Saw A Canterbury Tale, a Powell and Pressburger propaganda film set in WW2 England. It follows two soldiers and a female home-front conscript who are stuck in Kent but who each need to get to Canterbury. While in Kent, they learn about local history and reveal their own pasts to each other and to the colorful townsfolk. To keep them in Kent, the film throws a mad glue-thrower in their way, a mysterious figure who sneaks around at night throwing glue in women's hair. I believe the vague filthiness of this nocturnal emission is in keeping with the original bawdy spirit of the Canterbury Tales, and this makes me happy.
I claim the film is a propaganda film, although they never get very pointed about the evil Germans or the terrible cost of protecting the country. They do however talk at some great length about the grand history of Britain and show, in the closing moments of the film, the pitiful results of the blitz in Canterbury. It's very effective stuff. Very frequently the film has the glorious past and the violent present day collide. The opening shot of the film is of a medieval lord releasing a falcon into the air. Mid-air it transforms into a bomber plane and, bam, we're in modern times.
Half of the film is concerned with solving the mystery of the glue attacks however and I was fairly confused about how this connected to pilgrimages or Chaucer. It's never explained in a very concrete way which I thought was very cool. The film plays its symbolism quite heavy most of the time. It's established that each of the protagonists want to get to Canterbury and one of them remarks "why we're pilgrims in our own way too!" Well duh. That the final connection to the glue attacks is left slightly mysterious is confusing and interesting. There's a subtle, complicated connection but it's not played up for once. Very interesting film.
Jul 30, 2017
Jul 29, 2017
Cool Runnings
Saw Cool Runnings, the up-beat and winning Disney film about a Jamaican Olympic bobsled team. I understand this film is fairly beloved and it's not hard to see why. It's very sweet, very kind. No characters are truly evil except perhaps for the racist Olympics officials, but they're not really in the film. There's also a group of rival bobsledders but their insults aren't so much about race as experience. The film tries to give a sort of universal message about being different and embracing your own difference which is broader than race. There are a few mentions of race but they feel sort of tacked on, in the shadow of the protagonists' various personal struggles. I feel this is not a white-wash however since in real life apparently the actual JAmaican bobsled team was welcomed by the other sled teams.
Speaking of racism, the film contains a fair amount of benign racism (I'm not sure that's the right term.) The film portrays Jamaica as a land of sunny, smiling people who are perpetually wryly smiling and knowingly laughing. It is impossible to imagine murder, for instance, in this land of happiness. The protagonists all behave more like ebullient children. They approach bobsledding with ramshackle whimsy and wander around the Olympic village with wide-eyed wonder. They are the heros of the picture and I felt affection for them, but it's the children in the audience who are meant to identify with them, not the adults.
Anyway, like I say, this is a sweet film. I genuinely rooted for the protagonists, even as I was aware of the sudden tonal shifts that indicated that here, now, was the Big Competition or the Big Moment That Changed This Character's Life Forever. It's a children's film and as such is kind of obvious at parts, but it's pieces are well-made and well put together. It's a good emotion-manipulating engine. It works well.
Speaking of racism, the film contains a fair amount of benign racism (I'm not sure that's the right term.) The film portrays Jamaica as a land of sunny, smiling people who are perpetually wryly smiling and knowingly laughing. It is impossible to imagine murder, for instance, in this land of happiness. The protagonists all behave more like ebullient children. They approach bobsledding with ramshackle whimsy and wander around the Olympic village with wide-eyed wonder. They are the heros of the picture and I felt affection for them, but it's the children in the audience who are meant to identify with them, not the adults.
Anyway, like I say, this is a sweet film. I genuinely rooted for the protagonists, even as I was aware of the sudden tonal shifts that indicated that here, now, was the Big Competition or the Big Moment That Changed This Character's Life Forever. It's a children's film and as such is kind of obvious at parts, but it's pieces are well-made and well put together. It's a good emotion-manipulating engine. It works well.
