MYST POST #7: Mr. Nobody

 Never has a movie perplexed me in the way this film has.  I am never quite sure exactly what is dream and what is reality.  The general plot of the film is that a 118-year-old mortal, Nemo Nobody (Jared Leto), in a world of immortals is dying- and the world wants to know what life was like back before immortality.  He recounts his life story, but with a twist: there are multiple story lines to his life.  So which one is real?  That's the ultimate question.  The major point of deviation seems to be when Nemo was 9 years old, choosing between going with his mother or staying with his father as they separate.  Many different narratives branch off from this choice, because apparently Nemo has the ability to predict the future his choices will create.  This is why he can tell his story so many different ways.  This then begs a mind-bending question: is this story from the point of Nemo at 9 or Nemo at 118?  I'm still asking myself that question.

   The hardest part about this film is just keeping track of the story lines.  There are no helpful labels or transitions: the different stories flow seamlessly from one to the next.  It's kind of like Memento, but at least that movie made sense eventually.  Thrown in among the narratives is a completely out-of-place story that has Nemo stuck in an argyle-sweater world, finding notes telling him to wake up or leave quickly.  As best I can understand, this is how Nemo ended up in the immortal world as a 118-year-old, but I can't be sure.  If you can get past the confusion, the film is very visually stunning.  The colors are bright and beautiful, and there are many gorgeous effects.  In one timeline, Nemo drowns, and the shots of him underwater are beautifully filmed and shot.  There are lots of shots of reverse filming: of fruit re-composing (reverse decomposing) and of a mouse's body reverse-decomposing.  Thrown in among the narratives are snippets from a scientific documentary about time, love, you name it.  These help really get across the point the movie is trying to make at the current moment.  I think the opening to the film is very striking as well.  It explains the idea of 'pigeon superstition,' where a pigeon, if it is convinced that one action leads to a specific reaction, will continue to do that action because it is convinced it will lead to the reaction (even if that isn't true at all).  This really sets the tone for the existential beliefs about memory and choice that are brought up in this movie.  Are our lives futile?

   I think the most thought-provoking scene would be the ending, so if you don't want spoilers don't read on!  In the end, Mr. Nobody dies.  Once he does, time begins reversing.  He cackles joyously as everything moves backwards.  The air bubbles go back into the drowning Nemo.  The comatose Nemo opens his eyes.  The Nemo heartlessly wrenched from his true love's arms is brought back again.  And then we see a scene we haven't before: Nemo and his love Anna reverse-throwing stones into a lake.  Anna (played by Diane Kruger in her older age and Juno Temple in her teenage age) was undoubtedly Nemo's true love, so for the movie to end with him and her side by side gives us hope.  I think the idea the movie is trying to get across is that 9 year old Nemo has made his choice.  He has contemplated his options and found one that fits for him, and is going to follow through with it.  What exactly that is, I don't know.  But it's interesting that the end of the film undoes literally everything that the movie shows.  There can be many meanings to this, and I have a feeling I'll be searching for what really happened for the rest of forever.

  If you're up for a mind-bender, I'd say go for it.  It's got the Sci-fi aspect of Inception combined with a weird romance like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  But you need to be fully awake, or so tired that you start having existential thoughts.  Whichever one works, to be honest.  But this film requires deep thought and insight, so know what you're getting into!  I loved this film, so incredibly much. Finding a film this confusing and surprising is a real treat. 4.5/5 stars.

MYST POST #6: Twister

 

   In celebration of our weather unit in Earth Science, we watched this 1996 movie about hardcore stormchasers.  I got really excited about this film and finished it over the weekend.  I'll admit, it isn't  incredibly well-written, and it isn't incredibly well-developed, but it was actually pretty cool.  The basis of the story is that our protagonist, Jo Harding (played by Helen Hunt), and her crew are trying to collect data from inside a tornado using their new machine, nicknamed Dorothy.  This is very dangerous, seeing as they have to get incredibly close to a tornado to deploy the machine, so we have some close-calls.  There is the obligatory romance, as Jo's ex-husband Bill (played by Bill Paxton) shows up to collect divorce papers and ends up being drawn back in to the stormchaser life (also dragging along his poor fiancé played by Jami Gurtz).  This film is pretty much celebrity eye-spy.  We've got Philip Seymour Hoffman, Alan Ruck (who was Cameron in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off), and Cary Elwes (who was Westley in "The Princess Bride").  There's definitely some good talent in this film, even if the plot was only so-so.

This movie, much to my surprise, was nominated for two Oscars.  One for Best Visual Effects and one for Best Sound.  The soundtrack is actually really fantastic, and fits perfectly with the film.  I enjoyed the movie so much more just because of the soundtrack.  But it's definitely the visual effects that take the movie to the next level.  For 1996, the visual effects were spectacular.  I've studied tornadoes in class, and I've seen a lot of tornado footage, and the way they animated the tornadoes was actually very accurate.  And, of course, just as terrifying as they are in real life.  Watching an F5 tornado tear a house apart is unsettling, and that was perfectly captured in the film.  This film is also very blatant with it's imagery.  Countering Jo and Bill's ramshackle team of misfits, you have Jonas and his crew.  Unlike the colorful, painted trailers Jo's group drives, Jonas's group drives shiny black vans.  This juxtaposition of colorful and mechanical sets the two apart and characterizes Jonas's group as being malicious and cold.  Clearly that's what the movie wants us to think, as Jonas not only stole Bill's Dorothy idea but continues to be a jerk throughout the film.  This is film definitely endorses research for the sake of the good of the people, rather than research for fame (as Jonas wants).  The movie was kind of obnoxious in the way it beat you over the head with it, unfortunately. It's also kind of repetitive.  Tornado appears, they chase it, Bill magically predicts the shift in the tornado's path, Jo wants to deploy Dorothy but there's not enough time and Bill has to pull her away before she gets sucked up, they face a head-on collision from a tornado and survive.  While it is exciting, it's also the same thing over and over again.  And every time, as soon as the tornado passes over them, it disperses.  Is that really realistic?  Tornadoes can last for a while and for it to disappear conveniently after it passes over Bill and Jo is kind of ridiculous.

