Change Your Image
dylansgabriel
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
La grande bellezza (2013)
One for the cinematography, one for the score
The film begins in Rome at the splashy, bacchanal 65th birthday party of the dapper Jep Gambardella. Calling the event extravagant would be an understatement.
Gambardella is a celebrity socialite. He spends most of his afternoons laying around in a hammock, drinking, staring at the coliseum from his terrace. Killing time until the party-wild evenings. Jep lives a comfortable, carefree, decadent life.
Sometimes he thinks about a coastal summer romance from his youth - shown with Jep laying in bed and watching blue waves move across the ceiling, and also in brief flashbacks.
Forty years ago ago Jep wrote an acclaimed novel, inspired by that intense romance. He has not written a novel since, and now works as a high society journalist. In one scene Jep reviews a performance art show where the artist sprints and head-butts a stone wall.
he glitterati Jep surrounds himself with are the kind of people who wait in line with each other to get Botox injections, as nonchalant as if they're waiting to buy movie tickets. As one woman tells the man injecting her, "Just got back from India. I had amazing dysentery. Come to my divorce party, I'll have burlesque dancers there." When Jep and his friends get together they talk about subjects such as Marxism, collectivism, misanthropy, and defeatism.
Jep refuses to acknowledge any disagreeable aspect of life. At one of his regular dinner parties a friend tries to tell him about her son, who is experiencing mental health issues. Jep immediately dismisses the subject by recommending a psychiatrist, and then starts to talk about the salad.
In one scene Jep shops with his girlfriend for a funeral dress. They are in a patronizing store where the entire selection of dresses, displayed on the walls, can be counted off on your fingers. During this scene Jep explains the rules for how one must conduct themselves at a funeral, which he sees as a social event. The behaviours he describes equate to calculated self promotion.
After Jep's former lover (the one from his youth) passes away, he learns that he was the only person she ever loved. The person who tells Jep this is the woman's husband of thirty five years. He discovered this when going through his wife's journal. The news shocks Jep. Perhaps in spite of this, he considers writing again. He gets into a relationship with a woman. He cries at a funeral (something he previously said to never do.)
So with these changes in Jep's life the director is basically trying to show that Jep is becoming more disillusioned with his frivolous lifestyle? That at the end of the film he is a more rounded person? That instead of numbing himself at endless decadent parties, Jep is forced to confront deeper aspects of life: hurt, love, death? Well, Jep was a despicable person at the start of the film. And in the end he is the same; a narcissistic, flippant man. His friends are shallow, materialistic, and conceited.
At one of his parties Jep tells the person he sits beside that the dance trains at their parties are the best in Rome. The next shot is of Jep drunkenly leading one of the trains. And then Jep is sitting next to his housekeeper, disillusioned, lamenting about how his life is nothing. Well how noble and sincere, you sanctimonious piece of crap.
The film is gorgeously shot, and the music is sublime. The opening scene contains choral music so transcendent it is unearthly. And then we're blasted into an aural storm of ecstatic club beats. And there is also the devastating pastorale composition, combining the music of Arvo Pärt with a choir rendition of Robert Burn's beautiful poem My Heart's in the Highlands, which mourns the narrator's lost youth in the Highlands.
"The Great Beauty" is insipid, meandering, and unnecessarily long. The title is appropriate to the material, as "The Great Beauty" is totally self-righteous. At the heart of this movie (or where a heart should be) is a group of terrible human beings.
screenplayisles.blogspot
L'inconnu du lac (2013)
A meditative observation of loose, impersonal sex
Franck, a young French man, comes to this lake-a cruising ground for men-every summer. Scattered around the stony shore is the ubiquitous sight of clothless men, lazing, talking, looking. When they want to get off, they head into the forest. Many of the men here have wives or girlfriends.
Franck makes the acquaintance of a paunchy older man named Henri, who has just broken up with his girlfriend. They come back to the beach every day they just talk to each other, watching the glittering lake. The melancholic Henri enjoys the quiet of this place. The isolation. Henri really enjoys spending time with Franck.
One day Franck is infatuated with a man he spots (Michel) and follows him into the forest. But Franck finds Michel already with another man.
A few days later, hidden in the trees one night, Franck witnesses Michel drown his lover in the lake. Franck does not say anything to anyone, and the next day he becomes Michel's new lover.
