-27.4-

Today I saw Only Lovers Left Alive directed by Jim Jarmusch (I had been anticipating it since two actors I really like are the main characters!)

I liked the movie, but it isn't one many people would like since it's very slow paced (about the speed of The Stationmaster), and had only one semi-fast action scene. There was a lot to analyze, and many allusions made, but the movie gave a very thoughtful look into the concept of eternal life. I'm not a fan of the current vampire genre, but this movie definitely didn't have sparkles. The vampires seemed more like erudite drug addicts than anything else.

The differences between the two main characters was my favorite part of the movie. The man, Adam, took eternal life as boredom and focused on the past (he stayed shut inside and used old technology). He saw people as "zombies" and wasters of the future. Alternatively the woman, Eve, viewed eternal life more positively. She had an iPhone, and seemed a bit more social with others (There was a nice scene where she chides Adam saying something along the lines of, "you could spend all this time helping others than thinking about yourself.")

Other aspects that stood out to me were the first scene, the darkness, and the humor. In the first scene of the movie, there was a cross dissolve between Adam, Eve, and a record playing. As the record went around and around, the actual sound in the theatre moved in a circular motion (Another decision to think about when directing!)

Other scenes that amazed me were scenes of the night sky (since the characters were vampires, the whole thing took place during the nighttime). I kept wondering how they shot those scenes, or if those scenes were CGI.

Even though all of the scenes were shot at night, and the movie had a serious tone, I was pleasantly surprised that there were quite a few humorous scenes. They balanced out the metaphorical bleakness in the lives of the characters and reminded the audience that the movie was fictional.

I'd definitely see the movie again, but I'd need to be in the mood to see it since it is in a slower style.

-55.3-

A short posting of my initial reaction to Hugo (I watched it about a month ago):

Hugo vs. The Artist
Hugo:
-made it fun for both kids and adults. Modern and ppl who knew old films
-focused on filmmaker and the joys of filmmaking/directing. Showed how old films inspired others, too
-also showed how great old films faded into obscurity
-but now are beig brought back and appreciated
Didn't try to be a silent film
Artist:
Was authentic in looks
Effectively conveyed a story through silent film techniques
Some creative points, such as the dream sequence (the main character dreams about sound ruining his silent film career)
Tried to be a silent film (both good and bad things about it)


Overall: I feel that Hugo paid the better tribute to silent films.

-42.3-

This weekend I watched three documentaries: "Happy" "Babies" and "Waiting for Superman."

The first two that I watched were very good.For "Happy" they had the right mix of narrative, personal stories, and diagrams to convey different ways people can be happy. "Babies," on the other hand, was effective with a "hands off" approach (no narration, and leaving the families, seemingly, by themselves) in order to create an authentic document of the four different cultures portrayed throughout the film. Although the environments the four babies were growing up in seemed extremely different, all babies were loved, and all had the same milestones. (The establishing shots were beautiful, too. I loved the vibrant colors and clarity of the film.) For "babies" it was an interesting director's choice to not feature the whole family unit. Often the babies were seen by themselves, or they were zoomed in on during scenes with interactions with a parent.
"Waiting for Superman," so far, seemed a bit dry. The diagrams shown were effective in conveying messages, such as the view that "tenure" is causing problems regarding teachers who can't teach (my favorite diagram being the lemon dance), however when they put in personal bits, they seemed a little too long, so the whole picture was difficult to keep up with. I also thought more narrative would have helped tie everything together (but I haven't seen the whole movie yet...I had to go to bed in the middle of watching.)

-41.3-

Yesterday we watched "The Big Lebowski." What a crazy movie!
It was great fun to watch (partly because it seemed like everyone was having fun with their acting). But I noticed that the Coen brothers did a great job at setting up characterization (for example, when they introduced The Dude with The Dude drinking out of a bottle at a supermarket.)

The plot was so ridiculous that nothing could be taken too seriously, and yet it was a surprising to find out what actually was going on (it was funny that there were random characters in the plot such as Jesus at the bowling alley and the Nihilists pretending to kidnap Bunny). The next day, when we were talking about the movie, it was interesting to find out how the movie was a big mesh-up of sorts, with real-life people going on an adventure, and the concept around finding a kid's homework in a stolen car. Somehow the movie seemed to work.

Misc. point:
Luke mentioned mentioned how it may have seemed funny to people who've seen this movie to see Jeff Bridges in "True Grit" as a completely different character, but it was the opposite for me. I saw him in "Ironman" and "True Grit" before seeing him in this movie, and this may have made the movie even funnier (a gritty cowboy/businessman in a completely different role as a carpet-loving bum!) However, The Dude did seem to be quite serious at times, which sort-of seemed to fit in with the other roles I've seen Bridges in (In Ironman he contrasted Tony Stark's flippant character and in True Grit he contrasted the other guy, LeBouef's, relaxed personality.)

-32.3-

Headhunters, the movie we watched in class yesterday, was either an extremely strange journey of a couple's arguement, or an extremely convoluted journey of a man, Robert's, self discovery. At first I felt like it was the former, but at the end of the film I felt like it was the latter. Whatever it was, I liked the emotional journey Robert took.

My first impression of Headhunters, was that of annoyance. As Roger delinates hpw he commits art theft, I thought "Oh, this is one of those movies," The one with a smug main character who revels in their flagrant disrespect for the law. This impression remained the same through most of the plot's action scenes (Except the part when the dog attacks Roger. That was...unnerving.) Roger and his accomplice, Ove, were interesting characters, but the only thing I really liked was the way it was shot. I don't know exactly why I liked how the scenes looked...maybe it was because there was a lot of light in each scene? I'd have to watch it again to tell.

It was only when Roger said that he was scared of not being loved as much as Lotte's -proposed- child that I started to like the movie. It made him seem more human, and his being so vulnerable made me respect him more. The part where *SPOILER* his wife replaces Clas' gun with blanks was so touching... (What a series of plot twists!) I'm glad that the movie had a happy ending. The parting dialouge was interesting ...something along the lines of "I may not know myself, but I know others, and how they behave." Out of context, it still sounds smug, but after you know the whole ordeal Roger goes through, it feels good to hear him say that. That Roger accepts his life (and height) and is able to regain some control, along with some real self-confidence.

-29.3-

I just saw Le Miserables.
It was very moving.
I admit, I got teary during "I Dreamed a Dream" and when *spoiler alert*Jean Valjean died. This was because Hugh Jackman's acting and singing were so excellent...*sigh*
It was interesting to see how the director adapted a play to film. I think he pulled it off well. Close-ups helped to underscore when a single actor/actress soloed, and large cast scenes helped make the mood in establishing shots, that certainly would have been hard to do on stage. Also, the use of cgi was effective in expanding the "set" of different scenes. It was interesting that the movie kept stage-like lighting at times (was this intentional?)
I loved the quality of the sound in the movie, too. It took a bit of getting used to hearing all of the dialouge being sung, but once you did, you could hear every word of the songs, which is a big difference from live performance. This way, I appreciated the poetry in the song lyrics!
Seeing it in film makes me curious about seeing it live, but I'm a little worried that I won't be as drawn to the performances of the actors as I was for the movie...

-28.3-

Slings and Arrows

So, over winter break I started -and finished- this wonderful show "Slings and Arrows."
The show covers a Canadian, Shakespearian, theatre company and the troubles it faces from the beginning of production to premiere. The main character and artistic director, Geoffery Tennant, is haunted by a ghost with an ego who takes it upon himself to be involved in /helping/ Geoffery's production process  (I can't say of who, since that's a spoiler.)
Being a theatre company, many of the problemsthat arise relate to either funding or deep-seated artistic issues. Funnily enough, the main theme of the show addresses what we constantly are reminded of in STAC: You must make a decision.
I love this show. Sadly, it's only 3 seasons, but they made my winter vacation!

Here's what I like about it
-Humor: The dialouge is biting, but used effectively so people are actually being funny, not clever.

-Complex characters/great acting: The characters are exaggerated, yet believable. For example, old actor hated Jeffery, and made this very clear, but he sided with Jeffery against this other actor who was being thick headed because the older actor cared so much about the production. Also, it seems like everyone has a lot of fun while in the show.

