The International and Pontypol are two films that came out this year. They are both about ideas: the later is about the “idea” and the former is a meditation on ideas. Each deserve immense praise.
Tom Tykwer's The International is a incredible film, but was one that was unfairly dismissed by American critics. Why do I think this is? The film has more European sensibilities than American ones, not only in the story and style, but also in the politics. This is shown by the film's very anti-bussiness stance and not one of the moderate's like “monopolies are bad” or “money needs to be regulated.” The film actually makes a surprising consideration, that transnational business operations maybe the cause of true corruption. The film postulates this position by showing the immense power the large banks have over everything. Something shown structurally with socio-political examples and masterfully through visuals by showing the foreboding architecture of the buildings that the transnationals possess. Tykwer then, pushes a polemical visual motif, that of structural limitations, symbolized by the immensely scary structures of the transnationals buildings.
One major political point that may confuse American's is a conversation between a British rogue cop main character and a old Russian communist. The film generally doesn't deride communism and constitutes a reality were maybe some communists were actually communists. The effects of McCarthyism in America destroyed this spark of realization I think for many American viewers, but for me it actually heightened it. Something I felt was symbolized by the American character spying on the conversation between them. She sees their discussion through a crack and tries to make out the positions. Her hiding I believe is metaphor for her fear of the possibility of radical alternatives. Then, her character ultimately, after this seen, returns to her “bourgeois” lifestyle. Still, I think the film posits that the radical might be possible and not dangerous, like most American's believe.
Overall, the film posits a anarchistic position on business, that people must work outside of the state to achieve the disillusion of business. It pushes this though through multiple positions, which I think makes this film a meditation. The first, that art may have the ability to deride the dominance of capitalism. Something eloquently symbolized by a shoot out in the Guggenheim Museum. Another position is that people may need to take the sabotage of capitalism into their own hands through vigilantism. This then is suggested through two forms in the film, violence and the spread of knowledge. The later of these opinions I feel Tykwer was giving the most hope too, but the former I feel was either a slight bit of pessimism or just that he was making an action movie. Either way, I feel the film postulated an amazing position about the current world. One that Noam Chomsky has pointed out:
“Corporation are tyrannical organizations. They are totalitarian institutions. In fact, if you look at them…that what is a corporation…it is an unaccountable private tyranny in which power comes from above, from the owners and the managers, orders are transferred down below and inserted inside the system. You take your orders below and above and you transmit them below. At the very bottom people have the right to rent themselves to this tyrannical system. It is essentially unaccountable to the public except by weak regular career apparatus. In fact, it is a totalitarian institution. And if you look at their intellectual roots, it happens that they come out of the same neo-Hegelian conceptions of the rights of organic entities that led to bolshevism and fascism. We have three forms of twentieth century totalitarianism: bolshevism, fascism and corporation. Two of them, fortunately, were dissolved, disappeared mostly. The third remains. It shouldn’t. Power should be in the hand of populations.”
Another note about this film, many were angry that the characters in this film, were as one critic put it, “not humans.” Well, I believe this was due to the more european nature of the film. The characters grow, but also stand for political entities or positions. Our self identification with them then should have been a struggle.
On Pontypol:
Pontypol is one of the best zombie horror films I have seen in a long time. It is about ideas and how they can spread through communication. It understands then that zombie horror films have always had metaphors, but this film is not about that. It is ultimately a probing studying into what a metaphor even is. I don't want to give much away though about this one. I think the synopsis's of this film trick people into thinking it is a duller experience than it is. Actually it is closer to the intelligence of a Cronenberg film mixed with a book on socio-linguistics. Something not surprising since the film is Canadian. I MUST STRESS THOUGH THE GREATNESS OF THIS FILM. Please go out and see it. It is a horror film, but not a typical one, so don't think you will get overly frightened. You probably will spend more time thinking about the astute subject matter presented than worry about the “zombies.”
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Convention Comes Together: A Look At Favreau's Iron Man
John Favreau's Iron Man is a rich film. It is also not a particularly daring one.
It's competent in a way that is enriching and entertaining, pandering and politically safe, an antiseptic big budget movie and a film with some respect for letting art grow. It is a craftsman's film and also one that doesn't suck.
The plot is a well worn one that you could probably guess before ever setting foot in the theater. Tony Stark is playboy that don't give a fuck bout nobody. Something terrible happens. BAD ARABS enter the scene. Innocent people hurt in front of Tony. He becomes super man. Mentor figure is actually behind BAD ARABS. Face off at the end. Subplot involving complicated love affair that-just-can't-quite-happen between Tony and Secretary. Safe plot that makes money and doesn't take any risk at making any more or less money and puts the burden of making the film fun and entertaining entirely on the mise en scene.
There are little pushes beyond the ordinary. Tony and Pepper Pots do have a somewhat interesting relationship. Things are complicated in a believable and exciting way (Gwyneth Paltrow really sells the whole "RD Jr. I wanna hump you" vibe) and modern (in at least an idealised male fantasy kind of way (it's totally cool with her that Tony is just fucking chicks and leaving them for her to throw out in the morning, she stills loves him without reservation)). And there some little steps beyond the expected in the action scenes.
The story structure is also superb and well paced, but superb in the sense of good story telling rather than, again, being at all inventive.
The mise en scene is not, on the face of it, very adventurous either. The camera work is pretty conventional. A fairly pedestrian dutch angle in the film that would have been totally lost in a movie like Crank provides a potent emotional punch in Iron Man. The sets, costumes, etc are all very pleasingly designed. The lighting is also nice. But while these elements do shine like spectacle should there's also nothing to set them apart from the pack, an approach one could contrast with Christopher Nolan and Sam Raimi's in their superhero films.
The only really arty thing I could find in the whole film was how Favreau seemed to treat his actors. There are many scenes that Robert Downey Jr. seems to have been allowed to almost direct himself. The "love-in" press conference in particular seems so much more apart of Downey's rhythm than the film's, not to say that the rhythm's don't integrate. Jeff Bridges seems to have also been given a free hand. I imagine the segway and cigar idea (to take just one idea from a performance with some pretty good ones) being totally his own. It belongs to his character and it seems like the character belongs to Bridges. Even the BAD ARAB characters seem to have been given respect as actors, making them more human than they might have been under another director. But beyond the weirdness of a free Bridges and Downey Jr. still the movie doesn't break any new ground.
So why did I feel like I liked this film without reservation? Why do I not remember forgiving the filmmakers once for the sake of a fun night at the movies? Why do I not wish this was Alfonso Cuaron directed this movie?
It's for two reasons:
1. This is simply a well made movie. There is nothing new about it. It's a collection of elements that no one looked very hard to find and appropriate. It doesn't really on the stylistic tricks invented by some anonymous Estonian 8mm animator from 1938 to make for pleasant images. The story tellers just knew what they were doing. They simply did their jobs well.
2. Many of us would like to say we are interested in art because we want progress. Because we want to do something different, that we want to break down walls, that want to conquer a new frontier. But really, how many walls can you break down before you don't have house? How far can you travel before you start going in circles? What will you do when space is the final frontier? Have you ever been to space? It sucks out there. At some point we need to say enough. At some point we need to say "thanks Picasso, Ornette, Godard: we're free. Now what?"
Iron Man doesn't answer this question by itself, it is not great cinema, it is not our savior, but it helps build the case. This a "now what?" generation and movies like Iron Man point more to our survival rather than films like Speed Racer that seem to point to our destruction.
One reservation though: Iron Man almost had a great place to step apart from the pack. There was a plot element that really should not have been trample over and translated into a conventional movie plot. And that was: what an un-super hero Tony Stark is. He's not Superman, born with super powers. He's not Spiderman given them as the result of an accident. He's not even Batman who's super power is being a rich guy with lots of free time, what changes Tony Stark is not becoming more superior than the average man. It's that he becomes more vulnerable.
