Maintenance

"My name's Bobby Peru. Like the country."

I know we aren't friends or buddies to share our lifes between each other, but still. Due to a major maintenance in my life (moving from Finland to the Netherlands, changing jobs, plus the usual Christmas visit to another 2 countries) the blog goes offline for a while. 

Be aware, "Bobby Peru don't come up for air!"

See you in 2009! 

Bisztrókirálynő (2003)

Another Hungarian short, this time picked out from the selection of Hungarian Short Films vol. 2. As with Márton Szirmai's Tripe and Onion the story, especially the funny turn at its end was the reason of talking about it, Márton Csillag's short is more interesting due its cinematic style.

What I really liked in Bisztrókirálynő ("The Queen of the Bar"?) is the way how the film combines the traditional, silent era's film language with the absolute contemporary set. Talking about the film language of the silent era, the film goes back to the first years' picture quality, gestures, acting, camera handling, framing, music (at least how and what we associate to the era), its speed and rhythm, etc. This mixture gives a special feeling for the viewer, especially for those, who have seen several silent movies from the very beginning of the film history. This feeling is nothing else but an encounter with our temporality, more precisely confrontation with the ephemerality of our view: today, in 2008 we see and feel this particular film's problems of the above detailed cinematic qualities, but these feelings are compensated with the knowledge on the early cinema's production standards and styles. We know how the early films looked like, how they were conveying information, how they handled continuity, how their actors had to overact, and so on.

Above the obvious practice reasons (the film was made for a film school) there is one important consequence: This confrontation and recognition is extremely essential for the reflexive nature of our viewing strategies and interpretations.

If you sacrifice 5 minutes for the film you'll see these usually exploited and ruined archaizing cinematic approaches* are working very well and elaborate in this try. One more thing: it's Hungarian, but don't afraid, Bisztrókirálynő is 99% silent (I mean the film:) without any dialogues.

* for example music video- and advertisement clips are exploiting the early style, where usually their focuses are on another values (the band, the image, the product, ...) than the recreation of the history of film style.

8/10

Film-induced tourism

On the other day I was watching Rossellini's Viaggio in Italia (Journey to Italy, 1954) and thinking about its innocent, unintended approaches on film-induced tourism. Film-induced tourism is under the umbrella of cultural tourism – to be clear what does it mean take a look at its definition by Hudson and Brent Ritchie:

„Sometimes called movie-induced or film-induced tourism, film tourism is defined here as tourist visits to a destination or attraction as a result of the destination’s being featured on television, video, or the cinema screen.” (HUDSON, Simon & BRENT RITCHIE, J.R.: 2006. Promoting Destinations via Film Tourism: An Empirical Identification of Supporting Marketing Initiatives. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44, May, p.387)

So during watching Ingrid Bergman's flâneurish visits on Southern Italian sites – Naples and Pompeii – I was wondering how many tourists (or even disaffected couples...) decided to travel to this side of Europe just because they've seen the film. We exactly know how the directors of the Neorealism were fought against the government's censorial efforts which tried to sweep all the postwar problems under the society's carpet. Already at the end of the '40s Italy stepped on the well paved sidewalk of the prosperity, where the realism didn't mean poverty and social exploitation anymore. Finally, Giulio Andreotti's law in 1949 officially controlled and restricted the possible ways of talking about contemporary Italy (if I'm not mistaken, he is "that" Andreotti..). From the time being the voice of Visconti (Ossessione, 1943), De Sica (Ladri di biciclette/The Bycicle Thief, 1948) or De Santis (Riso amaro/Bitter Rice, 1949) couldn't be as effective (and "real") as it was before (btw, according to the legend, after the screening of Visconti's Ossessione Mussolini himself stood up furiously and shouted: "This is not Italy!"). To take into consideration of this contextual background some might get answers on the baffling mixture of a depraved relationship and the sites' beauty, moreover maybe on the strange, sudden ending of the film as well.

But back to the film-induced tourism: Compare Rossellini's intentions which were narrowed and shaped by an indirect censorship (they subsided only those films which created a positive view on the country) with a production which obviously and deliberately serves interests of certain countries' or cities' touristic aims. Mentioning an extreme example: Phyllida Lloyd's terrible (a simple exploitation of the deserved success of the ABBA songs – as a cinematic production doesn't worth anything) Mamma Mia! (2008) was openly sponsored by the Hellenic Film Commission Office, and as a result the represented island (Skopelos (its made-up name in the movie is Kalokairi)) might face with an extreme growth in tourism. There's nothing wrong with this – the phenomenon is more and more part of the productions' PR logic. 

See the better example of Martin McDonagh's In Bruges (2008). Better, because it's "product placement" is less obvious, at least it is covered with an ironic voice (McDonagh's apologies – following his film's unexpected success – in the Flemish television on the possible American tourist hordes visiting Bruges was really funny). Click here for a movie-map of the city.

