Watching a Movie a Day Week 3: Her, Loving Vincent, week number who the fuck cares, who the fuck even knows
Movies:
- Her
- Loving Vincent
- Ready or Not
- The Invisible Man
- Cry Baby
- Babylon
- No Country for Old Men
Her (2013)
Director: Spike Jonze
Screenplay: Spike Jonze
My favorite role is actually Spike Jonze as 'Alien Child' in this movie, fun fact! Jokes aside, Her is really fine. I put off finishing it for so long, and I'm not totally sure why. I would just never finish it. I would fall asleep in the first half and then give up, or just never make it through at all. I think it's probably the whole robot angle, and the lack of a physical body just didn't hook me. But I will be honest and say that the world of the movie feels a touch dead. Sterile, cold, invulnerable -- like there's a wall up. That most definitely could've been a purposeful choice in atmosphere, and if it was, I am very impressed. But you best believe I'm not going to try and find out. Regardless, that fact made the movie harder for me to get into initially, but I feel it got much more interesting after Theo and Samantha had their beach visit.
Her is an interesting exploration of the whole concept it presents. Was their love ever real? I though it was interesting how Samantha developed to the extent where she... well, spoilers I guess. Anyways it was a nice film. It was a nice exploration of true vulnerability in romance. What it means to truly be there for someone. Also you know, growing apart, or your expectations of who someone should be, or meeting someone where they're at. I could probably write a whole thesis on it actually. The message isn't hard to see, but you know it's not that it's necessarily pointed, yet it's also purposeful in the execution. 9/10. much higher rating than I would've initially thought I would have given it. and Scarjo has a very hot voice <3
Loving Vincent (2017)
THIS IS LITERALLY SO GOOD. I sincerely wish I didn't have to pirate it because honestly it's just so amazing and so well made and so sincere I just can't.
The art is beautiful, although frankly that's a given. I feel like the film gave me to much sympathy for these people. They really felt so alive. One thing that I felt was during the beginning some of the backdrops felt a touch stilted, but when they animated the background as well as the foreground, the art really came to life in the most special way, I mean it was just stunning.
I also felt that some of the nuances of the performances were muddled and lost just because of the art style, and I'm sure it was incredibly difficult, and the artists did as well as they could've, but I think the loss was kind of unavoidable. In that sense, I would say that some of the artistry of the actual content of film was lost beneath the artistry of the visuals. I thought about it, and I couldn't really think of a strong discernable reason for the past to be in black and white, and for the present to be in color, other than just to distinguish the two time periods. Which is helpful for the viewer, but not really useful. If you know what I mean. Maybe upon a rewatch I'll figure it out, but I'm not sure if there really was a true reason.
Another thing is that with these kinds of 'going around and interviewing people' movies, shit can get boring really fucking fast. Loving Vincent did get kind of boring by the end of the first half, although that could also be my attention span. I tried to watch Loving Vincent a few years ago, but I didn't finish it and I never went back to it, but honestly I'm glad I could come back to it as a more conscious human being and watch it from start to finish without stopping. I mean, it's really just a stunning movie, and I recommend it to no end, 7.5/10. I will also mention that I really fucking love the title so much <333
Ready or Not (2019)
Director: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, Tyler Gillett
Screenplay: Guy Busick, R. Christopher Murphy
Well, that was... so affecting. I usually don't watch horror alone because it's... too scary, but I found Ready or Not to be a very fun watch. Probably because I already knew how it ended, so there was less suspense in that regard, but I didn't mind that too much. I like to be in the know sometimes. I think it did a good job of balancing the suspense with its own lighthearted nature.
Personally, I felt that the characters' interpersonal conflicts didn't work so well. It's a 1.5 hour horror flick, so I get why they didn't feel perfectly developed, but honestly it's not that they could've done without them, because without them the movie would've been a nothing burger with no stakes, but having them in there left much to be desired. I think they could've been done more justice if this was like a full 6/7 hour mini series of the whole night including intimate character conversations and the like, because with the runtime and the subject matter, there really just wasn't enough time to explore these character relationships and dynamics in a meaningful way.
For example, the crack addict sister. For around the first three quarters of the movie she's played off almost entirely as a joke, and then all of a sudden, it turns out the two little kids are hers and she doesn't want them to die, and all of a sudden she has a real character motivation that has the potential to change the tone of the entire final act, but it gets completely brushed to the side just because there isn't really enough time left to justify giving her any more spotlight.
