Thursday 9 October 2003
Friday 3 October 2003
Motivation and the complete lack of it
There is so much noise in the office, I really can't work - or am I just shirking the responsibility again? It made depressing reading : looking at the other early, frst blog I wrote in early 2002 - nothing seems to have changed in the last 18 months. Nothing at all. Still I sit here in the noise not enjoying my job, surfing too much.
At least in early 2002 I had recently been to the dentist. Now it's two years, which means 18 months of procrastination. All these things block me so much, there is no real advancement. Al that has changed in the last 18 months is that I now have my own apartment, and many more DVDs and CDs. Oh and I changed the car a few times and have a different GSM. These appear to be the sum total of my achievements from being just 35 to nearly 37.
At least in early 2002 I had recently been to the dentist. Now it's two years, which means 18 months of procrastination. All these things block me so much, there is no real advancement. Al that has changed in the last 18 months is that I now have my own apartment, and many more DVDs and CDs. Oh and I changed the car a few times and have a different GSM. These appear to be the sum total of my achievements from being just 35 to nearly 37.
Thursday 2 October 2003
Autmnal Palinode
Must find out what palinode means. This Blogger thing changes each time I log on - the interface looks far less minimal than before. Maybe I'll be able to get this blog to look like the other one's with photos and frames etc.
I'm sure palinode is a type of poem or lyric. Here's the ref. Not far off. The subj is a quote from McNeice of course.
I'm sure palinode is a type of poem or lyric. Here's the ref. Not far off. The subj is a quote from McNeice of course.
Thursday 18 September 2003
Monday 15 September 2003
Wednesday 23 April 2003
The best reviews about Magnolia were in the Guardian - Philip Bradshaw liked it and said it was about regret, and Philip French didn't like it and said it was no deeper that a sitcom. I said that I agreed with French, and that Daddy Nostalgie was on a different level for dealing with regret - a much higher level, but of course as it's not a yank film it doesn't get close to the IMDb top 250 rating for Magnolia.
There, the summary without any of the nice language I made up.
There, the summary without any of the nice language I made up.
Magnolia was a tough film to see late at night - halfway through I was waiting for it to finish. And this is a film some commentators say doesn't drag? Maybe I'm missing something but it seemed like a younger film maker doing an Altman? It wasn't a bad film but certainly isn't a great film. There's no way it should be in IMDb's top 250.
Tuesday 22 April 2003
Post-Easter Tuesday. Two films to report - Daddy Nostalgie (These Foolish Things in English, which I prefer to the French title) and The Neverending Story, which most people remember for the Limahl title song rather than the film.
First the easy one - I saw The Neverending Story in the late 80s at Birmingham's Midland Arts Centre in an afternoon performance full of children. Not the most convivial atmosphere, but I recollect being swept along by a good story. It stands up well today - what it manages to thankfully avoid are those regulation cutesy kid moments that no film today involving children can be without. Well maybe Billy Eliot, where the yuk factor came in the last reel when B.E. grew up. In fact in Neverending Story the child actors really came up trumps. The most moving scene was when the horse got swallowed up in the swamp. Such a loss would never be shown to children now.
Daddy Nostalgie is a film I saw on its release in Cambridge at the Arts Cinema. It really had a strong affect on me, and for years I was looking for the VHS tape. It was available briefly then disappeared, in the UK at least. So when I saw the DVD at FNAC the other week I snapped it up at full price too!
In a sense what is more important than the story to me is the fact that it had two of the greatest British exile actors of the late 20th - Dirk Bogarde and Jane Birkin. Well perhaps Birkin is not such a great actor, but she is unsurpassed as an institution. The chemistry between the two is very strong on screen. There is a palpable sense of the damage the father has done on the daughter, emotionally. Part of the power of the film is the realisation of this by Daddy, and how the years of selfish hedonism has inevitably left a hollow feeling near the end of his life. It's in the acting that this comes. There is a wonderful piece of Bogarde acting in the scene about halfway on the terrace with the daughter. He ends a longish speech (including the line about his horror at the possibility of ending up in retirement on the South Coast with gardens full of gnomes hating anything foreign - this had such an affect on me at the time that I am writing from a foreign country, never intending to return to the sceptic isle) with the words, delivered with a smile, "I was spoilt rotten - and I loved every minute of it." Then as he sits back, a shadow is cast across his face, and you realise that this isn't the case at all. Or if it was, it was all for nothing.
Birkin makes a powerful performance too. The lonely wanderings on the beach where she seems very girl like. The switching from French to English, which by the way annoyed an american commentator on IMDb - she said she found it annoying and unnecessary. Well, that's how we talk missy. It's not for effect...
A re-occurring image is that of birds wheeling around in the sky. To me this indicates a spirit trying to escape but not being able to - just circling, maybe just contemplating the past and not moving on.
Re-viewing the film I appreciate Odette Laure's performance. She seems to embody this french woman of a certain age, the style, the way she holds and lights her cigarettes, the bedclothes, watching the pope on the typically french inappropriately placed TV. And the frost with Daddy and strange bond with the daughter all work very well. Her's is the underrated performance, but vital to put the other two in context.
