Tuesday 22 december 2009 2 22 /12 /Dec /2009 22:34
You may wonder why all of a sudden I jump to a movie that is so new comparing to the three I have mentioned previously on this blog. Ah ha, that's because I just watched it last night and found it too crap, too crap that I just have to talk about it a little bit. My expectation was always low on this film, so it wasn't because I was hoping for too much. Before I talk about why I thought it's so bad,  I have to admit that I like The Independence Day, it's classic, for those days, although I do not like the idea of "Aliens always come to take over the world".

Let's talk about the CG first because this is what people are expecting to see when they go for 2012.  The CG is good. The destructions, falling apart, tectonic sliding, tsunami, lava, geo-movements... all look sensible to me (sorry I am no scientist so all I can say is "look sensible"). Was I really amazed by the effects? Sorry, no. Maybe it's just me not know about CG enough to impress the difficulties they have to go through to get those effects, and not impress enough to overcome the disappointment brought by the story itself.

So here are things make this movie so bad:

What an Indiana Jones x Superman movie: SO this is a movie about a Mr. Invincible who although was only a <500 copies of book sold writer and a driver of some rich dudes, however in dodging all the falling lava and buildings, driving on roads that always fall apart from behind, he is the untouchable man, never failed, and never will. I want to say it's not realistic, but maybe that's not right because we are not expecting to see realistic film here anyway. So maybe my comment is: that's out of my knowledge of normal human capability and I thought this is not a superhero movie. Nevertheless, it's not just a special treat for the protagonist. Thanks to the amazing pilots who can always take off in the very last last last millisecond, dodging every single thing fall from the above perfectly, and fly all the way with a single engine airplane. At the moment they ran out of fuel, thank God, the continent has moved and of course they are just landing on China, where helicopters just over their head. 

What a heroic story: the hero who saved everyone on board basically has just solved the problem he caused earlier. The wheels were jammed all because these people tried to sneak in! If this group of main characters never exist, then people are saved much earlier. If Roland Emmerich's intention was sarcasm, that's a good one then. Yeah, true, human beings are always fixing problems they have introduced earlier, and claiming themselves as the heroes afterwards, and everyone cheers for the heroes, forgetting they are the one who make the troubles in the first place.

What a romantic family love story: The wife and her boyfriend and the kids were happy family, the boy like her mum's boyfriend, and she loves him too. Now just because we have to get a happy family ending for the protagonist, let's randomly kill the wife's boyfriend in some super random way. And sorry, no matter how much the boy and the wife like this guy here, he's not important anymore once he's dead. Yay, I got my father/husband back, who cares about that dude? Sorry man, although you fly us all the way here, you are dead now and so let me just kiss and love my ex-husband a few minutes after you died. Thanks for your contribution.

What an amazing concept of equality and idea about right and wrong. I am not going to elaborate on this one here because this is one of those you have to think about it yourself: the realistic relationships between wealth, natural selection, equality, right, survival strength, selfishness, and sacrifice. We are not trying to discuss human nature here, but unrealistic cheeky speech doesn't buy you any point.

Well, after all, you can still like 2012, for it's CG or whatever you find good and attractive. But to me, a crap story is deadly for a film, and here is one, which I don't even bother trying to appreciate some other elements in it.

Sorry to say, but one of the worst I have ever seen.
 
By Gypsy - Community: Cineaste and Cinephilia
Enter comment - View the 0 comments
Tuesday 3 november 2009 2 03 /11 /Nov /2009 01:47

I have watched this film three times, and wouldn't mind watch this again and again. It's a really good film. If I have to rate it, then it's definitely a 10/10. Maybe it's just me. I found it more and more amazing the more I watch this film, and have to praise Jean-Luc Godard deep from my heart: You do not see a 30 year old genius that often these days. The frame I put here is from my favourite shot in my favourite scene, which was taken in Rue Campagne Première.

However, I am not going to praise Jean Luc Godard here. I have no intention to do that at all. Also, I am not going to talk about scenes that have been discussed heavily in all those text books, especially the murder of the cop at the beginning of the film: about the elliptical style, the close angles, the rapidity and disorientating scale of shots, and the long, wide shot of Michel fleeing across the fields… ya, I am not going to talk about those. And no, I do not talk seriously and in details like those film critics, just want to note down a few things, which are… maybe minor, but who cares, I am going to list them out.

 

Wiping thumb across lips

Okay, if I count it right, id est, if I didn’t miss any, then there are nine times:

1. At the very beginning, when he’s about to steal a car.

2. When he makes his first phone call after he entered the city.

3. When he looks into the mirror at his girlfriend’s place. Note that this is the first time he play with his facial expression, which he repeats in Patricia’s apartment when he says sulk doesn’t suit her, and later, just before he dies.