Jul 22, 2017
Easy A
Saw Easy A, a fairly silly re-imagining of The Scarlet Letter in a high school setting. In this film, the protagonist tells a lie about hooking up with a College Boy to explain why she blew off her friend's camping trip. This small lie balloons into an elaborate network of lies and soon the whole school thinks she's like, such a slut. The film is snappily written and the protagonist keeps ducking her head down and letting off these quiet, clever references so you feel like you're her cool sophisticated friend, chuckling along with her, for being aware of Sylvia Plath and so on. It's winning and cute.
The film has many references to John Hughes films and it's trying hard to match the same easy, cleverness of those films but without the sincerity that John Hughes sometimes brings. However without this strong element of sincerity, the film sort of becomes a snark-fest. I find it hard to re-insert myself into the high school mindset (where hookups and who's secretly pining for who is so important) when the characters are talking and interacting like 40 year old adults. Also, after an indignant wardrobe change, dressing like adults.
I thought the film was pleasant. It's queasily awkward at parts but only during a few wildly self-affirming scenes (but those always make me uncomfortable.) It also has a fairly on-the-nose message about rumors and social ostracization which is nice but, of course, sort of un-subtle. The protagonist's actions and choices are interesting. The film tries to give her a happy ending but of course the real end of highschool rumors are when you go to college and start life over (and then again, later, when you get a job) not by one spectacular song and dance followed by a heartfelt confession. I suppose the film didn't want to stretch out to college though.
A cute little film.
The film has many references to John Hughes films and it's trying hard to match the same easy, cleverness of those films but without the sincerity that John Hughes sometimes brings. However without this strong element of sincerity, the film sort of becomes a snark-fest. I find it hard to re-insert myself into the high school mindset (where hookups and who's secretly pining for who is so important) when the characters are talking and interacting like 40 year old adults. Also, after an indignant wardrobe change, dressing like adults.
I thought the film was pleasant. It's queasily awkward at parts but only during a few wildly self-affirming scenes (but those always make me uncomfortable.) It also has a fairly on-the-nose message about rumors and social ostracization which is nice but, of course, sort of un-subtle. The protagonist's actions and choices are interesting. The film tries to give her a happy ending but of course the real end of highschool rumors are when you go to college and start life over (and then again, later, when you get a job) not by one spectacular song and dance followed by a heartfelt confession. I suppose the film didn't want to stretch out to college though.
A cute little film.
Jul 16, 2017
My Scientology Movie
Saw My Scientology Movie, a Louis Theroux documentary about the notoriously bizarre and secretive Church of Scientology. He of course doesn't get any church members to relax their guard around media personalities, but he does have prominent ex-member Marty Rathbun to help him out and, funnily enough, the documentary becomes much more revealing about Marty than it is about Scientology. Scientology has been covered before by many people. South Park did an episode about their sci-fi-tinged creation myth, and many news crews have done filler pieces about the it. Like those, this one also has the requisite (but endlessly entertaining) shouty Scientologist-baiting, the examination of the razor-wire ringing their compound.
But Marty remains the most interesting part of the film for me. At one point Louis ironically calls him a "disgruntled apostate", over-enunciating the words for maximum humor, but Marty turns sour "Why would you call me what the church calls me?" and "I'm not disgruntled. I don't even care." This sudden, unexpected churlishness suggests that he hasn't really moved on. It (and other, later scenes) suggests he's still fighting against the church not purely out of altruism, but out of some sense of shame or embarrassment.
Don't get me wrong, I completely approve of Marty's actions. The church of Scientology is very very very creepy. I'm just intrigued by Marty's guarded demeanor and motives. I don't think he's being sinister, it's just hard for him to open up about his feelings. At one point he lashes out at Louis, asking why he asks the same questions over and over. Is he looking for inconsistencies? Marty is an embattled guy with a dark history inside the church. He's a very interesting subject. The Scientology stuff is interesting too, especially the stuff on the character of the current pontifex, David Miscavige. He would be a yet more fascinating subject but, alas, he has enough money and power to avoid cameras for now.
