Since I am writing a series of posts that focus on discussing films, I thought I might talk about some of the things that often make it difficult to do so upon watching the movie for the first time. When I watch it initially, I just try and watch it for the experience. I let my suspension of disbelief take me over and just try to get as involved with the process of watching it as I possibly can. If the movie is good, this can come rather easily and the opposite occurs if the movie turns out to be terrible, and as is the case with that, I'll just turn it off and never look it's way again unless I am forced to.
Why this often makes the process of analyzing the movie difficult and writing about it is that I often try and get the process done in many ways. I try to do some background research in order to get some more insight on any glaring holes I missed the first time and more recently, I've taken to writing notes during the initial viewing, which might also be hurting the way I analyze the movie itself since I am trying to get into the movie and just let the experience take me for a ride all the while trying to pick it apart and this process I might abandon due to how sometimes, it might be a good thing to just watch the movie and not try to tear it apart right away, so be forewarned for my discussion on Cronos because that one might be a little hard to get through. During the second viewing though, is where I usually watch the movie and write the post during it, often trying my hardest to try and incorporate some of what I see or get, which usually also comes from thoughts I build up from a few days of thinking about the movie itself long and hard. I'll often look up some of my research during this time and try and figure out what other people have found in the movie to talk about, mainly so that I can figure out if others have had similar ideas that I had as well and if they had worded them better than myself.
I also think that maybe I should abandon the watching the movie a second time and writing the post during the viewing since I think one of my better posts had been done that way, and that one was the one on Eyes Without a Face. That mostly came from research and memory of what had gone on during the movie, which I remember very well for the most part at least in terms of the visuals and the basics of the story, while looking stuff up filled in some of the blanks. It also helps that the movie is one of my favorite movies of all time and that I did have to lot of time to think about things for quite a while. My Fear and Loathing post was similar but part of that not working was that I think I tried too hard to be insightful of what was going on and failing miserably, instead of just saying my own thoughts regardless of if they were original or not. Which may make the process of doing the week I have planned where I post a Depths of Pretension once a day for five days sound kind of daunting. So that might have to be done in a way that I can kind of go through all of those movies and watch them, take notes on what I think I would like to talk about, and them post later. Or I could work on them in advance but wheres the fun in that?
I also think I might just talk about movies I like without any real mission other than just mention what I really like about it. Maybe doing that more as a podcast sort of deal instead of writing about it, maybe have someone there with me who wants to talk about those movies as well. I don't know if I'll ever get to that anytime soon but it is something I'd really like to do. Have it where we watch the movie and then record the podcast an hour or so later when we put some more thought into it somewhat.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Thursday, September 11, 2014
The Depths of Pretension #3: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Let's start right off the bat and say that when I saw this movie (and after.... and even now as I write this) I did not have much of an idea about the directorial works of Terry Gilliam, other than just having heard of his movies, such as his imagination trilogy of Time Bandits, Brazil and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. I was aware though that he was a member of Monty Python, which is another one of those things that I really want to get into yet have not gotten to it yet so I really did not have much idea of what I was getting into aside from side knowledge I caught while looking into it. I also really had no clue about Hunter S. Thompson, only really having been familiar with the name and that was it. So when I first saw Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, it was really more of an experience rather than a film. Not really much of a plot to speak of, or story even, as it was separated more into vignettes of all different kinds mostly revolving around the excessive drug habits of Raoul Duke and Dr. Gonzo as they spend a couple of days in Vegas trying hard and failing to get any writing done. Odd fact out of the way quickly was that this was going to be the first movie I was going to watch with my girlfriend at the time but by the time we could do so, Netflix no longer had it.
