee, is heavily involved with drugs and homosexuality. He becomes addicted to bug powder, then ends up with an "interzone" boy. The climax is when the character of the lesbian housekeeper is revealed to be the doctor who gave the writer a cure for bug powder addiction.
In the end the film seems more like an autobiography of Burroughs then a narrative film with substance. I enjoyed very much the intertwining of Burroughs life with narrative elements written in by the writers. Burroughs led an interesting life and I've had an interest in the Beat Generation since I was in High School, so I'm a little biased towards anything about them. The "gross out" scenes were done in way to present the withdrawal induced halucinations of the writer. They were well done, offering a glimpse into Burroughs creative process. I enjoyed watching the film, especially the scenes in Tangiers.
Friday, July 18, 2014
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Review of Kurosawa's High and Low
This was a great film, perhps Kurosawa's best non-Samurai film. Kurosawa is best known for his epic Samurai films, but here he delves deeply into a suspense crime drama. And as usual he succeeds tremendously. The action builds slow to a tremendous climax. When the keystone cops are about to apprehend the kidnapper and psycho killer, I was wondering how he would setup the shot. How would we see the killer get apprehended? Would there be a chase scene? Would the kidnapper be killed?
The shot is setup with a medium close shot tracking the kidnapper to the hideout. We see those big black glasses with reflective lenses all the way until he is finally captured, alive, and ready to face up for his crimes. The glasses reminded me of Tom Cruise from Risky Business, perhaps High and Low is the inspiration? Who knows. The scene is done very well. There is no chases scene, but to my surprise the kidnapper attempts to swallow the bad herion, it creates a intense moment of tension, just short and powerful enough to keep you wrapped up in the scene. Just when you think, oh the killer has been apprehended it's all over, he almost gets the herion into his mouth.
Yet, the scene I liked best was at the end. Toshiro Mifune who plays an older business executive in High and Low comes to the prison and meets with the killer. The scene is setup as a singular meeting between Mifune and the kidnapper/killer. The kidnapper is going to be executed and has requested to see Mifune. In the shot the major theme of the film reaches it's most obvious expression. Throughout the film we see the clash of class between the high and low of Yokohama.
There is Mifune the big executive and his Chaffuer who's child was mistakenly kidnapped. In the final scene the kidnapper who is a poor medical intern reveals that he has stared at Mifune's house up on the hill. He flies into a psychotic rage about his horrid life. His arm starts to shake until he finally yells at Mifune that he has no regrets about the crime he has committed. In the extremely well written scene, the kidnapper goes onto say that he doesn't fear hell. He is finally dragged out of the meeting room, kicking and screaming. The camera fades out, a metal separator comes down where the two men were talking, and all you hear is the madman's psychotic yelling as the scene fades to black. Great stuff!
The performances were great. The shots of Yokohama were great, especially "junky alley." I don't think I'd ever seen such a thing in a Japanese film. So many junkies. Startling. The tension is built up to a peak. Kurosawa takes things slowly and carefully at first, then finishes with great gusto. Am I just repeating the nytimes review from when it was first released? Yes. I agree with what he has written. Hopefully I have added to the literature about High and Low.
I watched a Kurosawa film because this weekend I'm going to a Japanese film festival in Manhattan (as Tom Wolfe says "The Boutique Island") It's at the Japan Society. I'm looking forward to it. I think the film I'm looking forward to most is an adaptation of Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven into a Japanese film. Hopefully there will be some Samurai action. I can't get enough of that. Ciao!
The shot is setup with a medium close shot tracking the kidnapper to the hideout. We see those big black glasses with reflective lenses all the way until he is finally captured, alive, and ready to face up for his crimes. The glasses reminded me of Tom Cruise from Risky Business, perhaps High and Low is the inspiration? Who knows. The scene is done very well. There is no chases scene, but to my surprise the kidnapper attempts to swallow the bad herion, it creates a intense moment of tension, just short and powerful enough to keep you wrapped up in the scene. Just when you think, oh the killer has been apprehended it's all over, he almost gets the herion into his mouth.
Yet, the scene I liked best was at the end. Toshiro Mifune who plays an older business executive in High and Low comes to the prison and meets with the killer. The scene is setup as a singular meeting between Mifune and the kidnapper/killer. The kidnapper is going to be executed and has requested to see Mifune. In the shot the major theme of the film reaches it's most obvious expression. Throughout the film we see the clash of class between the high and low of Yokohama.
There is Mifune the big executive and his Chaffuer who's child was mistakenly kidnapped. In the final scene the kidnapper who is a poor medical intern reveals that he has stared at Mifune's house up on the hill. He flies into a psychotic rage about his horrid life. His arm starts to shake until he finally yells at Mifune that he has no regrets about the crime he has committed. In the extremely well written scene, the kidnapper goes onto say that he doesn't fear hell. He is finally dragged out of the meeting room, kicking and screaming. The camera fades out, a metal separator comes down where the two men were talking, and all you hear is the madman's psychotic yelling as the scene fades to black. Great stuff!
The performances were great. The shots of Yokohama were great, especially "junky alley." I don't think I'd ever seen such a thing in a Japanese film. So many junkies. Startling. The tension is built up to a peak. Kurosawa takes things slowly and carefully at first, then finishes with great gusto. Am I just repeating the nytimes review from when it was first released? Yes. I agree with what he has written. Hopefully I have added to the literature about High and Low.
I watched a Kurosawa film because this weekend I'm going to a Japanese film festival in Manhattan (as Tom Wolfe says "The Boutique Island") It's at the Japan Society. I'm looking forward to it. I think the film I'm looking forward to most is an adaptation of Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven into a Japanese film. Hopefully there will be some Samurai action. I can't get enough of that. Ciao!
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Review of Bunuel's Viridiana
Bunuel is considered to be the godfather of Surrealist Cinema. I got that from IMDb.com. He even resembles Salvador Dali. They were both Spaniards. This is the first feature film of his that I have watched. It is not his best. In the ranking of Surrealist films The Discreet Charmo of the Bourgeosie makes the top 20. I'm anxious to watch that one and write a blog about it. Viridiana is a good film. The best part of the film is the end when the destitute people the lead female character is taking care of goes to town from the country manor and comes back to find that they have taken advantage of her. The poor people she was taking care of engorged themselves on food and wine and made a mess of everything. I guess the message would be not to trust poor people. Perhaps that is what Bunuel's intention was? Whatever he meant the sequence is great. He has, in a subversive pose, the poor people pose around a table like the Da Vinci's Last Supper and the woman who is supposed to take the picture lifts up her skirt and flashes them. Bunuel is definitely poking fun at the sacredness of that painting and it's stature and meaning to Christianity.
The film is definitely an overt exposition about the principles of Catholicism. The lead female is on her way to be a nun when she is summoned to see her uncle who is perverse and scheming. Throughout the film we see her decline from very pious to in the end bankrupt about the ideology of Catholicism. In the final scene we see her without her habit, her long blonde hair luxuriously let down to her shoulders. It is obvious that her experience with the poor and handicapped she was trying to help was the last straw. She has given up on charity.
The entire film builds up to the final dinner scene. It is carefully plotted out, slowly building intensity, and finally culminates in an attempted rape scene of the once chaste female lead. It is not a complicated film. The narrative is linear, the cinematography is standard. It's in black and white. There are some low shots of peoples shoes and lower parts of the door. Otherwise the focus is mostly on the heads of people. There is one memorable shot of a crown of thorns that the female lead brought with her from the convent. It is used in the film to symbolize her chastity, her religiosity. In the final sequence we see the crown of thorns being thrown into a fire. To add emphasis it is fished out of the fire while it is ablaze and is placed apart from the fire still burning. The camera dwells on this image for several seconds. The symbol the crown of thorns burning crown of thorns represents is well made. It is the best and most meaningful shot of the whole film.
The film only runs about an hour and a half. It was made in the early sixties and does move a bit slower than what contemporary audiences are used to. The shots last a bit longer. There is substantial dialogue. I was a little bored until the ending sequence. Still, it was good movie and being raised Catholic with two parents who went to Church every weekend and made me make my confirmation it was somewhat shocking, yet also relieving when someone openly criticizes religion and the tenets of the Catholic Church.
