After seeing most of the Coen brother's films I was shocked when I saw the Hudsucker Proxy. This film is...different. After hearing the discussion in class it is easy for me to say that this film was just the Coen brother's poking fun at Hollywood by venting their feelings through their craft. This interpretation makes complete sense. I see all the evidence in the film that points to making fun of Hollywood, especially the mail room idea. However, I cannot help but feel that this interpretation is a bit of a cop-out.
This was their first studio production. Why would they treat it like a joke. They already got their fears of studio production out of the way in the content of Barton Fink. They knew how the game of Hollywood would need to be played. I think this was their perfect opportunity to create a film that true to their own nature and to appease Hollywood. They have done such since the release of the Proxy. If this really was their attempt at making a film in Hollywood then they did a horrible job, maybe this was their one dud of creativity.
Honestly, to take studio money that many aspiring filmmakers would kill for and to make a joke of a film is a complete slap in the face to fellow artists. If they want to stick to their own quirky films with low budgets then they should have stuck to it rather than selling out, and then making a complete shit film.
Who knows? This film might just be apart of their overall style gone wrong. Hopefully not. I could see some of their style leaking through. They had eccentric characters. This film was also highly stylized. I have noticed in some of their films there is always this one character who talks A LOT! In this instance it was the woman who was the reporter. She was quite annoying and should have been slapped in the face. I was honestly surprised at Tim Robbins. However, Charles Durning and Paul Newman did an awesome job.
I really don't know if I believe this film is a joke or not. I don't want to because my opinion of the Coen brothers would be affected. Part of me wants to believe that they just had a bad idea...but that would also affect my opinion of them. No matter what I do something is affected. Who knows? Maybe the Coen brothers are having a great big laugh right now because we are all giving this film/failure way too much thought. I think I will just erase this travesty from my mind.
Monday, April 25, 2011
The Big Little Lebowski
There are so many things to say about The Big Lebowski. I will admit that the first time I tried to watch this film I only made it through the first half hour. I know what I did wrong. I had all of these expectations of the film. I heard things from my older sister and some friends, so I expected it to be _____. However, this time was I was forced to watch it for this class. I went into my screening with the correct mindset. I expected nothing. I found myself to be completely shocked about this film. It was so awesome! This film was completely different from any other that I had seen before. I believe one of the things that was so different from the mainstream was that it did not present its meaning to the audience. This film requires that the audience chisel what ever they want to take away themselves.
This film allows for many interpretations. After reading the related article I can see the possible underlying meanings. However, after giving credit to those I have my own theories. I think what makes this film so unique is that you can't apply just one meaning of idea to it. It is sort of like life, it is so complex and can be interpreted in different ways depending on the point of view. This film would have never become a commercial success because it does not pander to the average american audience. This film is for the type of people who love cult classics. It is impossible to assign a definition to exactly who those people are, but I will attempt to describe what constitutes a cult classic.
There was one point that was brought up in class that I really liked. A cult classic has a unique quotability to it. There are lines from the film that resonate with the audience. They may be goofy lines, but there is this reason that they seem to apply to our own lives. This points to the reality of the film in question and the all-too-real characters. Also cult films are films that can be watched an unlimited amount of times. I do not know why this is. These are films that never tire the inclined audience. Each new view presents the audience with new things to take away. These films are open to unlimited intellectual conversations. I believe that cult classics are limited to films that do horribly at the box office. What is the fun in having a film like Saving Private Ryan as a cult classic...well it isn't. I could never watch that more than once, and there really is nothing to be said afterwords. The best films always leave the audience thinking. The Big Lebowski does this phenomenally.
This film allows for many interpretations. After reading the related article I can see the possible underlying meanings. However, after giving credit to those I have my own theories. I think what makes this film so unique is that you can't apply just one meaning of idea to it. It is sort of like life, it is so complex and can be interpreted in different ways depending on the point of view. This film would have never become a commercial success because it does not pander to the average american audience. This film is for the type of people who love cult classics. It is impossible to assign a definition to exactly who those people are, but I will attempt to describe what constitutes a cult classic.