The narrative is that of a disabled person's fantasy. What is the most pathetic looking device that keeps people alive? An oxygen tank. You can argue that this is immoral to say, but the image is what it is and people who wear these tanks know it. There's a look on their faces like they expect the other wolves to take out the weaker member of their pack any moment. We understand our selves in relationship to images of normalcy, virility, goodness, etc.. How we measure up is how we understand ourselves in terms of value. Moral TV and Movie creators have tried to readjust the images of the disabled, and thus their value. But a moral image is fundamentally dishonest as well as unnecessarily unpleasant.
But, what image does Iron Man offer us of a disabled man? Virile, normal, attractive, rich, confident Tony Stark with not an oxygen mask attached to his face but a fucking car battery running his heart!* And then this man returns to life as a sexy international playboy and superhero that can fly and kick ass and solve the international conflicts he observes on CNN. All while having an ostentatious glowing pace maker sticking out of his chest. All while powering his suit from the same source that keeps him living. That's a narrative for the disabled. It's "kind" but it's not "good". It's more Shaft than Crash, but then again it's no Killer of Sheep**. It had the chance to shift the image in a way a paraplegic on special episode of Desperate Housewives couldn't.
To some extent it is there throughout the film, but in another sense it felt swept under the rug. Lost in the pace of this conventional action film. Maybe that's fair enough, to have Tony Stark say: well I guess my heart don't work good, I'll make another, ok I'm gonna go bed ladies and kill people now and move on with my life, but really I wish that was one place they didn't play it safe, that maybe they stuck their necks out a little and made that a part of the character's humanity.
Also I would be remiss if I didn't mention Terrence Howard. I really liked him in Hustle & Flow but here he didn't really wow me at any point. I know he's supposed to get a bigger role if they make another film and I hope that's his time to step out, but here he was playing one note, and not Joel McCarae's. I do like his and Robert's on-screen friendship, but I'm hoping for something different in the sequel (which they set up excellently in the best "if you stay for all the credits we'll give you a treat" sequence I've ever seen.
*I know the car battery does not actually run his heart, but that point kind of gets changed as the movie progesses by the filmmakers themselves. It's symboliclly and eventually literally his heart, you fucking pedantic fanboy fucks who don't even read this blog I bet.
**To just speak in kind dishonest hyperbole.
It's competent in a way that is enriching and entertaining, pandering and politically safe, an antiseptic big budget movie and a film with some respect for letting art grow. It is a craftsman's film and also one that doesn't suck.
The plot is a well worn one that you could probably guess before ever setting foot in the theater. Tony Stark is playboy that don't give a fuck bout nobody. Something terrible happens. BAD ARABS enter the scene. Innocent people hurt in front of Tony. He becomes super man. Mentor figure is actually behind BAD ARABS. Face off at the end. Subplot involving complicated love affair that-just-can't-quite-happen between Tony and Secretary. Safe plot that makes money and doesn't take any risk at making any more or less money and puts the burden of making the film fun and entertaining entirely on the mise en scene.
There are little pushes beyond the ordinary. Tony and Pepper Pots do have a somewhat interesting relationship. Things are complicated in a believable and exciting way (Gwyneth Paltrow really sells the whole "RD Jr. I wanna hump you" vibe) and modern (in at least an idealised male fantasy kind of way (it's totally cool with her that Tony is just fucking chicks and leaving them for her to throw out in the morning, she stills loves him without reservation)). And there some little steps beyond the expected in the action scenes.
The story structure is also superb and well paced, but superb in the sense of good story telling rather than, again, being at all inventive.
