It's been a long while since I posted anything on here. I suppose very few people read this. One friend I work with does and he tells me to write more, but hell, I could just tell him what I think about the application of Oscar Wilde's theory on art as it applies to Drive Angry 3D. Another reason why I haven't written much lately is because I haven't really watched any movies lately. But I just watched two yesterday and I liked them both so much I thought I should write something abou them, knowing that I will inevitably lose the interest and drive to do anything mildly taxing on my mind. So here it goes.
The first movie I watched yesterday was The Conversation (1974), a suspenseful tale about a surveillance expert who becomes increasingly involved in his most recent recording job when he believes the subjects are in danger of being murdered. If that sounds convoluted, I'm sorry, just trying to sum it all up easily. Gene Hackman plays the lead role of the surveillance expert and turns in a great performance with minimal dialogue. John Cazale (who only made five films due to his untimely death at 42, but all five are amazing) gives a great performance as Hackman's employee. There are a couple other good cameos as well, but I won't spoil them for all one of you that will read this. The Conversation plays very much like a standard thriller, building slowly and leading us along the bread crumb trail. It moves slowly allowing for good scene development and tension. There are great static shots that the characters move in and out of, mimicking surveillance cameras. (There's a shot at the end that does this perfectly.) The feeling is that of 1984, you are being watched, you are not in control.
These are the things that make it a good movie, but what makes it great and really worth watching is the character that Hackman plays, Harry Caul. As the movie progresses we not only do we learn more about the current case but we learn more about Harry, a paranoid and extremely secretive man who is cut off from humanity, an ironic twist considering his profession. Coppola gives enough to make Harry real and deep, but doesn't give us too much, allowing Hackman and the building tension to help us build our own conclusions. This is what good filmmaking does: it leaves us with questions as well as answers, it asks the audience to fill in what's missing between frames. It wants more than emotional investment and empathy. It pushes us away to engage us, rather than pulling us in.
The second movie I watched yesterday was Visioneers (2008), a dark comedy starring Zach Galifianakis as George Washington Winsterhammerman a corporate drone whose ennui is at the tipping point as the people of the world start to explode. (Yep, you read that right, explode.) The movie is informed by the ideas of Huxley's Brave New World and the works of Neil Postman, that love and excess and distraction would be the death of humanity. The movie is very funny in it's absurdity. It also reminded me of the films by Mike Judge. It's not very silly, just off-beat and not what you'd expect. I recommend it on the basis that at least it's different, not just your run of the mill comedy bullshit.
My girlfriend and I got it on whim at the Redbox. She said, "you like that Zach Galifianakis guy, he makes you laugh." And it's true, he does, especially in the current state of insipid comedy films. But I wasn't excited, I wanted to get Biutiful, the Oscar Nominee. But I had a hard time sticking up for a movie about coping with a terminal illness that would surely end on a low note. So, she suggested we put it on last night, and I did and she fell asleep and I watched it and liked it. It gave me faith that Galifianakis isn't just a one trick pony, that he can do a serious role. Perhaps I liked it so much because I didn't have high expectations, but I still recommend it and would say it's not a waste of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment