(I need a verb that captures the winding motion, a constant speed, but not too great a speed, a verb that conveys almost being pulled through Tokyo, like a marble rolling down a twisting track, not pulled by a tensile thing but still guided along, inertial, a verb not too weak but not too strong, a constant soft pull, no yank no whip no rush of air, but no pace; I'd like a verb that conveys a small track in a thicket of towers, like tiny eddies in a field of mud, a minuscule course through a monstrous scape; I'd like the perspective to show, the driver's windshield, intimate and twisting, a panning field of vision..)

I Believe in Unicorns

11/06/15

3/4

This movie was extremely beautiful in some respects. It was very short (1:18), and my experience had big cuts in it, so I almost feel like this didn't even happen. What I can recall is a strong sense of beauty along with a strong distaste for the adolescent relationship. The lead girl was very beautiful (I feel comfortable saying this because I see her as a child) and was acted extraordinarily. The male was also well-acted, but was an intensely repellant character for me. This dichotomy created a lot of tension inside of me as I watched, and so at times this viewing was difficult.

Quickly after it started and we began to see the relationship I debated stopping, because I saw that this relationship was extremely unattractive to me. But then I wondered if, since they are young and new, the filmmakers intended for this unattractiveness, and the characters will grow into something more valuable. So I continued. In some ways this did happen, although the characters I wanted to connect with so badly mostly remained in a distant place of youth. Youth is a place I cannot possibly connect with anymore. So I was very emotionally disconnected, and at times upset by this.

It is worth analyzing why I discounted this film so quickly for showing a relationship I didn't like. I assumed that the filmmakers were portraying something they thought was beautiful, and thus it was a flaw of the movie that it wasn't beautiful. 1: beauty is subjective, 2: they don't have to portray an attractive relationship to make a good movie. They could be saying something else.

11/13/15

I Believe in Unicorns was a decent movie, but the primary aspect of my experience was inescapably personal, and thus a full review is insensible. However, my opinion is that this is a decent movie, and there's really nothing else to say about it. It doesn't try to do anything, other than depict a relationship that a given viewer may like or dislike. There's no more to it. An intense aesthetic that a given fewer may like or dislike.... There is no "good movie / bad movie". It's just a film, to be experienced personally. To empassion. It empassioned me. It empassioned me....

Sunday in the Park with George

Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful.

I had strong personal ties to this piece, which I have just extracted from the abstract in a private document-- they gave the piece significant emotional weight for me, at times.

Objectively-speaking, I think this is a good play. Good music, good dialogue, a very and beautifully immersive setting, and thematics to ponder abounding. Honestly, in addition to the pure pleasure in viewing that this piece evokes, by its humor and music and setting and poignant truth, there are significant ideas to be extracted, pertaining mostly to art and relationships, but relating also to all of humanity and society. Maybe I've just been in an enhanced state of sucking enlightenment out of my world lately, but I nevertheless saw loads of insight in this play available for the taking. While I certainly have been getting more out of art and entertainment lately than I have in a long time, due to recent life events, and as evidenced by my recent film experiences (I Believe in Unicorns, Lost in Translation, Jane Eyre...), I consider my assessment of Sunday in the Park with George as a good and insightful and pleasurable and meaningful play fairly objective.

Also, I love it. I do.

James Bond

As I reflect more on Spectre, I realize that we really have lost James Bond in the recent progression of the Bond franchise. What makes Spectre a Bond movie?-- what does it have in common with its predecessors that it doesn't have in common with other action films? Is it any more than just a good lone-standing action film?
What defines the franchise is nothing but the character of James Bond. The action, intelligence, terrorism, sex, cars..... These things occur in other franchises, from Mission Impossible to Fast & Furious. The Bond series should not be defined by simply making a decent line of action films-- a film in the series should be created around the center of the franchise's individuality, which is only the titular character. The reason the series caught fire upon conception is because the lead character was cool and charismatic in addition to his unparalleled skill. He has cool cars, he gets women, he has suave little quirks like the martini preference. He is classy, yet can manhandle a fight. These are the entire identity of the James Bond franchise. Without these, or even with a different focus, a film doesn't deserve the co-title 007. Hopefully it is apparent to the reader by now that Spectre fails to uphold what defines its franchise. Surely it has some of the characteristics, but did anyone feel that the throwback epilogue felt surprising? Not necessarily unexpected, but somehow a big leap in tone from what had happened before? Indeed, the James Bond movies are shifting their focus away from their important nature, and becoming not much more than good action films. I'm not saying that with the right focus they would instantly be great action films, but I'm saying that of all the things that Skyfall and Spectre are, the primary one is "good action film", as opposed to "Bond film".
This is a problem because I am not very interested in action films in general. I want James Bond. If I wanted nothing but a good action film, I would watch the last three Mission Impossible's in a row. Those are not really a franchise. I want James Bond, I want to feel Casino Royale in the blood of the film, I want the blood of Spectre to be saturated with everything classic we got from that earlier film. Unfortunately this is not the case, so Spectre is a good action film and somewhat Bond-y, but not more.

