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.   

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. 

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. 

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.