Continuing my pursuit of well-known films with big names that I have not seen, I watched High Sierra, with Humphrey Bogart. Turns out that I had seen it many years ago, but forgot most of it. It's a very quirky film-noir with a left-wing, and even feminist slant. I won't go into all the details. Perhaps James Cassidy has that kind of energy, but not me.
It's hard to say whether I would recommend it to you. I liked it, but I wouldn't show it in class, so I don't know if you'd like it.
Bogart plays a hardened criminal just sprung from prison who is called upon to pull off one more big heist. The film portrays him as basically having a heart of gold, so we are left wondering why he's turned to crime. Turns out that the bank foreclosed on his Indiana farm and left his family penniless. There are several parallels to The Asphalt Jungle, which is not surprising since both screenplays were written by John Huston.
On your recommendation, I rented Donny Darko. An annoying title. I hope the film is less so. I'll watch it tomorrow, most likely.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Fragmented thoughts on Bogart and Edward G. Robinson
Now that I've finally finished "The Wire," my film viewing will pick up. I thought that I would go back and see some of the "big name" films that, for one reason or another, I've never viewed. One such is "Key Largo" with Bogart and Edward G. Robinson. Directed by John Huston, I mentioned that I had watched "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" a week or so back, and enjoyed it immensely. This was less spectacular, but also great theatre.
Are there any of you who don't know who Edward G. Robinson is? I suppose there must be, and yet, he is so iconic, so often parodied, played the worst sort of scoundrels and the most lovable pussycats, in some ways he stands virtually by himself in the pantheon of Hollywood stars.
Anyway, I won't recommend "Key Largo" to you, as it is rather tedious in parts, but I do recommend you seek out other films with Humphrey Bogart or Edward G. in them. One is rarely disappointed when either of these to giants fill the screen.
A personal favorite Bogart film is "In a Lonely Place." He plays a Hollywood screenwriter suspected of murdering an ingenue. For most of the film, you really don't know whether he did it or not. It is classified as "Film Noir," but it is missing most of the elements of the genre.
Are there any of you who don't know who Edward G. Robinson is? I suppose there must be, and yet, he is so iconic, so often parodied, played the worst sort of scoundrels and the most lovable pussycats, in some ways he stands virtually by himself in the pantheon of Hollywood stars.
Anyway, I won't recommend "Key Largo" to you, as it is rather tedious in parts, but I do recommend you seek out other films with Humphrey Bogart or Edward G. in them. One is rarely disappointed when either of these to giants fill the screen.
A personal favorite Bogart film is "In a Lonely Place." He plays a Hollywood screenwriter suspected of murdering an ingenue. For most of the film, you really don't know whether he did it or not. It is classified as "Film Noir," but it is missing most of the elements of the genre.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Fargo
I am pleased to see that our latest film has so exercised the troops. Of particular amusement is the sight of poor Nick being whacked around like a Pinyata by Benny, James, and even Steve, who arose from his semester-long torpor just to tell us how much he hated this film. Well boys, sorry to disappoint, but Nick is right again. This film has a lot going for it.
First of all, the comments that the Coen Bros. are just using their name to ride on very little effort here. This film was made in 1994 when the Coen Bros. though well-known, did not carry the same weight they do today. Also, this type of film, where the most horrible stuff is portrayed in a folksy, jokesy way, was much fresher and new back then. Pulp Fiction was perhaps the most famous example of this kind of portrayal of the ordinariness of criminal life.
I compared the screenplay to In Bruges yesterday, but didn't have time to explain myself. I was referring to the endless creativity expressed in the dialogue. To have killers orating and proclaiming in Ciceronian pentameter (or whatever) is well known, whether he be Cagney, Bogart, Pacino, etc. But to have killers spouting about how the conversation is rather dull, and how would you like it if I didn't speak to you for three hours etc. This tends to raise the level of absurdity to new heights (or lower them to new depths).
After all, how do you adequately describe a universe that is absurd, but not absurd in a Greek tragedy sort of way, a la Runaway Train. Rather, a universe that is absurd in a ridiculous way. Not only that, but how can the director draw the viewer in to his web of banal evil? The scene where the wife is running around in the snow is truly horrible, but it is horrible because we want to laugh too. She is ridiculous and our inclination is to laugh. But isn't the effect of this inclination to make us uncomfortable, not for her or for the killers, but uncomfortable about ourselves?
