I just watched the scene 6 or 7 times on YouTube. (Link to clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1f7llGxkdc ) (Relevant clip begins at 2:15)
The scene I am discussing is where the witch is being burned and at what point in it, Death is. Now some people believe that he is the guy kneeling when the camera pans but that man is clearly wearing a cincture (or rope around his robe) which symbolizes that he is a member of the clergy.
In the background, in the cart, we see something there. Now, to me, that is not Death, but instead an empty black robe, possibly symbolizing something but I do not see the figure of Death in there. It appears to be an empty black robe, if it is that at all but I don't see anything in it. It appears empty and formless.
However, I do see Death but in a different place. Now, assuming, that it is two different shots, which I believe it is, when Jons and Antonius are making their speech about Emptiness and what is there for the poor child, if you look behind their left shoulder, there is a kneeling figure I which believe to Death. I could be wrong but I think it resembles Death the most, has no cincture, and would be the most fitting since they are discussing Emptiness and Death, for the character himself to be lurking right behind them.
Please watch the scene, it is only a minute and a half long, beginning at 2:15, and I think that together we can uncover the mystery, and my opinion is only one and I could be wrong, but I do think that Death is actually behind Jons and Antonius during the speech on Emptiness and pain, and not in front of them kneeling, but lurking behind them kneeling.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Long Continuous Shots and Ad-Libbing
Today, at the end of class, Nick and Mr. Bennett, were having a discussion about the movies, The Player and Touch of Evil, which each had very long shots without a cut, a fantastic cinematic achievement, when done well. Unfortunately, I have not seen either of these films but it would be certainly be interesting to watch both of them, but the discussion brought to mind two films that have similar styling.
A movie that some of you may have seen was Children of Men, which was released in 2006 and starred Clive Owen. Now to begin with, this was an extraordinary film, in many different aspects and one of my favorites, but it is especially well known for its long shots without a cut. I would write a full review on it if I was able to remember the film more vividly, but it was an amazing film that I would suggest everyone to see.
But back to the continuous shots. In this film, there are three lengthy scenes without a cut, one which is 3:58, one which is 3:11, and the third and most incredible which was 6:11. Believe me, if you have seen it or when you see it you will know. The first scene is also nearly impossible and when I read that it was not cut, I was shocked and amazed. Each of the three scenes were great and the movie on the whole was great. It was quite a compelling story with great acting and many other brilliant elements of film. It was not perfect, but it was very well done and I do highly recommend because of it as a film as a whole but also to see these three shots.
A second film, which I have not seen, which was released in 2007, was the Oscar-nominated Atonement. I wish I could comment on it better but I have read that their is a 4:30 shot which is incredible because of its scope and various elements and that the movie is worth seeing for that alone so people may want to check it out. I should probably watch it myself but the movie as a whole does not appeal, in the least.
Finally, an unrelated, not movie topic, but I know that Mr. Bennett was discussing ad-libbing and improving, a characteristic of some actors. Now, some of you may be familiar with the TV series, Scrubs, by far my favorite show on television. For anyone who knows about the show, they will definitely know the role of the Janitor, portrayed by Neil Flynn. I have read (and it could be false) that nearly all of the lines by the Janitor are improvised and that several times throughout the script, instead of giving him a line, the script literally says, "Whatever Neil says."
That could be an exaggeration but when that was brought up today I thought of those two different ideas and the films and TV that connected to them. I highly endorse Children of Men and Scrubs, because I am addicted to Scrubs and think everyone should check it out but I did think it was interesting the amount of improving that the character does.
A movie that some of you may have seen was Children of Men, which was released in 2006 and starred Clive Owen. Now to begin with, this was an extraordinary film, in many different aspects and one of my favorites, but it is especially well known for its long shots without a cut. I would write a full review on it if I was able to remember the film more vividly, but it was an amazing film that I would suggest everyone to see.
But back to the continuous shots. In this film, there are three lengthy scenes without a cut, one which is 3:58, one which is 3:11, and the third and most incredible which was 6:11. Believe me, if you have seen it or when you see it you will know. The first scene is also nearly impossible and when I read that it was not cut, I was shocked and amazed. Each of the three scenes were great and the movie on the whole was great. It was quite a compelling story with great acting and many other brilliant elements of film. It was not perfect, but it was very well done and I do highly recommend because of it as a film as a whole but also to see these three shots.
A second film, which I have not seen, which was released in 2007, was the Oscar-nominated Atonement. I wish I could comment on it better but I have read that their is a 4:30 shot which is incredible because of its scope and various elements and that the movie is worth seeing for that alone so people may want to check it out. I should probably watch it myself but the movie as a whole does not appeal, in the least.
Finally, an unrelated, not movie topic, but I know that Mr. Bennett was discussing ad-libbing and improving, a characteristic of some actors. Now, some of you may be familiar with the TV series, Scrubs, by far my favorite show on television. For anyone who knows about the show, they will definitely know the role of the Janitor, portrayed by Neil Flynn. I have read (and it could be false) that nearly all of the lines by the Janitor are improvised and that several times throughout the script, instead of giving him a line, the script literally says, "Whatever Neil says."
That could be an exaggeration but when that was brought up today I thought of those two different ideas and the films and TV that connected to them. I highly endorse Children of Men and Scrubs, because I am addicted to Scrubs and think everyone should check it out but I did think it was interesting the amount of improving that the character does.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
I Love You, Man
The other day I saw the buddy comedy, I Love You, Man. This will be the first review on the blog of a not serious, not independent, not intellectual movie, but still a very good movie. This movie was certainly not a gem of filmmaking in terms of styling or cinematography or meaningful dialogue but it was definitely an enjoyable movie.
Now, I understand that people are not used to me posting about movies that aren't heavy and impossible to find, but I Love You, Man was a movie that deserves a posting. Paul Rudd is a great actor and he showcases his talent in his quirky, offbeat role as Paul Klaven, a real-estate agent. The movie features some great cameos and terrific acting, as well as an engaging and interesting story.
Although the movie was somewhat predictable (as I expected), it was actually well-executed and was not just a cheap, poorly thrown together comedy, but instead a smart, funny movie that raised some interesting social points. To be honest, I am sure that Mr. Bennett would not be able to sit through more than 10 minutes of what he would likely call a "low-brow atrocity" or something along those lines, but if you are a student in the class, and therefore, 17 or 18 years old, you will probably enjoy this movie.
It is not spectacular but Paul Rudd and Jason Segel do a great job of getting you interested in their characters and their lives, along with delivering some hilarious lines of dialogue. The movie was quite funny and except for a few minor flaws, a strong overall movie, with not too much substance but it allows for a good time.
If you have got nothing better to do, go out and see I, Love You Man, you'll have a good time and it'll make you think, as much as a buddy comedy can.
Now, I understand that people are not used to me posting about movies that aren't heavy and impossible to find, but I Love You, Man was a movie that deserves a posting. Paul Rudd is a great actor and he showcases his talent in his quirky, offbeat role as Paul Klaven, a real-estate agent. The movie features some great cameos and terrific acting, as well as an engaging and interesting story.
Although the movie was somewhat predictable (as I expected), it was actually well-executed and was not just a cheap, poorly thrown together comedy, but instead a smart, funny movie that raised some interesting social points. To be honest, I am sure that Mr. Bennett would not be able to sit through more than 10 minutes of what he would likely call a "low-brow atrocity" or something along those lines, but if you are a student in the class, and therefore, 17 or 18 years old, you will probably enjoy this movie.
It is not spectacular but Paul Rudd and Jason Segel do a great job of getting you interested in their characters and their lives, along with delivering some hilarious lines of dialogue. The movie was quite funny and except for a few minor flaws, a strong overall movie, with not too much substance but it allows for a good time.
If you have got nothing better to do, go out and see I, Love You Man, you'll have a good time and it'll make you think, as much as a buddy comedy can.
The Seventh Seal -- Mid-Movie
It is likely that we will finish the Seventh Seal in class tomorrow, so before the movie ends, I thought I would share some thoughts about it before I forget them or before we begin concentrating on elements towards the end of the film, instead of at the beginning. Now, since this is my 2nd viewing, I might have an unfair advantage in seeing more of the elements of film, but I hope that only advances my ideas.
One thing that I noticed early in the film were the numerous references to the colors black and white, especially the amount of black that was attributed throughout the movie, especially to Death, himself. For one, Death is dressed all in black and when they begin playing Chess, Antonius holds the pieces in his hand for Death to choose and Death chooses the Black pieces, or as Antonius puts it "Black for you." As well, Antonius wears a black hood and the world is surrounded by the Black Death or the plague. These numerous allusions to Black are certainly noteworthy in one way or another.
