Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Puhnner Blog

Reviews

Reviews of movies
 
  • Use 'em and eat 'em

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    an interesting review here, with all sorts of 'spoilers', but worth a read before or after watching Trouble Every Day...

    http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/troubleeveryday.htm

    Plaintive and sad, Claire Denis' remarkable Trouble Every Day is a rare combination of honesty, beauty, and maybe even genius. It isn't enough to say that the picture captures the barbarism festering at the core of gender dynamics; nor is it sufficient to express my frank amazement at how Denis subverts genre in ways perverse and powerful. Here's a canny director who knows the vocabulary of cinema as well as the cruel poetics of sexual anthropology--perhaps it's enough to say that Trouble Every Day captures something ineffably true about the sex act with images vital, frank, and unshakable.

    We first see Coré (an oddly feral Béatrice Dalle) in a black nightie and an overcoat, standing in a field of winter wheat in a Paris landscape next to a rusted-out van. We first see Shane (a familiarly feral Vincent Gallo) on an overnight flight to Paris with his newlywed wife, June (Tricia Vessey). Because there's almost no dialogue in Trouble Every Day, we must surmise from early images that Coré has seduced and murdered--and perhaps partially consumed--a lascivious truck driver. We also uncover wordlessly Coré's husband Léo (Alex Descas) cleaning up her mess before locking her away in the attic of their Paris home.

    The attic, of course, is the place for Victorian women accused of sexuality and hysteria--Jung would know it as a place of the animus and the rational. Because Coré is the very embodiment of the animalistic irrational, she spends much of her time breaking out of her room or, in one of the film's most disturbing sequences, seducing a young lad through slats of wood like a Poe mistress. We also know that Shane probably suffers from the same malady because of the odd dream that he has in the airplane's toilet, and the way he nervously takes pills whenever his lovely young bride bats her eye. A bite mark on June's arm and, later, a wound on her lip, suggest that sometimes the pills aren't enough.

    Trouble Every Day is about sexual frustration, infidelity, and the pain of keeping a secret from your spouse or the loneliness of keeping one with her. (As a journal of a plague born of base urges it reminds of Larry Fessenden's inspired Habit.) The violence of the picture is as graphic as the eroticism: there's a poignancy to that equation just as there is something to be made of the fact that for the most part Denis locates the violence and the eroticism outside of both marriages. Legendarily gruesome and almost unwatchable in parts, the moments stickiest are the quiet ones: when Léo gently sponges his wife clean after one of her rampages, or when a green scarf is carried off by the wind after a day Shane and June spend like ordinary tourists.

    There is much unspoken melancholy in Trouble Every Day, all of it carried in the chasm opening between and beneath two couples with the capacity to love one another unconditionally. Even the title speaks to the drudgery of living with uncontrollable urges that have no place in polite society; the conventions of eating and fucking already skewered in Peter Greenaway's The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover get a brutal updating here that is less political than universal. When Coré chews off a paramour's face to his pathetic yowls and excruciating death rattles, there is something so familiar--so archetypal--in the imagery that it's at once breathtaking and disturbing for its exhilaration.

    Trouble Every Day causes one to examine the place of the self amidst social niceties as it satirizes the hubristic illness that allows people to separate themselves from animals--to repress base desires in ways unhealthy and unwise. It is a provocative film not for its indelible images, but for the unbearable weight of ferocious right embedded in those images. Note the crosses and arcs drawn in gore during one of Denis' and cinematographer Agnés Godard's immaculately composited tableaux, the amazing trust in the instructive power of silence and the gaze, and the extreme close-ups of the human body as it's reduced to landscapes of imperfect flesh. Denis' gift here is her ability to articulate the ways in which the creative process intersects with the procreative instinct: religious iconography described in charnel, inexpressible sacrifices demonstrated with mute gesture, and maps of strange geographies drawn on fields of skin. This is Clive Barker territory, or David Cronenberg reduced to image and totem.

    Trouble Every Day is a tone poem of transgression. Its themes are grounded in the existential divide between head and body and the ways that "consumption" and "knowledge" are consecrated words that attempt to leash unlearned compulsions under the yoke of civilization. It inspires such deep shifts in the personal fundament because it's absolutely right, even if the question is too complicated and unsavoury to articulate. It's disturbing because its essence is concerned with love, passion, and devotion: how it differs between the sexes (compare Coré's transgression with Shane's) and how, ultimately, it rules us even when we rail against it. Mesmeric and entrancing, intuitive and impossibly intimate, the picture is alive with craft, intelligence, and the absolute courage of its macabre vision. Trouble Every Day is among the finest films of the year, but handle it with care.-Walter Chaw

     


  • Good Germans wrapped up with paperclips

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Touch of Evil  (1958)

    The Good German  (2006)

    Ho hum...