The film's opening is one of my favourite first reels - the view of Paris apartments as dawn rises filmed in stop-motion is very haunting. The end is wonderful and memorable as well - Birkin walking lost through the grey city of Paris in the rain. That image stuck with me the strongest from the original viewing.
First the easy one - I saw The Neverending Story in the late 80s at Birmingham's Midland Arts Centre in an afternoon performance full of children. Not the most convivial atmosphere, but I recollect being swept along by a good story. It stands up well today - what it manages to thankfully avoid are those regulation cutesy kid moments that no film today involving children can be without. Well maybe Billy Eliot, where the yuk factor came in the last reel when B.E. grew up. In fact in Neverending Story the child actors really came up trumps. The most moving scene was when the horse got swallowed up in the swamp. Such a loss would never be shown to children now.
Daddy Nostalgie is a film I saw on its release in Cambridge at the Arts Cinema. It really had a strong affect on me, and for years I was looking for the VHS tape. It was available briefly then disappeared, in the UK at least. So when I saw the DVD at FNAC the other week I snapped it up at full price too!
In a sense what is more important than the story to me is the fact that it had two of the greatest British exile actors of the late 20th - Dirk Bogarde and Jane Birkin. Well perhaps Birkin is not such a great actor, but she is unsurpassed as an institution. The chemistry between the two is very strong on screen. There is a palpable sense of the damage the father has done on the daughter, emotionally. Part of the power of the film is the realisation of this by Daddy, and how the years of selfish hedonism has inevitably left a hollow feeling near the end of his life. It's in the acting that this comes. There is a wonderful piece of Bogarde acting in the scene about halfway on the terrace with the daughter. He ends a longish speech (including the line about his horror at the possibility of ending up in retirement on the South Coast with gardens full of gnomes hating anything foreign - this had such an affect on me at the time that I am writing from a foreign country, never intending to return to the sceptic isle) with the words, delivered with a smile, "I was spoilt rotten - and I loved every minute of it." Then as he sits back, a shadow is cast across his face, and you realise that this isn't the case at all. Or if it was, it was all for nothing.
Birkin makes a powerful performance too. The lonely wanderings on the beach where she seems very girl like. The switching from French to English, which by the way annoyed an american commentator on IMDb - she said she found it annoying and unnecessary. Well, that's how we talk missy. It's not for effect...
A re-occurring image is that of birds wheeling around in the sky. To me this indicates a spirit trying to escape but not being able to - just circling, maybe just contemplating the past and not moving on.
Re-viewing the film I appreciate Odette Laure's performance. She seems to embody this french woman of a certain age, the style, the way she holds and lights her cigarettes, the bedclothes, watching the pope on the typically french inappropriately placed TV. And the frost with Daddy and strange bond with the daughter all work very well. Her's is the underrated performance, but vital to put the other two in context.
The film's opening is one of my favourite first reels - the view of Paris apartments as dawn rises filmed in stop-motion is very haunting. The end is wonderful and memorable as well - Birkin walking lost through the grey city of Paris in the rain. That image stuck with me the strongest from the original viewing.
Thursday 17 April 2003
Is it Thursday already? Just one film to report from last weekend - the second of the Powell and Pressburger double bill DVD, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp.
Again impossible to review as I have known this film for so long, since seeing it as a postage stamp sized image at the IMAX in Bradford, back in early 1990 on a snowy day with John 'Billy' Shears and his rather amazing Triumph Dolomite Sprint.
Still, it looked fresh even at the nth viewing. It was more complex than I remember - my friend watching with me couln't follow the first 10 minutes, even with subtitles. Who outside the UK and South Africa knows what the Boer War was about - do I? As one of the US soldiers says in the scene in 1918 Flanders, "The Boer War? Summer Maneuvers" (deliberate US spelling BTW.)
The film is really as much about war than anything, again all very relevant to today. Many things said about the Germans seemed to me to apply to the current US administration.
Anyway, what a fantastic movie - unforgettable scenes include:
- Deborah Kerr's triple role, a la Alec Guiness in Kind Hearts and Coronets - though much richer (and fewer than the D'Ascoynes)
- Deborah Kerr's speech about the Germans romanticism vs warlike nature to the sublime music of Schubert's Unvollende.
- Anton Walbrook's unmatched speech about his life in Germany in the 20s and 30s, losing his wife and his children to the Nazis.
- Colonel Blimp's makeup - making Roger Livesey convincing at all ages - still beyond many makeup artists nearly 60 years later.
and so on.
Next film? Not sure, maybe LOTR Twin Towers if it's still on at the UGC Toison d'Or.
Again impossible to review as I have known this film for so long, since seeing it as a postage stamp sized image at the IMAX in Bradford, back in early 1990 on a snowy day with John 'Billy' Shears and his rather amazing Triumph Dolomite Sprint.
Still, it looked fresh even at the nth viewing. It was more complex than I remember - my friend watching with me couln't follow the first 10 minutes, even with subtitles. Who outside the UK and South Africa knows what the Boer War was about - do I? As one of the US soldiers says in the scene in 1918 Flanders, "The Boer War? Summer Maneuvers" (deliberate US spelling BTW.)
The film is really as much about war than anything, again all very relevant to today. Many things said about the Germans seemed to me to apply to the current US administration.
Anyway, what a fantastic movie - unforgettable scenes include:
- Deborah Kerr's triple role, a la Alec Guiness in Kind Hearts and Coronets - though much richer (and fewer than the D'Ascoynes)
- Deborah Kerr's speech about the Germans romanticism vs warlike nature to the sublime music of Schubert's Unvollende.
- Anton Walbrook's unmatched speech about his life in Germany in the 20s and 30s, losing his wife and his children to the Nazis.
- Colonel Blimp's makeup - making Roger Livesey convincing at all ages - still beyond many makeup artists nearly 60 years later.
and so on.
Next film? Not sure, maybe LOTR Twin Towers if it's still on at the UGC Toison d'Or.
Friday 11 April 2003
No film last night, but a very good meal at Osteleria (sp?) del Barone on Rue de Flandres. Just recently reopened, the decor is cheesy - just not enough to be kitch. But the food was very good - I had prosciutto e meloni for an entree and fresh pasta with truffles in ricotta for main course - very nice, very strong truffles. To drink the house apero to start - mixture of white wine, gin, amaretto, something else alcoholic and orange juice - yum - and a Sicilian wine for the main course. Despite the decor a good night out with a very warm welcome from the host!
Thursday 10 April 2003
A Matter of Life and Death (Stairway to Heaven in the US - why?) is one of my all time favourites. It was good to see it on DVD last night after years of watching it on a poor quality VHS tape recording. That is the reception was poor when I taped it, and there were commercials.
What I enjoy so much about this film, especially compared to many of today's "products" is the joy of it all, the wit, the experimentation, the look, the ideas. It is such a full movie that watching it last night for the first time in a couple of years, but probably for the 10th time or something, it was still new, fresh and utterly enjoyable. There are few films that reward repeated viewings. I cannot think of how many there are, but it must be about 20 or 30 for me. These films have the quailty of music. How often does one listen to a piece of music once? Why is that different to a film? This is a question I have asked myself many times and haven't really come to a conclusion. Haven't come close to a conclusion in fact.
I don't intend to critique this film as I find it impossible to write about something I know so well. It seems so self-evident that this is a masterpiece I feel I cannot construct an argument supporting it. If I can list some memorable images and things about the film:
- the Technicolor, or as the Conductor 71 says of heaven, "we are starved of Technicolor up there," though his lips say "colour" rather than "Technicolor" (nice bit of ADR!)
- the naked shepheard boy piping in the dunes - surreal allusion to arriving in heaven (from imdb - The US release was cut to avoid showing the naked shepherd boy in the sand dunes. Americans huh?)
- the 1946 special effects, especially walking through the door of the military hospital
- the fades from colour to black and white and vikky-verky
- the "stairway" music of the piano when Peter and June are waiting for Frank while the Midsummer Night's Dream is being rehearsed in the background. The music is obviously haunting Peter. Then the music being played on the 78rpm gramophone - what is that music?
- Dickie Attenborough's cameo, and the view looking up from the records department. Looks better than anything in Lord of the Rings.
- lots of other stuff.
Anyway, a wonderful, life-affirming, humorous and imaginative film.
What I enjoy so much about this film, especially compared to many of today's "products" is the joy of it all, the wit, the experimentation, the look, the ideas. It is such a full movie that watching it last night for the first time in a couple of years, but probably for the 10th time or something, it was still new, fresh and utterly enjoyable. There are few films that reward repeated viewings. I cannot think of how many there are, but it must be about 20 or 30 for me. These films have the quailty of music. How often does one listen to a piece of music once? Why is that different to a film? This is a question I have asked myself many times and haven't really come to a conclusion. Haven't come close to a conclusion in fact.
I don't intend to critique this film as I find it impossible to write about something I know so well. It seems so self-evident that this is a masterpiece I feel I cannot construct an argument supporting it. If I can list some memorable images and things about the film:
- the Technicolor, or as the Conductor 71 says of heaven, "we are starved of Technicolor up there," though his lips say "colour" rather than "Technicolor" (nice bit of ADR!)
- the naked shepheard boy piping in the dunes - surreal allusion to arriving in heaven (from imdb - The US release was cut to avoid showing the naked shepherd boy in the sand dunes. Americans huh?)
- the 1946 special effects, especially walking through the door of the military hospital
- the fades from colour to black and white and vikky-verky
- the "stairway" music of the piano when Peter and June are waiting for Frank while the Midsummer Night's Dream is being rehearsed in the background. The music is obviously haunting Peter. Then the music being played on the 78rpm gramophone - what is that music?
- Dickie Attenborough's cameo, and the view looking up from the records department. Looks better than anything in Lord of the Rings.
- lots of other stuff.
Anyway, a wonderful, life-affirming, humorous and imaginative film.
Wednesday 9 April 2003
Last night's film was that rare event - a film that was seen totally unexpectedly without previews or expectations. Le Pere Noel est une Ordure (Father Christmas is a Shit) - apologs for the lack of accents but the Word trick of CTRL-\ e doesn't work in Blogger.
From a quick surf on IMDb it seems to be a big cult hit with the French of a certain age - it was released in 1982 and wasn't an immediate success so I guess it came about from TV showings in the mid-80s. From the small number of comments (in English quand meme), only one wasn't from France but from the Netherlands, so I guess this isn't so big amongst the Anglophone world. The DVD had American English subtitles, so I guess this may be the first real attempt at attracting Anglophones.
Basically it looks like a standard French farce on the surface and as I watched I was really reading the film on this level. The closest relationship in British cinema I could make is the Carry On series - farcical but popular and cultish beyond the series' limitations. Like Le Pere Noel, some of the catchphrases in Carry On have become part of the UK English language, especially the Kenneth Williamses. Well that's fine, and the film was enjoyable at this level - verbal and visual gags delivered in a mannered and slightly hysterical manner. I especially enjoyed the Bulgarian neighbour and his succession of ever more disgusting cakes, and some of the one-liners were delivered impeccably.
The bonus disk contained one of the more bizarre extras I've ever seen - entitled Karaoke, it consists of key sequences with one of the actor's voices dubbed out and a ticker tape showing their script at the bottom of the screen, so you can play along with the part! The problem was the script was handwritten (maybe the origianals as the actors wrote all their own dialogue?) and moved quite fast so I couldn't read anything! Perhaps this was due to watching the film on a Mac PowerBook's TFT screen?
Towards the end of the film I began to feel there was something more there - especially as the narrative takes a very dark turn in the latter half. Then it came to me that rather than Carry On the movie was moving into League of Gentlemen territory - and this chimes in nicely with what I have read this morning about the cult status of Le Pere Noel. What starts as farce decends into horror, and all the characters become ever more exaggerated characatures.
I'm sure as my French improves I'll get more out of the film - the subtitles used way to much American English slang, and occasionally I could pick up stuff that were omitted in the subtitling. It's a film I definitely want to revisit sometime. And on a carspottery level it was nice and nostalgic to see the streets of Paris full of 70s Renaults!
From a quick surf on IMDb it seems to be a big cult hit with the French of a certain age - it was released in 1982 and wasn't an immediate success so I guess it came about from TV showings in the mid-80s. From the small number of comments (in English quand meme), only one wasn't from France but from the Netherlands, so I guess this isn't so big amongst the Anglophone world. The DVD had American English subtitles, so I guess this may be the first real attempt at attracting Anglophones.
Basically it looks like a standard French farce on the surface and as I watched I was really reading the film on this level. The closest relationship in British cinema I could make is the Carry On series - farcical but popular and cultish beyond the series' limitations. Like Le Pere Noel, some of the catchphrases in Carry On have become part of the UK English language, especially the Kenneth Williamses. Well that's fine, and the film was enjoyable at this level - verbal and visual gags delivered in a mannered and slightly hysterical manner. I especially enjoyed the Bulgarian neighbour and his succession of ever more disgusting cakes, and some of the one-liners were delivered impeccably.
The bonus disk contained one of the more bizarre extras I've ever seen - entitled Karaoke, it consists of key sequences with one of the actor's voices dubbed out and a ticker tape showing their script at the bottom of the screen, so you can play along with the part! The problem was the script was handwritten (maybe the origianals as the actors wrote all their own dialogue?) and moved quite fast so I couldn't read anything! Perhaps this was due to watching the film on a Mac PowerBook's TFT screen?
Towards the end of the film I began to feel there was something more there - especially as the narrative takes a very dark turn in the latter half. Then it came to me that rather than Carry On the movie was moving into League of Gentlemen territory - and this chimes in nicely with what I have read this morning about the cult status of Le Pere Noel. What starts as farce decends into horror, and all the characters become ever more exaggerated characatures.
I'm sure as my French improves I'll get more out of the film - the subtitles used way to much American English slang, and occasionally I could pick up stuff that were omitted in the subtitling. It's a film I definitely want to revisit sometime. And on a carspottery level it was nice and nostalgic to see the streets of Paris full of 70s Renaults!
Tuesday 8 April 2003
No movie last night - went out with some friends for dinner at the Kasbah in Rue Dansaert in downtown BXL. Did a dry run of the Couscous Legumes for my veggie friend visiting next month. Goodness it was cold yesterday evening - perfect blue sky though. Went to bed early and woke up at 5am this morning. Watched the sun come up over Brussels - some amazing colours - graduations of blue and a kind of mauve at the top of the gap in the curtains. Of course by the time the alarm went off I was into my third sleep cycle, so getting out of bed was v diff.
Monday 7 April 2003
Almost by chance I saw The Lord of the Rings : The Fellowshop of the Ring for the first time yesterday. Again it's another film that is difficult to review as there is so much hype, baggage, comment and analysis of this film that I have been exposed to since it was released in December 2001. And those bloody books - I have a memory of reading them in my teenage years, but I really don't know if I finished the three tomes or not. I have a vivid memory of skipping pages and pages of Hobbit verse, and an interminable trek across a snowy mountain pass that appeared to be as arduous to read as it would have been to physically make. Of the BBC documentary at the time of release, I have a very vivid memory of someone fully dressed as a Hobbit singing an elven lament over the grave of JRRT, amid a cadre of what one could just about get away with calling dropouts and inadequates. Actually no, I can't get away with that. Let's just say they are the sort of people I don't find have a terribly great sense of humour and would dread sitting next to at a wedding reception.
