Bo Burnham: Inside

I found this really impressive and immersive. A few times I laughed; many times I wondered at the originality. I wasn't prepared to enjoy Bo Burnham; I only remembered hearing him in high school; but I did enjoy it, with a mighty dose of respect. His acknowledgment of his petty humor allows him to elevate it. Maybe the brutal intimacy of the special will distress some audience. For me it elevates an otherwise throwaway humor.

It feels akin to Neal Brennan's Netflix specials (3 Mics, Blocks). If such alienated works can feel solidarity, it must be with one another.

Christopher Nolan

Random note from April '22. I think this was after watching one of the Batman movies, having not seen older ones like Memento in many years...

For a while I mistook his cerebral style for sophistication, but his skill is cerebral blockbusters (almost oxymoronic). He's not very artistically elegant. His movies are cheesy and unsubtle in all but plot. He's not a really sophisticated artist -- but he's cerebral and can make exciting movies, which is nontrivial. I guess I mistook him for sophisticated because I was cerebral before I was artistically subtle (if I ever even have been), and that's when I was watching his movies.

Casting in Peter Jackson Tolkien movies

I thought this exercise would be interesting, since I saw the movies many times before reading the books (Hobbit+LotR+etc), but then thoroughly read the books for years without seeing the movies, and have now returned to the movies. So maybe in all this deliberation I'm finally lifting above my biases.

Gandalf: Ian McKellen feels essential. There's probably a little bias, having seen the films first and loved Gandalf above all else, but I think it's tangible too. Unlike other characters, nothing about book-Gandalf felt incongruent with the films. I read some Frodo dialogue and thought "I can't picture Elijah Wood's Frodo saying that," but this has never happened with Gandalf. Ian McKellen covers the entire range. To be fair to Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen had more experience in acting and life. I'm not a good critic of acting, but I can say how the performance felt: essential. Maybe one complaint: his joyous laughing. But that's such a small fraction of the performance.

See also: https://andrewtalksaboutmoviesetc.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-hobbit.html

Arwen: far too immature. She's plump and dramatic, belying her centuries of grace. Even stationary I don't think Liv Tyler matches Arwen's sheer beauty, but especially her expressions and inflections don't match. Liv Tyler portrays a teenager -- not the ancient pride of her people.

Frodo: Elijah Wood is a weird-looking guy, and therefore a surprising choice for the universalized face of a Hollywood mega-franchise (I don't accept people calling Aragorn the main character; an argument could be made for Sam as main object of empathy, but he's still not first on the posters). What if Frodo was nicer-looking? I'm not sure Elijah Wood's performance was stellar either, so overall an interesting choice. I won't hate on him though, as it seems others might. It's a hard role. It's a complex character. He's an uncommon hobbit even in childhood, and now he's pulled by forces we can't understand. I'd say Frodo in the book is more mature (he's visibly older too), but I accept weird-looking Elijah Wood delivering a tough character.

Aragorn: this is one of my toughest evaluations. As much as I want to love Viggo as much as his character, I just don't. I didn't love Aragorn until I read the book. Now I weep for him. When I said earlier that I've loved Gandalf above all else, only Aragorn flashed in my mind, and only after reading the book. He's competition for my favorite character in all of fiction. But only after reading the book. Viggo didn't light my fire. I realize there was some narrative in the films to keep him bashful for a while, but even after his coronation he doesn't shine like he should. See him next to Boromir -- Boromir is proud and great. Aragorn isn't just subtle or subdued or measured -- he's diminutive. His voice doesn't surge or ring. He isn't charismatic. I think Aragorn should have the instant charisma of a leader millennia in the making. I don't mean humor or flirty charm, but some height and light that commands deep respect. Aragorn is bashful, maybe even slightly awkward. Is Viggo charming? He doesn't portray Aragorn's ineffable leadership. I don't know how any actor could portray such depth, but Ian McKellen does it, and I think just a little charisma could go a long way. Viggo feels a little awkward. He's only heroic in an underdog sort of way. Aragorn should never feel like an underdog for others' respect. The respect should be there upon the moment of meeting. Now I'm curious to read his encounter with Boromir at the Council of Elrond. In the movie, if I remember right, Boromir underestimates him ("mere ranger") until Legolas corrects him, at which point Boromir gazes in wonder (and I cry), but then I think he turns back to the pride of Gondor. I wonder how Tolkien wrote this encounter.

Theoden: no problems here.

Eowyn: problems here. I don't think she's nearly as stunning as she should be. Don't even ask me about when she starts singing in the extended scene. She's no bombshell, and she can't figure out her dignity either. I guess that's true in the book as well, but in a different way. She's finding her purpose in the book, relative to men, but her grace and dignity never wane. She is a lordly lady the entire way. She is steel and flower. In the movies she's weak and insecure and fragile. Too much foul, not enough fair.

