I was drawn to this film because of an article about the director's latest film. It was said the Andrei, the director, has made a film that is critical of Russian society and the Putin regime. I am eagerly anticipating the film called Leviathan. It's playing at Cinemapolis near where I live in upstate New York. So, with this in mind I looked up the director's other works and found one film on fandor.com. I watched the film called the Return. It was excellent. It was tight. The cinematography was great. Most of all, perhaps because I'm a screenwriter myself, the story was very well composed. It built up slowly, the tension rising and rising. Throughout the film I kept asking myself if something bad was going to happen. Would a giant shark eat the boys? Was the father going to murder them? I was glued to my computer waiting to find out what would happen.
I won't give the ending away. I'm not going to spoil it for someone who wants to see the film. The film is under two hours and won a bevy of awards back in 2003 which seems like ages ago. The director also made another film Elena which I'd really like to see but couldn't find on the internet.
I liked the performances. The father was such a stern authoritarian. When he returned and took the boys camping I thought something bad would happen. I also kept asking why did the mother let the boys go with a father who had abandonded them 12 years ago? I really felt for the youngest boy, Ivan. He really said what I would have wanted to say if I had been in that position. His character brought intensity and drama to the film.
Several of the shots in the film are very beautiful. Really long, wide angle shots of the Russian coastline. It must taken a lot of effort to take those shots. I was wondering how they got a camera up to the top of the lookout structures or made it feel like they were on the lookout. It was mesmerizing. Like painting with a camera.
Great film. Looking forward to Leviathan.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Review of Soderbergh's Traffic
Traffic is a great film. Perhaps Soderbergh's best. It pre-dates the Waichowski siblings Cloud Atlas by several years and retains the luster of dogme style filmmaking. Soderbergh even called it his dogme film. Even more so he did the shooting. I couldn't find anything to really be negative about. It was flawless. I just wondered about the drug czar's daughter, is it believable? Would a daughter with that kind of background succumb to addiction and pimp herself for drugs? Maybe.
I really liked the cinematography in this film. The use of different colors for each story makes the film more understandable. I suppose that was what Soderbergh was going for. Shading each place a different color reinforced the geographic place of each story. The editing was also phenomenal. It won the academy award that year for editing. And it was much deserved. Intertwining all of the stories together to make a coherent movie is not impossible, but very difficult to do. The editors pulled it off with gusto.
The writing was great too. There are numerous exchanges that draw the viewer into the suspense of the film. The scenes in Spanish were mumbled a little, but the meaning was very clear. So were the scenes in English. I really enjoyed the back and forth between Douglas and his wife. So many scenes from the film bring out arguments about addiction and how people self medicate. I only have one scotch to deal with the boredom, Douglas's character says. The dialogue and the story frame the debates about drug policy that the US was having when the film was released and are still having at present.
The film's ending is depressing. The drug Lord gets off, the teenage girl is in recovery, and Del Toro's character gets what he wants by playing ball with the Feds. I didn't get the sense that the war on drugs had improved at all. I got the sense that the war on drugs is hopeless. I think that is the conclusion of the film. The drug question isn't going away.
I really liked the cinematography in this film. The use of different colors for each story makes the film more understandable. I suppose that was what Soderbergh was going for. Shading each place a different color reinforced the geographic place of each story. The editing was also phenomenal. It won the academy award that year for editing. And it was much deserved. Intertwining all of the stories together to make a coherent movie is not impossible, but very difficult to do. The editors pulled it off with gusto.
The writing was great too. There are numerous exchanges that draw the viewer into the suspense of the film. The scenes in Spanish were mumbled a little, but the meaning was very clear. So were the scenes in English. I really enjoyed the back and forth between Douglas and his wife. So many scenes from the film bring out arguments about addiction and how people self medicate. I only have one scotch to deal with the boredom, Douglas's character says. The dialogue and the story frame the debates about drug policy that the US was having when the film was released and are still having at present.
The film's ending is depressing. The drug Lord gets off, the teenage girl is in recovery, and Del Toro's character gets what he wants by playing ball with the Feds. I didn't get the sense that the war on drugs had improved at all. I got the sense that the war on drugs is hopeless. I think that is the conclusion of the film. The drug question isn't going away.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Review of The Invisible Woman by Ralph Fiennes
I missed this film when it came out in theaters. I wished I could have seen it. The production values are so high. The costumes, the hairstyles, the decor, the furniture, everything about it takes you into the Victorian era and Dickens World. I must say, well done!