The film inevitably suffers in my mind in relation to one of my all time favourite movies, Excalibur. The Boorman creation just seems to have infinitely more soul than the LOTR cycle. The story of Arthur really touches me deeply - something to do with race memory? Dunno - but a tale that has been told for centuries has far more weight than something invented in the 1930's it seems to me. As Boorman says in the Region 1 DVD commentary, it's a tale that bears repeated viewing and for me incites awe, if not shock, at each viewing. Also the reflection of the human condition is far more deep in the Arthurian legend. In LOTR it's just a ring that creates a desire to own it and makes one's evil intentions come to the surface. With Excalibur we see a perfect society created then disintegrate through boredom and envy, followed by years of penury and in the end a kind of resurrection or atonement. Very affecting stuff. LOTR is just a ring that's very dangerous and desirous. The conciet of the story of LOTR is interesting - an attempt to get rid of something that proves difficult, but it doesn't have much deeper meaning for me.
LOTR suffers a little from CGI overload. I got tired of all the swooping camerawork panning over one castle after another. And all the battles seemed the same. Hoardes of prosthetics and CGIs. I'm a bit tired by this, even though it was generally well done. The landscape of New Zealand also looked great, though again it fails to inspire me - as does the landscape of the USA. Somehow I don't find this untouched grandiose wilderness very moving - it fails to connect to me the same way and English landscape does, such as North Yorkshire, or even the fantasic Irish landscapes of Excalibur. For me the landscape Excalibur looked more wonderful than the hyper-real NZ of LOTR. I did enjoy the more "real" sets though. Rivendell was somewhere I really wanted to stay. And the elves were wonderful. I really thought Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett were the best things about the movie. The men were all a bit dull, though from the Fellowship the interplay between Sean Bean and Viggo Mortensen was a delight. Of the two wizards I found Sir Ian's Gandalf a bit too affected. Chistopher Lee's Sauromon was fantastic in the confrontation scene, but was really not given anything interesting to do in the later stages as he assembled the Orc army.
I have to say I suffered really badly from seeing the French and Saunders skit of LOTR before the film itself. This produced giggling at rather inappropriate moments!
Then there's the music. I thought the choral stuff was good, I don't mind Enya too much, and I'll have to listen out for Elizabeth Frazer next time I see the film. But the orchestral stuff was pretty derivative and not a patch on Excalibur. Really, for me Excalibur is the acme of a marriage between music and film. The Wagner never ceases to catch my emotions and transport me to the world of Camelot. As soon as the prelude from Parsifal builds over the title sequence I am totally enraptured. And the Liebestod backing the doomed affair of Guinevere and Lancelot really blows me away, even now as I write and remember. In the commentary Boorman talks about seeing the ring cycle at Bayreuth before making the film - I'm so glad he did.
There was really a shocking amount of badly done ADR dubbing in the film, especially in the opening scenes. I thought bad lip-synch was a relic of the past. Ironically the poor synching of Merlin in Excalibur seems to enhance the otherworldlyness of Nicol Williamson's performance.
As for topical references, it all looked a little bit like Gulf War II - small band of good guys get to waste large numbers of faceless bad guys. It's a poor reflection on Western culture that there is this video-game mentality. The enemy is faceless and we know nothing of their lives. They are reduced to cyphers. This is as much true for an army of Iraqis as it is for an army of Orcs. Very bad state of affairs but we are so used to it it hardly merits a mention.
To accentuate the positive, I really think LOTR was a much much better film than the dire Harry Potter and the Philosopher's (Sorcerer's for mentally challenged Yanks) Stone that came out at the same time. Unfortunately I chose to see the latter in the cinema when it came out. With Lord of the Rings : The Fellowship of the Ring, I was swept along with the action by the halfway point, and overall I'm glad I saw the film. But it is not a great movie. Just good.
The film inevitably suffers in my mind in relation to one of my all time favourite movies, Excalibur. The Boorman creation just seems to have infinitely more soul than the LOTR cycle. The story of Arthur really touches me deeply - something to do with race memory? Dunno - but a tale that has been told for centuries has far more weight than something invented in the 1930's it seems to me. As Boorman says in the Region 1 DVD commentary, it's a tale that bears repeated viewing and for me incites awe, if not shock, at each viewing. Also the reflection of the human condition is far more deep in the Arthurian legend. In LOTR it's just a ring that creates a desire to own it and makes one's evil intentions come to the surface. With Excalibur we see a perfect society created then disintegrate through boredom and envy, followed by years of penury and in the end a kind of resurrection or atonement. Very affecting stuff. LOTR is just a ring that's very dangerous and desirous. The conciet of the story of LOTR is interesting - an attempt to get rid of something that proves difficult, but it doesn't have much deeper meaning for me.
LOTR suffers a little from CGI overload. I got tired of all the swooping camerawork panning over one castle after another. And all the battles seemed the same. Hoardes of prosthetics and CGIs. I'm a bit tired by this, even though it was generally well done. The landscape of New Zealand also looked great, though again it fails to inspire me - as does the landscape of the USA. Somehow I don't find this untouched grandiose wilderness very moving - it fails to connect to me the same way and English landscape does, such as North Yorkshire, or even the fantasic Irish landscapes of Excalibur. For me the landscape Excalibur looked more wonderful than the hyper-real NZ of LOTR. I did enjoy the more "real" sets though. Rivendell was somewhere I really wanted to stay. And the elves were wonderful. I really thought Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett were the best things about the movie. The men were all a bit dull, though from the Fellowship the interplay between Sean Bean and Viggo Mortensen was a delight. Of the two wizards I found Sir Ian's Gandalf a bit too affected. Chistopher Lee's Sauromon was fantastic in the confrontation scene, but was really not given anything interesting to do in the later stages as he assembled the Orc army.
