Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Edge44
3rd year Batmanian
Global user
Registered: 09-2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 1095
Karma: 5 (+6/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Track Your Film Viewing, 2008
quote:
Fitzgerald Fortune wrote:
THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (Andrew Dominik, 2007) Fish/Sugar
I'm probably going to end up writing DVDCompare's review of the American DVD, as I'm the resident Western fan, so I'll post a link when it's done. However, for now I'll simply say that this film is a-bloody-mazing. Ten years ago, I'd have happily dismissed Pitt as a pretty face and little more, but he's absolutely brilliant as Jesse James: he plays James as a dark, conflicted, scared and psychotic character who's haunted by his past and has a strong self-destructive streak. Casey Afflect plays Bob Ford as an idiot savant (with more emphasis on the 'idiot' than on the 'savant'). Just about all of the performances are pitch perfect, and the movie is one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen, accompanied by a tremendous Nick Cave score.
Can't wait to see this, although my MA scriptwriting lecturer said it's half an hour longer than it needs to be; did you think this or was it perfect for you?
---
"Everything's relative..."
|
|
2/13/2008, 11:18 am
|
Send Email to Edge44
Send PM to Edge44
|
Fitzgerald Fortune
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 10-2005
Location: Inside the Red Circle
Posts: 792
Karma: 12 (+12/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Track Your Film Viewing, 2008
quote:
Edge44 wrote:
quote:
Fitzgerald Fortune wrote:
THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (Andrew Dominik, 2007) Fish/Sugar
I'm probably going to end up writing DVDCompare's review of the American DVD, as I'm the resident Western fan, so I'll post a link when it's done. However, for now I'll simply say that this film is a-bloody-mazing. Ten years ago, I'd have happily dismissed Pitt as a pretty face and little more, but he's absolutely brilliant as Jesse James: he plays James as a dark, conflicted, scared and psychotic character who's haunted by his past and has a strong self-destructive streak. Casey Afflect plays Bob Ford as an idiot savant (with more emphasis on the 'idiot' than on the 'savant'). Just about all of the performances are pitch perfect, and the movie is one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen, accompanied by a tremendous Nick Cave score.
Can't wait to see this, although my MA scriptwriting lecturer said it's half an hour longer than it needs to be; did you think this or was it perfect for you?
In comparison with most Hollywood commercial cinema, it seems like a film that is too long; but there's not really any flab on the movie, and in fact I thought that the closing sequence depicting Ford's decline after James' murder felt a little rushed: that sequence could have benefited from being fleshed out a little more.
Review for DVDCompare/Rewind.
--- 'Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy'.
 |
|
2/14/2008, 4:55 am
|
Send Email to Fitzgerald Fortune
Send PM to Fitzgerald Fortune
|
Fitzgerald Fortune
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 10-2005
Location: Inside the Red Circle
Posts: 792
Karma: 12 (+12/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Track Your Film Viewing, 2008
I've finally put the No Country For Old Men review up at DVDCompare/Rewind. It's just a quicky, but as Old Sykes says at the end of The Wild Bunch, 'It'll do'.
--- 'Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy'.
|
|
3/9/2008, 2:02 am
|
Send Email to Fitzgerald Fortune
Send PM to Fitzgerald Fortune
|
Edge44
3rd year Batmanian
Global user
Registered: 09-2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 1095
Karma: 5 (+6/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Track Your Film Viewing, 2008
quote:
Fitzgerald Fortune wrote:
I've finally put the No Country For Old Men review up at DVDCompare/Rewind. It's just a quicky, but as Old Sykes says at the end of The Wild Bunch, 'It'll do'.
Tis a good review. You could write a larger than large essay on this film. One of the things I liked in this story was how the guns were shown as symbols of a changing (decaying?) world. There's lots in there to talk/write about.
Something else worth noting is how close to the novel the film adaptation is. I think this takes something away from the critical acclaim the Coens are attracting for their adaptation, or it should do. I wouldn't be surprised if McCarthy begins pointing this out at some point in the near future.
