The Movie Post, part 2
Mar. 14th, 2008 02:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ivyficLost in Translation
This is another movie that didn't quite gel for me. It captured the collision of cultures in a way I've never seen done as effectively before. I've never been to Japan, but I have been to Brazil, which, unlike most places Americans travel, is completely alien—no one speaks English, everything is different. This film really got that. It used Japanese culture as a source of comedy, but in a way that wasn't ridiculing it, but showing that if you don't understand what's going on, these people look like madmen.
That being said, the movie was postcards. Just moments. It would set up a situation, then fade out in the middle instead of following through. I think this is a problem a lot of comedies have (though I wouldn't necessarily classify this as a comedy). I loved that they used the romantic structure but didn't bring it to fruition. I needed that relationship to remain innocent. As Bill Murray said in an interview, most romances de-emphasize the lives of the characters outside of the movie: no other relationship can be as important as the relationship on the screen. But at that moment in this film, they talk about their marriages, their families, and how important those things are. For Murray's character, talking about that reaffirmed how much he cares for his wife and kids.
However, Murray still cheated on his wife. I talked about this at lunch the other day, but I have a real hang-up about cheaters on film. I can not like a character who commits adultery. I can be sympathetic, I can understand it, I can find them fascinating or intriguing, I can be engaged by the drama, but the moment a character crosses that line, I can't like them. I think this film depends on the audience liking Murray's character, so, for all that it was intelligently handled, made perfect sense for the character and the film, that burst the bubble for me.
I was also left wondering why Bill Murray is the star of this film. I thought it was as much about Scarlett Johansson as Murray. Hell, the first shot is of her ass. This is the first film I've ever not been annoyed by her in—I actually really liked her. She played that vulnerability so well, the lost-ness that comes from asking someone else to define you. The film is about both of them. So why'd it get Murray an Oscar and Johansson nothing?
Making Love
This is the cheesiest, most melodramatic, overly process-y film I've ever seen. Lifetime films don't navel-gaze this much. The premise is that Michael Ontkean (remember him? He's Sherrif Truman in Twin Peaks) is happily married until one day, like a bolt out of the blue, he realizes he's gay. He has an affair with a man and divorces his wife. The only things this has going for it are:
- It pays a lot of attention to the wife—how this affects her is the center of the film, not his sexual awakening. Given the constant discussion of the marginalization of women in slash, this was refreshing.
- The (incredibly non-explicit) gay sex is of the vaseline on lens, soft focus variety. Why is this a plus? Given that this came out in 1980, it was an unusual and positive thing, I think, to show two men "making love" as the title says, instead of just having sex. It validates it to portray gay sex with the same romantic haze as straight sex is often given on screen.
- And, of course, the fact that this film was made at all. In the documentary The Celluloid Closet, the creator of this film talked about how audiences started booing when the men kissed. I'd like to think they were just booing the writing… But it was a brave and unusual thing to make a film about, and I'd attribute 90% of the painful earnestness of the movie to that alone. I mean, the theatrical trailer has a full minute of disclaimers in front of it, making it the worst trailer I've ever seen.
The film's an interesting cultural artifact, but really not worth it.
Blade
I can't help but think of this film as one year pre-Matrix. It's slick, and the action is awesome, and Wesley Snipes looks cool, but in the context of the action film just around the corner, I end up feeling like this is a middle of the pack genre film. And there's nothing like seeing ten-year-old CGI to remind you how good even stuff on tv looks now. Yeeargh. Some of those effects were atrocious.
I spent most of the film thinking about how unusual it was to have a black man be the lead in a comic book film, but for the most part, the role could have been played by a white guy without changing how the material was handled. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but the race of the main character didn't seem to have any great effect on the subject matter. Of course, they tried to make it all about pure bloods versus half breeds (how can you be born a vampire, by the way?), but I think the point was undercut by casting a white guy as the villain (and with the most annoying haircut in the world, too).
Whatever. Mindless fun. I'm sure![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
trinityvixen will tell me how wrong I am. :)
Up next, Gremlins. No, I've never seen it, even though my grandmother reccomended it to me.
