October 2009 Archives
Accident (1967)
I watched a really interesting film called Accident this week. It was filmed in 1967 and directed by Joseph Losey and written by Harold Pinter and based on a book by Nicholas Mosley. It’s all about this man named Stephen who is professor at Oxford and what his life is like. So here’s a short description of his life, he is married with two kids and has a really nice rich house. He loves his wife but he doesn’t want to be with her romantically. He has two students who are named Anna and William who are together and they are both aristocracy as well. Stephen has dinner parties and he goes to peoples houses, and people sleep with each other, and he plays with his kids and he goes to work.
It’s really interesting and it might not be something you like, but not too much really happens in the film. The only thing that really happens is there is a car accident in the end/beginning of the film.That’s probably why it was called Accident, because there was nothing else it really could be called, because nothing else really happens in the film haha.
But that’s not the point. The point is that the film, like a lot of other films directed by French guys in the 60s, tries to take you inside somebody’s head, inside their mind in a way that only novels have been able to do before then, and maybe music as well. (well that’s what some French guy said in the director’s cut anyways haha.)
Let me give you an example: There’s one scene where Professor Stephen goes on a ride down the canal in Oxford on a boat with his two students Anna and William. During the boat ride, they basically don’t talk, they just enjoy the sun and look around. You can tell what Stephen is thinking about because the camera looks up at the sunny treetops, and then it cuts to his face looking happy. Then, he looks at Anna’s stomach cause she is wearing a small dress, and then it cuts to his face looking towards her a little sad. So, you can get a little bit more close to what he is thinking and feeling just from the film, even though not much technically happens. Two other films that try to get inside the characters’ heads with French directors from the 60s are Belle du Jour and Hiroshima Mon Amour.
Plum
[image: farm3.static.flickr.com]
Woman of the Year (1942)
Woman of the Year was the first movie that Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy did together. They eventually made 9 films together, and in real life, they were in love and a couple for decades. They kept their romance hidden away in real life, but onscreen, they were one of the most dynamic and best matched couples in Hollywood history.
This movie is about two newspaper reporters who fall in love. She is a very succesfsul foriegn affairs correspondent and he is a moderately successful sports correspondent. They start off arguing, then they meet and begin to see one another romantically. They fall in love, but they continue to fight, because they don’t know who should take the lead in the relationship. After all, Katherine Hepburn is smart, cultured, and bossy. And Spencer Tracy is masculine, big and tough.
I don’t know why, but I wasn’t too excited to see this film. But, I forgot how talented actors back then were, and also I forgot how much more important the story, the acting and the chemistry of the characters has to be when you can’t rely on bells and whistles like CGI animation or shocking subject matter. This film was all about their two personalities, and about how they are both strong and fight for dominance over the other, and about how they get over that and just learn to love one another.
I think it’s a wicked film because what we really want to see is people interacting and taking an interest in life and learning to get along with one another despite all their differences. After all, that’s what we want to believe can happen in our own lives!
Plum
[image: bonzasheila.com]
10 Films I WANT to see
I thought it would be a refreshing change for me to list 10 films I haven’t seen that I want to see, since I’m always writing about films I have already seen. Some of these I might have already mentioned, and others I have just hoped to watch for a while. For each film, I’ll explain why I want to see it and a little of what it’s about.
1. The Fox and the Hound = This is the only famous Disney movie I know of that I haven’t seen. Probably because it’s really old. When I was a kid I had the book but I always wanted to see the film.
2. Precious = This new film is about a really overweight black american girl who has to find self-confidence for herself. I think it sounds really sad but for some reason I am really curious about what happens in this movie.
3. Yellow Submarine = This is a classic Beatles film that nearly everyone loves. I haven’t seen it because I just haven’t gotten around to it, but I really want to. I’m sure I would love it as much as I love everything else they’ve done.
4. Coco before Chanel = It’s a pretty recent movie but I really think Audrey Tatou is great and she does some good movies. So I want to see this film to see what it was all about.
5. Back to the Future = I want to see this famous 80s film because it’s like a film that everyone has watched except for me! So, I really want to watch it. It’s a classic and I bet lots of films refer to it or they think about it when they talk about Michael J. Fox.
6. No Country for Old Men = This movie is pretty recent and everyone seems to have loved it even though it was really violent and so I really want to see it just because everyone says they loved it.
7. The Thing Called Love = River Phoenix was one of my favorite actors even though he died when I was just a baby but I want to watch all his films because if he’d lived I think he would have been one of our best actors of our generation. So I picked this one to watch, even though I want to watch them all.
8. Dogfight = Another River Phoenix movie I want to see, it’s about these guys who are trying to find the ugliest girl to win a bet on before they go off to fight in Vietnam.