The movie is good, but it gets a little too weepy. I don't know much about Dickens and have only seen his works on screen or stage. I am a great admirer of David Lean's Great Expectations which I thought was excellent. Much of what happens in the film would be so controversial in Victorian times, and perhaps, still is today. I think Fiennes turns in a fine performance and should be commended on directing too. Several of the shots, especially the one at the race track struck me as paintings right out of a museum. The mise en scene was excellent. I think it should also be said that this was difficult material as period pieces often are. How do you create the past? The accents, the behaviors, etc must be spot on. And it was.
The Nelly character and her relationship with Fiennes was the major conflict in this story. I really liked the scene where she refuses to be his "whore." I thought the talk they had was full of dramatic intensity. He finally agrees to live with her. To leave his wife which was very controversial in Victorian times. It reminds of John Stuart Mill who waited for his love to leave her husband for 23 years! Which makes the scene in the hallway where Nelly and Dickens are merely touching hands and smearing each others cheeks so tense. Rules of relationships and marriage were much stricter in Victorian times than present day. Perhaps not with the Cameron prime ministership.
They finally end up in bed. The love making scene is also very gentle, very slow. It's totally unlike sex scenes popular films. Yet, that's why I like the film. It shows how things in Dickens' times were. Like going back in time if only for two hours.
Very good film. Ralph Fiennes always does quality work. His last film, Coriolanus was his directorial debut. It was very different from this film. It was full of action scenes. The Invisible Woman was much more romantic and heartfelt. I enjoyed both and hope he continues to make films.
The movie is good, but it gets a little too weepy. I don't know much about Dickens and have only seen his works on screen or stage. I am a great admirer of David Lean's Great Expectations which I thought was excellent. Much of what happens in the film would be so controversial in Victorian times, and perhaps, still is today. I think Fiennes turns in a fine performance and should be commended on directing too. Several of the shots, especially the one at the race track struck me as paintings right out of a museum. The mise en scene was excellent. I think it should also be said that this was difficult material as period pieces often are. How do you create the past? The accents, the behaviors, etc must be spot on. And it was.
The Nelly character and her relationship with Fiennes was the major conflict in this story. I really liked the scene where she refuses to be his "whore." I thought the talk they had was full of dramatic intensity. He finally agrees to live with her. To leave his wife which was very controversial in Victorian times. It reminds of John Stuart Mill who waited for his love to leave her husband for 23 years! Which makes the scene in the hallway where Nelly and Dickens are merely touching hands and smearing each others cheeks so tense. Rules of relationships and marriage were much stricter in Victorian times than present day. Perhaps not with the Cameron prime ministership.
They finally end up in bed. The love making scene is also very gentle, very slow. It's totally unlike sex scenes popular films. Yet, that's why I like the film. It shows how things in Dickens' times were. Like going back in time if only for two hours.
Very good film. Ralph Fiennes always does quality work. His last film, Coriolanus was his directorial debut. It was very different from this film. It was full of action scenes. The Invisible Woman was much more romantic and heartfelt. I enjoyed both and hope he continues to make films.
Review of Foxcatcher
I saw this film at the Art house theater in my hometown. It was indie movie meetup night. The theater was full. Then we had some discussion about the film after the movie. It was lighthearted and very conversational, not too academic which was fine with me. I needed to mix with some people who were also into film. It was a fun night, although I got the sense that most of the people wanted to run home after the screening. A few stuck around.
The movie was very good. It was a straight linear story with a lot of masculinity. The narrative was about wrestlers making it to the olympics and winning gold. I thought the performances were excellent. Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, and Steve Carrel all did great work. The story was strong too. It was gripping drama. I didn't feel like I was being dragged along or wondering if this movie will ever end. I did get tired of the psychotic blur scenes. They were ok. I thought it could have been used less or more dialogue could have been used. I did think it was good that the blur scenes reflected that mental state of Channing Tatum. That was good, but it was overused.
There was nothing too unconventional about this film. There were no flashbacks. There was just intense drama. The conflict in the film was multi-layered. First it was between the brothers, then it was between Du Pont and his mother, then it was Du Pont and the brothers. The conflicts are resolved by the end of the film. Du Pont's mother dies, one of the brothers moves away, and Du Pont shoots the other and ends up dying in jail. It became clear to me that Du Pont was evil when he got the younger brother to do cocaine in the helicopter going to some libertarian like speech event. From there the younger brother goes into a downward spiral that he never recovers from.
The film wraps up precisely with the shooting of the older brother by Du Pont.
The film is a period piece set in the mid to late 1980's America. Much of what Du Pont wants to do, his rhetoric was very jingoistic. He talks about making America great again. He sounds like Rush Limbaugh. There is a little bit of Cold War hysteria in the film, but not too much. This movie shows that you can still make a very good film without special effects or fancy cinematography. It shows that if there is a strong story, then the production will be very good too.
The movie was very good. It was a straight linear story with a lot of masculinity. The narrative was about wrestlers making it to the olympics and winning gold. I thought the performances were excellent. Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, and Steve Carrel all did great work. The story was strong too. It was gripping drama. I didn't feel like I was being dragged along or wondering if this movie will ever end. I did get tired of the psychotic blur scenes. They were ok. I thought it could have been used less or more dialogue could have been used. I did think it was good that the blur scenes reflected that mental state of Channing Tatum. That was good, but it was overused.
There was nothing too unconventional about this film. There were no flashbacks. There was just intense drama. The conflict in the film was multi-layered. First it was between the brothers, then it was between Du Pont and his mother, then it was Du Pont and the brothers. The conflicts are resolved by the end of the film. Du Pont's mother dies, one of the brothers moves away, and Du Pont shoots the other and ends up dying in jail. It became clear to me that Du Pont was evil when he got the younger brother to do cocaine in the helicopter going to some libertarian like speech event. From there the younger brother goes into a downward spiral that he never recovers from.
The film wraps up precisely with the shooting of the older brother by Du Pont.
The film is a period piece set in the mid to late 1980's America. Much of what Du Pont wants to do, his rhetoric was very jingoistic. He talks about making America great again. He sounds like Rush Limbaugh. There is a little bit of Cold War hysteria in the film, but not too much. This movie shows that you can still make a very good film without special effects or fancy cinematography. It shows that if there is a strong story, then the production will be very good too.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Review of Rodriguez's Sin City
I was expecting more from this film. I wanted more sex and violence. There was plenty of the latter and some of the former. It could have been better. I really liked the first one. There it was German expressionism mixed with film noir, a style that I found unique. It also took the graphic novel and made into a very innovative work of film. This film used a similar style, but it just didn't hit me like the first one. The stories were good at some point, but it become all too linear, all too easy to guess at what was going to happen next. I would have liked it is it were a little more difficult in terms of plot and character, then with the graphics, sex and violence.
I liked the Mickey Rourke character, but he became a little overplayed. He was always the savior. He was the hero of the film, helping out the lost cause, coming to rescue. I thought he would come to the rescue at the end of the film, but it was the ghost of Bruce Willis who came to the rescue. The strippers with the hearts of gold were also a nice touch. They brought out more of the sex appeal of the film and added a new element to the story. Jessica Alba was good, yet I found seeing her on the same stage, doing essentially the same dance, as redundent and forgettable.
The graphic work was very good. It evoked the German-expressionism and film noir of those movies from the golden age. I could say it was overdone, yet I really like that style of art and film, so I like how Rodriguez pushed that art form into a new more expressive form. His use of the femme fatalle in shadow and light with her in the small pool or in the bed were like artworks in themselves.
Unfortunately I thought the film devolved from a neo-noir movie into an 80's action film reboot. I was hoping for more to the story. Not bad. Not great.
I liked the Mickey Rourke character, but he became a little overplayed. He was always the savior. He was the hero of the film, helping out the lost cause, coming to rescue. I thought he would come to the rescue at the end of the film, but it was the ghost of Bruce Willis who came to the rescue. The strippers with the hearts of gold were also a nice touch. They brought out more of the sex appeal of the film and added a new element to the story. Jessica Alba was good, yet I found seeing her on the same stage, doing essentially the same dance, as redundent and forgettable.
The graphic work was very good. It evoked the German-expressionism and film noir of those movies from the golden age. I could say it was overdone, yet I really like that style of art and film, so I like how Rodriguez pushed that art form into a new more expressive form. His use of the femme fatalle in shadow and light with her in the small pool or in the bed were like artworks in themselves.