This is another movie that didn't quite gel for me. It captured the collision of cultures in a way I've never seen done as effectively before. I've never been to Japan, but I have been to Brazil, which, unlike most places Americans travel, is completely alien—no one speaks English, everything is different. This film really got that. It used Japanese culture as a source of comedy, but in a way that wasn't ridiculing it, but showing that if you don't understand what's going on, these people look like madmen.
That being said, the movie was postcards. Just moments. It would set up a situation, then fade out in the middle instead of following through. I think this is a problem a lot of comedies have (though I wouldn't necessarily classify this as a comedy). I loved that they used the romantic structure but didn't bring it to fruition. I needed that relationship to remain innocent. As Bill Murray said in an interview, most romances de-emphasize the lives of the characters outside of the movie: no other relationship can be as important as the relationship on the screen. But at that moment in this film, they talk about their marriages, their families, and how important those things are. For Murray's character, talking about that reaffirmed how much he cares for his wife and kids.
However, Murray still cheated on his wife. I talked about this at lunch the other day, but I have a real hang-up about cheaters on film. I can not like a character who commits adultery. I can be sympathetic, I can understand it, I can find them fascinating or intriguing, I can be engaged by the drama, but the moment a character crosses that line, I can't like them. I think this film depends on the audience liking Murray's character, so, for all that it was intelligently handled, made perfect sense for the character and the film, that burst the bubble for me.
I was also left wondering why Bill Murray is the star of this film. I thought it was as much about Scarlett Johansson as Murray. Hell, the first shot is of her ass. This is the first film I've ever not been annoyed by her in—I actually really liked her. She played that vulnerability so well, the lost-ness that comes from asking someone else to define you. The film is about both of them. So why'd it get Murray an Oscar and Johansson nothing?
Making Love
This is the cheesiest, most melodramatic, overly process-y film I've ever seen. Lifetime films don't navel-gaze this much. The premise is that Michael Ontkean (remember him? He's Sherrif Truman in Twin Peaks) is happily married until one day, like a bolt out of the blue, he realizes he's gay. He has an affair with a man and divorces his wife. The only things this has going for it are:
- It pays a lot of attention to the wife—how this affects her is the center of the film, not his sexual awakening. Given the constant discussion of the marginalization of women in slash, this was refreshing.
- The (incredibly non-explicit) gay sex is of the vaseline on lens, soft focus variety. Why is this a plus? Given that this came out in 1980, it was an unusual and positive thing, I think, to show two men "making love" as the title says, instead of just having sex. It validates it to portray gay sex with the same romantic haze as straight sex is often given on screen.
- And, of course, the fact that this film was made at all. In the documentary The Celluloid Closet, the creator of this film talked about how audiences started booing when the men kissed. I'd like to think they were just booing the writing… But it was a brave and unusual thing to make a film about, and I'd attribute 90% of the painful earnestness of the movie to that alone. I mean, the theatrical trailer has a full minute of disclaimers in front of it, making it the worst trailer I've ever seen.
The film's an interesting cultural artifact, but really not worth it.
Blade
I can't help but think of this film as one year pre-Matrix. It's slick, and the action is awesome, and Wesley Snipes looks cool, but in the context of the action film just around the corner, I end up feeling like this is a middle of the pack genre film. And there's nothing like seeing ten-year-old CGI to remind you how good even stuff on tv looks now. Yeeargh. Some of those effects were atrocious.
I spent most of the film thinking about how unusual it was to have a black man be the lead in a comic book film, but for the most part, the role could have been played by a white guy without changing how the material was handled. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but the race of the main character didn't seem to have any great effect on the subject matter. Of course, they tried to make it all about pure bloods versus half breeds (how can you be born a vampire, by the way?), but I think the point was undercut by casting a white guy as the villain (and with the most annoying haircut in the world, too).
Whatever. Mindless fun. I'm sure
trinityvixen will tell me how wrong I am. :)Up next, Gremlins. No, I've never seen it, even though my grandmother reccomended it to me.