The Chinese guy is an extension of this vision. The message is that evil is so pervasive, and so ridiculous and pitiful, that we will brush up against it everywhere, even in the most banal places, and we will not recognize it.
First of all, the comments that the Coen Bros. are just using their name to ride on very little effort here. This film was made in 1994 when the Coen Bros. though well-known, did not carry the same weight they do today. Also, this type of film, where the most horrible stuff is portrayed in a folksy, jokesy way, was much fresher and new back then. Pulp Fiction was perhaps the most famous example of this kind of portrayal of the ordinariness of criminal life.
I compared the screenplay to In Bruges yesterday, but didn't have time to explain myself. I was referring to the endless creativity expressed in the dialogue. To have killers orating and proclaiming in Ciceronian pentameter (or whatever) is well known, whether he be Cagney, Bogart, Pacino, etc. But to have killers spouting about how the conversation is rather dull, and how would you like it if I didn't speak to you for three hours etc. This tends to raise the level of absurdity to new heights (or lower them to new depths).
After all, how do you adequately describe a universe that is absurd, but not absurd in a Greek tragedy sort of way, a la Runaway Train. Rather, a universe that is absurd in a ridiculous way. Not only that, but how can the director draw the viewer in to his web of banal evil? The scene where the wife is running around in the snow is truly horrible, but it is horrible because we want to laugh too. She is ridiculous and our inclination is to laugh. But isn't the effect of this inclination to make us uncomfortable, not for her or for the killers, but uncomfortable about ourselves?
The Chinese guy is an extension of this vision. The message is that evil is so pervasive, and so ridiculous and pitiful, that we will brush up against it everywhere, even in the most banal places, and we will not recognize it.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
The Wire
Over the last three months or so I have been watching the HBO series "The Wire." It is available through Netflix. There were five seasons, of approximately 12 episodes each, so I was busy watching about 60 hours of tape. That comes out to more than 30 films that I would have seen and commented upon, either favorably or otherwise, on this blog.
While I won't go into a long analysis of the show, I do recommend it. In brief, it tells the story of a small group of Baltimore police and the drug organization that they are trying to smash. But, the story is really a panoramic portrait of the institutions that make up a modern metropolis, from the police and the underworld, to politicians, unions, schools, churches, newspapers, etc. It's one of the very few works of art upon which the label "Tolstoyan" can aptly be affixed.
The fourth season dealt with the schools, and when it started, I was a bit fearful. After all, the first three seasons seemed very realistic, but they dealt with worlds about which I am unfamiliar. Film very rarely gets the schools right. They always exaggerate things to the nth degree, making students appear like monsters, as in "The Blackboard Jungle" and other school horror movies. Or the teachers are made to look like complete idiots, and the kids are all wise and cool. But, amazingly, they got it right. They really managed to capture the way a city school feels.
The show presents a very dark vision of the human experience. (Would I be recommending it if it were otherwise?) The controlling theme is that all institutions fail to carry out the mission for which they were created. Ironically, this includes the institutions of the criminal underworld. Issues having to do with ego, promotion, politics, money, resentment, sex, you name it, all these begin to take on much greater importance than the job itself. And yet, somehow, society moves on. Or does it?
I don't think it's the kind of show that you can start in the middle. Constant references are made to previous action, and the plot is highly complex and interwoven. But, if you have Netflix, and 60 hours of free time, I recommend it. It may not be for grandma, though. There's a lot of violence, incessant profanity, occasional nudity, a sex scene here and there to keep the barbarians interested.
While I won't go into a long analysis of the show, I do recommend it. In brief, it tells the story of a small group of Baltimore police and the drug organization that they are trying to smash. But, the story is really a panoramic portrait of the institutions that make up a modern metropolis, from the police and the underworld, to politicians, unions, schools, churches, newspapers, etc. It's one of the very few works of art upon which the label "Tolstoyan" can aptly be affixed.
