Showing posts with label film and TV critique. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film and TV critique. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

The horror... The horror...

I wrote something long. Actually, it was much longer, but lest I waste your precious time, I deleted it and have presented here its condensed version. Basically, in a nutshell, I think horror films being made these days are not scary and suck donkey balls. Having sudden, loud, unceremonious BANG!s come out of nowhere when you least expect it is not scary. And sadly, that's what constitutes the bulk of modern horror genre.

While I'm the last person to impose "rules" onto the making of a film, there are certain common elements that emerge when you examine the classics of this genre, elements that run mostly in the subtext and hence work on the subconscious mind. Working on the subconscious is essential to evoking an emotion that has evolved over millions of years and has been buried deep inside the psyche: fear. Once you take care of the subconscious, you can spread you creative wings to work on the conscious.

So, the common elements of horror classics:

1. Always, always set the scene of your story in an isolated place, not surrounded by any physical human interaction for many miles in all directions. The reason this is of paramount importance in evoking fear is because it evokes another emotion that in turn evokes fear: helplessness. If shit goes down, there's no one around to help. Humans have evolved in groups, always living and hunting and protecting in groups. The very presence of another human being in a lonely place, even if he's an unlikable character, can create a sense of comfort. That's the last thing you want in your film - comfort. Remember that while watching the film, every member of your audience places him/herself in the place of the protagonist, mentally detaching themselves from the asshole in the next seat. By placing your protagonist and/or his family in an isolated location, preferably geographically detached from civilization, you are also psychologically detaching your audience from everyone else. That sets in helplessness, the most delicious item in your recipe. Think of this as the no-escape rule. It's so powerful that even if you are cognizant of this plot tool, it STILL works on you. Additionally, it also serves an another purpose: at the climax of the film should you choose to return your protagonist back to civilization and restore normalcy, the sudden burst of relief you would aim to achieve in act III, the conclusion, would be amplified manifold.

Examples: The Shining - set in a hotel in an extremely isolated place that is literally cut off from civilization during winters. In fact, to establish the extent to which it is isolated, Kubrick opens the film, as the credits roll, with a bird's-eye view of a car driving to this hotel through long stretches of uninhabited mountains. Evil Dead - a cold, lonely place in the woods, connected to only by a bridge that our Evil Force rips apart early in the film. Psycho - a gigantic single house and motel set in the middle of nowhere, with no one to reach out to if nigga comes attackin'. Setting your film in such a lonely place does half the job of creating tension and terror. The audience may not consciously think about all of this, but it's ALWAYS there in the back of their minds that there is no one out there to help, that the VIEWER, not the protagonist mind you, is in a state of helplessness. That activates every fear and anxiety center in their brains. It doesn't matter if it is supernatural horror or natural horror, it works.

A bad example of this would be The Woman in Black. They do set the story in an isolated village, and the house of interest IS away from the village, but the very fact that there are PEOPLE in the village accessible at anytime to the protagonist takes away all of the anxiety and fear characteristics of the story.

2. Never show the ghost till the very climax of the film, at least not completely anyway. This one applies only to supernatural horror. What is not visible is always scarier than what is. There's a reason why we were afraid of something being under the bed in our childhood. We can't see it. We imagine it. As a filmmaker, your most potent tool is not any of your overpriced editing gadgets but the imaginative power of the mind of your audience. Don't work ON it, work WITH it. Show them glimpses, occasionally, if you must, but never the whole thing. However, keeping them completely ignorant about the ghost can work against you. There's point after which the audience tires out of imagining all by themselves without receiving any catalysts and cues. Reveal the whole thing only at the climactic end, and when you do reveal, make sure it rewards their feared expectations. Don't build so much tension during the course of the film and in the end "reward" them with a ghost that looks like a constipated cat. They'll hate you for it. But to some extent, this can be applied even to natural horror films. In Psycho, the mother (or what's left of her) is not shown till the very end of the film; but as a general, it's more applicable to supernatural horror since supernatural ghosts ignite the audience's imaginative creativity more than a familiar human figure.

3. Set MOST, not all, of the events in the film in the dark. The dark, as Kirk Douglas nailed it in The Bad and the Beautiful, has a life of its own. "In the dark," he continues, "all sorts of things come alive." There are again evolutionary bases for why dark in itself is pants-shitting scary. Having a fear of the dark because of there being some sort of evil ghost out there kept our human ancestors from venturing into the dark at night, thereby protecting them from predators in the jungle. Fear of ghosts, as modern science suggests, was instrumental in our species' evolution - not because ghosts exist but very the fear of it protected them more earthly predators and kept them from extinction. A mere fear of predators wasn't enough to protect them at night because dark essentially made them blind and gave the more evolved predators an evolutionary advantage. A fear of something more sinister, however, worked to their advantage. This fear was only necessary at nighttime, since if they stayed locked in their caves day and night out of fear of ghosts, they'd starve to death. Daylight gave them all the advantage they needed to hunt, and their fear gave them all the protection they needed at night. Fear of the dark is ingrained into our very DNA. Combine this with point #1 and you are almost done with the subconscious architecture of your film.