Another idea that I had which may be overly interpreted is two scenes that took place with the actor. The first occurs when he sees the vision of the Virgin Mary with her child. Immediately before seeing the vision of her, he begins juggling balls, which I interpreted as the actor juggling the balls of life and trying to keep them from hitting the ground, just like he is trying to keep himself alive, despite the plague and being bitten by fleas.
The second scene which reaffirms this thought is that when he is talking to his wife about their son Michael with the other characters, they talk about Michael becoming a juggler like Joseph and he says that he knows that his son will be able to perform the impossible trick -- namely that he will make a ball stand still in the air. By keeping the ball in the air, he would be avoiding death and keeping the balls of his life afloat, much like his life. While Joseph believes that the impossible trick is keeping the balls in the air, the director Bergman, is telling us that the true impossible trick is stopping death and much like Mary says that the trick can never be done, we learn that death cannot be avoided.
Now, Joseph is sure that Michael will be able to perform the trick despite his wife's disagreement, and it becomes interesting as to whether his son can really keep a ball floating in the air, and through this avoid the inevitable death that all must face. I could be wrong but I felt that it was fitting that the characters are jugglers, trying to juggle their lives and keeping themselves alive amongst certain death.
Those were the most relevant points that I have seen so far but I also want to write down some of my favorite, and possibly most important lines of dialogue of the film, that I have noticed so far. Meaning can be attributed to each of these quotes and these quotes include:
"You and your visions" - Mary
"There was great silence on heaven and earth." - Joseph
Joseph and Mary
"Mikael will grow up to be a great acrobat--or a juggler who can do the one impossible trick."
"What's that?"
"To make one of the balls stand absolutely still in the air."
"But that's impossible."
"Impossible for us -- but not for him."
"You dreaming again."
Antonius and Death
"I want knowledge."
"You want guarantees?"
"Call it whatever you like. It is so cruelly inconceivable to grasp God with the senses? Why should he hide himself in a mist of half spoken promises and unseen miracles?"
Painter and Jons
"The Dance of Death."
"And that one is Death?"
"Yes, he dances off with all of them."
"Why do you paint such nonsense?"
"I thought it would serve to remind people that they must die."
"This is my hand. I can move it, feel the blood pulsing through it. The sun is still high in the sky and I, Antonius Block, am playing chess with Death."
"Our crusade was such madness that only a real idealist could have thought it up." - Jons
"No matter which way you turn you have your rump behind you. That's the truth." - Jons
Soldier and Jons
"The Devil can't stand the smell."
"Neither can I."
(about Flagellants) "Do you really expect people to believe this drivel?" - Jons
"People are dying like flies" - Jons (Ironic since plague was spread by flies.)
"You look more beautiful without your make-up on" - Antonius (beauty is inherent, no need for false appearances)
"I'm bored with myself" - Antonius
"To believe is to suffer, to speak to one who never answers." - Antonius
"Lord, why did you create women?" - Jons
"Your time is up. Performance -- canceled owing to death. Contract annulled." - Death
"Love is nothing but lust, cheating, and lies." - Jons
"If everything is imperfect in this world, love is perfect in its imperfection." - Antonius
Death and Antonius
"Will you ever stop asking questions?"
"No"
"But you never get any answers"
Jons and Antonius
"Who watches over that child?Is it the angels? Or God? Or the Devil? Or only the emptiness? Emptiness, my lord.
"No."
"Yes emptiness."
One thing that I noticed early in the film were the numerous references to the colors black and white, especially the amount of black that was attributed throughout the movie, especially to Death, himself. For one, Death is dressed all in black and when they begin playing Chess, Antonius holds the pieces in his hand for Death to choose and Death chooses the Black pieces, or as Antonius puts it "Black for you." As well, Antonius wears a black hood and the world is surrounded by the Black Death or the plague. These numerous allusions to Black are certainly noteworthy in one way or another.
Another idea that I had which may be overly interpreted is two scenes that took place with the actor. The first occurs when he sees the vision of the Virgin Mary with her child. Immediately before seeing the vision of her, he begins juggling balls, which I interpreted as the actor juggling the balls of life and trying to keep them from hitting the ground, just like he is trying to keep himself alive, despite the plague and being bitten by fleas.
The second scene which reaffirms this thought is that when he is talking to his wife about their son Michael with the other characters, they talk about Michael becoming a juggler like Joseph and he says that he knows that his son will be able to perform the impossible trick -- namely that he will make a ball stand still in the air. By keeping the ball in the air, he would be avoiding death and keeping the balls of his life afloat, much like his life. While Joseph believes that the impossible trick is keeping the balls in the air, the director Bergman, is telling us that the true impossible trick is stopping death and much like Mary says that the trick can never be done, we learn that death cannot be avoided.
Now, Joseph is sure that Michael will be able to perform the trick despite his wife's disagreement, and it becomes interesting as to whether his son can really keep a ball floating in the air, and through this avoid the inevitable death that all must face. I could be wrong but I felt that it was fitting that the characters are jugglers, trying to juggle their lives and keeping themselves alive amongst certain death.
Those were the most relevant points that I have seen so far but I also want to write down some of my favorite, and possibly most important lines of dialogue of the film, that I have noticed so far. Meaning can be attributed to each of these quotes and these quotes include:
"You and your visions" - Mary
"There was great silence on heaven and earth." - Joseph
Joseph and Mary
"Mikael will grow up to be a great acrobat--or a juggler who can do the one impossible trick."
"What's that?"
"To make one of the balls stand absolutely still in the air."
"But that's impossible."
"Impossible for us -- but not for him."
"You dreaming again."
Antonius and Death
"I want knowledge."
"You want guarantees?"
"Call it whatever you like. It is so cruelly inconceivable to grasp God with the senses? Why should he hide himself in a mist of half spoken promises and unseen miracles?"
Painter and Jons
"The Dance of Death."
"And that one is Death?"
"Yes, he dances off with all of them."
"Why do you paint such nonsense?"
"I thought it would serve to remind people that they must die."
"This is my hand. I can move it, feel the blood pulsing through it. The sun is still high in the sky and I, Antonius Block, am playing chess with Death."
"Our crusade was such madness that only a real idealist could have thought it up." - Jons
"No matter which way you turn you have your rump behind you. That's the truth." - Jons
Soldier and Jons
"The Devil can't stand the smell."
"Neither can I."
(about Flagellants) "Do you really expect people to believe this drivel?" - Jons
"People are dying like flies" - Jons (Ironic since plague was spread by flies.)
"You look more beautiful without your make-up on" - Antonius (beauty is inherent, no need for false appearances)
"I'm bored with myself" - Antonius
"To believe is to suffer, to speak to one who never answers." - Antonius
"Lord, why did you create women?" - Jons
"Your time is up. Performance -- canceled owing to death. Contract annulled." - Death
"Love is nothing but lust, cheating, and lies." - Jons
"If everything is imperfect in this world, love is perfect in its imperfection." - Antonius
Death and Antonius
"Will you ever stop asking questions?"
"No"
"But you never get any answers"
Jons and Antonius
"Who watches over that child?Is it the angels? Or God? Or the Devil? Or only the emptiness? Emptiness, my lord.
"No."
"Yes emptiness."
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Visitor
The Visitor was another low-budget, independent type film that was released in early 2008, directed by Thomas McCarthy, and starred Richard Jenkins, an exceptional actor in all of his roles, and actually received an Oscar nomination for his role in this film, this year.
The Visitor told a simple yet complex story centering around a middle-aged (60-year old) professor, who lives in Connecticut where he teaches, but he has held an apartment in New York, for 25 years, and when he is forced to come back to New York for a conference, he finds that a foreign couple is living in his apartment, which they were told was for rent.
From here, the story revolves around the interaction of the characters, and tells a realistic story, a story that seemed like it could truly happen everyday. Now, some people do not like realistic films, but I credit a director who can capture and portray reality as close as it can be. This movie does this incredibly well, and throughout the film, I never once felt like I was watching actors, I was watching real people. This story engrossed me and I believe Mr. Bennett has said that it is the credit to great actors when they seem like the people, not like they are playing a role. And in this film, it could not be more true.
This film is certainly not for everyone, especially people who like action films or romantic comedies but it was an extraordinary film on many levels. Some parts were clearly low-budget and it showed, but that should detract nothing from the film and it didn't. Believe me, it is not the perfect film, but it is one I would recommend very highly. I would suggest it more than all of my previously reviewed movies except maybe Schindler's List and In Bruges, but it's very close.
The acting is terrific and the story is beautiful and moving. If you get the chance, see it!
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Runaway Train -- The Control Room
The control room, as well as the people in it became an interesting character throughout the film. The people in the control room were almost overshadowed by the information in the room itself and it certainly took on its own experience. It is difficult to say the exact significance of the Control Room.