I'm looking forward to more Bunuel films.
The film is definitely an overt exposition about the principles of Catholicism. The lead female is on her way to be a nun when she is summoned to see her uncle who is perverse and scheming. Throughout the film we see her decline from very pious to in the end bankrupt about the ideology of Catholicism. In the final scene we see her without her habit, her long blonde hair luxuriously let down to her shoulders. It is obvious that her experience with the poor and handicapped she was trying to help was the last straw. She has given up on charity.
The entire film builds up to the final dinner scene. It is carefully plotted out, slowly building intensity, and finally culminates in an attempted rape scene of the once chaste female lead. It is not a complicated film. The narrative is linear, the cinematography is standard. It's in black and white. There are some low shots of peoples shoes and lower parts of the door. Otherwise the focus is mostly on the heads of people. There is one memorable shot of a crown of thorns that the female lead brought with her from the convent. It is used in the film to symbolize her chastity, her religiosity. In the final sequence we see the crown of thorns being thrown into a fire. To add emphasis it is fished out of the fire while it is ablaze and is placed apart from the fire still burning. The camera dwells on this image for several seconds. The symbol the crown of thorns burning crown of thorns represents is well made. It is the best and most meaningful shot of the whole film.
The film only runs about an hour and a half. It was made in the early sixties and does move a bit slower than what contemporary audiences are used to. The shots last a bit longer. There is substantial dialogue. I was a little bored until the ending sequence. Still, it was good movie and being raised Catholic with two parents who went to Church every weekend and made me make my confirmation it was somewhat shocking, yet also relieving when someone openly criticizes religion and the tenets of the Catholic Church.
I'm looking forward to more Bunuel films.
Thoughts on Surrealist Cinema
Since I've been watching David Lynch films I've taken it upon myself to study the Surrealist style of filmmaking. Tonight I read part of a short book about Surrealist Cinema. In it the author defines what Realism in Cinema is, then describes what Surrealism in Cinema is. After I finished reading I watched some films which I had seen before at MoMa during their retrospective about Salvador Dali and Film. Perhaps the most famous scene in the film Un Chien un Andalou is when the male character slits open the female character's eye. It's a good scene, quite shocking at first, or even second view.
I've watched a lot of Realist Cinema. I've seen many films from the Italian Neo-realist period and a number from the French New Wave as well as the New Hollywood and New German Cinema all of which have several realist masterpieces. I was a committed Realist. In one of my classes I declared that I was a Realist. Yet, I am drawn to Surrealist Cinema for it's inventiveness, it's creativity, and it's acceptance of subjectivity. The author of the book made clear the Surrealist Cinema makes no claims to be objective. He said, and the book was published some years ago, that films should show an opinion of the director, the director's stylist impression should made on the film. He goes on to say that Realist film is dragged down in the banality of everyday life. He muses that who really wants to see the events of everyday life? Aren't the events of everyday life banal? Are they not devoid of entertainment? Of meaning?
I haven't researched much into Surrealism as an art movement, but I'm making head way into it. Obviously it is not Social Realism a la the Soviet or, what I'm most familiar with, Chinese Communist Social Realism. Surrealist Cinema is deeply formalist. It does things, like the author of the book said, that don't make sense. In fact the author said that if you are making a Surrealist film you should eschew plot, get rid of thinking in terms of a definitive beginning, middle, and end. That's what draws me to Surrealism. It's imaginative qualities.
So, for the remainder of the Summer I will make an effort, I rarely accomplish everything I set out to do during the Summer, to watch and blog about Surrealist films. Hopefully I will grow as a film student, and, more importantly, a screenwriter and director. Whatever happens it should be fun.
I've watched a lot of Realist Cinema. I've seen many films from the Italian Neo-realist period and a number from the French New Wave as well as the New Hollywood and New German Cinema all of which have several realist masterpieces. I was a committed Realist. In one of my classes I declared that I was a Realist. Yet, I am drawn to Surrealist Cinema for it's inventiveness, it's creativity, and it's acceptance of subjectivity. The author of the book made clear the Surrealist Cinema makes no claims to be objective. He said, and the book was published some years ago, that films should show an opinion of the director, the director's stylist impression should made on the film. He goes on to say that Realist film is dragged down in the banality of everyday life. He muses that who really wants to see the events of everyday life? Aren't the events of everyday life banal? Are they not devoid of entertainment? Of meaning?
