Well I have seen pretty much every Lynch film, short, animation sequence, internet clip, interview, and documentary you can name in my Film Criticism class. And what I have learned is not to expect any direct meaning or message from anything he has done (with Straight Story and Elephant Man as the exceptions). But I can definitely see how Lynch is ground breaking and a film making genius. His work is visually stunning and the directions he takes his films in is absolutely out of the realm we are used to as "Hollywood viewers."
Muholland Drive is one of my favorite Lynch films. It contains beautiful cinematography and very interesting scenes that keep the viewer enthralled (ex= scene where director gets beat up by Achy Breaky Heart sensation- Billy Ray Cyrus). However, the film is very confusing and after seeing it three times now, I still have no idea what the external meaning, if any, is.
But through class and the reading, the idea of postmodernism became clearer to me through this film. Images juxtaposed with other images creating a completely different image. Before I thought that meant something similar to montage, but it actually is quite different.
In the film, there is this clash between a bunch of film genres surrounding a plot about Hollywood. You name it, it is probably in there- western, mafia, film noir, detective, thriller, action, comedy, suspense, romance, etc... Now this is where it gets interesting. All these different film "images" that we are used to from other films, are now compiled and mixed up with one another in one film. The image of one genre mixed with another genre then creates this completely new image. That image is a very confusing one, however is a statement by Lynch to avoid the idea of the cliche in cinema.
In the reading, it discusses how Lynch sets the scene up for a romantic cliche between the director and Betty. Betty represents the girl who has the dream to make it big in Hollywood and become a star. She represents the girl that is to catch the director's eye, stop time, and hence create a romantic relationship and launch her to stardom. But Lynch toys with this cliche. He builds the scene up perfectly, Betty walks in and the director stares at her in awe, and she looks at him, about to get the big role----then Lynch pulls the rug from under the viewer and lets that old cliche go right out the door, along with every other formulaic Hollywood scenario we are used to.
I feel Lynch likes to take his films where they have never been before and cause viewers to feel uncomfortable with their surroundings. Lynch's use of postmodernism is quite interesting and allows his film making to take people to ideas and situations that they have never seen before.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Heathers
I have been wanting to view this film ever since I saw it featured on "I Love the
80's" a few years back. So going in I had high expectations that this film would blow my mind--being the opposite of a John Hughes film and all. Heathers was a crazy and interesting film, that kept my attention from beginning to end. But this film defintiely pissed me off.
When DJ and Victoria begin committing "murder/suicides," there is no real motive or explanation. The plot and the characters give no reason to sympathize with the characters and/or to truly understand and justify their decisions to murder. Not until more than halfway through the film do we start to "understand" why DJ is so messed up (his parents and homelife) but I still feel it doesn't justify Victoria's involvement.
The reading goes into this as well, discussing how Heathers breaks the hollywood narrative structure. Most films introduce motive right in the beginning, so everything after makes since or can be understood by the audience. But Heathers breaks that structure, leaving the audience frustrated and confused for the first hour. I mean, I sat there awe struck at how these two teenagers just shot guns and put cleaning fluid in mugs and kept their cool. When films break away from the narrative stucture that is predominantly used, it throws the whole film off kilter and sends the audience through loops (which is most likely the intent of course).
Being a film major, students are taught how to write the "narrative structure" --- three acts, climax, resolution, blah blah blah. I get really annoyed with structure nad how Hollywood and teachers say it has to a certain way- especially if you want to make money. And I have no problem with films that do not use the normal structure because it is different. But some films just piss me off, like Heathers, because the rational is so absurd and I just couldn't connect with the characters enough to say "Yeah, their killing is justified and this makes so much sense with the film's comment on teen suicide."
Another film that I suggest to others to watch is the film - Funny Games. This is a film that will definitely piss you off due to not following the Hollywood structure. In my opinion it is one of the most clever films that addresses the absurdity of Hollywood narrative and audience expectations.
80's" a few years back. So going in I had high expectations that this film would blow my mind--being the opposite of a John Hughes film and all. Heathers was a crazy and interesting film, that kept my attention from beginning to end. But this film defintiely pissed me off.
When DJ and Victoria begin committing "murder/suicides," there is no real motive or explanation. The plot and the characters give no reason to sympathize with the characters and/or to truly understand and justify their decisions to murder. Not until more than halfway through the film do we start to "understand" why DJ is so messed up (his parents and homelife) but I still feel it doesn't justify Victoria's involvement.
The reading goes into this as well, discussing how Heathers breaks the hollywood narrative structure. Most films introduce motive right in the beginning, so everything after makes since or can be understood by the audience. But Heathers breaks that structure, leaving the audience frustrated and confused for the first hour. I mean, I sat there awe struck at how these two teenagers just shot guns and put cleaning fluid in mugs and kept their cool. When films break away from the narrative stucture that is predominantly used, it throws the whole film off kilter and sends the audience through loops (which is most likely the intent of course).
Being a film major, students are taught how to write the "narrative structure" --- three acts, climax, resolution, blah blah blah. I get really annoyed with structure nad how Hollywood and teachers say it has to a certain way- especially if you want to make money. And I have no problem with films that do not use the normal structure because it is different. But some films just piss me off, like Heathers, because the rational is so absurd and I just couldn't connect with the characters enough to say "Yeah, their killing is justified and this makes so much sense with the film's comment on teen suicide."
Another film that I suggest to others to watch is the film - Funny Games. This is a film that will definitely piss you off due to not following the Hollywood structure. In my opinion it is one of the most clever films that addresses the absurdity of Hollywood narrative and audience expectations.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Vanishing Point
When first viewing this film in my Surrealism class last semester, the teacher asked us if it fell under the category of surrealist film. He told us that it can go either way--depending on the viewer and how they interpret it.
