Bonnie and Clyde
Bonnie and Clyde is a film that is obviously made by U.S. filmmakers trying to emulate the French New Wave film movement. It’s possible to see where a lot of the elements in the film are pulled from French New Wave. Bonnie and Clyde is a milestone film for America, even if it was just kind of a copycat film. This is a film that helped bring the postmodernist movement to not only film, but also television and other forms of art here in America.
Right off from the beginning, the film doesn’t start with a normal establishing shot, but rather a close up of Bonnie. It continues with the unconventional form of shooting and editing pieces together much like many of the New Wave films. There isn’t even an establishing shot until a few moments into the movie after you see Clyde trying to steal the car. A lot of the editing makes the viewer feel disoriented because things are moving so quickly, much quicker than most American films of the time anyways so it appears quicker. For its time and place it was made, it was innovative.
The plot of the story was trying to do something new. It seemed to be a bit-lacking comparative to French New Wave settings but comparisons can be seen. While it was the goriest film to date at the time, that can be seen as very New Wave and trying something unprecedented. Aside from that it didn’t seem to do much commentary for the crime genera. Bonnie and Clyde didn’t deconstruct or rebuild that type of narrative, besides aesthetically with visual elements, like during the picnic scene where everything is washed in yellow and overexposed. The film felt very American. It seemed very over they top with the acting. Instead of exaggerating the acting, it was kind of like Faye Dunaway in particular missed the mark. It made it feel very fake and over acted.
What did feel very much like the French New Wave movement was the relationships built by the characters? The love between Bonnie and Clyde was build almost instantaneously, much like every love story we’ve seen so far. Their love for each other, bank robbing, and the thrill of crime developed deeply and intensely. As the story continues other characters are also introduced quickly and they too develop a love for crime just as Bonnie and Clyde. The fall from the climax happens almost as quickly, if not quicker with the death of all the characters tragically. What is also very typical of the French New Wave movement that Bonnie and Clyde did was character development. While a brief back-story is given to Bonnie and Clyde, pretty much nothing is known about the other characters. They even keep calling CW just an unidentified man throughout the press coverage. This ambiguity of the characters helps move the story along though. Any more information about them and the mystery and appeal would have been lost.
Overall, I don’t think Bonnie and Clyde stand much against a lot of the French New Wave films. I think it missed what it was trying to accomplish by trying way too hard, or not enough at other points. It was overly exaggerated and overly funny. It is possible to see the influence of a lot of the films we have seen in class but I just don’t feel that it captured it the essence of them in the same way.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Masculin Feminin
Masculin Feminin
Masculin Feminin is a film that explores the youth culture of the 1960’s in Paris. The film explores the effects of pop culture on the way a group of friends live their lives, and how their relationships, both romantic and otherwise, are constructed and intertwined. It is easy to see how this film was sort of a transition film for Godard, going from genre spoofing, to more in-depth dissection of the world around him. With that said, there are still quirky bits that seem off track and random, like in previous Godard films. For example, when a man playing in an arcade threatens Paul and the man only ends up stabbing himself.
A lot of the observations noted by Godard in this film can still be seen by today’s youth culture, even here in the United States. The characters in the film are capricious and radical thinkers. While in the film they are the Marx and Coke generation, I don’t think it is really that much different than today’s society. They can all be seen as two different types of people in one. On one side they are political activists with radical ideas and a lot to say, and on the other side they are apathetic and don’t care for much other than themselves and their interpersonal relationships.
This film also had a feel to be full of questions on life in general. It is full of existential views and questions. One question that seemed to stick out and be persist throughout the movie was the question of language. No matter which language a person speaks, or what time period, there is always a question of the meaning of language. How a word gets its meaning and how it is juxtaposed with other words to make statements and so forth. Much like the questioning of language it can be translated to within the film as well. Godard typically doesn’t use conventional methods when constructing a film, and Masculin Feminin is no different. There are hardly any ever shot reverse shots like in normal conversational scenes. He also will just use one long take with very few cuts or camera movements in the shot. This only makes the dialog in the film more important to the viewers to keep attention, and this film was one that was not lacking in interesting dialog.
Masculin Feminin is a film that explores the youth culture of the 1960’s in Paris. The film explores the effects of pop culture on the way a group of friends live their lives, and how their relationships, both romantic and otherwise, are constructed and intertwined. It is easy to see how this film was sort of a transition film for Godard, going from genre spoofing, to more in-depth dissection of the world around him. With that said, there are still quirky bits that seem off track and random, like in previous Godard films. For example, when a man playing in an arcade threatens Paul and the man only ends up stabbing himself.
