Monday, August 29, 2011
Sanjuro (Akira Kurosawa, 1962)
I'm not usually one that watches Asian films but I know there is some great work that originates there and one of the masters, Akira Kurosawa, is revered by almost all directors working today. I strive to be well rounded when it comes to film, so I know I need to watch films such as Sanjuro (Akira Kurosawa, 1962). And though the film is not my usual cup of tea it does have great merit. I can see what so many take from the work of Kurosawa, and the portrayal of the title character by Toshiro Mifune is also something to watch. Mifune has a particular aloofness to his work, maybe it's a Japanese thing, but he has it down. What really struck me in this film though was although it ostensibly is a violent film (the final killing shows you where Tarantino got his inspiration for Kill Bill's gratuitous blood splashing) the recurring theme throughout the film is peace and patience. Repeatedly the young group of rebels wants to rush out and capture and kill their enemies. Yet repeatedly Sanjuro reels them, preaching patience. Even in that last fight, he doesn't want to fight and only does when forced to. I can see how these films are immensely popular, particularly in Japan.
Murder on the Orient Express (Sydney Lumet, 1974)
Two things stand out to me as remarkable when I watch Murder on the Orient Express (Sydney Lumet, 1974). The first is the outstanding ensemble cast led by Albert Finney and peppered with a who's who list of actors. Second is the truly dazzling work overseen by the great Sydney Lumet. His work is often overlooked when it comes to the great directors and that is a tragic error. First, the cast.
Agatha Christie's quirky protagonist Hercule Poirot (Finney) leads us through a never ending series of twists and turns, lies and deceptions on the part of the ensemble of culpable characters. The film opens with the abduction and disappearance of Daisy Armstrong and this sets the criminal activity in motion. Poirot is a guest aboard the famed Orient Express and from the beginning the insidious looks, the sneaky movements and plotting are afoot. When Cosetti (Richard Widmark) the true villain is murdered (remember the key word true) Poirot is tasked with finding out the identity of the killer. Here is where a brilliant ensemble cast shines brightest. Lauren Bacall and Ingrid Bergman are the two brightest of the group, long stars making appearances as good as any they ever put to screen. Also giving stellar turns are Sean Connery, Vanessa Redgrave, Anthony Perkins and others. But this cast is only as great as their intrepid lead, Albert Finney. Finney plays the quirky Poirot to a fine point. He captures the essence of a man who uses intellect and reasoning and who has no care for the finer subtleties of when he must deal with those vastly inferior to his intellect. This film is truly a showcase for how great an actor Finney is, and like the films great director often he is overlooked when it comes to placing such stars in context.
And to overlook Lumet is truly a crime worthy of a Poirot type investigation. Lumet's films do not have the overarching 'Lubitsch touch' nor do they speak on broad social matters like a Wilder film. But what Lumet lacks for in grandness of vision he makes up for in consistent quality and this film is full of quality. From the opening sequences where Lumet sums up the earlier crime through vintage style newsreel footage, this film displays itself as a throwback. Throughout the film Lumet also displays varying color schemes, setting mood and tone and different plot points. The overall production design is outstanding, with costumes that are rich and full, and set design that makes the film feel as if it was actually filmed in Istanbul station and aboard the Express herself. Lumet also works wonders with shots of the train and anyone who loves film needs to read his great book 'Making Movies'. This book is an essential to any aspiring filmmaker. From top to bottom, truly a great film.
Agatha Christie's quirky protagonist Hercule Poirot (Finney) leads us through a never ending series of twists and turns, lies and deceptions on the part of the ensemble of culpable characters. The film opens with the abduction and disappearance of Daisy Armstrong and this sets the criminal activity in motion. Poirot is a guest aboard the famed Orient Express and from the beginning the insidious looks, the sneaky movements and plotting are afoot. When Cosetti (Richard Widmark) the true villain is murdered (remember the key word true) Poirot is tasked with finding out the identity of the killer. Here is where a brilliant ensemble cast shines brightest. Lauren Bacall and Ingrid Bergman are the two brightest of the group, long stars making appearances as good as any they ever put to screen. Also giving stellar turns are Sean Connery, Vanessa Redgrave, Anthony Perkins and others. But this cast is only as great as their intrepid lead, Albert Finney. Finney plays the quirky Poirot to a fine point. He captures the essence of a man who uses intellect and reasoning and who has no care for the finer subtleties of when he must deal with those vastly inferior to his intellect. This film is truly a showcase for how great an actor Finney is, and like the films great director often he is overlooked when it comes to placing such stars in context.
And to overlook Lumet is truly a crime worthy of a Poirot type investigation. Lumet's films do not have the overarching 'Lubitsch touch' nor do they speak on broad social matters like a Wilder film. But what Lumet lacks for in grandness of vision he makes up for in consistent quality and this film is full of quality. From the opening sequences where Lumet sums up the earlier crime through vintage style newsreel footage, this film displays itself as a throwback. Throughout the film Lumet also displays varying color schemes, setting mood and tone and different plot points. The overall production design is outstanding, with costumes that are rich and full, and set design that makes the film feel as if it was actually filmed in Istanbul station and aboard the Express herself. Lumet also works wonders with shots of the train and anyone who loves film needs to read his great book 'Making Movies'. This book is an essential to any aspiring filmmaker. From top to bottom, truly a great film.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Unstoppable (Tony Scott, 2010)
Taking a story straight from the six o'clock news, writer Mark Bomback crafts an excellent narrative for the film Unstoppable (Tony Scott, 2010). At first glance it would appear that this type of story, rather pedestrian in appearance, wouldn't have much in order to captivate it's audience. But Bomback does an excellent job of interweaving the editorial story of the runaway train with human interest stories for it's two protagonists as well as making insidious commentary on the culpability of corporations when it comes to disasters such as this. This excellent storytelling, along with some great technical work in editing, sound and visual make for a taut, tense thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout the film.