-Great storylines: The first episode is a bit slow, but after the ball gets rolling, I couldn't stop watching it! They gradually build up suspense, so it's really hard to stop at the episode before the season finale. Another interesting thing is,
*SPOILER ALERT* they let the first season end in success, then after that they manage to keep the show going by having the characters react to success and all the things that come with it. They explore artistic issues, such as topping previous successes, and real-life issues, such as getting funding for productions. Everything about this show is well-done. While writing about it, I'm remembering the episodes and I want to watch it again!

-25.3-

My brief commentary on two movies seen this year. (I would have included Kontroll, but I already reviewed it.)

-Rear window (seen in STAC): Great story, nice acting, and many beautiful shots. However, the plot moved slowly at times (we were discussing this in class, and this may be because of the style of the time...but I got a bit antsy while watching the beginning, which is odd because I'm used to slow movies.)

-Lincoln(seen outside of STAC): A good period piece, they really captured how dim things were eithout electricity, but the language was hard to understand at points... They did a good job at making a movie centered aroundthe passing of a bill be not as dull as it sounds.
(Also, it was odd to see Lincoln as a person...it shows how much you've learned about history when you didn't even know that Mr. Lincoln had children!)

-20.3-

Kontroll.
A Hungarian movie we saw in class on Tuesday.

Initially, I liked the movie...except for the fact that it had a feeling of claustrophobia. Since it all took place underground, towards the end, I kept on looking out the window to get some mental fresh air.

The acting was great - it all felt natural - and some shots were beautiful (I specifically remember one of the light hitting two enormous fans underground; the way the fans cut the light and dark of the scene appealed to my aesthetics.)

Most of all, I liked the characters. I liked the sense of camaraderie among the main team of Kontroll. Although they split up in the different trains, they always managed to get back together by the time the train got to the next stop. I also liked seeing different tropes among the group. For example the Professor and Tibi (I think? The young guy...) fit into the old cop young cop trope. (Mugi also fits nicely into PluckyComicRelief)

The end scene of the movie seemed pretty symbolic of death. Bulcsu goes with the train conductor's daughter, who's waiting for him in an angel's costume, up the escalator and into the light. Why Bulcsu had to suffer as a Kontroll poses the subject of atonement. If he did push the passengers off the platform, he may have had to suffer before he went to "heaven". Another way of looking at this is that Bulcsu is part of the "untouchable" class in the hierarchy of the subway, and must suffer in order to have a better next life (When he leaves the subway station, it's implied that he can go back to a successful life/job, with a girlfriend.)

---
Another point I'd like to bring up is that there is, basically, an all-male cast. I didn't notice this fact before Luke pointed it out, which brings up some issues to think about.

I don't think I noticed the lack of girls, because I've grown up in an all-male world. My Mom and Dad told me stories about male heros...the Greeks, Norse mythology, Peter Pan, Robin Hood...I grew up liking adventure and doing things by myself. When playing with my friends in elementary school, we used to pretend to be superheroes and we'd have our own myth-like adventures. In middle school, I was introduced to anime, and most of the ones I read had a very strong male myth structure to it. I think I'm so used to the male myth that female leads have become...on the back burner for me. I'd really like to see a strong female lead, but the shows/stories that do this are few and far between (off the top of my head I can't remember specific titles...maybe the show Madoka Magica?). I feel like boys get to have the adventures while girls stay at home. But I want to do things, too.

But does one have to be a man/act manly to have an adventure? How can girls stay as girls but still provide a strong point? I think this may be a better way of looking at things: link.

Gender roles is an extremely interesting subject, but it's so hard to overcome the partitioning ingrained for thousands of years in society. You've got to be carefully untaught, eh?
---
Misc. point: When the soundtrack to the chase sequence first came on (the one used in "The Laramie Project" commercial) I started grinning, because I recognized it, but didn't know it was from this movie.
---
Unrelated note: When we were talking about STAC live and all of the instruments required for the songs, I thought about my goal for trying to play a different instrument(s) bass, trumpet etc. I will delve further into this subject another time.

Another unrelated note: I like the main theme in the Thor soundtrack.

=====Edit=====
Perhaps Bulcsu fits into the MustMakeAmends trope, since he could leave at any time, but it was the trap of his mind that kept him underground until the very end.