Unfortunately I thought the film devolved from a neo-noir movie into an 80's action film reboot. I was hoping for more to the story. Not bad. Not great.
Review of Out of the Furnace by Cooper
I really wanted to see this film when it came out. Unfortunately the woman I was seeing at the time did not want to see it. Instead I had to sit through the Book Thief which was not entirely bad but it wasn't what I wanted to see. Anyway she doesn't want to go out with me anymore and I got the film from the library.
I'm from near the area that the movies is set in, the rust belt. So somen of the surroundings and character situations are familiar to me. This film follows a linear path with no flashbacks. It is a very solidly realist film which I like. The performances are all good. Christian Bale plays the lead and Woody Harrelson plays the villain. Bale's brother, play by Casey Affleck gets into to trouble and is murdered by Harrellson. Bale goes vigilante and takes down Harrellson in the final scene.
I thought the film was well written. Bale is the responsible one in what appears to be a setting which encourages irresponsibility. He works at the Steel Mill while his brother goes off chasing his dreams of glory in Iraq or getting rich quick. His brother refuses to work for a living. He doesn't want to be his brother or his father. He refuses to be responsible. In one scene where Bale and Affleck are talking then Affleck pulls up his shirt and shows off his war scars and talks about his war stories. He thinks that should win him something. He thinks he is special and doesn't have to work for a living. Bale tries to talk sense into him, but it does no good.
Instead he follows Willem Dafoe into a world of underground fighting. Afflack wins his first bout, but the second one which involves Harrelson he intentional goes down. He follows orders. After the fight Harrelson and his goons double cross Dafoe and Afflack. Harrelson shoots both of them. Afterwards Bale sets up a trap that ensnares Harrelson. The cop from Bales town arrives on the scene begging Bale to not shoot Harrelson, but he shoots him anyway.
This film shows how life for many people is in the rust belt. They go to work. They eat. They die. They play a little. Their lives are unglamrous. They give everything they to work and get only a little in return. I've met a few people like Afflack, I even empathized with him. Many young men near where I live want to go somewhere else. They complain that there are no jobs. They don't like school. It's too depressing. They hate what their fathers did or what their brothers do. They don't want to be what people tell they them should be. They don't want to work at the factory.
The shots of the scenery and the mill were great. They reminded me of where I grew up. The smoke billowing out the pipes, the run down houses, the rows of houses on an indistinct street, the rows and rows of trees surround the highway, great shots.
This film reminds me a lot of what people talk about as post-industrial America. There is some that talk in this film. Yet I guess some areas have missed the growth into a new form of economic organization. I really like this film.
I'm from near the area that the movies is set in, the rust belt. So somen of the surroundings and character situations are familiar to me. This film follows a linear path with no flashbacks. It is a very solidly realist film which I like. The performances are all good. Christian Bale plays the lead and Woody Harrelson plays the villain. Bale's brother, play by Casey Affleck gets into to trouble and is murdered by Harrellson. Bale goes vigilante and takes down Harrellson in the final scene.
I thought the film was well written. Bale is the responsible one in what appears to be a setting which encourages irresponsibility. He works at the Steel Mill while his brother goes off chasing his dreams of glory in Iraq or getting rich quick. His brother refuses to work for a living. He doesn't want to be his brother or his father. He refuses to be responsible. In one scene where Bale and Affleck are talking then Affleck pulls up his shirt and shows off his war scars and talks about his war stories. He thinks that should win him something. He thinks he is special and doesn't have to work for a living. Bale tries to talk sense into him, but it does no good.
Instead he follows Willem Dafoe into a world of underground fighting. Afflack wins his first bout, but the second one which involves Harrelson he intentional goes down. He follows orders. After the fight Harrelson and his goons double cross Dafoe and Afflack. Harrelson shoots both of them. Afterwards Bale sets up a trap that ensnares Harrelson. The cop from Bales town arrives on the scene begging Bale to not shoot Harrelson, but he shoots him anyway.
This film shows how life for many people is in the rust belt. They go to work. They eat. They die. They play a little. Their lives are unglamrous. They give everything they to work and get only a little in return. I've met a few people like Afflack, I even empathized with him. Many young men near where I live want to go somewhere else. They complain that there are no jobs. They don't like school. It's too depressing. They hate what their fathers did or what their brothers do. They don't want to be what people tell they them should be. They don't want to work at the factory.
