This film is one of my all time favorites; I can’t decide if it’s because of all the quotable one-liners, from, “You’re out of your element Donny!” to “Where’s the money Lebowski!” to “Get a job sir!” (The bums lost) I think that the article in Film Monthly was pretty accurate about this film being about the struggle between generations, because you could easily see the contempt shown to “The Dude” by Lebowski Sr. and Jackie Treehorn. This was kind of ironic because neither of Lebowski Sr. or Jackie Treehorn were doing anything even close to ethical, yet they looked down upon “The Dude” as if he was scum. Just because he was a non-conformist, pacifist, hippy, they thought he was below them, even though morally and ethically he was way beyond them. He did not have a thirst for power or money; he only wanted to peacefully co-exist with his fellow bowlers.
The euphemism of bowling with life was also apparent throughout the movie, because they kept coming back to it as the one constant in “The Dude’s” life. It was the one thing that was stabilizing his and Walter’s life, and tying them together. That was another ironic part of the story, that either one of them would be hanging out together. In 98% of cases, they would be enemies simply based on their beliefs and personalities, but bowling brought them together to peacefully co-exist (as long as no one stepped over the line) That is one of my favorite parts of the movie, when Smokie steps over the line, and Walter insists that it’s a fault. This is while he’s talking to “The Dude” about how he should get a new rug from Lebowski Sr. because he owes him, and also because “it ties the room together.”
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The Hudsucker Proxy
This was a very interesting film, because the dialogue was so entertaining and unique, which is a motif that I have seen in almost every Coen brothers movie. It was basically a satire directed at the movie industry, because it was just so obnoxious and funny that the contempt for the movie industry was obvious. Tim Robbins was excellent in his role as the “pawn” with “no experience,” because his over acting and excitement throughout the film makes his role as the supposed idiot more believable.
When comparing this movie to some of the other Coen brother films, I did not see any concessions made by them, it seemed actually a little bit more absurd than most of their other films. “The Big Lebowski” and “Fargo” where pretty quirky themselves, their storyline was a little more straight forward and believable. “The Hudsucker Proxy” seemed like a tongue-in-cheek joke right from the beginning. Things such as the newspaper ad that listed “long hours and low pay” along with when the old man jumped out of the window to his doom, and one of the board members remarked that “he at least could have opened a window” made you immediately recognize that this movie was not to be taken seriously.
When comparing this movie to some of the other Coen brother films, I did not see any concessions made by them, it seemed actually a little bit more absurd than most of their other films. “The Big Lebowski” and “Fargo” where pretty quirky themselves, their storyline was a little more straight forward and believable. “The Hudsucker Proxy” seemed like a tongue-in-cheek joke right from the beginning. Things such as the newspaper ad that listed “long hours and low pay” along with when the old man jumped out of the window to his doom, and one of the board members remarked that “he at least could have opened a window” made you immediately recognize that this movie was not to be taken seriously.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The film "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" received many awards for its authenticity, mainly because the Director and Producer of this film decided to make the extra effort and sit in on group therapy sessions in mental institutions. They probably did this to get a good feel for how things work, the procedures that the staff did throughout each patient’s treatment, and how people acted during their group therapy sessions. This was essential for the filmmakers because it allowed them to know when they were getting the best, most realistic performance out of each actor. They would not be able to do that without seeing people in those real life situations.
Jack Nicholson did deserve the awards he received for playing the role of McMurphy, because he was not only believable in his performance, but he was also able to remain likeable to the audience while he did everything in his power to piss people off. Some people are just like that, they like to prod and poke at people to not only irritate them, but to see if they can push them over the edge and make them flip out. Jack Nicholson did this beautifully, while also being able to make people empathize with his situation, even though he brought it on himself.
Louise Fletcher was also brilliant in her role as Nurse Ratched, because she was able to convey the cold, unfeeling nature of her job, while also not allowing people to empathize with her at all. She made her part in the movie seem very believable, which makes you wonder if she is really like that in real life. The end where she tears into one of the patients, making fun of him, and telling him she was going to call his mom, was very intense, because it was the first time that you were able to see her human side. The rest of the time was spent waiting for her to crack, so when it did finally happen, that just made it that much more satisfying, because you were finally able to see that she was indeed a real, feeling person, not just an uncaring, unfeeling robot.
