I absolutely loved Kung Fu Hustle.
I loved how everything was over the top. The violence is cartoonish and stylized. A lot of the moves used are completely impossible to do in real life but are so visually appealing. The violence is comedic.
One of my favorite parts was when Sing was still trying to be a gangster and he had the knives stuck in his shoulder. When he was running away from the Landlord's wife he used the knife as a rear view mirror. It was also funny because they were running at impossible speeds and it looked silly.
There are other parts of the film that are blown out of proportion. Like when Sing laughs after stealing the deaf girls money (i think?). He laughs and laughs so loudly that it becomes funny. There are other parts that i think are supposed to almost mock old Kung Fu movies. For instance, when the Axe Gang just show up out of nowhere when Sing pretends to signal them.
All in all the violence was classic and great.
The writing I also thought was really well done. There were parts where I thought the movie was beautiful. Other parts where I thought it was a joke (and meant to be a joke).
When Sing gets launched into the sky and boosts off of a bird, that was the greatest moment in cinematic history.
I thought it was interesting how the film sort of played off of the "old superhero" idea. People who used to do great things and were legends as fighters that just wanted to live normal lives. So, they took up tailoring and being a baker and whatnot. It was cool that it played of of this idea, but it was not what i had been expecting at all.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Shaft
1. My Reaction
I really enjoyed Shaft. I think what I liked most was the "toughness" aspect of Shaft. It's hard to describe, but he is tough in a different way than people in movies are these days. I know we talked about it in class, but nowadays its all about blowing things up and having automatic weapons. Shaft just had intimidation and a pistol, which he barely used. It reminds me of Dirty Harry in some ways, where Clint Eastwood just needs a handgun and a tough look. He gets the job done.
I also love how Shaft is such a wise guy. He calls people "baby" just to push their buttons.
2. Class Discussion
I loved how people said it was cheesy but tasteful. I totally agree. The fact that he breaks out into a really loud laugh (when in a normal situation that wouldn't work at all) is perfect. If the movie were to try and be serious, the cheese factor would ruin it. But they almost have a sense of humor about the actual film itself, as if they want it to be a little cheesy.
Someone in class mentioned how stereotypes are overblown. The Italians are super mafia, etc. They only show different cultures to their extremes. They won't just show people who are sort of "neutral", the people in the film have to be extremely stereotypical.
3. Reading
One of the main ideas is how masculinity and the things that portray masculinity have changed over the years. It definitely is a shift in our culture. Now we need "hard body muscle men" and back then it wasn't about that as much. Now it is aggression and meat heads and back then it was intimidation and respect. I think respect is one of those huge factors that has changed over the years. Like, what does it take to earn or gain respect? How does one go about getting respect?
On page 122 it says "Masculinity is thus clearly defined by sexual prowess and male conquest at the start of Park's film." This reading talks about the new Shaft, but I think the definition of masculinity has changed since the days of the original Shaft. The reading also mentions hyper-masculinity and how that signals a change in society and culture. I don't know why everything has shifted so extremely.
I really enjoyed Shaft. I think what I liked most was the "toughness" aspect of Shaft. It's hard to describe, but he is tough in a different way than people in movies are these days. I know we talked about it in class, but nowadays its all about blowing things up and having automatic weapons. Shaft just had intimidation and a pistol, which he barely used. It reminds me of Dirty Harry in some ways, where Clint Eastwood just needs a handgun and a tough look. He gets the job done.
I also love how Shaft is such a wise guy. He calls people "baby" just to push their buttons.
2. Class Discussion
I loved how people said it was cheesy but tasteful. I totally agree. The fact that he breaks out into a really loud laugh (when in a normal situation that wouldn't work at all) is perfect. If the movie were to try and be serious, the cheese factor would ruin it. But they almost have a sense of humor about the actual film itself, as if they want it to be a little cheesy.
Someone in class mentioned how stereotypes are overblown. The Italians are super mafia, etc. They only show different cultures to their extremes. They won't just show people who are sort of "neutral", the people in the film have to be extremely stereotypical.