4. For fuck's sake, don't include gay people in your movie. You are making a horror film, not a Prada commercial. We unfortunately live in a time of political correctness gone mad. Don't have black people in a positive role? Get accused of racism by black organizations. Don't have women in intelligent roles? You such a sexist pig! Mildly pat a dog? Get sued by PETA. And lastly, don't have two men making out with their tongues in each other's mouths and in YOUR face? Homophobic! What happened to all the good old days when you could just make an honest film without being counterproductive to the film's emotions? Even gay people find gay people in horror films un-horrifying. Stick them to the chick flicks.

5. Stay away from loud noises. This is a direct result of advances in sound engineering. A silent scene, the protagonist looks around the room, the lo! The ghost pops out of nowhere and the speakers tear their anuses apart and bang your eardrums out. Almost every horror film being made these days abuses sound technology this way. But you don't. Instead, use atmosphere and mood to create fear. Create a consistent tone with creative use of lighting, camera angles and movements, solid performances, believable character reactions and their motivations. NOT through bullfucking aural rapefests at every turn you take. Watch old films of this genre, classics or not, because they could scare you without using cheap-ass sound effects.

This newly invented lost-and-found-footage genre horror has actually taken care of this problem. They obviously can't use sound effects since there's no score. [REC], the Spanish original, is a perfect example of a very well made modern horror film that scares through atmosphere and intelligent storytelling without the use of nuclear bombs for sound. Both sequels sucked, the American remake sucked harder, but the original still retains its shine.

6. Lastly but equally importantly, the film should be a progression, not stagnation or decline. Start the film with some tense event, if you so choose, since it's important to grab the audience's attention from the start. But from the next scene on, bring it down to almost no drama, no action, no excitement, and slowly build your way upward, clue by clue, event by event, until the climax where everything, or most of it, is revealed and dealt with. Paranormal Activity, for example, doesn't reveal too much the very first night he places the camera. Only the wind blows. The second night, well I don't remember exactly but something slightly more noticeable happens, and it builds on and on. This is the only way you can do it because giving away too much at the very beginning creates two hurdles: 1. The audience won't be able to take in too much info in too little time. You have to gradually slide it in, like a frog in a glass of water that is being slowly boiled without its being aware of it. 2. The audience will be disappointed when what follows isn't more exciting than what came so far. It creates stagnation and saturation and elicits that very familiar response: boring. [REC] actually does this building up of tension in such a clever way that starting at the ground floor of the building, the tension and excitement builds with each floor they go up, revealing more and adding more conflict, until they reach the penthouse where all hell breaks loose.

That's it. I could still add in a few more generic themes, but I've already bored you enough. Goodnight amigo, and stay straight!

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Coincidences


I've been a fan of the two Davids: David Foster Wallace (DFW) for a couple of years now, and David Lynch for longer. In the past year, my admiration for both these guys has escalated exponentially. Generally, I try not to admire the artist himself/herself and instead just constrain my admiration to the work alone. (This keeps me from creating any biases towards the artist or against another artist, the way those idiotic Sharukh Khan and Aamir Khan fanboys squabble over which of the two is the greatest human being ever in all of recorded history). But I'd be lying if I said it's not hard to not admire the Davids, especially when I'm reveling in the works of those artists to the point where I forget I'm having breakfast as I'm reading/watching the piece of work and lose myself in it body and soul until I have no brain space left to even think of the food plate on my table.

Just recently, I was reading an essay by DFW online, and as coincidences do so often happen, the opening sentence of the essay had me hooked like a fish to the bait:

This is not because of anything having to do with me or with the fact that I'm a fanatical David Lynch fan from way back, though I did make my pro-Lynch fanaticism known when the Asymmetrical (studio) people were trying to decide whether to let a writer onto the set.

One of the two artists I fanatically admire himself fanatically admires the other of the two.

It's a small, strange postmodern world.

(The essay, on going back and reading the title which I usually skip, was about DFW's experience of visiting the shooting set of Lynch's Lost Highway, the number 4 film on my all-time favorite films list. Can be accessed here. The subtitle reads: "In which novelist David Foster Wallace visits the set of David Lynch's new movie and finds the director both grandly admirable and sort of nuts.")

Monday, May 2, 2011

Source Code: A Review, or a Review of a Review

Under peer pressure or with sly secondary intentions, I’m being made to write this review by the two other, equally worthless assholes (Rohan & Himanshu) I watched this film with yesterday at the movies. I civilly oblige.

So, yeah. First things first. Unlike them both, who thought this film didn’t live up to the hype (what with all the raving reviews and a 90% rating at Rotten Tomatoes that gave Inception an appropriate 75%), I thought it way surpassed the hype. Actually, leaving popular hype where it belongs (in the shitbucket), Source Code surpassed my own expectations of Duncan Jones whose directorial debut, Moon, being awesome and everything, had me looking forward to his next project for about a year now. And having now seen this piece of celluloid masterpiece, I’m looking more forward to his next project, Mute, than I did for this.

OK, my personal raving aside, time for that which is implicitly promised when I review: Less discussing and more diss-cuss-ing. Source Code is as bad a title for a film as it is for the sci-fi invention used in the film. Source code, as all you proper, would-be and engineer of sorts know, is a generic term for the text part of a computer program. To name your biggest, game-changing technological creation as Source Code makes me question your judgment as well your credentials as a PhD who can tap into the residual consciousness of the dead. Additionally, naming your film by a dry, common software engineering terminology can have anyone – engineers and non-engineers alike – assume or even judge before actually watching it as most do that it’s a computerish or softwarish or geekish film – none it could be any further from. Use some creativity, of which you are evidently brimful, while naming your films for future reference, Jones.

And now the Holy Grail of film critiquing: Masand ki pasand. To put it in simple terms, Masand’s one review of Source Code has more insights and penetrating observations, and a rating that is objectively accurate to the fifth decimal, than the planetary congregation of insights of all those who saw the film, made the film and wrote the screenplay. His unnatural eloquence and insightfulness are on display in what he aptly calls Masand’s Verdict (seriously, why call it anything else when it is exactly that – a verdict, not a review), as can be seen in this exemplary concluding statement of his Source Code verdict: "It’s not perfect." Oh man, what a bummer! It’s not perfect!

Masand’s ideal definition of a perfect film is Avatar, which he gave a singular 5/5 despite acknowledging, using his remarkable I’ve-seen-more-films-than-you-duh power of dissection, that the plot was so predictable as to numb your mind like anesthesia.

In his infinite wisdom, Masand also suggests that Inception lovers and dopers should go watch Source Code. At the risk of being exiled into oblivion for disagreeing with His Insightfulness’ suggestion, I recommend you suspend any expectations of seeing an Inception or some other pop film in this and watch it with a blank-slate preconception plate. When the movie ends and the titles roll and you realize it’s not another Inception or Déjà Vu, you are more likely than not to feel let down. Every film has its inspirations and aspirations from past films – regardless of how original it superficially appears – but to cite those films as a ruler to weigh this film against and to give false ideas of what to expect would lead to despair when the film fails to meet your expectations or goes in a different direction altogether. So put simply, let the film thrill you in its own right.

But yes, both Chris Nolan and Duncan Jones – besides hailing from England, bah! – have similar philosophy at filmmaking, though to varying degrees. Like Nolan, Jones doesn't patronize the audience by either spoon-feeding the story or preaching moral lessons at them. While much is presented visually comprehensibly, he does leave at least some aspect of the story to our imagination and lets us work out why this or that happened by following the clues here and there. He did that in Moon and he does it in SC as well in the much-discussed ending, and he does it so efficiently that the audience feel immensely rewarded when they figure out the why post gestating the questions. However, more important than these intellectual puzzles, and this is the hallmark of a good director, he packs and transforms the whole story into an engaging emotional medium that connects the screen to the audience and lets the drama, the action, the compassion for the characters and the progression of mood flow. He does this consistently for the stretch of the film, and at no point did I feel “left out” or disconnected; I was involved in it; I had lost myself in it. This sadly doesn’t happen with most films I watch.

That, however, is not to say it was all sentimental goo. Far, far from it – subtlety is the key. If there is any director who can pull off a happy ending without making it repulsively cloying (refer: Rajkumar Hirani’s brilliant, amazing, soul-bonding, generation-defining body of work that is saturated with didactic moral chapters on the "right way to do things"), it is Duncan Jones. He has decidedly become an object of envy for me, and I hope to God it stays that way!

8.5/10. Yeah!

Note:
1. Anish Kapoor’s famous sculpture Cloud Gate is featured towards the end of the film – partly chosen for its reflective features, mirror reflection being an important plot device in this film, and partly for artistic purposes.
2. Michelle Monaghan is very cute, damn it!
3. If you do not grasp the answer to the lingering question that’s on everyone’s mind at the end of the film, read this explanation below (not mine). But read only after you watch it – contains spoilers, even the very reading of the question.



SPOILER ALERT:

Q. How does Colter survive longer than 8 minutes in the final transfer to the train bomb scene in the end?

A. Colter's consciousness is sent from his body attached to the source machine in the starting universe to Sean's body in the newly created parallel universe each time source code is "started". When Sean's body is killed in the parallel universe, Colter's consciousness is returned to his body in the starting universe (because of the link via source code). Even if Sean's body isn't killed, Colter's consciousness is still returned to his body in the starting universe, and Sean regains/resumes possession of his own body in the parallel universe. Once Colter's consciousness returns to the starting universe, the source code team then interrogate his conciousness (via the computer terminal) to find out what Colter has learned and then send him to another parallel universe, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat until they get the information they need.

When Colter is sent to a new parallel universe for the final time by Goodwin, he is able to defuse the bomb and arrest the bomber within 8 minutes and gets prepared for the last kiss of his life just at the end of 8 minutes. When Goodwin in the original universe switches off Colter's life support at the end of 8 minutes, she has terminated Colter's body, but his consciousness is in the final parallel universe. By switching off Colter's life support she has severed Colter's link to his body and he is forever trapped in Sean's body in the final parallel universe (which is what he suspected and wanted to happen). When Colter/Sean dies (presumably of old age) in the final parallel universe, only then will Colter's consciousness finally die.

Monday, March 28, 2011

My Latest Pet Peeve


Another in a long line of my pet peeves, the phrase “open to/beyond criticism” has really started to tick me off. I’d first come across the term “beyond criticism” in the context of Oprah endorsing a book into her elite class of Oprah Book Club (does she have anything in her life whose title doesn't contain her name in it, that self-indulgent, narcissistic bitch?), and I didn’t give it much thought back then for reasons I can neither recall nor, if could recall, justify. But with the increasing frequency of this term in print – used often by critics and reviewers of literary, cultural, religious and political phenomena – my peeve detector has finally rung the alarm.