The editing for this film is rather well done. The sound editing, nominated by the Academy, is superb. The combination of score with amazing sound from the trains propels the tension and helps lock the audience into the action. The visual editing, with a tremendous amount of cutting spurring the action ever faster really cements the audience on that edge. The only things that I dislike within the film technically is the constant overuse of handheld camera. I know this serves to add to the realistic tone of the narrative but ultimately to me it infuriates me as a viewer. The constant switching between camera styles and the excessive use of handheld is confusing and overwhelms the narrative at times.
The narrative though is just excellent. Bomback does an excellent job of helping us to identify with his protagonists. Frank Barnes (Denzel Washington) and Matt Colson (Chris Pine) are both excellent portrayals of blue collar Americans. Both men are strong and tough but not to perfect not to have their faults. Barnes has problems with authority and his daughters, Colson with his young wife. The supplementary characters within the narrative are also excellently portrayed in a realistic manner.
One of the most striking things to me is this films realistic portrayal of how a corporation's only concern EVER is the bottom line. Rather than avert the disaster early on, the bottom line becomes the impetus to not derail the train before it gets to a more populated area. The films two protagonists have an early disdain for each other because they represent two different workers, ones created by the way the corporations have treated their work force. Barnes is on the way out, making way for a younger, cheaper generation of labor represented by Colson. Finally the responsibility for the disaster lies at the feet of an inept railroad worker. One who was probably cheaply trained in the goal to pay less money and have bigger profits.
Regardless, Unstoppable is an excellent film.
The editing for this film is rather well done. The sound editing, nominated by the Academy, is superb. The combination of score with amazing sound from the trains propels the tension and helps lock the audience into the action. The visual editing, with a tremendous amount of cutting spurring the action ever faster really cements the audience on that edge. The only things that I dislike within the film technically is the constant overuse of handheld camera. I know this serves to add to the realistic tone of the narrative but ultimately to me it infuriates me as a viewer. The constant switching between camera styles and the excessive use of handheld is confusing and overwhelms the narrative at times.
The narrative though is just excellent. Bomback does an excellent job of helping us to identify with his protagonists. Frank Barnes (Denzel Washington) and Matt Colson (Chris Pine) are both excellent portrayals of blue collar Americans. Both men are strong and tough but not to perfect not to have their faults. Barnes has problems with authority and his daughters, Colson with his young wife. The supplementary characters within the narrative are also excellently portrayed in a realistic manner.
One of the most striking things to me is this films realistic portrayal of how a corporation's only concern EVER is the bottom line. Rather than avert the disaster early on, the bottom line becomes the impetus to not derail the train before it gets to a more populated area. The films two protagonists have an early disdain for each other because they represent two different workers, ones created by the way the corporations have treated their work force. Barnes is on the way out, making way for a younger, cheaper generation of labor represented by Colson. Finally the responsibility for the disaster lies at the feet of an inept railroad worker. One who was probably cheaply trained in the goal to pay less money and have bigger profits.
Regardless, Unstoppable is an excellent film.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Crazy Stupid Love (Ficarra and Requa, 2011)
I was really looking forward to seeing Crazy Stupid Love (Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, 2011). I'm not usually a Steve Carell fan (he falls into the Jim Carrey overkill category for me) but I liked all the others in the film. The trailers looked good although I did think they were marketing the film wrong with their television ads. Then word of mouth was pretty good and even though I tend not to trust other people's word on films, I happily hit up Arclight to finally see it. To put it simply, I was not amused.
Now please don't get me wrong. I went into the film with great expectations and for the most part I was happy with what I saw. Every performance was pretty damned good, especially the two super talents Ryan Gosling and Julianne Moore. I liked the choices made for the soundtrack and there were a few moments when I was really impressed with the cinematography. I didn't mind when they wrapped everything up in a neat little bow and I looked past some of the ridiculous things that went down. It didn't bother me that I only laughed 2-3 times in a comedy. The film did everything a romantic comedy is supposed to do. It made me happy, made me feel upbeat and positive about love and it provided me with a glimpse of the ideal that we all are supposed to strive for in our lives. But this is exactly where this film becomes a misogynistic train wreck.
I dare anyone to watch this film and come away with a positive portrayal of a woman. No really, try to find one. Julianne Moore, cheater. Marisa Tomei, sex crazed and out of control. Ashleigh Tipton, misguided and confused, an object. Emma Stone and Liza Lipara, intelligent woman yes but ones who owe their happiness to the hottest guy that speaks to them. And this is where Ryan Gosling comes in.
Jacob Palmer (Gosling) spends his days doing nothing and his nights, well they are a never ending conquest of women. He has a routine to pick up woman and is quite successful. He is magnanimous enough to be willing to help a completely lost guy such as Cal Weaver (Carell) be able to replicate his womanizing success. On top of this, Palmer is a complete jerk. He routinely slaps Cal (please tell me what modern day universe this practice exists on), believes that showering money on material things will bring happiness and generally is an all around great guy. One to be emulated. And here lies the problem.
For the millions of people that will see this film, Jacob Palmer's behavior becomes acceptable. It's okay to womanize as long as you find the "one" and then all is forgiven. It's okay to buy an endless array of useless materialistic things as long as you have a house large enough to fit it all in. It's okay to treat people like garbage as long as your getting them laid. Woman will swoon upon seeing this character because Gosling is a great looking guy and he is ripped to shreds. Guys will see this type of behavior and believe that they need to emulate it. A simple question. Would you ever hang out with someone like Jacob Palmer?
But Jacob is not the only offensive character in this film. Let's talk about Emily Weaver (Moore), Hannah Weaver (Stone), Kate (Tomei) and Liz (Lipara). The Weaver girls have it rough. Emily Weaver is bored with her life (which she chose) and decides she needs to spice it up. So she cheats. Which is something that happens in life but the problem lies in that she immediately gets cast as the bad character within the structure of the narrative. When Cal later sleeps around, there is indignation but the audience sympathizes with him and becomes angry at her for vilifying him. It's a double standard that will always exist in our sexist society but that doesn't mean that it should be further promoted in film.
The other ladies in the film are just as culpable. The character of Kate is portrayed as wildly sexual, aggressive and borderline insane. She cannot deal with things on a mature level, expects men to lie to her and then flips out when they lie. The real issue for this character is that her profession is a teacher. If the adults in the film cannot act maturely, where do the children turn to? As for Hannah and Liz, they forgo all sense of moral stance the second a hot guy (Gosling) pays them attention. They pin their romantic hopes to the guy with the best body, the most money and who will take care of them in life. This is not a great message to display to children.
But the most heinous of offenses in this film lies in a relatively new problem in society, one of children "sexting" each other. The character of Jessica (Ashleigh Tipton) prepares to send presumably nude pictures of herself to Cal (her crush) and then at the films end gives a set to Robbie (Jonah Bobo). The film makes light of her being willing to give these pictures to a man her fathers age but implicitly says it's okay to turn around and give these pictures to a 13 year old boy? I'm sorry, I respect Dan Fogelman for accomplishing what he has in getting his script filmed but the message this sends to children and teens, that it is acceptable to send naked pictures to your friends, is morally reprehensible.
In the end, it is just a film. And like 99% of films made today it will be completely and utterly forgotten by the end of summer. Even so, more care should be made to examine the overall larger message sent by a film, especially one rated PG-13.
Now please don't get me wrong. I went into the film with great expectations and for the most part I was happy with what I saw. Every performance was pretty damned good, especially the two super talents Ryan Gosling and Julianne Moore. I liked the choices made for the soundtrack and there were a few moments when I was really impressed with the cinematography. I didn't mind when they wrapped everything up in a neat little bow and I looked past some of the ridiculous things that went down. It didn't bother me that I only laughed 2-3 times in a comedy. The film did everything a romantic comedy is supposed to do. It made me happy, made me feel upbeat and positive about love and it provided me with a glimpse of the ideal that we all are supposed to strive for in our lives. But this is exactly where this film becomes a misogynistic train wreck.
I dare anyone to watch this film and come away with a positive portrayal of a woman. No really, try to find one. Julianne Moore, cheater. Marisa Tomei, sex crazed and out of control. Ashleigh Tipton, misguided and confused, an object. Emma Stone and Liza Lipara, intelligent woman yes but ones who owe their happiness to the hottest guy that speaks to them. And this is where Ryan Gosling comes in.
Jacob Palmer (Gosling) spends his days doing nothing and his nights, well they are a never ending conquest of women. He has a routine to pick up woman and is quite successful. He is magnanimous enough to be willing to help a completely lost guy such as Cal Weaver (Carell) be able to replicate his womanizing success. On top of this, Palmer is a complete jerk. He routinely slaps Cal (please tell me what modern day universe this practice exists on), believes that showering money on material things will bring happiness and generally is an all around great guy. One to be emulated. And here lies the problem.
For the millions of people that will see this film, Jacob Palmer's behavior becomes acceptable. It's okay to womanize as long as you find the "one" and then all is forgiven. It's okay to buy an endless array of useless materialistic things as long as you have a house large enough to fit it all in. It's okay to treat people like garbage as long as your getting them laid. Woman will swoon upon seeing this character because Gosling is a great looking guy and he is ripped to shreds. Guys will see this type of behavior and believe that they need to emulate it. A simple question. Would you ever hang out with someone like Jacob Palmer?
But Jacob is not the only offensive character in this film. Let's talk about Emily Weaver (Moore), Hannah Weaver (Stone), Kate (Tomei) and Liz (Lipara). The Weaver girls have it rough. Emily Weaver is bored with her life (which she chose) and decides she needs to spice it up. So she cheats. Which is something that happens in life but the problem lies in that she immediately gets cast as the bad character within the structure of the narrative. When Cal later sleeps around, there is indignation but the audience sympathizes with him and becomes angry at her for vilifying him. It's a double standard that will always exist in our sexist society but that doesn't mean that it should be further promoted in film.
The other ladies in the film are just as culpable. The character of Kate is portrayed as wildly sexual, aggressive and borderline insane. She cannot deal with things on a mature level, expects men to lie to her and then flips out when they lie. The real issue for this character is that her profession is a teacher. If the adults in the film cannot act maturely, where do the children turn to? As for Hannah and Liz, they forgo all sense of moral stance the second a hot guy (Gosling) pays them attention. They pin their romantic hopes to the guy with the best body, the most money and who will take care of them in life. This is not a great message to display to children.
But the most heinous of offenses in this film lies in a relatively new problem in society, one of children "sexting" each other. The character of Jessica (Ashleigh Tipton) prepares to send presumably nude pictures of herself to Cal (her crush) and then at the films end gives a set to Robbie (Jonah Bobo). The film makes light of her being willing to give these pictures to a man her fathers age but implicitly says it's okay to turn around and give these pictures to a 13 year old boy? I'm sorry, I respect Dan Fogelman for accomplishing what he has in getting his script filmed but the message this sends to children and teens, that it is acceptable to send naked pictures to your friends, is morally reprehensible.
In the end, it is just a film. And like 99% of films made today it will be completely and utterly forgotten by the end of summer. Even so, more care should be made to examine the overall larger message sent by a film, especially one rated PG-13.
Monday, August 15, 2011
The Devil's Double (Lee Tamahori, 2011)
I like to see a lot of indie films, particularly when what the studios give you is horrifically poor. The problem with indie films is that sometimes you get standard fare but occasionally you get something special. With The Devil's Double (Lee Tamahori, 2011) you get a film that hits somewhere in the middle of this two barometers. The portrayal of Uday/Latif by Dominic Cooper is outstanding and the psychotic mind and decadent world of the Husseins leaves you speechless. Unfortunately they are weighed down by an often confusing narrative (particularly when Latif is playing Uday) and it seems that when it comes time for that payoff it never materializes. Finally there is one tremendous revelation.
When it comes to revelations there are three within this film. The first is the excellent portrayal of Latif/Uday by Dominic Cooper. As Latif he has a brooding hero down cold, a man torn between family, love of country and a psychotic madman. If this were his only role it could be considered a good one. It is the portrayal of Uday that sets what Cooper does apart. There are times when Cooper plays Uday as cold, psychotic, deadly. The tension rises when Uday is on the screen. But what makes the portrayal remarkable is that with all that simmering capability for violence there is a sad quality that Cooper brings to Uday. There are times when you almost feel that Uday is a monster to be pitied. He is at times, likable. It would be easy to see how such a man, in real life, would attract people to his fold.
But such a man is extremely dangerous, as he is psychotic and deadly and runs around a country which is his personal playground with no consequences to any of his actions. I'm still not sure which is more shocking to me, the levels of depravity that Uday simmered in or the decadence in which he lived. Much of the problem for this lies in American media's portrayal of life in the middle east. Because we are presented such a limited view of what life is like there, when we see something completely different it is shocking. I guess the maxim "absolute power corrupts absolutely" rings especially true with despotic dictators.
The only major problem I had with the film is a seemingly roundabout narrative that doesn't seem to be complete. There always exists the threat of death when Uday is around yet Latif crosses lines many times with no repercussions to himself or his family. And when he runs away with Sharab (Ludivine Sagnier) you think, since he's already had his heart to heart with his father that he's out and free. The twist they throw in just maddens the audience.
The final revelation is Ludivine Sagnier. I maintain that it is grossly unfair that such beautiful and talented actresses abound in the world yet never get used here in the U.S. For example, in the film Kingdom of Heaven (Ridley Scott, 2005) which starred Eve Green, couldn't an actress like Sagnier been used instead? For more authenticity at the very least. Nothing against Eve Green as she is talented too but I rather see casting down with authenticity.
The Devil's Double is good, just not great and maybe that eternal hope I always have is what sours the film for me slightly. Still, see if for the great work by Cooper and for Sagnier!
When it comes to revelations there are three within this film. The first is the excellent portrayal of Latif/Uday by Dominic Cooper. As Latif he has a brooding hero down cold, a man torn between family, love of country and a psychotic madman. If this were his only role it could be considered a good one. It is the portrayal of Uday that sets what Cooper does apart. There are times when Cooper plays Uday as cold, psychotic, deadly. The tension rises when Uday is on the screen. But what makes the portrayal remarkable is that with all that simmering capability for violence there is a sad quality that Cooper brings to Uday. There are times when you almost feel that Uday is a monster to be pitied. He is at times, likable. It would be easy to see how such a man, in real life, would attract people to his fold.
But such a man is extremely dangerous, as he is psychotic and deadly and runs around a country which is his personal playground with no consequences to any of his actions. I'm still not sure which is more shocking to me, the levels of depravity that Uday simmered in or the decadence in which he lived. Much of the problem for this lies in American media's portrayal of life in the middle east. Because we are presented such a limited view of what life is like there, when we see something completely different it is shocking. I guess the maxim "absolute power corrupts absolutely" rings especially true with despotic dictators.
The only major problem I had with the film is a seemingly roundabout narrative that doesn't seem to be complete. There always exists the threat of death when Uday is around yet Latif crosses lines many times with no repercussions to himself or his family. And when he runs away with Sharab (Ludivine Sagnier) you think, since he's already had his heart to heart with his father that he's out and free. The twist they throw in just maddens the audience.
The final revelation is Ludivine Sagnier. I maintain that it is grossly unfair that such beautiful and talented actresses abound in the world yet never get used here in the U.S. For example, in the film Kingdom of Heaven (Ridley Scott, 2005) which starred Eve Green, couldn't an actress like Sagnier been used instead? For more authenticity at the very least. Nothing against Eve Green as she is talented too but I rather see casting down with authenticity.
The Devil's Double is good, just not great and maybe that eternal hope I always have is what sours the film for me slightly. Still, see if for the great work by Cooper and for Sagnier!