   I think one scene which is a testament to the movie and the overall unrealistic aspects is one of these near-death tornado experiences.  After a day of failed tornado hunting, the dejected group settles down in as small town next to a drive-in theatre.  In the background of all the shots of the different characters is a news forecast warning about an approaching tornado.  Now, I get the crew is tired and disappointed, but they still make a living of tracking and understanding storms.  It seems kind of ridiculous to me that these so-called "experts" don't notice the giant tornado headed right for them.  In the sky, lightning cracks and wind whips.  There are close-ups of drapes fluttering ominously in the wind.  Heck, the movie playing at the theatre is "The Shining,"a movie known for being one of the scariest horror films of all time.  All this foreshadowing leads up to the reveal of the tornado...literally right on top of the town.  Now, it seems to me that if a tornado is that close, somebody would notice.  I get that it's dark and that the crew has other things on their mind, but seriously?  And this is all topped off by Bill producing one of the corniest, worst-scripted lines in the movie.  Dusty (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman) runs up to Bill and shouts "It's headed right for us!"  To which Bill responds, "No.  It's already here."  This scene represents how unrealistic the entire film is, and how bad the scripting is.
    Speaking from a scientific perspective,  Bill and Jo should be dead.  In a tornado, debris can fly at up to 300 miles per hour, sending wooden planks through cement walls.  So for Jo and Bill to survive not one, not two, not three, not four, but five different tornado strikes is about as unrealistic as it gets.  Cars are also known to roll over due to the intense wind near tornadoes, so for Bill and Jo's cars to remain firmly planted on the road throughout all these storms is ridiculous.  Here's what happens when you get too close to a tornado:

The end scene had Bill and Jo frantically running or their lives as a F5 tornado descends upon them.  They manage to run fast enough to find some form of safety before it catches up to them.  Tornadoes can travel on average 30 miles per hour, and even up to 70 miles per hour (Source).  The average human can sprint 100 meters at 15.9 miles per hour (Source).  So even if Bill and Jo were running as fast as they possibly could, they still would not be able to outrun an F5 tornado.
   Not only that, but the movie is a bit presumptuous about how the inside of a tornado would look.  The first images from inside a tornado were not captured until June 2005 by Tim Samaras (Source), The movie was made in 1996, before there was much information about the inside of a tornado, which means the special effect eye of the tornado was completely theoretical.  At ground level there is a lot of dust swirling around, so how Bill and Jo could see so clearly is beyond me.  This is what it actually looks like inside a tornado:

  Well, even if the science is a bit off, I still enjoyed this movie.  It was kind of your typical action flick, just with really cool weather phenomenons instead of guns and violence.  In fact the director is Jan de Bont, director of "Speed," another action flick.  I'd say this is kind of like watching Indiana Jones, but with tornadoes.  If you like cool weather and action, I'd say go for it.
  Just a fun fact: the sound the tornadoes made in the film was created by slowing down the moan of a camel (Source).  

MYST #5: Never Ending Story

    I just kind of stumbled across this film, Never Ending Story, directed by Yong-joo Jung, while bored one day.  I knew absolutely nothing about it, other than it was a Korean romantic comedy, and I thought hey, wouldn't it be interesting to see what a Korean romantic comedy is like?  The basic premise of this story is that the two main characters, Song-Kyung (played by Ryeowon Jung) and Dong-Joo (played by Tae-woong Eom), are both diagnosed with malignant brain tumors.  They end up running into each other at the hospital enough times that they form a strong friendship, which, of course, turns into a romantic relationship.  Both of them struggle with what to do as their lives slowly come to an end and they face the harsh reality of having to leave each other.  It has a cheesy, optimistic ending, but it's kind of cute.

I'm really sorry, but I can't find a trailer that has English subtitles.

    

Cast members promoting the movie.

    It's got all the romantic comedy elements.  The two characters are complete polar opposites.  Song-Kyung is a super-organized overachiever, as is shown by the many scenes of her scribbling in her planner and pasting sticky notes with lists and reminders onto her windowpanes.  Dong-Joo is a lazy, broke slacker living with his brother and sister-in-law.  Most of the scenes about him involve his desperate attempts to win the lottery by buying massive amounts of tickets and him lounging around in his bed with his stuffed animals.  So we've established the cliché of "opposites attract" and followed the formula set out by countless romantic comedies.  We've also got the banter between the two as they figure out their relationship, as is necessary in a romantic comedy.  And there's crying.  The whole passionate scene of love proclaimed at the end involved some very intense sobbing by all involved.    We also have the obligatory pop/love songs to set the mood.  Dong-Joo even sings to Song-Kyung, adding that cliché as well.  So it is, in many ways, a romantic comedy like all other romantic comedies.The camera is always very straightforward, intending more to get the point across than to make an artistic statement.  A couple of things stood out to me, which were the split-screen editing used during their phone calls, and the shots of them staring at each other as the elevator doors close dramatically in front of their faces until only an eye is seen, and the panning shots circling the two as they hug and make up at the end.  So there were a few interesting elements, but on the whole this movie went for the more formulaic approach.  In fact, throughout the whole movie only the beginning and the end discussed the cancer.  What could have been a really powerful story about living with cancer got lost within that formulaic approach, and for a while I forgot they even had cancer.

