Hiroshima Mon Amour
*****/5
Alain Resnais
Clearly this film influenced Breathless in the editing and other aspects, although they are two vastly different movies. As Stu put it, the French "get away with murder" when it comes to dialogue. This film amounted to a conversation that was circular and poetic, splashed with images that support or contrast the statements. It gave me such a strange feeling, and I think that was intended. The filmmaker bombards you with opinion and at the same time says nothing to prove one reality over another. At the end, you feel a crushing realization that works as deeply whether you take it metaphorically or not.
I was speaking with Maher this afternoon and was laying out some of my feelings towards films, what I appreciate in contrast to what turns me off. I came to some sort of point about the difference between films that affect your mind, your heart, and your gut. I think I tend to put the mind last when prioritizing these things for myself. Perhaps words affect the mind, images affect the heart, and connotations affect the gut.
Of course this made me think of Werner Herzog, who is probably one of the best filmmakers ever, and certainly one of the best working today. Herzog's films affect your gut first with situations and deep, deep emotions. Even if you watched his films on mute, you feel them in your gut. From your gut they work up and grab your heart. And from there they move to your brain, which tries to make sense of your feelings.
Hiroshima Mon Amour works along these lines as well. Even as dialogue heavy as it is, the story is told through images. The dialogue is almost like a soundtrack for connotations. Less than leaning on for story purposes, the French use voiceover as sort of a mood setter, to capture your attention by insisting on too much information or statements that are vague and poetic. But they never distract, which American voiceovers do. Perhaps French voiceovers are less expository than they seem.
All in all, I think I prefer Hiroshima Mon Amour's ambitions to that of Breathless, but perhaps this will change with time.
Recommendations:
Breathless
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Serpico
Serpico
*****/5
Sidney Lumet
On reports that my new editing teacher loves this movie so much he shows about 5 random minutes of it every class, I decided to see it before Wednesday (my first class - editing).
I'm not even sure where to start. It was intense. It went on for a long time, but did not seem lengthy. By the time he got anywhere with his struggles, you didn't feel like it was a victory, you were just exhausted with a hint of relief. Anyone wanting to know what people mean by "realism" should view this film. The realism is so strong, you can't help but feel everything the characters feel. When Serpico does something you don't think yourself capable of, it's surprising. You're with him every step of the way. The best example of this is when he jumps across the gap between rooftops. I know I would not be confident to make it, but when he does, I had to stop and remind myself that he is in the prime physical condition to make a jump like that, that this person on screen is not the same as me.
Also, the direction is very good. Lumet manages to not be heavy handed even when every character save Serpico himself delivers lines of such obvious moral degeneration. It's the kind of blatant statement you are supposed to disagree with, but the ease (and realism) it is presented in makes it not so much like everyone is a bad guy. Excellent.
Perhaps I'll revisit this review in a couple weeks with input from Pepperman, my editing teacher.
*****/5
Sidney Lumet
On reports that my new editing teacher loves this movie so much he shows about 5 random minutes of it every class, I decided to see it before Wednesday (my first class - editing).
I'm not even sure where to start. It was intense. It went on for a long time, but did not seem lengthy. By the time he got anywhere with his struggles, you didn't feel like it was a victory, you were just exhausted with a hint of relief. Anyone wanting to know what people mean by "realism" should view this film. The realism is so strong, you can't help but feel everything the characters feel. When Serpico does something you don't think yourself capable of, it's surprising. You're with him every step of the way. The best example of this is when he jumps across the gap between rooftops. I know I would not be confident to make it, but when he does, I had to stop and remind myself that he is in the prime physical condition to make a jump like that, that this person on screen is not the same as me.
Also, the direction is very good. Lumet manages to not be heavy handed even when every character save Serpico himself delivers lines of such obvious moral degeneration. It's the kind of blatant statement you are supposed to disagree with, but the ease (and realism) it is presented in makes it not so much like everyone is a bad guy. Excellent.
Perhaps I'll revisit this review in a couple weeks with input from Pepperman, my editing teacher.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Public Enemies
Public Enemies
*/5
Michael Mann
This was, to say the least, not so great. I had been excited by the posters featuring Johnny Depp looking just like a 30s gangster. I was drawn in by Depp's ability to blend into a character even when there is not 10 layers of makeup on him.
