Song to Song

How can I say what I want to say about this film? I must find a format for characterizing the film. The easiest is incidentally comparing and contrasting it with Knight of Cups: Knight of Cups exists in my understanding, the way I understand it, and it is easiest to assimilate Song to Song into there through association with that film.

This may be an unfortunate state of affairs.

I still may experience Song to Song as its own film, but it only adds to my understanding insofar as it contrasts with how I understand the other film, or fortifies that understanding, and so all I have to say about it are these contrasts and to a lesser degree fortifications.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Rooney Mara is the centerpiece of this film. Her involuntary self-destruction is a virus to those who bring her near; she interacts with every character, never to a net positive effect. Michael Fassbender is dangerous in another way -- he is greedy with power. Or is this essentially the same thing? He resembles the protagonist of the last movie in many superficial ways. Ryan Gosling is good. All of these demonstrate the desolating power of human attachment, which can turn stable lives violent, introduce enormous emotional baggage, create crushing winless battles, render a human being - organism with the greatest potentiality, similitude with God - helpless and agonized. The introduction of love has an unbelievably large influence on any course of human events. The pain which can be forsook by forsaking love is great; the life which is forsook by forsaking love is great.

The storyline in this film was more coherent, down-to-earth, slightly more accessible than the previous. The end was just and definite -- not morally ambiguous, ambivalent, indefinite, like the previous.

I like this movie. I am detracted by the musical element -- I am too familiar with the object, so it compromises the fantasy for me unless executed exquisitely. In this movie not enough attention was paid to the music, so it compromised the atmosphere for my experience.

I probably prefer Knight of Cups; I recall it being spacier, dreamier, with less trudging through the trenches of human emotion. One could not relate to any fleeting storyline so one was not weighed down by any storyline; one could float with the movie. Perhaps floating is my preferred mode of ambulation with Malick.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Are these characters real? They are free, floating souls, without self-image, playful, juvenile -- they are winged souls who fly and space is free but empty. They are reflective, and sensory-obsessed. Tactile fixation is a crude way of labeling their physical, tangible longing for something in this life. They are singularly unbound -- the mean irony is that they're unleashed into emptiness, yet this is the condition of freedom. These characters seem not to exist outside Terrence Malick movies, and by the dozen within. Their abandon is enviable -- but whatever aids their perpetual searching is made useless when there is nothing to find. This is the mark of these movies: there is nothing to find for these who search most.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Most striking line: "It was like a new paradise, forgiveness."

12/31

The Hateful Eight (Quentin Tarantino)

11/4/17

Wild, winding, outrageous, often tedious, superfluous, redundant, bold, unique, self-assured without sure identity, excessively confident, necessarily confident, directionless but comfortable. Alternating disappointment and excitement, ambivalence and potency: simultaneously ill-captained and sure-footed. The whole film is unnecessary but functional; unimportant but useful. It is a dragging limping professional mess; capably-made; well-trimmed and arbitrary. I respect this movie, though I don't really like it and don't really think it's good. Therefore I like it on some higher level as a higher entity.



This film played out very strangely. At one point it promised to be Tarantino's maniacal take on Clue, which would have been fun. But it lied, and this film wasn't a mystery. Later it set up for the final satisfaction of the director's previous films, with high anticipation. But it lied, and this film wasn't satisfying. His films often end with what this one calls 'frontier justice', but usually it feels more just. It ultimately defied easy categorization, or perhaps slumped under. Genres are created by common purposes: this film defied classification insofar as it really had no purpose. Its uniqueness was largely its homelessness, and a tramp isn't to be praised for his non-convention.