One conclusion that could be drawn from this is that the Control Room, is a God-like figure, since it was omniscient and able to see everything. The room was the source of knowledge and it knew exactly where the Runaway Train was and it was able to control it, to a point. It saw all of actions of the runaway and all of the other trains, in a way playing a role of someone who watches over everything and everybody, and fits in with the religious allegory of Manny taking on the role of Jesus and human sacrifice.
But in my opinion, there is also another way to look at it. This is, that in fact, the Control Room was powerless and that the Runaway Train was an unstoppable force that could not be controlled, even with all of the knowledge and information that it possessed. The runaway train was on a path of its own, a path of destiny, one that would happen, regardless of all the power in the world.
The third similar idea, again referring to a religious allegory, is that the Control Room is a God-like figure, but that although He has the power to stop and control everything, but the train and the people in have the Free Will to make their own decisions and that God only guides them in directions but allows them to choose their own path, and allows mistakes to be made so that people can pave their own path in the world.
The people in the Control Room are very complex because they didn't seem prepared to handle a crisis like the one they were faced with. Every single plan they had was only a momentary solution and they were never able to come up with any solution to save everyone, a possible allegory for salvation, that not everyone can be saved. It was also interesting how lax and unprepared they were when they first learned of the train and only the one man had any solutions for trying to save the train without derailing it.
It was interesting to note the juxtaposition between the power and all-knowing ability of the Control Room, with the powerlessness it felt when it was unable to stop the train and the way the people in the Control Room did not have the knowledge of how to save the Runaway Train. They were clearly numerous symbols behind the Control Room, and the true answer is probably hard to find, but these are just some possible scenarios.
The most enduring image of the Control Room was when Ranken pushes Frank into the toilet and gives him that speech. It was both very funny and could also show that the Control Room could easily be overtaken and had no real power in stopping anything. It was interesting also that the bathroom was referenced several times in the Control Room but I don't think that it holds any significance.
The Control Room was certainly an integral character in this film and I'm sure that people will have many opinions on it, which I hope to hear.
One conclusion that could be drawn from this is that the Control Room, is a God-like figure, since it was omniscient and able to see everything. The room was the source of knowledge and it knew exactly where the Runaway Train was and it was able to control it, to a point. It saw all of actions of the runaway and all of the other trains, in a way playing a role of someone who watches over everything and everybody, and fits in with the religious allegory of Manny taking on the role of Jesus and human sacrifice.
But in my opinion, there is also another way to look at it. This is, that in fact, the Control Room was powerless and that the Runaway Train was an unstoppable force that could not be controlled, even with all of the knowledge and information that it possessed. The runaway train was on a path of its own, a path of destiny, one that would happen, regardless of all the power in the world.
The third similar idea, again referring to a religious allegory, is that the Control Room is a God-like figure, but that although He has the power to stop and control everything, but the train and the people in have the Free Will to make their own decisions and that God only guides them in directions but allows them to choose their own path, and allows mistakes to be made so that people can pave their own path in the world.
The people in the Control Room are very complex because they didn't seem prepared to handle a crisis like the one they were faced with. Every single plan they had was only a momentary solution and they were never able to come up with any solution to save everyone, a possible allegory for salvation, that not everyone can be saved. It was also interesting how lax and unprepared they were when they first learned of the train and only the one man had any solutions for trying to save the train without derailing it.
It was interesting to note the juxtaposition between the power and all-knowing ability of the Control Room, with the powerlessness it felt when it was unable to stop the train and the way the people in the Control Room did not have the knowledge of how to save the Runaway Train. They were clearly numerous symbols behind the Control Room, and the true answer is probably hard to find, but these are just some possible scenarios.
The most enduring image of the Control Room was when Ranken pushes Frank into the toilet and gives him that speech. It was both very funny and could also show that the Control Room could easily be overtaken and had no real power in stopping anything. It was interesting also that the bathroom was referenced several times in the Control Room but I don't think that it holds any significance.
The Control Room was certainly an integral character in this film and I'm sure that people will have many opinions on it, which I hope to hear.
Favorite Lines from Runaway Train
Here are some of the lines I wrote down while watching Runaway Train. I may have missed some of the best lines because it is difficult to watch the movie, pay attention, and write down the quotes, but I tried my best. Hopefully you like some of them, or they at least bring back vivid memories of the film:
(In sewer) "That's the smell of freedom, brother" - Manny
(Looking at train) "That's my ticket to Broadway... Cause I want it." - Manny
"I ain't expect nothing" - Manny
"Dreams, dreams" (Spits on the ground) - Manny
"You get an inmates' job. Because they job is like gold. That job is gold." - Manny
"God, don't kill them. Let me do it." - Rankin
"You clean that spot!" - Manny
"Well, I guess you guys picked the wrong train." - Sara
"I ain't getting caught alive, and you neither." - Manny
"I don't know man... I don't know what to think." - Buck
"You'll break every bone in your body." - Buck
(Describing his bones) "They've been broke before." - Manny
"We've been breaking through doors all our lives" - Manny
"Miracles - what are you stupid." - Manny
"I ain't waiting for no miracle."
"Win, lose, what's the difference?" - Manny
"You don't know what you can do, and what you can't" - Manny
"You were a hero to us - until the truth came out" - Sara
"You're an animal." - Sara
"No worse! Human!" - Manny
"Hold me - I don't want to die alone." - Sara
"Everyone dies alone." - Manny
"We all die alone - ain't that right Rankin." - Manny
"You think you're a hero. You're Scum!" - Rankin
"We're both scum, brother!" - Manny
"You're as afraid to die as anybody else, and I never let you free. You hear me? " - Rankin
"I am free, Rankin. I am free. " - Manny
Throughout these quotes, there are several Biblical allusions, including the discussion of miracles which Manny thinks is stupid be he ends up performing something that could almost resemble a miracle. Also, Manny said that he had all of his bones broken before, it is interesting that when Jesus died, all of his bones were broken. All of these quotes have their own significance that I won't get into but these were just some of the memorable quotes that I remember. Hopefully, people have some other ones, and some of these could be the basis in our discussion of this film. Hope these ring true to you!
(In sewer) "That's the smell of freedom, brother" - Manny
(Looking at train) "That's my ticket to Broadway... Cause I want it." - Manny
"I ain't expect nothing" - Manny
"Dreams, dreams" (Spits on the ground) - Manny
"You get an inmates' job. Because they job is like gold. That job is gold." - Manny
"God, don't kill them. Let me do it." - Rankin
"You clean that spot!" - Manny
"Well, I guess you guys picked the wrong train." - Sara
"I ain't getting caught alive, and you neither." - Manny
"I don't know man... I don't know what to think." - Buck
"You'll break every bone in your body." - Buck
(Describing his bones) "They've been broke before." - Manny
"We've been breaking through doors all our lives" - Manny
"Miracles - what are you stupid." - Manny
"I ain't waiting for no miracle."
"Win, lose, what's the difference?" - Manny
"You don't know what you can do, and what you can't" - Manny
"You were a hero to us - until the truth came out" - Sara
"You're an animal." - Sara
"No worse! Human!" - Manny
"Hold me - I don't want to die alone." - Sara
"Everyone dies alone." - Manny
"We all die alone - ain't that right Rankin." - Manny
"You think you're a hero. You're Scum!" - Rankin
"We're both scum, brother!" - Manny
"You're as afraid to die as anybody else, and I never let you free. You hear me? " - Rankin
"I am free, Rankin. I am free. " - Manny
Throughout these quotes, there are several Biblical allusions, including the discussion of miracles which Manny thinks is stupid be he ends up performing something that could almost resemble a miracle. Also, Manny said that he had all of his bones broken before, it is interesting that when Jesus died, all of his bones were broken. All of these quotes have their own significance that I won't get into but these were just some of the memorable quotes that I remember. Hopefully, people have some other ones, and some of these could be the basis in our discussion of this film. Hope these ring true to you!
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Runaway Train -- First Thoughts After Film Ended
The bell rings signaling the end of 7th period. But not a soul in the class moves. The late bell rings and still everyone remains in their seats, staring directly at the screen, completely engrossed in the movie. That is the feeling I had as I watched the end of Runaway Train, a truly incredible film.
As I walked into to AP Poli Sci more than 8 minutes late and Ms. Kirschbaum told us "that we would never be late because of Mr. Bennett," I wondered about the battle that would almost certainly ensue later on that day about 8 of her students being late to class. I assume that there will be quite an interesting story about this in the future.
However, now to the important part. The film review and all of the complex, interconnected aspects of this film. As Mr. Bennett said earlier, it was difficult to look through all of the action and other things going on and see what was going on behind the scenes, without missing the plot itself. In my opinion, the film centered around a very interesting concept, and that the film as a whole was an allegory for the death of Jesus, and a story of human sacrifice.
