Duplicity (2009)
Clive Owen is a man who I did not like when I saw his first film. But he has a knack for appearing in damn good movies; much like Russell Crowe. Not like Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt, mind you, who just choose roles that fit them well. Owen has an uncanny knack of acting in memorable movies. Owen does what is demanded of him and he will surely be remembered as one of the most underrated stars of this era. Opposite him is yet another ageing Hollywood female superstar who thinks that she can pull it off. But yes; Julia Roberts does justice to her role as the paranoid and ever efficient spy who wants to break away from her job at the CIA. Apart from paranoia, themes of deception and ego is dealt with extremely well in this rivetting film of two hours and five minutes. Paul Giamatti is one of the most respected actors in the business for a reason. He shines in his short but compelling role. I would go as far as to say that anyone else except Tom Wilkinson would have stunk up that unrealistic possum-playing role; but casting, as you could have guessed if you noticed the pattern, has been a strong point in this film. With a regular double-cross with a twist plot; Duplicity guarantees for an interesting two hours and gets a 6.8 regular rating. It's capacity of self-awareness gets it a 5.8 on the critical scale.
Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
I see a movie like this and think about Dracula 2000 and wonder, just how far Gerard Butler has made it. If a movie stars Jamie Foxx and you end up rooting for anyone else in the film, the actor has done one helluva job. Gerard Butler does that in this excellent socio-psychological Thriller where you are torn between the inevitable and the impossible at the end of the film. A friend of mine recommended this movie to me and I thank you Bat, for doing so. The plot cannot be simpler - and more disturbing. What does a superspy do when his family is raped and murdered and all that the law does is give smug half-answers? He gets involved. Really, really involved. The movie makes us feel the difference between the idea of murder as punishment rather than murder as revenge. Great tragedy sparks off other events of horror but can someone salvage enough sanity to orchestrate that horror into a meaningful question? Butler's character sets about his task and we all wish him to succeed, while knowing that ultimately, he has to turn savage to prove that he too, is human. This paradox heights this cat and mouse game. This movie could have ended up like a dozen other regular chase films, but stands out due to the intensity of the performances and a very smartly written script. This movie will appeal to a large section of the audience cutting through many demographs and that is precisely why I rate this pretty high on the regular scale at 7.8 but its weak ending and often over-dramatic and invented resolutions, it does not get better than a 5.8 critical rating.
State of Play (2009)
I hate Russell Crowe; his style of acting, his attitude, his face, everything. But most of all, I hate it that he ends up being a part of so many good movies that I have to watch him and enjoy his performances. State of Play is one such movie. This is perhaps the best political thriller I have seen in a long time and it keeps you hooked every step of the way. The only other movie which surpasses this, would be Michael Clayton, but that is another review. Crowe is a journalist whose estranged friend, a congressman, Ben Affleck breaks down in front of the media when his secretary (with whom he was having an affair) is murdered. This could not have come at a worse time for this congressman has been the rallying point against the privatization of the army lobby. The movie works like a boxing bout, with each side seeming to gain advantage only to go into twelve rounds. Businessmen with highstakes against journalist who will do anything to keep the truth afloat; the movie at time tends to make things too black and white for my liking; but the turn at the end of the film justifies the reason behind such contrast and comfort it offers - making it a theme and a central conflict of the movie itself. But the need for the truth is so dramatically important that we just cannot give it up yet. Based on a TV series of the same name, State of Play is a rivetting, instant classic that is simultaneously both realistic and dramatic. It gets a high 8.2 in the regular scale but the critical rating does not go beyond 6.4 for it tries to make a symbolic greater drama of good vs evil when they are so undistinguishably inter-twined. In short, it is a great cinematic experience, succeeding where cheap thrillers like JFK fails; but still ends up a foot short when it comes to considering the human condition - would we really be so good when the moment arrives? The movie seems to be too sure of itself to be true. But undoubtedly, it is a must watch.
Showing posts with label Maltese Falcon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maltese Falcon. Show all posts
12 August 2010
01 July 2010
End of An Era
It's the monsoons again. My third one here. The strange thing with every passing year is that, as we grow up, time seems to rush past us. Remember the year 1998? I don't. Not most of it. Just one thing stands out more than the others; waiting for it to get over. The whole year. Why? Because 1999 was such a cool number. The year 1999 was spent anticipating the change which happened once in thousand years. That's something that 30 generations of people before and after me would not be able to do; to change the first number in the four-digit year. Wating to traverse those tweleve months seemed like the slowest journey one could make. What about the other things done in that year? Memory, like a photo album, captures moments with its tales wrapped underneath. I could recover a special moment from that age if I really tried. But those which stand untarnished and at the top of my mind are those from the recent past. For the want of a better bracketing, let me say, the past two years.
There are two kinds of memory. Not in the physio-psychological manner but in the everyday sense of things. Memories we long for and memories we wish to avoid. Most times, our minds make one of the other; through a process of selection. That is why we should be wary of thinking that everything from the good times was great and everything that sucked was horrible. We select our memories. We choose a few and reject the others; to make our versions of ourselves consistent. That is how much we love ourselves.
Masters' in English is done and how much have I learnt and how much have I given back to the world? Questions I cannot answer. The direction in which I am set to travel becomes clearer. Things change and they remain the same. One can only keep walking. I think I have and I will. But when I look out the window and see the freshly drenched leaves showing multiple shades of green thanks to the muted light from the sun; I realize that it has all truly rolled to a stop. Two July 1sts ago, I stepped into the Department of English, Jadavpur University as a fresher. Two years have passed exactly and now, I am back where it all started; a professional/academic ground-zero. The possibilities are endless. Now, the next step beckons.
There are two kinds of memory. Not in the physio-psychological manner but in the everyday sense of things. Memories we long for and memories we wish to avoid. Most times, our minds make one of the other; through a process of selection. That is why we should be wary of thinking that everything from the good times was great and everything that sucked was horrible. We select our memories. We choose a few and reject the others; to make our versions of ourselves consistent. That is how much we love ourselves.
Masters' in English is done and how much have I learnt and how much have I given back to the world? Questions I cannot answer. The direction in which I am set to travel becomes clearer. Things change and they remain the same. One can only keep walking. I think I have and I will. But when I look out the window and see the freshly drenched leaves showing multiple shades of green thanks to the muted light from the sun; I realize that it has all truly rolled to a stop. Two July 1sts ago, I stepped into the Department of English, Jadavpur University as a fresher. Two years have passed exactly and now, I am back where it all started; a professional/academic ground-zero. The possibilities are endless. Now, the next step beckons.
04 October 2009
Art; just what the hell is it?
The debate continues...
Is the primary thing about art, its form or content?
Is it the style or the substance?
Is it the message or the medium?
Today, I happened to see a TV debate that degenerated into a complete bi-polar rejection of the other, when they were discussing the importance of Story against Technology. Though I tried to tolerate the debate to a certain point given the fascination Tamil people have over things from the shiny disco balls genre, the line was when one of the "eminent"directors in Tamil shoved his foot in his mouth saying, that if you want to know a good story, people should just better read a book. It was an epiphanic moment, for I was suddenly struck by the cascading numerous worthless trash-films which utilised technology and failed miserably for having sacrificed the story at the begining. I am not willing to name-names, but if you look at the box-office ratings of movies made at a huge budget (be it Tamil or Hindi), they have fared only reasonably well (read, just enough to make the producer from killing himself - satellite-rights being their gods).
However, it is hilarious to see these people argue, who consider only the gimmickry/graphics as the advancement of technology. I am not anti-technology but I do not like the idea of seeing tech as a 300 foot monster eating through the golden gate bridge. Some of the best graphics has been employed in hard-hitting dramas like, No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood. Just as the best technology has a non-intrusiveness going for it, it also has an air of inevitability to it. If double exposure and cut shots were used to show dual-roles in films in the seventies, computerized-green-matting was not a method specific to one school of film-making. Today, six different Kamal Hassans can interact within the same frame. Things ranging from multi-track audio recording, online-editing, compact cranes, steadycams, remote/underwater cameras and impossible digital lenses are the real breakthroughs. When the 70 mm format was introduced, it was seen as a novelty and people predicted its failure in months. And today, more cinematographers are inching towards the digital revolution with film becoming obsolete.
Technology is therefore very important to the art of cinema - so much so that it can be called the backbone of a film. A story, on the other hand, is it's spirit - it's soul. No, I am not going to proceed and build a case of logical defense for the story - for it would be simply written off as the writer'z bias. Even thinking of explaining why a story is important to a movie seems ridiculous to me. Well, that decision also kind of destroys the raison d'etre of this blogticle. Maybe I should discuss a few films which have failed despite (or due to) technology and vice versa? I am not good at that. But rather, I have decided that I will talk of films which succeed with appropriate support given by one to the other. For Sita and Saketham are not two opposing forces.
The Godfather. I really get this movie. The fact that it is also a critical hit makes me feel very happy. It is the closest I am gonna get to being a movie/critic savvy guy. When the police captain gets shot (and so many more guys through the course of the film), you feel the impact that a real gunshot would have on the room and on flesh. That is good application of technology to highlight a really good story.