After seeing the film a second time, I still believe the film is surreal. Yes, there is somewhat of a narrative, but it is non-linear. Right in the beginning of the film, we are shown the end of it- immediately freezing a frame and taking the audience back a couple days prior. The jumping around that early on alreaady throws the audience through a loop and says hang on cause this is gonna get a little crazy.
Surreal films are filled with dreamlike sequences and flashbacks. Vanishing Point has plenty of flashbacks that leave the almost empty plot/logic of the film openended for the viewer. Flashbacks include Kowalski as a cop, a racer, and a scene with his love interest who dies in a surfing accident The girlfriend scene is very surreal because she appears almost angelic and the whole scene is dreamlike. The audience is left with all these random pieces of information on Kowalski, and are left to figure out their own backstory for themself. Because in surrealism, anyone's guess is as good as the next.
However, the author does make some very interesting points when it comes to pieceing the puzzle that exists within this film. I feel that the author is really reaching for answers in their attempt to understand a surreal film that necessarily doesn't hold any specific meanings. Like with the whole claim that the white Challenger is a "ghostly premonition,a passing of death on the highway" and that the black Chrysler is a memory trace for Kowalski to trigger a certiain moment from where it all started.
The claims do make sense, but I feel that it is just one person's belief, not necessarily being the true intent of the filmmakers. I believe that the film was created to be left for interpretation, just like any great surreal film should. The white car could have represented Kowalski's love interest who died in the surfing accident. She could have been possibly calling him to join her in the after life, and that is why Kowalski plowed into the bulldozers to die. I'm not saying it this theory is correct, but it is just one person's interpretation.
After seeing the film a second time, I still believe the film is surreal. Yes, there is somewhat of a narrative, but it is non-linear. Right in the beginning of the film, we are shown the end of it- immediately freezing a frame and taking the audience back a couple days prior. The jumping around that early on alreaady throws the audience through a loop and says hang on cause this is gonna get a little crazy.
Surreal films are filled with dreamlike sequences and flashbacks. Vanishing Point has plenty of flashbacks that leave the almost empty plot/logic of the film openended for the viewer. Flashbacks include Kowalski as a cop, a racer, and a scene with his love interest who dies in a surfing accident The girlfriend scene is very surreal because she appears almost angelic and the whole scene is dreamlike. The audience is left with all these random pieces of information on Kowalski, and are left to figure out their own backstory for themself. Because in surrealism, anyone's guess is as good as the next.
However, the author does make some very interesting points when it comes to pieceing the puzzle that exists within this film. I feel that the author is really reaching for answers in their attempt to understand a surreal film that necessarily doesn't hold any specific meanings. Like with the whole claim that the white Challenger is a "ghostly premonition,a passing of death on the highway" and that the black Chrysler is a memory trace for Kowalski to trigger a certiain moment from where it all started.
The claims do make sense, but I feel that it is just one person's belief, not necessarily being the true intent of the filmmakers. I believe that the film was created to be left for interpretation, just like any great surreal film should. The white car could have represented Kowalski's love interest who died in the surfing accident. She could have been possibly calling him to join her in the after life, and that is why Kowalski plowed into the bulldozers to die. I'm not saying it this theory is correct, but it is just one person's interpretation.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Dr. Strangelove
First off-- I am a huge Kubrick fan-- my favorite film of his is Barry Lyndon. Barry Lyndon is a beautiful film that incorporates stunning cinematography and such "Kubrick-ish" composition. Dr. Strangelove only further increased my love for Kubrick.
I have never seen Dr. Strangelove before, it has always been put off for some reason. Once again, Kubrick demonstrates his strong capabilities when it comes to placing a camera in a scene. In the many scenes when the council is discussing plans in the war room, the wide shot is so stunning. The overhead lights running across the middle of the frame, cutting the shot into two parts - emptiness and a table of men. Now was this just strictly a stylistic decision? Or does the shot composition mean something? It could possibly mean the heavy burden that lingers over the men who would be responsible for the end of the world. The top half of the screen could possibly represent the nuclear threat that is happening- how it is all just talk and nothing tangible yet. I don't know exactly but it is definitely something to think about further...
Kubrick provides such a great commentary on nuclear war and plain war itself. The whole idea of countries creating countless bombs to deter other countries is just ridiculous. I love how the reading discusses how Kubrick bought the script rights and wanted to turn a story into a straight drama piece. But he soon realized that the subject manner in reality is so ridiculous that it comes across as humorous in ways. Hence the term "nightmare comedy" was attributed to the piece.
This is not my favorite film of the director, but it is definitely interesting. If you liked this -- check out some of his others--- A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut, and The Shining.
I have never seen Dr. Strangelove before, it has always been put off for some reason. Once again, Kubrick demonstrates his strong capabilities when it comes to placing a camera in a scene. In the many scenes when the council is discussing plans in the war room, the wide shot is so stunning. The overhead lights running across the middle of the frame, cutting the shot into two parts - emptiness and a table of men. Now was this just strictly a stylistic decision? Or does the shot composition mean something? It could possibly mean the heavy burden that lingers over the men who would be responsible for the end of the world. The top half of the screen could possibly represent the nuclear threat that is happening- how it is all just talk and nothing tangible yet. I don't know exactly but it is definitely something to think about further...
Kubrick provides such a great commentary on nuclear war and plain war itself. The whole idea of countries creating countless bombs to deter other countries is just ridiculous. I love how the reading discusses how Kubrick bought the script rights and wanted to turn a story into a straight drama piece. But he soon realized that the subject manner in reality is so ridiculous that it comes across as humorous in ways. Hence the term "nightmare comedy" was attributed to the piece.
This is not my favorite film of the director, but it is definitely interesting. If you liked this -- check out some of his others--- A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut, and The Shining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