Since I came across this phrase exclusively in literary context, I’ll stick to what I know. Calling a book or some other work of literature as beyond criticism categorically submits that any opinion or point of view that opposes the established awesomeness of the work can be either discredited because the (insecure) majority who pushed it past the unsafe zone of criticism disagree with it, or restricted from being uttered altogether. Now, “open to criticism” can superficially come off as a critically superior term that, as it manifestly suggests, opens the book to criticism and allows novelty and variety of opinions to be expressed unlike the other phrase; but really, it is just an elastic extension of ‘beyond criticism’ that when let free returns back to the intolerant connotations of its base phrase, ‘beyond/above criticism.’ Being ‘open to criticism’ insinuates that it can also, at some time in the future and with sufficient consensus attained, reach the point of being ‘closed to criticism’ – just a fancy way of saying it is now beyond criticism. Well, fuck that! A phrase which fundamentally grants any work of art that privilege is illiberal and despicable in equal measure. At what point, may I ask, does a work go from being ‘open to criticism’ to ‘beyond criticism’? In my book, never. As long as I am alive, no book ever written is above or beyond or closed to criticism!

This pet peeve, however, as I mentioned earlier, is highly context-specific. I have no qualms with this phrase being used in a few other areas of human affairs, such as science. That earth goes around the sun and not the other way around is above and beyond criticism, and that evolution is true hasn’t been open to criticism for well over a century and a half now.

I want to go on about how blinkered we Indians are about other people’s outlook towards something that is different from our own and how closed we make our objects of praise to criticism. But that could, true to our Indian form, make this into a pissing contest and flame war, so I’ll conclude the pet peeve with my original intention of just expressing the peeve, and nothing more.

Monday, March 7, 2011

Response to a response to my Bicycle Thieves review

So hello again, Alexander. At the outset, sorry for the delay. I'd been going through a rough patch for the past two months (you know, breakup and everything), but I'm done with the grieving stage and am back to form now. Except for a broken right hand middle finger that I broke today morning by stubbing it onto the door, but it shouldn't cause much discomfort in typing this out. I'll try and maintain brevity in this reply.

(For the uninitiated, the quoted parts are Alexander's reply to my previous post.)

Hi there, buddy! Remember me? I actually still check on your rants from time to time. I find it interesting that you write that many considered classics supposed contain: "symptoms of pretentiousness". So, am I right to assume that you dislike much of what is considered 'classic' pre-Kubrick era, because you find many of those films to contain "symptoms of pretentiousness" which takes away story? Or, do you simply mean, that it's just hard to find representative elements in just one film from one particular era, because of mentioned symptoms, which in terms makes it harder to get into, and therefore just not worth the effort?

I think I'm more inclined towards the latter. Cinema evolved over 100 years. Today's directors have a much larger database of "Do's and Don't's" that has in essence accumulated over those 100 years from hundreds of thousands of films, and that gives them an edge over the first half century's directors as to what works and what doesn't. Kubrick had a very significant influence on the following generation of filmmakers, and in my opinion, more so than any other director of the second half of 20th century. Following in Kubrick's footsteps, many filmmakers have mastered the art and craft of filmmaking, most famously including Steven Spielberg who admits it himself. But in my experience of watching films, I hardly come across many films in the pre-Kubrick era that can, in totality, stand up to the post-Kubrick era where such films began to rise in number. That said, however, I will be quick to admit that even with the apparent lack of totality of filmmaking craftmanship, without the pre-Kubrick films there wouldn't have been any influence and ground rules for Kubrick himself to make films and there is no way in hell he could've started everything from scratch all by himself.

I am mostly asking because of this line: "but it’s hard to find much of what is good about cinema in a single film in many films before the 1960s." So, let's get right to the 1960's and forward. Because, I'd say Kubrick's produced some pretentious works, by your logic, if I am to understand you correctly. '2001: A Space Odyssey', is to me, the very same thing I'd interpret you to describe as "pseudoartistic babble". Same goes for, 'Eyes Wide Shut', and 'The Shinning'. Movies that tells a story that really doesn't seem to make sense to me in a conventional way.

The Shining was not meant to be an artistic film. Because of Barry Lyndon's commercial failure (even though artistically it was highly acclaimed and still is one of the "basic references" for period filmmaking), Kubrick's disappointment led him to want to make a film for a larger audience with more entertainment value than artistic, and still having his own creative identity as an experimental filmmaker, at the same time avoiding the conventional way of telling a horror story. Eyes Wide Shut succeeds on many levels for me while failing at many as well. Kubrick tried to capture the tone of A Clockwork Orange into this film with long pauses within and between dialogues, but it just didn't work like it did for ACO. The dream-like tone he intended for the film did not come across as very dream-like but just laborious to watch. It did, however, succeed on its occult imagery - the kind of impeccable craft that makes Kubrick films what they are.

Or perhaps you don't like all Kubrick films? Please correct me if I'm assuming too much.