But I do think he can be applauded for carriage and gait, which is why this film receives:

2.5/4

And Who Will Allow My Passage? (Knight of Cups - Terrence Malick)

Depth and desolation -- of a man, a city, a society. The film begins by wandering through the mystical dreamscape of the sleeping Knight; by the end it is trudging. Does the Pearl exist? It exists in every moment -- how can it be accessed? How can we find it if we're sleeping? How can we wake up? I always believe that Life stands before me, over a closed gate, and I must only wait for the doors to begin to slide apart. But I never think about who controls my entrances and exits. And who will allow my passage?

I too am asleep; but I dream nothing. The film mistakes desolation for depth and vice versa in a threefold synecdoche in the City of Angels. It's all here, as is -- perfect, and complete.

2/4

Michael Jackson: Live in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour (1992)

I feel driven to include this film on this site as a new addition to my continuous chronicle of visual media experiences. Partly this is because the emotional palette and progression felt cinematic, partly because I am inclined to document all of my most powerful visual media experiences, and partly because I want to write right now. I may not remember what a beautiful movie is like -- I haven't seen my favorite movie since 2014, and 2017 has been intentionally spare. So my credibility is to be taken at 70% value when I call this among my most beautiful movie experiences -- surely not to contend with my top 10 for artistic value, but serving a different purpose quite as potently. It's ceaseless, spectacular energy, vast humanity and inspiration. I would recommend the video to those who have no previous experience with the artist.

The Light Between Oceans (Derek Cianfrance)

4/17/17


First takeaway: This isn't Derek Cianfrance, at least as far as I understand what that is. It's a relatively conventional period drama novel adaptation. The literary element is all too present.

Second takeaway: The movie is emotionally tumultuous, but not emotionally coherent. At least it's not emotionally coherent to the audience who've not read the source work. And in such an emotion-charged movie, coherence is vital so as not to leave the viewer in a state of disturbance and despair without payoff.

The novel must not be very interesting or masterful. The script certainly wasn't either.

I love watching these actors. But, while they were brilliant and beautiful from moment to moment, that is, in a physical sense, portraying each emotion exceptionally well and with striking beauty, they didn't create continuous, memorable characters. The characters were neither continuous nor memorable. This is partly a fault of the script, but I am sure the actors take some of the blame. Again, perhaps this is not a problem for those who have experienced the novel. But the movie must be judged to some degree on its own. I am interested in judging movies as whole works of art/entertainment, against a large audience of which I am a part, and not a small select group of people. I am not interested in reviewing this movie with respect to a class to which I do not belong.

For what it is worth to you, this movie did induce some intense emotions. This is partly due to my recent lifestyle, which is vacant of escapist indulgence and crafted realities for dramatic purposes. There are other reasons also. It was an unfortunate experience -- but I must credit the film for some of this. I wouldn't be devastated by a film for which I had no care and affection.




Additional notes discovered in archive:

She is beautiful and good-hearted and pure and will bring new joy and life to him. But she is not necessarily the strongest and firmest of characters. And two miscarriages makes her desperate. Absolutely desperate. He loves her and she has given him so much — she has absolutely brought him new life. In her mad desperation he cannot live with himself to not give her what she obviously deserves, and is begging for. Indeed, she certainly deserves the child. But perhaps it will bring her more pain and destruction than happiness and reward? He cannot imagine not giving her what she deserves and is so desperate for — and the probability of bad consequences is low; yes, in a non-fictional world he would have never seen the true parent. It is an odd miracle that he saw and went to examine the woman in the cemetery, and that their lives were linked otherwise. So he feels a whole compulsion to give her what she needs, and the likelihood of bad consequence is very low. He can hardly withstand her witchery anyway — and I am sympathetic to him.
The fault is on a great woman whose strength isn’t her strong will, and whose will is compromised by intense tragedy and misfortune — what wits she had are lost and she has rightful power over a man she saved, who has a better conscience but human limits of emotion.

