I think the theme behind this film or at least the basic idea is that age old concept of "keeping up with the Joneses." The family in "Mon Oncle" is obsessed with being cutting edge, high status and modern at the expense of their comfort and happiness. The idea that people are materialistic and want to be well perceived by others is nothing new. It has been plaguing the world for some time. The film shows how in contrast, the uncle, who lives in the old part of town and is relatively poor/unemployed is happy in comparison to the rich family that lives in the modern house, most notably Gerard, the boy.
The several instances in the film in which the woman turns on her fountain for important guests further reinforces the idea of materialism and concern about perception by others. The meticulous set design helps to reinforce the idea of old vs. modern and man vs. technology. The color palette is greatly expanded in the old parts of town, notably where the uncle is from, while the interior of the modern house is drab and monochrome. The several instances of malfunctioning technology also tie in with the theme of materialism and sacrifice of happiness for status.
The family ultimately feels that having these things make them better people, but fail to see the harm it is doing their son. They also feel slight disdain for the uncle in his "immature" ways, but they all fail to see that they are the ones who should be taking a lesson from him.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
banksy
Banksy is far and away my favourite modern artist. I have been heavily interested in his work for many years and enjoy the political overtones displayed in a lot of his graffiti. His disdain for authority and "the system" helps to create a new genre of work, sort of an "anti-propaganda propaganda". His work reflects a bleak present and an even bleaker future, with warnings of an Orwellian government and the violent nature of man.
One of the most alluring facets of Banksy's personality is his anonymity. It was his total lack of identity that drew me to him in the first place, and it is with this in mind that "Exit Through the Gift Shop" was created. The message of the film seems to be a direct reflection of Banksy himself. The film has a strange multilayer presentation which has you questioning the authenticity of everything you see, just as any Banksy piece would.
I think the film was ultimately staged but realistic at the same time. It asks real questions and presents Banksy and the underground art scene faithfully, but includes the extra trimmings that make it more of a "narrative" than a "documentary". It's almost more of a publicity stunt than anything, but still quality overall. It's clever and achieves what Banksy sets out to do in the first place- raise questions. It fits in nicely with the other stuff Banksy has pulled, such as putting Guantanamo Bay prisoner mannequins in the Tom Sawyer ride at Disney, or stenciling a cop snorting a several-kilometer long line of coke.
One of the most alluring facets of Banksy's personality is his anonymity. It was his total lack of identity that drew me to him in the first place, and it is with this in mind that "Exit Through the Gift Shop" was created. The message of the film seems to be a direct reflection of Banksy himself. The film has a strange multilayer presentation which has you questioning the authenticity of everything you see, just as any Banksy piece would.
I think the film was ultimately staged but realistic at the same time. It asks real questions and presents Banksy and the underground art scene faithfully, but includes the extra trimmings that make it more of a "narrative" than a "documentary". It's almost more of a publicity stunt than anything, but still quality overall. It's clever and achieves what Banksy sets out to do in the first place- raise questions. It fits in nicely with the other stuff Banksy has pulled, such as putting Guantanamo Bay prisoner mannequins in the Tom Sawyer ride at Disney, or stenciling a cop snorting a several-kilometer long line of coke.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Harry meets Sally...
When Harry Met Sally is a classic rom-com that ditches most cliches of the genre, while possibly starting new one.
One of the first aspects of the film that seemed fresh to the genre was the mature approach to sex. The film contained heavy dialogue about the nature of friendship and sex between the genders as well as coarse language, giving the film a more real feel. Also in the film, Harry does not seem to be actively pursuing Sally, as they go for several years only occasionally meeting and never consummating the relationship. This is another cliche that is defied. The film also lacks a climactic chase sequence at the end.
The span of time covered in the film was new to the romantic comedy genre. Most prior to that point and also afterward focus on a shorter timeframe usually consisting of a few months, sometimes a year if there is an epilogue. WHMS spans for ten plus years.
The film, to me at least, seemed much less sentimental/sappy than most rom-coms tend to be. It had much more com than rom. The main couple wasn't even together for 9/10ths of the film.
With all this being said, I think that this film can be judged on its artistic merits as a film and not just a romantic comedy film. The film is cleverly structured, features great performances, and has an excellent soundtrack. It holds up well, even after 22 years.