I don't, mate. In fact, I don't even like to the same degree all the Kubrick films that I do like, and even in the ones I like, with the exception of 2001 which in my opinion is pitch perfect, there are parts I think were not directed to his true potential, especially in his last two films. And Lolita is my least favorite of his work, so much so that I refuse to believe he even directed the film. Assuming they hired some ghost director and used Kubrick's name for branding purposes gives me solace :D

Don't get me wrong, I love those movies. But isn't '2001: A Space Odyssey', something you'd imagine Fellini could've done? Initially, I got that '2001...' is all about telling a story through pictures. But, there is no initial plot, and no depth to any of the characters. There is really nothing at stake. It's highly original for its time, because it breaks away from conventional storytelling. The point of '2001...' to me was the beginning and end of life, and the infinity of the universe. Humans played a smaller part, because the movie's main point to me is how insignificant we really are in the whole of the universe. '2001...' isn't supposed to have an epic assemble of characters with a quest, because the bigger whole is the journey.

To answer your first question, no, I don't think Fellini or any other director could've done 2001, just as I don't think Kubrick could've done 8-1/2. Every director has his own directorial signatures, some which are perhaps unknown even to him, and it is usually that which gives a film the feel that it has. Replacing directors and expecting to get the same feel out of a film would be ridiculous.

I can go on and on about the depth of 2001, but I'll limit it to the points you raise. Even to this day, a large majority of those who have seen 2001 over the span of 40 years think the only commendable thing about the film was its groundbreaking use of visual effects. While that is true, it is only the cult following that the film has generated over 40 years that can truly appreciate the depth of its scope and meaning and how well it incorporates Friedrich Nietzsche's ubermensch philosophy into an unconventional story without losing the essence of the philosophy and maintaining the artistic as well as dramatic merit of the film's own story. It's funny you should say that humans play a small part in the film, because the entire film is about nothing other than humans, the evolution of humans from apes to the quintessential ubermensch (which is referred to in the film as Star Man - the giant black monolith), and the relationship between humans and the universe. There is not a moment - not one tiny fraction of a second - in the film in which humans are not discussed, although not through words but through the subtlety of non-verbal storytelling. HAL is shown to have more human characteristics than Dave Bowman, and Dave is shown to have more mechanical characteristics than HAL - a reference to the futuristic transformation of man into ubermensch.

There are clues all over the film about the meaning of the film, and with each clue discovered, a new layer is uncovered, opening the flood gates to a whole range of possible interpretations. For example, the symphony that is used in the beginning, the end, and when the ape discovers the use of the tool, is Richard Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra, which is a direct reference to Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra - the foundation of the ubermensch philosophy on which the film is based. (You really need to be familiar at least with the gist of that philosophy to get a grasp over the meaning of the film). Or, in the very title of the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, the clue to Homer's Odyssey is referenced, which has a great many similarities in major plot points of the story, the most obvious one being Dave Bowman killing HAL with just a screw driver, as the protagonist of Odyssey kills the antagonist with just a bow. The film has as many interpretations as there are people who watch it, which adequately accomplishes Kubrick's aim who, on finishing the film and before its release, said:

"It's not a message that I ever intend to convey in words. 2001 is a nonverbal experience; out of two hours and 19 minutes of film, there are only a little less than 40 minutes of dialog. I tried to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeonholing and directly penetrates the subconscious with an emotional and philosophic content. To convolute McLuhan, in 2001 the message is the medium. I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does; to "explain" a Beethoven symphony would be to emasculate it by erecting an artificial barrier between conception and appreciation. You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film -- and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level -- but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point. I think that if 2001 succeeds at all, it is in reaching a wide spectrum of people who would not often give a thought to man's destiny, his role in the cosmos and his relationship to higher forms of life. But even in the case of someone who is highly intelligent, certain ideas found in 2001 would, if presented as abstractions, fall rather lifelessly and be automatically assigned to pat intellectual categories; experienced in a moving visual and emotional context, however, they can resonate within the deepest fibers of one's being."

It is the last sentence, "experienced in a moving visual and emotional context, however, they can resonate within the deepest fibers of one's being," that truly rings with me and millions of others who can go beyond the superficial visual effects supremacy in their appreciation of the film.

But as far as technique goes, I'd apply that to any Fellini movie, as well.

Fellini's 8-1/2 does this really well, if you ask me. The intro scene in 8-1/2, tells me that the main character is kind of... well... fucked up. Kind of stressed out, as well. His celebrity status is giving him no room to breathe. His stressful everyday life is taking its toll, and he is getting middle-age burn out. Beneath this charming older gentleman, lies a hidden sorrow, which I believe is portrayed pretty well using flashbacks of his childhood, and goofy dreams, etc. And, it is a show. Why not make it a show?

8-1/2 does, perhaps, leave more to our own interpretation than '2001...', but I think it's unfair to label it "pseudoartistic babble". Point is: I think the way 8-1/2 was made is important to tell the story of this character, even if it does skip and trip.

And, I'm only bringing 8-1/2 up because you used it as an example. I like Fellini, but I am way more into Pier Paolo Pasolini & Bernardo Bertolucci movies. I also like all the goofy Giallo flicks directed by Dario Argento, and Lucio Fulci.

But hey... that's me.

I know this is your blog, and you are free to form simple, to the point, personal opinions about anything. And, that the point of this post is the review of one particular film, and not your reflection on 'cinema' in general. Having said that, I do find it unfair to dismiss a film, or several films from an era, based solely on some of reasons you've stated.

As for Kurosawa movies... I love Kurosawa movies, but my comment is already too long.