But Marty remains the most interesting part of the film for me. At one point Louis ironically calls him a "disgruntled apostate", over-enunciating the words for maximum humor, but Marty turns sour "Why would you call me what the church calls me?" and "I'm not disgruntled. I don't even care." This sudden, unexpected churlishness suggests that he hasn't really moved on. It (and other, later scenes) suggests he's still fighting against the church not purely out of altruism, but out of some sense of shame or embarrassment.
Don't get me wrong, I completely approve of Marty's actions. The church of Scientology is very very very creepy. I'm just intrigued by Marty's guarded demeanor and motives. I don't think he's being sinister, it's just hard for him to open up about his feelings. At one point he lashes out at Louis, asking why he asks the same questions over and over. Is he looking for inconsistencies? Marty is an embattled guy with a dark history inside the church. He's a very interesting subject. The Scientology stuff is interesting too, especially the stuff on the character of the current pontifex, David Miscavige. He would be a yet more fascinating subject but, alas, he has enough money and power to avoid cameras for now.
Local Hero
Saw Local Hero, a genial sort of early 80s comedy about a slick, big-city, oil businessman who must travel to a small Scottish village to seal the deal. Obviously, he'll become beguiled by the simple humility of these simple fisher-folk and learn that there's more to life than oil and money. I could see this coming after about ten minutes of the film, and indeed, the film doesn't have a lot in it that's shocking or surprising. However, it's still not bad. There's comedy but very little of it is in a setup/punchline format. There's not gags so much as wry observations and cute, humorous situations.
The film is also unexpectedly pretty. I was anticipating some lantern-lit scene of dancing accompanied by the mandatory accordion and fiddle to act as shorthand for the warmth of the fisher village. There is that, but there's also Brian Eno-esque synthesizer music playing while the protagonist marvels at the northern lights. Also, I was gratified to see it's not a day and night beguiling, but a subtle and believable change. There's also some excellent and hilarious business involving the protagonist's boss, back in the home office, being bedevilled by a new-age psychologist.
I wouldn't say that this film is one of my favorites by any means, but it's very wholesome and friendly. It's the sort of film you'd be able to watch with your parents. It's not particularly surprising or revelatory. It has a few moments of interesting camera work but for the most part it's one of those fine, friendly films which are either fondly forgotten or become family favorites.
The film is also unexpectedly pretty. I was anticipating some lantern-lit scene of dancing accompanied by the mandatory accordion and fiddle to act as shorthand for the warmth of the fisher village. There is that, but there's also Brian Eno-esque synthesizer music playing while the protagonist marvels at the northern lights. Also, I was gratified to see it's not a day and night beguiling, but a subtle and believable change. There's also some excellent and hilarious business involving the protagonist's boss, back in the home office, being bedevilled by a new-age psychologist.
I wouldn't say that this film is one of my favorites by any means, but it's very wholesome and friendly. It's the sort of film you'd be able to watch with your parents. It's not particularly surprising or revelatory. It has a few moments of interesting camera work but for the most part it's one of those fine, friendly films which are either fondly forgotten or become family favorites.
Jul 9, 2017
Rat Race
Saw Rat Race, an ensemble comedy in the vein of Cannonball Run or It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. The idea here is that eccentric gamblers set a prize of two million dollars for the first person to get to a certain city and bet on the outcome of the race. The film is completely sketch-based. One minute we're seeing Rowan Atkinson clown around with Newman, then we're off to see Cuba Gooding Jr interact with a busload of Lucile Ball impersonators. It's mostly a dumb good time.
The film was mostly forgettable. Only a very few of the scenes made me smile at all. The gamblers finding ever-more bizarre things to bet on was usually good. I also enjoyed the Lucies. Seth Green gets into some whimsical hijinks involving a hot air balloon and cows. That was pretty awful. Also John Lovitz (whom I adore) has a fairly tedious and well-telegraphed run-in with WW2 veterans (while he's dressed as Hitler (of course.))
