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.
Harry should have never met Sally
I am not sure if I should be commenting on When Harry Met Sally. It is out of the genres to which I am particular. I am not going to say that I hate romantic comedies. I find some of them bearable. Some of them can be funny at times. However, this movie did not succeed at all in my mind. I barely made it through.
This is the most recent romantic comedy that I have seen. Before this movie I have seen a multiplicity of romantic comedies. So the stories have been played to death. They are essentially all the same. Each time I see one of those movies I am entertained less and less. Maybe Harry and Sally got the bad draw. My patience was up.
Many consider this movie to be iconic in the romantic comedy genre. I would disagree. Sure this may be the more modern and risque version, but romantic comedies have been around for a long time. They all have the similar theme. Many would say that this film started the many cliches contained in today's movies. Harry and Sally laid out the archetype map for everyone else. This movie is a giant cliche and an insult to love. The woman is a stereotype that does not provide a relatable character for any normal woman watching. Billy Crystal plays the unattractive carefree man who somehow gets the pretty girl. They are successful in love in the hustle & bustle of NYC. Plus the entire movie is filed with "witty" dialogue...more like playful banter with undertones of sexual tension. This creates this falsehood that society likes to believe exists. It does not.
Don't get me wrong. I believe in love. I even believe in that true-love-fairytail-conquers all-no obstacles-soulmate stuff. This movie does not embody any of this.
Seeing as how I don't like the movie I cannot imagine that it would stand the test of time. However, to my surprise it still remains an icon of pop culture. Will this iconography fade over time? I am not sure. I hope it does fade.
This is the most recent romantic comedy that I have seen. Before this movie I have seen a multiplicity of romantic comedies. So the stories have been played to death. They are essentially all the same. Each time I see one of those movies I am entertained less and less. Maybe Harry and Sally got the bad draw. My patience was up.
Many consider this movie to be iconic in the romantic comedy genre. I would disagree. Sure this may be the more modern and risque version, but romantic comedies have been around for a long time. They all have the similar theme. Many would say that this film started the many cliches contained in today's movies. Harry and Sally laid out the archetype map for everyone else. This movie is a giant cliche and an insult to love. The woman is a stereotype that does not provide a relatable character for any normal woman watching. Billy Crystal plays the unattractive carefree man who somehow gets the pretty girl. They are successful in love in the hustle & bustle of NYC. Plus the entire movie is filed with "witty" dialogue...more like playful banter with undertones of sexual tension. This creates this falsehood that society likes to believe exists. It does not.
Don't get me wrong. I believe in love. I even believe in that true-love-fairytail-conquers all-no obstacles-soulmate stuff. This movie does not embody any of this.
Seeing as how I don't like the movie I cannot imagine that it would stand the test of time. However, to my surprise it still remains an icon of pop culture. Will this iconography fade over time? I am not sure. I hope it does fade.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Thin Red Movie
Based on the films that I have seen thus far in my life a plot is necessary for a film to be considered "good". Plot is what keeps the audience interested in the film. Any screenwriting book that I have ever read demands that there needs to be some sort of want by the main character. It is what gets them up from sipping coffee at the kitchen table. This simple want is what puts the plot in motion. If this is equated to our own lives it is quite simple. There has to be a want that gets me out of bed each morning. First want may be primal, but I want breakfast. My day has started. If I was just a depressed person then I would never get out of bed and there would be no story to my life. BORING.
A film could have the most interesting characters, but if they are not doing anything (not that we would know that they are interesting from lack of plot) then the audience does not care about them or really what happens to them. The audience will not care about the outcome, because there is no outcome. No plot = no outcome.
A film can be beautiful because of the score, the cinematography, the dialogue, and essentially everything else. However, if there is no story then the film is crap. What is the point of that. It is sort of like a photo of a flower. Beautiful, but I am not going to look at this photo for two hours.
It could be argued that the Thin Red Line used the element of not having a plot to its advantage. Perhaps it was a tool. This movies was completely anti-war. Maybe the directer wanted to show that soldiers in war do not have a "plot" besides survival. This survival is just day to day battling. No one is going after the salvation of humanity. Perhaps war has no "plot". However, this interpretation did not work for me.
