Band of Brothers
While highly romanticized in style, I'd say the content was true and realistic. The amount of time spent on details was incredible, but that is to be expected of such a noteworthy historical remake. This series originally aired on HBO draws you in and creates a world of its own, which good cinema does. It's something else to create a lasting world after the DVD is turned off, which this also does.
The characters are all genuine, both in spirit, their acting, and in looks and language. This is one of the best rebuildings of history I've seen on any screen as far as authenticity. One expects some emotional buildup to the scenes in episode 9 of the Jewish camps they found, and there certainly was. It was an incredibly good choice to contrast the war-end atmosphere of American plundering, the concerns of a drunken Lieutenant about his ongoing problems at home and a divorce pending, and sexual escapades, with that of the new discovery of the death camps. It was portrayed accurately and without a great deal of aplomb in scope in order to demonstrate the real surprise of the findings. They also demonstrate the reality of the situation of not knowing immediately what to do with all those displaced men. There were no women shown at this particular camp that was found, as have other cinema expositions of the same nature, such as Schindler's List. But the emotions and realism were nonetheless clear and present. Animosity was dealt with fairly and I didn't feel that there was an attempt at creating a sense of "American scourge", or rather the slanting of the piece to make American involvement somehow look bad, as has been the case with so many other productions on Korea and Vietnam. The soldiers' real feelings, and justifiably so under the circumstances, were brought out in the scene where so many surrendered Germans were marching the opposite direction of the invading army. But Americans were not portrayed as a brutal or demoralizing force. I'd say this was a very fair representation of the actuality of the war, and in no way sensationalized. 5 stars.
Steve
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Sunday, June 05, 2005
The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy
There is always a “mole”, and the old saying comes true once again, “Follow the Money”.
These 2 films are about as action-packed a suspense thriller as you can get. The first one was more artfully photographed than the 2nd, and depended much less on the moving camera and special effects for its real thrill. It also depended much less on the amount of “drive time” that we get in Supremacy. There were a lot more smashed cars in Supremacy than in Identity. Losing the favorite female early on gave quite a bit of motivation to the audience, juxtaposing the beauty and romance of their initial location in India with that of the cold blue world of Russia, where we end.
But in the end, to have the satisfaction of possible redemption for Borne in finding his true identity, and the fact that he was able to get to the root of his bad dreams and reconcile as best he could with the Russian girl, facing the very thing that we are led to hate by this work, was satisfaction indeed. It felt well-rounded and not a bit trite; albeit overdue it would seem by the length of the story. It might also have worked if he somehow ended up dead in the girl’s apartment at the last, telling her of her parent’s fate and coming to a sort of conclusion himself. We could have learned of his own true life in a moment in which the CIA chief female figure walks in into the Netski girl’s apartment to find him dead there and in a brief moment tells the onlookers his real name, and who he “would have been”.
But all in all it was very satisfactory, and a very personal ending. Normally it’s just about the bad guys and the good guys, and once again we have that running in the background, but at least here there is so much more than just the stakes of cash verses altruism, or some version of lust verses ethics. Here, as I’ve said, a face is put on the “job”. Bourne’s searching to piece the dream back together is our searching to put pieces back together from the torn fragments of our existence too.
And you can tell it's not all about "Finding the Money", as that set of facts does not figure in to the story until almost the end, and in one moment (albeit a chiefly weak cinematic moment and fairly forced - one of the weakest moments of these 2 films)the literal beans are spilled about how much money it all is and who is controlling it, and where it came from.
There is so much in the world that is violent and out of our control. Taking back control and finding the source of our anxiety, and then rooting it out and apologizing for it makes for great story. It is what we really all want to do. There is an anxiety in reality that lurks beneath all of our waking days, and we long to root it out and put it in the light; face it down. We all long to come to a place of reality and integrity and would love to expose the hidden faces of those behind the scenes who bring corruption and greed. But the problem in most cases is that we have also all partaken to some degree in that out-of-control scenario.