The shots of the scenery and the mill were great. They reminded me of where I grew up. The smoke billowing out the pipes, the run down houses, the rows of houses on an indistinct street, the rows and rows of trees surround the highway, great shots.
This film reminds me a lot of what people talk about as post-industrial America. There is some that talk in this film. Yet I guess some areas have missed the growth into a new form of economic organization. I really like this film.
Review of Anderson's Inherent Vice
I saw this film well after it was screened at the New York Film Festival. I immediately thought it was the best film of the serious season of movies. It had everything a good movie needs; good director, based on a novel, a serious actor, a long list of character actors, and a groovy tripped out LA as a setting. It got good reviews when it was released. I don't know if it got any oscar noms, it should have, especially since this year's crop of films was weak. This film and Foxcatcher are the only films that peaked my interest. Maybe there is something else?
The film's narrative is difficult to follow. As are, I've heard, Thomas Pynchon's novels. Large, long, at times confusing, and thoroughly po-mo. It dispells notions of a modern story with a traditional linear progression, or the dichotomous hero villain relationsihp which we find in lesser works. Yet, someone is missing and needs to be found. Joaquin Phoenix plays the private eye out to find his ex. Through him the story develops. He meets all types of people from LA; cops, neo-nazis, asian masseuses, hippies, etc. In the end he finds the girl and no one has been murdered.
Perhaps the most intense scene is when Phoenix is captured by a neo-nazi and is almost murdered. He escapes and lives to tell his story.
The cinematography in the film is great. Many of the shots of the actors faces are so well lit they could be still photographs in a gallery. Not entirely dark and sometimes there was a lot of California sunshine, each shot was well done. I also liked the cinematography in the Master, PTA's previous film.
Rather different from the Master was the comedy scenes in the film. The Master was stern and provoked me to think about religion and if human nature could be changed. There was none of that in Inherent Vice. The interplay between the stoner PI and the Feds was comedy. The trip to the Asian massage parlor with the "pussy eaters" special was comedy. I especially liked the Asian Massuese who popped in at inopportune moments mostly as comic relief.
This film was touted as the best film of the year and so far I haven't scene one that matches in terms of story and performace. Boyhood is more ambitious, but the performances aren't as good. The story of Inherent Vice is also better. I guess we shall see which one wins best picture or if it is neither.
The film's narrative is difficult to follow. As are, I've heard, Thomas Pynchon's novels. Large, long, at times confusing, and thoroughly po-mo. It dispells notions of a modern story with a traditional linear progression, or the dichotomous hero villain relationsihp which we find in lesser works. Yet, someone is missing and needs to be found. Joaquin Phoenix plays the private eye out to find his ex. Through him the story develops. He meets all types of people from LA; cops, neo-nazis, asian masseuses, hippies, etc. In the end he finds the girl and no one has been murdered.
Perhaps the most intense scene is when Phoenix is captured by a neo-nazi and is almost murdered. He escapes and lives to tell his story.
The cinematography in the film is great. Many of the shots of the actors faces are so well lit they could be still photographs in a gallery. Not entirely dark and sometimes there was a lot of California sunshine, each shot was well done. I also liked the cinematography in the Master, PTA's previous film.
Rather different from the Master was the comedy scenes in the film. The Master was stern and provoked me to think about religion and if human nature could be changed. There was none of that in Inherent Vice. The interplay between the stoner PI and the Feds was comedy. The trip to the Asian massage parlor with the "pussy eaters" special was comedy. I especially liked the Asian Massuese who popped in at inopportune moments mostly as comic relief.
This film was touted as the best film of the year and so far I haven't scene one that matches in terms of story and performace. Boyhood is more ambitious, but the performances aren't as good. The story of Inherent Vice is also better. I guess we shall see which one wins best picture or if it is neither.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Review of Godard's 2 or 3 Things I know about Her
This movie was too theoretical. There were long discourses about language and visuals and meaning that I just didn't get. There was also a lack of narrative, which I don't mind so much, but it wasn't easy to follow. There were also shots of industrial production which I found banal and uninspired. Perhaps they were meant as a critique of Captialist society, but they just came off as boring and dull.
The voice overs were also not well done. Godard talks in a whispered voice, but there is little comprehension and relevance to his dialogue. I didn't see how it added to the film. I liked the shots of life in Paris and the consumer culture of the sixties. Yet, even those were pieced together without much meaning.
