I think the most impressive long take with complex staging that I saw, in recent memory, was the opening shot in Hou Hsiao-hsien's Flowers of Shanghai, with all the men sitting at the table playing drinking games and the flower girls behind them. Did you know that one of those girls is a Category III actress in Hong Kong, though I can't remember which one?
BTW, I tried to email yun-fat to encourage him to sign up, but my email has been rejected by the mail distributor. Has anyone been in contact with him lately, other than on the NYT site?
I like long, complicated takes with complex choreography, such as the 8 minute take in The Royal Tennenbaums; Donnie Darko, in perhaps the most stylistically ambitious moment, features a long, I believe steadicam shot, from the interior hallway of Donnie's private school to the outside (there may be a cut hidden in the transition from inside to outside) that features almost all of the characters central to the movie. What makes this shot even more interesting, is that Kelly changes the film-speed throughout the sequence (for example, it goes fast to normal, to fast again, and so on); joker is this done in camera during the shooting, or is it done in post-production? I'd imagine that if it is done during the shooting, it makes choreographing the action that much more difficult, making the shot even more impressive.
To continue the Donnie Darko discussion, the complexity of the characters is one of the best things about the film, and it was too this fact that I was alluding to when I referred to Donnie Darko as the suburban film that Todd Solondz wishes he could make on the NYT Forums. It takes the familiar tropes of suburban satires, the conformity, the repression, and the hypocrisy, and examines them through complex characters, unlike, for example Storytelling or Happiness, which resorts to one dimensional caricatures. Even the two pointed targets of Kelly's satire, the judgemental and repressed gym teacher, and Patrick Swayze's well tanned, stylishly dressed, and perfectly coifed New Age guru are not really caricatures (only the cocaine-snorting, mullet haired bully could be fairly called one dimensional), especially since we are privy to not only the effects on Donnie and the other high school children (I just want to point out the two terrific scenes between Donnie and Gretchen, when she seeks solace from her troubles in intimacy with Donnie; that hunger and need for simple human contact and love is symptomatic of the problems of suburban existence), but also the psychic costs wrought by their own repression.
Patrick Swayze's character is an interesting character, and I took him to be a symbolization of a certain US President from the 1980s. I thought the character was genuinely genial and earnest; he actually thinks he is helping people, including himself, but all he is doing is spewing empty rhetoric and pigeonholing complex experiences into "Love" and "Fear." But all his posturing doesn't help the central sickness of his soul, it just covers it up with all style and no substance. And no, I am not suggesting that Ronald Reagan was a child pornographer, though he too has skeletons in his closet (played a pretty good drunk in Dark Victory).
The shrill gym teacher acolyte reminds me of so many Republicans who probably couldn't operate if they did not have Reagan, or his people around to think for them. This character is the closet to a cartoon, but when Swayze's arrest, her whole world becomes unglued. The acting of the actress was very effective, IMO, what could have been a simple comeuppance, is transformed into an almost disturbing display of denial, repression, and confusion. She is pathetic, but she gained a measure of my sympathy.
Scarlett Street Spoilers was brilliant, I didn't think that another of Lang's American films could top The Big Heat ( Ministry of Fear came closest prior to Scarlett Street), especially given the constraints upon the story imposed by the Production Code; it is certainly a much, much darker film, following the downward spiral of the central character, fueled by sexual obsession and guilt (and it skips the "it's all a dream" ending of the similar Lang film The Women in the Window). But in my opinion, that fueled Lang's creativity, as well as providing one of the few moments where the cliched double bed was appropriate for the situation, given the utterly loveless marriage between Chris Cross (Edward G. Robinson) and his "wife" Adele. Kitty (Joan Bennett) is clearly a masochist and tramp, who likes to be pushed around by her boyfriend Johnnie (Dan Duryea); the suggestive scene where Kathy had Chris paint her toenails is a not so subtle allusion to their sexual relationship (I personally got the impression that Chris was in some ways sexually dysfunctional, or atleast in the grips of socially arrested development). A compendium of my favorite moments and touches:
*Chris's first glimpse of Kitty being pushed and slapped around by Johnnie. Chris hesitates for a beat before rushing up and knocking Johnnie down in a quick flurry of shots.
*Chris's domestic scenes with his wife, Adele. The emasculating relationship emphasized by not only a constantly nagging and belittling wife, but by having to wear that ridiculous apron. Lang draws our attention to a massive, and sharp, knife in several scenes; but Chris never kills his wife, even though I wanted him too.
*The two scenes where Chris steals from work. The first time, Chris puts the money back; the second time, at the behest of Kitty, he takes a $1000, but is almost caught by his boss. Very tense and effectively acted by Robinson, as the fear and guilt cross his face.
*The scene where Chris discovers that Kitty and Johnnie are having an affair (something only a love blinded idiot could miss). Chris steps into the Greenwich Village studio apartment he rents; from the shadows of the veranda he peers into the room. The record player gets stuck on the word "Love, Love, Love, Love...." until Johnnie comes out of the bedroom to fix it.
*When Chris murders Kitty in a fit of rage; you can really see the snap across Robinson's face. The murder is particularly brutal, especially for a 1940s film; Kitty attempts to shield herself with a comforter, as Chris savagely stabs her repeatedly with an ice pick.
*The trial sequence is a brilliant example of economy. Johnnie is put on trial for the murder. Lang shows the entire trial in a montage of similar shots. Each witness sits on the witness chair, in a medium shot, and delivers a piece of damning evidence. Then cut to the next witness. The camera lingers a little longer on Chris, as he frames Johnnie and denies he is the source of the paintings that are crucial to the plot of the film.
*The execution may be cliched now, but it is still effective. All in one shot, Johnnie is in his cell with the priest, he is led out by the guard, the camera tracks along with him, and stops as Johnnie goes down the hall to the Electric Chair. The door to the execution is open and Johnnie maintains his innocence. Then the door closes. The camera lingers, before cutting to a flashing neon sign, which is outside of Chris's bedroom.
*The scene of Chris's breakdown from guilt. Having left his wife and having been fired from his job, Chris lives in a sleezy tenament hotel. As the neon sign flashes on and off outside, Chris begins to hear the disembodied voices of Kitty and Johnnie teasing him, taunting him, and accusing him. Edward G. Robinson is propelled into an insane frenzy. Finally he attempts to hang himself, but is rescued at the last minute by some neighbors (couldn't kill himself, against the Production Code). I think this is one of the most expressive displays of guilt that I have seen, atleast since the ending of Mulholland Dr. (shut up joker!)
*The final scene, five years later, Chris is now a bum who tries to turn himself in. Rustled out of the park by the police, he goes past the gallery where one of his pictures, a portrait of Kitty, has been sold for $50,000. Chris continues to walk, anonymously down the busy street. There is a dissolve. Chris is now all alone on the street.
Well, my nickname seems to be working now. Well I am off to see Fritz Lang's Scarlett Street, his "remake" of Renoir's La Chienne, a movie I have wanted to see ever since I watched Lang's Women in the Window, also starring Edward G. Robinson and Joan Bennett. Then I am off to see the Poster Children (for like the fifth or sixth time) and have a few 46oz beer at a free show at the UW Memorial Union (one of the few student unions in the country that sells beer, and lots of it; On Wisconsin!). Talk to you guys later.
Hey, where is everyone now? Well, I would like to start a discussion about the film Donnie Darko Spoilers, which apparently, only joker and I have seen. I personally think it was one of the best films of 2002, and surely one of the best debut feature films from an American director, Richard Kelly. The film is filled with dazzling technique and great acting, is funny, dark, intelligent, and touching (especially the interaction between Jake Gyllenhaal and Jena Malone, as well as one of the most realistic depctions of a suburban family; Donnie's conservative, Republican dad, normally a target in suburban satires, still seems to be a great father and a great guy, and his reactions to Donnie's questioning of his gym teacher and the New Age guru is hilarious). It also has perhaps one of the best soundtracks, filled with 1980s alternative music (when that actually meant something), starting with an Echo and the Bunnyman song (very ironic given the presence of Frank, but I forget the title, I think it was the "Killing Moon"), and reaching what I thought was a really effective use of the Joy Division song "Love Will Tear Us Apart" during the party sequence as Donnie and Gretchen comfort each other (a little bit of foreshadowing). I will have to watch it again, principally for two reasons, the theater where I saw it doesn't have the best sound system, and consequentially I could not always here the dialogue, and, more importantly, I would like to rexamine the ending of the film. Though the film is extremely ambitious, I'm not sure that it all hangs together thematically, and I am more than a little confused by what is going on in the end, as time seems to fold back upon itself.
Perhaps the apocalypse that Frank speaks of it a personal apocalypse; by sacrificing himself, Donnie saves his family and Gretchen?
Joker any comments, I just want to start a serious dialogue that won't get lost in the chatter.
I'm here, too. Nothing really to say as of yet, though. Seeing The Devil's Backbone and Waking Life on Thursday and have Une liaison pornographique (I'm refusing to use the English translation because the French sounds so much cooler), Sexy Beast and Cleo From 5 to 7 rented, so I'll probably be doing a whole lot of posting here during the next couple of days.
I'll save anything non-germane I have to say for the NYTimes forums.
Ok, I figured out the security system on my web browser at work, so I was finally able to get access. So we are the elite members of the NYT Movie Forum? You guys do realize now that xerxes's paranoia is now true, we are a clique of elitists (but I ain't no poseur), HA! HA! HA! Actually, this is a pretty good idea, I've toyed with it before, but I don't have the technical skills or computer savvy to pull it off. Plus I miss allyn and wardpet; the forum has been going down hill for a quite awhile now, but it has picked up a bit since Joker came back. Oh, finally a film discussion without having to slog through the posts of that jackass marnie, or oilcan, or xerxes, or balmung, or coni... Actually, who did you guys invite?
If I known you guys had started this, I would have actually watched a film so I would have something new to discuss. Even though this is a film-related discussion, I think it would be best to encompass a multi-media approach to visual images.
BTW, mcbain, Cure was moved to 12am on Friday, so that gives us like 45 minutes between Home Movie and Cure.
|
