I have finally posted every film that I saw in January; they are listed below in order of best at the top and working down through my preference. This is something I have been meaning to get on with for about a year. I don't want to pick and choose films to look at in depth; I would rather skim over every film in order to give a sort of well rounded view of my film consumption and opinions. Plus, the whole reason I do this is to stay sharp and make sure I am thinking about everything, rather than selectively paying particular attention to some things and letting others wash over me.
If anything, I have been a little too thorough at times, though it cannot be helped when a film is worthy of discussion. May have to find another device to limit the time it takes to get posts up though. I imagine this will come in the form of bullet points for the 'what it did particularly well' and 'missed opportunities' headings, which I will be changing to 'what I liked' and 'what I didn't' or somethig, in order to reflect the fact that these are strictly my opinions rather than objective truths. Something that should be obvious anyway, but just to show that I know this and openly welcome disagreement.
Any problems with the list, let me know your thoughts.
The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)
Rope (1948)
Control (2007)
The Man Who Knew too Much (1956)
Black Swan (2010)
127 hours (2010)
Buried (2010)
The fighter (2010)
Princess and the Frog (2009)
The Mechanic (2011)
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953)
Arthur and his Great Adventure (2009)
Hereafter (2010)
The Last Airbender (2010)
The Seven Year Itch (1955)
Heartless (2009)
Observe and Report (2009)
Sweeney Todd (2007)
30 Days of Night (2007)
The Producers (2005)
Marketa Lazarova (1967)
Hurt Locker (2008)
Showing posts with label Alfred Hitchcock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alfred Hitchcock. Show all posts
Monday, 28 February 2011
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Rope (1948) - Flawlessly choreographed, cinematic spectacle
Viewing context:
Third film from my Hitchcock boxset, but not watched at my friend's house this time as he had already seen this one.
Creators:
Hitchcock directed, with the screenplay coming from Arthur Laurents. It is based on the play by Patrick Hamilton
What Happened:
The film opens with two men, Brendan (John Dall) and Philip (Farley Granger), murdering another. They hide the body in the apartment and prepare for a dinner party that had previously been arranged; a dinner party that the murdered individual was invited to. The guests include the victim's fiancee, her ex (also an old college friend of the two murderers and the victim), the victim’s parents, along with the victim's and murderers' college housekeeper; the intellectual, calculating teacher Rupert (James Stewart) who unwittingly sewed the seeds of the boys' idea of killing.
What it did particularly well:
Mise-en-scéne, scripting, pacing, choreography on and off screen were all breathtakingly brilliant. The fact that these things were almost flawless anyway is amplified by the fact that they were all completed in ten minute chunks, as the film only cut to another shot when the camera had ran out of film. Had the technology permitted, I am sure it could have been achieved for the film's duration (That really would blow my mind). Not only was this sheer spectacle in its most impressive form, due to its sophisticated setup and captivating cat and mouse routines, but it constantly commented on wider issues; on morality, art, the nature of mankind and other such philosophical quandaries.
What could have been improved:
The way the camera zoomed right in on somebody’s back when the cuts occurred was jarring, but I understand why it had to be done that way. Also, considering the whole thing took place in real time, the prospect of such a great party - or any party for that matter - lasting less than an hour whilst never seeming unduly rushed is a little far fetched.
Themes:
well it was as subtle as a brick in it's interrogation of certain philosophical principles of morality, rolled up particularly in Nietzsche's concept of the superman, or the superior being. This concept was then combined with a bourgeoisie concept of art and of the idiotic lower classes, or lower beings, just not understanding it. The way that this belief can manifest itself in complete disregard for the humanity of others and can therefore lead to this sort of amoral killing; this cold, calculating 'death as art' that was seen through the character of Brendan. This was reinforced through his complete disregard for the maid, in contrast to Rupert's concession that he would ‘talk to her all night if he could’, which symbolised the difference between the two. Rupert could know all the same things that Brendan does, and share many similar thoughts, yet still has his humanity intact enough to understand where the boundaries lie.
The reference didn't stop at Nietzsche; there was much reference to Freudian psychoanalysis, which is to be expected considering the themes of the unconscious and the death drive, wrapped up in Brendan’s almost sexualised admiration of Rupert.
The theme and emphasis of art and perfection are reinforced by the film itself; the spectacle of the choreography and the meticulous construction of the screen on every single shot was breathtaking and embedded you firmly in Brendan's perfection obsessed, artistic consciousness.
Finally, this idea that Brendan took the knowledge that Rupert imparted within him (perfect murder, or murder as art) and took it to the extreme, following through with it, seems reminiscent of the fact that it has been widely documented that Nietzsche was Hitler’s inspiration for the ideal race and his justification for ethnic cleansing. Again, taking some well thought out, balanced theory and twisting it, taking it out of context and driving it through with blind conviction.
Performance:
For this one I’d rather just say that it was an all round collective performance. Every single cog in the wheel made it go, including every single performance. But having said that, at a push, I guess I would say that I was most impressed by Stewart. this might be mainly due to the fact that from my limited experience of James Stewart, this role was against type. I have seen him this charismatic, but never quite so wise, in control and infallible.
Scene:
The scene where Brendan loses it about inferiors is very revealing. It reveals his feeling on the matter; it reveals why he has committed this murder and it reveals that he has done it in a desperate attempt to impress Rupert.
Final Word:
If this was done the whole way through with no cut at all, it would be the most perfect piece of film ever made.
Third film from my Hitchcock boxset, but not watched at my friend's house this time as he had already seen this one.
Creators:
Hitchcock directed, with the screenplay coming from Arthur Laurents. It is based on the play by Patrick Hamilton
What Happened:
The film opens with two men, Brendan (John Dall) and Philip (Farley Granger), murdering another. They hide the body in the apartment and prepare for a dinner party that had previously been arranged; a dinner party that the murdered individual was invited to. The guests include the victim's fiancee, her ex (also an old college friend of the two murderers and the victim), the victim’s parents, along with the victim's and murderers' college housekeeper; the intellectual, calculating teacher Rupert (James Stewart) who unwittingly sewed the seeds of the boys' idea of killing.
What it did particularly well:
Mise-en-scéne, scripting, pacing, choreography on and off screen were all breathtakingly brilliant. The fact that these things were almost flawless anyway is amplified by the fact that they were all completed in ten minute chunks, as the film only cut to another shot when the camera had ran out of film. Had the technology permitted, I am sure it could have been achieved for the film's duration (That really would blow my mind). Not only was this sheer spectacle in its most impressive form, due to its sophisticated setup and captivating cat and mouse routines, but it constantly commented on wider issues; on morality, art, the nature of mankind and other such philosophical quandaries.
What could have been improved:
The way the camera zoomed right in on somebody’s back when the cuts occurred was jarring, but I understand why it had to be done that way. Also, considering the whole thing took place in real time, the prospect of such a great party - or any party for that matter - lasting less than an hour whilst never seeming unduly rushed is a little far fetched.
Themes:
well it was as subtle as a brick in it's interrogation of certain philosophical principles of morality, rolled up particularly in Nietzsche's concept of the superman, or the superior being. This concept was then combined with a bourgeoisie concept of art and of the idiotic lower classes, or lower beings, just not understanding it. The way that this belief can manifest itself in complete disregard for the humanity of others and can therefore lead to this sort of amoral killing; this cold, calculating 'death as art' that was seen through the character of Brendan. This was reinforced through his complete disregard for the maid, in contrast to Rupert's concession that he would ‘talk to her all night if he could’, which symbolised the difference between the two. Rupert could know all the same things that Brendan does, and share many similar thoughts, yet still has his humanity intact enough to understand where the boundaries lie.
The reference didn't stop at Nietzsche; there was much reference to Freudian psychoanalysis, which is to be expected considering the themes of the unconscious and the death drive, wrapped up in Brendan’s almost sexualised admiration of Rupert.
The theme and emphasis of art and perfection are reinforced by the film itself; the spectacle of the choreography and the meticulous construction of the screen on every single shot was breathtaking and embedded you firmly in Brendan's perfection obsessed, artistic consciousness.
Finally, this idea that Brendan took the knowledge that Rupert imparted within him (perfect murder, or murder as art) and took it to the extreme, following through with it, seems reminiscent of the fact that it has been widely documented that Nietzsche was Hitler’s inspiration for the ideal race and his justification for ethnic cleansing. Again, taking some well thought out, balanced theory and twisting it, taking it out of context and driving it through with blind conviction.
Performance:
For this one I’d rather just say that it was an all round collective performance. Every single cog in the wheel made it go, including every single performance. But having said that, at a push, I guess I would say that I was most impressed by Stewart. this might be mainly due to the fact that from my limited experience of James Stewart, this role was against type. I have seen him this charismatic, but never quite so wise, in control and infallible.
Scene:
The scene where Brendan loses it about inferiors is very revealing. It reveals his feeling on the matter; it reveals why he has committed this murder and it reveals that he has done it in a desperate attempt to impress Rupert.
Final Word:
If this was done the whole way through with no cut at all, it would be the most perfect piece of film ever made.
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
The Man Who Knew too Much (1956) - Alfred Hitchcock, there's a reason the man has a reputation for excellence
Viewing context:
Second film into my Hitchcock box-set and first one to watch with an old friend; a Hitchcock evening that we are going to make a regular occurrence. The main thing about seeing these films at said friend's house is that there is a certain amount of herbal wisdom added to the viewing.
Creators:
Directed by Hitchcock. Screenplay by John Michael Hayes, who also worked with Hitchcock and Stewart on Rear Window. Written originally for Hitchcock’s own 1934 version by Charles Bennett.
What Happened:
Ben McKenna (Jimmy Stewart) is on holiday with his family in Marakesh when he is told about an imminent assassination attempt due to take place in London. He cannot relieve any of his intel to the authorities mind, as the assassins-to-be have kidnapped his son and are pulling his strings. Stewart and his wife Josephine (Doris Day) go to London to find a way to foil this assassination and retrieve their (really annoying) son.
What it did particularly well:
Intrigue all the way through. Vertigo was a little different, as there was a reveal followed by a different kind of intrigue; this was much more straight forward, as the first half was all intrigue and build up, whereas the final section was pure suspense as we knew what was coming but had to sit through it all (in a good way).
The masterful way that Hitchcock speaks to the audience through the characters is so clever; it is obvious yet not jarring. The scene where the kidnapper is explaining the point in the performance where the hired gunman can shoot, is done in such a way that is practically speaking straight at us, so our suspense is built to maximum throughout the final scene as we constantly listen out for the musical cue.
The framing of characters (and objects) throughout the whole film is always clear; there are so many times that the camera leaves about four things layered in importance on screen, and has just a little pause to show exactly how the power structure is being constructed; it is again, obvious without being jarring. The same can be said for the harrumping score; it is really hammered home, and though it does not go unnoticed, it doesn't seem out of place at all, nor does it detract from the immersion; rather, it does the exact opposite and locks you right in.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
The kid was really fucking annoying.
Theme/Message:
There was a great deal of exoticism, as the very American family traverse the foreign lands of Marakesh and London. Both places are alien to this settled unit; the unfamiliarity with certain customs can be used for humour, yet more importantly to build a sense of unease or lack of protection for the central characters. The second foreign area, London is a little more unsettling as it is somewhere that should feel more homely, especially as Josephine used to sing here, yet the authorities still treat them with some trepidation and frustrate with their unhelpfulness. It therefore evoked a sort of uneasiness in international relations; it made the world small and easier to traverse, but showed how this can cause a certain amount of tension or misunderstanding.
Performance of the film:
Big Jimmy of course - what a legend
Scene of the film:
The scene described above, when the assassin (and the audience) are told precisely when in the performance he should shoot. Excellently obvious exposition, and just cheekily, cockily even, nodding at that fourth wall, without actually breaking it down.
Final word:
Masterful display of first, pure intrigue, then having everything revealed in order to see and feel the suspense of the last act play out.
Second film into my Hitchcock box-set and first one to watch with an old friend; a Hitchcock evening that we are going to make a regular occurrence. The main thing about seeing these films at said friend's house is that there is a certain amount of herbal wisdom added to the viewing.
Creators:
Directed by Hitchcock. Screenplay by John Michael Hayes, who also worked with Hitchcock and Stewart on Rear Window. Written originally for Hitchcock’s own 1934 version by Charles Bennett.
What Happened:
Ben McKenna (Jimmy Stewart) is on holiday with his family in Marakesh when he is told about an imminent assassination attempt due to take place in London. He cannot relieve any of his intel to the authorities mind, as the assassins-to-be have kidnapped his son and are pulling his strings. Stewart and his wife Josephine (Doris Day) go to London to find a way to foil this assassination and retrieve their (really annoying) son.
What it did particularly well:
Intrigue all the way through. Vertigo was a little different, as there was a reveal followed by a different kind of intrigue; this was much more straight forward, as the first half was all intrigue and build up, whereas the final section was pure suspense as we knew what was coming but had to sit through it all (in a good way).
The masterful way that Hitchcock speaks to the audience through the characters is so clever; it is obvious yet not jarring. The scene where the kidnapper is explaining the point in the performance where the hired gunman can shoot, is done in such a way that is practically speaking straight at us, so our suspense is built to maximum throughout the final scene as we constantly listen out for the musical cue.
The framing of characters (and objects) throughout the whole film is always clear; there are so many times that the camera leaves about four things layered in importance on screen, and has just a little pause to show exactly how the power structure is being constructed; it is again, obvious without being jarring. The same can be said for the harrumping score; it is really hammered home, and though it does not go unnoticed, it doesn't seem out of place at all, nor does it detract from the immersion; rather, it does the exact opposite and locks you right in.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
The kid was really fucking annoying.
Theme/Message:
There was a great deal of exoticism, as the very American family traverse the foreign lands of Marakesh and London. Both places are alien to this settled unit; the unfamiliarity with certain customs can be used for humour, yet more importantly to build a sense of unease or lack of protection for the central characters. The second foreign area, London is a little more unsettling as it is somewhere that should feel more homely, especially as Josephine used to sing here, yet the authorities still treat them with some trepidation and frustrate with their unhelpfulness. It therefore evoked a sort of uneasiness in international relations; it made the world small and easier to traverse, but showed how this can cause a certain amount of tension or misunderstanding.
Performance of the film:
Big Jimmy of course - what a legend
Scene of the film:
The scene described above, when the assassin (and the audience) are told precisely when in the performance he should shoot. Excellently obvious exposition, and just cheekily, cockily even, nodding at that fourth wall, without actually breaking it down.
Final word:
Masterful display of first, pure intrigue, then having everything revealed in order to see and feel the suspense of the last act play out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)