The mise en scene is not, on the face of it, very adventurous either. The camera work is pretty conventional. A fairly pedestrian dutch angle in the film that would have been totally lost in a movie like Crank provides a potent emotional punch in Iron Man. The sets, costumes, etc are all very pleasingly designed. The lighting is also nice. But while these elements do shine like spectacle should there's also nothing to set them apart from the pack, an approach one could contrast with Christopher Nolan and Sam Raimi's in their superhero films.
The only really arty thing I could find in the whole film was how Favreau seemed to treat his actors. There are many scenes that Robert Downey Jr. seems to have been allowed to almost direct himself. The "love-in" press conference in particular seems so much more apart of Downey's rhythm than the film's, not to say that the rhythm's don't integrate. Jeff Bridges seems to have also been given a free hand. I imagine the segway and cigar idea (to take just one idea from a performance with some pretty good ones) being totally his own. It belongs to his character and it seems like the character belongs to Bridges. Even the BAD ARAB characters seem to have been given respect as actors, making them more human than they might have been under another director. But beyond the weirdness of a free Bridges and Downey Jr. still the movie doesn't break any new ground.
So why did I feel like I liked this film without reservation? Why do I not remember forgiving the filmmakers once for the sake of a fun night at the movies? Why do I not wish this was Alfonso Cuaron directed this movie?
It's for two reasons:
1. This is simply a well made movie. There is nothing new about it. It's a collection of elements that no one looked very hard to find and appropriate. It doesn't really on the stylistic tricks invented by some anonymous Estonian 8mm animator from 1938 to make for pleasant images. The story tellers just knew what they were doing. They simply did their jobs well.
2. Many of us would like to say we are interested in art because we want progress. Because we want to do something different, that we want to break down walls, that want to conquer a new frontier. But really, how many walls can you break down before you don't have house? How far can you travel before you start going in circles? What will you do when space is the final frontier? Have you ever been to space? It sucks out there. At some point we need to say enough. At some point we need to say "thanks Picasso, Ornette, Godard: we're free. Now what?"
Iron Man doesn't answer this question by itself, it is not great cinema, it is not our savior, but it helps build the case. This a "now what?" generation and movies like Iron Man point more to our survival rather than films like Speed Racer that seem to point to our destruction.
One reservation though: Iron Man almost had a great place to step apart from the pack. There was a plot element that really should not have been trample over and translated into a conventional movie plot. And that was: what an un-super hero Tony Stark is. He's not Superman, born with super powers. He's not Spiderman given them as the result of an accident. He's not even Batman who's super power is being a rich guy with lots of free time, what changes Tony Stark is not becoming more superior than the average man. It's that he becomes more vulnerable.
The narrative is that of a disabled person's fantasy. What is the most pathetic looking device that keeps people alive? An oxygen tank. You can argue that this is immoral to say, but the image is what it is and people who wear these tanks know it. There's a look on their faces like they expect the other wolves to take out the weaker member of their pack any moment. We understand our selves in relationship to images of normalcy, virility, goodness, etc.. How we measure up is how we understand ourselves in terms of value. Moral TV and Movie creators have tried to readjust the images of the disabled, and thus their value. But a moral image is fundamentally dishonest as well as unnecessarily unpleasant.
But, what image does Iron Man offer us of a disabled man? Virile, normal, attractive, rich, confident Tony Stark with not an oxygen mask attached to his face but a fucking car battery running his heart!* And then this man returns to life as a sexy international playboy and superhero that can fly and kick ass and solve the international conflicts he observes on CNN. All while having an ostentatious glowing pace maker sticking out of his chest. All while powering his suit from the same source that keeps him living. That's a narrative for the disabled. It's "kind" but it's not "good". It's more Shaft than Crash, but then again it's no Killer of Sheep**. It had the chance to shift the image in a way a paraplegic on special episode of Desperate Housewives couldn't.
To some extent it is there throughout the film, but in another sense it felt swept under the rug. Lost in the pace of this conventional action film. Maybe that's fair enough, to have Tony Stark say: well I guess my heart don't work good, I'll make another, ok I'm gonna go bed ladies and kill people now and move on with my life, but really I wish that was one place they didn't play it safe, that maybe they stuck their necks out a little and made that a part of the character's humanity.
Also I would be remiss if I didn't mention Terrence Howard. I really liked him in Hustle & Flow but here he didn't really wow me at any point. I know he's supposed to get a bigger role if they make another film and I hope that's his time to step out, but here he was playing one note, and not Joel McCarae's. I do like his and Robert's on-screen friendship, but I'm hoping for something different in the sequel (which they set up excellently in the best "if you stay for all the credits we'll give you a treat" sequence I've ever seen.
*I know the car battery does not actually run his heart, but that point kind of gets changed as the movie progesses by the filmmakers themselves. It's symboliclly and eventually literally his heart, you fucking pedantic fanboy fucks who don't even read this blog I bet.
**To just speak in kind dishonest hyperbole.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Herzog at Penn 10/24/07
Werner Herzog recently gave a two hour speech at the University of Pennsylvania entitled Was The 20th Century A Mistake? I don't know if anyone else recorded it in any sort of official context but I did with a shitty computer microphone and a minidisc player and - I must tell you - it was magical. The actual talk (which had nearly nothing to do with it's title (which I think came about mostly out the hosts' need to assert their own intelligence and sense of importance (which was a theme they carried over into the "interview" itself))) not the recording, which suffers from bad microphones (theirs, which kept cutting out and getting static), my fidgeting, my laughing, and at one point my getting a phone call from my Mom. It's not that bad, but apologies are still in order.
You miss a lot by not actually being in the same room as him. Seeing him is one thing: the eyes that sag under the bulbous forehead emerging from his skull like a second birth into raw and dangerous space, the obvious physical fortitude, the leather bomber jacket, the illustration of his face and hands when he talks, but more than anything else (to parallel something he points out later in the interview) what's great about being near him is not reading the body but something much more receptive. Like being in the same room as some really fulfilling radiator.
All of it gives his message more weight, he seems not like the dangerously insane Greek myth of a man snickered about at ironic film school cheese parties. He seems like a man in possession of an essential sanity. A sanity that never turned away with age. A sanity that embraces real risk and demands it of every other member of the human race. You know you're listening to a profound man if you're laughing at what he has to say. Like David Lynch, Herzog can tell a joke but he can get a laugh much more easily by simply speaking from his heart.
Here is an intro for the event by the assistant director of Penn's Cinema Studies who has an affected Italian accent.
Italian Guy
Here is an intro for Herzog by Nathaniel Kahn who directed My Architect.
Kahn's speech
The room it was held in (which I think maybe seated 200-250 people) was packed a good half hour before the show started and people were eventually told they could sit in the isles. Later though, they were told they actually couldn't block the isles as it was a fire hazard. Then they were told again and that the event would have to be canceled if they wouldn't leave. Then they were told the police had been called. Then the police had to come in the room and begin herding these fucking brats out of the hall. Then the cops had to argue with the really tenacious ones that refused to rise in the face of police intimidation. Then began the slowest fucking march of 20 people across a five foot line in space in the history of mankind. I included the audio of the last part of this experience for whatever reason you can find for it which is probably none. There's also audio of the montage of Herzog's films and the audience's reaction.
the wait
the montage
And here is Herzog:
Pt. 1
Pt. 2
Pt. 3
Pt. 4
Pt. 5
Pt. 6
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Jean-Luc Godard's Favorite Films
Godard is one of my favorite directors and I came upon a list of his favorite films from Cahiers du Cinema via Godard on Godard.
Ten Best American Sound Films(December 1963-January 1964 issue)
01. Scarface (Howard Hawks)
02. The Great Dictator (Charles Chaplin)
03. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock)
04. The Searchers (John Ford)
05. Singin' in the Rain (Kelly-Donen)
06. The Lady from Shanghai (Orson Welles)
07. Bigger Than Life (Nicholas Ray)
08. Angel Face (Otto Preminger)
09. To Be or Not To Be (Ernst Lubitsch)
10. Dishonoured (Josef von Sternberg)
Six Best French Films since the Liberation(January 1965 issue)
01. Le Plaisir (Ophuls)
02. La Pyramide humaine (Rouch)
03. Le Testament d'Orphee (Cocteau)
04. Le Testament du Docteur Cordelier (Renoir)
05. Pickpocket (Bresson)
06. Les Godelureaux (Chabrol)
To see his favorite films for each year 1956-1965 click here
Ten Best American Sound Films(December 1963-January 1964 issue)
01. Scarface (Howard Hawks)
02. The Great Dictator (Charles Chaplin)
03. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock)
04. The Searchers (John Ford)
05. Singin' in the Rain (Kelly-Donen)
06. The Lady from Shanghai (Orson Welles)
07. Bigger Than Life (Nicholas Ray)
08. Angel Face (Otto Preminger)
09. To Be or Not To Be (Ernst Lubitsch)
10. Dishonoured (Josef von Sternberg)
Six Best French Films since the Liberation(January 1965 issue)
01. Le Plaisir (Ophuls)
02. La Pyramide humaine (Rouch)
03. Le Testament d'Orphee (Cocteau)
04. Le Testament du Docteur Cordelier (Renoir)
05. Pickpocket (Bresson)
06. Les Godelureaux (Chabrol)
To see his favorite films for each year 1956-1965 click here
Thursday, March 22, 2007
My movie site
I'm currently in the last days of pre-production for my film "Tony Hawk". TH is a zombie horror film about a skateboarer living in a world over run with the living dead. Check out it's site at http://www.tonyhawkfilm.blogspot.com
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Volver
The first time I watched Volver the most impressive thing to me was what a casual thriller it was. The movie seems patterned after a Hitchcockian thriller but the only real tension is in waiting for the tension to start. Or as my sister put it ‘it was like the murder itself was the MacGuffin.’
But watching it the second time, knowing the plot, I was also struck by how fast the movie moves. The film was constantly being stirred. The camera and the characters are constantly moving. When they come to rest in the old aunt’s dinning room Penelope Cruz sweeps something off the table quickly, lest any dust settle. When you left a house you didn’t see the rest of the village, the wind just swept you against the wall of the building across the street. The only really solid picture you get of the setting was also the stillest place in the narrative, when the issues between Penelope Cruz and her mother are finally resolved.
That was the other thing that I got out of my second viewing. I had been told before seeing it the first time that the film was what a Hitchcock movie would be like if he had made women's films and definitely saw the truth of the comment. But since it was no longer a thriller for me, I was able to sink a little deeper into that side of the story. Into the moments of tenderness. The comforting, the forgiveness, the support. The movie was brilliant as an homage to Hitchcock. In its conception, preserving his angels so far away from his demons. From it’s referencing that strengthened and gave meaning to the film’s images. But even without all that, even without the murder, I’d still watch this movie just as a celebration of women and femininity.
If only for how hard it seems to be to make movies like this. I don’t claim to be a total student of film, but I’ve seen a lot of movies. And though I’ve seen a lot by people with a definite preoccupation with women, there aren’t that many where women are really all that human inside the story. I've read the problem is the phenomenon of “the Other”, when a certain character in a movie is part of a group (i.e. male, white, Christian) is set up as “me” and people from other groups in the movie (i.e. women, people from other races or religions) are “not me.” And that phenomenon exists in every aspect of the film: the narrative, the dialog, the photography, etc. I haven’t seen that many movies that exist without this problem. Godard makes the case in Notre Musique that Howard Hawks’ movies did and one could make the case that, in Notre Musique at least, Godard has left the problem behind as well.
So obviously, when a film like this appears, and it’s pretty freakin’ good, it’s worthy of some attention, even when the way femininity is presented isn’t that radical.
The film seems partially about how female adroitness could deal with a murder much better than filmmakers to this point have assumed. The female characters seem to glide on the wind that sweeps the film along. There’s no hesitation in the acts they put on, there’s no time for much anxiety. They constantly dance with and adapt to the situations they encounter in a way that seems distinctly feminine, borne out lives that are very much structured around dealing with other people.
That’s what’s really at the heart of this film. Femininity examined in a way not easily expressed in words but instantly understood in images. Almodovar brings you into this world with lingering shots on the female character’s backsides. He gives you the whole film in a bird’s eye view of Penelope Cruz, the cleavage of her beautiful, full breasts exposed above a kitchen sink in which she’s cleaning a knife. Her breasts aren't there just so you can go "hey, boobs!" her breasts are nearly her most important co-stars in the film. I would go as far as to say the whole film pivots around a really nice pair of tits. So much so that it'd be a shame to explain why. It’s the kind of story that needed to be a movie and in Volver in became a pretty freaking good one.
But watching it the second time, knowing the plot, I was also struck by how fast the movie moves. The film was constantly being stirred. The camera and the characters are constantly moving. When they come to rest in the old aunt’s dinning room Penelope Cruz sweeps something off the table quickly, lest any dust settle. When you left a house you didn’t see the rest of the village, the wind just swept you against the wall of the building across the street. The only really solid picture you get of the setting was also the stillest place in the narrative, when the issues between Penelope Cruz and her mother are finally resolved.
That was the other thing that I got out of my second viewing. I had been told before seeing it the first time that the film was what a Hitchcock movie would be like if he had made women's films and definitely saw the truth of the comment. But since it was no longer a thriller for me, I was able to sink a little deeper into that side of the story. Into the moments of tenderness. The comforting, the forgiveness, the support. The movie was brilliant as an homage to Hitchcock. In its conception, preserving his angels so far away from his demons. From it’s referencing that strengthened and gave meaning to the film’s images. But even without all that, even without the murder, I’d still watch this movie just as a celebration of women and femininity.
If only for how hard it seems to be to make movies like this. I don’t claim to be a total student of film, but I’ve seen a lot of movies. And though I’ve seen a lot by people with a definite preoccupation with women, there aren’t that many where women are really all that human inside the story. I've read the problem is the phenomenon of “the Other”, when a certain character in a movie is part of a group (i.e. male, white, Christian) is set up as “me” and people from other groups in the movie (i.e. women, people from other races or religions) are “not me.” And that phenomenon exists in every aspect of the film: the narrative, the dialog, the photography, etc. I haven’t seen that many movies that exist without this problem. Godard makes the case in Notre Musique that Howard Hawks’ movies did and one could make the case that, in Notre Musique at least, Godard has left the problem behind as well.
So obviously, when a film like this appears, and it’s pretty freakin’ good, it’s worthy of some attention, even when the way femininity is presented isn’t that radical.
The film seems partially about how female adroitness could deal with a murder much better than filmmakers to this point have assumed. The female characters seem to glide on the wind that sweeps the film along. There’s no hesitation in the acts they put on, there’s no time for much anxiety. They constantly dance with and adapt to the situations they encounter in a way that seems distinctly feminine, borne out lives that are very much structured around dealing with other people.
That’s what’s really at the heart of this film. Femininity examined in a way not easily expressed in words but instantly understood in images. Almodovar brings you into this world with lingering shots on the female character’s backsides. He gives you the whole film in a bird’s eye view of Penelope Cruz, the cleavage of her beautiful, full breasts exposed above a kitchen sink in which she’s cleaning a knife. Her breasts aren't there just so you can go "hey, boobs!" her breasts are nearly her most important co-stars in the film. I would go as far as to say the whole film pivots around a really nice pair of tits. So much so that it'd be a shame to explain why. It’s the kind of story that needed to be a movie and in Volver in became a pretty freaking good one.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