So what I said is that I want the focus to be on the character of James Bond. My argument is that the focus in Spectre is on what differentiates this film from earlier Bond films, namely the villainy and, to a lesser extent, the girl. They attempted to make the most epic villain ever, and not only did they fall short, they also lost sight of the franchise, to a degree, in the process. Certainly each Bond film must be different, but the differences should all be orbiting the lead character, who is a beautiful piece of work. A new, intriguing Bond girl and new, intriguing Bond villain should at most hit the same level of priority as James himself. They cannot go above. I feel that, in Spectre, the villain and the plot took center stage, with the writers trying to make everything more epic than ever. James was merely our vessel to this convoluted plot-logic, a first-person to take us to what was trying to be the greatest action film ever, whereas James should have been the entire heart and soul of the film, with the other stuff as just intrigue.

James Bond: Spectre (Sam Mendes)

11/07/15

3/4

The newest film of the franchise was an action thriller of the highest quality... or at least the highest quality we see in mainstream cinema. I can imagine a James Bond film that's much better, but my fantasies can't take away from my experience: I completely enjoyed each of the 148 minutes, felt a very strong emotional gravity at times, got invested in ways I didn't think possible for me anymore. Spectre defies with a strong hand the notion that I can't experience full immersion into things anymore due to my consuming introversion. I sat vulnerable and desperate in my chair like an adolescent boy would. I loved entirely my experience of this film.

I think that this film could be better. For me it spits out more quality and content than most modern films in its vein, including its predecessor, but yet it stays relatively within the confines of this trajectory of contemporary franchise action cinema. The best way I can put it is this: the movement from Casino Royale and Batman Begins to Skyfall and The Dark Knight Rises demonstrates what is happening in the best action film franchises (if there are any others); things are becoming a bit scattered, more epic, more complex in plot but more poorly-controlled, powerful but proud, sharp and witty at the cost of human relatability.... Do you remember how humble and brutal in its humility Casino Royale was? Beautiful in its humility. Spectre shows many signs of this devolution, but it has a classic quality that hasn't yet been tainted. It has a power I truly don't remember feeling in Skyfall. It goes without saying that for whatever reason Casino Royale is irreplicable, but if we side that comparison Spectre provides us with a lot of great stuff to feast on.

I have a hundred more opinions I could write down, but I'd rather leave it at this: I loved Spectre, and find it a scattered but spectacular item of experience.

Lost in Translation

10/29/15


I don’t feel I can give a very stable assessment of Lost in Translation, at least not until I think about it more tomorrow. Maybe at that time I’ll submit an appendage to this post.

But I’d like to document my experience anyways. It was significant, as far as movie experiences go in my life. I became very immersed in the film, for better or for worse. I began in a brilliant mind, soaking in all of the film’s nuances, connecting them to my own life, pondering a bunch of different topics, analyzing the film very well and connecting all pieces wonderfully. I at that point found this film to be good, and meaningful, although not ‘great’. It had flaws, had cliches…..

But as the film progressed, I grew more tired and more attached on a purely subjective, emotional level. My critical mind quietly shut off and I was existing in a state of pure emotional immersion. It was tough. I became depressed, feeling like I was existing outside myself, in characters that I didn’t want to be. I don’t like what happened with this viewing. It is interesting, though. I imagine most people regularly experience this loss of self, during movies and otherwise, and don't notice. It makes me feel very lost, and I don’t like it.

That's when I decided I needed to go to sleep.


11/01/15

I consider Lost in Translation a very good film and an important one. It has flaws that I can't get past (which I will articulate soon), but my focus on the flaws is probably a reaction to the tidal-wave-praise the film received. Were I unaware of critical and public response, perhaps I would be overwhelmed by positivity now. In that vein it is worth mentioning that I have seen the film before, and have since developed a more critical eye. Things stack up that direct my thoughts toward criticism rather than praise of this film. However, I am far from lacking completely an appreciation of the film. In fact, my recent viewing (timely as it was) was extraordinarily insightful. I took Sofia Coppola's quiet meditation on human relationships and enhanced my understanding of the world and of my life in powerful ways. A strong reason for my calling this film great is its unique setup, whose unconventionality allows for profound insight to seep through. We see three relationships and feel strong emotional tugs one way or another. Thus with the contemplative pace of the film, the reflective viewer is left pondering why he or she feels the way he or she does regarding what's happening onscreen. Such is my case. I found the central relationship attractive in many ways, and unattractive in others. Surprisingly, I was sympathetic to the two relationships that it seemed the director was trying to label impure. By merging all of these things I was able to see the ideal of human relationships in my life.

My assessment of the film leads me every time to Sofia Coppola, whether that's righteous or unjust. My evaluation of her product (which seems so personal) tells me that she is a talented young director, young and female in an industry of otherwise, who has a keen eye for aesthetics (from visual to emotional) and a human insight beyond her years but who is not fully matured. The loud and flailing example of immaturity comes when we hear that the character of Charlotte was crafted as a philosophy major, Yale grad. I don't feel like it would be good for me to detail my response to that here. All I will say is that I find that aspect of the script incredibly juvenile, almost offensive. Other script problems include Bill Murray only periodically doing Bill Murray, unintentional attempts at mainstream humor and style being attached to the general indie quality of the film at rough seams....  Surely I have problems with this movie. But as I said, the idea of it all along with those moments of superb poignancy make up for the (relatively) poorly-controlled script. Indeed, "poignant" is a word better-attached to this film than to most others. It defines the mood.

I wish I liked these characters more, as in such a case this film would become something enormous to me. However, it is a little dated, and I find the characters as ending up somewhat two-dimensional. But what I learned in this experience was important... I would watch Lost in Translation again to relive my reflections and learn even more about the essence of inter-human connection. I like the movie a lot. I really do. And it means something to me.