I think Angst (or Fear) is my least favorite of the Rossellini films with Bergman. The structure of the narrative is pretty simple: Bergman's character is cheating on her husband and won't come clean about it, and so is forced to payoff her lover's ex-girlfriend to keep the affair quiet. The twist, which I saw coming, is that the husband already knows about the affair, and is paying the girl to agonize his wife, so that she will confess. For a relatively short film, it seemed to go on and on, and I just couldn't get myself to care about either of the characters. She's unfaithful, he likes to cause her agony, and I guess the moral ambiguity of the situation could be interesting, but it wasn't. On the MoMA website, it said this, "the film was made because Rossellini was interested in the idea of Germany’s reconstruction (both material and moral) ten years after Germany Year Zero". There's probably a whole layer of social commentary or something that I'm missing. I think simple stories can be amazing, but I think I just didn't get this one.
I love Flowers of St. Francis, and it's a great example of how well simple stories can work. I like that the title also translates as "Francis God's Jester". This film really impressed me, because I think that as Rossellini obviously grew up in and was living in a strong Catholic country, there would be a lot of pressure to glorify the saints, and this film could have turned out very badly. He made Francis look a little less than humble, like when he would command people to follow his own rules. The character of Francis wasn't portrayed as a simple, devoted man, but seemed a little bit more intelligent or complicated than the men around him. I love the scene with Francis's friend (I can't remember his name) and the leader of the barbarian tribe, where the monk just looks at him and doesn't have to say anything.
The Newton Boys didn't feel like a typical Hollywood movie, but it didn't feel like a Richard Linklater film either. I like the way the film was directed, I liked the casting and the story, but I left the film feeling like it was only mediocre. I felt like the movie was trying to be made patable to a wider audience, and so some of the quirkier aspects of Linklater's style were left out. My inclination is to blame the studio system and believe that the final film was not Linklater's vision. However, in interviews with him I've read, he said he was happy with The Newton Boys and he was pretty much left alone by the studio when making it. I've been thinking about why this and School of Rock don't feel like Linklater films, or as Aaron put it, they seem like they could have been directed by anyone. I definitely don't agree with that, but I'm not sure why Linklater's personality does not come out in them more, even though he says that there is no difference in the way he approaches directing something like Bad News Bears and something like Before Sunrise. It could be because The Newton Boys is a western and a bigger budget film, so it's obviously going to be different from his other work. Maybe it just doesn't feel like Linklater unless there's someone going off about something (whether a conspiracy theory or an article by a biochemist) and there's not very much action in the plot.
I don't think School of Rock could have been directed by anyone else and have been as successful as it was, but the first time I saw it, I didn't even know it was directed by Richard Linklater. Like Dazed and Confused, this film feels like a celebration, and there are no negative consequences. I think the movie is sweet, without being sappy, and Jack Black is great at working with kids. Joan Cusack is also amazing in this, and brings a good balance to her character. The principal is anal but not heartless, awkward but endearing, and ultimately a sympathetic character, but not just because we feel sorry for her. Jack Black is able to convince us (or at least me) that even this uptight principal is cool. This film does well what so many other teacher-inspires-students films do so badly (and so help me god, I've had to sit through Stand and Deliver in so many math classes in my life).
Finally, Blackout in Rome. I think it's funny we watched this (I'm pretty sure) on the day after there was a big ice storm in my hometown and almost everyone lost electricity for several days (Blackout in Manhattan, KS). Anyways, I liked that the film starts off with a narration saying that the Italian people are such kind, generous people, who hide soldiers even though they could lose their lives for it. The narration pretends to be an objection observation of what's happening, but then turns out to be satirical, given what follows. Three women dress up as nuns, I'm guessing because it helps them bargain for cheaper prices, and end up getting a good bargain on a bunch of food in return for taking some hidden soldiers off the hands of this family. As soon as the one woman realizes that there could be serious consequences for housing the soldiers, she immediately wants to get rid of them. I'm surprised this film was never widely released in the US, because I would think there would be some interest in it in the US.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Farenheit 451, A Scanner Darkly
Farenheit 451 was goofy to me. Maybe the way the future is depicted in movies today will seem ridiculous to us in the future, but from the costumes and the set to the way people interacted, this whole movie felt a little silly to me. I don't know if the dialogue was awkward because it was meant to be that way or if was just because Truffaut was uncomfortable with English. Either way, I love the book Farenheit 451, but this film was lacking. Whereas in The Two English Girls I could pick out parts that I liked in the whole mess of a film, this whole film seemed to drag on to me.
