Spare, sublimely filmed
treatise on race and pioneers;
elan tumbleweed.
C+
Pretty look and sounds;
but lacking in substance, like
setting's soft and melting snow.
C+
Sunday 3 July 2011
Sydney Film Festival
Finally had some time to digest the films from SFF 2011 and have come up with the following (amateur) haikus:
Spare, sublimely filmed
treatise on race and pioneers;
elan tumbleweed.
C+
Spare, sublimely filmed
treatise on race and pioneers;
elan tumbleweed.
C+
Sunday 8 May 2011
Paul
How did everyone like Paul?
I liked it very much, laughed a lot and loved the celebration of the geek but was disappointed that it didn't soar like Hot Fuzz or Shaun of the Dead. My theory? The characters and their relationships just didn't 'mesh' as well as before. Sure they were funny and cared for each other, but I really didn't feel the strong bond between . In fact, probably the strongest (or at least most surprisingly affecting) relationship was actually between Paul and Lorenzo Zoil. Perhaps it was the reveal that Jason had been helping Paul all along added some narrative depth into the story, while all the other characters seemed quite like the usual tropes and easy targets of a parody/spoof.
Secondly, I don't think the sci-fi genre lends itself to the parody/spoof style quite as well as the horror and cop buddy genres of the previous two films. It's easier to zone in on the absurd elements of zombies and cop shoot out scenes, but less easy to point out absurdities within a genre like sci-fi that fundamentally requires a suspension of disbelief anyway. In the end, it felt like a playful homage to films like ET and Alien, without saying much more (as fun as that is).
Speaking of 'alien', one of the best things about Paul was the gentle exploration of the concept of 'alien' and outsider - from the obvious jokes about nerds and Christian fundamentalists, to the fish out of water/Brits in US scenarios, to the small scene with the Mexican 'alien'. This really zones in on a recurring theme in the genre - the understanding of the 'other' and the realisation that we are all aliens in a sense. From ET to Star Trek, the understanding of and compassion towards the 'other' (species? race? religion? ethnicity?) is, I think, actually what connects with audiences more than creating new worlds with cool gadgetry and technology.
Not that the cool gadgetry and technology are meaningless either. I think this film, having Graeme and Clive as author/illustrator, and references to Paul as consultant to film and entertainment, shows how much the sci-fi genre may possibly be one of the most creative and artistic of film genres. It is a playground for artistic minds to create a whole new world of characters and rules, for dreamers to dream worlds of possibility and eccentricities, yet the best of those dreams continually reflecting back on the reality of this world. The fact that scifi can actually do this, as evidenced by the many films of this genre that are considered classics, means that it is actually more difficult to spoof the genre beyond mere referencing. The sci-fi genre actually contains many creative, thought provoking films about compassion, understanding, discrimination, and imagination. The very best ones question what it means to be human. When faced with films that contain such ideas, not sure how else you can do a real spoof. As it is, Paul is a gentle, funny film that celebrates the genre and not much more.
PS Loved all the cameos, especially the Arrested Development reunion of Jeffry Tambor and Jason Bateman! And Jane Lynch rocks. Blythe Danner was also wonderful.
What did you guys think?
I liked it very much, laughed a lot and loved the celebration of the geek but was disappointed that it didn't soar like Hot Fuzz or Shaun of the Dead. My theory? The characters and their relationships just didn't 'mesh' as well as before. Sure they were funny and cared for each other, but I really didn't feel the strong bond between . In fact, probably the strongest (or at least most surprisingly affecting) relationship was actually between Paul and Lorenzo Zoil. Perhaps it was the reveal that Jason had been helping Paul all along added some narrative depth into the story, while all the other characters seemed quite like the usual tropes and easy targets of a parody/spoof.
Secondly, I don't think the sci-fi genre lends itself to the parody/spoof style quite as well as the horror and cop buddy genres of the previous two films. It's easier to zone in on the absurd elements of zombies and cop shoot out scenes, but less easy to point out absurdities within a genre like sci-fi that fundamentally requires a suspension of disbelief anyway. In the end, it felt like a playful homage to films like ET and Alien, without saying much more (as fun as that is).
Speaking of 'alien', one of the best things about Paul was the gentle exploration of the concept of 'alien' and outsider - from the obvious jokes about nerds and Christian fundamentalists, to the fish out of water/Brits in US scenarios, to the small scene with the Mexican 'alien'. This really zones in on a recurring theme in the genre - the understanding of the 'other' and the realisation that we are all aliens in a sense. From ET to Star Trek, the understanding of and compassion towards the 'other' (species? race? religion? ethnicity?) is, I think, actually what connects with audiences more than creating new worlds with cool gadgetry and technology.
Not that the cool gadgetry and technology are meaningless either. I think this film, having Graeme and Clive as author/illustrator, and references to Paul as consultant to film and entertainment, shows how much the sci-fi genre may possibly be one of the most creative and artistic of film genres. It is a playground for artistic minds to create a whole new world of characters and rules, for dreamers to dream worlds of possibility and eccentricities, yet the best of those dreams continually reflecting back on the reality of this world. The fact that scifi can actually do this, as evidenced by the many films of this genre that are considered classics, means that it is actually more difficult to spoof the genre beyond mere referencing. The sci-fi genre actually contains many creative, thought provoking films about compassion, understanding, discrimination, and imagination. The very best ones question what it means to be human. When faced with films that contain such ideas, not sure how else you can do a real spoof. As it is, Paul is a gentle, funny film that celebrates the genre and not much more.
PS Loved all the cameos, especially the Arrested Development reunion of Jeffry Tambor and Jason Bateman! And Jane Lynch rocks. Blythe Danner was also wonderful.