3. Reading
One of the main ideas is how masculinity and the things that portray masculinity have changed over the years. It definitely is a shift in our culture. Now we need "hard body muscle men" and back then it wasn't about that as much. Now it is aggression and meat heads and back then it was intimidation and respect. I think respect is one of those huge factors that has changed over the years. Like, what does it take to earn or gain respect? How does one go about getting respect?
On page 122 it says "Masculinity is thus clearly defined by sexual prowess and male conquest at the start of Park's film." This reading talks about the new Shaft, but I think the definition of masculinity has changed since the days of the original Shaft. The reading also mentions hyper-masculinity and how that signals a change in society and culture. I don't know why everything has shifted so extremely.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Dr. Strangelove
1. My Impression
I thought this movie was disturbing. The way that such serious issues are made comical bummed me out a bit. So many people died during World War II and the real dropping of the Atomic Bomb ruined so much life. That being said, even though this is about the Cold War and the fear of Communism, I still found the way that such destruction was taken so lightly to be a bummer.
I think that that was probably Kubrik's point, to make a mockery of how serious this issue was and that it can be in the hands of such idiotic people.
2. Class Discussion
I like how we had the discussion that everyone thinks they are heroes, even when they are going to destroy the world so no one will be alive. Especially the Air Force pilots who will do anything to drop the bomb, even ride it to the destruction, just to be heroes and "all Americans". They don't take the time to think about the real consequences that result; which i think is another one of Kubrik's points. People are so caught up in trying to be a hero that they don't think about anything else or the consequences.
3. Reading
I love how Kubrik messes with the American LIberal Consensus and what it means to be a hero. I figured there would have been at least one person in the movie who does something that we would actually find as heroic. I don't think i saw that at all. The whole idea of proliferation of nuclear arms is so ridiculous to me, i don't think it was hard for Kubrik to satirize it. The fact that our world was willing to live like that i can't even imagine. Knowing that if one bomb drops anywhere the world ends. He also made it a strong point to pick on the leaders of the countries, some still trying to salute Hitler, one that doesn't have any balls, etc. Overall, i think Kubrik does a great job at showing America and the world how ridiculous things can get.
When it comes to satirizing the war in the middle east, I would say we need to mention issues like weapons of mass destruction (that would be an easy one to address). I think if Kubrik made the film, he would show the negative feelings for Americans and possibly vice versa, in a humorous light. I think there are so many terrible things that he could choose to pick on.
I thought this movie was disturbing. The way that such serious issues are made comical bummed me out a bit. So many people died during World War II and the real dropping of the Atomic Bomb ruined so much life. That being said, even though this is about the Cold War and the fear of Communism, I still found the way that such destruction was taken so lightly to be a bummer.
I think that that was probably Kubrik's point, to make a mockery of how serious this issue was and that it can be in the hands of such idiotic people.
2. Class Discussion
I like how we had the discussion that everyone thinks they are heroes, even when they are going to destroy the world so no one will be alive. Especially the Air Force pilots who will do anything to drop the bomb, even ride it to the destruction, just to be heroes and "all Americans". They don't take the time to think about the real consequences that result; which i think is another one of Kubrik's points. People are so caught up in trying to be a hero that they don't think about anything else or the consequences.
3. Reading
I love how Kubrik messes with the American LIberal Consensus and what it means to be a hero. I figured there would have been at least one person in the movie who does something that we would actually find as heroic. I don't think i saw that at all. The whole idea of proliferation of nuclear arms is so ridiculous to me, i don't think it was hard for Kubrik to satirize it. The fact that our world was willing to live like that i can't even imagine. Knowing that if one bomb drops anywhere the world ends. He also made it a strong point to pick on the leaders of the countries, some still trying to salute Hitler, one that doesn't have any balls, etc. Overall, i think Kubrik does a great job at showing America and the world how ridiculous things can get.