Antoine et Colette (Francois Truffaut, 1962)
After a masterpiece such as The 400 Blows, it is hard making another film that matches it's quality and it becomes exceedingly difficult when doing a sequel. For a long time I have held the belief that sequels do not work for the most part unless the story arc is constructed prior to the first film being made. Most film narratives are stand alone entities and after the success of a particular film that narrative will be shaded quite differently. This is why heroes tend to become more invincible with each passing film. Yet Francois Truffaut felt compelled to give us further glimpse into the life of Antoine Doinel (ostensibly his life) so he must have had good reason in so doing. Antoine et Colette (Truffaut, 1962) re-enters the life of our hero just three short years after we last saw him running on the beaches of France.
Made as part of a larger series of films dealing with "Love at Twenty" Antoine et Colette finds Antoine dealing with his first true love and the accompanying heartbreak attendant with that love. Again taken from the pages of Truffaut's life, Colette eventually spurns the advances of Antoine leaving him forlorn. Once again the majority of any audience can relate to what young Antoine is experiencing. In the film Antoine also has immersed himself in the record industry, a simple allegory for Truffaut and film. As far as the narrative goes, there isn't much else in the way of further getting into Antoine's (Truffaut) head. Though not much has changed for Antoine, viewing the film today shows just how much the world has changed in fifty years.
In pursuing Colette, Antoine would today be considered a stalker. I mean, the poor guy moves across the street so that he can watch her movements with ease. Strangely the girls parents say nothing. In fact they welcome the boy more as their own than anything else. Another major change is in the amount of worldly possessions we own. When Antoine moves apartments, he carries all that he owns. On one trip. Try doing a move in one trip today. One final note, the film opens to the 20th Century Fox logo, signifying right away just how far Truffaut has come in those three short years.
Antoine et Colette is okay, and nothing really stands out. It is just a short so maybe it should be viewed as a bridge to further work. Maybe as I get to the other three films in the Antoine Doinel series, my view of this film will change. Until then!
Made as part of a larger series of films dealing with "Love at Twenty" Antoine et Colette finds Antoine dealing with his first true love and the accompanying heartbreak attendant with that love. Again taken from the pages of Truffaut's life, Colette eventually spurns the advances of Antoine leaving him forlorn. Once again the majority of any audience can relate to what young Antoine is experiencing. In the film Antoine also has immersed himself in the record industry, a simple allegory for Truffaut and film. As far as the narrative goes, there isn't much else in the way of further getting into Antoine's (Truffaut) head. Though not much has changed for Antoine, viewing the film today shows just how much the world has changed in fifty years.
In pursuing Colette, Antoine would today be considered a stalker. I mean, the poor guy moves across the street so that he can watch her movements with ease. Strangely the girls parents say nothing. In fact they welcome the boy more as their own than anything else. Another major change is in the amount of worldly possessions we own. When Antoine moves apartments, he carries all that he owns. On one trip. Try doing a move in one trip today. One final note, the film opens to the 20th Century Fox logo, signifying right away just how far Truffaut has come in those three short years.
Antoine et Colette is okay, and nothing really stands out. It is just a short so maybe it should be viewed as a bridge to further work. Maybe as I get to the other three films in the Antoine Doinel series, my view of this film will change. Until then!
The 400 Blows
Every time I watch The 400 Blows (Francois Truffaut, 1959) the film makes me look at life and the transitions involved in life. The dichotomy between a child's world and an adults is perfectly encapsulated within the film and Antoine's (Jean-Pierre Leaud) journey to the ocean at the end of the film marks the transition from boy to man as complete. The trials and tribulations for Antoine are all washed away as he touches the water. When Truffaut freezes the last frame of the film on Antoine's face, Antoine has made that transition in life from child to adult. Just as powerful to me is the painful and cathartic revelation of ones life which Truffaut allows the film to be. It is well known that the film is largely autobiographical and I see this as nothing short of remarkable. To use the vehicle which you self profess "saved" you (Truffaut credits cinema as having saved his life) and while using this vehicle make a masterful work of art, this is nothing short of amazing. The film can be watched over and again and anyone that views the film can take from it a parallel to their own life and relate it to their own experience.
As we grow older in life our experiences tend to become blurred by time. Often our recollections of childhood become murkier, and memory is a fickle instrument. At the same time I believe that all of our personal idiosyncrasies and craziness stems directly from childhood and traumas that occur during these years. In The 400 Blows, Truffaut captures a crystal clear vision of childhood and throws this vision in direct contrast to our lives as adults. At the same time, Truffaut uses his protagonist as an instrument to show us his pain and experience and as a way of connecting with a larger, albeit abstract world.
The 400 Blows magnificently captures the dichotomy between being a child and an adult through imagery, sound, narrative and character. The images throughout the film are a constant display of this dichotomy. Antoine and Rene (Patrick Auffay) are children who play at being adult. Smoking, drinking, gambling they cruise the streets of Paris as young men yet Truffaut will juxtapose these sequences with ones of the boys shooting spitballs. In the police station as Antoine awaits his trial, the cops busy themselves with a child's board game. As a young boy sits in a jail cell, the adult policemen play a game he should be playing at home.
While at home, young Antoine is constantly fed a steady supply of jokes by his stepfather (Albert Remy). Also, the father fails exceedingly at his traditional role. He cannot control his child's behavior, he is a cuckold and like a child is lost in his world of races. This infantilization of the father stands in contrast to Antoine who only wants to be an adult. Brazenly, towards the films conclusion Truffaut places children behind bars while other march as soldiers. This is a strict contrast to an idyllic childlike world, one that Antoine is never truly a part of.
