I was going to make a post last night about the next 36 minutes of Dr. Strangelove, but I got distracted when my brother and his friend began watching a DVD of the 2005 Academy Award Nominated Short Films. Although a Dr. Strangelove post may happen, I must much more interested in understanding what constitutes a short film, how they were done, and how impressed I was by them.
I only saw four out of the five nominated films, but they were each terrific in their own way. The films were:
Cashback (United Kingdom, 19 minutes) directed by Sean Ellis
Sidasti Baerinn (The Last Farm), (Iceland, 15 minutes)directed by Runar Runarsson
Our Time is Up (USA, 14 minutes) directed by Rob Pearlstein
Six Shooter (Ireland, 27 minutes) directed by Martin McDonagh, director of In Bruges
Each of these films were absolutely incredibly, in their own way, and although I don't know much about short films, they seemed to be the best of the best. I believe that my brothers' friend got the DVD of all 5 from Blockbuster so I'm sure it might be available through Netflix or something.
I must say, it was very interesting, how each movie how its own technique of brilliance, but none of them had all of the perfect characteristics. In terms of the filmmaking, the most original and ambitious film in terms of story was Cashback which told the story of a night shift supermarket worker who survives the boredom of the day through his daydreams, but I won't give away what those are.
The 2nd film, The Last Farm, was honestly the most beautifully shot movie that I have ever seen. The cinematography was simply outstanding and although it was a slow, also silent film, it worked better that way because the actors' emotions and the way the story was told, through the filming, was far more effective and truly beautiful. It was very interesting however, and I wonder if it was conscious but one of the first shots of this film reminded me almost exactly of the first shot of The Seventh Seal when Antonius Block is on the rocks of the beach. Here, once again, the shot begins in the ocean and slowly pans to a rocky beach, just like in the Seventh Seal. Immediately, when I saw the shot, I said, "It's the Seventh Seal in color" and the shot was done just as effectively although the character of Death specifically was not standing there. This film also had a very good story, in which it told the story of an older man, who had the last remaining farm, the rest were abandoned, and how he spent his time. It was a vivid, emotional story.
The 3rd movie, was an American comedy, called Our Time Is Up. This movie was brilliantly hilarious and just cleverly written. The entire film, almost a satire but with more obvious humor, had me laughing nearly the entire film. The cast of characters were absolutely terrific actors and the editing of the film was its other great strong point. The way the movie was shot and how scenes were edited together, and repeated with variations, was impressively done, and the comedy was first-rate. This film, tells the story of a psycharitrist who treats his patients much like a normal, detached psycharitrist, and the events that ensue. The length of it and the comic timing just worked perfectly, and I thought that its acting stole the movie.
The final film, Six Shooter, as I mentioned, was directed By Martin McDonagh, director of In Bruges. (Ok, so now I have forced Benny to go out and see this movie, and make him watch all of them in the process.) Interestingly enough, it also started Brandon Gleeson, the fat Irish friend of Colin Farrell (He also plays Mad-Eye Moody in Harry Potter) and who had the main role in In Bruges. This film had the most compelling story, as it told the story of a man dealing with the loss of his wife and his trip back home, dealing with the grief. The strongest point of this film was the deep, complex story as well as the vivid interaction between the different characters. It was filmed much like In Bruges, and because McDonagh also wrote the film, it of course, had incredibly witty and hilarious dialogue, and the writing was clever as always. This was the longest film, and certainly had the most substance, because of its length. The way McDonagh filmed many of the scenes, the character interaction, mimicked or even mirrored much of the action in In Bruges, which isn't a bad thing necessarily. As well, much of the morally ambiguous points of In Bruges are present in this film.
All of these films were terrific, told compelling stories, were beautifully shot, and I enjoyed each of them immensely for their own reasons, except Cashback which was my least favorite, but it was certainly creative. I would suggest each of you, or at least anyone interested, should try to get a copy of it, because it opened my eyes to the world of shorts, and showed me four terrific films. Although I want tell you which movie won the Oscar, I'm going to make you try to figure it out or watch for yourself. (Of course, you could just go to IMDB and search it very simply, but that ruins all the fun now doesn't it.) So, if you get the chance, try to take a look at them, or at least find them online.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The First 12 Minutes of Dr. Strangelove
It is probably abnormal and inappropriate for me to be posting about a film that we have seen so little of, and therefore it is impossible for me to make any actual informed comments on the film because we have seen less than 15% of it, but there were a couple of things that I noticed and I figure I should post them before I forget them, and before they become irrelevant and fade into oblivion.
The first thing, I noticed most about the movie so far were the opening credits. First, the statement by the Air Force which set the tone of the movie because of its seriousness but also ridiculousness at the same time. But the thing that was most pressing about the opening credits, was the title sequence, first that it said that it was a fictional story not based on true events at least 3 or 4 times. Also, the way the title sequence was arranged was very interesting and inventive and I know that it has received notice in the past. The way that certain things were very large, like last names, the letters DR., and a few other random things were thrown in there and it was quite interesting how certain things were very small, like the subtitle of the movie: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, was very small.
The reason this title sequence struck me was two fold, one was because of its original nature and it is something that you rarely take note of to this extent, and second, because I know that this title sequence is famous. The graphic title designer is Pablo Ferro, and although he is famous for doing some of the greatest title sequences of all time, you may not have heard his name. I probably would not have either, but last year I just happened to be watching ReelzChannel and they had a short piece on Pablo Ferro because two men have created a quasi-animated documentary that uses interviews, animation, and other things to tell about the life of Pablo Ferro, as a animator, director, and actor. Having seen this, and in the clip, Dr. Strangelove was mentioned, I paid careful attention to the sequence.
If you can think of other famous title sequences, I wouldn't be surprised if you found that he did them as well, as for example, he did A Clockwork Orange and Beetlejuice, as well as hundreds more. Now, this may not interest any of you and bore you all to death, but I just found it interesting because I had seen the story about him and heard of the forthcoming documentary. I found the link to the video and the movie website and I will post them below, hopefully they both work.
Video:
I know last time Mr. Bennett had trouble watching the video so here is the link to the ReelzChannel clip so you can watch it from their website directly. (Hint: I don't think it will play on school computers, only at home.)
ReelzChannel Clip Link: http://www.reelzchannel.com/trailer-clips/38215/whats-your-title
Movie Website: http://www.pablothemovie.com/
Also, I mentioned that their were two things that I found interesting beyond just the story of the film because the story has not been expanded enough beyond that Plan R is really bad and people can't believe that it will be used unless "Washington has already been bombed." The way that movie has started, and the way it seems to be progressing, reminds me of the book Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, which I thought was brilliant and if you haven't read I would suggest it, but the situations and the satire of the movie, seem to somewhat match Heller's style. But I could be wrong because we haven't seen enough, but in Catch-22 there were similar circumstances where the characters went along with utterly ridiculous things, in ridiculous ways.
But back to my original point, the one thing that I found of note in the movie. I'm not sure if everyone caught it but the General sitting behind the desk at the beginning of the film (the guy the played Dix in Asphalt Jungle), his name was Jack D. Ripper, not exactly the most subtle name.
Now this could have just been make a joke but when a character's name is Jack D. Ripper or Jack the Ripper, modeled after an infamous killer, you would probably assume that it was done on purpose and that it is possible that this character could be a sadist, unfeeling human being, like the killer who shares his name.
I saw the movie Red Eye which was released in 2005 starring Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams, before Dr. Strangelove, but in that film, a good but not great film, the main character's name, who was a killer was named Jack Rippner, again a very symbolic name. Also, much of that action took place on a place so maybe their is a correlation between a 1964 satire and a 2005 action-horror movie. (Sarcasm)
But in that film, and I assume in this, when a character is named something symbolic and obvious it probably plays into the character's personality and their ideas about life and possibly in this case about killing and dehumanization. Who knows? But I can already tell that I will like this movie despite seeing so little.
The first thing, I noticed most about the movie so far were the opening credits. First, the statement by the Air Force which set the tone of the movie because of its seriousness but also ridiculousness at the same time. But the thing that was most pressing about the opening credits, was the title sequence, first that it said that it was a fictional story not based on true events at least 3 or 4 times. Also, the way the title sequence was arranged was very interesting and inventive and I know that it has received notice in the past. The way that certain things were very large, like last names, the letters DR., and a few other random things were thrown in there and it was quite interesting how certain things were very small, like the subtitle of the movie: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, was very small.
The reason this title sequence struck me was two fold, one was because of its original nature and it is something that you rarely take note of to this extent, and second, because I know that this title sequence is famous. The graphic title designer is Pablo Ferro, and although he is famous for doing some of the greatest title sequences of all time, you may not have heard his name. I probably would not have either, but last year I just happened to be watching ReelzChannel and they had a short piece on Pablo Ferro because two men have created a quasi-animated documentary that uses interviews, animation, and other things to tell about the life of Pablo Ferro, as a animator, director, and actor. Having seen this, and in the clip, Dr. Strangelove was mentioned, I paid careful attention to the sequence.
If you can think of other famous title sequences, I wouldn't be surprised if you found that he did them as well, as for example, he did A Clockwork Orange and Beetlejuice, as well as hundreds more. Now, this may not interest any of you and bore you all to death, but I just found it interesting because I had seen the story about him and heard of the forthcoming documentary. I found the link to the video and the movie website and I will post them below, hopefully they both work.
Video:
I know last time Mr. Bennett had trouble watching the video so here is the link to the ReelzChannel clip so you can watch it from their website directly. (Hint: I don't think it will play on school computers, only at home.)
ReelzChannel Clip Link: http://www.reelzchannel.com/trailer-clips/38215/whats-your-title
Movie Website: http://www.pablothemovie.com/
Also, I mentioned that their were two things that I found interesting beyond just the story of the film because the story has not been expanded enough beyond that Plan R is really bad and people can't believe that it will be used unless "Washington has already been bombed." The way that movie has started, and the way it seems to be progressing, reminds me of the book Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, which I thought was brilliant and if you haven't read I would suggest it, but the situations and the satire of the movie, seem to somewhat match Heller's style. But I could be wrong because we haven't seen enough, but in Catch-22 there were similar circumstances where the characters went along with utterly ridiculous things, in ridiculous ways.
But back to my original point, the one thing that I found of note in the movie. I'm not sure if everyone caught it but the General sitting behind the desk at the beginning of the film (the guy the played Dix in Asphalt Jungle), his name was Jack D. Ripper, not exactly the most subtle name.
Now this could have just been make a joke but when a character's name is Jack D. Ripper or Jack the Ripper, modeled after an infamous killer, you would probably assume that it was done on purpose and that it is possible that this character could be a sadist, unfeeling human being, like the killer who shares his name.
I saw the movie Red Eye which was released in 2005 starring Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams, before Dr. Strangelove, but in that film, a good but not great film, the main character's name, who was a killer was named Jack Rippner, again a very symbolic name. Also, much of that action took place on a place so maybe their is a correlation between a 1964 satire and a 2005 action-horror movie. (Sarcasm)
But in that film, and I assume in this, when a character is named something symbolic and obvious it probably plays into the character's personality and their ideas about life and possibly in this case about killing and dehumanization. Who knows? But I can already tell that I will like this movie despite seeing so little.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
((Fargo vs. A Simple Plan) vs. In Bruges)
I figured I would have some fun with the title of my post and make all three of the movies that are currently debated and pit them against each other in a fight to the death, literally and figuratively, since that is an expression to see who comes out superior, and also because there was so much death in each of these movies.
To begin, let me first make some comments on our most recent film: Fargo.
My first comment is directed at Billy and his comment that there were "too many loose ends left at the end of the movie." I personally don't mind loose ends at a movie, and that often times happens at the end of most the Coen Brothers movies, in fact all that I've seen. Personally, I believe that they do this because in life, there are more loose ends, no one ever knows what happens to everyone else at the end of something, people just disappear into oblivion. I know that as much I would like what happens to all of my classmates after they graduate, I know that I will never see every single person and therefore loose ends form and you forced to imagine what happens because you can't be sure.
In this way, they introduce characters that may seem useless, but it just adds to the point that we can't know the truth about anything and we will not find out how every character lives the rest of their lives, you can only wonder.
Secondly, one of the things I definitely noticed about the film was the similarity in one of their shots in both Fargo and another one of their movies, No Country For Old Men. The scene in Fargo where Shep Proudfoot is choking Carl with the belt and the two fall to the ground and Carl's foot hit the ground and even the way he was choked was nearly identical, when at the opening of No Country, Anton is choking the police and he does so with the handcuffs and the two fall to the ground, almost the same set of shots are used. They aren't identical but definitely similar and it came to mind when I saw the scene in Fargo today.
I actually just watched the two and they aren't that similar, I guess in my "unreliable" memory that struck me as more similar but I included the videos anyway. You can decide for yourself.
Here is the video from No Country For Old Men:
And Fargo:
Now, onto the comparison of the three films. I'll simplify these with categories so this post doesn't get too long.
Best Directing: Fargo
Best Acting: In Bruges
Most Realistic: A Simple Plan
Funniest: In Bruges
Best Writing: Fargo/In Bruges
Darkest Picture of Reality: Fargo
Most Exciting Landscape: This is a tough one because one was in Bruges, and as Ray put it "Maybe that's what hell is, the entire rest of eternity spent in bleeping Bruges." Whereas the other two were stark, barren Midwestern Landscapes. So this category would have to go to Bruges because of the art, as Mr. Bennett has mentioned.
Most Insulting to Other Groups: In Bruges
Best Cinematography: Fargo (Roger Deakins is the best there is)
Best Executed: In Bruges/A Simple Plan
Most Painful to Watch: Fargo (not a good thing, because it was slow)
Bloodiest: A Tie
I split it up into those categories but that still may not matter, because if I were to rank them in which order I liked them the most, in 1st place would be In Bruges because it was the most well-executed, the funniest, and just the most enjoyable and satisfying to watch. It was also clever and memorable.
Maybe it is because I am usually a happy person, but I found something missing in both A Simple Plan and Fargo. I always feel that sometimes the Coen Brothers try too hard to be original and go too far and miss the point and go beyond the realm of realism, but then again, A Simple Plan did that too. I found both movies to be somewhat funny because of its violence but Fargo was going for that, and A Simple Plan was not.
I found that both were depressing and missed the mark on suspense or plot turns. I expected almost all of the events in both films to happen ahead of time and I didn't feel particularly connected to any character, except maybe Marge but still she seemed foreign. I was just looking for something more from them. They each just missed the mark with me on trying to create a place and characters I could believe.
But I have to have an opinion so I will give edge to Fargo but barely just because the acting, cinematography, and story was slightly more clever and better executed in it, especially William H. Macy, Frances McCormand, and Steve Buscemi, and creepy guy were better than Bridget Fonda, Bill Paxton, and Billy Bob Thornton, and fat drunk guy. And the filming was just better in Fargo then A Simple Plan, it was filmed cleaner and more beautiful and clear, but as I said, Roger Deakins is the greatest.
So final grades in the showdown (out of 100)
7 Categories: Directing, Screenwriting, Acting, Cinematography, Story, Realism, Underlying Message (each category out of 10 x 1.4285714) For detailed results in each category you can ask me tomorrow, I can't make this any longer, it is bordering on ridiculous)
In Bruges: 86/100
Fargo: 73/100
A Simple Plan 71/100
To begin, let me first make some comments on our most recent film: Fargo.
My first comment is directed at Billy and his comment that there were "too many loose ends left at the end of the movie." I personally don't mind loose ends at a movie, and that often times happens at the end of most the Coen Brothers movies, in fact all that I've seen. Personally, I believe that they do this because in life, there are more loose ends, no one ever knows what happens to everyone else at the end of something, people just disappear into oblivion. I know that as much I would like what happens to all of my classmates after they graduate, I know that I will never see every single person and therefore loose ends form and you forced to imagine what happens because you can't be sure.
In this way, they introduce characters that may seem useless, but it just adds to the point that we can't know the truth about anything and we will not find out how every character lives the rest of their lives, you can only wonder.
Secondly, one of the things I definitely noticed about the film was the similarity in one of their shots in both Fargo and another one of their movies, No Country For Old Men. The scene in Fargo where Shep Proudfoot is choking Carl with the belt and the two fall to the ground and Carl's foot hit the ground and even the way he was choked was nearly identical, when at the opening of No Country, Anton is choking the police and he does so with the handcuffs and the two fall to the ground, almost the same set of shots are used. They aren't identical but definitely similar and it came to mind when I saw the scene in Fargo today.
I actually just watched the two and they aren't that similar, I guess in my "unreliable" memory that struck me as more similar but I included the videos anyway. You can decide for yourself.
Here is the video from No Country For Old Men:
And Fargo:
Now, onto the comparison of the three films. I'll simplify these with categories so this post doesn't get too long.
Best Directing: Fargo
Best Acting: In Bruges
Most Realistic: A Simple Plan
Funniest: In Bruges
Best Writing: Fargo/In Bruges
Darkest Picture of Reality: Fargo
Most Exciting Landscape: This is a tough one because one was in Bruges, and as Ray put it "Maybe that's what hell is, the entire rest of eternity spent in bleeping Bruges." Whereas the other two were stark, barren Midwestern Landscapes. So this category would have to go to Bruges because of the art, as Mr. Bennett has mentioned.
Most Insulting to Other Groups: In Bruges
Best Cinematography: Fargo (Roger Deakins is the best there is)
Best Executed: In Bruges/A Simple Plan
Most Painful to Watch: Fargo (not a good thing, because it was slow)
Bloodiest: A Tie
I split it up into those categories but that still may not matter, because if I were to rank them in which order I liked them the most, in 1st place would be In Bruges because it was the most well-executed, the funniest, and just the most enjoyable and satisfying to watch. It was also clever and memorable.
Maybe it is because I am usually a happy person, but I found something missing in both A Simple Plan and Fargo. I always feel that sometimes the Coen Brothers try too hard to be original and go too far and miss the point and go beyond the realm of realism, but then again, A Simple Plan did that too. I found both movies to be somewhat funny because of its violence but Fargo was going for that, and A Simple Plan was not.
I found that both were depressing and missed the mark on suspense or plot turns. I expected almost all of the events in both films to happen ahead of time and I didn't feel particularly connected to any character, except maybe Marge but still she seemed foreign. I was just looking for something more from them. They each just missed the mark with me on trying to create a place and characters I could believe.
But I have to have an opinion so I will give edge to Fargo but barely just because the acting, cinematography, and story was slightly more clever and better executed in it, especially William H. Macy, Frances McCormand, and Steve Buscemi, and creepy guy were better than Bridget Fonda, Bill Paxton, and Billy Bob Thornton, and fat drunk guy. And the filming was just better in Fargo then A Simple Plan, it was filmed cleaner and more beautiful and clear, but as I said, Roger Deakins is the greatest.
So final grades in the showdown (out of 100)
7 Categories: Directing, Screenwriting, Acting, Cinematography, Story, Realism, Underlying Message (each category out of 10 x 1.4285714) For detailed results in each category you can ask me tomorrow, I can't make this any longer, it is bordering on ridiculous)
In Bruges: 86/100
Fargo: 73/100
A Simple Plan 71/100
Angels and Demons
I know that Mr. Bennett has stated and I have been told by many other sources that you have to judge a movie and a book seperately, because they are two seperate entities and should not be compared. However, when watching Angels and Demons recently, I could just not do this.
Because of Julia's post on the film, I figured it wasn't great, but not only was it not great, I found it annoying and I found myself distracted because I knew what was going to happen and I felt no sense of urgency or suspense despite what the characters were trying to portray.
I usually try to judge the movie and book seperately because it is not possible to make a 700 page book into a movie that isn't 8 hours long and get all the essential elements of the book. But personally, they left out the greatest part of the book, out of the entire movie, something that shocked me, because it was really the point of the book. How it was left out still dumbfounds me? (Unless of course, my memory fails me)
So in the end, I will say that if you read the book, don't bother seeing the movie, it will only dilute your thoughts. Just a couple of days after seeing the movie, I can barely remember it and instead am relying upon the memories of the book. So, I will be honest, I failed in trying to objectively judge this movie, so people that have not read the book may very much enjoy it, in fact, I have heard several people who liked the movie, and others who did not but I will say, that the movie fell flat.
I barely recommend it and that is only because I hope that Dan Brown, the author, will make money off of it and if it makes a bigger profit, he will make more money. But the movie just didn't work, and I liked the DaVinci Code, so maybe it is just a skewed view on my part, because in that instance I believe that I saw the movie first. So maybe if I had seen the movie before reading it I would have liked it more. I don't know.
Because of Julia's post on the film, I figured it wasn't great, but not only was it not great, I found it annoying and I found myself distracted because I knew what was going to happen and I felt no sense of urgency or suspense despite what the characters were trying to portray.
I usually try to judge the movie and book seperately because it is not possible to make a 700 page book into a movie that isn't 8 hours long and get all the essential elements of the book. But personally, they left out the greatest part of the book, out of the entire movie, something that shocked me, because it was really the point of the book. How it was left out still dumbfounds me? (Unless of course, my memory fails me)
So in the end, I will say that if you read the book, don't bother seeing the movie, it will only dilute your thoughts. Just a couple of days after seeing the movie, I can barely remember it and instead am relying upon the memories of the book. So, I will be honest, I failed in trying to objectively judge this movie, so people that have not read the book may very much enjoy it, in fact, I have heard several people who liked the movie, and others who did not but I will say, that the movie fell flat.
I barely recommend it and that is only because I hope that Dan Brown, the author, will make money off of it and if it makes a bigger profit, he will make more money. But the movie just didn't work, and I liked the DaVinci Code, so maybe it is just a skewed view on my part, because in that instance I believe that I saw the movie first. So maybe if I had seen the movie before reading it I would have liked it more. I don't know.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Some Videos
A few weeks ago, Shiran posted a Family Guy clip about film noir. Here are a couple more clips that people might enjoy, about different movies that people may know or love. I apologize that the first one isn't better quality but you can blame the FCC for Copyright Laws on that one.
Hopefully they work. If they don't let me know, and I will try to do them over again.
Hopefully they work. If they don't let me know, and I will try to do them over again.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
I Have Changed My Mind
So we finished watching A Simple Plan today, and yesterday I made a post criticizing some of the film. But I must admit that in part, I was wrong. This movie is still not my favorite of the year but I will go from degrading it to praising it, to a point.
The most powerful scene in the movie is undoubtedly to me when Hank and Jacob are talking after the fake FBI Agent and Carl were killed. Hank is still trying to figure out a plan, a simple plan, that will get them in the clear for good (again) but Jacob tells him that he is done trying to do this, it's not worth it, he won't be able to sleep at night with all these burdens upon his head.
Hank's response may sum up the movie, he says, "This is what happiness costs!"
Now, I don't know if anyone is able to think back to one of the first scenes of the movie, and I apologize if I'm being redundant from someone's else post, but it is a voiceover by Hank about all that it takes to be happy, Hank said that according to his father, "It was just a few simple things, for example, a family, a good job, friends and neighbors who like and respect you." (I am paraphrasing because I was unable to write down all of the things he said in the speech, as he was talking too fast.)
But just think about the irony of that. At the beginning of the movie, all it took to be happy was a family, which Hank had, a good job, Hank didn't have a great job but he could survive and be happy, and finally "friends and neighbors who like and respect him," he certainly had all of those things and in the end all of his friends and neighbors end up dead, killed, gone, and his life becomes an empty and void nightmare.
Hank had all he needed to be happy and together with his wife, they destroyed it all, and the life they once enjoyed would never be the same. This may be going to far with the film but I don't think Hank and Sarah will stay married.
His father was right when he talked about the simple things that made you happy, and maybe Hank was just a victim but he let the web get so expanded, that it destroyed everything in its path. The final image of the film can show the dark abyss of all the friends he lost and I felt that in the past, that may have been where Jacob sat sometimes and that Hank was coming to the realization that Jacob was never coming back.
But back to my original point, why I have rescinded some of my criticism of the movie. I still have the same problems about his wife knowing everything, the FBI, and the Lou's wife getting blown away so ridiclously, but I felt that the movie tied together well and the way that happiness was referenced at the beginning and end so subtlety and I felt it tied together the movie of how everyone changed from beginning and end and the destruction that was left in its wake.
The movie also became more and more relatable and I felt like I could be as helpless and confused, and trying to grasp on to all of life, like Hank. But the movie certainly portrayed realism very well and despite all the horrible things the characters had done, I still sympathized with all of them and felt bad for them and the events they were thrown into.
Finally, I guarantee if Hank had never found the money, Sarah would never had realized that she was upset and that she was probably perfectly happy living how she did. But once she realized that she could have more, her vices took over and she became greedy and sought bigger and better things and felt like she needed and deserved the money.
On the year, this movie, like Sanbeg alluded to, will end up in the middle of the pack.
The most powerful scene in the movie is undoubtedly to me when Hank and Jacob are talking after the fake FBI Agent and Carl were killed. Hank is still trying to figure out a plan, a simple plan, that will get them in the clear for good (again) but Jacob tells him that he is done trying to do this, it's not worth it, he won't be able to sleep at night with all these burdens upon his head.
Hank's response may sum up the movie, he says, "This is what happiness costs!"
Now, I don't know if anyone is able to think back to one of the first scenes of the movie, and I apologize if I'm being redundant from someone's else post, but it is a voiceover by Hank about all that it takes to be happy, Hank said that according to his father, "It was just a few simple things, for example, a family, a good job, friends and neighbors who like and respect you." (I am paraphrasing because I was unable to write down all of the things he said in the speech, as he was talking too fast.)
But just think about the irony of that. At the beginning of the movie, all it took to be happy was a family, which Hank had, a good job, Hank didn't have a great job but he could survive and be happy, and finally "friends and neighbors who like and respect him," he certainly had all of those things and in the end all of his friends and neighbors end up dead, killed, gone, and his life becomes an empty and void nightmare.
Hank had all he needed to be happy and together with his wife, they destroyed it all, and the life they once enjoyed would never be the same. This may be going to far with the film but I don't think Hank and Sarah will stay married.
His father was right when he talked about the simple things that made you happy, and maybe Hank was just a victim but he let the web get so expanded, that it destroyed everything in its path. The final image of the film can show the dark abyss of all the friends he lost and I felt that in the past, that may have been where Jacob sat sometimes and that Hank was coming to the realization that Jacob was never coming back.
But back to my original point, why I have rescinded some of my criticism of the movie. I still have the same problems about his wife knowing everything, the FBI, and the Lou's wife getting blown away so ridiclously, but I felt that the movie tied together well and the way that happiness was referenced at the beginning and end so subtlety and I felt it tied together the movie of how everyone changed from beginning and end and the destruction that was left in its wake.
The movie also became more and more relatable and I felt like I could be as helpless and confused, and trying to grasp on to all of life, like Hank. But the movie certainly portrayed realism very well and despite all the horrible things the characters had done, I still sympathized with all of them and felt bad for them and the events they were thrown into.
Finally, I guarantee if Hank had never found the money, Sarah would never had realized that she was upset and that she was probably perfectly happy living how she did. But once she realized that she could have more, her vices took over and she became greedy and sought bigger and better things and felt like she needed and deserved the money.
On the year, this movie, like Sanbeg alluded to, will end up in the middle of the pack.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A Simple Plan and Various
So, I haven't posted in a while mainly because I was at my brother's graduation since Saturday and I didn't really have the time or ability to post. However, another reason I haven't blogged in a few days is that I really don't feel like I have much to say.
To start, Memento was a great film and had a brilliant twist ending which I must admit completely shocked me, but much like Mr. Bennett said during our "Great Discussion," I just wanted to move on to the next film because I had nothing to really say about it. Beyond a great storyline and twist, and of course the chronlogy, I didn't see much about styling or things like that, which truly impressed me in the film. I'm not sure, but I just didn't get the right feeling from the movie and just felt something was lacking, but that's probably just me.
Maybe it was because Dark City impressed me so much and made me think so deeply, but I just felt like Memento was going for the same message and missed it, and just relied on the storyline but really didn't have any deeper meaning to it. Also, when watching Dark City, I felt like John Murdoch was the every man, trying to figure out what was going on, and just acting like a regular guy who really cannot remember anything. He is going through the same search as us because we are just as confused.
Then, in Memento, I just felt like Leonard Shelby's story was his own, it was a unique story that no one else was going through, so it was a much narrower perspective. In Memento, it was one man's search for revenge of something that didn't even happen. In Dark City, it was one man's quest to discover what has happened to the planet Earth as a whole. It just struck me better and maybe I'm the crazy one.
Now on to A Simple Plan. After class yesterday, I had a short discussion with Mr. Bennett on some of the issues I had with the film, most specifically I wasn't quite sure how Hank's wife was able to figure out every twist and turn in the path and predict everything ahead of time. I felt it was a weak point, but he countered that it was strong because even when a person knows exactly what is going to happen in a situation like this, they still can't stop it, hence the ironic title A Simple Plan, when no plan is truly simple.
My main point to him was that I felt it was unrealistic that she could have known that the FBI Agent could have been false without even knowing about him and just assuming that it was the guy based on a picture where the two looked nothing alike. Also, maybe I'm naive but I really doubt that the FBI would either a) give away information that simply about the names of their agents or b) she would be able to speak to someone from the FBI and even know how to contact them that easily, I mean honestly, it takes 6 months to get a passport but 15 minutes to find out the name of an agent and then to say with complete certainty that it is the guy.
Now, personally when I first saw the FBI agent I did think that he was crooked and knew too much and therefore was a con artist just looking for the money so maybe it was not a difficult thing to figure out if people were able to see it coming, but some of the events in this movie just strike me the wrong way.
I missed the 2nd day of watching the movie, which was Monday so maybe I missed some key points that makes these things rational.
Finally, my last point, I know how we all enjoyed when the Lou's wife got blown apart by Hank and launched into the window, but that point, although hilarious (and she probably deserved it), greatly annoyed me because if a movie is going to take itself seriously, handle the killing of people like you handled the killing of Lou and the guy and the guy on the snowmobile, with class and realism, not with her being blown into a window and looking like a blow-up doll, which it was. It angered me at the stupidity of that murder and how the cut between the two shots of her being launched into the window and then laying on the ground, the continuity was absolutely terrible.
If it was done for laughs, that is a different story.
I still need to catch up on the 2nd day of watching but I hope it ends well because it has piqued my interest, although I feel that it is a slightly flawed movie in my eyes.
To start, Memento was a great film and had a brilliant twist ending which I must admit completely shocked me, but much like Mr. Bennett said during our "Great Discussion," I just wanted to move on to the next film because I had nothing to really say about it. Beyond a great storyline and twist, and of course the chronlogy, I didn't see much about styling or things like that, which truly impressed me in the film. I'm not sure, but I just didn't get the right feeling from the movie and just felt something was lacking, but that's probably just me.
Maybe it was because Dark City impressed me so much and made me think so deeply, but I just felt like Memento was going for the same message and missed it, and just relied on the storyline but really didn't have any deeper meaning to it. Also, when watching Dark City, I felt like John Murdoch was the every man, trying to figure out what was going on, and just acting like a regular guy who really cannot remember anything. He is going through the same search as us because we are just as confused.
Then, in Memento, I just felt like Leonard Shelby's story was his own, it was a unique story that no one else was going through, so it was a much narrower perspective. In Memento, it was one man's search for revenge of something that didn't even happen. In Dark City, it was one man's quest to discover what has happened to the planet Earth as a whole. It just struck me better and maybe I'm the crazy one.
Now on to A Simple Plan. After class yesterday, I had a short discussion with Mr. Bennett on some of the issues I had with the film, most specifically I wasn't quite sure how Hank's wife was able to figure out every twist and turn in the path and predict everything ahead of time. I felt it was a weak point, but he countered that it was strong because even when a person knows exactly what is going to happen in a situation like this, they still can't stop it, hence the ironic title A Simple Plan, when no plan is truly simple.
My main point to him was that I felt it was unrealistic that she could have known that the FBI Agent could have been false without even knowing about him and just assuming that it was the guy based on a picture where the two looked nothing alike. Also, maybe I'm naive but I really doubt that the FBI would either a) give away information that simply about the names of their agents or b) she would be able to speak to someone from the FBI and even know how to contact them that easily, I mean honestly, it takes 6 months to get a passport but 15 minutes to find out the name of an agent and then to say with complete certainty that it is the guy.
Now, personally when I first saw the FBI agent I did think that he was crooked and knew too much and therefore was a con artist just looking for the money so maybe it was not a difficult thing to figure out if people were able to see it coming, but some of the events in this movie just strike me the wrong way.
I missed the 2nd day of watching the movie, which was Monday so maybe I missed some key points that makes these things rational.
Finally, my last point, I know how we all enjoyed when the Lou's wife got blown apart by Hank and launched into the window, but that point, although hilarious (and she probably deserved it), greatly annoyed me because if a movie is going to take itself seriously, handle the killing of people like you handled the killing of Lou and the guy and the guy on the snowmobile, with class and realism, not with her being blown into a window and looking like a blow-up doll, which it was. It angered me at the stupidity of that murder and how the cut between the two shots of her being launched into the window and then laying on the ground, the continuity was absolutely terrible.
If it was done for laughs, that is a different story.
I still need to catch up on the 2nd day of watching but I hope it ends well because it has piqued my interest, although I feel that it is a slightly flawed movie in my eyes.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Production Costs of the Movies We Have Seen
Today Mr. Bennett said that he thought that Memento was probably a "pretty cheap to make," so it prompted me to look up all of the movies we have seen so far, and how they each took to make, so here is the short summary. (Don't forget about inflation of course).
(First Number is Actual Budget, Second is if every movie was released this year, Adjusted for Inflation.)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) $1,448,864 $18,515,096
Citizen Kane (1941) $686,033 $9,926,764
Midnight Cowboy (1969) $3,600,000 $20,914,296
Runaway Train (1985) ???
The Seventh Seal (1957) $150,000 $1,134,695
Signs (2002) $72,000,000 $85,712,048
Top Hat (1935) $609,000 $9,458,401
Unforgiven (1992) ???
The Asphalt Jungle (1950) ???
Dark City (1998) $27,000,000 $35,510,581
Memento (2000) $5,000,000 $6,192,600
I am still trying to find the Budgets of Runaway Train, Unforgiven, and The Asphalt Jungle and will add them to this post or comment it when I find them. Much of this may seem irrelevant, but as a numbers guy myself, I decided to look it up, just to see how each movie stacked up.
(First Number is Actual Budget, Second is if every movie was released this year, Adjusted for Inflation.)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) $1,448,864 $18,515,096
Citizen Kane (1941) $686,033 $9,926,764
Midnight Cowboy (1969) $3,600,000 $20,914,296
Runaway Train (1985) ???
The Seventh Seal (1957) $150,000 $1,134,695
Signs (2002) $72,000,000 $85,712,048
Top Hat (1935) $609,000 $9,458,401
Unforgiven (1992) ???
The Asphalt Jungle (1950) ???
Dark City (1998) $27,000,000 $35,510,581
Memento (2000) $5,000,000 $6,192,600
I am still trying to find the Budgets of Runaway Train, Unforgiven, and The Asphalt Jungle and will add them to this post or comment it when I find them. Much of this may seem irrelevant, but as a numbers guy myself, I decided to look it up, just to see how each movie stacked up.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Memento - Day 1
So, we started Memento today, an interesting, intricately woven story that leaves the viewer in the dark the entire time and yet at the same time, completely aware of everything that has a will happen a true testament to a great film. Now, I have never seen Memento in its entirety, I only watched about 25 or 30 minutes once with my brother but then he went back to school so I never saw the end. (It was several years ago).
Before I begin my comments on the film itself, I will pull a Danny White, namely define a word that people didn't know today, and today that word is "Quorum."
A quorum is the number of members of a group or organization required to be present to transact business legally, usually a majority; a particularly chosen group.
Now, on to the more important purpose for this post. The movie Memento itself. I must admit, I am slightly confused as to where the movie is going, so if I make mistakes I apologize, but still I am quite intrigued and will try to make some intelligent comments on the film.
I will start with the most meaningful lines from the film that I have found so far:
"It's like waking. Like you just woke up." This reminded me very deeply of Dark City and the tuning and how memory is adjusted. Much of this film reminded me of Dark City, as odd as that may sound.
"Memory is unreliable, it's not perfect, it's not even that good. Memory can change the shape of a room, the color of a car, it can distort things. It is only a record." Again, much like Dark City.
Third, an anti-existentialist quote: "The action isn't just meaningless. The world doesn't disappear because you close your eyes."
"We are both survivors."
"At least you are living." "Yea for revenge."
A couple other things of note. And this first thing could just be my eyes playing tricks on me, but when Leonard (Lennie) re-enters the restaurant, I saw a sign on the door that said "Carte Blanche" which means that someone has free rein or a blank slate to do whatever they want and I thought that was an interesting phrase to have, maybe suggesting a theme of the film.
Also, when Leonard opens the Gideon Bible which he states that "he reads religiously," he opens to the page in the index the says "Help in the Time of Need" (I believe that he then opened to Ecclesiastes, but I'm not positive and I also don't know the significance of that book of the Bible but I will plan to look it up) the and this is very interesting because later on, Natalie says, "I'm helping you because you helped me."
And of course, the opening shot when the Polaroid picture fades instead of becoming more clear when it is shook. I think that this is to show that everything fades, especially memory, but I think that one is probably pretty clear.
Finally, I think I have stated all of my comments thus far but I will make one more thing known although I am sure someone has brought this up to Mr. Bennett but I just wanted to make it known that the director, Christopher Nolan, screenwriter, Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, and the D.P. (director of Photography) Wally Pfister, all worked in the same position on the Dark Knight. (A film I know Mr. Bennett loved.)
Before I begin my comments on the film itself, I will pull a Danny White, namely define a word that people didn't know today, and today that word is "Quorum."
A quorum is the number of members of a group or organization required to be present to transact business legally, usually a majority; a particularly chosen group.
Now, on to the more important purpose for this post. The movie Memento itself. I must admit, I am slightly confused as to where the movie is going, so if I make mistakes I apologize, but still I am quite intrigued and will try to make some intelligent comments on the film.
I will start with the most meaningful lines from the film that I have found so far:
"It's like waking. Like you just woke up." This reminded me very deeply of Dark City and the tuning and how memory is adjusted. Much of this film reminded me of Dark City, as odd as that may sound.
"Memory is unreliable, it's not perfect, it's not even that good. Memory can change the shape of a room, the color of a car, it can distort things. It is only a record." Again, much like Dark City.
Third, an anti-existentialist quote: "The action isn't just meaningless. The world doesn't disappear because you close your eyes."
"We are both survivors."
"At least you are living." "Yea for revenge."
A couple other things of note. And this first thing could just be my eyes playing tricks on me, but when Leonard (Lennie) re-enters the restaurant, I saw a sign on the door that said "Carte Blanche" which means that someone has free rein or a blank slate to do whatever they want and I thought that was an interesting phrase to have, maybe suggesting a theme of the film.
Also, when Leonard opens the Gideon Bible which he states that "he reads religiously," he opens to the page in the index the says "Help in the Time of Need" (I believe that he then opened to Ecclesiastes, but I'm not positive and I also don't know the significance of that book of the Bible but I will plan to look it up) the and this is very interesting because later on, Natalie says, "I'm helping you because you helped me."
And of course, the opening shot when the Polaroid picture fades instead of becoming more clear when it is shook. I think that this is to show that everything fades, especially memory, but I think that one is probably pretty clear.
Finally, I think I have stated all of my comments thus far but I will make one more thing known although I am sure someone has brought this up to Mr. Bennett but I just wanted to make it known that the director, Christopher Nolan, screenwriter, Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, and the D.P. (director of Photography) Wally Pfister, all worked in the same position on the Dark Knight. (A film I know Mr. Bennett loved.)
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Something to Think About
Well, I was just re-reading Mr. Bennett's absurdly arrogant comment that he made about his film choices compared to our classes' knowledge, in which he stated:
"Mr. Bennett, You have shown one sublime film after another. Obviously, You possess powers of discrimination far exceeding our own. And who is better able than You to reconcile the objective appreciation of truly great films with the subjective and inscrutable nature of the 17-year-old mind, twisted as it is within a tangled matrix of tightly wound springs . Is there the remotest possibility that we, in our fathomless ignorance, could possibly choose a film that is superior to one of Your choosing? We humbly thank You for offering us the opportunity to choose for ourselves. But, the choice between us choosing, and You choosing, is, frankly, no choice at all. Rather it is a strategy steeped in folly, bound to result in bitter disappointment. We defer to You. Choose a film that we've never seen and never heard of, but will leave us once again speechless, shaking our heads silently in awe at the transcendent power of art."
Now, normally I would somewhat agree with this statement because although I enjoy watching movies, I personally don't think that I am a great movie reviewer because most films I watch, I like. That could be a product of me being too kind to movies, or the fact that I don't like watching bad movies, so therefore most of them are actually good. In this way, I normally would not question Mr. Bennett's film choices because he does have the knowledge of more than 20 years of watching films critically.
But
I have just realized that we have all been manipulated and imprinted with memories of Mr. Bennett being a great film teacher and global teacher who has been doing it for more than 2 decades, and that in reality Mr. Bennett has only been a film teacher for about 4 days, maybe as long as a week, but certainly no more than that.
He has no recollection of a previous life, and has only been imprinted with these memories of knowing all of these films, even though he has only just been given this job. However, we can all recognize his personality, because instead of being just the sum total of his memories, he does have an underlying personality that remains, no matter what he is imprinted with. Now, we all have this ingrained personality, but in Mr. Bennett's case, it is a personality filled with absurd and ridiculous amount of arrogance, a sense of superiority, and of course a love of profanity.
So, to sum up my ideas (not sum up my memories) I have concluded after watching our most recent film, Dark City, I have realized that Mr. Bennett has just recently been imprinted with the memories that he is a film teacher and a global teacher, and has been the given the ideas that he has been doing this job for 20+ years and that he has watched all of our films, like All Quiet..., Citizen Kane, and Unforgiven 30 or 40 times each when, it fact he has never actually seen any of these movies.
Therefore, only his arrogance and sense of superiority makes him believed that he is more qualified to pick our next movie, even though it is quite possible that he has never seen a movie in his life. Because of this line of logic, I believe that each of us in the class are more qualified than our "Leader" Mr. Bennett to choose a film. So, I think that we are all better able to pick a good film than Mr. Bennett is, despite what he believes.
Think about that everyone....
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Lawrence of Arabia
So after several days of trying to get through this 3:30 + film from 1962, I finally finished Lawrence of Arabia, the film that introduced Peter O' Toole to the world as an actor, and told the story of a British officer, T.E. Lawrence, and his commanding of the Arab army against the Turks. It could have been because I have a short attention span so I could not watch the whole film in one or two or even three sittings, but I found an issue in the continuity of the film, and felt like either I missed something in the film, or the film was lacking an ingredient. This is probably blasphemy because I know that this is considered one of the greatest films of all time on many lists.