One of the first aspects of the film that seemed fresh to the genre was the mature approach to sex. The film contained heavy dialogue about the nature of friendship and sex between the genders as well as coarse language, giving the film a more real feel. Also in the film, Harry does not seem to be actively pursuing Sally, as they go for several years only occasionally meeting and never consummating the relationship. This is another cliche that is defied. The film also lacks a climactic chase sequence at the end.
The span of time covered in the film was new to the romantic comedy genre. Most prior to that point and also afterward focus on a shorter timeframe usually consisting of a few months, sometimes a year if there is an epilogue. WHMS spans for ten plus years.
The film, to me at least, seemed much less sentimental/sappy than most rom-coms tend to be. It had much more com than rom. The main couple wasn't even together for 9/10ths of the film.
With all this being said, I think that this film can be judged on its artistic merits as a film and not just a romantic comedy film. The film is cleverly structured, features great performances, and has an excellent soundtrack. It holds up well, even after 22 years.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
TTRL
I personally do not feel that a movie HAS to have a plot, but it's better if it does. I've seen a lot of movies that drag on forever with seemingly no direction, some of Gus van Sant's films in particular (Elephant, Gerry). Sometimes it can work, and sometimes it just comes of as boring, pretentious, dull.
With van Sant's two films I mentioned, I think he performs at both ends of the spectrum. I think that Elephant is a wonderful film, and its slow pacing, sparse dialogue, and minimal action all blend together to really make you feel like you are just watching a random day at a high school. When the gunmen finally kill people, it feels extreme, scary, and real.
Gerry, on the other hand, was one of the most meandering and awful films I have ever seen. The entire film consisted of like two hours of Casey Affleck and Matt Damon crawling around in a bunch of sand, crying like bitches because they were lost and it was hot. Oh yeah, and the twist? They are both named Gerry. Then after you watch all that, one of them, I forget which (the one named Gerry, maybe?), kills the other one. Then collapses. Then wakes up from his heat induced sand coma and gets saved. The end. It was really... just not a good movie at all.
I think that what Mallick did with TTRL was pretty good. I enjoyed the film, and felt the style was appropriate. The film certainly struck me as well crafted, and I think that Mallick's vision of war and the lives entangled in it was conveyed perfectly. What I want to know is what's the deal with artsy war movies and production problems? First Apocalypse Now, then this.
With van Sant's two films I mentioned, I think he performs at both ends of the spectrum. I think that Elephant is a wonderful film, and its slow pacing, sparse dialogue, and minimal action all blend together to really make you feel like you are just watching a random day at a high school. When the gunmen finally kill people, it feels extreme, scary, and real.
Gerry, on the other hand, was one of the most meandering and awful films I have ever seen. The entire film consisted of like two hours of Casey Affleck and Matt Damon crawling around in a bunch of sand, crying like bitches because they were lost and it was hot. Oh yeah, and the twist? They are both named Gerry. Then after you watch all that, one of them, I forget which (the one named Gerry, maybe?), kills the other one. Then collapses. Then wakes up from his heat induced sand coma and gets saved. The end. It was really... just not a good movie at all.
I think that what Mallick did with TTRL was pretty good. I enjoyed the film, and felt the style was appropriate. The film certainly struck me as well crafted, and I think that Mallick's vision of war and the lives entangled in it was conveyed perfectly. What I want to know is what's the deal with artsy war movies and production problems? First Apocalypse Now, then this.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
El laberinto del fauno
Pan's Labyrinth is a fantastic film when it comes to atmosphere and overall storytelling. One of the things that I feel makes the film work is the sense of time and place. Del Toro picked this instance of war from Spanish history and crafted his tale around it, weaving a delicate balance of destruction and whimsy. By sticking to an actual event in history, the whole film becomes much more grounded in realism, even in the instances of mythical monsters appearing.
If this film were an all out fantasy movie like Alice in Wonderland as opposed to the fantasy/war drama that it actually is, I think it would miss its mark entirely. The war-torn atmosphere of the film is integral to the plot and themes of the narrative.
As for themes of sacrifice, they can be found in a few scenes. If I remember correctly, the mother dies after childbirth or perhaps during. This is a direct sacrifice of mother for son. The rebel who loses his leg. The man who attempts to keep his friend/son/father safe, then is brutally murdered with a bottle. Ofelia's ultimate death at the end of the film.