Another severe contrast occurs in Truffaut's use of sound. The score is upbeat and childlike, whimsical at times and always ethereal. Place the score in contrast to the photography of the film. Dark and saturated with natural lighting, the score becomes the child and the photography the adult. Also, Truffaut chooses the location to reignite his score wisely. The film is not overwrought with heavy handed sound cues to spark emotion. This is a definitive contrast to classical cinema which almost used sound as direction to it's audience as to when to have certain feelings and emotion.
Contextually, Antoine is the ultimate transition between the two worlds. Aged 14, obviously a boy in puberty or on the verge of it his desire to be adult overshadows all that he does. He does not receive love from his parents or true guidance at school so he acts out. He rebels, lies, steals, anything for attention that is never forthcoming except in a negative light. He is a child but is constantly placed in adult worlds and situations. As he runs an errand for his mother he comes across two ladies discussing childbirth. Awaiting trial at the police station, he is jailed but kept separate once the three prostitutes enter the jail. He is stuck at this transitional stage and this stage is exceedingly lonely.
This loneliness that Antoine Doinel faces mirrors that of his director, Francois Truffaut. Truffaut does a masterful job of placing Antoine by himself. When Antoine runs away from home, he wanders the Paris streets at night by himself. Antoine goes through the streets in a sort of test run, a pre-journey of discovery. He steals milk to feed himself, he sneaks in and out of the printing plant, his pseudo home. What is striking to me is the reinforcement that Antoine is in this transitional stage. Throughout the night as he wanders the streets of Paris not once does an adult inquire as to why this child is out alone.
Antoine is even alone when he is at home. Prior to the term arising, Antoine is a latch key child. After school he has hours alone with no adult supervision. And even when the adults are home Antoine is segregated and made to sleep in the entryway to their small walkup. Antoine's true loneliness though is a result of his discovery that he is in fact a bastard. This sets him apart from his family, makes him different than those at school and in my eyes, sets him on his journey to freedom. This is his impetus to be an adult. In the adult world he can blend in, not be so alone and different.
This desire to blend in and be apart of something shows a subtlety of genius on the part of Truffaut. As I watch the film I always have to remind myself that Francois Truffaut is Antoine Doinel. So to me, this makes the film Truffaut's way of connecting to society and the world in general. Watching Antoine we come to understand the pain that Truffaut has endured. We empathize with Antoine and so too then Truffaut. What an incredible healing device this film must have been for the man. He can get a larger world to understand him all while purging feelings that may have long ensnared him. Genius!
The other issue that Truffaut confronts within the film is his relationship with his mother. In the film his mother (Claire Maurier) is highly sexualized. She is having an affair and is culpable to having been with at least three different men within the narrative of the film (Antoine's father, his stepfather and her lover). Often times she is seen in half dress of removing clothes. After the familial movie scene, her husband gropes her the second Antoine is not around. This sexualization of Antoine's mother has to be Oedipal in context. How does a boy deal with such an internal struggle? He acts out much in the manner that Antoine does throughout the films narrative.
The narrative to the film concludes with Antoine's final flight to the sea, and it is indicative of many things. In traditional literature the sea can represent wants or desires, freedom, loneliness and even death and rebirth. Every one of these meanings can be applied to Antoine. He desires to be adult. He wants the freedom that accompanies being an adult. I've already mentioned the loneliness Antoine faces and symbolically his running to the sea is the death of his childhood and the true start to his adult life. The strict boys camp he had been placed in was his last chance at being a boy. Even though the film ends where it does, by extrapolation we know it is on to harsher sentencing for Antoine. He has finally gotten his wish and is an adult. Ironically one of the films most precious moments occurs right before his escape. As Antoine is interviewed by the psychiatrist, his youthful exuberance and shyness is on full display. This is the last time Antoine will ever be a boy.
For me this film is so great in it's presentation yet it is also extremely powerful to me as a way to identify with others. I did not have a rough childhood and I never lacked for love from my mother. The parallels start for me in the rebelliousness of Antoine, his insatiable fire to be adult and independent. Not knowing my father has never bothered me personally, but I can empathize with Antoine and readily see how it would spark his behavior. I admire Francois Truffaut for having the courage and the ability to put this story up on film, essentially baring his soul to the world. If you have never seen this film, watch it. If you have seen it, re-watch it. It is damn near perfect. Truly!
As we grow older in life our experiences tend to become blurred by time. Often our recollections of childhood become murkier, and memory is a fickle instrument. At the same time I believe that all of our personal idiosyncrasies and craziness stems directly from childhood and traumas that occur during these years. In The 400 Blows, Truffaut captures a crystal clear vision of childhood and throws this vision in direct contrast to our lives as adults. At the same time, Truffaut uses his protagonist as an instrument to show us his pain and experience and as a way of connecting with a larger, albeit abstract world.
The 400 Blows magnificently captures the dichotomy between being a child and an adult through imagery, sound, narrative and character. The images throughout the film are a constant display of this dichotomy. Antoine and Rene (Patrick Auffay) are children who play at being adult. Smoking, drinking, gambling they cruise the streets of Paris as young men yet Truffaut will juxtapose these sequences with ones of the boys shooting spitballs. In the police station as Antoine awaits his trial, the cops busy themselves with a child's board game. As a young boy sits in a jail cell, the adult policemen play a game he should be playing at home.