I thought A Scanner Darkly was a much more successful adaptation of a science fiction novel. I know Linklater wanted to stay as faithful to the book as possible, but I actually liked the film better than the book (which is pretty rare). As we already talked about in class, the animation worked really well for the film, though I didn't like its style as much as Waking Life. The consistent style makes the story seem more cohesive and it's also more sophisticated and life-like, but I like the rawness/paint-like quality of the animation in Waking Life. Everytime I see A Scanner Darkly, I always forget that Hank is Donna. The casting for this film is really interesting. Everyone seems to almost be playing themselves, only a little crazier. I actually really don't like Keanu Reeves in this though, and that distracts me from really enjoying the film at points. It's interesting that Linklater chose to use all big name stars for this, but ultimately I liked the mix of actors.
I thought A Scanner Darkly was a much more successful adaptation of a science fiction novel. I know Linklater wanted to stay as faithful to the book as possible, but I actually liked the film better than the book (which is pretty rare). As we already talked about in class, the animation worked really well for the film, though I didn't like its style as much as Waking Life. The consistent style makes the story seem more cohesive and it's also more sophisticated and life-like, but I like the rawness/paint-like quality of the animation in Waking Life. Everytime I see A Scanner Darkly, I always forget that Hank is Donna. The casting for this film is really interesting. Everyone seems to almost be playing themselves, only a little crazier. I actually really don't like Keanu Reeves in this though, and that distracts me from really enjoying the film at points. It's interesting that Linklater chose to use all big name stars for this, but ultimately I liked the mix of actors.
The Story of Adele H., The Wild Child, and Day for Night
I never want to see the Story of Adele H. again. As a woman, it was really painful for me to watch the story of another woman who is so pathetic, so dependent on a man, and who acts selfishly toward her family. I understand that it's based on a true story, and while I may have liked reading about it on wikipedia, I don't want to watch a film about it. The whole film can be summed up in one simple phrase, as spoken by the man Adele stalks to Adele, "You're ridiculous!" Adele's identity is defined by her relationship to a man, her father (she will always be known as Victor Hugo's daughter), and she wants to breaks free of that and define herself. But, she is too weak to do that, so she tries to reform her identity around another man. As in all Truffaut movies, people only want what they can't have, so of course he can't love her back. An interesting point brought up in class was Jared's idea that Truffaut trusts the visual more than the written or spoken word. When Adele reveals her identity to the hypnotist, she does not speak her name aloud, but writes it in the dust on the glass.
The Wild Child really reminded me of the Elephant Man, and I wonder if Lynch saw this film and was inspired by it. Both films are in black-and-white, and they're about doctors who try to civilize another human being. Also, both doctors go through a crisis in which they wonder if they're doing things for the right reasons. As Chris pointed out in class, the film, although it seems like it wouldn't be autobiographical, as some parallels to Truffaut's own life. Both Truffaut and the wild child were illegitimate, and were treated badly by their parents. Truffaut plays a role in Victor's life that is similar to Bazin's role in his own. Bazin helped to "civilize" Truffaut in a way. The story does move slowly and does not try to gloss over how tedious the learning process can be. There are some jumps in time, but there is no montage of progress (that I can remember at least). The story of the wild child isn't really a story of success in terms of how much he learned as in reading and writing, but I think it is in terms of how much he learned to connect with other human beings, which I would say is more important (not to be too sappy).
