Seen 5/30/15
3/4
Three Kings: shockingly awesome! This film constituted the fastest two hours I have seen in a while. It is extremely entertaining-- two hours of constant motion, music, gunfire, wit. There was scarcely a second in this movie that wasn't enjoyable and engaging. This type of film has been intentionally missing from my repertory this year, and this one almost makes me doubt that conviction.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Review: Under the Skin
Seen 5/27/15 and 5/28/15
3/4
I like this film. Quite a bit. The first time, last night, I didn't really. I was bored, particularly with the last third. I thought that the sensory experience of it all was good, but I couldn't get past the lack of content. This time, I put content there, even where there may have been none. I found a plot in the dream; structure amidst the ethereal chaos. Nevertheless, the chaos itself is darkly beautiful. The aesthetic of this film is a pure wonder. It's an artist's depiction of his own gorgeously sensational nightmare. However: the last third of the film prevents someone who isn't looking past the sensory from having an all-around rewarding experience. The mystique and intensity die down, as we see the untouchable and other-worldly main character possibly realize her humanity. Things get less interesting from a transcendental perspective, but this is the plot developing. One could argue that the film should have gone without it. Regardless, the ending is great. Most things are left unexplained: it is up to the experiencers to make of this haunting picture what they will. For most, this will be nothing. Whatever force inspired me to give this film another try must have been watching over me, making sure I give the film the attention it deserves. In my opinion, it cannot stand purely as an experiential piece, as perhaps Mulholland Drive can. There may be no sense at all to that film; but one gets the feeling that Under the Skin can be figured out. After all, it comes from a novel, which I'm sure is less atmospheric and more decipherable. This is a film that has interpretive reward, and that's only adding on to the tremendous visual and auditory feast. It's unnerving and beautiful.
Let it be noted that Scarlett Johansson's character is inconsistent. Some would call this character evolution, but I don't quite buy it, and it's a little disappointing. I also don't connect with this commonly-noted theme for this movie of 'seeing humanity through alien eyes'. I just don't understand where that is explored.
With character consistency, the film would get a 3.5. It's very much on the verge now, but I just can't connect the last part of the film well enough. Nevertheless, it is an excellent film to me, and a worthy component of my astoundingly successful recent succession of film experiences: Antichrist, The Hunt, Interstellar, Under the Skin.
3/4
I like this film. Quite a bit. The first time, last night, I didn't really. I was bored, particularly with the last third. I thought that the sensory experience of it all was good, but I couldn't get past the lack of content. This time, I put content there, even where there may have been none. I found a plot in the dream; structure amidst the ethereal chaos. Nevertheless, the chaos itself is darkly beautiful. The aesthetic of this film is a pure wonder. It's an artist's depiction of his own gorgeously sensational nightmare. However: the last third of the film prevents someone who isn't looking past the sensory from having an all-around rewarding experience. The mystique and intensity die down, as we see the untouchable and other-worldly main character possibly realize her humanity. Things get less interesting from a transcendental perspective, but this is the plot developing. One could argue that the film should have gone without it. Regardless, the ending is great. Most things are left unexplained: it is up to the experiencers to make of this haunting picture what they will. For most, this will be nothing. Whatever force inspired me to give this film another try must have been watching over me, making sure I give the film the attention it deserves. In my opinion, it cannot stand purely as an experiential piece, as perhaps Mulholland Drive can. There may be no sense at all to that film; but one gets the feeling that Under the Skin can be figured out. After all, it comes from a novel, which I'm sure is less atmospheric and more decipherable. This is a film that has interpretive reward, and that's only adding on to the tremendous visual and auditory feast. It's unnerving and beautiful.
Let it be noted that Scarlett Johansson's character is inconsistent. Some would call this character evolution, but I don't quite buy it, and it's a little disappointing. I also don't connect with this commonly-noted theme for this movie of 'seeing humanity through alien eyes'. I just don't understand where that is explored.
With character consistency, the film would get a 3.5. It's very much on the verge now, but I just can't connect the last part of the film well enough. Nevertheless, it is an excellent film to me, and a worthy component of my astoundingly successful recent succession of film experiences: Antichrist, The Hunt, Interstellar, Under the Skin.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Review 2: Interstellar
Seen 5/1/15 and 5/22/15
See http://andrewtalksaboutmovies1.blogspot.com/2015/05/review-interstellar.html
4/4
My second viewing of Interstellar yielded less awe, and a little less fascination. But on the other hand, there was still so much left to pick up on, it was a very rewarding experience. To know this film inside and out is of very high value, as it touches on dozens of themes and ideas. One viewing is not nearly enough, and those who say there is nothing to chew on here have let the fast pace of the film distract them from the fact that many aspects of it could be independently developed into full-length movies. Christopher Nolan takes countless revolutionary ideas of the 20th century and places them in the script so casually, it's natural to miss them as they fly by.
One thing that struck me much more this time than last was the sense of pure discovery in the main character-- discovery for its own sake. This idea affected me profoundly, as I have been debating to great length lately what our purpose is for human advancement, scientific innovation, ensuring the survival of our species at all costs, etc. After hearing Cooper say such things as "we're explorers", and ponder modern education's focus on utility, rather than awe, I realized that the reason he ventures into other galaxies is because of his drive for adventure and exploration. I connected hugely with this. I don't think that the survival of our species is very important, nor is scientific advancement. I would maybe travel intergalactically to save those I personally love, but not humanity in general. And all our scientific progress would be rendered useless in an instant were our race to be wiped out, and even while we're here I don't think its products make us happier, which to me is the only worthwhile end that isn't intrinsic. But here's what I realized: to a select people, scientific exploration is intrinsically important. I think that this will be the case for me. Exploring and inventing and discovering is just, purely, awesome. It is cool. It gives one meaning and drive. It gives an immeasurable sense of fulfillment. Now that I don't believe in objective morality, nor objective values, nor most kinds of a deity, what can be my motivation to pursue physics or mathematics? It was even very difficult to justify when I did hold those beliefs. Interstellar has given me the best answer I have ever found: the pure pleasure of discovery; learning; digging; finding; pondering.
Another wonderful discovery I made upon my second viewing was the music of the film. It's all IVs, Vs and VIs, which is beautiful. Hans Zimmer does Hans Zimmer, and I will probably cherish this score as long as I cherish movies. It plays in some of the most awe-filled moments I have ever seen, so it is fantastically associated with that glory and beauty.
Memorable is the spinning docking sequence [best musical spinning docking sequence in space since Kubrick] and the tick-tock as the crew fights the wild beast of Time on Miller's planet.
What else came out upon a second look? The parts of the script that are incredibly lame. Notable is the parent-teacher conference with Martin Luther King (a truly awful scene, script-wise), much of the back-and-forth in the spacecrafts, and some McConaughey front-porch rambling ("our place in the dirt"). But I don't care to talk about this.
One thing I found incredible, that I didn't pay much mind to before, are these little moments of dialogue that are few and far between, but are the most realistic words I think I've ever seen spoken in a movie! One time, Anne Hathaway says something technical and then apologizes to herself because it was unnecessary or something! This is like those moments in real life when you say "whoops" to yourself to self-justify for creating an awkward-looking situation... I couldn't believe this happened in a movie! There are a couple other lines from her that must be improvised, or possibly even an error from the actor, but that are left in because they are gloriously genuine. If only Nolan would have cared to be genuine in the other 95% of the movie.
I lament how casual and humor-driven this review has become. It is now altogether informal. But these paragraphs are a stream-of-consciousness reflection on my second experience of this movie, which awarded tons of new insight, including a better grasp on character motives and the physics, the latter of which was very important to me. Interstellar remains a fantastic experience, and a monumental achievement in film. This is one of those movies I should watch every time I feel my tastes changing, to recalibrate myself and see what new it has to offer. A movie can be dynamic because the person experiencing it can be dynamic. It is my goal to live a dynamic life, and Interstellar will accompany Synecdoche, 2001 and I through it.