This point I think was made clear by the last shot of the film where Manny stands on top of the train with arms 0utstretched like Jesus, lay on the cross. Also, it is similar to the story of Jesus and his death, in the fact that Manny could have saved himself and chose not to and sacrifice himself to save everyone else (Buck and Sara) and to rid the world of evil in the world, or at least in their world (Warden Ranken.)
Looking back on many other interesting allusions to the Bible and Jesus' death in relation to this story, in the early scene where the fight ensues during the boxing match. When Manny gets into a fight with one of the other prisoners and his hand is stabbed, it is a similar allusion to Jesus' skin being pierced when he is imprisoned.
Finally, in the last scene of the movie, when the Runaway Train with Manny and Ranken is disappearing, Konchalovsky chooses to show shots of different prisoners and Buck to show that it was a sacrifice for all of the prisoners. They were all freed from the evilness of Ranken. Therefore, in similarity to the story of Jesus' death, Manny's redemption is similar, which seems to be an anti-existenial message, so it is possible that I am wrong.
Interestingly enough, in the characters of Joe Buck and Manny, each ended up sacrificing themselves for another, although throughout the movie, and throughout their lives they may not have been the most reputable and moral characters. That is just an observation.
There will be more thoughts about other elements of this film shortly but I don't want to make one post that is too long to read but upcoming posts will focus on: the Control Room and Sara, among other things. These should be expected in the upcoming days.
However, I was looking up different things about Jon Voight and I found a very interesting interview on Boxofficemojo.com, a very good site, that was done last year. It discussed Midnight Cowboy, Runaway Train, and Catch-22, among many other films, although it focused on Midnight Cowboy. I found it enlightening and it was very interesting to read his own thoughts on these films and I have included the link on the bottom of the post. I hope you enjoy the interview.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/features/?id=2381&pagenum=all&p=.htm
As I walked into to AP Poli Sci more than 8 minutes late and Ms. Kirschbaum told us "that we would never be late because of Mr. Bennett," I wondered about the battle that would almost certainly ensue later on that day about 8 of her students being late to class. I assume that there will be quite an interesting story about this in the future.
However, now to the important part. The film review and all of the complex, interconnected aspects of this film. As Mr. Bennett said earlier, it was difficult to look through all of the action and other things going on and see what was going on behind the scenes, without missing the plot itself. In my opinion, the film centered around a very interesting concept, and that the film as a whole was an allegory for the death of Jesus, and a story of human sacrifice.
This point I think was made clear by the last shot of the film where Manny stands on top of the train with arms 0utstretched like Jesus, lay on the cross. Also, it is similar to the story of Jesus and his death, in the fact that Manny could have saved himself and chose not to and sacrifice himself to save everyone else (Buck and Sara) and to rid the world of evil in the world, or at least in their world (Warden Ranken.)
Looking back on many other interesting allusions to the Bible and Jesus' death in relation to this story, in the early scene where the fight ensues during the boxing match. When Manny gets into a fight with one of the other prisoners and his hand is stabbed, it is a similar allusion to Jesus' skin being pierced when he is imprisoned.
Finally, in the last scene of the movie, when the Runaway Train with Manny and Ranken is disappearing, Konchalovsky chooses to show shots of different prisoners and Buck to show that it was a sacrifice for all of the prisoners. They were all freed from the evilness of Ranken. Therefore, in similarity to the story of Jesus' death, Manny's redemption is similar, which seems to be an anti-existenial message, so it is possible that I am wrong.
Interestingly enough, in the characters of Joe Buck and Manny, each ended up sacrificing themselves for another, although throughout the movie, and throughout their lives they may not have been the most reputable and moral characters. That is just an observation.
There will be more thoughts about other elements of this film shortly but I don't want to make one post that is too long to read but upcoming posts will focus on: the Control Room and Sara, among other things. These should be expected in the upcoming days.
However, I was looking up different things about Jon Voight and I found a very interesting interview on Boxofficemojo.com, a very good site, that was done last year. It discussed Midnight Cowboy, Runaway Train, and Catch-22, among many other films, although it focused on Midnight Cowboy. I found it enlightening and it was very interesting to read his own thoughts on these films and I have included the link on the bottom of the post. I hope you enjoy the interview.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/features/?id=2381&pagenum=all&p=.htm
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Runaway Train -- Two Thoughts -- So Far
Now, we are about an hour into Runaway Train and it has been a very interesting, insightful, and enjoyable movie. Both Manny and Buck are incredibly engrossing and complex characters. So far, I have several thoughts running through my mind about the different ideas in this movie, but two stand out to me, so I figure I will write just about that now, and concentrate on the other ones as they develop throughout the movie.
The enduring images and dialogue, for me, so far, revolved around Buck and an idea he continued to return to. After the escape from prison, Buck complains over and over again about not having shoes. Throughout their journey, he keeps saying "Shoes, shoes, I need shoes," and other very similar lines. However, the last thing that Buck does in prison when he is helping Manny escape, is give brand new shoes to the prison guard. Now obviously, these were not winter boots or anything, (they might have been Converses), but it was just interesting that the last thing that he gave away before his journey, was the thing he yearned for the most when he was gone.
The second thought was about Buck, himself. Buck is so excited about getting out and wants to follow Manny out. But it seems that Buck is naive or ignorant, probably both, and has both a romanticized view of what he will be able to do when he gets out. He doesn't understand the difficulty of a convict's life after they escape. When Manny humbles him and tells him that he will have to "take a dishwasher's job" and that that job will "be gold" and that he better "clean that spot," Buck responds that "he would rather be in prison". When they were escaping, Buck didn't seem cut out for escaping and was very careless by leaving his prison uniform in the stationhouse. It seems that although he was so eager to escape, Buck will actually be better suited to the confined world of the prison, as he seemed happier and more comfortable there. The image of his uniform laying on the ground and the fact that it was found, signals (possibly) that we have not seen the last of him as a prisoner and he will actually end up being recaptured or go back to jail for another crime.
I just felt that those were a few ideas that I felt were foreshadowed throughout the movie so far. It should be very interesting to see how this movie progresses and culminates over the coming days. I look forward to seeing it.
The enduring images and dialogue, for me, so far, revolved around Buck and an idea he continued to return to. After the escape from prison, Buck complains over and over again about not having shoes. Throughout their journey, he keeps saying "Shoes, shoes, I need shoes," and other very similar lines. However, the last thing that Buck does in prison when he is helping Manny escape, is give brand new shoes to the prison guard. Now obviously, these were not winter boots or anything, (they might have been Converses), but it was just interesting that the last thing that he gave away before his journey, was the thing he yearned for the most when he was gone.
The second thought was about Buck, himself. Buck is so excited about getting out and wants to follow Manny out. But it seems that Buck is naive or ignorant, probably both, and has both a romanticized view of what he will be able to do when he gets out. He doesn't understand the difficulty of a convict's life after they escape. When Manny humbles him and tells him that he will have to "take a dishwasher's job" and that that job will "be gold" and that he better "clean that spot," Buck responds that "he would rather be in prison". When they were escaping, Buck didn't seem cut out for escaping and was very careless by leaving his prison uniform in the stationhouse. It seems that although he was so eager to escape, Buck will actually be better suited to the confined world of the prison, as he seemed happier and more comfortable there. The image of his uniform laying on the ground and the fact that it was found, signals (possibly) that we have not seen the last of him as a prisoner and he will actually end up being recaptured or go back to jail for another crime.
I just felt that those were a few ideas that I felt were foreshadowed throughout the movie so far. It should be very interesting to see how this movie progresses and culminates over the coming days. I look forward to seeing it.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The Film Class -- A Blessing and A Curse
When I first saw that the Film Class was being offered and then when it was put on my schedule, I was ecstatic. Ever since we started watching films at the end of AP American last year, I wished that the film class would come back and even tried to lobby for it to return as a class. The fact that it became a reality is amazing, and a month into the class I couldn't be happier.
However, because of this, the film class has become a blessing and a curse. It has been a blessing for obvious reasons. It is almost certainly (Since I am discussing the film class, I should avoid complete absolutes, as per Mr. Bennett's request) the best class that I have taken in my high school. It is very enjoyable and with the advent of this blog, it has opened my eyes to the film opinions and critiques of my classmates, and allowed for an open and flowing discussion on films, something that has helped me greatly. It has increased my already high interest in films and allowed me to see films I probably would not have watched on my own.
However, there is also a downside, but it is technically also a good thing. Because I am so interested in the film class and the blog, I spend more time here then on my other homework, like my AP Classes. I am constantly checking if anyone has written another post and I have read almost all of the blog posts by everyone so far, as well as written my own. However, this takes up a lot of time and if I decide to watch a movie that night, it adds to the amount of time. In other words, I am slightly addicted to the film class and this blog.
To put it in perspective, I spend about 30x more time a night on the blog than on my Brayman Calculus Homework, and about 6x more time on the blog or things related to film than on my AP English and Poli Sci classes combined. Believe me, I am doing the farthest thing from complaining. I couldn't be happier with the film class and from reading the great comments of my classmates, but it probably isn't the most prudent idea to spend the majority of my nights on an elective class, but as a senior, it gives me a perfect reason to procrastinate on the not exciting classes that I am forced to take.
It is an honor and a privilege to be a part of such a well-informed and interesting class. I hope to read more insightful comments and therefore allow myself to spend even less time on my other classes' homework.
However, because of this, the film class has become a blessing and a curse. It has been a blessing for obvious reasons. It is almost certainly (Since I am discussing the film class, I should avoid complete absolutes, as per Mr. Bennett's request) the best class that I have taken in my high school. It is very enjoyable and with the advent of this blog, it has opened my eyes to the film opinions and critiques of my classmates, and allowed for an open and flowing discussion on films, something that has helped me greatly. It has increased my already high interest in films and allowed me to see films I probably would not have watched on my own.
However, there is also a downside, but it is technically also a good thing. Because I am so interested in the film class and the blog, I spend more time here then on my other homework, like my AP Classes. I am constantly checking if anyone has written another post and I have read almost all of the blog posts by everyone so far, as well as written my own. However, this takes up a lot of time and if I decide to watch a movie that night, it adds to the amount of time. In other words, I am slightly addicted to the film class and this blog.
To put it in perspective, I spend about 30x more time a night on the blog than on my Brayman Calculus Homework, and about 6x more time on the blog or things related to film than on my AP English and Poli Sci classes combined. Believe me, I am doing the farthest thing from complaining. I couldn't be happier with the film class and from reading the great comments of my classmates, but it probably isn't the most prudent idea to spend the majority of my nights on an elective class, but as a senior, it gives me a perfect reason to procrastinate on the not exciting classes that I am forced to take.
It is an honor and a privilege to be a part of such a well-informed and interesting class. I hope to read more insightful comments and therefore allow myself to spend even less time on my other classes' homework.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Midnight Cowboy -- 1st Comments
Midnight Cowboy certainly had many enduring images, some that were significant at least in my eyes. Many of them relied upon using Florida at their core, part of Ratso's dream to get their before they died. First is the images of Ratso's fantasy which shows his ultimate goal of getting to Florida. Next, a few minutes later, Joe is listening to the radio, and the song being played keeps repeating "Florida Orange Juice on Ice. " This is significant because it is another mention of Florida but also, at that time, it is very cold and the two guys are poor. Therefore, their dreams of going to Florida are "on ice" and have to wait until things turn around and they have money again. The only way they can get to drink "REAL Florida Orange Juice" is after their situation improves. This, however, is juxtaposed because Joe gives the radio into the pawn shop and the music on the radio and in the film abruptly stops when the shopkeeper shuts it off. Again, it is shutting down their dreams for the moment.
The other image of Florida, is a billboard that Joe and Ratso go by. The billboard advertises "Northeast Yellowbirds from Florida" "Steak for lunch, steak for dinner, steak for everybody." I think that this says that the two boys from the Northeast, as Joe will later say that he is from Florida, are going to "fly" to Florida and start over new where all of the wealth will be at their fingertips. At that time, this is juxtaposed by an image of a man with an odd face, similar to the large face of Kane on the poster during his speech at MSG. The man looks sly and conniving and my first thought was that these dreams could not be realized because a positive image is juxtaposed with a negative image to show that these ideas are just fantasizes.
Finally, the song lyrics of "Everybody's Talkin" which is that the "sun keeps shining through the pouring rain," which can state something about Florida. Some of these ideas may not be relevant but watching the film, I tried to notice mentions of Florida because after Ratso's fantasy, it became a main point of relevance in the film.
The other image of Florida, is a billboard that Joe and Ratso go by. The billboard advertises "Northeast Yellowbirds from Florida" "Steak for lunch, steak for dinner, steak for everybody." I think that this says that the two boys from the Northeast, as Joe will later say that he is from Florida, are going to "fly" to Florida and start over new where all of the wealth will be at their fingertips. At that time, this is juxtaposed by an image of a man with an odd face, similar to the large face of Kane on the poster during his speech at MSG. The man looks sly and conniving and my first thought was that these dreams could not be realized because a positive image is juxtaposed with a negative image to show that these ideas are just fantasizes.
Finally, the song lyrics of "Everybody's Talkin" which is that the "sun keeps shining through the pouring rain," which can state something about Florida. Some of these ideas may not be relevant but watching the film, I tried to notice mentions of Florida because after Ratso's fantasy, it became a main point of relevance in the film.
Synecdoche, New York
So, last night, I watched Synecdoche, New York, my fourth movie in four nights. This movie, was released just last year, starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, and written and directed by Charlie Kaufman. This is Kaufman's directing debut but he has written such gems as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (one of my favorites), Adaptation, and Being John Malkovich. Therefore, if you have seen any of these films, you should not expect any semblance of normalcy out of this film.
For those of you aren't in AP Literature, the title may not be significant to you. The action of the film opens in Schenectady, New York but the title is actually Synecdoche, New York. Now, synecdoche is a literary term which means "a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole." So that does give some clue as to where the movie is going.
This movie was very thought-provoking, but also indescribable for the large part. If anyone has seen it, I believe they will attest to it. The film certainly had an interesting concept and brilliant writing, but it was also very strange, and in my opinion, it tried too hard to be original but it certainly was very good.
A main problem that I had with the film is that it was only 2 hours long and yet, I felt like I had been watching the films for months and it would never end. I do believe that was part of the filmmaker's strategy and his message but the film definitely dragged at points.
However, like Citizen Kane, and other films, this was a very teachable film and there were symbols in every scene that were significant. Watching the film with my brother, allowed me to have a thought-provoking discussion on several elements and ideas that the film expressed. It is certainly a film that will stick with me, and one that I will try to understand and comprehend, because at this point, the thoughts were so complex that I have not been able to entangle all of the wires.
Without giving away many details, the film revolves Philip Seymour Hoffman's character, Caden Cotard, a playwright, who becomes a MacArthur fellow is contracted to create a play for the betterment of society and mankind. He is given a gigantic warehouse in NYC to use as a stage for his play. As part of his play, he attempts to build a life-size replica of NYC inside the warehouse and the remainder of the film concentrates of human interaction, the meaning of life, and several other philosophical elements.
Particularly, there is one brilliant, philosophical line of dialogue, which is one of my favorite that I have ever heard. But since it is the crux of the film, I will not tell you what that line is, and instead leave you on a cliffhanger and force you to see the movie.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, the movie was extraordinary in its attempts to portray life and the way that it is filmed also adds an extra element to the story, and allows the setting to take on a character, almost a main character of its own. If you want an movie to escape from life, this is not a film for you, but if you want to think deeply on the nature of life, I will recommend this film highly. I apologize if I leave too many cliffhangers in my posts, but I just don't want to spoil them, but instead give you a reason to see the film.
Synecdoche, New York, is another film that I think is worth seeing and is a film with some many filmmaking elements to learn from that I believe that it may become a classroom film that it taught across the country in a few years. I could be wrong, though. But this is a very well done, clever, and interesting movie, and I will certainly suggest it.
Also, as to my assertion, that it is a teachable film, according to IMDB, it recommends that anyone who enjoyed this film should also see Citizen Kane, so therefore, I guess I am not alone in that belief.
For those of you aren't in AP Literature, the title may not be significant to you. The action of the film opens in Schenectady, New York but the title is actually Synecdoche, New York. Now, synecdoche is a literary term which means "a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole." So that does give some clue as to where the movie is going.
This movie was very thought-provoking, but also indescribable for the large part. If anyone has seen it, I believe they will attest to it. The film certainly had an interesting concept and brilliant writing, but it was also very strange, and in my opinion, it tried too hard to be original but it certainly was very good.
A main problem that I had with the film is that it was only 2 hours long and yet, I felt like I had been watching the films for months and it would never end. I do believe that was part of the filmmaker's strategy and his message but the film definitely dragged at points.
However, like Citizen Kane, and other films, this was a very teachable film and there were symbols in every scene that were significant. Watching the film with my brother, allowed me to have a thought-provoking discussion on several elements and ideas that the film expressed. It is certainly a film that will stick with me, and one that I will try to understand and comprehend, because at this point, the thoughts were so complex that I have not been able to entangle all of the wires.
Without giving away many details, the film revolves Philip Seymour Hoffman's character, Caden Cotard, a playwright, who becomes a MacArthur fellow is contracted to create a play for the betterment of society and mankind. He is given a gigantic warehouse in NYC to use as a stage for his play. As part of his play, he attempts to build a life-size replica of NYC inside the warehouse and the remainder of the film concentrates of human interaction, the meaning of life, and several other philosophical elements.
Particularly, there is one brilliant, philosophical line of dialogue, which is one of my favorite that I have ever heard. But since it is the crux of the film, I will not tell you what that line is, and instead leave you on a cliffhanger and force you to see the movie.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, the movie was extraordinary in its attempts to portray life and the way that it is filmed also adds an extra element to the story, and allows the setting to take on a character, almost a main character of its own. If you want an movie to escape from life, this is not a film for you, but if you want to think deeply on the nature of life, I will recommend this film highly. I apologize if I leave too many cliffhangers in my posts, but I just don't want to spoil them, but instead give you a reason to see the film.
Synecdoche, New York, is another film that I think is worth seeing and is a film with some many filmmaking elements to learn from that I believe that it may become a classroom film that it taught across the country in a few years. I could be wrong, though. But this is a very well done, clever, and interesting movie, and I will certainly suggest it.
Also, as to my assertion, that it is a teachable film, according to IMDB, it recommends that anyone who enjoyed this film should also see Citizen Kane, so therefore, I guess I am not alone in that belief.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
In Bruges
So, now, I have watched 3 movies in 3 nights, all very different from each other. Last night, I watched In Bruges, a movie released in 2008, a British/Irish comedy starring Colin Farrell, Brandon Gleeson, and Ralph Fiennes. (Nick has a very well-written review of this, but it may contain spoilers. But I would certainly suggest reading it.) The film tells the story of two hitmen who go to Bruges to await their next move.
Thanks to Nick's blog and Mr. Bennett's comment, I have learned that Bruges is actually a delightful city that he has visited in Belgium so I won't make the comment that no one has ever been to Bruges or even heard of it. This film, however, uses the city as a character in the film and it is very useful in telling the story. It is a brilliantly written, well-acted story, which was nominated by the Academy for Best Original Screenplay, which I believe it deserved, and Colin Farrell won a Golden Globes for his role. (Apparently he can act!) But this was a strong movie, with some terrific parts, and I enjoyed it immensely. Also, the writing also did a good job of making every line of dialogue necessary and useful in telling the story. There was little in the way of wasted dialogue.
In Bruges in particular was able to mix many different emotions and was certainly a dark comedy, with some hilarious jokes, that made me laugh for a long time. The way in which the different emotions was balanced was admirable, and the use of the city both as a character and the way in which the city was filmed, gave it a unique feel, and actually appeared to be a very interesting city to visit. The city and its artwork, as it was a medieval city, offered so much to be filmed, and the movie truly grabbed that. Several shots of the film are very memorable, and the ability of the cinematographer to portray this city in this light, and allow it to take on a life of its own, is a credit to his styling.
I know it seems that I am suggesting that every movie I watch people should see, and I seem to be doing that every night but when you watch 3 movies in a 3 nights with a diverse a topic as this, each very well done, you will believe that all three films are worth seeing. This is another movie that I would certainly suggest.
Once more people have seen the films, I have suggested, I would be happy to discuss the symbols and significance of shots in all of the films I have recommended.
*Be prepared for another review tomorrow.*
Thanks to Nick's blog and Mr. Bennett's comment, I have learned that Bruges is actually a delightful city that he has visited in Belgium so I won't make the comment that no one has ever been to Bruges or even heard of it. This film, however, uses the city as a character in the film and it is very useful in telling the story. It is a brilliantly written, well-acted story, which was nominated by the Academy for Best Original Screenplay, which I believe it deserved, and Colin Farrell won a Golden Globes for his role. (Apparently he can act!) But this was a strong movie, with some terrific parts, and I enjoyed it immensely. Also, the writing also did a good job of making every line of dialogue necessary and useful in telling the story. There was little in the way of wasted dialogue.
In Bruges in particular was able to mix many different emotions and was certainly a dark comedy, with some hilarious jokes, that made me laugh for a long time. The way in which the different emotions was balanced was admirable, and the use of the city both as a character and the way in which the city was filmed, gave it a unique feel, and actually appeared to be a very interesting city to visit. The city and its artwork, as it was a medieval city, offered so much to be filmed, and the movie truly grabbed that. Several shots of the film are very memorable, and the ability of the cinematographer to portray this city in this light, and allow it to take on a life of its own, is a credit to his styling.
I know it seems that I am suggesting that every movie I watch people should see, and I seem to be doing that every night but when you watch 3 movies in a 3 nights with a diverse a topic as this, each very well done, you will believe that all three films are worth seeing. This is another movie that I would certainly suggest.
Once more people have seen the films, I have suggested, I would be happy to discuss the symbols and significance of shots in all of the films I have recommended.
*Be prepared for another review tomorrow.*
The Counterfeiters
Last night, I watched the Counterfeiters, a foreign language film from Austria/Germany, which won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language film last year. This told the story of Operation Bernhard during WWII when the Nazis went bankrupt and resorted to counterfeiting money of the British and American economies, in order to flood and destroy these currencies as well. The story centers around one man, Salomon (Sally) who is a master counterfeiter and the time he spends in a concentration camp. This is based off a true story and this was a counterfeiting operation began by the Germans during WWII.
This movie was incredibly well-done, and actually not very difficult to watch, despite being in German and Russian with subtitles, because they did not detract from the film, as much as some films. It was interesting to watch this movie, less than a week after watching Schindler's List, with both stories revolving around Jews in a concentration camp in WWII and their experiences. Each film beautifully/horrifyingly portrayed the Holocaust very realistically and showed the horrors of this experience. Watching both films allowed me to make many comparisons between the film, although there were not too many to be found.
This film certainly stood on its own and told a very compelling story of the Holocaust, but it did so it an immensely different way than Schindler's List did. I believe that each was effective and that the Counterfeiters focused even more upon the individual and on a completely different piece of the Holocaust than Schindler's List. I believe that the stark differences and also the striking similarities between the two films showed the true scope of the Holocaust. It is true that there are many movies about the Holocaust but I believe that each tells a piece of the Holocaust, because it is impossible to portray it fully in one film.
Another interesting aspect of this film was that it was completely spoken in German and it was made in Germany, which shows a different perspective on the war than one would get from an American director like Spielberg. I believe that the difference in the view of the Holocaust's portrayal was interesting for me to see because it certainly was filmed differently than an American film.
The most striking aspect of filmmaking in this movie was the camera zoom. Many times the camera would zoom in on a person in a very interesting and personal way. (Believe me I am not comparing them, but the zoom style reminded of me of how filming and zooming is done on the TV show the Office. I think that just makes it seem more understandable because people can probably picture the Zoom's on the Office. But please don't think I am comparing their content or styling as a whole.) This truly focused on the characters in a unique way in film, by making the camera move and give the non-documentary movie, a slightly documentary film. A style that I certainly believe added to the skill of the film and was something that added to the effectiveness.
Like I have not done in my earlier reviews, I will not spoil any plot details, but I will highly suggest this film. I can't pass a fair judgment since I haven't seen the other Foreign Language films of 2007, but I am happy that the Academy recognized this well-done film. I highly suggest this film, however, for a great story, and many of its other elements.
*I will make another suggestion. The film that won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film, the year before this film was entitled The Lives of Others. I saw this movie a little over a year ago and I thought it was an extraordinary film. It was also German and told a story of Berlin in the 1980's. It was another great film and these two films are very different, but watching the Counterfeiters brought back vivid memories of the Lives of Others. I suggest each film highly.
This movie was incredibly well-done, and actually not very difficult to watch, despite being in German and Russian with subtitles, because they did not detract from the film, as much as some films. It was interesting to watch this movie, less than a week after watching Schindler's List, with both stories revolving around Jews in a concentration camp in WWII and their experiences. Each film beautifully/horrifyingly portrayed the Holocaust very realistically and showed the horrors of this experience. Watching both films allowed me to make many comparisons between the film, although there were not too many to be found.
This film certainly stood on its own and told a very compelling story of the Holocaust, but it did so it an immensely different way than Schindler's List did. I believe that each was effective and that the Counterfeiters focused even more upon the individual and on a completely different piece of the Holocaust than Schindler's List. I believe that the stark differences and also the striking similarities between the two films showed the true scope of the Holocaust. It is true that there are many movies about the Holocaust but I believe that each tells a piece of the Holocaust, because it is impossible to portray it fully in one film.
Another interesting aspect of this film was that it was completely spoken in German and it was made in Germany, which shows a different perspective on the war than one would get from an American director like Spielberg. I believe that the difference in the view of the Holocaust's portrayal was interesting for me to see because it certainly was filmed differently than an American film.