I was bored the entire film because NOTHING HAPPENED! I felt no emotional draw to the characters or anyone's situations. The film was a failure. It may seem cold that I say this, but it is true. Plot is essential to develop characters. There was no character development (and honestly too many characters) therefore I did not "know" any of these men. They were fake. They were not real for me, so I did not care about them.
Maybe if there was a plot then the message could have been delivered more economically and meaningfully. At the end of this film I felt nothing and thought nothing. My mind was bored to mush.
Films should absolutely be approached on a case by case basis. No two films are alike, so they should not all be treated the same. A film is a director's craft. Their art. He/She should do whatever their vision is. However, the audience is not obligated to like the film. From the audience's criticisms it is up to the director how they will take it. Should they do something different or should they stick to their guns and keep making art they way they like it? Completely up to them. Art is subjective. There is no one formula for a film that everyone will enjoy.
The director's vision for the Thin Red Line was a failure for the audience. It was a mess. Sure film is unpredictable, but it is the filmmaker's responsibility to control the content of their film. He failed to relate his message to the audience. He failed his vision.
A film could have the most interesting characters, but if they are not doing anything (not that we would know that they are interesting from lack of plot) then the audience does not care about them or really what happens to them. The audience will not care about the outcome, because there is no outcome. No plot = no outcome.
A film can be beautiful because of the score, the cinematography, the dialogue, and essentially everything else. However, if there is no story then the film is crap. What is the point of that. It is sort of like a photo of a flower. Beautiful, but I am not going to look at this photo for two hours.
It could be argued that the Thin Red Line used the element of not having a plot to its advantage. Perhaps it was a tool. This movies was completely anti-war. Maybe the directer wanted to show that soldiers in war do not have a "plot" besides survival. This survival is just day to day battling. No one is going after the salvation of humanity. Perhaps war has no "plot". However, this interpretation did not work for me.
I was bored the entire film because NOTHING HAPPENED! I felt no emotional draw to the characters or anyone's situations. The film was a failure. It may seem cold that I say this, but it is true. Plot is essential to develop characters. There was no character development (and honestly too many characters) therefore I did not "know" any of these men. They were fake. They were not real for me, so I did not care about them.
Maybe if there was a plot then the message could have been delivered more economically and meaningfully. At the end of this film I felt nothing and thought nothing. My mind was bored to mush.
Films should absolutely be approached on a case by case basis. No two films are alike, so they should not all be treated the same. A film is a director's craft. Their art. He/She should do whatever their vision is. However, the audience is not obligated to like the film. From the audience's criticisms it is up to the director how they will take it. Should they do something different or should they stick to their guns and keep making art they way they like it? Completely up to them. Art is subjective. There is no one formula for a film that everyone will enjoy.
The director's vision for the Thin Red Line was a failure for the audience. It was a mess. Sure film is unpredictable, but it is the filmmaker's responsibility to control the content of their film. He failed to relate his message to the audience. He failed his vision.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Necessity of Pan's Labyrinth
Even though Pan's Labyrinth was a "fantasy" film, it was also realistic. This realism is what makes the film so great.
Having the story occur with a real historic even adds to the "believability" and the ability for the audience to relate to the situation of the characters. One of the keys to a great film is that every element adds to the plot/story. Nothing is able to be trimmed. Lets say that the civil war was chopped out. Now where is my real life situation? The variables that the war brought help bring out the character of the Captain, and just how evil he was. If there was no civil war then the Captain would have been home rather than tending to the outpost. This means Ofelia would have never gone and met the faun. The civil war was a necessary tool to get Ofelia on her journey.
It can also be argued that the director/writer could have used some other scenario instead of the civil war. Perhaps something that would have never happened in our history. This would be horribly useless. An audience needs this fantasy to be pulled back to reality. The audience needs to relate. The ability to relate to a story allows the audience to become more accepting of the validity and therefore, more emotionally invested in the characters/protagonist. The more emotionally invested the audience is the larger the emotional release/catharsis is in the end of the film. I am not saying this means the audience will take this story as history. As a member of the audience I allow a film I watch (a convincing one) to throw me into their "story" or "reality". I become apart of the story.