Unfortunately, thanks to HD technology, it was plain to see that Johnny Depp was under makeup in this role, too. Could the filmmakers have made corrections for this? Probably not. They were too worried about the fact that their sound was unusable and their lead actress switched accents every day. Oh wait, they didn't seem worried about that, either.
This movie was a complete failure. I was actually shocked to learn that Michael Mann had even made a movie before (remember my ignorance of anything after 1959). This one was so poorly slopped together I left the theater thinking, "Maybe Johnny Depp will be in my student film." If Michael Mann is so Oscar-worthy than how come this movie looked worse than stuff at dinky film festivals?
The sound was a horrible problem, peaking all the time, and characters often "spoke" while turned from the camera. Thanks to editing, you can pretend you know what you're doing! Gunshots were painfully loud and the intermingling of Billie Holiday and electric guitar soundtrack was so preposterous I laughed out loud.
HD was the wrong choice, especially when your actor is notoriously covered in tattoos. If you're going to still use HD, please try not to use extreme closeups on parts of his body that have cover-ups. It confuses the audience as to whether they're supposed to notice it or not.
The acting was bewildering and pathetic from everyone buy Johnny Depp, and even he struggled with the unreasonable dialogue he had been given.
Aside from technical concerns, the movie just didn't make any gosh darn sense. In trying to create an artistic spin on a film noir type story, the writers/director just stole the sex scene from Breathless. I just scanned 20 pages of threads for this film on IMDb, and no one seems to have noticed.
I have never seen a movie in a theater that shows such incompetence.
Recommendations:
White Heat
Public Enemy
*/5
Michael Mann
This was, to say the least, not so great. I had been excited by the posters featuring Johnny Depp looking just like a 30s gangster. I was drawn in by Depp's ability to blend into a character even when there is not 10 layers of makeup on him.
Unfortunately, thanks to HD technology, it was plain to see that Johnny Depp was under makeup in this role, too. Could the filmmakers have made corrections for this? Probably not. They were too worried about the fact that their sound was unusable and their lead actress switched accents every day. Oh wait, they didn't seem worried about that, either.
This movie was a complete failure. I was actually shocked to learn that Michael Mann had even made a movie before (remember my ignorance of anything after 1959). This one was so poorly slopped together I left the theater thinking, "Maybe Johnny Depp will be in my student film." If Michael Mann is so Oscar-worthy than how come this movie looked worse than stuff at dinky film festivals?
The sound was a horrible problem, peaking all the time, and characters often "spoke" while turned from the camera. Thanks to editing, you can pretend you know what you're doing! Gunshots were painfully loud and the intermingling of Billie Holiday and electric guitar soundtrack was so preposterous I laughed out loud.
HD was the wrong choice, especially when your actor is notoriously covered in tattoos. If you're going to still use HD, please try not to use extreme closeups on parts of his body that have cover-ups. It confuses the audience as to whether they're supposed to notice it or not.
The acting was bewildering and pathetic from everyone buy Johnny Depp, and even he struggled with the unreasonable dialogue he had been given.
Aside from technical concerns, the movie just didn't make any gosh darn sense. In trying to create an artistic spin on a film noir type story, the writers/director just stole the sex scene from Breathless. I just scanned 20 pages of threads for this film on IMDb, and no one seems to have noticed.
I have never seen a movie in a theater that shows such incompetence.
Recommendations:
White Heat
Public Enemy
La Bête Humaine
La Bête Humaine
*****/5
Jean Renoir
*****SPOILERS*****
Update: I apologize for my total blabbering about how good this movie is. I was rendered completely inarticulate and sound like a total moron.
Amazing amazing. There is a lot to be loved in this film. Starting with the writing which is so good. The wad of cash is established so early, but returns so many times. The murder is preceded by a failed attempt, forcing the audience to feel the buildup and tension twice for the same thing. Actions and motivations are established so, so clearly that you only need to see them once to understand your character at every turn. The beginning is a little rushed and a lot of characters are named before they are introduced, but not enough to be played as a reveal when they show up. But once it is all there, it builds into something so intense and beautiful that anything awkward in the beginning is likely to be deepened upon a second or third viewing.