4. The obvious one: when he’s looking at a poster of Bogart, which explains his “ritualistic” (I say) action.

5. At Patricia’s apartment, in front of the mirror, saying “What a pain. I always fall for girls who aren’t for me.” (I was thinking… LOL)

6. At Patricia’s apartment, after she says “I’ll stare at you until you stop sharing at me.”

7. At Patricia’s apartment, after she says “I want to know what’s behind your face.”

8. Just before he leaves Patricia at the entrance to the News conference.

9. After Patricia blows a kiss to him while he’s talking to Antonio and she’s talking to another guy.

And of course, there is the famous tenth occurrence, but that’s by Patricia, at the end of the film.

By the way, she’s very pretty, I love her.

 

Iris-out and Iris-in

First of all, reminded me Looney Tunes. Apologize to people who are serious about films all the time and find cutie talking animals in cartoons are disgusting.

There are two places, Iris-out/Iris-in are used in the film:

1. When Michel walked away from Bogart’s poster, you can see the inspectors looking for him. Later it iris-in, focusing on Michel’s hand with 2 coins only, while he is promising Patricia for dinner.

2. A random guy (Godard himself, sadly, not much hair left on his forehead when he’s around 30…) recognises Michel and informs the police. And later we see the couple at the entrance of the News conference.

I like the first set a lot more than the second. Don’t bother explaining why now.

 

Dialogues in her apartment

I know a lot of people find this part too long and boring (well that’s what those kids say in the tutorial class), but I really like this scene. Not my favourite, but second. Purely personal preference, I like the scene in Rue Campagne Première more – told you I have weird taste.

 

1. About looking at each other…

There are so many instances Michel or Patricia caught looking at the other. To me, they are very romantic (you know, I am a hopeless romantic).

“Why are you looking at me?” “Because I am.”

“I’ll stare at you until you stop staring at me.”

“We look each other in the eyes and it means nothing.”

“I’m looking at you.” “The French are stupid too.”

“Funny I can see my reflection in your eyes.” “A real Franco-American reconciliation.”

At the end of the bedroom scene, they kiss again when he’s lying down on her stomach. Then they remove their sunglasses, look into each other’s eyes and kiss again.

Nothing more important than eye contacts.

 

2. About time…

Earlier in the film Patricia makes a comment when Michel tells her to wait for a second, she says

“The French always say one second when they mean five minutes.”

Now in the bedroom, he asks her when will she know whether she loves him or not, and she says “soon”.

“When will you know?” “Soon.” “In a month, in a year?” “Soon means soon".” “A woman never wants to do in eight seconds what she’ll want to do eight days later. Eight seconds and eight days, it’s all the same. Why not eight centuries?” “No, eight days is good.” “A woman’s all half-measures. It gets me down.”

Again, as I said, time is a subjective phenomenon.

 

3. About Romeo and Juliet…

Believe it or not, I like the story of Romeo and Juliet. I mean, I like it because it’s stupid, unrealistic, a fantasy. I never take it as a love story. It’s not about love but pride and prejudice. Romeo thinks he cannot live without Juliet, and Juliet thinks she cannot live without Romeo. That’s because Juliet is becoming fourteen and Romeo is “no manlike beard there grew”. Sorry for breaking the dream of the kids, but no, I do not believe in “couldn’t live without someone”.

“I want us to be like Romeo and Juliet.” “Just like a girl!” “You said last night you couldn’t live without me, but you can. Romeo couldn’t live without Juliet, but you can.” “No, I can’t live without you.” “Just like a man!”

Michel has chosen his destiny partly bases on his love for Patricia, this is true; and at the end it leads to his death unexpectedly (well, for him). He chooses to stay (and die) rather than leave (and live). He didn’t live without her, although that’s not necessarily “couldn’t”, however effort counts, right?

 

4. About Scare and cigarette…

This is a rather interesting conversation.

“How do you know I am scared?” “If a girl says she’s not scared, then can’t even light her cigarette, it means she’s scared of something. I don’t know of what, but she’s scared.” … “See? I’m not scared” “I never said you were.” “You bet, pet.” “No.” “But you wish you had said it. And now you’re angry.” “I'm not talking to you anymore.”

Forget about the lighting cigarette part, but see what he says there: “But you wish you had said it. And now you’re angry.” I was totally amazed when I see this line (ya, see, mind you I cannot speak nor understand French). How many men in the world can see through that clearly, I wonder. That line itself is like a secret being revealed. It’s too honest, therefore she stands up and says she’s not talking to him anymore.

This reminds me, several times, someone read through me clearly and stated out my deepest thought, like a secret being revealed. I instantly rebutted. Logical? No. But in situation like this we always try to find something to say, just want to hide and make the one who see through you admit he’s wrong – even in the rebuttal process we have to say something that hurts him. Well, Patricia just ends the conversation temporarily.