Fellini was actually one of the six directors Kubrick cited as his biggest influence on making films (the other five being David Lean, Ingmar Bergman, Vittorio De Sica, François Truffaut, and Max Ophüls); and clearly, without 8-1/2, Kubrick wouldn't have had the inspiration and directions to make 2001. So perhaps I was a little too harsh in judging 8-1/2, and I apologize if I hurt your sentiments towards the film. It's just that I saw 8-1/2 during a time when I was very, umm, anti-sophisticated-artistic-talk in literary, stage or film work, and 8-1/2 does that a lot - with frequent talks about different so-called "movements" of cinematic expression, which I found very intellectually as well as artistically pretentious. I did like the surrealism of the opening sequence and I was hoping that what would follow would be along those lines, but I had my hopes up too high and the film went in a different direction altogether. Maybe, after another watch of 8-1/2, I might have a change in perspective, so I will look into it when I can.

By the way, a brief observation I made on 8-1/2 the first time around: Whenever a writer suffers from writer's block, he ends up writing the story about himself, about his own inability to compose the work. Fellini was going through writer's block back then and ended up making 8-1/2 about his mental state at that time (without, I hear, a definitive script). Charlie Kaufman did the same thing with Adaptation. They perhaps wouldn't even know that they are following this pattern, but they end up with a work that is full of themselves. William Gass, a novelist, made this observation very early on in his career and wrote The Tunnel, his magnus opus which took him 27 years to write, in which a Nazi Germany historian, while writing a piece of work called Guilt and Innocence in Hitler's Germany, suffers from writer's block and ends up writing it about himself and his own feelings.

Anyway, that's that. Since you mentioned a few directors, I do think Dario Argento, while certainly being one of the first directors to push the limits of gore allowed in cinema, is a highly overrated filmmaker. Maybe it was good when it was released, in that age, but Suspiria bored the daylights out of me. And even though I can appreciate Kurasowa's contributions to film directing, in the end, I find his films extremely tasteless and boring (yet original, I agree).

Monday, January 17, 2011

The Thieves Who Stole His Bicycle

Having not been impressed by Italian films despite my many attempts at trying to be impressed, I finally decided to give The Bicycle Thief (1948) (or is it in plural, as thieves? I still don’t know!) a try – my final shot at Italian cinema, failing which I would erase Italy off my copy of the world map. At the outset, I was expecting nothing more than a pretentious parade of pseudoartistic babble along the lines of Fellini’s 8-1/2, also considered an Italian classic. But as the minutes went by and the story uncovered layer by layer, I stopped rolling my eyes and began to show a hint of interest and toned down my condescension towards the filmmaker little by little. At the end of the 90 minutes that followed, I was left with an expression that can only be best put in the words of Col. Walter Kurtz (from Apocalypse Now): “My God, the genius of it!”

The genius of it lies in its unnaturally simplistic yet powerful plot lacking any signs or symptoms of pretentiousness that is so dominant in the so-called “classics” of world cinema. I don’t mean any disrespect to the black-and-white era, but with the exception of Orson Welles and to some extent Alfred Hitchcock, I largely avoid most pre-Kubrick films. Granted, there were innumerable contributions from a slew of filmmakers – some, like D. W. Griffith, more than others – over a stretch of several decades, but it’s hard to find much of what is good about cinema in a single film in many films before the 1960s. Even those who made significant contributions to film direction, like Akira Kurasowa, brought out such pathetically painful acting from their actors that it makes it almost impossible to watch the scenes, and I would instead prefer to just read the subtitles and pretend to have seen the film as it were. But the Bicycle Thief, I’m glad to say, was a delicious surprise.

At its heart, the film explores our reaction to desperation – the presence of desperation can be subtly or strongly felt at every step of the movie – and how external material objects such as a bicycle can determine and control the life and livelihood of an entire family. The film follows a father and son’s vain attempt at finding their stolen bicycle which would help them “live again” through his new job – job being a very lucky find in post-Fascism Italy. There is no heavy-handed symbolism or over-readable metaphors at any point (although I suspect some pseudointellectual critics will read too much into it anyway – as they always do. Please watch South Park Season 14 Episode 2 for a clever criticism of reading too much into symbolism; to quote Beckett, "No symbols where none intended"), and for this reason, the film has been rightly hailed as the first great neo-realist film of the century. It is realistic to the extent that the two central characters – the father and the son – were specifically chosen as non-actors. Now, I am of the opinion that if symbolism be used in a story, it be used in such a way and form that it is instantly transmitted to the audience via an emotional channel, not via intellectual dissection of “what could this represent” ideas to reach the meaning. That is the difference between real art and pseudoart, and that is what art is about – an emotional transference of ideas and opinions, not an intellectual social theory or puzzle. The most glaring example of this aspect of the film is the way it is ended: (although it is used to the point that it is hackneyed in movies today, The Bicycle Thief was the first film to use this technique) the main character walks with the crowd and slowly blends into it and becomes unidentifiable in it, and eventually we see nothing but the crowd – meaning that the story you just saw could be a story of any person from that crowd, and therefore, of anyone including you.

The critics had initially observed that this is a story of a typical man in post-WWII Italy. But really, that is just a very narrow way of looking at it, since the characters, the setting, and the emotions that the plot evokes are so identifiable with and realistic that it is almost universally true, and for all ages of time. 8.5/10.