The sheer oddity of what this movie is trying to do is one of the things that made it a rather polarizing film at the time (at least in the eyes of the critics) since as I said before that is it more of a series of sketches of the two main characters being on all kinds of drugs while exploring through Vegas, which while it does get a little overdone at times, it does kind of assert that the place they are in is pretty much the pure definition of American excess where it can either be the greatest place in the world or your own personal hell depending on how things go your way. As for the case of Raoul Duke and Dr. Gonzo, it would probably fit onto the latter side of the spectrum with their drug use often bringing a large sense of paranoia that is prevalent throughout the film. One example I like is during the Mint 400 where Duke hallucinates that the other group of reporters are soldiers out to kill him. The way its shot often reflects what type of drug they're on at the time, yet it is hard to really keep track of the differences unless you like paying attention to that sort of thing, such as wobbly movements, disorientation, different levels of colors, and that sort of thing. It is easy to tell that the entire film was meant to feel like a drug trip from beginning to end which does make sense and feels that way despite that I myself have very little experience with drugs, having only drank and smoked a few times during my only year so far at college. I probably will never know how it feels to do stuff like LSD, ether, and mescaline so I might never be able to relate to the effects shown on screen. Yet that trip down at the end does really get hard to watch is things just seem to get a lot worse and no real way to recollect any of the information.
I could go on with the look of the movie as it often looks rather bright, neon-like in a way which again fits the setting rather nicely but let's try moving onto something different and just going more into specific scenes of the movie, or more like sections really. The opening is what I could consider to be an interesting way to set up the time period with some stock footage of protests of what is probably the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement with random splatters of blood along a black screen and The Lennon Sisters' version of the song My Favorite Things playing in the background. What it could all mean is up for debate but maybe it could be just signifying with culture of the 70's or moreso the death of the hippie era of the late 60s and the aftermath of that sort of thing, with those who were directly involved with that sort of culture being lost and without a real cause. For something a little more visual, lets go into when Duke is dealing with the Sunshine Acid at the hotel lobby, which might be one of the more iconic scenes of the film, as it has the reptile zoo orgy, the floor full of water. One of my favorite moments in the movie is when Duke is saying his thoughts out loud much to the dismay of the hitchhiker the two of them had recently picked up. The last scene I'll talk about is when they are at the Narcotics Convention which of course shows a lot of information that could be considered nothing more that propaganda and things such as how a joint is called a roach because of how it looks like a cockroach, which Gonzo immediately calls bullshit on and says that only people on acid would think it'd resemble a roach. I could go on a ton more but then I'd just be putting the movie on the blog which would make no sense.
Since this movie is mainly carried by the performances of Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro, who both pull out wonderful performances especially Depp who really had put his friendship with Thompson himself to good effect, a lot of the other big name actors that appear in the movie only show up for like a scene or two so I thought I'd mention which of them were my favorite. The obvious one I could bring up would be Christopher Meloni as the Flamingo Hotel clerk, Sven whose first appearance involves him shouting at an unruly guest in the most stereotypical gay tone that makes it rather hilarious due to how blatant it is. Another I really like is Harry Dean Stanton who has only two seconds of screen time maybe as a judge in one of Duke's hallucinations revolving around being caught for Gonzo drugging a teenage girl and the last I'll mention is one that many people might not really recognize yet I enjoy it because I recognize who it is and that is Gregory Itzin who you might remember if you watched 24 as being Charles Logan, who is one of the most memorable villains of that show, which makes it more funny that his character appears to give Raoul a good scare after ditching a hotel without paying all the outstanding room service bills.
I'm not sure I actually did any good writing this but I think it comes with the territory of this movie. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is one of those things that as a film, it is more for the experience more than anything and the experience is an odd one that I'll probably go through many more times. It would be interesting to read the book since they did cut a lot of it out and that there was a lot more going on with it being a lot worse than what was on screen. Another curio I wish I could experience with this movie is the version that Alex Cox (who you guys might recognize if you read the Repo Man post) would have directed since he was attached before Gilliam. And who knows how that would have turned out? So hopefully this was worth someone's time and hopefully this writing thing goes a lot better on the next post of Depths of Pretension, which will be the Guillermo Del Toro movie Cronos. Until then, I'll just return to my lonely obscurity as a freak in the freak kingdom.