    I wish this film had explored the subtext  (at least as it seems to me to be shown, but really when examined,  the drive behind the film narrative and the action itself ) more, the 'Operation Paperclip' side, but as noted in the article below, the original name was 'Operation Overcast.'  Various nastiness was cast aside for the advancement of the national goals to quickly and quietly extract those Germans of 'value'. The Cate Blanchett, while seeming to be channeling Deitrich in Touch of Evil,  Lena character and that of her husband Emil Brandt, who would expose the operation make much more sense to me knowing the reasons behind their seemingly contradictory and crosspurposed motivations and actions and ultimate ends. 

    Quite a bit of information exists on the program that is worth a look into. Here is a link and a brief telling of the story...go to the link and others available on the net and in books if you are interested in more...

    http://www.operationpaperclip.info/

    ...'Operation Paperclip was the codename under which the US intelligence and military services extricated scientists from Germany, during and after the final stages of World War II. The project was originally called Operation Overcast, and is sometimes also known as Project Paperclip.

    Of particular interest were scientists specialising in aerodynamics and rocketry (such as those involved in the V-1 and V-2 projects), chemical weapons, chemical reaction technology and medicine. These scientists and their families were secretly brought to the United States, without State Department review and approval; their service for Hitler's Third Reich, NSDAP and SS memberships as well as the classification of many as war criminals or security threats also disqualified them from officially obtaining visas. An aim of the operation was capturing equipment before the Soviets came in. The US Army destroyed some of the German equipment to prevent it from being captured by the advancing Soviet Army'...

     

    as to what Soderbergh was trying to do here, I just don't know. I would love to hear his commentary...but hell, the score was pretty good though and I enjoyed the melding of newsreel footage with the various portions of the film. It seems like it would be very interesting to bookend this film with Wilder and  Marlene Deitrich and Tyrone Power in Witness for the Prosecution and do some speculating about the characters.


  • sure it is possible, what isn't?

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Matrix [Film Series]  Production Year

    an interesting article from the science section of the new york times; grab a cup of something:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?_r=1&ref=science&pagewanted=print

     

    Findings

    Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy’s Couch

    Until I talked to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, it never occurred to me that our universe might be somebody else’s hobby. I hadn’t imagined that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the heavens and earth could be an advanced version of a guy who spends his weekends building model railroads or overseeing video-game worlds like the Sims.

    But now it seems quite possible. In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom’s, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation.

    This simulation would be similar to the one in “The Matrix,” in which most humans don’t realize that their lives and their world are just illusions created in their brains while their bodies are suspended in vats of liquid. But in Dr. Bostrom’s notion of reality, you wouldn’t even have a body made of flesh. Your brain would exist only as a network of computer circuits.

    You couldn’t, as in “The Matrix,” unplug your brain and escape from your vat to see the physical world. You couldn’t see through the illusion except by using the sort of logic employed by Dr. Bostrom, the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford.

    Dr. Bostrom assumes that technological advances could produce a computer with more processing power than all the brains in the world, and that advanced humans, or “posthumans,” could run “ancestor simulations” of their evolutionary history by creating virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people with fully developed virtual nervous systems.

    Some computer experts have projected, based on trends in processing power, that we will have such a computer by the middle of this century, but it doesn’t matter for Dr. Bostrom’s argument whether it takes 50 years or 5 million years. If civilization survived long enough to reach that stage, and if the posthumans were to run lots of simulations for research purposes or entertainment, then the number of virtual ancestors they created would be vastly greater than the number of real ancestors.

    There would be no way for any of these ancestors to know for sure whether they were virtual or real, because the sights and feelings they’d experience would be indistinguishable. But since there would be so many more virtual ancestors, any individual could figure that the odds made it nearly certain that he or she was living in a virtual world.

    The math and the logic are inexorable once you assume that lots of simulations are being run. But there are a couple of alternative hypotheses, as Dr. Bostrom points out. One is that civilization never attains the technology to run simulations (perhaps because it self-destructs before reaching that stage). The other hypothesis is that posthumans decide not to run the simulations.

    “This kind of posthuman might have other ways of having fun, like stimulating their pleasure centers directly,” Dr. Bostrom says. “Maybe they wouldn’t need to do simulations for scientific reasons because they’d have better methodologies for understanding their past. It’s quite possible they would have moral prohibitions against simulating people, although the fact that something is immoral doesn’t mean it won’t happen.”

    Dr. Bostrom doesn’t pretend to know which of these hypotheses is more likely, but he thinks none of them can be ruled out. “My gut feeling, and it’s nothing more than that,” he says, “is that there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation.”

    My gut feeling is that the odds are better than 20 percent, maybe better than even. I think it’s highly likely that civilization could endure to produce those supercomputers. And if owners of the computers were anything like the millions of people immersed in virtual worlds like Second Life, SimCity and World of Warcraft, they’d be running simulations just to get a chance to control history — or maybe give themselves virtual roles as Cleopatra or Napoleon.

