The 7th MoFo Hall of Fame

Anybody else have to google distanciation. I'm not afraid to admit it, I did. Platform is proving hard to find and it sounds like it is pretty experimental and has bad transfers. Needless to say I'm pumped for it.

__________________
Letterboxd

Before you said that comment I kind of was on your side of the argument. However, I think that you should always be open to other people's arguments and if they are right you shouldn't be ashamed of change your opinions

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

I don't think he's right, obviously, or I wouldn't be opposing him in the first place. And regardless of whose "side" anybody is on, I stand by my rating.

Artists are free to express themselves in any way they so desire. But I'm not under any obligation to like it.

Yeah I agree with that, I thought that you meant that you never change your opinions whether or not the other person with whom your arguing is right.

Unless the writer/director provides a running commentary of everything in the film, one can't help but watch it through distanciation. This includes the experts who actually provide many DVD commentaries or those who write critical essays about films/directors. However, it would certainly make sense that the more one watches of a certain director or writes about his common themes and uses of form, the more one would understand the director's intentions and meaning. The problem is that you probably have to cherry pick the filmmakers you choose to study this way due to time constraints. It's worth it in that you'll feel closer to the film and the director, but whether it enhances your enjoyment in anything other than an intellectual manner is another story. Some people will avail themselves to this way of appreciating more "difficult" directors, others are automatically attracted to the offbeat and more unique auteurs, while some people find it not worth the "work" for the payback received. Everybody here should make an effort to meet a film halfway, especially if you're taking part in these group evaluations, but ultimately it's up to each watcher what they get out of each movie.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

The trouble is that this isn't the first time Bluedeed and I have had this argument. I don't know if he's just that stubborn, if he likes being frustrated or if he actually thinks that there's going to be a different outcome each time, but he keeps insisting on starting it up again.

__________________

Well, I didn't think that we were having that same argument originally, it was just that your review was particularly atrocious and I didn't think it was reducible to that argument.

__________________
Mubi

My "atrocious" review started with me saying that I found it impossible to connect to. There are a lot of factors that affect my ability to connect to a film's characters. A big factor of that is being able to feel the characters' emotions - which are conveyed in large part via facial expressions. If I cannot make out a person's expression, whether it's due to a blurry image, a long distance camera angle or because there's something obstructing my view, I'm just left feeling cold. So the director's quite deliberate alienation of his audience ties directly into my emotional connection or lack thereof.

It's not IMO. The director has made stylistic choices based on what the film is about. Needing close-ups is up to the viewer but IMO it's sometimes important to allow the director to tell the story their way. This is a movie that compares the lives of little people against big societal issues so shots from distance are always showing a context for the behaviour of the characters. Sure, a close up might show the emotions of that character but a long shot shows them against the backdrop of their society - in this case often drab communist era architecture. It also allows what the characters are wearing to form part of the story - because this is about changes post cultural revolution it shows the characters modernising against a backdrop that remains the same.

The long shots also allow the director to show real physical distance between the characters and uses their whole bodies rather than just their faces to show what they think and how they feel.

I'm all for close ups but it's not the only way to make a film and to show us what characters are thinking. The cinematography in this film is amazing and to me most of things MV mentioned as negatives are highlights. The director had great control over every shot and things like a wall obscuring or separating characters is extremely effective to show their distances or disconnect from each other and their society.

I'm halfway through my second watch and it is having much more of an effect on me than the first time I watched it - thanks in large part to the brilliant direction.

But this could just as easily be accomplished using a combination of the two.

I watched the trailer and read some reviews. It doesn't seem like the DVD is poor quality, but rather how it's intended to look.

And I think that distancing or hiding emotions from us is exactly the point. Jia isn't trying to make everything simple and externalize psychology because none of this was simple and he doesn't know the psychology of this massive event's actors. The emotions I felt about Platform weren't that of a character dealing with a personal problem, but the overwhelming feeling of being swept up by something massive and yet not physically tangible. Platform is about global change slowly and subtly shaping lives, about large political unknowables seeping into daily lives. The slowness, the distance, the obstruction are all essential to this if you're willing to look for it

Bluedeed, you're not the director of the film, so why take negative comments about it so personally? So what if another person doesn't find the same truth in the film that you do. Aren't we all entitled to discover our own truths?