It's completely brainless and kind of gross. I enjoyed the film more or less but it's not without some obvious flaws. A lot of the characters are not given any characterization at all beyond a costume and the skits are sometimes fairly dire, relying on frantic oompah music to carry the scene. Worst of all though, and what makes this film almost unwatchable to modern audiences, is the early 2000s feel-good "comedy" music which is prominently featured. Yes, both Who Let the Dogs Out and Smash Mouth's All Star make appearances. Both. These songs have become such cliches that they'd need to be used ironically nowadays, but they're used sincerely here, the cast bobbing along to the music and smiling as the closing credits roll. It's so guileless.
So, not a very good movie. I enjoyed it more or less, but I think it's best used as an object of scorn now, fit for drunken parties and snide commentary. Ah well, that's fun too.
The film was mostly forgettable. Only a very few of the scenes made me smile at all. The gamblers finding ever-more bizarre things to bet on was usually good. I also enjoyed the Lucies. Seth Green gets into some whimsical hijinks involving a hot air balloon and cows. That was pretty awful. Also John Lovitz (whom I adore) has a fairly tedious and well-telegraphed run-in with WW2 veterans (while he's dressed as Hitler (of course.))
It's completely brainless and kind of gross. I enjoyed the film more or less but it's not without some obvious flaws. A lot of the characters are not given any characterization at all beyond a costume and the skits are sometimes fairly dire, relying on frantic oompah music to carry the scene. Worst of all though, and what makes this film almost unwatchable to modern audiences, is the early 2000s feel-good "comedy" music which is prominently featured. Yes, both Who Let the Dogs Out and Smash Mouth's All Star make appearances. Both. These songs have become such cliches that they'd need to be used ironically nowadays, but they're used sincerely here, the cast bobbing along to the music and smiling as the closing credits roll. It's so guileless.
So, not a very good movie. I enjoyed it more or less, but I think it's best used as an object of scorn now, fit for drunken parties and snide commentary. Ah well, that's fun too.
Escape Plan
Saw Escape Plan (Thanks John!) It was a fairly silly prison break film staring Sylvester Stallone as an escape-artist who gets incarcerated in various prisons and then pulls of elaborate escapes to show their security holes. One day he's sent to some kind of crypto-Guantanamo which is, like, the most secure prison ever. The inmates are kept in clear plastic cubes arranged in hexagonal patterns. The whole thing is ludicrous. Anyway he teams up with Arnold Schwarzenegger to bust out of this fortress.
On the outside, there's a cool blonde woman who is maybe Sylvester's girlfriend, maybe his ex? The film is kinda hazy on that point, but there's also a black tech-guy who they refer to as a "techno-thug" which seems a little demeaning. This techno-thug apparently spends his time assembling cubes out of little cubes on his computer. The ways of tech-thuggery are indeed mysterious. Unfortunately, we don't see very much of these two, focusing instead on Sylvester in prison.
The film is definitely not my cup of tea, but it's not outright terrible. There's many hilariously stupid Rube Goldberg machines constructed to help them escape, and more formalized macho pasturing than a wrestling contest but at least it was sort of coherent and well-shot. The antagonist is this interestingly dainty bureaucrat type who fidgets with his tie and collects butterflies. I liked the idea of a non-threatening book-keeper being the CEO of the prison colony, but instead we get him swanning about like Severus Snape, only with a higher-pitched voice. They pair him up with British heavy Vinnie Jones, but even so, they don't seem Guantanamo-level scary.
Speaking of, this is a privately owned prison in the film, holding international terrorists and baddies (who, it should be noted, are indistinguishable from generic prison-dudes in any other film.) It seems odd to me, if this prison is so badass, that they allow them to wander around, that they have a cafeteria. What about the black hoods and stress positions? There's some water-boarding I think, but I feel like this prison could have been way more dehumanizing. Then again, Sylvester may not have been able to get out of that situation, so I guess we have to swallow this.