When it comes to satirizing the war in the middle east, I would say we need to mention issues like weapons of mass destruction (that would be an easy one to address). I think if Kubrik made the film, he would show the negative feelings for Americans and possibly vice versa, in a humorous light. I think there are so many terrible things that he could choose to pick on.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Deren and Brakhage
1. My Reaction
I liked some of the films. Trying to understand them was difficult for me. I want to put a narrative over everything and apparently the directors don't want me to do that. I couldn't understand any of the films until we had the readings and discussions in class. Even then it was a little hazy.
I would say the one thing that caught my eye was the way that editing can manipulate what the viewer sees. I thought Brakhage was almost trying to lie to us with his images. He want us to think they are very natural, very true films. But then we see a non-linear video, where time has no bearing. It just goes to show that even the truest of films, when edited at all, aren't true anymore.
2. Class Discussion
For me, the way that physical space is changed with the camera is probably the most interesting thing about these films, seeing as how they were done so early on. The fact that the way it is filmed can change from one location to the next while the character looks as if they have barely moved is interesting.
For Deren's chess film, I like how someone in class mentioned Chess being compared to the game of life, where she is chasing her pawn, but once she gets it she controls her world.
With Deren it was also brought up how she can make emotion by slowing down the camera and doing camera tricks. It is a physical tool that can control human emotion.
As far as Brakhage films, the physicality of all of his films is awesome. The moth wings, the forest images, and the woman giving birth all were very nature-like to me. They are the basic things in the natural world around us that happen everyday.
As far as the birth film, people said it was intrusive and taking away personal things form the lady. That film was non-sequential and really showed how the director can manipulate even what seems like pure natural and true.
3. The Readings
Deren's reading mentioned time and space and space and time. They discuss how photography isn't like any other medium. Nothing is as true as photography. Something, for example, in a painting, could represent an apple, but it is not an apple. The only thing that could correctly portray an apple would be a photo, either still or moving (film).
It also mentions how you can change emotion through how it's filmed, by tricking time and space. You can mess with the viewers head any way you want when you film and edit.
As far as the Brakhage reading, i like the way that he looks at fundamental things such as life and death and looks at them without narration. Being a typical American moviegoer i want everything to have a narrative. He apparently wants to work without it.
I liked some of the films. Trying to understand them was difficult for me. I want to put a narrative over everything and apparently the directors don't want me to do that. I couldn't understand any of the films until we had the readings and discussions in class. Even then it was a little hazy.
I would say the one thing that caught my eye was the way that editing can manipulate what the viewer sees. I thought Brakhage was almost trying to lie to us with his images. He want us to think they are very natural, very true films. But then we see a non-linear video, where time has no bearing. It just goes to show that even the truest of films, when edited at all, aren't true anymore.
2. Class Discussion
For me, the way that physical space is changed with the camera is probably the most interesting thing about these films, seeing as how they were done so early on. The fact that the way it is filmed can change from one location to the next while the character looks as if they have barely moved is interesting.
For Deren's chess film, I like how someone in class mentioned Chess being compared to the game of life, where she is chasing her pawn, but once she gets it she controls her world.
With Deren it was also brought up how she can make emotion by slowing down the camera and doing camera tricks. It is a physical tool that can control human emotion.
As far as Brakhage films, the physicality of all of his films is awesome. The moth wings, the forest images, and the woman giving birth all were very nature-like to me. They are the basic things in the natural world around us that happen everyday.
As far as the birth film, people said it was intrusive and taking away personal things form the lady. That film was non-sequential and really showed how the director can manipulate even what seems like pure natural and true.
3. The Readings
Deren's reading mentioned time and space and space and time. They discuss how photography isn't like any other medium. Nothing is as true as photography. Something, for example, in a painting, could represent an apple, but it is not an apple. The only thing that could correctly portray an apple would be a photo, either still or moving (film).
It also mentions how you can change emotion through how it's filmed, by tricking time and space. You can mess with the viewers head any way you want when you film and edit.
As far as the Brakhage reading, i like the way that he looks at fundamental things such as life and death and looks at them without narration. Being a typical American moviegoer i want everything to have a narrative. He apparently wants to work without it.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Last Year at Marienbad
1. My Reaction
The film was super confusing. For starters, i thought that A couldn't even stand X. I felt that she hated having to deal with him, but he was psychotic. She had do deal with him every so often, because he wouldn't go away, and when she did talk to him, she would say "just wait another year" or "another month". It was her way of being able to avoid him.
