Saturday, June 28, 2003
Autumn Sonata Vs Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood
Ingmar Bergman Vs Callie Khouri
Watching these two movies side by side made me realize how Hollywood treats similar materials differently from other systems.
In appearance, both are about mother - daughter relationships. Autumn Sonata is the story of Charlotte (Ingrid Bergman) and her two daughters, Eva and Helena, played by Liv Ullmann and Lena Nyman. She is accused by Eva of being negligent when they were young because she was a strong career minded woman who shuts herself away from her daughters with her closed door practicing classical piano and long stretches of tours; ultimately destroying their lives.
Divine Secrets on the other hand is a sudden family disaster erupted when Sidda Lee Walker (Sandra Bullock) was misquoted by a Times journalist that her mother, Vivi (Ellen Burstyn) was an alcoholic whip lashing child abuser (the part about being a alcoholic is true); and because of that growing up environment, Sidda thinks she has got a lot of pent up creative energy to allow her to become a playwright.
Autumn Sonata is not a comedy unlike Divine Secrets. You get the bits and pieces of sarcasm and hilarious actions coming from typical Hollywood in the latter – from bad phone etiquettes to silly girls’ antics such as the night drive where they unclothe themselves and get arrested by the police to the so called important but actually irrelevant question that we anticipate when Vivi asks Sidda towards the end of the movie. Some jokes fail but most of them holds up quite well.
Autumn Sonata is intense unlike Divine not because the latter tries to be funny but because Autumn doesn’t allow us to breath a second without thinking what has happened and what is going to happened. Both movies uses flashbacks. Divine uses it as story relating technique whereas Autumn uses the visual imageries to intensify the conversation between mother and daughter. Take emotional flashback scenes as an example. When Jack, Vivi’s husband goes into a kitchen and mentions Vivi’s old flame, the latter breaks up into a tantrum and breaks things up, before leaving the room. Sidda comforts her father and prepares dinner. Then, there is also the scene where we hear Vivi and Jack quarrel while Sidda and her siblings hid under the bedsheets and play. (Something which I don’t understand – we don't get to see Sidd’s siblings at all. We don’t hear their thoughts about the family. It is as if they don’t exist as adults)
In Sonata, we see young Eva (Linn Ullmann) waiting outside the door while her mother practices the piano. When she takes a break, Eva goes in, almost too timidly and sat there waiting for further instructions. Charlotte picks up the paper and asks her daughter to go out and play, instead of bothering her. We see all this from the long shot, is not only artistically well defined – with orange lights streaming through – a great picture; but tells us how empty everything seems. This sobriety is duplicated in scenes such as the one where the family is in a sparsely furnished house while Leonardo, Charlotte’s male lover, second husband, plays the cello. Everything is distanced and the streaming orange light from the windows complements the overall mood. We feel the hidden tensions but because we are so far away, we can second guess what is happening.
There are interesting characters in Divine but they lack characterization. Autumn Sonata has characters that feels and hurt. It is mostly based on acting. Liv Ullman gushes out with her torrid of emotions when she confronts her mother about her childhood and how she feels inadequate. She relates how she hates herself and Charlotte because the latter forces her to wear braces and dresses; which makes her ugly. Charlotte defends herself by saying how her own mother never touches her and that she realizes she has never grown up. There is a scene where she dreams she was asleep when a small slender hand (probably her daughter, Eva) touches hers. This gentle display of love was followed by horror as she was smothered by a pillow that wakes her up. The conflicting dream is not only a Freudian tool to highlight Charlotte’s deep felt fear but also acts as a indicator of what we can expect – the mother – daughter confrontation to follow immediately.
Compare that to the Ya Ya sisters who try to tell Sidda that her mother, Vivi, was hurting as well. We see Vivi’s mother snatching the diamond ring from her (it was a gift from Vivi’s father) because she suspects incest. Bad mother – daughter relationships? There are actually more flashbacks of Sidda and Vivi being happy together rather than being mad at each other. The scene where she feigns drowning at the beach and everyone is so joyful or the time where she takes Vivi on a plane for the second time of the day though Sidda initially copped out in their first attempt. She looks more like a caring mother than anyone can think of. God knows how Sidda can grow up to think her mother otherwise.
There is the scene where Eva and Charlotte plays Prelude No 2 in Minor. While it appears as if the mother was teaching her daughter how the piece should be played; it actually reveals much more about the dynamics. Eva’s playing which was explained by her mother as mawkish and sentimental, conveys morose and pessimism so deep down within the heart; that when Charolotte plays her more pompous or “emotional” version as she says it, we realize how crafted she was in portraying the master’s art as it was intended but fails to inject her own soul into it.
It’s probably unfair to put the two together. Autumn Sonata is more than mother and daughter or even families. It’s about love, hatred and seeking forgiveness. On the other hand, Divine uses the mother-daughter conflict to show how forgiveness is possible (Classic Hollywood) though it is still in the reviewer’s opinion that it is rather unthinkable that Sidda can get so mad at her mother when she seems quite a good woman – not perfect but caring and rather lovable at times. The story could have been prevented by explaining to her mother how the journalist has blown everything out of proportion but then given this is Hollywood, the story is told because otherwise, we would have none. Divine makes a heartfelt story out of nothing while Autumn Sonata uses the mother-daughter relationship to tell us of love; its strings and stirrings.
Ingmar Bergman Vs Callie Khouri
Watching these two movies side by side made me realize how Hollywood treats similar materials differently from other systems.
In appearance, both are about mother - daughter relationships. Autumn Sonata is the story of Charlotte (Ingrid Bergman) and her two daughters, Eva and Helena, played by Liv Ullmann and Lena Nyman. She is accused by Eva of being negligent when they were young because she was a strong career minded woman who shuts herself away from her daughters with her closed door practicing classical piano and long stretches of tours; ultimately destroying their lives.
Divine Secrets on the other hand is a sudden family disaster erupted when Sidda Lee Walker (Sandra Bullock) was misquoted by a Times journalist that her mother, Vivi (Ellen Burstyn) was an alcoholic whip lashing child abuser (the part about being a alcoholic is true); and because of that growing up environment, Sidda thinks she has got a lot of pent up creative energy to allow her to become a playwright.
Autumn Sonata is not a comedy unlike Divine Secrets. You get the bits and pieces of sarcasm and hilarious actions coming from typical Hollywood in the latter – from bad phone etiquettes to silly girls’ antics such as the night drive where they unclothe themselves and get arrested by the police to the so called important but actually irrelevant question that we anticipate when Vivi asks Sidda towards the end of the movie. Some jokes fail but most of them holds up quite well.
Autumn Sonata is intense unlike Divine not because the latter tries to be funny but because Autumn doesn’t allow us to breath a second without thinking what has happened and what is going to happened. Both movies uses flashbacks. Divine uses it as story relating technique whereas Autumn uses the visual imageries to intensify the conversation between mother and daughter. Take emotional flashback scenes as an example. When Jack, Vivi’s husband goes into a kitchen and mentions Vivi’s old flame, the latter breaks up into a tantrum and breaks things up, before leaving the room. Sidda comforts her father and prepares dinner. Then, there is also the scene where we hear Vivi and Jack quarrel while Sidda and her siblings hid under the bedsheets and play. (Something which I don’t understand – we don't get to see Sidd’s siblings at all. We don’t hear their thoughts about the family. It is as if they don’t exist as adults)
In Sonata, we see young Eva (Linn Ullmann) waiting outside the door while her mother practices the piano. When she takes a break, Eva goes in, almost too timidly and sat there waiting for further instructions. Charlotte picks up the paper and asks her daughter to go out and play, instead of bothering her. We see all this from the long shot, is not only artistically well defined – with orange lights streaming through – a great picture; but tells us how empty everything seems. This sobriety is duplicated in scenes such as the one where the family is in a sparsely furnished house while Leonardo, Charlotte’s male lover, second husband, plays the cello. Everything is distanced and the streaming orange light from the windows complements the overall mood. We feel the hidden tensions but because we are so far away, we can second guess what is happening.