---
"Everything's relative..."
|
|
3/9/2008, 2:08 pm
|
Send Email to Edge44
Send PM to Edge44
|
Fitzgerald Fortune
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 10-2005
Location: Inside the Red Circle
Posts: 792
Karma: 12 (+12/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Track Your Film Viewing, 2008
quote:
Edge44 wrote:
quote:
Fitzgerald Fortune wrote:
I've finally put the No Country For Old Men review up at DVDCompare/Rewind. It's just a quicky, but as Old Sykes says at the end of The Wild Bunch, 'It'll do'.
Tis a good review. You could write a larger than large essay on this film. One of the things I liked in this story was how the guns were shown as symbols of a changing (decaying?) world. There's lots in there to talk/write about.
Something else worth noting is how close to the novel the film adaptation is. I think this takes something away from the critical acclaim the Coens are attracting for their adaptation, or it should do. I wouldn't be surprised if McCarthy begins pointing this out at some point in the near future.
It's an exceptionally close adaptation, with some additions (the dog scene by the river, for example). Personally, I don't think that weakens the film, but it shows just how cinematic McCarthy's literature is. On the other hand, one aspect of McCarthy's novels that I don't like is his emphasis on the right-wing survivalist mentality, which crops up in his books from CHILD OF GOD onwards; the Coens integrate this aspect of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN into their adaptation, but seem to satirise it, turning serious exchanges (between Moss and the store owner) into moments of the kind of deadpan comedy that characterise the Coens' best work.
However, it does what good adaptations should always do: show an engagement with the core themes of their source text, rather than simply pay lip-service to the superficial elements of the text. In this, it's also in the mainline of the Coens' work: the themes of the McCarthy novel are the exact same themes that fascinate the Coens. It's a marriage made in heaven, I think 
Last edited by Fitzgerald Fortune, 3/9/2008, 4:42 pm
--- 'Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy'.
|
|
3/9/2008, 4:40 pm
|
Send Email to Fitzgerald Fortune
Send PM to Fitzgerald Fortune
|
Edge44
3rd year Batmanian
Global user
Registered: 09-2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 1095
Karma: 5 (+6/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Track Your Film Viewing, 2008
quote:
Fitzgerald Fortune wrote:
It's an exceptionally close adaptation, with some additions (the dog scene by the river, for example). Personally, I don't think that weakens the film, but it shows just how cinematic McCarthy's literature is.
I didn't mean that the film is weakened by the closeness of adaptation. What I meant was that a certain percentage of the acclaim that the Coens are receiving is misplaced; it should actually be directed towards McCarthy. Because the adaptation is so faithful to his novel, then it is his work that, arguably, makes the Coens' film as good as it is. Yes the Coens have their hallmark of beautiful cinematography, fine actors, and pitch-perfect directing. Yet they cannot claim to have bettered McCarthy's story.
quote:
Fitzgerald Fortune wrote:
On the other hand, one aspect of McCarthy's novels that I don't like is his emphasis on the right-wing survivalist mentality, which crops up in his books from CHILD OF GOD onwards; the Coens integrate this aspect of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN into their adaptation, but seem to satirise it, turning serious exchanges (between Moss and the store owner) into moments of the kind of deadpan comedy that characterise the Coens' best work.
However, it does what good adaptations should always do: show an engagement with the core themes of their source text, rather than simply pay lip-service to the superficial elements of the text. In this, it's also in the mainline of the Coens' work: the themes of the McCarthy novel are the exact same themes that fascinate the Coens. It's a marriage made in heaven, I think.
It is a great film adapted from a great novel, and you're right, it is a marriage made in heaven 
Last edited by Edge44, 3/10/2008, 9:43 am
---
"Everything's relative..."
|
|
3/10/2008, 9:26 am
|
Send Email to Edge44
Send PM to Edge44
|
Fitzgerald Fortune
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 10-2005
Location: Inside the Red Circle
Posts: 792
Karma: 12 (+12/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Track Your Film Viewing, 2008
quote:
Edge44 wrote:
quote:
Fitzgerald Fortune wrote:
It's an exceptionally close adaptation, with some additions (the dog scene by the river, for example). Personally, I don't think that weakens the film, but it shows just how cinematic McCarthy's literature is.
