RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 13, 2005 23:19:35 GMT
1. 21 Grams (2003) 8/102. Amores perros (2000) 6/103. Babel (2006) 5/104. 11'09"01: September 11 (2002) 4/10 (segment: "Mexico")5. To Each His Cinema (2007) 4/10 (segment: "Anna")
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 17, 2005 21:46:15 GMT
1. 21 Grams 2003 2. Amores Perros 2000 3. Babel 2006
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Dec 19, 2005 22:47:26 GMT
21 Grams
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 19, 2005 23:06:31 GMT
I assume, Wet Dog, that, like me, you're rating September 11 as a whole, and not the director's segment. If I were rating the segment alone it would easily merit three stars. Yeah, I am. And I agree, his segment is among the best. Imamura's is my favourite, but has next to nothing to do with 9/11.
|
|
Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
Post by Pherdy on Dec 29, 2005 0:06:06 GMT
In film school we've had a Film Analysis course last few months in which we were assigned to analyze in detail one specific film on a level of filmtheories. One of the films that was handled was this one (my film was "Rumble Fish" though), and after a few weeks the teacher said to the persons analyzing 21 Grams she felt sorry for them, for that once you knew the gimmick of the film, there was very little left. the film had no base, no substance, no depth. the characters were extremely flat and most actions were unsignificant. in her opinion of course, but the people thurroughly examining that film could only agree. I still consider it a film, with some powerfull images, though I used to rate it higher at fist. with this in hindsight, I must rate Amores Perros higher ( ). His 11-9-01 segment was okay, but I didn't like that experiment overall anyway. I'm curious what his next film will bring, because it seems so far he will go on the same way he has been making films last few years
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 29, 2005 0:42:05 GMT
I don't agree that 21 Grams is a depthless gimmick.
Firstly, I don't consider the fractured chronology a gimmick at all. The whole philosophy of the film surrounds the weight of an instant, and it's illustrated by the removal of those instants from their causal context. You take away the 'flow' of the narrative to give pieces of it full attention. Sean Penn's character sitting by the empty pool and Naomi Watts' turning to her sister-in-law when leaving the gym are the two isolated instants that come to mind most readily, and they'd both be utterly anonymous if they were part of a linear narrative. I think the shuffling is vital.
The subject matter necessitates the broken timeline as much as the broken timeline facilitates an exploration of narrative tenses. The three characters represent the three tenses, Watts, Del Toro and Penn, their lives governed by the past, present and future respectively. And so with the shuffling you get implied layers, exploring the transience of consciousness and the destructibility/ephemerality of identity.
Good stuff. I love it.
Welcome back, Pherdy. Where've you been?
|
|
Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
Post by Pherdy on Dec 29, 2005 1:27:16 GMT
I found it a harsh judgment by my teacher, yes, but keep in mind she and some of my classmates spent weeks of analyzing the film on a much deeper level than most people do after one or two viewings.
I think her main point was exactly the opposite of what you say: take away the structure, and it becomes obvious enough the characters are much less interesting than the narrative suggests at first. I don't know, perhaps it's true, perhaps it's overanalyzed. But somewhere I feel there's a bit of truth behind it - try thinking of the film without the chaos-editing and the causal relations seem much less interesting or even plausible.
Let me state for the record that even with such a strict judgment on a film of this status, it still exceeds the majority of contemporary films on almost every level.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 29, 2005 2:22:18 GMT
But why should I consider the film apart from its structure? Isn't that like saying, "Consider Jaws without a shark"? Its structure is its most fundamental attribute.
The film isn't about its characters' turmoil or the 'real world' plausibility of their drama or their depth (since when were hyperreal characters granted depth?). It's principally about its narrative structure, the theme is chosen because it fits the form. I think the widespread misconception about this film is that is was written as a straight drama in the style of Amores perros and then, when it appeared less compelling, it was just cut up and shuffled to 'hide' its failings. That's not the case, as I'm sure you know. Saying the characters are shallow is holding the film up to a value system it never signed on to, like criticising Koyaanisqatsi for having no story.
It sounds like your teacher went looking for something that wasn't ever supposed to be there, and then took it as the film's failing.
|
|
Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
Post by Pherdy on Dec 29, 2005 12:21:38 GMT
well, the film failed (in her eyes) only on the level of character psychology. the film's message indeed comes across with its specific structure, therefore there's no need to look at it without it, true.
and in pure film theory characters form the basis of narratives, so if the characters are underdevelopped, the film is hurt by it, no matter what editing trick you lay upon it. I think that was her point. she was pretty thrilled about most other aspects of the film. and keep in mind film theorists (which she is) tend to be awkwardly pessimistic often...
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 29, 2005 14:46:40 GMT
What constitutes 'pure' film theory?
Surely the 'purest' film theory considers cinema at its most essential - light, sound, motion, time, space - not as a form of popular fiction.
That characters form the basis of narratives and therefore must be psychologically complex constructs sounds to me like a very refined, specific film theory catered to one person's individual values. All film artists must be practicing humanists? I strongly disagree.
No offense intended, but your teacher sounds like someone who holds quite rigidly to one particular film theory rather than someone who spends their time theorising openly about film.
|
|
Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
Post by Pherdy on Jan 11, 2006 16:31:26 GMT
What constitutes 'pure' film theory? Surely the 'purest' film theory considers cinema at its most essential - light, sound, motion, time, space - not as a form of popular fiction. That characters form the basis of narratives and therefore must be psychologically complex constructs sounds to me like a very refined, specific film theory catered to one person's individual values. All film artists must be practicing humanists? I strongly disagree. No offense intended, but your teacher sounds like someone who holds quite rigidly to one particular film theory rather than someone who spends their time theorising openly about film. pardon my choice of words, I think what I meant to say was that at the centre of most film theories (and at that, the entire concept of film studies in general) still lies the perception of character development, which goes back to the classic model of narration. I hate to say here my teacher is too strict on propaganding just one specific theory, she doesn't deserve that
|
|
Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
Post by Pherdy on Jan 11, 2006 16:32:36 GMT
in addition, I'd like to say that she mentioned Being John Malkovich as being a film that a few years ago also 'failed' to get through the 14 weeks of analyzing on the exact same level: character psychology. all other aspects of a film may then still be very good.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 4, 2006 1:07:57 GMT
Pherdy, I meant to return to this thread and continue this discussion.
I don't agree that most film theories centre around character development, since that's less a theory of film than a theory of storytelling and drama - neither of which are absolutely necessary or sacrosanct qualities among most great filmmakers.
How does your teacher approach the likes of Godard or Tarkovsky or Lynch, whose characters are usually not psychologically complicated, fully-fleshed human beings, and aren't intended to be?
|
|
|
Post by Driver on Feb 5, 2006 22:33:16 GMT
21 Grams
|
|
|
Post by mikola on Apr 28, 2006 11:10:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Oct 31, 2008 17:14:11 GMT
1.Amores perros 6/10 2.21 Grams 5/10
Not seen either in a while.
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Nov 1, 2008 4:35:26 GMT
Features:
1. Amores perros (2000) [blue]5/10 [/blue] 2. 21 Grams (2003) [blue]4/10[/blue]
Shorts:
1. 11'09"01: September 11 (2002) [blue]2/10 [/blue] (his section only)
|
|