There are interesting characters in Divine but they lack characterization. Autumn Sonata has characters that feels and hurt. It is mostly based on acting. Liv Ullman gushes out with her torrid of emotions when she confronts her mother about her childhood and how she feels inadequate. She relates how she hates herself and Charlotte because the latter forces her to wear braces and dresses; which makes her ugly. Charlotte defends herself by saying how her own mother never touches her and that she realizes she has never grown up. There is a scene where she dreams she was asleep when a small slender hand (probably her daughter, Eva) touches hers. This gentle display of love was followed by horror as she was smothered by a pillow that wakes her up. The conflicting dream is not only a Freudian tool to highlight Charlotte’s deep felt fear but also acts as a indicator of what we can expect – the mother – daughter confrontation to follow immediately.
Compare that to the Ya Ya sisters who try to tell Sidda that her mother, Vivi, was hurting as well. We see Vivi’s mother snatching the diamond ring from her (it was a gift from Vivi’s father) because she suspects incest. Bad mother – daughter relationships? There are actually more flashbacks of Sidda and Vivi being happy together rather than being mad at each other. The scene where she feigns drowning at the beach and everyone is so joyful or the time where she takes Vivi on a plane for the second time of the day though Sidda initially copped out in their first attempt. She looks more like a caring mother than anyone can think of. God knows how Sidda can grow up to think her mother otherwise.
There is the scene where Eva and Charlotte plays Prelude No 2 in Minor. While it appears as if the mother was teaching her daughter how the piece should be played; it actually reveals much more about the dynamics. Eva’s playing which was explained by her mother as mawkish and sentimental, conveys morose and pessimism so deep down within the heart; that when Charolotte plays her more pompous or “emotional” version as she says it, we realize how crafted she was in portraying the master’s art as it was intended but fails to inject her own soul into it.
It’s probably unfair to put the two together. Autumn Sonata is more than mother and daughter or even families. It’s about love, hatred and seeking forgiveness. On the other hand, Divine uses the mother-daughter conflict to show how forgiveness is possible (Classic Hollywood) though it is still in the reviewer’s opinion that it is rather unthinkable that Sidda can get so mad at her mother when she seems quite a good woman – not perfect but caring and rather lovable at times. The story could have been prevented by explaining to her mother how the journalist has blown everything out of proportion but then given this is Hollywood, the story is told because otherwise, we would have none. Divine makes a heartfelt story out of nothing while Autumn Sonata uses the mother-daughter relationship to tell us of love; its strings and stirrings.
Ivan The Terrible
Part 1 & II
Directed by Sergei Eisenstein
Ivan The Terrible adds to the canon of “must see film” for enthusiasts. Among them includes Fellini’s 8 ½, which had one of the most captive and psychologically symbolic starting; Children of Paradise which also had a robust street life opening that Moulin Rouge tried to imitate. Ivan The Terrible is the other film that has a profound statement on the landmarks of cinema development. It opens with the coronation of Ivan, Tsar of Moscow, who was the Russian dictator that united Russia with an iron fist. It is a spectacular scene, a hugely grandiose 16th century piece with lavish costumes and stunning 16th century sets that was designed to the most intimate details.
Sidetrack a little, I know of people who refuse to watch black and white or silent films because they think they are “old” and irrelevant to themselves. Secretly, I like to think they missed out. They missed out on how powerful the medium can be and how the great masters have used their creative vision and effort to transcend the montone (or in certain cases, sound) by using moving images to subtly imply many things on screen – among them sometimes the study of intimate psychology and the revision of mythical history –portraying humanity – and that in my opinion, is great art. Ivan The Terrible is that kind of movie.
Sergei Eisenstein’s “Battleship Potemkin” was hailed as one of the greatest silent movie ever made. Critics mention the scenes of “The Steps of Odessa” as one of the most silent cinematic scenes ever made – scenes that without sounds, depict human horror through their faces. It was also the movie that made critics stood up and noticed Eisenstein.
Ivan The Terrible is a talkie – and I like to believe that Eisenstein has yet to fully wear off the effects of silent movies. In Ivan, everything is theatrical, with one major difference to watching one. Their faces are often closed up shots and reveals emotions so clearly it becomes “artificial” by modern standards. In effect, it feels more like watching a silent movie with sounds. It’s not a movie for modern movie-goers who are more used to physical distance with their characters profile and often, less nuanced.
But to dismiss such theatricalities is to miss the whole point of Ivan The Terrible. There is an evolvement of cinema like many other art forms and Ivan remains a powerful statement because it not only tells us of the style of that time (or at least Eisenstein’s style for I’m not well-knowledgeable or have watched enough silent or black and white movies enough to comment on what constitutes style of that time) but also, it captures the grandiosity and complexity of film that has hardly been imitated ever since.
Every scene is tweaked and the characters are not what they seemed to be. When the peasants disrupted his wedding and almost caused a riot, Ivan neutralized their enmity with his fearless speech that probably is a replicate of the power of Stalin. (note the movie was commissioned by the regime at that time and hence had to sing the praises of it). The Tsar is a complex character - weak and confused at times. In Part II, when he meets his friend, now the Philip of Metropolitan, he moans he felt betrayed and have no friends. Yet straight after giving the priest his promise of not killing any more boyars, he went on to devise more plans to eliminate them. There is also an implied secret love affair between Tsarina and Prince Andrei Kurbsky which is seen in the wedding scenes and amplified when the Tsarina told the prince of the miracle.
The great achievement of Ivan is also its use of the sets and artistic fine tuning. Huge lurking shadows magnify characters’ intention while backgrounds drawings provide more allusions. The oft-mentioned classic scene where Ivan at the end of Part I, looks at his people afar from the desert, showing his side profile against the snaking line, is more than just an artistic statement. He was “looking down” at his people which implies the roles of authorial control and subordination.
There is a scene in Part II where Ivan meets his Orchiniks – an army made up by people who are “orphans” that miraculously changes into colour. Suddenly, we see how colour, while making a more visual impact and seems to enlivens everything, dulls our appreciation of the characters. It is as if colour makes it appear too straightforward. This scene however shows madness through a dance that insinuates more evil to come.
Sergei Eisenstein never finished the trilogy which it was supposed to be. Part II was banned initially because it suggests the ugliness of Stalinism. Yet, Ivan The Terrible remains a benchmark of cinema for transcending time and making a statement about the complexity of human psychology.
Part 1 & II
Directed by Sergei Eisenstein
Ivan The Terrible adds to the canon of “must see film” for enthusiasts. Among them includes Fellini’s 8 ½, which had one of the most captive and psychologically symbolic starting; Children of Paradise which also had a robust street life opening that Moulin Rouge tried to imitate. Ivan The Terrible is the other film that has a profound statement on the landmarks of cinema development. It opens with the coronation of Ivan, Tsar of Moscow, who was the Russian dictator that united Russia with an iron fist. It is a spectacular scene, a hugely grandiose 16th century piece with lavish costumes and stunning 16th century sets that was designed to the most intimate details.
Sidetrack a little, I know of people who refuse to watch black and white or silent films because they think they are “old” and irrelevant to themselves. Secretly, I like to think they missed out. They missed out on how powerful the medium can be and how the great masters have used their creative vision and effort to transcend the montone (or in certain cases, sound) by using moving images to subtly imply many things on screen – among them sometimes the study of intimate psychology and the revision of mythical history –portraying humanity – and that in my opinion, is great art. Ivan The Terrible is that kind of movie.
Sergei Eisenstein’s “Battleship Potemkin” was hailed as one of the greatest silent movie ever made. Critics mention the scenes of “The Steps of Odessa” as one of the most silent cinematic scenes ever made – scenes that without sounds, depict human horror through their faces. It was also the movie that made critics stood up and noticed Eisenstein.
Ivan The Terrible is a talkie – and I like to believe that Eisenstein has yet to fully wear off the effects of silent movies. In Ivan, everything is theatrical, with one major difference to watching one. Their faces are often closed up shots and reveals emotions so clearly it becomes “artificial” by modern standards. In effect, it feels more like watching a silent movie with sounds. It’s not a movie for modern movie-goers who are more used to physical distance with their characters profile and often, less nuanced.
