Small comedies. How difficult is it to find one? This one is so funny and small that it's a little jewel. I've seen quite a few Spanish comedies... I now understand where some (or most) of them are coming from.
Most comedies tend to be about nothing serious, just a bit of fun.. which isn't too bad sometimes. This film disguises in humour a very sharp criticism of the worst things of society: greed, lack of solidarity, selfishness, snobbery... also the treatment old and /or disabled people get.
The sound is a shame. The bad dubbing is the worst thing about it.
Don Anselmo is just adorable. He plays such a childish old man that you love him immediately and empathise with his cause, no matter how crazy it is. There are so many films thatjust lack that and fail to engage you.
Music documentaries can get a little boring and empty of content. Not always, but mostly. If it tries to be psychedelic... well it can get pretentious too (perhaps it worked in the 70s). This is different though.
It's a road-movie music documentary, it's fun, it's amusing and very well structured. The more trippy sequences are well achieved, they aren't overdone at all... the real life part sometimes seem more psychedelic! It also surprised me the amount of fluent Welsh speakers in Patagonia, I wouldn't have thought there were so many of them. One thing that is not minor is that it doesn't avoid historical events that needed at least mentioning.
It is well filmed and well edited. Apparently they did have a lot of footage to work through, so it makes it an even better job. The motion-graphics as very nice too.
My favourite scenes: Brazilean musician introducing "Chiffy!" and the 'gigs' for the Welsh speaking people (who were probably expecting something traditional) with old ladies covering their ears
So yeah, one day is Angelopoulos the other Harry Potter... you never now with me.
I was curious to see the end of it. I thought part 1 was rubbish and boring. Of course it's got information you'll need for the second part, but two films were unnecessary. Rules of the market.
Though it's the same rules of the market that allows for it to have a great sound. I've always thought they tend to have good sound.. but this was quite impressive. It had all the conditions for it: fantasy film, lots of action, non-real creatures... I'm glad it wasn't wasted. As I was watching it I kept thinking what a great experience it would be to work in such a film. When I found this video I confirmed it... big budget sound making seems like a lot of fun!
The perfomances. The ones that stand out are Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman. They play the bad ones and it's easy to over do the bad ones. But they are so measured. Especially Fiennes who at times seems to just be using his eyes to be evil.
The one thing I hated: the age effect. "19 years later".. is basically the same teenage kids with grown up clothes (a bit too big for them) pretending to be grown ups. No. It doesn't work. You can still tell they are young. Awful way to ruin... well the end, really. Finding adult actors would have been better (not that they haven't grown it's just that they still look young).
I think being a director is a very difficult thing to try to do. Being a great director is something only a few can achieve. Theo Angelopoulos is one of those few. He makes difficult, intricate films.
Voyage to Cythera is a film about an old man returning home. It's a film about love. It's a film about encounters. It's a film about politics. It's a film about many things. That's why it's not easily comprehended.
What makes it a director's film? The use of very long shots, neverending scenes beautifully staged. You wonder how you can think of such a way of presenting a subject and then actually turning it into a film.
When you think of Greece you might expect blue skies and sunny beaches... well there's nothing of that in Angelopoulos cinema. Grey overcast days are Greece too. I like that.
«In
VOYAGE TO CYTHERA the voyage is really a reworking of
the myth of the Return of Odysseus according to a myth
which preceded Homer. Similar to Dante's version, there
is a pre-Homeric version that Odysseus set sail again
after reaching Ithaca. So the film becomes more a leaving
than a homecoming. I have a soft spot for the ancient
writings. There really is nothing new. We are all just
revising and reconsidering ideas that the ancients first
treated.»
First thing I thought was how much of a post-war film it is. You can tell it's from 1946. The first part seems like a choice between the free world full of happiness and Heaven, grandiose but full of burocracy. Then it changes into a completely different film.. that I have to say thought ended too soon. The first part had nice timing, but when his trial begins it all happens too fast....
I'm not a fan of Technicolor. In this case it's very nicely used, photographed by Jack Cardiff. The black and white used for heaven is very impressive and the sets are amazing. I quite like that. The film is also known as Stairway to Heaven due to an impressive set piece built for a scene.
