Fresh Guacamole is a 2012 animated short Surrealist film directed by PES. The film was nominated for the Best Animated Short Film award at the 85th Academy Awards. The film shows a man making guacamole out of familiar objects that then become different objects when cut (for example, a baseball is cut in half and it turns into dice when diced). The film, like Microwaveable has that same sort of idea about taking the familiar and turning it into the surreal. When these recognizable objects turn into other seemingly unrelated recognizable objects, it creates not only a confusing feel but also almost a comedic one. This film plays off the Surreal comedy as it uses puns (baseball turns into dice when diced) to create some of this humor. The film appears to be shot as if it was a point-of-view, with a medium shot high angle - this again perhaps adds to the reliability of the environment - cooking and preparing food, but then adds a spin on it which is jarring for the spectator. This is helped by the usage of a method known as pixilation which helps create a far more realistic animated than other slightly animated ones (such as the third film, Lynch's Alphabet). The visual images in this film, while perhaps not conveying any form of narrative, do seem to have some related themes. The dice and the poker chips that are served with the guacamole has this theme of gambling or chance and the presence of the chess pieces and the Trivial Pursuit pieces/wedges has the theme of skill and games involved. Some of these objects do seem to have some overarching theme but there is no full narrative really created by these images. Overall, for my own Surrealist short film, I would take again the ideas of mixing the foreign with the realistic to create some juxtaposing images for the spectator but I would also take the ideas of the thematic relevance of each of these images. I don't believe a narrative is needed as I would argue that takes away the idea of that dream-like structure to the film but these themes help make the film open to some form of interpretation and allows for some form of message to be conveyed.
0 Comments
The Filipino short film, Microwaveable, seems very simple. It presents the audience with a microwave from a medium close-up with a short depth of field. The rest of the film is then a medium shot of various seemingly random objects being placed into the microwave. Objects placed into the microwave include towels, a photograph of a boy and a dog. This is, of course, extremely confusing and bizarre as a spectator and certainly creates ideas of the unconscious with its random seemingly unrelated image in an odd, while everyday environment. The camerawork and editing is extremely minimal, making it rather unconventional and perhaps adding to the spectator's confusion. The sound is mostly silent, except from various sound effects in the background (I believe there's a chicken making a noise at some points when items are put in). The microwave is positioned slightly off to the left of the screen, again perhaps adding to the discomfort. It is not positioned in the center of the shot, and the spectator's attention is primarily drawn to the timer permanently flickering on 1:58. The spectator perhaps expects something else to occur and when it doesn't, it is certainly disconcerting. The items being placed in also seem to increase in absurdity as the film goes on, as they put items such as a brush and the aforementioned dog in. The slow increase of the surreal in the film helps to increase discomfort towards its climax. There is no obvious set aesthetic or style being appealed to either - the shot is very simple and minimalist. The spectator is almost an outsider to the foreign situation occurring which is extremely confusing. I wouldn't argue that this film is necessarily a 'great' surrealist film: it does feel like a selection of completely dissociated objects rather than a group with some connected theme. However, what the short does do a good job of is creating discomfort in the spectator. It is is set in real environment but yet is incredibly foreign and this is perhaps more confusing than a completely foreign environment. I like the idea of getting these foreign events and putting it into a everyday action, and adopting that for my own Surrealist film would be interesting. Mudbound [2017] Genre: Period Drama Director: Dee Rees Actors: Carey Mulligan, Jason Clarke, Jason Mitchell Mudbound shows the spectator 1940s America, as the country reaches the end of the Second World War with people of all backgrounds throughout the country uniting together to fight against the foreign evil of the Nazis. However, back at home in the rural environment of Mississippi, relationships could not be more fractured. Strong tensions lie between races, with groups like the KKK becoming more and more prevalent, African Americans are oppressed and living in awful conditions due to the Jim Crow laws and everyone is feeling the effect of having a loved one out fighting a war, only knowing the information provided to them by infrequent letters. Rees' film does an absolutely exceptional job of highlighting how just because the American troops were unified at war, it does not mean that there was unification at home. The awful conditions felt by many during the war are beautifully and brilliantly given exposure by Rees in this film. The film depicts the lives of two families living during 1945. One family, the McAllan family, is a white working-class family, made up of Laura (Mulligan) who is married to Henry (Clarke), despite not being too attracted to him. There is also Jamie, Henry's brother (Garrett Hedlund), who at the beginning of the film, is fighting away in the war. Other members of the family are there two children and Pappy, Henry and James' father (Jonathan Banks) who is an extremely racist and bigoted character, who is very harsh and cruel throughout the film. The other family presented is the Jackson family, a family whose ancestors have worked farms in Mississippi for decades as slaves. This family consists of Hap (Rob Morgan) and Florence (Mary J. Blige) who have three children, one of whom, Ronsel (Jason Mitchell) is also away at war, and the film often depicts their hard lives on the film, particularly from the oppressive Jim Crow laws of the time. The return of the two veterans from war from each family is used by Rees to highlight issues of both PTSD and racism throughout the film. This film employs quite an interesting narrative structure, switching between various perspectives to show how different characters are reacting to their current situation, really allowing the viewer to get an idea of the hardships that the characters face in the film, using voiceover narration to, at first, give the viewer an idea of daily routine on the farm but also used to evoke powerful feelings and express them to the viewer, allowing for empathy with both families in a very moving way, and this really adds to the power of the film. It shows the real hardship for both families, dealing with having less money, but then also showing how the treatment by some white Americans of the African Americans made this situation even more the worse. The usage of the voiceover narration