The interviews with the main character were probably the most innovative part of the film. When she talks to the camera it is interesting, yet soon becomes boring and isn't entertaining. This was a pre 1968 Godard film so his radicalism is nacent but not in full bloom in this film. There is a touch of his criticism of Capitalist society, but they are not as full fledged as his post 1968 films such as La Chinoise, Weekend, or some of the others.
Perhaps I didn't get what the purpose of the film was. It seemed to drone on about theory without any story.
The voice overs were also not well done. Godard talks in a whispered voice, but there is little comprehension and relevance to his dialogue. I didn't see how it added to the film. I liked the shots of life in Paris and the consumer culture of the sixties. Yet, even those were pieced together without much meaning.
The interviews with the main character were probably the most innovative part of the film. When she talks to the camera it is interesting, yet soon becomes boring and isn't entertaining. This was a pre 1968 Godard film so his radicalism is nacent but not in full bloom in this film. There is a touch of his criticism of Capitalist society, but they are not as full fledged as his post 1968 films such as La Chinoise, Weekend, or some of the others.
Perhaps I didn't get what the purpose of the film was. It seemed to drone on about theory without any story.
Review of Godard's Vivre sa Vie
This is one of Godard's best films. It was made during, perhaps, his best period of making films. Of course there is Breathless, but there is also Contempt, Weekend, La Chinoise, A Woman is a Woman, and this film which is flawless.
I couldn't stop looking at Anna Karina. She is so pretty in this film. Especially the dance scene. I have watched it numerous times on youtube. It is improvosational and spontaneous but not completely out of place in the film. It sets up the viewer for the tragic ending of the film. The dance scene lures you in, makes you fall in love with Nana only to have your heart broken when she is sold to another gangster and killed in the trade, left for dead in the street. Film is manipulation and this film is no exception. It shows how good the writing was for Vivre sa vie, yet that is not the only good thing about this film.
The sequence where Anna Karina is not shown from the front is very unique. Godard could have framed the shot with her facing the camera. Yet he doesn't show her face for several minutes during a conversation where she is breaking up with her boyfriend. Several other shots are innovative as well. When Anna and the pimp are talking the camera remains horizontal. There is no over the shoulder or shot reverse shot. The camera remains steady and goes back and forth between their heads. At one point, which I thought was really good, the camera shows only Anna and her pimp's faces. Talking, looking at each other, until Anna breaks away and smirks
The other shots of Karina are excellent too. She is so alluring and seductive. I could see why Godard was so in love with her. This is the third or fourth time I've seen the film and it is just as entertaining as the first time. As I keep reading Richard Brody's book about Godard, his films become more comprehendable as they reflect his personal life and influences.
There is one scene where Anna and a famous philosopher engage in deep conversation. I tried my best to understand what they were talking about. Perhaps it was a reflection on the theory of film by Godard. Godard was an existentialist at this time, so much of what is said reveals his ideas about existentialism. I was particularly taken with Anna's talk about the meaning of words; do they mean anything? How it becomes hard to use the right words at times. I have recently committed myself to moving away from existentialist philosophy which I have come into contact with so many times over the past few years. I'm trying to get more into structuralism and post-structuralism. Maybe it will lead to some new ideas for a screenplay or film? Anyway it's better than going over Jean Paul Sartre again.
I couldn't stop looking at Anna Karina. She is so pretty in this film. Especially the dance scene. I have watched it numerous times on youtube. It is improvosational and spontaneous but not completely out of place in the film. It sets up the viewer for the tragic ending of the film. The dance scene lures you in, makes you fall in love with Nana only to have your heart broken when she is sold to another gangster and killed in the trade, left for dead in the street. Film is manipulation and this film is no exception. It shows how good the writing was for Vivre sa vie, yet that is not the only good thing about this film.
The sequence where Anna Karina is not shown from the front is very unique. Godard could have framed the shot with her facing the camera. Yet he doesn't show her face for several minutes during a conversation where she is breaking up with her boyfriend. Several other shots are innovative as well. When Anna and the pimp are talking the camera remains horizontal. There is no over the shoulder or shot reverse shot. The camera remains steady and goes back and forth between their heads. At one point, which I thought was really good, the camera shows only Anna and her pimp's faces. Talking, looking at each other, until Anna breaks away and smirks
The other shots of Karina are excellent too. She is so alluring and seductive. I could see why Godard was so in love with her. This is the third or fourth time I've seen the film and it is just as entertaining as the first time. As I keep reading Richard Brody's book about Godard, his films become more comprehendable as they reflect his personal life and influences.