The Bourne Identity and Supremacy are about conscience. Conscience outlives even memory. We may not remember specifically, or even know all that we have done, but we sense that it is not made right. We just will not rest until all is made right again.
Steve
There is always a “mole”, and the old saying comes true once again, “Follow the Money”.
These 2 films are about as action-packed a suspense thriller as you can get. The first one was more artfully photographed than the 2nd, and depended much less on the moving camera and special effects for its real thrill. It also depended much less on the amount of “drive time” that we get in Supremacy. There were a lot more smashed cars in Supremacy than in Identity. Losing the favorite female early on gave quite a bit of motivation to the audience, juxtaposing the beauty and romance of their initial location in India with that of the cold blue world of Russia, where we end.
But in the end, to have the satisfaction of possible redemption for Borne in finding his true identity, and the fact that he was able to get to the root of his bad dreams and reconcile as best he could with the Russian girl, facing the very thing that we are led to hate by this work, was satisfaction indeed. It felt well-rounded and not a bit trite; albeit overdue it would seem by the length of the story. It might also have worked if he somehow ended up dead in the girl’s apartment at the last, telling her of her parent’s fate and coming to a sort of conclusion himself. We could have learned of his own true life in a moment in which the CIA chief female figure walks in into the Netski girl’s apartment to find him dead there and in a brief moment tells the onlookers his real name, and who he “would have been”.
But all in all it was very satisfactory, and a very personal ending. Normally it’s just about the bad guys and the good guys, and once again we have that running in the background, but at least here there is so much more than just the stakes of cash verses altruism, or some version of lust verses ethics. Here, as I’ve said, a face is put on the “job”. Bourne’s searching to piece the dream back together is our searching to put pieces back together from the torn fragments of our existence too.
And you can tell it's not all about "Finding the Money", as that set of facts does not figure in to the story until almost the end, and in one moment (albeit a chiefly weak cinematic moment and fairly forced - one of the weakest moments of these 2 films)the literal beans are spilled about how much money it all is and who is controlling it, and where it came from.
There is so much in the world that is violent and out of our control. Taking back control and finding the source of our anxiety, and then rooting it out and apologizing for it makes for great story. It is what we really all want to do. There is an anxiety in reality that lurks beneath all of our waking days, and we long to root it out and put it in the light; face it down. We all long to come to a place of reality and integrity and would love to expose the hidden faces of those behind the scenes who bring corruption and greed. But the problem in most cases is that we have also all partaken to some degree in that out-of-control scenario.
The Bourne Identity and Supremacy are about conscience. Conscience outlives even memory. We may not remember specifically, or even know all that we have done, but we sense that it is not made right. We just will not rest until all is made right again.
Steve
Monday, May 30, 2005
Come and See - Elim Klimov -
Russia: 1985
"The Greatest War Movie Ever Made" - J.G. Ballard, author of many bizarre works of fiction.
Well, ok, so this would be a film that Ballard would like. One of his recent books is prefaced by William Buroughs. But Sean Penn, known for his highly conservative and quiet demeanor (ah hem) also commented, "What I saw will stay with me forever...it's a masterpiece..."
And truly it is.
The class I taught this spring semester was about equally divided between horrified and enthralled. I admit that prior to the semester's beginning I had dismissed showing this film because of it's supposed difficulty in obtaining it (which turned out to not be true as a new DVD came out), and also because I was not sure that it's extremity was necessary in the depiction of formalistic style. There is plenty to pick from in the surrealistic end of the style spectrum; we did end up watching Big Fish as the class choice for our final film. But Come and Sees hugely sweeping and ethereal sensations were something that I remembered from the time I saw it in Chicago at the Music Box theatre when it was new.
I remember getting tickets with a friend, a room mate named Troy. We were both up for a movie, and I was up for about anything that was playing at the Music Box because I needed a taste of downown, living in the suburbs, and in an open kind of mood. Downtown, coffee, and culture was appealing. But from the moment the lights went down and Troy and I dived into the realm of the depiction of WWII Russia, we were no longer present in Chicago. In fact, it was some time before I could really return. I remember emerging from the theatre and it was raining, a nice heavy summer rain, and I stopped under the marquise and asked Troy, "Are we really here? Back in the US?" We had a quiet trip home.
The integrity of place that Klimov demonstrates never once breaks away in this cinematographic masterpiece. While there are moments of lengthy agony, as the "swim" through the swamp, they are never inappropriate, nor really overly lengthy without purpose. The style is extremely personal, and is so very much inside the Point of View of the main character, a young boy who is agonizingly transformed through the events he experiences during a chapter in the Russian invasion by the Nazis. We are taken from beauty to horror, from innocence to jaded and hardened bitterness. We are exposed to graphic violence superimposed over joyous and raucous celebration by the temporary conquerors. In his work here that depicts the reality of this event firmly established in history Klimov does 2 things simultaneously: he veers far into the realm of expressionistic techniques, while also bringing such a vision of realism to the screen. One of the most noticeable is his use of sound. While we watch Florya, the young boy, struggle with the destruction of his family, we literally hear the ringing of his ears, and the eerie superimposition of sounds of screaming and voices over the ring and hum still left in his head. We are watching him from the outside, but experiencing what he is hearing, and also vicariously through the torturous timing of the shots.
This film is all about contrasts. It is filled with almost mystical lyrical symbolism all throughout, such as the raining scene in the woods at the beginning. In the midst of the overhanging threat of the enemy, Florya, our young boy, has teamed up with Glasha, a beautiful girl of traditional Russian appearance. In the space of a short time they have a courting time, build a "home", sleep together to keep warm, and are visited by a stork. The spell of the dream is broken by Florya as he then remembers his family and returns to the village to find them. What follows is horrifying in its reality, but revealing in the way that Klimov uses the characters to play against each other in their emotional states to comment on the difference between the reality and denial that the citizens would experience during this historically horrifying ordeal.
Often forgotten in the wake of the Jewish holocaust and the amount of attention that has been given to that over time since the war, the Russian invasion was no less an ethnic cleansing. But once you've "Come and Seen" from the Klimov perspective, you will never forget it.
Here is another excellent review:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/02/20/come.html
Russia: 1985
"The Greatest War Movie Ever Made" - J.G. Ballard, author of many bizarre works of fiction.
Well, ok, so this would be a film that Ballard would like. One of his recent books is prefaced by William Buroughs. But Sean Penn, known for his highly conservative and quiet demeanor (ah hem) also commented, "What I saw will stay with me forever...it's a masterpiece..."
And truly it is.
The class I taught this spring semester was about equally divided between horrified and enthralled. I admit that prior to the semester's beginning I had dismissed showing this film because of it's supposed difficulty in obtaining it (which turned out to not be true as a new DVD came out), and also because I was not sure that it's extremity was necessary in the depiction of formalistic style. There is plenty to pick from in the surrealistic end of the style spectrum; we did end up watching Big Fish as the class choice for our final film. But Come and Sees hugely sweeping and ethereal sensations were something that I remembered from the time I saw it in Chicago at the Music Box theatre when it was new.
I remember getting tickets with a friend, a room mate named Troy. We were both up for a movie, and I was up for about anything that was playing at the Music Box because I needed a taste of downown, living in the suburbs, and in an open kind of mood. Downtown, coffee, and culture was appealing. But from the moment the lights went down and Troy and I dived into the realm of the depiction of WWII Russia, we were no longer present in Chicago. In fact, it was some time before I could really return. I remember emerging from the theatre and it was raining, a nice heavy summer rain, and I stopped under the marquise and asked Troy, "Are we really here? Back in the US?" We had a quiet trip home.
The integrity of place that Klimov demonstrates never once breaks away in this cinematographic masterpiece. While there are moments of lengthy agony, as the "swim" through the swamp, they are never inappropriate, nor really overly lengthy without purpose. The style is extremely personal, and is so very much inside the Point of View of the main character, a young boy who is agonizingly transformed through the events he experiences during a chapter in the Russian invasion by the Nazis. We are taken from beauty to horror, from innocence to jaded and hardened bitterness. We are exposed to graphic violence superimposed over joyous and raucous celebration by the temporary conquerors. In his work here that depicts the reality of this event firmly established in history Klimov does 2 things simultaneously: he veers far into the realm of expressionistic techniques, while also bringing such a vision of realism to the screen. One of the most noticeable is his use of sound. While we watch Florya, the young boy, struggle with the destruction of his family, we literally hear the ringing of his ears, and the eerie superimposition of sounds of screaming and voices over the ring and hum still left in his head. We are watching him from the outside, but experiencing what he is hearing, and also vicariously through the torturous timing of the shots.
This film is all about contrasts. It is filled with almost mystical lyrical symbolism all throughout, such as the raining scene in the woods at the beginning. In the midst of the overhanging threat of the enemy, Florya, our young boy, has teamed up with Glasha, a beautiful girl of traditional Russian appearance. In the space of a short time they have a courting time, build a "home", sleep together to keep warm, and are visited by a stork. The spell of the dream is broken by Florya as he then remembers his family and returns to the village to find them. What follows is horrifying in its reality, but revealing in the way that Klimov uses the characters to play against each other in their emotional states to comment on the difference between the reality and denial that the citizens would experience during this historically horrifying ordeal.
Often forgotten in the wake of the Jewish holocaust and the amount of attention that has been given to that over time since the war, the Russian invasion was no less an ethnic cleansing. But once you've "Come and Seen" from the Klimov perspective, you will never forget it.
Here is another excellent review:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/02/20/come.html
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Definitely different movie than "A Beautiful Mind".
I greatly enjoyed the film. My overall sense was that it was very positive. The overall sense is what I always react to after a viewing. This was a very potent piece of film making that definitely must be seen again, not just because it was so delirious and complex; it was that, but because it was so rich in imagery and deserves a second look.
Here are the strongest immediate impressions:
1. We spend the bulk of the story in the EVENTS. Mystery is a good device in a drama. We are forever piecing together the story of the relationship with their brilliant and not-so-brilliant moments, both positive and negative ping-ponging back and forth, and both reflecting the different perspectives of the characters. Like the underwear on the couch scene, then we are in the market hearing them have a disagreement about having a baby (another strong character-revealing moment), the jumping moments are reflective of the random way in which we process information. But it's the EVENTS that are the primary key to the overall direction of the story. They are actually the showpiece.
I viewed this film for the first time tonight with a large group of college students, and hung out to hear all the talk afterwards. If I had made a comment in the group I would have noted that there was a film in the 70s called Brainstorm. In that story, which stars a much younger looking Christopher Walken, the couple are on the skids and there is much stress. He is a scientist who has discovered how to record brain activity in such a way as a person can play it all back, and others can actually "be in" someone's mind that way. In any case, he makes a recording of all the great moments in his life that he's had with his spouse that are coming from inside his mind, and then he plays it back for her by having her put the transmission device on her head. She relives all those great moments from his perspective. It was a beautiful flashback sequence that spelled out their entire relationship of times past in a very effective way. In the story it saves their marriage.
In Spotless Mind this same type of device is used in a much more complex and drawn out kind of way. The many separate events of their lives are portrayed like a huge moving scrapbook. And the more we peel away the pages the more grey the backgrounds become in the "pictures", and the faster things begin to disappear around them. (I loved the fading book covers and signs in the bookstore near the end). We can focus more and more on the characters because the surroundings become more and more surreal and unstable. There is a house that had his mother's face in the window looking out at him. It becomes a paint-peeling shack. There is a big house that they almost spend the night in the first time around. In the latter part of the story it is falling apart as they converse. It's just downright cinema poetry at that point. Nice. But the filmmakers didn't stop at that. There is the car sequence as well, with Carey riding in it looking out while "frame" after "frame" of his life with her is going by, all mixed and intertwined, like the piles of filing cabinets in one room, and the car covered by a broken up shell of a house. It was all so fast I had to see that part again to take it in.
2. A device that this film uses to draw us into the story is first of all our natural desire for "the guy to get the girl", or vice verse. We naturally want people to meet, fall in love, and be together. It is the motivation for thousands of stories, and once again a simple human (Godly) drive is used to propel them together in this story. From the very first shot of him at the beach with her in the background at a distance(a cinematic device that is also foreshadow of what is to come - her being a part of his past and in his mind - there she is almost standing on his right shoulder) all the way through the train sequence, we are, with director Michael Gondry, putting them together. We want them to end up together. It doesn't matter how wildly different they are. It doesn't matter that she seems totally wigged and he seems totally inept. We are "with" her when she stops him from going out of the apartment the first time and asks him to call her. We are glad that they don't have just cheap sex and he doesn't succumb to her "part of the seduction" thing, almost throwing, well ok, throwing herself on him. We like it that he calls her right away, we feel his vulnerability and some innocence in that, and also wonder about rather it is going to work at that point. I feared at the moment he called her that he was going to get "burned" by the relationship, or hurt. When the title sequence came up late into the show it also took me back somewhat, and of course that whole reasoning didn't fit together until the end when he wakes up again and repeats his whole day. But no matter what, through thick and thin, we are WITH them because of the natural chemistry that is created in the story. The film maker is using that most natural tendency of our desire for a positive outcome here to perfection in keeping us glued to the plot. It also comes VERY strongly into play during the moments when he is struggling to wake up and stop the process. We want to as well. I could almost feel the suffocation. I felt my breath shorten with him, and realized I was holding my breath at the one moment when he first opens his eyes.
3. I don't believe that this film is about the ethical issue of the science of taking someone's memory, just like I don't believe that the movie Alien is about space monsters. That's just a story device, and a good one. This story is all about the preciousness of the moments we have with each other and how over time those moments can erode because we forget them in the immediacy of a bad time, or we allow the grievous side of a relationship to take precedence, as when he keeps repeating to himself, and hears the doctor's voice repeating to him the phrase of their interview, "She grew tired, and wanted a change".
4. Going back to the car sequence - when he is seeing a review of his memories going past - there was always a very powerful sense of the interrelatedness of everything. The theme of strong connectedness was brought out in 2 ways in the story. There was much juxtaposition of the "facts" of their lives intertwining. Events were also tied to objects. And there was also the very strong resistance that Joel had on his bed to the computer process, seeming to "erase" all their progress so they had to start over at another point. Those story points powerfully delivered the idea that good and bad are both taken together, so that in the climactic moment in the hallway we understand why they say "Ok" to each other, and start laughing at it all. She has just summed up her life's problems of why she is so impulsive and not a good match for him. She is prone to always changing her mind and being flighty, etc. The point is strongly made, I believe that good and bad, the relationship is worth it, even knowing that not all the pieces fit together.
5. I would agree that maybe caution is warned here about leaving the film in an existential state, and that maybe this is humanism in very fine moralistic form. We could easily assess this as feel-good material and dismiss it because of secular roots, but I can see that the foundational principals of what is concluded is nonetheless scripturally sound; spiritually grounded, in that relationships, although flawed, and equally so on both ends, are still worth having. It should also be noted that the ongoing relationship is stressed, and the desire to be together is confirmed.
6. The discussion group took us down the path of pain, and bringing up pain, and the fact that so many war veterans cannot talk about their experiences even to this day. It also noted, and very astutely, that the kind of pain that a veteran might have suffered during war might be one of those kinds of things that could be desirable to erase, or eradicate from memory. I'm not sure we spent enough time on the "pain" discussion. It is in fact through the painful parts of life that we learn and grow. And I'm not so sure that a war veteran should shut out all of that pain. That pain, unfortunately for them, is still part of who they are, and part of who we are. Without that pain we could easily rush into war again, forgetting how much our true worth is, or how precious life is, or the cost involved. Our being "dumped" by a loved one can make the next relationship more cautious, yes, but oh how much more rewarding is the time that it comes together and it begins to work. I want to discuss this more and can't right now, but this area also has to do with our ability to be honest and open in the body. The Church is very much like the secular world in this, in fact maybe worse, in that we cover up the sore spots, and the weaknesses, treating them as discolorations that need to be painted over.