I wish I had written more about it when I saw it... I have forgotten most of the things I wanted to say no...
My first Ealing Comedy ever. I should be embarrased.
I quite enjoyed it. I like simple small films and this is a simple black comedy. The humour is so... natural, not forced at all. That's when it works best. Sometimes it seems excess of jokes or acting will make it funnier, and no, it won't. This film proves that less is more if over fifty years later it still works.
The best thing about it is definitely the performances, from the old lady to the whole bunch.
I can understand why the Coen brothers will want to remake it. I can understand why they would be interested but can't understand why anyone might think it needs to be remade or it might work in any other way than the original. Just by looking at the cast you know it won't work, you know it will be one of those trying-to-be-funny comedies... it just sounds wrong.
Great films that still work as well as contemporary films do shouldn't be remade.
If you take a look at this blog you can possibly guess I like French and Russian films. And British. But if there's one country you could say I have seen a lot from, that is Spain. I have since most of the ones released in the 90s, and many from the 80s and 00s.
Eduardo Noriega isn't just a handsome actor, he can be a very good actor too. He can play characters that are different from each other. In this film... he's ok. He does the best he can with the script he's got. It bothers me a lot how they tried to aged him more and it just doesn't work. This doctor is about his age, but simply doesn't look as old and worn out as he should.
So what is this film? Is it a thriller? Is it a drama? Is it a tragedy? Is it a fantasy film?! It certainly has elements of everything. It begins as a drama and slowly develops to a thriller with fantasy elements... and you could say the ending is a bit in the Greek tragedy area: will he choose his life and the life of his patients OR the life of all of his loved ones? But it doesn't really choose a genre and develops it efficiently. It's not an author film either! Perhaps it's trying to copy an Amenábar sort of style.
All the technical aspects are very good. The photography is great, stylish, nice to watch. The art is clean and stylish...again (except for how bad it tries to make a young looking actor look old and how healthy most patients look!). The sound is correct, nothing espectacular in terms of design but still well done. The music is meassured, not overused.
Still. How can a film that has everything for one to like it a lot.. still leaves you feeling so... unimpressed? I think the screenplay might have something to do with it. If only something had engaged us during most of the film we would have been more excited at the end. It's not a bad film, it just lacks a soul.
A big overweight Frenchman sits in a park with an adorable old lady, surrounded by pidgeons. We can already sense he's not very bright and she's very distinguished. They read and develop a friendship that would change them both.
That's it. That's the film.If you expect a small feel-good French film, that's what it is. Nicely acted - Depardieu is meassured, unlike the also not very bright Quentin from Tas-toi!, his character is likeable (to me he now seems a little dodgy after his plane incident). Correctly filmed. Nothing more than that.
Also, it isn't excessively sweetened or full of unrealistic hopes. Sometimes we need films like this to pass the time.
I can't be objective when it comes to Russian films. This films proves it.
I had seen it before and all I could remember was that I saw it in one go and ended up watching half of the second part the same night. I enjoyed it more.
This time I thought it was... well impressive for a Russian film. It really looks like a Hollywood film. The visual effects are rather impressive and the sound work is quite good too- sounded a lot better than many films I've heard lately. It's a real fantasy film, only spoken in Russian. Is there a better vampire than one that speaks Russian? I don't think so.
Not much to say about it. Good effects. Typical good vs evil story. A Russian LOTR (which makes it a little more interesting) but without the need to read the book, it works as a film on its own. The trailer says it all, there's no more than that.
I already wrote an entry about it, but this is a very interesting video, especially because he talks about the way he worked for the film. It seems to me that sound mixers always have the same role and problems: fighting unwanted noises and the crew that creates it. It's comforting that it happens to big budget important sound mixers too.
(I wish they had use less of that little music for the interview... it really gets on my nerves).
Can I be objective about French films? Possibly no. That said, this is a very good film.
The photography is impeccable. It captures both the geography, the light and the story. Beautiful.
I have to say I didn't know much about the story, which helped. I didn't know it was based on a true story and what happened. I still thought it was well paced, it goes well with what it's talking about. Still, it's a 122 minutes film and it didn't feel long at all. I thought it kept going and moving on. I read a few reviews that say it can be slow at times. To me it wasn't. I saw it in one night, I didn't fall asleep even when I was tired.. that surely says something.
The cast is very good in their characters: they are monks, they don't play caricatures of monks. I think it's a film about determination and it's very well portrayed, not forced in any way. It's not a religious film, it's more a story about humanity and tolerance, and that's what makes it universal.
Sadly, there's not much to say about the sound. Correct. Fits the story. Nothing extraordinary.
What to say about this film. It's short and maybe it has an extra 10 mins. I have to confess it took me a few attempts to finish it (but I must have been tired).
The story is original... what I liked the most was that it is fiction but it looks like documentary and you aren't quite sure when it's being what. The photography is simple yet nicely done. Also, it's always nice when you get to see a film from a country you don't normally see films from.
But I didn't love it. Perhaps it needed a little more charm. I read things about it and most mentioned "Jim Jarmusch sense of humour". Perhaps that's what I didn't get.
I rewatched this one, because I had completely forgotten what I thought about it the firt time. I think I enjoyed it more.
I still think it's an interesting film. Geoffrey Rush is always good. Colin Firth was surprisingly good. I think he does manage to not make a caricature of a stammerer and portray a man who is suffering a lot with his condition. Helena Bonham Carter I think sounds a bit too Lady Tottington which is a bit too much in comparison with Firth's simple performance.
It is very much a film about a man who suffers. It should be a drama.. instead it's a little too sweetened. I blame the music. It's just all over the place, too 'regal', too... much of it. It's like when you have too much of a sweet thing until you can't taste it anymore and makes you sick. It needed more character, more dramaturgy. Possibly it's a fail in the overall sound design, rather than in the composer.
A film about a stammerer it's also perfect for sound. Yet, it's poor in that area. Except for a few moments (when he records his speech and doesn't listen until he gets home). The sound effects were technically very well done... they do help get the stammering effect (especially the first speech scene).
The editing. Some of the cuts bothered me, and that's never a good sign.
The photography is tidy. Correct. A bit too royal-drama-like, maybe? I disliked the use of great angulars, but that's a very personal mania.
So it's entertaining, I enjoyed it, I'd say it's good, but it's got little flaws that are a shame. Though to be fair you see the flaws in the second view, not the first. I engaged with his pain the first time, so that's always a positive thing.
Here's the original speech. He doesn't stammer as much, but let's say it's a cinematographic license to make the story flow better.
The label "indie" makes me itchy. Particularly because it's a pretentious one to push up products as if it was a quality warranty. This film is full of that. It is.. okay. It's not a great film, it's not terribly bad. I think it got promotion just from the labels "independent", "sundance", "oscar"...
It is done in a austere way. The cast is very natural (the girl is very good, that has to be said). The screenplay's... okay. Previsible? Maybe. It might be "indie" but it still has a "happy ending". What's very interesting about it is the way of showing yet another side of rural America.
It's often said that David Lynch is the bad side of the American dream. This can be related to that in the sense that the countryside in America is often portrayed as honourable, healthy, even naïve. This film shows that not everyone is like that, that the "real America" can also be sick and rotten. Drug addicts aren't just in urban areas and there are people in America that have to rely on hunting squirrels so they can have something to eat. I think that's the best I can rescue from this film. It tries to be a rough story that criticises something about society... with an upbeat ending.
I still have The Rain People in mind - or it has me, I don't know. Austere, simple, human film... yet superior in so many ways.
I enjoy both French and Russian films. So how can I be objective about this one?! It's a great mix of things I like. In any other film I would have not forgiven the fact that's full of stereotypes.
Le Concert is a nice feel-good film, bits of comedy, bits of drama... it's fun. It's not a major drama like Les Choristes, but it's not a cheesy comedy like Amélie... it's somewhere in the middle and I think it works well.
The photography is nicely done, that always helps. The sound is also well
done, not great when it comes to design but it does sound 5.1 and it's
full of music. (In this case it works, as it is part of the story).
Nothing bold but as I said, I am more tolerant with this film than I
would be with any other. The Russian cast is very charming and they are all good in their roles (some a bit too stereotyped, but still effective).