I didn't mean that the film is weakened by the closeness of adaptation. What I meant was that a certain percentage of the acclaim that the Coens are receiving is misplaced; it should actually be directed towards McCarthy. Because the adaptation is so faithful to his novel, then it is his work that, arguably, makes the Coens' film as good as it is. Yes the Coens have their hallmark of beautiful cinematography, fine actors, and pitch-perfect directing. Yet they cannot claim to have bettered McCarthy's story.
Well, this is the same debate that rages about all adaptations For example, think of the various adaptations of Shakespeare, which range from the literal (Welles' OTHELLO) to the abstract (FORBIDDEN PLANET). We could say that the value of a good adaptation lies in the way in which it captures the nuances of the original narrative and adds shading through such elements as performance, cinematography, direction and music. The strength of, say, Polanski's MACBETH lies not in any 'tinkering' with the narrative or the dialogue, but in the ways in which the narrative was brought to the screen and visualised.
McCarthy's novel is highly-regarded, anyway; however, it's got something of a self-selecting audience, and I have to say that although I like the pared down qualities of his prose and some of his themes, I find his survivalist shtick a little reactionary. As a result, I liked the Coens' subtle satire of the way in which McCarthy fetishises the American survivalist mentality, though. That's one very valuable element that the Coens have brought to the table, and it's not due to any way in which they deviate from the narrative, but rather it's delivered through the line readings, Brolin's performance and the ways in which Brolin's scenes are directed. (For example, the two separate exchanges between Brolin and the store owner.) It's a subtle attempt to deconstruct the major theme of the novel, and it signifies that the Coens aren't mere 'followers' of McCarthy, even though their themes often overlap: in the ways in which the film deals with the survivalist theme, it's more of a critical commentary on McCarthy's novel than a direct transcription of it--even though it uses the same basic text.
The supervisor of my Master's thesis, Neil Sinyard, published a really good book on filmic adaptations of literature, FILMING LITERATURE: THE ART OF SCREEN ADAPTATION. It's out of print now, but it's well worth a read. However, Neil's central thesis is that a good adaptation is characterised by the following qualities:
'It does seem to me that the great screen adaptations are the ones that go for the spirit rather than the letter of the text; or exploit a unique affinity between the personalities of the original writer and the present film-maker; or use the camera to interpret and not simply illustrate the tale'.
The narrative of NO COUNTRY is near-identical to the novel that it's based on, but the key element in that film is how the Coens visually interpret the novel. It's not a mere 'illustration' of the novel, but a critical engagement with its themes.
In his book, Neil talks in some detail about A PASSAGE TO INDIA and the ways in which the adaptation is mostly very literal, but adds a handful of small moments that enrich the story; for me, the Coens' film works in the same way. There's also this 'shared affinity' between the Coens and McCarthy: they're both concerned with masculinity and solipsism, but in McCarthy this theme is expressed through a fetishisation of the survivalist mentality (as represented via the character of Llewellyn Moss), whereas the Coens tend to be interested in reserved and emasculated men (Barton Fink, William H. Macy's character in FARGO, Dan Hedaya in BLOOD SIMPLE). Thus despite relatively little screen time, the Coens seem to privilege Ed Tom Bell over Moss. Moss gets more screen time, but some of his major scenes are played for laughs or filled with irony. For example, as he waits on the bed in the hotel the camera lingers on the lock. Thanks to the close-up of the door handle and lock, we know what is going to happen (i.e. that Chigurh will use the pneumatic cattle gun to fire the lock out of the door, and it will hit Moss); and when the lock finally springs out of the door and hits Moss, at the same time as we recognise that Moss doesn't know about Chigurh's trick with locks, because we've already seen Chigurh perform the action before and the camera gives us a subtle prolepsis of what is about to happen (through the close-up of the lock), we're almost cursing Moss for being so stupid. It's subtle moments like that which undermine Moss' authority, and which form the core of the Coens' satire of the survivalist theme of the novel.