What is more interesting is the elevation of the consciousness around the importance of the film-induced tourism (from the "wait-and-see" PR to the anticipatory strategies), the sites appearence as an integrated product, the changing film language which bends in order to catalisate the need for travel in us. But this is another story... (currently I'm working on a pilot project which combines the values of the film-induced tourism with the European Capital of Culture brand's potential).

Grand Hotel (1932)

Since I have an assingment to write something about possible connections between films and hotels it was rather obvious that I need to evoke my memories on Edmund Goulding's classic Grand Hotel. If a movie has a protagonist called Greta Garbo it is always a pleasure..

But – as the last time I used to do – I'll focus only one scene again, which is the first from the film. It's its first "chapter", a perfect exposition (notice the nice fade in and fade out), a clear-out way of introduce the main characters (Senf, Kringelein, Preysing, Suzette, the Baron and the Doctor). This is Classic Hollywood cinema: informative, economic, progressive (using the new possibilities of the sound), goal-oriented, functional, consistent and continuous (Kringelein mentions Preysing who appears immediately in the phone booth). Every bit of information serve the fast and economic introduction of the hotel guests: How? What are you doing when you call somebody? Normally you introduce yourself...

(More about the rules of the exposition in David Howard's classic on screenwriting: "Exposition is a cousin of backstory. (...) exposition is information the audience needs in order to participate in and understand the events and relationships in the story." (p.158.))

Talking about speed. Bordwell's thoughts about the intensified continuity (The Way Hollywood Tells It) and his revisited ideas on the topic could fit here, but better take a look on the rules of an exposition. Basically there are two ways: it comes right at the beginning communicatively sharing concentrated information on characters or on the following situation, OR it might come late to delay information in order to maintain and uphold suspense. Goulding's film obviously choose the communicative way.

If we draw simultaneous consequences from Bordwell's idea on raising speed and the first example of a classic exposition, we might see the real differences between the classic style and its new Hollywoodian (or European) followers. The rules of exposition didn't change at all, only the original conventions altered by the style.

Exposition nr. 1: Grand Hotel (1932):

Exposition nr. 2: Trainspotting (Danny Boyle, 1996):

(One more funny thing. Be aware of Preysing's English (3rd and 8th speaker in Grand Hotel's scene), who – since he plays a German entrepreneur – curiously imitates German language. "Is that you papa? Ja?! Ja!" :)

9/10

Szalontüdő / Tripe and Onions (2006)

Dear reader,

in this snowstormy dark Sunday afternoon let me introduce a short film, actually an almost seven minutes movie which was chosen as the best Hungarian short film in 2007. A typical one-timer gag which – at its twisty end – definitely pays your attention off.

Directed by Márton Szirmai (directorial debut),

D.O.P. Gergely Pohárnok (remember his name since he is one of the best Hungarian cinematographer)

Screenplay by András Nagy Bandó, a well known Hungarian humorist (he isn't a comedian anymore – sank too deep into Hung. politics (became a mayor of a small town), and probably lost his sense of humour...)

16mm / K.V.B.

The film, and other Hungarian short movies are available at the ambitious Daazo website. Good luck guys!

7/10

Play Time (1967)

During reading a perfectly detailed review on Jacques Tati's excessive cinematic masterwork, a small, but absolutely talkative example came into my mind what I'd like to share with you this time.

The mentioned and other reviews on the film are approaching from Tati's critical point of view on modernity, more precisely on modern architecture's and modern cities' sterile, alienating, dehumanising contexts (Le Corbusier: "the machines for living"). These contributions are sharing valuable investigations on the co-operation of the visible and audible (Tati's films have little audible dialogue, but carefully integrated sound effects which are participating in the creation of his jokes), on the attributes of Monsieur Hulot's character and its relation to the early silent comedy-stars (eg. Chaplin's physical attributes and moralizing character), on the unbelievable (expensive) sets of the film (he fabricated a huge set called Tativille, based on Paris' recently built (not existing anymore: 1963-1993) Esso-Tower), on the modern technologies, billed as conveniences, which are actually complicate interferences to natural human interaction (my favorite example is the completely silent door, which can't express what the characters feel during shutting it furiously:), in general on criticism about homogenity, standardization, functionality, automatization, ephemerality, unbearability.

All the above are true, but the question is still open: HOW the film's comedic practice is able to deliver all these critical platforms on modernity? The chosen scene tries to exemplify it: the short scene looks like a simple, very-very basic joke, but if we look closer how Tati built up the situation, we'll see that nothing else but the strict environmental shapes become the real protagonist, the real source of the joke.