is also used in an almost poetic way with one particularly brilliantly performed piece of narration by Carey Mulligan showing the daily routine but also the atmosphere on the farm and perhaps showing the sheer amount of awfulness that goes on daily. Another interesting technique used on the writing front is the clear comparison being made between life on the farm and life in the war. Both are almost portrayed as this living hell by the director and this really helps the viewer to feel for nearly all of the characters involved. The film is shot in such a way to really help to show how there was little contrast between the horrible conditions some felt in the war and those felt by African Americans at home – there was pain and suffering for all. The story is told in such a powerful, brilliantly written and brilliantly performed way which certainly captivated me when I watched it and really created intrigue but also complete shock and horror at some of the grimmer moments in the film. The realistic dialogue in the film, particularly in some of the conversations between the two veterans, really shows how the war brought together some, but the attitudes at home remained the same, with racism and bigotry still being as present as it ever was. The absolute horrific treatment of an African American veteran who had fought for their country the same as any other American was absolutely horrific and shocking to watch. However, what really helps build on this powerful writing and deliver an extremely engaging and convincing story is the brilliant performances. No-one really puts a foot wrong in terms of the acting, with Carey Mulligan being particularly brilliant in her building friendship with Florence, played just as exceptionally, if not more, by Mary J. Blige, and that initial mistrust of each other building to perhaps a friendship that shows they have far more in common. Both Jason Mitchell and Garrett Hedlund are so brilliantly convincing, sharing their traumas of war and really showing PTSD in a very interesting light. The fractures in their relationship as well as the similarities in their experiences of the war are just so brilliantly conveyed to the spectator, really helping to get across the idea of this unification through war of the two races. Other actors also give similarly inspiring and powerful performances, such as Jonathan Banks who just really plays the character so well and really created a real sense of hatred and anger from me. Everyone is just across the board brilliant in this film. The film does have its flaws however. Firstly, while the jumping between narrative perspectives could sometimes evoke powerful emotions from each characters, it could often sometimes be rather frustrating, not showing perhaps the most interesting perspectives and instead jumping to one that doesn't give the same insight into the situation. The jump between perspectives can also sometimes be a bit jarring, with it often being hard to tell where one ends and one begins, leading to the film seeming a bit messy at points, however this is often resolved with powerful writing during the perspective. As well as this, some scenes in the film did feel a bit overly melodramatic. I do totally understand the need for this film to be full of drama in order to fully show the attitudes and atmosphere in America at the time but sometimes it did come across as a bit over-the-top. However, the scenes that were obviously supposed to having the powerful message for the viewer did primarily succeed, so the film's faults do not really ruin the fantastic story it tells across. Overall, Mudbound is a beautifully acted and powerfully written film that shows the awful conditions felt by many in America. The film evokes not only emotion from the characters but lots of varied emotion from the viewer: sadness, anger and even, at rare points, happiness all struck me throughout the film. The film is not a happy watch and it certainly does not leave you with any sort of sense of hope or optimism, but if it did, it wouldn't be realistic. The Jim Crow laws continued to oppress African Americans throughout the United States for years to come. The film really highlights that overwhelming gloom felt all over the country by a large variety of people. The few flaws of the film certainly aren't enough to stop this being a brilliantly powerful film that deserves lots of attention. Rating: 9/10 Justice League [2017] Genre: Superhero Director: Zack Snyder Actors: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Gal Gadot Justice League is the third in a series of attempts by Zack Snyder to make a superhero film that can live up to the greatest Marvel films or Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, following on from Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. So far, he hasn't been too successful. Man of Steel came in with some impressive visuals and a few decent performances but I found myself strongly disliking it, finding it particularly uninteresting as it really didn't seem to even try to make Superman that likeable of a character if you were unfamiliar with the character as I was. Then came Batman v Superman, a film that was particularly critically panned by most and in some regards, I can see why. The screenplay was poorly written with some really odd plot choices and some acting performances were dire (particularly Eisenberg impersonating an amateur actor doing a particularly poor Joker impression), although I found myself quite liking it, particularly the first act which I thought rather interestingly explored the impact of Man of Steel and really made me feel like this action was taking place in a real world with real people. Ben Affleck really impressed me as both Bruce Wayne and Batman and some supporting characters such as Amy Adams' Lois Lane and Jeremy Irons' Alfred slightly impressed but overall, not really Dark Knight quality. Other directors haven't done too much better, with Suicide Squad being an atrociously edited, performed, directed, written and shot film, and while Wonder Woman was a massive step-up compared to the others and far more entertaining, it still didn't really rock the boat in terms of the plot too much. So, this is the climate that Justice League enters into, combined with reshoots from Joss Whedon, responsible for Marvel's Avengers films and some interesting behind-the-scenes production stories. Not good even to begin with. But, perhaps it was possible: maybe with Whedon's slightly lighter tone combining with Snyder's darker elements, the DC Extended Universe could really get going with a film that was entertaining and well-made. The film follows on some time after the death of Superman with the world reeling from his death, with increased crime and a distinct lack of hope. To make matters worse, his death triggered the activation of 'Mother Boxes', which has brought Steppenwolf and his army of 'parademons' to Earth. Bruce Wayne/Batman (Affleck) and Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gadot) must form a team of heroes to save the planet from catastrophe. Sounds groundbreaking, right? Like all of these superhero films when these heroes are brought together in one team, it was extremely important to have a likeable cast. Marvel have established their own Avengers team with likeable characters with clear personalities, so DC should have been able to do the same with the Justice League. Did they? Kinda. The already established members are relatively similar in this film with Ben Affleck's Batman continuing to be really interesting and well acted and Gadot's Wonder Woman being extremely entertaining to watch and plays a large part in some of the film's greatest action scenes. The chemistry between these two works quite well throughout the film and I was extremely glad for that. The new arrivals are a little bit more interesting. Firstly, there is Arthur Curry or Aquaman, played by Jason Momoa. His personality was, at least, very clear and I quite enjoyed some of the interactions between him and Bruce, with their quips about the other being dressed like a bat or being able to talk to fish, respectively. Momoa played these comedic moments relatively well, although I didn't really find him all that likeable – I understand that perhaps he wasn't meant to be at certain points, but even towards the end he wasn't that interesting to me – and I hope that changes for the upcoming Aquaman film, but for him, the film does a good job of setting up his personality, backstory and Momoa gives a good showing for his first real debut in the DCEU. Next there is Victor Stone or Cyborg, played by Ray Fisher. We learn a little about his backstory in the previous films and to be honest, very little is expanded on in this film, apart from a few weak interactions between him and his Father. I found him to be the weakest of the three new arrivals for a number of reasons. Firstly, his backstory really wasn't expanded enough for me to be interested in him or how he would develop. His personality wasn't very well set up – I couldn't describe it if you asked me – and he just came across as a bit bland. The other primary issue I had with him was Fisher's performance. It wasn't awful, but it was just a bit boring. He really didn't put any emotion into his delivery and that really made me struggle with supporting him as a hero throughout the film. Last, but certainly not least, is Barry Allen or The Flash, played by Ezra Miller. In contrast, he's almost the exact opposite of Cyborg. His backstory is well established, giving him some form of motivation, with his Father in prison and this does allow for us to feel support for his character. This is also greatly helped by Ezra Miller's brilliant performance. I was initially sceptical of how Miller would be in comparison to other performances of The Flash, but I was extremely pleased with how he delivered his comedic personality and it really made him a likeable character with a clear personality and an exciting on-screen presence. Supporting characters were weaker however. I disliked Amy Adams for the first time in the DCEU and her on-screen time felt a bit pointless and a waste of time, especially the early interactions between her and Superman's mother. I've really liked her in these films in the past but was a bit disappointed here. However, what is much worse was the villain. I like Ciaran Hinds. I really do. I loved his performance in Game of Thrones and think he has a lot to offer. Poor Ciaran. I don't know whose fault the villain was here, but there is so much wrong. The backstory has so little establishment that I felt very little threat from him – he didn't come across as someone I should be particularly afraid of as a villain and the actions in film didn't really add more to that. The visual effects were even worse now. Everyone's already made the comparison to a video game villain in a cutscene, but it's worth hammering home just how bad he looked. This is the joint-second most expensive film ever made – was it really that hard to make a villain actually look like a real entity? This is a real fault of the film, and while the visual effects look actually quite good at points (Flash's speed force moments particularly good), this was just embarrassing and nearly invalidated most of the supposedly intense action sequences. The action sequences in this film were also important to get right, and, at least for the most part, they were relatively enjoyable. Particular highlights was the initial fight with Steppenwolf (despite him being so useless) and elements of the final fight. Thankfully, they were well edited, especially in comparison to the awful Suicide Squad, it was a nice breath of fresh air for the DCEU's editing. They were all very well choreographed as you would expect and it did have that sense of spectacle to it. The interactions in these sequences were very good also at certain points with the characters really coming across to the viewer quite well. However, the scenes in between really weren't that interesting to me. This is one of the points that Batman v Superman did better for me than this film. The scenes between each action moment were just so uninteresting and I found it difficult to care about the events as the writing wasn't particularly good. I just wanted it to move on, and a lot of it just felt like wastes of time. In these scenes, some of the worst elements poked through, in particular the tone. There's been a lot of discussion about the tone of the film and whether it was good or not. Personally, I find myself lying on the disliking of this weird mashup of dark and comedic with Snyder and Whedon's style respectively. I didn't feel like it felt the film or the franchise so far. I actually loved the tone of Batman v Superman and felt it had potential going forward but this film really took that away, removing any sense of seriousness to it. I think it's a real shame and I do think it harmed the film rather than helped. Who wrote what scene has been released, and it's easy to notice the strong conflict in the tone at points, which often harmed the film. Few smaller elements to discuss: I really hated the score. It felt uninspired, not just in comparison to Hans Zimmer's score in previous films, but it just felt bland, boring and dull and didn't get me excited or interested. I also wish some of the even smaller parts had some more scenes. I understand J.K. Simmons' Commissioner Gordon will have more of a role in Matt Reeves' Batman film but I really enjoyed him in this and wish he would have had some more screen-time in some way. I also noticed that Willem Dafoe and Kirsey Clemons as Nuidis Vulko and Iris West respectively were cut from the film which is a shame as it would have added even further backstory to Aquaman and Flash, however, I can see us getting these scenes in an extended cut. Overall, I found Justice League to be underwhelming. The tone's inconsistenly, the weak plot and the villain (some have already compared the villain's evil plan to that of Zod's in Man of Steel) as well as the poor visual effects in points. This film certainly isn't as bad as Man of Steel or Suicide Squad but then watching paint dry be more visually pleasing and entertaining than Suicide Squad. It doesn't, in my opinion, reach what Batman v Superman did in terms of tone, while slightly beating it in terms of acting performances. It is certainly much weaker than Wonder Woman and light years away from Marvel's releases