A lot of the observations noted by Godard in this film can still be seen by today’s youth culture, even here in the United States. The characters in the film are capricious and radical thinkers. While in the film they are the Marx and Coke generation, I don’t think it is really that much different than today’s society. They can all be seen as two different types of people in one. On one side they are political activists with radical ideas and a lot to say, and on the other side they are apathetic and don’t care for much other than themselves and their interpersonal relationships.
This film also had a feel to be full of questions on life in general. It is full of existential views and questions. One question that seemed to stick out and be persist throughout the movie was the question of language. No matter which language a person speaks, or what time period, there is always a question of the meaning of language. How a word gets its meaning and how it is juxtaposed with other words to make statements and so forth. Much like the questioning of language it can be translated to within the film as well. Godard typically doesn’t use conventional methods when constructing a film, and Masculin Feminin is no different. There are hardly any ever shot reverse shots like in normal conversational scenes. He also will just use one long take with very few cuts or camera movements in the shot. This only makes the dialog in the film more important to the viewers to keep attention, and this film was one that was not lacking in interesting dialog.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Alphaville
Alphaville
Alphaville is a hard film to put into any sort of box. It tears apart different genres such as film noir and science fiction, much like some of Godard’s previous films. The black and white film with its in perfections and grainy tones were a base point for Godard’s interpretation of film noir. He uses slanted camera angels at times, such as in stairways look upward, to create intensity and tension for the viewers. Pair that with his use of shadows, such as when the two men are in a stairwell talking and there is a light bulb swinging between the two, the carefully chosen elements of said genera bring what may be though to be visually boring to life on screen.
With a plot that has been recreated and reformed by many following Godard, this experiment with science fiction was a success. Everyone on screen, with the exception of the outsiders of Alphaville, appear to be bland and lifeless people. As the story unfolds, it is narrorated by a voice that is almost unbearable to listen to. This was the perfect choice, as any other voice would have not given the same uncomfortable feeling to the film. It is that uncomfortable feeling that helps to portray the story and the feeling of hopelessness that has engulfed Alphaville. The only character with any sort of life to him was Lemmy Caution. Being an outsider of Alphaville, he helps to portray the vast difference between the outside world and those who’ve only known Alphaville.
Another element that may go unnoticed, but has a deep impact on the story, was music. Two things can be said about the music. First, it is hardly there throughout much of the film. This only adds to the impact that it makes when it comes up subtlety in the background at pivotal moments. Secondly, the eerie music is enough to send shivers down spines and compliments the film at exact moments to take the experience to the edge.
With all the right elements from science fiction, film noir, and even from Orwell, Alphaville was just the right mix to create what Godard may have been hoping for. It was though provoking and even existentialist at times, gave a thoughtful opinion on what the future may have held in the way of technology, and engaged the viewers enough to make them uncomfortable. Alphaville set the example for many films that came after it in following years, and probably for many more too come. It’s influence can be seen even maybe in films that did not even have the initial intent to have anything to do with it.
Alphaville is a hard film to put into any sort of box. It tears apart different genres such as film noir and science fiction, much like some of Godard’s previous films. The black and white film with its in perfections and grainy tones were a base point for Godard’s interpretation of film noir. He uses slanted camera angels at times, such as in stairways look upward, to create intensity and tension for the viewers. Pair that with his use of shadows, such as when the two men are in a stairwell talking and there is a light bulb swinging between the two, the carefully chosen elements of said genera bring what may be though to be visually boring to life on screen.
With a plot that has been recreated and reformed by many following Godard, this experiment with science fiction was a success. Everyone on screen, with the exception of the outsiders of Alphaville, appear to be bland and lifeless people. As the story unfolds, it is narrorated by a voice that is almost unbearable to listen to. This was the perfect choice, as any other voice would have not given the same uncomfortable feeling to the film. It is that uncomfortable feeling that helps to portray the story and the feeling of hopelessness that has engulfed Alphaville. The only character with any sort of life to him was Lemmy Caution. Being an outsider of Alphaville, he helps to portray the vast difference between the outside world and those who’ve only known Alphaville.
Another element that may go unnoticed, but has a deep impact on the story, was music. Two things can be said about the music. First, it is hardly there throughout much of the film. This only adds to the impact that it makes when it comes up subtlety in the background at pivotal moments. Secondly, the eerie music is enough to send shivers down spines and compliments the film at exact moments to take the experience to the edge.
With all the right elements from science fiction, film noir, and even from Orwell, Alphaville was just the right mix to create what Godard may have been hoping for. It was though provoking and even existentialist at times, gave a thoughtful opinion on what the future may have held in the way of technology, and engaged the viewers enough to make them uncomfortable. Alphaville set the example for many films that came after it in following years, and probably for many more too come. It’s influence can be seen even maybe in films that did not even have the initial intent to have anything to do with it.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Weekend
Weekend
As Godard’s attempt to shock and disgust is audience while breaking away and saying goodbye to conventional filmmaking, I would say Weekend did just that. By today’s standards though, and after following his growth and changes as a filmmaker, it didn’t have the same effect on me in 2008. One thing that jumped out at me even by today’s standards is the way the story was told. While Godard, is never one for conventional narrative films, Weekend still stood out from the rest in its structure. At times it even felt like maybe there was no story to the film at all, almost as if there wasn’t much point but to be nihilistic and lamentive towards society and what Godard’s life had previously been.
At first it was hard to follow but appeared to have a structured plot line. It seems like a twisted plot of double crossing on both Corinne’s and Roland’s parts as they are conniving their way into millions of dollars with one another, as well as taking that money back to a different lover. Quickly that plot seems to be abandoned and forgotten as things unfold. It isn’t until near the end before they are with the Hippie mobsters that there is any mention of the father and his money, who just happened to die in the car wreck as planned.
The entire movie seemed to have this nihilistic love for car wrecks. The extremely long tracking shot of miles and miles of cars backed up was just the beginning and set precedent for the crashes fallowing. The wrecks continued to show up throughout the film in obscure ways at times. What struck me was that they were in completely awkward and unreasonable positions and places. Some of them were just gratuitous on both the parts of the characters and Godard.
After awhile the diatribes of the characters became redundant. Maybe there were just some points about French culture and society as a whole that Godard was attempting to make, but I must have missed them from lack of knowledge on my end. They were hard to watch because they were extremely dragged out and just one continuous shot on a person or subject that had little to do with the person that was actually conveying the story.
Overall I can see what Godard was trying to attempt. I think back in the 60’s it would have done well. His points were well conveying in innovative and abstract ways. His emotions on the subject matter fill the film throughout and are projected on to the viewer.
As Godard’s attempt to shock and disgust is audience while breaking away and saying goodbye to conventional filmmaking, I would say Weekend did just that. By today’s standards though, and after following his growth and changes as a filmmaker, it didn’t have the same effect on me in 2008. One thing that jumped out at me even by today’s standards is the way the story was told. While Godard, is never one for conventional narrative films, Weekend still stood out from the rest in its structure. At times it even felt like maybe there was no story to the film at all, almost as if there wasn’t much point but to be nihilistic and lamentive towards society and what Godard’s life had previously been.
At first it was hard to follow but appeared to have a structured plot line. It seems like a twisted plot of double crossing on both Corinne’s and Roland’s parts as they are conniving their way into millions of dollars with one another, as well as taking that money back to a different lover. Quickly that plot seems to be abandoned and forgotten as things unfold. It isn’t until near the end before they are with the Hippie mobsters that there is any mention of the father and his money, who just happened to die in the car wreck as planned.
The entire movie seemed to have this nihilistic love for car wrecks. The extremely long tracking shot of miles and miles of cars backed up was just the beginning and set precedent for the crashes fallowing. The wrecks continued to show up throughout the film in obscure ways at times. What struck me was that they were in completely awkward and unreasonable positions and places. Some of them were just gratuitous on both the parts of the characters and Godard.
After awhile the diatribes of the characters became redundant. Maybe there were just some points about French culture and society as a whole that Godard was attempting to make, but I must have missed them from lack of knowledge on my end. They were hard to watch because they were extremely dragged out and just one continuous shot on a person or subject that had little to do with the person that was actually conveying the story.
Overall I can see what Godard was trying to attempt. I think back in the 60’s it would have done well. His points were well conveying in innovative and abstract ways. His emotions on the subject matter fill the film throughout and are projected on to the viewer.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
The Story of Adele H
The Story of Adele H
The Story of Adele H is a Truffaut film that I did not like at all. It did not even feel like a French new wave film to me in the slightest. I felt like he had strayed away from what he was originally trying to do, shaking up the film world in France, and things became boring and almost unoriginal. It felt like a typical Hollywood film. To me it was overly repetitive as far as event. Adele just kept doing the same crazy things over and over without really taking it to another level.
Adele as a character was weak in both development and as a person. Truffaut could have built in some more depth to her persona. There wasn’t much to her. It was almost like he was playing into the stereotype of women at that time but taking it way too far. Unlike Godard, he wasn’t even making a statement about it. She was pathetic and helpless. She was crazy and a liar. I couldn’t stand to watch her do one more idiotic thing next. It was so aggravating to the point where I wanted to just laugh at her over and over again even though that was far from the point I think Truffaut was trying to make. Maybe it’s a generational gap, or the fact that I’m lack enough knowledge about the “true” events that were stated to have actually happened in this story.
Truffaut alludes to some sort of mental illness in her towards the very end when it’s mentioned that her diary was written in a language she made up herself. She wasn’t really represented as someone with manic depression or schizophrenia throughout the film though, just as some stupid naive young girl who can’t get over her ex-boyfriend. But I guess for the time period it would have taken place during she wouldn’t have been diagnosed and it wasn’t commonplace for people to have specific illnesses such as those.
Overall this film was just upsetting and irritating from the very beginning. It wasn’t something I would have suspected to come from Truffaut. It wasn’t innovative, funny or entertaining. Instead it left me with a bad feeling in my stomach. If that was what he was aiming for it was a success then, but I don’t think he meant for it to be irritating in the way that it was to me personally.
The Story of Adele H is a Truffaut film that I did not like at all. It did not even feel like a French new wave film to me in the slightest. I felt like he had strayed away from what he was originally trying to do, shaking up the film world in France, and things became boring and almost unoriginal. It felt like a typical Hollywood film. To me it was overly repetitive as far as event. Adele just kept doing the same crazy things over and over without really taking it to another level.
Adele as a character was weak in both development and as a person. Truffaut could have built in some more depth to her persona. There wasn’t much to her. It was almost like he was playing into the stereotype of women at that time but taking it way too far. Unlike Godard, he wasn’t even making a statement about it. She was pathetic and helpless. She was crazy and a liar. I couldn’t stand to watch her do one more idiotic thing next. It was so aggravating to the point where I wanted to just laugh at her over and over again even though that was far from the point I think Truffaut was trying to make. Maybe it’s a generational gap, or the fact that I’m lack enough knowledge about the “true” events that were stated to have actually happened in this story.
Truffaut alludes to some sort of mental illness in her towards the very end when it’s mentioned that her diary was written in a language she made up herself. She wasn’t really represented as someone with manic depression or schizophrenia throughout the film though, just as some stupid naive young girl who can’t get over her ex-boyfriend. But I guess for the time period it would have taken place during she wouldn’t have been diagnosed and it wasn’t commonplace for people to have specific illnesses such as those.
Overall this film was just upsetting and irritating from the very beginning. It wasn’t something I would have suspected to come from Truffaut. It wasn’t innovative, funny or entertaining. Instead it left me with a bad feeling in my stomach. If that was what he was aiming for it was a success then, but I don’t think he meant for it to be irritating in the way that it was to me personally.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Vivre sa vie
Vivre sa vie
Vivre sa vie is a movie that explores the life of a prostitute. As it was talked about in class, Godard wanted to display that everyone is a working person and has to work. I think he did a good job in this film. Anna Karina is not depicted as a horrible person, but rather as someone who is just doing their job.
One-way Godard does make prostitution look like just another job is the way he presents it. When Karina is walking down the halls she comes across other prostitutes and it’s just a normal everyday thing. There is even that scene where there is a voice over explaining loose “rules” for prostitutes. Everything is so matter of factly presented that it is hard to think of her as a bad way. There is even a good back-story of why she has to resort to becoming a prostitute. She is still a good person, but has had a bad string of luck that she can’t escape what she has to become. She is seen as a normal human being. One scene that showed her lively and happy was when she was dancing alone throughout the upstairs of the movie theatre. This is when she really comes alive as a character. She has a wide spectrum of emotions and thoughts but is still doomed. In the end when she is finally with someone straight and narrow, she is doomed to live in her tragedy and is shot.
Aesthetically, this is a film that can be seen as a Godard film. Straight from the beginning we do not see the normal shot reverse shot conversations. You don’t even see Karina’s face, except for a blurry shot from a mirror, until at least 10 minutes into the film. This sets up a distance that is between her and the viewer until her dancing scene. Godard uses his camera to show emotions, thoughts and experiences of the characters to portray them they way that he wants them to be portrayed, eventually bringing them to life and impacting the viewer in a strong way.
Vivre sa vie is a movie that explores the life of a prostitute. As it was talked about in class, Godard wanted to display that everyone is a working person and has to work. I think he did a good job in this film. Anna Karina is not depicted as a horrible person, but rather as someone who is just doing their job.
One-way Godard does make prostitution look like just another job is the way he presents it. When Karina is walking down the halls she comes across other prostitutes and it’s just a normal everyday thing. There is even that scene where there is a voice over explaining loose “rules” for prostitutes. Everything is so matter of factly presented that it is hard to think of her as a bad way. There is even a good back-story of why she has to resort to becoming a prostitute. She is still a good person, but has had a bad string of luck that she can’t escape what she has to become. She is seen as a normal human being. One scene that showed her lively and happy was when she was dancing alone throughout the upstairs of the movie theatre. This is when she really comes alive as a character. She has a wide spectrum of emotions and thoughts but is still doomed. In the end when she is finally with someone straight and narrow, she is doomed to live in her tragedy and is shot.
Aesthetically, this is a film that can be seen as a Godard film. Straight from the beginning we do not see the normal shot reverse shot conversations. You don’t even see Karina’s face, except for a blurry shot from a mirror, until at least 10 minutes into the film. This sets up a distance that is between her and the viewer until her dancing scene. Godard uses his camera to show emotions, thoughts and experiences of the characters to portray them they way that he wants them to be portrayed, eventually bringing them to life and impacting the viewer in a strong way.
Day for Night
Day for Night
Day for Night is the best Truffaut film I have seen yet. Day for Night is a film about making films. The self-reflexivity and insight into the filmmaking world that Truffaut displays in this film is amazing. While there is little to no plot, like a normal narrative, the viewer is never left bored or questioning the reason of the film it’s self. From the first scene it feels like a normal movie. It isn’t until cut is yelled and the cameras are reveled that this is not your average movie.
Day for Night pays attention to details. It even showed the not so glamorous side of making films. I distinctly remember someone saying there’s no money in film but you do it because you love it. That is one of the truest statements that can be made about film. With the moody actors and the illicit affairs, it felt like as a viewer I was actually on set watching the progress. It even felt like real time at some points when it showed take after take when they were filming. With Truffaut as an actor playing the director was one of the best touches to the film.
As the film shows the progress of Pamela being filmed, most of the narrative plot is lost. The only real plot was with the affair between the script girl and the stunt man and Julie. The rest of the film pokes fun at the way movies are made and has fun doing it. While the film never stops coming with the laughs, it never stops at giving it a human touch. You manage to feel for the characters and get a sense of who they are as people.
I especially liked the look of this film. Some scenes even had a brilliant Technicolor look to them. The color popped in and out with certain props and articles of clothing on actors. The sets constructed helped aid in the feeling of being on a real movie set as well.
Day for Night is the best Truffaut film I have seen yet. Day for Night is a film about making films. The self-reflexivity and insight into the filmmaking world that Truffaut displays in this film is amazing. While there is little to no plot, like a normal narrative, the viewer is never left bored or questioning the reason of the film it’s self. From the first scene it feels like a normal movie. It isn’t until cut is yelled and the cameras are reveled that this is not your average movie.
Day for Night pays attention to details. It even showed the not so glamorous side of making films. I distinctly remember someone saying there’s no money in film but you do it because you love it. That is one of the truest statements that can be made about film. With the moody actors and the illicit affairs, it felt like as a viewer I was actually on set watching the progress. It even felt like real time at some points when it showed take after take when they were filming. With Truffaut as an actor playing the director was one of the best touches to the film.
As the film shows the progress of Pamela being filmed, most of the narrative plot is lost. The only real plot was with the affair between the script girl and the stunt man and Julie. The rest of the film pokes fun at the way movies are made and has fun doing it. While the film never stops coming with the laughs, it never stops at giving it a human touch. You manage to feel for the characters and get a sense of who they are as people.
I especially liked the look of this film. Some scenes even had a brilliant Technicolor look to them. The color popped in and out with certain props and articles of clothing on actors. The sets constructed helped aid in the feeling of being on a real movie set as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
