It’s been about a week since I first watched Apocalypse Now, and I still can’t seem to answer one of the most pressing questions: was it a film about presentation or representation? I know there’s no right or wrong answer to this, but I can’t seem to settle on one or the other. Would it be a cop out to say that it was both presentation and representation? I feel like it is. So here is what I’m thinking.
I first thought this film to be more of a representation of the Vietnam War. The emphasis on the characters and their inner struggles with sanity are what made me feel this way, in addition to the overall lack of actual war/battle scenes.
But then on last Wednesday night’s class we watched a clip from Hearts of Darkness where Coppola said something about how the film “is a film about Vietnam/War”….in other words, it was more of a presentation. As soon as he said that I thought, hey, he’s the director…maybe I should listen to him! And then it made me think about the fact that Vietnam was a war that led to insanity and uncertainty among the soldiers. It wasn’t just these select few that we watched – it was a widespread event. I mean, it has pretty much been established that Vietnam was a pointless and unjust war, so the emphasis on those brutal, and in my opinion unfair battles was not merely what Coppola wants us to think happen. It really did.
So which is it?! Since this is my blog, I’m going to go ahead and admit that I still haven’t settled on an answer. I’m also not going to apologize for the lack of commentary on the cinematography because I simply can’t get the presentation/representation battle out of my head!
Speaking of which, I will say that after reviewing cinematography of the last scene of the film on Wednesday definitely gave me a whole way of thinking about the film. It really was a fight of good against evil….and the war brought that out in people. It’s not just the soldier’s sanity that was being threatened, but their judgment of what is right in the world. The shadow that almost overcame Willard’s face showed me that he was *this* close to becoming what Kurtz had become, which caused me to actually sympathize for Kurtz.
All I can say is that I’m glad the film ended the way it did because it meant I didn’t watch “the horror” for two and half hours in vain!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Apocalypse Now
So I *thought* I had seen this film before, but embarrassingly enough it was The Deer Hunter that I was thinking of (duh!). It was a pleasant surpise to find out about halfway through that I was actually watching a film I'd never seen before!
I've heard a lot about Apocalypse Now, and it did live up to the expectations I had for it. The cinematography was indeed brilliant. It was a perfect film to watch after The Diving Bell and the Butterfly because it shows a completely different aspect of cinematography. While Diving Bell was all about the point of view shot, Apocalypse Now revealed much wider, larger shots. The colors are what captured my eyes the most. Different scenes had different color hues, such as the first war scene, which had an orange-y glow to it (I actually noticed this before you pointed out the "blue" jungle scene, Kevin!). I also loved the colorful flares throughout the film. I don't exactly know what the significance was behind them, but I found them to be beautiful bursts of color among a war-consumed Vietnam.
The scene that was most effective for me was when the multitudes of helicopters headed to claim their next village. The black shadows of the helicopters all in a row gave me the impression of a swarm of locusts headed to engulf their next meal. And, sure enough, I was right.
There's so much more that caught my eye: the sweat dropping off Willard's nose, the crescent of Kurtz's face when we are first introduced to him, the appearance of a Kurtz's "kingdom"....these are just some of the images that keep running through my mind when I think of this film.
Oh, and let me just say that my favorite character in the film by far was Lieut. Colonel Kilgore played by Robert Duvall. I can't help but think his portrayal of Kilgore was exactly what Coppola wanted. His character alone was one of the factors that caused this film to go from being one of presentation to representation, and that is basically summed up when he refers to the villagers as "f**king savages."
Overall, Francis Ford Coppola does a tremendous job giving a presentation and his representation of the Vietnam war, and a good deal of this is done through the cinematography.
I've heard a lot about Apocalypse Now, and it did live up to the expectations I had for it. The cinematography was indeed brilliant. It was a perfect film to watch after The Diving Bell and the Butterfly because it shows a completely different aspect of cinematography. While Diving Bell was all about the point of view shot, Apocalypse Now revealed much wider, larger shots. The colors are what captured my eyes the most. Different scenes had different color hues, such as the first war scene, which had an orange-y glow to it (I actually noticed this before you pointed out the "blue" jungle scene, Kevin!). I also loved the colorful flares throughout the film. I don't exactly know what the significance was behind them, but I found them to be beautiful bursts of color among a war-consumed Vietnam.
The scene that was most effective for me was when the multitudes of helicopters headed to claim their next village. The black shadows of the helicopters all in a row gave me the impression of a swarm of locusts headed to engulf their next meal. And, sure enough, I was right.
There's so much more that caught my eye: the sweat dropping off Willard's nose, the crescent of Kurtz's face when we are first introduced to him, the appearance of a Kurtz's "kingdom"....these are just some of the images that keep running through my mind when I think of this film.
Oh, and let me just say that my favorite character in the film by far was Lieut. Colonel Kilgore played by Robert Duvall. I can't help but think his portrayal of Kilgore was exactly what Coppola wanted. His character alone was one of the factors that caused this film to go from being one of presentation to representation, and that is basically summed up when he refers to the villagers as "f**king savages."
Overall, Francis Ford Coppola does a tremendous job giving a presentation and his representation of the Vietnam war, and a good deal of this is done through the cinematography.
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - a closer look
After spending the last week studying cinematography, I can honestly say that it's something I've taken for granted. I especially realized this after viewing The Diving Bell and the Butterly and Visions of Light (as boring as it was!). I've learned that cinematography isn't just how the movie is filmed - it can change the entire aesthetic of the film and how we, the audience, interpret it. Although much importance still lies in the writing and overall story of a film, cinematographers are the true artists behind it all, in my opinion. Cinematography can truly make or break a film.
In The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, the use of the point of view shot from the very onset set the stage for the rest of them film. It was definitely a risk to be taken, but it could not have been more effective. The use of that shot for about the first quarter of the film also causes the audience to feel incredibly connected to Jean-Do before we even see his face. In some sense, I felt like I was Jean-Do. As people spoke to him, such as when Celine first came to visit, their faces went in and out of frame, which gave a us a very realistic feel of Jean-Do's constraints. The framing also gave the feel as though people were looking at him like he were a caged animal. This gave me an even further sense that Jean-Do was truly trapped in his own body. This is a very frightening thought - one that I'm sure that Julian Schnabel and Janusz Kaminski wanted to convey to the audience.
I also really enjoyed the outdoor scenes, such as on the beach and in the boat. I can't think of a better setting to represent freedom and beauty. As Jean-Do sits motionless and alone in his wheelchair with the vast beach around him, we get an even better idea of how trapped he is. The wideness of the shot makes Jean-Do appear even smaller and helpless. It must have been particularly difficult for him to sit there unable to run across the sand with his children, especially after his imagination shows us that he dreams of surfing and rolling around in the sand with his love. The beach and the ocean are clearly near to his heart. That's probably why he often dictated his book near the beach.
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was a cinematographic masterpiece. I'm glad that Julian Schnabel was able to make a film that did Jean-Do's life justice, and a film that I will forever recommend for others to see!
In The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, the use of the point of view shot from the very onset set the stage for the rest of them film. It was definitely a risk to be taken, but it could not have been more effective. The use of that shot for about the first quarter of the film also causes the audience to feel incredibly connected to Jean-Do before we even see his face. In some sense, I felt like I was Jean-Do. As people spoke to him, such as when Celine first came to visit, their faces went in and out of frame, which gave a us a very realistic feel of Jean-Do's constraints. The framing also gave the feel as though people were looking at him like he were a caged animal. This gave me an even further sense that Jean-Do was truly trapped in his own body. This is a very frightening thought - one that I'm sure that Julian Schnabel and Janusz Kaminski wanted to convey to the audience.
I also really enjoyed the outdoor scenes, such as on the beach and in the boat. I can't think of a better setting to represent freedom and beauty. As Jean-Do sits motionless and alone in his wheelchair with the vast beach around him, we get an even better idea of how trapped he is. The wideness of the shot makes Jean-Do appear even smaller and helpless. It must have been particularly difficult for him to sit there unable to run across the sand with his children, especially after his imagination shows us that he dreams of surfing and rolling around in the sand with his love. The beach and the ocean are clearly near to his heart. That's probably why he often dictated his book near the beach.
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was a cinematographic masterpiece. I'm glad that Julian Schnabel was able to make a film that did Jean-Do's life justice, and a film that I will forever recommend for others to see!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Since the moment this movie ended I haven't been able to keep it out of my mind. As I neared my apartment on the way home from class last night I realized that I didn't even turn on the music in my car, which is a rarity, because the scenes kept running through my mind. What I can't seem to figure out is how a movie that most people would consider depressing left me feeling incredibly...joyful. I can actually pinpoint the exact scene that left me feeling this way. It was when Jean-Do described the never-ending possibilities of his imagination. Image after image moved across the screen showing his dreams and fantasies. It was really just a glimpse of what was really going through his mind as he sat there motionless day after day. God forbid I ever became paralyzed like Jean-Do, but I found myself almost jealous of the fact that my imagination will never be that vibrant.
This film was indeed perfect for the study of cinematography. Jean-Do's point of view throughout the film (specifically in the beginning of the film) left me feeling incredibly uncomfortable...almost claustrophobic. This was just part of the brilliance in the cinematography. Beautiful scenery and bizarre angles swept through the screen and continued to grab my attention.
As beautiful as the cinematography was, I simply cannot get over the story of the film itself. Obviously the cinematography made the story even that more moving, but Jean-Do's character and his relationships with the other characters was very much thought-provoking. Mathieu Amalric did an amazing job of somehow conveying so much emotion with a single eye. We as the audience felt closer to Jean-Do than any other characters in the film because we could hear his inner thoughts as he lied there speechless. It showed his personality was not at all affected by his condition. It made me feel like I knew him.
If I haven't made it clear yet, I think that The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was brilliant, and certainly one of the best films I've ever seen.
This film was indeed perfect for the study of cinematography. Jean-Do's point of view throughout the film (specifically in the beginning of the film) left me feeling incredibly uncomfortable...almost claustrophobic. This was just part of the brilliance in the cinematography. Beautiful scenery and bizarre angles swept through the screen and continued to grab my attention.
As beautiful as the cinematography was, I simply cannot get over the story of the film itself. Obviously the cinematography made the story even that more moving, but Jean-Do's character and his relationships with the other characters was very much thought-provoking. Mathieu Amalric did an amazing job of somehow conveying so much emotion with a single eye. We as the audience felt closer to Jean-Do than any other characters in the film because we could hear his inner thoughts as he lied there speechless. It showed his personality was not at all affected by his condition. It made me feel like I knew him.
If I haven't made it clear yet, I think that The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was brilliant, and certainly one of the best films I've ever seen.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
'Psycho' a la 1998
So where do I begin? Maybe with the fact that Viggo Mortensen and his behind can pretty much save any movie. And Anne Heche's retro-style fashion has inspired me greatly...
But let's get to the good stuff. In all honesty, I was/am hesitant to admit that I don't find the film to be that bad. I was actually the first person to say something good about it during last night's class, which was then followed by others admitting there were some not-so-bad aspects of the movie as well. You're welcome. Seriously though, what's wrong with liking a movie simply because it's entertaining? Excuse me while I rant, but I'm sick of people saying their favorite movies are Donnie Darko and Garden State because they think they're "artistic." Puh-lease. Now, don't get me wrong, I've seen my share of indie/artsy films, many of them I find incredibly well done, and others I don't. But assuming a movie is good because Wes Anderson directed it or bad because it's a sequel is simply absurd.
With that being said, the original Psycho is clearly superior to the remake. However, I've seen worse remakes in my time. I applaud Gus Van Sant for doing the film shot-by-shot and almost line-by-line, yet still finding ways to modernize it. Anne Heche was a mediocre Marion. She fit the part physically, and I appreciate her trying to update Marion's character. However, she dropped the ball far too often - especially in the parlor scene. The chemistry between she and Norman (Vince Vaughn) was practically non-existant. Vince Vaughn, in my opinion, failed in his role of Norman. But I can't say it was all his fault...I think it was more of a bad casting choice. He lacks the innocence, kindness, and handsome appeal found in Anthony Perkins. I had sympathy for Perkins, but barely any for Vaughn....especially after the masturbation scene. Ew. No comment.
Overall, 1998's Psycho was a less-than-perfect remake of the original film, but did anyone actually expect it to measure up? They couldn't have. Props to Van Sant for even attempting to remake one of the most classic films in history....
...and for casting Viggo Mortensen as Sam.
But let's get to the good stuff. In all honesty, I was/am hesitant to admit that I don't find the film to be that bad. I was actually the first person to say something good about it during last night's class, which was then followed by others admitting there were some not-so-bad aspects of the movie as well. You're welcome. Seriously though, what's wrong with liking a movie simply because it's entertaining? Excuse me while I rant, but I'm sick of people saying their favorite movies are Donnie Darko and Garden State because they think they're "artistic." Puh-lease. Now, don't get me wrong, I've seen my share of indie/artsy films, many of them I find incredibly well done, and others I don't. But assuming a movie is good because Wes Anderson directed it or bad because it's a sequel is simply absurd.
With that being said, the original Psycho is clearly superior to the remake. However, I've seen worse remakes in my time. I applaud Gus Van Sant for doing the film shot-by-shot and almost line-by-line, yet still finding ways to modernize it. Anne Heche was a mediocre Marion. She fit the part physically, and I appreciate her trying to update Marion's character. However, she dropped the ball far too often - especially in the parlor scene. The chemistry between she and Norman (Vince Vaughn) was practically non-existant. Vince Vaughn, in my opinion, failed in his role of Norman. But I can't say it was all his fault...I think it was more of a bad casting choice. He lacks the innocence, kindness, and handsome appeal found in Anthony Perkins. I had sympathy for Perkins, but barely any for Vaughn....especially after the masturbation scene. Ew. No comment.
Overall, 1998's Psycho was a less-than-perfect remake of the original film, but did anyone actually expect it to measure up? They couldn't have. Props to Van Sant for even attempting to remake one of the most classic films in history....
...and for casting Viggo Mortensen as Sam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)