There was one point that was brought up in class that I really liked. A cult classic has a unique quotability to it. There are lines from the film that resonate with the audience. They may be goofy lines, but there is this reason that they seem to apply to our own lives. This points to the reality of the film in question and the all-too-real characters. Also cult films are films that can be watched an unlimited amount of times. I do not know why this is. These are films that never tire the inclined audience. Each new view presents the audience with new things to take away. These films are open to unlimited intellectual conversations. I believe that cult classics are limited to films that do horribly at the box office. What is the fun in having a film like Saving Private Ryan as a cult classic...well it isn't. I could never watch that more than once, and there really is nothing to be said afterwords. The best films always leave the audience thinking. The Big Lebowski does this phenomenally.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Cuckoo
Research is imperative to any film with a similar setting to ONFOCN. The film has to seem real. There are millions of people who can relate to how the hospital works. Doctors would be able to point out mistakes. Family members of the committed would be able to point out if a certain character was over-acted. Shooting and acting for a film like this is a huge undertaking. Things have to be researched or the film looses all credibility.
Specifically, this book was written about 13 years before the film came out. In the world of medicine/science information and fact changes rapidly. Ten years is a lifetime of knowledge. I used to own a psychology textbook from the 1970's. If professionals were to read it today many parts of the book would be considered wrong.
Do you know how to play a "crazy" person? I don't. I would feel more comfortable researching the part rather than just walking on to the set.
Both articles make very good points. However, the younger nurses perspective was more detailed than the older nurse. She gave a more comprehensive analysis of the film and the characters within. Both Randall and Ratched were portrayed excellently.
Specifically, this book was written about 13 years before the film came out. In the world of medicine/science information and fact changes rapidly. Ten years is a lifetime of knowledge. I used to own a psychology textbook from the 1970's. If professionals were to read it today many parts of the book would be considered wrong.
Do you know how to play a "crazy" person? I don't. I would feel more comfortable researching the part rather than just walking on to the set.
Both articles make very good points. However, the younger nurses perspective was more detailed than the older nurse. She gave a more comprehensive analysis of the film and the characters within. Both Randall and Ratched were portrayed excellently.
The Wild Western and its Wonders
If anyone were to ask me if Rio Bravo should be considered a western, my answer would be yes. This film is a classic western showing delicate civilization on the edge of a lawless frontier. Rio Bravo has all of those stereotypical western features as well as some unconventional ones.
All the classic elements are there. The revolver, spurs, saloons, goofy minorities, and tobacco. The setting is in the American west. The conflict is between civilized order of the town and between the lawless ranch owner. Chance is the maverick that has his trusty sidekicks like stumpy and the Mexican.
Dude is the nomadic wanderer and the Damsel in distress. This is more unconventional. He is wandering back to his roots after having a bit of bad luck with love. He is a mess. He needs the help of his friends. He needs to be saved. Chance has to do this multiple times in the film. He will save him from alcohol or from the clutches of rancher Nathan.
Rio Bravo is different from conventional westerns because it is not a shootem' up type. Chance is not running out into the west to tame it. He remains defensively in the town to preserve the peace and order. He is just doing his job and arrests a murderer and holds him until the Marshal can get there. Chance will not give into corruption, he will not release Joe to his powerful brother Nathan.
Feather's character is also a bit unconventional for a western. She does not match the typical female archetype in these films. She is not the damsel. She is a strong independent woman who braves death to protect her romantic interest: Chance. This was one of the first times I actually enjoyed a female character in a western. She actually pulls her weight and doesn't just bitch the entire time. The only other character who I admired, even though she was annoying and bitchy, was Little sis' from True Grit.
This film may have some unconventional elements for a western, but that does not mean that it is not a western. It is a real western.
All the classic elements are there. The revolver, spurs, saloons, goofy minorities, and tobacco. The setting is in the American west. The conflict is between civilized order of the town and between the lawless ranch owner. Chance is the maverick that has his trusty sidekicks like stumpy and the Mexican.
Dude is the nomadic wanderer and the Damsel in distress. This is more unconventional. He is wandering back to his roots after having a bit of bad luck with love. He is a mess. He needs the help of his friends. He needs to be saved. Chance has to do this multiple times in the film. He will save him from alcohol or from the clutches of rancher Nathan.
Rio Bravo is different from conventional westerns because it is not a shootem' up type. Chance is not running out into the west to tame it. He remains defensively in the town to preserve the peace and order. He is just doing his job and arrests a murderer and holds him until the Marshal can get there. Chance will not give into corruption, he will not release Joe to his powerful brother Nathan.