But to dismiss such theatricalities is to miss the whole point of Ivan The Terrible. There is an evolvement of cinema like many other art forms and Ivan remains a powerful statement because it not only tells us of the style of that time (or at least Eisenstein’s style for I’m not well-knowledgeable or have watched enough silent or black and white movies enough to comment on what constitutes style of that time) but also, it captures the grandiosity and complexity of film that has hardly been imitated ever since.
Every scene is tweaked and the characters are not what they seemed to be. When the peasants disrupted his wedding and almost caused a riot, Ivan neutralized their enmity with his fearless speech that probably is a replicate of the power of Stalin. (note the movie was commissioned by the regime at that time and hence had to sing the praises of it). The Tsar is a complex character - weak and confused at times. In Part II, when he meets his friend, now the Philip of Metropolitan, he moans he felt betrayed and have no friends. Yet straight after giving the priest his promise of not killing any more boyars, he went on to devise more plans to eliminate them. There is also an implied secret love affair between Tsarina and Prince Andrei Kurbsky which is seen in the wedding scenes and amplified when the Tsarina told the prince of the miracle.
The great achievement of Ivan is also its use of the sets and artistic fine tuning. Huge lurking shadows magnify characters’ intention while backgrounds drawings provide more allusions. The oft-mentioned classic scene where Ivan at the end of Part I, looks at his people afar from the desert, showing his side profile against the snaking line, is more than just an artistic statement. He was “looking down” at his people which implies the roles of authorial control and subordination.
There is a scene in Part II where Ivan meets his Orchiniks – an army made up by people who are “orphans” that miraculously changes into colour. Suddenly, we see how colour, while making a more visual impact and seems to enlivens everything, dulls our appreciation of the characters. It is as if colour makes it appear too straightforward. This scene however shows madness through a dance that insinuates more evil to come.
Sergei Eisenstein never finished the trilogy which it was supposed to be. Part II was banned initially because it suggests the ugliness of Stalinism. Yet, Ivan The Terrible remains a benchmark of cinema for transcending time and making a statement about the complexity of human psychology.
Friday, June 27, 2003
Pioneers In Ingolstadt
Directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder
There is something about Pioneers In Ingolstadt which doesn’t quite feel enough. When Fassbinder made this film for German TV, it was his eleventh feature and he started directing a year ago at 23. This was also the movie that would made him famous at Cannes and the New York Film Festival.
In spite of the acclaim, Pioneers In Ingolstadt feels very much inadequate. A group of young soldiers arrives in a small town to build a bridge. By night time, they will kill their boredom by hanging out at bars and cruising for women to make out. Two housemaids whom we first see watching the procession, talks about getting a man. One of them is Alma (Irm Hermann) who preys for sex with the soldiers and eventually ends up demanding payment from them after she lost her job. Berta (Hanna Schygulla), on the other hand, holds more romantic views and seeks love.
The reason why Pioneers feel inadequate is probably because it is unable to engage the audience. We can sit through the movie but still feel nothing towards the end. The characters seem devoid of emotions except perhaps Berta and her young master who has a crush on her.
Perhaps its got to do with the fact that this film was supposed to be “Brechtian”– where audiences are encouraged to think rather than getting involved in the story and identifying with the characters.
Pioneers In Ingolstadt however does not even fulfill that premise. For example, when Alma trips over the sergeant (Klaus Löwitsch) and they flirted before having sex on the bench; how are we supposed to think? Outraged or disgusted by their behaviour? When the sergeant is angered by being made a fool as he falls over the sawed bridge handle, the screen panned across and we see the unmoving faces. Is that meant to be stylistic or suffused with a deeper meaning?
Certain parts of the film fails to make sense or can be easily predicted. As Frieda (Egerer) tries to “seduce” the sergeant in the dancehall, her efforts were thwarted when she disclosed her infatuation to Alma; whom we would know soon enough through their conversation and her manner; that she would plant a trap for the military man. Why would Fassbinder develop the story so that we can predict exactly what was going to happen? Why did the women felt threatened by Alma and thought her a bad name to the reputation of the women in town when all of them seemed contented to kiss and make out with the soldiers in the dancehall (as depicted in one panning scene)? Most troubling is Berta who initially talks about feeling good about the subtle advances made by her young master while she becomes hopelessly infatuated later on with a stranger recruit who doesn’t even battle an eyelid when his intentions are clear that he only wants to get his rocks off with her.
The film does have its stylistic standouts such as the scene which moves between the master and his son while they were talking and reading the papers; and in between them is a portrait; or the scene where they had dinner and Berta was seated in a separate table so far away from them that she appears little in the screen. There is the scene where the soldiers beat up the young master which looks amateurish – and which took up a fair bit of screen time; and you wonder why he was not dead yet from all these thrashing – and still able to climb up. The violence feels detached (yes brechtian it is) but still does not try to infer anything deeper than that.
I suppose that’s why Pioneers In Ingolstadt feels inadequate. Art films can be intellectual but it becomes meaningless if it detaches its mission to say something.
Directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder
There is something about Pioneers In Ingolstadt which doesn’t quite feel enough. When Fassbinder made this film for German TV, it was his eleventh feature and he started directing a year ago at 23. This was also the movie that would made him famous at Cannes and the New York Film Festival.
In spite of the acclaim, Pioneers In Ingolstadt feels very much inadequate. A group of young soldiers arrives in a small town to build a bridge. By night time, they will kill their boredom by hanging out at bars and cruising for women to make out. Two housemaids whom we first see watching the procession, talks about getting a man. One of them is Alma (Irm Hermann) who preys for sex with the soldiers and eventually ends up demanding payment from them after she lost her job. Berta (Hanna Schygulla), on the other hand, holds more romantic views and seeks love.
The reason why Pioneers feel inadequate is probably because it is unable to engage the audience. We can sit through the movie but still feel nothing towards the end. The characters seem devoid of emotions except perhaps Berta and her young master who has a crush on her.
Perhaps its got to do with the fact that this film was supposed to be “Brechtian”– where audiences are encouraged to think rather than getting involved in the story and identifying with the characters.
Pioneers In Ingolstadt however does not even fulfill that premise. For example, when Alma trips over the sergeant (Klaus Löwitsch) and they flirted before having sex on the bench; how are we supposed to think? Outraged or disgusted by their behaviour? When the sergeant is angered by being made a fool as he falls over the sawed bridge handle, the screen panned across and we see the unmoving faces. Is that meant to be stylistic or suffused with a deeper meaning?
Certain parts of the film fails to make sense or can be easily predicted. As Frieda (Egerer) tries to “seduce” the sergeant in the dancehall, her efforts were thwarted when she disclosed her infatuation to Alma; whom we would know soon enough through their conversation and her manner; that she would plant a trap for the military man. Why would Fassbinder develop the story so that we can predict exactly what was going to happen? Why did the women felt threatened by Alma and thought her a bad name to the reputation of the women in town when all of them seemed contented to kiss and make out with the soldiers in the dancehall (as depicted in one panning scene)? Most troubling is Berta who initially talks about feeling good about the subtle advances made by her young master while she becomes hopelessly infatuated later on with a stranger recruit who doesn’t even battle an eyelid when his intentions are clear that he only wants to get his rocks off with her.
The film does have its stylistic standouts such as the scene which moves between the master and his son while they were talking and reading the papers; and in between them is a portrait; or the scene where they had dinner and Berta was seated in a separate table so far away from them that she appears little in the screen. There is the scene where the soldiers beat up the young master which looks amateurish – and which took up a fair bit of screen time; and you wonder why he was not dead yet from all these thrashing – and still able to climb up. The violence feels detached (yes brechtian it is) but still does not try to infer anything deeper than that.
I suppose that’s why Pioneers In Ingolstadt feels inadequate. Art films can be intellectual but it becomes meaningless if it detaches its mission to say something.
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Grand Illusion
Directed by Jean Renoir
The first thing that came to my mind when I watched Grand Illusion was The Great Escape starring Steve McQueen; that had probably been inspired by it. The Great Escape was an action movie which bore the trademarks of classic Hollywood whereas Grand Illusion was something more.
Lieutenant Maréchal (Jean Gabin) and Captain de Boeldieu (Pierre Fresnay ) are two French officers being shot down during an assignment. They were sent to meet Captain von Rauffenstein (Erich von Stroheim) who will dine with them only to be interrupted by a messenger that will send them away immediately to a prisoner’s of war camp.