Jack Nicholson did deserve the awards he received for playing the role of McMurphy, because he was not only believable in his performance, but he was also able to remain likeable to the audience while he did everything in his power to piss people off. Some people are just like that, they like to prod and poke at people to not only irritate them, but to see if they can push them over the edge and make them flip out. Jack Nicholson did this beautifully, while also being able to make people empathize with his situation, even though he brought it on himself.
Louise Fletcher was also brilliant in her role as Nurse Ratched, because she was able to convey the cold, unfeeling nature of her job, while also not allowing people to empathize with her at all. She made her part in the movie seem very believable, which makes you wonder if she is really like that in real life. The end where she tears into one of the patients, making fun of him, and telling him she was going to call his mom, was very intense, because it was the first time that you were able to see her human side. The rest of the time was spent waiting for her to crack, so when it did finally happen, that just made it that much more satisfying, because you were finally able to see that she was indeed a real, feeling person, not just an uncaring, unfeeling robot.
Rio Bravo
Rio Bravo was not the typical Western, even though it had many of the typical aspects. The main difference was that John Wayne's character was not a loner, or a drifter. He was the sheriff of a small town. He did have some trusty sidekicks, who were loyal but not necessarily the best people he could have around to help him. There was the typical battle of Good vs. Evil, which is the focus of the story.
"Rio Bravo" also featured the girl in distress, which was typical of the westerns filmed in this era. In this film she was a little different because she was a strong woman with ambition. She didn't necessarily need any help from a man, but she welcomed the company and support of John Wayne because she was attracted to him.
This particular film was also a little different because it featured the super star power of John Wayne, along with rising stars such as Dean Martin. The film reminded me of another classic Western, "High Noon," because it was a similar story of a Sheriff protecting a town in distress from the Evil outlaws, which is a typical Western motif.
"Rio Bravo" also featured the girl in distress, which was typical of the westerns filmed in this era. In this film she was a little different because she was a strong woman with ambition. She didn't necessarily need any help from a man, but she welcomed the company and support of John Wayne because she was attracted to him.
This particular film was also a little different because it featured the super star power of John Wayne, along with rising stars such as Dean Martin. The film reminded me of another classic Western, "High Noon," because it was a similar story of a Sheriff protecting a town in distress from the Evil outlaws, which is a typical Western motif.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Mon Oncle
This film was very reminiscent of the film by Mr Brainwash. It had ADD and indecisiveness written all over it. It was much better because it was not random shots placed together, it was just obvious that the director could not make up his mind on what shots to keep and what shots to cut, so he just left everything in. I understand what he was trying to do, and in some cases, it was effective. I think that by using this style throughout the movie, he just frustrated me because it was not a fluid style of editing, it was way too choppy and distracting. The director must have had total creative control, because most editors would not have allowed this to happen.
I agree with the director that you should get as many shots as possible from as many different angles as possible (as appropriate) but you need to make the critical decisions on what to keep and what to cut, so it appears smooth and pleasing to the eye, and also complements and enhances the story that you are trying to tell. After all, the whole point of making a film is to tell a story or share your idea with the world. If it's not clear and concise, or hard to watch, it will not be effective.
I agree with the director that you should get as many shots as possible from as many different angles as possible (as appropriate) but you need to make the critical decisions on what to keep and what to cut, so it appears smooth and pleasing to the eye, and also complements and enhances the story that you are trying to tell. After all, the whole point of making a film is to tell a story or share your idea with the world. If it's not clear and concise, or hard to watch, it will not be effective.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Sherman's March- In circles
This film, although interesting initially, became a pointless demonstration of obsession and self-pity. McElwee attempts to display himself as the victim throughout the movie, but in reality by putting himself on display, his vanity and self-indulgence are quite evident. He basically gets himself stuck on every girl he meets, regardless of whether they are attractive or not, because he seems to be obsessed with having someone that doesn't want him. As soon as it becomes apparent that they might be into him, he's over it and moves on. This is something that occurs regularly to men and women from all walks of life, regardless to status, age or race.