Notice that the scene starts with a conversation between two characters in the foreground. Their role is to attract our attention, moreover to distract our attention from the glass window behind them (they completely block the view of the doorhandle). They make the way (and our view) free at the very last moment, just before the poor guy runs against the glass. Not only the unlucky character but the viewer can't see either where exactly the glass is. For safety, Tati incases an extra visual trick, namely the overlap between the shapes of the glass door and the building further in the background (plus: the very end a black car arrives to make the door's outline completely visible). See how:

8/10

Whirlpool (1949)

"All the sounds have faded away."

In a hot Summer night of 2007 I've seen first time Otto Preminger's Laura (1944) in a friendly open-air cinema in Vienna. Even if I've found out the trick of its twisty plot, I had to realize that in 1944 its way to mislead the audience was quite unique among the more and more complicated noir films' languages (Bordwell constant argument ("Nothing comes from nothing" – in. The Way Hollywood Tells it, p.75.) on the continuity of the classical film language exeplifies from the '40s the origins of contemporary films' obligatory twisted stories).

But the choosen (and uploaded for you) scene isn't from Laura, but selected from a less known Preminger-noir, Whirlpool (1949). The film's story is rather silly (a quack hypnotist exploits a psychoanalyst's wife to commit a crime...), so let's focus only on the well tempered hypnotic situation and its cinematic execution. The sequence shows the charlatan's first hypnotic try on Ann (after Laura's role we have again Preminger's – and my – favorite Gene Tierney). The shifting states and the differences between the film's reality, the moments of the hypnosis, the hypnotic act, and the coming-back-to-the-reality are told very moderate (almost as undefined way as it was in Laura – remember the misleading moment when Dana Andrews is falling asleep with a booze in his hand...).

Anyway, here the case is more simple: according to the above, there are 4 indistinguished different states within one sequence: 

1. before the hypnosis

2. during the hypnosis

3. under the spell of the hypnosis

4. after the hypnosis

The shifts are visually almost invisible (small changes with the light and the focus), but are well divided with the help of the sound! See how:

1. before the hypnosis: diegetic music (the party's live music)

2. during the hypnosis: silence

3. under the spell of the hypnosis: extra-diegetic music

4. after the hypnosis: the diegetic music fades back.

Preminger's ability to change character objectivity and subjectivity back and forth makes him one of the most exciting directors of his age (it would deserve another post how Tierney's acting supports this tricky shifts: Tierney is as mechanical that sometimes you are not able to recognize the difference between her normal behave (with her guilty kleptomania she is sick anyhow) and her actions under the spell of the hypnosis...). About other examples (without Preminger) of this cinematic shift you can read here.

9/10

Ali (2001)

There shouldn't be any doubt about the fact that Michael Mann is one of the best directors in contemporary film business. I won't argue here, if you don't believe me, maybe you're reading a wrong blog.

He is one of the best, even if his sportfilm, Ali from 2001 induced many contradictory critics (especially in connection with Will Smith's role as Ali, who isn't my favorite actor at all, but I have to admit that in this film he made his transformation into Cassius Clay terrifyingly perfect).

The selected and uploaded scene elevates boxing to artistic registers (Ali's first fight against Sonny Liston, 25th of February, 1964, Miami Beach Florida). How else you could visualize Ali's airy, fluent boxing technique than with an almost invisible cinematic trick. Around 2:59 there is a "flying" leg-movement which is balancing at the border of the fight's raw realism, an exceptional boxer's supernatural ability, and an (almost) unrecognizable stylism of a feature film.

This perfect movement tells more about Ali's famous "swift feet" technics than any biographical documentary.

8/10

Film quiz #2

Let's play! I'll show you one picture and ask three questions (the first gives possible key for the rest / the second is the easiest / about the third I'm the most curious).

1. Which movie is this still from?

2. Who (whose cut out poster?) is on the right??

3. What is he (his cut out poster?) doing in this film???

Please write your answers to the comment section.

My only help is my rate:)

10/10

The Red Shoes (1948)

Michael Powell's and Emerich Pressburger's beautiful story based on Hans Christian Andersen's identical tale is a perfect example of an adaptation. Even more than that: they created a movie which is not only a film but a theatre, more precise a ballet. To be clear The Red Shoes is a film which adapts and incorporates a tale (by H.C.A. – adapts, because the film shows Andersen's tale through a ballet; incorporates, because it repeats its story within the film's own plot) about a ballet dancer who is fighting between her emotions, talent, love and ambition. I won't tell more, you absolutely shouldn't miss this beautiful Technicolor romance (if it helps in your decision, I confess: "I hate ballet, period.").

It's better to dig down for a detail again! I've chosen and uploaded a scene where the ballet is shown first time at the theatre (Let's make it obvious: the film isn't a ballet-film, it is a film which mainly provides an insight behind the scenes of the cruel and delightful world of a dance theatre (see Bob Fosse's 10/10 All That Jazz (1979))). What I find interesting here is the way how the film stops to be realistic, moreover how the visual freedom of a film wins over the strict point of view of the theatrical representation. 

Consider the differences between playing a ballet for a "real" audience at the theatre, and for a film viewer: different gestures (obviously the film – with the help of the camera's wandering frames and focuses – needs to be less artistic, or – such a nice expression here – less theatrical), different possibilities in visualisation (jumping into the shoes, the dissolves, slow motions, and other kinds of cinematic practices), the problematics of the directions on the stage (the theatre has less freedom: normally some movements shown in a film would be hidden for the audience in the theatre (the wandering between the sets the theatre can't afford)), the gaze of the dancers (playing for the individual (embodied by the camera) VS. playing for the mass audience).

[if you can't see all the listed topics in the scene you will when you'll watch the entire film..]

In sum, these are the differences in possibilities, which actually force the theatre directors to be more and more creative, and which makes differences between films which are translating other forms of arts into their cinematic language.

9/10

Greed (1924)

It seems nowadays I dedicate myself for the small details. The web is full with complete reviews of films which – according to the limited extense of an average analysis – are overlooking their attention on the details which in fact are the cinematic building blocks of a given movie.

Yesterday I decided to pay off an old debt and watched Erich von Stroheim's masterwork from 1924, Greed (1999 restored version, 239 min, where the missing parts are substituted with stills (very likely that the film remains as a torso forever since the original parts were destroyed (the footage have been rendered down for the silver nitrate) during the studio's (MGM) unmerciful recut)). Frank Norris's bitter story about McTeague, the simple fellow driven by his even humble instincts becomes extremely grim in the film...

But let's see an example on the silent film's naive, innocent try to identify one of his characters. The scene what I uploaded yesterday shows an argument between two former friends, McTeague and a greedy Marcus. The latter – drinking too much – can't stand anymore McTeague's sudden wealth (his wife, Trina, a previous girlfriend of Marcus won $5.000 on the lotto), and unexpectedly attacks him in the pub. He grabs a knife...

Yes, he grabs the knife, but how we see that? How we realize that Marcus is the one who opens a penknife? The interesting solution of identifying Marcus is coming around the 19th second in the video where a close up shows the penknife. Seconds later we see who opens it, but at the very moment of the close up (which unfolds itself as an analytical shot on Marcus) we can't be sure who is who. And then comes the solution with the help of a small dark ribbon...

If you liked Gance's Napoleon or you are an immersive reader of a long novel, I can assure that you won't be disappointed to watch this truly milestone of the cinematic history.

9/10

North by Northwest (1959)

Yesterday I decided to rewatch one of my favorite films – it seems nowadays I spend more attention on movies which I've seen before. This tendency might have different reasons, for example my disappointment in contemporary films (recently: Tropic Thunder, 2008 (ok, I searched the problem for myself...)), or simply because I'm getting old:)

Anyway, just as yesterday, since you know everything about Hitch's masterpiece already (there are far better articles about it than the one I could provide here), I won't offer you a boring review, but a funny goof.

Please note the small boy in the scene's background:

The simple story goes like the scene required many reshooting, so the boy might have been scared/fedup with the coming gunshot's loudness. But don't blame the director: in 1959 nobody predicted the technical development of the future where crazy cinephiles have a chance to watch every details in slow motion (see the truck's explosion and Cary Grant's puppet under the vehicle:) Even more mostly minor goofs on NbNW are here).

10/10

Touch of Evil (1958)

I don't want to bother you with the 3212405th review of Welles' unbelievable perfect classic noir – here I'd like to talk only about the famous opening scene, the illustrious long take (I had to watch it again after it was honourly mentioned in the even more precisely planned opening (...long) scene of Altman's The Player).

Nothing's new with it, what happened is that yesterday I checked how long is exactly the run of the camera. But first let me give immediately a remark with the help of David Bordwell: ""long take" is not the same as "long shot"; the latter term refers to the apparent distance between camera and object. (...) a take is one run of the camera that records a single shot" (Bordwell: Film Art: An Introduction, 1997, 259). Flaherty's Nanook of the North (1922), Welles' Citizen Kane (1941), more recently Joe Wright's Atonement's Dunkirk scene (2007), or the often cited, visually tricky last scene of Antonioni's Professione: reporter (The Passenger, 1975) are the classic examples for the use of the long take without montage. You know them very well. (Here I don't want to mention the difference between the long shot and the tracking shot – which is rather obvious.. On the other hand I believe it's unnecessary to know all the existing cinematographic terms – since they vary in different books, it's much better to understand only how they cue emotions...)

So how Touch of Evil's first long take looks like? Fact: the camera follows the ride of a bomb from its detonator's set until its explosion, so it rolls 3 minutes and 20 seconds without a single cut. It's definitely not a world record, which is more interesting is that the villain who starts the bomb ticking (notice Henry Mancini's bomb-ticking score!) sets the detonator around 3:20 too (as far as we can see that clearly).

