On movies:
Saw "Slumdog Millionaire" recently and rewatching bits of "Motorcycle Diaries" on TV right now. I'm again struck by a certain gap between movies -- there are a few that are excellently made and feel truthful, and then there are some more that are really rich and complex and have a depth to them that the other category does not have. Slumdog Millionaire falls into the first category for me, and therefore does not seem totally Oscar-worthy, though it might still be the best film this year. What are the deeper films ? Brokeback Mountain perhaps. Motorcycle Diaries also does not have that much depth I feel; though if took on the challenge of Che's later life it would probably get that depth. Woody Allen's movies are excellent examples of good movies of the shallower category, though at his best (Crimes and Misdemeanours, Annie Hall) they scrape into the Great category. Apollo 13 and Titanic and Usual Suspects took relatively mundane topics and elevated them to Great (or almost). The Matrix trilogy was completely inconsistent in quality but kind-of scrambled up there.
What movies do you think are great ?
===
I'm twittering actively -- visit me there ! http://www.twitter.com/ahminotep . Twitter is remarkable in its potential to propagate information instantaneously.
===
Its occured to me subconsciously several times, and suddenly struck me forcefully -- its striking how close Riley's (the obnoxious kid on "Boondocks", might have got the name wrong) character is to Sukesh Patro's. Right now there's a thread going on about how the kid insists on being as slothful as humanly possible in front of the TV. Apologies to those to whom all this means nothing.
11 comments:
Pans Labrynth to me is the best movie, the more I think about it the more I like it. Essentially great craftsmanship of the art wrapped around an extraordinarily touching story of a little girls courageous choice and with alternative interpretations of what really happened. At the end of this movie, for the first time, I really wanted to applaud. Usually I get put off at the customary standing ovations given at the end of any concert here. But this was one masterpiece worth standing up to applaud.
BTW, I think Usual Suspects is just a cheap trick. No depth. No substance just a big hoax. Its like the stale trick of a big gift package wrapping a smaller one and that wrapping an even smaller one and ultimately no gift.
Ebert correctly trashed this movie as pointless in his reviews, and I agree.
But even usual suspects had a highlight - great acting by Sam something - the guy who played the inspector.
true about suspects. there is no real basis in the plot or in kevin spacey's character's character to sit so close to danger and "tell the story". for a plot that is meant to be clever that is a glaring inconsistency.
Hmm.
Well, one strong correlation for great movies I find is the re-view value. They are rich and complex enough to reveal more on multiple viewings and I have seen Usual Suspects several times. But true, there is really not much about the 'human condition' in the movie.
I would love to see Pan's Labyrynth. Siddhu / Rohit -- kindly do the necessary piracy and send.
More movie examples: Pedro Almodovar also comes close to greatness but doesn't quite make it in most of his movies. Perhaps "Women on the Verge.." . I haven't seen the recent couple though I have a nice memory of being in Europe when "Volver" was released and seeing the posters.
--Vijay
Dude, I am sure you missed a few subtleties in Slumdog millionaire. While it is still not in my top 10, it will be in my top 100. Here are somethings I saw in it that you may have skipped
1. First I cannot easily reduce the length without giving away anything. For e.g. Why is there a scene where salim cannot sing and latika laughs. Its there because that furthers the tension between them. The scene with the red chillies is not there just for comic effect it has a well defined purpose - to set the stage for Salim to take revenge on latika by if your carefully observe pushing her hands away from the train thus leaving her behind. Also observe, that in that same scene along with latika is the girl whom Salim pulled the baby away from and gave to latika to beg. These are little details that are well thought out and finely interspersed in the movie.
2. Towards the end, a repeated motif involving Salim is shown where he is either reflected in mirrors or there are two side by side cuts. This to me was an extremly artistic and subtle way of showing the multiple dimensions of his character. If not for Salim, Jamal would be blind.
3. When at the end, there is a call that is picked up Latika the flash back is to the image of a little girl talking in the rain when he first met her. This is the essence of the story and the bond from child hood.
4. The lyrics at the end, Jai ho begin with "aaja aaja, ... shamiane ke tale" meaning "come in under he canopy." This ending is carefully constructed in the movie - the first words Jamal says to Latika are "aaja aaja" when he calls her into the metal canopy where they take shelter. Again, notice that later on in the movie this theme is repeated an - old lady calls Latika to watch tv in her house with the same words.
5. The opera that the teenage Salim watches in Taj mahal is Orpheus. Orpheus overcomes enormous obstacles to find his love.
6. The movie raises social issues pretty well. That it avoids answering them is altogether a separate matter. To provoke and entertain is a job well done. Finding answers is altogether a different thing - I dont expect that from a movie and not even from a documentary.
So I think the movie has depth, but it is much more like watching Federer - there are subtleties in the ground strokes that are easy to miss if observed just casually.
Arvind
Hey.Just wanted to ask Arvind(Uncle),how many times he watched the movie Slumdog?!
I realised that after watching this movie 2.5 times,I was only familiar with point 6 of the mentioned 'subtleties'.
N to me Forrest Gump is a 'great' movie.
Rohit Dasari.
On another note, saw wrestler today. An extraordinarily poignant performance by rourke. Havent seen Milk, but if Penn played harvey better than Rourke played the wrestler, then Penn is even greater an actor than I thought him to be.
Rourke is in every single frame of this movie, and it is the acting which makes the story compelling and propulsive - not the other way around. For e.g. in Gandhi it is the story that propels the acting. Here it is Rourkes acting that makes you care about the movie. Up there with the best performances i have ever seen.
Heres a masterful take. Complete mastery in narration and camera movements. This whole 3 minute sequence has no cuts so all the details have to be finely synchronized. Enjoy, Orson Welles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaN4R6KRSY0
Continuing on my previous post enjoy this incredible take of 4 minutes on a fight scene. Just fantastic coordination and camera work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm-kDr8h7qY
I agree with you Babu on what's the great deal about Friedo Pinto. She made a really big splash here after this movie but her role was really small and not too much spectacular acting either. If I had to choose between her and little Jamal who got Amitabh's autograph I would go with the latter.
On the other hand I thought Dev Patel did a great job. I especially loved the expression on his face the first time he walks into the setting of "who wants to be a millionaire" with Anil Kapoor. (nervousness mixed with something else, hard to describe), and of course I enjoyed every minute of screen time watching Anil Kapoor.
Sajini
Post a Comment