I have to say I suffered really badly from seeing the French and Saunders skit of LOTR before the film itself. This produced giggling at rather inappropriate moments!
Then there's the music. I thought the choral stuff was good, I don't mind Enya too much, and I'll have to listen out for Elizabeth Frazer next time I see the film. But the orchestral stuff was pretty derivative and not a patch on Excalibur. Really, for me Excalibur is the acme of a marriage between music and film. The Wagner never ceases to catch my emotions and transport me to the world of Camelot. As soon as the prelude from Parsifal builds over the title sequence I am totally enraptured. And the Liebestod backing the doomed affair of Guinevere and Lancelot really blows me away, even now as I write and remember. In the commentary Boorman talks about seeing the ring cycle at Bayreuth before making the film - I'm so glad he did.
There was really a shocking amount of badly done ADR dubbing in the film, especially in the opening scenes. I thought bad lip-synch was a relic of the past. Ironically the poor synching of Merlin in Excalibur seems to enhance the otherworldlyness of Nicol Williamson's performance.
As for topical references, it all looked a little bit like Gulf War II - small band of good guys get to waste large numbers of faceless bad guys. It's a poor reflection on Western culture that there is this video-game mentality. The enemy is faceless and we know nothing of their lives. They are reduced to cyphers. This is as much true for an army of Iraqis as it is for an army of Orcs. Very bad state of affairs but we are so used to it it hardly merits a mention.
To accentuate the positive, I really think LOTR was a much much better film than the dire Harry Potter and the Philosopher's (Sorcerer's for mentally challenged Yanks) Stone that came out at the same time. Unfortunately I chose to see the latter in the cinema when it came out. With Lord of the Rings : The Fellowship of the Ring, I was swept along with the action by the halfway point, and overall I'm glad I saw the film. But it is not a great movie. Just good.
Tuesday 1 April 2003
How to review Clockwork Orange? Difficult, as I have been anticipating seeing this film for years - it having been banned in the UK till Kubrick's death in 1999, which is when I left the UK for Belgium. Anticipation always make it hard to review something. And it's not just a question of objectivity - it's usually a question of disappointment. Was I disappointed by Clockwork Orange? Not sure yet.
The practice of likening one film to another is something I have mixed feelings about always. Sometimes it sounds like a two minute Hollywood high concept pitch - it's like Harry Potter with an Avril Lavigne soundtrack and Scary Movie horror / American Pie gross-out. But the concept of art crit that I follow is always comparitive. I believe you have to understand the genre, the context, the ouvre to understand a work of art. I think this is especially true of modern art - taken in isolation it can seem banal or childlike. It's the thing about Picasso, developing his talent then deconstructing it. (I read somewhere...)
So from which angle to approach Clockwork Orange? In the context of young offenders and correctional centres it reminded me of Alan Clarke's Made in England, and possibly Scum, which is on its way to me. Relevant today as the UK has the larget per capita prison population, 1 in 100 UK Afro-Caribbeans are in jail etc. The old argument about prison breeding criminals. And how to normalise a sociopath without resorting to inhumane methods - up to and including execution. Interesting side thought - that the USA could not currently join the EU due to human rights shortfalls - death row - as well as financial shortfalls - too big a debt of 4% GDP. The priest in the film makes a good point - when you remove the choice from someone, you have removed thier humanity. It's choosing not to harm other people that is important, not preventing it. You don't win a war by killing all your enemy, but by making them choose, and choosing oneself, that they are no longer the enemy.
In terms of why the film was banned I can understand the stylised violence would be misunderstood by those not sophisticated enough to read the film. Such as those who take vigilante action against pedeatricians. Or those on whom irony s lost. The violence and rape still shocked me, but it was only a few minutes at the beginning of the film, and in any case many video games sanitise it more and thus make it more dangerous for some viewers. Of course how can I be an arbiter of who can see and understand this film or not? Am I not being like the politicians? All these questions are intractible and unsolvable, of course.
The scene with Malcom McDowell with the eye clamps is really an iconic image and unforgettable. Yet at the end of it, this was all that remained - this image, the recollection of a wonderful early 70s set design, and Brunel University looking wonderful too. And the moral dilemmas I know I can never really sort out. And I cannot remember the end! Strange - how did it finish. I really cannot recall. Overall then, interesting, frustrating, finally nothing much to say.
The practice of likening one film to another is something I have mixed feelings about always. Sometimes it sounds like a two minute Hollywood high concept pitch - it's like Harry Potter with an Avril Lavigne soundtrack and Scary Movie horror / American Pie gross-out. But the concept of art crit that I follow is always comparitive. I believe you have to understand the genre, the context, the ouvre to understand a work of art. I think this is especially true of modern art - taken in isolation it can seem banal or childlike. It's the thing about Picasso, developing his talent then deconstructing it. (I read somewhere...)