(and yes, I had to google distanciation)

The Tale of Princess Kaguya

The artwork of this film was quite beautiful. The soft pastels and sparing use of color in many scenes add to the dreamlike and sort of wistful mood of the film. The intimate moments between the characters were quite moving and I think this tale of the disconnect between what others expect of or want for a person and of what that person wants for his or herself will resonate well with a lot of viewers. I felt very conflicted watching the father in particular, as he struggled to do for Kaguya what he thought would make her happy when really his efforts were only bringing her sorrow. And I felt pretty strongly for Kaguya herself as she tried to find a way to live the way she wanted, without completely disregarding her parents wishes.

But too often I found myself being brought out of the movie by its more fantastical elements. I realize that this is a folktale and that most of the Ghibli films have at least some degree of fantasy so these sorts of scenes are to be expected, but they just don't suit my personal tastes and lowered my overall enjoyment of the film, especially at the end.

Still, it's a strong film overall and will likely earn a respectable position on my ballot.

He did use a combination as the film went on but I felt the scenes where body language expressed the characters thoughts and the wide shots gave context were much more effective.

I had the feeling early in the film Jia was specifically attempting to not create separate characters and as it went on he was slowly bringing out the individuals - mirroring the changes in China from "collectivism" to a more individualistic society. Hence the use of more wide, group shots early on and a more narrow focus as it progressed.

In terms of the the overall "look" of the film, I agree with Cricket - it was supposed to look drab and grainy. It was set 30-40 years ago in a third world country with huge social and economic problems and the way it looked helped to accentuate the time, place and atmosphere IMO.

Inglourious Basterds (Tarantino, 2009)



As I mentioned before, this should have been made into a TV series instead of a single 2 hour 30 min movie. The world of the basterds is so large and interesting that it becomes its own weakness. It feels like something is missing, for example, the motives and origins of certain characters. Inglourious Basterds is a film that is very episodic, a film connected by the bloody highlights of a TV season, thankfully flowing well thanks to QT's writing, but nevertheless tends to have a pacing problem and is a bit spontaneous.

On the flip side, the acting shows immense flexibility and subtle comicness, whether it's the silly accent of Aldo Raine or the sly menace of Hans Landa. Speaking of Hans Landa, the first moment of flexibility in emotion is shown in the famous first scene, where a smoking of a pipe turns Landa into a true villain.

So the film starts of tremendously well, then starts to tumble down, but doesn't descend into a level of bad. It stays flat and has a few bounces due to some memorable conversations and actions. Overall a decent to good film that once again... should be made into a TV series, Please QT, I would watch every episode of it.

-

That TV series idea is a great one, Gatsby.

Letter From An Unknown Woman

I really liked that there was no clear hero or villain in this film, but I found the central character exasperating and found it a little hard to have sympathy for her. Lisa's tenacious hold on her girlish infatuation with Stefan struck me as being so ridiculously naive that it must have been a deliberate act of her blinding herself to reality. It was clear from the start that Stefan was a womanizer, though I suppose the very young Lisa can be forgiven for her crush, given her inexperience. Plus Louis Jourdan was quite a handsome man. But as a grown woman she should have known better. (This is not really a criticism of the film, though. There are definitely women like her IRL.)

I felt quite badly for Johann, who obviously cared for her. I even felt a little bad for Stefan, who, even if he had remembered Lisa, had no way of knowing the truth of their history together. And, of course, I felt for little Stefan who had no control over anything.

The performances were all quite good. One of the reasons why I'm generally not a big fan of older films is that too often the acting is overly theatrical. That really wasn't the case with this and the film was much better for it. Taking into account the film's age and the fact that I watched it on YouTube, I thought it looked really good as well. Overall, I can't say that I loved it, but it was solid film and I enjoyed it.

-

Vicky, I think your feelings about the movie are valid, and bluedeed also makes valid counterpoints explaining the purposes behind the movie's style (I haven't seen it, but he seems to know what he's talking about). You're right that you don't have to like the movie, but I think your wrong when you say the artist needs to make you care. If the artist is trying to make you care, and fails, then that's one thing. But can you expect people who don't even know you to cater to your personal taste? Or can you say that all art needs to be created with the intention of making people care? Can art be made for the sole purpose of expressing something the artist wants to express for their self?

Hypathetically I think it's valid to say, I didn't like the cinematography, therefore I didn't enjoy the movie. But I don't think it's valid to say I didn't like the cinematography, therefore the cinematography was bad.

Watched Before Sunrise today, and made a review in my Cinema Review thread:

Before Sunrise Review

It become much longer than anticipated, but it was fun writing about it! Hope you'll check it out!

__________________
/watching movies for mark f/
MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews // Film Diary 2015 // Letterboxd Profile // MovieMeditation's Top 50 Horror