28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[baby doll]

It is the most cerebral of his films I think

I would say just the opposite, that it's one of his most emotional and certainly his most visceral in terms of what he's doing formally.

[Qrazy]

Well, I don't want to get into a shot-by-shot analysis of his films, but I think his camera choices are effective. He puts the camera where he needs to, and his compositions are designed not to call attention to themselves.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by emotional depth, but the whole point is that the compromise that's negotiated is a kind of betrayal, and Loach and Laverty underline that by having [

Show Spoiler

one character literally betray his brother, who's more radical.

] Obviously they're laying it on a little thick, and neither character is that interesting as individuals, so for me the ending wasn't that moving because I didn't really care about them as people. So I guess we agree?

Yeah, we agree. That's what I meant by emotional depth. I was not genuinely moved by the betrayal and I feel like I should have been.

[baby doll]

Yeah, we agree. That's what I meant by emotional depth. I was not genuinely moved by the betrayal and I feel like I should have been.

But for me that's not such a big flaw, because what the film does really well is engage the viewer in the political debate I mentioned earlier--and this is a subject I knew nothing about walking into the picture. And the two characters are plainly stand-ins for the different sides of the debate. Ken Loach could probably make a really effective melodrama if he wanted to, but what he does here I think is much more interesting.

[Qrazy]

But for me that's not such a big flaw, because what the film does really well is engage the viewer in the political debate I mentioned earlier--and this is a subject I knew nothing about walking into the picture. And the two characters are plainly stand-ins for the different sides of the debate. Ken Loach could probably make a really effective melodrama if he wanted to, but what he does here I think is much more interesting.

I think he could have explored the political issues and had a compelling drama unfold (using the content already there just executed more effectively) with a moving climax. Frankly I think he was going for that anyway and just didn't succeed. I don't disagree that he succeeded with his political exploration but I don't feel that this legitimizes what I feel to be failure (or at least stumbles) on an emotional, psychological and aesthetic level.

[MacGuffin]

I think it does your qualms with the film a disservice by chalking it up to this. I think I'll like it better when I re-watch it, knowing Bergman is constructing the story narrative and conceiving his visual narrative around bold, fable-like strokes, so the I'll be able to focus most heavily on how delicate is the technical mastery.

I don't know... I'm one of those supporters of 'Last House on the Left.' Not saying it's better than Bergman's film, of course.

You were unintentionally brash. That's much better! And by brash, I only mean "Oh no, don't admit that/give in on that point/etc.!"


Oh, FTR, Bergman: I've only seen this, Persona, and 'Seventh Seal' (looong time ago).

Not much left for me to say here, I'm afraid, but I appreciate the response. Edit: And I should reiterate I did think the movie was a great one (and hey, perhaps if I ending up loving all the other Bergman's I watch or most of them, I will rewatch this one).

[BuffaloWilder]

I'm going to share a post with you all, from a board I used to attend:

It's difficult to compare at first look. They're two completely different approaches. Generally, though, as an adaption and in terms of faithfulness, WATCHMEN already, in its condensed version, beats the living hell out of TDK in nearly every category except possibly action, score, long speeches, and remaining entirely serious throughout the film. However, when it does get serious, its serious themes and its execution of them trump THE DARK KNIGHT's by a long shot.

THE DARK KNIGHT: People's morals are a bad joke...cast aside at the first sign of trouble.

WATCHMEN: What's that? People tend to embrace chaos? Screw you, we'll show it actually happening and wax poetic about the nature of heroism all the while!

Most of WATCHMEN's character's various "conflicts" have far more down to earth poignancy and immediacy than TDK's did, mostly because they're about ten times more subtle. Jackie Earle Haley's performance as Rorschach is easily as powerful as Heath Ledger's The Joker or Christian Bale's Batman in TDK, and the movie still has Dan, Veidt, and Blake to offer beyond him. Even WATCHMEN's bit parts are generally much better performances than TDK's (Matt Frewer as Moloch). When the Director's Cut is released, I don't think TDK will stand a chance in terms of logical comparison, because WATCHMEN is more about the "art" of the film, and it's going to have so much it's not funny. The visuals and the juxtaposition of them with themes and ideas and other visuals is something that TDK simply doesn't have in spades. That, and there's depth to almost everything you see in WATCHMEN and a real sense of deconstruction, whereas TDK does have action for the sake of action and things of that nature. WATCHMEN is risky, WATCHMEN is unapologetic. THE DARK KNIGHT takes, I think, one risk with the mythology, and it's not exactly in character. And Chris Nolan has never shown the reverence for the Batman mythology that Zack Snyder showed for WATCHMEN.

The bolded parts are the parts I laughed - or cried - at.

This is why I stopped going to that board. Oh, Superherohype.

[Spinal]

A bit hyperbolic perhaps, but there's crazier shit posted on this website on a daily basis.

