This was the top of the "serious season" for the movies. With the Oscar race looking more like The Revenant and the rest, I can only wait to find out if it comes through with the lion's share at the awards ceremony on February 28th. It should take the award for best cinematography. Those shots of the great West are just breath taking. I think it will be Lubezki's third in row, if he does win. And the big question of the night will probably be, aside from the heated talk about there being no people of color in the acting categories, will Leo win for best actor? I think he should. He puts in an incredible performance. It is full of emotion and restrain. After all he spends much of the film recovering from being mawled by a giant bear. And the ending is just as compelling. I knew Leo was going to get Tom Hardy, but I didn't know how. It was bit by bit. A little piece of finger, a hatchet chop to the stomach, and finally letting him go to the Indian Chief to be cut in the throat. Great drama.
I saw the film twice. And on the second time I really started to hear Ryuichi Sakamoto's soundtrack. It is pulsating, yet subdued. I really enjoyed it. It being in the theater made it that much more enjoyable. The fight scenes were also something to be commended. The opening sequence shows the brutality of a hunt gone wrong like something out of Dances With Wolves or Last of the Mohicans. How Innarutu staged it is something that would be worthy of a good documentary.
An instant classic if there ever was one. I'm sure I'll watch it again when it comes out online.
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Monday, January 25, 2016
A bunch of John Wayne's for 13 patriotic hours
13 Hours was a jaw clenching film which shows American security contractors fighting to stay alive. It doesn't get into the burning question that will come up if Hillary gets the Democratic party nom for President; how much did she know? What was she doing when the Ambassador was dying? I guess the film was made to present those questions and honor the Americans who gave their lives in defense of State Department and CIA personell who couldn't otherwise defend themselves.
The action is top notch. Explosions, firefights, car crashes, it's non stop for two hours. Yet it does have a John Wayne mentality to the whole film. These guys, the ex-special forces are all about firepower and they know they can't be beat. The kill ratio between the security forces and the fighters who storm the embassy, then attempt to take the secret CIA compound is incredibly slanted to the favor of the Americans. Their bravado flies in the face of the buearacratic wrangling that takes place over whether to use soldiers against the street fighters, or to wait. Of course the film leaves us thinking why did they wait? The Ambassador could have been saved. Shoot first and ask questions later. It is a very pro-military film.
I'm certain that supporters of the RNC were loving every moment of the film. And, it is calculated that the film is released during an election year which Hillary is running for President. How many people will see the film who's opinion will change? Probably not so many. I think the film just confirms what many in the Republican party want to hear. Diplomats can't solve problems. Hillary screwed up royally. And we need a stronger military.
Yet for all it's blowhardness, the film does commemorate the dead soldiers who stationed there to protect diplomats and other personell. Why they were there is a question that hasn't been answered. Why did the government need to station a secret CIA base in Libya? To what purpose did the Ambassador go to Benghazi when he had to have known that it was such a hot spot? It would have been a better film had some of these questions been answered. Perhaps there will be a documentary which seeks some of these answers.
The action is top notch. Explosions, firefights, car crashes, it's non stop for two hours. Yet it does have a John Wayne mentality to the whole film. These guys, the ex-special forces are all about firepower and they know they can't be beat. The kill ratio between the security forces and the fighters who storm the embassy, then attempt to take the secret CIA compound is incredibly slanted to the favor of the Americans. Their bravado flies in the face of the buearacratic wrangling that takes place over whether to use soldiers against the street fighters, or to wait. Of course the film leaves us thinking why did they wait? The Ambassador could have been saved. Shoot first and ask questions later. It is a very pro-military film.
I'm certain that supporters of the RNC were loving every moment of the film. And, it is calculated that the film is released during an election year which Hillary is running for President. How many people will see the film who's opinion will change? Probably not so many. I think the film just confirms what many in the Republican party want to hear. Diplomats can't solve problems. Hillary screwed up royally. And we need a stronger military.
Yet for all it's blowhardness, the film does commemorate the dead soldiers who stationed there to protect diplomats and other personell. Why they were there is a question that hasn't been answered. Why did the government need to station a secret CIA base in Libya? To what purpose did the Ambassador go to Benghazi when he had to have known that it was such a hot spot? It would have been a better film had some of these questions been answered. Perhaps there will be a documentary which seeks some of these answers.
