The other night a friend was over and he commented that he had noticed that lately I have gotten much more into the environment. I responded that becoming a surfer had hugely impacted the way I looked at things. With this in mind the next day I decided to finally watch the documentary TAPPED (Stephanie Soechtig and Jason Lindsey, 2009). I had been aware of this documentary for some time and watching it was entirely eye opening. I come away from viewing it angry, baffled, concerned and generally fed up with the status quo.
I am angry at the bottled water industry which apparently is primarily Nestlé, Coke and Pepsi. According to the documentary Americans consume 80 million bottles of water a DAY, the vast majority of which come from these three corporations. The filmmakers also go on to prove that the water you buy and drink from these companies is not in any way, shape or form better for you than what comes from your tap. In many instances they proved it was worse. Why do we continue to purchase bottled water? I am angry at this industry for perpetuating such a crime upon us but I am angrier still at myself for happily being duped along with everyone else.
I am baffled that after it has been proven time and again that the extensive use of plastics is not only detrimental to us but hugely dangerous to our environment we still, for the most part, do nothing. Our options are limitless yet we can't go out of our way to stop drinking bottle water, to recycle each and every bottle we do happen to use, to volunteer time to help clean areas that need it. Have we become that entitled as a society that this entitlement places us above such concern? In the film there were a couple of interviews of people defending or supporting the industry. How clueless and out of touch are these guys? Are they being paid that well? There is an organization called the International Bottled Water Association. Really? This is a necessary institution?
I am generally fed up with the situations we allow our lives to be privy to. How much longer are we going to let government, corporations, politicians and the like continue to walk on us with no regard for our future, our lives, the lives of our children or the planet? I thank filmmakers such as Stephanie Soechtig and Jason Lindsay for stepping up and speaking out against industry such as the bottled water industry. I actually remember a time when if you purchased bottled water people mocked you. A return to such times would be awesome. And if we could all start doing just a little more ourselves, each and every day, it would make a difference.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
BULLITT (Peter Yates, Warner Bros., 1968)
Art, whether it be a painting, book or film, has the unique ability of being able to provide something fresh and new each and every time you see the work, read that novel or watch a film. There are even some moments when an appreciation for a work of art can be elevated whether by experience or newfound knowledge. Whichever the path, for me I had one of these enlightened moments yesterday when I re-watched BULLITT (Peter Yates, Warner Bros., 1968) for the first time in years. This viewing took on personal aspects which profoundly affected how I viewed the film. The film is outstanding regardless just now it means much more to me personally.
As I said the film is simply outstanding. Technically it is a masterwork from its era. The cinematography is excellent and I will discuss this more later. The editing won the Academy Award that year and that speaks for itself. I appreciate the overall direction Yates infused into the film. The film is simple and effective with a hard hitting narrative, one which focuses on harsh realism and the banality of life. I've discussed my affinity for Steve McQueen and Jacqueline Bisset before so I won't delve into those two again. That said, there are two things that really stood out to me with this viewing.
First, the film is a great example of a film from the second half of Hollywood's modernist period. This era, from 1963 through 1977, saw an explosion in filmmaking creativity with a burst of talented filmmakers becoming prominent. If you want to know more about this specific period read Peter Biskind's excellent EASY RIDERS AND RAGING BULLS. Anyhow, the film exemplifies the characteristics from this period and destroys conventions from studio era Hollywood. The film often de-centers its protagonist, leaving McQueen on the periphery of the scene. When Bullitt (McQueen) and Delgetti (Don Gordon) question the hotel employee about Ross (Pat Renella), the camera focuses on Delgetti and the employee in a medium two shot. As he hears the answer he needs, Bullitt exits to the right side of the screen and in the background he can be seen entering his car and leaving. This de-centering goes against classical Hollywood structure and allows for a more realistic and full film.
Also going against structure for classical Hollywood films is the ability to show an entire scene without any dialogue. Here, when Bullitt takes his girlfriend Cathy (Bisset) out to dinner the entire scene provides great exposition without a single word of dialogue. The nature of their relationship, Bullitt's demeanor and how he conducts himself, even Cathy's character is shown in this scene WITHOUT one word of dialogue. More on this in a bit. Next, there are multiple occasions where actors are placed in the foreground and in the background yet the dialogue takes place in the back. Finally, the film questions and examines society in a harsh light, something not often done in classical Hollywood.
Twice I've mentioned that I would discuss things later and there is a madness to my method. When I was at USC I had the privilege and honor of not only having William Fraker as an instructor but with him being a man of great character he made himself available to us to not only learn but to hear the great tales he had been apart of in the industry. I was even fortunate enough to talk with him beyond class AND he even let me borrow books of his that he thought I might find interesting. Just a great man.
That said, in class he would bark at us (no bite) "they are called motion pictures. It's a visual art". Watching BULLITT yesterday I felt like Billy was alive and teaching me. The cinematography is a tour de force in this film, and I am not even talking about the car chase (which of course is legendary). Like I said, I could feel Billy speaking to me as I watched.
The title sequence. Now much of this is a directorial choice but if you watch this sequence the entire title sequence is an entire scene. Try to count how many set ups they have. I can hear Billy telling us to put the camera in places no one would imagine. And this insane amount of set ups allows for an infinite number of choices to be made in editing and it allows the title sequence to truly set the film up beyond just being a foreshadowing mechanism.