The sheer oddity of what this movie is trying to do is one of the things that made it a rather polarizing film at the time (at least in the eyes of the critics) since as I said before that is it more of a series of sketches of the two main characters being on all kinds of drugs while exploring through Vegas, which while it does get a little overdone at times, it does kind of assert that the place they are in is pretty much the pure definition of American excess where it can either be the greatest place in the world or your own personal hell depending on how things go your way. As for the case of Raoul Duke and Dr. Gonzo, it would probably fit onto the latter side of the spectrum with their drug use often bringing a large sense of paranoia that is prevalent throughout the film. One example I like is during the Mint 400 where Duke hallucinates that the other group of reporters are soldiers out to kill him. The way its shot often reflects what type of drug they're on at the time, yet it is hard to really keep track of the differences unless you like paying attention to that sort of thing, such as wobbly movements, disorientation, different levels of colors, and that sort of thing. It is easy to tell that the entire film was meant to feel like a drug trip from beginning to end which does make sense and feels that way despite that I myself have very little experience with drugs, having only drank and smoked a few times during my only year so far at college. I probably will never know how it feels to do stuff like LSD, ether, and mescaline so I might never be able to relate to the effects shown on screen. Yet that trip down at the end does really get hard to watch is things just seem to get a lot worse and no real way to recollect any of the information.
I could go on with the look of the movie as it often looks rather bright, neon-like in a way which again fits the setting rather nicely but let's try moving onto something different and just going more into specific scenes of the movie, or more like sections really. The opening is what I could consider to be an interesting way to set up the time period with some stock footage of protests of what is probably the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement with random splatters of blood along a black screen and The Lennon Sisters' version of the song My Favorite Things playing in the background. What it could all mean is up for debate but maybe it could be just signifying with culture of the 70's or moreso the death of the hippie era of the late 60s and the aftermath of that sort of thing, with those who were directly involved with that sort of culture being lost and without a real cause. For something a little more visual, lets go into when Duke is dealing with the Sunshine Acid at the hotel lobby, which might be one of the more iconic scenes of the film, as it has the reptile zoo orgy, the floor full of water. One of my favorite moments in the movie is when Duke is saying his thoughts out loud much to the dismay of the hitchhiker the two of them had recently picked up. The last scene I'll talk about is when they are at the Narcotics Convention which of course shows a lot of information that could be considered nothing more that propaganda and things such as how a joint is called a roach because of how it looks like a cockroach, which Gonzo immediately calls bullshit on and says that only people on acid would think it'd resemble a roach. I could go on a ton more but then I'd just be putting the movie on the blog which would make no sense.
Since this movie is mainly carried by the performances of Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro, who both pull out wonderful performances especially Depp who really had put his friendship with Thompson himself to good effect, a lot of the other big name actors that appear in the movie only show up for like a scene or two so I thought I'd mention which of them were my favorite. The obvious one I could bring up would be Christopher Meloni as the Flamingo Hotel clerk, Sven whose first appearance involves him shouting at an unruly guest in the most stereotypical gay tone that makes it rather hilarious due to how blatant it is. Another I really like is Harry Dean Stanton who has only two seconds of screen time maybe as a judge in one of Duke's hallucinations revolving around being caught for Gonzo drugging a teenage girl and the last I'll mention is one that many people might not really recognize yet I enjoy it because I recognize who it is and that is Gregory Itzin who you might remember if you watched 24 as being Charles Logan, who is one of the most memorable villains of that show, which makes it more funny that his character appears to give Raoul a good scare after ditching a hotel without paying all the outstanding room service bills.
I'm not sure I actually did any good writing this but I think it comes with the territory of this movie. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is one of those things that as a film, it is more for the experience more than anything and the experience is an odd one that I'll probably go through many more times. It would be interesting to read the book since they did cut a lot of it out and that there was a lot more going on with it being a lot worse than what was on screen. Another curio I wish I could experience with this movie is the version that Alex Cox (who you guys might recognize if you read the Repo Man post) would have directed since he was attached before Gilliam. And who knows how that would have turned out? So hopefully this was worth someone's time and hopefully this writing thing goes a lot better on the next post of Depths of Pretension, which will be the Guillermo Del Toro movie Cronos. Until then, I'll just return to my lonely obscurity as a freak in the freak kingdom.
Monday, September 8, 2014
The Future of Depths of Pretension (A Post About A List)
Since there are so many movies that are in the Criterion Collection and I have my Depths of Pretension series to discuss said films, I also had the slight realization that I really did not have much of a plan on which movies I was going to cover past number 5 (which hopefully is going to be The Great Dictator) so I thought that I might as well come up with a list so that I have some sort of reference point to go to, along with which ones I have to purchase if I can't find a way to stream them. So here is the list as of right now,
1. Repo Man
2. Eyes Without a Face
3. Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas
4. Cronos
5. The Great Dictator
6. The Virgin Spring
7. Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom
8. Antichrist
9. In The Realm of the Senses
10. The Last Temptation of Christ
11. Paris, Texas
12. The Vanishing
13. Brand Upon The Brain!
14. Persona
15. The Gold Rush
16. The Seventh Seal
17. Breathless
18. Breaking the Waves
19. Naked Lunch
20. The Passion of Joan of Arc
21. The Ice Storm
22. Kagemusha
23. Slacker
24. Badlands
25. Modern Times
26. Blow Out
27. Eraserhead
28. Carnival of Souls
29. Following
30. Man Bites Dog
I rearranged this list from the last time as I wanted to get my "Sex and Violence.... That's What The Kids Are Into, Right?" list, aka oh, that fucking movie?!?!? which amounts to numbers 6 through 10 so that will be tons of fun to talk about. There is also a sort of running theme where every one that ends with 5 is a Charlie Chaplin film and the ones that end in zero were meant to have some sort of religious overtones in it, where they do play a large theme in the story. Which is broken almost immediately with the inclusion of Man Bites Dog at number 30. Now to tally up the numbers to see which directors I will be discussing more than once over the course of these 28 films (as I already went through the first two). Chaplin and Ingmar Bergman are both on there three times, Lars Von Trier is on there twice, and that's it for multiples. Well, hopefully I'll be working on Fear and Loathing either on Tuesday night or Wednesday so if there isn't a post on that, everyone who reads this can call me on it and bitch me out
