I've seen this film numerous times. And every time I watch it, I think of new things. It goes to show you that watching and re-watching films can lead to new perspectives about an old film. The 400 Blows isn't that old, yet it does have a definite New Wave sensibility which I suppsose is getting dated with the passage of decades.
Of course this film is about the horrible childhood Francios Truffaut endured living in Paris in meager circumstances. The film is decidely low tech. There are many tracking scenes which were done with cutting edge, at the time, cameras. Undeniably, this film's ending has endured for years with several, perhaps even more, filmmakers stealing the ending.
I particularly like the ending with it's stop motion shot. It captures the freedom and fragility that the main character feels at the time of the shot. His face is anguished, yet free. Youthful, but full of anxiety.
The film is great today as it was in it's release, winning the top prize at Cannes Film Festival. I've taken a vow to study more of Truffaut's films. Of course I had seen the 400 Blows, who hasn't? I think any serious student of World Cinema has seen the 400 Blows. It's a film which set of the tide of the New Wave and launched the careers of not only Truffaut, but also Jean Pierre Leaud.
Over the Summer, or what's left of it, I hope to watch more Truffaut films and blog about them. Blogging helps me to write my script. It stirs up ideas and emotions which are the lifeblood of screenplays and films. I'm looking forward to watching Day for Night which will be released on Criterion this Summer.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Review of La Roue by Gance
This is my first foray into French Cinema history prior to the French New Wave. I just watched a Truffaut film and I've seen many French New Wave films. Some several times, but this is the first time I've watched a film of Abel Gance. La Roue is a silent film of four plus hours in length. I watched the first two hours tonight and will finish watching it over the next few days.
It took me a while to get over my silent film watching block. Initially I couldn't rationalize watching a four hour silent French film. How would this affect the screenplay I'm writing? Shouldn't I watch something more recent? I don't know the answer to either question. All I know is the film is good. Compared to Eisenstein or Griffith or Charlie Chaplin the film is just as good, perhaps even better in some comparisons.
The lead character of the girl, Norma, reminded so much of the biograph girl, but it wasn't her. The drama gets very taut in this picture. The introduction to the film wrote about the fast cutting which has influenced so many filmmakers, that I reminded myself to look for fast editing during the film. It was there. Especially among the train scenes.
I will write more about the film after I watch the entire film.
It is tragic that Gance's magnum opus Napoleon has yet to be restored and released in either DVD or streaming. It's his best film. I'd really like to see it.
It took me a while to get over my silent film watching block. Initially I couldn't rationalize watching a four hour silent French film. How would this affect the screenplay I'm writing? Shouldn't I watch something more recent? I don't know the answer to either question. All I know is the film is good. Compared to Eisenstein or Griffith or Charlie Chaplin the film is just as good, perhaps even better in some comparisons.
The lead character of the girl, Norma, reminded so much of the biograph girl, but it wasn't her. The drama gets very taut in this picture. The introduction to the film wrote about the fast cutting which has influenced so many filmmakers, that I reminded myself to look for fast editing during the film. It was there. Especially among the train scenes.
I will write more about the film after I watch the entire film.
It is tragic that Gance's magnum opus Napoleon has yet to be restored and released in either DVD or streaming. It's his best film. I'd really like to see it.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Review of Jim Jarmusch's Permanent Vacation
This was one of Jarmusch's early films. It was released in 1981. Right in the crux of political and economic change in the US and the World. I noticed several unique features of the film. There were no CDs or DVDs. In the dance scene at the beginning where is in the apartment with the girl he plays a vinyl record. Things sure have changed. I was also intrigued by his talk of a war with China. It through me for a loop. I thought it might be a reference to Vietnam, but that was totally unfounded. The scenes of the City were great in a dark melancholic sense. All those bombed out houses, I found myself wondering how many landlords burned the buildings for insurance money. The graffitti was a nice touch. Now I think I want to put some graffitti up!