There was so much repetition. There was really annoying music that would keep playing very intensely. I couldn't tell what the deja vu feeling was supposed to represent. I was thinking it is X thinking about the situation over and over and over in his mind. Every time he thinks about it, the situation changes slightly. He is just an obsessive weirdo. I felt like i was in a dream and i never reached a conclusion, i just woke up not really sure if i was still dreaming or not.
There was a lot of voice over, and characters talking, but their lips not moving. I think that just showed how X was imagining it and placing the words in everyone's mouths. He was dictating how every scene went in his mind.
2. Class Discussion
I love the idea that the maze represents X's brain. There are so many different ways that his story can turn out, but a lot of them are dead ends. There is only one right way to go, he just hasn't found it yet.
I didn't realize that the camera never really stops moving throughout the whole film. I feel like that represents X's brain and thoughts, because he never stops thinking about the situation. Everything is in constant motion.
The one shot where people have shadows and the trees don't is really interesting. I don't knwo what it represents, but it is impressive for an old film. Maybe its the fact that the people aren't really there at all (at that location) they are somewhere else. Kind of like X's memories that he thinks about. He is putting the people in these locations but they aren't really there. Maybe they never even were.
I liked the reference to "Hotel California". I felt the same way, like we were stuck in this dream and we can't really leave. We are trapped in X's head with him, and can't leave until he is free.
3. "Philosophical Connection" reading
"Solipsistic"- Whatever is in your mind is the only thing that is real. I think this explains the whole story- it probably is all fake, but in X's mind it is real, and that is all the proof he needs. If "X thinks, X is". It might all be fake, but if X thinks it then he brings it into being. We know that X is probably real, and we are in his head with him. We don't know if all of the other characters exist because we aren't in their heads with them. We can't hear if they are thinking or not. Maybe they don't think and don't exist. X thinks for all of the other characters and brings them into his own mind and makes them real? I don't know, that just got really confusing.
The film was super confusing. For starters, i thought that A couldn't even stand X. I felt that she hated having to deal with him, but he was psychotic. She had do deal with him every so often, because he wouldn't go away, and when she did talk to him, she would say "just wait another year" or "another month". It was her way of being able to avoid him.
There was so much repetition. There was really annoying music that would keep playing very intensely. I couldn't tell what the deja vu feeling was supposed to represent. I was thinking it is X thinking about the situation over and over and over in his mind. Every time he thinks about it, the situation changes slightly. He is just an obsessive weirdo. I felt like i was in a dream and i never reached a conclusion, i just woke up not really sure if i was still dreaming or not.
There was a lot of voice over, and characters talking, but their lips not moving. I think that just showed how X was imagining it and placing the words in everyone's mouths. He was dictating how every scene went in his mind.
2. Class Discussion
I love the idea that the maze represents X's brain. There are so many different ways that his story can turn out, but a lot of them are dead ends. There is only one right way to go, he just hasn't found it yet.
I didn't realize that the camera never really stops moving throughout the whole film. I feel like that represents X's brain and thoughts, because he never stops thinking about the situation. Everything is in constant motion.
The one shot where people have shadows and the trees don't is really interesting. I don't knwo what it represents, but it is impressive for an old film. Maybe its the fact that the people aren't really there at all (at that location) they are somewhere else. Kind of like X's memories that he thinks about. He is putting the people in these locations but they aren't really there. Maybe they never even were.
I liked the reference to "Hotel California". I felt the same way, like we were stuck in this dream and we can't really leave. We are trapped in X's head with him, and can't leave until he is free.
