Monday 27 June 2011
Animations
The most obvious form of expressionism has to be 'animations'. I love animations. In this post I'm not going to talk about the Pixar or DreamWorks kinds of animations (although, my favorite Pixar films are Toy Story, Monster's inc., Ratatouille and Up). Big animation companies usually strive for family orientated comedies and stories that would touch our very souls. I have yet to see Quentin Tarantino or Martin Scorsese directing a gangster film using animations. I've dreamt about it sometimes. What I’m about to talk is the severe form of expressionism in animations. Animators whom I adore so much that when you look at their animations, some might think how oddly strange these people are. I look at it as a form of 'severe expressionism'. Their animations, in my opinion, are depicted solely like what they're really thinking about. David Firth, David Shrigley and Don Hertzfelt
I've recently came across David Firth when I was strolling trough YouTube and I instantly fell in love with his animations. He uses, bland, solid colors and his stories are often distorted with people with mental illnesses. His messages are deep, often to the point that you can't really point out what he's trying to convey sometimes. When I see his animations I've always thought I connected to his stories in one way or another. Dark, gloomy visuals always kept me happy, and even though Firth's animations are creepy they've always made me feel somehow. This is one of my favorite animations from him.Purely excellent.
David Shrigley is more of a comical lad. Sometimes I wonder if he randomly used some element in his animations or if he thought about it beforehand. He's also uses dark visuals that are almost comical in a sense. Amazingly,he doesn't use any colors and still it feels dark. He's like David Firth in a way. Using very deep messages, but they aren't as emotional as firth's animations. This is one of the many favorite short films from Shrigley.
Finally, Don Herzfelt. For your information his short animation film 'Rejected' was nominated for an Academy Award, and it's my favorite. Satirical, dark and bold. Animations that make me feel like I'm part of something. Oh, and the background I'm using for this blog is one of the many cute characters from this short film. Enjoy responsibly :)
Thursday 23 June 2011
M.
M is by far one of the best classic films I've seen so far. It's probably not my favorite, but I did enjoy the film as much as I've enjoyed 'The General'. This movie, directed by Fritz Lang, is almost unlike any other films I’ve seen with a police procedural theme. I like how the film is different than any other police-style films there are today, and amazingly, it was made in 1931.
If I were to write something about the first 10 minutes of the film is that the director, or the cinematographer, knew where to put the camera. This is true for any of a good film; it is that of where the camera is placed. It would have been a completely different feeling if it didn't track movements of the actors, or if it were to stay stationary most of the parts. I like the part when the camera moved towards Elsie Beckmann's mother when she opened the door. I might add that the part where Elsie Beckmann was abducted there were long still shots. I felt that it was trying to propose the idea of 'emptiness'. It's more of an expression rather than reality. If it were to incorporate realism, Elsie Beckmann would have been seen murdered by the murderer. Instead, while Elsie Beckmann's mother was echoing her name, the balloon that she was holding before that was stuck on an electric pole, and then there were shots of the empty staircase and the empty park when the ball was rolling. This scene was 'the scene' of the whole ten minutes; it made us wonder what really happened to Elsie Beckmann. To my demise, I really wondered how Elsie Beckmann was murdered.
Secondly, notice how silent the first 10 minutes were. It was a cool, tension-laden scene. It's amazing how silence can say so much. Even the non-diagetic, credit roles contributed to some extend to the silence in the film. The sounds in the first 10 minutes of the film were actually silent in my opinion, even with sound. From the part where Elsie Beckmann sang a song about a murderer, to the part when the child murderer approached Elsie Beckmann with only a shadow was seen, to the part where the cuckoo clock made an alarm sound. It may have been the loud sound of silence. The climax to this first 10 minutes of the film was probably when she looked at the clock before the doorbell was heard. It wasn't very obvious but to me, it was the part when it confirmed that something happened to Elsie Beckmann. It was the part before she talked to the postman and knew that Elsie Beckmann wouldn't come home. Then it leads to her calling her daughter's name.
Besides that, we knew the moment when Elsie Beckmann was talking to the man in the shadows that something would go wrong. In most films similar to this, we remember specific moments and utilize it during later scenes. For example, the part when the murderer whistled when he was buying Elsie Beckmann a balloon, we unconsciously remembered the whistle. In later part of the film, the 'motif' on capturing the murderer would be this whistle. Little things can be remembered, particularly if something was as insignificant as the sound of the whistle. It reminded me of a film called 'Departures', an Oscar-winning Japanese film. In that film, the littlest thing can mean the biggest meaning. The movie was about death but then there were a lot of cactuses in most parts of the film. I found out that cactuses are the only plants that do not die. It was ironic really. Same goes to this movie in a way, we focus unconsciously on the smallest things that can make a difference in the whole film, and that was only the first 10 minutes of the film.