The civil war was essential to the story. Ofelia needed to escape our world and get to her real parents. This is a spanish film. So the director needed to pick an even that was notable to him and to his people. This would definitely be a spanish historical event.
The civil war also made this fantasy more for adults who could understand the events that had already happened.
Sure, this film could have been told as a gothic fantasy. However, it would have not been as effective. It would have just been another wacky fantasy movie. Elements of the story are subjective to the director and producers. His choice was necessary to the success of his film being unique and not just another "kiddie" fairy tale.
Both worlds were needed.
The themes of obedience/disobedience and sacrifice occurred throughout the film. Ofelia had to deal with the obedience factor with her mother, the Captain, and the faun. She would be disobedient to all of the characters, but eventually she would become obedient toward some of them. For instance she destroys the dress that her mother got her and gets filthy for the dinner party . Ofelia does feel remorse about the stress that she causes her mother. Also she places the bowl of the mandrake root and milk underneath her mother's bed knowing the Captain would not approve. She also does not listen to the faun about her mission and causes the fairies deaths. She would eventually come to listen to the faun and try to follow his rules. She also decides not to grow up like her mother mentioned when she saw Ofelia was still reading fairy tale books. Ofelia chooses a completely different world. Her biggest disobedience would be leaving the kingdom because of her curiosity.
The theme of sacrifice in the film was beautifully presented. At first it seems like she would have to sacrifice her brother to get back to her kingdom, but that would not really be a sacrifice at all. Like the faun tells Ofelia that she does not even know this child that has caused her so much trouble. Ofelia denies the faun and makes the ultimate sacrifice of not being able to go home for her little brother, which would allow the Captain to shoot her. She sacrificed herself instead of her brother which would allow for her to go back to the kingdom.
This ending was fantastic and allowed for an intense emotional release of the audience.
Perfect.
Having the story occur with a real historic even adds to the "believability" and the ability for the audience to relate to the situation of the characters. One of the keys to a great film is that every element adds to the plot/story. Nothing is able to be trimmed. Lets say that the civil war was chopped out. Now where is my real life situation? The variables that the war brought help bring out the character of the Captain, and just how evil he was. If there was no civil war then the Captain would have been home rather than tending to the outpost. This means Ofelia would have never gone and met the faun. The civil war was a necessary tool to get Ofelia on her journey.
It can also be argued that the director/writer could have used some other scenario instead of the civil war. Perhaps something that would have never happened in our history. This would be horribly useless. An audience needs this fantasy to be pulled back to reality. The audience needs to relate. The ability to relate to a story allows the audience to become more accepting of the validity and therefore, more emotionally invested in the characters/protagonist. The more emotionally invested the audience is the larger the emotional release/catharsis is in the end of the film. I am not saying this means the audience will take this story as history. As a member of the audience I allow a film I watch (a convincing one) to throw me into their "story" or "reality". I become apart of the story.
The civil war was essential to the story. Ofelia needed to escape our world and get to her real parents. This is a spanish film. So the director needed to pick an even that was notable to him and to his people. This would definitely be a spanish historical event.
The civil war also made this fantasy more for adults who could understand the events that had already happened.
Sure, this film could have been told as a gothic fantasy. However, it would have not been as effective. It would have just been another wacky fantasy movie. Elements of the story are subjective to the director and producers. His choice was necessary to the success of his film being unique and not just another "kiddie" fairy tale.
Both worlds were needed.
The themes of obedience/disobedience and sacrifice occurred throughout the film. Ofelia had to deal with the obedience factor with her mother, the Captain, and the faun. She would be disobedient to all of the characters, but eventually she would become obedient toward some of them. For instance she destroys the dress that her mother got her and gets filthy for the dinner party . Ofelia does feel remorse about the stress that she causes her mother. Also she places the bowl of the mandrake root and milk underneath her mother's bed knowing the Captain would not approve. She also does not listen to the faun about her mission and causes the fairies deaths. She would eventually come to listen to the faun and try to follow his rules. She also decides not to grow up like her mother mentioned when she saw Ofelia was still reading fairy tale books. Ofelia chooses a completely different world. Her biggest disobedience would be leaving the kingdom because of her curiosity.
