Jesus...
Where to even begin talking about this movie?
What made this movie great, in my opinion, is the lack of a complete plot. Yes, it all weaves together in the end but that's because the story started at the end, so it had to eventually return there. But in between the two ends... there's no real continuity, there's no story being told, there's just... things happening. Just like in real life, there is no grand purpose or vision guiding events, there's only a continuous stream that flows connecting two endpoints but never the same and certainly without a moral. The violence was obscene and completely necessary; to not show it would have been cheating the events, the people who lived through them and the city itself.
On the surface this is a movie about war, and war is the subject for much of it. But deeper than that, this is a movie about the human condition in the midst of war. The way people change when confronted with constant, unending war. In many ways, this movie is a complement to 1984 by George Orwell. War destroys the human spirit; it makes us into animals. In 1984 humanity was tamed, just as the dogs and cats of today; in City of God, man became wild and hunted and killed each other with impunity and without regret. There's a famous saying that seems rather pertinent here: War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left. War determines who is last. While all the characters were beautifully acted, from the laughing of Li'l Ze to Rocket in fear of his life, to Benny, to Carrot, to Angelica (oh Angelica...) what was most impressive was the character of War. I believe that War was literally personified in the way the movie was shot. The harsh lighting, the still frames, the inability to see certain key parts of the movie clearly: all of these _are_ War. And he was done most beautifully of all; he was what pulled the movie together. This movie, shot in a different way would be a completely different movie, garnering completely different reactions. But to portray such a character and to do it so well is a marvel.
A complete marvel
and I can't wait to see this movie again because I know I'll get more out of it each time. I've only just scratched the surface of all there is to learn from the City of God.
3 down, 35 to go
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
American Beauty
First things first:
WOW
W
O
W
That is possibly the best looking movie I have ever seen. I've never studied art or film or had any experience in recognizing what makes something look good versus what makes it look bad, but I know that that movie looked amazing. The look fit the material perfectly and when form and content match so perfectly, something very special happens. I think the hardest part in writing this review is going to be separating how wonderful it looked from other aspects that may not have been as good.
To start with the bad:
My first impression of the movie was that it was very stilted. Especially the narration by Kevin Spacey. It was jarring. His acting, especially in later parts of the movie, I have no problems with. I think he's a good actor and he proved it here. It was also a very measured film. This isn't a critique, just a statement of fact. It moved at its own pace. One of my favorite movies of all time, The Shawshank Redemption, does the same thing and the pacing is a great boon to the film. I think my favorite characters, the ones I found most interesting were Colonel Fitts, Lester Burnham and Angela Hayes. Especially the interactions between the three of them (or, more precisely, Lesters interactions with each of them).
Colonel Fitts:
To be so tortured... it strikes a chord, I think. He strikes me as very realistic. Brought up into a world of discipline, fear and intolerance, he builds his life to be disciplined and intolerant, and he lives in constant fear. This expresses itself in a fuse short enough to be set off by almost anything and overwhelming violence (which he then regrets) when his fuse does blow. The society we live in is built around fear, also, although to a lesser extent than the one of Colonel Fitts. Especially as men, we live our lives afraid of not conforming to the traditional paradigm of manliness, when the reality is that nobody conforms to it, some just play the role better than others. But I believe fear is at the heart of the vast majority of actions (and inactions) in our daily lives. Colonel Fitts exemplified this perfectly, and seeing him crack reminds us of how fragile our facades really are and, eventually, the lengths to which we will go to not let out the secret that we don't truly live up to them.
Lester Burnham:
He is the definition of a midlife crisis and I think there are many similarities between him and the Colonel. Both feel trapped inside lives they do not wish for themselves, both express this is deeply negative ways. But Lester chooses to break free from it, to reject both society and his own life, in order to make himself happy while the Colonel chooses to go to similar extremes in order to maintain his unhappiness. The last 15 minutes of this movie are so beautifully done and show the contrast between these two basically similar characters so poignantly. Lester, throughout much of the movie is very self-destructive. He gets rid of all the stereotypically 'adult' things. In becoming an adult, there are certain things society expects you to do: you go to school, get a job, buy a car, settle down and get married. And it is exactly these things that he rejects, these things not of his own making. He quits his job, he sells his car, he ceases to even pretend to care about his wife. But in doing so, he frees himself. This is akin to a trial by fire: in order to cleanse oneself one must walk through flames and burn away those things deemed unnecessary or harmful. And it pays off! At the end of the movie, he _is_ happy. The scene in the kitchen with Angela; he smiles, he's relaxed. He needed to go to the very edge of what he might want in order to identify the things he needs. And in that moment, with his ear on her breast, his midlife crisis ends. He is ready to move on. He has taken the thesis of what he was like, combines it with the antithesis of who he is and thereby synthesizes a new person, better than either of the other two. It's a Hegelian dialectic to a T. And it's beautiful to watch. I often criticize movies for happy endings, not because I have something against happiness but because the way in which happiness is achieved isn't possible in real life. It's this pseudo-happy bullshit that gets sold to us in order to make us buy movie tickets because people know they'll be happy for the rest of the day (if they're lucky) before having to go back and face their lives again the next morning. I'm proud of this movie for shying away from that, for not taking the easy way out. Lester Burnham should be damn proud of himself for finding _true_ happiness, happiness that would have lasted him the rest of his life, no matter how long it would have been.
