Quote:
|
Btw, I'm kidding Henry, well except about the movies...and the Lakers
|
Oh dear, this can't be right. Who in the hell got to you and signed over your soul? Tsk Tsk
Man, who doesn't love a really indulgent director more obsessed with his own stylization goals than consideration for his audience.
On that note I just finished 2 flicks that I half loved and half hated, and in both cases it was because they fell into an art for art's sake trap.
Breathless
I like the story behind the film and I like the stars. I even like some of the shots and some of the direction. But the intentionally abrupt editing became a thing unto itself. No surprise to find this in a Godard film, but of the new wave films I by far least enjoy where he's going with things.
I wish Trauffaut had directed this story since I understand he wrote it. On the fly, impromptu stuff is fine with me, but for chrissake, there is such a thing as post production, don't be afraid to smooth things out a bit rather than trying to intentionally make it harder.
For New Wave give me stuff like 400 Blows or the semi-NW film Cleo from 5 to 7. Plus, I'm more a fan of Neo-Realism which is something many NWers were trying to go against by making you intentionally aware that you were seeing a film, despite the location/improv shooting that sometimes gives the Neo-Realist look to NW films.
Unlike Eisenstien, Godard's editing did not convey to me a greater sense of the character or the environment. If anything his insistance on referencing H'wood style at the same time (music, mise-en-scene - esp film noir) undermined any of the edginess his choppy edits might have created. In the end I just mostly felt annoyed and uncomfortable, not unlike my feelings with Alphaville.
There's interesting stuff here, more than in most cases, but this is a great film that has had the shit kicked out of it by stylization.
Speaking of which...
A Woman Under the Influence
Features a couple of outstanding acting efforts and a touching story of the difficulties of dealing with a loved one going nuts. Unfortunately most of the good stuff in this film is left to tread water in the wash of improv shooting. The result is that half the time you get good stuff, but the other half is actors struggling to work off of each other and find the scene. That's great for rehearsal, or maybe you shoot some of it in hopes of catching magic, but at least by post it's time to identify the beats in each scene so the audience can appreciate the dramatic tension a little sooner than when the scene is basically over.
Most of the time you spend half the scene as lost as the actors, trying to understand just what the scene is about. What's at stake, what are the choices, who wants spaghetti and why?
Rowland's acting was dead-on based on knowing a person who went through something like that herself.
Oh, that is until the very end when I couldn't tell if Cassevetes was really trying to prop up a happy wrap-up on us or not. Ambigious is fine, but the film seemed to abruptly turn into a happy Hollywood finish at the end. Definitely counter to what the style of the film would lead you to expect.
My count goes to 169.
On deck - Magnificent Ambersons, World of Apu, Persona, Great Dictator, and Rome: Open City
Actually Lew, I prefer Intolerance, though I think he fails to really interweave the 4 stories. The scale and scope is remarkable, and the concept is great. And its one of the few films that he doesn't "kick/pet the dog" to stir your emotions.
My biggest beef here is that by 1918 the German filmmakers were kicking his butt in innovation, style and magic, but by the Americanized version (ie, German = a bad thing in 1917-18) it was all DW and Chaplin.
Anyway, I agree on digging in with the rest of Intolerance. I know I sure as hell have done it with some of these films.