Not a terrible film, but not a very good one.
On the outside, there's a cool blonde woman who is maybe Sylvester's girlfriend, maybe his ex? The film is kinda hazy on that point, but there's also a black tech-guy who they refer to as a "techno-thug" which seems a little demeaning. This techno-thug apparently spends his time assembling cubes out of little cubes on his computer. The ways of tech-thuggery are indeed mysterious. Unfortunately, we don't see very much of these two, focusing instead on Sylvester in prison.
The film is definitely not my cup of tea, but it's not outright terrible. There's many hilariously stupid Rube Goldberg machines constructed to help them escape, and more formalized macho pasturing than a wrestling contest but at least it was sort of coherent and well-shot. The antagonist is this interestingly dainty bureaucrat type who fidgets with his tie and collects butterflies. I liked the idea of a non-threatening book-keeper being the CEO of the prison colony, but instead we get him swanning about like Severus Snape, only with a higher-pitched voice. They pair him up with British heavy Vinnie Jones, but even so, they don't seem Guantanamo-level scary.
Speaking of, this is a privately owned prison in the film, holding international terrorists and baddies (who, it should be noted, are indistinguishable from generic prison-dudes in any other film.) It seems odd to me, if this prison is so badass, that they allow them to wander around, that they have a cafeteria. What about the black hoods and stress positions? There's some water-boarding I think, but I feel like this prison could have been way more dehumanizing. Then again, Sylvester may not have been able to get out of that situation, so I guess we have to swallow this.
Not a terrible film, but not a very good one.
Jul 8, 2017
Brewster McCloud
Saw Brewster McCloud, a film by Robert Altman. This film was a very self-consciously and purposefully strange film. The film opens with the MGM lion roaring in silence while a narrator mumbles "I forgot the opening line..." We then see a weirdo in a fright-wig lecture us about birds. The story (once it gets going) is about a series of murders that have hit the town. Each time someone is murdered, they're found covered in bird shit. The title character, Brewster, is trying to build a flying machine and is aided by a mysterious woman who has giant scars on her shoulder-blades exactly like an angel whose wings had been cut off. There's also a girl who masturbates while Brewster does chin-ups and a cop from the east coast who is dispatched.
This is a comedy, essentially. It's got the spacey, slightly dry Altman feel to it however. There are no setup/punchline gags as such, but it's absurd and silly. There's also themes throughout (birds particularly) which might cause some to mistake the comedy for some deep message. I think these themes are meant to be more evocative and teasing, not so much a repeated lesson as a running gag. It's a mostly silly film.
Birds haunt this film and their capacity for flight is envied, but they're not depicted as angelic creatures, pure and noble, but as angry, almost contemptuous, shitting animals, flying above us. It's not so much that the birds are enviable as that humans are so repulsive. It's an interesting twist on the trope of the idealistic dreamer. Brewster seems pure and untouchable but we sympathize with his quest for flight because of how stupid and ugly the humans are.
It's a fun movie overall however. Ugliness and stupidity are good sources for humor and although this film won't make anyone (I think) guffaw with laughter, it made me smile. And that's worth something.
This is a comedy, essentially. It's got the spacey, slightly dry Altman feel to it however. There are no setup/punchline gags as such, but it's absurd and silly. There's also themes throughout (birds particularly) which might cause some to mistake the comedy for some deep message. I think these themes are meant to be more evocative and teasing, not so much a repeated lesson as a running gag. It's a mostly silly film.
Birds haunt this film and their capacity for flight is envied, but they're not depicted as angelic creatures, pure and noble, but as angry, almost contemptuous, shitting animals, flying above us. It's not so much that the birds are enviable as that humans are so repulsive. It's an interesting twist on the trope of the idealistic dreamer. Brewster seems pure and untouchable but we sympathize with his quest for flight because of how stupid and ugly the humans are.
It's a fun movie overall however. Ugliness and stupidity are good sources for humor and although this film won't make anyone (I think) guffaw with laughter, it made me smile. And that's worth something.