And here is the entire scene:

One could argue about the difference between its felt and real time – I would say with the Hitchcockian planted suspense (see below •) I felt the situation much longer than 3:20 (The same happens – without any suspense at all – during Béla Tarr's uunnbbeelliieevvaabbllee ssslllooowww opening take in Sátántangó (Satan's Tango, 1994)). No more words on this since this post is not about the psychological-cognitive differences of the perceived time.

More important is to watch Uncle Joe Grandi's (and Hank Quinlan's, whose "intentions", "hunches" are just painfully, even suspiciously right...) plan which is – as the film's ad says "one of the strangest vengeance ever", but which is the darkest noir for me.

"A real sweet setup."

10/10

• “There is a distinct difference between “suspense” and “surprise”, and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I’ll explain what I mean. We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let us suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, »Boom!« There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware that the bomb is going to explode at one o’clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions this same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: »You shouldn’t be talking about such trivial matters. There’s a bomb beneath you and it’s about to explode!« In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story” (Truffaut's interview with Hitchcock, 1984, 73).

Rear Window (1954)

Instead of writing a traditional review about one of the best movies ever, here is a 5 (and a half) minutes long summary of Alfred Hitchcock's amazing cinematic classic from 1954 (the voiceover comes partly from the Wikipedia's plot summary). 

I hope you'll enjoy as much as I did during compiling it.

If the last weekend was a lazy one what should I say about this one? I mean maybe I've found a new way to ruin the whole weekend. At least I've got to know the very basics of a Final Cut Express 4 editing software.

Ok, a small amount of "brightness" at the end: Hopefully you recognized the moving images among the stills (not about the ones with the Ken Burns effect, but the "real" moving images). I didn't plan to edit them at the beginning, but since I realized how statically constructed even the moving ones, I decided to use them. I believe that this aspect of the statical viewpoints is less researched in line of the film's analyses. At least in the reviews this wise cinematic feature owes less attention than the POV's, alias Jeffries' dramaturgical staticality accompanied by the camera.

(Let's not start sentences with an 'if', so involve it to your sentences like) if I could restart my cinema-interested career, I would definitely study editing!

10/10

(but what is your grade?)

mini Halloween

Happy Halloween by Argento's (mini) Suspiria!

29 seconds – my first try with the Final Cut Express:)

The Player (1992)

The phrase of the day by June Gudmundsdottir alias Greta Scacchi from another Altman movie, The Player (watch it, 10/10) is the following (the question asked by Griffin Mill, a screen writing executive in trouble... (Tim Robbins)):

"Do you like books?"

"I like words and letters. But I'm not crazy about complete sentences."

Just think for a sec about how this answer describes Altman's storytelling. The Player isn't a network narrative (his classic, let's say prototype one definitely is – which comes one (1!) year later than this...), but the way how it smoothly interconnects all the paths and characters of the story (I'm thinking on the endless camera movements going in and out of rooms and separate spatial zones, plus the unique way of intercutting and overlapping the several parallel patterns of conversations) is already shows and advances how he will soon master the seemingly spreading storylines. 

I've never been interested in these complicated narratives' compact and smooth solutions – usually the perfectly worked off loose ends sacrifice other qualities of the film. Makes from the well established and pronounced letters and words a simple, syntactically valid but semantically unimpressive sentence. (It would deserve another entry, but I mention only here Matteo Garrone's superhot Gomorra (2008), where the paths of the network narrative deliberately avoid to draw a coherent narrative picture (to fulfill its aim is to depict the maffia's lost hierarchical and organizational order, to narratively emphasize the ongoing chaos...)).

If you don't care about storytelling you might still be interested in embedded stories, more precise the always exciting exercises of a film-in-a-film plot. Almost like two days ago...

10/10

Sherlock Jr. (1924)

Don't need to introduce the genious Buster "Stone Face" Keaton. On the other day Tarsem's The Fall took a liking for watching an early stunt film (if you've seen the picturesque ode of early Hollywood's stuntmanship you understand my choice..). Usually we praise these films because of their reckless physical features. Although Keaton's Sherlock Jr. is full with these actions it is still more than a "simple" stunt film. It's packed with brain too. I could point to the embedded story of a wannabe projectionist as a detective and all the related tricks (this early example of a 'film in a film' character is – not a wonder – the movie's most cited value), but this time I'd like to indicate only one attraction / trick / gag from the film. What do you think about the jump at 1:59?

                            

I told you – Keaton is without doubt "the" stuntman, but he is a magician too from Harry Houdini's finest school (Keaton remembers as Houdini gave his 'Buster' name to him, but it's more likely that his producers advertised him through the already famous Houdini (fact, that they were working together (Keaton grew up in a vaudeville family (although the story could continue I won't open more parentheses))))...