Another later observation on the film:
Another huge point that only became clear after the film is over, at least for me is that the Carey character Joel we see in the beginning, and again in the end upon waking (both times) is MUCH LESS of a person than the person we meet at the party when he actually did meet Winslet for the first time. He was articulate to some degree, and conversant. And how about that Huckleberry Hound thing he did, remember? He did the proverbial joke you would do with someone named Clementine, but on the train he had NO IDEA who Clementine or Huckleberry WAS. NO RECOLLECTION. And here’s the catch – those memories of Huckleberry Hound were another part of him altogether from his childhood or elsewhere, not part of his relationship that was supposed to be erased with Clementine!! The other “attached” parts of him got erased too. Therefore I'd have to conclude that the story has much more riding under it than just a relationship story, as complex as that is. It is also a confirmation that we are interconnected through many and various ways and highly complex beings, and that love and relationships are intertwined with our whole self.
I’ve heard it said, and I’m sure you can collaborate this, that the longer that people spend together in marriage, the more they actually begin to physically look like each other to some degree. The effects that we have on each other are so much more complex than selective memory blots.
When we meet Joel in the awakened state he is almost comatose, lacking depth and emotion, not being able to get beyond the word “nice”. He is thinking to himself that he always messes up with the ladies, etc. But as it turns out he wasn’t all that messed up to begin with. He was definitely severely lessened by the erasure operation. You notice that the colors are extremely muted in the very first scene (that we see twice); the banged up car, the interior of the apartment looking so normal in medium shot, the dull colors of the beach scene shot on a grey day, and the train station. And then into his life (again, as we find out) comes Tangerine, and “Caustic Blue” or whatever that color was she had in her hair. Later when they are shot in their various scenes together there is a different film stock used altogether. The overhead shot of them on the ice is very vibrant and high contrast verses the muted faster stock used for the initial outside footage. I’d say that the way that the high-contrast indoor footage in the apartment, or on the couch together, or wherever, in bed, and please notice the high colors of the sheets and the shots under the covers when they are looking at each other in that little “cave” world enclosed by those covers, is all meant to contrast with the footage “without” her, or whenever in the memory segments she is disappearing. I’d be willing to bet that if we went shot by shot we would find those differences. Kudos to the cinematographer. Of course much of that work can be done post, but it’s always better to do it with the film stock original if you can. Gives a nicer look. This would be one case where film stock (original or post) played a major role in the development and affirmation of character AND plot.
Definitely different movie than "A Beautiful Mind".
I greatly enjoyed the film. My overall sense was that it was very positive. The overall sense is what I always react to after a viewing. This was a very potent piece of film making that definitely must be seen again, not just because it was so delirious and complex; it was that, but because it was so rich in imagery and deserves a second look.
Here are the strongest immediate impressions:
1. We spend the bulk of the story in the EVENTS. Mystery is a good device in a drama. We are forever piecing together the story of the relationship with their brilliant and not-so-brilliant moments, both positive and negative ping-ponging back and forth, and both reflecting the different perspectives of the characters. Like the underwear on the couch scene, then we are in the market hearing them have a disagreement about having a baby (another strong character-revealing moment), the jumping moments are reflective of the random way in which we process information. But it's the EVENTS that are the primary key to the overall direction of the story. They are actually the showpiece.