In the camp, the officers plotted with other soldiers to escape by digging a tunnel (this is the part that inspired The Great Escape) and removing the dirt when they went outdoors during the day to do manual gardening. Before the plan could be realised, the officers were sent away to other camps; before landing on a fortress managed by Rauffenstein.
Renoir treats his characters with a deep respect for humanity. In the POW camp, Roseanthal (Marcel Dalio) who is a rich Jew gives lavish dinners to other soldiers as if they were living in peace times. When he receives a chest of clothes (filled with woman clothings) and one of them dresses up, everyone in the room freeze, probably because they have not seen any lady for a long time. When Maréchal was locked up in a cell, the German prison guard gives him cigarettes and even a harmonium to calm him down. Rauffenstein plants a sole germanium by his window because that is the only flower in the whole of his camp and against the backdrop of falling snow, it painted a bleak poetic picture. When Maréchal and Roseanthal escaped from the fortress, hot under the heels of their German captives, we witness the former’s kindness and compassion when he goes back for the latter who had hurt his leg, limped and slowed down their journey.
While Maréchal and Boeldieu seems a fine pair complementing each other, they were merely caught together in a situation which both had to befriend each other to get out. Renoir contrasts their comradeship with the respect that Rauffenstein and Boeldieu had for each other. It seems they understood each other more as soldiers; and how on being opposite side has not necessarily make them hate each other. When Boeldieu was distracting attention for Maréchal and Roseanthal to escape; Rauffenstein begged the man not to run away or else he will shoot him. Boeldieu insisted and his death proves his deep-seated belief in what he had to do. There was also a conversation between Maréchal and Roseanthal where he told the latter that he thinks that if they were not in war together, they would not have known each other.
The love between Maréchal and a German woman peasant, Elsa (Dita Parlo) whom she met, strikes as endearingly heartfelt. Once again, Renoir proves that war cannot destroy love and human compassion.
Grand Illusion is not the masterpiece that Rules Of The Game is but it still is a great piece of work.
Directed by Jean Renoir
The first thing that came to my mind when I watched Grand Illusion was The Great Escape starring Steve McQueen; that had probably been inspired by it. The Great Escape was an action movie which bore the trademarks of classic Hollywood whereas Grand Illusion was something more.
Lieutenant Maréchal (Jean Gabin) and Captain de Boeldieu (Pierre Fresnay ) are two French officers being shot down during an assignment. They were sent to meet Captain von Rauffenstein (Erich von Stroheim) who will dine with them only to be interrupted by a messenger that will send them away immediately to a prisoner’s of war camp.
In the camp, the officers plotted with other soldiers to escape by digging a tunnel (this is the part that inspired The Great Escape) and removing the dirt when they went outdoors during the day to do manual gardening. Before the plan could be realised, the officers were sent away to other camps; before landing on a fortress managed by Rauffenstein.
Renoir treats his characters with a deep respect for humanity. In the POW camp, Roseanthal (Marcel Dalio) who is a rich Jew gives lavish dinners to other soldiers as if they were living in peace times. When he receives a chest of clothes (filled with woman clothings) and one of them dresses up, everyone in the room freeze, probably because they have not seen any lady for a long time. When Maréchal was locked up in a cell, the German prison guard gives him cigarettes and even a harmonium to calm him down. Rauffenstein plants a sole germanium by his window because that is the only flower in the whole of his camp and against the backdrop of falling snow, it painted a bleak poetic picture. When Maréchal and Roseanthal escaped from the fortress, hot under the heels of their German captives, we witness the former’s kindness and compassion when he goes back for the latter who had hurt his leg, limped and slowed down their journey.
While Maréchal and Boeldieu seems a fine pair complementing each other, they were merely caught together in a situation which both had to befriend each other to get out. Renoir contrasts their comradeship with the respect that Rauffenstein and Boeldieu had for each other. It seems they understood each other more as soldiers; and how on being opposite side has not necessarily make them hate each other. When Boeldieu was distracting attention for Maréchal and Roseanthal to escape; Rauffenstein begged the man not to run away or else he will shoot him. Boeldieu insisted and his death proves his deep-seated belief in what he had to do. There was also a conversation between Maréchal and Roseanthal where he told the latter that he thinks that if they were not in war together, they would not have known each other.
The love between Maréchal and a German woman peasant, Elsa (Dita Parlo) whom she met, strikes as endearingly heartfelt. Once again, Renoir proves that war cannot destroy love and human compassion.
Grand Illusion is not the masterpiece that Rules Of The Game is but it still is a great piece of work.
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
Getting Over Jack Wagner
Written by Elise Juska
Contemporary humour women writers the likes of Helen Fieldlng’s Bridget Jones’ diary should be able to identify with the woman protagonist, Elisa in Getting Over Jack Wagner. But this is not a book about women for women. Gettign Over Jack Wagner is also a book about a girl who dates only rock stars. Rock Stars according to her definition are men who play music or are in a band. Her story, hence is her love sojourns jumping from drummers to saxophonist to bass guitarist.
Not a serious read but definitely funny and light reading. If you like Nick Hornby’s High Fidelity, then Getting Over Jack Wagner shouldn’t disappoint.
Les Carabiniers
Directed by Jean Luc Goddard
Goddard adopts the spoof - satire form to ridicule the evils of war, which can be perceived by looking beyond the dryness of Les Carabiniers. We see 4 characters – 2 men and 2 women – whose relationships are unclear, rounded by 2 riflemen; in a vast expanse that could well be a farm. The riflemen or soldiers who call themselves the king’s messengers have came to recruit the two men – Ulysses and Michelangelo, as played by Marino Masé and Albert Juross respectively to join the war. The women sent the men off happily after they were promised riches.
Like many of Goddard’s films, Les Carabiniers is the director’s vehicle to carry his idea across. In this film, Goddard slaughters the sacred cows. The idea of the king as a friend of the peasant is ridiculous when the riflemen tells them that the king has personally sent them a letter. The men went to places like the Pyramid and saluted the Statue of Liberty as if they were doing a world tour rather than engaging in a war. When they occupied a poor man’s house, Ulysses suddenly descends into seriousness by appreciating a painting on the wall while Michelangelo makes the lady of the house stand on a chair and pries up and looks underneath her skirt with his rifle. Then, instead of taking sexual advances, he rides her like a horse and makes her crawl around the house. It is as if Goddard is telling us that our characters are so simple that it is war that is evil. When Michelangelo rounds up hostages to shoot them, he meets a higher ranking officer who asks him what was going on. After the officer was being repeatedly told by Michelangelo that all his higher ranks soldiers are killed (which is funny) , he tells the man to settle the problem himself and leaves in a car.
Goddard uses film stock of war attacks such as bombs being dropped from planes, tanks firing and even soldiers shooting and its devastation effects (burning buildings, dead bodies piled up) to tell us the senselessness of war. Yet, Goddard does not portray war as dramatic tragedies; but in a pseudo – intellectual way by shuffling the stocks in between intertitles. These intertitles are at times accounts of the recruiter’s version of their war, probably letters send to the women; because we immediately see one of them coming up to pick something from the mailbox. The intertitles read at times more like a narration of the war (not of the men’s narration) – “The king’s spies and police infiltrate the universities but can’t destroy the tradition of freedom” or statements“ There is no victory – only flags and fallen men”
Juross stands out between the two as an actor because he is more simple-minded and likeable. He seems to carry out the atrocities, describing the killings without much thought. Masé, on the other hand, looks more streetsmart; and the leader of the two. He was the one to shoot an old lady cleaner while they were hijacking a deserted building without much thought.
A female actress (not sure who she is) is in a standout scene where she recites poetry before shot to death for trying to ambush them. It can be likened to the Band of Outsider when the film’s three protagonists broke into a dance when they were in a cafe or the scene where the prostitute in My Life to Live dances around a stranger whom she has taken a fancy to. These scenes are all important to their individual stories because they try to explain the central tenet of the story. In The Band of Outsiders, it is a revelation of the three’s relationship. In My Life to Live, it dawns on us that our lost and miserable prostitute has finally found her saviour – love. In Les Carabiniers, the women who recites poetry looks ridiculous in the face of death. The soldiers who were supposed to shoot her stops and listen.