    I think my favorite part of the whole film was the opening sequence.  It really did a good job of establishing the two characters as different and setting the scene for the inevitable romance.  In the beginning, the camera is set up to look like a shaky recording of the two as they are separately being interviewed for a dating agency.  The scene cuts between the two as they describe their personality and what they're looking for in another person, all of which is very contrary to each other.  Then we have several sequences of the two headed for the hospital and almost, but not quite, running into each other.  Song-Kyung takes the bus, which pulls up right next to Dong-Joo's car.  They both end up in the same waiting room.  They almost pass each other in the hospital hallway.  All these near-meetings really get us worked up and excited for their actual first meeting.  Going into this movie not knowing what to expect, this establishing sequence really did a fantastic job of getting me all caught up and prepared for the plot to begin.

The main characters testing out a coffin.

    Compared to other romantic comedies I've seen, this one seems pretty standard.  Of course, with this movie being Korean, there were some cultural things I wasn't keyed in on.  For example, the lottery system is confusing to me, and it's a big part of this film, so I had to muddle along for a while.  The customs of funerals and burials is different in South Korea as well. All throughout the movie Song-Kyung is preparing for her death, so I had to make some assumptions about what exactly she was doing to prepare.  And since the film was subtitled, certain context probably got lost in translation.  But other than that it was comparable to The Proposal or You've Got Mail, with one major exception.  Most romantic comedies have some sexual content, some more serious than others, but this one focused more on the cutesy innocence of love.  There were two or three short kisses shared between the two, but that was it.  And it was nice to not be bombarded with overly-sexualized content like in, say, Pretty Woman.  Apparently the film censorship in South Korea is very strict, and many films are denied a rating until they cut out or darken/digitally blur some sex scenes (Source).  This most likely stems from the more conservative views on touching between opposite sexes in public in South Korea.  Any more than holding hands or linking arms is considered too much for being out in public.  If you're interested, there's a very informative video about public displays of affection in South Korea here.

   All in all, this is a very typical rom-com, so if you're into that kind of film and don't mind reading subtitles, I'd say go for it.  It was cute and innocent and a touch sad, but on the whole it wasn't bad.  2.5/5 stars.

MYST #4: Matilda

    So on a whim the other day my friend and I decided to watch this 1996 fluff film produced, directed, and starred in by Danny DeVito.  It follows the story of Matilda (Mara Wilson), a girl growing up among neglecting, sleazy parents (Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman) and attending a run-down school with a horrible principal (Pam Ferris).  As she learns and grows more, she develops telekinetic powers which she then uses to try and improve her life and the lives of others around her.  It features tacky yet endearing names like "Crunchem Hall," "Bruce Bogtrotter," and "Pricipal Trunchbull."  It's a very over-the-top film. 

   Even the camera work is over-the-top.  There are constant zooming shots, closing in on every character's face, one-size-fits-all for every scene.  There is no reason to have all the zooms.  They should be used sparingly for very important scenes that require accentuation, and not all over the place.  The zooming loses effect every time one is added.  There are also an unhealthy amount of montages.  Montages have to be well done or else they are, well, tacky.  Like in "High School Musical," during the montage where Gabriella and Troy are preparing for their audition and every scene blends into the next, but flows well, montages need to make logical sense and flow smoothly.  The montages in this movie seemed very choppy.  There is one scene where poor Bruce Bogtrotter is forced to eat an entire cake by Principal Trunchbull, and as he eats there are fading transitions as he finishes more and more of the cake.  To me, this did not make logical sense and just seemed out of place.  I was disappointed by the use of montages in this movie.  Part of the problem, I think, was that this movie spans over a large chunk of Matilda's life, and there is a lot of focus on her very early childhood, before she goes to school and discovers her powers, so many scenes have to be montages just to shorten the time gaps.  But then again, montages are a privilege, not a right, and they were definitely overused in this film.

   Which isn't to say I didn't like the film.  It's actually quite amusing.  At one point Matilda is talking about her passion for reading, and accidentally calls the author "Darles Chickens."  Small, amusing things like that are what carry the film along.  And it is a story about kid power, and taking control of a life that has been in the control of others.  Standing up for yourself is the key point, which makes sense since it is based off a Roald Dahl book.  His other stories, like "The B.F.G." and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" have similar messages of childhood and personal strength.

   One scene I did very much appreciate is the scene where the awful Principal Trunchbull is introduced.  We begin with the chatter of children arriving at school, and then the door to the school bangs open.  We see a shot from behind Miss Trunchbull, of only her calves and feet, and we continue to get close-ups only of parts of Miss Trunchbull, like her riding crop slapping against her hand, or her belt buckle, or her really really tidy hair bun.  The kids explain to Matilda, the newcomer, about all the awful things Miss Trunchbull does, and only then, as Miss Trunchbull approaches Matilda, do we see her face.  A very made-up, intentionally ugly face, which gives us quite a shock.  This scene works very well because we have a very long, intense buildup to the reveal of Trunchbull herself.  This sets the tone for the whole film, where everyone lives in constant fear of Principal Trunchbull, and she is always seen as this intimidating, awful character.  I very much appreciated the cinematic elements used here.

    All in all, this film as a very kiddy feel to it.  It's bright colors and funny names make it amusing for children.  It sends a strong message about standing up for yourself and the people you care about, but definitely in a style mostly kids would enjoy.  If you're feeling nostalgic, it has the feel of "The Parent Trap" or "Hocus Pocus," so it can bring you back to the days of unassuming childhood.  But it's definitely not what I would consider fine film.  2.5/5 stars. 