Without any special lighthearted feelings for the silent era, this 44 minutes is definitely 10 out of 10! Keaton's Sherlock Jr. comprises more cinematic and comedic ideas than half of contemporary Hollywood has. And this isn't a joke. Try to enjoy stone faced.

10/10

(Hey, what about yesterday's questions? One of them is within the best ever made 25 films – according the imdb...)

Film quiz

Hello Reader:)
Don't think too far - this sudden but weak comeback surprises me too.

Anyway, this time let's play. The idea isn't original, I know. But show me a single new idea on the net (except this one)!

3 screenshots from 3 different movies which I've seen yesterday. Do you know them?

Yeah, it was a superlazy Sunday...

STAND BY: ON

Oops, I forgot to warn you that the blog is going to sleep for a while (I suppose the regular visitors realised this already:)

Hope the best, fingers crossed, and so on - I mean see you soon...

Quicktime Movie Player #2

- The Hours (Stephen Daldry, 2002). An old debt payed again with this film (btw I owned this film earlier already, but borrowed for a friend who forgot to give me back..). Anyways, a friend of mine advised and finally I've spent a time for it (114 mins.). It won't be my favourite, but - let's say - it is worth to watch. At least because of Kidman's nose. I felt a bit forced the multiple timeframe, but maybe this is because of my late watching (today we have far better examples for this narrative).

7/10

- Inside Man (Spike Lee, 2006). Is it summer or what? Another rewatched perfect movie - this time far within the 10 years "repetition limit". My memories agreed what the imdb says "it looked like the perfect bank robbery." It is, and it's more, just as the film is more than a perfect story. Spike Lee's storytelling gives two extra points for the otherwise very well written screenplay. A sequel is coming (screenplay again by Russell Gewirtz) - do I need to be happy? I hope I can.

9/10

- Superman II. (Richard Lester, 1980). During I was writing about the recent problems with the imdb here, I was searching for a perfect, reliable site which gives realistic evaluation about films. I found Metacritic.com, which site has its own best ever movie list (with its problems of missing titles). Lester's Superman 2 was listed on the surprising second position, so after my childhood's fainted memories I gave another chance for it (not to mention the superhero fever around TDK). Sorry to all the Superman-friends but this film is a mediocre try (3 more superman villains from the Krypton.). The only remarkable part from it was Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. I see that I won't rewatch the whole series...

5/10

Quicktime Movie Player #1

(This new approach represents the survival period of the blog. Since my duties are obtaining more and more time from my precious blog (noo, not from watching movies!), these quickies will substitute longer reports on my movie experiences. Hope you'll ike them too. Let's see the last days crop.)

- Night and the City (Jules Dassin, 1950). I've thought it's gonna be another noir (not if I would have any problems with film noirs), but it turned out as a very well directed whirlpool drama of Harry Fabian, a small time hustler with ambitious plans but an overwhelming imagination. The culminated end I'll never forget. Give extra attention to the otherwise underrated Gene Tierney, Preminger's (and my) darling actress!

8/10

- The Sure Thing (Rob Reiner, 1985). Classic, at least in terms of my socialization: This movie is one of my favourite ones from my teenagerhood. And it's still working. It seems that John Cusack's early appearence convinced not only me. It was really worth to watch again: the scene when Walter receives a compliment about his shirt was mistranslated in my early VHS version. The original sounds even funnier:)

10/10

- Boogie Nights (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1997). Another re-watched classic. If every tenth year I decide to watch my favourite movies soon I'll be in trouble, but at least I won't have time to watch new ones. And here comes the beautiful surprise info of the day: PTA's regular cinematographer, Robert Elswit (got deservedly an Oscar this year for There Will Be Blood) was the photographer of Reiner's above mentioned The Sure Shot! Pow! No new words about the film, if you missed it until now, you'll have a movie of the day. 

Small remark: please check the version of the copy you're planning to watch: "DO NOT BUY REGION 2 EDITION!!! For starters, it has been heavily cropped. Originally filmed in 2:35:1 widescreen, some numbnuts has decided to crop it to 1:85:1, meaning it loses a lot of the picture. Along with that, the colour has been muted heavily, which makes it look pretty shoddy." Thanks for the info to SandyRing85.

9/10

Cinemania (2002)

"What is the difference between like it or understand it?"

I was referring several times to one of my favourite blogs owned by our time's best (another entry should / will prove this statement) film critics David Bordwell. Today he made my day again when in his latest post was talking about the possible differences between cinephilia and cinemania. If you're interested in the topic just click on him, here I'm just briefly mentioning that cinemania is a cinephilia on steroids, an almost sick obsession in movies. A cinemaniac watches several (3 to 7) movies per day, I mean every day! He or she organises his or her day around the screening times (with complete plans included the travelling schedule between the cinemas), collects tickets, leaflets, soundtracks and every kind of memorabilia, knows everything, let's stress it again, everything about movies! They have seen even all the B movies at least 3 times (for Harvey the Attack of the Crab Monsters (1957) is already an obvious classic), they are living in another world (most of the time immersed another film-reality), spending all their money for tickets (no matter how poor they are - usually they are, cos' watching films day and night doesn't let them work for living), washing their 1cm thick glasses before every screening, having the projectionists' phone numbers, and so on...

