Quote:
|
Perhaps it instead reflects the non-traditional lead characters....Belmondo looks mucho cool, but he isn't very bright and certainly isn't a tough guy
|
Well I sure disagree with this. The dude shoots a cop without a 2nd thought and then takes a guy out in one hit in a bathroom mugging. He is clearly very violent, though portrayed by scene choice as likeable (a good choice IMO). He is the classic noir lead, nowhere near the area of non-traditional.
And also
Quote:
|
He can't overcome his femme fatale.
|
Um, this IS FILM NOIR. That's not a contradiction, that's what the freaking name means, it's not femme-that-is-overcome. Double Indemnity, Sunset Blvd, how do those endings differ for the lead from Breathless? Breathless follows the noir formula to a tee in terms of story and characters. And the film is scored to match that as well.
George on Rope:
Quote:
|
and it's nothing more than "art for art's sake".
|
See, I disagree with that a bit. A main point for Hitch here was to cleary crank the tension by identifying the limited timeframe, as well as to identify the film's stage beginnings.
By keeping a constant POV (ie, no cuts) the audience truly becomes an active witness to the situation. Moving about and evesdropping, although unable to speak up or stop anything. The audience is made to be one of the conspirators basically.
I UNDERSTAND experimentation, but not all experiments work, except perhaps if you consider the learning aspect that come from failures.
Failure by experimentation is infinitely more admirable than failure using formula. But I feel like both directors undermined a lot of what was great in their films in the attempt to pursue a style that tended to go beyond its apparent goal. Raw, live acting in Wife UTI pushes on into "hey, its some actors trying to improv" because actors trying to riff off of each other DOES NOT sound the same as people talking. Perhaps this was due to intentional acting choices that were rehearsed, perhaps it was due to limited rehearsal, but in the end it looks the same.
People talking do have needs they want met via conversation, they may be addressing different issues from the other people, but they know where they themselves are coming from. Every converstation in Wife is awkward between people, no matter who is in the scene. In reality even one conversation like that will induce one of the participants to say, flat out, "what the hell are you talking about, what is going on here, or just spit it out".
The early spaghetti table scene is a perfect example where everyone is behaving like they don't really understand what they are doing there, and yet no one acknowledges it either. Falk would say "hey, I brought the boys home for spaghetti" or if the wife is awkwardly introducing herself to people that know her those people would recognize their own uncomfortableness and try to appease her or comment amongst themselves or something, anything, other than just acting weird themselves.
If I was told that this scene was full of people who were all truly insane, then I would believe it. In Cuckoo's Nest it works, here it doesn't.
And if the film was the wife's POV instead of "caught live neutral documentary" then this awkwardness and disconnection would also make sense.
Also, I think its fair to say that none of my comments come anywhere near "I just didn't like it, it sucks" range, so I take exception to that earlier statement.
Food for thought, who said the following:
Quote:
|
I feel it's tremendously satisfying for us to be able to use the cinematic art to achieve something of a mass emotion.
|
And, speaking to a "high art" filmmaker
Quote:
|
And that's what I'd like you to do - a picture that would gross millions of dollars throughout the world! It's an area of film-making in which it's more important for you to be pleased with the technique than with the content. It's the kind of picture in which the camera takes over. Of course, since critics are more concerned with the scenario, it won't necessarily get you the best notices, but you have to design your film just as Shakeseare did his plays - for an audience.
|
The point being that technique is critical; not in a personal sense but in the sense that it crosses content boundries in society and reaches mass audiences in an emotional way.
Many "high art" types go exactly the opposite direction, they use the technique to limit their audience, to so personalize the film that the reactions from most audiences is pure confusion, even if the story itself makes sense.
Anyway, the director that I quoted was