9. The Life of Brian = I really want to see all the films that George Harrison produced, including Let it Be, and this is one that everybody really loves. I heard that they couldn’t get the funding to put the movie on so then George Harrison and his friends put in the money just because they believed in the project. So… that’s definitely a good movie for me to watch, if George Harrison believed in it.
10. How to Get Ahead in Advertising = This is another movie that was produced by George Harrison and it stars Richard E. Grant, who is the man who starred as Withnail in Withnail and I. It’s supposed to be really good so I want to check it out too.
Thanks for reading, and feel free to respond with 10 movies you want to watch.
Plum
Kramer vs. Kramer
Movies in the 70s were quite cool. I’m keen to watch all the films that won the Academy Award for Best Picture, so the 1979 movie Kramer vs. Kramer was squarely on the list. The film, which stars Meryl Streep Dustin Hoffman, examines the phenomenon of divorce’s increased frequency and its affects on the nuclear structure of families in America.
Streep runs off because she isn’t happy and needs to “find herself,” on the exact same day as her husband (Hoffman) gets a promotion at work. He’s left to take care of his son himself AND juggle his increased workload, with hillarious consequences and a heartwarming growth in his ability to parent and nurture. Aww. After a 18 months, just when everything is going well, Mrs. Kramer (who heretofore has only sent a few measley letters to her son) appears out of the blue, newly well adjusted and eager to reclaim custody of her son. Things begin to fall apart for Mr. Kramer. He loses his job soon after his estranged wife returns because he’s been splitting his time at work with his caring duties (no flex time options in the 70s). He’s therefore vulnerable to his wife’s court attacks. A heated battle ensues, and unfortunately, about 15 minutes before the end of the film, Hoffman loses official custody of his son.
What I want to know is, Mr. Kramer could have kept his kid AND his job if he’d just gotten a babysitter or a nanny for the evenings… he had enough money, as he’d just gotten a raise, right? I mean… it just doesnt make sense that he’s the ideas man in an advertising company, and he didn’t think of that one… But then, there wouldn’t have been a movie, and all that drama, and they wouldn’t have won the Oscar…
Plum
[image: amazon.com]
3D films
There seems to be a huge buzz around 3-D cinema at the moment. New films like ‘Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs’ (what a stupid title!), and ‘The Final Destination’ are getting advertised all over the place, and there’s even a 3D re-release of Toy Story coming out pretty soon.
The thing that I don’t get is; why are they only doing this now? 3D technology has been around for years. I remember going to Disneyland when I was about 5, and watching ‘Honey I Shrunk the Audience’ in 3D. It was great, and thinking about it makes me wonder why we’ve seen so little 3D action outside of theme parks until now.
I did a bit of research, and it turns out that 3D cinema was actually quite popular in the past, although not for very long! Turns out the ‘Golden era’ for 3D was from 1952 to 1955, when films like ‘Creature from the Black Lagoon’, and ‘Dial M for Murder’ (directed by Alfred Hitchcock) was released. This age of popularity for 3D ended because of problems with the technology; it needed two film reels to be played simultaneously, and so 2 projectionists (the guys who run the film reels) were needed. There were also problems with viewing angle; the 3D effect didn’t really work that well when viewed from the side.
I was surprised to see Hitchcock’s name linked with 3D films, because he’s obviously considered as one of the great directors, and I’ve always thought of 3D as a bit of a novelty. I guess this shows that 3D can be part of serious films, without being a gimmick.
So why the return to popularity?
Maybe it’s because new technology has improved the 3D experience, with IMAX cinemas being set up especially for 3D, and polarised lenses replacing the red and green lenses familiar to theme park visitors. I don’t really think this is the reason though. I think that the big movie studios are trying to force a new ‘golden era’ for 3D cinema, because it means more money for them.
I’ve blogged before about people illegally downloading movies instead of paying £10 to see them in the cinema, and I think the massive amounts of 3D movies being released are because of this.
Firstly; by offering 3D movies, cinemas are genuinely offering a product that we can’t get at home at the moment (although various companies are working on 3D products for the home – awesome). Secondly, the success of 3D releases like Polar Express and Beowulf has shown the studios that there is big money to be made from 3D, and they’re trying to get their hands on as much of it as possible. Unfortunately this means more expensive ticket prices for us – Toy Story’s getting released in 3D tomorrow, and the tickets are £17.50.
This is way too much to pay, especially for a film I’ve already got on video!
I think I’m gonna have to wait and see if the ticket prices come down in the future.
What do you think? Have you seen any 3D films? Was it worth the extra money?
Plum