If this was a streaming mini-series, there's like a 1.5% chance I ever would've watched the full thing, and a understand why it isn't This came out in 2019, slightly before the streaming mini-series explosion, so I understand the choice. And I bet that if it had been a series It wouldn't have translated in the way I would've liked it to. It's just that the relationships and character conflicts could've been SO GOOD if they had enough time to develop them. The acting also wasn't totally up to par, but it isn't super atrocious or anything.
I liked Ready or Not a lot. At least way more than I usually like modern horror. Although, that being said, I don't watch much horror period. It was good that it didn't take itself too seriously because honestly, I'm not totally sure if the filmmakers had the skill to pull it off if they had gone the melodramatic route. The tone works very well for what it is.
I kind of wish they weren't trying to keep it PG-13. Seeing all of the gore and blood would've been so much fun. Maybe they wanted to reach a wider audience, but I most definitely wanted to see that chick's head get chopped off.
I'd recommend this to pretty much anybody. Nothing super controversial, it's fun and enjoyable, not very scary, but not in the bad way where it was trying to be scary but failed. 6.5/10. The ratings are going down, but it's not on purpose, I promise. :p
The Invisible Man (2020)
Director: Leigh Whannell
Screenplay: Leigh Whannell
The Invisible Man was very compelling. This was another movie I already pretty much knew the ending of, so I think I would've enjoyed it much more if I hadn't known the story already. Essentially there was very little mystery going into it.
Something that I noticed was a little bit of "therapy speak" that felt a little 'reading off a list of abusive partner characteristics on some website'-y. The protagonist, Cecilia, explains a few times what the antagonist, Adrian, 'does to her'. Saying that he isolates her from her loved ones, tries to make her seem and feel crazy, etc. This film came out early 2020, so this might've been just before the whole explosion of therapy speak, and people using gaslight in contexts that are so obviously not gaslighting, it makes me feel like I'm being gaslighted. So in that context those little snippets of dialogue wouldn't necessarily seem out of place. But in the 2023 context, those additions make the metaphor of it all seem heavy handed. But maybe that's something that couldn't have been avoided.
That aside, I thought it was really interesting how they used the camera to sort of reveal Adrian in the invisible suit. But simultaneously, you have to wonder if he's really there. And it puts you into Cecilia's mindset of not knowing if it's really happening, or if she's crazy. Very smart choice.
For me honestly, the thing that falls short with this type of horror, is that a certain amount of focus has to be put into story progression, so the themes can start to feel spoon fed in some instances. I think that the story was compelling enough on its own for that to not be too much of a problem, but the whole obvious 'point' of it all is something that couldn't stop popping into my head while I was watching, and I'm very ambivalent to the idea of that. And just generally unsure about how I feel about it.
I enjoyed the film, but with the experience, something felt missing. I'm not sure what. I know nothing about the director, but I sense that in its creation there is some lack of ~life~ (experience) flowing into the lens of the film's creation. That if the director had waited maybe one -- or even a few -- decades, The Invisible Man would've been a very different movie. But like I said, I have no idea what Whannell is like, or if any of that's even true, so take that with a massive grain of salt.
The soundtrack and sound design were absolutely INSANE. There were jump scares, and in my opinion, the bad kind where it makes you jump, but it's literally just like a sandwich that dropped on the floor or some dumb shit. It (audio + music) was strange in a way were it was like on the brink of being obnoxious, and at the beginning I think it crossed the line a tad, but mostly it was very interesting.
Nice movie, well made, very cool concept, 7/10.
Cry-Baby (1990)
Director: John Waters
Screenplay: John Waters
So I mean... that was masterpiece cinema. Pure kino. I don't know what else there is to say. Maybe something... colored. ;)
Going into this I had already seen a (totally legal of course...) recording of the Broadway adaptation, so I was already familiar with the concept, but I will be honest I didn't remember like any of the plot. And the film is just... unhinged, but in the best way possible. It's directed by John Waters, which I have to be honest, is a man I knew nothing about until I looked at his Wikipedia page two seconds ago. I know that... people know who he is for some reason? He directed... yeah, I got nothing.
It was kind of weird seeing Johnny Depp in a role where he acts like actually human since he does so much character work. He's actually a good and funny actor, which was a given, but I like seeing him without all of the ridiculous make up and/or heavy melodrama. I mean the movie is just fun. It's funny, the music is great, the singing is good (probably because they got singers to dub the singing of the leads instead of making non-singers sing and assaulting my ear drums), it's just an enjoyable experience.