Feather's character is also a bit unconventional for a western. She does not match the typical female archetype in these films. She is not the damsel. She is a strong independent woman who braves death to protect her romantic interest: Chance. This was one of the first times I actually enjoyed a female character in a western. She actually pulls her weight and doesn't just bitch the entire time. The only other character who I admired, even though she was annoying and bitchy, was Little sis' from True Grit.
This film may have some unconventional elements for a western, but that does not mean that it is not a western. It is a real western.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Mon Oncle: Détails, Détails, Détails!
My first impression watching this film was pure delight. It had been awhile since I had seen an older french film. It is interesting to note this film was made on the brink of the birth of the New Wave. Anyways, I was surprised to find out that my classmates did not enjoy the film. After hearing some of their complaints I can understand, but I still disagree.
The first concern of my classmates was that the film was too long. I can understand this, but I remained interested for the length of the film. The part that bothered me was the ending. The father and son just "reconciled" immediately. It felt like a let down especially when the entire, and arguably long film had to lead up to this moment. Surprisingly no one mentioned that in class.
I really admire Tati's attention to detail. He does get bogged down in the details, but it does add to the charm of his film. There are examples of where this would go wrong in a film. The Thin Red Line sticks out as the most obvious example of a director being very detail oriented and methodical. I can cite examples from other movies where I wish they had paid more attention to detail. Martin Scorcese's films are to be noted. I would like to make clear that I respect martin Scorcese and absolutely regard his films as art. However, there are some scenes in Goodfellas where Big Paulie is smoking and there is a cut in the film. The cigar is not in his mouth or it is "less" smoked than a second before. This is also true of drinks. In other director's films the level of drink will change within seconds. I find that these inconsistencies take me out of the reality of the film. Tati's attention to detail made his film more enjoyable and hilarious. It also insured that his film is pure art. He always kept true to his character's little ticks. The mother with the fish fountain, having the trimming of the tree paying off, the garage door. It was all believable. This attention to detail sucked the audience into this reality.
The theme of this film is the transformation of old an new France. This town seems to be stuck in-between old world charm and cold modernity (even the impracticality of the new). This theme was presented in a light hearted way and with an artistic set design to contrast the two areas. Also the most unique way this was presented was with minimal dialogue. Most people think of dialogue to be the backbone of a film. However, this film removed the importance of speech and focused on actions and the environment. Most of the time you just see the Oncle doing things and screwing them up. He barely has any lines in the entire film. The boy also has very few lines, but the audience also witnesses the boy between these two worlds. The dialogue with the parents is minimal. We just see how they act in their environment.
Mon Oncle really provided a notable theme in a very unique method. It was almost a silent film made in a booming age of modernity. Perhaps this was Tati's intention.
The first concern of my classmates was that the film was too long. I can understand this, but I remained interested for the length of the film. The part that bothered me was the ending. The father and son just "reconciled" immediately. It felt like a let down especially when the entire, and arguably long film had to lead up to this moment. Surprisingly no one mentioned that in class.
I really admire Tati's attention to detail. He does get bogged down in the details, but it does add to the charm of his film. There are examples of where this would go wrong in a film. The Thin Red Line sticks out as the most obvious example of a director being very detail oriented and methodical. I can cite examples from other movies where I wish they had paid more attention to detail. Martin Scorcese's films are to be noted. I would like to make clear that I respect martin Scorcese and absolutely regard his films as art. However, there are some scenes in Goodfellas where Big Paulie is smoking and there is a cut in the film. The cigar is not in his mouth or it is "less" smoked than a second before. This is also true of drinks. In other director's films the level of drink will change within seconds. I find that these inconsistencies take me out of the reality of the film. Tati's attention to detail made his film more enjoyable and hilarious. It also insured that his film is pure art. He always kept true to his character's little ticks. The mother with the fish fountain, having the trimming of the tree paying off, the garage door. It was all believable. This attention to detail sucked the audience into this reality.
The theme of this film is the transformation of old an new France. This town seems to be stuck in-between old world charm and cold modernity (even the impracticality of the new). This theme was presented in a light hearted way and with an artistic set design to contrast the two areas. Also the most unique way this was presented was with minimal dialogue. Most people think of dialogue to be the backbone of a film. However, this film removed the importance of speech and focused on actions and the environment. Most of the time you just see the Oncle doing things and screwing them up. He barely has any lines in the entire film. The boy also has very few lines, but the audience also witnesses the boy between these two worlds. The dialogue with the parents is minimal. We just see how they act in their environment.