I haven't researched much into Surrealism as an art movement, but I'm making head way into it. Obviously it is not Social Realism a la the Soviet or, what I'm most familiar with, Chinese Communist Social Realism. Surrealist Cinema is deeply formalist. It does things, like the author of the book said, that don't make sense. In fact the author said that if you are making a Surrealist film you should eschew plot, get rid of thinking in terms of a definitive beginning, middle, and end. That's what draws me to Surrealism. It's imaginative qualities.
So, for the remainder of the Summer I will make an effort, I rarely accomplish everything I set out to do during the Summer, to watch and blog about Surrealist films. Hopefully I will grow as a film student, and, more importantly, a screenwriter and director. Whatever happens it should be fun.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Further Ruminations on Biskind's Down and Dirty Pictures
So I finished the book by Biskind. I read the last 60 or so pages this Sunday evening. The last part was like the rest of the book, centered around Harvey Weinstien and the Sundance film festival. Biskind goes into considerable detail about Harvery's failings and his decline in behavior as well as the declining stature of Miramax as a film company. He makes his point that Harvey and Miramax had receded into relative equality with it's competitors like Focus films and Sony Classics which for a period of time Miramax always got the best of. In several instances Harvey berates reporters and employess and gets into squabbles with studio heads like Barry Diller. Biskind talks about how the studio system and the indie market have blended into some kind of hybrid form in some cases. The big studios now have their own indie wings which may, in some instances, be profitable as well as critically successful. Yet, the indie movement, that began in the late 80s with a flourish by Sodherberg and sex, lies.. had lost any steam from it by the early 2000s.
The whole phenomenon of Pulp Fiction and Quentin Tarrantino was long past by the time the dot com bubble burst and indie films were co-opted by the big studios. Biskind talks about how many directors went from first film to franchise, which shows that the indie movement had lost any momentum it had. It is rare that a filmmaker refuses the big bucks to stay loyal to some kind of indie aesthetic in their work. Jim Jarmusch is one American director who has not gone for the big payday. His films still have an indie aesthetic that few other filmmkaers have kept. He is also free of the restrictions of genre too. Richard Linklater is another filmmaker who keeps making films from a personal perspective. His latest boyhood is releasing on Friday and I'm going to see it on a day when I'm not attending the Japanese film festival on my Summer trip to Manhattan.
Now that I've read the book I know a whole lot about Miramax and Harvey Weinstein. In fact the book could easily be made into a biography about Harvey. In Biskind's book he is a larger than life character. Perhaps cliche in his typical Jewish movie-producer mold a la Barton Fink, but his personality almost always makes good copy. He and Miramax were a very essential part to the explosion of indie films in the 90's. They helped many films and filmmakers get their movies out there and by doing so launched the careers of many directors, writers, and actors who no one had ever heard of. On the contrary, they kept most of the money to themselves and treated filmmakers very badly in some circumstances. Throughout the book I kept asking myself, would I work for Miramax? I quickly said, "no." Then I thought, "maybe." In the 90's Miramax was at the forefront of the indie movement and I'm sure it was exciting to work for. Yet, as Biskind reveals, other players emerged to take the top spot from Miramax, particularly Dreamworks and later James Schamus and Focus.
I think I like Biskind's book about the 70's more than this one. This book was all Harvey Weinstein and Robert Redford. I enjoyed reading it very much, I just think the Easy Riders.. was more about filmmaking. This book gets lost too much "in the numbers." It provides some information about filmmakers, but it doesn't stir my conscience the way the other book did. Perhaps it's because I took a course on American film history that focused on the "New Hollywood" or, perhaps it is that that period of time was just better; higher quality films, more filmmakers seeking to make great films. The New Hollywood also lasted longer the Indie movement of the 90's. It is obvious from Biskind that the Indie movement went into severe decline in the late 90's. Biskind even dates the beginning of the decline with Pulp Fiction. He states that the Indie movement essentially died after it's release. After Pulp many filmmakers wanted to win the lottery like Tarrantino and the Indie game became not making high quality films, but getting rich and famous. And if I recall correctly those are the wrong reasons to get into filmmaking.
The New Hollywood had more substance the 90's Indie movement. There just wasn't, as I've read in the Biskind book enough quality from filmmakers in the 90's to rival the 70's. The films don't have the intensity, the drama, the pushing the art form forward that the New Hollywood had. I suppose that's because the 90's didn't have a Vietnam or a Civil Rights movement. In the 90's there was some films that dealt with sex and sexuality, but that movement was largely to come later with the debate about gay marriage taking hold only recently. I suppose the film industry was like many Americans in the 90's; they wanted money like the dot com boom and bust. And many of the films and filmmakers were like that; here today gone tomorrow. In the last section of the book Biskind talks about how many filmmakers suffered from the one and done syndrome. They would produce one film, then the rest of their career were relatively obscure. As a screenwriter and filmmaker myself, I was a little encouraged to know that I might make a film, yet I was discouraged by the fact that they seemed like internet startups. A big IPO, then disaster, which for a filmmaker is obscurity and irrelevance.
I suppose going forward I will know what to avoid if I ever get the chance to turn a screenplay into a film. The age old lesson of history should apply to myself; learn the lessons of the past or be condemned to repeat them.
The whole phenomenon of Pulp Fiction and Quentin Tarrantino was long past by the time the dot com bubble burst and indie films were co-opted by the big studios. Biskind talks about how many directors went from first film to franchise, which shows that the indie movement had lost any momentum it had. It is rare that a filmmaker refuses the big bucks to stay loyal to some kind of indie aesthetic in their work. Jim Jarmusch is one American director who has not gone for the big payday. His films still have an indie aesthetic that few other filmmkaers have kept. He is also free of the restrictions of genre too. Richard Linklater is another filmmaker who keeps making films from a personal perspective. His latest boyhood is releasing on Friday and I'm going to see it on a day when I'm not attending the Japanese film festival on my Summer trip to Manhattan.
Now that I've read the book I know a whole lot about Miramax and Harvey Weinstein. In fact the book could easily be made into a biography about Harvey. In Biskind's book he is a larger than life character. Perhaps cliche in his typical Jewish movie-producer mold a la Barton Fink, but his personality almost always makes good copy. He and Miramax were a very essential part to the explosion of indie films in the 90's. They helped many films and filmmakers get their movies out there and by doing so launched the careers of many directors, writers, and actors who no one had ever heard of. On the contrary, they kept most of the money to themselves and treated filmmakers very badly in some circumstances. Throughout the book I kept asking myself, would I work for Miramax? I quickly said, "no." Then I thought, "maybe." In the 90's Miramax was at the forefront of the indie movement and I'm sure it was exciting to work for. Yet, as Biskind reveals, other players emerged to take the top spot from Miramax, particularly Dreamworks and later James Schamus and Focus.
I think I like Biskind's book about the 70's more than this one. This book was all Harvey Weinstein and Robert Redford. I enjoyed reading it very much, I just think the Easy Riders.. was more about filmmaking. This book gets lost too much "in the numbers." It provides some information about filmmakers, but it doesn't stir my conscience the way the other book did. Perhaps it's because I took a course on American film history that focused on the "New Hollywood" or, perhaps it is that that period of time was just better; higher quality films, more filmmakers seeking to make great films. The New Hollywood also lasted longer the Indie movement of the 90's. It is obvious from Biskind that the Indie movement went into severe decline in the late 90's. Biskind even dates the beginning of the decline with Pulp Fiction. He states that the Indie movement essentially died after it's release. After Pulp many filmmakers wanted to win the lottery like Tarrantino and the Indie game became not making high quality films, but getting rich and famous. And if I recall correctly those are the wrong reasons to get into filmmaking.
The New Hollywood had more substance the 90's Indie movement. There just wasn't, as I've read in the Biskind book enough quality from filmmakers in the 90's to rival the 70's. The films don't have the intensity, the drama, the pushing the art form forward that the New Hollywood had. I suppose that's because the 90's didn't have a Vietnam or a Civil Rights movement. In the 90's there was some films that dealt with sex and sexuality, but that movement was largely to come later with the debate about gay marriage taking hold only recently. I suppose the film industry was like many Americans in the 90's; they wanted money like the dot com boom and bust. And many of the films and filmmakers were like that; here today gone tomorrow. In the last section of the book Biskind talks about how many filmmakers suffered from the one and done syndrome. They would produce one film, then the rest of their career were relatively obscure. As a screenwriter and filmmaker myself, I was a little encouraged to know that I might make a film, yet I was discouraged by the fact that they seemed like internet startups. A big IPO, then disaster, which for a filmmaker is obscurity and irrelevance.
I suppose going forward I will know what to avoid if I ever get the chance to turn a screenplay into a film. The age old lesson of history should apply to myself; learn the lessons of the past or be condemned to repeat them.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Review of Lost Highway by Lynch
After reading the screenplay I watched the film. It was a more intense, more aware viewing. I knew what some of the characters were going to say before they said it. I was more engaged in the film. Yet, I was still somewhat in the dark about what the film meant or how it made sense. Perhaps, like a surrealist masterpiece, it isn't supposed to make any sense. Perhaps I don't know enough about surrealism and film. Before I started my mini- film festival about David Lynch I was a committed realist following, so I thought in my inflated self-importance, the Italian neo-realist filmmakers like Rosselini, Visconti, and Fellini. Now, I've taken out some books from the library and will read a book about Surrealism and film. I'm sure they will discuss Lynch's films along with, hopefully, some discussion of Hitchcock films. And other films and filmmakers that I might not be aware of.
The film was great. I think it might be Lynch's best. The visuals are stunning at times. The narrative is gripping, totally a horror noir film if there ever was one.Similar to the screenplay the first half hour or so of the film is really gripping. I couldn't, even on the second viewing, pull myself away from it. The floating camera in the videotape is mesmerizing and Pullman puts in a great performance.
The last sequence is very good to. I was totally scared of the mystery man. Robert Blake was perfectly cast in that role. The visuals in that sequence are also a feast for the eyes. The fire, the lovemaking, the car, and, again, the mystery man. All compelling, all great.
The slowest part, where Mr. Eddy beats up the guy for tailgating, is a bit slow. Yet, I suppose, it creates fear of Mr. Eddy. Without that scene Mr. Eddy might not be so feared. The sight of him pistol whipping the tailgater creates a sense that he is a very violent man capable of brutality. This stays with us until the end when he gets it from Pullman or the Mystery Man.
I also like how the narrative appears circular. Pullman's character speaks the "Dick Laurent is dead" into the intercom. Pullman then hears the voice telling him that. It appears that the narrative is somehow overlapped. Somewhat confusing, yet compelling. I don't know if that is what Lynch is doing, making viewers confused, but it works. A total abstraction on film.
The film was great. I think it might be Lynch's best. The visuals are stunning at times. The narrative is gripping, totally a horror noir film if there ever was one.Similar to the screenplay the first half hour or so of the film is really gripping. I couldn't, even on the second viewing, pull myself away from it. The floating camera in the videotape is mesmerizing and Pullman puts in a great performance.
The last sequence is very good to. I was totally scared of the mystery man. Robert Blake was perfectly cast in that role. The visuals in that sequence are also a feast for the eyes. The fire, the lovemaking, the car, and, again, the mystery man. All compelling, all great.
The slowest part, where Mr. Eddy beats up the guy for tailgating, is a bit slow. Yet, I suppose, it creates fear of Mr. Eddy. Without that scene Mr. Eddy might not be so feared. The sight of him pistol whipping the tailgater creates a sense that he is a very violent man capable of brutality. This stays with us until the end when he gets it from Pullman or the Mystery Man.
