Updates, Live

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

The Picks of Joe Wright


Joe Wright created Atonement, which is a great movie. He is also the director of Pride & Prejudice and of The Soloist. Here is his top of five (Newsweek):

  1. Brief Encounter (JW: such a delicate film, so perfectly judged in Noel Coward's writing and David Lean's direction, and it has one of my favorite performances ever, by Celia Johnson)
  2. Blue Velvet (JW: David Lynch's masterpiece of raw, modern cinematic poetry that proves acting can develop beyond Lee Strasberg)
  3. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (JW: it seems to exist in a rare place between entertainment and the profound)
  4. The Apu Trilogy (JW: because the details of life can be more illuminating than the grand sweep)
  5. Synecdoche, New York (JW: because Charlie Kaufman is a great artist and should be respected as such)


(Filmofilia)

Labels: , ,

Friday, December 19, 2008

Synecdoche, New York



Gus Van Sant on Synecdoche, New York: a pastiche of existence; there's no way to describe it; it's pretty intense.

Once, long, long time ago, the artist (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman) had started to work on a gigantic project. A theater was rented in Manhattan, shape and sizes of a huge hangar. And soon the hangar had been filled by scaffolding.

They were building a whole city inside: the real image of the outside, with streets and avenues, cars, skyscrapers, sordid apartments; and the zeppelin was flying just below the roof.

Actually the roof hadn't ever been terminated, so you were able to see the outside from inside: and here and there the two cities were looking like one and the same.

The actors were non-professionals, just bums, failures and mentally insane, as Manhattan could anytime provide enough supply. The artist had given them a total freedom how to interpret their roles. It would have been impossible otherwise: there were too many.

It should have been a performance about his life: he was trying to understand himself.

It had been the typical life of an artist destroyed by Manhattan, spiritually and physically (as any other artist living there), navigating endlessly among grandiose projects and impossible women.

He had failed with all women in his life. The first wife had left him long time ago; she had taken their four years daughter with her and had moved to Germany. Years had passed; the girl had been meanwhile initiated by a lesbian artist, who had painted her nude at different ages.

That was the story with the first wife. The second had divorced as she could bear no more the intensity of the performance. As for the third woman, he had given up that time. She would come back late in his life when both of them were far too old.

The project would never be finished, because his life was going on, with new erotic failures and endless failed projects.

And the performance arrived at the point in his life where the project had started: a new hangar appeared inside the first hangar, and a new inside city. As for the non-professional performers, with their total freedom to decide, they hired in turn other non-professionals to play them.

Which was the real city? What women were the real ones? Those who had been in his life? Those who were playing them? Those who were playing the roles of those who were playing the roles?

As for him: which of them was the real one? He, the artist? Or the bald toothless old guy with a cynical smile who was walking with a cane and was playing him? Or the other old insane, who was hired by the first one?

Was he the real one? Everybody was getting older there, it was not clear anymore whether in life or on the scene. And they were hiring bums and failures who were older and older. All his performers were decaying biologically, more and more. And they were dying eventually, and they were buried there, on the scene.

He was keeping in having accidents, each one leaving him with one more small visible infirmity. Otherwise he did not seem to look older.

Actually he was getting older and older, of course, besides cane, besides glasses. He would realize it, in the long run. Only in the long run.

Who was the real one? Was it the old bald toothless performer with cynical smile? Or Philip Seymour Hofman?

Because it's his movie. He, Philip Seymour Hoffman, he is playing with a tragic pathos that you cannot see often.

And you leave the theater in the end with many details that remained obscure, but who cares? You are overwhelmed, and you realize that it is your own life there, grandiose and useless; you are there in the movie, you are trying to understand yourself, but you cannot. Because you are too hypochondriac, too paranoid, too scared of your own degradation and death.



(Filmofilia)

Labels: ,

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Synecdoche, New York - Cronica unui film anuntat


(Synecdoche, New York - trailer / video created by leoRano)

Un regizor de teatru inchiriaza o magazie uriasa in care incearca sa recreeze Manhattanul in care isi petrece existenta de amar de ani. Spectacolul pe care il construieste cu migala va fi o replica a Manhattanului, dar si o replica a vietii lui, sotiile lui care l-au parasit rand pe rand, prietenii cu care se cearta dar de care nu se poate desparti, evenimentele vietii lui oglindite in oglindirea New Yorkului, dupa ce New Yorkul de afara le oglindise la randul lui.

Ma gandesc la expozitia vazuta acum vreo doua luni impreuna cu Dan si cu sotia lui: lucrarile unui artist new-yorkez, Max Tzinman, cumva si expozitia lui traind oglindita de New Yorkul de afara, neavand sens in afara New Yorkului de afara, dar adunata intr-un spatiu bizar, asa cum numai teatrele din New York pot fi de bizare. Cateva lucrari mi s-au parut capodopere - iar fotografia pe care Dan a facut-o Infernului dantesc reimaginat de Max (artistul cu ochi de canibal - devorat fara crutare si el de tot ce inseamna mai canibalic in New York) - ei bine, fotografia lui Dan este ea insasi o capodopera. Gresesc?

Sa ma intorc insa la Synecdoche, New York, caci acolo regizorul este devorat de propriul spectacol - el ajunge sa nu mai deosebeasca lumea de afara de lumea dinauntru, Manhattanul real de cel virtualizat in magazia lui.

Dar oare Manhattanul de afara este real?

Buna intrebare: este un oras de pucioasa in care oamenii traiesc fara sa o stie in domeniul fanteziilor lui Hoffman. Isi construiesc vise virtuale care devin nesatioase. Manhattan canibalic, numele tau este Coppelia si dumnezeul tau este ETA Hoffman.

Voi vedea filmul sambata seara (sper). In Europa va ajunge in 2009.

(Filmofilia)

Labels: ,

The Five Most Important Movies for Gus Van Sant

(image from The Vicarious Music)

Gus Van Sant is one of the most radical directors among the great names of today's movie world. His Gerry and Elephant are masterpieces. And Paranoid Park is the movie that made me understand better his filming approach: he is not an observer; he is immersing into the world of his heroes, to be there, to live there, to feel what they feel, to take the picture from the center of the circle.

He gave to Newsweek his top of five most important movies. It is a list as radical as his philosophy of creating a movie. His top contains movies from 1927 to 2009:

  1. Sátántangó (Satan's Tango, Béla Tarr, 1994): he likes Béla Tarr's directorial style, retracing time in each of its sections—yet it's linear.
  2. Sunrise (F. W. Murnau, 1927): it shows the opulence of Hollywood in the 1920s; there was a style of creating elaborate sets that cannot be seen any longer.
  3. The Last of England (Derek Jarman, 1988): the structure becomes visual, rather than relying on a verbal explanation.
  4. The Palm Beach Story (Preston Sturges, 1942): it's wild, and the epitome of Preston Sturges.
  5. Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008 - European release in 2009): a pastiche of existence; there's no way to describe it; it's pretty intense.
I hope I'll make it to see Synecdoche, New York this coming weekend.

(Filmofilia)

Labels: