I loved In Brugge. I went into Psychopaths expecting the same combination of character driven comedy and storytelling that In Brugge had. That was not the case.
Psychopaths - if described before hand might sound like a movie I would hate. It felt like an academic endeavor much of the time - far more concerned with its own self-referential qualities than with creating a believable story/character.
None of the characters feel like real people.
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
Meandering:Argo
A very enjoyable movie. Rarely am i more interested in the look and feel of a movie than I am in the characters. This, however, was one of those times. In all honesty - there were only a few characters I really found interesting...Bryan Cranston, Kyle Chandler, Alan Arkin. Possibly this is because I enjoy these actors so much - but the main storyline of Affleck and the hostages well...it went through it's motions perfectly well. The hostages are basically just a single character - each lacking in any uniqueness that might set them apart. That's fine.
Affleck's character was so even keeled through the whole thing you might think he'd self medicated somehow. But still - that was fine. This is a plotted movie. There's a steady escalation of tension. There are complications added. It all resolves with them getting out of the country. The resultant emotion results not from us identifying with characters but with
Affleck's character was so even keeled through the whole thing you might think he'd self medicated somehow. But still - that was fine. This is a plotted movie. There's a steady escalation of tension. There are complications added. It all resolves with them getting out of the country. The resultant emotion results not from us identifying with characters but with
Cloud Atlas / Life of Pi: Cinematic attempts at Sprituality
I've recently seen both Cloud Atlas and Life of Pi ( I distinctly noticed there's no "The" before the title, which I find worthy of note) and was struck by their shared goal of imparting some form of spiritual message to the audience. The movies take very different tacks in trying to achieve their mission. Where Cloud Atlas bombards the viewer with seven heavily plotted stories, LOP focuses on the basically one note tale of a boy stuck in a lifeboat with a tiger. Neither film succeeded in enlightening me or lifting my spirit heavenwards I'm sorry to say - but they stirred in me the quesion of whether cinema is the proper medium for such an undertaking and if there have been any movies that have succeeded in doing so.
LOP in particular suffers from a case of egotism. When the adult narrator claims he's going to ~"prove the existence of god" - the gauntlet has been cast. I was dubious from the beginning and, of course, my doubt was born out as I felt more bored watching the kid and the tiger than I did enlightened.
Setting out to prove a point is difficult in any circumstance. I certainly feel naturally disinclined to absorb lessons when presented with a pointed argument beforehand. I wonder if this is a widely shared human reaction of if it's something more specific to my cynical mind. But I've found empowering an audience / a co-worker / a friend to somehow arrive at conclusions themselves is far more effective a technique than trying to force feed them a specific argument.
Most often - this is done effectively through telling a story of character and obstacle. People often want to know from director's "what's the point of the movie" or worse still "what's the moral of the story." Ugh -
LOP in particular suffers from a case of egotism. When the adult narrator claims he's going to ~"prove the existence of god" - the gauntlet has been cast. I was dubious from the beginning and, of course, my doubt was born out as I felt more bored watching the kid and the tiger than I did enlightened.
Setting out to prove a point is difficult in any circumstance. I certainly feel naturally disinclined to absorb lessons when presented with a pointed argument beforehand. I wonder if this is a widely shared human reaction of if it's something more specific to my cynical mind. But I've found empowering an audience / a co-worker / a friend to somehow arrive at conclusions themselves is far more effective a technique than trying to force feed them a specific argument.
Most often - this is done effectively through telling a story of character and obstacle. People often want to know from director's "what's the point of the movie" or worse still "what's the moral of the story." Ugh -
Gatz
I went to see Gatz last night. It's an 8.5 hour long performance of The Great Gatsby in which the actors read every word of the book.
I've been trying to remember the particular interpretations of the book - here's what I came away with.
Gatsby desperately wants to be a member of that wholesome, entitled class of people which surround him. Is it the WASPY types? Those blue bloods who don't need to sully their clean hands in order to make money?
He grew up poor and came to idolize the endowed, blessed group of rich, debutantes around him. Daisy is the emblem of that.
Is Gatz Jewish? I read it as him wanting to be transformed from the position into which he was born - poor and Jewish. He wanted to erase that portion of himself. He comes to believe that in falling in love with Daisy, and she with him, that he has rid himself of all vestiges of his inheritance.
Of course, Tom Buchanan - Daisy's husband is at first intimidated by the relationship which Gatsby and Daisy share. He thinks Gatsby his racial/societal peer. However - once Tom realizes who/what Gatsby truly is - he innately discards Gatsby as a true threat. Gatsby - so seemingly confident of his position falls apart. He does not essentially believe that his actions, his demeanor, his lifestyle can overcome an essential truth - he was not born of this class.
I've been trying to remember the particular interpretations of the book - here's what I came away with.
Gatsby desperately wants to be a member of that wholesome, entitled class of people which surround him. Is it the WASPY types? Those blue bloods who don't need to sully their clean hands in order to make money?
He grew up poor and came to idolize the endowed, blessed group of rich, debutantes around him. Daisy is the emblem of that.
Is Gatz Jewish? I read it as him wanting to be transformed from the position into which he was born - poor and Jewish. He wanted to erase that portion of himself. He comes to believe that in falling in love with Daisy, and she with him, that he has rid himself of all vestiges of his inheritance.
Of course, Tom Buchanan - Daisy's husband is at first intimidated by the relationship which Gatsby and Daisy share. He thinks Gatsby his racial/societal peer. However - once Tom realizes who/what Gatsby truly is - he innately discards Gatsby as a true threat. Gatsby - so seemingly confident of his position falls apart. He does not essentially believe that his actions, his demeanor, his lifestyle can overcome an essential truth - he was not born of this class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)