Now go back to the relationship between scare of something and lighting cigarette. In the Rue Campagne Première scene, after Patricia tells Michel that she’s called the police and explains why she’s made that move, Michel says “You’re out of your mind. That’s a pathetic way to reason.”. He doesn’t seem angry or upset at all. Then he walks away and lights up his cigarette, quickly and easily.

Which means, he’s not scared.

image
image

Now I finally understand why someone always says my thinking is stupid, and my action is stupid. I guess, I have a pathetic way to reason as well. Same. Too bad that I do not have a pretty face, therefore, unforgivable.

 

Rue Campagne Première

Okay, my favourite scene. My favourite part is after she come back from buying newspaper, bottle of milk, and calling the police, then she informs Michel about it. Now she starts walking around the room talking to Michel (more to herself I’d say), while Michel is talking to her (again, more to himself I’d say) at the same time, their dialogues overlapping. It’s… a bit like… there’s a part in Masquerade that Christine and Raoul sing “You will understand in time”/“I can only hope I’ll understand in time”.





 

Patricia crossing the road happily

Not much I want to say about this, just, feel happy when I see this shot. It’s very cute.

I tried not to step on the gaps between concrete sections on the pedestrian roads usually, because… you know, they are snakes, they bite. :)

 

Champs Elysées

Ah… this is getting a bit too long. I thought I am not going to say anything major and therefore this is going to be short. Let me finish this off with the long take on the Champs Elysées.

Why people all walk in the middle of the road in those days? :D

By Gypsy - Community: Cineaste and Cinephilia
Enter comment - View the 0 comments
Monday 2 november 2009 1 02 /11 /Nov /2009 02:34

I first thought The Battleship Potemkin (1925) would be a boring film – because of my prejudice: usually a film acquired a lot of praises on its techniques would be boring somehow. However the more I look into it, I found it more interesting and therefore I am going to spend a little bit of time discuss about it.

Thanks to Eisenstein’s montage. Before I go ahead and talk about a few scenes in the film, let me use a little bit space to praise Eisenstein’s montage.

Eisenstein focused on conflict and collision, especially a shot and its successor, his notion of dialectic montage, which operated according to Marxist dialectic. He applied the dialectic approach on film editing as he juxtapositions a shot (the thesis) with another shot (its antithesis), that produces a new phenomenon (the synthesis), which is not just the sum of the shots but a whole new idea or impression perceived by the audience. This synthesis then becomes the thesis in a continuous montage sequence. Therefore, meanings are acquired by interaction of shots.  Shots in a montage sequence may be visually opposing in linear directions, planes, volumes, tonal/lighting, tempo, rhythm, ideology, etc., or a combination of more than one conflicting aspect.   

In The Battleship Potemkin, Eisenstein produced a tense and violent rhythm with this principle of dialectic montage. Moreover, he passed on a particular perception of history to the audience through his way of editing. Overall the collision approach itself attempts to represent the conflict and collision of history itself, at the same time the technique applied to individual scenes enforce certain emotional focus and response of the audience. His editing technique serves as psychological stimulation rather than a narrative device, allowing him to deliver his political message through emotional sensation to the audience.

Now let me illustrate a few montage sequences in the film. 

In Act I “Men and Maggots”, after a group of sailors refused to eat the maggot-ridden piece of meat, there is a scene of the three sailors washing the dishes. One of them suddenly realises that the plate he is washing has the hypocritical inscription “Give us this day our daily bread”. In the next four seconds a montage sequence of nine separate but overlapping shots shows the sailor smashes the plate twice, the first from his right and second from his left, emphasising the violence and angriness of the sailor’s action. 




Act II "Drama on the Quarterdeck", there is a montage sequence of objects on the ship after the sailors under the tarpaulin kneel down. First is the priest tapping his palm with his crucifix, then the lifebuoy with the words “Prince Potemkin Tavrichesky”, then the ship prow with Czarist eagle, lastly a bugler with a bugle in his hand. This montage sequence is Eisenstein’s expression of emotional time,  which extends and suspends the time of thought of Vakulinchuk and the marine squad, and represents the feeling of the elongated fearful moment of the sailors.





The opening of Act III “An Appeal from the Dead” is the famous “fog montage” sequence. Here Eisenstein puts together a sequence of shots of various aspects of the habour just before dawn: sailing vessels, steamships, gull-covered buoy, surface of the sea, dockside cranes, Vakulinchuk’s tent, etc.. The sequence is an example of “tonal montage”, as Eisenstein suggested. Each shot in the sequence increases luminosity progressively as the sun rise and gradually disperses the fog. It depicts a long night has passed and finally the dawn has been broken, the death of Vakulinchuk has awaken the anger and support of mutiny against czarism.





