I watched this film because it was based on an Albert Camus novel of the same name. Camus is of interest to me because I'm currently learning about neo-colonialism and studying creative writing. Camus was a rival of Jean Paul Sartre. He was also a major voice of Algerians during the Franco- Algerian war.
The film is an Art House film. It starred some B list actors; William Hurt, Jean Marc Barr, and Robert Duvall. It told a linear story. It used camera angles that were standard. There were no major technical surprises in this film. I thought the best part about the film was the performances of the actors and the story. It takes place in a South American city infected with the plague
Each person is thought to be or is infected with the plague. It is only after some time that the plague is contained that things are returning to normal. The saddest part of the film is when the choir boy dies of the plague. I was saddened that he was killed. The film sets it up by having him sing very nicely, and then tragically he dies.
The film was interesting. It reminded me of Terry Gilliam's Brazil for some reason. Perhaps it was the big neo-classical building in the film. Every time anyone went to the Doctor's it was a neo-classical structure. Or, perhaps, it was the wrangling through bureaucracy that occurred every time some got the plague.
The ending was abrupt. I didn't see it coming that Jean Marc Barr's character would get shot down by the driver who had angst against non- Latinos for some reason which remains vague to me. This was quite an ending, yet it still remains vague as to why he went on a psychotic shooting spree.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Review of the Battle of Algeirs
This film was very interesting. It has become a classic and a criterion collection selection. I am reading a book about postcolonialism and this book dovetails nicely with the text. I reviewed another film White Material that is more recent than this film and deals with postcolonialism. The Battle of Algiers was older, more grainy, less formalist, but very effectual. It has a documentary feel to it.
The film starts and begins in the same place; the hideout of a suspected terrorist. The whole French colonial venture is called into question in this film. It raised questions in my conscience such as: why are the French still in Algeria? What is the purpose of Colonialism? Why does the West rule over the rest? I think I did not succumb to racist, nationalist, or imperialist cliches about Western involvement in foreign countries. Yet the questions remain. I suppose it becomes more of a debate about whether or not the West, and in particular the USA, should intervene in places like Iraq or Afghanistan? Do we really have the right to launch airstrikes, etc in a land that is not our own?
I also watched Indochine starring Catherine Deneuve which I thought was a great film; one of the best I've seen about the predicament that Western countries find themselves in in the post WWII era. In that film it became all too clear that Western rule was coming to an end. Indochine was a great film about colonialist ventures that the West has launched.
Battle of Algiers was a low budget film. It's production values were low. Yet it still has a poigniancy about it. Still has a viscerality. It is the earliest film where the side of the Algerians or terrorists is openly given a forum. That is, perhaps, the best part of the film. We see what the non Western side strives for and their reasons for things like terrorist bombings of public places which I thought were disgraceful until the leader of the terrorist said that it was their only resort without war planes to do their dirty work.
I thought the Battle of Algiers to be a good film. Very cutting edge for it's time.
The film starts and begins in the same place; the hideout of a suspected terrorist. The whole French colonial venture is called into question in this film. It raised questions in my conscience such as: why are the French still in Algeria? What is the purpose of Colonialism? Why does the West rule over the rest? I think I did not succumb to racist, nationalist, or imperialist cliches about Western involvement in foreign countries. Yet the questions remain. I suppose it becomes more of a debate about whether or not the West, and in particular the USA, should intervene in places like Iraq or Afghanistan? Do we really have the right to launch airstrikes, etc in a land that is not our own?
I also watched Indochine starring Catherine Deneuve which I thought was a great film; one of the best I've seen about the predicament that Western countries find themselves in in the post WWII era. In that film it became all too clear that Western rule was coming to an end. Indochine was a great film about colonialist ventures that the West has launched.
Battle of Algiers was a low budget film. It's production values were low. Yet it still has a poigniancy about it. Still has a viscerality. It is the earliest film where the side of the Algerians or terrorists is openly given a forum. That is, perhaps, the best part of the film. We see what the non Western side strives for and their reasons for things like terrorist bombings of public places which I thought were disgraceful until the leader of the terrorist said that it was their only resort without war planes to do their dirty work.
I thought the Battle of Algiers to be a good film. Very cutting edge for it's time.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Review of Unforgiven
This was the second film as part of an assignment for my screenwriting class. I had seen the film before when it was released back in 1992. I was thoroughly impressed with it then, and I still enjoyed watching the film even though I knew what would happen. I read the screenplay by Peoples which I thought was great.
The screenplay moves along quickly. It was 121 pages in length but it went by quickly. There was hardly a wasted page or word. The ending sequence where Eastwood shoots Gene Hackman and all the other gunmen was written very uniquely. It just gives very short directions as to what would happen. Munny shoots, shoots, shoots until there is a big cloud of smoke. I like the ending, perhaps, best out of all the sequences in the film. The beginning is great too.
The cinematography should be commended. The shots of the West are great. So are the shots of scenes taking place at night. It reminded of a Rembrandt painting. Very dark with just a little candlelight.
It terms of the meaning of the film or it's theme I think much could be written about. It is clearly a mythical story that has emerged out the fables about the Wild West. Whether these stories are true I don't know. I suppose a historian of the American West would know. At least in this movie there is no overt characterization of American Indians as totally evil and one sided. It is about respecting a woman, even though she is a prostitute when the law refuses to be fair. Munney acts as the mystery man in black set out to put things right, but for a price. So, it seems that it is a film about the mythological Wild West. There is little law and the law is decidedly arbitrary.
I really enjoyed Gene Hackman's character. I thought he played it very well. He exudes arrogance and one man justice. The scene where he exposes English Bob as a fraud, is aside from the beginning and ending the best scene in the film. The tension that rises quickly and falls is great. And Hackman pulls off his character exceptionally well.
Of course Eastwood puts in a great performance too. This was his last Western he has said, and so far, has kept to that promise. The shots of his grimacing, wrinkled, scarred face really bring out the anguish, torture, and hard life his character has had to endure. I thought some of the scenes where he pears out of his upturned collar where a little light reveals his sharp eye were very well shot.
The story is great. The characters are great. The film stands as a new direction in Westerns. Yet it still upholds the myth that the American West was, and to some degree, still is.
The screenplay moves along quickly. It was 121 pages in length but it went by quickly. There was hardly a wasted page or word. The ending sequence where Eastwood shoots Gene Hackman and all the other gunmen was written very uniquely. It just gives very short directions as to what would happen. Munny shoots, shoots, shoots until there is a big cloud of smoke. I like the ending, perhaps, best out of all the sequences in the film. The beginning is great too.
The cinematography should be commended. The shots of the West are great. So are the shots of scenes taking place at night. It reminded of a Rembrandt painting. Very dark with just a little candlelight.
It terms of the meaning of the film or it's theme I think much could be written about. It is clearly a mythical story that has emerged out the fables about the Wild West. Whether these stories are true I don't know. I suppose a historian of the American West would know. At least in this movie there is no overt characterization of American Indians as totally evil and one sided. It is about respecting a woman, even though she is a prostitute when the law refuses to be fair. Munney acts as the mystery man in black set out to put things right, but for a price. So, it seems that it is a film about the mythological Wild West. There is little law and the law is decidedly arbitrary.
I really enjoyed Gene Hackman's character. I thought he played it very well. He exudes arrogance and one man justice. The scene where he exposes English Bob as a fraud, is aside from the beginning and ending the best scene in the film. The tension that rises quickly and falls is great. And Hackman pulls off his character exceptionally well.
Of course Eastwood puts in a great performance too. This was his last Western he has said, and so far, has kept to that promise. The shots of his grimacing, wrinkled, scarred face really bring out the anguish, torture, and hard life his character has had to endure. I thought some of the scenes where he pears out of his upturned collar where a little light reveals his sharp eye were very well shot.
The story is great. The characters are great. The film stands as a new direction in Westerns. Yet it still upholds the myth that the American West was, and to some degree, still is.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Review of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
This was a film I had to watch for a screenwriting class I'm taking as part of a low res MA program in Creative Writing. I had to read the script first which took about 3 hours, then watch the film twice. Now I'm supposed to write something about it in my writer's notebook which are my blogs. The first time I watched the film, I had seen it previously some years ago, I kind of enjoyed it. The second time through I really wanted the film to be over after about 40 minutes.
I read Roger Ebert's review and I agree with what he says. The first 40- 45 minutes of the film are really good. I was thinking it would be a great film. Yet, when the chase scenes start it really slows down and gets interminably boring. I don't know how many times they stopped to look at the superposse. But, every time they did, I thought to myself, how long will this last? Can't they do anything else? A shoot out, some sex, something. Just a long drawn out chase scene, with nice shots mind you, but too long without any action.
The second thing that I really bothered me about the film was the Burt Bacharach music. In the first music sequence where Paul Newman rides around on the bicycle with Katherine Ross the music is fine. Not great. Just fine. Yet, by the time they are in Bolivia I was really disliking the music. It was so out of place. It just doesn't work. Burt Bacharach music in a Western it just doesn't fit. I don't know if there are unwritten rules about Westerns, like you can't have contemporary dialogue or music in them, like they do in Butch Cassidy, yet it would be very commendable if they would make some so the music stays out of the picture.