The most striking aspect of filmmaking in this movie was the camera zoom. Many times the camera would zoom in on a person in a very interesting and personal way. (Believe me I am not comparing them, but the zoom style reminded of me of how filming and zooming is done on the TV show the Office. I think that just makes it seem more understandable because people can probably picture the Zoom's on the Office. But please don't think I am comparing their content or styling as a whole.) This truly focused on the characters in a unique way in film, by making the camera move and give the non-documentary movie, a slightly documentary film. A style that I certainly believe added to the skill of the film and was something that added to the effectiveness.
Like I have not done in my earlier reviews, I will not spoil any plot details, but I will highly suggest this film. I can't pass a fair judgment since I haven't seen the other Foreign Language films of 2007, but I am happy that the Academy recognized this well-done film. I highly suggest this film, however, for a great story, and many of its other elements.
*I will make another suggestion. The film that won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film, the year before this film was entitled The Lives of Others. I saw this movie a little over a year ago and I thought it was an extraordinary film. It was also German and told a story of Berlin in the 1980's. It was another great film and these two films are very different, but watching the Counterfeiters brought back vivid memories of the Lives of Others. I suggest each film highly.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Barton Fink -- Yes, That is Actually the Name of the Movie
Despite much confusion, I am sure this title and blog post will elicit many confused comments and I do apologize in advance. But, yes Barton Fink is the title of the movie which I saw last night. It is written/directed/produced by the Coen Brothers and was released in 1991 (Ironically, the day before I was born). It starred John Turturro as Barton Fink and John Goodman as Charlie Meadows. I would not expect many people to have heard of this film unless you are truly disciples of the Coen's because this movie was only released in 189 theaters, grossed only $6 million, and opened before any of you (except Mr. Bennett, I believe) could speak or walk.
Now I posted a few weeks ago, about the fact that I believed that the Savages was one of the strangest films I had seen, but shockingly I was very, very wrong. The Savages was very grounded in reality, while this film was not. It told the story of a New York playwright in 1941 who moved to Hollywood to start writing movies, and his experiences writing his first film in Hollywood. It was a very clever and brilliantly crafted story, cloaked in many levels of symbolism, many of which I am sure I missed.
The Coen Brothers are always brilliant screenwriters and their stories are almost always unique and this film was no exception. Adding to it was the work by their brilliant cinematographer, Roger Deakins who did a brilliant job with camera angles and lighting to set the atmosphere. I must say that this film was very well done when I watched it but it was not until I watched the trailer after the movie that I realized the brilliant screenwriting that the Coen's had done. They had acheived something that Mr. Bennett has always said, they truly tried to make every line of dialogue be significant and the way the actors spoke made perfect sense in terms of the plot of the film, although as I stated when I first watched the movie, I originally missed the significance completely.
I will not ruin any of the action because I suggest that people go see the movie if they are a fan of the Coen's, or a fan of a greatly crafted movie. The acting, script, and cinematography created a unique and utterly unconventional story that was a very enjoyable movie that kept you guessing. However, if you do see the movie, expect to be taking beyond the normal conventions of the story. I would be happy to post my comments on many of the symbols of the film and the stylings but I do not want to give away anything, and if no one has seen the film, it would fall upon dead ears.
However, if I have underestimated my class and people have seen this film, I would be happy to discuss it in greater detail. Once again, the film is entitled Barton Fink.
Now I posted a few weeks ago, about the fact that I believed that the Savages was one of the strangest films I had seen, but shockingly I was very, very wrong. The Savages was very grounded in reality, while this film was not. It told the story of a New York playwright in 1941 who moved to Hollywood to start writing movies, and his experiences writing his first film in Hollywood. It was a very clever and brilliantly crafted story, cloaked in many levels of symbolism, many of which I am sure I missed.
The Coen Brothers are always brilliant screenwriters and their stories are almost always unique and this film was no exception. Adding to it was the work by their brilliant cinematographer, Roger Deakins who did a brilliant job with camera angles and lighting to set the atmosphere. I must say that this film was very well done when I watched it but it was not until I watched the trailer after the movie that I realized the brilliant screenwriting that the Coen's had done. They had acheived something that Mr. Bennett has always said, they truly tried to make every line of dialogue be significant and the way the actors spoke made perfect sense in terms of the plot of the film, although as I stated when I first watched the movie, I originally missed the significance completely.
I will not ruin any of the action because I suggest that people go see the movie if they are a fan of the Coen's, or a fan of a greatly crafted movie. The acting, script, and cinematography created a unique and utterly unconventional story that was a very enjoyable movie that kept you guessing. However, if you do see the movie, expect to be taking beyond the normal conventions of the story. I would be happy to post my comments on many of the symbols of the film and the stylings but I do not want to give away anything, and if no one has seen the film, it would fall upon dead ears.
However, if I have underestimated my class and people have seen this film, I would be happy to discuss it in greater detail. Once again, the film is entitled Barton Fink.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Schindler's List -- Thoughts
At the completion of Schindler's List, I was moved to several different emotions, after sitting through a movie that was over 3 hours long, but felt like nothing of the sort. The movie was powerful, moving, inspiring, and depressing, but yet none of these feelings were pushed upon me but instead, the journey just caused the emotions to be felt. This movie, although brilliant, was admittedly difficult to endure, not because of its length (The movie almost seemed too short to tell such a story), but instead due to its very difficult subject matter.
I felt that this story better than any other (and believe me there are plenty of Nazi movies that have come out, including 5 that were in theaters simultaneously this year) told of the true devastation and horror of the concentration camps and of the complete disregard for some human life that was evident. It is almost difficult to analyze this movie in-depth as Nick said but I do believe that there were several elements that do deserve to be analyzed.
One thing I noticed that is rather trivial and also probably not correct but was the similarity in appearance of Ralph Fiennes (Goeth) and Liam Neeson (Schindler). Now it was not too difficult to tell the characters apart but when seen on screen both apart on seperately, the two characters certainly shared several characteristics of appearance. My belief in terms of this was that Spielberg sought to get similar looking Germans to play the leads because he wanted the Nazis to look similar, like Hitler wanted the one race of people who all looked the same and wanted to destroy the races who were impure. However, I believe that even though the two characters looked similar, Spielberg showed that although appearances may be the same, actions and ideals set people apart, not how they look. Schindler and Goeth were both Germans, who were Nazis but their beliefs could not have been more different. This was especially evident in the scene where Schindler says that "True power comes from when a man has every right and reason to kill a man, and doesn't. " Goeth thinks that he is drunk and finds those comments ridiculous. That is just a thought I had as to the failing of Hitler's idea that he could create a race of people who were all identical and pure.
Also, I will likely be ridiculed for these comments by people who love this movie, and I myself do believe that it is great work but the one element of the film that I did not like was the girl in the Red Jacket. It is probably easy to remember when Schindler is riding his horse and all he sees very clearly is the girl in the Red Jacket, the only color on the screen. Clearly, this girl was symbolic and I know that and I may have missed her overall significance but I felt that her presence in her two scenes cheapened the movie because it gave too much of an obvious symbol to the film. I believe that it detracted from the message of the rest of the movie, and that her appearance was unnecessary to the film as a whole.
Beyond that, I had no other complaints and felt that the movie was very well-directed and that Liam Neeson brilliantly executed a very difficult role, and felt that the movie was not drowned in an unnecessary emotion but rather showed the Holocaust as it truly was. I will possibly have more thoughts on it if I choose to re-watch it, although Nick believed that it may tarnish its quality. I, on the other hand, think that it could enhance my understanding and would allow me to post more thoughtful comments on symbols and techniques throughout the film. The first time watching it, I was too engrossed in the film to note as many symbols as I would have liked.
I felt that this story better than any other (and believe me there are plenty of Nazi movies that have come out, including 5 that were in theaters simultaneously this year) told of the true devastation and horror of the concentration camps and of the complete disregard for some human life that was evident. It is almost difficult to analyze this movie in-depth as Nick said but I do believe that there were several elements that do deserve to be analyzed.
One thing I noticed that is rather trivial and also probably not correct but was the similarity in appearance of Ralph Fiennes (Goeth) and Liam Neeson (Schindler). Now it was not too difficult to tell the characters apart but when seen on screen both apart on seperately, the two characters certainly shared several characteristics of appearance. My belief in terms of this was that Spielberg sought to get similar looking Germans to play the leads because he wanted the Nazis to look similar, like Hitler wanted the one race of people who all looked the same and wanted to destroy the races who were impure. However, I believe that even though the two characters looked similar, Spielberg showed that although appearances may be the same, actions and ideals set people apart, not how they look. Schindler and Goeth were both Germans, who were Nazis but their beliefs could not have been more different. This was especially evident in the scene where Schindler says that "True power comes from when a man has every right and reason to kill a man, and doesn't. " Goeth thinks that he is drunk and finds those comments ridiculous. That is just a thought I had as to the failing of Hitler's idea that he could create a race of people who were all identical and pure.