FORMAL FILM STUDY: Movies About Composers

    For those of you who don't know, I am a French Horn player who plans to major in musical performance in college.  Therefore, I have a deep interest in my fellow musicians and composers.  I decided to watch three films about the lives of famous composers to analyze how a film attempts to handle the use of the music.  A composer's life is dedicated to music, yet many symphonies are an hour long or sometimes even longer.  How can a film hope to preserve the importance of the music and not be 10 hours long?
    I picked films about three very well-known and respected composers: Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and Shostakovich.

    The first film I chose to watch is Bernard Rose's "Immortal Beloved" about the love life of Ludwig van Beethoven (Played by Gary Oldman).  It was not a film about the music, by no means.  It was a film about who was Beethoven's one true love, and the music was the background noise.  The narrative is set up similar to "Citizen Kane," where we begin with the death of Beethoven and work backwards as Schindler, Beethoven's secretary of sorts, tries to track down the "immortal beloved" by speaking with Beethoven's former flings.  We see the life of Beethoven reflected through the memories each woman has of him.  Of course, in the end, we find the "immortal beloved" and realize that she and Beethoven parted ways by accident and that he truly did love her.  It's all very predictable.  In regards to the music, we hear his symphonies in the background throughout all the scenes, but the pieces that are really featured are the "Moonlight Sonata" and Beethoven's Symphony no. 9, also known as "Ode to Joy." Beethoven performs the Moonlight Sonata several times in the movie, and discusses what it is written about (which relates directly back to our immortal beloved).  The end of the movie culminates with the premiere of the 9th Symphony, abridged, of course, for the sake of time, but the focus is clearly on the music.  (If you're interested, you can listen to the symphony here)  For those of you who don't know, Beethoven was deaf.  The movie seeks to accent this by showing Beethoven's face as music clearly happens around him, yet all we hear is nothing.  We are experiencing what Beethoven is experiencing.  The movie does fudge exactly how deaf Beethoven was.  His deafness was actually a regressive disease, and he could in fact hear when composing the Moonlight Sonata, and even in his later years he could hear very high and very low pitches (Source).  I was very underwhelmed by the use of the music in the film.  If I want to learn about a composer, I want to know his works, and I never felt like that was the intent of this film.

    The second film I chose to watch was Igor Talankin's "Tchaikovsky,"a Russian film about the emotional struggles of Tchaikovsky (Played by Innokentiy Smoktunovskiy, the most famous Russian actor at the time).  It tells the story of Tchaikovsky's rise to fame as a composer and the criticism he was under.  The plot is very fluid and honestly up to interpretation.  This film was nominated for two Academy Awards, for Best Foreign Film and Best Music.  And I can definitely see why.  This film is very abstract in the way it was written, directed, and filmed.  There are many moments when the camera will pan off to watch the snow fall between the trees as we listen to the Fifth Symphony.  To be honest, I felt that any scenes of talking fit in between the music, which meant all of Tchaikovsky's music was the focus.  It made me intensely happy that Tchaikovsky's Symphony no. 4 was the opening of the film, with it's loud brass call (listen here).  This perfectly sets the tone for the film, which is mainly about Tchaikovsky's emotional turmoil.  This film plays with silence, just like "Immortal Beloved."  Before Tchaikovsky attempts suicide in the film, he sits down at a piano in the middle of a noisy bar and pounds at the keyboard, yet all we hear is silence.  This emphasizes Tchaikovsky's belief that his music is over and that he has nothing more he can give.  A very different reasoning for using silence, but it's curious to think that in films meant to be about sound, there is particular uses of silence.

   

The final movie I chose to watch was Tony Palmer's "Testimony," about the memoirs of Shostakovich (played by Ben Kingsley, known for his roles in "Gandhi" and "Schindler's List").  Shostakovich's music was heavily influenced by the politics of Stalin's Russia, so this movie is very much about the political play-off between Stalin and Shostakovich.  It follows Shostakovich's rise to fame and then his denunciations by the government.  To really emphasize the politics of the time, news reels about what is happening politically in Russia are placed into the movie very often. This film has won several awards, including a Gold Medal Fellini Prize.  I can most certainly see why.  The film plays with color a lot.  Although the film is in black and white, there are several times where the color red is still included, often in sheets draped over statues of Stalin to show how soaked in the people's blood he is.  Shots of the orchestra performing Shostakovich's work are all in color, showing how the music is the only thing that is important to Shostakovich in the awful world he lives in.  Much of Shostakovich's works were censored by the Russian government.  He was even forced to withdraw the performance of his Fourth Symphony.  Many believe that Shostakovich's works weren't true portrayals of what he was feeling, but this movie seeks to prove them wrong, as is emphasized by the use of color for the orchestra. (Source)  Since the film is about the memoirs of Shostakovich, there are many voice overs as he speaks.  The film, like "Immortal Beloved," begins with Shostakovich's death, and the voice overs are spoken as if Shostakovich is looking back at his life after he has already died, providing commentary on everything.  The end culminates with a scene of Shostakovich on his deathbed, confronting the already dead Stalin, linking the two of them forever.  The end also has about 15 minutes of Shostakovich's very meaningful 13th Symphony (Listen here), about Babi Yar, the place where Nazis murdered over 33,000 Jews, while images of the atrocities committed in the war mingle with propaganda of happy and nationalistic parades.  This very much encompasses what Shostakovich thinks of the war, the ridiculousness of the propaganda and the true horrors behind the facade. 