    It’s unsettling to think of the world being run by a futuristic computer geek, although we might at last dispose of that of classic theological question: How could God allow so much evil in the world? For the same reason there are plagues and earthquakes and battles in games like World of Warcraft. Peace is boring, Dude.

    A more practical question is how to behave in a computer simulation. Your first impulse might be to say nothing matters anymore because nothing’s real. But just because your neural circuits are made of silicon (or whatever posthumans would use in their computers) instead of carbon doesn’t mean your feelings are any less real.

    David J. Chalmers, a philosopher at the Australian National University, says Dr. Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis isn’t a cause for skepticism, but simply a different metaphysical explanation of our world. Whatever you’re touching now — a sheet of paper, a keyboard, a coffee mug — is real to you even if it’s created on a computer circuit rather than fashioned out of wood, plastic or clay.

    You still have the desire to live as long as you can in this virtual world — and in any simulated afterlife that the designer of this world might bestow on you. Maybe that means following traditional moral principles, if you think the posthuman designer shares those morals and would reward you for being a good person.

    Or maybe, as suggested by Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University, you should try to be as interesting as possible, on the theory that the designer is more likely to keep you around for the next simulation. (For more on survival strategies in a computer simulation, go to www.nytimes.com/tierneylab.)

    Of course, it’s tough to guess what the designer would be like. He or she might have a body made of flesh or plastic, but the designer might also be a virtual being living inside the computer of a still more advanced form of intelligence. There could be layer upon layer of simulations until you finally reached the architect of the first simulation — the Prime Designer, let’s call him or her (or it).

    Then again, maybe the Prime Designer wouldn’t allow any of his or her creations to start simulating their own worlds. Once they got smart enough to do so, they’d presumably realize, by Dr. Bostrom’s logic, that they themselves were probably simulations. Would that ruin the fun for the Prime Designer?

    If simulations stop once the simulated inhabitants understand what’s going on, then I really shouldn’t be spreading Dr. Bostrom’s ideas. But if you’re still around to read this, I guess the Prime Designer is reasonably tolerant, or maybe curious to see how we react once we start figuring out the situation.

    It’s also possible that there would be logistical problems in creating layer upon layer of simulations. There might not be enough computing power to continue the simulation if billions of inhabitants of a virtual world started creating their own virtual worlds with billions of inhabitants apiece.

    If that’s true, it’s bad news for the futurists who think we’ll have a computer this century with the power to simulate all the inhabitants on earth. We’d start our simulation, expecting to observe a new virtual world, but instead our own world might end — not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a message on the Prime Designer’s computer.

    It might be something clunky like “Insufficient Memory to Continue Simulation.” But I like to think it would be simple and familiar: “Game Over.”


  • Arthur Schnitzler saw it first

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Out of Africa  (1985)

    The Wild Geese  (1978)

    In Clive James recent book Cultural Amnesia; he writes about  people who matter, most of them though, I am very sad and embarrassed to say, I never heard of ( for that matter, I just noticed that I had been reading his works for years in the New Yorker, but never noticed the ‘by-line’  until the other day ) but well I should have.   

    The book is set up in alphabetical order and its subjects include such persons as Louis Armstrong, Dick Cavett, Miles Davis, Sergei Diaghilev, Francois Furet, Chris Marker, Michael Mann, Thomas Mann, Erik Satie, Margaret Thatcher, Isoroku Yamamoto, Aleksandr Zinoviev, and many others. Each person’s section begins with a brief biographical introduction followed by an essay of sorts on that particular person. The biographical information is terse and leaves a feeling of wanting to know much more of the person. The essays provide the most interest, relating the person in question with all sorts of other persons, other arts, and simple, often times intensely personal observations.  I cannot say that I agree with all his observations, for who could ( I do not share  his perception of John Coltrane’s music and the music of  that period of Jazz in particular that he sets down in his essay on Duke Ellington ) but there is certainly something about Clive James way of weaving one bit to another and another and another.  

    A portion of the section on Arthur Schnitzler follows below and how James weaves an isolated quote into an examination of the manifest absurdity within the mentioned films, the blockbuster,  a few actors ability and personal idiosyncrasies, the nature of a ‘star’ to an actor, historic detail, and more…   

    Of the great unknowns, Arthur Schnitzler (1862-1931) has his section and in the essay portion  contains a marvelous review of sorts on ‘Where Eagles Dare’ a wonderously hilarious  World War II adventure.   I quote at length ( it is lengthy but can be read in convenient sections without missing much at all ), because Clive James tells and writes it all so well: 

    ‘Arthur Schnitzler (1862-1931 ) was a giant of literary Vienna in its most fruitful era.  A practicing physician before he turned professional writer, he brought a view steeped in the harsh realism of the consulting room and the surgery to his stories, novels, and plays.  The most conspicuous, and most enduringly controversial, element in this clinical realism was his exploration of the erotic.  As a physician he knew a lot about it at secondhand…’ 

