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.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
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)