La La Land (Damien Chazelle)

[Old draft]

La La Land was a bit of a magical experience for me - arresting and emotional. I have some discontentments and more-developed criticisms, but ultimately this is a unique film, and it struck me uniquely. I was able to become invested in the musical aspect, and likewise in the relationship, such that this was a memorable theater experience. Although I say the film is unique, I don't think it operates on unique ideas -- perhaps it just has a kind of bravery, or maybe just willingness, to execute on such an idea as it has. Oh well, the film stands apart from the stream of average Hollywood output, and for me - this was a special experience.

Praise to the cinematography, the humor when it's there, and the classic Ryan Gosling charisma (when it's there). Praises, praises to the dancing when it happens. I like Emma Stone a lot. Criticism is directed at the rushedness of the plot and tonal inconsistencies.... I resurrect my ideas on Under the Skin and denounce filmmakers' compulsions to advance plots where it is unnecessary and undesirable. The same goes for unnecessary character evolution. I'd also like to note the unspectacular music and mediocre lead male singer. Those are fine.

It's a very pretty movie, I love the art of it all -- but I wish the music was a little better and the narrative more consistent and relaxed.

I really enjoyed this movie. It was exciting to me, joyous at times, and quite poignant at other times. Overall I was strongly connected to it. I didn't really want to leave it, until I had pondered it further. I know it held lessons for my life.

"Star Wars" Original Trilogy

Three of the few movies for which I have lasting affection are the movies of the The Lord of the Rings trilogy -- yet I do not consider these very good movies. I in a similar way do not think that the movies of the "original" Star Wars trilogy are good movies. They have not aged well. What's respectable about these movies is the story and the universe; but more often than not these elements take a back seat to visual stimulation, cheap thrills, weightless sentimentality, and other such entertainment-industry essentials. I say the movies have not aged well largely because of the amount of time and energy they spend on visual stimulation, which 30-40 years later has lost its stimulating aspect. Though it must be appreciated, of course, that these elements are no longer novel simply because they themselves permitted the advancement of visual ideas and effects. But this is the essence of creating a good film -- it must be timeless art, involving itself more with permanent subjects and themes than with a momentary thrill. The backdrop of these movies taps into lasting themes, but the foreground is almost always consumed with transient entertainment. What's more than my belief that these are not very good movies is my belief that they will only grant a worthwhile experience to those that have seen and known them for years. Nostalgia is what can save these movies for the modern viewer -- without it, they are fairly emotionless experiences. Such was my experience.

Though I did like these movies -- again, I appreciate the underlying story, themes, characters, world. I really wanted more of it. I also appreciate the impact, and the fact that these movies are their own undoing; they in their wake produced better movies of the same kind, and thus worsened themselves in a great Hollywood sacrifice. The experiences were lackluster and I do not think the movies contain essential elements of good film -- but I liked them, and appreciate them in aspects.

I emphasize my criticism of these films only because it is natural and immediate for me to react to the opinions I have been told, when I sense strong disagreement. If I had not heard praises of these films all my life, and by people I usually respect, I would be noting much pleasantry and favour with the films. They would be a nice surprise. But it is disagreement and frustration with the opinions of my companions that make the criticism most present in my mind. I would be grateful to write about Star Wars without this frustration, to write a fond and wonderful review. Indeed, I am more frustrated with those that call these good films than with the films themselves -- they offer me something, which I would not say of most films, and which is entirely enough to invoke my appreciation.

Manchester By The Sea (Kenneth Lonergan)

Wearing only the humblest artistic skin, the crux of Manchester by the Sea is the viewer's individual ability to connect to the story and the characters -- the human element, not artistic. I liked the characters, the setting, the atmosphere -- but for me this was a very mild experience. I can't denounce the film, nor can someone with a stronger experience celebrate the film; it's good, and not much more can be said. I wish I could say more about the artistry, since it's that element on which I want to focus in film nowadays. But the writing and acting really weren't special, despite their probably being the basis for this film's praise.

This is an unsuccessful blend of Hollywood and independent cinema, of vague comedy and vague drama. It's a fine movie that just doesn't do enough.