Lastly, I thought some comparisons to Bonnie and Clyde are very obvious which I didn't have a problem with. I enjoyed watching Bonnie and Clyde, especially the ending where they get slaughtered in a hail of bullets. Similar to how this film ends only instead of showing Butch and the Kid get it big time, it goes to freeze frame. I thought this was cool, but it didn't have the impact that the final scene of Bonnie and Clyde did. I suppose you couldn't copy the same thing from that film and make it yours, it would be too obvious for two films that were made so close together. Yet, they could have given the final sequence something more. More violence? More slaughter? Perhaps.
I also didn't like some of montage sequences which made the film harder to sit through a second time. It was merely pretty faces with music and no dialogue. As a writer I really enjoy dialogue. That's one of the things that is driving me away from film. It is pretty faces with some music and images. No writing needed, thus the predicament of a screenwriter.
I read Roger Ebert's review and I agree with what he says. The first 40- 45 minutes of the film are really good. I was thinking it would be a great film. Yet, when the chase scenes start it really slows down and gets interminably boring. I don't know how many times they stopped to look at the superposse. But, every time they did, I thought to myself, how long will this last? Can't they do anything else? A shoot out, some sex, something. Just a long drawn out chase scene, with nice shots mind you, but too long without any action.
The second thing that I really bothered me about the film was the Burt Bacharach music. In the first music sequence where Paul Newman rides around on the bicycle with Katherine Ross the music is fine. Not great. Just fine. Yet, by the time they are in Bolivia I was really disliking the music. It was so out of place. It just doesn't work. Burt Bacharach music in a Western it just doesn't fit. I don't know if there are unwritten rules about Westerns, like you can't have contemporary dialogue or music in them, like they do in Butch Cassidy, yet it would be very commendable if they would make some so the music stays out of the picture.
Lastly, I thought some comparisons to Bonnie and Clyde are very obvious which I didn't have a problem with. I enjoyed watching Bonnie and Clyde, especially the ending where they get slaughtered in a hail of bullets. Similar to how this film ends only instead of showing Butch and the Kid get it big time, it goes to freeze frame. I thought this was cool, but it didn't have the impact that the final scene of Bonnie and Clyde did. I suppose you couldn't copy the same thing from that film and make it yours, it would be too obvious for two films that were made so close together. Yet, they could have given the final sequence something more. More violence? More slaughter? Perhaps.
I also didn't like some of montage sequences which made the film harder to sit through a second time. It was merely pretty faces with music and no dialogue. As a writer I really enjoy dialogue. That's one of the things that is driving me away from film. It is pretty faces with some music and images. No writing needed, thus the predicament of a screenwriter.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Review of Master Builder
I like this film for it's ambition. The story was good. It followed the final days of a well off architect who refuses to give a recommendation to an aspiring builder. After much persuasion, the Master Builder yields and writes some praise for the aspiring builder.
I saw this film at the local Art House movie theater near where I live. It was about two hours long, shot totally on digital, but used a linear story line. The performances weren't bad, but they weren't great either. I think the story is set somewhere in the Mid West, the heartland of America and the characters seemed to embody a mid-western aura.
I think I liked the wife of the Master Builder best. She seemed so reserved, so unwilling to reveal herself. It was only at the end that we learn her parents home burnt down and that she lost twin boys early in infancy. After these revelations she was still an exemplar of composure. She didn't break down into tears or hysterics. She just kept her emotions in check which I found the most interesting part of the film. She had suffered several calamities and had been wronged by her husband, yet she still kept her composure.
This was definitely an Art House film. I don't think most audiences would like this film. It is certainly not a big budget Hollywood film. It is very far from that. There is a lot of complex dialogue. There is deep character development. There is tragedy, conflict, and not an "up" ending. All of which I enjoyed.
A good film.
I saw this film at the local Art House movie theater near where I live. It was about two hours long, shot totally on digital, but used a linear story line. The performances weren't bad, but they weren't great either. I think the story is set somewhere in the Mid West, the heartland of America and the characters seemed to embody a mid-western aura.
I think I liked the wife of the Master Builder best. She seemed so reserved, so unwilling to reveal herself. It was only at the end that we learn her parents home burnt down and that she lost twin boys early in infancy. After these revelations she was still an exemplar of composure. She didn't break down into tears or hysterics. She just kept her emotions in check which I found the most interesting part of the film. She had suffered several calamities and had been wronged by her husband, yet she still kept her composure.