I thought to myself what was the conflict of this film? It's certainly an "art house" film. And it's lack of structure is part of the allure of watching the film. Yet it does have a lot to say about the artist's journey. Or, perhaps, not? Maybe it is a symptom of the post-modern age. A bombed neighborhood, trouble making ends meet, trouble keeping you sanity, and resorting to crime to pay for a passage to France. The film's ending is great. But, I thought, when the main character is slowly floating away, will things be better in France? What will he find there that he doesn't find in New York?
Perhaps the best part of the film is it's cast of characters. I really liked the melancholic, psychosis suffering characters. The mother in the insane asylum with the woman laughing maniacally through the whole visit was so creepy. Then the crazy Latino woman who had on too much lipstick. I didn't know what was wrong with her. Maybe she had been abused? Was she high? We don't get to know. And lastly the black man in the movie theater who seems to ramble on about a suicidal jazz muscian. I thought his anecdote reinforced the theme of the film; how to survive as an artist without conforming to the traditional rules and styles of the past?
The main character seems to be searching for a way to live. Like so many artists his struggle takes him to different places; the Lower East Side in particular, then, ultimately, to France. I thought the best shot of the film was when he wakes up on a flattened cardboard box on the rooftop of a tenement. It showed the young man getting himself together, or suffering from psychosis, against backdrop of the burned out neighborhood with the Empire State building and Chryslet building in the far background. I thought to myself how hierarchical the buildings were and if it was a comment Jarmusch was trying to make about the organization of Capitalist bureauacracy? Or inequality? And the struggle of the artist?
The last scene is also extremely well done. As the main character was floating away towards France, I thought of Catcher in the Rye. Aloyisious seems to be like Houlden Caufield. Fed up with everything and finding no way out. It seems his existence is more like a prison, then a playland.
Excellent film.
I thought to myself what was the conflict of this film? It's certainly an "art house" film. And it's lack of structure is part of the allure of watching the film. Yet it does have a lot to say about the artist's journey. Or, perhaps, not? Maybe it is a symptom of the post-modern age. A bombed neighborhood, trouble making ends meet, trouble keeping you sanity, and resorting to crime to pay for a passage to France. The film's ending is great. But, I thought, when the main character is slowly floating away, will things be better in France? What will he find there that he doesn't find in New York?
Perhaps the best part of the film is it's cast of characters. I really liked the melancholic, psychosis suffering characters. The mother in the insane asylum with the woman laughing maniacally through the whole visit was so creepy. Then the crazy Latino woman who had on too much lipstick. I didn't know what was wrong with her. Maybe she had been abused? Was she high? We don't get to know. And lastly the black man in the movie theater who seems to ramble on about a suicidal jazz muscian. I thought his anecdote reinforced the theme of the film; how to survive as an artist without conforming to the traditional rules and styles of the past?
The main character seems to be searching for a way to live. Like so many artists his struggle takes him to different places; the Lower East Side in particular, then, ultimately, to France. I thought the best shot of the film was when he wakes up on a flattened cardboard box on the rooftop of a tenement. It showed the young man getting himself together, or suffering from psychosis, against backdrop of the burned out neighborhood with the Empire State building and Chryslet building in the far background. I thought to myself how hierarchical the buildings were and if it was a comment Jarmusch was trying to make about the organization of Capitalist bureauacracy? Or inequality? And the struggle of the artist?
The last scene is also extremely well done. As the main character was floating away towards France, I thought of Catcher in the Rye. Aloyisious seems to be like Houlden Caufield. Fed up with everything and finding no way out. It seems his existence is more like a prison, then a playland.
Excellent film.
Review of Blank City
This was an excellent documentary. I was thoroughly educated about the No Wave film movment. I will probably buy a book about it and read more in detail. I think I would even show the film as part of an American Film History class.