I also like how the narrative appears circular. Pullman's character speaks the "Dick Laurent is dead" into the intercom. Pullman then hears the voice telling him that. It appears that the narrative is somehow overlapped. Somewhat confusing, yet compelling. I don't know if that is what Lynch is doing, making viewers confused, but it works. A total abstraction on film.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Review of Lost HIghway Screenplay by Lynch
I first saw Lost Highway in a film studies class. I was thoroughly entertained. Now after reading the script I have an even deeper appreciation for the film. The script was very good. David Lynch is a surrealist filmmaker and the script paints visuals and language with a wide brush. The sudden changes of character, the descriptions of the videotape of the Madison's house, and, of course, the mystery man played so deviously by Robert Blake make the script engrossing and hard to put down. At the end of the screenplay which is 114 pages, I was so glued to it, I couldn't look away. The descriptions, the language, all great.
I think the best parts of this screenplay are the beginning and the end. The part where Mr. Eddy beats up the guy for tailgating is a little boring. I don't really see how it adds to the story. It seems odd to have that sequence in the film. On the other hand, the beginning is dark, mysterious, and engaging. With each videotape comes a wanting for what it means, who has shot, and where the story will go. And with Robert Blake as the mystery man things get even more sinister. When Bill Pullman's character turns in the auto mechanic the film changes direction so decidedly that I wondered where it was going the first time I saw the movie. Definitely a surrealistic expression of cinematic art. I don't think there are too many films that have such an abrupt change in the composition of the main character. Perhaps a Hitchcock film has some similarity. Vertigo has a similar quality in Jimmy Stewart's character's mental state, but I can't remember a change like that in another film.
The film, as I mentioned before, languishes a little bit in the Mr. Eddy sequence, but it rebounds quickly with a very surrealist ending. Beginning with the auto mechanic and Mr. Eddy's wife having an affair the script begins to build up tension again reaching a climax when Bill Pullman or the mystery man kill Mr. Eddy. I thought the ending, from Andy's apartment to the final scene on the lost highway, was full of tension, mystery, ambivalence, and anxiety, As I read through it I wondered what would happen next. I remembered the basic plot of the film, but I didn't remember all of the details, so it was a deeper reading of the film.
In the script, which I realized for, perhaps, the first time was that Lynch uses longer descriptions of each scene. He also directs the camera which is a departure from other screenplays I have read. The descriptions are essential to the beginning of the film where the Madison's receive the videotapes. The first twenty or so pages of the script are very dark, very alluring, and very good writing. This is, perhaps Lynch's best film. After I watch the rest of his LA trilogy I will do a final assessment about Lynch's total work and hopeful make some grand conclusions about his films and his place in film history.
I think the best parts of this screenplay are the beginning and the end. The part where Mr. Eddy beats up the guy for tailgating is a little boring. I don't really see how it adds to the story. It seems odd to have that sequence in the film. On the other hand, the beginning is dark, mysterious, and engaging. With each videotape comes a wanting for what it means, who has shot, and where the story will go. And with Robert Blake as the mystery man things get even more sinister. When Bill Pullman's character turns in the auto mechanic the film changes direction so decidedly that I wondered where it was going the first time I saw the movie. Definitely a surrealistic expression of cinematic art. I don't think there are too many films that have such an abrupt change in the composition of the main character. Perhaps a Hitchcock film has some similarity. Vertigo has a similar quality in Jimmy Stewart's character's mental state, but I can't remember a change like that in another film.
The film, as I mentioned before, languishes a little bit in the Mr. Eddy sequence, but it rebounds quickly with a very surrealist ending. Beginning with the auto mechanic and Mr. Eddy's wife having an affair the script begins to build up tension again reaching a climax when Bill Pullman or the mystery man kill Mr. Eddy. I thought the ending, from Andy's apartment to the final scene on the lost highway, was full of tension, mystery, ambivalence, and anxiety, As I read through it I wondered what would happen next. I remembered the basic plot of the film, but I didn't remember all of the details, so it was a deeper reading of the film.
In the script, which I realized for, perhaps, the first time was that Lynch uses longer descriptions of each scene. He also directs the camera which is a departure from other screenplays I have read. The descriptions are essential to the beginning of the film where the Madison's receive the videotapes. The first twenty or so pages of the script are very dark, very alluring, and very good writing. This is, perhaps Lynch's best film. After I watch the rest of his LA trilogy I will do a final assessment about Lynch's total work and hopeful make some grand conclusions about his films and his place in film history.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)