Time off for movies…
So I took a week off from work to just get away from it, relax, read a book or two, catch up on some movies and just generally do nothing that could be construed as productive. And I’ve pretty much succeeded. (Oh sure, I’ve signed up for a class at SMC and attended the first night, and I’ve done some chores around the house, but I’ve generally avoided the whole productive thing.)
I have managed to catch up on a couple of movies I’ve been meaning to see—one I haven’t seen and a couple I saw ages ago… and it’s been an exercise in frustration and disappointment. (Though I think I’ve gotten over that by now.)
Punch Drunk Love was one I was looking forward to earlier this year. Sure, it had Adam Sandler in it, which is usually reason enough for me to stay away (Mr. Deeds, anyone?). But Paul Thomas Anderson directs it, and I thought both Boogie Nights & Magnolia were fascinating films, so I figured I’d overlook the Sandler presence. Who knows, maybe he’ll surprise me and be good, I thought.
Well, surprises abound, since Sandler was actually very good… unfortunately, the movie wasn’t. Anderson’s stuff is always a bit “out there” but it’s almost always interesting. Until now, that is. I was ultimately unimpressed, unmoved and uninvolved with this one.
There were two things that struck me about this one. My first thought is that this is the quintessential film school film. I can see the debate raging right now about what the harmonium signifies… is it their relationship, his soul or fractured personality, is it some flaw in her… and why does he carry it to her apartment at the end of the film, if nothing’s done with it? Questions abound, and it’s just fodder for that impassioned discussion that takes place in film studies classes around the world.
And then there’s the question of what it’s all about. Is it really just that her love has healed his damage? I presume that’s it, since he’s got an impassioned speech about how love has made him stronger and the fact that, at the moment when you most want to see him let that anger go, he doesn’t. But if that IS what the film’s about, then really, isn’t it basically just an art-house take on As Good As It Gets? And did we really need that?
Another film I’ve caught up on this week is Once Upon a Time in America. It’s Sergio Leone’s epic gangster film from the 80’s and, while I’m pretty sure I saw it once before, it’s been ages and I really wanted to see it again.
Now, this is a 3 hour and 45 minute film about Jewish gangsters during prohibition (well, the majority of the story is, at least. It’s bounces the timeline from the turn of the century to the late 60’s.) And the first word that comes to mind for this picture is “glacial”—as in pacing. No wonder it’s 3 hours and 45 minutes… it’s one of the most leisurely paced films I’ve ever seen. It was nearly 25 minutes into the film before there was a meaningful conversation, and that one wasn’t all that revealing, as far as plot is concerned. So it’s a bit on the slow moving side.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie… great cast, beautifully shot, with an interesting, if not always the most compelling story. And it was masterfully directed. But the best part about watching it on DVD (aside from the unedited nature of the cut and the ability to bounce back to the beginning of scenes easily if I started to doze off) just might be the extras.
After sitting through the whole movie, I found myself left with 2 of the most enigmatic final moments in a movie that I think I’ve ever seen. I won’t go into detail, but suffice it to say that I was left wondering ‘what the f***?!?” as the final credits rolled. Now, I know some people relish this feeling, but I personally, when I’ve invested several hours of my life in a story, want some resolution at the end. Not the case here.
So I was browsing the extras and there was a short documentary about Leone and the making of the film. It spoke about the problems he had getting the film released here. Some genius at the studio, unable to understand the film, decided that it was too long and too confusing and so had it edited and put into chronological order for it’s American release. (Thus proving, once and for all, that we know nothing about film in this country. Or at least, that’s the presumption among studio heads. But I digress.)
But, more importantly, the documentary also addressed those two incredibly enigmatic scenes and confirmed that no, no one (with the presumed exception of Sergio) really knew what those two scenes were supposed to mean… he wasn’t going to give us a pat, easily tied up in a pretty little bow, ending. We’d need to make our own decisions about what happened. Which was really great for me, since I could thus assume that the answers to my “what the f***?!?” were “yes he did” and “yes it was”. I felt much better after that.
Just finished watching SE7EN (grisly, horrifying and yet a brilliantly well done film) and Miller’s Crossing is next on my list… so I’ll be back with more later, I’m sure.
So I took a week off from work to just get away from it, relax, read a book or two, catch up on some movies and just generally do nothing that could be construed as productive. And I’ve pretty much succeeded. (Oh sure, I’ve signed up for a class at SMC and attended the first night, and I’ve done some chores around the house, but I’ve generally avoided the whole productive thing.)
I have managed to catch up on a couple of movies I’ve been meaning to see—one I haven’t seen and a couple I saw ages ago… and it’s been an exercise in frustration and disappointment. (Though I think I’ve gotten over that by now.)
Punch Drunk Love was one I was looking forward to earlier this year. Sure, it had Adam Sandler in it, which is usually reason enough for me to stay away (Mr. Deeds, anyone?). But Paul Thomas Anderson directs it, and I thought both Boogie Nights & Magnolia were fascinating films, so I figured I’d overlook the Sandler presence. Who knows, maybe he’ll surprise me and be good, I thought.
Well, surprises abound, since Sandler was actually very good… unfortunately, the movie wasn’t. Anderson’s stuff is always a bit “out there” but it’s almost always interesting. Until now, that is. I was ultimately unimpressed, unmoved and uninvolved with this one.
There were two things that struck me about this one. My first thought is that this is the quintessential film school film. I can see the debate raging right now about what the harmonium signifies… is it their relationship, his soul or fractured personality, is it some flaw in her… and why does he carry it to her apartment at the end of the film, if nothing’s done with it? Questions abound, and it’s just fodder for that impassioned discussion that takes place in film studies classes around the world.
And then there’s the question of what it’s all about. Is it really just that her love has healed his damage? I presume that’s it, since he’s got an impassioned speech about how love has made him stronger and the fact that, at the moment when you most want to see him let that anger go, he doesn’t. But if that IS what the film’s about, then really, isn’t it basically just an art-house take on As Good As It Gets? And did we really need that?
Another film I’ve caught up on this week is Once Upon a Time in America. It’s Sergio Leone’s epic gangster film from the 80’s and, while I’m pretty sure I saw it once before, it’s been ages and I really wanted to see it again.
Now, this is a 3 hour and 45 minute film about Jewish gangsters during prohibition (well, the majority of the story is, at least. It’s bounces the timeline from the turn of the century to the late 60’s.) And the first word that comes to mind for this picture is “glacial”—as in pacing. No wonder it’s 3 hours and 45 minutes… it’s one of the most leisurely paced films I’ve ever seen. It was nearly 25 minutes into the film before there was a meaningful conversation, and that one wasn’t all that revealing, as far as plot is concerned. So it’s a bit on the slow moving side.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie… great cast, beautifully shot, with an interesting, if not always the most compelling story. And it was masterfully directed. But the best part about watching it on DVD (aside from the unedited nature of the cut and the ability to bounce back to the beginning of scenes easily if I started to doze off) just might be the extras.
After sitting through the whole movie, I found myself left with 2 of the most enigmatic final moments in a movie that I think I’ve ever seen. I won’t go into detail, but suffice it to say that I was left wondering ‘what the f***?!?” as the final credits rolled. Now, I know some people relish this feeling, but I personally, when I’ve invested several hours of my life in a story, want some resolution at the end. Not the case here.
So I was browsing the extras and there was a short documentary about Leone and the making of the film. It spoke about the problems he had getting the film released here. Some genius at the studio, unable to understand the film, decided that it was too long and too confusing and so had it edited and put into chronological order for it’s American release. (Thus proving, once and for all, that we know nothing about film in this country. Or at least, that’s the presumption among studio heads. But I digress.)
But, more importantly, the documentary also addressed those two incredibly enigmatic scenes and confirmed that no, no one (with the presumed exception of Sergio) really knew what those two scenes were supposed to mean… he wasn’t going to give us a pat, easily tied up in a pretty little bow, ending. We’d need to make our own decisions about what happened. Which was really great for me, since I could thus assume that the answers to my “what the f***?!?” were “yes he did” and “yes it was”. I felt much better after that.
Just finished watching SE7EN (grisly, horrifying and yet a brilliantly well done film) and Miller’s Crossing is next on my list… so I’ll be back with more later, I’m sure.
Comments