In conclusion, the first 10 minutes of 'M' was a terrific form of expressionism as a meaning. The usage of still shots says a lot of things in relation to the sounds, the whistle and the lack use of music. It created a whole lot of tension just by seeing the first 10 minutes of the film.
If I were to write something about the first 10 minutes of the film is that the director, or the cinematographer, knew where to put the camera. This is true for any of a good film; it is that of where the camera is placed. It would have been a completely different feeling if it didn't track movements of the actors, or if it were to stay stationary most of the parts. I like the part when the camera moved towards Elsie Beckmann's mother when she opened the door. I might add that the part where Elsie Beckmann was abducted there were long still shots. I felt that it was trying to propose the idea of 'emptiness'. It's more of an expression rather than reality. If it were to incorporate realism, Elsie Beckmann would have been seen murdered by the murderer. Instead, while Elsie Beckmann's mother was echoing her name, the balloon that she was holding before that was stuck on an electric pole, and then there were shots of the empty staircase and the empty park when the ball was rolling. This scene was 'the scene' of the whole ten minutes; it made us wonder what really happened to Elsie Beckmann. To my demise, I really wondered how Elsie Beckmann was murdered.
Secondly, notice how silent the first 10 minutes were. It was a cool, tension-laden scene. It's amazing how silence can say so much. Even the non-diagetic, credit roles contributed to some extend to the silence in the film. The sounds in the first 10 minutes of the film were actually silent in my opinion, even with sound. From the part where Elsie Beckmann sang a song about a murderer, to the part when the child murderer approached Elsie Beckmann with only a shadow was seen, to the part where the cuckoo clock made an alarm sound. It may have been the loud sound of silence. The climax to this first 10 minutes of the film was probably when she looked at the clock before the doorbell was heard. It wasn't very obvious but to me, it was the part when it confirmed that something happened to Elsie Beckmann. It was the part before she talked to the postman and knew that Elsie Beckmann wouldn't come home. Then it leads to her calling her daughter's name.
Besides that, we knew the moment when Elsie Beckmann was talking to the man in the shadows that something would go wrong. In most films similar to this, we remember specific moments and utilize it during later scenes. For example, the part when the murderer whistled when he was buying Elsie Beckmann a balloon, we unconsciously remembered the whistle. In later part of the film, the 'motif' on capturing the murderer would be this whistle. Little things can be remembered, particularly if something was as insignificant as the sound of the whistle. It reminded me of a film called 'Departures', an Oscar-winning Japanese film. In that film, the littlest thing can mean the biggest meaning. The movie was about death but then there were a lot of cactuses in most parts of the film. I found out that cactuses are the only plants that do not die. It was ironic really. Same goes to this movie in a way, we focus unconsciously on the smallest things that can make a difference in the whole film, and that was only the first 10 minutes of the film.
In conclusion, the first 10 minutes of 'M' was a terrific form of expressionism as a meaning. The usage of still shots says a lot of things in relation to the sounds, the whistle and the lack use of music. It created a whole lot of tension just by seeing the first 10 minutes of the film.
Friday 10 June 2011
gore, violence and cringing bloody moments
Gore and violence in films are quite new to my life. I've only started discovering some of these films after I watched Quentin Tarantino movies and now, he is one of the most important film directors in my life.
Once I heard a talk about the difference between 'cartoon-like' gore and cringe worthy moments on Bfm 89.9, and I agree that some of the films are just made so that people say "ewww" rather than "ouch". Films like 'A Serbian Film', 'The Human Centipede', 'Final Destination' or 'House of Wax' made think "what the hell is this?" Sometimes I laugh at these kinds of films because of the way gore is depicted. It just doesn't have that 'flare' or intensity.
Whereas there are the cringe worthy moments. Like the scene in '127 Hours', where James Franco amputates his own hand. I've seen a lot of nasty stuff in my life but even that scene made me cringe. Or even the final scene in 'Inglorious Basterds', where Brad Pitt carved a Nazi sign on Christoph Waltz's forehead.
Once I heard a talk about the difference between 'cartoon-like' gore and cringe worthy moments on Bfm 89.9, and I agree that some of the films are just made so that people say "ewww" rather than "ouch". Films like 'A Serbian Film', 'The Human Centipede', 'Final Destination' or 'House of Wax' made think "what the hell is this?" Sometimes I laugh at these kinds of films because of the way gore is depicted. It just doesn't have that 'flare' or intensity.
Whereas there are the cringe worthy moments. Like the scene in '127 Hours', where James Franco amputates his own hand. I've seen a lot of nasty stuff in my life but even that scene made me cringe. Or even the final scene in 'Inglorious Basterds', where Brad Pitt carved a Nazi sign on Christoph Waltz's forehead.