There is one scene where Anna and a famous philosopher engage in deep conversation. I tried my best to understand what they were talking about. Perhaps it was a reflection on the theory of film by Godard. Godard was an existentialist at this time, so much of what is said reveals his ideas about existentialism. I was particularly taken with Anna's talk about the meaning of words; do they mean anything? How it becomes hard to use the right words at times. I have recently committed myself to moving away from existentialist philosophy which I have come into contact with so many times over the past few years. I'm trying to get more into structuralism and post-structuralism. Maybe it will lead to some new ideas for a screenplay or film? Anyway it's better than going over Jean Paul Sartre again.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Kurahara's Thirst for Love
I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The story was great. It kept me glued to the screen. I was heartbroken when Etsuko kills the gardener and he dies in a puddle of mud. Her expression after hitting him on the head with a farm tool his remorseless and cruel. When she has the gardener's girlfriend get an abortion I was also dismayed. Why does she force the girlfriend to have an abortion if she doesn't feel anything for the gardener? She is a very cruel woman.
I really liked some of the techniques in this film. The scene where Etsuko and the gardener are talking in the highway is innovatve. It is a horizontal shot that goes back and forth from Etsuko to the gardener. It shows their faces, but doesn't go into an over the shoulder shot, it remains horizontal. This makes the visual more intense. The film was criticized for being too artsy, perhaps for this shot and other aspects of the film. I'm glad the film got made and kept shots like these in the film. I also liked the shots at the beginning of the film showing Etsuko's skin and navel. It really lured me into her sensuality. I came to admire her for her beauty, but ended up hating her because of how she manipulates people of a lower class.
Several of the scenes were intense. They built up intensity very well. The festival where Etsuko digs her nails into the gardener is good. The dinner scene where the drunken son tells everyone off while Beethoven's fifth plays is funny and moves the plot forward. I didn't know how this film was going to end. I thought that the Old Man would kill the gardener. I had a hint that Etsuko might kill him, but I wasn't sure. I thought the film was well written with plenty of good dialogue.
I really liked some of the techniques in this film. The scene where Etsuko and the gardener are talking in the highway is innovatve. It is a horizontal shot that goes back and forth from Etsuko to the gardener. It shows their faces, but doesn't go into an over the shoulder shot, it remains horizontal. This makes the visual more intense. The film was criticized for being too artsy, perhaps for this shot and other aspects of the film. I'm glad the film got made and kept shots like these in the film. I also liked the shots at the beginning of the film showing Etsuko's skin and navel. It really lured me into her sensuality. I came to admire her for her beauty, but ended up hating her because of how she manipulates people of a lower class.
Several of the scenes were intense. They built up intensity very well. The festival where Etsuko digs her nails into the gardener is good. The dinner scene where the drunken son tells everyone off while Beethoven's fifth plays is funny and moves the plot forward. I didn't know how this film was going to end. I thought that the Old Man would kill the gardener. I had a hint that Etsuko might kill him, but I wasn't sure. I thought the film was well written with plenty of good dialogue.
Review of Kurahara The Warped Ones
This film like Night and Fog in Japan by Nagisa Oshima shows a progression away from the stale narratives and uninspired techniques of the Japanese Golden Age. By the early sixties Ozu and Kurosawa had become old hat. New voices like Nagisa Oshima and Koreyoshi Kurahara made film inventive and edgy again.
This film uses fast shooting on cars especially to show the fast pace of modern life in Tokyo. The story centers around Akira a small time hood who is a pickpocket, car thief, and rapist. He trolls around Tokyo with his friend and girlfriend who is also a prostitute. They get into trouble at every turn. Most telling is a car ride at the beginning of the film where they drive really fast and out of control making cat calls to pedestrians on the sidewalks of Tokyo. The characters present a contrast between the typical Tokyo resident of the 60's with the burgeoning youth movement which would flower in the later years. I was particularly amused by a scene where the young prostitute and her boyfriend walk against a current of Japanese salarymen.