Watching Day for Night was an experience, because I've never seen anything dubbed except MXC and kung-fu movies. The dubbing was really awful, but it added a layer of humor to the film. I think the film does a really good job in showing the joy and agony of filmmaking, and makes the cast seem like a big family. To paraphrase what Kate said in class, the film shows you how the truth behind the magic of film, but that just makes the film all the more magical. Now, everytime I see a shot of someone driving a car from the front, I think of Day for Night. After running into all kinds of problems in the first half of the film (that they are making), most of the second half is glossed over with a montage of progress. I kind of hate montages that are the turning points of movies, because they make me think of every made-for-TV Disney movie ever, but I understand that when things come together when working on a film, it probably is a big blur. A couple more things: When Truffaut is sleeping and we see the images transposed over him, I thought that was a little silly. I guess it's supposed to remind the viewer that the director never leaves his work, even when he is sleeping. Finally, the relationship between the young actress and the old doctor was interesting. At first, it's just kind of gross, because of the age difference. When she cheats on him, I had sympathy for him because he seems like this kindly old man, but then again, he did leave his whole family for some young actress. I was happy for them to be together in the end, but I still wonder what that storyline was doing in the film.
The Wild Child really reminded me of the Elephant Man, and I wonder if Lynch saw this film and was inspired by it. Both films are in black-and-white, and they're about doctors who try to civilize another human being. Also, both doctors go through a crisis in which they wonder if they're doing things for the right reasons. As Chris pointed out in class, the film, although it seems like it wouldn't be autobiographical, as some parallels to Truffaut's own life. Both Truffaut and the wild child were illegitimate, and were treated badly by their parents. Truffaut plays a role in Victor's life that is similar to Bazin's role in his own. Bazin helped to "civilize" Truffaut in a way. The story does move slowly and does not try to gloss over how tedious the learning process can be. There are some jumps in time, but there is no montage of progress (that I can remember at least). The story of the wild child isn't really a story of success in terms of how much he learned as in reading and writing, but I think it is in terms of how much he learned to connect with other human beings, which I would say is more important (not to be too sappy).
Watching Day for Night was an experience, because I've never seen anything dubbed except MXC and kung-fu movies. The dubbing was really awful, but it added a layer of humor to the film. I think the film does a really good job in showing the joy and agony of filmmaking, and makes the cast seem like a big family. To paraphrase what Kate said in class, the film shows you how the truth behind the magic of film, but that just makes the film all the more magical. Now, everytime I see a shot of someone driving a car from the front, I think of Day for Night. After running into all kinds of problems in the first half of the film (that they are making), most of the second half is glossed over with a montage of progress. I kind of hate montages that are the turning points of movies, because they make me think of every made-for-TV Disney movie ever, but I understand that when things come together when working on a film, it probably is a big blur. A couple more things: When Truffaut is sleeping and we see the images transposed over him, I thought that was a little silly. I guess it's supposed to remind the viewer that the director never leaves his work, even when he is sleeping. Finally, the relationship between the young actress and the old doctor was interesting. At first, it's just kind of gross, because of the age difference. When she cheats on him, I had sympathy for him because he seems like this kindly old man, but then again, he did leave his whole family for some young actress. I was happy for them to be together in the end, but I still wonder what that storyline was doing in the film.
Stolen Kisses, Bed and Board, Love on the Run
I remember loving Stolen Kisses when I first saw it, but now I can barely remember what it's about because I mix it up with all of the other Doinel films. I think this is probably a common experience. I'm not sure this moment was in this movie, but I loved when Doinel addressed his bosses wife with a masculine title and then ran away. As Doinel, Leaud is able to be a total scoundrel and still be a sympathetic character. I loved the series of jobs he had in this film. He went from being in the army to working at the front desk of a hotel, being a detective, being a stock-boy (as an undercover detective), and finally being a TV repair man. The autobiographic thread of Truffaut's life continued in this film, except I think he added some elements he wished happened in his own life, like having a relationship with a very beautiful, older woman.
Something else I thought was interesting that we didn't really get to in class was the end of Stolen Kisses, where the strange man professes his love to Christine. His love for her isn't really any more ridiculous than Doinel's for the women in his life (especially when we get to Love on the Run). The man acts like Doinel isn't even there, and Doinel just sits and listens to the man, without defending his own love for Christine.
Bed and Board
I enjoyed Bed and Board as well. I loved the "strangler" and the way the neighborhood reacted to him. When no one knew who he was, he seemed to always be lurking, like he was up to something dark and secretive. When they see him on TV though, the neighborhood's whole reaction to him changes. Being on TV changes him from a nobody to a somebody, and knowing no more about him than they did before, the neighborhood embraces him and views him as a source of pride.
I liked the way the library staircase was used as a metaphor. When Christine asks him why they need a staircase when they don't have a library, Antoine responds that someday they will. The staircase is something useless and a little bit ridiculous right now, but represents hope for growth and the future.
Another thing I really liked about the film is that it shows how quickly the new and exotic can become tedious and monotonous, through Antoine's relationship with the Japanese woman.
Love on the Run was a bit of a let-down for me. I’m going to have to watch it again after there has been more time since I’ve seen the other Doinel films. I didn’t like how much of the film was flashbacks, and I literally had to leave the room because I couldn’t take it. When we were forty minutes into the film, I felt like nothing new had happened and there was no point to it except to make another movie with Léaud. The most interesting part of the film was when Antoine meets with her mother’s old lover. We get to see a glimpse into someone else’s perspective on his life, and it shed a little light on how biased towards Doinel the other films in this series have been. The fact that Doinel does not even come to his mother’s funeral and hasn’t ever visited her grave makes him less sympathetic. Overall, I liked that the film showed that the stories of people’s lives aren’t stories of progress, but that people remain pretty much the same over time. This may not be very inspiring, but it’s more real, and I’m more interested in films that show people as they are than as we’d like them to be.
Something else I thought was interesting that we didn't really get to in class was the end of Stolen Kisses, where the strange man professes his love to Christine. His love for her isn't really any more ridiculous than Doinel's for the women in his life (especially when we get to Love on the Run). The man acts like Doinel isn't even there, and Doinel just sits and listens to the man, without defending his own love for Christine.
Bed and Board
I enjoyed Bed and Board as well. I loved the "strangler" and the way the neighborhood reacted to him. When no one knew who he was, he seemed to always be lurking, like he was up to something dark and secretive. When they see him on TV though, the neighborhood's whole reaction to him changes. Being on TV changes him from a nobody to a somebody, and knowing no more about him than they did before, the neighborhood embraces him and views him as a source of pride.
I liked the way the library staircase was used as a metaphor. When Christine asks him why they need a staircase when they don't have a library, Antoine responds that someday they will. The staircase is something useless and a little bit ridiculous right now, but represents hope for growth and the future.
Another thing I really liked about the film is that it shows how quickly the new and exotic can become tedious and monotonous, through Antoine's relationship with the Japanese woman.
Love on the Run was a bit of a let-down for me. I’m going to have to watch it again after there has been more time since I’ve seen the other Doinel films. I didn’t like how much of the film was flashbacks, and I literally had to leave the room because I couldn’t take it. When we were forty minutes into the film, I felt like nothing new had happened and there was no point to it except to make another movie with Léaud. The most interesting part of the film was when Antoine meets with her mother’s old lover. We get to see a glimpse into someone else’s perspective on his life, and it shed a little light on how biased towards Doinel the other films in this series have been. The fact that Doinel does not even come to his mother’s funeral and hasn’t ever visited her grave makes him less sympathetic. Overall, I liked that the film showed that the stories of people’s lives aren’t stories of progress, but that people remain pretty much the same over time. This may not be very inspiring, but it’s more real, and I’m more interested in films that show people as they are than as we’d like them to be.
Waking Life and The Two English Girls
Waking Life is my favorite movie ever. I first saw it in my freshman year of high school and fell in love with it right away. I have probably seen it at least thirty times. Obviously, I watch it a lot and I think it's worth watching mulitple times. I think my response to the film is very different from the other members of the class partly because of when I saw it. When I was fourteen, I did not know about existentialism or the problem of free will, so the information presented was new to me and really engaged me. I strongly disagree with people who think this film is pseudo-intellectual or self-indulgent. I think Linklater is intelligent, but not necessarily intellectual, and I like that the film really leaves the interpretation up to the viewer.
Anyways, on to the specifics of the film. First, I love the animation and I love all of the jokes in the animation. For instance, when the four radical guys are walking down the alley, it says "don't fuck with Jesus" on the wall. There are many more examples, but it's more fun if you find them for yourself.
One of my favorite moments in the film is in the cafe, when the girl asks the novelist guy what his story is about. He says, "there's no story. It's just people, moments, bits of rapture, fleeting emotions. In short, the greatest stories ever told." I think this is hilarious, because it's a commentary on the film itself, and he's so amazingly pretentious.