See http://andrewtalksaboutmovies1.blogspot.com/2015/05/review-interstellar.html
4/4
My second viewing of Interstellar yielded less awe, and a little less fascination. But on the other hand, there was still so much left to pick up on, it was a very rewarding experience. To know this film inside and out is of very high value, as it touches on dozens of themes and ideas. One viewing is not nearly enough, and those who say there is nothing to chew on here have let the fast pace of the film distract them from the fact that many aspects of it could be independently developed into full-length movies. Christopher Nolan takes countless revolutionary ideas of the 20th century and places them in the script so casually, it's natural to miss them as they fly by.
One thing that struck me much more this time than last was the sense of pure discovery in the main character-- discovery for its own sake. This idea affected me profoundly, as I have been debating to great length lately what our purpose is for human advancement, scientific innovation, ensuring the survival of our species at all costs, etc. After hearing Cooper say such things as "we're explorers", and ponder modern education's focus on utility, rather than awe, I realized that the reason he ventures into other galaxies is because of his drive for adventure and exploration. I connected hugely with this. I don't think that the survival of our species is very important, nor is scientific advancement. I would maybe travel intergalactically to save those I personally love, but not humanity in general. And all our scientific progress would be rendered useless in an instant were our race to be wiped out, and even while we're here I don't think its products make us happier, which to me is the only worthwhile end that isn't intrinsic. But here's what I realized: to a select people, scientific exploration is intrinsically important. I think that this will be the case for me. Exploring and inventing and discovering is just, purely, awesome. It is cool. It gives one meaning and drive. It gives an immeasurable sense of fulfillment. Now that I don't believe in objective morality, nor objective values, nor most kinds of a deity, what can be my motivation to pursue physics or mathematics? It was even very difficult to justify when I did hold those beliefs. Interstellar has given me the best answer I have ever found: the pure pleasure of discovery; learning; digging; finding; pondering.
Another wonderful discovery I made upon my second viewing was the music of the film. It's all IVs, Vs and VIs, which is beautiful. Hans Zimmer does Hans Zimmer, and I will probably cherish this score as long as I cherish movies. It plays in some of the most awe-filled moments I have ever seen, so it is fantastically associated with that glory and beauty.
Memorable is the spinning docking sequence [best musical spinning docking sequence in space since Kubrick] and the tick-tock as the crew fights the wild beast of Time on Miller's planet.
What else came out upon a second look? The parts of the script that are incredibly lame. Notable is the parent-teacher conference with Martin Luther King (a truly awful scene, script-wise), much of the back-and-forth in the spacecrafts, and some McConaughey front-porch rambling ("our place in the dirt"). But I don't care to talk about this.
One thing I found incredible, that I didn't pay much mind to before, are these little moments of dialogue that are few and far between, but are the most realistic words I think I've ever seen spoken in a movie! One time, Anne Hathaway says something technical and then apologizes to herself because it was unnecessary or something! This is like those moments in real life when you say "whoops" to yourself to self-justify for creating an awkward-looking situation... I couldn't believe this happened in a movie! There are a couple other lines from her that must be improvised, or possibly even an error from the actor, but that are left in because they are gloriously genuine. If only Nolan would have cared to be genuine in the other 95% of the movie.
I lament how casual and humor-driven this review has become. It is now altogether informal. But these paragraphs are a stream-of-consciousness reflection on my second experience of this movie, which awarded tons of new insight, including a better grasp on character motives and the physics, the latter of which was very important to me. Interstellar remains a fantastic experience, and a monumental achievement in film. This is one of those movies I should watch every time I feel my tastes changing, to recalibrate myself and see what new it has to offer. A movie can be dynamic because the person experiencing it can be dynamic. It is my goal to live a dynamic life, and Interstellar will accompany Synecdoche, 2001 and I through it.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Review: The Hunt
Seen last spring and 5/20/15
4/4
The Hunt is a brilliant and shattering portrayal of human psychology. The setup is absolutely fantastic, one of the most immaculate executions I know of in film; the acting from the lead male is nothing short of sublime; the plot puts viewers at exactly the right emotional levels, which oscillate enormously. The film is as powerful as any, and sends a message more disturbing than horror. This could happen. None of these characters are unrealistic.
All parts work perfectly here. One can imagine that a genius premise could be lost on cliched writing, or a tremendous actor could be subject to lame direction, but here, there is nothing flawed. All characters fit into the narrative supremely well, and Mads Mikkelsen is a miracle, and the premise is brilliant, and the script and direction do exactly as they must.