3. "Philosophical Connection" reading
"Solipsistic"- Whatever is in your mind is the only thing that is real. I think this explains the whole story- it probably is all fake, but in X's mind it is real, and that is all the proof he needs. If "X thinks, X is". It might all be fake, but if X thinks it then he brings it into being. We know that X is probably real, and we are in his head with him. We don't know if all of the other characters exist because we aren't in their heads with them. We can't hear if they are thinking or not. Maybe they don't think and don't exist. X thinks for all of the other characters and brings them into his own mind and makes them real? I don't know, that just got really confusing.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Orphee
My Own Perception:
I thought this movie was interesting. One of the things that intrigued me was the way that Post WWII Europe was used to show the "other world" or underworld. When Orpheus traveled into the other world, the architecture was all crumbling and whatnot. I thought that was a great depiction of a world that isn't completely destroyed but also isn't completely there. It represents that sort of purgatory where fate is still being decided upon for the characters.
I also was freaked out when Lady Death all of the sudden admits that she loves Orpheus and he is madly in love with her. I was not expecting that at all. It did seem to me that it was an almost sort of narcissism where he is so in love with himself that he even loves his own death.
I also couldn't stand the way that he treated his wife. It was clear as soon as she was introduced that they didn't have that good of a marriage and that he didn't love her, or at least love her like he should (as her husband). I think he was falling out of love for a while with his wife, and as soon as Lady Death got involved it sealed the deal.
Class Discussion:
When they get to that other world for the first time, and there is a tribunal of men who decide judgment for Lady Death and Orpheus, and for his wife and Heurtebise, I found the correlation interesting between that and the tribunals shortly after WWII. There are old men who have to judge everything that has been going on and decide the fate for people.
The whole mirrors as portals was a pretty cool idea, i hadn't really thought too much about that. I did have one question, though: I think that when Lady Death is first introduced to the story, she is sitting at a mirror and it shatters as she is looking into it. Does anybody know what that represents? I couldn't figure it out. Maybe she is breaking the rules so the portals don't want to let her travel between worlds?
The Reading:
I got really confused on the reading, especially the large blocks in French.
One idea mentioned in class was the relationship between homosexual sensibility and poetic sensibility. In the article it says "...Cocteau's universe where special beings, i.e. poets, are endowed with a sensibility that allows them to see what's hidden to others." It mentions how he is able to penetrate the hidden worlds. Maybe Orpheus is able to travel between worlds because he is a special poet, and ordinary people aren't able to do that.
The article also says that "danger comes from poetry", and in class in was mentioned how being a poet is dangerous. It brings you close to death and craziness. I think that shows why Orpheus can deal with the other world, can deal with death. He freaked out on his wife and seemed a little crazy. He, because he was being selfish, let his wife die because he was listening to Cigeste's poetry. Lots of things connect him to death and poetry.
I thought this movie was interesting. One of the things that intrigued me was the way that Post WWII Europe was used to show the "other world" or underworld. When Orpheus traveled into the other world, the architecture was all crumbling and whatnot. I thought that was a great depiction of a world that isn't completely destroyed but also isn't completely there. It represents that sort of purgatory where fate is still being decided upon for the characters.
I also was freaked out when Lady Death all of the sudden admits that she loves Orpheus and he is madly in love with her. I was not expecting that at all. It did seem to me that it was an almost sort of narcissism where he is so in love with himself that he even loves his own death.
I also couldn't stand the way that he treated his wife. It was clear as soon as she was introduced that they didn't have that good of a marriage and that he didn't love her, or at least love her like he should (as her husband). I think he was falling out of love for a while with his wife, and as soon as Lady Death got involved it sealed the deal.
Class Discussion:
When they get to that other world for the first time, and there is a tribunal of men who decide judgment for Lady Death and Orpheus, and for his wife and Heurtebise, I found the correlation interesting between that and the tribunals shortly after WWII. There are old men who have to judge everything that has been going on and decide the fate for people.
The whole mirrors as portals was a pretty cool idea, i hadn't really thought too much about that. I did have one question, though: I think that when Lady Death is first introduced to the story, she is sitting at a mirror and it shatters as she is looking into it. Does anybody know what that represents? I couldn't figure it out. Maybe she is breaking the rules so the portals don't want to let her travel between worlds?
The Reading:
I got really confused on the reading, especially the large blocks in French.