So from which angle to approach Clockwork Orange? In the context of young offenders and correctional centres it reminded me of Alan Clarke's Made in England, and possibly Scum, which is on its way to me. Relevant today as the UK has the larget per capita prison population, 1 in 100 UK Afro-Caribbeans are in jail etc. The old argument about prison breeding criminals. And how to normalise a sociopath without resorting to inhumane methods - up to and including execution. Interesting side thought - that the USA could not currently join the EU due to human rights shortfalls - death row - as well as financial shortfalls - too big a debt of 4% GDP. The priest in the film makes a good point - when you remove the choice from someone, you have removed thier humanity. It's choosing not to harm other people that is important, not preventing it. You don't win a war by killing all your enemy, but by making them choose, and choosing oneself, that they are no longer the enemy.
In terms of why the film was banned I can understand the stylised violence would be misunderstood by those not sophisticated enough to read the film. Such as those who take vigilante action against pedeatricians. Or those on whom irony s lost. The violence and rape still shocked me, but it was only a few minutes at the beginning of the film, and in any case many video games sanitise it more and thus make it more dangerous for some viewers. Of course how can I be an arbiter of who can see and understand this film or not? Am I not being like the politicians? All these questions are intractible and unsolvable, of course.
The scene with Malcom McDowell with the eye clamps is really an iconic image and unforgettable. Yet at the end of it, this was all that remained - this image, the recollection of a wonderful early 70s set design, and Brunel University looking wonderful too. And the moral dilemmas I know I can never really sort out. And I cannot remember the end! Strange - how did it finish. I really cannot recall. Overall then, interesting, frustrating, finally nothing much to say.
Monday 31 March 2003
Just been reading Wendy Grossman's blog - she does reviews of film she's seen - what a great idea in a why didn't I think of that way, or a this is really what blogging is about way...
Last night saw Speilberg's A.I. (or as I should say A.I. Artificial Intelligence, Yanks being unable to distinguish A.I. and A.1. which is a type of ketchup. See Madness of George III, Licens/ce Revoked etc.) Anyway, /Minor Rant. Back to A.I. - what a mess, what an awful film. It was really the sort of Sci-Fi stuff I could write when I was 12 years old. Nothing made sense, the whole thing was choc full of potholes, er plot holes. SS seemed unable to distinguish the fantastical from the implausible, like so many, many Sci-Fi films. And probably books only I don't read SF in general, bar Asimovs years ago (mostly hole free) and Ballard (mostly deviant and not really anything to do with technology, just human madness.)
Sci-Fi that does not have huge plausibility gaps - Matrix managed it, almost uniquely in the last few years. Kubrick managed it with 2001 : Space Odyssey, which was the last but one film I saw. Of course alien portal blocks that make you age in a few months and come back as an extra-terrestrial baby is not grounded in fact, but it's something one is ready to accept as it doesn't come about as false of phony / phalse or fony / my little pony. (of / or is interchangable in my Dutch-influenced language construct.)
The danger with SS is cute (strange that Steven Spielberg's initials are SS as in Wehrmacht etc.) This destroyed Schindler's Lifts / List, which was going wonderfully until the extended close ups of various kids in the Warsaw Ghetto. No emoting kids please, the film didn't need it. And the scene where Oskar Schindler parts with his workers is one of the most emetic scenese in the anals of cinama history. Yet that film had Liam Neeson looking fantastic in Janusz Kaminsky B&W, and a star turn from old Ralphy Feinnes. AI had nothing, except maybe Jude Law who could probably be lovable in a Brittney Spears video. The Joley Haley Osmety actor person was actually not that bad, for all the emoting and cuteness - I knew he was just a droid so that was OK, I could really take HJO / JHO in a way I never could imagine. Think of his speech at the Oscars where he said something to Jamie Bell and made JB look adult and mature. But SS messed it up completely by having the winsomeness transfer to the Teddy bear. Ugh-a-rama!
Some of the implausibilities in AI (let's drop the punctuation)
- Why didn't they give the kid robot to a couple with a real dead kid with no chance of resurrection?
- Why didn't they do psychological profiling on the mother, who was obvously completely mad?
- Why weren't the scientists controlling the experiment?
- How could they lose a robot? Haven't they heard of GPS / GSM etc.?
Enough of the first part of the film. In the stupid third act the following didn't work for me:
- If the seas froze, the level of the sea would drop and so Manhatten would no longer be buried.
- If the skyscapers were encased in ice they would be destroyed as ice moves!
- There was a shot of a skyscraper fallen half-over - buildings don't collapse like that.
- How come the (what was it called) aquatocopter wasn't crushed under all that ice, idem the Blue Fairy statue that shattered when David gently touched it?
- How come the batteries in the robot boy and ted were working 2000 years later?
- How come the robots performed flawlessly after 2000 years?
- How come experiences stored in the fabric of the space-time continuum can only be re-lived once?
Etc.
There was just too much implausibility. Kubrick's 2001 didn;t have that, Matrix had a bit but not enough for me to be annoyed.