    ‘there are all kinds of flight from responsibility.  There is a flight into death, a flight into sickness, and finally a flight into stupidity.  The last is the least dangerous and the most comfortable, since even for clever people the journey is not as long as they might fondly imagine.’-Arthur Schnitzler, Buch Der Spruche und Bedenken, p. 78-  

    ‘… Schnitzler’s flight into stupidity might look like the only explanation for the sort of newspapers, magazines, television programs and movies that make us ashamed to be living in the West.  At first blush, the mass media seem to offer the ideal chance of examining stupidity in isolation.  But once again, the trick is not easily worked.  There is a possibility, amounting to a probability when the really big money is involved, that the stupidity is being manufactured by clever people whose commercial motives put their case, scope and integrity into abeyance.  This non-anomaly becomes most obvious in the case of Hollywood's blockbuster movies, or the long haul of creative intelligence takes a spiral route towards the big haul at the box office. Every onlooker fancies his power of discrimination has a wonderful time when a blockbuster flops on the opening weekend.  But the blockbuster that we actually have a wonderful time watching is a more equivocal case. Where Eagles Dare has always been my favorite example: since the day I first saw it, I've taken a sour delight rebutting pundits who so blithely assume that the obtuseness on screen merely reflects the stunted mentalities behind the camera, and I go on seeing its every rerun on television in order to reinforce my stock of telling detail---and, alright, in order to have a wonderful time.  There's something precious about the intellectual squalor of Where Eagles Dare: it is a swamp with the surface of green pulp squeeze from emeralds.  You can't get the same charge from Delta Force movies, or from the adventures of Jean-Claude Van Damme and the brainless universe where men with guns are helpless against a man fighting with his feet.  Where Eagles Dare is the apex of a form: it shows that there is somewhere to go beyond The Guns of Navarone, a numbskull stratosphere in which not even The Wild Geese could fly.  Where eagles dare, the sense of the ridiculous winks out to a dot, and the vision is filled with the vaulting pretensions of latter-day schoolmen who believe, if only ad hoc and pro tem, its cinematic sense can exist in vacuo: detached, that is, from any other sense; a voluntary brain-death.  The whole complex phenomena is epitomized by Richard Burton's hairstyle. 

    Schnitzler, let us remember, said that the flight into stupidity is a flight away from responsibility.  But soaring beyond any human absurdity that even Schnitzler could imagine, Richard Burton's hairstyle in Where Eagles Dare is a flight into stupidity and away from the barber.  Burton plays a British agent who is possibly also a German agent, although we can be fairly sure that he will turn out to be a British agent in the end, because Richard Burton's agent would never agree to a deal by which his client was shot at dawn.  Burton the almost certainly British stage is sent, with Clint Eastwood and other agents---some of who actually do turn out to be German agents—on a mission to a castle deep behind German lines, there to rescue, or possibly confirm the credibility of, or perhaps betray the real identity of an actor pretending to be an American general in possession of the plans for a Second Front.  The actor playing the actor need not detain us, and considering how he acts it is a wonder that the Germans have detained him.  (There is a lot more to wonder about the behavior of the Germans, but we'll get to that later.)  The actors who matter are Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood.  Clint, already a top box office draw at the time, has been cast as a simple, straight-talking American assassin who helps a fiendishly ingenious British spy: it's the same relationship as Felix Leiter to James Bond, but beefed up to equal status to meet the requirements of the American marquee.  Apart from saying "hello" so as to make Germans turn around before he shoots them with the silenced pistol---if he had merely mouthed "hello" before shooting them in the back, it would have been a different kind of movie, i.e., a realistic one ---Clint's character has nothing anachronistic about him except his cataleptic taciturnity, which we are glad to recognize as a minimally equipped actor's career-long habit of overdoing the understatement.  Burton's own style of acting is equally dissonant with the time, but in the opposite direction: he always overdid the overstatement, and from the beginning to the end of his career on screen he looked exactly like a stage actor projecting to the upper circle, except when a director with animal-training skills (Martin Ritt in The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, to take one of the few examples) either whipped him into submission or else slipped a sedative into his morning triple.  Burton always moved his lips so much when he enunciated that they would stick out past the end of his nose, and there are episodes in Where Eagles Dare in which they practically leave the frame, as if yet another triple was waiting out there, begging  to be imbibed.   