"Stranger By The Lake" is contemporary and progressive. (The content is light-years ahead of North American film-they live in a culture of shame and immaturity.) "Stranger" is not as pornographic as the videos we are all used to seeing, but there are too many penises shown to count. Half the time the men aren't wearing clothing. Men kiss each other, and pleasure each other. Fellatio, anilingus, an erect penis ejaculating. This material is dealt with subtly and sensitivity (not that there is anything sensitive about these loveless hookups.)
So yes, there is more sexual material in this film than in every Spielberg film combined. But what's shown is not passionate loving; the hookups are casual and loveless. As well, the men are unashamed. In the forest they will have sex ten feet away from each other, and allow masturbating voyeurs to watch. When one man is interested in another, he might walk by, heading in the opposite direction, and place his hand on the man's crotch. This happens to Franck at one point, but he is not interested, and just gently moves the hand away.
The men here don't want friendship, or any sort of relationship. They just want unattached sex. At first, this is all Franck wants, too. But (as Henri warned him) he realizes that superficial sex cannot fill the emotional void, and Patreck decides that he needs something greater. Enter his manipulative, controlling, murderous lover.
"Stranger By The Lake" is a meditative observation of loose, impersonal sex (yes I realize that is a gross oxymoron) and contemporary loneliness and depression. The film is more relevant now than ever. Most relationships people have now are depthless and formal, not to mention self-serving.
There is also the beautiful idea, best expressed by Henri, that a relationship can take many different forms, beyond classification (bound with the correct notion that sexuality cannot be categorized.) As Henri says matter-of-factly, "You don't have to have sex with someone to sleep with them."
screenplayisles.blogspot
Her (2013)
The present audience is desensitized to the insanity the film portrays.
The premise is that a man falls in love with his computer. The most tragic aspect of the film is that this is a happening today. The scene where the protagonist has sex with his computer was especially disturbing; maybe because I do it, too. We all do. We all masturbate, and more likely than not, it's to pornography on a screen. So already, in our technological infancy, many are achieving an orgasm with a machine, instead of each other...
This film isn't going to be as shocking to a viewer now as it will be to a viewer in a hundred years. Because the funny thing about "Her", the great thing about "Her", is that the present audience is desensitized to the insanity the film portrays. A perfect example of this: in the film's world (a tad more technologically advanced than our own) everyone walks alone, plugged in. It is the same as our society now; everyone engaged in their many devices, rarely with each other. This is actually something very disturbing and unhealthy. But to most it is just a normal, ubiquitous occurrence.
A premise that easily could have been directed into lame territory is handled with astuteness and depth. Director Spike Jonze has a firm understanding of the subject. There literally is a method to his madness.
And after watching this, I discovered that the film stars four huge actors. I just didn't recognize them in the film. You know the acting is good when.
screenplayisles.blogspot
12 Years a Slave (2013)
With slavery being abolished, hopefully the film will inspire critical action against current persecutions.
During the first few minutes is an infuriatingly common editing choice: showing scenes that we reach later in the film. Putting these as the first scenes in the film, they are entirely out of context, and fail to elicit emotion. Playing in the background of these opening shots, the (otherwise magnificent) soundtrack sounds hammy and forced; and the accompanying visuals look artificial and constructed. Later in the film, when these exact same shots appear a second time, within the proper context, they are captivating.
By the time the credits rolled I was a statue. Overcome, hand pressing chest, I was near tears. I mean yes, during the first few minutes I thought my eyes might become lodged in the back of my head because I couldn't stop rolling them. The film got off to a weak start. But the further it ran the better it got. The performances were devastating, in the best way possible. Only two complaints about the picture come to mind. One, the terrible makeup and costumes. Even though this was a movie rather than a film... the costumes and makeup were still too movie-ish; not natural enough, not realistic enough. At more than one point I was aware that the actors were walking around in costumes.
My second qualm is the title card stating that the film is based on a true story. The phrase is a dumb fad, and I am so sick of seeing this imbecilic claim in, like, every second film made now. The fact is that every movie is inspired by life. Yes, the story in "12 Years" does come from the memoir Twelve Years A Slave (1853) by the real Solomon Northup. But not only is the "based on" annotate redundant; it is inaccurate. McQueen can call his character Solomon... but on the plantations the real Solomon Northup was on, the people probably didn't have a constant orchestra concerto playing in the background, and they probably didn't speak in such perfectly succinct, articulate sentences. And in his memoir, Solomon doesn't mention having his life saved by Brad Pitt.
"12 Years A Slave" is not a masterpiece, but it is a great film. With slavery being abolished, hopefully the film will not only inspire critical thought, but critical action against current persecutions; the most pressing being the barbaric attitudes toward homosexuality.
screenplayisles.blogspot
Gravity (2013)
Mission Failed
I have no problem suspending disbelief for the events in the film, such as Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) leaping from space station to space station, or her miraculous safe landing on earth. To be honest I did not give any of it a second thought. What is inadequate, in terms of believability, is the characters of Dr. Stone and her colleague Lieutenant Matt Kowlaski (George Clooney).
Dr. Stone is mentally and emotionally unprepared for their mission. Anyone in such a fractured state as Stone (still mourning the death of her daughter) would never be put on a mission into space, which requires the utmost objectivity, mental precision, and focus. At one point, while Stone is floating above the earth, Kowalski asks her where her home is (he also finds out about her daughter's death.) This is beyond ludicrous. Stone and Kowlaski's training for their mission would have been long, laborous, and intimate. It is inevitable that such basic information would have come up prior to their launch. Moreover, someone as disciplined as an astronaut would never bring up the (still fresh) subject of their child's death on a mission, especially when it is going to distract/upset them. I could go on. I am not being hypercritical in the least, as clearly this is all common sense, whether the observer has knowledge of space procedures or not.
Clooney's character Matt Kowlaski has no personality. The dialogue between Kowlaski and Stone is vapid, asinine, and farcical. The weakness of the acting (and the characters), can be articulated in a single sentiment: any one of literally hundreds of actors could have replaced George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, and the film would have achieved the same emotional result.
The entire blame for the performances, of course, does not lie on the actors, nor Cuaron. Clooney and Bullock were working with a terrible script. But they must take some responsibility, since they took on the roles.
Whether Cuaron wrote the script or not, he is responsible for overseeing it. (Cuaron did co-write the script, with his son. But, considering its shortcomings, I do not understand why Cuaron contributed to the screenplay. He cannot write well.) Cuaron is very talented at constructing intricate, interesting camera setups. But the film's total reliance on visuals, combined with the fact that the entire thing is stitched together by a suffocating soundtrack, is Cuaron's compensation for the emptiness of the writing.
I am sure the film's visuals will stand the test of time, into the foreseeable future. The CGI, lighting, and sound editing, in particular, stood out. The CGI is pretty flawless. And the stupendous lighting is so convincing, so sophisticated, that after two viewings I have barely absorbed it.
In the final scene, after an emergency landing on an ocean shore, Sandra Bullock climbing out of the water looks like Sandra Bullock climbing out of the water. And even though she has just gone through the most mentally, emotionally, and physically tolling ordeal of her entire life, her skin doesn't have a blemish. Her glowing face makes it look like she's on an advertisement for a facial cleanser. And even looking past this, the penultimate scene of Stone stepping back onto land should have been the most powerful image of the entire film. But in fact, this was the most underwhelming visual, by far, in the movie.
The soundtrack could be beautiful on its own, but in the film it is, again, absolutely suffocating. And it takes the attention off the visuals, which probably should be the focus. Surely Cuaron was trying to make the film as dramatic as possible; but maybe it shouldn't have been dramatic. Why did Cuaron had to turn his space film into some Hollywood thriller? Because the visuals are so fantastic, why couldn't Cuaron have directed his efforts into another project to better serve the public; collaborating on scientific, educational space documentaries? Maybe his ego got in the way. Maybe his wallet got in the way. Maybe it's arrogance.
Or maybe Cuaron is simply more interested in the dramatic then the scientific. If that is the case, fine. He made a dramatic space thriller. And it was largely a failure. If he refuses to acknowledge this, he is deluding himself.
screenplayisles.blogspot
Red Obsession (2013)
"Red Obsession" turns out mostly shallow and pretentious.