But also there was this weird thing with confederate flags. The flags where hanging in the greasers' hang out spot, but the greasers weren't the racist ones, the squares were the racist ones, which is confusing because if the squares are racist why do the greasers have the confederate flags? Anyways I hope somebody got fired for that blunder. Either way I'm keeping my eye on those production designers. Also Willem Defoe showed up for like two seconds which was really weird.
Then there's the subject of Lenora. If you're familiar with the musical you might know what I mean, but if you aren't, tldr; in the musical she's 'schizophrenic' and they make a joke of it. It's not in the movie, but honestly it's funny how the adaptation added ableism instead of removing it. So haha hilarious. Anyway, I'll be honest, I find Lenora's character in the musical much more entertaining than her movie iteration. I'd prefer it even more without the schizophrenia angle, but what can you do. In the film she doesn't get as much spotlight really anyways. She kinda of comes and goes, popping up and then disappearing occasionally. Which I feel works well for a character of her nature within the context of the film. I think if she was in the film any more than she was, I would've gotten tired of her. Like I did with Allison's square-ass fucking boyfriend. In the musical, Lenora has her own song, which if you were on theatre kid tik tok was a trend for a little while a couple years ago. But then everyone got mad about the schizophrenia thing and stopped doing it which is absolutely fucking hilarious to me.
Anyways, to wrap it up, I really enjoyed Cry-Baby, probably the most out of any of the other films this week. It's really my style (doesn't hurt that the two main leads are super hot but I digress). It has a touch of problematica which is obviously super my style! /hj
It's a mid budget 90's musical, so if you watch it don't expect any technicalities to blow you away, but if you're anything like I am, I'm sure you'll like it. When you're watching just... don't question it... That's all I have to say. It's like if Disney channel original musicals where 1.)actually good and 2.)self-aware (but not in an obnoxious meta rick and morty way) 7/10. It's really good and not actually problematic, I promise
Babylon (2022)
"You know, I'd never guess that Damien Chazelle liked movies!"
Director: Damien Chazelle
Screenplay: Damien Chazelle
Babylon is a 3 hour masturbation session where you sit and watch as Damien Chazelle strokes his dick and moans aggressively while watching singing in the rain. He also directed La La Land (2016) and that gets him extra hard. Apologies for the graphicness. Anyway, it's not like I hated it.
It reminds me of Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood (2019), but if it didn't care about the audience at all, and really liked titties. In alternative to feet, of course.
A lot of the film was just... gross. Nothing will ever justify the shitting elephant and if ever get close enough to Damien Chazelle, I will slap him and let him know that I will never forgive him for putting that image into my brain. The grossness was shocking, but mostly, it had me asking, "why?" In the weird dungeon scene, it made me wonder when the film became fucking body horror. It's not that I hate body horror or anything, but I don't want to see that if I'm not ready to see that, you know. Now those, feelings are just a matter of opinion.
But I just think, when I see a film with so much "debauchery", directed by a man, part of me can't help but entertain the idea that "haha men are horny". The sex and the naked women and the drugs (and general grosso out/disgusting elements) didn't shock me. I just had to pause the film whenever my mom walked in. Did it have any real thematic purpose for being so over the top? I'm not a prude, I just don't need to see Margo Robbie vomiting an unrealistic amount of vomit on some old white guy. I mean really, imagine the smell.
The film seemed to have this theme of, 'films are an escape'. And I can't help but wonder if it had some kind of holier-than-thou attitude when approaching the subject. That films are so significant because of the immortality of them. That filmmakers should be thankful for being a part of something, "bigger". That being in film somehow enriches their lives. If Babylon is approached, or portrayed, or whatever as a love letter to filmmaking, what purpose does it actually serve? What does it feel the need to say about its themes? Movies are great because they're a part of something bigger. Okay, yeah, so what? I figured that out when I was twelve.
If I was Chazelle, I would've done more with the concept of escape. The film explicitly says films are and escape, but Nellie spent her whole life escaping in different ways. She was addicted to pretty much everything and died, probably because of her inability to face herself, and her ability to change. Maybe Nellie existing at all is a commentary on escape, but then her existence in the story isn't tied into the theme in that way, it just exists on its own. It becomes representative of a bygone time that Manny can feel nostalgic for and proud of.
The way I kind of look at it (based on the content of the film) is that film is a nostalgic medium. It doesn't live in the present. The real present, anyhow. Every frame is curated and manufactured, to the extent that it even can be an escape. Manny and Nellie getting engaged is captured on film. That moment is immortalized, but every moment after and before is unseen. It's an escape, but in that escapism it's just as easily an unhealthy coping mechanism just like any other. Jack Conrad killed himself knowing he was a part of something 'bigger'. But at the end of it all, he was so miserable he killed himself. Maybe that bigger has some significance to human society and culture, but what does it do for the individual? In an attempt to say "hey guys, aren't movies so great!" Chazelle misses the mark excessively in my opinion. He made three feature films before this, it was kind of already obvious that he liked film. It's ironic that his love letter to film is just average, I think. The best parts were the performances, by far.
My question is what about life outside of film? Does film enrich your life? Destroy it? What about those who have nothing to do with film and have no interest in it? I wish it had said more about film and life together, not just film.
Something that I tend to dislike is when films literally tell the audience what the theme is within the dialogue. I know people are stupid, but I find that it kind of takes a lot of the enjoyment out of the film. If feel that stating it explicitly is necessary, if it takes up more than one or two lines of dialogue, it's too much in my opinion. Otherwise it has to be very carefully done. Babylon has not one, but two conversations directly relating to the film's them, and it was just excessive. Not to mention the literal multiple minute montage of films (that aren't Babylon) towards the end. Like omg thank you Damien I totally didn't understand the point of your movie until you explained it to me explicitly multiple times! Have a little faith in your audience. Even if they won't get it, pretend like they will anyways because if people always made art catering toward the average person, a lot of art would not be very good I don't think.
My next point, period accuracy. Not even a single attempt at it. Not really anyway, I'm sure you get what I mean. Hair, makeup, and costumes, hardly even an attempt. Regardless if it was a purposeful inaccuracies, I think the choice was just ineffective. Maybe the purpose was to make it feel like these old Hollywood people could party just like us! And knee length flapper dresses and out of style makeup trends don't necessarily illicit that vibe, but it's also like, trust the audience, trust yourself.
In period pieces the costumes can aid A LOT in discerning the time period if you do them correctly, and if you don't use the tools that are allotted to you for clarity, it just becomes a grey glob timeline wise, and I start to ask myself when all of this is taking place, and how old each of the characters are supposed to be. Because it is unbelievably rare for a film to do incremental time skips well, and Babylon is no exception. If time is passing THE CHARACTERS NEED TO LOOK DIFFERENT. I cannot stress this enough. If you want to make me believe that it's been 10, or even five years, you need to make the difference MATTER. If its 1927 or 1932, so fucking what, unless you SHOW US.
How do they change their hair? Their speech? Their demeanor? THEIR CLOTHES ??? And even moderately accurate period dressing can help so much with this. It doesn't even have to be accurate, it just has to be fucking different. Even if the audiences know nothing about fashion history, the visual cues can at the very least subconsciously aid the viewer into recognizing the significance in the time skip, or even recognizing it at all. If time passes the vibe should not be exactly the fucking same. You don't need to change the actors faces to make them look older. But it also has to be done to a reasonable degree. (aka don't put a grown ass woman in pigtails and pretend she looks twelve because I promise you, no one is even remotely convinced.)
And maybe this is a nitpick because I've never worked on set, but all of the on set workers were so screechy, annoying, and uncomfortable that I hated watching them. It just grossed me out, I don't now how else to describe it. I don't know what about it specifically irked me, but it just made me feel icky. If that's what film sets are/were like I can't imagine very many people finding that fun.
In conclusion, I don't hate Babylon, but everything about it is just half baked. I liked it. I think? It could've been better, but I think the thought process going into it was probably flawed from the get-go. It's a love-letter to movies from start to finish. Movies are the holy grail. Maybe if it hadn't been so unrelenting on that position, it could've gone somewhere much more worthwhile. 6/10
No Country for Old Men (2007)
Director: Ethan Coen
Screenplay: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Yay! My first Coen Brothers film. It was good. It wasn't what I expected, because I thought the killer and detective would collaborate or something, but that idea wasn't based on any evidence or anything so idk where I got that idea lol. I hate how they killed Llewelyn, but I understand why they did it. If it had been more generic in that sense, I would've enjoyed watching it much more, but then it probably would've been less thematically sound. 8/10
Conclusions
So this week took place over much longer than a week. I watched some good films. Some okay ones. It was an interesting time. Thanks for reading babes
Comments
Post a Comment