this year in terms of quality and in a different universe to any of Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. Rating: 4/10 Memento [2000] Genre: Neo-Noir/Psychological Thriller Director: Christopher Nolan Actors: Guy Pearce, Carrie-Anne Moss, Joe Pantoliano Focus: Narrative [This blog post contains mild spoilers for Memento] The order in which a story is told can change a spectator's perception dramatically. Begin with the protagonist attacking a seemingly innocent character to the viewer and the viewer will see them as someone who is cruel, heartless and psychopathic and the viewer will have less support for the character as a whole. Begin, however, with showing the victim of the attack murdering and torturing people, then the viewer will respect and support the protagonist far more than in the former example. The order in which a story is shown to the spectator can drastically change their view on the world being set up by the director. In Memento, Christopher Nolan takes this idea and exploits it to the extreme, creating a sense of confusion for the viewer that they can share with the character. While many have praised in particular its 'motifs of memory, perception, grief and self-deception', what has all received a huge amount of praise is the narrative structure and how it exploits the formulaic structure that viewers are used to to make an exceptionally thrilling story. Memento shows the story of Leonard (Pearce), a man who suffers from 'anterograde amnesia', which means he is unable to form new memories, and suffers short-term memory loss every five minutes. He is searching for the man who attacked him and killed his wife, and uses photographs and tattoos to remember information he has learnt. What is particularly interesting about the narrative structure of Memento is that it presents itself as two different sets of scenes. To distinguish the differences to the spectator, one is black-and-white and takes place in chronological order and one is in colour and is shown to the viewer in reverse order. While this is extremely confusing for the spectator, this is intentional and by the end of the film, the spectator has a complete narrative and knows exactly what has been happening. However, what is so brilliant about this narrative structure and style is that it really puts the viewer into the mind of Leonard. When Nolan introduces a new event that happened, the viewer tries to piece it together in their head: when did this happen? Why is this character treating him that way? What happened before this to cause these events? This is good in terms of spectator interaction as these are exactly the questions Leonard would be asking, wondering what had happened to get him to this situation. There is one fantastically written series of scenes where we see a scene where Natalie (Moss), a bartender who Leonard talks to to try and find information, is behaving particularly nice to Leonard and is giving him lots of information that he needs. However, a few minutes later, the viewer realises what is actually going on. Natalie has verbally abused Leonard heavily and points out that whatever she does, he will still continue his trust whatever she says and they will remain friends or even lovers. She could even tell him lies and he would not remember. The spectator then sees Leonard scrambling to find something to write with to remind him of this fact, reciting to himself: 'concentrate' and 'keep it in mind' to help him to remember. The spectator shares this distress of his, knowing the future mistreatment and abuse that Natalie will use of this in the future events of the film. This is so powerful, increasing the emotional connection between Leonard and the viewer as both feel this effect of not knowing where they are and what has happened. The structure places the viewer with Leonard on his journey and this makes for a brilliantly uncomfortable viewing experience. Leonard as an unreliable narrator also really helps to make the viewer more and more confused about the events. They, too, end up trying to uncover the truth about the attack on Leonard's wife, and this can really make for a really enjoyable, although unnerving watch. This experimentation with narrative structure, while typical of the psychological thriller or noir genre, is exceptionally used here to affect the spectator's view of the film and the characters. This film is also particularly interesting for comparing it to narrative theories as it can be heavily debated upon how conventional it is. Of course, in terms of structure it is extremely different, changing the order around to change the emotional reaction from the spectator. However, it does follow some of Propp's character functions, with a clear hero (albeit with mixed morality) in the character of Leonard and the idea of the helper is present in the character of Teddy (Pantoliano). However, the event functions are very different, especially considering the nature of the story being told. Todorov's ideas, however, are non-existent in Memento. The plot does not follow the structure of Todorov at all and the lack of a clear equilibrium and new equilibrium do not exist, considering the story has an almost cyclical narrative, and so this idea doesn't really fit. This is a flaw in Todorov's theory when looking at many ideas of narrative structure. When it comes to ideas of cyclical narratives or narratives being told out of order, it can be difficult to apply his ideas. However, you could interpret that the new equilibrium could be the same as the original equilibrium, which shows the lack of change in the characters throughout the story and how these same events will likely happen again. One of the most successful theories that can be applied to this film in the end though would be the idea of Barthes' enigma codes. The whole film leaves lots of little puzzles for the audience, making one great larger puzzles as the spectator really has to try to piece together the order of the scenes, and really try to understand what may have motivated these series of events. The use of Barthes' ideas is extremely effective when placed alongside Memento and shows the reason for Nolan's choices in his screenplay, placing the spectator in a position alongside Leonard where they too must piece together the answer, and must work out where they are not only in terms of the plot, but also in time too. Aside from narrative, Memento is an extremely enjoyable watch. The reverse narrative really creates a sense of confusion and helplessness for the spectator, as they too are unable to remember the previous events in the film. This really helps Nolan to build up the rising tension for the viewer, as they come closer and closer to the end surprise. One of the biggest triumphs of the film though was the star – Guy Pearce provides an absolutely stunning role which really brings across to the viewer the absolute helplessness of this role as he struggles to remember what is going on and what has happened in his past. Carrie-Anne Moss also really provides a chilling edge to some of the scenes, really showing herself as a cruel and cold character in some fantastic scenes. Nolan's direction is, as usual, very well-done, adding some real tension and suspense to many of the climactic scenes of the film. My only Overall, Memento's absolutely exceptional narrative structure and style combined with some really compelling performances and Nolan's brilliant direction and script makes Memento a truly brilliant film. Rating: 10/10 Malcolm X [1992] Genre: Biographical Director: Spike Lee Actors: Denzel Washington, Angela Bassett, Albert Hall Focus: Spike Lee as an Auteur Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T66WAKY64c Spike Lee is a critically acclaimed American director who is primarily known for films looking at race relations, poverty and other political issues of the time. One of the most acclaimed of these is Malcolm X, a biopic detailing the life of the African-American rights activist, Malcolm X. While I have not personally seen the film, in just a few clips I instantly recognised many elements that seem to be recurring techniques used by Lee in other films of his such as Do The Right Thing. One of the most logical sequences to look at to establish whether Lee's style of directing as an auteur is instantaneously recognisable is that of the opening scene. The opening sequence is set near Dudley Street in Roxbury in Boston and firstly focuses on Malcolm's friend Shorty (played by the director, Spike Lee) as he travels to the barbers to give Malcolm (Washington) a 'conk' haircut. There are multiple elements in this sequence that I believe are a common feature of Spike Lee's films, and that show his style as an auteur particularly clearly. The scene opens with the train going past in the station, with the camera then panning down to give us an establishing very long shot of the area, before tracking into a close shot of Shorty's shoe being shined. The way Spike Lee establishes a shot is particularly interesting in this film and is definitely present here. Lee often seems to begin a scene with a close-up and then track out to give an establishing shot of where the action of the scene will be taking place or, as with this scene, do the complete opposite and start with a very-long or long shot to establish where the character we are about to see is before tracking in and giving us something to get more familiar with a character. This way of setting a scene is very interesting as it doesn't overload the viewer with too much information at once with Lee instead deciding to let the viewer focus on one element, either setting or character before introducing the other. I believe this is very effective on a viewer, as it allows them to take in the tone and atmosphere of a shot, by the expression or the mis-en-scene of the setting before establishing something else. This in indicative of Lee's relatively slow pace with his films, taking his time to establish something and not just throwing it all at the viewer at once. The next particularly interesting point that I have noticed in this clip and in Do the Right Thing is the movement of the camera to follow a point of focus. From this clip alone, there is a clear major example to give. The most obvious example of the camera following a focus for the viewer is the camera following Shorty as he walks to the barber shop. Spike Lee uses both his signature style of tracking the camera back while the character moves forward here but also tracks the camera to the side to follow Shorty on a different axis of movement. This gives a really interesting feel to the film in a number of ways. Firstly, it helps establish some more familiarity with the character. If the viewer themselves is taking the journey along with Shorty, it helps for the viewer to learn more about him, just from the way he moves, his costume and the expression on his face. If Lee had decided to have Shorty walk off screen and then cut to the barber's shop, the viewer loses so much in terms of learning Shorty's character. The second feel it gives is that of an almost natural feel, as if someone had just started filming Shorty's life suddenly. This gives a natural flow to the film but also allows Lee to take some liberties with his directing style, moving it around to give the viewer a better view of not only what is happening in the foreground but the background also. This is a very interesting technique that is similarly mirrored by Lee in his other works such as Do The Right Thing, in which a similar camera movement follows Mookie (the central protagonist of that film) as he crosses the street. This again provides a similar effect, allowing us to focus on the urban background in Brooklyn rather than being purely focused on the foreground of the character in Mookie. This technique gives a very smooth style to the camera work of Lee and is certainly a perfect example of his auteur shining through. Linking this to Do The Right Thing is the prevalence of music in the sequence. While it is slightly quieter in the scene in the barber's shop, it is still a noticeable element of the entire sequence, being used as a sound bridge between all the scenes. The tune is a jazz tune, which is also a genre of music that has been used in Spike Lee's other films as well. However, what is particularly interesting with Lee's directing in these segments with music so prevalent (seen also in the opening sequence of the Do The Right Thing) is the almost rhythmic movements of the characters in these scenes. Perhaps more blatant here than in Do The Right Thing, but the movement of Shorty as he walks towards the barber's shop has a musical feel to it, with over exaggerated limb movements and the movement from side-to-side has a slightly musical edge to it. This is also backed up in my opinion from Shorty's costume, which is quite bright and outlandish, especially with the hat, which continues this musical idea, as it is quite a common feature. This musical point is highlighted even more at the end of this clip when Shorty walks with Malcolm with their movements almost becoming dancing at certain points. Again, this creates a really vibrant feel to Lee's films and really gives them a sense of style that is very interesting to the viewer. While I don't believe there is as much to say about the interior scene in terms of Lee's style as an auteur, I do think there is a few things to say about the editing style in this scene in particular that is present in Do The Right Thing. Firstly, this scene was particularly reminiscent for me of the pizzeria scene from Do The Right Thing, particularly at the beginning. Lee opts to use primarily medium shots on each character, cutting between them as they speak. This means that very little dialogue takes place without the character that is speaking it being shown. This results in quick cuts as each character speaks creating a fast flow to the conversation. The other specific element I wanted to talk about was the smooth edit present from the end of the interior scene to when it cuts to Shorty and Malcolm outside once more at 4:21 in the clip. The stroking of Malcolm's hand by Shorty inside is then matched when he does outside, creating a smooth feel to the edits and stops it from feeling to jarring for the viewer, as a change in setting can often be. This was really effective to me, and was used many times in Do The Right Thing also. These types of edits prevent the cut being