When Bullitt finds the cab that Ross took we see him through the rear window of a cab as it enters a car wash. When the car emerges we see Bullitt on the other side. Who would think to place a camera like this? I literally stopped the film, rewound and watched it again. Just amazing ingenuity.
The aforementioned scenes where exposition is fully demonstrated without any dialogue. This was Billy's bark on a daily basis. What a great way to learn.
The entire film is brilliantly lit naturally, giving the entire film a tone of darkness and lending great weight to the realistic narrative. Bullitt's San Francisco is dark, full of crime and ugliness. The colors and light in the film tell us this without a word of dialogue being said.
Finally I had to mention one thing from the car chase. As Bullitt is being pursued at the beginning of the sequence he turns and loses his tail. The camera POV shifts to that of the driver of the Charger and if you watch the rear view mirror the Charger hits a bump and suddenly their is Bullitt in his Mustang. Just amazing.
I said I hadn't watched this film in years but I can say with confidence it won't be that long ever again. Steve McQueen is one of my favorite actors ever, I have a huge crush on Jacqueline Bisset and then I owe it Billy Fraker to watch his great work and learn more. What a great film!
As I said the film is simply outstanding. Technically it is a masterwork from its era. The cinematography is excellent and I will discuss this more later. The editing won the Academy Award that year and that speaks for itself. I appreciate the overall direction Yates infused into the film. The film is simple and effective with a hard hitting narrative, one which focuses on harsh realism and the banality of life. I've discussed my affinity for Steve McQueen and Jacqueline Bisset before so I won't delve into those two again. That said, there are two things that really stood out to me with this viewing.
First, the film is a great example of a film from the second half of Hollywood's modernist period. This era, from 1963 through 1977, saw an explosion in filmmaking creativity with a burst of talented filmmakers becoming prominent. If you want to know more about this specific period read Peter Biskind's excellent EASY RIDERS AND RAGING BULLS. Anyhow, the film exemplifies the characteristics from this period and destroys conventions from studio era Hollywood. The film often de-centers its protagonist, leaving McQueen on the periphery of the scene. When Bullitt (McQueen) and Delgetti (Don Gordon) question the hotel employee about Ross (Pat Renella), the camera focuses on Delgetti and the employee in a medium two shot. As he hears the answer he needs, Bullitt exits to the right side of the screen and in the background he can be seen entering his car and leaving. This de-centering goes against classical Hollywood structure and allows for a more realistic and full film.
Also going against structure for classical Hollywood films is the ability to show an entire scene without any dialogue. Here, when Bullitt takes his girlfriend Cathy (Bisset) out to dinner the entire scene provides great exposition without a single word of dialogue. The nature of their relationship, Bullitt's demeanor and how he conducts himself, even Cathy's character is shown in this scene WITHOUT one word of dialogue. More on this in a bit. Next, there are multiple occasions where actors are placed in the foreground and in the background yet the dialogue takes place in the back. Finally, the film questions and examines society in a harsh light, something not often done in classical Hollywood.
Twice I've mentioned that I would discuss things later and there is a madness to my method. When I was at USC I had the privilege and honor of not only having William Fraker as an instructor but with him being a man of great character he made himself available to us to not only learn but to hear the great tales he had been apart of in the industry. I was even fortunate enough to talk with him beyond class AND he even let me borrow books of his that he thought I might find interesting. Just a great man.
That said, in class he would bark at us (no bite) "they are called motion pictures. It's a visual art". Watching BULLITT yesterday I felt like Billy was alive and teaching me. The cinematography is a tour de force in this film, and I am not even talking about the car chase (which of course is legendary). Like I said, I could feel Billy speaking to me as I watched.
The title sequence. Now much of this is a directorial choice but if you watch this sequence the entire title sequence is an entire scene. Try to count how many set ups they have. I can hear Billy telling us to put the camera in places no one would imagine. And this insane amount of set ups allows for an infinite number of choices to be made in editing and it allows the title sequence to truly set the film up beyond just being a foreshadowing mechanism.
When Bullitt finds the cab that Ross took we see him through the rear window of a cab as it enters a car wash. When the car emerges we see Bullitt on the other side. Who would think to place a camera like this? I literally stopped the film, rewound and watched it again. Just amazing ingenuity.
The aforementioned scenes where exposition is fully demonstrated without any dialogue. This was Billy's bark on a daily basis. What a great way to learn.
The entire film is brilliantly lit naturally, giving the entire film a tone of darkness and lending great weight to the realistic narrative. Bullitt's San Francisco is dark, full of crime and ugliness. The colors and light in the film tell us this without a word of dialogue being said.
Finally I had to mention one thing from the car chase. As Bullitt is being pursued at the beginning of the sequence he turns and loses his tail. The camera POV shifts to that of the driver of the Charger and if you watch the rear view mirror the Charger hits a bump and suddenly their is Bullitt in his Mustang. Just amazing.
I said I hadn't watched this film in years but I can say with confidence it won't be that long ever again. Steve McQueen is one of my favorite actors ever, I have a huge crush on Jacqueline Bisset and then I owe it Billy Fraker to watch his great work and learn more. What a great film!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)