   All in all, three very different films about three very different people.  "Immortal Beloved" is about the cheeky love life of Beethoven.  "Tchaikovsky" is about the emotional struggle of Tchaikovsky.  And "Testimony" is about the politics of Shostakovich's compositions.  Yet every single one of these films has a goal: to explain what was in the mind of the composer when he composed.
    In "Immortal Beloved," the 9th Symphony is accompanied by images of Beethoven as a child, running from his abusive father and floating in the center of a lake, looking at the stars.  This symphony is about Beethoven's life, wishing he was somewhere else, growing up afraid and beaten down.  In "Tchaikovsky," "Swan Lake" is accompanied with images of Tchaikovsky chasing after the woman he loves, a beautiful opera singer, and once he finally has hold of her she turns into the black swan.  Tchaikovsky is thinking of how she is unattainable, unreachable, and would not be his even if he grabbed hold of her.  In "Testimony," all the symphonies are accompanied by news reels of the politics Shostakovich had in mind while he was writing the piece, including the bombing of Leningrad (accompanying his Seventh Symphony) and the Holocaust images accompanying the 13th Symphony.  Each film aims to understand the composer through his music.  There are varying degrees as to how accurate and well-done it was, but the end goal was the same.  Just as an artist is understood through their paintings and an author is understood through their books, a composer is understood through his music.  That is exactly what the intention of these films are: to understand the composer's music through his life.

Gary Oldman as Beethoven

      As far as how each film was filmed and directed, they probably could not have been more different.  "Immortal Beloved" is a big scale, Hollywood-esque film intended to entertain.  There are many scenes with scores of extras, providing sweeping shots of rabid crowds and full orchestras.  In "Tchaikovsky," there are few characters and much is up to interpretation.  There are simple shots of trees or of him sitting at a piano.  Each scene is quite long and usually takes place in one stationary place.  In "Testimony," the focus is mostly on politics, and includes many political news reels and images.  The shots of the orchestra are of only three or four players at a time, sometimes even less.  Each film is meant to portray the composers through a different lens entirely.

Innokentiy Smoktunovskiy as Tchaikovsky

       As far as accuracy to the life of the composer, it varies.  "Immortal Beloved" is the least accurate of three.  The New York Times says, and I quote, "Two images in Bernard Rose's new film about Beethoven, "Immortal Beloved," have the ring of truth: the sight of a crowd of Viennese mourners frantically straining to touch Beethoven's coffin as a hearse carries it away, and the sight of Beethoven as a young boy, floating in a lake, surrounded by reflections of the heavens."  Clearly, this movie takes as many creative liberties as it wants.  The article goes on to explain how the Immortal Beloved letter was really just an unimportant phase in Beethoven's life and did not have the lasting effect the movie claims it does.  In fact, even our elusive immortal beloved isn't the woman in the movie. (New York Times article)  As far as "Tchaikovsky" goes, it neatly edits out the fact that Tchaikovsky was homosexual, which was part of the pain Tchaikovsky had in life.  It makes a much more romantic deal of Tchaikovsky's relationship with von Meck, a woman Tchaikovsky was in contact with throughout his life, but was merely a sponsor and not a romantic interest. (Source)  "Testimony," is a visual representation of Shostakovich's memoirs as put together by Solomon Volkov.  However, there is a large debate over whether or not the memoirs were forged or whether they were honestly Shostakovich's (you can read more about this debate here).  Clearly, in all of these movies, creative liberties were taken to make things more interesting, or romantic, or monumental.

Ben Kingsley as Shostakovich

      So I think what these three films really get across is that we don't really know what each composer thought.  We don't know exactly how their lives went.  We have our own theories.  These are just each director's theories in regards to each composer.  We may never know exactly why Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata was written, but it is entertaining to guess.  The real importance is the music, and how each film treated it.  Real respect was given to the music in "Tchaikovsky" and "Testimony," and slightly less so in "Immortal Beloved."  But each film included important excerpts of the major works of each composer, trying to get across the beauty of the music.  And that is what really matters.

        

Ludwig van Beethoven                     Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky                    Dmitri Shostakovich

MYST POST #3: Belle

   

   This movie caught my attention as I was wading through movie trailers.  It was an official selection at the Toronto International Film Festival and was directed by Amma Asante, also known for writing/directing "A Way of Life."  The movie follows the story of Dido Elizabeth Belle (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), a mixed race woman living with her aristocratic relatives in 18th Century England. Although Dido is technically a part of the family and has rank, her race provides for many subjects of controversy.  She is not allowed to dine with guests but is too high rank to dine with the servants, for example.  At the same time we are following Dido and her cousin  Elizabeth (Sarah Gadon)'s attempts to find suitable husbands, Dido's great-uncle Lord Mansfield (Tom Wilkinson), Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is ruling on a case regarding the drowning of diseased slaves aboard a cargo ship.  He can either rule in favor of the ship's crew and ensure slavery continues, or rule in favor of the insurers and make a huge step in the abolition of slavery and the increased value of all human life, regardless of race.  Dido begins to come to terms with herself and begins becoming more active in the abolitionist movement once she meets John Davinier (Sam Reid), an aspiring lawyer and active abolitionist.  Dido then must choose between marrying the aristocratic Oliver Ashford (James Norton) and reaffirming her social imbalance, or marrying Davinier and reaffirming her position as an abolitionist.

      Let's just start by saying Gugu Mbatha-Raw knows what she's doing as an actress.  Her acting starts very subtle and reserved, just as Dido's character starts, and gets more and more passionate as the film progresses, just as Dido does.  She is so convincing as a woman lost in a world that does not accept her.  Kudos to her, man, she was what made the movie possible.  And it was also nice to see Tom Felton again (playing James Ashford, brother of Oliver) after his role as Draco Malfoy in Harry Potter.  He plays the odious, close-minded, unlikable scoundrel once again (constantly calling Dido repulsive and even at one point attempting to harm her), and pulls it off just as he did before.  All other actors were outshone by Mbatha-Raw, but played their parts respectably.

