Interesting stylistic decisions and structural devices in cinema

[MacGuffin]

The first thing that I thought of was opening credits 45 minutes or so into Blissfully Yours.

[baby doll]

Hey, that's a spoiler! Seriously though, Blissfully Yours is awesome, but I find that with each bifurcated, dedramatized, wryly humorous semi-narrative that Joe puts out, the returns have diminished exponentially. Maybe I need to take another look at Syndromes and a Century, but on first viewing it struck me as possibly the emptiest movie by a major director in a decade.

[Rowland]

it struck me as possibly the emptiest movie by a major director in a decade.Yeah, I'd say that's a mite hyperbolic. I need to see Tropical Malady again, but I preferred Syndromes upon first viewing.

[baby doll]

Yeah, I'd say that's a mite hyperbolic. I need to see Tropical Malady again, but I preferred Syndromes upon first viewing.The monk talking about the dream he had about chickens was mildly amusing in a sub-Buñuelian kind of way, but when we have to sit through it twice (the first time with the camera looking at the listener, the second time looking at the speaker), I think it's clear that Joe's crossed the line between structural rigor and rigor mortis. It's theme and variation, not theme and theme.

[MacGuffin]

Speaking of Joe, I still need to check out that video art installation of his called Phantoms of Nabua (http://www.animateprojects.org/films/by_date/2009/phantoms) that Michael Sicinski was highly praising.

[B-side]

Speaking of Joe, I still need to check out that video art installation of his called Phantoms of Nabua (http://www.animateprojects.org/films/by_date/2009/phantoms) that Michael Sicinski was highly praising.

I liked it. It's an interesting little experiment.

[trotchky]

DePalma's use of split-screen to emphasize themes is an interesting device.

[balmakboor]

I've been trying to figure out just what exactly this thread is asking, because I find it intriguing. Then I thought I'd just toss something out there and see if it sticks.

I love the way style and structure interact in Full Metal Jacket, especially in the part of the film set in Vietnam which is so often incorrectly referred to as "the part set in Vietnam." It is really two very distinctly different takes on combat in Vietnam placed in juxtaposition. The first one -- starting with a fade-in -- begins and ends with the two scenes involving prostitutes. Then there is a fade-out. The second one follows the fade-in, encompasses the sniper attack sequence, and ends with a fade-out after Joker puts the sniper out of her misery. Then there is a short coda.

Some examples of how style and structure interrelate:

1) There are two scenes, one in each Vietnam section, where Animal Mother approaches the corner of a building. During the first, a fellow soldier has leaned around the corner, been shot, and fallen quickly, bloodlessly, and silently dead. Animal Mother then fearlessly leans around the corner and fearlessly begins firing away. During the second, a fellow soldier has been shot by the enemy. He screams in pain, there is blood everywhere, he takes forever to die. Animal Mother carefully leans toward the corner and is brushed back, terrified by a bullet that nearly hits him.

2) During the first part, soldiers fire away at buildings endlessly, blowing them to bits. During the second, Cowboy is constantly commanding the soldiers to stop firing. "Save your ammo!"

3) The first part is set to a constant soundtrack of rock standards. The second gets only some occasional, originally composed, musical scoring.

4) The universe of the first part seems choreographed for the camera -- tank wait to fire and soldiers wait to speak until the camera tracks past them. The universe of the second part just happens with no sense of order and the camera captures what it can -- including a fascinating glimpse of a hidden soldier not included in the narrative.

All of these and many more add up to my dubbing the two sections "Vietnam the movie" and "War as Hell."

Of course, there are also other things going on like how both sections end with a gang bang...

[Beau]

The monk talking about the dream he had about chickens was mildly amusing in a sub-Buñuelian kind of way, but when we have to sit through it twice (the first time with the camera looking at the listener, the second time looking at the speaker), I think it's clear that Joe's crossed the line between structural rigor and rigor mortis. It's theme and variation, not theme and theme.

It's a beautiful movie. Only the first two scenes are "repeated." It's quite wonderful. The camera tries to follow the same path, but the new environment changes the rules, and so it eventually has to travel elsewhere, to look at new characters and new situations. It's organic, even. One of my favorite films, anyways.

[baby doll]

It's a beautiful movie. Only the first two scenes are "repeated." It's quite wonderful. The camera tries to follow the same path, but the new environment changes the rules, and so it eventually has to travel elsewhere, to look at new characters and new situations. It's organic, even. One of my favorite films, anyways.Yeah, Joe knows how to compose an image and hold it, but I already knew that. The main reason I was disappointed by the film is that it's exactly the same as Joe's other movies: the same two-part structure, the same whimsical humor (i.e., the monk who wanted to be a DJ)... even the (non-)ending is just a re-hash of the last ten minutes of Mysterious Object at Noon. Given that the film was originally commissioned to celebrate the 250th anniversary of Mozart's birth, you might expect Joe to engage with the subject of Mozart's music and/or life on some level, thereby breaking out of his normal routine, but instead he opts ignore it completely and does his standard thing to rapidly diminishing returns.

[Beau]

Yeah, Joe knows how to compose an image and hold it, but I already knew that. The main reason I was disappointed by the film is that it's exactly the same as Joe's other movies: the same two-part structure, the same whimsical humor (i.e., the monk who wanted to be a DJ)... even the (non-)ending is just a re-hash of the last ten minutes of Mysterious Object at Noon. Given that the film was originally commissioned to celebrate the 250th anniversary of Mozart's birth, you might expect Joe to engage with the subject of Mozart's music and/or life on some level, thereby breaking out of his normal routine, but instead he opts ignore it completely and does his standard thing to rapidly diminishing returns.

I don't think making several films with a two-part structure necessarily entails repetition, outside of having a two-part structure, which is a really general idea, open to different possibilities. As for whimsical humor, again, it's a very general idea, a brand of humor. If an artist likes his whimsical humor, it's probably going to be repeated in all of his works. That's expected. I don't see it as a criticism. It's a description. I have not seen Tropical Malady, though, which is probably the film you have in mind, since Blissfully Yours and Mysterious Object at Noon don't have two-part structures. I know we have credits half-way through the former, but that's not a two-part structure. That's having credits half-way through. Obviously, they come in at a significant juncture (they're finally off to the woods!), but that's because we've reached a new act, not a new part. Also, I wasn't talking about his shot composition. I was talking about the way the camera explores the narrative world, which has nothing to do with shot composition and everything to do with how the two-part narrative develops. The camera, during the second story, tries to tell the same story again in a different environment, and does for a little bit, for two scenes, and then, suddenly, the characters cannot mirror their first-half progress, and so the camera, the invisible observer, is forced to travel and explore elsewhere for its storytelling, and it's this failure to tell the same story again and subsequent success to tell a new story instead that sits at the center of the film's themes. This was in response to your annoyance with the repetition, which to me seemed odd, since there's only a couple of minutes of repetition, which surely cannot annoy somebody that much, unless you're easily annoyed. At any rate, now you're talking about repetition alongside the other films in Weerasethakul's filmography, and I'm afraid I don't see anything substantial. From descriptions, it seems Tropical Malady might make sense out of your claims, though I don't think making two films with similar concepts is really that damning, especially if they're back-to-back releases. I accept that an artist might want to stick with a certain idea for a little while longer. Blissfully Yours and Mysterious Object are quite different from Syndromes and a Century. Unless you think that having trees in the former and kooky townfolk in the latter constitutes an irrevocable link with the later film in question.