1. Repo Man
2. Eyes Without a Face
3. Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas
4. Cronos
5. The Great Dictator
6. The Virgin Spring
7. Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom
8. Antichrist
9. In The Realm of the Senses
10. The Last Temptation of Christ
11. Paris, Texas
12. The Vanishing
13. Brand Upon The Brain!
14. Persona
15. The Gold Rush
16. The Seventh Seal
17. Breathless
18. Breaking the Waves
19. Naked Lunch
20. The Passion of Joan of Arc
21. The Ice Storm
22. Kagemusha
23. Slacker
24. Badlands
25. Modern Times
26. Blow Out
27. Eraserhead
28. Carnival of Souls
29. Following
30. Man Bites Dog
I rearranged this list from the last time as I wanted to get my "Sex and Violence.... That's What The Kids Are Into, Right?" list, aka oh, that fucking movie?!?!? which amounts to numbers 6 through 10 so that will be tons of fun to talk about. There is also a sort of running theme where every one that ends with 5 is a Charlie Chaplin film and the ones that end in zero were meant to have some sort of religious overtones in it, where they do play a large theme in the story. Which is broken almost immediately with the inclusion of Man Bites Dog at number 30. Now to tally up the numbers to see which directors I will be discussing more than once over the course of these 28 films (as I already went through the first two). Chaplin and Ingmar Bergman are both on there three times, Lars Von Trier is on there twice, and that's it for multiples. Well, hopefully I'll be working on Fear and Loathing either on Tuesday night or Wednesday so if there isn't a post on that, everyone who reads this can call me on it and bitch me out
Oh, How I Wish More Theaters Played Classic Movies
Tomorrow, hopefully I will be able to spend a solid portion of my afternoon at the movie theater which I haven't been to since I saw The Lego Movie, which has lead me to some dismay over my infrequent travel to the movies. Many I have been unable to see due to weather conditions and a lack of consistent transportation to do so and since that time of the year is fast approaching, I thought I should go since they are showing Ghostbusters to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the movie and if I can it'll be on a personal double bill with Guardians of the Galaxy. One other thing that has suffered in my movie viewing due to said transportation problems is the distance between me and the nearest Cinemark theater. I first learned of Cinemark while watching the Midnight Screenings on thecinemasnob.com, which have been some of my favorite sources of background commentary when they talk about really terrible movies that they saw and for a while, they did classic movies that were showing at a smaller theater to the point where that sort of movie would be just Brad and his mom talking about it, and those have been some of my favorites. It also got me interested in if any theaters near me were doing something similar, which unfortunately did not turn out to be the case. So I missed movies that I really wanted to see in theaters, such as The Godfather Part I and II as a double bill, which would have killed my day for the most part but it would have been fun nonetheless.
The fact that I have missed all these opportunities to catch these movies in the theater had left me kind of sad since I am unsure when I will get an actual chance to do so. And it got me thinking about why don't more theaters do things like this? Maybe not on an almost weekly basis for movies that show about two days of the week. It could be like once in a while for a day or two, they'd show one of those movies in a couple of screenings, and it could work really well when the new crop of films turn out to be duds or there are not enough movies coming out to validate the amount of screens in the theater. Especially if they do the matinee pricing, I know that I would try and get to at least one of these screenings if that were possible. It is kind of hard to figure out why not many theaters do something like this, maybe it has to do with licensing the movies that would make it not that much of a profit to do on a regular basis or that they don't see much of an audience for this kind of thing (which since I'm writing this post and that Cinemark is still doing it's thing, is kind of bullshit) or even that maybe there is some other reason I can't think of at the moment but it is rather unfortunate that stuff like this doesn't happen.
I also thought that maybe since theaters wouldn't do that more often, maybe I should start my own film committee (or club, or group whichever sounds better) where we watch movies like that regularly, either weekly or bi-weekly for people like me in the community who just like watching movies. I have looked up some of what I would need to get something like this started and it has kind of disheartened me though since I do not really have the necessary funds to get it off the ground and my lack of friends and film buffs to talk to has left the budget for that sort of thing onto just myself and that is too much of an undertaking at the moment. This is coming from someone who wants to film his own horror anthology movie with four different parts (one of which I had to rework due to realizing almost immediately that it was kind of more stupid than I wanted it to be and also just how most of the budget would just go to that one section of the film, [in case any of you are wondering, it was about this bus driver who set up his bus with all of these hidden traps and torture setups for people who think the bus is too dirty and messy, since it was going to be sort of a torture porn satire or parody due to it's outlandishness]) and that seems like such a large undertaking since I was going to have to do most of the work myself, and by most, I mean all of the work that doesn't have to do with acting, making a movie with no experience, no resources, no people to help, it really makes me wish I had friends that could help me out. That's kind of a bit off topic though.
So if this hasn't gotten my idea out there, I just really wish that more movie theaters, those closer to where I live especially would play classic films since who wouldn't want to see those movies that they loved as a kid but never got the chance to see them in the big screen?