(Tom Felton and Gugu Mbatha-Raw)

     There is nothing intensely stylistic about this film.  There are valuable close-ups that allow us to see an important props.  There are wide shots that allow us to see the sprawling parties.  The defining characteristic of this film is that the camera is almost always on Dido.  It is a film about her, after all, so she is almost always in frame.  We have the obligatory conversations between other characters, but otherwise Dido is the focus.  There are also many close ups of Dido's hands, whether she is playing piano or fiddling.  Her hands are very pale, so sometimes it's even hard to tell she is mixed race at all.  That's an interesting point, whether intentional or not, because Dido's hands are the same as anyone's hands; they are used for the same things.  Beyond that, there are many perspective shots, angled to show us what Dido is looking at.  This allows us to see things as she would see them, and really feel connected to her.  All in all, this film is very much designed to link us directly with Dido, since it is primarily about her.  Meaning the film relies very much on the acting of Mbatha-Raw, which was in fact the highlight of the film.

     One scene which I though was constructed very well is the scene where Dido's suitor, Oliver Ashford, is introduced to John Davinier.  Dido and Oliver have tracked down the string quartet that is playing, and the camera pans down from a view of the strings to Davinier's face as he turns around, so we recognize him.  Then we see Dido and Oliver as Davinier must be seeing them, Oliver placing a hand on Dido's face.  Dido then looks up almost directly at the camera.  We then see Davinier's face in between the shoulders of Dido and Oliver, splitting the two of them in the frame and interrupting the closeness Dido had to Oliver.  We only see Dido's expression as Davinier approaches, showing her shock and awe.  This leads to several close-ups of their faces and their clear attraction to each other.  The camera frame widens to include Oliver as Dido remembers he is there and goes to introduce them.  In this shot, Davinier's back is still in frame, larger than Ashford, showing that he takes up more of Dido's attention than Ashford does.  Other characters, extras, pass in front of the camera, reminding us that this is in a public place where they can be observed.  This happens just as Dido remembers to introduce the two, meaning she has realized where she is an her focus shifts from just Davinier.  As Oliver tips his hat to Davinier, a medium shot is used to include all three characters, accenting the distinct space between Davinier and the other two.  This encompasses the societal difference between the characters, seeing as Davinier is lower class than the two of them and is not a part of that aristocracy.  In one scene, Dido's two possible love interests have been introduced, and the scene has shown Dido's attraction to Davinier yet his clear distance from the world she lives in.  A major point of tension in the story has been shown solely though the camera angles and shots, and that is why this scene is so important.

       The movie itself is actually based on the true story of Dido Elizabeth Belle.  Her family relations have been incorporated accurately into the film.  Throughout the film, images of blacks being lower and subservient in paintings are used.  So when Dido and her cousin Elizabeth are painted in the same portrait as equals, it is an important moment in the film.  There is in fact a painting of Elizabeth Murray and Dido Elizabeth Belle, which is what sparked the film.  It hangs in Scone Palace today.  As far as historical accuracy, the film was pretty solid.  Although the incredible and lasting affect Dido and Davinier had on Lord Mansfield's view of slavery was stretched a bit.  Davinier was not a lawyer in real life, but a servant.  Lord Mansfield was, however, against slavery.  Much of the dialogue used actually came from his rulings (although it was not on the Zong case, but a different case about slavery).  Lord Mansfield did contribute to the abolition of slavery.  If you're still interested, links to several articles where I found my information in can be found here :
(Belle: was British history really this black and white?)
(Dido Belle: the artworld enigma who inspired a movie)

(The actual painting of Dido Elizabeth Belle

and Elizabeth Murray)

      All in all, if you like films about the social hierarchy of 18th Century England, you'd enjoy this.  But seriously, this is a very interesting film that gives a very realistic view of the struggles of being the odd one out in the crowd.  The film itself reminded me a little of "Pride and Prejudice" with Keira Knightley and Donald Sutherland, just in the way it was filmed, in the place it was set, and in the story-line style.  It seemed a bit Jane Austen-esque. It was a touch predictable, but Mbatha-Raw's performance makes it all worth it.  I'd give it a go, if I were you. 3/5 stars.

Creating a 30's Film

     As part of our exploration of  1930's Hollywood, our group in class decided to create a feel-good blockbuster including big-name actors and musical numbers.  Synopsis follows:

     After the tragic death of his wife, Floyd is laid off from work by the bank.  Struggling to stay afloat financially, Floyd and his daughter Ruthie travel to  New York to stay with Floyd’s sister-in-law.  While singing and dancing on the street to cheer her father up, Ruthie is discovered by a Broadway producer.  She becomes famous very quickly, and meets Sherri, a dancer in the shows.  Both Ruthie and Floyd spend more and more time together with Sherri, and eventually she and Floyd fall in love. This is a heartwarming tale of the familial bonds between father and daughter, and the ability to pick up and move on.

      This movie is entirely meant as an escapist film to bring people's minds off the hardships of the Great Depression.  People wanted to get away from the bad things for a while and just sit and enjoy a feel-good movie.  And just to appease the masses, we added in a negative view of the banks (seeing as Floyd was laid off by one).  We didn't go so much for a message as for a "life is good, everything's okay" type of feel.  So, of course, it's a melodramatic film with musical elements.  And somehow it seems wrong to have a film like that without Shirley Temple.

      The first thing we really decided on, before a plot or director or anything else, was that we wanted Shirley Temple as the star.  That limits our studio to 20th Century Fox, known for their melodramas.  Fox was also known for it's cheesy American films, which is basically what our film is.  We can't really market this film in other countries, since it's mostly about Broadway, which is very American, and this film is also as cheesy as it gets.  So Fox is a good choice.  We want this movie to be big and expensive (especially since Temple is involved), a giant blockbuster that everyone knows about.  Fox would work for that as well.  