The Hunt is flawless.
On a more personal note:
I have trouble calling this film "great" because of its small stylistic and geographic scope. I'm stupid in that I need the grandiose of Interstellar or stylistic innovation of Eternal Sunshine to put a movie in my top tier. I should realize that The Hunt is as innovative and powerful as any film. It is the "foreign indie realism" genre that I have a hard time with, but it extends so far beyond that. And that's why I do love it, truly. And it fully deserves a spot near the top.
JAGTEN
4/4
The Hunt is a brilliant and shattering portrayal of human psychology. The setup is absolutely fantastic, one of the most immaculate executions I know of in film; the acting from the lead male is nothing short of sublime; the plot puts viewers at exactly the right emotional levels, which oscillate enormously. The film is as powerful as any, and sends a message more disturbing than horror. This could happen. None of these characters are unrealistic.
All parts work perfectly here. One can imagine that a genius premise could be lost on cliched writing, or a tremendous actor could be subject to lame direction, but here, there is nothing flawed. All characters fit into the narrative supremely well, and Mads Mikkelsen is a miracle, and the premise is brilliant, and the script and direction do exactly as they must.
The Hunt is flawless.
On a more personal note:
I have trouble calling this film "great" because of its small stylistic and geographic scope. I'm stupid in that I need the grandiose of Interstellar or stylistic innovation of Eternal Sunshine to put a movie in my top tier. I should realize that The Hunt is as innovative and powerful as any film. It is the "foreign indie realism" genre that I have a hard time with, but it extends so far beyond that. And that's why I do love it, truly. And it fully deserves a spot near the top.
JAGTEN
Friday, May 15, 2015
Review: Antichrist
Seen 5/15/15
3/4
This movie is highly entertaining. It sucks one in by the sheer knowledge that it is willing to go ANYWHERE. This is a terrifying fact. The movie is extremely dark and brutal. Surprisingly, it didn't disturb me deeply enough to be shaken long after it finished, but I can imagine that for many another person it easily would. This is pure artistic horror.
I prefer Melancholia, for its fascinating premise and shatteringly beautiful ending, but the two movies are extremely similar. Antichrist is darker and tougher. It is much more difficult to stomach. But it's precisely that affect on the viewer that makes it such a great film experience. While I said I wasn't lastingly disturbed, it should be noted that during the film I was completely engaged. Both my mind and body felt like they were subject to von Trier's will, and he could do whatever horrific thing he wanted with them.
I don't regret watching this grotesque picture at all. It gave me the power of experience that I am not satisfied without in film nowadays. I don't love it, but I surely respect it and am exceedingly glad I saw it.
3/4
This movie is highly entertaining. It sucks one in by the sheer knowledge that it is willing to go ANYWHERE. This is a terrifying fact. The movie is extremely dark and brutal. Surprisingly, it didn't disturb me deeply enough to be shaken long after it finished, but I can imagine that for many another person it easily would. This is pure artistic horror.
I prefer Melancholia, for its fascinating premise and shatteringly beautiful ending, but the two movies are extremely similar. Antichrist is darker and tougher. It is much more difficult to stomach. But it's precisely that affect on the viewer that makes it such a great film experience. While I said I wasn't lastingly disturbed, it should be noted that during the film I was completely engaged. Both my mind and body felt like they were subject to von Trier's will, and he could do whatever horrific thing he wanted with them.
I don't regret watching this grotesque picture at all. It gave me the power of experience that I am not satisfied without in film nowadays. I don't love it, but I surely respect it and am exceedingly glad I saw it.
Review: Blue is the Warmest Colour
Seen 3/11/15
4/4
Blue is the Warmest Colour is one of the saddest, most truthful films I have ever seen. Its thematic ambition isn't the highest, but for what it strides for--which is a documentary-like yet artistic depiction of a foundationally-human relationship--it is absolutely flawless. The portrayal of Adele and Emma's heartbreaking story is as real as film could ever strive to be; the actors and direction are fearless and could not be more vulnerable.