The fact that I have missed all these opportunities to catch these movies in the theater had left me kind of sad since I am unsure when I will get an actual chance to do so. And it got me thinking about why don't more theaters do things like this? Maybe not on an almost weekly basis for movies that show about two days of the week. It could be like once in a while for a day or two, they'd show one of those movies in a couple of screenings, and it could work really well when the new crop of films turn out to be duds or there are not enough movies coming out to validate the amount of screens in the theater. Especially if they do the matinee pricing, I know that I would try and get to at least one of these screenings if that were possible. It is kind of hard to figure out why not many theaters do something like this, maybe it has to do with licensing the movies that would make it not that much of a profit to do on a regular basis or that they don't see much of an audience for this kind of thing (which since I'm writing this post and that Cinemark is still doing it's thing, is kind of bullshit) or even that maybe there is some other reason I can't think of at the moment but it is rather unfortunate that stuff like this doesn't happen.
I also thought that maybe since theaters wouldn't do that more often, maybe I should start my own film committee (or club, or group whichever sounds better) where we watch movies like that regularly, either weekly or bi-weekly for people like me in the community who just like watching movies. I have looked up some of what I would need to get something like this started and it has kind of disheartened me though since I do not really have the necessary funds to get it off the ground and my lack of friends and film buffs to talk to has left the budget for that sort of thing onto just myself and that is too much of an undertaking at the moment. This is coming from someone who wants to film his own horror anthology movie with four different parts (one of which I had to rework due to realizing almost immediately that it was kind of more stupid than I wanted it to be and also just how most of the budget would just go to that one section of the film, [in case any of you are wondering, it was about this bus driver who set up his bus with all of these hidden traps and torture setups for people who think the bus is too dirty and messy, since it was going to be sort of a torture porn satire or parody due to it's outlandishness]) and that seems like such a large undertaking since I was going to have to do most of the work myself, and by most, I mean all of the work that doesn't have to do with acting, making a movie with no experience, no resources, no people to help, it really makes me wish I had friends that could help me out. That's kind of a bit off topic though.
So if this hasn't gotten my idea out there, I just really wish that more movie theaters, those closer to where I live especially would play classic films since who wouldn't want to see those movies that they loved as a kid but never got the chance to see them in the big screen?
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
A Short Retrospective on Nicolas Winding Refn AKA WTF Am I Watching?
This guy, huh? Like many people who have heard of Nicolas Refn, my first exposure to his films was his 2011 film Drive, which took me a while to see but I really liked it. Not necessarily for its story but for most part the visuals were really wonderful to look at at most parts and the soundtrack really fit the mood and tone said visuals were trying to set up. It was also easy to see when I played the game Hotline Miami when some people called it a video game version of Drive at least in some regards, and that wording might not have actually existed but it is a comparison that does work. Yet even though I really enjoyed the movie, I didn't have much of a desire to look up the rest of his work for a while.
At least until I heard about what a train wreck of a film his followup Only God Forgives was, which I caught a trailer of it once and like Drive, it had really cool visuals and had Ryan Gosling in it. Yet, from what I've heard the cinematography might have been the only good thing about the movie itself. After a while, I convinced myself to watch the movie just to see if the criticism that it was getting was justified. Here is where my experiences with watching a Nicolas Refn film start going into the territory of "what the fuck am I watching?" It is rather hard for me to summarize the plot of the movie without having to go to another source not necessarily because I didn't understand what was going on, but if I had to put it in words, it was more just not having a moment where everything clicks and things start making sense. The early stages of the film start off this way where this guy named Billy kills a under-aged prostitute and is caught by the cops. The Lieutenant (and maybe the main character of the movie itself) Chang lets the father of the girl beat up Billy, which gets too out of hand and Billy ends up being killed. Right after this, Chang cuts the father's arm off and I didn't understand why at first because when I first watched it I thought it was for killing Billy yet Chang was the one who let this happen. Looking up a synopsis made the scene make more sense yet not by much. I could go on for quite a while after this where the film just kind of go bonkers with the plotting where there is a plot where Gosling's character, Julian, is asked by his mother to track down his brothers killer yet there is a lot of times where things happen yet nothing happens at the same time. And for the most part, I get the criticisms of the movie, and I agree that the cinematography is wonderful along with just the visuals being the way they are (after learning that Refn suffers from mild color blindness, the way colors work in his films make a lot of sense).