One idea mentioned in class was the relationship between homosexual sensibility and poetic sensibility. In the article it says "...Cocteau's universe where special beings, i.e. poets, are endowed with a sensibility that allows them to see what's hidden to others." It mentions how he is able to penetrate the hidden worlds. Maybe Orpheus is able to travel between worlds because he is a special poet, and ordinary people aren't able to do that.
The article also says that "danger comes from poetry", and in class in was mentioned how being a poet is dangerous. It brings you close to death and craziness. I think that shows why Orpheus can deal with the other world, can deal with death. He freaked out on his wife and seemed a little crazy. He, because he was being selfish, let his wife die because he was listening to Cigeste's poetry. Lots of things connect him to death and poetry.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Vertigo
My Own Perception:
I thought this movie was interesting. It was funny how similar it was to the film "Laura", where a detective falls in love with a dead woman.
As far as Jimmy Stewart's character, I found the way he showed his obsession with the dead Madeleine to be unique. He literally has to have Judy (who he doesn't know is Madeleine) to look the exact same way, to wear the same clothes, to have the same hair. He needs to recreate everything in his mind to figure out where he went wrong.
Midge, i feel, is the girl that used to be in love with Scottie and can't get over him. They are close friends, but Scottie doesn't see her like that. When Scottie goes crazy, i felt like Midge tried to move in on him, almost trying to take advantage of his trauma.
Madeleine/Judy just frustrates me. If she were really in love with Scottie, i think she could have ran away with him.
Class Discussion:
The point made in class about Midge going back to Scottie after Madeleine dies because she can't lose him to Madeleine is a great point. I think Midge was jealous and thought that Madeleine stole him from her. Once Madeleine died, Midge was able to have Scottie all to herself again.
Reading:
The article "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" was, in my opinion, over the top. I honestly don't compare any sexual feelings or Freudian ideas when i am watching narrative films. I do sort of agree that there is an obsession with an image, for instance a stunningly beautiful woman on the screen or a vibrant world like Pandora in the film "Avatar". Other that finding things visually appealing, I don't sexually crave a woman who is on the screen.
I do agree that i identify with the male protagonist in films, for the most part. I identify with the male and look at the female as the object.
Also, i think it was interesting the way Hitchcock does make us see everything the way that Scottie is seeing it. We objectify Madeleine and view everything as a voyeur. We feel like we almost shouldn't be watching, but we can't stop. In that way the point about fetishism makes sense to me, but in no other way than that.
I thought this movie was interesting. It was funny how similar it was to the film "Laura", where a detective falls in love with a dead woman.
As far as Jimmy Stewart's character, I found the way he showed his obsession with the dead Madeleine to be unique. He literally has to have Judy (who he doesn't know is Madeleine) to look the exact same way, to wear the same clothes, to have the same hair. He needs to recreate everything in his mind to figure out where he went wrong.
Midge, i feel, is the girl that used to be in love with Scottie and can't get over him. They are close friends, but Scottie doesn't see her like that. When Scottie goes crazy, i felt like Midge tried to move in on him, almost trying to take advantage of his trauma.
Madeleine/Judy just frustrates me. If she were really in love with Scottie, i think she could have ran away with him.
Class Discussion:
The point made in class about Midge going back to Scottie after Madeleine dies because she can't lose him to Madeleine is a great point. I think Midge was jealous and thought that Madeleine stole him from her. Once Madeleine died, Midge was able to have Scottie all to herself again.
Reading:
The article "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" was, in my opinion, over the top. I honestly don't compare any sexual feelings or Freudian ideas when i am watching narrative films. I do sort of agree that there is an obsession with an image, for instance a stunningly beautiful woman on the screen or a vibrant world like Pandora in the film "Avatar". Other that finding things visually appealing, I don't sexually crave a woman who is on the screen.
I do agree that i identify with the male protagonist in films, for the most part. I identify with the male and look at the female as the object.
Also, i think it was interesting the way Hitchcock does make us see everything the way that Scottie is seeing it. We objectify Madeleine and view everything as a voyeur. We feel like we almost shouldn't be watching, but we can't stop. In that way the point about fetishism makes sense to me, but in no other way than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