The film talks about the depression that the Lower East Side was in. Whole buildings were vacant and run down. Artists willing to take a chance could live there cheaply, yet it was dangerous. Jim Jarmusch is one of the biggest names to come out of the No Wave movement. I was also interested to learn about Amos Poe. But the films are hard to find and expensive for DVDs which is the format that they are on. I found a few films that the documentary mentions. Some of the others might be lost because they were shot on home movie cameras.
It was interesting to see the New York art scene of the early eighties growing, but not getting into the mainstream. At the end of the film with the dawning of the MTV generation the scene began to change. It was less edgy. At least one commentator said that MTV took the Lower East Side style and put it on MTV. However true that was, I do remember several video jockeys having a distinct downtown style about them. Like "downtown julie brown."
I've been downtown many times and everytime I feel overwhelmed, yet in my comfort zone. There are numerous movie theaters around, small places to eat, and interesting places. Sometimes I think about moving there and becoming part of the art scene in NYC. Now I guess it's Brooklyn where the artists live because Manhattan has become too expensive. I keep looking for a place where I'd be able to live like an artist. It's getting tougher and tougher. This film shows a different time and place which gave rise to some really films, paintings, songs, etc.
Can't wait to go down there again.
The film talks about the depression that the Lower East Side was in. Whole buildings were vacant and run down. Artists willing to take a chance could live there cheaply, yet it was dangerous. Jim Jarmusch is one of the biggest names to come out of the No Wave movement. I was also interested to learn about Amos Poe. But the films are hard to find and expensive for DVDs which is the format that they are on. I found a few films that the documentary mentions. Some of the others might be lost because they were shot on home movie cameras.
It was interesting to see the New York art scene of the early eighties growing, but not getting into the mainstream. At the end of the film with the dawning of the MTV generation the scene began to change. It was less edgy. At least one commentator said that MTV took the Lower East Side style and put it on MTV. However true that was, I do remember several video jockeys having a distinct downtown style about them. Like "downtown julie brown."
I've been downtown many times and everytime I feel overwhelmed, yet in my comfort zone. There are numerous movie theaters around, small places to eat, and interesting places. Sometimes I think about moving there and becoming part of the art scene in NYC. Now I guess it's Brooklyn where the artists live because Manhattan has become too expensive. I keep looking for a place where I'd be able to live like an artist. It's getting tougher and tougher. This film shows a different time and place which gave rise to some really films, paintings, songs, etc.
Can't wait to go down there again.
Review of Downtown 81
This film was short and very expressionistic. It has a lot of voice over and stars the famous, now deceased, Jean Michel Basquiat. I found out about the film by watching Blank City on fandor.com. The film was a documentary about the No Wave and Cinema of Transgression film movements that grew out of New York's Lower East Side. It really exposed me to filmmakers I has never heard of. Like Amos Poe. I had heard of Jim Jarmusch and seen a few of his films. But it was really my roommate from my screenwriting degree which reignited my interest in Jarmusch and the Lower East Side film scene. He recommended I watch Coffee and Cigarettes. I still haven't watched the whole thing.
The film follows Basquiat a struggling New York painter who straddles between a life of struggle and one of almost famous status. He sells a painting. He knows all kinds of people around the neighborhood. He is evicted from his apartment. He walks around the city. He goes to music clubs. Finally he goes down a dark alley, and magically meets Debbie Harrie who turns from a homeless person into a princess and leaves him with a suitcase of money. He is saved from homelessness.
Until the fairy princess, the film is utterly real. The scenes of the Lower East Side show the bombed out apartment buildings and how the neighborhood is overrun with drug dealers and thugs. But it's also a place where artists of all kinds live cheaply. Perhaps the best line from the film is Basquiat's line about the Lower East Side. He says it looks like "we dropped the bomb on ourselves." There is graffitti everywhere. Garbage everywhere. I guess it's at the point between the 60's urban renewal and the onset of gentrification. White flight and a lack of reinvestment in places like the Lower East Side show the lowly state the city of New York was in. I think almost everyone remembers Gerry Ford's "drop dead" to the city when the city was bankrupt.
