Reply to Topic
I really enjoyed Road to Perdition, as I predicted I would. I didn't love it; it was a brilliant piece of filmmaking or anything, but it kept me enthralled for the most part.
But the question, I think, is why.
I'm sure it is no secret by now that I want to be a filmmaker when I leave school. For this reason I find it very easy, if I am not enthralled by a film, if I am not being engrossed by the story, I can easily find something else to latch on to that will carry me through to the end.
For much of Perdition I was less interested in story [I consider story and plot to be seperate, just by the way; story includes characters and motivations as much as plot specifics], I had no real interest in either of the Michael Sullivan's for the most part, but I loved Jude and I loved Paul. As a result I found myself either waiting for their scenes to arrive, or bathing in the visual style.
I found it interesting to note the comparisons between Perdition and American Beauty, visually. Hall uses the rain in both films to give the illusion of weeping rooms and weeping people when the shadows of the rain get cast across the faces of characters. It was also interesting to note the ever rightward pan; a montage that pans right slowly before disolving into another shot that keeps the pan moving. This appears in American Beauty when each character hears the gunshot, and as Lester discusses the most beautiful things in his life. In Perdition the montage in which the two Michael's rob all the banks did the same. I was suprised; it is a very, very obvious technique when you are looking for it, and here was Hall reusing it again for a major sequence.
That being said there were some astounding visuals; the scene between Newman and Hanks in the street, in the rain. The shots of Jude as the train passes. The shot at the end; the reflection of the lake in the window as Hanks looks out of it. The out of focus shot on Conner Rooney. The door closing revealing Conner in the bath. My personal favorite; Jude Law's entrance. Sure it was a direct wink to Vertigo, but please. What an entrance. What a shot.
But at the same time, how quickly was I able to reel all of those shots off? Surely I shouldn't have noticed them so much, surely I should have cared about Michael and Michael? Instead I noticed the nuance of the cinematography; the small puddle of blood that flows from the bullet, ever so slightly, catching a glint of the candlelight, as it rests in the bowl, things like that. Surely the character should have meant more to me.
Well, they didn't. But I didn't mind. I didn't need the emotional connection because the filmmaker in me just leapt to the technical side, basically from the beginning of the film. A two hour lesson in cinematography was still worth my money.
So yeah.
I enjoyed it.
But the question, I think, is why.
I'm sure it is no secret by now that I want to be a filmmaker when I leave school. For this reason I find it very easy, if I am not enthralled by a film, if I am not being engrossed by the story, I can easily find something else to latch on to that will carry me through to the end.
For much of Perdition I was less interested in story [I consider story and plot to be seperate, just by the way; story includes characters and motivations as much as plot specifics], I had no real interest in either of the Michael Sullivan's for the most part, but I loved Jude and I loved Paul. As a result I found myself either waiting for their scenes to arrive, or bathing in the visual style.
I found it interesting to note the comparisons between Perdition and American Beauty, visually. Hall uses the rain in both films to give the illusion of weeping rooms and weeping people when the shadows of the rain get cast across the faces of characters. It was also interesting to note the ever rightward pan; a montage that pans right slowly before disolving into another shot that keeps the pan moving. This appears in American Beauty when each character hears the gunshot, and as Lester discusses the most beautiful things in his life. In Perdition the montage in which the two Michael's rob all the banks did the same. I was suprised; it is a very, very obvious technique when you are looking for it, and here was Hall reusing it again for a major sequence.
That being said there were some astounding visuals; the scene between Newman and Hanks in the street, in the rain. The shots of Jude as the train passes. The shot at the end; the reflection of the lake in the window as Hanks looks out of it. The out of focus shot on Conner Rooney. The door closing revealing Conner in the bath. My personal favorite; Jude Law's entrance. Sure it was a direct wink to Vertigo, but please. What an entrance. What a shot.
But at the same time, how quickly was I able to reel all of those shots off? Surely I shouldn't have noticed them so much, surely I should have cared about Michael and Michael? Instead I noticed the nuance of the cinematography; the small puddle of blood that flows from the bullet, ever so slightly, catching a glint of the candlelight, as it rests in the bowl, things like that. Surely the character should have meant more to me.
Well, they didn't. But I didn't mind. I didn't need the emotional connection because the filmmaker in me just leapt to the technical side, basically from the beginning of the film. A two hour lesson in cinematography was still worth my money.
So yeah.
I enjoyed it.
__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com
www.esotericrabbit.com
- (Or at least chew one when you're feeling fractious 
)