The fourth season dealt with the schools, and when it started, I was a bit fearful. After all, the first three seasons seemed very realistic, but they dealt with worlds about which I am unfamiliar. Film very rarely gets the schools right. They always exaggerate things to the nth degree, making students appear like monsters, as in "The Blackboard Jungle" and other school horror movies. Or the teachers are made to look like complete idiots, and the kids are all wise and cool. But, amazingly, they got it right. They really managed to capture the way a city school feels.
The show presents a very dark vision of the human experience. (Would I be recommending it if it were otherwise?) The controlling theme is that all institutions fail to carry out the mission for which they were created. Ironically, this includes the institutions of the criminal underworld. Issues having to do with ego, promotion, politics, money, resentment, sex, you name it, all these begin to take on much greater importance than the job itself. And yet, somehow, society moves on. Or does it?
I don't think it's the kind of show that you can start in the middle. Constant references are made to previous action, and the plot is highly complex and interwoven. But, if you have Netflix, and 60 hours of free time, I recommend it. It may not be for grandma, though. There's a lot of violence, incessant profanity, occasional nudity, a sex scene here and there to keep the barbarians interested.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Memory
Didn't Fargo begin with an onscreen message that stated that the film was based on a true story? I'm sure I remember that.
Mariya discusses memory in her most recent blog entry. In particular, she talks about her earliest memory. My earliest confirmed memory is of standing next to my mother at my grandmother's farm in upstate New York. Workmen were pulling down the grain silo that stood next to the barn, and we were watching. As the silo fell, I got a weird sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. Afterwards, my mother and I both mentioned the weird feeling we got in our stomachs, and she still remembers it to this day.
I figured that happened when I was three or four years old. But, I chanced to come upon a photograph of the farm dated January 1963 in which the silo is absent, meaning that it was pulled down in teh summer of 1962, at the latest. As I was only 2 years and 4 months old in August of 1962, that is surely my earliest memory.
However, my grandfather died in December of 1961. I have a vague recollection of him. More specifically, I remember my mother asking me if I remembered him, and I said that I did. So, I recall saying that I remembered him, but I can't really say that I remember him directly.
Memory makes us powerful. The fact that I remember 1979, and you don't, gives me an edge. I guess you win thanks to your youth, the many years you have in front of you. But the future is opaque, the past is very clear. And, should I not like part of it, I just remember it differently. Remind you of anyone?
Mariya discusses memory in her most recent blog entry. In particular, she talks about her earliest memory. My earliest confirmed memory is of standing next to my mother at my grandmother's farm in upstate New York. Workmen were pulling down the grain silo that stood next to the barn, and we were watching. As the silo fell, I got a weird sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. Afterwards, my mother and I both mentioned the weird feeling we got in our stomachs, and she still remembers it to this day.
I figured that happened when I was three or four years old. But, I chanced to come upon a photograph of the farm dated January 1963 in which the silo is absent, meaning that it was pulled down in teh summer of 1962, at the latest. As I was only 2 years and 4 months old in August of 1962, that is surely my earliest memory.
However, my grandfather died in December of 1961. I have a vague recollection of him. More specifically, I remember my mother asking me if I remembered him, and I said that I did. So, I recall saying that I remembered him, but I can't really say that I remember him directly.
Memory makes us powerful. The fact that I remember 1979, and you don't, gives me an edge. I guess you win thanks to your youth, the many years you have in front of you. But the future is opaque, the past is very clear. And, should I not like part of it, I just remember it differently. Remind you of anyone?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Some thoughts on "A Simple Plan."
This film is something of an anomaly in my syllabus. Every film I've shown thus far comes with an elegant pedigree. In other words, I've shown all films that carry tremendous weight, either by virtue of reputation, director, star, awards, etc. But, "A Simple Plan" has no such gravitas. It was not a big hit, won no awards, has some names in it, but they won't point to this film as the high point of their career. And yet, there's a lot here and I think it stands tall on its merits. And the very fact that it has no pretentions to greatness adds to my admiration.
I think the performances are excellent. You might find my next statement surprising. I think Brigit Fonda gives the strongest performance in the film. The look of evil in her face as she instructs her husband on the next step in the "plan" is worthy of Lady MacBeth herself.