The two actors, Adele Exarchopoulos and Lea Seydoux, are shown so closely that anything but fantastic, personally involved performances would make the movie worthless. But the performances are executed with such baffling realism and force that the whole picture comes together to stand as a definitive portrait on the intimacies of humanity.
The artistry displayed by Abdellatif Kechiche is powerful too. From the steel-drum music that underlines both Adele's first encounter with the mysteriously blue Emma and her last, to the brutal honesty the camera exhibits in its capturing of the women, to the beautiful visuals which include the spotted blueness, which significantly pops up throughout the film, Kechiche is a master of aesthetics.
With the aesthetic quality, the haunting realism and the emotional power, Blue is the Warmest Colour is an innovation; it stands tall and apart from all other movies.
4/4
Blue is the Warmest Colour is one of the saddest, most truthful films I have ever seen. Its thematic ambition isn't the highest, but for what it strides for--which is a documentary-like yet artistic depiction of a foundationally-human relationship--it is absolutely flawless. The portrayal of Adele and Emma's heartbreaking story is as real as film could ever strive to be; the actors and direction are fearless and could not be more vulnerable.
The two actors, Adele Exarchopoulos and Lea Seydoux, are shown so closely that anything but fantastic, personally involved performances would make the movie worthless. But the performances are executed with such baffling realism and force that the whole picture comes together to stand as a definitive portrait on the intimacies of humanity.
The artistry displayed by Abdellatif Kechiche is powerful too. From the steel-drum music that underlines both Adele's first encounter with the mysteriously blue Emma and her last, to the brutal honesty the camera exhibits in its capturing of the women, to the beautiful visuals which include the spotted blueness, which significantly pops up throughout the film, Kechiche is a master of aesthetics.
With the aesthetic quality, the haunting realism and the emotional power, Blue is the Warmest Colour is an innovation; it stands tall and apart from all other movies.
A Definitive Portrait: Magnolia
4/4
Magnolia is a powerhouse. A beast of a movie. An emotional colossus. A thematic universe. I would have no problem calling Magnolia the greatest film I have ever seen.
I first saw Magnolia a few years ago; I was barely 16. Despite its wrenching and draining 3 hours and 8 minutes, I watched it again the next day. I had an immediate knowledge that I had never seen a more brutally truthful movie. Around 3 years later, I still hold it in my top three favorite movies, and I still haven't cracked its iron shell.
There is a lot to manage here: paying attention to character connections, soaking in the style and atmosphere, deciphering the great thematic enigma, controlling one's own emotions...
Indeed, there is no film tougher to handle and make sense of than Magnolia. It has been criticized for being tragically meaningless, a sobbing senseless wreckage. But I don't see it that way. There are portraits of humanity in this movie, and I know that there are meaningful strings tying it all together. There are probably a number of themes--Paul Thomas Anderson's goal wasn't to speak on any single topic or message, but rather to provide the ultimate encapsulation of human existence in California's San Fernando Valley, where Anderson himself grew up. To display humanity so completely, one must deal with many different issues; perhaps each character is fighting the extreme circumstance of a given human experience, each of them different from the others.
Now that I consider it, forgiveness arises in many stories:
-Jim the cop must forgive his detainees
-Claudia must forgive her molesting father
-Linda must forgive herself for her own marital indecency
-Earl must forgive himself before dying for his marital indecency
-Frank must forgive his selfish, absent father
-God must forgive Egypt/California for its sins?
Perhaps we have something here.
The style and mood switches throughout the film. Many times it is jumpy and stressful, with whipping pans of the camera, loud music, moving bodies and alternate storylines interjecting on each other. At other moments, it is still and hypnotic; we hear Earl's long, tortured deathbed speech dragging into another scene. We stare silently at Tom Cruise's obliterating cry, the camera mercilessly staying on him for way too long, leaving us in pieces by the time it's over. No music plays as the frogs fall from the sky, none other than the music of frogs slapping and splatting against pavement at a hundred miles per hour. The realism of this surreal moment is terrifyingly overwhelming. This is what Paul Thomas Anderson does; he creates scenes that cross us as surreal but then dig into the deeper parts of ourselves, and we experience them as truth.
