Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Dubious Movie Making Devices?
One of the pleasures of having cultivated a distaste for certain movie making devices is that I can be all the more impressed when a filmmaker puts one to good use. I’ve already mentioned that Kitano did a great job of subverting my expectations about the bunraku puppets as a framing device. I would suppose that in general I’m irritated if a movie superimposes an image. Mostly this is done by ham-handed filmmakers and I’m going yeah, yeah, I got your point already so how ‘bout we move on now, ok? But Kitano is certainly not ham-handed and everything else about this film shows economy and poise. So the superimposed images kind of surprised me the first time I watched the movie. I wasn’t sure if I liked them, and I wasn’t sure if they improved the film. On second viewing, they are, of course, no longer surprising. I’m also inclined to think that they are far more integral than they first seemed. There were three, weren’t there? A picture of Haruna imposed on the blood at the car wreck, a picture of Nukui imposed on the blood being washed from the street, and a picture of bunraku puppets imposed on the costumes on the clothesline. Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I found the superimpositions awkward and jarring. They didn't fit with the look of the film.
You and kc have both said that the film shows economy. I have no idea what you mean by that. To me, "economy" implies concision, which is the opposite of what this movie is.
Economy does not mean that something is short. It means that there's nothing superfluous. It uses what it needs to achieve its ends and nothing more. Think of all the scenes in this movie that could have been much longer and more involved than they were. Like when the girl wanders into the store and steals the toy or when she wanders in front of the car and the truck. The filmmaker doesn't even bother to show the drivers of those vehicles, and the dialogue is very spare. Think of the way time is compressed (years in just a few minutes). It's very "essential." There's no excess here.
We want a story; not a summary of a story. The idea isn't to get in and out of the theater as quickly as possible; the idea is to present a piece of art to the audience that, as Rick said, invites reflection.
Economy does not mean that something is short. It means that there's nothing superfluous. It uses what it needs to achieve its ends and nothing more.
I agree completely. I just can't imagine why anyone would describe this film that way. It seems very flabby to me.
But, from the reviews I've read, the majority of critics disagree. So perhaps there's an aesthetic here that I'm incapable of understanding.
Here and here are two of the rare negative critiques of the film.
Ben, what scenes, exactly, would you cut or shorten?
Good question. Despite what I've said, I don't know if it could be remedied simply by cutting -- the whole thing might need rewritten for it to work the way it's in my head.
Besides, I'd never be able to answer that question -- I can't ever remember any part of a movie clearly enough to describe a scene.
DW, thought I had imagined this but went back to watch -- after the implied mugging/assault scene, there's a shot of a dead fish with a brightly colored kimono superimposed onto it.
Like I said, I thought I imagined it at first.
The fish in kimono! I loved that. There was some other fish imagery: the koi pond, the neighborhood kid using a tangerine for bait, the fish they ate (roasted cod roe).
So, cl, did you come to any conclusions about whether the attack really happened? I had assumed it was a dream, but after you asked the question I started to rethink it.
Kc, I’m sure that what we see is a dream. But I wonder if this dream is based on an attack she suffered from before her sucide attempt? I sort of think not, but I cannot offer much by way of argument.
Yes, the fish in the kimono was good.
Post a Comment