too confusing for the viewer and can also be used for comedic effect in Lee's other films. The final point I wanted to express that I won't go into too much detail on is the dialogue in this sequence and Do The Right Thing. Lee clearly makes sure that the actors let a strong accent come through with their dialect also being particularly noticeable. The way the characters speak therefore also feels natural and the dialogue doesn't feel too clunky. This is very similarly put forward in Do The Right Thing with all the dialogue feeling as if it could be said in natural conversation rather than feeling out of place. I personally believe that Lee is a fantastic screenwriter in this regard, as he makes what could be a clumsy and messy conversation into one that feels free-flowing and realistic. Overall then, the impact of Lee as an auteur on this particular sequence is very clear as you can see. His ability to make the film flow so well is absolutely marvellous and to be able to create such a sense of familiarity with location and character so quickly into a film is frankly an achievement that cannot be overstated. Spike Lee, from what I have seen of his films, is a brilliant director, screenwriter and actor that explores such rich and interesting issues without making it seem forced and I will be sure to watch more of his work in the future. Blade Runner 2049 [2017] Genre: Science Fiction Director: Denis Villeneuve Actors: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Jared Leto Following up on a great film is extremely difficult. Appealing to the fans of the original as well as drawing in new viewers who can learn to love the world previously built is a feat that many talented directors and screenwriters have tried and failed to do. A new challenger to this task is Denis Villeneuve, director of previous films such as Arrival, which was a visually stunning science-fiction film with a deep and interesting message that was one of my favourite films of last year and Sicario, a crime thriller that provided a well-directed and exciting look into the fight against a Mexican drug cartel by the FBI, who has now taken on the daring trial of directing the sequel to Blade Runner, Ridley Scott's 80s sci-fi cult classic. If anyone could capture, in particular, the visual ecstasy of the original, Villeneuve seemed like the right director for the job. Making a sequel to Blade Runner would never be easy, but I'm extremely pleased to report that Villeneuve's aims of making a sequel that lives up to the original was a resounding success. Blade Runner 2049 tells the story of K (Gosling), a replicant working as a blade runner, who uncovers a secret (which I will not mention – it's certainly better to go in unspoiled) which causes him to hunt for Rick Deckard (Ford) from the original film who can help him with the fallout. Rounding out the list of character is Joi (de Armas), K's girlfriend and Niander Wallace (Leto), who provides a threatening side to the story as the antagonist. In seemingly all reviews of this film, the first thing almost everyone has mentioned are the visuals. This film looks astonishingly beautiful. Roger Deakins, the cinematographer who has worked with Villeneuve on films like Sicario in the past, provides us with some absolutely unbelievable shots, telling us so much about the characters and the landscape, that should finally cement an Academy Award for Best Cinematography for him. The dark and dingy city of Los Angeles from the original film is explored even further in this film in a very interesting way. It is important to remember that thirty year has passed in-universe since the original and the development of the city is evident to see. Large holographic advertisements take the place of the large billboards, which take the place as the artificial lighting for the shots, even providing a lot of interesting thoughts for the viewer in the later parts of the film. An example of one of my favourite scenes from a cinematic standpoint takes place in a desert landscape with the ruins of an old structure standing in the sand. Clear indications of Villeneuve's inspiration from texts like Ozymandias, as well as other film ideas portraying a dystopian landscape such as Planet of the Apes and Mad Max to give us an idea of the lack of nature's presence not only in the city, but outside too. On a more interpersonal level, the technical genius of the syncing of a virtual character and a real character is absolutely mesmerising, and praise should be given to the visual effects team for this also. There is rarely a dull or bland shot in the film, and despite not matching the distinct cinematographic style of its predecessor, it is almost impossible to criticise the beautiful looks of the film. Every shot could, and should, be considered a work of art. The next aspect of the film certainly worth talking about are the performances. My personal stand-out of the film was Harrison Ford who brings the character of Rick Deckard to life once more and in my opinion, gives a performance superior to his in the original. Other supporting actors like Robin Wright, who plays K's stern but sympathetic boss give a compelling and interesting performance and even an actor like Jared Leto, who has given some shocking showings in a film such as Suicide Squad, brings to life the character of Wallace well, creating a creepy, threatening and menacing character as well as subtle actions and movements that make him seem real. Unknown actors like Ana de Armas give an emotive performance that makes the audience think about many engaging ideas in the film, as well as Sylvia Hoeks who removes all emotion from her character, yet still shows so much, gives a praiseworthy performance as Luv, the antagonist of the story, yet doesn't quite manage to match Rutger Hauer's stellar acting in the original. Interestingly enough, one of the weaker performances in my eyes was that of the lead, Ryan Gosling, who unfortunately I found to be a little bland and boring (as I have found of his acting in films like Drive in the past) in the film, with the interesting arc of his character saving him from becoming a protagonist I felt apathetic to. Before I get onto some negatives of the film, there are some other things that are certainly worthy of discussion and praise. Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch collaborate to give a score that is fantastic not only in the context of the movie but also as pieces of music as a whole. Zimmer continually manages to impress with his score in films after creating my favourite score of the year so far in Dunkirk and Wallfisch has done some impressive music in the past, particularly in Hidden Figures. The combination of the talents of these two create a score that keeps the viewer interested through the audio of the film, as well as the aforementioned visuals. One of the more overlooked relationships in the film is that of K and Joi and, without going into details, I believe the dynamic between these two characters explored so many interesting ideas. Some of the earlier scenes highlighting their relationship are some of the most beautiful and moving I've seen in years and will be some of the most memorable in years to come. Unfortunately, this film wasn't perfect in my eyes. Firstly, the nearly three-hour long running time can be a bit daunting at first, and although the visual and auditory masterpiece kept me thoroughly entertained, a few scenes did drag ever so slightly. My main issue, however, comes with the narrative of the film which I found to be comparatively weaker to the original. While the original's story felt fresh and interesting, actually telling the story in a rather minimalist way, with little dialogue and a lot of emotion shown through acting performances, the story here felt a little generic. While there were genuinely surprising turns along the way, it didn't feel entirely fresh, and didn't resonate with me in the same way as the first. I also would have been more interested to see some of the themes explored a little more, as some of the more interesting ones, such as the dynamic between K and Joi, were relegated to the side-plot a little in the film. While these themes were there slightly, the film instead decides to focus on K as a character a little more, which was slightly disappointing to me. It's not that the narrative is poor – I just felt a little more could have been done. Overall, Blade Runner 2049 is a success, despite its minor flaws. The cinematography, the visual effects and the melodic score all combine to make a film that will be remembered for its beauty for years to come. Ford's performance will also be seen as one of his best of his career and I hope will garner him some awards towards the end of the year. The issues I have with the film however, namely Gosling's performance and the slightly weak narrative, do stop me from calling this film a perfect masterpiece. There were hints of something more to the story of the film, trying to break free, but unfortunately, for me, it just didn't come through. Despite this though, Blade Runner 2049 is the best film I have seen so far this year, and will be seen as a worthy successor to the original that, too, will be remembered for years to come. Villeneuve cements himself as one of the great modern directors, and proves that he was up to the challenge with this one. Rating: 8/10 Blade Runner [1982] [The Final Cut: 2007] Genre: Science Fiction Director: Ridley Scott Actors: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young Focus: Cinematography One of the highest praises you can give to a film is that it sticks with an audience for days, months or even years to come. Films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Inception or Citizen Kane all come to mind for various reasons, whether it be an ambiguous narrative, an ending that leaves more questions than answers or a film where nearly every scene is perfect. Even thirty-five years after the original release of Scott's Blade Runner, the question of 'Is Deckard a replicant?' is still brought up interviews, articles and discussion. However, in the endless debate about the narrative of a film, sometimes the technical aspects can sometimes be missed out in praise. The primary focus of this blog post will be on the work of Jordan Cronenweth, the cinematographer of Blade Runner, and how his work alongside Ridley Scott helps to bring to life the dystopian city of 2019 Los Angeles. It is important to note that before posting this, I watched the Final Cut of Blade Runner so some of the shots I talk about may be exclusive to that cut of the film. In my opinion one of the most crucial elements to nearly every shot in Blade Runner is the lighting. The usage of light in only select parts of a shot help to create a dark and dingy view in the exterior shots, with the light only seemingly coming from artificial sources, such as the large advertisement screens, the lights from the Spinners (the flying police cars in the film) or the lights from the Tyrell Corporation's buildings. These objects are usually in the background of the shot, leaving light to shine in from the side or back of the shot, rather than being right at the front. The backlighting of Blade Runner is used in many of the most discussed shots. For example, in just one of the first shots of the film [Shot 1], we see a shot of Holden smoking a cigarette before he performs the Voight-Kampff test on Leon, a test subject, to see if he is a replicant or human. The foreground of this shot is intentionally dark, with only the light of the computer screen providing any light at the front. However, from the background of the shot, the light shines through the windows, lighting up the room slight amounts. Cronenweth likely worked with Scott on this shot to allow the viewer to focus on certain elements. While the only character in the shot is that of Holden, he is mostly shrouded in darkness, perhaps allowing the viewer to note other elements of the scene further. Directly in the centre of the screen is the equipment used for the test. This allows the viewer to focus on this equipment, helped by the light from the computer screen, and to query what it all may be used for. This shot creates mystery and intrigue in the viewer's head and creates interest to what may be about to happen. Cronenworth does this really successfully and helps to build the concept of the film. Another use of cinematography in Blade Runner is to focus the viewers on the symbolism. One of the shots [Shot 2] where this is used is an extreme close up near the beginning of the film of an eye, which reflects the landscape it looks upon, with the lights from the spinners, the fire and the lights from the building. This, even without the idea of symbolism, is a beautiful shot, giving the viewer an idea of the industrial landscape of Los Angeles. Some have also noted that this shot makes the landscape look almost hell-like, with the fire and lights really standing out in the shot. I personally agree with this interpretation of the shot, which links to other symbols in the film. However, the eye as a whole, as many have noted, seems to be a recurring theme in the film, being analysed in the Voight-Kampff test to decide if they are a human or not, here at the beginning in the film and with the tint in the replicant's eyes. Many critics have speculated that the eyes are being used as being able to see into the soul, which would explain why it is used in the test to look for emotion, as it is almost being used to see whether the soul is there (which would, in their view, make them a human). If Ridley Scott did want to put across this message, Cronenworth's shot really helps to back up this point. Near the end of the film, we see another shot that puts across some really interesting symbolism [Shot 3] which shows the antagonist, Roy Batty, bloody, holding a white dove. Again, this shot also provides backlighting from artificial sources providing some light to the scene, and also places the character close to the camera, making him and the dove the centre of attention. I personally believe that the dove is meant to be a religious symbol here, linked with the idea of the soul and hell mentioned earlier, that this is to represent his soul going to heaven (as a dove is used in the Bible to show the holy spirit). I strongly believe that the religious symbolism in Blade Runner is very important to the meaning of the film, but perhaps the