Monday 6 June 2011
Wes Anderson
Charlie Chaplin vs. Buster Keaton
"Right things happen at the wrong time"
When I hear about comedy the first thing that comes to mind is that it's a complicated issue for me. I would laugh when I would laugh. It doesn't matter what type of comedy. It can be a prank or a mock about race, but if it's good for me I would definitely have a laugh. The top two types of comedy that I like must be dry humor and dark comedy. Films such as "The Royal Tenenbaums", the scene where Royal Tenenbaum called Henry Sherman 'Coltrane' and then they got into an argument, or in the film "Nacho Libre" where the skinny guy called Jack Black 'fat' and that he hated all the orphans in the world, or the scene in "In Bruges", when Harry Waters shot Ken in the leg after Ken gave him a long, inspiring speech and the only sentence he gave after he shot Ken was, "Well, I’m not going to stand here doing nothing, am I?", and last but not least, Coen brother's films. I don't usually burst out laughing at these kinds of comedies, but I do adore them.
This comes to these two films, ‘The Cure’ by Charlie Chaplin and ‘The General’ by Buster Keaton. Both of them were cited as 'legends' of comedies and highly respected, and both films are different in terms of technicality, feel and . Even though not many people here, or i doubt they would, have seen any of Charlie Chaplin's films, he isn't a stranger to us. I knew him when my friend told me that he was the first person who created the "parody" and that his moustache was actually a mock about Hitler. As I read about Charlie I can say that this fact was wrong, he had that moustache way before Hitler did. This brings to his physical appearance, which was tought off to have contributed to his comedies. When I saw this film 'The Cure', I couldn't love it. I wanted to, but I couldn't. It wasn't appealing to me. Here's why, I felt that it didn't feel as natural as it could have been and the tempo of the film was deliberately fast. Charlie's actions were always fast and staccato-like, and that just made it all cheesy. There are a few pointers from the film that I thought was good. Firstly, you can see that it is tremendously rehearsed. No doubt about that, just look at the scene where he fought with the guys in the spa, or the part where three of the guys were in a revolving door. In, out and about, and that's what a lot of film directors want in their films, 'perfection'. Another point is that Charlie Chaplin's sense of humor would be really funny back then than it is now. That's how I felt. I think I saw too many films that were copied from or inspired by Charlie, and most of them do it wrongly. The third point that i want to point out is his overall appearance. He reminded me of 'Mr. Bean', who I used to watch when i was a kid. Charlie's facial expressions and the way he dresses, wanting him to be funny. A clown to be precise and we laugh at clowns. I saw parts of 'Gold Rush' and 'The Great Dictator', both films were given tremendous critical acclaim, but I still felt a bit off. Maybe it's just me; I just didn't draw into his sense of humor.
Now, the film 'The General is a totally different story. In all my life, i have never heard of Buster Keaton. So, during the screening of this film was my first time I have ever heard of him. After this film was over, I was sure to say that this was one of the best films in comedy that I’ve seen so far, and even one of the most epic. Epic, in the sense of that he used real trains, real tracks, he is the director, the actor, he runs the train, the stunts are all done by him and all of this was done in 1927. I could only grasp how he made that film. I saw a documentary on how he did 'The General', and the narrator said that the only way cameraman would stop filming is that when buster said 'cut', or if he dies. Films now protect actors too much; it just doesn't feel the same as what Buster did. The one thing that made me shook my head and said 'wow', was the fact that he does his own stunts. On the train, especially, when he walked across on end of the train to another to hide from the canon was amazing. The part when his foot got stuck, and then when he wanted to break free, the part when he threw logs on the train while he was rushing, the part where he threw boxes and stuff on the tracks so that the enemies won't crossover to catch him, the part when three soldiers including Buster were beside the canon when the three soldiers were shot one by one after Buster asked them to shoot the canon were all fantastic. Even the timing and tempo was perfect. The tempo was not fast nor was it slow. It was the right speed. See, how many scenes of this film really ingrained to my brain. Buster's facial expression is my favorite of all time, the 'deadpan' look. There was a reason why he was called 'the great stoned face' and that was exactly why. Even in the most stressful situations he put up a face with no possible emotions. 'Right things happen at the wrong time' is the description I would give for these kinds of comedies, and this film did just that. I've seen a lot of films where the stupid or the loser becomes the hero, for example, 'Forrest Gump'. What made it funny is always 'luck', and 'The General' was all about that. I can honestly say that I smiled throughout the film, I laughed most of the parts and I thought that it was a clean, honest comedy. Although, I’ve seen other Buster Keaton's work, I didn't really like it. So, 'The General', I can say was Buster's masterpiece.
Comedies are pretty unpredictable for me, I laugh at what I laugh at. 'The Cure' didn't really draw my attention but 'The General' did. Edward Kean said in his deathbed, "Dying is easy, Comedy is difficult".