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Latest screenplay that I'm reading
So I'm reading, perhaps, the most difficult screenplay written in the 20th century. It is the screenplay to Last Year at Marienbad. It was written by Allen Robbe Grillet who was a proponent of the "noveau roman" a literary movement which championed a rebirth of the novel form in France. It went right along with the French New Wave film movement. In fact the screenplay is by Robbe Grillet, but the film is directing by Alain Resnais (that's re-nay). It's been sometime since anyone has written about Resnais. I guess Jean luc Godard and Francios Truffaut are more popular topics to write about. It's too bad that Resnais gets overshadowed by the other Cahiers critics turned directors. He is the most complicated and avant garde of the group which I have encountered. I suppose Jacques Rivette might be more avant garde.and I've only seen Pari Nous Apartient. So I don't really know his work. Too bad I don't live near Lincoln Center since they are doing, or did a retrospective of his work along with David Lynch's. A comparison of two very formalistic directors. I can't wait to get my hands o the Out 1 by Rivette. It looks long and complicated.
Anyway back to the screenplay. It has no character names. It has the hardest to follow camera direction. And it's set in some kind of New Year's Eve party at a hotel in Germany. So far I haven't really encountered the plot. I've seen the movie once before. And I got the gist of what happened. We'll see after I read the whole script what more I missed on my passive watching of the film. And I will watch it twice. Not once. Twice.
The Resnais film that is famous is Hiroshima Mon Amour. I first heard about the film when I was reading a book about film producing. I bought the film and watched it. In fact I think I had it or had lost it and had to buy it again. It was an excellent film. Yet, before I had read the script I missed a lot of the plot. Reading the script really gets me to catch all the details in the film. Before, with a complicated movie like Hiroshima Mon Amour, I usually get the major theme and able to follow the plot. Yet, somethings, like the fact the Riva's character was with a Nazi soldier at the end of the war eluded me. I totally missed it. Picking up on her character reveals a deeper theme to the film about war and memory. Watching the first part of the film really jarred me with images of Japanese people suffering the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Was the bombing really necessary? Couldn't the US have threatened Japan with the bomb? Then if they didn't surrender used it on a desserted island to show how powerful it was?
And Riva's character was so innocent. So young. How could she be blamed for going with the Nazi Soldier? I think it was absurd the way she was treated. Furthermore I find French history deeply unsettling. How could they treat Riva's character so bad and proclaim the Nazis as the ultimate evil after the occupation, then go right back to oppressing Vietnam and Algeria? I still get no answer to this question. I suppose the response was the 1968 demonstrations. I should really look for a history book that delves into the issues of French Imperialism after WWII. Even to this day the French are very sensitive to Nazism. But where is the sympathy for victims of French colonialism? Where are objections to France's actions in Algeria? I guess I should recall, like I was when I was reading the New York Times the other day, debates about human nature. Is man naturally evil or good? It seems the more I read about the World, the more I think man is naturally evil and needs to reigned in. I recall Jean Jacques Rousseau, "man is free, and everywhere he is in chains."
Anyway back to the screenplay. It has no character names. It has the hardest to follow camera direction. And it's set in some kind of New Year's Eve party at a hotel in Germany. So far I haven't really encountered the plot. I've seen the movie once before. And I got the gist of what happened. We'll see after I read the whole script what more I missed on my passive watching of the film. And I will watch it twice. Not once. Twice.
The Resnais film that is famous is Hiroshima Mon Amour. I first heard about the film when I was reading a book about film producing. I bought the film and watched it. In fact I think I had it or had lost it and had to buy it again. It was an excellent film. Yet, before I had read the script I missed a lot of the plot. Reading the script really gets me to catch all the details in the film. Before, with a complicated movie like Hiroshima Mon Amour, I usually get the major theme and able to follow the plot. Yet, somethings, like the fact the Riva's character was with a Nazi soldier at the end of the war eluded me. I totally missed it. Picking up on her character reveals a deeper theme to the film about war and memory. Watching the first part of the film really jarred me with images of Japanese people suffering the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Was the bombing really necessary? Couldn't the US have threatened Japan with the bomb? Then if they didn't surrender used it on a desserted island to show how powerful it was?
