I can think of several films that are named every year as absolute "must see" films by students. Here they are:
1. Requieum for a Dream
2. American History X
3. Fight Club
4. Shawshank Redemption
I liked the last two very much. Both are very professional films made with great skill. The story, script, direction, acting etc. on Fight Club and Shawshank are first rate. I have given my reasons why I thought Shawshank ultimately was disappointing, but that does not mean I disliked it. My feeling is that it could have been more than it was. But, it was good. Fight Club also was very entertaining and thought-provoking.
Now, the first two are less slick. They are both either actual indie films, or at least have the low budget, down and dirty look of the Indie. Hence, they should be judged on a slightly different basis. After all, money should be able to buy a certain level of professionalism.
It's been years since I saw American History X, but I found it to be rather boring, and I did not watch to the end. I thought Ed Norton, or whatever his name is, had way too many long-winded speeches.
Now, on to Requieum for a Dream. I liked the first half hour very much. I thought the acting, pacing, quirky effects, overall theme, were all done very well. But I thought the film basically fell apart in the last half because it became a melodrama. Melodrama refers to overly sensational plot driven vehicles, where character development is sacrificed to plot. All sorts of horrible things occur because the director decrees that it be so. When Will Munny kills Little Bill in Unforgiven, it is becuase he must do so based upon our intimate understanding of his character. No other action is possible. But when the main character in RfoD injects himself directly into a disgusting festering abscess in his arm, we ask ourselves, "don't you have another arm?"
Thus, a good film descends into melodrama, and fails to convince.
However, I know how difficult it is to make a good movie, and I give it a lot of points for effort. An example is the special effect the director uses to show us the experience of getting high on heroin. A close-up of an eyeball with the iris contracting with psychedelic visions in the background is very clever and unique when we see it the first time. After it is shown the 23rd time, it becomes tiresome. One might argue that that is the point. Heroin addicts have to shoot up constantly. That must be awfully repetitive and tiresome also. My point here is that I thought the director tried something pretty cool, but failed in the end.
But why does this film appeal to 17 year olds so strongly, while it left this 42 year old unmoved? The answer, of course, is that I see things clearly and you youngsters are blind, but you do outnumber me, thus I will entertain the (absurdly remote) possibility that I have missed something.
I'm rambling here a bit, but it's late and I'll go on. Years ago, I used to watch Siskel and Ebert, and I found that if they both raved about a film, it was a good bet. If only one of them went for it, I stayed away. The same may be true with us. I know we're all way up there in teh IQ department. But the age differnce is a big gulf. So, if we both really rave about a film, you can bet on it being great.
After class today, Nick stayed behind for a few minutes and commented on how much he liked Unforgiven. His comments echoed my own sentiments to a tee. The subtlety with which Will Munny starts sipping at the whisky bottle. Another director would have had him announce portentously, "Hand me that bottle, Kid." He would have taken an enormous draught as a dramatic musical cresscendo erupted in the background. The other day in class, I mentioned that film analysis is as much about seeing what is NOT present as it is in seeing what is. Nick saw what didn't happen. Anyway, the meeting of the minds between the 17 year old and the 38 year old was gratifying and satisfying. I hope the rest of you enjoyed Unforgiven as much. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it, if you get a chance to write this weekend.
Our next film is one that students almost universally hate.... and I absolutely love. Every year the class tells me that this film is their least favorite. And every year I tell them that they are a bunch of ignorant savages who should never have been allowed to leave the jungle. But this year will be different. You people are not savages. YOu will recognize the greatness of "The Asphalt Jungle."
Oh, apropos of nothing at all, today is my birthday. I was born on April 24th, 1975.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I love how your age changed from 42 to 38 to 34. Haha.
ReplyDeleteI have not seen Requiem for a Dream, but I have heard many good things of it, and also that it is a rather difficult watch because of its subject matter. Since I have not seen it, I cannot comment.
The long winded speeches in American History X were actually one of the precise reasons I enjoyed it. While Derek (Nortons character) is delivering his emphatic speeches, it drew me in just as it was drawing in the other people in the film, specifically his little brother. I felt as though I was being influenced just as much because he actually made some points I agreed with, and it kinda scared me because I thought "Crap, now Im a racist." Then later, when Derek gets out of prison and starts talking to his brother about changing his ways, I again step into the shoes of the brother and realize, "you know what, there's no point in being racist." When a film can make me have such thought provoking inner dialogue, I can't help but enjoy it. But I understand your dislike for the speeches. There were an awful lot of them.