The Blairwitch Project. Here is a movie where the technology is half the story. Though many of my smarter friends would point out that using VHS in the age crawling towards Digital isn't an advancement. But this movie shows the usage of appropriate format for an appropriate story. The movie is built on fear, which doesn't work better than, as we find out, a torchlight and a jerky camera.
Amelie. French movies have a thing of realism going for them. Even when Jean Reno moves from the medieval times to the future in The Visitors (and it's sequel - hilarious riots, don't miss), the stick on to the very realistic style of narration. However, the magic of everyday life is captured in the fabulous destiny of Amelie Poulain. Nobody would argue that the same technology would have been equally enjoyable in a movie like, say... hmmm... err... Since I am thinking about good movies, the bad ones slide off my mind.
Rocky Balboa. In the late sixties, Cassius Clay was out of work for refusing to take part in the Vietnam War. Rocky Marciano was retired for a good ten years. One thing remained common between them. Both were undefeated. SO, to determine who was truly the greatest, they shot for seventeen days with each boxer showing his best moves against the other. A computer was devised to generate a fight based on over a hundred variables. The match ended in Rocky Marciano winning. Cassius Clay had just one line to say. The computer must have been made in New Jersey (where Rocky was from). This feud did not last longer, because Rocky died in an aircrash few weeks before the release of this movie. There ends reality. Rocky Balboa (irreverantly called Rocky VI) starts at this point. Another computer simulation with another Rocky against the world champion Dixon. But when Dixon disgraces Rocky on television, he steps back into the ring. Though this movie might seem to have been included in the list just to show off my knowledge about The Superfight, it also shows how credibility could be lent to a movie where a sixty year old (in real life and also in the movie - almost) can step up toe to toe with a twenty five year old and still leave with his head high. If you missed the amazing use of camera, editing technologies, that.z how good it was used.
Of course there are other movies. In so many other languages. Let me name some of them, Black Cat, White Cat (German), The Good, The Bad and The Weird (Korean), Hey Ram (Tamil), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (English), and the list is enormous. The best movies that we remember are listed not because of that one amazing shot or gimmickry it had - yes, there was a time and we call it the fifties where people swooned over the chariots of Ben Hur and the Red Sea parting in the Ten Commandments. But today, people have grown over that. That is why the greatest movies list features simple stories like Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane. Psycho, probably one of the lasting thrillers of our times is famous not because of the number of cuts in the shower scene or the usage of chocolate sauce to give the right consistency for blood - but for its rivetting drama. So, I rest my case that technology is extremely important, to show a good story better.
UPDATE/RESPONSE
````````````````````
A dear friend of mine, Ram Prakash mentioned about this page to me on a mail. His views, untouched as follows,
"B.t.w, interesting that your latest post talks about story vs technology in movies....... What is the techonological brilliance of the stampede scene in Lion King if the viewer is not on the edge of his seat waiting to see if Simba survives the whole screenful of moving pixels..... Technology = Money these days..... True brilliance of technology - we saw some months back - watch "kaagaz ke phool" and the scene where the hero walks into a movie studio - the lighting and camera work spoke so loudly that the scene was very aptly shot without any dialogues....... "
Spot on Ram! Technology is not buying bigger or flashier stuff, but using them appropriately. Thank you for your feedback.
Is the primary thing about art, its form or content?
Is it the style or the substance?
Is it the message or the medium?
Today, I happened to see a TV debate that degenerated into a complete bi-polar rejection of the other, when they were discussing the importance of Story against Technology. Though I tried to tolerate the debate to a certain point given the fascination Tamil people have over things from the shiny disco balls genre, the line was when one of the "eminent"directors in Tamil shoved his foot in his mouth saying, that if you want to know a good story, people should just better read a book. It was an epiphanic moment, for I was suddenly struck by the cascading numerous worthless trash-films which utilised technology and failed miserably for having sacrificed the story at the begining. I am not willing to name-names, but if you look at the box-office ratings of movies made at a huge budget (be it Tamil or Hindi), they have fared only reasonably well (read, just enough to make the producer from killing himself - satellite-rights being their gods).
However, it is hilarious to see these people argue, who consider only the gimmickry/graphics as the advancement of technology. I am not anti-technology but I do not like the idea of seeing tech as a 300 foot monster eating through the golden gate bridge. Some of the best graphics has been employed in hard-hitting dramas like, No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood. Just as the best technology has a non-intrusiveness going for it, it also has an air of inevitability to it. If double exposure and cut shots were used to show dual-roles in films in the seventies, computerized-green-matting was not a method specific to one school of film-making. Today, six different Kamal Hassans can interact within the same frame. Things ranging from multi-track audio recording, online-editing, compact cranes, steadycams, remote/underwater cameras and impossible digital lenses are the real breakthroughs. When the 70 mm format was introduced, it was seen as a novelty and people predicted its failure in months. And today, more cinematographers are inching towards the digital revolution with film becoming obsolete.
Technology is therefore very important to the art of cinema - so much so that it can be called the backbone of a film. A story, on the other hand, is it's spirit - it's soul. No, I am not going to proceed and build a case of logical defense for the story - for it would be simply written off as the writer'z bias. Even thinking of explaining why a story is important to a movie seems ridiculous to me. Well, that decision also kind of destroys the raison d'etre of this blogticle. Maybe I should discuss a few films which have failed despite (or due to) technology and vice versa? I am not good at that. But rather, I have decided that I will talk of films which succeed with appropriate support given by one to the other. For Sita and Saketham are not two opposing forces.
The Godfather. I really get this movie. The fact that it is also a critical hit makes me feel very happy. It is the closest I am gonna get to being a movie/critic savvy guy. When the police captain gets shot (and so many more guys through the course of the film), you feel the impact that a real gunshot would have on the room and on flesh. That is good application of technology to highlight a really good story.
The Blairwitch Project. Here is a movie where the technology is half the story. Though many of my smarter friends would point out that using VHS in the age crawling towards Digital isn't an advancement. But this movie shows the usage of appropriate format for an appropriate story. The movie is built on fear, which doesn't work better than, as we find out, a torchlight and a jerky camera.
Amelie. French movies have a thing of realism going for them. Even when Jean Reno moves from the medieval times to the future in The Visitors (and it's sequel - hilarious riots, don't miss), the stick on to the very realistic style of narration. However, the magic of everyday life is captured in the fabulous destiny of Amelie Poulain. Nobody would argue that the same technology would have been equally enjoyable in a movie like, say... hmmm... err... Since I am thinking about good movies, the bad ones slide off my mind.
Rocky Balboa. In the late sixties, Cassius Clay was out of work for refusing to take part in the Vietnam War. Rocky Marciano was retired for a good ten years. One thing remained common between them. Both were undefeated. SO, to determine who was truly the greatest, they shot for seventeen days with each boxer showing his best moves against the other. A computer was devised to generate a fight based on over a hundred variables. The match ended in Rocky Marciano winning. Cassius Clay had just one line to say. The computer must have been made in New Jersey (where Rocky was from). This feud did not last longer, because Rocky died in an aircrash few weeks before the release of this movie. There ends reality. Rocky Balboa (irreverantly called Rocky VI) starts at this point. Another computer simulation with another Rocky against the world champion Dixon. But when Dixon disgraces Rocky on television, he steps back into the ring. Though this movie might seem to have been included in the list just to show off my knowledge about The Superfight, it also shows how credibility could be lent to a movie where a sixty year old (in real life and also in the movie - almost) can step up toe to toe with a twenty five year old and still leave with his head high. If you missed the amazing use of camera, editing technologies, that.z how good it was used.
Of course there are other movies. In so many other languages. Let me name some of them, Black Cat, White Cat (German), The Good, The Bad and The Weird (Korean), Hey Ram (Tamil), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (English), and the list is enormous. The best movies that we remember are listed not because of that one amazing shot or gimmickry it had - yes, there was a time and we call it the fifties where people swooned over the chariots of Ben Hur and the Red Sea parting in the Ten Commandments. But today, people have grown over that. That is why the greatest movies list features simple stories like Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane. Psycho, probably one of the lasting thrillers of our times is famous not because of the number of cuts in the shower scene or the usage of chocolate sauce to give the right consistency for blood - but for its rivetting drama. So, I rest my case that technology is extremely important, to show a good story better.
UPDATE/RESPONSE
````````````````````
A dear friend of mine, Ram Prakash mentioned about this page to me on a mail. His views, untouched as follows,
"B.t.w, interesting that your latest post talks about story vs technology in movies....... What is the techonological brilliance of the stampede scene in Lion King if the viewer is not on the edge of his seat waiting to see if Simba survives the whole screenful of moving pixels..... Technology = Money these days..... True brilliance of technology - we saw some months back - watch "kaagaz ke phool" and the scene where the hero walks into a movie studio - the lighting and camera work spoke so loudly that the scene was very aptly shot without any dialogues....... "
Spot on Ram! Technology is not buying bigger or flashier stuff, but using them appropriately. Thank you for your feedback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)