Swan's 2019 Film Diary

→ in
Tools    





This thread represents a new beginning for me. I’m not interested in bashing movies anymore so I want to be very careful about what I say if it goes into the negative side. People who make movies put their heart, soul, and time into what they do and it's stunning that any get made. It's a tough business, and I want to support anyone who takes it on. Constructive critique is not the same as bashing but I’m going to try to be minimal and conscious about that stuff. Also, I’m going to be loose with format. I mostly just need an avenue to ramble about movies.

Thanks to anyone and everyone who reads this thread, and extra thanks to those who come back.



Gonna skip over the stuff I watched since the start of the new year. My next post will be what I just finished watching. In the meantime I'll just take a pic of the stuff I watched so far this year. Feel free to ask about any of them.

EDIT: Didn't like posting a bunch of pictures like that, so I'll just link to my Letterboxd diary page.

LINK!



January 11, 2019:

A Trip to the Moon
(Georges Méliès, 1902, hand-colored print)



Yesterday I embarked on minor voyage through the early dawn of cinema, starting with some of the earliest footage such as Passage of Venus, Buffalo Running, Roundhay Garden Scene, and yes, the famous The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat. It was fun to spend a little time watching these and reading a bit about them. I also watched two other films by Georges Méliès - The Haunted Castle (sometimes referred to as the first horror film, I actually watched this with my closest friend and fellow horror fan) and The Astronomer’s Dream. Finally, I concluded this voyage with the 1902 Méliès masterpiece A Trip to the Moon. This one was in black-and-white and on YouTube. I can't remember if I have seen the film before, but it doesn't matter because I felt I was coming at it with a fresh pair of eyes.

Anyway, I loved watching it yesterday and since have been thinking of Méliès constantly. I have come to the conclusion that he was a genius, full of imagination, and perhaps the first auteur, with a style that rivals the likes of Ozu in it’s idiosyncratic distinctness. While part of Méliès' style may be due to limitations of technology and the fact that this was in the infancy of the cinematic language, I also believe it’s a testament to creativity in the face of those limitations. Méliès is the clear example of the term “thinking outside the box,” because despite being the dawn of the 20th century, when this moving image technology had only recently been developed, he managed to make completely wondrous, fantastic, ambitious pieces of art. His use of practical effects and set decoration were absolutely astounding and, in my opinion, still are.

Tonight, I revisited the short film, this time purchasing on iTunes the 2011 restored hand-colored version. For those who don’t know (and I'm getting detailed with the help of Wikipedia), around the time of it’s release about 60 prints were hand-colored in Paris. Thought to all be lost, one was finally discovered in 1993. But it was thought to be decomposing and impossible to restore. After quite a few attempts, it was successfully restored in 2011 at a $1 million cost. It premiered at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, with a new score by Air (a duo I personally love). Unfortunately the version I watched tonight, while it is this restored version, did not have that score. Fortunately, it had one, made by Jeff Mills, that was still great and added it's own wonderful dimension to the film. I will have to seek out the version with the Air score.

I enjoyed the film more this time than yesterday, for no other reason than I was able to grasp the visuals and story a bit better. The more I get what I’m seeing, the more enthralling it is. I think if cinema history went down a Méliès-influenced route, rather than the Porter/Griffith route it ended up taking (which, of course, is wonderful too), this might have all been different. Who knows? Maybe it wouldn’t. Fun to ponder though. I know Porter and Griffith both admired Méliès deeply - Griffith said he owed the guy everything.

I think part of what captivates me about it is that it reminds me of science fiction novels and art of the 1800’s, which makes sense because apparently Méliès was influenced by the likes of Jules Verne when making the film. I kind of see it as science fiction through a Willy Wonka lens, I guess. Completely enchanting.



What did you think of If Beale Street Could Talk?
Beautiful film and Jenkins stole the show with his precise direction - which is saying something because everyone working on that film, in front of the camera and seemingly behind too, were so damn great. It’s always a total joy seeing a director with as much mastery/control of their craft as Jenkins displayed here. He’s a force to be reckoned with. Classy as hell too, with a kind of emotionally-charged elegance I don't often see. Along with Jenkins' stunning direction I really loved the score, which I have been listening to on repeat since then.

Good review on The Trip To the Moon! that screenshot looks lovely.
Thank you for reading, much appreciated.



I am not going to comment on everything I watched but I’ll talk about some of it. May write more tomorrow.

I am still exploring the foundational history of film and I have found this journey to be very insightful. It has made me appreciate the entirety of cinema on every level, and I think it’s a stunning example of human innovation that perhaps grew at least partially out of our need to communicate emotions and ideas to one another. It also gives perspective of where we are now. Seeing how things developed then, and how these cinematic artists were combining technology and artistry to create a bold and powerful new pieces of art, makes me think about where we are now and where cinema is headed.