The childbirth thing can be seen in countless movies/books. Loss of limbs goes back a long way, like in the book Johnny Tremaine. His hand gets all burnt and smelted and he has to sacrifice his career and his social status. The bottle scene was a senseless death, like that of Piggy in Lord of the Flies. As he tries to rationalize and speak sanely, he is crushed with a rock by the other kids. Ofelia herself is almost Christ-like, although I suppose her father is more akin to Satan, being leader of the underworld and all.
If this film were an all out fantasy movie like Alice in Wonderland as opposed to the fantasy/war drama that it actually is, I think it would miss its mark entirely. The war-torn atmosphere of the film is integral to the plot and themes of the narrative.
As for themes of sacrifice, they can be found in a few scenes. If I remember correctly, the mother dies after childbirth or perhaps during. This is a direct sacrifice of mother for son. The rebel who loses his leg. The man who attempts to keep his friend/son/father safe, then is brutally murdered with a bottle. Ofelia's ultimate death at the end of the film.
The childbirth thing can be seen in countless movies/books. Loss of limbs goes back a long way, like in the book Johnny Tremaine. His hand gets all burnt and smelted and he has to sacrifice his career and his social status. The bottle scene was a senseless death, like that of Piggy in Lord of the Flies. As he tries to rationalize and speak sanely, he is crushed with a rock by the other kids. Ofelia herself is almost Christ-like, although I suppose her father is more akin to Satan, being leader of the underworld and all.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Violence in RoboCop
When it comes to violence in RoboCop, I feel that there is a great mixture of both realistic gore and gratuitous exaggerated violence. Though the violence is extreme and delivered in relatively high quantities, I feel that not a single frame was wasted or unnecessary. Every instance of violence was critical to the plot and the overall theme of the film.
One of the major points that the film was trying to convey was the sense that when it comes down to man vs. technology, man ultimately wins. We see this in the beginning when the ED robot was being tested in front of the executives. The shelling of the unfortunate man was shown for several seconds. The body was shredded beyond recognition even after his death. The whole point of this scene was to hammer in that a machine is uncontrollable. It cannot be reasoned with. The body is mangled on camera for much longer than one would expect to see in a film of the same genre, but not without reason. This gives the entire idea of the RoboCop project a new light. It has the element that is missing: humanity.
When Murphy is killed, his body is salvaged and what little brain is left operational is hardwired with computers. He still the ability to reason, though, which allows him to react with more precision and use his instincts when needed. Film viewers will notice the difference in violence between RoboCop and the ED robot. RoboCop has the human instinct that allows him to be controlled with his aggression, whereas the ED simply knows how to kill.
The violence overall was well done and I think has both artistic merit and entertainment value. The violence is not extremely over the top like Kill Bill or even Sweeney Todd. It has a realistic edge to it. I never saw a part that I thought was extremely unrealistic, sans for how long Murphy lives while being shot. Everything else was pretty understandable. I would imagine being shelled by a giant robot would be a little more graphic in real life than portrayed, however.
One of the major points that the film was trying to convey was the sense that when it comes down to man vs. technology, man ultimately wins. We see this in the beginning when the ED robot was being tested in front of the executives. The shelling of the unfortunate man was shown for several seconds. The body was shredded beyond recognition even after his death. The whole point of this scene was to hammer in that a machine is uncontrollable. It cannot be reasoned with. The body is mangled on camera for much longer than one would expect to see in a film of the same genre, but not without reason. This gives the entire idea of the RoboCop project a new light. It has the element that is missing: humanity.
When Murphy is killed, his body is salvaged and what little brain is left operational is hardwired with computers. He still the ability to reason, though, which allows him to react with more precision and use his instincts when needed. Film viewers will notice the difference in violence between RoboCop and the ED robot. RoboCop has the human instinct that allows him to be controlled with his aggression, whereas the ED simply knows how to kill.
The violence overall was well done and I think has both artistic merit and entertainment value. The violence is not extremely over the top like Kill Bill or even Sweeney Todd. It has a realistic edge to it. I never saw a part that I thought was extremely unrealistic, sans for how long Murphy lives while being shot. Everything else was pretty understandable. I would imagine being shelled by a giant robot would be a little more graphic in real life than portrayed, however.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)