I wonder if any of you were struck, as I was, at the sheer awfulness of the scene when her new baby is brought to her. Here is perhaps the single most exciting and transcendent moment in the life of a woman, the moment when she is introduced to her first child. What an incredible experience, to hold your first child for the first time, the baby that has emerged from your own body. To look into the face of that new person, and see there all the mystery and power of life. To wonder what the years have in store as this unformed ... well you get the point. And instead of thinking about any of that stuff, she is ignoring the child and obsessively planning the next stage of her destruction.
Of course there's no backing out now.
I think you'll like the rest.
I think the performances are excellent. You might find my next statement surprising. I think Brigit Fonda gives the strongest performance in the film. The look of evil in her face as she instructs her husband on the next step in the "plan" is worthy of Lady MacBeth herself.
I wonder if any of you were struck, as I was, at the sheer awfulness of the scene when her new baby is brought to her. Here is perhaps the single most exciting and transcendent moment in the life of a woman, the moment when she is introduced to her first child. What an incredible experience, to hold your first child for the first time, the baby that has emerged from your own body. To look into the face of that new person, and see there all the mystery and power of life. To wonder what the years have in store as this unformed ... well you get the point. And instead of thinking about any of that stuff, she is ignoring the child and obsessively planning the next stage of her destruction.
Of course there's no backing out now.
I think you'll like the rest.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Today's discussion
After class today I wondered whether anyone else enjoyed the discussion as much as I did. I know I talk too much, and I hate people who talk too much. Somehow I delude myself into believing that I am exempt from the axiom that states simply and clearly that one should not do all the talking.
And today there were a lot of really good comments. Perhaps there would have been more had I zipped it a bit. Marotta's point that we cannot trust anyone in this film, not even ourselves was right on the money. It's hard to remember exactly what people were saying, but at the time I was very much taken by what Marissa said, and Billy,... Nick, of course, Maria, Sherif, hmmm.... there were others too, but memory is, well. need I say more, considering our topic? Give a shout-out to whomever I left out in the comment section below. Oh, Eric had a very insightful contribution, as I recall. But, damned if I can remember exactly what it was. Remind me.
So, is it education? Did anybody learn anything? Honestly, I don't give a damn. I enjoyed myself thoroughly, felt happy to be alive for 41 minutes. What more can one ask for?
Anyway, I'd say from the reaction of the class that my winning streak is unbroken here. Every major film I've shown has been a home run. "Signs" is the only film I won't go to the wall on. I showed that for a specific reason, namely as a counterpoint to Existentialism.
Our next film is "A Simple Plan." It is another variation on the theme of film noir. The premise is simple enough. Three guys stumble upon four million dollars in cash while walking through a frozen forest wasteland. The main character tells teh other two that they have to turn the money over to the authorities. You can probably imagine what happens next.
Don't yell at me Nick. I promise you that I didnt give anything away. That happens in the first 5 minutes of the film and I won't say a word about the rest except that I am confident that you will enjoy it, and you will have a lot to talk about concerning the basics of film making.
Until tomorrow, then.
And today there were a lot of really good comments. Perhaps there would have been more had I zipped it a bit. Marotta's point that we cannot trust anyone in this film, not even ourselves was right on the money. It's hard to remember exactly what people were saying, but at the time I was very much taken by what Marissa said, and Billy,... Nick, of course, Maria, Sherif, hmmm.... there were others too, but memory is, well. need I say more, considering our topic? Give a shout-out to whomever I left out in the comment section below. Oh, Eric had a very insightful contribution, as I recall. But, damned if I can remember exactly what it was. Remind me.
So, is it education? Did anybody learn anything? Honestly, I don't give a damn. I enjoyed myself thoroughly, felt happy to be alive for 41 minutes. What more can one ask for?
Anyway, I'd say from the reaction of the class that my winning streak is unbroken here. Every major film I've shown has been a home run. "Signs" is the only film I won't go to the wall on. I showed that for a specific reason, namely as a counterpoint to Existentialism.
Our next film is "A Simple Plan." It is another variation on the theme of film noir. The premise is simple enough. Three guys stumble upon four million dollars in cash while walking through a frozen forest wasteland. The main character tells teh other two that they have to turn the money over to the authorities. You can probably imagine what happens next.
