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