Act IV is the famous “The Odessa Steps” that depicts a massacre of the Odessa citizens by czarist troops on the steps. The collisions of movements and dramatic graphic patterns in this sequence of shots bring audience huge psychological and emotional impact. The sequence begins with the intertitle “Suddenly”, instantly followed by a few close up shots of the dark hair of a woman in white with her mouth open who moves so violently, abruptly shocks the audience. These close up shots are followed by several shots with citizens run down the steps generally from left to right in a chaotic way. The source of terror is revealed in a following shot from the reverse angle, the top of the steps, showing a horizontal line of troops in white carrying riffles coming after the people on the steps. Another long shot from the bottom of the steps of  people running down  is inserted here.

Throughout the sequence there are several different figures are isolated, one of them is the woman who run with her son. As they are fleeing, her son falls and is trampled by the crowed and died. She gathers his body and walks up against the crowd from right to left across the screen towards the troops with her dead son in her arms. Meanwhile a woman in pince-nez decides to go up to the troops as well. All these individual actions are shown in shots in between shots of people running down the steps. Now two people are moving up, colliding with the direction of the crowd and the troops, while the disorganised and chaotic fashion of the citizens running downwards is colliding with the organised, orderly descending line of troops coming from the top of the steps. 

The most famous editing sequence in this act is around the young woman and her baby carriage. She is first shown afraid to push the carriage down the steps, then the troops march down and she is shot. Her falls is illustrated in several overlapping cuts. The montage returns to her every few seconds as she sinks lower to the ground. The successive shot is noticeably discontinue from the previous one, as her position is always more upright than her position at the end of the last shot. Her fall is stretched and repeated by montage editing. Eisenstein again replace the actual linear time with the emotional time, to emphasise the violent  and disruptive action of the czarist troops and the powerless and innocence (which is symbolised by the baby carriage) of the people in front of the audience.




As she falls to the ground she also loses control and protection power to her carriage and pushes it offscreen, down the steps. Then Eisenstein intercuts between the baby carriage rolling down the steps, the woman in pince-nez, the student with glasses and the crowd slashing by the Cossack at the bottom of the steps rapidly. Towards the end of the sequence the student screams as the carriage overturns, and without a clear ending for the carriage shown on screen it quickly cuts to a Cossack slashes his saber several times in four discontinuous close shots, which then rapidly cut to a close up shot of the woman in pince-nez whose shattered glasses blood spurts from a slashed and blinded eye.



Last but not least, the famous three shots montage sequence of a sculptured stone lion. The brief sequence consist of three shots of separate stone lions all posed differently in different position: the first is asleep, the second is awakened, and the third is standing up. With the understand of the Kuleshov’s effect, Eisenstein put together the three shots to give an impression to the audience of a sleeping lion awakening and rising up, symbolising Russian people are awakened and committed to fight against Czar.


Now you see how Eisenstein's editing technique has brought revolutionary energy to The Battleship Potemkin, and why the film is a masterpiece of all time!

By Gypsy - Community: Cineaste and Cinephilia
Enter comment - View the 10 comments
Saturday 31 october 2009 6 31 /10 /Oct /2009 03:14

 


It's never an easy choice of title for the starting post. I have to choose this carefully so I won't regret in the future. I thought about many films, many quotes, many symbolisms... at the end I come up with "Rosebud", the very first line in Citizen Kane (1941).

Not only because it's the first line, but it's also a line full of uncertainty yet to be revealed. It's also a line indicates a mystery that no one cares towards the end of the film - everyone thinks it's not important, and loses interest in finding out what it means. Reporter Thompson says,

"Mr. Kane was a man who got everything he wanted, and then lost it. Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn't get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn't have explained anything. I don't think any word can explain a man's life. No, I guess Rosebud is just a piece in a jigsaw puzzle."

Although, that's meaningful for Charles Foster Kane, signifying his childhood and the turning point of his life. Yes, cheap Freudian theory of repression and subconscious - hey I didn't say that, Orson Welles said that is "rather dollar-book Freud". I am no Freudian, and do not like Freud - at all.

So, why "Rosebud" then? For two reasons: 1) Uncertainty of what would be revealed here. 2) Probably what end up here are not important to others, but somehow meaningful to me.

Here I am. This is my fifth active blog. I have one personal blog, one personal personal blog (which means no one besides myself can see), one development blog (the unartistic side of me is a lead software developer, for living, unfortunately), and one private blog on a project my friend and I are working on. Let's see how I get on with this.

By Gypsy
Enter comment - View the 2 comments

Recent comments

Calendar

May 2012
M T W T F S S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
<< < > >>
Create your blog for free on over-blog.com - Contact - Terms of Service - Earn Royalties - Report abuse