Alrighty, definitely one of the strangest films I have seen but still awesome. I was entertained from start to finish and honestly wanted more. The film contained some hilarious elements and the cinematography was beautiful.
Kung Fu Hustle is a postmodern film because of what is doing with images juxtaposed with other images. The whole movie is referencing other movies! Some examples:
1. The Godfather Part II: when the Landlord is walking around the Pig Sty gathering items from his tenants-- shot similar to Don Corleone walking through streets of NY collecting from his people
2. Matrix: used bullet time/slow motion , final scene was very similar to the end of the third Matrix where they are fighting in the rain in the air
3. Roadrunner: cartoon elements suggesting a roadrunner/coyote chase parody
4. Reservoir Dogs: the way the gangsters looked and danced-- very similar to the dance during the infamous ear scene in Tarantino's film
===these are just a handful of references used throughout the film. Now of course, the film also references every Kung Fu movie known to man, but I am not very familiar with this genre as I would like to be. I have seen a couple of the Bruce Lee films, but that was when I was younger. Honestly, the main "Kung Fu" that I can relate with is Kill Bill Volume I, which can arguably be compared to Kung Fu Hustle.
Tarantino is known for rehashing everything from other films into his own. He is king of postmodern American filmmaking because he knows how to mix images and references in a clever and unigue way. We discussed this in class, how that since everything has been done already, filmmakers are constantly trying to mix images from other films to create something new or at least a different spin on it. Kill Bill derives most of its action and story line from other kung fu films--music(which was almost identical to Hustle at some parts), choreographed fight scenes, certain fight techniques, etc...
So why mix images and rehash old elements of previous films? Well, I am not sure exactly but I think its just to pump out something that will entertain. Honestly, our generation likes rehashing and the revisitation of the past. Example: I Love The 80's, 90's, etc... This stuff already happened and we have lived through it, but we love to watch comedians and stars talk and poke fun at things we used to like and do. And it is the same with film: we like to see new films make references to the old films we love-- its fun and exciting to spot your favorite scene from the Godfather unexpectedly show up in a random kung fu movie. Images mixed with various images is now what we prety much have come to expect in film, and I don't really mind, as long as they keep doing it in a clever way.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Oh Mr. Lynch...
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.
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.
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.
Friday, March 12, 2010
La Dolce Vita
I absolutely loved this film. Its beauty was captivating, as well as its stories. When watching this, I was constantly being blown away by the cinematography. The types of shots that were used throughout were gorgeous. One of my favorites was a shot near the beginning which included a motorcycle, a woman, and Marcello. Each object and person is on a third of the screen (third guidelines) and for some reason just really pleased my eye. I love great composition and this film definitely showed me that it was most likely the influence used by many filmmakers who followed.
One scene that I noticed used by another filmmaker was the scene where Marcello goes home to find his wife had poisoned herself. He rushed her to a hospital. This same exact scenario was used in Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction," John Travolta's character, Vincent Vega, enters a room to find Marcia Wallace overdosed on heroin. He rushes her to get help immediately (a drug dealer, not a hospital that is). What was really interesting to see, was Quentin used an identical shot from La Dolce Vita, the scene when Marcello's car goes flying into the street. Vincent Vega pulls the same quick car move in Pulp Fiction. I know Tarantino incorporates like everything he has seen in his movies, it was just fun to take notice on how innovative and influential this film truly is.
The idea that this was the influence or what Mad Men was trying to create was evident throughout. The whole time I couldn't get Don Draper out of my mind. Marcello was the original "Mad Man"-- sharp dressed, cool and calm. womanizer, and very confident with his work and comrades. Even the women of the film reminded me so much of January Jones' character. I am a huge fan of Mad Men, and I think that is why I really enjoyed the mis en scene of this film.
The production of La Dolce Vita is very interesting. I just really enjoyed the technical aspects of it and its director's aesthetic choices.
One scene that I noticed used by another filmmaker was the scene where Marcello goes home to find his wife had poisoned herself. He rushed her to a hospital. This same exact scenario was used in Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction," John Travolta's character, Vincent Vega, enters a room to find Marcia Wallace overdosed on heroin. He rushes her to get help immediately (a drug dealer, not a hospital that is). What was really interesting to see, was Quentin used an identical shot from La Dolce Vita, the scene when Marcello's car goes flying into the street. Vincent Vega pulls the same quick car move in Pulp Fiction. I know Tarantino incorporates like everything he has seen in his movies, it was just fun to take notice on how innovative and influential this film truly is.
The idea that this was the influence or what Mad Men was trying to create was evident throughout. The whole time I couldn't get Don Draper out of my mind. Marcello was the original "Mad Man"-- sharp dressed, cool and calm. womanizer, and very confident with his work and comrades. Even the women of the film reminded me so much of January Jones' character. I am a huge fan of Mad Men, and I think that is why I really enjoyed the mis en scene of this film.
The production of La Dolce Vita is very interesting. I just really enjoyed the technical aspects of it and its director's aesthetic choices.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Deja Vu in Marienbad
This film was quite interesting. Yes the plot was boring, but that was apparently the point. The plot was not essential, it was the director's intention to create this deja vu feeling for the main character and for the audience. I kept thinking the film would end at certain points, but nope-- it would continue right on to a similar shot of the hotel or the garden--- scenes that were used numerous times throughout the film. This left me sitting there going- "Wait, I've seen this already and I'm sick of seeing this for a fourth time!"\
However, I did enjoy the splendid camera work through out the film. The camera seemed to be constantly moving-- either through hallways or around its characters. I truly enjoy directors who are not afraid to have their cameras moving during shots. One example is Martin Scorsese's beautiful night club scene. The camera performs a tracking shot, following the two main characters through the many hallways and rooms of a night club (all in one take). So when watching this film, I was mesmerized by the tracking shot through the hotel hallways--it was so well done. Being a video major, I love adding these type shots into my projects as well. They take great preparation and time to pull off, but the end product is well worth it.
In class we discussed the unnamed game that was played amongst the characters A and M. We discussed a few different reasons as for what it could represent. One was that it represented A's constant loss and repetition in life (after even letting the M make the first move). But after doing the reading, I felt the writer's argument was a little stronger. The reading states, "an activity whose very essence is structure—or form for form’s sake. Moving inside regular structures, and acting according to clear and prescribed rules, is the deeply felt need of the hotel society portrayed in the film" I found this point very interesting. Everything and everyone in the hotel is very structured. The garden is set up like something from a Tim Burton film, full of symmetry. The tracking shots throughout it are done with great care. And in order for the repetition to come across on screen, the shots and camera angles all had to have been structured with great care as well. So to me, I feel the camera work in this film is what truly brought forth the structure and overall form of the piece.
However, I did enjoy the splendid camera work through out the film. The camera seemed to be constantly moving-- either through hallways or around its characters. I truly enjoy directors who are not afraid to have their cameras moving during shots. One example is Martin Scorsese's beautiful night club scene. The camera performs a tracking shot, following the two main characters through the many hallways and rooms of a night club (all in one take). So when watching this film, I was mesmerized by the tracking shot through the hotel hallways--it was so well done. Being a video major, I love adding these type shots into my projects as well. They take great preparation and time to pull off, but the end product is well worth it.
In class we discussed the unnamed game that was played amongst the characters A and M. We discussed a few different reasons as for what it could represent. One was that it represented A's constant loss and repetition in life (after even letting the M make the first move). But after doing the reading, I felt the writer's argument was a little stronger. The reading states, "an activity whose very essence is structure—or form for form’s sake. Moving inside regular structures, and acting according to clear and prescribed rules, is the deeply felt need of the hotel society portrayed in the film" I found this point very interesting. Everything and everyone in the hotel is very structured. The garden is set up like something from a Tim Burton film, full of symmetry. The tracking shots throughout it are done with great care. And in order for the repetition to come across on screen, the shots and camera angles all had to have been structured with great care as well. So to me, I feel the camera work in this film is what truly brought forth the structure and overall form of the piece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