I'm always reminded of that Stallone film (forgotten the name) where he comes back to fight Wesley Snipes after years in cryogenic suspension. Where there is the joke about the swearing detector that backfires as they realise they have to maintain this conceit for the whole length of the film. So that later when Sly is cussing away you hear the machine issuing fines in the background and no one takes any notice. Idea badly executed, should have been cut. Lazy film making.
One thing intrigues me though - the robot that William Hurt stabbed in the first scene proceeds to fix her lipstick - cut to the mother and father in their "Robin Reliant" with the mother fixing her lipstick. I honestly thought the mother and the robot were the same. I'm confused about that. It doesn't make any sense, but the lipstick was surely deliberate. Must search the web for an answer sometime...
Today I got a double DVD of Powell and Pressburger's A Matter of / Life and Death / of Colonel Blimp. (Never noticed that L & D were common) What a wonderful fantastical story AMOLAD is, with it's stairway to heaven, celestial court room, cheeky special effects, and bags of humanity and compassion. I never tire of watching these films. I'll never intentionally watch AI again, there's no point.
Last night saw Speilberg's A.I. (or as I should say A.I. Artificial Intelligence, Yanks being unable to distinguish A.I. and A.1. which is a type of ketchup. See Madness of George III, Licens/ce Revoked etc.) Anyway, /Minor Rant. Back to A.I. - what a mess, what an awful film. It was really the sort of Sci-Fi stuff I could write when I was 12 years old. Nothing made sense, the whole thing was choc full of potholes, er plot holes. SS seemed unable to distinguish the fantastical from the implausible, like so many, many Sci-Fi films. And probably books only I don't read SF in general, bar Asimovs years ago (mostly hole free) and Ballard (mostly deviant and not really anything to do with technology, just human madness.)
Sci-Fi that does not have huge plausibility gaps - Matrix managed it, almost uniquely in the last few years. Kubrick managed it with 2001 : Space Odyssey, which was the last but one film I saw. Of course alien portal blocks that make you age in a few months and come back as an extra-terrestrial baby is not grounded in fact, but it's something one is ready to accept as it doesn't come about as false of phony / phalse or fony / my little pony. (of / or is interchangable in my Dutch-influenced language construct.)
The danger with SS is cute (strange that Steven Spielberg's initials are SS as in Wehrmacht etc.) This destroyed Schindler's Lifts / List, which was going wonderfully until the extended close ups of various kids in the Warsaw Ghetto. No emoting kids please, the film didn't need it. And the scene where Oskar Schindler parts with his workers is one of the most emetic scenese in the anals of cinama history. Yet that film had Liam Neeson looking fantastic in Janusz Kaminsky B&W, and a star turn from old Ralphy Feinnes. AI had nothing, except maybe Jude Law who could probably be lovable in a Brittney Spears video. The Joley Haley Osmety actor person was actually not that bad, for all the emoting and cuteness - I knew he was just a droid so that was OK, I could really take HJO / JHO in a way I never could imagine. Think of his speech at the Oscars where he said something to Jamie Bell and made JB look adult and mature. But SS messed it up completely by having the winsomeness transfer to the Teddy bear. Ugh-a-rama!
Some of the implausibilities in AI (let's drop the punctuation)
- Why didn't they give the kid robot to a couple with a real dead kid with no chance of resurrection?
- Why didn't they do psychological profiling on the mother, who was obvously completely mad?
- Why weren't the scientists controlling the experiment?
- How could they lose a robot? Haven't they heard of GPS / GSM etc.?
Enough of the first part of the film. In the stupid third act the following didn't work for me:
- If the seas froze, the level of the sea would drop and so Manhatten would no longer be buried.
- If the skyscapers were encased in ice they would be destroyed as ice moves!
- There was a shot of a skyscraper fallen half-over - buildings don't collapse like that.
- How come the (what was it called) aquatocopter wasn't crushed under all that ice, idem the Blue Fairy statue that shattered when David gently touched it?
- How come the batteries in the robot boy and ted were working 2000 years later?
- How come the robots performed flawlessly after 2000 years?
- How come experiences stored in the fabric of the space-time continuum can only be re-lived once?
Etc.
There was just too much implausibility. Kubrick's 2001 didn;t have that, Matrix had a bit but not enough for me to be annoyed.
I'm always reminded of that Stallone film (forgotten the name) where he comes back to fight Wesley Snipes after years in cryogenic suspension. Where there is the joke about the swearing detector that backfires as they realise they have to maintain this conceit for the whole length of the film. So that later when Sly is cussing away you hear the machine issuing fines in the background and no one takes any notice. Idea badly executed, should have been cut. Lazy film making.
One thing intrigues me though - the robot that William Hurt stabbed in the first scene proceeds to fix her lipstick - cut to the mother and father in their "Robin Reliant" with the mother fixing her lipstick. I honestly thought the mother and the robot were the same. I'm confused about that. It doesn't make any sense, but the lipstick was surely deliberate. Must search the web for an answer sometime...
Today I got a double DVD of Powell and Pressburger's A Matter of / Life and Death / of Colonel Blimp. (Never noticed that L & D were common) What a wonderful fantastical story AMOLAD is, with it's stairway to heaven, celestial court room, cheeky special effects, and bags of humanity and compassion. I never tire of watching these films. I'll never intentionally watch AI again, there's no point.
Thursday 27 March 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)