This was definitely an Art House film. I don't think most audiences would like this film. It is certainly not a big budget Hollywood film. It is very far from that. There is a lot of complex dialogue. There is deep character development. There is tragedy, conflict, and not an "up" ending. All of which I enjoyed.
A good film.
Review of White Material
I have been reading, slowly but surely, a book about Post-colonialism. Having taken several course about Modern Imperialism and studied, in various forms about Empires in History, post-colonialism is the logical progression in furthering a study about World History, World Literature, and, in my case World Drama. I've been studying playwriting and I took it upon myself to read the great plays and gain some understanding of current theories in the Theatre. Yet, the book is large so it will take me sometime to read through it. I will also read shorter plays to provide some examples about post-colonial theatre and it has already yielded a start on a short play.
Anyway, I watched a film about French neo-colonialism in West Africa. It was a very good film. Less about the characters, I didn't know any of them save for Isaac De Bankole who had a small role. It was more about the story. French neo-colonialists are trying to hold on to a coffee plantation amidst a revolution in the host country. The French colonialists refuse to leave. The revolutionaries are growing stronger and more resentful of the French who live lavishly and own a large portion of land.
I had watched some colonial films before. Mostly made prior to 1968, the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement or the student protests in France. Zulu and Khartoum were two of my favorites. They are blatantly anti- Native, as in Zulu, and are also pro- Empire in Khartoum even though Charlton Heston loses his head at the end of that film.
This film was similar to those, except for the outcome and situation. The French neo-colonialists have no political control. There is not a military that is going to save them from the revolutionaries. In fact by the end of the film everyone is dead and the plantation is destroyed. Sorry for spoilers!
I enjoyed this film very much. The story was something you read in the headlines about Africa quite often. Yet I didn't know exactly where the story would end. I also enjoyed it immensely for taking on a topic such as neo-colonialism in Africa. I have tasked myself with watching the Battle of Algiers which is a film all about French involvement in Algeria. That is next on my list.
Anyway, I watched a film about French neo-colonialism in West Africa. It was a very good film. Less about the characters, I didn't know any of them save for Isaac De Bankole who had a small role. It was more about the story. French neo-colonialists are trying to hold on to a coffee plantation amidst a revolution in the host country. The French colonialists refuse to leave. The revolutionaries are growing stronger and more resentful of the French who live lavishly and own a large portion of land.
I had watched some colonial films before. Mostly made prior to 1968, the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement or the student protests in France. Zulu and Khartoum were two of my favorites. They are blatantly anti- Native, as in Zulu, and are also pro- Empire in Khartoum even though Charlton Heston loses his head at the end of that film.
This film was similar to those, except for the outcome and situation. The French neo-colonialists have no political control. There is not a military that is going to save them from the revolutionaries. In fact by the end of the film everyone is dead and the plantation is destroyed. Sorry for spoilers!
I enjoyed this film very much. The story was something you read in the headlines about Africa quite often. Yet I didn't know exactly where the story would end. I also enjoyed it immensely for taking on a topic such as neo-colonialism in Africa. I have tasked myself with watching the Battle of Algiers which is a film all about French involvement in Algeria. That is next on my list.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Review of Railway Man starring Colin Firth
I really enjoyed this film. It was screened at the Art House theater near where I live in Upstate NY. I had been waiting for many months to see this film. I had watched, years ago, Empire of the Sun by Spielberg, I have also taken several Asian History courses, and watched other movies and books about the horrors the Japanese inflicted upon other people in their Imperialist wars. So I was really excited to see this film brought to such a small market as Binghamton, NY. And I was not disappointed.
The acting by Colin Firth and Nicole Kidman was above par. I have seen quite a few of each of their pictures. An Ordinary Man by Firth was a very good performance as was Dogville and Australia by Kidman. Both are actors of acclaim. They both should be commended for doing high quality work for what must be below average payments for their efforts.
The film centers around Firth's character's experiences in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. I had previously read about these camps in a biography of the American General McCarthur's expereince in the Phillipines. His famous statement "I shall return" rings in my ears everytime I think of the Japanese advance in the Pacific. Anyway this was a further elaboration on the experience of the mistreatment that so many people endured at the hands of the Japanese. The Japanese brought about the end of Western Imperialism in Asia. They wiped out all of the British holding, only some of which were restored. Anyway, I digress, back to the film.
Firth's character goes through severe difficulties about his war time experience. He learns that the man who tortured him for building, of all things, a radio, is still free and has never been brought to justice for his misdeeds. So, Firth's character goes to Asia to confront him. These are the most tense scenes of the film. What will Firth's character do? In the end they become friends.