When the war is over and the peasants return back to their women, Goddard once again pokes fun by playing out our expectations of the men. We see the men and women getting over zealously jumping in ecstasy as they started pulling out photos of places they have visited and things which they have seen. They have even arranged the photos into categories like filming for an encyclopedia. It is a farce to listen to music playing out their emotions while they describe the wonders of the world that they have seen.
Les Carabiniers might not represent the best of Goddard but it is probably one of his most accessible. Many films have been made about the horrible effects of war; but I have yet to watch any done a spoof – satire. And as well as Les Carabiniers.
Children of Paradise
Directed by Marcel Carné
Touted as the best French movie ever made and the French version of Gone With the Wind, Marcel Carné’s Children of Paradise is an epic; a highly theatrical piece of majestic proportions. It stuns us with the opening scene of the Boulevard of Crime where people thronged the streets and entertainers such as acrobats and tight rope walkers perform.
The camera goes to an androgynous looking Frederick Lemaitre (Pierre Brasseur) who is looking for a job with a pantomime company when he was whisked away. He finds himself attracted to Garance (Arletty) a sophisticated, pretty and elegant woman, walking along the streets. This mesmerizing lady, with her cursed beauty, will be fancied by 4 men; among them besides Frederick, including a talented pantomime actor, Baptiste (Jean-Louis Barrault) who has curly hairs, looks pale and timid; Lacenaire (Marcel Herrand), the villain with sarcasm; and the rich and powerful Count Edouard de Montray (Louis Salou), who falls in love with her performance as a statue with the Funambles.
The Funambles is a people’s theatre specialising in pantomine and Baptiste becomes famous when he had to perform as half of the actors left after a quarrel with the group’s leading star. Frederick Lemaitre befriends Baptiste but feels underrated in The Funambles because he wants to act. Even when he has become a famous actor, he is still jealous of Baptiste who has by then, made a name for himself. Garance who was initially with Lacenaire, left him after she met Baptiste; who had earlier cleared her name for misalleged pickpocketing that had been committed by Lacenaire.
In one sense, Children of Paradise is a huge movie with its grandiose meditations of love and hate; life and death; drama and humour. Besides the complex relationship between Garance and her men, and whom we are never sure - who she loves, one suspects she is the director’s and writer’s embodiment of the ultimate women goddess – fickle, attractive, sensual and leads a life of leisure seeking whatever that pleases; but trapped by the expectations of the men who loved her. In one scene when she was in a room alone with Baptiste because she had no place to go to, she tells the man that she is not what he thinks she is; and that she lives for the moment.
This contrasts with Baptiste (ironically the male who doesn’t want lust satisfaction) who loves her in a way in which she could not understand. Frederick who is written as the pole opposite but friend of Baptiste (note how his life and acting are totally at odds with our Baptiste. Frederick is promiscuous, drinks and incurs debut whereas Baptiste is married with kids and lead a fulfilling family life) gets the chance to befriend Garance and soon enough, they were to become an item, that will despair the love torn Baptiste. Garance dependence on Lacenaire and the Count seems to be a matter of stability and convenience for they were men who had powers and not to be trifled with.
As for the men who loved her, each of them did so in their own ways. The Count who has her by her side, hopes to melt her heart whereas Lacenaire cherishes her because she is the only women he has no contempt for. When Frederick and Garance were living together, they seemed unhappy. Baptiste who has never had a chance to live with her, ultimately gets her to think she loves him when she left with the count.
Children of Paradise also explores the space between drama and life. When Frederick improvised the script of the writers by calling himself Frederick, he not only belittles the authors but also amuses the audience. He calls the writers the holy trinity while Garance thinks the audience are the “gods”. When Baptiste is on stage to woo his love; she was his wife in real life; but this is dealt with another irony – that in his secret life, he is still infatuated with Garance.
Children of Paradise is a masterpiece. It ranks alongside the greats with Fellini’s 8 ½ or Welle’s Citizen Kane. Any respectable film lover should not miss this one.
Written by Elise Juska
Contemporary humour women writers the likes of Helen Fieldlng’s Bridget Jones’ diary should be able to identify with the woman protagonist, Elisa in Getting Over Jack Wagner. But this is not a book about women for women. Gettign Over Jack Wagner is also a book about a girl who dates only rock stars. Rock Stars according to her definition are men who play music or are in a band. Her story, hence is her love sojourns jumping from drummers to saxophonist to bass guitarist.
Not a serious read but definitely funny and light reading. If you like Nick Hornby’s High Fidelity, then Getting Over Jack Wagner shouldn’t disappoint.
Les Carabiniers
Directed by Jean Luc Goddard
Goddard adopts the spoof - satire form to ridicule the evils of war, which can be perceived by looking beyond the dryness of Les Carabiniers. We see 4 characters – 2 men and 2 women – whose relationships are unclear, rounded by 2 riflemen; in a vast expanse that could well be a farm. The riflemen or soldiers who call themselves the king’s messengers have came to recruit the two men – Ulysses and Michelangelo, as played by Marino Masé and Albert Juross respectively to join the war. The women sent the men off happily after they were promised riches.
Like many of Goddard’s films, Les Carabiniers is the director’s vehicle to carry his idea across. In this film, Goddard slaughters the sacred cows. The idea of the king as a friend of the peasant is ridiculous when the riflemen tells them that the king has personally sent them a letter. The men went to places like the Pyramid and saluted the Statue of Liberty as if they were doing a world tour rather than engaging in a war. When they occupied a poor man’s house, Ulysses suddenly descends into seriousness by appreciating a painting on the wall while Michelangelo makes the lady of the house stand on a chair and pries up and looks underneath her skirt with his rifle. Then, instead of taking sexual advances, he rides her like a horse and makes her crawl around the house. It is as if Goddard is telling us that our characters are so simple that it is war that is evil. When Michelangelo rounds up hostages to shoot them, he meets a higher ranking officer who asks him what was going on. After the officer was being repeatedly told by Michelangelo that all his higher ranks soldiers are killed (which is funny) , he tells the man to settle the problem himself and leaves in a car.
Goddard uses film stock of war attacks such as bombs being dropped from planes, tanks firing and even soldiers shooting and its devastation effects (burning buildings, dead bodies piled up) to tell us the senselessness of war. Yet, Goddard does not portray war as dramatic tragedies; but in a pseudo – intellectual way by shuffling the stocks in between intertitles. These intertitles are at times accounts of the recruiter’s version of their war, probably letters send to the women; because we immediately see one of them coming up to pick something from the mailbox. The intertitles read at times more like a narration of the war (not of the men’s narration) – “The king’s spies and police infiltrate the universities but can’t destroy the tradition of freedom” or statements“ There is no victory – only flags and fallen men”
Juross stands out between the two as an actor because he is more simple-minded and likeable. He seems to carry out the atrocities, describing the killings without much thought. Masé, on the other hand, looks more streetsmart; and the leader of the two. He was the one to shoot an old lady cleaner while they were hijacking a deserted building without much thought.
A female actress (not sure who she is) is in a standout scene where she recites poetry before shot to death for trying to ambush them. It can be likened to the Band of Outsider when the film’s three protagonists broke into a dance when they were in a cafe or the scene where the prostitute in My Life to Live dances around a stranger whom she has taken a fancy to. These scenes are all important to their individual stories because they try to explain the central tenet of the story. In The Band of Outsiders, it is a revelation of the three’s relationship. In My Life to Live, it dawns on us that our lost and miserable prostitute has finally found her saviour – love. In Les Carabiniers, the women who recites poetry looks ridiculous in the face of death. The soldiers who were supposed to shoot her stops and listen.
When the war is over and the peasants return back to their women, Goddard once again pokes fun by playing out our expectations of the men. We see the men and women getting over zealously jumping in ecstasy as they started pulling out photos of places they have visited and things which they have seen. They have even arranged the photos into categories like filming for an encyclopedia. It is a farce to listen to music playing out their emotions while they describe the wonders of the world that they have seen.
Les Carabiniers might not represent the best of Goddard but it is probably one of his most accessible. Many films have been made about the horrible effects of war; but I have yet to watch any done a spoof – satire. And as well as Les Carabiniers.
Children of Paradise
Directed by Marcel Carné
Touted as the best French movie ever made and the French version of Gone With the Wind, Marcel Carné’s Children of Paradise is an epic; a highly theatrical piece of majestic proportions. It stuns us with the opening scene of the Boulevard of Crime where people thronged the streets and entertainers such as acrobats and tight rope walkers perform.
The camera goes to an androgynous looking Frederick Lemaitre (Pierre Brasseur) who is looking for a job with a pantomime company when he was whisked away. He finds himself attracted to Garance (Arletty) a sophisticated, pretty and elegant woman, walking along the streets. This mesmerizing lady, with her cursed beauty, will be fancied by 4 men; among them besides Frederick, including a talented pantomime actor, Baptiste (Jean-Louis Barrault) who has curly hairs, looks pale and timid; Lacenaire (Marcel Herrand), the villain with sarcasm; and the rich and powerful Count Edouard de Montray (Louis Salou), who falls in love with her performance as a statue with the Funambles.
The Funambles is a people’s theatre specialising in pantomine and Baptiste becomes famous when he had to perform as half of the actors left after a quarrel with the group’s leading star. Frederick Lemaitre befriends Baptiste but feels underrated in The Funambles because he wants to act. Even when he has become a famous actor, he is still jealous of Baptiste who has by then, made a name for himself. Garance who was initially with Lacenaire, left him after she met Baptiste; who had earlier cleared her name for misalleged pickpocketing that had been committed by Lacenaire.
In one sense, Children of Paradise is a huge movie with its grandiose meditations of love and hate; life and death; drama and humour. Besides the complex relationship between Garance and her men, and whom we are never sure - who she loves, one suspects she is the director’s and writer’s embodiment of the ultimate women goddess – fickle, attractive, sensual and leads a life of leisure seeking whatever that pleases; but trapped by the expectations of the men who loved her. In one scene when she was in a room alone with Baptiste because she had no place to go to, she tells the man that she is not what he thinks she is; and that she lives for the moment.
This contrasts with Baptiste (ironically the male who doesn’t want lust satisfaction) who loves her in a way in which she could not understand. Frederick who is written as the pole opposite but friend of Baptiste (note how his life and acting are totally at odds with our Baptiste. Frederick is promiscuous, drinks and incurs debut whereas Baptiste is married with kids and lead a fulfilling family life) gets the chance to befriend Garance and soon enough, they were to become an item, that will despair the love torn Baptiste. Garance dependence on Lacenaire and the Count seems to be a matter of stability and convenience for they were men who had powers and not to be trifled with.
As for the men who loved her, each of them did so in their own ways. The Count who has her by her side, hopes to melt her heart whereas Lacenaire cherishes her because she is the only women he has no contempt for. When Frederick and Garance were living together, they seemed unhappy. Baptiste who has never had a chance to live with her, ultimately gets her to think she loves him when she left with the count.
Children of Paradise also explores the space between drama and life. When Frederick improvised the script of the writers by calling himself Frederick, he not only belittles the authors but also amuses the audience. He calls the writers the holy trinity while Garance thinks the audience are the “gods”. When Baptiste is on stage to woo his love; she was his wife in real life; but this is dealt with another irony – that in his secret life, he is still infatuated with Garance.
Children of Paradise is a masterpiece. It ranks alongside the greats with Fellini’s 8 ½ or Welle’s Citizen Kane. Any respectable film lover should not miss this one.
Monday, June 23, 2003
St. Anger
Artiste: Metallica
Metallica is James Hetfield on vocals, guitar; Kirk Hammett on guitar; Rob Trujillo on bass; Lars Ulrich on drums.
“My lifestyle determines my deathstyle/ Keep Searching/ Keep On Searching” James’s voice rang in Frantic. Fast furious guitars meld with contemplative lyrics. St. Anger is touted as Metallica’s come back album to heavy metal and if this is what fans have been waiting since their self-titled black album, they won’t be disappointed.
St. Anger has its glory moments though it does stumble at parts. The second and title track, “St. Anger”, fopr example, resembles a nu-metal rip off. Think Linkin Park. Then, there are the in betweens such as “Sum Kinda Monster”, with its killing repetitive chords. “Dirty Window” is a standout track that speeds along; halted by sudden shifts in tempo and alternated with big drums is introspective, “I’m judge/ I’m jury/ And I’m executioner too/” Towards the end when James started singing about drinking from the cup of denial, the additional background vocals contributes to its feel. The story of the “Invisible Kid” is an easier to headbang song that somehow tapers off towards mediocricity by the time James gets into the chorus. The same goes for “My World” that is a straight ahead banger with poorly written lyrics, “It’s my world/ You can’t have it/ It’s my world/ It’s my world…” It has an intermission that tries to twist but doesn’t save the track from boredom. “Shoot Me Again” that starts with scratching, and develops a go - heavy – stop rhythm stands out as a potential single with its technical instrumentation and arrangement. James adopts different singing styles here.
Sweet Amber could be a song about embittered relationships that drags for too long. The double vocals in “The Unnamed Feeling” is emo- driven. It chugs along to heavy strums and mid-paced beats that turns graceful towards the middle section. There is even a solo guitar at one small intermission with James singing. We hear the character’s wrath comes alive. “Purify” juxtaposes between good lyrics and a slow built up to more long haired rock. “Truth and Dare/ Peeling back the skin/ Acid wash/ Ghost White”. Metallica approaches with “All Within my Hands” that has a more varied and melodic sheen. It’s a good close with an equal dose of Hardness – “Hate me now/ Kill All Within my Hands”; Sentimentality – “Love is control/ I’ll die if I let it go”, Raw wailing guitars and deliberate slowdowns.
St. Anger is a mixed bag that doesn’t disappoint old fans; and at the same time, attracts the younger generation that already has a steady diet of Limp Bizkit and Korn. The only fault is that Metallica tries to record an album that sounds hard and improvisory at the same time, which inevitably chips off the hardness of this album. This is an album with prog heavy metal rock or freer forms. The CD is worth the price though because it comes with a secret lock that allows you to download Metallica concert bootleg MP3 downloads. Not forgetting, there’s a DVD rehearsal disc which I have yet to watch and review.
Take The Money and Run
Directed by Woody Allen
You should not watch Take The Money and Run unless you have seen Woody’s later movies which are better made films with more insight and wit. Take The Money and Run though is best described by Matthew Bull in a review of the movie when he says it “follows the format of many of the Marx Brothers movies, in that it uses the 'plot' as a carrier for a series of sketches and gags.”
Take The Money and Run is the story of Virgil Starkwell (Woody Allen), narrated like a documentary. Our protagonist who is bullied by the local street gangs since he was young turns into a life of crime as he finds himself without much hope. Even though he tries to play the cello, his love for music is abrupted since young because people couldn’t stand the din he created. His life turns better when he meets Louise (Janet Margolin), who believed initially that he plays for the Philharmonic. When she found out about the truth, they were already in love and henceforth set on a life of chase and run, away from the cops that are constantly on the heels of Virgil, who had escaped prison.
Take The Money is basically about nothing and some of the jokes fall flat. For example, Virgil’s parents who were interviewed insists on wearing a “Jewish” clowny mask. When Virgil took an innoculation experiment in prison to get a chance in parole, his transformation into a bearded jewish preacher is hardly jaw raising.
At times, the gags seem remotely familiar; which will appear in his later movies. When Virgil meets Lousie for the first time while trying to rob her, their conversation becomes funny for us because we know that he has failed to do so and was trying to cover up with excuses while our main lady is oblivious to the situation. Such a scene would become classic Woody when his main characters meets their love for the first time.
Because Take The Money is basically nothing too intellectual, first-timers to Woody should avoid it; and hence might be prejudiced to want to watch his later works. For those who have already seen the director’s and known his paranoia excessess though, Take The Money helps you understand where Woody comes from and how he has matured.
Artiste: Metallica
Metallica is James Hetfield on vocals, guitar; Kirk Hammett on guitar; Rob Trujillo on bass; Lars Ulrich on drums.