Stanley the kid:
He is a kid-genius being exploited by his father and game show host Jimmy Gator and all of America through his participance on the show "What Do Kids Know?". He genuinely loves accumulating knowledge; it's not that that he feels taken advantage of for. It's the money he wins on the show that goes to his dad; it's the laughs America puts out upon hearing him speak his mind; it's the archetype America places on his face--the face of a human, not an object. Stanley is able to paint a devastated look across Jimmy Gator's face with the truth he speaks when he addresses the inhumanity of modern media. In some ways, Stanley is the wisest, although youngest, character in the film. When the frogs fall, he is the only one who stays content: he glances around, calmly, exclaiming "This happens. Things like this really happen" with a smile. He is satisfied with the chaos--more than just accepting of it, which is itself more than any other character can manage. Something about his learning has brought him improbable wisdom.
Frank T.J. Mackey:
His soul is stained by the absence of his father, Earl Partridge, during Frank's mother's degeneration and death. He has now created an empire of sexual aggression seminars and merchandise entitled "Seduce and Destroy"; a hurricane of misogyny. Is this to cope with the loss of his mother, particularly the experience of having to watch her suffer and die with him at such a young age, and with no other man to help take care of her? Is this exercising control over women as overcompensation for the lack of control he felt in his mother's situation? He has thoroughly suppressed that time of his life from his mind; he denies his mother's existence to the interviewer, and seems to be confronting thoughts of his father for the first time in decades when the exchange between father and son occurs. Maybe "Seduce", as he affectionately calls it, has pushed the pain of his childhood out of mind, but it certainly hasn't eradicated it: the pain violently contorts his face as he sobs beside the father he hates. It is clearly still fresh and present.
Jim the cop:
He has a simple worldview: he just wants to be loved and accepted. We see his online dating profile, which asks for nothing more than loving acceptance. The one secret he reveals to Claudia is his embarrassment within the squad--his non-acceptance. He must be deeply insecure--he speaks to himself in the car. Or is he speaking to his baton, or his police car? He is looking for somebody to connect with. Why is he so insecure? He is wise, and courageous, and does his job well. He does the right thing. He loves and accepts. And he loves and accepts in the clearest form, at the end--forgiveness.
Quiz Kid Donnie Smith:
Claudia:
Jimmy Gator:
Linda Partridge:
Earl Partridge:
Phil:
In progress..............
Magnolia is a powerhouse. A beast of a movie. An emotional colossus. A thematic universe. I would have no problem calling Magnolia the greatest film I have ever seen.
I first saw Magnolia a few years ago; I was barely 16. Despite its wrenching and draining 3 hours and 8 minutes, I watched it again the next day. I had an immediate knowledge that I had never seen a more brutally truthful movie. Around 3 years later, I still hold it in my top three favorite movies, and I still haven't cracked its iron shell.
There is a lot to manage here: paying attention to character connections, soaking in the style and atmosphere, deciphering the great thematic enigma, controlling one's own emotions...
Indeed, there is no film tougher to handle and make sense of than Magnolia. It has been criticized for being tragically meaningless, a sobbing senseless wreckage. But I don't see it that way. There are portraits of humanity in this movie, and I know that there are meaningful strings tying it all together. There are probably a number of themes--Paul Thomas Anderson's goal wasn't to speak on any single topic or message, but rather to provide the ultimate encapsulation of human existence in California's San Fernando Valley, where Anderson himself grew up. To display humanity so completely, one must deal with many different issues; perhaps each character is fighting the extreme circumstance of a given human experience, each of them different from the others.
Now that I consider it, forgiveness arises in many stories:
-Jim the cop must forgive his detainees
-Claudia must forgive her molesting father
-Linda must forgive herself for her own marital indecency
-Earl must forgive himself before dying for his marital indecency
-Frank must forgive his selfish, absent father
-God must forgive Egypt/California for its sins?
Perhaps we have something here.
The style and mood switches throughout the film. Many times it is jumpy and stressful, with whipping pans of the camera, loud music, moving bodies and alternate storylines interjecting on each other. At other moments, it is still and hypnotic; we hear Earl's long, tortured deathbed speech dragging into another scene. We stare silently at Tom Cruise's obliterating cry, the camera mercilessly staying on him for way too long, leaving us in pieces by the time it's over. No music plays as the frogs fall from the sky, none other than the music of frogs slapping and splatting against pavement at a hundred miles per hour. The realism of this surreal moment is terrifyingly overwhelming. This is what Paul Thomas Anderson does; he creates scenes that cross us as surreal but then dig into the deeper parts of ourselves, and we experience them as truth.
Stanley the kid:
He is a kid-genius being exploited by his father and game show host Jimmy Gator and all of America through his participance on the show "What Do Kids Know?". He genuinely loves accumulating knowledge; it's not that that he feels taken advantage of for. It's the money he wins on the show that goes to his dad; it's the laughs America puts out upon hearing him speak his mind; it's the archetype America places on his face--the face of a human, not an object. Stanley is able to paint a devastated look across Jimmy Gator's face with the truth he speaks when he addresses the inhumanity of modern media. In some ways, Stanley is the wisest, although youngest, character in the film. When the frogs fall, he is the only one who stays content: he glances around, calmly, exclaiming "This happens. Things like this really happen" with a smile. He is satisfied with the chaos--more than just accepting of it, which is itself more than any other character can manage. Something about his learning has brought him improbable wisdom.
Frank T.J. Mackey:
His soul is stained by the absence of his father, Earl Partridge, during Frank's mother's degeneration and death. He has now created an empire of sexual aggression seminars and merchandise entitled "Seduce and Destroy"; a hurricane of misogyny. Is this to cope with the loss of his mother, particularly the experience of having to watch her suffer and die with him at such a young age, and with no other man to help take care of her? Is this exercising control over women as overcompensation for the lack of control he felt in his mother's situation? He has thoroughly suppressed that time of his life from his mind; he denies his mother's existence to the interviewer, and seems to be confronting thoughts of his father for the first time in decades when the exchange between father and son occurs. Maybe "Seduce", as he affectionately calls it, has pushed the pain of his childhood out of mind, but it certainly hasn't eradicated it: the pain violently contorts his face as he sobs beside the father he hates. It is clearly still fresh and present.
Jim the cop:
He has a simple worldview: he just wants to be loved and accepted. We see his online dating profile, which asks for nothing more than loving acceptance. The one secret he reveals to Claudia is his embarrassment within the squad--his non-acceptance. He must be deeply insecure--he speaks to himself in the car. Or is he speaking to his baton, or his police car? He is looking for somebody to connect with. Why is he so insecure? He is wise, and courageous, and does his job well. He does the right thing. He loves and accepts. And he loves and accepts in the clearest form, at the end--forgiveness.
Quiz Kid Donnie Smith:
Claudia:
Jimmy Gator:
Linda Partridge:
Earl Partridge:
Phil:
In progress..............
Rethinking a "My Favorite Movies" List
Synecdoche, NY
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Magnolia
2001: A Space Odyssey
Birdman
The Place Beyond the Pines
There Will Be Blood
Mulholland Drive
What I need to see again in order to confirm its spot:
Interstellar
Melancholia
Blue Valentine
The Tree of Life
A current pantheon:
Interstellar
Birdman
The Tree of Life
Mulholland Drive
Synecdoche, NY
Melancholia
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Magnolia
2001: A Space Odyssey
Birdman
The Place Beyond the Pines
There Will Be Blood
Mulholland Drive
What I need to see again in order to confirm its spot:
Interstellar
Melancholia
Blue Valentine
The Tree of Life
A current pantheon:
Interstellar
Birdman
The Tree of Life
Mulholland Drive
Synecdoche, NY
Melancholia
Monday, May 11, 2015
Review: The Best Years of Our Lives
Seen 5/11/15
2/4
While The Best Years of Our Lives was hugely successful in its time (1946), it stands today as nothing but a film with a good heart. The ideas and techniques are totally dry, such that to consider it Existentialist is, sadly, a joke. But I can say that I enjoyed the film, and really liked some of its characters. Especially striking were the two Stephenson women, who were acted with strength and genuineness. The men, on the other hand, were easily the weak point. The three leads were far cheesier than the women, and the actors gave worse performances. Fascinating is the fact that Harold Russell (Homer) won an Oscar and wide acclaim for his performance, which amounted to no more than a real veteran with no hands playing a veteran with no hands, and doing it with zero talent. He's not an actor! I'm sorry again..... I liked the film. But I actually found nothing to like in any characters but the two women and some supporting roles. However, those two characters were entirely enough to keep me invested.