Also of note are the visual juxtapositions. A photograph of Severine's godfather is used in contrast to his presence several times, his arm around her implying more and more each occurrence. The scene near the end which features the singer performing a song about a wily, fickle temptress with no attachments is an interesting predecessor to Kenneth Anger's use of pop music.
Being familiar with Hitchcock's oeuvre, it amazes me how much it seems ideas were being passed back and forth between him and those involved in (and before) the French New Wave. They loved him as a shining example of both their auteur theory and what was wrong with films. This film features a murder in the first act (on a moving train, no less!), scenes in a crowded ballroom, a femme fatale, shots along train tracks, stylized sound, expressionistic lighting, and extreme tension, both visually and plot-wise. Some of these ideas were not present in Hitchcock's work until after this film was made. Others were present earlier with greater execution. Others were present earlier and much weaker. Others were present earlier, made stronger in France, and returned to Hitchcock's control later.
Recommendations:
Young and Innocent
Blackmail
Scorpio Rising
*****/5
Jean Renoir
*****SPOILERS*****
Update: I apologize for my total blabbering about how good this movie is. I was rendered completely inarticulate and sound like a total moron.
Amazing amazing. There is a lot to be loved in this film. Starting with the writing which is so good. The wad of cash is established so early, but returns so many times. The murder is preceded by a failed attempt, forcing the audience to feel the buildup and tension twice for the same thing. Actions and motivations are established so, so clearly that you only need to see them once to understand your character at every turn. The beginning is a little rushed and a lot of characters are named before they are introduced, but not enough to be played as a reveal when they show up. But once it is all there, it builds into something so intense and beautiful that anything awkward in the beginning is likely to be deepened upon a second or third viewing.
Also of note are the visual juxtapositions. A photograph of Severine's godfather is used in contrast to his presence several times, his arm around her implying more and more each occurrence. The scene near the end which features the singer performing a song about a wily, fickle temptress with no attachments is an interesting predecessor to Kenneth Anger's use of pop music.
Being familiar with Hitchcock's oeuvre, it amazes me how much it seems ideas were being passed back and forth between him and those involved in (and before) the French New Wave. They loved him as a shining example of both their auteur theory and what was wrong with films. This film features a murder in the first act (on a moving train, no less!), scenes in a crowded ballroom, a femme fatale, shots along train tracks, stylized sound, expressionistic lighting, and extreme tension, both visually and plot-wise. Some of these ideas were not present in Hitchcock's work until after this film was made. Others were present earlier with greater execution. Others were present earlier and much weaker. Others were present earlier, made stronger in France, and returned to Hitchcock's control later.
Recommendations:
Young and Innocent
Blackmail
Scorpio Rising
Port of Shadows
Port of Shadows
****/5
Marcel Carne
The handling of multiple characters is astoundingly accomplished. Each character with dialogue is somehow tenderly developed within minutes, and as a result, no characters blend together. They can even leave the screen for large chunks of time and drop back in easily. Important events are all preceded by a small setup that allows you to recognize the action, no matter how small, at the point it is important (eg: Lucien picking off the hats of others in the bumper car ride). Even with this skilled storytelling, the writing is what falls short the most (apart from the acting from Pierre Brasseur), with characters announcing things the audience has already figured out. Zabel declares his motivations long after they were implied; the painter explains his entire character to people who already know him. The dialogue is often corny and sometimes I wonder if I would like certain foreign films as much if they were in English.
****/5
Marcel Carne
The handling of multiple characters is astoundingly accomplished. Each character with dialogue is somehow tenderly developed within minutes, and as a result, no characters blend together. They can even leave the screen for large chunks of time and drop back in easily. Important events are all preceded by a small setup that allows you to recognize the action, no matter how small, at the point it is important (eg: Lucien picking off the hats of others in the bumper car ride). Even with this skilled storytelling, the writing is what falls short the most (apart from the acting from Pierre Brasseur), with characters announcing things the audience has already figured out. Zabel declares his motivations long after they were implied; the painter explains his entire character to people who already know him. The dialogue is often corny and sometimes I wonder if I would like certain foreign films as much if they were in English.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Summer Reading
As I mentioned in my last post, I have been doing a lot of reading on film this summer.