While at home, young Antoine is constantly fed a steady supply of jokes by his stepfather (Albert Remy). Also, the father fails exceedingly at his traditional role. He cannot control his child's behavior, he is a cuckold and like a child is lost in his world of races. This infantilization of the father stands in contrast to Antoine who only wants to be an adult. Brazenly, towards the films conclusion Truffaut places children behind bars while other march as soldiers. This is a strict contrast to an idyllic childlike world, one that Antoine is never truly a part of.
Another severe contrast occurs in Truffaut's use of sound. The score is upbeat and childlike, whimsical at times and always ethereal. Place the score in contrast to the photography of the film. Dark and saturated with natural lighting, the score becomes the child and the photography the adult. Also, Truffaut chooses the location to reignite his score wisely. The film is not overwrought with heavy handed sound cues to spark emotion. This is a definitive contrast to classical cinema which almost used sound as direction to it's audience as to when to have certain feelings and emotion.
Contextually, Antoine is the ultimate transition between the two worlds. Aged 14, obviously a boy in puberty or on the verge of it his desire to be adult overshadows all that he does. He does not receive love from his parents or true guidance at school so he acts out. He rebels, lies, steals, anything for attention that is never forthcoming except in a negative light. He is a child but is constantly placed in adult worlds and situations. As he runs an errand for his mother he comes across two ladies discussing childbirth. Awaiting trial at the police station, he is jailed but kept separate once the three prostitutes enter the jail. He is stuck at this transitional stage and this stage is exceedingly lonely.
This loneliness that Antoine Doinel faces mirrors that of his director, Francois Truffaut. Truffaut does a masterful job of placing Antoine by himself. When Antoine runs away from home, he wanders the Paris streets at night by himself. Antoine goes through the streets in a sort of test run, a pre-journey of discovery. He steals milk to feed himself, he sneaks in and out of the printing plant, his pseudo home. What is striking to me is the reinforcement that Antoine is in this transitional stage. Throughout the night as he wanders the streets of Paris not once does an adult inquire as to why this child is out alone.
Antoine is even alone when he is at home. Prior to the term arising, Antoine is a latch key child. After school he has hours alone with no adult supervision. And even when the adults are home Antoine is segregated and made to sleep in the entryway to their small walkup. Antoine's true loneliness though is a result of his discovery that he is in fact a bastard. This sets him apart from his family, makes him different than those at school and in my eyes, sets him on his journey to freedom. This is his impetus to be an adult. In the adult world he can blend in, not be so alone and different.
This desire to blend in and be apart of something shows a subtlety of genius on the part of Truffaut. As I watch the film I always have to remind myself that Francois Truffaut is Antoine Doinel. So to me, this makes the film Truffaut's way of connecting to society and the world in general. Watching Antoine we come to understand the pain that Truffaut has endured. We empathize with Antoine and so too then Truffaut. What an incredible healing device this film must have been for the man. He can get a larger world to understand him all while purging feelings that may have long ensnared him. Genius!
The other issue that Truffaut confronts within the film is his relationship with his mother. In the film his mother (Claire Maurier) is highly sexualized. She is having an affair and is culpable to having been with at least three different men within the narrative of the film (Antoine's father, his stepfather and her lover). Often times she is seen in half dress of removing clothes. After the familial movie scene, her husband gropes her the second Antoine is not around. This sexualization of Antoine's mother has to be Oedipal in context. How does a boy deal with such an internal struggle? He acts out much in the manner that Antoine does throughout the films narrative.
The narrative to the film concludes with Antoine's final flight to the sea, and it is indicative of many things. In traditional literature the sea can represent wants or desires, freedom, loneliness and even death and rebirth. Every one of these meanings can be applied to Antoine. He desires to be adult. He wants the freedom that accompanies being an adult. I've already mentioned the loneliness Antoine faces and symbolically his running to the sea is the death of his childhood and the true start to his adult life. The strict boys camp he had been placed in was his last chance at being a boy. Even though the film ends where it does, by extrapolation we know it is on to harsher sentencing for Antoine. He has finally gotten his wish and is an adult. Ironically one of the films most precious moments occurs right before his escape. As Antoine is interviewed by the psychiatrist, his youthful exuberance and shyness is on full display. This is the last time Antoine will ever be a boy.
For me this film is so great in it's presentation yet it is also extremely powerful to me as a way to identify with others. I did not have a rough childhood and I never lacked for love from my mother. The parallels start for me in the rebelliousness of Antoine, his insatiable fire to be adult and independent. Not knowing my father has never bothered me personally, but I can empathize with Antoine and readily see how it would spark his behavior. I admire Francois Truffaut for having the courage and the ability to put this story up on film, essentially baring his soul to the world. If you have never seen this film, watch it. If you have seen it, re-watch it. It is damn near perfect. Truly!
Sunday, August 14, 2011
A new project for me
When I attended film school at USC often times in classes professors would ask the class whether or not they had seen a particular film. Sometimes these films were classics and often times not. Other than being pertinent to what the professor might be lecturing on at that moment, classic or not all the films were worth watching and had intrinsic value to them. They were the culmination of hard work and effort by a multitude of people and when complete were a form or art to be analyzed and deconstructed for years after. This is where the beauty of film lies. Yet these films had something else in common. For the most part, no one had ever seen them. And this was in film classes, full of film students. The very people who should be watching these films, religiously, often had never heard of them. Eventually this struck me as sad.
So I decided to do something about this, personally. I couldn't talk to others and make them have the passion for films that I had. I couldn't talk people into watching films from the studio era, or silent films or even anything before they were born (which sadly was around 1988). What I could do though was watch everything myself. I mean, wasn't this what Tarantino and Scorsese had done? Guys like Lucas, Spielberg, Coppola, hadn't they all spent their childhood years consumed by the cinema? Well if it worked for those masters then surely I could do the same.
