Subtitle Saturday: The Exterminating Angel

    I have heard of this film for years, but finally had the opportunity to see it recently.  It is the work of a director of Spanish origin, Luis Buñuel, though he made this film in Mexico.  He made dozens of films over the course of a long career.  His most famous film may be "Belle du Jour", but this film seems to have prompted even greater praise in many of the internet ramblings with which I have interacted.
    The "meaning" of this film and how all the pieces come together is unknown.  The Buñuel himself has stated that the meaning of the film is unknown.  This allows for the film to be an almost post modern work.  True, there clearly is some meaning to the film, but so much of it is so subjective, that the greater point being made seems to be more twofold.  First, the film seems to be making some statements about class and the nature of humanity.  Second, the film also makes a statement about the nature of reality itself.  Buñuel's work here reminds me of Salvador Dali, and in reading, it seems as though he actually influenced Dali.  This is a fascinating work, and it is so for these two reasons, but for other reasons as well.
    The basic premise of the movie is provocative.  A group of upper class people come home to one of their homes for a post performance dinner.  For reasons never explained, all of the servants leave the house before dinner.  That would be interesting enough without what takes place after that.  After dinner and a piano performance from one of the guests, none of the guests are able to leave the house.  All of the guests know that it is odd for them not to leave, and what keeps them in the house is never explained.  The simple fact remains...none of the people in the house can leave.  As this situation carries on for hours and eventually days, the veneer of civilization is slowly peeled away.  In this way, it reminds me of Lord of the Flies.  Though here, the people in question are not young boys who are without supervision, but independent adults who become almost unable to function.  The lone exception is the doctor who is among the guests.  He is able to remain calm and aid all of his fellow guests through the experience.  In spite of that, there is still plenty of chaos, and the evil of mankind is on full display as skeletons come out of nearly every closet.
    Beyond the brilliant premise of the movie, the execution of the movie is amazing.  This movie creates the same kind of a feeling that one gets when one sees a Salvador Dali painting.  It also feels like a dream.  I am astonished at how well this movie attains that.  We all dream, so we all know the logic of dreams.  Sometimes in our dreams we are able or unable to do certain things, and even though it doesn't make sense, it still seems to make sense in our minds as we dream.  To be able to translate that tone over 90 minutes with actual images truly is remarkable.  In fact, that element of the movie was more becoming to me than the actual story, as interesting as that was.
    The movie's closing images are enigmatic.  They are that way on purpose I think.  This director seems more interested in provoking thought and discussion then on getting a "point" across.  All the same, clearly Buñuel has his issues both with the wealthy class, and with the church.  The closing images of the church are challenging, but I did not find them to be condemning the church.  Instead, the very nature of reality is called in question, and that brings with it lots of thought provoking questions and ideas.  I will need to watch this movie again.  It is a trip.

Family Film Friday: A conversation on The Princess Bride

I have already posted many times on this movie.  But, since I have gotten into the habit of posting conversations with my kids, I wanted to revisit this movie one more time, since my kids love it so much.  Here's a conversation I had with my daughter about this extraordinary Rob Reiner film...


Joel:  "Last night, Mommy and Daddy were out on a date, and you watched a movie with Grandma and Papa...what did you watch?"
Corrie: "The Princess Bride."
Joel:  "That's right.  Now, Daddy first saw the "Princess Bride" when he was about 12 years old for the first time...so it's been about 24 years ago!  I remember the first time I saw it, I liked it a lot.  It was because it was kind of funny, but mainly because I really liked the story.  What was the thing you really liked about it the first time you saw it?"
Corrie:  "Well, I like the plot...there's at first Buttercup doesn't like Westley at all, and then she finally realizes she likes him.  And then. he supposedly dies, and then she's gone after by Prince Humperdink.  And then she's saved by Inigo, Fezzick, and Westey."
Joel:  "Who's your favorite character?"
Corrie:  "I think actually Inigo...he's just...I just like him pretty much.  I can't think of a reason for it..."
Joel:  "What's likable?  Do you like the fact that he is a swordsman?"
Corrie:  "Not really...I like the fencing part..."
Joel:  "What about him makes him your favorite?  Do you have the warmest feelings towards him?  You don't know why it is that he's your favorite?"
Corrie:  "Not really."
Joel:  "What's your favorite scene with Inigo...the fencing scene?"
Corrie:  "Yeah, probably.  Inigo is a little bit funny.  Sometimes he talks really fast and I can't figure out what he's saying-that makes me laugh."
Joel:  "What do you think of the 6 fingered man?"
Corrie:  "He's mean...that's the only way I can really say it...just mean, mean, mean."
Joel:  "What are some of your favorite lines in the movie...things people say that make you laugh a lot?  I'll give you a hint...'Hey Fezzick, are there rocks ahead?'"
Corrie:  "HAHAHAHA...RHYMING!"
Joel:  "What else?"
Corrie:  "I only dog paddle!"
Joel:  "Do you like Andre the Giant?  Fezzick?"
Corrie: "Yes yes."
Joel:  What does he remind you of?  If he were a toy, what kind of a toy would he be?"  Would he be a lego, or sort of like Stanley?"
Corrie:  "Sort of like Stanley!  Big huge gigantic teddy bear!"
Joel:  "There's one thing about the movie that I really like a lot, and it makes it different from other movies...what is different about the way the story is told that makes it different?  Can you think of anything?"
Corrie:  "It's a Grandfather telling it to his son?"
Joel:  "Yeah, how is that different from a lot of other movies?"
Corrie:  "Well, a lot of other movies are just movies, they aren't exactly told."
Joel:  "So, there's kind of two stories going on, isn't there...what are the two stories going on?"
Corrie:  "Well, one story is about a little boy who is sick and his grandfather reads him The Princess Bride, and the other story is "The Princess Bride."
Joel:  "I remember the first time I saw the movie I got so involved in the story, that I would forget that I was watching the story that was being told by the grandpa, and so I would be watching the movie and the little boy goes, 'Grandpa, grandpa wait!'  And I said, 'Oh yeah, there's a whole other story going on, did that happen to you?"
Corrie:  "Um, a bit.  There happened to me in a different way  I am so absorbed in the story that when the boy gets all annoyed about the story or the time when he was all concerned about Westley, when I just saw that I was like, 'Wah', I want to keep going with this story!"
Joel:  "So you felt like it stopped when you were interested in the story?  That's interesting."
Corrie:  "Like when there was just the most interesting time...you know what I mean?"
Joel:  "Okay, well thanks a lot for talking with me about it!"