“My lifestyle determines my deathstyle/ Keep Searching/ Keep On Searching” James’s voice rang in Frantic. Fast furious guitars meld with contemplative lyrics. St. Anger is touted as Metallica’s come back album to heavy metal and if this is what fans have been waiting since their self-titled black album, they won’t be disappointed.
St. Anger has its glory moments though it does stumble at parts. The second and title track, “St. Anger”, fopr example, resembles a nu-metal rip off. Think Linkin Park. Then, there are the in betweens such as “Sum Kinda Monster”, with its killing repetitive chords. “Dirty Window” is a standout track that speeds along; halted by sudden shifts in tempo and alternated with big drums is introspective, “I’m judge/ I’m jury/ And I’m executioner too/” Towards the end when James started singing about drinking from the cup of denial, the additional background vocals contributes to its feel. The story of the “Invisible Kid” is an easier to headbang song that somehow tapers off towards mediocricity by the time James gets into the chorus. The same goes for “My World” that is a straight ahead banger with poorly written lyrics, “It’s my world/ You can’t have it/ It’s my world/ It’s my world…” It has an intermission that tries to twist but doesn’t save the track from boredom. “Shoot Me Again” that starts with scratching, and develops a go - heavy – stop rhythm stands out as a potential single with its technical instrumentation and arrangement. James adopts different singing styles here.
Sweet Amber could be a song about embittered relationships that drags for too long. The double vocals in “The Unnamed Feeling” is emo- driven. It chugs along to heavy strums and mid-paced beats that turns graceful towards the middle section. There is even a solo guitar at one small intermission with James singing. We hear the character’s wrath comes alive. “Purify” juxtaposes between good lyrics and a slow built up to more long haired rock. “Truth and Dare/ Peeling back the skin/ Acid wash/ Ghost White”. Metallica approaches with “All Within my Hands” that has a more varied and melodic sheen. It’s a good close with an equal dose of Hardness – “Hate me now/ Kill All Within my Hands”; Sentimentality – “Love is control/ I’ll die if I let it go”, Raw wailing guitars and deliberate slowdowns.
St. Anger is a mixed bag that doesn’t disappoint old fans; and at the same time, attracts the younger generation that already has a steady diet of Limp Bizkit and Korn. The only fault is that Metallica tries to record an album that sounds hard and improvisory at the same time, which inevitably chips off the hardness of this album. This is an album with prog heavy metal rock or freer forms. The CD is worth the price though because it comes with a secret lock that allows you to download Metallica concert bootleg MP3 downloads. Not forgetting, there’s a DVD rehearsal disc which I have yet to watch and review.
Take The Money and Run
Directed by Woody Allen
You should not watch Take The Money and Run unless you have seen Woody’s later movies which are better made films with more insight and wit. Take The Money and Run though is best described by Matthew Bull in a review of the movie when he says it “follows the format of many of the Marx Brothers movies, in that it uses the 'plot' as a carrier for a series of sketches and gags.”
Take The Money and Run is the story of Virgil Starkwell (Woody Allen), narrated like a documentary. Our protagonist who is bullied by the local street gangs since he was young turns into a life of crime as he finds himself without much hope. Even though he tries to play the cello, his love for music is abrupted since young because people couldn’t stand the din he created. His life turns better when he meets Louise (Janet Margolin), who believed initially that he plays for the Philharmonic. When she found out about the truth, they were already in love and henceforth set on a life of chase and run, away from the cops that are constantly on the heels of Virgil, who had escaped prison.
Take The Money is basically about nothing and some of the jokes fall flat. For example, Virgil’s parents who were interviewed insists on wearing a “Jewish” clowny mask. When Virgil took an innoculation experiment in prison to get a chance in parole, his transformation into a bearded jewish preacher is hardly jaw raising.
At times, the gags seem remotely familiar; which will appear in his later movies. When Virgil meets Lousie for the first time while trying to rob her, their conversation becomes funny for us because we know that he has failed to do so and was trying to cover up with excuses while our main lady is oblivious to the situation. Such a scene would become classic Woody when his main characters meets their love for the first time.
Because Take The Money is basically nothing too intellectual, first-timers to Woody should avoid it; and hence might be prejudiced to want to watch his later works. For those who have already seen the director’s and known his paranoia excessess though, Take The Money helps you understand where Woody comes from and how he has matured.
Sunday, June 22, 2003
Hail To The Thief
Artiste: Radiohead
Radiohead is Thom Yorke – vocals, words, guitar, piano, laptop; Johnny Greenwood – guitar, analogue systems, ondes martenot, laptop, toy piano, glockenspiel; Colin Greenwood – bass, string synth, sampler; Ed O’Brien – guitar, effects, voice; Philip Selway – drums, percussion
There’s one phrase I need to check out: Intelligent Dance Music. Local free dance music magazine, Juice, calls Radiohead’s new album a foray into the IDM movement. Perhaps it's a new term to bundle musicians who use computer, sound effects and DJ beats to highlight this new trend. Think the New Acoustic Movement which is used to put bands like Coldplay and Travis together though listeners can tell the difference between those who tries to create their own style.
I’m not sure how Radiohead fits into this whole puzzle and I’m not sure if they really agree or if they care in the first place if they are part of this whole trend setting force. I never quite figure out their music and I think a lot of critics think likewise too. Ok Computer was their breakthrough album which propelled them into indie- superstardom while Kid A followed up with more experimentation. By the time they completed Amnesiac, their music had gained a sort of confidence that seems to say – look at how clever we are with all these computer effects.
The point I’m trying to say is that Radiohead is unlike any band that we have seen for a long time and they always gets the critics raving about how “experimental” they are, which in a sense is true. These guys have a style of their own; and no other musicians has ever tried to copy them before. I’m not sure why given music business is often a “photocopy” business. A new band comes up and we can hear their influences or roots pretty easily sometimes. But Radiohead? I have yet to read any review that says any band is, “The New Radiohead” or something to that effect.
By now, I have more or less said that the Radiohead sound is unique and not yet been copied. But are they original? Let us try to see who they sound like?… … Frankly speaking, I can think of no one. OK, that more or less settles my question. But are they good?
Given my two pence worth of opinion, Hail To The Thief is an excellent album. Lyrically, these guys are trying to be avant-garde and mystically modern. Opening track, “2 + 2 = 5” prepares us for what we have come to expect of Radiohead. Thom Yorke’s “Are you such a dreamer/ To put your world to rights?” It's conflicting and pessimistic, “It’s the devil’s way now/ There is no way out/ You can scream and shout/ It is too late now/ Because you have not been paying attention” Paying attention being singed out repeatedly… It’s sort of going back to guitar and effects crashing down like Paranoid Android. Sit Down Stand Up continues seamlessly with Yorke whispering to a slower rhythm. The minor chord of the piano pulsating up to a crescendo ultimately building up into a hailstorm of heavier dums dums dums and chi hat rains as he chants, “The Raindrops”. Sail To The Moon is an ambient piece with plucking guitars and slow piano to a droning background. Yorke gives way by letting the words roll out, “I sucked/ The moon/ I spoke/ too soon” By the time he says “sail to the moon”, we envision ourselves stranded in a bare lifeless planet.
The standout track, Backdrifts, recalls Idioteque. It is possible he is talking about the degrading quality of humanity - We’re rotten fruit/ We’re damaged goods/ What the hell/ We got nothing much to lose”. “Go To Sleep” starts with a strumming acoustic guitar before drums, synths and chunky electric guitar rolls in and Yorke’s vocals are most clear though the “over my dead body” is clearly a renouncement of life? – “I’m gonna go to sleep/ Let this wash all over me”. By the time Yorke goes “I will eat you all alive/ And there’ be no more lies, “Where I end and you begin” would have you convinced how depressed they are. Not sure what the claps as keepers of beat is about but this vampirish track – “we suck Young Blood” with Yorke’s wailing background breaks up the album with eeriness. Towards the middle of the track, a sudden escalation of chaos sounds unwanted and decorous. “This is the Gloaming”, gloaming meaning poetically speaking – twilight or dusk, is a dense lingering ballad punctuated with casiotones like beeps. It goes “Murderers, You’re Murderers/ We are not the same as you”. They made a video for “There There” on available on their website which I think is a track they single out. They do so probably because it is the least confounding songs of all. It can be interpreted as a love song, “We are accidents/ Waiting/ Waiting to happen” It follows strictly a straight rhythm from start to end and being less moody of most, it is a smart choice to get radio airplay. “I will” is another short filler that resembles a cremation procedure – “I will/ Lay me down/ In a bunker underground”. It’s unusual for Radiohead to get into the narrative of “A Punch up at the wedding” where he describes how a big day is ruined. It's a more conventional melodic love ballad that will probably also make it suitable for radio fodder. The lyrics are still Radiohead though – “Hypocrite Opportunist/ Don’t infect me with your poison/ A bully in your china shop”. “Myxomatosis” is another story. Of a mongrel cat with its unusual tale of sleeping and eating whatever it likes. Though the story doesn't make sense because Myxomatosis refers to an infection occurring in rabbits that usually involve the swelling of the mucous membrane. A person given to silly or disorganized thought with a lack of attention is called a “Scatterbrain” and in this confession, the “birds thrown around/ bullets for hail/ the roof is pulling off/ by its fingernails” just wanders around as it names suggest. I would also recommend the last track, “A wolf at the door” which is a futile sum up of the futility of it all. Thom is less playing with his vocals or messing around or singing in his usual laid back morose manner. It is as if he is more like speaking. He talks about “investments and dealers” and “cold wives and mistresses” and ends with “ I wish you’d get up over get up go over and turn this tape off”
Hail To The Thief makes you tired towards the end of the album because it is downbeat and gloomy. Their songs remains theirs because no other musicians have been able to figure them out. Hail To the Thief, like all Radiohead’s albums since OK Computer, will remain classics in time to come. Simply because when we look back, we will realize that it is indeed rare for their songs to be distinct amidst all this outspread borrowing, sampling and sound alikes. It is suggested that the title is actually a reference to people who downloaded and trade their music in this album before it appeared on this record but I think Radiohead is much cleverer than that to make that a marketing ploy. The way I see it, they are singing the praises of the advancement of technology; modern life and how much a double-edged a sword it is.
Artiste: Radiohead
Radiohead is Thom Yorke – vocals, words, guitar, piano, laptop; Johnny Greenwood – guitar, analogue systems, ondes martenot, laptop, toy piano, glockenspiel; Colin Greenwood – bass, string synth, sampler; Ed O’Brien – guitar, effects, voice; Philip Selway – drums, percussion
There’s one phrase I need to check out: Intelligent Dance Music. Local free dance music magazine, Juice, calls Radiohead’s new album a foray into the IDM movement. Perhaps it's a new term to bundle musicians who use computer, sound effects and DJ beats to highlight this new trend. Think the New Acoustic Movement which is used to put bands like Coldplay and Travis together though listeners can tell the difference between those who tries to create their own style.
I’m not sure how Radiohead fits into this whole puzzle and I’m not sure if they really agree or if they care in the first place if they are part of this whole trend setting force. I never quite figure out their music and I think a lot of critics think likewise too. Ok Computer was their breakthrough album which propelled them into indie- superstardom while Kid A followed up with more experimentation. By the time they completed Amnesiac, their music had gained a sort of confidence that seems to say – look at how clever we are with all these computer effects.
The point I’m trying to say is that Radiohead is unlike any band that we have seen for a long time and they always gets the critics raving about how “experimental” they are, which in a sense is true. These guys have a style of their own; and no other musicians has ever tried to copy them before. I’m not sure why given music business is often a “photocopy” business. A new band comes up and we can hear their influences or roots pretty easily sometimes. But Radiohead? I have yet to read any review that says any band is, “The New Radiohead” or something to that effect.
By now, I have more or less said that the Radiohead sound is unique and not yet been copied. But are they original? Let us try to see who they sound like?… … Frankly speaking, I can think of no one. OK, that more or less settles my question. But are they good?
Given my two pence worth of opinion, Hail To The Thief is an excellent album. Lyrically, these guys are trying to be avant-garde and mystically modern. Opening track, “2 + 2 = 5” prepares us for what we have come to expect of Radiohead. Thom Yorke’s “Are you such a dreamer/ To put your world to rights?” It's conflicting and pessimistic, “It’s the devil’s way now/ There is no way out/ You can scream and shout/ It is too late now/ Because you have not been paying attention” Paying attention being singed out repeatedly… It’s sort of going back to guitar and effects crashing down like Paranoid Android. Sit Down Stand Up continues seamlessly with Yorke whispering to a slower rhythm. The minor chord of the piano pulsating up to a crescendo ultimately building up into a hailstorm of heavier dums dums dums and chi hat rains as he chants, “The Raindrops”. Sail To The Moon is an ambient piece with plucking guitars and slow piano to a droning background. Yorke gives way by letting the words roll out, “I sucked/ The moon/ I spoke/ too soon” By the time he says “sail to the moon”, we envision ourselves stranded in a bare lifeless planet.
The standout track, Backdrifts, recalls Idioteque. It is possible he is talking about the degrading quality of humanity - We’re rotten fruit/ We’re damaged goods/ What the hell/ We got nothing much to lose”. “Go To Sleep” starts with a strumming acoustic guitar before drums, synths and chunky electric guitar rolls in and Yorke’s vocals are most clear though the “over my dead body” is clearly a renouncement of life? – “I’m gonna go to sleep/ Let this wash all over me”. By the time Yorke goes “I will eat you all alive/ And there’ be no more lies, “Where I end and you begin” would have you convinced how depressed they are. Not sure what the claps as keepers of beat is about but this vampirish track – “we suck Young Blood” with Yorke’s wailing background breaks up the album with eeriness. Towards the middle of the track, a sudden escalation of chaos sounds unwanted and decorous. “This is the Gloaming”, gloaming meaning poetically speaking – twilight or dusk, is a dense lingering ballad punctuated with casiotones like beeps. It goes “Murderers, You’re Murderers/ We are not the same as you”. They made a video for “There There” on available on their website which I think is a track they single out. They do so probably because it is the least confounding songs of all. It can be interpreted as a love song, “We are accidents/ Waiting/ Waiting to happen” It follows strictly a straight rhythm from start to end and being less moody of most, it is a smart choice to get radio airplay. “I will” is another short filler that resembles a cremation procedure – “I will/ Lay me down/ In a bunker underground”. It’s unusual for Radiohead to get into the narrative of “A Punch up at the wedding” where he describes how a big day is ruined. It's a more conventional melodic love ballad that will probably also make it suitable for radio fodder. The lyrics are still Radiohead though – “Hypocrite Opportunist/ Don’t infect me with your poison/ A bully in your china shop”. “Myxomatosis” is another story. Of a mongrel cat with its unusual tale of sleeping and eating whatever it likes. Though the story doesn't make sense because Myxomatosis refers to an infection occurring in rabbits that usually involve the swelling of the mucous membrane. A person given to silly or disorganized thought with a lack of attention is called a “Scatterbrain” and in this confession, the “birds thrown around/ bullets for hail/ the roof is pulling off/ by its fingernails” just wanders around as it names suggest. I would also recommend the last track, “A wolf at the door” which is a futile sum up of the futility of it all. Thom is less playing with his vocals or messing around or singing in his usual laid back morose manner. It is as if he is more like speaking. He talks about “investments and dealers” and “cold wives and mistresses” and ends with “ I wish you’d get up over get up go over and turn this tape off”
Hail To The Thief makes you tired towards the end of the album because it is downbeat and gloomy. Their songs remains theirs because no other musicians have been able to figure them out. Hail To the Thief, like all Radiohead’s albums since OK Computer, will remain classics in time to come. Simply because when we look back, we will realize that it is indeed rare for their songs to be distinct amidst all this outspread borrowing, sampling and sound alikes. It is suggested that the title is actually a reference to people who downloaded and trade their music in this album before it appeared on this record but I think Radiohead is much cleverer than that to make that a marketing ploy. The way I see it, they are singing the praises of the advancement of technology; modern life and how much a double-edged a sword it is.