    It isn't the stuff he does with his face, however, that makes Burton look out of place in this castellated anteroom of World War II.  It is the stuff on top of his head.  It's his hairstyle.  It was probably still all his own hair at that stage, but it's a hairstyle: an item, that is, which not even women found it easy to obtain during World War II, and which for men was unknown.  (In the movie, Mary Ure has obviously taken a hairstylist into action with her, but we never see him: although if he'd wandered into a shot holding a crimping iron he would have looked no more futuristic than her miraculously smooth coiffure, shining with a blonde luster that  Eva Braun, even with her connections, could only dream of.) The high command of the Romanian army did indeed issue an order that no officer below the rank of major could wear makeup, but the British army and the German army both made a policy of short back and sides for all ranks, and the German army was particularly close-cropped.  Yet Burton, intending to be accepted as a German officer in order to penetrate the enemy redoubt, has gone to action sporting a page-boy hairstyle so fulsome that it spills abundant curls and waves below the back of his collar.  Burton had a big head anyway.  I interviewed him once, and found out why he always looks so stocky on screen: it was because his upper works were so broad you had to lean sideways to see past him.  Even if close-shorn he would have had to wear a cap rare for its size in the whole of the Wehrmacht.  But with his hairstyle added to his massive cranium, his cap has to be big enough for a buffalo, and it still does nothing to disguise---does a lot, indeed, to emphasize,--- the anomalous abundance of hair protruding at the back.  On several occasions in the movie has to pass a German checkpoint, and you can only deduce that the garrison has been recruited from an institute to for the blind.  Later in the war, when regular German forces were in a state of collapse, Volksstrum units were organized from the old, the adolescent, the lame and the sick, but I can't remember that very many sightless people were issued with the Panzerfaust  and asked  to shoot in the direction of the noise kicked up by Allied tanks.  Here at the castle there is no discrimination against the optically handicapped. 

    Whether as a single, double or triple agent (“Triple, please," you can imagine him saying) the Burton character would have been barely free of his parachute harness before being placed under arrest.  He would have been locked up on the basis of his appearance alone.  Every other anachronism is explicable, within the screenplay’s purely cinematic parameters.  In the German pub below the castle, Burton, Eastwood and the other agents---the others are notable chiefly for their expandability---talk very loudly in English.  Yes, English is their chosen language when they discuss their plans about fooling the Germans, and they do not lower their voices when members of the garrison pass by closely behind them.  It could be said, however, that a convention is being observed here, and that our agents are really speaking German.  (It could also be said that if they were speaking German, the closely attendant Germans would be even more likely to notice that plans to fool them were being loudly discussed, but let that pass.)  There is also the consideration that English seems to be the adopted language of every German in the area.  Similarly, it could be put down to an equally hallowed cinematic convention when the German commandant arrives in the castle courtyard by helicopter.  There were no operational helicopters in World War II, but there were no operational cannon ancient Rome either, and Shakespeare still put a few in.  Shakespeare pioneered Hollywood's flexible attitude to temporal authenticity, as any what Hollywood mogul with a tertiary education will be glad to tell you.  For every howler in the movie there is a good justification, the principal one being that the people who made the movie must have known it was howler, but correctly judged that nobody they cared about would notice.  In the majority of big-budget war films since World War II, and all the small budget ones, the enemy has always fired a special kind of bullet that goes around, instead of through, the actors on our side, occasionally penetrating only at the shoulder or in a sexually neutral section of the upper thigh.  In Sands of Iwo Jima John Wayne finally got killed by Japanese bullet while he was sitting down, but only after the Japanese machine gunners had vainly fired thousands of bullets at him when he was running very slowly.  In Where Eagles Dare, whole German machine-gun nests equipped with multiple examples of the lethal MG42 (rate of   fire: 1200 rounds per minute) are unable to graze Richard Burton's hairstyle.  Big enough for slowly moving cow to graze it, for cinematic reasons it is impervious to speeding lead.  But there are precedents for that.  There is no precedent for the hairstyle per se. 

    This is where the pundit clinches his seemingly open-and-shut case for Schnitzler’s flight into stupidity as the principal motivation of the film’s creators, or perpetrators.  He might concede that some of the perps are technically clever, but in that case he will insist that there is still a collective purpose: the system itself.  And he will be right, but not as right as he thinks.  He has overlooked the factor of star power, which is what made him see the movie in the first place.  Letting Burton keep his everyday or hairstyle was a studio’s only chance of getting them into this sector of World War II.  (He kept a less a bit less of his thatch for his cameo appearance in The Longest Day, but it still wasn't buoyant enough to get him arrested by his own side, let alone by the enemy. ) And Burton wasn't being stupid either.  He realized that the point was not to look like a British agent plausibly pretending to be a German officer: the point was to look like Richard Burton.  The reality of star power depends on exactly that.  Malleability is for actors.  For screen stars, recognizability is what matters.  Much later, and in a better movie, Robert Redford proved it all over again by declining at the last moment to adopt an English accent when he played Denys Finch Hatton in Out of Africa.  He was right.  Out of Africa was a serious venture, but it was still a blockbuster and it needed Redford as a draw on the marquee, not as a paragon of authenticity on the screen.  Redford was content to leave all that to Meryl Streep and Klaus Maria Brandauer.  He wasn't just content, he insisted.  And it was by making such demands that he became Robert Redford.  If we doubt the value of that, we should remember that he would never have been in a position to set up the Sundance Festival, and thus alter the whole course of independent and intelligent film-making in America, if he hadn't been Robert Redford in the first instance.  He is a very clever man, and so, between drinks was Burton, who could recite English poetry by the mile.  Burton was clever enough to intuit a deeply awkward truth, and incorporate it in the hairstyle he carried into action in one of the most lucrative movies he ever made.  To one side of the world's great events, there is the interpretation of them.  To one side of the interpretation, there is entertainment.  And to one side of entertainment, there is absurdity.  But if the absurdity is correctly judged, he will be found entertaining, even by those who are well aware of the real importance of the events being travestied.  There can be a willing, mass participation in the flight into stupidity, because there can always be an agreed moment when the flight away from responsibility becomes irresistible.  To pick that moment takes a kind of talent, it might be a spoiled talent, but mediocrity will never make it…’   