I think that is what makes his films intriguing to people; the fact that they see some of themselves in him, and the way he kind of puts himself out there for people to judge him is quite admirable. After a while though, it seems kind of like it is going in circles, like "Wait, I think I have seen this before" and everything becomes more predictable. This is the point where some of the footage could have been cut out, which may or may not end up detracting from the movie itself, but that would depend on each person's interpretation of what they would deem to be important to the story or not.
It almost seemed kind of scary the way he was obsessed with some of the girls, by the way he followed them around and filmed their every movement and everything they said. I think most girls would have been creeped-out by this, but the particular girls that he filmed seemed to be very needy and require lots of attention, thus they were the perfect subjects for his creepy obsession. I was really surprised that the first girl's family was so accepting of him, and let him leave with their daughter to Atlanta. I also thought it was really weird how the girl was telling him that she wasn’t wearing any underwear and then showing him all those suggestive exercises. It seemed like she was just doing it all for attention, trying to see if she could get a reaction out of him. His only reaction was to continue filming and ogling her, while she enjoyed the attention he was giving her. They enjoyed kind of a symbiotic relationship with each other, because she was getting the attention she was craving and he was able to be a voyour of sorts while watching here perform for him.
I think that is what makes his films intriguing to people; the fact that they see some of themselves in him, and the way he kind of puts himself out there for people to judge him is quite admirable. After a while though, it seems kind of like it is going in circles, like "Wait, I think I have seen this before" and everything becomes more predictable. This is the point where some of the footage could have been cut out, which may or may not end up detracting from the movie itself, but that would depend on each person's interpretation of what they would deem to be important to the story or not.
It almost seemed kind of scary the way he was obsessed with some of the girls, by the way he followed them around and filmed their every movement and everything they said. I think most girls would have been creeped-out by this, but the particular girls that he filmed seemed to be very needy and require lots of attention, thus they were the perfect subjects for his creepy obsession. I was really surprised that the first girl's family was so accepting of him, and let him leave with their daughter to Atlanta. I also thought it was really weird how the girl was telling him that she wasn’t wearing any underwear and then showing him all those suggestive exercises. It seemed like she was just doing it all for attention, trying to see if she could get a reaction out of him. His only reaction was to continue filming and ogling her, while she enjoyed the attention he was giving her. They enjoyed kind of a symbiotic relationship with each other, because she was getting the attention she was craving and he was able to be a voyour of sorts while watching here perform for him.
Exit Through the Gift Shop- Documentary or Mockumentary?
This was a very cool film, kind of confusing at times but when you get to the end it all kind of comes together. I get the feeling that although Banksy was credited as Directing this film, he was more of a Producer, because the reality is that most of the footage was shot previous to his involvement. He basically saw the opportunity to take what Mr. Brainwash had already done, which was total crap, and mold it into what he eventually used as the final product of "Exit Through the Gift Shop." I think that Banksy saw his opportunity when he realized that Mr. Brainwash was a completely un-original fool... his use of a camera was purely a result of his Obsessive-Compulsiveness and there was no genius there whatsoever.
I think Banksy was thinking, "Wow, this guy is totally retarded! I wonder if I can make him a star? I wonder if people will know the difference?" Banksy knew if he pointed him in the right direction, Mr. Brainwash would do the most obvious thing, which would be to rip-off all the artists he had been filming, and basically regurgitate their artwork, re-package it, and resell it as a new form of art. This is demonstrated when Mr. Brainwash was designing his art show, and the professionals were getting very frustrated with him because he had no idea what he was doing, yet he wanted to be in charge of everything. I think at one point, one of the hired helpers even said "I think he's retarded!" and that "He wouldn't be working for him again."