But this film isn't so much a sociological essay as intense experience of an artist trying to survive and thrive in the city mired in crisis. A very good film.
The film follows Basquiat a struggling New York painter who straddles between a life of struggle and one of almost famous status. He sells a painting. He knows all kinds of people around the neighborhood. He is evicted from his apartment. He walks around the city. He goes to music clubs. Finally he goes down a dark alley, and magically meets Debbie Harrie who turns from a homeless person into a princess and leaves him with a suitcase of money. He is saved from homelessness.
Until the fairy princess, the film is utterly real. The scenes of the Lower East Side show the bombed out apartment buildings and how the neighborhood is overrun with drug dealers and thugs. But it's also a place where artists of all kinds live cheaply. Perhaps the best line from the film is Basquiat's line about the Lower East Side. He says it looks like "we dropped the bomb on ourselves." There is graffitti everywhere. Garbage everywhere. I guess it's at the point between the 60's urban renewal and the onset of gentrification. White flight and a lack of reinvestment in places like the Lower East Side show the lowly state the city of New York was in. I think almost everyone remembers Gerry Ford's "drop dead" to the city when the city was bankrupt.
But this film isn't so much a sociological essay as intense experience of an artist trying to survive and thrive in the city mired in crisis. A very good film.
Monday, July 6, 2015
Review of Paris When it Sizzles
This was at least the third time I have seen this film. It is a funny story, so typical of Audrey Hepburn's films. She stars as a type writer girl who never assumes a prime role. William Holden, who was also in Sunset Boulevard, is the main character. He is a screenwriter meeting an ever closer deadline. That deadline forces him into an all night session which yields a poor screenplay full of cliche happenings that make for poor screenwriting, but funny dramatic play.
I especially like the beginning when Holden seems to find it impossible to make a start at any screenplay. He starts and scraps and starts and scraps anything that is acceptable copy. The character that Tony Curtis plays is memorable if not very funny. Especially when he turns into cop number two and shoots Holden while he is making his great escape from the the detective hot on his trail. Hepburn plays a funny femme, not as funny and glamorous as Breakfast at Tiffany's but fun still. Clearly she was in the twilight of her acting career. This film came after her more noted roles in Breakfast and other films like Roman Holiday.
I first watched this film as part of a collection of Hepburn films. I was living in New York and my attention was grabbed by all of the Hepburn pictures at poster stands around the city. So many of her films feature New York and Paris that is seems like her type of film has become obsolete. I wish there were more films like Paris When it Sizzles. The humor and the romance of places like Paris and New York are so underplayed in contemporary cinema, it makes me long for the days of a classy cinema that has given way to action scenes and soft porn. It is too bad the Audrey found it hard to find work later in her career.
Her films will still be around for years to come for anyone looking for funny, melodramas of an era in cinema that has passed.
I especially like the beginning when Holden seems to find it impossible to make a start at any screenplay. He starts and scraps and starts and scraps anything that is acceptable copy. The character that Tony Curtis plays is memorable if not very funny. Especially when he turns into cop number two and shoots Holden while he is making his great escape from the the detective hot on his trail. Hepburn plays a funny femme, not as funny and glamorous as Breakfast at Tiffany's but fun still. Clearly she was in the twilight of her acting career. This film came after her more noted roles in Breakfast and other films like Roman Holiday.
I first watched this film as part of a collection of Hepburn films. I was living in New York and my attention was grabbed by all of the Hepburn pictures at poster stands around the city. So many of her films feature New York and Paris that is seems like her type of film has become obsolete. I wish there were more films like Paris When it Sizzles. The humor and the romance of places like Paris and New York are so underplayed in contemporary cinema, it makes me long for the days of a classy cinema that has given way to action scenes and soft porn. It is too bad the Audrey found it hard to find work later in her career.
Her films will still be around for years to come for anyone looking for funny, melodramas of an era in cinema that has passed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)