     

    Quite a bit remains within the remainder of this essay and for that matter the book in its entirety.  


  • Akira Kurosawa's Dreams

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

     The Dreams:

    Sunshine through the Rain

    The Peach Orchard

    The Blizzard

    The Tunnel

    Crows

    Mount Fuji in Red

    The Weeping Demon

    Village of the Watermills 

    What do dreams tell us? What do these of Kurosawa tell us?  From what stuff are Dreams constructed?  Mine, never as lyrical as these in this film,  typically take the events of the day, mix them up a bit, add a bit of extraneous information, pour on some garbled insight, add some emotional coloring, and then become sort of an amalgam of what has occurred during the day offering new and I would hope fresh insights about that which has transpired during the course of my day. 

    Of course, in Kurosawa's Dreams, none of the dreams are disjointed like mine.  All the dreams are much more structured, and follow a discernible narrative, but all are nonetheless, clearly magical.  Of the eight, I am hard pressed to make a choice of a favorite; it seems so difficult (the clouds of drifting peach blossoms like a blizzard of snow, in “The Peach Orchard";  simply unforgettable).  One, ‘Crows’,  however, took several of Van Gogh's paintings and made them live.  

    I lost track and am not quite certain of exactly which paintings were made live in the film.  As the artist character walked the fields in France, he came upon ‘Langlois Bridge at Arles with Women Washing’ made alive, Women Washing, the stone Bridge itself, all in Van Gogh’s glorious colors.  Later the artist character walked along the road across the same fields Van Gogh painted, and then met up with the Van Gogh himself painting, played by Martin Scorsese, complete with the bandage and the missing ear.  I may be wrong, but next occurred, ‘The Sun rising behind Mont. Majours’ and then in a burst of flight, ‘Wheat Field with Crows’ ( one of the last works before Van Gogh’s  suicide )  with hundreds of Crows squawking and flapping in flight covering the screen. 

    For more information about Van Gogh, all of his individual paintings, his letters to his brother Theo, and much more, please see the following website:http://www.vggallery.com/index.html  

    From E. H. Gombrich’s  ‘The Story of Art’, here is information regarding the individual  paintings on the screen and what Van Gogh was experiencing during that portion of his life ( Van Gogh completed hundreds of paintings over the course of the final three years of his life).  I quote this Gombrich at length and apologize for the length but it seems there's so much information ( especially the final paragraph ) that Grombrich conveys here that points directly to not only Van Gogh, but  other artists, art, and my feelings for Kurosawa's work and his in this film.  

     

    In the winter of 1888, while Cezanne was painting his landscapes and still lifes in Aix, there arrived in southern France another painter in search of the intense light and colours of the south. He was a young and earnest Dutchman called Vincent Van Gogh. Van Gogh was born in Holland in 1853, the son of a vicar. He was a deeply religious man who had worked as a lay preacher in England and among Belgian miners. He had been profoundly impressed by the art of Milet and its social message, and decided to become a painter himself. A younger brother, Theo, who worked in an art-dealer’s shop, introduced him to Impressionist painters. This brother was a remarkable man. Though poor himself, he always gave ungrudgingly to the older Vincent and even financed his journey to Arles in southern France. Vincent hoped that if he could work there undisturbed for a number of years he might be able one day to sell his pictures and repay his generous brother. In his self-chosen solitude in Arles, Vincent confided in his letters to Theo, which read like a continuous diary, all his ideas and hopes. These letters, by a humble and almost self-taught artist who had no idea of the fame he was to achieve, are among the most moving and exciting in all literature. In them we can feel the artist’s sense of mission, his struggle and triumphs, his desperate loneliness and longing for companionship, and we become aware of the immense strain under which he worked with feverish energy. After less than a year, in December 1888, he broke down and had an attack of insanity. In May 1889 he went into a mental asylum, but he still had lucid intervals during which he continued to paint. The agony lasted for another fourteen months. In July 1890 Van Gogh put an end to his life. He died younger than even Raphael. His career as a painter had not lasted more than ten years---the paintings on which his fame rests were all painted during three years which were interrupted by crises and despair. Most people nowadays know some of these paintings; the sunflowers, the empty chair, the cypresses and some of the portraits have become popular in coloured reproductions and can be seen in many a simple room. That is exactly what Van Gogh wanted. He wanted his pictures to have the direct and strong effect of the coloured Japanese prints he admired so much. He longed for an unsophisticated art which would not only appeal to the rich connoisseurs but could give joy and consolation to every human being. Nevertheless, this is not quite the whole story. No reproduction is perfect. The cheaper ones make Van Gogh’s pictures look cruder than they really are, and one may sometimes tire of them. Whenever that happens, it is quite a revelation to return to Van Gogh’s original works and to discover how subtle and deliberate he could be even in his strongest effects. 

    For Van Gogh, too, had absorbed the lessons of Impressionism. He experimented with the use of bright, pure colours which he did not mix on the palette but applied to the canvas in small strokes or dots, relying on the beholder’s eye which would see them all together. Some of the younger painters in Paris had built up a whole scientific theory on this type of ‘pointillisme’ which should heighten the intensity of colour effects. Van Gogh liked the technique of painting in dots and strokes, but under his hand it became something rather different from what the Impressionists had meant it to be. For Van Gogh used the individual brush-strokes not only to break up the colour but also to convey his own excitement. In one of his letters from Arles he describes his states of inspiration when ‘the emotions are sometimes so strong that one works without being aware of working…and the strokes come with a sequences and coherence like words in a speech or a letter’. The comparison could not be clearer. In such moments he painted as other men write.  Just as the form of the writing in a letter, the traces left by the pen on the paper, impart something of the gestures of the writer, so that we feel instinctively when a letter was written under great stress of emotion---so the brush-strokes of Van Gogh tell us something of the state of his mind. No artist before him had ever used this means with such consistency and effect. We remember that there is bold and loose brush-work in earlier paintings, in works by Tintoretto ( St. George’s Fight with the Dragon ), by Hals ( Pieter van der Broecke ), and by Manet (Monet working in his boat ), but in these it rather conveys the artists’ sovereign mastery, his quick perception and magic capacity of conjuring up a vision. In Van Gogh they help to convey the exaltation of the artist’s mind. Van Gogh liked to paint objects and scenes which gave this new means full scope---motifs in which he could draw as well as paint with his brush, and lay on the colour thick just as a writer who underlines his words. That is why he was the first painter to discover the beauty of stubbles, hedgerows and cornfields, of the gnarled branches of olive trees and the dark, flame-like shapes of the cypress ( Landscape with Cypresses near Arles ). 

    It is clear that Van Gogh was not mainly concerned with correct representation.  He used colors and forms to convey what he felt about the things he painted, and what he wished others to feel.  He did not care much for what he called "stereoscopic reality", that is to say the photographically exact picture of nature.  He would exaggerate and even change the appearance of things when this suited his aim.  Thus he had arrived by a different road in a similar juncture to that at which Cezanne found himself during these same years.  Both took a momentous step of deliberately abandoning the aim of painting as an "imitation of nature".  Their reasons, of course, were different.  When Cezanne painted a still life, he wanted to explore the relationship of forms and color, and took in only so much of "correct perspective" as he happened to need for his particular experiment.  Van Gogh new wanted this painting to express what he felt, and if distortion helped him to achieve this aim he would use distortion.  Both of them had arrived at this point without wanting to overthrow the old standards of art.  They did not pose as "revolutionaries"; they did not want to shock the complacent critics.  Both of them, in fact, had almost given up hope of anybody paying attention to their pictures-they just worked on because they had to.  

     

    Neither dreams nor the dreams in this film, nor some films are overly concerned with correct representation.  Films can, "…exaggerate and even change the appearances of things when this…” suits the Director's aims.  As Kurosawa does here, in this film, all the better so for our emotional benefit, enjoyment, and experience.


  • Minority Report; the beginnings are now...

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Blade Runner  (1982)

    Imposter  Production Year

    Total Recall  (1990)

    Minority Report  (2002)

    Paycheck  (2003)

    A Scanner Darkly  (2006)

    everything moves very quickly towards somewhere...Minority Report, Total Recall, Imposter, Paycheck, A Scanner Darkly, Blade Runner; what was Philip K. Dick thinking??? because it seems to be coming true... 

    from:   http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2009229,00.html 

    The brain scan that can read people's intentions

    Call for ethical debate over possible use of new technology in interrogation

    Ian Sample, science correspondent
    Friday February 9, 2007
    The Guardian

     


    Using the technology is 'like shining a torch, looking for writing on a wall'. CT image: Charles O'Rear/Corbis
     

    A team of world-leading neuroscientists has developed a powerful technique that allows them to look deep inside a person's brain and read their intentions before they act.

    The research breaks controversial new ground in scientists' ability to probe people's minds and eavesdrop on their thoughts, and raises serious ethical issues over how brain-reading technology may be used in the future.

     The team used high-resolution brain scans to identify patterns of activity before translating them into meaningful thoughts, revealing what a person planned to do in the near future. It is the first time scientists have succeeded in reading intentions in this way. "Using the scanner, we could look around the brain for this information and read out something that from the outside there's no way you could possibly tell is in there. It's like shining a torch around, looking for writing on a wall," said John-Dylan Haynes at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Germany, who led the study with colleagues at University College London and Oxford University.

    The research builds on a series of recent studies in which brain imaging has been used to identify tell-tale activity linked to lying, violent behaviour and racial prejudice.

     

    The latest work reveals the dramatic pace at which neuroscience is progressing, prompting the researchers to call for an urgent debate into the ethical issues surrounding future uses for the technology. If brain-reading can be refined, it could quickly be adopted to assist interrogations of criminals and terrorists, and even usher in a "Minority Report" era (as portrayed in the Steven Spielberg science fiction film of that name), where judgments are handed down before the law is broken on the strength of an incriminating brain scan.

     

    "These techniques are emerging and we need an ethical debate about the implications, so that one day we're not surprised and overwhelmed and caught on the wrong foot by what they can do. These things are going to come to us in the next few years and we should really be prepared," Professor Haynes told the Guardian.

     The use of brain scanners to judge whether people are likely to commit crimes is a contentious issue that society should tackle now, according to Prof Haynes. "We see the danger that this might become compulsory one day, but we have to be aware that if we prohibit it, we are also denying people who aren't going to commit any crime the possibility of proving their innocence."

    During the study, the researchers asked volunteers to decide whether to add or subtract two numbers they were later shown on a screen.

     

    Before the numbers flashed up, they were given a brain scan using a technique called functional magnetic imaging resonance. The researchers then used a software that had been designed to spot subtle differences in brain activity to predict the person's intentions with 70% accuracy.

     The study revealed signatures of activity in a marble-sized part of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex that changed when a person intended to add the numbers or subtract them.

    Because brains differ so much, the scientists need a good idea of what a person's brain activity looks like when they are thinking something to be able to spot it in a scan, but researchers are already devising ways of deducing what patterns are associated with different thoughts.

     

    Barbara Sahakian, a professor of neuro-psychology at Cambridge University, said the rapid advances in neuroscience had forced scientists in the field to set up their own neuroethics society late last year to consider the ramifications of their research.

     

    "Do we want to become a 'Minority Report' society where we're preventing crimes that might not happen?," she asked. "For some of these techniques, it's just a matter of time. It is just another new technology that society has to come to terms with and use for the good, but we should discuss and debate it now because what we don't want is for it to leak into use in court willy nilly without people having thought about the consequences.

     

    "A lot of neuroscientists in the field are very cautious and say we can't talk about reading individuals' minds, and right now that is very true, but we're moving ahead so rapidly, it's not going to be that long before we will be able to tell whether someone's making up a story, or whether someone intended to do a crime with a certain degree of certainty."

     

    Professor Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist and director of the Medical Research Council, said: "We shouldn't go overboard about the power of these techniques at the moment, but what you can be absolutely sure of is that these will continue to roll out and we will have more and more ability to probe people's intentions, minds, background thoughts, hopes and emotions.

     

    "Some of that is extremely desirable, because it will help with diagnosis, education and so on, but we need to be thinking the ethical issues through. It adds a whole new gloss to personal medical data and how it might be used."

     

    The technology could also drive advances in brain-controlled computers and machinery to boost the quality of life for disabled people. Being able to read thoughts as they arise in a person's mind could lead to computers that allow people to operate email and the internet using thought alone, and write with word processors that can predict which word or sentence you want to type . The technology is also expected to lead to improvements in thought-controlled wheelchairs and artificial limbs that respond when a person imagines moving.

     

    "You can imagine how tedious it is if you want to write a letter by using a cursor to pick out letters on a screen," said Prof Haynes. "It would be much better if you thought, 'I want to reply to this email', or, 'I'm thinking this word', and the computer can read that and understand what you want to do."

     · FAQ: Mind reading

    What have the scientists developed?
    They have devised a system that analyses brain activity to work out a person's intentions before they have acted on them. More advanced versions may be able to read complex thoughts and even pick them up before the person is conscious of them.

     

    How does it work?
    The computer learns unique patterns of brain activity or signatures that correspond to different thoughts. It then scans the brain to look for these signatures and predicts what the person is thinking.

     

    How could it be used?
    It is expected to drive advances in brain-controlled computers, leading to artificial limbs and machinery that respond to thoughts. More advanced versions could be used to help interrogate criminals and assess prisoners before they are released. Controversially, they may be able to spot people who plan to commit crimes before they break the law.

     What is next?
    The researchers are honing the technique to distinguish between passing thoughts and genuine intentions

     


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<December 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789


Categories
 


Advertisement