The first one was Shot by Shot by Steven Katz which is an excellent text on planning a shoot and the key considerations in taking things from page to frame. Mostly it focuses on the basics of camera technique, but is outstanding in explaining storyboarding. It shows various ways of planning a dolly move or the types of cranes you might run into. This book is beyond practical and highly recommended for anyone who thinks they can make a movie. My favorite part was when he points out that Citizen Kane itself breaks the "rule" that a low angle makes your character seem big. The book is lavish with graphics to make the points clear. I'm very glad I read it before school. Not only because I'll probably have an easier time trying to shoot than if I hadn't read it, but also because it solidified my choice to focus on cinematography. Katz's description of the difference in lenses will be nothing compared to the familiarity using them will provide, and the better I can communicate with a camera person, the quicker things can get done.
Making A Good Script Great by Linda Seger was slightly less useful than it was infuriating. She made some good points about certain story devices and it includes very helpful questions at the end of each chapter that can prod you in the right direction during a rewrite. However her axiomatic approach to what you can and can't do to a story made me really mad. For weeks I watched foreign films for the sake of proving the structure theory wrong. This also helped to make up for her revolting suggestions of good "watch and learn" movies. Both widely popular and generally unoffensive, Cocoon and Witness were two of the most boring and confounding films I had ever seen (thanks to Seger's suggestion), and worst of all, they don't even truly fit the mold that the book claims they do. If anyone reads this book trying to come up with an idea for a story, the best that they will end up with is a formulaic made for TV movie. Although, given the commercial approach of the book, some readers might not find this a problem.
In reaction to this, I read a couple scripts by Jean Cocteau. If there ever were scripts to prove there is no formula for scripts, it's these. Although a lot of people will say "you never put camera angles in a script" or "never write in direction unless it's important", I would have to say this advice is mostly applicable to people looking to sell the screenplay they write. For Cocteau, the scripts were for him alone, and they offer some beautiful insight into his thought process. Although for Testament of Orpheus, penetrating the dialogue of the late middle still seems to be a task that eludes me.
I then attempted to read Cocteau's most famous book The Difficulty of Being, but every page was as devastatingly poetic as the aforementioned dialogue. It was like trying to read another language or trying to read Scandinavian skaldic poetry. It's in English prose, but is so dense with meaning, connotation, and intention that is mostly serves to make your head feel like it's underwater. Although I felt like I was scratching the surface of his words, I did not feel ready to read the next 100 pages. To be continued.
Next I read How To Read A Film by James Monaco. Like Shot by Shot, the book is dense with images, but also with information of a widely varying nature. It gives a very comprehensive history of just about everything you can think of. To give a history of film, he starts with Daguerreotypes. To give a history of media he starts with the printing press. Although this might seem excessive, for the most part it is helpful in giving some context, at least for the film aspect. The book makes some very interesting comparisons and connections that I was delighted to consider. In addition, it shows a vast knowledge of film from all countries and in general provides a rough equivalent of a first year film student's education. He even tackles the large (and, in my opinion, irrelevant) topic of film theory in a way that is very helpful. The chapter is organized chronologically with competing theories (expressionism vs. realism) grouped together. It lays out the names of theorists and the gist of important theories in a straightforward manner without applying one or the other to any other part of the book. Much appreciated. The sections on media are rather outdated in the 3rd edition, but a 4th edition just came out this year. From my skimmings, it seems that Monaco has become even more cantankerous and embittered about the state of films since the 3rd edition. Poor guy. All in all, a very good read.
The last thing I read was Fifty Years of Serial Thrills by Roy Kinnard. Although not really a book about filmmaking, I am working on an idea for a serial-inspired short film about a turbaned mystic. The book was a delight giving plot and production summaries for the most notable serials, be they good or bad. At times hilarious, it was fascinating to learn about the turmoil of the Tarzan property and the psychotically economic ways in which studios filmed these things. It also provided an astonishingly complete index of serials; a real treasure considering how few of these films are left. It was a great read, clocking in under 200 pages. I read it all in one day. It also has wonderful interviews with the stars of Flash Gordon, one of whom died shortly before the book was printed. Highly recommended for people who have a hard on for the '30s and things that suck.