Since my last post I revisited A Trip to the Moon twice. I really enjoy the addition of the vibrant colors and Jeff Mills score. I think they do a great job bringing out the sense of imagination and wonder that was clearly intended. It's just stunning to me that we are able to see this kind of masterpiece. I was still so enraptured the third time that I showed it to my filmmaking buddy, who had already seen it but I didn’t care - I wanted to experience it with someone.

Since then, I have watched a few other shorts from the early silent era:

The Great Train Robbery (Edwin S. Porter, 1903)



Not much to say about this one, even though it is pretty engaging it’s mostly a good watch for historical purposes regarding filmmaking. I think I have seen it before. The last shot is damn classic.

Frankenstein (J. Searle Dawley, 1910)



The depiction of science here is pretty silly, but the creation-of-the-monster scene is absolutely fantastic - one of the best monster creation/transformation scenes ever? It felt as iconic to me as the transformation in An American Werewolf in London (which may be my favorite so that’s saying something), and yet I never hear it get talked about so maybe it’s just cool to me.

Alice in Wonderland (Cecil Hepworth & Percy Stow, 1903)



Another great example of ambitious cinematic storytelling with clever use of camera trickery, props, and optical illusion. I think that is what I am most drawn to with early cinema. I remember watching The Invisible Man as a kid, and being absolutely inspired by it’s creative effects, which captivated me partly because I didn’t know how they were accomplished. While the effects in earlier work like this and A Trip to the Moon are usually easier to figure out, they are still incredibly charming and magical. It’s clear to see that they are pulling from how theater and magicians at the time went about their “effects” - Méliès, for example, was a stage magician. Whatever the case, it’s enthralling and feels like something from a different world entirely. Knowing it’s our own history makes it somehow more magical, more of a fantastic dream.

Moving on from the silent era…

The Wolf Man (George Waggner, 1941)
The Invisible Man (James Whale, 1933)
Dracula (Tod Browning, 1931)



One of my friends has not seen any of the Universal monster flicks except Frankenstein, and my horror buddy and I want to change that. We started with The Wolf Man, which is great and a little more polished than the earlier ones. The Invisible Man, as I mentioned earlier, has an incredible use of special effects, and it also has an equally incredible performance by Claude Rains.

Dracula surprised me this time. I thought it was my least favorite Universal monster film (or one of them), but being reminded of the stunning gothic atmosphere, enthusiastic performances by Lugosi and Frye, and overall iconic influence it had on the horror genre, made it become one of my favorite Universal monster flicks. It’s wonderful.

Children of the night... what music they make!



How'd your buddy take to the universal flicks?
He loved The Wolf Man. Didn't seem as keen on the others. If I had to guess why, it might have partially to do with the fact that the others didn't have much in the way of film scores. That's my guess because he kept commenting on how sublime parts of The Wolf Man was with it's score.

I dunno. He's an odd duck. But it's fun showing someone this stuff.



I thought this for a while, but there's a musical cue in The Wolf Man that seems to have directly inspired Danny Elfman's Batman theme. Could be a coincidence, but we all know how much Tim Burton loves his Universal monster movies.



Cool, it's on YouTube! Looks like I'm not alone either in hearing it.

It's at about the 20 second mark.




Let the night air cool you off
@Swan

I saw that 1910 Frankenstein film a long, long time ago (maybe 109 years ago). I remember very little about it, but the monster's horrendous appearance hasn't been forgotten.

In your early film watching, did you see Mosquinha? I am pretty fascinated by it. It's a shot of a fly taking flight, but the weird shadowy look of it was reminiscent of something of the expressionist era of German films. If this short film was merely a small shot in a larger film, particularly a horror film, it would work as an unsettling moment that probably wouldn't even be mentioned by any viewer. Kinda doing some inconspicuous dirty work. On its own, it's not a masterpiece or anything,however it's worth the 4 seconds it takes to view it.



@Swan

I saw that 1910 Frankenstein film a long, long time ago (maybe 109 years ago). I remember very little about it, but the monster's horrendous appearance hasn't been forgotten.

In your early film watching, did you see Mosquinha? I am pretty fascinated by it. It's a shot of a fly taking flight, but the weird shadowy look of it was reminiscent of something of the expressionist era of German films. If this short film was merely a small shot in a larger film, particularly a horror film, it would work as an unsettling moment that probably wouldn't even be mentioned by any viewer. Kinda doing some inconspicuous dirty work. On its own, it's not a masterpiece or anything,however it's worth the 4 seconds it takes to view it.
Just watched Mosquinha. That is probably the coolest of those early one shot things.