If Darth Vader Had Been a Good Father

Check this out...it's what would have happened if Darth Vader had been a good father...

http://twentytwowords.com/page/5/

Star Wars Philosophy

I had a lively conversation with a coworker a few weeks ago at work.  We were talking about something of vital importance.  The effect this topic has on the world cannot be overstated.  Here it comes.  What's the deal with George Lucas tinkering with the Star Wars movies?

If anyone googles this topic, one can find endless debating.  For those of you not in the know (be thankful first of all), when George Lucas released the first Star Wars movie in 1977, he was dissatisfied with the special effects in the movie.  He had made his pet project on a relatively low budget, and he had to cut some corners to get the film released.  Fast forward to 1997.  After the enormous success of the Star Wars trilogy, George Lucas rereleased the Star Wars trilogy in a "Special Edition."  In this special edition, many scenes are enhanced in order to realize Lucas' actual vision.  As the movies have been released on DVD and Blu-Ray, and as the prequel trilogy added still more texture to the original 3 films, further changes were made by Lucas. Many Star Wars fans consider these changes to have ruined the integrity of the original films.  There has been a movement among some so called purists to only watch the original versions of these films.

Now, I suppose by even taking the time to write on this debate, I am becoming a geek myself.  Fair enough.  I will admit that Star Wars has been a major movie in my life, and I know way too much about it.  But what I find fascinating about the outcry I hear every time Lucas makes another change is the aesthetic questions which arise.  Does an artist have the write to make changes to his or her own work?  Further, does the artist have an obligation to his or her audience to not make changes to his work? 

Personally, I think the answer is twofold.  First, I think that any viewer of any film has the right to their own opinion regarding the quality of a film.  Hence, if a particular viewer finds the new editions of the Star Wars movies to not be as enjoyable, they have the absolute right to that opinion.  Therefore, it is not the fact that people don't like these new versions that prompts my reflection.  Instead, my argument is with the notion that many fans have that George Lucas "should leave the films alone".  If Leonardo Da Vinci wanted to cut the "Mona Lisa" in half with a machete, that's his business.  He is the artist, it is his work, and as much as his action may pain his audience, he has the right to do it.  The audience has the right to ask the artist to leave it alone (as the legions of Star Wars fans have), but in the end, it is the artist's work, and his or her actions can therefore be judged by his audience, but the right to alter it must belong to the artist and the artist alone.  The audience can even call into question the relevance of the artist.  But the decision to alter the work of art lies solely with the artist.  As such, the viewer should never criticize the action of changing the work, but the viewer has every right to criticize the result of the change.  Hence, if a viewer hates the new dialogue that Lucas inserts near the end of "Return of the Jedi", that is his or her right.  Every viewer should remember that artists, like all of us, may have parts of their work which they wish had gone better.  I know I feel that way about the work I do sometimes. 

So, in closing, while I may sympathize with the critics of George Lucas, the argument as to whether or not he "should" make changes is dead on arrival.  The real question that fans can debate is the quality of the changes.  As far as I am concerned, that is fair game.  But to criticize the action itself robs the artist of the right to control their work.

Thoughts?

Trailer Tuesday: Dark Knight Rises

I know this trailer has been around for a while, but I cannot think of a big time movie that I am more excited about:

THANKS!!!

So, my post on Ferris Bueller was the first post I have had that had over 100 hits in the 13 months I have been writing!  That's nothing compared to really well read blogs, but it's a milestone for me.  Thanks to all who have been reading, and thanks for continuing to read.  I am always open to hearing suggestions as to what my readers want to hear about.  THANKS AGAIN!!!