Saw The Host (the Korean 2006 film, not the 2013 Stephanie Meyer film) It was a godzilla-style film about a river-monster born from unnamed but dusty chemicals poured down the drain on the orders of a prim British dude. The film is an adventure/comedy and therefore the main protagonist is a dunken goofball who is usually sleeping. His daughter is stolen by the river monster and as the film progresses, the comedy gets dialed down as the hunt for the adorable daughter ramps up. Various, similarly flawed, characters are introduced and each gets their moment of redemption. There's some hilarious early scenes where you think a redemption is just about to happen, only for it to fall completely flat. Also, there's the Korean super-melodrama which I'm beginning to enjoy and laugh at. I imagine it would spoil a more straight-faced film, but this is kind of a goofball anyway, so hey, what's it matter if the film busts out the violins and slow-motion at the drop of a hat?
Much more interesting to me was the role of Americans in this film. Early on, when the daughter is being stolen, a blonde american dude (who turns out, of course, to be a Private in the military) leaps into action, fighting the monster much more effectively than the bumbling protagonist until he's devoured. Later, the American officials claim the monster is spreading a virus. Bird flu and SARS get name-dropped. The Americans suggest the deployment of the experimental and apocalyptic Agent Yellow. The Americans are almost as much of an antagonist as the monster is. This is not particularly unusual, mind you, but this film seems particularly angry to me. Interesting.
So not a bad film, but not really great either. The protest scenes at the end had some interesting things going on and the anti-American stuff was interesting to see, but the main thrust of the film is standard action-adventure.
Jun 28, 2015
Jun 27, 2015
The Tree of Wooden Clogs
Saw The Tree of Wooden Clogs, an Italian film about a farming community. It feels at first like a James Harriot book come to life. The farmers are adorable and cute, singing psalms and knowingly chuckling at the young couple which is starting to form. We are rescued from complete cloying cuteness by an early-film goose chase which ends with the goose being caught and abruptly beheaded. So, this is a more warts-and-all depiction, though it does lean quite heavily on the bucolic side. There's a farmer who hates his own son, for example, but their relationship is never allowed to smoulder, it just abruptly explodes every so often. This leaves this leaves things feeling more anarchic and sort of fun and cute, rather than ominous or distressing which it certainly would be in real life.
Around all of this, there are tons of oblique references to a burgeoning socialist movement. There are student demonstrations and a dude at the fair, ranting about social hierarchies. All of these references are made interestingly absurd because of course the poverty-stricken farmers are the hard-working proletariat and they neither understand nor care about social order. What time do they have to fret about injustice when they are one harvest away from starvation? When there are babies being born, sick cows, bad grain? The message of the film is unclear.
But then there is one final act of injustice which the title refers to and which happens just before the film ends. I believe this is the filmmaker tipping his hand and arguing that it is the duty of we, the leisurely film-goers and wise art-consumers of the world, to defend these noble sons of the soil. Okay.
The film's message is delivered obliquely enough that I need to couch my interpretation in words like "I believe," so it's not heavy-handed at all. It's mostly an engrossing window into the kitchen-sink soap-opera of these people. Will the kid who goes to school ever amount to anything? Will the old man's tomato-growing scheme pay off? Will the cow die? These are the engines of the film. It was slow but interesting I thought.
Around all of this, there are tons of oblique references to a burgeoning socialist movement. There are student demonstrations and a dude at the fair, ranting about social hierarchies. All of these references are made interestingly absurd because of course the poverty-stricken farmers are the hard-working proletariat and they neither understand nor care about social order. What time do they have to fret about injustice when they are one harvest away from starvation? When there are babies being born, sick cows, bad grain? The message of the film is unclear.
But then there is one final act of injustice which the title refers to and which happens just before the film ends. I believe this is the filmmaker tipping his hand and arguing that it is the duty of we, the leisurely film-goers and wise art-consumers of the world, to defend these noble sons of the soil. Okay.