Don't yell at me Nick. I promise you that I didnt give anything away. That happens in the first 5 minutes of the film and I won't say a word about the rest except that I am confident that you will enjoy it, and you will have a lot to talk about concerning the basics of film making.
Until tomorrow, then.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Dark City: Changes in the Director's version
The so-called "director's cut" of Dark City has several changes, a few of which improve the film, a few that detract. Here's a list of the things I can recall.
1. The film starts without the voice-over. That explanation is given later, in the rowboat scene.
2. There is no tuning at the beginning. The first hint of the supernatural, aside from the ghostly visage of the strangers, is when Murdoch is confronted by them on the scaffold. (I'm not sure if they put the conscierge to sleep before that. Perhaps)
3. Murdoch, while dressing, turns his shoe over and sees that it has not been worn.
4. Murdoch's fingerprints are shaped like a spiral, leading Bumstead to question whether someone is "joking."
5. Jennifer Connolly's actual voice is used in the songs instead of a professional singer. You can access the two on "youtube." I prefer the actual voice, which is less polished, but more sultry and atmospheric.
6. She sings a lot more of the second song. Detracts, I think from the mood.
7. The prostitute has a small child hiding in the room, the sight of which causes Murdoch to flee. She is later found by Emma and Bumstead after her mother's murder, and has drawn a picture of the three strangers, further leading Bumstead to accept that Murdoch is innocent. Film is better without her in it, I think.
8. Several scenes are just longer, with more dialogue. Frankly, I think the lack of dialogue in the original is better.
9. Murdoch is present, though hiding, when Mr. Hand goes to see Shreber in the pool. He learns more about the whole situation than we are led to believe in the original version. Also, the weakness of the Strangers in not detecting his presence is revealed.
10. Bumstead, while drinking capuccino, sees the swirl in his coffee, leading him to question his reality further.
11. During the the scene where Murdoch tells Emma that it's probable that they have never met before, she says, "I had that same feeling when I saw you at the apartment." But then she says, "no, I've loved you for years and we've been married for years etc." Only the second part is shown in the original. Her doubts are left out.
12. A longer speech is given by Mr. Hand at the harbor when he sees Emma and uses Murdoch's own words from long ago. The shorter version is better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't prove it unless I watch the two versions side by side, but it seemed to me that they used a number of alternative takes or out takes in the director's cut, for no other reason than to just show an alternative version. I may be mistaken on this. However, if I am correct, the effect is not an improvement. Some of the takes seem inferior. However, it may simply be that they have been made slightly longer. In film, less is often more when it comes to dialogue. Much can be conveyed through gesture, a facial expression, etc. Supposedly, the scene in Citizen Kane where Kane first meets Susan was shortened in this way. At one point, Susan says, "you know how mothers are." The original screenplay supposedly had Kane launch into a speech. In the final cut, he merely mumbles Hm-mmm, with a very meaningful look on his face. We capture it all.
1. The film starts without the voice-over. That explanation is given later, in the rowboat scene.
2. There is no tuning at the beginning. The first hint of the supernatural, aside from the ghostly visage of the strangers, is when Murdoch is confronted by them on the scaffold. (I'm not sure if they put the conscierge to sleep before that. Perhaps)
3. Murdoch, while dressing, turns his shoe over and sees that it has not been worn.
4. Murdoch's fingerprints are shaped like a spiral, leading Bumstead to question whether someone is "joking."
5. Jennifer Connolly's actual voice is used in the songs instead of a professional singer. You can access the two on "youtube." I prefer the actual voice, which is less polished, but more sultry and atmospheric.
6. She sings a lot more of the second song. Detracts, I think from the mood.
7. The prostitute has a small child hiding in the room, the sight of which causes Murdoch to flee. She is later found by Emma and Bumstead after her mother's murder, and has drawn a picture of the three strangers, further leading Bumstead to accept that Murdoch is innocent. Film is better without her in it, I think.
8. Several scenes are just longer, with more dialogue. Frankly, I think the lack of dialogue in the original is better.
9. Murdoch is present, though hiding, when Mr. Hand goes to see Shreber in the pool. He learns more about the whole situation than we are led to believe in the original version. Also, the weakness of the Strangers in not detecting his presence is revealed.