Last edited by Fitzgerald Fortune, 3/10/2008, 2:50 pm
--- 'Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy'.
|
|
3/10/2008, 2:46 pm
|
Send Email to Fitzgerald Fortune
Send PM to Fitzgerald Fortune
|
Edge44
3rd year Batmanian
Global user
Registered: 09-2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 1095
Karma: 5 (+6/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Track Your Film Viewing, 2008
THE FOUNTAIN (Darren Aronofsky, 2006).
Beautiful to look at but not a film I can form an opinion of with just one viewing. It's a real tear-jerker though, so have the tissues ready when you watch it
---
"Everything's relative..."
|
|
3/12/2008, 12:37 pm
|
Send Email to Edge44
Send PM to Edge44
|
Fitzgerald Fortune
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 10-2005
Location: Inside the Red Circle
Posts: 792
Karma: 12 (+12/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Track Your Film Viewing, 2008
quote:
Edge44 wrote:
THE FOUNTAIN (Darren Aronofsky, 2006).
Beautiful to look at but not a film I can form an opinion of with just one viewing. It's a real tear-jerker though, so have the tissues ready when you watch it
I've never quite made up my mind about Aaronofsky. I like PI, but I can see why it was criticised as an example of style over substance. (I think LOLA RENNT came out at about the same time, and of the two films Tykwer's seems like the most explicit example of a superficial MTV-style movie, from an era--not so long ago, during the late 1990s--when MTV-style movies weren't the norm and people were more critical of them. I'm constantly baffled by the adoration that LOLA RENNT seems to inspire amongst the young 'uns, but I guess the movie prefigured the parkour craze, amongst other things.)
REQUIEM FOR A DREAM is interesting, but it's not an exceptionally good adaptation of the novel. The performances hold that film together, I feel; and Connelly really delivered some of her best work in REQUIEM.
Last edited by Fitzgerald Fortune, 3/12/2008, 8:33 pm
--- 'Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy'.
|
|
3/12/2008, 8:31 pm
|
Send Email to Fitzgerald Fortune
Send PM to Fitzgerald Fortune
|
Edge44
3rd year Batmanian
Global user
Registered: 09-2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 1095
Karma: 5 (+6/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Track Your Film Viewing, 2008
quote:
Fitzgerald Fortune wrote:
quote:
Edge44 wrote:
THE FOUNTAIN (Darren Aronofsky, 2006).
Beautiful to look at but not a film I can form an opinion of with just one viewing. It's a real tear-jerker though, so have the tissues ready when you watch it
I've never quite made up my mind about Aaronofsky. I like PI, but I can see why it was criticised as an example of style over substance. (I think LOLA RENNT came out at about the same time, and of the two films Tykwer's seems like the most explicit example of a superficial MTV-style movie, from an era--not so long ago, during the late 1990s--when MTV-style movies weren't the norm and people were more critical of them. I'm constantly baffled by the adoration that LOLA RENNT seems to inspire amongst the young 'uns, but I guess the movie prefigured the parkour craze, amongst other things.)
REQUIEM FOR A DREAM is interesting, but it's not an exceptionally good adaptation of the novel. The performances hold that film together, I feel; and Connelly really delivered some of her best work in REQUIEM.
Yeah, I think THE FOUNTAIN can also be added as an example of style over substance. I think Aronofsky is more interested in the visuals rather than the content of story. As you know, for a film to be good both story and visuals have to be perfectly matched, and Aronofsky's visuals are just for show, just, as you say, Fitz, like early MTV.
I've not seen LOLA RENNT, but I have to say that parkour inspires a little awe in me, so I can understand why the young 'uns like it. But again, it comes down to style over substance: no amount of parkour can replace a well told and well visualised story.
---
"Everything's relative..."
|
|
3/13/2008, 12:50 pm
|
Send Email to Edge44
Send PM to Edge44
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Powered by AkBBS 0.9.5b - Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 11/23/2009, 7:02 pm
|
|
|