I was also taken aback by the frank discussion of abortion. A topic that was controversial then and is still a hot button issue in some places. The narrative of the film is disjointed. It doesn't follow a very linear progression. The location changes and there are a number of edits that make the film disjointed. The end is anti-climatic. The two hoods and the prostitute end up in a run down place near the train. One of the hoods dies and the film ends. No big ending. No definitive resolution. Totally unlike the Golden Age. Very new wave.
I thought this film's use of music and visuals along with quick, slang filled dialogue made the film distinct and thoroughly enjoyable.
This film uses fast shooting on cars especially to show the fast pace of modern life in Tokyo. The story centers around Akira a small time hood who is a pickpocket, car thief, and rapist. He trolls around Tokyo with his friend and girlfriend who is also a prostitute. They get into trouble at every turn. Most telling is a car ride at the beginning of the film where they drive really fast and out of control making cat calls to pedestrians on the sidewalks of Tokyo. The characters present a contrast between the typical Tokyo resident of the 60's with the burgeoning youth movement which would flower in the later years. I was particularly amused by a scene where the young prostitute and her boyfriend walk against a current of Japanese salarymen.
I was also taken aback by the frank discussion of abortion. A topic that was controversial then and is still a hot button issue in some places. The narrative of the film is disjointed. It doesn't follow a very linear progression. The location changes and there are a number of edits that make the film disjointed. The end is anti-climatic. The two hoods and the prostitute end up in a run down place near the train. One of the hoods dies and the film ends. No big ending. No definitive resolution. Totally unlike the Golden Age. Very new wave.
I thought this film's use of music and visuals along with quick, slang filled dialogue made the film distinct and thoroughly enjoyable.
Review of Kurosawa's I Live in Fear
I read the New York Times review of this film from when it was first released and it was not kind. I too found it tiresome and somewhat long. I didn't find it to be one of Toshiro Mifune's best performances. It did show his range as an actor. Before I had only seen him as a samurai or street gangster in other Kurosawa films.
I thought this film portrayed existential angst very well. At the time fear of the bomb was a very real concern of anyone alive at the time. The times reviewer seems to have missed that part and just gave a shallow review of characters without dealing with the deeper issue of the fear of nuclear annihilation and the utter disquiet it caused in not just Japan but the enitre globe. Yet, in Japan it was probably felt more intensely as Japan was bombed with nuclear weapons at the end of WWII. Even recently with the Fukushima disaster Japan has had further negative experiences with nuclear power.
This picture wasn't very inspired. Most of the time the camera was placed and the viewer was left to look where they wanted to. There was not use of closeups. There were a few shots where the camera angles were from behind the characters talking, but most of the time it was just there. I guess cinematography hadn't evolved to the mobility that can be seen in later Kurosawa films such as Seven Samurai or Ikiru. In fact I don't recall Kurosawa using many close-ups in any of his films. Perhaps he chose not to.
This film was the last in Kurosawa's post-war films. It was before Japan took off the controls of the Imperial state and the Golden Age really flourished. I had watched No Regrets for Our Youth and was dissappointed in that film. It was a propoganda film that was heavily censored by the government. I Live in Fear was a progression in Kurosawa's work as a film director. Perhaps not his best, but it was better than what he had done previously.
I thought this film portrayed existential angst very well. At the time fear of the bomb was a very real concern of anyone alive at the time. The times reviewer seems to have missed that part and just gave a shallow review of characters without dealing with the deeper issue of the fear of nuclear annihilation and the utter disquiet it caused in not just Japan but the enitre globe. Yet, in Japan it was probably felt more intensely as Japan was bombed with nuclear weapons at the end of WWII. Even recently with the Fukushima disaster Japan has had further negative experiences with nuclear power.
This picture wasn't very inspired. Most of the time the camera was placed and the viewer was left to look where they wanted to. There was not use of closeups. There were a few shots where the camera angles were from behind the characters talking, but most of the time it was just there. I guess cinematography hadn't evolved to the mobility that can be seen in later Kurosawa films such as Seven Samurai or Ikiru. In fact I don't recall Kurosawa using many close-ups in any of his films. Perhaps he chose not to.
This film was the last in Kurosawa's post-war films. It was before Japan took off the controls of the Imperial state and the Golden Age really flourished. I had watched No Regrets for Our Youth and was dissappointed in that film. It was a propoganda film that was heavily censored by the government. I Live in Fear was a progression in Kurosawa's work as a film director. Perhaps not his best, but it was better than what he had done previously.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)