And Riva's character was so innocent. So young. How could she be blamed for going with the Nazi Soldier? I think it was absurd the way she was treated. Furthermore I find French history deeply unsettling. How could they treat Riva's character so bad and proclaim the Nazis as the ultimate evil after the occupation, then go right back to oppressing Vietnam and Algeria? I still get no answer to this question. I suppose the response was the 1968 demonstrations. I should really look for a history book that delves into the issues of French Imperialism after WWII. Even to this day the French are very sensitive to Nazism. But where is the sympathy for victims of French colonialism? Where are objections to France's actions in Algeria? I guess I should recall, like I was when I was reading the New York Times the other day, debates about human nature. Is man naturally evil or good? It seems the more I read about the World, the more I think man is naturally evil and needs to reigned in. I recall Jean Jacques Rousseau, "man is free, and everywhere he is in chains."
Monday, January 4, 2016
hiroshima mon amour, the last time I watched this film? Can I remember?
I've seen this film several times. I think this viewing was my fourth. The first time I saw I didn't know what was going on. And it is such a short film if you don't know whats going on, it will go right over your head. This time around I read the screenplay. The script is about 80 pages with a short introduction. The end is abrupt and it leaves the viewer wondering if Emmanuelle Riva stays in Hiroshima or goes back to Paris or Nevers? I think it is one of the best cinematic endings in film history. Throughout the entire film the two characters are only referred to as He and She. They have no names. Finally at the end of the film they give each other names associated with their experiences of war time atrocity. Nevers in France where She had taken up with a Nazi soldier and Hiroshima where the Americans had dropped one of two atomic bombs.
Right away when I began thinking about what the film meant, I thought about war time atrocities. The dropping of the bomb on Japan was a controversial decision by Harry S. Truman. Did the Americans really need to drop the bomb and kill all those innocent civilians? Couldn't something else have been done? I'm familiar with most of the arguments that justify the decision to drop the bomb, but after seeing the footage at the beginning of this film I hesitate to agree with proponents of using the bomb as an alternative to a different outcome.
The other atrocity which is harder to follow in the film is when Riva's younger self falls in love with a Nazi soldier. After liberation she is treated very badly. The townsfolk shave her hair off and throw her into a cellar and don't let her out. She has screaming fits. She licks the saltpeter walls and her own blood. Finally she is released and sent to Paris.
By the time the film's action takes place. Both of the characters have married and are leading lives of contentment. Yet their affair brings up past memories, especially for Riva, that they have forgotten. The ravages of the A- bomb seem like a distant memory for He. While She has totally forgotten about Nevers. Yet it is part of their identity. It is part of their past that they have forgotten. It is their way of coping with past memories that if they didn't forget them, they would probably go nuts. How does one continue to live after the atrocities of war? Especially when you return to normal life?
This might be the best film of the French New Wave. It might be the best post-War European film.
Right away when I began thinking about what the film meant, I thought about war time atrocities. The dropping of the bomb on Japan was a controversial decision by Harry S. Truman. Did the Americans really need to drop the bomb and kill all those innocent civilians? Couldn't something else have been done? I'm familiar with most of the arguments that justify the decision to drop the bomb, but after seeing the footage at the beginning of this film I hesitate to agree with proponents of using the bomb as an alternative to a different outcome.
The other atrocity which is harder to follow in the film is when Riva's younger self falls in love with a Nazi soldier. After liberation she is treated very badly. The townsfolk shave her hair off and throw her into a cellar and don't let her out. She has screaming fits. She licks the saltpeter walls and her own blood. Finally she is released and sent to Paris.
By the time the film's action takes place. Both of the characters have married and are leading lives of contentment. Yet their affair brings up past memories, especially for Riva, that they have forgotten. The ravages of the A- bomb seem like a distant memory for He. While She has totally forgotten about Nevers. Yet it is part of their identity. It is part of their past that they have forgotten. It is their way of coping with past memories that if they didn't forget them, they would probably go nuts. How does one continue to live after the atrocities of war? Especially when you return to normal life?
This might be the best film of the French New Wave. It might be the best post-War European film.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)