I viewed this film for the first time tonight with a large group of college students, and hung out to hear all the talk afterwards. If I had made a comment in the group I would have noted that there was a film in the 70s called Brainstorm. In that story, which stars a much younger looking Christopher Walken, the couple are on the skids and there is much stress. He is a scientist who has discovered how to record brain activity in such a way as a person can play it all back, and others can actually "be in" someone's mind that way. In any case, he makes a recording of all the great moments in his life that he's had with his spouse that are coming from inside his mind, and then he plays it back for her by having her put the transmission device on her head. She relives all those great moments from his perspective. It was a beautiful flashback sequence that spelled out their entire relationship of times past in a very effective way. In the story it saves their marriage.
In Spotless Mind this same type of device is used in a much more complex and drawn out kind of way. The many separate events of their lives are portrayed like a huge moving scrapbook. And the more we peel away the pages the more grey the backgrounds become in the "pictures", and the faster things begin to disappear around them. (I loved the fading book covers and signs in the bookstore near the end). We can focus more and more on the characters because the surroundings become more and more surreal and unstable. There is a house that had his mother's face in the window looking out at him. It becomes a paint-peeling shack. There is a big house that they almost spend the night in the first time around. In the latter part of the story it is falling apart as they converse. It's just downright cinema poetry at that point. Nice. But the filmmakers didn't stop at that. There is the car sequence as well, with Carey riding in it looking out while "frame" after "frame" of his life with her is going by, all mixed and intertwined, like the piles of filing cabinets in one room, and the car covered by a broken up shell of a house. It was all so fast I had to see that part again to take it in.
2. A device that this film uses to draw us into the story is first of all our natural desire for "the guy to get the girl", or vice verse. We naturally want people to meet, fall in love, and be together. It is the motivation for thousands of stories, and once again a simple human (Godly) drive is used to propel them together in this story. From the very first shot of him at the beach with her in the background at a distance(a cinematic device that is also foreshadow of what is to come - her being a part of his past and in his mind - there she is almost standing on his right shoulder) all the way through the train sequence, we are, with director Michael Gondry, putting them together. We want them to end up together. It doesn't matter how wildly different they are. It doesn't matter that she seems totally wigged and he seems totally inept. We are "with" her when she stops him from going out of the apartment the first time and asks him to call her. We are glad that they don't have just cheap sex and he doesn't succumb to her "part of the seduction" thing, almost throwing, well ok, throwing herself on him. We like it that he calls her right away, we feel his vulnerability and some innocence in that, and also wonder about rather it is going to work at that point. I feared at the moment he called her that he was going to get "burned" by the relationship, or hurt. When the title sequence came up late into the show it also took me back somewhat, and of course that whole reasoning didn't fit together until the end when he wakes up again and repeats his whole day. But no matter what, through thick and thin, we are WITH them because of the natural chemistry that is created in the story. The film maker is using that most natural tendency of our desire for a positive outcome here to perfection in keeping us glued to the plot. It also comes VERY strongly into play during the moments when he is struggling to wake up and stop the process. We want to as well. I could almost feel the suffocation. I felt my breath shorten with him, and realized I was holding my breath at the one moment when he first opens his eyes.
3. I don't believe that this film is about the ethical issue of the science of taking someone's memory, just like I don't believe that the movie Alien is about space monsters. That's just a story device, and a good one. This story is all about the preciousness of the moments we have with each other and how over time those moments can erode because we forget them in the immediacy of a bad time, or we allow the grievous side of a relationship to take precedence, as when he keeps repeating to himself, and hears the doctor's voice repeating to him the phrase of their interview, "She grew tired, and wanted a change".
4. Going back to the car sequence - when he is seeing a review of his memories going past - there was always a very powerful sense of the interrelatedness of everything. The theme of strong connectedness was brought out in 2 ways in the story. There was much juxtaposition of the "facts" of their lives intertwining. Events were also tied to objects. And there was also the very strong resistance that Joel had on his bed to the computer process, seeming to "erase" all their progress so they had to start over at another point. Those story points powerfully delivered the idea that good and bad are both taken together, so that in the climactic moment in the hallway we understand why they say "Ok" to each other, and start laughing at it all. She has just summed up her life's problems of why she is so impulsive and not a good match for him. She is prone to always changing her mind and being flighty, etc. The point is strongly made, I believe that good and bad, the relationship is worth it, even knowing that not all the pieces fit together.