But where to begin? I did what most would do, start with a readily recognizable list. About around 2000-1, I had started making sure that I had viewed every film nominated for best picture by the Academy that year, particularly prior to the awards. It had been my small way of being able to make a somewhat informed decision on what I thought was the best film. To me my first list appeared easily. I would watch every best picture winner, from Wings (William Wellman, 1927) through Slumdog Millionaire (Danny Boyle, 2008) and beyond. It was a daunting task but one worth undertaking, especially to me.
After finishing that list I moved onto the AFI films lists from 1998 and 2007.
I'm still working on various lists and compilations but now I want to become more focused. Now I want to move into the area of directors and analyze their work as a complete body. At USC I was able to take the great Hitchcock class and was utterly blown away by the quality of work of the best director that ever has worked.
Which brings me to my new and current project. At USC I was particularly drawn to certain aspects of film and it's history, different genres, styles, periods of filmmaking. One of these was the French New Wave. Tied down by a national cinema that was lacking in creativity and desperately broke, the New Wave and it's artists had a spirit and creativity that dazzles to this day. They made films cheaply yet made films that were groundbreaking and heartfelt. Led by Godard and Truffaut, they were the first directors to take the direction that would later be emulated by Tarantino and Spielberg. They were voluminous in their approach to watching films and this helped them to become better filmmakers. I cannot help but to make parallels to filmmaking in Hollywood today.
Inside this affinity to the FNW was an attraction to Francois Truffaut. My first viewing of The 400 Blows (1959) left me stunned. Here was a film that was real. It dealt with a simple story, was shot and made simply yet beautifully. It was autobiographical as well as easily relatable for any audience. Obviously I made some personal connection with the film as well. And there was Truffaut himself. I felt connected to him in ways that I am not with other directors. He absolutely loved films, he watched everything, loved Hitchcock, had issues that he dealt with through film (remarkable to be so frank about oneself). It seemed his autobiographical work could be mine in some form. I was impressed. Here was a man to emulate.
Over the next year (hopefully it doesn't take me that long) I am going to watch everything Truffaut related. I have been lucky enough to purchase the amazing Truffaut at Work by Carole Le Berre. This tome contains letters and notes and details about Truffaut and his work. I plan to read and re-read this book, watch and re-watch his films. If I only learn that he was a great filmmaker and enjoy only some of his films, I consider myself richer. If I can somehow become a great filmmaker myself, and entrench myself with a deep knowledge of the man and his work then I would be ecstatic.
So I decided to do something about this, personally. I couldn't talk to others and make them have the passion for films that I had. I couldn't talk people into watching films from the studio era, or silent films or even anything before they were born (which sadly was around 1988). What I could do though was watch everything myself. I mean, wasn't this what Tarantino and Scorsese had done? Guys like Lucas, Spielberg, Coppola, hadn't they all spent their childhood years consumed by the cinema? Well if it worked for those masters then surely I could do the same.
But where to begin? I did what most would do, start with a readily recognizable list. About around 2000-1, I had started making sure that I had viewed every film nominated for best picture by the Academy that year, particularly prior to the awards. It had been my small way of being able to make a somewhat informed decision on what I thought was the best film. To me my first list appeared easily. I would watch every best picture winner, from Wings (William Wellman, 1927) through Slumdog Millionaire (Danny Boyle, 2008) and beyond. It was a daunting task but one worth undertaking, especially to me.
After finishing that list I moved onto the AFI films lists from 1998 and 2007.
I'm still working on various lists and compilations but now I want to become more focused. Now I want to move into the area of directors and analyze their work as a complete body. At USC I was able to take the great Hitchcock class and was utterly blown away by the quality of work of the best director that ever has worked.
Which brings me to my new and current project. At USC I was particularly drawn to certain aspects of film and it's history, different genres, styles, periods of filmmaking. One of these was the French New Wave. Tied down by a national cinema that was lacking in creativity and desperately broke, the New Wave and it's artists had a spirit and creativity that dazzles to this day. They made films cheaply yet made films that were groundbreaking and heartfelt. Led by Godard and Truffaut, they were the first directors to take the direction that would later be emulated by Tarantino and Spielberg. They were voluminous in their approach to watching films and this helped them to become better filmmakers. I cannot help but to make parallels to filmmaking in Hollywood today.
Inside this affinity to the FNW was an attraction to Francois Truffaut. My first viewing of The 400 Blows (1959) left me stunned. Here was a film that was real. It dealt with a simple story, was shot and made simply yet beautifully. It was autobiographical as well as easily relatable for any audience. Obviously I made some personal connection with the film as well. And there was Truffaut himself. I felt connected to him in ways that I am not with other directors. He absolutely loved films, he watched everything, loved Hitchcock, had issues that he dealt with through film (remarkable to be so frank about oneself). It seemed his autobiographical work could be mine in some form. I was impressed. Here was a man to emulate.
Over the next year (hopefully it doesn't take me that long) I am going to watch everything Truffaut related. I have been lucky enough to purchase the amazing Truffaut at Work by Carole Le Berre. This tome contains letters and notes and details about Truffaut and his work. I plan to read and re-read this book, watch and re-watch his films. If I only learn that he was a great filmmaker and enjoy only some of his films, I consider myself richer. If I can somehow become a great filmmaker myself, and entrench myself with a deep knowledge of the man and his work then I would be ecstatic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)