Happy Birthday Mr.Bennet!
ReplyDeleteI was also just about to comment on the fact that your age kept changing over the course of the entire blog entry... hahaha
But will we ever know the real age of Thomas Bennett?
I also love the fact that you wittily noticed what can be described as a "movie mistake" in Requiem for a Dream:
"But when the main character in RofD injects himself directly into a disgusting festering abscess in his arm, we ask ourselves, "don't you have another arm?"
^^^^^ hahaha, Mad props for noticing that!
The most surprising thing here is that two 17/18 year olds are actually awake (and writing blog entries!) at 9am on a Saturday. Truly shocking.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to American History X,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I thought that I teacher who teaches History for a living, would love a movie titled "American History X" right off the bat...
But in seriousness,
I would like to take the time to address the criticisms you had of one of my favorite movies.
On the surface, Derek Vinyard's (Edward Norton's) "long-winded" speeches play a very pivotal role in the film itself. When acting as the head of the Venice Beach Neo-Nazi movement, his intelligence & charisma seperate him from the rest of the memebers in his gang. I believe that the director created Norton's character in this way in order to show the audience that extreme movements such as these, do not only appeal to the lowest of the low - quite the contrary, some highly intelligent misguided men are quick to succumb to the allures of extremism.
On a slightly deeper level,
The whole transformation of Edward Norton's character revovles entirely around the aspect of his high intelligence.
When we see the flashbacks to a time when Derek Vinyard was still a high school kid, we see just another grundgy-looking nerd who professes a profound interest in black literature.
This all comes to an end when Derek transforms himself into a white supremascist after his father's tragic death. He goes on a tirade against all minorites, maily for the fact that he sees the majority of violent crimes to be perpetrated by minorities.
His violent rampages land him a stint in jail, where he joins the Aryan Brotherhood (the largest & most notorious White gang in the American prison system). But soon snough, he becomes disillusioned with the Brotherhood, after he sees that the hold no ideals or values and they are just another group of common criminal thugs. This experience leads him on the path of recovery - where he tries to repent, disassociate himself from his nazi path, and make sure that his brother does not follow along the same dark road...
So yes, hopefully this was a good & eye-opening post analyzing the greater value and significance of many of the "long-winded" speeches given by the movie's main character.
Mr Bennett - "The most surprising thing here is that two 17/18 year olds are actually awake (and writing blog entries!) at 9am on a Saturday. Truly shocking."
ReplyDeleteWhy yes, thank you for that compliment ;-)
Just like the Tyler Durden in Fight Club, I'm sort of an insomniac who sees the enormous amount of value in getting many things done during the wee hours of the night when most others sleep...
This actually brings me to one of my favorite quotes of all time:
"In a world of sleepers, the awakened ones are Gods!"
Happy Birthday, Mr. Bennett, if your birthday were actually yesterday, but who knows, since you are not even sure of your age. (Maybe you took some of RofD's heroin).
ReplyDeleteSadly, I was not here on Friday, as I was at the Penn Relays, so I did not see the end of the film but I do have it DVR'ed, so I shall get to that this weekend and try to make some comments on it, as long as I don't miss anything not watching it in class.
If I had known it was your birthday, I would have brought you some big, obnoxious, bright colored balloons. I just know how much you love those.
ReplyDeleteHappy belated birthday, i think?
ReplyDeleteWell i enjoyed how you pinpinted the top four films that most students like. I do have to comment about Fight Club though. I truly hope to watch it, for besides the fact Brad Pitt is mostly shirtless in it, Fight Club is one of my favorite movies, as well as books. I first saw it at the young age of 10, and had no idea what was going on, nor did i like the violence. Then a few years down the road, i picked up the mook, read it, and to this day will watch the movie any chance i get. I believe it sets itself apart from many movies and contains many aspects of an excellent film. though the book is slightly different, both enthrall me in ways that i can say, i very much so hope to watch this film and even share some thoughts on the novel.