Jul 4, 2017
Religulous
Saw Religulous, Bill Maher's anti-religious documentary. Bill lays out what I take to be his basic thesis in the very beginning of the film: that religion is a generally dangerous force which is allowing us to ignore current problems and thus prolongs these current problems. Okay, interesting idea. Let's see how he defends it. First we are treated t some early Maher stand up, then Maher talks his mother for a while, then we head to the Trucker's Ministry where Bill shouts at a bunch of truckers that they believe a bunch of nonsense. It slowly becomes clear that Bill is not looking to convince or convert anyone to his point of view, but is trying to give words and arguments and images to people who already agree with him.
The film is entertaining however. Bill is a funny guy and has a vast collection of hokey old bible story cartoons to draw from. He interviews fascinating weirdos and gets a few priests and scientists to talk to (although, admittedly, it's sometimes Bill that does the majority of the talking.) He also engages in some fourth-wall breaking jokes. At one point an Imam interrupts an interview to respond to a text. On-screen cations tell us his response is "Kill Maher lol :)" Clearly it's not, but now can I trust any of his captions? Soon after this, a pair of guys speaking another language insult Bill as a comedian or so the captions tell us. If imdb is to be trusted, they are actually filmed saying small snippets of conversation ("our boss gave us five minutes" for instance.) The interviews are also heavily edited, flipping to a new angle sometimes as the interviewee just responds "yes" or "no." I don't know of course that any creative editing took place, but it looks bad Bill and your hilarious caption-games don't help your credibility.
He also sometimes picks on some pretty pathetic worshipers. He goes to a biblical-themed park and asks theological questions of the guy who plays Jesus in the passion play, expecting some religious actor to be able to instantly defend his own beliefs. After this he hangs around the gift shop posing theological paradoxes to the park patrons. Earlier in the film he asks some soft-spoken guy to defend his belief in miracles. The guy gives an example of a neat coincidence which he thinks of as a miracle and Bill just roars with laughter, doubling up and stomping his feet. This is kind of shitty behavior. I'm sure Bill believes that the multiplication rules that he was taught work correctly, but can he explain to me why they work correctly? He might be able to puzzle it out on his feet or he could just look it up, of course, but so could actor-Jesus or the park patrons look up the official answers to his theological problems.
The film is entertaining. It's very preachy and aggressive however and is not actually interested in the answers to the questions it puts forth so much as it is interested in arguing for or against various political agendas. Some of the targets I have some sympathy for but others are televangelists and ex-gay ministers and other gross people. It's a fun film and its stances I generally agree with (religious institutions are mostly corrupt. Religious extremism is of course an evil) but I get the feeling that I'm not learning anything as I watch it. It's just sort of bias-confirming.
The film is entertaining however. Bill is a funny guy and has a vast collection of hokey old bible story cartoons to draw from. He interviews fascinating weirdos and gets a few priests and scientists to talk to (although, admittedly, it's sometimes Bill that does the majority of the talking.) He also engages in some fourth-wall breaking jokes. At one point an Imam interrupts an interview to respond to a text. On-screen cations tell us his response is "Kill Maher lol :)" Clearly it's not, but now can I trust any of his captions? Soon after this, a pair of guys speaking another language insult Bill as a comedian or so the captions tell us. If imdb is to be trusted, they are actually filmed saying small snippets of conversation ("our boss gave us five minutes" for instance.) The interviews are also heavily edited, flipping to a new angle sometimes as the interviewee just responds "yes" or "no." I don't know of course that any creative editing took place, but it looks bad Bill and your hilarious caption-games don't help your credibility.