The frustration in their faces: a rational response to the desperate circumstances they are in

Monday, January 3, 2011

The monkey who sold his almari

OK, so it’s a Monday night (my free night) and I’m supposed to be watching a movie, but since I already saw True Grit in the morning (whose epic disappointment I will come to shortly) and watched like 7 episodes of In Treatment back to back and read a few pages of The Recognitions, I no longer feel motivated to indulge in the life of fictional characters. I’m bored. So please bear with my ramblings for a bit.

Coming back to True Grit. Colossal failure. Even that’s just putting it mildly. There are so many things wrong with this film, I can only begin to describe how much it has let me down as an anticipated film, much less an anticipated Coen brothers film. The trailer really had me going: I thought this is it, we have the cinematic event of the year right here. The tone, the magical cinematography of Roger Deakins, the utterly awesome Jeff Bridges being directed by the uttttterly awesome Coen brothers – there was no way this could have been anything but pure gold blended with purer gold. But as it turns out, the entire film, set in 19th century America, which in itself can be annoying to watch given all the local colloquialisms that we cannot follow, wallows in cheesy, corny sentimentality layered over used-to-death, cheesier, cornier background score. Half way down, I was just hoping it was the end of the film. It was that friggin’ boring! (I wonder what IMDb users found in it that they've given an 8.5 rating. Maybe they just went with the whole hype that if it's a Coen brothers film, it will be awesome, so expect awesome and pretend to see only awesome, even if it's non-existent.) After three hat-trick awesome films in 2007, 2008 and 2009, the Coen brothers finally have jinxed their momentum with this shite. Thank you for ruining the first movie of 2011 for me, Ethan and Joel Coen!

Now, about In Treatment. Nah, I think I’ll cover it in greater depth in another post, because there’s so much to say about its unparalleled, engaging drama I just can't cover it in a few minutes, in a few words, and in this suicidally-bored state of mind. That’s enough ramblings for now.

2010 was a bad year for me. But I’m glad it’s over. Happy new year!

A joke to begin 2011 with:

An atheist and a Christian Jesus freak are having an exchange.

Jesus Freak: Do you believe in Virgin Birth?
Atheist: No, but I believe in Virgin Death - which you will encounter soon if you keep asking questions like that.

:)

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Who we are

"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' – this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats." – Aldous Huxley

Revenge is sweet. There are several evolutionary advantages that come from this sweet experience of ‘an eye for an eye’ that served our primate and human ancestors well in the ancient world and indeed to an extent today as well: a supposed ‘enemy' or rival is less likely to attack or mess with you knowing that you will seek vengeance in the aftermath of the attack and pursue an equal or worse counterattack. That pre-attack knowledge is a warning in itself that never needs to be uttered. And when an emotion is favorable to a species’ or an individual's existence, evolution makes it feel good, or sweet. The downside of this sweet emotion, however, is that it can dehumanize us to the point of becoming incapable of any sympathy or objective evaluation and blinds us from seeing not only the enemy's condition but also our own.

Because of its feel-good characteristics, revenge is a widely and long used tool in filmmaking. There is at least some element of revenge in almost every Hollywood film released – we not only love the good guys but also love hating the bad guys and wish them dead or worse (and even like to see the reaction on their faces when, to quote Samuel Jackson, they are “struck down upon with great vengeance and furious anger” :) ) Sometimes, gifted directors like Tarantino (who wrote that Jackson dialogue) just push it too far, or too low, and take it down to sly levels of wishful vengeance just to give the audience a treat of maltreating someone (killing, actually) and calling it ‘righteous indignation.’ That is sure to attract more viewers and rake in a lot of bucks and shower more praise on him. No, I’m not talking about Kill Bill, but about Inglourious Basterds, a purported historical fiction.

The world today, and since 1945, hates Nazis. While we all show immense gratitude towards the heroism of the Allies for defeating the Axis powes, especially Nazis, and saving the human civilization from tyranny, we still cannot get ourselves used to the fact that the Nazis did not get what they deserved. They committed the single largest calculated mass murder of an innocent population in human history and conducted unspeakable experiments on them, and all they get for it is a jail term and a fair trial for war crimes? No, that’s not enough. We need more, or wish that they had gotten more. We want revenge. Avenge us, someone!

At least, that’s how the world majority feels today. And feeding on such a strong inner craving, sly and shameless filmmakers like Tarantino create their own personal favorite versions of history and lead events into how they wished it had ended – with Hitler dying of 10,000 rounds of bullets in a movie theater at the hands of our anti-Nazi Jewish hero and him killing the rest of the Nazi leaders in the same enclosure with a machine gun. Never happened, but still. As long as that’s what the audience want to see, who cares what a demoralized filth of a story it is. To make matters worse, our beloved Oscars promoted such irresponsible garbage by nominating it for Best Screenplay, Best Director, AND Best Film categories. To make matters still worse, and as expected, the film was a blockbuster and took home unprecedented accolades.