10. Bumstead, while drinking capuccino, sees the swirl in his coffee, leading him to question his reality further.
11. During the the scene where Murdoch tells Emma that it's probable that they have never met before, she says, "I had that same feeling when I saw you at the apartment." But then she says, "no, I've loved you for years and we've been married for years etc." Only the second part is shown in the original. Her doubts are left out.
12. A longer speech is given by Mr. Hand at the harbor when he sees Emma and uses Murdoch's own words from long ago. The shorter version is better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't prove it unless I watch the two versions side by side, but it seemed to me that they used a number of alternative takes or out takes in the director's cut, for no other reason than to just show an alternative version. I may be mistaken on this. However, if I am correct, the effect is not an improvement. Some of the takes seem inferior. However, it may simply be that they have been made slightly longer. In film, less is often more when it comes to dialogue. Much can be conveyed through gesture, a facial expression, etc. Supposedly, the scene in Citizen Kane where Kane first meets Susan was shortened in this way. At one point, Susan says, "you know how mothers are." The original screenplay supposedly had Kane launch into a speech. In the final cut, he merely mumbles Hm-mmm, with a very meaningful look on his face. We capture it all.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Coming attractions:
Dark City
Memento
A Simple Plan
Dr. Strangelove
Atomic Cafe.
We will finish my syllabus by about June 5. I think we'll have enough time for one more from the floor. Let me know what you want to see that last week.
Memento
A Simple Plan
Dr. Strangelove
Atomic Cafe.
We will finish my syllabus by about June 5. I think we'll have enough time for one more from the floor. Let me know what you want to see that last week.
Monday, May 4, 2009
The Opening scene of Dark City.
I remember vividly seeing Dark City in the theatre on Staten Island when it came out back in 98 or 99. The year before, a big hit was 12 Monkeys, and everybody ooooh'd and aaaah'd about Brad Pitt's performance, which I thought overdone and no more (or less, mind you) than a great imitation of Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now. The problem with 12 Monkeys for me was that the riddle was kept up for so long that I started to not care what the answer was. In other words, the director kept the audience in the dark for too long.
For this reason, I thought that Dark City was what 12 Monkeys wanted to be, but failed. I thought we were kept sufficiently in the dark, (pun recognized) for just exactly the right amount of time. Then, once we had a fairly good idea of what was going on, the suspense only heightened. I really loved this film, and I hope that today's beginning whetted your appetite for more.
Along this same line of discussion, however, I have always disliked the opening scene, where the voice-over of Dr. Shreber basically gives the plot away. Fortunately, I have a terrible attention span, and am a really bad movie viewer (the first time around) so I forgot most of what he said.
I was very much tempted to delete that scene today, but I didn't because the cut was not seamless, and I just decided not to. But, lo and behold, I should have, because I looked the film up on Wiki, and found out that Proyas was forced to add that scene by a nervous studio exec who worried that audiences would be turned off without it. The fact that voice-over of this kind is endemic to film noir somewhat mitigates the crime, but the director's cut, which is available, apparently, starts teh film diffferently.
I also read something else that confirmed a statement I made today in class. (It is gratifying to hear that one's independent analysis is backed up by statistics). Apparently, this film has the shortest average cut time of any film on record at 1.8 seconds. This means that the average time between cuts is less than 2 seconds. During the scene where Detective Wallenski rushes in I think we had about 20 cuts in 5 seconds.
It was an intersting article. Wait until you've seen the entire film and then check it out. Meanwhile, if the class likes the film, perhaps we'll kick in 50 cents a piece, buy the director's cut, view it, and raffle it off among ourselves.
Remind me to send an email to Jessica Creech, class of '02, who loved this film more than it is humanly possible. I found it so gratifying at the time that she shared my love of this film and the memory of it has stuck with me through these years. And of course, she was a great lover of film, and an astute analyst as well.
She would have been right at home with this class, my very favorite, which I have recently given the title, "The All-Star Team."
For this reason, I thought that Dark City was what 12 Monkeys wanted to be, but failed. I thought we were kept sufficiently in the dark, (pun recognized) for just exactly the right amount of time. Then, once we had a fairly good idea of what was going on, the suspense only heightened. I really loved this film, and I hope that today's beginning whetted your appetite for more.