The theme of sacrifice in the film was beautifully presented. At first it seems like she would have to sacrifice her brother to get back to her kingdom, but that would not really be a sacrifice at all. Like the faun tells Ofelia that she does not even know this child that has caused her so much trouble. Ofelia denies the faun and makes the ultimate sacrifice of not being able to go home for her little brother, which would allow the Captain to shoot her. She sacrificed herself instead of her brother which would allow for her to go back to the kingdom.
This ending was fantastic and allowed for an intense emotional release of the audience.
Perfect.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Reality Regarding Robocop
The violence in Robocop was not realistic. The violence was conducted in a mock sort of way. This might be my interpretation because they did not have the special effects that we have today to make the violence sequences realistic. However, I believe that it was the director's choice to make the violence cheesy.
Honestly, the violence and gore and me laughing. It was just so ridiculous. There was a moment I was "horrified". One of the gang members was engulfed by toxic waste. His skin began to melt. I was not horrified because this was realistic, only because it was a bit gross.
This movie was in no way realistic. The setting is in an alternate Detroit that has robot capabilities. It is an alternate reality. I always found myself looking in on the characters and their conflicts from the outside. Never able to connect. There is a direct relationship to the violence that the character receives and gives out. The audience is detached, and therefore, can take it lightly.
This can be compared to Pan's Labyrinth. This film is arguably way more unrealistic than Robocop. However, it was real to me. I felt this emotional connection to the story, and more importantly to Ofelia. When the Captain showed disdain or even hinted at violence toward Ofelia, I felt anger toward the man. The violence was perfect in serving its purpose as an emotional trigger. The violence made that film all the more real.
The audience is also removed from the story because the character is 99% robot. He has mental programming to defend people from bad guys even if it means enacting violence toward that person. In this instance there is no moral objections from the audience. Seeing a robot killing someone is completely difference from seeing another human being killing someone.
It is easy to support the protagonist when he is killing the bad guys because they deserve to be punished after what they did to him. So the audience is more likely to get behind the protagonist's actions. However, if he decided to shoot a random person in the face this would no longer be the case.
Robocop is certainly a unique film, but artistic? Art is subjective. In my eyes Robocop is not artistic. However, this does not mean that I was not entertained by it, even if it was in a superficial way. Robocop is definitely an entertaining movie. The violence was hilarious, and was probably the only aspect of the film that could have been considered art.
Honestly, the violence and gore and me laughing. It was just so ridiculous. There was a moment I was "horrified". One of the gang members was engulfed by toxic waste. His skin began to melt. I was not horrified because this was realistic, only because it was a bit gross.
This movie was in no way realistic. The setting is in an alternate Detroit that has robot capabilities. It is an alternate reality. I always found myself looking in on the characters and their conflicts from the outside. Never able to connect. There is a direct relationship to the violence that the character receives and gives out. The audience is detached, and therefore, can take it lightly.
This can be compared to Pan's Labyrinth. This film is arguably way more unrealistic than Robocop. However, it was real to me. I felt this emotional connection to the story, and more importantly to Ofelia. When the Captain showed disdain or even hinted at violence toward Ofelia, I felt anger toward the man. The violence was perfect in serving its purpose as an emotional trigger. The violence made that film all the more real.
The audience is also removed from the story because the character is 99% robot. He has mental programming to defend people from bad guys even if it means enacting violence toward that person. In this instance there is no moral objections from the audience. Seeing a robot killing someone is completely difference from seeing another human being killing someone.
It is easy to support the protagonist when he is killing the bad guys because they deserve to be punished after what they did to him. So the audience is more likely to get behind the protagonist's actions. However, if he decided to shoot a random person in the face this would no longer be the case.
Robocop is certainly a unique film, but artistic? Art is subjective. In my eyes Robocop is not artistic. However, this does not mean that I was not entertained by it, even if it was in a superficial way. Robocop is definitely an entertaining movie. The violence was hilarious, and was probably the only aspect of the film that could have been considered art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)