I think this film shows how memory can prey on one's conscience for years after it is over. The plague of post-traumatic stress disorder has affected many people involved in wars and I think this film is a testiment to their experiences. Any experience of hardship creates memories which we would part with, but, for some reason, just willn't go away. This film speaks of those memories for anyone who has served in a military campaign and couldn't come to terms with that experience.
I have a cousin who, he will probably be upset for mentioning him in my blog, served in Vietnam and, to this day, refuses to talk about his experiences there. I guess he could find some solace or comfort in this film. A good film.
The acting by Colin Firth and Nicole Kidman was above par. I have seen quite a few of each of their pictures. An Ordinary Man by Firth was a very good performance as was Dogville and Australia by Kidman. Both are actors of acclaim. They both should be commended for doing high quality work for what must be below average payments for their efforts.
The film centers around Firth's character's experiences in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. I had previously read about these camps in a biography of the American General McCarthur's expereince in the Phillipines. His famous statement "I shall return" rings in my ears everytime I think of the Japanese advance in the Pacific. Anyway this was a further elaboration on the experience of the mistreatment that so many people endured at the hands of the Japanese. The Japanese brought about the end of Western Imperialism in Asia. They wiped out all of the British holding, only some of which were restored. Anyway, I digress, back to the film.
Firth's character goes through severe difficulties about his war time experience. He learns that the man who tortured him for building, of all things, a radio, is still free and has never been brought to justice for his misdeeds. So, Firth's character goes to Asia to confront him. These are the most tense scenes of the film. What will Firth's character do? In the end they become friends.
I think this film shows how memory can prey on one's conscience for years after it is over. The plague of post-traumatic stress disorder has affected many people involved in wars and I think this film is a testiment to their experiences. Any experience of hardship creates memories which we would part with, but, for some reason, just willn't go away. This film speaks of those memories for anyone who has served in a military campaign and couldn't come to terms with that experience.
I have a cousin who, he will probably be upset for mentioning him in my blog, served in Vietnam and, to this day, refuses to talk about his experiences there. I guess he could find some solace or comfort in this film. A good film.
Review of Transformers Age of Extinction
This was the first part in a double show of Summer blockbusters that I went to see. Of course you are asking yourself; how can I consider myself a serious film critic and go see a movie like Transformers? What about your musing about Dogme95 and the French New Wave? Well, honestly, I have lost a lot of respect for film as an art form, and from my view it doesn't seem to be getting any better. Well, enough of that. Transformers was what I expected. A big, special effects bloated movie with explosions, cool graphics, pretty faces, and muscles. Particularly Mark Wahlbergy and the girl who plays his 17teen year old daughter. The rest of the movie is not worth anything.
The characters, the plot, does it really matter? I went to see it for explosions, cool animations. Was there enough of that? Ya, I guess. For the first hour and half the movie moved along with cool graphics and pretty faces until it reached a point where the end of the film was to commence. It proceeded until the end, when, big surprise Optimus Prime comes and saves the day. Yay.
This movie was for entertainment. If it has any meaning at all it is that film is about the visual depiction of a story. Characters, plot development, etc. those are left to another art form, theater perhaps? This was the first installment I have seen in the series and the end of the film was set up so there will, possibly be another one.
I am much older than the demographich the Hollywood execs are trying to reach, and from the box office reciepts, they are reaching them. It is mostly teenage boys with the Summer off from school. Fanboys, I think they are referred to. I'm sure I was one many years ago, when I changed I don't remember, perhaps in puberty. Anyway I don't appreciate these films so much because they are so devoid of substance. From watching these kinds of movies I become starved of films of substance. Bring on the serious season!
The characters, the plot, does it really matter? I went to see it for explosions, cool animations. Was there enough of that? Ya, I guess. For the first hour and half the movie moved along with cool graphics and pretty faces until it reached a point where the end of the film was to commence. It proceeded until the end, when, big surprise Optimus Prime comes and saves the day. Yay.
This movie was for entertainment. If it has any meaning at all it is that film is about the visual depiction of a story. Characters, plot development, etc. those are left to another art form, theater perhaps? This was the first installment I have seen in the series and the end of the film was set up so there will, possibly be another one.
I am much older than the demographich the Hollywood execs are trying to reach, and from the box office reciepts, they are reaching them. It is mostly teenage boys with the Summer off from school. Fanboys, I think they are referred to. I'm sure I was one many years ago, when I changed I don't remember, perhaps in puberty. Anyway I don't appreciate these films so much because they are so devoid of substance. From watching these kinds of movies I become starved of films of substance. Bring on the serious season!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)