Angela Christlieb's and Stephen Kijak's documentary about New York's five unbelievable passionate (addicted) movie buffs is one of the best I've seen recently. You might think they are crazy (probably you judge right), but they are the happiest people in the world. They look like kind of sad bunch of losers, but at the same time you're becoming envious because of their freedom and true love for moving images. You feel pity but you'd like to be one of them - at least for a week (or a month, or...).

"Film buffs do not socialize, film buffs get together see movies, they do not to get together to having parties they do not to get together to know each other."

If you like movies, you'll love these guys and the film's exactly (!!! :) 83 minutes.

9/10

imdb - the movie (2008)

Sorry for the bad joke - the following meditation is about every movie-buffs Bible, the Internet Movie Database, and its recent problems, how I see them.

For me imdb represents the dreamjob (pity that I'm not a software developer), and was always my most visited site, long time it appeared as a home page when I started my internet browser. A perfect origo, an authentic guideline. But these good, reliable times seems to disappear. Imdb becomes the tool of advertising a movie, to build a hype, to encourage fight between fans and trolls, to ... to earn more money.

This entry was almost necessary, since I complained enough for example here, here, here and here about losing faith in the database's informations. And then came Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight (my opinion is here) which made unavoidable to talk about the recent problems of the site, namely how hype kills the very meaning of its rating system. It's not a question that recent movies are way too over-rated. Just look at my examples. You might explain with this a lot of ways (economically: extremising marketing strategies, sociologically: changing internet audience, plus there are conspiracy-theories about paying for / hacking the numbers), I accept those, but not to react on these changes is the site's fault (except the conspiracy theorists have right: in 1998 Amazon bought the imdb to improve its selling numbers. Do you need a perfect thesis topic: "How changed the Amazon's selling features according to the rates on the imdb?"). Here is a chart about the ratings on imdb by release year of the rated films:

Let's look at the TDK's example. After its appearing in the cinemas it jumped immediately to the first position in the famous imdb 250 list, topple down classics like The Godfather or the - other over-rated - The Shawshank Redemption. And it stays there (at least until today (9.5/10 after 124.766 votes)). What does it mean? Everybody shouts that we have a new all time best movie ever made. No, it doesn't mean this at all. It means that we have a movie which has the most votes approaching the highest available score. I gave several 10 out of 10s before too, but for example I still like Fellini's Otto e mezzo far better than Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder.

So, there are people who gave 10 for TDK, because it's one of their favourite movies. Not the best, but which deserves a 10 among others. This would be the ideal case. But.

The reality says something different. If we don't believe in the above mentioned conspiracy theories we have still a problematic explanation, namely most people gives 10 for the TDK, because they are hypnotised by the unbelievable marketing mechanism of Nolan's otherwise good movie, and last but not least because they are touched by Heath Ledger's sorrowful death (it was funny to see how people cries for an Oscar to Ledger before the premier, which means before they actually seen the film..). Of course there are other people who driven by some inexplicable nostalgy for the(ir) classics vote with a ridiculous 1 for TDK. I suppose they would have vote with 1 for The Godfather in 1972 just to save their precious Citizen Kane's first spot in the non-existing imdb list in the seventies:) (imdb launched on October 17, 1990). Another funny fact that the blind TDK fans - driven by a revenge - started now to vote with 1 for The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption - to make themselves more pathetic and to spoil our interest in the imdb forever.

That was the cry-part, let's see some hope, a solution if there are at all. What you need is only a reliable source to choose a good movie for the evening (cos' you're supposedly not interested in the fight between the hypnotized fans). Then, sadly I have to say forget the imdb and go for Metacritic.com, the site, where professional (?) film critics' average opinions decide about the films. They have their all time list too, here the 200 best with a rather complicated rating system than the imdb uses (note that TDK isn't among the best 200 (yet), and look, who is on the 2nd spot? Superman II., another superhero!). I almost forget to tell the imdb's formula, here it is, the True Bayesian Estimate:

Ok, we have a reliable source, what is the problem then? The problem is that the Metacritic's database is far from being full. There are several important movies which are missing from the site and among the ratings (after quick try for example Taxidermia / Hawaii, Oslo, / Aaltra / or even as big classics as the cited Otto e mezzo / etc.). That's too bad, go back to the imdb and search for solution there. There is an ingenious idea - not surprisingly emerged after TDK's obscure success. Dalton 1962's idea (appeared among the imdb's message boards on TDK (should I mention that the numbers of messages about TDK beated all the previous records as well?)) is interesting enough to take into consideration: he suggest a double rating system which could "filter our irrational enthusiasm or hate", which would divide the hype from the "real" rating of a certain film. There would be a so called Short Term Voting which would measure the level of a hype (hype-meter?), and on the other hand there would be a Long Term Voting, which would be available approximately 2-3 months after the premier of a movie, and which would tell much soberly about the "real" qualities of the given film. Ok, I see the limits of this idea (a lot of valid votes would disappear in the STV), but I believe it is a good path to approach the solutions for the existing - and growing - problems of reliability of the imdb (more about its history, rating system, and business background see the good ol' wiki).