When I hear about comedy the first thing that comes to mind is that it's a complicated issue for me. I would laugh when I would laugh. It doesn't matter what type of comedy. It can be a prank or a mock about race, but if it's good for me I would definitely have a laugh. The top two types of comedy that I like must be dry humor and dark comedy. Films such as "The Royal Tenenbaums", the scene where Royal Tenenbaum called Henry Sherman 'Coltrane' and then they got into an argument, or in the film "Nacho Libre" where the skinny guy called Jack Black 'fat' and that he hated all the orphans in the world, or the scene in "In Bruges", when Harry Waters shot Ken in the leg after Ken gave him a long, inspiring speech and the only sentence he gave after he shot Ken was, "Well, I’m not going to stand here doing nothing, am I?", and last but not least, Coen brother's films. I don't usually burst out laughing at these kinds of comedies, but I do adore them.
This comes to these two films, ‘The Cure’ by Charlie Chaplin and ‘The General’ by Buster Keaton. Both of them were cited as 'legends' of comedies and highly respected, and both films are different in terms of technicality, feel and . Even though not many people here, or i doubt they would, have seen any of Charlie Chaplin's films, he isn't a stranger to us. I knew him when my friend told me that he was the first person who created the "parody" and that his moustache was actually a mock about Hitler. As I read about Charlie I can say that this fact was wrong, he had that moustache way before Hitler did. This brings to his physical appearance, which was tought off to have contributed to his comedies. When I saw this film 'The Cure', I couldn't love it. I wanted to, but I couldn't. It wasn't appealing to me. Here's why, I felt that it didn't feel as natural as it could have been and the tempo of the film was deliberately fast. Charlie's actions were always fast and staccato-like, and that just made it all cheesy. There are a few pointers from the film that I thought was good. Firstly, you can see that it is tremendously rehearsed. No doubt about that, just look at the scene where he fought with the guys in the spa, or the part where three of the guys were in a revolving door. In, out and about, and that's what a lot of film directors want in their films, 'perfection'. Another point is that Charlie Chaplin's sense of humor would be really funny back then than it is now. That's how I felt. I think I saw too many films that were copied from or inspired by Charlie, and most of them do it wrongly. The third point that i want to point out is his overall appearance. He reminded me of 'Mr. Bean', who I used to watch when i was a kid. Charlie's facial expressions and the way he dresses, wanting him to be funny. A clown to be precise and we laugh at clowns. I saw parts of 'Gold Rush' and 'The Great Dictator', both films were given tremendous critical acclaim, but I still felt a bit off. Maybe it's just me; I just didn't draw into his sense of humor.
Now, the film 'The General is a totally different story. In all my life, i have never heard of Buster Keaton. So, during the screening of this film was my first time I have ever heard of him. After this film was over, I was sure to say that this was one of the best films in comedy that I’ve seen so far, and even one of the most epic. Epic, in the sense of that he used real trains, real tracks, he is the director, the actor, he runs the train, the stunts are all done by him and all of this was done in 1927. I could only grasp how he made that film. I saw a documentary on how he did 'The General', and the narrator said that the only way cameraman would stop filming is that when buster said 'cut', or if he dies. Films now protect actors too much; it just doesn't feel the same as what Buster did. The one thing that made me shook my head and said 'wow', was the fact that he does his own stunts. On the train, especially, when he walked across on end of the train to another to hide from the canon was amazing. The part when his foot got stuck, and then when he wanted to break free, the part when he threw logs on the train while he was rushing, the part where he threw boxes and stuff on the tracks so that the enemies won't crossover to catch him, the part when three soldiers including Buster were beside the canon when the three soldiers were shot one by one after Buster asked them to shoot the canon were all fantastic. Even the timing and tempo was perfect. The tempo was not fast nor was it slow. It was the right speed. See, how many scenes of this film really ingrained to my brain. Buster's facial expression is my favorite of all time, the 'deadpan' look. There was a reason why he was called 'the great stoned face' and that was exactly why. Even in the most stressful situations he put up a face with no possible emotions. 'Right things happen at the wrong time' is the description I would give for these kinds of comedies, and this film did just that. I've seen a lot of films where the stupid or the loser becomes the hero, for example, 'Forrest Gump'. What made it funny is always 'luck', and 'The General' was all about that. I can honestly say that I smiled throughout the film, I laughed most of the parts and I thought that it was a clean, honest comedy. Although, I’ve seen other Buster Keaton's work, I didn't really like it. So, 'The General', I can say was Buster's masterpiece.
Comedies are pretty unpredictable for me, I laugh at what I laugh at. 'The Cure' didn't really draw my attention but 'The General' did. Edward Kean said in his deathbed, "Dying is easy, Comedy is difficult".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)