[

Show Spoiler

*Cue for alert wiseass to link to my review of Up.*

]

[Qrazy]

Beau Travail - Um OK, a competent enough film with a unique approach to it's subject matter. After being equally underwhelmed by The Tree of Wooden Clogs I guess routine films aren't really my bag. In Clogs it was farming routine, here it's military routine. . In Beau Travail Denis takes a creative look at the effects of military life and routine on emotion, interpersonal relationships and self-expression. Lots of routine, monotony and the to be expected extrapolated metaphors (dance vs. military training). Denis approach is minimalistic, her colors and locales effectively vibrant but her framing too intentionally simple for my taste. I have Trouble Every Day and I'll watch Friday Night at some point but something tells me she's not going to be my cup of tea.

[Raiders]

What is it with you and "framing?" I never know what the heck you're talking about.

Also, I think the film is about a bit more than merely the military routine.

[MacGuffin]

Beau Travail - Um OK, a competent enough film with a unique approach to it's subject matter. After being equally underwhelmed by The Tree of Wooden Clogs I guess routine films aren't really my bag. In Clogs it was farming routine, here it's military routine. . In Beau Travail Denis takes a creative look at the effects of military life and routine on emotion, interpersonal relationships and self-expression. Lots of routine, monotony and the to be expected extrapolated metaphors (dance vs. military training). Denis approach is minimalistic, her colors and locales effectively vibrant but her framing too intentionally simple for my taste. I have Trouble Every Day and I'll watch Friday Night at some point but something tells me she's not going to be my cup of tea.

Actually, you'll probably like Friday Night. I don't know what I was thinking when I claimed to not like it the first two times I saw it; it's purely magical. Trouble Every Day is weird mostly because of its thesis — a love so strong that it becomes cannibalism — but I recall it being very watchable. If you want something simpler, but probably more conventionally watchable than Beau travail, go with I Can't Sleep. I'd probably recommend avoiding L'intrus, which could be called "Ellipsis Mania: She's Back!", but I still think it's a masterpiece of emotions.

[MacGuffin]

Also, I think the film is about a bit more than merely the military routine.

Definitely.

[Qrazy]

What is it with you and "framing?" I never know what the heck you're talking about.

Also, I think the film is about a bit more than merely the military routine.

Yeah well it's about a number of things that I didn't touch upon but I do think it focuses primarily on military routine and surrounding themes. Using military routine as an emotional escape, juxtaposing dancing clumsiness (initially at least) with physical stamina and fluidity, routine as that which defines a life and being at a loss as to what to do without it, etc. The film also explores loneliness, duty, jealousy, racial and sexual politics, etc.

I agree that my filmic articulation skills could be a bit more to the point. By framing in this case at least I just mean that she has a very minimalist aesthetic. There doesn't tend to be that much movement in the frame at any given time, there isn't much three dimensionality or scope to the images (which isn't to say there isn't any use of perspective, there is), compositions are very to the point and focused almost expressly on bodies or bodies against landscapes. Which is not to say there's anything inherently wrong with any of this it's just sparse and I prefer there to be more points of reference to a composition or more business or staggered movement to the mise-en-scene... points of reference or in some cases texture can also be achieved purely through lighting... so in the case of a close-up there will be shadows or greater gradation across a face. I clarify this because I think Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc is really well shot/framed and it's almost all close-ups, but those close-ups are extremely visually communicative often as a result of the way faces are staggered in the frame but also because of lighting.

Don't get me wrong I think Beau Travail is well lit and I particularly enjoyed the color scheme. I find Denis imagery more purposive than Loach's for instance. But aside from a few cases of layered (for my purposes using more than one plane) imagery (for instance Clipper's avatar) the compositions are too I don't know... minimal is really the word... for my taste.

[B-side]

Syndromes and a Century has an effective and somewhat interesting approach to exploring time and space within its realm of memory. Weerasethakul's camera is curious and enjoys establishing environment. I'm not entirely sure how interesting it all is to actually watch, but it feels... different. Sometimes it's poignant, sometimes it feels padded. The framing feels thoughtful and the acting appropriately muted. If nothing else, the film feels entirely Joe's own, wrapped up tightly in his memories and perceptions.

[MacGuffin]

Syndromes and a Century has an effective and somewhat interesting approach to exploring time and space within its realm of memory. Weerasethakul's camera is curious and enjoys establishing environment.

Well, yeah, of course. You'd think by two, arguably three movies about the concepts, he'd have an understanding of time and memory.

Weerasethakul's camera is curious and enjoys establishing environment.

What do you mean when you say the camera is curious? I agree that he takes a lot of care in establishing environments and creates a tonal emotion for the segment which corresponds to these establishments, but I think that you can get a lot more out of these establishments if you pay attention to them in the context of the film, especially this one, and how they correspond to the rest of what you are seeing.

I'm not entirely sure how interesting it all is to actually watch,

Oh, I'm sure.

but it feels... different. Sometimes it's poignant, sometimes it feels padded.

I'm not sure where it would feel "padded". In fact, I would say the first half is poignant, but only when we reach the second half, which is more bitter. It's never "padded" though, I don't think. Everything there has a purpose to the inner-workings of Weerasethakul's vision. If anything, it's too short.

The framing feels thoughtful and the acting appropriately muted. If nothing else, the film feels entirely Joe's own, wrapped up tightly in his memories and perceptions.

Yeah, but as I wrote when I first saw the movie, while it may be Joe's own, it's easy to draw our own conclusions about what we are seeing and look at places in our lives that have changed over time.

[Derek]

Well, yeah, of course. You'd think by two, arguably three movies about the concepts, he'd have an understanding of time and memory.

[MacGuffin]

Jeez, man. Do you actually have any to say about my posts or is this one-sentence at the most response thing going to continue?

[Qrazy]

So History of the Arkanar Massacre (Aleksei German), that's going to be awesome.

[Winston*]

So History of the Arkanar Massacre (Aleksei German), that's going to be awesome.

The third season of Mad Men's going to be better. Calling it here first.

[Derek]

Jeez, man. Do you actually have any to say about my posts or is this one-sentence at the most response thing going to continue?

Didn't notice it was a trend. I just found your post to be overly assumptive as if anyone who made 2 or 3 films about time and memory would obviously have those themes down pat. I found it strange because many great directors have spent their entire careers hammering away at only a couple major themes, but you're right, I could've articulated that rather given you the confused look.

[B-side]

Well, yeah, of course. You'd think by two, arguably three movies about the concepts, he'd have an understanding of time and memory.

Yeah, it's my first full length film of his. Not sure why you're preaching.

What do you mean when you say the camera is curious? I agree that he takes a lot of care in establishing environments and creates a tonal emotion for the segment which corresponds to these establishments, but I think that you can get a lot more out of these establishments if you pay attention to them in the context of the film, especially this one, and how they correspond to the rest of what you are seeing.

I mean the camera is interested in all aspects of the environment rather than just the characters. It's a film about environment just as much as it is about the characters.

I'm not sure where it would feel "padded". In fact, I would say the first half is poignant, but only when we reach the second half, which is more bitter. It's never "padded" though, I don't think. Everything there has a purpose to the inner-workings of Weerasethakul's vision. If anything, it's too short.

I didn't mean that any of the scenes lacked purpose, simply that they felt less thoughtfully constructed than others, thus padded, thus less engaging.

Yeah, but as I wrote when I first saw the movie, while it may be Joe's own, it's easy to draw our own conclusions about what we are seeing and look at places in our lives that have changed over time.

I was more referring to it coming across as an original piece at the very least.

[Derek]

The third season of Mad Men's going to be better. Calling it here first.

The third season of Mad Men is going to be better than most things in existence, on and off television, from August through the fall.

[MacGuffin]

Didn't notice it was a trend. I just found your post to be overly assumptive as if anyone who made 2 or 3 films about time and memory would obviously have those themes down pat. I found it strange because many great directors have spent their entire careers hammering away at only a couple major themes, but you're right, I could've articulated that rather given you the confused look.

I don't think he has those themes down. I don't think Syndromes and a Century is a masterpiece like Tropical Malady, but I do think that it is an excellent movie. I do, however, as I said, think that he has an understanding of these themes, however full that understanding may be. The person watching the movie may have a different experience, but I got a lot out of the ideas on display in the movie.

[Qrazy]

The third season of Mad Men's going to be better. Calling it here first.

Meh, maybe I'll watch the first two then. But that's a big maybe.

[Amnesiac]

The third season of Mad Men's going to be better. Calling it here first.

I can't wait for this. I wish it wasn't starting in late August. That's lame.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, it's my first full length film of his. Not sure why you're preaching.

Not really "preaching", just pointing out. Definitely see Tropical Malady.

I mean the camera is interested in all aspects of the environment rather than just the characters. It's a film about environment just as much as it is about the characters.

I think it's more a movie about environments rather than characters. The director is probably more of a central character as it were, than any of the characters in the movie.

I didn't mean that any of the scenes lacked purpose, simply that they felt less thoughtfully constructed than others, thus padded, thus less engaging.

Apologies, but I always thought padded meant something like filler, as in, it's just there as padding; it's just there to fill blank space. I don't think any of the scenes are less thoughtfully constructed than any others, because basically, if I remember correctly, all of the scenes in each half mirror one another in some way.

I was more referring to it coming across as an original piece at the very least.

Aside from his other stuff, I certainly haven't seen anything like it. At least, not that I know of right now.