Four Eyed Monsters
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Tour Spout | Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Smooth_J Blog

  • The Rarely Recognized Art of the Profile Shot

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

    The idea for this analysis came to mind when I recently saw Bergman's The Seventh Seal.  While I was not quite as blown away by the film as most accolades of the film would suggest, I still found it to be an excellent movie, and could see very clearly the influence it has had on so many films that have come after it.

    The one scene that I especially noticed a direct legacy in later films was a short, almost gimmicky little snippet during the medieval religious cult scene in the town--where the drums are beating loudly, people are screaming in agony as whips crack, and monks and other repenters are carrying enormous crosses on their backs.  There is a short string of profile shots: Antonius, Jons, and "The Girl" (the only specific name I could find for her anywhere on the internet).  The cuts between the faces are done with the beats of the drums; they are perfectly centered, with mist or smoke rising in the backgrounds, adding to each image's raw, black-and-white imagery; and each face perfectly describes what each character is feeling in the specific scene.  Antonius stares onward at the happenings, in the middle of an intense existential dilemma, scrutinizing the scene and attempting to sort out what it all could mean.  Jons observes with amused (yet somewhat disturbed) contempt for not only the people of the scene, but for all of humanity.  And The Girl stares ahead in fear, the only one of them who truly realizes the oncoming apocalypse at such an early stage.  At first glance, it seems like an empty trick thrown in for effect by Bergman.  But such use of tone and the profile shot have been used countless times, seemingly originated by Bergman and his equals at this time of cinematic experimentation.  For example, this technique of switching profiles to the beat of something is used pretty much verbatum in the film I'm Not There, where Todd Haynes switches between all the faces of Bob Dylan to the sound of gunshots--all in misty black-and-white photography.

    What makes a profile shot so effective is that (sorry for this cliche...) every face tells a story, and it only takes a skilled actor, a good director, and a camera with the right film to turn it into a work of art.  But I mean, portraits and sculpture dating back to prehistoric times make use of the nuances of the human face, from Egyptian sculptures of pharaohs, the stone heads of Easter Island, and technically even Native American tikis.  Different societies and different mediums of art have used the face for various forms of expression, and it is probably one of the most common depictions in art.  Look at the Mona Lisa--it's one of the most famous works of art ever created, and it is a painting of a woman's face.  It's the mystery behind her expressions, her features, her true identity that makes the work so timeless and so debatable.

    However, there's something about seeing the human face framed in a camera--especially on a black-and-white one--that is so beautiful and so perfect.  In my mind, who cares about Joe Wright's five minute tracking shot.  Hundreds of extras, thousands of dollars, all to capture a vast expanse of imagery without any empathy involved.  For a well-done profile shot, all one needs an actor, a director, and a camera--nothing else.  I'm not necessarily saying that a tracking shot would not be a work of art, since it is one in itself, but I feel as though such broadness cannot capture the undeniable intimacy of human emotion that is shown on any person's face.  Even one's eyes, shifting crazily during a "trip" through time and space (2001: A Space Odyssey) have the ability to captivate a viewer, and give them a glimpse into a character's psyche.

    Last night, while running through this topic in my head, I came up with several movies and genres that utilize the human profile extensively.  The first that came to mind was the film-noir genre, with its fims' personal, close feel.  Who can forget the faces of the tortured heroes of these films, driving around puffing on their ever-present cigarettes?  While my knowledge of this genre is pretty limited, I know enough to recognize the faces of the classic noir heroes.  Neo-noir and crime films have taken up these techniques, especially films like Pulp Fiction (and other Tarantino) and Chinatown (which is pretty much classic noir).

    Another film that really sticks out in my mind is The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, with its infamous final shoot-out of only profile shots and guns.  Leone had a gift for the small touches of the human face, as he also demonstrates his penchant for this in Once Upon a Time in the West.  He perfectly illustrates the dirtiness and inherent wickedness in a lot of his characters through perfectly staged shots of their sweaty, grizzled faces.

    Kubrick was an auteur in many ways, and one that I have especially noticed is his perfect use of a framed, still camera shot.  One of my favorites occurs in Dr. Strangelove, with the shot of General Jack Ripper during one of his monologues, where the camera is beneath his face and it basically looking right up his nose at a crooked angle.  Just the staging of this shot gives the viewer a perfect sense of how unhinged the man really is.  It's hilarity through just good direction.