"Red Obsession" makes the viewer appreciate the true artistry involved in wine making, and the asomatous beauty involved in wine tasting (ordering wine at the Olive Garden is not wine tasting.) Drinking a good wine can be an orgasmic physical experience, as well as a genuinely spiritual one. Some of the interviewed eloquently describe an exquisite wine as an enduring experience.
The scenic views of French countryside and century-old vineyards are astounding. "Red Obsession" has some of the most spectacular cinematography this reviewer has ever seen. This alone is a very good reason to watch.
The film eventually moves into the current politics of the luxury wine industry. The epicentre of this business is currently China, which is now the largest importer of Bordeaux wines in the world. The rest of the film can be summarized in a sentence spoken by one of the commentators: "When the Chinese buy the wine, they buy the wine as a symbol of their status." The film's content, which includes exploration of the shifting market, and the changing production and consumption of premier château wines, was very informative and interesting to this uncultivated viewer. But the film is as untroubled as the well-off Chinese in it, who think nothing of dropping tens of millions of dollars buying wines, creating connoisseur clubs, or purchasing antiquated French chateaus.
Overflowing with conceit and extravagance, "Red Obsession" turns out mostly shallow and pretentious. The film doesn't ask any questions, or challenge conventional thinking, or break any new ground. Yes it is a documentary, but it is not constructive filmmaking.
screenplayisles.blogspot
Blackfish (2013)
This is a film that should be mandatory viewing for everyone
The film "Blackfish" is shocking, and traumatizing. And it should be mandatory viewing.
The documentary opens with former SeaWorld orca trainers describing how they got their job at the park. Apparently, it is not as difficult to become a trainer as one might think. While mesmeric music plays in the background, and orcas swim through sky blue Seaworld waters, the former SeaWorld trainers remember meeting their first orcas. The creatures, they reminisce, were humongous, inspiring, and beautiful. While working at SeaWorld, the trainers formed relationships with the animals (for some of them, this is the reason they stayed as long as they did.) The information that comes after this affectionate introduction is unimaginably horrific.
Among the tragic fatalities explored is the death of top SeaWorld orca trainer Dawn Brancheau, who died in 2010 after the orca Tilikum pulled her into the water. Many of the interviewees had known Dawn personally, and had great respect for her.
There is one part of the film that I dislike, and that is the reverence toward Dawn Brancheau. Dawn's job, her livelihood, was keeping these animals in unspeakable conditions, causing unfathomable psychological and emotional torture. Dawn proudly and vocally profited from these animals' suffering. She was either ignorant of the horrific agony caused to the captive orcas, or simply ignored it. But Dawn was one of the top trainers at Seaworld... so could she really have been so ignorant? Did she think that kidnapping and imprisoning the orcas was nurturing? When the baby calfs were ripped from their mother's side, and the mother fell into a visible, catatonic depression, emitting screeching cries day and night, trying to communicate with her child... How exactly did Dawn interpret that?
The following quote is from the Dawn Brancheau Foundation's website:
"In addition to her work as a trainer, Dawn also became the face of SeaWorld. Over the years, she appeared on billboards around the world, a large mural at the Orlando International Airport, on a Budweiser beer bottle, and on many other promotional materials. She also appeared live on House Hunters, Wheel of Fortune, and FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman. Dawn was always willing to share her knowledge and love of the orcas with new audiences." I just wonder why "Blackfish" commends the memory of a woman who was, literally, the face of orca torture. The former SeaWorld trainers interviewed were saddened by Dawn's death; so by the same hand, they're protesting orca imprisonment, while commemorating the warden? "Blackfish" beautifies Dawn Brancheau, just as SeaWorld glamorizes the lives of the captive orcas.
I was also bothered by the end shot, which shows four of the former trainers on a boat, watching wild orcas swim in their natural habitat. This is unnecessary, contrived, and redundant. (Perhaps the director was aiming for a sentimental Hollywood-ish ending.)
These two things only slightly dampened the otherwise very strong film.
Some of the messages in "Blackfish" not only apply to the orcas in captivity, but are more universal; such as how marketing can completely indoctrinate us. And especially the idea that people believe what they want to believe, and that it's always easier to turn your head away, than to take action. The orcas at SeaWorld were and are subjected to heinous physical and emotional torture. The former trainers in the film talk about how on some level, at the time of their SeaWorld employment, they understood what was happening. But externally, consciously, they ignored the warning signs. It is all remindful of the old wisdom, that if one is not part of the solution, than they are part of the problem.
"Blackfish" is a sensational documentary, magnificently enunciated and skillfully crafted. It is also one of the most horrific films I have ever seen. Within the current rating system, there is no question that "Blackfish" should have an NC-17 rating. And yet (paradoxically), this is a film that should be mandatory viewing in schools. Everyone needs too see this film, especially young people. It is a tough movie to watch, and so perhaps appropriately, it is also an extraordinarily important one.
screenplayisles.blogspot
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
The crowds stuffing sold-out showings of Catching Fire strongly resemble the Capital citizens eagerly awaiting the latest Hunger Games battle.
After winning the seventy-fourth Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark return home to District 12. They go back to their old routine (kind of; they now live in the Victor's Village, and possess terrific wealth) with Katniss and Gale hunting together, Peeta baking and isolating himself, and Haymitch getting very drunk. Katniss shows major signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.
President Snow pays an unexpected visit to Katniss' house. Apparently, because her and Peeta broke the rules to survive the Games, they have ignited rebellion in the Districts, against the Capital. Snow threatens everyone Katniss loves, and tells her that on the upcoming Victory Tour, her and Peeta need to convince the public they are in love. This will show the Districts that their stunt with the berries was out of love, and not in defiance of the Capital.
The Victory Tour is a disaster. The Peacekeepers are murdering and terrorizing innocents, and Katniss and Peeta can only helplessly watch it all, forced to praise the Capital. When they get back home, the violence and repression against the population only escalates. Then the bombshell: for the seventy-fifth Hunger Games (a special "Quarter Quell" Games is held every twenty-five years) they will reap from the pool of past victors. Katniss and Peeta are both chosen, and so they are going into the Games a second time, in a new arena, with a murderous batch of past winners.
I saw "Catching Fire" in IMAX during a pre-screening, and then again in IMAX the following evening, on opening day. I had been looking forward to the film for months, but I kept my expectations low. I am unhappy to report that "Catching Fire" is not the success that the reviews would have you believe. In the end it was a really, really lousy movie.
When I saw the initial previews for Catching Fire, the teaser trailer and the first theatrical trailer, I was aflame with excitement. But the film itself was flavorless, too tame, too watered down, and too rushed. For a movie about teens locked in an arena, forced to fight to the death... I don't think I saw more than a cupful of blood, drawn by a weapon. This is absolutely unacceptable, because the violence plays a very critical part in the source material's themes: the glamorizing of violence, present day desensitization to violence, and the sensationalism of modern entertainment, among others. But instead of exploring these and other ideas in the film, the gamemakers - sorry, I mean filmmakers - just watered down the politics, and everything else that might have induced too much thinking, to appeal to the widest audience possible. (I was speaking with someone about the film after we saw it, and he put forth the idea that perhaps the thinning of the material was fiscally strategic. He suggested that maybe if the film was too complex, it just simply would not translate well into other languages. Since overseas gross is a gigantic portion of blockbuster film revenue, I thought this was an excellent point, and true to some degree.) Among the other simplifications was the story of the rebellion, and even, just the barbarism of those in the Capital. These two things, detailed extensively in the novel, had barely any depth in the film.
The film was severely brought down by the godawful music, which was very poorly integrated. I lost count of the number of scenes, where it would have had much greater emotional impact without the added music.
"Catching Fire" was overproduced and rushed. The CGI in the film looked very phony. But they filmed on location in Hawaii, and had a massive budget ($130 million-double the budget of the first film) so why are huge chunks of the arena made of obvious-CGI? Other than for, say, the baboon creatures, there is no reason why this film should have the amount of CGI it does. The excessive effects took away from the film's authenticity, and feeling. "Catching Fire" looks like a expensive, overdone Hollywood product.
The same thing that happened with the first film, is happening with "Catching Fire". The first film was highly anticipated, released to critical praise, and made boatloads of cash. Then as time went on, people's opinion of the film went down. People started to admit that it wasn't that amazing. Meanwhile, the studio pocketed the profits, and fast-tracked the sequel. The hype for the sequel was insane, and then it was released. The second film received even more critical praise than the first film, had a bigger budget, and made more money. And I can guarantee, time will go on, and once people are not high on the hype, they will realize that the film isn't so fantastic. But it doesn't matter, because the studio is pocketing the profits, and now pumping out two back-to-back sequels....
Sound like a familiar pattern? Yes. Yes it does. It sounds a little bit like... "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012)? And so many other ballbusters. Sorry sorry, I mean blockbusters. This happens really, really often, and it annoys me.
All one must do to learn the truth about "Catching Fire", amongst all the biased, bought-and-paid-for critics, and the delusional mooing public, is to observe. The truth can be gained from simple observation.
"Catching Fire" is slap in the face to any fan of the book. The sad irony of it all is that the crowds stuffing sold-out showings of Catching Fire strongly resemble the Capital citizens eagerly awaiting the latest Hunger Games battle. Meanwhile, the Capital elite - woops, I mean Hollywood - make obscene profit from it all, doing everything they can to make sure the current system stays in place...
screenplayisles.blogspot
Upstream Color (2013)
"Upstream" creates a muddled, imprecise portrait.
An important question surrounding "Upstream Color" has become: Should the film be applauded just because Shane Carruth attempted it? Carruth did not only direct, write, and star in the film (his second picture, released a decade after his first), but he is also credited as producer, composer, and editor. Carruth's effort and determination is definitely ambitious. But the film itself is a gimcrack vanity trip.
The main character, Kris, experiences severe trauma, which involves her being kidnapped, drugged (the drug contains some metaphysical worm), and hypnotized. When she comes out of her stupor she is penniless and, unable to explain her absence, loses her job.
A man named The Sampler (a separate person from the kidnapper) lures Kris to his farm by using a low-frequency sound. He removes her worm and places it in a piglet. Kris is released, and later meets Jeff, who has been through a similar frightening ordeal.
The piglet carrying Kris' worm is somehow psychically connected to her. When that pig gives birth, The Sampler puts the piglets in a sack and drowns them. At the same time elsewhere, Kris is suddenly panicked (but doesn't know why) and begins searching frantically. Jeff is equally upset. Very scared, the two lock themselves in a bathroom, hiding in the bathtub with a gun and supplies.
Carruth says he chose not to have a relatable trauma happen to the two protagonists because he was worried that if it was too specific, people would believe the commentary was an indictment of whatever that thing was. For example, if the drug used in "Upstream" was a pharmaceutical drug (as opposed to the worm capsules), it could easily be perceived as a comment on pharmaceuticals. This is wrong.
Look at a film that does use a specific subject to communicate a universal message. "Brokeback Mountain" deals with a taboo relationship between two cowboys. But the film's themes extend beyond homosexuality, as is obvious to anyone who has viewed the film.
By trying to make "Upstream Color" more relatable, Carruth does the opposite, and alienates the viewer. How are real-life trauma survivors, or anyone else, supposed to empathize with the victims of pig mind control? And the dreamlike, abstract quality of the film further distances it from reality.
After thinking about it, the similarities between Kris' in-film trauma, and some victims of real-life trauma, became clearer: financial and personal ruin; being endlessly dazed, and frightened, and hopeless, just a general mess. But even when these connections become clear, they lack impact. By generalizing the trauma the film isolates itself; it would have done better to use one specific, tangible trauma. As it is, "Upstream" creates a muddled, imprecise portrait.
screenplayisles.blogspot
Beautiful Thing (1996)
In a London suburb, young Jamie (bullied by his peers) and his neighbour/classmate Ste (beaten by his brother and father) start to develop feelings for each other.
This is my second time watching Beautiful Thing (and it will not be my last). After the first viewing, I thought it was great, but not phenomenal. I was bothered by a few very minor things. Regardless, the film made a large impression on me. Over time, the film grew on me. After watching Beautiful Thing for the second time, I found not a single fault within it. (It doesn't matter if you can't understand some of what is said in the film, due to the accents. In fact, it makes the film more authentic, and better). Beautiful Thing is a small, quiet masterpiece.
The players in Beautiful Thing are not merely characters. They are familiar, and they are real, and they are family. We see all their different shades; rude, vulgar, dirty, desperate, scared, loving, selfless. They really do struggle; they are living life, and doing their best, and being pushed back three steps for every one they take forward. Some parts are hard to watch, because the emotion is just so genuine. (To be clear: I am not saying that this film has the realism of, say, an Italian neorealist film. This is a different type of realism.) Beautiful Thing does not show you what you want to see. It is not an easy film. The story is effortless to follow, but still requires the viewer to think and feel.
This is not a film about homosexuality (though Ste and Jamie's relationship is quite touching.) In fact, this film has very little to do with homosexuality. It has everything to do with being human. This is a film about bigotry and ignorance, viewed through one particular lens, but having universal meaning.
Thankfully, this lens ain't rose coloured.
screenplayisles.blogspot
Room 237 (2012)
I have never read Stephen King's novel "The Shining", nor have I seen Kubrick's film. "Room 237" has inspired me to visit these two works.
The people interviewed for "Room 237" offer various interpretations of Stanley Kubricks's 1980 film "The Shining". We only hear the voices of the interviewed, and the film's visuals are a mix of "Shining" clips, as well as relevant photographs and video. Some of the most prominent theories presented include "The Shining" being a metaphor for the Holocaust and the genocide of Native Americans. It's also theorized that the film is a confession of Kubrick's involvement in the Apollo 11 moon landing hoax. These ideas might sound slightly bizarre, but the theories are presented in an unbiased, intriguing, and sometimes convincing way.
Aside from being genuinely unsettling, the film really exercised my imagination, and stimulated my curiosity. The theories, fair and far- reaching alike, were interesting, and I was thinking hard the entire time. The film is all speculation, and yet still mentally riveting. One shouldn't go into the film expecting any definite answers, because there are none. "Room 237" is refreshing in that it forces the viewer to come to their own conclusion. The film is filled to the brim with theories, in an avalanche of information, but the running time flies by.
The commentary is a mix of thoughtful intelligence, clever observation, blurry guesses, and obvious stretches, but there is a good balance of it all. I think the only stinker among the interviewees is the smug Juli Kearns, the lone female, and annoyingly idiotic.
The music was terrific; eerie, frightening, and bizarre. The score is wonderfully different, and suits the film perfectly.
My only complaint (and it is a minor one) is that the film could have had more visual clarity. At the beginning of the film, the interviewed individuals' names come across the screen when they first speak. We never actually see the speakers, and their names are not shown again until the end credits. Aside from Juli Kearns, I was never quite sure who was speaking. It would have been helpful if the speaker's name was shown on-screen whenever they spoke. Because the film moves so quickly, and is so full of information, the speaker is next to impossible to identify.
I have never read Stephen King's novel "The Shining", nor have I seen Kubrick's film. This didn't affect my viewing experience at all. In fact, "Room 237" has inspired me to visit these two works.
I don't think "Room 237" fits into the classification of a documentary. This film is of the kind that defies classification, as it is neither objective nor subjective, but rather a conglomeration of ideas, theories, musings, factoids, and questions. In this way, the film is quite unique.
"Room 237" was a definite success.
screenplayisles.blogspot
Happy People: A Year in the Taiga (2010)
It's a solid, responsible, and progressive use of the film medium. But when it comes to deeper political issues, and discussion around them, "Happy People" misses the mark.
The documentary starts in the village of Bakhtia at the river Yenisei, in the Siberian Taiga. (The Taiga is the surrounding wilderness.) There are no roads; the only way to reach Bakhtia is by helicopter, or by boat. And even boats can only get to Bakhtia during the few ice-free months; otherwise the river is frozen over.
Bakhtia has approximately 300 inhabitants, and the majority of them make their living as trappers. Most of the film focuses on these hunters. And, say the trappers spoken to, they are happy. Out of all the opportunities available to them, trapping is the best way to make a living, they explain. One gets to work and live in the beauty of the Taiga, and the only person they must answer to is themselves.
The nature and landscape seen in the film is of course stunning. The documentary was filmed over the course of a year, and across the four seasons, and that is the way the film is divided (starting with spring, ending with winter).
The trappers we follow are seldom in Bakhtia. There is only a small window of time in which they can hunt, but most of their work is done preparing for the hunting. And they stick to the old ways, being almost entirely self sufficient. The only two modern technologies they use are chainsaws and snowmobiles. Other than this, the men make everything themselves; their own shelter, their own traps, and they catch and prepare the majority of their own food.
The men trap alone, and only have their dogs for company. "You are no hunter without a dog," one trapper says. But the companionship the men share with their canines is just a bonus, because the dogs are used practically. Actually, the dogs' presence is discussed extensively in the film. One of the most interesting things, as one man discusses, is the relationship these trappers share with the animals. He explains that some men nearly share a plate with their dog, and let the dog sleep on their cot. Himself? He makes his dog sleep outside, even when it's very cold, and he does not feed it too much. Though, he still says, there is definitely love shared between him and his dog.
The film also tackles a major problem in Bakhtia: alcoholism. As one labour worker explains, most of the old ways (such as the critical role of elders) have been lost and forgotten. So now drinking is rampant, perhaps because most men only have their work (monotonous, lonesome, and tough) and nothing else.
One aspect in which the documentary is lacking, is that it fails to suggest any solutions (either from the filmmakers, those filmed, or anyone else) of how to heal the problems these humane and modest people face. Seeing into Bakhtia, I was both grateful for and saddened (mostly saddened) by my Westernized life. The trappers in the film claim to be happy, but how pleasant, truly, can such a severely isolated life, killing and constantly working to survive, bring happiness? I think what is meant, is that out of the opportunities available to them, trapping is indeed the best. Happy or not, without having to answer to any government, or anyone else, these hunters really are their own makers, in the good and the bad.
"Happy People" is a rare, thought-provoking look into a type of life many would otherwise never be able to see. It's a solid, responsible, and progressive use of the film medium. But when it comes to deeper political issues, and discussion around them, "Happy People" misses the mark.
screenplayisles.blogspot
Diana (2013)
Ignore the negative reviews; some people take themselves too seriously. Just don't mistake this fun fiction for literal history.
I know nothing of Princess Diana's life, or the politics surrounding it. The extent of my Diana knowledge comes from one of her interviews. I forget what it was about, but I just remember the exhaustion in Diana's eyes; like she had the weight of the world pressing on her. Going in to see "Diana" I found myself in the rare position of not having seen any footage from the movie. The only thing I went in aware of was the scathing critical response, and I couldn't imagine why the film's reception was so impugning. How could "Diana" hold a 9% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes? A 9% approval rating is lower than some truly dreadful films: "Dumb and Dumberer", "After Earth", "The Love Guru", "Valentine's Day", "Batman & Robin", "Freddy Got Fingered". "Diana" was on my radar before its release, but after I became aware of the tremendously negative reaction, my excitement to see it was intensified.
Watching "Diana", was I bored for a single minute? No. Even though I didn't like certain aspects of it, it was engrossing. Was it melodramatic? So melodramatic. But to work, in its current state, the film needed to be histrionic on some level. Some parts of the film are just plain inspiring (Diana walking across the land mine field comes to mind.) The cinematography, gorgeous. The press' appalling treatment of Diana is a particular highlight (they treated her worse than an animal.) Until the last twenty minutes or so the narrative was clear, but near the end, "Diana" did lose me.
The film's biggest weakness is the relationship between Diana and Hasnat Khan, played by Naveen Andrews. (Hasnat is a heart surgeon who saves lives, but he's a dead character with no heart. Ironic.) There is no chemistry, no attraction, between Hasnat and Diana, and their relationship is utterly hollow. Diana is infatuated by Hasnat from the start, for no reason. Their interaction becomes more contrived and absurd as the film progresses. Worsening it all, Naveen Andrews' efforts are pathetic, and he is god awful in the film.
The portrayal of Diana is another issue. I'm not talking about Naomi Watts, who I enjoyed (her performance was very entertaining.) But rather, the head-scratching portrait put together by the writer and director. Diana is most often shown as neurotic, selfish, immature, and media-obsessed. But then she randomly switches gears, becoming a humanitarian martyr, flying across the world to visit children with blown off limbs, trying to rid the world of landmines. The way Diana is portrayed, fiction or not, is baffling. Very contradictory and confusing.
The thing that audience members need to look past is the historical accuracy of Diana (there is none). But that does not automatically make it a bad film. If anyone watches this film and mistakes it for literal history, the fault lays not with the filmmakers; it lays with the ignorant, obtuse person.
Looking past the repugnant Hasnat components, I really enjoyed the film. For anyone going into it, have an open mind. "Diana" is a fun one, if you have the patience to decipher it.
screenplayisles.blogspot