       We then narrowed down who we wanted in our cast to pair with Shirley Temple.  We picked Spencer Tracy to pair with Shirley Temple.  In 1935, Tracy was signed with 20th Century until he was later picked up by MGM.  He never achieved stardom under 20th Century and wasn't very well-known, so we figure this film was his attempt to become famous.  We also picked Vivien Leigh to play the dancer, Sherri, due to her reputation as a beautiful actress.  We figure that even though at this time she was living in London, she came to America to visit her significant other, Laurence Olivier, and happened to hear of this film (same way she ended up in "Gone With the Wind").  To direct this stellar cast, we wanted Frank Capra to direct since we know him from other feel-good cutsie movies like "It Happened One Night" and "It's a Wonderful Life."  However, we also know he is tight with Columbia.  To counteract that, we figure Fox traded Capra for John Ford so each studio could film with each famous director.  Columbia wanted Ford to do a Western, and Fox wanted Capra for our film.  We know that this film is going to rely heavily on sound, since it is about show business and Broadway, so we needed someone good to work with sound.  We chose W.D. Flick, who worked with Shirley Temple on "Our Little Girl."

(Spencer Tracy and Shirley Temple)

      Since this film is most certainly going to be under the limitations of the Hays Code, we thought out exactly how that will effect our film.  We can't show the death of the mother, so it will only have to be mentioned in passing.  And once Floyd falls in love with Sherri, any kiss they share can only be a maximum of 3 seconds.  All romantic elements have to be toned down to be very innocent.  Not only that, but all the dancers in the Broadway shows have to be conservatively dressed so as not to be deemed offensive.
      As a lover of Independent and Art-House films, this kind of movie goes against everything I really appreciate about a movie.  Most likely it will sell, but it isn't a movie I would want to make.  If I had worked alone, I probably would've chosen to make a more experimental, art-sy film.  I probably also would've cast Loretta Young as Sherri, since Tracy was dating her in 1935, and that on-screen chemistry would've been a nice element.  But all-in-all, I'm very happy with how this project turned out.  We worked hard, we have a stellar cast and crew, and we understand Hollywood in the 1930s!

MYST POST #2: 50/50

        I'm a big fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anna Kendrick, so I figured I'd give this movie a go.  The movie focuses on Adam (Gordon-Levitt), a 27 year old who finds out he has a rare type of cancer in his spine.  It describes his interactions between his best friend (Seth Rogen), his smothering mother (Anjelica Huston), his father who has Alzheimer's disease (Serge Houde), his flaky girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), and his new therapist (Anna Kendrick) as they all come to terms with the fact that he has cancer.  The title itself represents Adam's 50/50 chance of survival.  What results is a very honest and realistic portrayal of living with cancer.
   

       Of course, that doesn't mean the film is entirely serious.  Seth Rogen, known for comedy, manages to make light of the tough stuff and provides the comedic relief to the story.  Although practically all his lines have a comedic undertone, he ultimately comes off as a very considerate friend to Adam.  I always appreciate Anna Kendrick's acting, especially in "Pitch Perfect" and "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World," as it is usually very amusing.  She provides a lot of the comedy to the story as well.  So all in all not a completely sad film.
      One of the stylist choices I appreciated about the movie was the use of blur.  Whenever Adam is high on medication or, occasionally, drugs (give him a break, he does have cancer), the camera usually blurs in and out to give the effect of his view, being constantly disoriented and out of it.  Another thing I really loved was the reaction shots of the dog.  In a moment of acceptance for Adam's condition, his girlfriend brings home a dog to cheer Adam up.  The dog, like Adam, is not in the best condition, as he is a greyhound retired from racing.  His is rather old and very skinny,which draws parallels with Adam's own condition.  But usually, for comedic purposes, a shot of the dog looking mighty adorable will be included, which keeps up with the light tone the movie adopts.

       Another of the interesting choices of the movie is it's use of allusion.  Several television programs make it into the movies, including "The Colbert Report" and a news program about volcanoes, which is interesting because Adam is writing a radio program about volcanoes when the movie begins.  These little clips help reflect Adam's current mood and help us to see what's on his mind.  This allows the movie to involve less extraneous dialogue and be less blatant.  
       One of the scenes that really stood out to me is the scene where Adam finds out he has cancer.
The scene begins with Adam sitting in an office, biting his nails nervously.  The doctor comes and in pretty much ignores him, and then begins speaking into a tape recorder.  There are several close-ups of the doctor's mouth as he speaks into the recorder.  Then, Adam timidly raises his hand to get the doctor's attention, and asks exactly what is going on.  The doctor rambles off medical terms that don't make much sense, and then finally comes out and bluntly says "malignant tumor."  Out of nowhere.  As the doctor begins explaining about Adam's case the audio becomes a high whine, and the doctor's face completely blurs out, and only when the idea of cancer fully sinks in for Adam does the camera un-blur.  This is a very powerful scene, because the use of blur, audio, and complex medical terms spoken rapidly encompasses Adam's complete shock and disbelief at being diagnosed with cancer.  We, as the audience are very confused, until the doctor outright says "malignant tumor," and that creates a kind of jolt as something so big and ominous is just dumped unceremoniously onto us.  It's also interesting how throughout the scene, the doctor never once says "you're dying" or "you have a fairly high chance of dying."  Adam later complains to his therapist that no one will just come out and say that he is going to die.
     

       Compared with some of the cancer stories coming out nowadays, like "The Fault in Our Stars," nothing about cancer is over-glorified.  There's no epic love story.  There's a slight flirty relationship happening, but it is not meant to be epic by any means.  It's not at all obnoxious like "Now is Good," where the love story is the central driving force.  It's more about the support system friends and family create when everyone is coming to terms with illness.  This story is very honest about how it portrays cancer.  