There isn't any moral at the end of this post since it's long enough already:) Maybe you'll make one point in the comments? Welcome!

The Dark Knight (2008)

[Ok, the holiday is over, bobbyperu is back, but I tell you already now that my future entries won't be as frequent as they were before. I'm busy - no more words about it.]

But the return should be impressive, and wouldn't be more effective in 2008 summer than to write SPOILERFREE about the best movie ever (according to imdb, today). I tell you something immediately. It can be your best movie (ever:), but it isn't mine for sure. It is a very good movie, but not the best I've ever seen, definitely, moreover I won't give 10 points for it because of the following reasons.

Prudently sayin' "the less sometimes more." I understand that if you want to be the best you need to give more, I mean more than usual. More action, more drama, more surprise, more emotions, more moral. But what happens if you have a chance to enter a sweet-shop without any limitation of eat cakes? You gonna be sick after a while. I came out from the cinema, biked home and during the trip I felt myself dizzy, the effectively rolling soundtrack looped continously in my head and I was watching constantly around from where Batman will suddenly appear and save me (at the last moment of course) from some until now hidden danger.

Secondly. The Batman Begins is a better one and I tell you why. I just watched it again two days ago to prepare the today's screening. I remembered the story very well, but what is more important, I remembered the feeling after first time watching it. It was a real revelation in terms of a resurrection of a genre. Before of that film from comic books were wether some kind of salute of their original materials, or some childish fantasies with a story deeply rooted in the Hollywood action film genre. And then came Nolan, one of the biggest talent in the contemporary film business (I swear I told this already after his Memento (which is a better movie for me than the TDK)), and stylishly crossed all these saint rules. He (re)created Batman for the original fans and for a non-comicbook fans (just like me) too, he balanced the mentioned childish fantasies with a realistic moral story, he found equilibrium between seriousness and irony, genre rules and reflexion of the these rules, between imagined and real. The TDK has all of this without any doubt. Moreover it gives all these balanced values more intensified than ever. But doesn't give something else beyond this. Doesn't give the same mentioned striking feeling what the BB gave in 2005.

But what it gives then? Let's go through some details, start with the most important according to the film's unbelievable hype: Heath Ledger. Some of the enthusiastic fans claim already a posthumous Oscar which feelings - be realistic - are coming from the sad death of an otherwise really talented acter. Ledger's Joker is perfect, just as good as Nicholson's was in 1989. For those who are seriously debatting over this question I would say that Nicholson's Joker was representing perfectly a threat according to 1989, and Ledger's terroristic Joker gives a perfect example of our current "enemies." I hope I don't need to detail this further. Back to Ledger, he is good, I mean absolutely bad, rotten and cruel. He is perfect just as other 10 other actor and actress every year waiting for their Oscar statues. If he gets it's ok with me. We'll see, what we already see is how the cult shapes its form...

About the screenplay. Actually I gave my opinion about it with the candy-shop metaphor, but let's emerge one very important detail. The moral, more precise the moral of being a superhero. A superhero - derived from a comicbook - usually needs to have special physical abilites. Harder, better, faster, stronger. One of the biggest virtue of TDK is that it exposes, explains what it means exactly. His film is full with heroes, but only one superhero. Nolan builds up his film's moral from this simple but elementary difference. To be a superhero you need to be more than a simple hero (this evidence is explicitely appears in the film as I good remember), and in the TDK this difference, this more is not about a physical speciality at all. Already in the BB we had to face with the truth that superheroes aren't physically invulnerable. Now Nolan showed how morally vulnerable they are, when he questioned the essence of being a hero. Sometimes the real (super)heroes doesn't look like heroes... After this sentence I would step on the spoilers' paths which isn't my intention.

I won't read back what I wrote to ensure giving you the real first impressions' taste. Maybe my words sound a bit negative but if it is the case it must be because of the expectations which this time were so extremely high which couldn't be fulfilled. Just to make it right: TDK worths all the money you'll spend on it in the cinema; it will be one of the best movie in 2008. Not a question, watch it! (But don't be foolish so please don't clap after the screening. It seems the hype makes people follow some rituals which culminates in a ridiculous clap:)

"Why so serious?"

9/10