Sam: no complaints. I think he's slightly too attractive, not quite humble enough in looks, but it's fine. I like this performance.

Denethor: too much foul, not enough fair. Denethor should be fair and great. In the movies he's wholly despicable. I guess it simplifies things for mass-consumption, but they don't cut corners like that in other aspects... I guess you have to cut some corners. Denethor didn't get his justice in the movies, though I don't think it significantly harms the greater picture.

Faramir: come on. Should I blame the performance or the script? I'm guessing it's the script. Faramir should be one of the most admirable characters. He has all the Westernesse of Denethor without the corruption of heart. Faramir gets the shaft with his father in the films. Mostly I like the performance, but Faramir is written too sadly. Audiences will sooner remember his daddy issues than his kingliness.

Merry & Pippin: this is fine.

Galadriel: I like Cate Blanchett here, although why does she seem so borderline-evil? Galadriel has no evil in her, yet she continually stokes fear and disquiet in the movies. That should expel very soon after meeting her. Her house should be as homely as the Last Homely House. Her age and ability and wisdom should be more comforting than unsettling, but I like Cate Blanchett here.

Gimli: I can't dislike his comic relief, excessive though it may be. Otherwise, Gimli is effective.

Bilbo: see also: https://andrewtalksaboutmoviesetc.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-hobbit.html

Rosie Cotton: too old!

Elrond: not fair enough. His brow is harsh, visage not soft and neutral like Legolas. Legolas looks like an elf. Elrond looks like a fallen elf, the Saruman of elves. I partly blame the script, which substantially diminishes his grace, but I also blame Weaving's countenance.

Legolas: this may be as pixel-perfect as any on this list?

Melancholia

2015 post

If Justine hadn't snapped at her sister near the end, I might consider it a happy ending -- she'd be redeemed by her grace with the boy, general uplift in spirit, facial expressions in the storm, and holding her sister's hand. But with that snap the ending is bleak. Severe depression is not magically redeemed, even in an intimate apocalypse, even with salvation in sight, infernal though it be. Justine lifts her countenance to relief by total combustion, sheds one tear, and sighs into oblivion. Her atoms must briefly soar like Sauron, then sigh like Saruman, while the world groans.

7.5 years ago I caught the style but missed the meaning. For all my attraction to melancholy, it's taking me decades to understand true melancholia. Back then the movie was a tale of two parts: the first an exaggerated image of misery; the second an intimate but literal apocalypse. The first was painful but theatrical; the second was thrilling. And I perceived good style throughout.

    But I completely missed the metaphor and the authenticity. I may have enjoyed the connection between the name of the planet and her condition, and the unique drama it bred, but only in von Trier's universe. I often perceive cinematic universes, and fail to connect them to ours. I don't think allegory is my forte. Often I watch movies for style. I enjoy allegory when I see it, but oftener I miss it.

    Von Trier's universe thrilled me, though mostly once we moved past the discomfort of her depression -- discomfort to the rest of us, that is. I watched her illness unfold from the thoroughly third person -- never imagining she was me or even a member of my reality. She was fictitious and fantastical and deliberately painful, like horror designed to agonize and entertain you. I endured Part I, probably heroizing those frustrated by her recklessness? In retrospect, what should she have done differently? Not tried to get married on whatever glimmer of hope of happiness? Humans have every right to attempt happiness. Whomever she wrecked on the way, she deserved a shot at a wedding, if she thought it might make her happy. If she never thought it would, and remorselessly wrecked everyone involved, that's another story. I'm not sure which is true. I give her every forgiveness to attempt happiness, unless among equal opportunities she's remorselessly choosing those that hurt others. But maybe the wedding was a last valiant effort. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps until the incident with the guy on the golf course. That's reckless at best (sadomasochist at worst... I guess all moral actions are sadomasochist at worst).

    I empathize with Claire and her husband. I've been alternately patient and incredulous dealing with another's chronic, senseless misery. It is miserable and helpless and baffling. I think I perceived those two characters accurately 7.5 years ago. Justine and the foreign planet were the only alien elements. Justine was like a foreign planet -- alien and intolerable. Claire was all-too-human. I perceived her, though I missed her moonlight.

    Part II is thrilling even bereft of allegory, as I could well have told you in college. I vividly remembered three moments from the movie: the planet overfills the wire ring; we realize John gave up; Claire panics upon final impact. Other hazier memories: the incident with the guy on the golf course; uncomfortable speeches; Justine basking by the creek; the early collision animation; nothing about real depression and its fallout.

    I really like this movie. I wish I loved a character more -- Claire is just a little too anxious and maternal. If she wasn't, we wouldn't have such a foil, but I may love the movie more. It's hard to love a movie without loving or holistically empathizing with a character, if it's character-driven at all. Claire was a little too anxious and motherly. Contrast Gainsbourg's role with her other two sandwiching it in the Depression trilogy. I admire the combination.