5. I would agree that maybe caution is warned here about leaving the film in an existential state, and that maybe this is humanism in very fine moralistic form. We could easily assess this as feel-good material and dismiss it because of secular roots, but I can see that the foundational principals of what is concluded is nonetheless scripturally sound; spiritually grounded, in that relationships, although flawed, and equally so on both ends, are still worth having. It should also be noted that the ongoing relationship is stressed, and the desire to be together is confirmed.
6. The discussion group took us down the path of pain, and bringing up pain, and the fact that so many war veterans cannot talk about their experiences even to this day. It also noted, and very astutely, that the kind of pain that a veteran might have suffered during war might be one of those kinds of things that could be desirable to erase, or eradicate from memory. I'm not sure we spent enough time on the "pain" discussion. It is in fact through the painful parts of life that we learn and grow. And I'm not so sure that a war veteran should shut out all of that pain. That pain, unfortunately for them, is still part of who they are, and part of who we are. Without that pain we could easily rush into war again, forgetting how much our true worth is, or how precious life is, or the cost involved. Our being "dumped" by a loved one can make the next relationship more cautious, yes, but oh how much more rewarding is the time that it comes together and it begins to work. I want to discuss this more and can't right now, but this area also has to do with our ability to be honest and open in the body. The Church is very much like the secular world in this, in fact maybe worse, in that we cover up the sore spots, and the weaknesses, treating them as discolorations that need to be painted over.
Another later observation on the film:
Another huge point that only became clear after the film is over, at least for me is that the Carey character Joel we see in the beginning, and again in the end upon waking (both times) is MUCH LESS of a person than the person we meet at the party when he actually did meet Winslet for the first time. He was articulate to some degree, and conversant. And how about that Huckleberry Hound thing he did, remember? He did the proverbial joke you would do with someone named Clementine, but on the train he had NO IDEA who Clementine or Huckleberry WAS. NO RECOLLECTION. And here’s the catch – those memories of Huckleberry Hound were another part of him altogether from his childhood or elsewhere, not part of his relationship that was supposed to be erased with Clementine!! The other “attached” parts of him got erased too. Therefore I'd have to conclude that the story has much more riding under it than just a relationship story, as complex as that is. It is also a confirmation that we are interconnected through many and various ways and highly complex beings, and that love and relationships are intertwined with our whole self.
I’ve heard it said, and I’m sure you can collaborate this, that the longer that people spend together in marriage, the more they actually begin to physically look like each other to some degree. The effects that we have on each other are so much more complex than selective memory blots.
When we meet Joel in the awakened state he is almost comatose, lacking depth and emotion, not being able to get beyond the word “nice”. He is thinking to himself that he always messes up with the ladies, etc. But as it turns out he wasn’t all that messed up to begin with. He was definitely severely lessened by the erasure operation. You notice that the colors are extremely muted in the very first scene (that we see twice); the banged up car, the interior of the apartment looking so normal in medium shot, the dull colors of the beach scene shot on a grey day, and the train station. And then into his life (again, as we find out) comes Tangerine, and “Caustic Blue” or whatever that color was she had in her hair. Later when they are shot in their various scenes together there is a different film stock used altogether. The overhead shot of them on the ice is very vibrant and high contrast verses the muted faster stock used for the initial outside footage. I’d say that the way that the high-contrast indoor footage in the apartment, or on the couch together, or wherever, in bed, and please notice the high colors of the sheets and the shots under the covers when they are looking at each other in that little “cave” world enclosed by those covers, is all meant to contrast with the footage “without” her, or whenever in the memory segments she is disappearing. I’d be willing to bet that if we went shot by shot we would find those differences. Kudos to the cinematographer. Of course much of that work can be done post, but it’s always better to do it with the film stock original if you can. Gives a nicer look. This would be one case where film stock (original or post) played a major role in the development and affirmation of character AND plot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)