A while later, I managed to watch Bronson (the oldest film of his that I have seen, in case you're wondering), though this was more of a curio on Tom Hardy since the only movies I had really watched that had him in it were Warrior and The Dark Knight Rises, which made me really interested in what other work he had done. It wasn't until I finished watching the movie that I put two and two together and realized that Refn was the one in the director's chair for this one as well, which took me longer than it should have as the first scene in the movie, where Bronson is on a stage talking to an audience to serve as some sort of stopgap in between moments of his life. This is another movie where not much of the plot made sense to me, which might have been partially due to my lack of knowledge in the subject matter and the amount of gaps in time that pass. I am unsure myself as to whether or not I really liked the movie or not, which is another sign that I have watched a Nicolas Refn film since out of the four I've seen, the only one that I have some sort of clear consensus on is Drive. As for this one, I found it rather intriguing at moments and thought that the character of Charlie Bronson was one that I was fascinated by which did add another interest point towards Tom Hardy as an actor.
Here is the most recent addition to his movies that I have watched and the one that made me want to do this post, Valhalla Rising. Another movie that I was interested in watching it mainly because of the actor in the lead, this time being Mads Mikkelsen. Now talk about someone who I really wish I had seen in other movies sooner, as my introduction to Mikkelsen was from the show Hannibal which made me see how fantastic he was and almost immediately had to see the other work he has done. This was one of them along with The Hunt (which I haven't seen yet) as well as realizing that he had actually worked with Refn before, such as in the first two films of his Pusher trilogy and Bleeder. What made me really want to watch Valhalla Rising was that the lead was an entirely silent character, which is something I haven't seen too often personally so I started watching it and the obvious came where the visuals of the film got me almost instantly and then the plot started coming into play and I'm trying to piece together what was going on. For those who aren't familiar, the film is about this mute prisoner named One Eye who escapes from his captors only to join a bunch of Christian crusaders who end up travelling to the Americas. The plot actually sounded cool, especially since I do have a soft spot for the Norse type of things, and for the most part I could get behind it. The weird thing though was that One Eye is apparently psychic since throughout the film, he has visions of the future which is partially how he was able to escape in the first place and he always follows his visions blindly. He also somehow communicates with this boy who was part of the community that held him prisoner despite the fact he doesn't speak, which is really given no explanation which I am unsure as to whether or not this hurts the film or not.
So, deciding if I like Nicolas Winding Refn as a director or not is one of those things that might end up perplexing me for years since the most obvious thing I like about him is his cinematography and visual style, while the rest kind of is a mixed bag. I also get his style due to his connection to Alejandro Jodorowsky, one of those guys whose movies I haven't seen aside from a few clips yet they do seem like glorious eye candy. For the most part, I'll try and catch some of his earlier work, mainly trying for Pusher so I can see his humble beginnings and looking forward to what he comes out with in the future. And hopefully, something in my brain clicks so I can enjoy the movie without being confused by it again.
At least until I heard about what a train wreck of a film his followup Only God Forgives was, which I caught a trailer of it once and like Drive, it had really cool visuals and had Ryan Gosling in it. Yet, from what I've heard the cinematography might have been the only good thing about the movie itself. After a while, I convinced myself to watch the movie just to see if the criticism that it was getting was justified. Here is where my experiences with watching a Nicolas Refn film start going into the territory of "what the fuck am I watching?" It is rather hard for me to summarize the plot of the movie without having to go to another source not necessarily because I didn't understand what was going on, but if I had to put it in words, it was more just not having a moment where everything clicks and things start making sense. The early stages of the film start off this way where this guy named Billy kills a under-aged prostitute and is caught by the cops. The Lieutenant (and maybe the main character of the movie itself) Chang lets the father of the girl beat up Billy, which gets too out of hand and Billy ends up being killed. Right after this, Chang cuts the father's arm off and I didn't understand why at first because when I first watched it I thought it was for killing Billy yet Chang was the one who let this happen. Looking up a synopsis made the scene make more sense yet not by much. I could go on for quite a while after this where the film just kind of go bonkers with the plotting where there is a plot where Gosling's character, Julian, is asked by his mother to track down his brothers killer yet there is a lot of times where things happen yet nothing happens at the same time. And for the most part, I get the criticisms of the movie, and I agree that the cinematography is wonderful along with just the visuals being the way they are (after learning that Refn suffers from mild color blindness, the way colors work in his films make a lot of sense).
A while later, I managed to watch Bronson (the oldest film of his that I have seen, in case you're wondering), though this was more of a curio on Tom Hardy since the only movies I had really watched that had him in it were Warrior and The Dark Knight Rises, which made me really interested in what other work he had done. It wasn't until I finished watching the movie that I put two and two together and realized that Refn was the one in the director's chair for this one as well, which took me longer than it should have as the first scene in the movie, where Bronson is on a stage talking to an audience to serve as some sort of stopgap in between moments of his life. This is another movie where not much of the plot made sense to me, which might have been partially due to my lack of knowledge in the subject matter and the amount of gaps in time that pass. I am unsure myself as to whether or not I really liked the movie or not, which is another sign that I have watched a Nicolas Refn film since out of the four I've seen, the only one that I have some sort of clear consensus on is Drive. As for this one, I found it rather intriguing at moments and thought that the character of Charlie Bronson was one that I was fascinated by which did add another interest point towards Tom Hardy as an actor.
Here is the most recent addition to his movies that I have watched and the one that made me want to do this post, Valhalla Rising. Another movie that I was interested in watching it mainly because of the actor in the lead, this time being Mads Mikkelsen. Now talk about someone who I really wish I had seen in other movies sooner, as my introduction to Mikkelsen was from the show Hannibal which made me see how fantastic he was and almost immediately had to see the other work he has done. This was one of them along with The Hunt (which I haven't seen yet) as well as realizing that he had actually worked with Refn before, such as in the first two films of his Pusher trilogy and Bleeder. What made me really want to watch Valhalla Rising was that the lead was an entirely silent character, which is something I haven't seen too often personally so I started watching it and the obvious came where the visuals of the film got me almost instantly and then the plot started coming into play and I'm trying to piece together what was going on. For those who aren't familiar, the film is about this mute prisoner named One Eye who escapes from his captors only to join a bunch of Christian crusaders who end up travelling to the Americas. The plot actually sounded cool, especially since I do have a soft spot for the Norse type of things, and for the most part I could get behind it. The weird thing though was that One Eye is apparently psychic since throughout the film, he has visions of the future which is partially how he was able to escape in the first place and he always follows his visions blindly. He also somehow communicates with this boy who was part of the community that held him prisoner despite the fact he doesn't speak, which is really given no explanation which I am unsure as to whether or not this hurts the film or not.
So, deciding if I like Nicolas Winding Refn as a director or not is one of those things that might end up perplexing me for years since the most obvious thing I like about him is his cinematography and visual style, while the rest kind of is a mixed bag. I also get his style due to his connection to Alejandro Jodorowsky, one of those guys whose movies I haven't seen aside from a few clips yet they do seem like glorious eye candy. For the most part, I'll try and catch some of his earlier work, mainly trying for Pusher so I can see his humble beginnings and looking forward to what he comes out with in the future. And hopefully, something in my brain clicks so I can enjoy the movie without being confused by it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)