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.
Friday, 10 June 2011
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".
Saturday, 21 May 2011
Occurance At Owl Creek Bridge
"why won't you die already?"
I’ve always inclined myself to watch the Cannes, Berlin, Sundance or Academy award winners because I’ve always wanted to see how good a film is. On Friday, this short film, 'Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge' was certainly that, it was a Cannes film festival winner. So I thought, I hope it doesn't let me down like when I saw 'hurt locker', a film oh-most-well received by critics, but I didn't know what the fuss was about. Besides, I’ve seen a lot of short films, and most of the short films, whether using simple stories or overused stories or just plain fantastic stories are somehow good in my perspective. I think it may be the compressed potential in almost every short film that isn’t in many feature length film. Maybe it's because it's short and they are straight to the point.
It started off with a poster that if someone were to mess with the railroad tracks would be hanged, and then it slowly transitioned to this man presumably did the crime, who was going to be hanged. A slow paced movement from the troops with guns, the choreographed drill, the facial expression of the convicted man while the rope was tied to his neck, and the numb expression of the troops, all seemed to build tension before the convicted man gets his execution. Then the convicted man goes to his flashback, when he saw his lover/wife and kids. Now, during this moment, I felt a chill in my body, because I have a fond for slow-motion techniques, and it executed this scene nicely.
The other part of the film, when he fell to the river instead of him hanged to his death, and the subsequent scenes, I felt that the director purposely wanted to say, "This is the expectation". I did felt puzzled at first, I thought how stupid that the rope was that long, or that why wouldn't he die already, but no story comes without a twist or a very abrupt ending. The scenes after this I was busy looking at the wonderful sceneries. It wasn't about the story now, it was the cinematography. For example, the scene where he ran across this infinite road and there was only a light at the end was breathtaking. And the use of, I may say, a dolly or a steadicam, was superb.
When his wife came out of the house and smiles while he ran I thought that the director was trying to preach an idea, because I noticed some of the shots were played over and over again, I thought the director was trying to say, "there, you try to get it, but you can't, because it's an infinite trial", it’s similar to the reflection of life. "Never give up", they say, or "if life gets you down, you get back up", but really, aren’t we just going in a loop? I thought it had a very deep meaning, but instead, when he touched her, he was really hanged. It reminded me of those Malay essays some of my classmates wrote for his exam, that it turned out to be a dream.
Putting that aside, this short film proved to me that masterpieces can be forgotten, at least for me. It was good, no doubt, but it's not worthy to be remembered forever. I felt it was just like those other 'good' films.
"good, but worth forgetting"
I’ve always inclined myself to watch the Cannes, Berlin, Sundance or Academy award winners because I’ve always wanted to see how good a film is. On Friday, this short film, 'Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge' was certainly that, it was a Cannes film festival winner. So I thought, I hope it doesn't let me down like when I saw 'hurt locker', a film oh-most-well received by critics, but I didn't know what the fuss was about. Besides, I’ve seen a lot of short films, and most of the short films, whether using simple stories or overused stories or just plain fantastic stories are somehow good in my perspective. I think it may be the compressed potential in almost every short film that isn’t in many feature length film. Maybe it's because it's short and they are straight to the point.
It started off with a poster that if someone were to mess with the railroad tracks would be hanged, and then it slowly transitioned to this man presumably did the crime, who was going to be hanged. A slow paced movement from the troops with guns, the choreographed drill, the facial expression of the convicted man while the rope was tied to his neck, and the numb expression of the troops, all seemed to build tension before the convicted man gets his execution. Then the convicted man goes to his flashback, when he saw his lover/wife and kids. Now, during this moment, I felt a chill in my body, because I have a fond for slow-motion techniques, and it executed this scene nicely.
The other part of the film, when he fell to the river instead of him hanged to his death, and the subsequent scenes, I felt that the director purposely wanted to say, "This is the expectation". I did felt puzzled at first, I thought how stupid that the rope was that long, or that why wouldn't he die already, but no story comes without a twist or a very abrupt ending. The scenes after this I was busy looking at the wonderful sceneries. It wasn't about the story now, it was the cinematography. For example, the scene where he ran across this infinite road and there was only a light at the end was breathtaking. And the use of, I may say, a dolly or a steadicam, was superb.
When his wife came out of the house and smiles while he ran I thought that the director was trying to preach an idea, because I noticed some of the shots were played over and over again, I thought the director was trying to say, "there, you try to get it, but you can't, because it's an infinite trial", it’s similar to the reflection of life. "Never give up", they say, or "if life gets you down, you get back up", but really, aren’t we just going in a loop? I thought it had a very deep meaning, but instead, when he touched her, he was really hanged. It reminded me of those Malay essays some of my classmates wrote for his exam, that it turned out to be a dream.
Putting that aside, this short film proved to me that masterpieces can be forgotten, at least for me. It was good, no doubt, but it's not worthy to be remembered forever. I felt it was just like those other 'good' films.
"good, but worth forgetting"
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Atonement
I recently saw this movie three days ago. I felt that i wanted to see it since it was in the book '1001 films to see before you die' by Steven Jay Schneider. I scratched my head when 'Juno' was not in it but films like 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' and 'Atonement' have made into the list. Well, i guess he has a different taste. It's a good book actually, and a nice list too.
Atonement, not many films that i've watched in my life have the same genre as this one. I was in the mood for something romantic and sad, so i popped in this one. My first impression, "wow, it's going to take me somewhere", I'm a fan of Saoirse Ronan, i think she's an excellent child actor, and she proved me right in this film. Although her lines weren't many, and that it wasn't her playing the older version of 'briony tellis', she did stand out than Kiera Knightly or James McAvoy in this film.
Putting her aside, the first part of the film was quite good, and it's the kind of feeling when you want to know something memorable's going to happen. i had the same feeling intially when i saw 'juno'. As we go along the film i noticed bits of pieces that i felt were a bit awkward at times and that feeling when you get by 'too cheesy' lines like ''just look at me, look at me, i'm here", a scene when Robbie ranted out at Briony, and Ceceelia calmed him down by saying those words. i did felt a bit turned off by that.
but there were time in the film when i thought were pretty good. like the continous scene near the beach, with a steadicam, walking across the beach and seeing more than 300,000 people waiting to get home.
it was supposed to be a sad film, but i didn't feel it that way. overall i'd give this film a modest 2 out of four stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)