Also, I will likely be ridiculed for these comments by people who love this movie, and I myself do believe that it is great work but the one element of the film that I did not like was the girl in the Red Jacket. It is probably easy to remember when Schindler is riding his horse and all he sees very clearly is the girl in the Red Jacket, the only color on the screen. Clearly, this girl was symbolic and I know that and I may have missed her overall significance but I felt that her presence in her two scenes cheapened the movie because it gave too much of an obvious symbol to the film. I believe that it detracted from the message of the rest of the movie, and that her appearance was unnecessary to the film as a whole.
Beyond that, I had no other complaints and felt that the movie was very well-directed and that Liam Neeson brilliantly executed a very difficult role, and felt that the movie was not drowned in an unnecessary emotion but rather showed the Holocaust as it truly was. I will possibly have more thoughts on it if I choose to re-watch it, although Nick believed that it may tarnish its quality. I, on the other hand, think that it could enhance my understanding and would allow me to post more thoughtful comments on symbols and techniques throughout the film. The first time watching it, I was too engrossed in the film to note as many symbols as I would have liked.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Citizen Kane -- More Thoughts
I understand that many people will be making posts about our recently completed movie, Citizen Kane. This film was a very well created film, with some brilliant writing and cinematography. However, the most commented upon component of the film was "Rosebud," of course. In a recent poll done by IMDB.com (Internet Movie Database), the respondents said that Rosebud was the most memorable one word phrase in cinematic history, with it receiving 16.6% of the vote. (It is not a completely accurate poll I do not believe, since "Adrian" from Rocky finished in 2nd place with 10.2% of the vote.) But I digress.
Since everyone is commenting on their beliefs in the significance of Rosebud, I figure I will offer my own commentary. The most notable image that I think of, is at the end of the film when, Welles uses cinematography in order to pan over all of the possessions that Kane had collected and kept. Their were thousands upon thousands of statues, pictures, jigsaw puzzles, trophies, etc. The vast wealth and expansiveness of his possessions was completely unbelievable. However, this is quickly juxtaposed by the audience seeing workers in the mansion going through the garbage. One of the men picks up the sled which says "Rosebud" is simply thrown into the fire with one of his superiors echoing that statement. As the letters begin to burn off and disappear, we notice that the sled will disappear into infamy and will only become ashes. People will never remember that sled, and everything yet they will remember all of the precious gems that he amassed with his enormous wealth and power.
Therefore, I believe a conclusion that can be drawn from this, is that on his deathbed, Kane was burdened with the last memory of his childhood, a childhood that he was never able to experience. The thought that was on his mind at the time was so trivial to everyone else, and was just "tossed into the fire" while everything else was cherished and everyone was valuing all of Kane's possessions, arguably his most cherished memory/possession, was ignored and destroyed, much like his life.
I apologize if this is redundant and I hope that more thoughts from this film will come to mind.
Since everyone is commenting on their beliefs in the significance of Rosebud, I figure I will offer my own commentary. The most notable image that I think of, is at the end of the film when, Welles uses cinematography in order to pan over all of the possessions that Kane had collected and kept. Their were thousands upon thousands of statues, pictures, jigsaw puzzles, trophies, etc. The vast wealth and expansiveness of his possessions was completely unbelievable. However, this is quickly juxtaposed by the audience seeing workers in the mansion going through the garbage. One of the men picks up the sled which says "Rosebud" is simply thrown into the fire with one of his superiors echoing that statement. As the letters begin to burn off and disappear, we notice that the sled will disappear into infamy and will only become ashes. People will never remember that sled, and everything yet they will remember all of the precious gems that he amassed with his enormous wealth and power.
Therefore, I believe a conclusion that can be drawn from this, is that on his deathbed, Kane was burdened with the last memory of his childhood, a childhood that he was never able to experience. The thought that was on his mind at the time was so trivial to everyone else, and was just "tossed into the fire" while everything else was cherished and everyone was valuing all of Kane's possessions, arguably his most cherished memory/possession, was ignored and destroyed, much like his life.
I apologize if this is redundant and I hope that more thoughts from this film will come to mind.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Savages
The Savages was a movie that came out in 2007, starring Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman, two of my favorite actors. The title was useful on two levels, both in describing the characters themselves, but also because it was the characters' actual names, as Wendy and Jon Savage, respectively.
I believe that it is highly unlikely that more than of 2 of my fellow classmates (if any) have seen this film. The story was one of the oddest movies I have ever seen, playing upon many levels of emotion and having many layers of complexity to show the difficulty of the decision that the two siblings have to make. The two siblings are met with the tough choice of what to do with their father who is slipping into the depths of dementia. Although they were never close to their father, they feel that they must do their best to help him. Tensions arises as the two of them have differing beliefs on the best path to take to help their ailing father.
Since they are both struggling writers, going after the same grant, they each have a rivalry against the other trying to gain the grant. Through all this, each deals with their own troubles, ranging from depression and anxiety, to an injured neck. The story ranges everyone from sad and depressing, to funny, to sickening, to everywhere in between. The story becomes so depressing at a point that, Wendy Savage actually steals painkillers from a dead woman to steal her pain. When her brother finds them, he asks, "Did you take these from that dead woman?" Now after this we would expect him to yell at her and tell her how inappropriately she acted but instead his response is, "Do they work?" and he immediately takes two when she says that they do.
That kind of humor, feeling of being pathetic, and sadness dominates the movie and at times you wonder why you are watching the movie. But yet, the film to me is perfectly acted by the two siblings and their father who perfectly portrays someone who is trying to understand dementia and the sadness he feels when he can no longer remember anything. He gets upset when he cannot remember things when people tell him they should and as he gets farther into the illness, his emotions are perfectly portrayed. And although I may have asked myself why I was watching such a strange movie, it was difficult to take my eyes away and I was trapped in and how well the characters were able to portray real life, human emotion, and everyday struggles.
The ending changes the perception of the story in some ways, and I won't give it away but watching how it ended brought closure to the story in a way that personally made the movie very worthwhile to me. It is a very low-budget movie so the camera work and filming is not terrific but the acting and writing was terrific. I would highly suggest the movie but be warned it is not a very happy, relaxing, entertaining movie, if that is what you are seeking in your movie watching experience.
It was certainly one of the weirdest movies I have seen to date, and although far from perfect, it was a movie that I believe is well executed.
*Note: Laura Linney was nominated for an Oscar last year for her role in this film and Tamara Jenkins, who wrote the script and directed the film was nominated for Best Original Screenplay.*
More movie reviews to follow as I watch them.
I believe that it is highly unlikely that more than of 2 of my fellow classmates (if any) have seen this film. The story was one of the oddest movies I have ever seen, playing upon many levels of emotion and having many layers of complexity to show the difficulty of the decision that the two siblings have to make. The two siblings are met with the tough choice of what to do with their father who is slipping into the depths of dementia. Although they were never close to their father, they feel that they must do their best to help him. Tensions arises as the two of them have differing beliefs on the best path to take to help their ailing father.
Since they are both struggling writers, going after the same grant, they each have a rivalry against the other trying to gain the grant. Through all this, each deals with their own troubles, ranging from depression and anxiety, to an injured neck. The story ranges everyone from sad and depressing, to funny, to sickening, to everywhere in between. The story becomes so depressing at a point that, Wendy Savage actually steals painkillers from a dead woman to steal her pain. When her brother finds them, he asks, "Did you take these from that dead woman?" Now after this we would expect him to yell at her and tell her how inappropriately she acted but instead his response is, "Do they work?" and he immediately takes two when she says that they do.
That kind of humor, feeling of being pathetic, and sadness dominates the movie and at times you wonder why you are watching the movie. But yet, the film to me is perfectly acted by the two siblings and their father who perfectly portrays someone who is trying to understand dementia and the sadness he feels when he can no longer remember anything. He gets upset when he cannot remember things when people tell him they should and as he gets farther into the illness, his emotions are perfectly portrayed. And although I may have asked myself why I was watching such a strange movie, it was difficult to take my eyes away and I was trapped in and how well the characters were able to portray real life, human emotion, and everyday struggles.
The ending changes the perception of the story in some ways, and I won't give it away but watching how it ended brought closure to the story in a way that personally made the movie very worthwhile to me. It is a very low-budget movie so the camera work and filming is not terrific but the acting and writing was terrific. I would highly suggest the movie but be warned it is not a very happy, relaxing, entertaining movie, if that is what you are seeking in your movie watching experience.
It was certainly one of the weirdest movies I have seen to date, and although far from perfect, it was a movie that I believe is well executed.
*Note: Laura Linney was nominated for an Oscar last year for her role in this film and Tamara Jenkins, who wrote the script and directed the film was nominated for Best Original Screenplay.*
More movie reviews to follow as I watch them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)