I am not sure what I was expecting from this film. I suppose I was hoping it'd be an interesting Irish drama... or just something about Ireland (I have a strange relationship with it).I'm still undecided what to make of it.
Positives:
I didn't hate it, it passes the time
It doesn't use the typical stereotypes. The way it shows Dublin is a very innovating one, not the touristy view that you'd normally find. I think that's what I enjoyed the most.
The children are very natural
The ending doesn't try to be uplifting
Not so positives:
The camera work is ok... but they tried to use a colour effect: from b/w to colour and back to b/w. It doesn't fit entirely right. Especially because the black and white isn't expressive or contrasted or anything. It just looks like a forced effect (which probably is)
The story... isn't strong enough. It had a lack of something... and it was too shallow at times. Perhaps it is a pre-teen story and nothing else, and that's what I didn't get.
The children are very natural but they don't feel the drama they are in. They have lovely faces that look pretty but don't convey feelings, if that makes sense. Again. Perhaps that's pre-teens. (But these are children who have lived a lot for their age).
The use of sound... is poor. It's got songs... that's about it.
Oh how much I love simple films! I agree with Mr. Murch when he says it can be simple to be complex, and complicated to be simple.
This film is so beautifully shot but in a very very austere way. It's just beautiful to look at. Now that I think about it, it can be considered the really independent experimental version of Little Miss Sunshine (with a much deeper story and no intention to be funny). I know it's a little cheeky to make such a comparison, but they are both road-movies and intended as an "indie" movie. The cast is strong in both.
In my entry on Sur Mes Lèvres I was saying how the use of sound was a bit wasted. This is a completely different thing. In The Rain People less is more.
The music. Such a lovely simple melody used in the right moments, to create an emotional state, it never bothered me. That's why it works so well. It proves that overusing music is sometimes counterproductive.
The story tells George Lucas, who was hired by Coppola to make the documentary of how the film was made, suggested Walter Murch was the best person to do the sound. So once it was edited he was left alone with his equipment waiting for Coppola. He went out and taped all of the additional sounds of the film- which is impressive. He then mixed it in three days and nights with a new German equipment they had bought. This is the film where the image was upside down so he refused to do mix that way, so Coppola turned the monitor upside down and that's how he mixed (just in time for the San Sebastian festival). He also uses the credit Sound Montage because he didn't belong to the union.
Anyway, the sound. I like how the memories have no sound in the film. Except two. At the beginning and at the end, because they are the most significant ones: Natalie's wedding and Killer's accident. Now there's a good sound design. And it's not over the top, on the contrary, it's almost bare.
My favourite scene.. well. The road images are beautiful. But as a sound nerd, my favourite scene is one where she's phoning her husband while Killer is at the parade. She is in the phone booth, with very little yet significant traffic noises. Then he's outside the phone booth, she's gone, but the conversation continues, with louder traffic noises coming from his scene. Then back to her and the conversation... Sound did all the continuity there, you can travel back and forth but the sounds keeps you informed of what you need to know. So subtle, so simple, so complex... great example of dense clarity-clear density ♥
It's technically perfect, but it's also makes you feel something. It's probably because it's a very human story about ordinary people. Moving you emotionally is something a good film should do too.
How young were all the actors! All of them. Robert Duvall, James Caan... I read a comment about how Shirley Knight being beautiful then but not having aged well, which I thought was cruel. All of the actors are old now!
I'm not sure where to begin with this film. First, I watched it over in a couple of nights. That means it's not a great film.
I had seen it before and enjoyed the French thriller thing. I still did. Though I do think it's not really strong all the time.
It's implied in the story that people don't shower. Ever.
I liked the cinematography. The cold colours and dark ambiences appeal a lot to me. The camera work is very good at making the story look unclean: dodgy characters in a grime situation... That is done very well. Very delicate in parts too.
I've seen De Battre Mon Coeur S'est Arrêtéand I can't remember much about it, but I thought he played with delicate parts too. Still at the time. I thought I liked Read My Lips better. Now I think it's because of the actors. I think they are dodgy and weird but very strong in their acting, particularly Emmanuelle Devos.
The Sound work. I decided to rewatch it because I was looking for how a deaf character is presented and how does her world sound. Hm. I was a little disappointed.