        I will say one of the things I find annoying about this movie is the fact that certain subjects are brought up, like Adam's volcano project, or his nail-biting habits, and then are never followed through. I forgot whole parts of the film by the end, because they show up once or twice and then never reappear. Adam meets two characters while being administered chemotherapy, and they appear quite a lot, but after 3/4 of the movie is over they never show up again. They were important to the story (SPOILER: granted, one of them does die, but the other character literally disappears).  That seems illogical to me, but I guess the movie as a whole isn't any less enjoyable because of it.
       

        Basically, if you like uplifting movies about the bonds people make and uphold, I'd say go for it.  It's a little bit funny, a little bit sad, and overall very heartwarming.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a fantastic job of playing the terminally ill Adam, and I found his performance to be completely believable.  If you have a couple of hours to spare, not a bad way to go about it.

MYST POST #1: The Virgin Suicides

              

                Being a fan of Sofia Coppola, and enjoying two of her other movies, Lost in Translation (2003) and The Bling Ring (2013), I figured I ought to watch one of her earliest works, The Virgin Suicides (1999).  As expected, this movie is rather gloomy, but I found it to be an enjoyable watch.  The story focuses on the five Lisbon sisters, Cecilia  (Hanna Hall), Lux (Kirsten Dunst), Bonnie (Chelse Swain), Mary (A.J. Cook), and Therese (Leslie Hayman).  It’s basically a character study of these five girls from the perspective of the boys in the neighborhood.  The youngest girl, Cecilia, commits suicide, leaving a lasting impact on not only her family but on the community itself.  The parents (played by James Woods and Kathleen Turner), two very opposing forces (the father being lackadaisical and the mother being strict), shelter the remaining girls and eventually shut them up in the house.   We see the gradual emotional destruction of the girls as the movie progresses and ends.

               

 So, all in all, not a happy story. And if it had been done wrong it could’ve been incredibly tough to get through.  Coppola, I believe, manages to combat that.  The best part about the film is that it relies heavily on implications.  Many of the emotions of the girls or the family we have to pick up from their actions or their inflection when they speak.  Once Cecilia dies, there are several shots of the boys “seeing” her in their rooms or around town.  Mr. Lisbon believes to have seen her standing in her bedroom, a few feet from the window she jumped from.  This is heavily implying the state of mind of everyone; they all cannot stop thinking about Cecilia.  This alleviates some of the dark and depressing themes that could’ve made the movie tough. 

                 

               The main style of the film is almost an investigation; the boys explain all the evidence they find on the Lisbon girls, there are many “interviews” with various characters.  There were also included many voice-overs from the gossipers talking on the telephone, whispering rumors and secrets to one another while we see the boarded up outside of the house.  This again emphasizes the enigma of the girls; they are nothing but a rumor.  There is never concrete evidence found about them.

                Also to emphasize the pure dreamlike quality the girls posses, there are many shots of the girls framed in sunlight, dancing in fields.  There are many close-ups on Lux’s face, showing her smile or her hair.  The colors are bright and there are lots of camera flares, making them seem superficial, in a way.  This adds greatly into proving that yes, they are an unattainable, incomprehensible image the boys like to idolize, but never fully get to know.  To be honest, these girls and the way they are perceived remind me of the Lady Brett Ashley in Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises.  Loved for their image and their beauty, but never loved for themselves, and never fully understood.

                One scene that particularly resonated with me was the debutante party after the quadruple suicides of the remaining sisters. The party was themed “asphyxiation,” in bad taste, of course, but it shows the mentality of the boys.  The deaths are on their mind, constantly.  It is all they can think about, even, as they say, now they are all grown.  The party very much emphasizes the theme of death. The voices become tinny.  The lines that we manage to catch are all involving death.  Everything is soaked in a green haze, and many people wear gas masks.  The boys wander around amid a sea of well-dressed men and women, very much looking dead to the world.  The father of the debutante gives a speech about how proud they are of her, and how she has a bright future ahead of her.  A future the Lisbon girls no longer have before them.  One character flings himself into the pool, proclaiming “I’m a teenager, I have problems,” in complete mockery of the sisters.  The haziness and chaos of the scene reflects the inner haze the boys feel.  They spent much time obsessing over the girls, and now they are dead.  While the actual scene of the boys discovering the bodies was very brief and anticlimactic, this party and its visuals help us understand the aftermath of the deaths.  I found this scene to fit the end of the movie very well and it helped me comprehend the full impact of the girls’ deaths.

                I find this film to fit in with Coppola’s style exactly.  Many implications, many shots of character’s faces to understand their emotions.  She seems to like playing with sound, just like the murmured line in the end of Lost In Translation.  There are many quiet lines you have to listen very hard to catch, and there are many voice-overs with small tidbits of information the boys managed to uncover.   Kirsten Dunst, playing the sexually-active sister Lux, far exceeded my expectations.  Knowing her from the Spiderman movies, I was less than impressed to see her on the cast list for this movie.  But I was pleasantly surprised.  She manages to capture Lux’s character very well. 

                Upon discussing this film with my dad, he explained to me that the book, by Jeffrey Eugenides, was much better than its film adaptation.  Feeling curious, I read the book myself.  To be honest, not much was lost between the transition.  All the key elements are there, accurately portrayed on screen.  The actors captured their characters incredibly well, and Sofia Coppola’s approach to an investigative style matches the narration of the book.  To be honest, I’m not sure what my dad was talking about, and I’m a stickler for book to movie adaptations being good.  I will say that somehow the book had a luster to it, an enticement that was lost on the movie.  The book had a spark to it that never really made it on screen.  Yet I still feel the movie is fantastic anyways.

               

                If you like odd, quirky, slightly depressing films, then you’d probably like The Virgin Suicides.  Personally, I really enjoyed the cinematography and the script and the editing.  I would very much recommend this movie.  4.5/5 STARS