Something I noticed for the first time when watching the film in class was that after the soap-opera girl tells Wiley that he can do whatever he wants now that he's dreaming, he doesn't do anything interesting after that. I think he listens to Speed Levitch right after that, but then he just watches TV and then goes to a gas station. That moment could have really changed the narrative, but he keeps going on as he was before. I could go on forever about this film, but I still have to finish writing about the rest of the films, so I'm going to move on.
The Two English Girls
I didn’t really know what to make of The Two English Girls. It was kind of like a dream too (I like that it was under the theme “Tripping”), but one that kept going on and makes less sense as it went on. The most interesting thing about the film to me was the way it plays with expectations. Having seen Jules and Jim, I expected Léaud to have relationships with both the women, often going back and forth between them, and then there’d be some tragic ending in which Léaud gets neither of the women. This is true to an extent, but the film was a lot darker and heavier than I expected. However, I found myself wanting to laugh a lot, and I wasn’t sure if that was an appropriate reaction. The only example I can think of right now was the shot of the blood. I think I read a review of this film that said this was like Jules and Jim “without the youthful audacity” (I have that in my notes and I’m not sure where it came from). Anyway, I thought that was a really good way to describe this film. I didn’t think it was boring, as someone said in class, but I thought it was tiresome. After awhile, I just did not care what happened to the characters. I kind of liked Muriel at first, but then she turned into a puritan nutcase, and Claude does not care about anyone but himself. Overall, the way relationships are depicted in all of Truffaut’s films bothers me (Story of Adele H., Bed and Board, Day for Night, and so on), because it’s the same story of people wanting what they can’t have, being selfish, and making stupid mistakes. However, the ridiculousness of the relationships in this film is made all the worse by the overuse of irises, which didn’t really seem to have a purpose. As frustrating as watching this was, I would probably watch it again, because I’m sure my expectations going into the film distorted my first viewing of it.
Anyways, on to the specifics of the film. First, I love the animation and I love all of the jokes in the animation. For instance, when the four radical guys are walking down the alley, it says "don't fuck with Jesus" on the wall. There are many more examples, but it's more fun if you find them for yourself.
One of my favorite moments in the film is in the cafe, when the girl asks the novelist guy what his story is about. He says, "there's no story. It's just people, moments, bits of rapture, fleeting emotions. In short, the greatest stories ever told." I think this is hilarious, because it's a commentary on the film itself, and he's so amazingly pretentious.
Something I noticed for the first time when watching the film in class was that after the soap-opera girl tells Wiley that he can do whatever he wants now that he's dreaming, he doesn't do anything interesting after that. I think he listens to Speed Levitch right after that, but then he just watches TV and then goes to a gas station. That moment could have really changed the narrative, but he keeps going on as he was before. I could go on forever about this film, but I still have to finish writing about the rest of the films, so I'm going to move on.
The Two English Girls
I didn’t really know what to make of The Two English Girls. It was kind of like a dream too (I like that it was under the theme “Tripping”), but one that kept going on and makes less sense as it went on. The most interesting thing about the film to me was the way it plays with expectations. Having seen Jules and Jim, I expected Léaud to have relationships with both the women, often going back and forth between them, and then there’d be some tragic ending in which Léaud gets neither of the women. This is true to an extent, but the film was a lot darker and heavier than I expected. However, I found myself wanting to laugh a lot, and I wasn’t sure if that was an appropriate reaction. The only example I can think of right now was the shot of the blood. I think I read a review of this film that said this was like Jules and Jim “without the youthful audacity” (I have that in my notes and I’m not sure where it came from). Anyway, I thought that was a really good way to describe this film. I didn’t think it was boring, as someone said in class, but I thought it was tiresome. After awhile, I just did not care what happened to the characters. I kind of liked Muriel at first, but then she turned into a puritan nutcase, and Claude does not care about anyone but himself. Overall, the way relationships are depicted in all of Truffaut’s films bothers me (Story of Adele H., Bed and Board, Day for Night, and so on), because it’s the same story of people wanting what they can’t have, being selfish, and making stupid mistakes. However, the ridiculousness of the relationships in this film is made all the worse by the overuse of irises, which didn’t really seem to have a purpose. As frustrating as watching this was, I would probably watch it again, because I’m sure my expectations going into the film distorted my first viewing of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)