Along this same line of discussion, however, I have always disliked the opening scene, where the voice-over of Dr. Shreber basically gives the plot away. Fortunately, I have a terrible attention span, and am a really bad movie viewer (the first time around) so I forgot most of what he said.
I was very much tempted to delete that scene today, but I didn't because the cut was not seamless, and I just decided not to. But, lo and behold, I should have, because I looked the film up on Wiki, and found out that Proyas was forced to add that scene by a nervous studio exec who worried that audiences would be turned off without it. The fact that voice-over of this kind is endemic to film noir somewhat mitigates the crime, but the director's cut, which is available, apparently, starts teh film diffferently.
I also read something else that confirmed a statement I made today in class. (It is gratifying to hear that one's independent analysis is backed up by statistics). Apparently, this film has the shortest average cut time of any film on record at 1.8 seconds. This means that the average time between cuts is less than 2 seconds. During the scene where Detective Wallenski rushes in I think we had about 20 cuts in 5 seconds.
It was an intersting article. Wait until you've seen the entire film and then check it out. Meanwhile, if the class likes the film, perhaps we'll kick in 50 cents a piece, buy the director's cut, view it, and raffle it off among ourselves.
Remind me to send an email to Jessica Creech, class of '02, who loved this film more than it is humanly possible. I found it so gratifying at the time that she shared my love of this film and the memory of it has stuck with me through these years. And of course, she was a great lover of film, and an astute analyst as well.
She would have been right at home with this class, my very favorite, which I have recently given the title, "The All-Star Team."
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Asphalt Jungle a hit at last
It always burned me up. Here's this terrific gangster/caper film with a lot of action, memorable and interesting characters, beautifully constructed, with deeply philosophical thematic undertones, and nobody likes it.
It appears as if this year I finally got through. All the heavy hitters have weighed in with the thumbs up, the Mayor, the Professor, T-Bone, Irina and a few others. A few formerly stellar names have gone to ground, but to quote a great anonymous teenager, "whatever."
I think the key is the crystal clear print, on a 6 foot screen, with sub-titles. Years past I showed everything on a 27 inch TV using VHS. It was very hard to decipher the slang of the American actors. Forget about "Herr Doktor." And the word "hooligan" was lost on everybody. That great speech that the Doc gives while Dix is sponging the blood off his head is very important for understanding the theme of the film. In teh past, I used to have to write it on the board.
It's always been one of my favorite films. I love the part where Emmerich asks Dix to shoot him and he says, "ok" and moves to shoot him, only to have Riedneschneider intervene.
I'm so gratified you liked it. In fact, the Mayor gave me such a nice compliment after class on Friday when he said that he was amazed that I've been able to show one great film after another with no loss of power. Each film just seems to build in intensity. There's been no anti-climax.
And now, my friends, just when you thought the class just has to be on the wane, we will see "Dark City," the film most of my previous class voted as their favorite of the year.
It appears as if this year I finally got through. All the heavy hitters have weighed in with the thumbs up, the Mayor, the Professor, T-Bone, Irina and a few others. A few formerly stellar names have gone to ground, but to quote a great anonymous teenager, "whatever."
I think the key is the crystal clear print, on a 6 foot screen, with sub-titles. Years past I showed everything on a 27 inch TV using VHS. It was very hard to decipher the slang of the American actors. Forget about "Herr Doktor." And the word "hooligan" was lost on everybody. That great speech that the Doc gives while Dix is sponging the blood off his head is very important for understanding the theme of the film. In teh past, I used to have to write it on the board.
It's always been one of my favorite films. I love the part where Emmerich asks Dix to shoot him and he says, "ok" and moves to shoot him, only to have Riedneschneider intervene.
I'm so gratified you liked it. In fact, the Mayor gave me such a nice compliment after class on Friday when he said that he was amazed that I've been able to show one great film after another with no loss of power. Each film just seems to build in intensity. There's been no anti-climax.
And now, my friends, just when you thought the class just has to be on the wane, we will see "Dark City," the film most of my previous class voted as their favorite of the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