    Now, I hate to stray off of my established topic, but I feel as though I can't discuss the profile shot without talking about its cinematic opposite, the subjective shot.  While not nearly as popular, in the right hands, it can be nearly as effective as the human profile.  David Lynch has pretty much mastered this craft, and he uses it flawlessly to create almost unbearable terror in Inland Empire.  One of the most terrifying experiences I've every had while watching a movie happened when I watched Mulholland Dr. for the first time, when the man in the restaraunt is walking to face the monster in the alley--Lynch uses the man's point of view to emphasize the horror being faced.  I pretty much shit my pants.  Did that aspect of the film really serve much of a purpose?  No, not really.  But it has an undeniable finesse and effectiveness that makes it essential to the overall tone of the movie.  Another film that uses the subjective point of view to enhance horror is one that I watched recently, Dreyer's Vampyr.  It is a short scene in which it is used, but creates a great sense of claustrophic fear.

    A couple of films that go hand-in-hand in terms of use of POV are Being John Malkovich and Diving Bell and the Butterfly.  BJM flawlessly portrays being inside the head of someone else, from the sound effects to the imagery.  You ARE walking around in someone else's shoes, and it's amazing.  DB&tB also uses this technique of seeing the world through someone else's eyes.  Schnabel meticulously recreates the feeling of being confined within one's mind, with no escape and no possible sense of escape.  It is a beautiful technique used in an absolutely beautiful film, and it heightens the unending and unavoidable sadness of the film.  In a convoluted way, the film also makes great use of the profile shot--from the eyes of Bauby.  The lighting and camera effects used illustrate the beauty of his nurse's faces unlike anything I have ever seen, framing them in his one eye with the foggy edges.  The camera examines their features as though you are Bauby, longing to reach out and touch them, but you can't and it is near torture.

    For the most part, it is foreign directors that use these sort of simple shots to greatest effect--I feel as though they typically can emphasize beauty better than any American director ever could, not only through profile and POV but also through beauty of landscapes.

    Now, I know I must address that nearly every movie uses these sorts of methods, and my film repertoire may not permit me to do a full elucidation on such topics.  However, I have always been taken aback by the immense possibilities of film-making.  As I have dreams of becoming a film-maker, I can't help but analyze such things when I watch movies, and take them to mind when imagining camera angles and writing ideas.  And the things that I have always marveled at are the simple things that can be done by anyone with an idea, a camera, and subject.  That's where the true beauty of film-making lies, in its simplest artistry.


  • What's a religion without mystery?

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

    Un Chien Andalou  (1928)

    I approached this film because of my recent interest in surrealist cinema, and it especially drew my attention because Bunuel was one of the founders of the genre.  However, the film was not the abstract meditation on religion that I expected--instead, it is more like a 101 minute essay on the nature of religion and herecy, and yet somehow manages to remain entertaining.

    The majority of the film consists of either discussion or encounters through time displaying the various events in Christian herecy's history.  Not knowing much about the history of herecy (like most other people, which was acknowledged by Bunuel and his co-writer Jean-Claude Carriere), the film was more like a history lesson for me at many of these parts, somewhat distracting from the more important details and satire of film.  Even so, the more comprehensible events are so well-developed and staged that one can remain hooked on the film even through the seemingly meaningless religious jabberings; I do not say that as an insult to the film, more as an observation of my own religious incompetence.  There are, however, several key points of Bunuel's vision that I could pick out.

    One that seemed quite prominent was his insistence that religious people's ideas constantly change with the winds, and no matter how set they are on them one minute, a mere change in tone can shift them in a complete opposite direction.  He comments on the hippocracy and contradictions of the Catholic religion in several scenes: A priest and a police-man debate the nature of the Holy Eucharist, and whether Christ is contained inside of the Eucharist or if he just is the Eucharist, no questions asked.  The priest firmly debates the latter.  Two wanderers come and add to the discussion ("What happens to Christ after you swallow him?") and are shooed away.  Suddenly the priest changes his mind, having a revelation about the nature of the Eucharist (in contradiction to the official Catholic belief)--and a van comes to take him away to a mental asylum.  This scene is pure tongue-in-cheek Bunuel, poking fun at several aspects of the Catholic church in one perfectly staged scene. 

    Another scene that displays Bunuels firm belief in religious contradictions is a hilarious duel between two nobles who contradict each other's views on fanaticism.  One minute they're having a slap-stick duel, discussing and making argumentative points at intervals--and then when the two wanderers make a point about the topic and the camera strays from the duel, the two nobles are seen shaking hands, brushing off each other's coats, and walking away laughing.  The wanderers are somewhat confused--but as they encounter more and more on their pilgrimage through space and time ("The Milky Way") to St. James' final resting place (The Milky Way is also known as "St. James' Way") to scam the other travelers, they learn to observe the events and continue rather than dwell on them in the least.  Even in the film's final chapter, where a miracle happens and they do not get arrested, they just shrug at each other and continue on--they are merely the narrators, not making judgements either way, and only provoking the discussion of the film as a whole.

    There are literally thousands of occurences in this film that can be nitpicked into their smallest form to try and conceive what Bunuel's purpose was in making the film (some have tried to get the film banned, but his closest friends asked him how much the Vatican paid him to make the film), but I have come to a conclusion and attempted to sum it up in a single statement: Religion is a mysterious and strange thing, and people have been trying to put it into perspective since the beginning of time.  Some turn to fanaticism and depraved ways of worship, and others will discuss it endlessly and never come to a conclusion.  Most people will accept it and carry on with their lives, disregarding the miracles that have the potential to happen every day.  No one can really explain it, and what Bunuel was trying to do was give a simple explanation through episodic encounters about the history of Christian deviance, herecy.

    This is where the surrealist aspect comes in.  There are the surreal continuity errors, where one person appears in another place and then another based on the shot, most prominently in an encounter with a personified death (dressed in what looks like 70s and 80s glam-rock attire).  More often than not, when the films dives into more bizarre or abstract occurences, it is more due to Bunuel's style of direction than the actual events, with exception of a select few brilliant images (he seems to have a penchant for great imagery--see Un Chien Andalou).  These include a nun being nailed to a cross, a priest directly addressing the camera about the Virgin Mary, and the Lord walking down an abandoned country road with a midget next to him releasing doves.  They are hilariously strange.

    I suppose it's a coincidence that I watched this film just a couple of nights after I rewatched the absolutely hysterical Life of Brian, which also tries to provide rhyme or reason to the Christian faith through broad British humor.  Both films succeed immensely on their respective levels, though I have to say I enjoyed Life of Brian a little bit more.

    As for me, I cannot provide any insights on either topic at the moment; it seems as though Bunuels words are all the more relevent after watching these films: "Thank God I'm an atheist."


  • Absolutely amazing

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

    I've had a sort of strange interest in Guy Maddin's films for a while now, and I think I've seen every single one of his short films whether they be on Youtube or other sites of similar nature.  In my humble opinion, I think he is one of the most original and greatest film-makers out there right now.  And The Saddest Music in the World utilizes his unique vision to outstanding extent.

    Using film-stock that looks recycled from the 1920s, Maddin creates a melancholy dream-scape of depression-era Winnipeg.  It is a town of lost souls, as is the entire world outside of it, but this contest to find who is in fact that saddest country in the world (judged through song) brings the people together and brings a sort of drunken life to a world that has fallen asleep to escape the sadness of the depression.  Some of the insights towards human sorrow are bitingly funny, as are the references to humanities undying love of beer (the winners of the competitions get to slide into a pool full of beer--and they're called weird if they don't drink out of it).

    The film is also an examination of family ethics, played out through a bizarre love story.  Roderick, Chester's brother, is an insane hypochondriac, who may or may not be the saddest person in the world, or may just be overreacting.  Roderick's ex-wife, who is now Chester's gal-pal, is a scatter-brained nymphomaniac who has visions of her dead son that she has forgotten about completely.  And Roderick's father, played with perfect love-lorn sadness by David Fox, is an alcoholic who caused the tragic accident in which the founder the contest lost both of her legs.  Oh, and he happens to be hopelessly in love with her, but she is infinitely infatuated with Chester.

    The events that follow are played out through stunning black-and-white visuals, tongue-in-cheek humor, and oustanding music to create one of the finest films that it has ever been my fortune to see.  Everything meshes perfectly, from the themes of sadness and depression to the surprising social relevence, mixed in with Maddin's trademark frantic editing and silent-era strangeness.  It is not quite as stimulating and frenzied as his short masterpiece The Heart of the World, but it is every bit as unique and captivating.

    "I ask you--is there anybody here as happy as I am?"

    And a man in a moose hat laughs at you.


  • Hmm...

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

    The most difficult part for me in actually writing a critique of this movie is figuring out whether or not I actually liked the film.  There were surefire moments of brilliance, but there were also long, disturbing stretches where I was tempted to turn the movie off.  As mentioned by almost every other review of the film I've read, this movie explores all sorts of depths of depravity and doesn't let up.  It seems to have the most fixation upon how almost every sleaze-bag guy that Jeremiah's mother dates is also a closet pedophile.  The film also doesn't shy away from the fact that Jeremiah's mother is not only participating in all sorts of debauchery herself, but also knowingly introducing Jeremiah to all of the drugs and alcohol that she consumes on a daily basis.

    I guess, in a way, this is really the main redeeming quality of the film: it doesn't shy away from anything, especially when it's bizarre and cringe-inducing.

    I don't think anyone can say that Asia Argento doesn't give an inspired, "tour-de-force" performance, so to speak.  She literally becomes this disgusting, wastoid of a human being, and it's a marvel to watch.  The scenes in which she begins to convince Jeremiah that his foster parents don't love him are perhaps the highlights of her role; the malice and mischief in her eyes perfectly sum up her function in completely corrupting this poor little kid.

    Most of the other characters in the film mostly make up bit parts, and I didn't really even take the time to see the names of most of her boyfriends.  It's actually pretty unreal seeing Henry Fonda in this movie as Jeremiah's grandfather.  He portray's the role effectively but, to be honest, I thought he had better taste than this.  It's also pretty weird to see a cameo by Ben Foster as some creepy guy that gives Jeremiah a bath at his grandparents house--I guess maybe you could see that small part as a precursor to his magnificent performance in 3:10 to Yuma.

    All of the performances are for the most part adequate; even Dylan and Cole Sprouse of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody fame are convincing as Jeremiah, though you can't help but thinking "What sort of parent would let their kid even be in this sort of movie?"  You can't really focus on those sort of ethics if you want to effectively view and enjoy a film, but in a film that investigates such turpitude, it's hard not to.

    Something that this film is also very effective in doing is rousing my interest in the original novel.  After viewing something this different and unsettling, one can't help but wonder as to what sort of book would spawn this film, and what sort of book has such a devoted cult following.  I researched the book and the film, and found out just how popular the book was in certain circles, and went over the discussions pertaining to "how much the movie left out" and "how much better the book was."  In general, any devoted fan of any book that is adapted into a movie typically is unhappy with the finished product and bitches endlessly about how much better the book was.  A similar, though significantly less disturbed fanbase may be the most arduous of the Harry Potter fans, who tend to complain no matter how noble the film's attempts are at capturing the essence of the books.  A novel similar in subject matter to The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things may be Naked Lunch, which also has a quite prominent cult following that was not all too happy with Cronenberg's valiant attempts to adapt it.  Closing out the subject of the book-to-movie adaptations: Books and film are a completely different medium.  When the rights to a book are given to a film-maker, the fans of the book just as much as the owners must be aware of this.  They must also be aware that the film-makers will express the book creatively onto film, and it is inevitable that certain aspects of the source material will be changed to fit the film-maker's vision.  And only in certain instances is this a bad thing.

    Anyways...

    Being one of the many viewers of this film that have not read the book, there are several complaints that can be made about the film itself.  One is that not enough attempts are made to characterize the young Jeremiah in the beginning, making his descent into madness with his mother not as shocking as it could have been.  The kid in beginning seems clean-cut, but it is not really known, since almost right away the mother neglects and he begins to freak out.  Also, another discrepancy with the exposition of the film is that it really only displays the bonding of mother and child through a sketchy montage.  It's well put together, but not all that effective in what it's trying to show.  There are several points of the film that feel this way, as though director Argento almost got it right, but fell miserably short.

    Some of the surreal imagery of the film is very cool, but once again, not effective; for example, there is a trippy sequence during which the kid is running to a police station.  And not only is it trippy, but it is shown from the kid's viewpoint as being trippy.  It's interesting, but overall, pretty dumb.  The one aspect of that sort of imagery that I enjoyed was the significance of the two red birds.  It's a VERY provocative addition to the theme of Jeremiah's loss of innocence and slow plunge into mother-induced madness.

    In writing this review, I came to realize my true feelings on the film itself: I don't like it, but I don't dislike it.  The description of three-stars as given by Spout really describe it perfectly: I'm neutral about it.  Which is strange, because it's quite obvious that there's so much to dislike about the film.  The best explanation I can think of is that humans are inherently drawn to the most bestial of entertainment, and my subconciously human mind enjoyed seeing a mother giving her son speed pills.  But my better nature tells me that this movie is basically just an exercise in degeneracy, and I disliked it immensely.

    I'm neutral about it.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<July 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789


Categories
 


Advertisement