Historical fiction has been a well-received genre in storytelling for ages; it takes facts that did happen and peppers it with fiction to make a point, to prove a moral, to say something about those events or about the people involved in those events. But Inglourious Basterds, if it does say anything at all, says that we are all brutal savages who seek, as Huxley has rightly put in the quote above, the psychological luxury of destroying and killing with a good conscience. This is evidenced by the undeniable fact that what people loved the most about the film was, despite knowing with absolute certainty that it’s fictional, the merciless killing of the Nazis and their demigod leader, Hitler. They enjoyed it like it was a live News broadcast. A couple of old Jewish women were overheard in a theatre by someone I know saying during the climax, overjoyed as they were, “If only it were true.” The film was even publicized with the tag, “You haven’t seen war until you’ve seen it through the eyes of Tarantino.” Yeah, sure!

Spielberg made a few mistakes like this early on his career with Indiana Jones. He tried to approach the Nazi concept with a certain dose of hatred towards them, him being a Jew and all. But, him being also an intelligent filmmaker, quickly corrected himself and made the gem of modern classics, Schindler’s List, avoiding any and all pitfalls of inducing anti-Nazi hate messages in the minds of the audience and showed with unhindered honesty the presence of compassion amid the cold cruelty of the Third Reich. The moral dimensions of this film are so great that Kubrick, a director who is worshiped by Spielberg himself, abandoned a Nazi Germany film project he was working on at the time because, as his wife later recalled, he felt he couldn’t top Schindler’s List. Spielberg preached humanity with that film, that there is no form of revenge so complete as forgiveness. I just hope Tarantino too wakes up the horror of his own morals before he decides to breed another set of Basterds.

A fairly recent Dutch film called ‘Zwartboek’ (‘Black Book’; director: Paul Verhoeven) deals with the same theme, albeit with a twist. This film, too, has certain elements of revenge in it, but unlike Basterds, it shows us, indeed makes us feel how depraved and base we become while seeking revenge, and also, unlike Basterds, it’s based on real events. A Jewish Resistance girl infiltrates Nazi senior officials’ office disguised as a Nazi supporter and a seductress to help the Resistance fighters with valuable inside information, thus enabling them to launch surprise attacks on the officers. But once the war is over, she is mistaken for a Nazi and imprisoned with the rest of the arrested Nazis in a prison that’s in a condition as deplorable as concentration camps. Now, since it is impossible for any of us to sympathize with a Nazi, and since we know that the innocent girl is a Jew mistaken for a Nazi and is being treated like one with contempt, which in turn earns her our sympathy, it becomes easy for us to see the dissoluteness of our merciless conduct in the name of revenge and how we become what we despise in the process. But Basterds, on the other hand, feeds on such dissoluteness and glorifies it.

No other film, not even the horrendous Indian films (all encompassing: Bollywood, Tollywood, Kollywood, Sandalwood, Wood, etc.), has made me lose faith in humanity so much as Basterds. We may have come a long way since the War, and our morals may have advanced tremendously with acts such as ridding ourselves of capital punishment in a great many nations, but inside, our true primate self still remains the same bloodthirsty animal that were the Nazis. We are all really no different from the Nazis, no matter how much we deny and like to believe otherwise.

As a closing comment, I’ll quote one of my favorite quotations from Stanley Kubrick:

“Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests are involved—that about sums it up.”

Yes, that about sums it up.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Curb Your Enthusiasm...and the temptation to watch it!


To get to the point, and simply put, this is the greatest, funniest, and the most hysterically entertaining show in all of television history.

Created by Larry David, co-creator of the megahit TV show Sienfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm circles around Larry David himself in all of his daily predicaments and embarrassments, and his relationship with a demanding wife Cheryl and friendship with his fat friend Jeff. But when I say "himself," I need to make clear that this isn't a reality show. Far from it, it's metafiction. The character Larry David in the show is a fictionalized version of his real-life self - part true personality, part just made-up. Not just him; most other characters appearing in the show also are fictionalized versions of themselves, and to signify this, they change the second name of their character and retain the first from their real names. This concept was first created by Larry David for Sienfeld (in which he never acted) and now for CYE.

To quote the tagline of the show, "He's got it all: a loving wife, good friends, a successful career, a great home...what could possibly go wrong for Larry David?" That's right, he's just perfect! Except that he regularly trips into disastrous social humiliations, sometimes because of his obsessive nature of blowing things out of proportion, sometimes because he can't figure out what's really important, and sometimes because he just forgets what politeness is. He has a naive outlook on human nature, and he is agitated over trivial things said and done by others when a lot more is at stake. He tries to be affable at times, but always ends up saying the wrong things. He is insensitive to the feelings of others and runs into the the wrong people. He can neither foresee the ramifications of his actions nor watch his tongue in social gatherings. He is a victim of misunderstandings.

The embarrassment that rushes at you when watching the show is similar to the experience of watching Borat for the first time. (Some episodes are even directed by Larry Charles, director of Borat). I feel it would be apt to classify this show as foot-in-mouth comedy. But beneath all the humor, I think Larry represents the irrationality of the common man in many ways. Everything he says and does represents some aspect of our stupidity, which is why it's easy to relate to the character.

And Jeff Greene and his Italian-American, psychotic wife Susie Green make for a lot of entertainment as well.

Watch it once, and you won't stop watching the rest of the seaons or laughing while you do. A word of warning, though: sometimes, the humor can be subtle. Remember that, unlike most sitcoms and comedy flicks, CYE has its hilarity in the characters, not in dialogues or jokes. A sample should prove it: