|
|
Post by svsg on Dec 25, 2008 21:58:49 GMT
I haven't watched it yet, but since capo has seen it, I am starting a thread here rather than in "Coming Soon" section. I am ridiculously excited about this movie, though I have no idea when it would release in my city. It is opening today in some US cities. waltzwithbashir.com/home.html view the trailer under "clips" and also the amazing production notes under "the film". The US trailer: www.sonyclassics.com/waltzwithbashir/trailer.html |
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Dec 25, 2008 23:01:10 GMT
I was a little disappointed with it, but won't say anymore as you're going to see it yourself!
|
|
|
|
Post by pimppanda on Dec 26, 2008 5:51:43 GMT
The ending really didn't sit well with me...
|
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Dec 27, 2008 0:18:30 GMT
To be honest, none of it sat that well with me, i found it a bit gimmicky.
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Dec 27, 2008 0:24:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Dec 27, 2008 0:41:24 GMT
Sorry svsg, let me know what you make of it. Maybe we missed something  |
|
Capo
Administrator 
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 27, 2008 15:37:08 GMT
Film of 2008, for me.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 27, 2008 15:37:29 GMT
...though that really isn't saying much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Dec 27, 2008 22:15:16 GMT
What did you love about it Capo and what are the other great films in 2008 for you?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 1, 2009 0:08:04 GMT
As far as 2008 productions go, I haven't seen many. I enjoyed Cloverfield and WALL-E. Others, such as The Banishment, were disappointing.
I liked the premise and delivery of Waltz with Bashir: an artist trying to put together forgotten fragments of a horrific, traumatic event from his past, which is fascinating subject matter in itself. But it's the way in which (whether in spite of it or because of it; if it's gimmicky, it's still lush) the animation both detaches and immerses the viewer in the violence... the literal violence of the massacres depicted, and the violence too of interrogating one's memories; not to mention the violence of the moving image itself. I liked how the animation allowed (more) graphic images (than usual) to be depicted - I thought the hardcore porn film was hilarious. Folman acknowledges the political, artistic and educative potential of his chosen medium and delivers with the fullest effect he can. Loved the use of Richter, too.
I found the whole thing very moving.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 1, 2009 4:12:21 GMT
You see that's where we must differ, i'm not interested in cinema that shows me more, i'm interested in cinema that's interactive, cinema that allows me to have an imagination of my own, which this film does not do in my opinion. It purports to be a documentary, but is far too unobjective for that because the images that have been re-created rather than "found" (as they are in most documentaries) come only from the mind of the director. I think it would've been more constructive to approach the whole idea from a "fiction" point of view and make a more conventional film out of it.
I found it quite tacky and aside from the animation being very stilted in my opinion, it's really just a gimmick. Now of course most cinema can be reduced to gimmickry if we're going to be doing that, but it just didn't sit well with me for this film. It's almost like Folman's racked his brains for months about what's never been done in the cinema and gone PING...animated documentary. I would've felt much more involved just sitting and watching real live people talk about their experiences and then imagine the rest of the visuals for myself.
It's what Godard was getting at with Alphaville, a science fiction film where the science fiction elements are in the imagination of the characters and the viewers, that makes for proper interactive art in my opinion. It was a film made in direct response to a medium that was becoming more and more obsessed with showing the viewer "everything", especially in sci-fi films. What you don't show can be more important than what you do, Bresson knew this better than anyone, Lisandro Alonso is becoming a master at it. The space around the thing is just as important as the thing itself, a lot of Oriental art is based on this too.
Don't get me wrong i didn't hate the film (it was ok), unlike other films that attempt to humanise animation and therefore kill its beauty, like those shite Linklater films. Animation has the power to really go to fantastical and beautiful places that live action does not, so why humanise animation? Especially for a "documentary"? I find it pointless and dull.
I desperately wanted to be moved too as i'd been looking forward to it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 1, 2009 4:16:35 GMT
p.s. I missed Banishment due to an argument with my girlfriend.....hope it comes around again!
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 3, 2009 2:45:03 GMT
For the record, I'm not overly attracted to (what might be called) "educative cinema", but I do respect people's wish to make it. And this was as much to do with the artist educating himself as it was other people; coming to terms with his own grief and repressed anxieties. Also, I personally wouldn't call this film a documentary, partly due to the reasons you list above. Fuck promos and IMDb tagging. You see that's where we must differ, i'm not interested in cinema that shows me more I wouldn't know what was meant by a "cinema that shows me more". I'm not sure if images are "found" in documentaries. That's certainly a custom for on-the-wall stuff, but even then there's some sort of conscious set-up. I forget where (sorry; it may be Sight & Sound), but I read that a lot of the interviewees refused their "real" image to be seen onscreen. So there's a practical element to that. I'm not sure if the film was conceived as an animation. But if it had been a succession of photographed talking heads interspersed with re-created "drama" scenes, it would have been imbalanced in tone. At least here you get a consistent aesthetic - one which reflects the director's fictionalisation of accounts. The final shots of the film are actual recorded images - when the news team return to the village. It makes sense that everything before that is re-created and dream-like. The animation is very surreal. I found it at once intriguing and detached. It may even be distracting. I think a more straight-forward narrative approach would have been dull. This is about a guy re-visiting and re-imagining past events through which he lived; the many layers of animation (frame-by-frame, CGI, rotoscoping) seemed to reflect the many layers of memory that had "helped" Folman forget the event in the first place. It's necessarily abstract. |
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 3, 2009 5:20:09 GMT
For the record, I'm not overly attracted to (what might be called) "educative cinema", but I do respect people's wish to make it. And this was as much to do with the artist educating himself as it was other people; coming to terms with his own grief and repressed anxieties. A documentary involving people talking about their experiences is not necessarily an educative film. I didn't actually say that's what i preferred, Errol Morris does this and his films aren't educative by any means, they're amazing works of art that have an amazing understanding of their subjects and an objectivity that this film lacks. The film gets entered into documentary sections of awards ceremonies and film festivals. Who do you think does that? That was in response to you saying that you liked the fact that the animation can show you "more" in this film than if it was live action. A film about a past event that involves no re-staging and contains footage from that past event would be "found" footage wouldn't it? When did anyone say that ALL documentaries involve "found" footage? You've jumped quite far with some of my comments on the film. Sure, still doesn't mean they had to animate their faces though does it? The viewer can hear them while watching something else...a multi-faceted aesthetic approach that again, this film lacks. Why would anything need to be re-created? Show "found" footage or show real people speaking if possible. Animated talking heads is the dullest thing i've seen in the cinema. I actually don't believe a combination of styles would make it imbalanced, if it's handled intelligently, i believe it can work better, add more.....go tell Godard that his films are imbalanced! How does it make sense? To one, but not to another obviously. I don't think it is abstract or multi-layered, i'd actually find a talking heads film more abstract in a way, with the right tone. I didn't suggest a straight-foward narrative approach, i suggested a more conventional film and by that i mean not an "animated documentary" ..... I really did find the animation quite static, quite simplistic, quite two dimensional...maybe if i'd been more impressed by those elements it would've worked better for me. I wholeheartedly agree that the animation keeps the film at a distance, i had real trouble connecting with any of it except the final scene, but then in post-viewing thought just found the inclusion of the final scene trite and manipulative. The best images from the film are in the trailer.....the trailer was more memorable than the whole film  |
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Feb 6, 2009 19:45:27 GMT
I am watching it tonight, uber excited.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 7, 2009 12:39:30 GMT
I'm taking a module this semester (my last; eight weeks left then BAM: "real world"!) called "Trauma, Psyche and Contemporary Fiction". Reading stuff by Dori Laub and Cathy Caruth brings me back to this film again.
Still, when I e-mailed the tutor/organisor recommending it, she didn't reply. Sigh.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 7, 2009 12:45:03 GMT
Walter Benjamin:
"Remembrance is conservatory, memory destructive." Very provocative phrase, I think; it seems to take the former as involuntary, the latter as some sort of fabrication, or fictionalisation of a past actuality.
Memory, as a retelling of events, is inherently violent. And I like the three levels of violence acknowledged in this film: the actual violence of the traumatic event, the violence of testimony as a process of facing one's repressed trauma, the violence of the aesthetic itself (film as investigation and self-interrogation).
I'd like to read of the reasons and intentions behind the animation: why did Folman decide on it? I think it works tremendously, but I'm not sure how it meets his aspirations - was it simply practical matter, a gimmicky experiment, both, and/or something else?
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Feb 7, 2009 17:15:00 GMT
I saw it and loved it absolutely. I kept waiting (with fear) when for when it would go bad/disappointing, based on some opinions in this thread, but I am relieved that it was excellent all the way till the end. Highly recommended for those who haven't seen.
Regarding the animation, I don't think it is a gimmick. Since it is a reconstruction of memory, this particular format is useful in highlighting some aspects which is not possible in real life. The way the beach scene is shown is how he remembers it and not necessarily the way it happened or it could happen in real life. Animation gives an arbitrary freedom to distort or enhance specific aspects of real events according to one's own memory of it.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Feb 7, 2009 20:08:52 GMT
Is a memory something we have or something we've lost?
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Feb 8, 2009 4:00:18 GMT
Is a memory something we have or something we've lost? Best question/post!! My first reaction was that it is something we have. But like one of the character mentions in WWB, we fill in the missing pieces with totally false events. So it should be something that is both that we have and that we've lost |
|