The film's message is delivered obliquely enough that I need to couch my interpretation in words like "I believe," so it's not heavy-handed at all. It's mostly an engrossing window into the kitchen-sink soap-opera of these people. Will the kid who goes to school ever amount to anything? Will the old man's tomato-growing scheme pay off? Will the cow die? These are the engines of the film. It was slow but interesting I thought.
Jun 21, 2015
Touching the Void
Saw Touching the Void, a documentary about a disastrous climb up the face of a mountain. The format is talking-heads interspersed with slightly hokey reenactments. This undercuts the drama a bit because we know everyone survives, but even so it's a ripping story. One of the climbers comes very very close to dying from exposure. He colorfully and evocatively talks about his desperation, how he externalizes his desire to live into a voice near him, commanding him to keep moving. Later still, he reverts to an instinctual, animal state, where only water, only progressing back to camp matters.
The climber relates the mini-disasters at the start of his journey (falling a short distance while climbing, running out of kerosine, etc.) in an understated, grim-faced way. He derides his fear of being left behind as 'childish.' I assumed at first that this was a he-man refusing to admit to allowable weaknesses. As the film progresses however it's clear that he has explored not only the face of a mountain, but also the region between life and death. It is this void to which the title refers.
The film is interesting. It is a bit chilly and although the reenactments do help to break up the monotony of being talked to, they also distract with actors screaming and carrying on. I mean, yes, they're fearing for their lives but the contrast between them and the staid story tellers is too much. (A choice quote from one of the climbers: "I knew I was not going to be able to progress any further. It was at this point that I started to get a bit desperate.") It's not that bad though. The story is gripping enough to warrant these performances so it never becomes campy or anything. The climbers themselves are sometimes a bit intractable (you can almost hear the interviewer off-screen prompting "and how did that make you feel?") but this almost adds to their grim-faced charm. Fun stuff!
The climber relates the mini-disasters at the start of his journey (falling a short distance while climbing, running out of kerosine, etc.) in an understated, grim-faced way. He derides his fear of being left behind as 'childish.' I assumed at first that this was a he-man refusing to admit to allowable weaknesses. As the film progresses however it's clear that he has explored not only the face of a mountain, but also the region between life and death. It is this void to which the title refers.
The film is interesting. It is a bit chilly and although the reenactments do help to break up the monotony of being talked to, they also distract with actors screaming and carrying on. I mean, yes, they're fearing for their lives but the contrast between them and the staid story tellers is too much. (A choice quote from one of the climbers: "I knew I was not going to be able to progress any further. It was at this point that I started to get a bit desperate.") It's not that bad though. The story is gripping enough to warrant these performances so it never becomes campy or anything. The climbers themselves are sometimes a bit intractable (you can almost hear the interviewer off-screen prompting "and how did that make you feel?") but this almost adds to their grim-faced charm. Fun stuff!
Jun 20, 2015
Dracula Dead and Loving It
Saw Dracula Dead and Loving It (thanks, John.) It was a Leslie Nielsen/Mel Brooks double-goof-off spoof of the Francis Ford Coppola version of Dracula, a version which was goofy and fun and wild. It is already what this film tries to be. It has an extremely hard time making fun of something which already being very obviously silly without coming off as mean-spirited or irrelevant. This film rarely feels mean-spirited (I think Leslie Nielsen is sort of incapable of being mean-spirited) but it is often irrelevant. Goofy accents, gross-out gags, old British men giving way to lust, you can imagine. It's not very good.
There were a few bits I liked. There was a silly "Yes! I mean no! But maybe yes!" exchange that I liked and some of the shots near the end come close to imitating Coppola's gaudy cinematography. But most of the film was wacky crap and 90's-era CGI effects. I'd avoid this one.
There were a few bits I liked. There was a silly "Yes! I mean no! But maybe yes!" exchange that I liked and some of the shots near the end come close to imitating Coppola's gaudy cinematography. But most of the film was wacky crap and 90's-era CGI effects. I'd avoid this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)