Mon Oncle really provided a notable theme in a very unique method. It was almost a silent film made in a booming age of modernity. Perhaps this was Tati's intention.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Documentary about NOTHING
McElwee is a talented story teller. He makes the most mundane everyday activities and experience seem interesting. I found that the way he narrated the film was what brought me in. It was like reading a book by one of my favorite authors. His voice was comforting and sedated. It just lured me in. The way he narrates and his subject matter is so real. Every person that is shown is so fresh and uninhibited. That drew me in even more.
It seems like everyday people should not act like that in front of the camera. However, his family is probably very used to it. The actress was probably used to being filmed. However, even the background people were just completely natural. I found myself loving this!
Honestly this documentary made me think. About small stuff. About big stuff. Thinking about life in general.
Not everyone can make a documentary about their day to day adventures. This was evidenced by Guetta. He did a horrible job. Watching his film was like nails on a chalkboard. Just awful. However, McElwee has a talent for this.
I don't know what it is about him. He was just cool and relaxed, just completely natural. Real. It is a nice break from other films and have just having people on film just "being". McElwee was just comfortable in front of the camera. His ease put the audience at ease.
A documentary about NOTHING. Not such a bad thing.
It seems like everyday people should not act like that in front of the camera. However, his family is probably very used to it. The actress was probably used to being filmed. However, even the background people were just completely natural. I found myself loving this!
Honestly this documentary made me think. About small stuff. About big stuff. Thinking about life in general.
Not everyone can make a documentary about their day to day adventures. This was evidenced by Guetta. He did a horrible job. Watching his film was like nails on a chalkboard. Just awful. However, McElwee has a talent for this.
I don't know what it is about him. He was just cool and relaxed, just completely natural. Real. It is a nice break from other films and have just having people on film just "being". McElwee was just comfortable in front of the camera. His ease put the audience at ease.
A documentary about NOTHING. Not such a bad thing.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Pranksy
Exit Through The Gift Shop has many messages. Off the top of my head these are the messages that I can think of:
Art is a sham.
Consumers are idiots.
--art consumers especially.
----art is brainwashing
Not everyone should try and make art.
Artists have rules about the trade---but wait! Hypocrisy. Perhaps it is about the hypocrisy the of the art world. Banksy comments on this at the end when he says that Mr. Brainwash did not follow the rules of an artist. Then he says that there are no rules...or at least there are not supposed to be any.
Is this film a hoax? To me it does not really matter. I take the multiplicity of messages to heart. And it makes me laugh. I found myself asking if this was at all real. However, I watched the movie and got messages out of it. Isn't that the purpose of a documentary?
But, if you are going to put a gun to my head...do I trust it? I wouldn't say that I do. No. I don't. How can I? It is not just pure coincidence that his alias is Mr. Brainwash--that has direct relationship to one of my themes of the film.
Any film manipulates its audience through a variety of tools, including the way the film is actually arranged. Any good filmmaker will arrange the film to capture the audience or draw a certain response.
Given Banksy's reputation makes it entirely possible and likely that this film is a hoax. But, does it really matter? Perhaps it adds to the meaning of the film. Art is a sham, so the film should be a sham.
People read too much into everything. If the story is real or not I still have taken away messages that I can apply to my view of life.
Art is a sham.
Consumers are idiots.
--art consumers especially.
----art is brainwashing
Not everyone should try and make art.
Artists have rules about the trade---but wait! Hypocrisy. Perhaps it is about the hypocrisy the of the art world. Banksy comments on this at the end when he says that Mr. Brainwash did not follow the rules of an artist. Then he says that there are no rules...or at least there are not supposed to be any.
Is this film a hoax? To me it does not really matter. I take the multiplicity of messages to heart. And it makes me laugh. I found myself asking if this was at all real. However, I watched the movie and got messages out of it. Isn't that the purpose of a documentary?
But, if you are going to put a gun to my head...do I trust it? I wouldn't say that I do. No. I don't. How can I? It is not just pure coincidence that his alias is Mr. Brainwash--that has direct relationship to one of my themes of the film.
Any film manipulates its audience through a variety of tools, including the way the film is actually arranged. Any good filmmaker will arrange the film to capture the audience or draw a certain response.
Given Banksy's reputation makes it entirely possible and likely that this film is a hoax. But, does it really matter? Perhaps it adds to the meaning of the film. Art is a sham, so the film should be a sham.
People read too much into everything. If the story is real or not I still have taken away messages that I can apply to my view of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)