What did you guys think?
Monday 11 April 2011
Brighton Rock
Sorry guys for the lack of updates - posts about Never Let Me Go and Griff the Invisible are coming up soon.
In the meantime, for anyone who might be wanting to see the film Brighton Rock, don't. I saw it earlier tonight and it was terrible. The film is based on a Grahame Greene novel so it has some literary pedigree. Briefly, set against the backdrop of the Mod and Rockers riots in Brighton around 1964, the film centres around a thug named Pinkie who witnesses the murder of one of his colleagues. When a revenge plot goes wrong, he is tasked with ensuring that a witness, Rose, does not go to the police. Lo and behold, he seduces her into loving him and it becomes one fucked up relationship for the rest of the movie. The gangland warfare and riots escalates and it ends with one character with sulphur on their face and the other in a mental institution run by nuns.*
I should say that I'm not a huge fan of mob/gangster movies, Catholic guilt movies, and movies where the male characters are steeped with misogyny, so maybe it really had no chance. But seriously, there characters were annoying, stupid and not the least bit redemptive. The pacing was interminable and the script was lacking in depth, not really revealing much about the characters and why they are the way they are. In the end, they're just thugs and stupid characters doing stupid and irrational things.
And it wasn't enough that the writer/director failed, because in a way it could have been saved with good, believable performances. While the two leads try their best, they did not transcend the unrealistic and unlikeable characters that were written for them. Sam Riley plays Pinkie without any charm or real warmth, so it's hard to see why Rose would be so devoted to him, even until the horrible ending. Clearly, she's deranged, but again, neither the writing nor performance of Andrea Riseborough show any insight into the character. Hell, even Dame Helen Mirren couldn't really transcend her role. And when that happens, you know it's a lost cause.
If you desperately want to see a filmed version of the novel, perhaps the original 1947 movie is your best bet.
4/10 - for Helen Mirren, the music and the cinematography.
* Those nuns were frakking scary. Sister Act this is not. More like that nun that comes out of nowhere in Vertigo.
In the meantime, for anyone who might be wanting to see the film Brighton Rock, don't. I saw it earlier tonight and it was terrible. The film is based on a Grahame Greene novel so it has some literary pedigree. Briefly, set against the backdrop of the Mod and Rockers riots in Brighton around 1964, the film centres around a thug named Pinkie who witnesses the murder of one of his colleagues. When a revenge plot goes wrong, he is tasked with ensuring that a witness, Rose, does not go to the police. Lo and behold, he seduces her into loving him and it becomes one fucked up relationship for the rest of the movie. The gangland warfare and riots escalates and it ends with one character with sulphur on their face and the other in a mental institution run by nuns.*
I should say that I'm not a huge fan of mob/gangster movies, Catholic guilt movies, and movies where the male characters are steeped with misogyny, so maybe it really had no chance. But seriously, there characters were annoying, stupid and not the least bit redemptive. The pacing was interminable and the script was lacking in depth, not really revealing much about the characters and why they are the way they are. In the end, they're just thugs and stupid characters doing stupid and irrational things.
And it wasn't enough that the writer/director failed, because in a way it could have been saved with good, believable performances. While the two leads try their best, they did not transcend the unrealistic and unlikeable characters that were written for them. Sam Riley plays Pinkie without any charm or real warmth, so it's hard to see why Rose would be so devoted to him, even until the horrible ending. Clearly, she's deranged, but again, neither the writing nor performance of Andrea Riseborough show any insight into the character. Hell, even Dame Helen Mirren couldn't really transcend her role. And when that happens, you know it's a lost cause.
If you desperately want to see a filmed version of the novel, perhaps the original 1947 movie is your best bet.
4/10 - for Helen Mirren, the music and the cinematography.
* Those nuns were frakking scary. Sister Act this is not. More like that nun that comes out of nowhere in Vertigo.
Sunday 27 March 2011
Hello world
Hi everyone. Welcome to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotty Mind, a discussion blog for our film club. I'll be blogging posts about films seen as part of the film club, as well as films generally, in a particular classic and foreign films. Hopefully there will also be contributions from other film club members. I think Natalie and Anthony have already put their hands up for non-film related posts, so there's that to look forward to.
For now, let's get straight into some film discussion: favourite film of last year. Did we agree with the Oscars and think that The King's Speech was the best? Or was The Social Network the better film? My personal favourites were The Social Network and Toy Story 3. The Social Network because it was really expertly made, from script to score to performance. I think the real discriminating factor was that it was just so on point for this 'facebook' Web 2.0 generation. When a film captures the zeitgeist as well this does, I think it's exactly what film as art is meant to do. I've watched it 3 times now and it's still riveting each time. Toy Story 3 because, apart from also being expertly made, that last scene made me ugly cry. Yes, deep film discussion there. Guilty pleasure? What else but Burlesque?
What were your favourite films of 2010?
For now, let's get straight into some film discussion: favourite film of last year. Did we agree with the Oscars and think that The King's Speech was the best? Or was The Social Network the better film? My personal favourites were The Social Network and Toy Story 3. The Social Network because it was really expertly made, from script to score to performance. I think the real discriminating factor was that it was just so on point for this 'facebook' Web 2.0 generation. When a film captures the zeitgeist as well this does, I think it's exactly what film as art is meant to do. I've watched it 3 times now and it's still riveting each time. Toy Story 3 because, apart from also being expertly made, that last scene made me ugly cry. Yes, deep film discussion there. Guilty pleasure? What else but Burlesque?
What were your favourite films of 2010?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)