2/4
While The Best Years of Our Lives was hugely successful in its time (1946), it stands today as nothing but a film with a good heart. The ideas and techniques are totally dry, such that to consider it Existentialist is, sadly, a joke. But I can say that I enjoyed the film, and really liked some of its characters. Especially striking were the two Stephenson women, who were acted with strength and genuineness. The men, on the other hand, were easily the weak point. The three leads were far cheesier than the women, and the actors gave worse performances. Fascinating is the fact that Harold Russell (Homer) won an Oscar and wide acclaim for his performance, which amounted to no more than a real veteran with no hands playing a veteran with no hands, and doing it with zero talent. He's not an actor! I'm sorry again..... I liked the film. But I actually found nothing to like in any characters but the two women and some supporting roles. However, those two characters were entirely enough to keep me invested.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Review: Groundhog Day
Seen 5/4/15
2/4
I am confused as to why this is considered one of the most profoundly philosophical movies out there. I really didn't find much; I'm sure there is a little that I missed, but whatever that is can be no more than technical terminology applied unnecessarily to common-sensical phenomena. This movie isn't very profound at all; it simply echoes a situation, unintentionally, that appears in Existential philosophy, particularly in Camus.
As far as the movie goes.... I don't hate it. I appreciate the resolution-- Bill Murray's newfound compassion. While I despise his acting deep within my stomach, I didn't mind the relationship. Murray is certainly better here than in Razor's Edge, but even so, his level of talent is pitiful.
There are funny moments, and a nice feeling throughout, so this movie sits better with me than most of its genre.
2/4
I am confused as to why this is considered one of the most profoundly philosophical movies out there. I really didn't find much; I'm sure there is a little that I missed, but whatever that is can be no more than technical terminology applied unnecessarily to common-sensical phenomena. This movie isn't very profound at all; it simply echoes a situation, unintentionally, that appears in Existential philosophy, particularly in Camus.
As far as the movie goes.... I don't hate it. I appreciate the resolution-- Bill Murray's newfound compassion. While I despise his acting deep within my stomach, I didn't mind the relationship. Murray is certainly better here than in Razor's Edge, but even so, his level of talent is pitiful.
There are funny moments, and a nice feeling throughout, so this movie sits better with me than most of its genre.
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Review: Interstellar
Seen 5/1/15
4/4
In my view, this is one of the most important films ever. It pulls us out of human civilization and therefore forces the question of the value of a population so minute and so easily threatened. I have never had a film experience that so begs me to ponder the value of my species, and other than Synecdoche, New York, no film has affected me so personally and so deeply. Interstellar reaches insane levels of profundity through emotion, aesthetics, exploration into the unknown, and Existential philosophy. I certainly think that Christopher Nolan cut some corners and the movie isn't perfect, but I don't care; it took me places far beyond where any other movie has gone, and I'm not just talking about into space. Therefore, for all its imperfections as a film, Interstellar has the ambition and beauty to totally revolutionize the film industry, and I pray that everyone sees the possibilities that it opens.
4/4
In my view, this is one of the most important films ever. It pulls us out of human civilization and therefore forces the question of the value of a population so minute and so easily threatened. I have never had a film experience that so begs me to ponder the value of my species, and other than Synecdoche, New York, no film has affected me so personally and so deeply. Interstellar reaches insane levels of profundity through emotion, aesthetics, exploration into the unknown, and Existential philosophy. I certainly think that Christopher Nolan cut some corners and the movie isn't perfect, but I don't care; it took me places far beyond where any other movie has gone, and I'm not just talking about into space. Therefore, for all its imperfections as a film, Interstellar has the ambition and beauty to totally revolutionize the film industry, and I pray that everyone sees the possibilities that it opens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)