You'd think a deaf character is a good opportunity to play with sounds.
Does her world sound different with or without a hearing aid? Well. Yes... sort of. She continuously keep turning it on and off and things getting quieter. I like a scene where there's a fight and she can't hear much until she finds her hearing aid and then it is a fight in sound too.
There's a playing with delicate sounds and loud ones too. As if that was the way she sees the world. That I liked.
But she goes from hearing to not hearing, without anything in particular happening when she's deaf. No ringing in her ears, no nothing....
And the music. It's alright music. Delicate, again. But there's just too much of it, used indiscriminately. Personally, I would have left those music moments for when she's alone in her world, no hearing aid. It would have made it more about her, rather than being everywhere and taking the beauty out of it.
I thought the sound could have been bolder. Sure it's technically very good, but it could have been a lot better if they had pushed it only a little bit more. Shame.
The story develops okay... but the end is not very surprising. (Even if it's your first watch)
I've spent the past three nights watching a BBC series on Russian Art. It was mind-blowing. I've become obsessed Russia and its art, so badly I want to go there even more than I wanted to go before.
The series starts with the question about how to get to know Russia and its people and the answer being, through their art. So from early pagan representations it moves to the conversion to Christianism and its meaning in the idea of being Russian, to how the tsars used Art and how they spent money in it. The same art that help the nation together also started the revolutions.
I've heard of Russian religious icons and Andrej Rublev but I haven't heard of The Wanderers Wow.
One of the best thing about the series is how he explains art both passionately and thoroughly yet in a very simple and non-pretentious way. He doesn't just take into account the technique or the beauty of it but the social context in which it was produced and what it means for its time. That's how Art shows should be made!
When he gets to the Revolution he also talks about films and the role of Art for the Party. And Eisenstein, of course. I'm a little disappointed he doesn't mention Dziga Vertov, just because of how creative, comitted and bold he was with his experiments.Shame he also talks very little about Kandinski.
The Constructivists' work was so interesting to discover and still so modern! He goes into a museum, well a back room inside an office where they keep some original material from Rodchenko-Maiakovski and he very excitedly says something that is true, how they were pioneers in advertising. The best works aren't online (because they are in those drawers).
Finally. How beautiful is Moscow's Metro! (and how unfair are the pictures on the internet) The money Stalin invested in making them revolutionary propaganda surely turned them into museums!
How do you end such an impressive series? Well he manages to take us to contemporary Russian art: confused, disenchanted, bleak... he really captures the spirit. So many centuries in only three hours are quite difficult to take in, so you can imagine living with such a heritage must be even more difficult.
My first thought was "Why haven't I seen this before?". Such a simple charming film, and nicely done too.
I was expecting a movie about miners and growing up... and I found the British 400 Blows. I like it when that happens to you, when a film is so touching you can't stop thinking about it for days. If it refuses to leave you then it's done something ♥
The characters were completely engaging. When non-professional actors do it so well you hardly notice they are acting it's even better than when you find a good actor. It's only a great director that makes it look as if it was simple.
I also liked the camera and editing... it flows so naturally, not intrusive at all or forced in any way.
My favourite scene was the one where he talks in class about his kestrel. It's such a wonderful moment of being listened to for the first time. Discovering he has a voice. It beats the caning scene where you can see the pain in the little one's eyes.
Even though I knew for most of the film what was going to happen at the end it was nice seeing how the film got in and out of that moment.
My film obsession started in my mid teens. If I had known at the time, it would have saved my soul. Instead I discovered people worked in films and I knew I wanted to do that. I'm glad that happened, I could have turned into a film critic and nothing would have saved my soul then.
I had/have a love/hate relationship with films. I go through periods were I am eager to watch anything and everything. So I do. But my brain collapses once in a while and I go through periods of healthy film abstinence.
This blog started in a new period of film hunger. After a film festival I decided it was time to catch up. And I started with The Magnificent Amberson, which I enjoyed. And then Kes came into my life, which will be my first proper entry.
I need to keep track of the films I watch and the ideas they bring to me. It will also help me go back to my self-studying of films.
There will be lots of randomness and what people call "spoilers".