It's also realistic that he had to die. Society cannot abide by people who will not play by its rules. We have a legal system to make sure that people don't hurt each other, but we have a much more powerful system in place in order to prevent people from _helping_ each other. In Lesters case, he had to die. Everybody allowed to live at the end of this movie was unhappy. The wife, the daughter, the friend, the boyfriend, the boyfriends father... All of them have major issues that need to be worked through. But all of them received a very clear message (although I doubt any of them understood it) that people who try and make themselves happy will not be allowed to. That, too, is realistic. And very saddening.
I feel like there's much more to say about this movie but I need more time to digest it. There will probably be an American Beauty: Part II blog entry later, but I need to think some more about how to express how I feel about this movie.
2 down, 36 to go
Edit: After writing this I watched the behind-the-scenes bonus feature and saw echoed a lot of the sentiments expressed here. That made me feel happy but I feel like there's so much more here to explore...
WOW
W
O
W
That is possibly the best looking movie I have ever seen. I've never studied art or film or had any experience in recognizing what makes something look good versus what makes it look bad, but I know that that movie looked amazing. The look fit the material perfectly and when form and content match so perfectly, something very special happens. I think the hardest part in writing this review is going to be separating how wonderful it looked from other aspects that may not have been as good.
To start with the bad:
My first impression of the movie was that it was very stilted. Especially the narration by Kevin Spacey. It was jarring. His acting, especially in later parts of the movie, I have no problems with. I think he's a good actor and he proved it here. It was also a very measured film. This isn't a critique, just a statement of fact. It moved at its own pace. One of my favorite movies of all time, The Shawshank Redemption, does the same thing and the pacing is a great boon to the film. I think my favorite characters, the ones I found most interesting were Colonel Fitts, Lester Burnham and Angela Hayes. Especially the interactions between the three of them (or, more precisely, Lesters interactions with each of them).
Colonel Fitts:
To be so tortured... it strikes a chord, I think. He strikes me as very realistic. Brought up into a world of discipline, fear and intolerance, he builds his life to be disciplined and intolerant, and he lives in constant fear. This expresses itself in a fuse short enough to be set off by almost anything and overwhelming violence (which he then regrets) when his fuse does blow. The society we live in is built around fear, also, although to a lesser extent than the one of Colonel Fitts. Especially as men, we live our lives afraid of not conforming to the traditional paradigm of manliness, when the reality is that nobody conforms to it, some just play the role better than others. But I believe fear is at the heart of the vast majority of actions (and inactions) in our daily lives. Colonel Fitts exemplified this perfectly, and seeing him crack reminds us of how fragile our facades really are and, eventually, the lengths to which we will go to not let out the secret that we don't truly live up to them.
Lester Burnham:
He is the definition of a midlife crisis and I think there are many similarities between him and the Colonel. Both feel trapped inside lives they do not wish for themselves, both express this is deeply negative ways. But Lester chooses to break free from it, to reject both society and his own life, in order to make himself happy while the Colonel chooses to go to similar extremes in order to maintain his unhappiness. The last 15 minutes of this movie are so beautifully done and show the contrast between these two basically similar characters so poignantly. Lester, throughout much of the movie is very self-destructive. He gets rid of all the stereotypically 'adult' things. In becoming an adult, there are certain things society expects you to do: you go to school, get a job, buy a car, settle down and get married. And it is exactly these things that he rejects, these things not of his own making. He quits his job, he sells his car, he ceases to even pretend to care about his wife. But in doing so, he frees himself. This is akin to a trial by fire: in order to cleanse oneself one must walk through flames and burn away those things deemed unnecessary or harmful. And it pays off! At the end of the movie, he _is_ happy. The scene in the kitchen with Angela; he smiles, he's relaxed. He needed to go to the very edge of what he might want in order to identify the things he needs. And in that moment, with his ear on her breast, his midlife crisis ends. He is ready to move on. He has taken the thesis of what he was like, combines it with the antithesis of who he is and thereby synthesizes a new person, better than either of the other two. It's a Hegelian dialectic to a T. And it's beautiful to watch. I often criticize movies for happy endings, not because I have something against happiness but because the way in which happiness is achieved isn't possible in real life. It's this pseudo-happy bullshit that gets sold to us in order to make us buy movie tickets because people know they'll be happy for the rest of the day (if they're lucky) before having to go back and face their lives again the next morning. I'm proud of this movie for shying away from that, for not taking the easy way out. Lester Burnham should be damn proud of himself for finding _true_ happiness, happiness that would have lasted him the rest of his life, no matter how long it would have been.
It's also realistic that he had to die. Society cannot abide by people who will not play by its rules. We have a legal system to make sure that people don't hurt each other, but we have a much more powerful system in place in order to prevent people from _helping_ each other. In Lesters case, he had to die. Everybody allowed to live at the end of this movie was unhappy. The wife, the daughter, the friend, the boyfriend, the boyfriends father... All of them have major issues that need to be worked through. But all of them received a very clear message (although I doubt any of them understood it) that people who try and make themselves happy will not be allowed to. That, too, is realistic. And very saddening.
I feel like there's much more to say about this movie but I need more time to digest it. There will probably be an American Beauty: Part II blog entry later, but I need to think some more about how to express how I feel about this movie.
2 down, 36 to go
Edit: After writing this I watched the behind-the-scenes bonus feature and saw echoed a lot of the sentiments expressed here. That made me feel happy but I feel like there's so much more here to explore...
Saturday, May 17, 2008
The Birdcage
I recently spent a couple of hours with a friend of mine at the Borders across the street from where we work. While there, a rather lengthy (~40) list of movies was compiled for the purpose of expanding my cinematic horizons. This blog will be the process and the product of that list and it starts now:
The Birdcage:
The first movie of the list I decided to see was The Birdcage, mostly because I recently re-watched Good Will Hunting and was reminded of how incredible Robin Williams can be. I didn't love it, but I distinctly enjoyed it. On a very limited scale it gets a thumbs-up; I'd recommend it to other people. But I also thought there was a lot of potential there to be a _great_ movie, not just a good one. At the beginning I was excited. When Val told his parents that he was marrying a woman it was exactly the reaction _I_ would get from my parents if I told them I was marrying a man. But that was never really developed and I wish it had been. Another, even more disappointing scene: after Val asks his dad to change the entire apartment as well as their lifestyles around to meet his fiance's parents there's a wonderful scene where Robin Williams, in a very sober tone, examines the difficulties of being proudly different while still loving and wishing to make happy somebody who is asking you to change your life. It's a powerful theme and I think the movie could have retained its humor while still examining some of those more serious themes.
As far as the acting went, I was happy with it. I was actually very impressed with Calista Flockhart. I usually don't think of her as a very good actress (admittedly, I haven't seen her in very much) but she was _great_ in this. During scenes where she was in the background of the main action I found myself looking at her because all of her responses were _so_ realistic. She was perfect for the role, both in dealing with her uptight, conservative family and in trying to get everybody through the terrible meeting-of-the-parents. Everybody else was good, also. I was least impressed with Gene Hackman but that might be because I like his character the least. The only other character I was really impressed with was Hank Azaria as Agador. For some reason everything he did was laugh out loud funny, from his clothing, to his accent, to his demeanor, to his flops in the shoes and his breakdown during dinner. I think that without him the movie would have dragged a little but he kept it fresh and moved things along nicely.
The plot was predictable but still fun. I think everybody saw that they were going to have to dress up in order to get out of the building, dinner was suitably hilarious but none of the jokes were particularly original. All in all, it was a good movie, one I'm going to watch again at some point in the future.
Just, not too soon
1 down, 37 to go
The Birdcage:
The first movie of the list I decided to see was The Birdcage, mostly because I recently re-watched Good Will Hunting and was reminded of how incredible Robin Williams can be. I didn't love it, but I distinctly enjoyed it. On a very limited scale it gets a thumbs-up; I'd recommend it to other people. But I also thought there was a lot of potential there to be a _great_ movie, not just a good one. At the beginning I was excited. When Val told his parents that he was marrying a woman it was exactly the reaction _I_ would get from my parents if I told them I was marrying a man. But that was never really developed and I wish it had been. Another, even more disappointing scene: after Val asks his dad to change the entire apartment as well as their lifestyles around to meet his fiance's parents there's a wonderful scene where Robin Williams, in a very sober tone, examines the difficulties of being proudly different while still loving and wishing to make happy somebody who is asking you to change your life. It's a powerful theme and I think the movie could have retained its humor while still examining some of those more serious themes.
As far as the acting went, I was happy with it. I was actually very impressed with Calista Flockhart. I usually don't think of her as a very good actress (admittedly, I haven't seen her in very much) but she was _great_ in this. During scenes where she was in the background of the main action I found myself looking at her because all of her responses were _so_ realistic. She was perfect for the role, both in dealing with her uptight, conservative family and in trying to get everybody through the terrible meeting-of-the-parents. Everybody else was good, also. I was least impressed with Gene Hackman but that might be because I like his character the least. The only other character I was really impressed with was Hank Azaria as Agador. For some reason everything he did was laugh out loud funny, from his clothing, to his accent, to his demeanor, to his flops in the shoes and his breakdown during dinner. I think that without him the movie would have dragged a little but he kept it fresh and moved things along nicely.
The plot was predictable but still fun. I think everybody saw that they were going to have to dress up in order to get out of the building, dinner was suitably hilarious but none of the jokes were particularly original. All in all, it was a good movie, one I'm going to watch again at some point in the future.
Just, not too soon
1 down, 37 to go
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)