I like to think this has been a productive summer.
The first one was Shot by Shot by Steven Katz which is an excellent text on planning a shoot and the key considerations in taking things from page to frame. Mostly it focuses on the basics of camera technique, but is outstanding in explaining storyboarding. It shows various ways of planning a dolly move or the types of cranes you might run into. This book is beyond practical and highly recommended for anyone who thinks they can make a movie. My favorite part was when he points out that Citizen Kane itself breaks the "rule" that a low angle makes your character seem big. The book is lavish with graphics to make the points clear. I'm very glad I read it before school. Not only because I'll probably have an easier time trying to shoot than if I hadn't read it, but also because it solidified my choice to focus on cinematography. Katz's description of the difference in lenses will be nothing compared to the familiarity using them will provide, and the better I can communicate with a camera person, the quicker things can get done.
Making A Good Script Great by Linda Seger was slightly less useful than it was infuriating. She made some good points about certain story devices and it includes very helpful questions at the end of each chapter that can prod you in the right direction during a rewrite. However her axiomatic approach to what you can and can't do to a story made me really mad. For weeks I watched foreign films for the sake of proving the structure theory wrong. This also helped to make up for her revolting suggestions of good "watch and learn" movies. Both widely popular and generally unoffensive, Cocoon and Witness were two of the most boring and confounding films I had ever seen (thanks to Seger's suggestion), and worst of all, they don't even truly fit the mold that the book claims they do. If anyone reads this book trying to come up with an idea for a story, the best that they will end up with is a formulaic made for TV movie. Although, given the commercial approach of the book, some readers might not find this a problem.
In reaction to this, I read a couple scripts by Jean Cocteau. If there ever were scripts to prove there is no formula for scripts, it's these. Although a lot of people will say "you never put camera angles in a script" or "never write in direction unless it's important", I would have to say this advice is mostly applicable to people looking to sell the screenplay they write. For Cocteau, the scripts were for him alone, and they offer some beautiful insight into his thought process. Although for Testament of Orpheus, penetrating the dialogue of the late middle still seems to be a task that eludes me.
I then attempted to read Cocteau's most famous book The Difficulty of Being, but every page was as devastatingly poetic as the aforementioned dialogue. It was like trying to read another language or trying to read Scandinavian skaldic poetry. It's in English prose, but is so dense with meaning, connotation, and intention that is mostly serves to make your head feel like it's underwater. Although I felt like I was scratching the surface of his words, I did not feel ready to read the next 100 pages. To be continued.
Next I read How To Read A Film by James Monaco. Like Shot by Shot, the book is dense with images, but also with information of a widely varying nature. It gives a very comprehensive history of just about everything you can think of. To give a history of film, he starts with Daguerreotypes. To give a history of media he starts with the printing press. Although this might seem excessive, for the most part it is helpful in giving some context, at least for the film aspect. The book makes some very interesting comparisons and connections that I was delighted to consider. In addition, it shows a vast knowledge of film from all countries and in general provides a rough equivalent of a first year film student's education. He even tackles the large (and, in my opinion, irrelevant) topic of film theory in a way that is very helpful. The chapter is organized chronologically with competing theories (expressionism vs. realism) grouped together. It lays out the names of theorists and the gist of important theories in a straightforward manner without applying one or the other to any other part of the book. Much appreciated. The sections on media are rather outdated in the 3rd edition, but a 4th edition just came out this year. From my skimmings, it seems that Monaco has become even more cantankerous and embittered about the state of films since the 3rd edition. Poor guy. All in all, a very good read.
The last thing I read was Fifty Years of Serial Thrills by Roy Kinnard. Although not really a book about filmmaking, I am working on an idea for a serial-inspired short film about a turbaned mystic. The book was a delight giving plot and production summaries for the most notable serials, be they good or bad. At times hilarious, it was fascinating to learn about the turmoil of the Tarzan property and the psychotically economic ways in which studios filmed these things. It also provided an astonishingly complete index of serials; a real treasure considering how few of these films are left. It was a great read, clocking in under 200 pages. I read it all in one day. It also has wonderful interviews with the stars of Flash Gordon, one of whom died shortly before the book was printed. Highly recommended for people who have a hard on for the '30s and things that suck.
I like to think this has been a productive summer.
Shameful Neglect and A New Chapter
I'm pretty pathetic when it comes to updating.
Since the last time I've posted, I have been trying to fill some of the holes in my film knowledge. The New Wave, on either side of the Atlantic, has been pretty neglected, so I dug into that and others. I don't think it's possible to really document the volumes of films I've watched, but I can rattle off some big ones that I had not already seen.
Bonnie and Clyde
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Serpico
The 400 Blows
nearly all of Jean-Pierre Melville's catalog (Le Samourai being the most outstanding)
nearly all of Terry Gilliam's catalog (Brazil and 12 Monkeys being the ones not to avoid entirely)
about 7 or 8 Ingmar Bergman films
Cocteau's Orphic Trilogy
Late Spring
Le Bete Humaine
I'll spare you a recitation of my Netflix account history, and I will probably make separate entries for the ones that affected me most deeply.
I also saw some bad movies, Public Enemies, and Christopher Nolan's first film Following come to mind. Perhaps they deserve their own entries as well.
I have also been reading up on different facets of filmmaking. I think for the interest of cohesion, I will give that its own post also. Who would have thought all these posts! But as I enter into my first year of film school (next week) I think it will be beneficial to keep a record of my thoughts on films and other things. I will be seeing a lot of films and be given a lot of information. Perhaps I can use this newfangled blog thing to keep my head straight.
Last, but not least, I have been watching tons and tons of anime. There are some very strange trends in anime right now. Definitely my current favorite is Fight Ippatsu! Juuden-Chan!! It's a bizzare parody that borders on pornagraphic but with the most biting humor I've ever seen. It plays on expectations ("Maybe it's because Mom's watching over me from above. Just kidding!") and gives gratuitous fan-service, and still manages to dish out one of the most compelling plots a short series has offered in a long time. Not recommended for people unfamiliar with anime stereotypes or without a working knowledge of Sailor Moon or La Blue Girl. Ohhhh man, I can't wait til next week.
Since the last time I've posted, I have been trying to fill some of the holes in my film knowledge. The New Wave, on either side of the Atlantic, has been pretty neglected, so I dug into that and others. I don't think it's possible to really document the volumes of films I've watched, but I can rattle off some big ones that I had not already seen.
Bonnie and Clyde
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Serpico
The 400 Blows
nearly all of Jean-Pierre Melville's catalog (Le Samourai being the most outstanding)
nearly all of Terry Gilliam's catalog (Brazil and 12 Monkeys being the ones not to avoid entirely)
about 7 or 8 Ingmar Bergman films
Cocteau's Orphic Trilogy
Late Spring
Le Bete Humaine
I'll spare you a recitation of my Netflix account history, and I will probably make separate entries for the ones that affected me most deeply.
I also saw some bad movies, Public Enemies, and Christopher Nolan's first film Following come to mind. Perhaps they deserve their own entries as well.
I have also been reading up on different facets of filmmaking. I think for the interest of cohesion, I will give that its own post also. Who would have thought all these posts! But as I enter into my first year of film school (next week) I think it will be beneficial to keep a record of my thoughts on films and other things. I will be seeing a lot of films and be given a lot of information. Perhaps I can use this newfangled blog thing to keep my head straight.
Last, but not least, I have been watching tons and tons of anime. There are some very strange trends in anime right now. Definitely my current favorite is Fight Ippatsu! Juuden-Chan!! It's a bizzare parody that borders on pornagraphic but with the most biting humor I've ever seen. It plays on expectations ("Maybe it's because Mom's watching over me from above. Just kidding!") and gives gratuitous fan-service, and still manages to dish out one of the most compelling plots a short series has offered in a long time. Not recommended for people unfamiliar with anime stereotypes or without a working knowledge of Sailor Moon or La Blue Girl. Ohhhh man, I can't wait til next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