beauty of Blade Runner is that you can get many other interpretations watching a different way. Whatever the meaning of the shot, the placing of the dove is very interesting, Batty placing it close to his body, and the appearance of it at this point of the film intrigues the viewer, and promotes discussion. The lighting in this shot combined with the placing of the character and bird is thought-provoking for viewers. Overall, I love Blade Runner. From a pure cinematography element, Cronenworth excels himself, providing some beautiful shots, even with the narrative meaning removed. The visuals are exceptional for a film of the time, astonishing and surprising me on the viewing. Cinematography is used in the film fantastically for both symbolism and narrative. Looking at the film as a whole, the direction and narrative is thought-provoking and creative, giving us a real insight into this dystopian universe. Performances are generally good, with Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty being a particular standout for me, and personally, the monologue from Batty near the end of the film is one of my favourites of all time. Blade Runner is phenomenal and its influence can be seen in sci-fi films decades after from an animated film like Ghost in the Shell and even in other genres, like Batman Begins. The influences from Blade Runner can be seen now, and will likely be seen for decades to come. Rating: 10/10 Shot 1 Shot 2 Shot 3
Death Note [2017] Genre: Psychological Thriller Director: Adam Wingard Actors: Nat Wolff, Lakeith Stanfield, Margaret Qualley, Willem Dafoe One of the topics that seems to be coming up a lot recently in debate is the disconnect between fans and critics. With films such as DC's Suicide Squad being panned by critics but loved by fans, some have started to question whether or not you should base whether you see a film or not off a critic's review. However, every now and then you get a film where both the critics and the regular movie-goer come together and unite in their opinion of a film. Unfortunately for Netflix, their new release, Death Note, has united them, but not in the way they would've wanted. Criticism for this new adaptation of the popular manga and anime series (which found devout fans from both Japanese and western audiences) has been widespread, with most fans and critics considering it poor. But is there anything to be praised about the film? The film's main premise concerns around Light Turner (Wolff), an intelligent teenager who finds the notebook after it was dropped to the human world by the death god Ryuk (Dafoe). The notebook causes anyone who has their name in it written to die in whatever way Light wishes. He makes the decision to clear the world of all evil using the notebook. Capturing the style and genre of the original was always important. The genre of the original series is an interesting question. Some could argue that it is a horror series, but the lack of general horror conventions in it could go against this. Other labels such as a detective/crime series or psychological thriller have also been put on it. The film has the same sort of ambiguity on genre. While the start of the film does edge more towards horror, with all the usual tropes of a jumpscares and pathetic fallacy used, this focus shifts away and focuses on the detective elements which made the original so good, using them as a pivotal point for the film. One of the principle relationships in the series is between Light Yagami, an incredibly intelligent teenager who finds and L, an equally intelligent detective who is set on hunting down the killer. This results in an almost cat-and-mouse like game where each side is attempting to discover the identity of the other so they can either kill or capture them. The film, in my opinion, also explores this relationship quite well, although its limited length perhaps restricts how far they can take this. The original anime series was directed/animated in quite an odd way, with very quick cuts between one shot to the next. At points, Wingard does employ this same technique, but it doesn't have that same feel to it, almost forced in to appease fans rather than done with purpose or care. And, this, perhaps is this version of Death Note's greatest flaw, a lack of care for what made the original so great. Criticising an adaptation that claims to only be loosely based on the original is difficult, as one could argue that the director is making an original film. However, when using an almost identical concept to the original, it is essential you acknowledge and take into account the ingredients that made that original so brilliant. Wingard seems to take an admirable shot at doing this for the first half of the film, giving an interesting take on the relationships between Light and multiple other characters. However, any interesting dynamics seem to go out the window in the second half, with out-of-character decisions and poor dialogue plaguing the script. While entertaining and fun to watch, the ingredients that Wingard decides to use don't really make a good film. An example of this are the music choices that Wingard goes for, with soft rock used repeatedly throughout the film. This would be only slightly distracting if it was purely in the background, but the usage of it in a slow motion death scene in the climax of the film made it impossible to take seriously and is certainly a very odd, and not particularly wise, artistic choice. The acting is another area that has garnered much criticism , in particular Wolff's performance in the film. Personally, I wasn't too disappointed with his performance here, with only a few scenes really standing out as unconvincing and most putting forward Light's personality well. Margaret Qualley and LaKeith Stanfield also give relatively convincing performances in their roles for the majority of the film, with Stanfield in particular getting right the mannerisms of L throughout the film. However, the largest amount of praise has to go to Willem Dafoe. Despite not physically appearing on screen, his haunting voice throughout the film provides an extra edge of horror to Ryuk's character, as he goads Light into killing throughout the film, even adding in a bit of humour to his tone at points also. Is Death Note a good adaptation of the original series? No, it isn't. Wingard blatantly ignores what made the original so good, changing it to a generic formula that we see from most Hollywood blockbusters nowadays. Is Death Note an entertaining film? I would tentatively say yes. While the story flows poorly, with some really gaping plot holes in areas, the film entertains both in a 'so bad it's good' way but also, with some genuinely tense scenes and entertaining lines in the first half of the film, in a genuinely entertaining way. Death Note, while flawed, is a mildly entertaining thriller, with some admirable performances by Stanfield and Dafoe, and while it will probably be seen as one of the weaker Netflix originals, it is a relatively entertaining thriller, if you have some time on your hands. Rating: 4/10 |
InfoBlog for A Level Film Studies. Consists of critical analysis of films from different time periods and genres. Archives
July 2018
Categories |