And it was very good, but as a 17 year old, I am not used to sitting through long epic 3+ hours film in which some of the scenes are 10 minutes straight of watching people trudge through a desert with very little dialogue and action. I just found myself bored, and I found Peter O'Toole to be overacting many times (and having creepy eyes) but I qualified this because I figured that it was the acting of the time, and he is a product of the era of the filmmaking because he has been a very good actor in several other films, even up until last year.
The movie had many action sequences and much of the film was an interesting commentary on the time and how the British viewed other groups like the Arabs or the Turks, what happens when one person has a dream and inspires his people, and also how war can corrupt a naive and idealistic person. It had some similar themes to All Quiet on the Western Front in terms of the corruption of innocence and how someone can never live without war and how war affects your life and your perceptions on the world and your pleasures.
I feel like this is a classic that everyone must watch because I have to say that it was beautifully filmed and the way that the director set up all of the scenes by making you feel like you were part of it, it was very well done. Unfortunately, when a director tries to portray everything and make you feel like a character in the film, when there is very little action going on, it can get very boring and can make the film difficult to watch. So, I will say that this film deserves a recommendation to watch because it is a classic film and it is beautifully done, but its length at certain points will make you squirm in your seat and wonder when it will end, but I am glad that I saw the movie.
And it was very good, but as a 17 year old, I am not used to sitting through long epic 3+ hours film in which some of the scenes are 10 minutes straight of watching people trudge through a desert with very little dialogue and action. I just found myself bored, and I found Peter O'Toole to be overacting many times (and having creepy eyes) but I qualified this because I figured that it was the acting of the time, and he is a product of the era of the filmmaking because he has been a very good actor in several other films, even up until last year.
The movie had many action sequences and much of the film was an interesting commentary on the time and how the British viewed other groups like the Arabs or the Turks, what happens when one person has a dream and inspires his people, and also how war can corrupt a naive and idealistic person. It had some similar themes to All Quiet on the Western Front in terms of the corruption of innocence and how someone can never live without war and how war affects your life and your perceptions on the world and your pleasures.
I feel like this is a classic that everyone must watch because I have to say that it was beautifully filmed and the way that the director set up all of the scenes by making you feel like you were part of it, it was very well done. Unfortunately, when a director tries to portray everything and make you feel like a character in the film, when there is very little action going on, it can get very boring and can make the film difficult to watch. So, I will say that this film deserves a recommendation to watch because it is a classic film and it is beautifully done, but its length at certain points will make you squirm in your seat and wonder when it will end, but I am glad that I saw the movie.
Dark City - Part 2
First, a quick note for anyone who either a) falls in love with this film, b) wants to watch it again because they missed something, or c) any other reason, but I just wanted to let people know that our current film, Dark City, will be on the channel FX on Monday, May 11th at 11:30pm and again on Tuesday, May 12th at 8:00am. So if you love the film or feel like you missed something, you can get a 2nd chance to watch the film.
But now on to my thoughts about the film on Day 2. My first thought is about Murdoch and the extent of his powers and the knowledge that the aliens (I don't know what to call them) have of him. For example, the lines of dialogue, that are "We can know nothing, until we possess him. We must have him!" This clearly illustrates that they realize that their is a hole in their plan or in their control. Also, Doctor Schreber says that the creatures "need a human soul." That is the reason they are "chasing people every night.
Then, they decide that they "must become like him (Murdoch.)" After they do, I believe the dialogue is very important. The man who takes Murdoch's memories says "I have John Murdoch in mind." He does not say I have John Murdoch in my mind or I have John Murdoch's memories or I have John Murdoch's mind, but he definitely says, "I have John Murdoch in mind", something I believe is relevant. Also, a few minutes later, he says "If I were Murdoch."
Secondly, I will comment on the Detective and his interaction with the man named Eddie. First, I assume that the Detective either understands what is going on, or at least knows some information. I believe when he says "No one ever listens to me" it is more meaningful than it may seem. Also, his interaction with Eddie was clearly very mysterious and existenial. First, the most obvious thing, which I mentioned it a previous was able all of the circles or mazes that the guy was drawing and I believe that he will become relevant later in the movie when he reappears but I think that there was another more important part for the theme of the movie.
This involves the dialogue spoken by Eddie. Eddie asserts that much like the drawings he made, he began "riding in circles and thinking in circles." The only way you can do it. Therefore, these circles must certainly have a big significance to the rest of the film. Also, he next says "I don't know her. I don't know who any of us are," clearly showing that we can't truly know anyone (theme from Citizen Kane) and also that as the existienialist philosophy states, "we can never speak to any other person on a meaningful level," Eddie expresses this idea. As well, Eddie says that he thoughts began to "unravel" so maybe the spirals of the circle inside his mind began to come apart and he lost his mind.He also states, and this could be construed in an existenial fashion is that "There is no case! There never was! It was all just a big joke!" Now I could be wrong but I thought he was referring to his belief of the existence of God, and he came to the conclusion that it never was even a question, the idea of a God is just a big joke. (Not that I agree) but this is how I thought it was meant.
Next, I found it quite interesting that the clock for these people was housed inside a human head so it may not have a deeper meaning but I found that to be interesting in itself. Also, another interesting, possibly important point occurs when Murdoch is fighting with Doc Schreber and he knocks him down with the powers. Schreber says "My glasses" as they go flying off of him and also when he was swimming in the pool and talking to the leader of the people, he did not have his glasses on but immediately when he sees the man he puts his glasses on, so I feel that his glasses may have significance in the reason that he can either see these people, or interact with them, or involve some of the reason that he was chosen but I'm not sure exactly how.
As well, a very key line of dialogue involves when Murdoch is reading the postcard from Shell Beach, the line he reads out loud is, "Brings back memories, doesn't it," clearly a very ironic statement for the film. Also, another line about memories is the line by one of the men, who said, "As he follows the clues, we follow the memories," certainly a relevant statement I believe but I have not been able to connect it yet. Also, a newspaper headline I noticed when Murdoch is on the train, says "Killer's Latest Spree" and we have not seen Murdoch kill anyone so it would be interesting to know what the newspaper article stated because that headline is certainly referencing something in the past or that happened at some point.
Another important line that I don't know where it fits into the film was the quote, "Instincts are irrational," which may just be a commentary on life and how we act and our stupidity but it may have a deeper meaning or it may just state the fact that we act irrationally on our instincts.
Finally, I wonder about the aliens names. They seem to be very odd, short and possibly relevant to the jobs, they do. These include Mr. Hand, Mr. Wall, Mr. Book, Mr. Rain, Mr. Sleep, and Mr. Quick so far. I wonder the significance of these because I haven't figured one out yet.
I believe these are all of the thoughts I have right now. I hope I didn't leave anything out, and I compliment anyone who can get through this entire post.
But now on to my thoughts about the film on Day 2. My first thought is about Murdoch and the extent of his powers and the knowledge that the aliens (I don't know what to call them) have of him. For example, the lines of dialogue, that are "We can know nothing, until we possess him. We must have him!" This clearly illustrates that they realize that their is a hole in their plan or in their control. Also, Doctor Schreber says that the creatures "need a human soul." That is the reason they are "chasing people every night.
Then, they decide that they "must become like him (Murdoch.)" After they do, I believe the dialogue is very important. The man who takes Murdoch's memories says "I have John Murdoch in mind." He does not say I have John Murdoch in my mind or I have John Murdoch's memories or I have John Murdoch's mind, but he definitely says, "I have John Murdoch in mind", something I believe is relevant. Also, a few minutes later, he says "If I were Murdoch."
Secondly, I will comment on the Detective and his interaction with the man named Eddie. First, I assume that the Detective either understands what is going on, or at least knows some information. I believe when he says "No one ever listens to me" it is more meaningful than it may seem. Also, his interaction with Eddie was clearly very mysterious and existenial. First, the most obvious thing, which I mentioned it a previous was able all of the circles or mazes that the guy was drawing and I believe that he will become relevant later in the movie when he reappears but I think that there was another more important part for the theme of the movie.
This involves the dialogue spoken by Eddie. Eddie asserts that much like the drawings he made, he began "riding in circles and thinking in circles." The only way you can do it. Therefore, these circles must certainly have a big significance to the rest of the film. Also, he next says "I don't know her. I don't know who any of us are," clearly showing that we can't truly know anyone (theme from Citizen Kane) and also that as the existienialist philosophy states, "we can never speak to any other person on a meaningful level," Eddie expresses this idea. As well, Eddie says that he thoughts began to "unravel" so maybe the spirals of the circle inside his mind began to come apart and he lost his mind.He also states, and this could be construed in an existenial fashion is that "There is no case! There never was! It was all just a big joke!" Now I could be wrong but I thought he was referring to his belief of the existence of God, and he came to the conclusion that it never was even a question, the idea of a God is just a big joke. (Not that I agree) but this is how I thought it was meant.
Next, I found it quite interesting that the clock for these people was housed inside a human head so it may not have a deeper meaning but I found that to be interesting in itself. Also, another interesting, possibly important point occurs when Murdoch is fighting with Doc Schreber and he knocks him down with the powers. Schreber says "My glasses" as they go flying off of him and also when he was swimming in the pool and talking to the leader of the people, he did not have his glasses on but immediately when he sees the man he puts his glasses on, so I feel that his glasses may have significance in the reason that he can either see these people, or interact with them, or involve some of the reason that he was chosen but I'm not sure exactly how.
As well, a very key line of dialogue involves when Murdoch is reading the postcard from Shell Beach, the line he reads out loud is, "Brings back memories, doesn't it," clearly a very ironic statement for the film. Also, another line about memories is the line by one of the men, who said, "As he follows the clues, we follow the memories," certainly a relevant statement I believe but I have not been able to connect it yet. Also, a newspaper headline I noticed when Murdoch is on the train, says "Killer's Latest Spree" and we have not seen Murdoch kill anyone so it would be interesting to know what the newspaper article stated because that headline is certainly referencing something in the past or that happened at some point.
Another important line that I don't know where it fits into the film was the quote, "Instincts are irrational," which may just be a commentary on life and how we act and our stupidity but it may have a deeper meaning or it may just state the fact that we act irrationally on our instincts.
Finally, I wonder about the aliens names. They seem to be very odd, short and possibly relevant to the jobs, they do. These include Mr. Hand, Mr. Wall, Mr. Book, Mr. Rain, Mr. Sleep, and Mr. Quick so far. I wonder the significance of these because I haven't figured one out yet.
I believe these are all of the thoughts I have right now. I hope I didn't leave anything out, and I compliment anyone who can get through this entire post.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Dark City - Part 1
We have only watched the first 15 or 16 minutes of the Dark City but because of the oddity and confusion of the film so far, I figure I should try to use my notes to make some sense out of the film so far, if possible.
The first image I noticed, besides the opening, which showed the sky and stars, was the flashing Neon sign (and there are many of these) which said "Now showing: The Evil" I assume this has some meaning as to the ideas of the film but I can't decide exactly what it is yet.
Secondly, I noticed the prevalence of water throughout the film so far, as it opens with the main character, John Murdoch, in a bathtub and then the fish tank crashes on the floor, as well as the rain-slickened streets of the film noir styling. What is the significance of this?
Also, the fact that the clock stayed at 12 o'clock for a long time, while the creatures began their experiments, but you wonder exactly what happened during that time and what the actual time lapse was, since Murdoch seems to be jumping in times from the 30's or 40's and then to the Automat (another flashing Neon sign) to the 50's. So what is the deal with all of the different time periods and time jumps. (Slaughterhouse Five-esque?)
Also, I know that the resurrection of characters is always done in 3 days as per Jesus' death and resurrection, but in this film it opens with a 3 week lapse when he wakes up from his slumber so is a far-reaching allusion. Also, a meaningful line of dialogue by the detective I believe (or one of the characters) "I'm being punished for my sins." This is clearly an allusion to some sort of religious being in a world that appears to be sunless, godless, and obviously completely chaotic so far.
Finally, and most significant, what is the meaning behind the mazes, enigmas, or labyrinths, that are shown numerously throughout the film. We first see it upon the naked women who is lying dead in Murdoch's hotel room, and then again these spirals or mazes are shown in the opening credits. Thirdly, when we see the interaction between Mrs. Murdoch and the psychiatrist, the psychiatrist is placing the rats and mice into a labyrinth or spiral shaped maze. In the past, these spirals are used for mind control or hypnotism of the past but I wonder what the significance is in this film.
Just the thoughts so far and many of these things may be irrevelant in the scope of this film becuase it is so confusing and purposefully tricky that all of the images so far may not have anything to do with the plot of the film. The rest of the film should be very interesting.
The first image I noticed, besides the opening, which showed the sky and stars, was the flashing Neon sign (and there are many of these) which said "Now showing: The Evil" I assume this has some meaning as to the ideas of the film but I can't decide exactly what it is yet.
Secondly, I noticed the prevalence of water throughout the film so far, as it opens with the main character, John Murdoch, in a bathtub and then the fish tank crashes on the floor, as well as the rain-slickened streets of the film noir styling. What is the significance of this?
Also, the fact that the clock stayed at 12 o'clock for a long time, while the creatures began their experiments, but you wonder exactly what happened during that time and what the actual time lapse was, since Murdoch seems to be jumping in times from the 30's or 40's and then to the Automat (another flashing Neon sign) to the 50's. So what is the deal with all of the different time periods and time jumps. (Slaughterhouse Five-esque?)
Also, I know that the resurrection of characters is always done in 3 days as per Jesus' death and resurrection, but in this film it opens with a 3 week lapse when he wakes up from his slumber so is a far-reaching allusion. Also, a meaningful line of dialogue by the detective I believe (or one of the characters) "I'm being punished for my sins." This is clearly an allusion to some sort of religious being in a world that appears to be sunless, godless, and obviously completely chaotic so far.
Finally, and most significant, what is the meaning behind the mazes, enigmas, or labyrinths, that are shown numerously throughout the film. We first see it upon the naked women who is lying dead in Murdoch's hotel room, and then again these spirals or mazes are shown in the opening credits. Thirdly, when we see the interaction between Mrs. Murdoch and the psychiatrist, the psychiatrist is placing the rats and mice into a labyrinth or spiral shaped maze. In the past, these spirals are used for mind control or hypnotism of the past but I wonder what the significance is in this film.
Just the thoughts so far and many of these things may be irrevelant in the scope of this film becuase it is so confusing and purposefully tricky that all of the images so far may not have anything to do with the plot of the film. The rest of the film should be very interesting.
The Soloist
This weekend I saw the film The Soloist, based on the true story of the life of Nathaniel Ayers, a Julliard dropout, and LA Times reporter Steve Lopez. The story is mainly based around the two characters' interactions who are played by Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr. The film as a whole was good, but it lacked one essential element which I can't decide exactly what it was, but it made me decide that this movie was only a mediocre or good movie and not a great movie. The storyline was intriguing, interesting, and emotional, but much of the story beyond Downey and Foxx's interaction was lacking substance and excitement.
This film was moved back three times for release and was originally slated for release in December 08, then March 09, and finally April 09, and during that time, I feel that it kept going through changes and ended up with a relatively ineffective film. Some of the emotional elements of streetlife in Los Angeles, was beautiful and depressing and very well done, and the people who played the homeless people were likely homeless people in reality or portrayed it very effectively.
However, the story and the acting of the other characters lacked substance and meaning and the storylines were poorly developed. The supporting actors who often interacted with Robert Downey Jr. were ineffective and slowed the movie down terribly.
The best part of the film was unquestionably the interaction between Downey and Foxx, and especially the acting of Jamie Foxx which was absolutely outstanding, and probably a reason to see the film solely (I accidentally made a pun) for that. Although he will not be recognized by anyone because the film came out in April and not November or December like all of the Oscar nominated performances, he will not be remembered come awards season, but to me, he was fantastic. The way he acted and spoke flawlessly really captured the essence of the character and made the film.
Unfortunately, I was disappointed in this film, not because it was bad, because it was not terrible, but because it could have been more. It could have delved deeper and the characters could have been better developed. It was also surprising because the director of the Soloist was Joe Wright who directed Atonement which was Oscar nominated. The film either tried too hard or just walked you through the journey without allowing you to figure anything out by yourself.
So in the end, the Soloist was a good film, but nothing special or memorable except for Foxx and Downey, and it is possible that it was difficult to tell a good story since it was based on true events, but in large part the story falls flat. Therefore, I will recommend this film for the acting of the stars but not for the storyline or any meaningful moviegoing experience.
This film was moved back three times for release and was originally slated for release in December 08, then March 09, and finally April 09, and during that time, I feel that it kept going through changes and ended up with a relatively ineffective film. Some of the emotional elements of streetlife in Los Angeles, was beautiful and depressing and very well done, and the people who played the homeless people were likely homeless people in reality or portrayed it very effectively.
However, the story and the acting of the other characters lacked substance and meaning and the storylines were poorly developed. The supporting actors who often interacted with Robert Downey Jr. were ineffective and slowed the movie down terribly.
The best part of the film was unquestionably the interaction between Downey and Foxx, and especially the acting of Jamie Foxx which was absolutely outstanding, and probably a reason to see the film solely (I accidentally made a pun) for that. Although he will not be recognized by anyone because the film came out in April and not November or December like all of the Oscar nominated performances, he will not be remembered come awards season, but to me, he was fantastic. The way he acted and spoke flawlessly really captured the essence of the character and made the film.
Unfortunately, I was disappointed in this film, not because it was bad, because it was not terrible, but because it could have been more. It could have delved deeper and the characters could have been better developed. It was also surprising because the director of the Soloist was Joe Wright who directed Atonement which was Oscar nominated. The film either tried too hard or just walked you through the journey without allowing you to figure anything out by yourself.
So in the end, the Soloist was a good film, but nothing special or memorable except for Foxx and Downey, and it is possible that it was difficult to tell a good story since it was based on true events, but in large part the story falls flat. Therefore, I will recommend this film for the acting of the stars but not for the storyline or any meaningful moviegoing experience.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Third Thoughts on the Asphalt Jungle
These may be a bit late so I apologize if the time for Asphalt Jungle posts has passed but there were a couple of things on posts that I didn't see that I felt were still worthy of mentioning.
First, was the scene in which Doc Riedenscheinder (however you spell it) get arrested. I thought the period where the girl is dancing is quite interesting and of course his quote "Plenty of time" which we have already discussed. But the part of the scene that I found more powerful was when he asked the police officer, "How long have you been waiting outside?"
The police officer responds "About two or three minutes."
Riedenschneider then thinks aloud "About how long it takes to play a phonograph record isn't it."
The police officers tells him to stop babbling but we, the audience understands what it means.
I believe this scene perfectly personifies that each character got caught up in their own vice. If Doc Riedenschneider had decided to leave and not give the girl the nickels to dance, he could have escaped. Now, being the existienalist that he was, he probably felt that he have lived for pleasure so the fact that he got caught was worth it because he enjoyed himself to the last minute, just like Jons from the Seventh Seal.
However, I personally would have been kicking myself, if I would have escaped if it wasn't for my own selfishness and vice. Doc did not seem too upset but I would have been very angry if I had only missed escaping by a couple of minutes because I thought I had "plenty of time" and just wanted to watch this girl dance.
And finally, and this will be a very short thought. Stupid Hays Code! I wanted Dix to escape and the fact that he died, although it brought closure to the film, I was hoping that he did not get caught or killed, but I knew he had to. But of all of the characters, I was rooting the most for him and his death was the most upsetting to me.
First, was the scene in which Doc Riedenscheinder (however you spell it) get arrested. I thought the period where the girl is dancing is quite interesting and of course his quote "Plenty of time" which we have already discussed. But the part of the scene that I found more powerful was when he asked the police officer, "How long have you been waiting outside?"
The police officer responds "About two or three minutes."
Riedenschneider then thinks aloud "About how long it takes to play a phonograph record isn't it."
The police officers tells him to stop babbling but we, the audience understands what it means.
I believe this scene perfectly personifies that each character got caught up in their own vice. If Doc Riedenschneider had decided to leave and not give the girl the nickels to dance, he could have escaped. Now, being the existienalist that he was, he probably felt that he have lived for pleasure so the fact that he got caught was worth it because he enjoyed himself to the last minute, just like Jons from the Seventh Seal.
However, I personally would have been kicking myself, if I would have escaped if it wasn't for my own selfishness and vice. Doc did not seem too upset but I would have been very angry if I had only missed escaping by a couple of minutes because I thought I had "plenty of time" and just wanted to watch this girl dance.
And finally, and this will be a very short thought. Stupid Hays Code! I wanted Dix to escape and the fact that he died, although it brought closure to the film, I was hoping that he did not get caught or killed, but I knew he had to. But of all of the characters, I was rooting the most for him and his death was the most upsetting to me.
Top Hat
So I made a post a few weeks ago about how Top Hat was going to on TV for anyone who wanted to see it to its completion. So, at that time, I decided to DVR it for a later date and watch it if I chose to. Well yesterday afternoon, the choice came down to watch a movie (and Top Hat was short in a limited period of time) or study for AP Gov. (I bet you can guess which one I picked.)
Well I must admit, that I was not overly impressed with Top Hat as I was with the Asphalt Jungle, Unforgiven, or some of the other great films that we have seen this year -- but surprisingly, it was pretty good and the ending was somewhat clever and unexpected.
I don't know if anyone will actually watch the end of the movie, but I must admit that the 3 best double entredres of the film occur in the last 20 minutes of the film. They are really hilarious and actually made the movie quite enjoyable. I won't post them here yet, but if I get a consensus to post them, I will because they are honestly quite funny.
I must admit that the ending was pretty shocking, as a musical of this time and type can be and I actually found the ending to be stronger than expected. So in the end, although Top Hat will not go down as my favorite film of the year, on a whole the film was pretty good, and as someone who does not like musicals, I actually didn't mind this as a film. It is probably the best example of a good musical I have seen, although the number of musicals I have seen to best that off is not very high.
My final verdict on the film is that I feel that we were too harsh and unwelcoming to Dale and Jerry, and we should have not given it "the sword" like Beddini often wanted to do. This will probably not happen but I would suggest that anyone who had any shred of interest when we watched it the first time should try to seek it out and watch it because I found the last 30 minutes, stronger than the rest of the film, and came away from it glad that I had seen its conclusion.
Well I must admit, that I was not overly impressed with Top Hat as I was with the Asphalt Jungle, Unforgiven, or some of the other great films that we have seen this year -- but surprisingly, it was pretty good and the ending was somewhat clever and unexpected.
I don't know if anyone will actually watch the end of the movie, but I must admit that the 3 best double entredres of the film occur in the last 20 minutes of the film. They are really hilarious and actually made the movie quite enjoyable. I won't post them here yet, but if I get a consensus to post them, I will because they are honestly quite funny.
I must admit that the ending was pretty shocking, as a musical of this time and type can be and I actually found the ending to be stronger than expected. So in the end, although Top Hat will not go down as my favorite film of the year, on a whole the film was pretty good, and as someone who does not like musicals, I actually didn't mind this as a film. It is probably the best example of a good musical I have seen, although the number of musicals I have seen to best that off is not very high.
My final verdict on the film is that I feel that we were too harsh and unwelcoming to Dale and Jerry, and we should have not given it "the sword" like Beddini often wanted to do. This will probably not happen but I would suggest that anyone who had any shred of interest when we watched it the first time should try to seek it out and watch it because I found the last 30 minutes, stronger than the rest of the film, and came away from it glad that I had seen its conclusion.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Second Thoughts on the Asphalt Jungle
I'm going to do something rare. I'm actually going to keep this post very short.
I must admit the first day and a half or 2 days that we watched the Asphalt Jungle, I didn't feel emotionally connected to the characters and I felt that they were in a way "unforgettable." I was enjoying the film but I found it to be slow, confusing, and I just found something lacking from it.
However, after watching the film yesterday, I am completely convinced. I was drawn into the characters, into the story and my eyes were glued to the screen. I often take notes during the film, but yesterday I took barely any because I was just so caught up in the film itself, that I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. The film has me waiting and watching for me and I hope we finish today because I am honestly looking forward to the conclusion of this film more than any other so far.
I feel that maybe if we watched the film in one sitting, I may have gotten into the film immediately because by 1 hour in, I got into the film, and Huston may have started it slow on purpose to have a more exciting middle and end. (Much like Eastwood did in Unforgiven.)
So yes, I will admit that at first I felt like many of Mr. Bennett's previous students, namely that I found something lacking in the film. But now, it is quite high in my mind, and if the conclusion lives up to the action and excitement of yesterday, this is going to be a great film. I no longer feel lost and all of the characters now are having deep impressions upon me and I feel connected to the story. (even though it is B+W and from 1950, I still feel like I could be there.)
Sorry if it is still too long of a post. I am trying to shorten it as much as possible.
I must admit the first day and a half or 2 days that we watched the Asphalt Jungle, I didn't feel emotionally connected to the characters and I felt that they were in a way "unforgettable." I was enjoying the film but I found it to be slow, confusing, and I just found something lacking from it.
However, after watching the film yesterday, I am completely convinced. I was drawn into the characters, into the story and my eyes were glued to the screen. I often take notes during the film, but yesterday I took barely any because I was just so caught up in the film itself, that I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. The film has me waiting and watching for me and I hope we finish today because I am honestly looking forward to the conclusion of this film more than any other so far.
I feel that maybe if we watched the film in one sitting, I may have gotten into the film immediately because by 1 hour in, I got into the film, and Huston may have started it slow on purpose to have a more exciting middle and end. (Much like Eastwood did in Unforgiven.)
So yes, I will admit that at first I felt like many of Mr. Bennett's previous students, namely that I found something lacking in the film. But now, it is quite high in my mind, and if the conclusion lives up to the action and excitement of yesterday, this is going to be a great film. I no longer feel lost and all of the characters now are having deep impressions upon me and I feel connected to the story. (even though it is B+W and from 1950, I still feel like I could be there.)
Sorry if it is still too long of a post. I am trying to shorten it as much as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)