He also sometimes picks on some pretty pathetic worshipers. He goes to a biblical-themed park and asks theological questions of the guy who plays Jesus in the passion play, expecting some religious actor to be able to instantly defend his own beliefs. After this he hangs around the gift shop posing theological paradoxes to the park patrons. Earlier in the film he asks some soft-spoken guy to defend his belief in miracles. The guy gives an example of a neat coincidence which he thinks of as a miracle and Bill just roars with laughter, doubling up and stomping his feet. This is kind of shitty behavior. I'm sure Bill believes that the multiplication rules that he was taught work correctly, but can he explain to me why they work correctly? He might be able to puzzle it out on his feet or he could just look it up, of course, but so could actor-Jesus or the park patrons look up the official answers to his theological problems.
The film is entertaining. It's very preachy and aggressive however and is not actually interested in the answers to the questions it puts forth so much as it is interested in arguing for or against various political agendas. Some of the targets I have some sympathy for but others are televangelists and ex-gay ministers and other gross people. It's a fun film and its stances I generally agree with (religious institutions are mostly corrupt. Religious extremism is of course an evil) but I get the feeling that I'm not learning anything as I watch it. It's just sort of bias-confirming.
Jul 1, 2017
Easy Rider
Saw Easy Rider, a difficult film that I feel encapsulates the spirit of 1969 (I didn't live through this era of course, so I have no real idea of what I'm talking about but anyway) The plot follows these two guys as they travel across the country from LA to New Orleans, trying to get to Mardi Gras. They are nomadic, cowboy-like, sleeping outdoors and always on the go. Along the way, they see various sedentary life styles, but this is not for them. They drive through a hippie commune which is idyllic in an outdoorsy, kindergarten-ish kind of way. They also drive through a Louisiana town populated only by giggling girls and fat scowling men. At one point a character explains that what people don't like about them is that they are too free (obviously) but is this "freedom" a quest for self-fulfillment? Or is it just empty hedonism?
The two protagonists seem to embody these two approaches to "freedom." One is stoic and introverted, enjoying the austere but relaxed atmosphere of the commune. The other is carefree and ebullient but recognises the extreme responsibility that the commune represents. He wants to get on to the exciting chaos of Mardi Gras. But the film is sly: at the very beginning there's a farm that they admire. Could it be that this respectable simplicity is what they're after but that they are also, ironically, speeding away from?
I found this dilemma to be a bit tiresome. I am one of those bought and sold people that they talk about so derisively. I feel that if I were brave (or perhaps stupid) enough, I would spend most of my time playing games, watching movies, and maybe reading but then how would I pay rent? Anyway this feels kind of vegetable to me. I feel if I'm not goaded to it, I won't achieve anything. However this is not a tragedy perhaps.
In addition to the preoccupations of the story, the film has a very interesting visual style. Scene transitions are done by flicking back and forth for a few cuts before proceeding with the new scene. The colors are also very strange (or the Nevada desert really does just look like that) There's also a sequence near the end that's very neat. Also the soundtrack is great. An interesting film in general. I thought I wouldn't like it but I did more or less. Not my favorite film but it deserves the praise it gets.
The two protagonists seem to embody these two approaches to "freedom." One is stoic and introverted, enjoying the austere but relaxed atmosphere of the commune. The other is carefree and ebullient but recognises the extreme responsibility that the commune represents. He wants to get on to the exciting chaos of Mardi Gras. But the film is sly: at the very beginning there's a farm that they admire. Could it be that this respectable simplicity is what they're after but that they are also, ironically, speeding away from?
I found this dilemma to be a bit tiresome. I am one of those bought and sold people that they talk about so derisively. I feel that if I were brave (or perhaps stupid) enough, I would spend most of my time playing games, watching movies, and maybe reading but then how would I pay rent? Anyway this feels kind of vegetable to me. I feel if I'm not goaded to it, I won't achieve anything. However this is not a tragedy perhaps.
In addition to the preoccupations of the story, the film has a very interesting visual style. Scene transitions are done by flicking back and forth for a few cuts before proceeding with the new scene. The colors are also very strange (or the Nevada desert really does just look like that) There's also a sequence near the end that's very neat. Also the soundtrack is great. An interesting film in general. I thought I wouldn't like it but I did more or less. Not my favorite film but it deserves the praise it gets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)