Some of the footage that Banksy inserted into the film demonstrated this as well, such as the time when the black girl with sunglasses remarked while at the Art Show that she "hadn't seen anything so original, its nice to see good art" and "they said art was dead, but its not dead" or something like that. It's like the whole thing is a Mockumentary designed to poke fun at the industry, and how people are so gullible that that will believe anything is art. It was a great way for Banksy to compare and contrast himself, as a true artist, with someone that became well known and famous as an artist but actually has no originality or talent whatsoever. A good example of this is when people where interviewing Mr. Brainwash at his show, asking him about his artwork and why it appeared to be the same thing repeated over and over again. They were also asking why it looked like other artist’s work that was already out there. He simply replied, “It’s only Pop Art.” I think that was the most telling portion of the Documentary…
I think Banksy was thinking, "Wow, this guy is totally retarded! I wonder if I can make him a star? I wonder if people will know the difference?" Banksy knew if he pointed him in the right direction, Mr. Brainwash would do the most obvious thing, which would be to rip-off all the artists he had been filming, and basically regurgitate their artwork, re-package it, and resell it as a new form of art. This is demonstrated when Mr. Brainwash was designing his art show, and the professionals were getting very frustrated with him because he had no idea what he was doing, yet he wanted to be in charge of everything. I think at one point, one of the hired helpers even said "I think he's retarded!" and that "He wouldn't be working for him again."
Some of the footage that Banksy inserted into the film demonstrated this as well, such as the time when the black girl with sunglasses remarked while at the Art Show that she "hadn't seen anything so original, its nice to see good art" and "they said art was dead, but its not dead" or something like that. It's like the whole thing is a Mockumentary designed to poke fun at the industry, and how people are so gullible that that will believe anything is art. It was a great way for Banksy to compare and contrast himself, as a true artist, with someone that became well known and famous as an artist but actually has no originality or talent whatsoever. A good example of this is when people where interviewing Mr. Brainwash at his show, asking him about his artwork and why it appeared to be the same thing repeated over and over again. They were also asking why it looked like other artist’s work that was already out there. He simply replied, “It’s only Pop Art.” I think that was the most telling portion of the Documentary…
Monday, February 21, 2011
When Harry Met Sally
Overall, "When Harry Met Sally" does not contain most of the typical cliches that are associated with romantic comedies, but it still does add to the overall idea that romantic comedies are possible because of some essential key elements. These are things such as sexual tension, conflict, and the two people ending up together by the end of the movie. The only one of the cliches that I saw was the scene near the end of the movie, where Harry was running to see Sally on New Years. The movie was actually very anti-climatic because they actually got together 3/4 of the way through the movie, instead of the very end of the movie. It was very interesting to watch the movie though because it was a little more realistic than the typical romantic comedies these days, it was more of a romantic drama in my opinion, because it was more introspective and moody instead of being funny and charming. It did help provide the context for many other romantic comedies, by providing the framework, showing what does and does not work, then allowing future writers and film makers to make the necessary adjustments to help make the genre more popular and mainstream.
The Thin Red Line
I think the one of the essential parts of a film is the plot. Without that, there is really no point in wasting your time watching it. The Thin Red Line, although visually stunning, was a complete waste of time and money. There was no coherency throughout the film, either from scene to scene, between actors, or parallel story lines. This film does however have great cinematography, and many great actors.
The lack of any coherent plot is just too much to overcome in my opinion, because it shows a general lack of vision on the director's part. I found myself questioning why this movie was nominated for so many awards, and why were so many big named actors involved in the movie when they all played such minor roles? Movies like this generally piss me off because I feel like I wasted my time watching them. I can understand if there are parts left out of the story that are essential to the plot, but this film doesn't seem to bother or care about that. It's all about the general disarray and chaos that was involved in the Battle for Guadal Canal in the World World II Pacific area of operations.
This film did actually add to the realism, because it showed how crazy and confusing things can get in the heat of battle, but it leaves you feeling somewhat empty at the end (if you can actually make it that far) because it doesn't make even a feeble attempt at pulling all the parts together. The Voice Over is a good example of this, because it is meant to add to the story, but it actually becomes distracting and pointless after a while, because you can't even tell who is talking!
There were many parts that had stunning cinematography and some good acting, but it seemed like there was far too much post-production involved which eventually watered down the whole point of the movie, which seemed to be that there is no good or evil, right or wrong, that all people are pretty much the same, it just depends what your beliefs are.
I do believe that every film you watch needs to be approached on a case-by-case basis, with a completely open mind, because that will allow you to take it all in and make your own judgments on the movie based on what you have seen and heard, not someone else's interpretation of what they have seen and heard. I do not think it is the responsibility of the filmmaker to create those expectations for me, I think it is their responsibility to create something that fits their own vision, and leave it open to interpretation by the consumer.
I think that Malick was able to pull off his vision for the film (probably by accident) because although totally pointless and chaotic, it enables the viewer to see how war affects those around them and back home, and how war is in fact totally pointless and chaotic. If that was his underlying message, than I think he was successful in communicating that message.
The lack of any coherent plot is just too much to overcome in my opinion, because it shows a general lack of vision on the director's part. I found myself questioning why this movie was nominated for so many awards, and why were so many big named actors involved in the movie when they all played such minor roles? Movies like this generally piss me off because I feel like I wasted my time watching them. I can understand if there are parts left out of the story that are essential to the plot, but this film doesn't seem to bother or care about that. It's all about the general disarray and chaos that was involved in the Battle for Guadal Canal in the World World II Pacific area of operations.
This film did actually add to the realism, because it showed how crazy and confusing things can get in the heat of battle, but it leaves you feeling somewhat empty at the end (if you can actually make it that far) because it doesn't make even a feeble attempt at pulling all the parts together. The Voice Over is a good example of this, because it is meant to add to the story, but it actually becomes distracting and pointless after a while, because you can't even tell who is talking!
There were many parts that had stunning cinematography and some good acting, but it seemed like there was far too much post-production involved which eventually watered down the whole point of the movie, which seemed to be that there is no good or evil, right or wrong, that all people are pretty much the same, it just depends what your beliefs are.
I do believe that every film you watch needs to be approached on a case-by-case basis, with a completely open mind, because that will allow you to take it all in and make your own judgments on the movie based on what you have seen and heard, not someone else's interpretation of what they have seen and heard. I do not think it is the responsibility of the filmmaker to create those expectations for me, I think it is their responsibility to create something that fits their own vision, and leave it open to interpretation by the consumer.
I think that Malick was able to pull off his vision for the film (probably by accident) because although totally pointless and chaotic, it enables the viewer to see how war affects those around them and back home, and how war is in fact totally pointless and chaotic. If that was his underlying message, than I think he was successful in communicating that message.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Pan's Labyrinth
I think that war was needed for this movie to work, because it provided the elements needed for you to understand why the little girl was so desperate to escape reality. Using Spain at that time was a good setting because it reflected the tension of that time which allowed you to believe and helped to understand what Ofelia might be going through and why she might not want to live her life based on her harsh reality. I liked the way Guillermo Del Toro implied that it was not by choice that Ofelia was living in a fantasy world, but that it was in some way a parallel life, because it also involved her baby brother and mother. It was a great way to show both the reality and fantasy worlds, and how sometimes they can intersect.
I believe that both reality and fantasy were needed in this movie, because each affected the other in various ways. For instance, when the little girl was hungry, and needed to eat, which is necessary in reality to survive, it screwed up her fantasy world because she had broken the rules set forth to her by the demon in the fantasy world. So in this case both were related and both affected each other directly even though they were in fact two separate things. That is why I argue that both things are actually running in parallel to each other.
The themes of obedience and disobedience where played out in several different ways, one example I could give would be the woman who was working for the Captain. It was obvious that she despised the Captain and everything that he stood for, but she was still obedient to him, because her friends and family where a part of the Rebel forces, and they needed her to help them from the inside. An example of disobedience would be Ofelia not obeying her mother and getting her dress dirty, being late, etc. which her mother knew would infuriate the Captain and draw his wrath. I think Ofelia's mother made the greatest sacrifice of all, because she risked losing the love of Ofelia by giving herself to the Captain, just so she could have a provide a good life for her son and Ofelia. This may have been what inspired Ofelia to also sacrifice her life, not only for her brother, but for her mother as well.
I believe that both reality and fantasy were needed in this movie, because each affected the other in various ways. For instance, when the little girl was hungry, and needed to eat, which is necessary in reality to survive, it screwed up her fantasy world because she had broken the rules set forth to her by the demon in the fantasy world. So in this case both were related and both affected each other directly even though they were in fact two separate things. That is why I argue that both things are actually running in parallel to each other.
The themes of obedience and disobedience where played out in several different ways, one example I could give would be the woman who was working for the Captain. It was obvious that she despised the Captain and everything that he stood for, but she was still obedient to him, because her friends and family where a part of the Rebel forces, and they needed her to help them from the inside. An example of disobedience would be Ofelia not obeying her mother and getting her dress dirty, being late, etc. which her mother knew would infuriate the Captain and draw his wrath. I think Ofelia's mother made the greatest sacrifice of all, because she risked losing the love of Ofelia by giving herself to the Captain, just so she could have a provide a good life for her son and Ofelia. This may have been what inspired Ofelia to also sacrifice her life, not only for her brother, but for her mother as well.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Robocop was mostly realistic violence...
When watching Robocop, I forgot just how intense and graphic it was. The violence was very realistic to me; it didn't seem to be as stylized and excessive as some movies that have been released in recent years. I don't think I have seen the movie in about 10-15 years, and I was very young when I did see it, so I only had a vague memory of what happened in the movie. I was pleasantly surprised when I was watching it. Although it was a little dated, I think it was still very relevant in today’s society because of the themes that were presented. I think that because I am so used to seeing such stylized violence recently in movies that I was a little shocked with how violent it was. I was a little surprised by this, because usually there's not too much in a movie that can shock me.
I really liked "Robocop" because it had a lot of parts that I was actually very pleased with just how realistic it was. It's like they were really trying to make it seem like you were actually witnessing these brutal murders. Several parts in particular where particularly effective; such as the part when Murphy's arm was blown off by the shotgun, and also the part where they shot him in the head, which left the huge hole in his head, were two good examples. There was some stylized violence in the movie, but it was kept to a minimum in my opinion. My favorite part, the “money shot” of the movie as far as I am concerned, is near the end of the movie, when the bad guys are hunting down Murphy aka “Robocop.” One of the henchmen gets acid all over him, and stumbles around for added gross-out effect, then gets hit by his boss’s car. I think when he just disintegrates and splatters all over the windshield of his boss’s car, that was just such a great scene! I had to rewind and watch it over a few times for maximum affect. It's not what I would consider very realistic violence, like most of the movie was in my opinion, but it definitely was my favorite part of the movie.
I think that "Robocop" can be classified as one of those movies that initially came out and tried to be artistic and unique, but in the end became food for the masses. That might seem like an odd statement, because I wouldn't consider the movie to be a huge blockbuster or anything like that, but I think just the fact that there were several sequels to the movie speaks volumes for the popularity of "Robocop." I think the popularity was a surprise to all, because with all the gratuitous violence, I am pretty sure that the film was not meant for a wide, mainstream audience.
I really liked "Robocop" because it had a lot of parts that I was actually very pleased with just how realistic it was. It's like they were really trying to make it seem like you were actually witnessing these brutal murders. Several parts in particular where particularly effective; such as the part when Murphy's arm was blown off by the shotgun, and also the part where they shot him in the head, which left the huge hole in his head, were two good examples. There was some stylized violence in the movie, but it was kept to a minimum in my opinion. My favorite part, the “money shot” of the movie as far as I am concerned, is near the end of the movie, when the bad guys are hunting down Murphy aka “Robocop.” One of the henchmen gets acid all over him, and stumbles around for added gross-out effect, then gets hit by his boss’s car. I think when he just disintegrates and splatters all over the windshield of his boss’s car, that was just such a great scene! I had to rewind and watch it over a few times for maximum affect. It's not what I would consider very realistic violence, like most of the movie was in my opinion, but it definitely was my favorite part of the movie.
I think that "Robocop" can be classified as one of those movies that initially came out and tried to be artistic and unique, but in the end became food for the masses. That might seem like an odd statement, because I wouldn't consider the movie to be a huge blockbuster or anything like that, but I think just the fact that there were several sequels to the movie speaks volumes for the popularity of "Robocop." I think the popularity was a surprise to all, because with all the gratuitous violence, I am pretty sure that the film was not meant for a wide, mainstream audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)