Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Films v. Movies
When one goes to the cinema, there are two things they can go see: a film or a movie. Many people mistakenly refer to them as the same thing. Here is a clarification between them.
MOVIE: Made for entertainment purposes only. These are produced for the mass market, making sure that the companies can make quick bucks. A few characteristics of a movie are such:
-It is based off of another work (a book, a song, or even a film...more on this later)
-It is predictable (the two protagonists end up happily ever after and you're a dirty liar if you never saw it coming from a mile away)
-It is a sequel of a previous film/movie
FILM: A cinematic piece of ART, meant to portray a specific idea by the ARTIST. That is important and not enough emphasis can be placed upon it. More often than not, an independent film is the only thing nowadays that falls under this category, but this wasn't always the case (read: The Godfather, Star Wars, or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon).
Please do not think that one of these categories presides over the other in quality, because that's plain not true. Some movies are very good (Sin City, for example) and some films can be clinkers (The Village). However, more often than not, films tend to have better quality than their counterparts.
And this is fine, it is. However, my main qualm behind this discussion is the sad fact that we, in the 21st century, are a movie-bound culture; most of the highest grossing films nowadays are either a) based off of novels, b) remakes, c) sequels, d) tripe or e) any combination of the aforementioned characteristics.
Remakes are the bane of the film industry. Yes, the original was great. Yes, it grossed a lot in the box office. No, you can't improve on a good thing. NO, YOU CANNOT IMPROVE ON A GOOD THING. Please God, do NOT try to. Why aren't you listening to me? Don't you remember that the last Hulk movie sucked ass? Just because you replace the main character with Edward Norton does not mean it'll be an improvement.
Sequels effectively kill all good things. For instance, Pirates was an excellent movie, it was clever and fun and intense and one of the more entertaining flicks a person could watch. HOWEVER, now they are beating it to death with franchises and an innumerable amount of crappy sequels spoonfeeding the audience only what they liked about the first movie and not covering any new ground. Further, the second and third iterations could very well not be called "number 2 and three". They had to be called "Number 2 Part One and Two", as they were, effectively, the exact same plotline.
In conclusion: film =/= movie. There is a difference...it's not a negative connotation, but it is imperative that there is a difference.
MOVIE: Made for entertainment purposes only. These are produced for the mass market, making sure that the companies can make quick bucks. A few characteristics of a movie are such:
-It is based off of another work (a book, a song, or even a film...more on this later)
-It is predictable (the two protagonists end up happily ever after and you're a dirty liar if you never saw it coming from a mile away)
-It is a sequel of a previous film/movie
FILM: A cinematic piece of ART, meant to portray a specific idea by the ARTIST. That is important and not enough emphasis can be placed upon it. More often than not, an independent film is the only thing nowadays that falls under this category, but this wasn't always the case (read: The Godfather, Star Wars, or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon).
Please do not think that one of these categories presides over the other in quality, because that's plain not true. Some movies are very good (Sin City, for example) and some films can be clinkers (The Village). However, more often than not, films tend to have better quality than their counterparts.
And this is fine, it is. However, my main qualm behind this discussion is the sad fact that we, in the 21st century, are a movie-bound culture; most of the highest grossing films nowadays are either a) based off of novels, b) remakes, c) sequels, d) tripe or e) any combination of the aforementioned characteristics.
Remakes are the bane of the film industry. Yes, the original was great. Yes, it grossed a lot in the box office. No, you can't improve on a good thing. NO, YOU CANNOT IMPROVE ON A GOOD THING. Please God, do NOT try to. Why aren't you listening to me? Don't you remember that the last Hulk movie sucked ass? Just because you replace the main character with Edward Norton does not mean it'll be an improvement.
Sequels effectively kill all good things. For instance, Pirates was an excellent movie, it was clever and fun and intense and one of the more entertaining flicks a person could watch. HOWEVER, now they are beating it to death with franchises and an innumerable amount of crappy sequels spoonfeeding the audience only what they liked about the first movie and not covering any new ground. Further, the second and third iterations could very well not be called "number 2 and three". They had to be called "Number 2 Part One and Two", as they were, effectively, the exact same plotline.
In conclusion: film =/= movie. There is a difference...it's not a negative connotation, but it is imperative that there is a difference.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Harold and Maude
Clearly one of the best movies ever from the usual standpoints involving equal parts humour and morbidity. This prize film is one of the least-known cult classics out there.
::ASIDE:: Please know what I mean by a cult classic. I do not mean a piece of culture that involves a fanatic following that know the work backwards and forwards and sidewards and skywards. I mean a film that, when addressed in a public situation, is not well-known enough for Jon Smith behind you to join in the conversation because they saw it once way back when. From this definition, the films The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and Donnie Darko are cult classics, to which I say 'No, sir!' While I do acknowledge the fact that they are textbook examples of the 'cult' variety, they are not what I refer to when I say 'cult film'. They have embedded themselves so deeply into the mainstream culture that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can have an opinion on them.
While yes, Harold and Maude is known by a few people who saw it once, if it were happened upon in regular conversation Mr. Asshole Passerby would have a slim chance of knowing what you were talking about. There would be an even smaller chance that they would have enjoyed it on that viewing. I myself had never even heard about it until about four years ago when my aunt insisted this was a film for me. She was right.
The short synopsis of the film is: A rich, teenage boy named Harold is plagued by ennui and only finds enjoyment from attending funerals of strangers and faking his own death for his mother who, understandably, doesn't find it entertaining in the least. The other half of the titular duo is Maude, a 59-year old woman who lives life to its fullest as a free spirit, doing as she pleases and who also takes enjoyment in attending the funerals of absolute strangers. The two meet, and Maude takes Harold under her wing to teach him that life should, every day, be lived to its fullest. In the process, the two fall in love.
Yes.
A 16-year old boy falls in love with a 59-year old woman. Let that sink in for a second. And in the process, H&M makes itself one of the creepiest films that purposefully sets itself apart from others by completely disregarding modern film tropes. I wish not to spoil the ending, but it is extraordinarily powerful and perfectly fitting.
So why even discuss this film, when it makes a point to give you both the heebies and the jeebies? It is not merely because it is obscure or makes us laugh in the face of Pointless Life holding hands with Riotous Humour. But because it has such a great message of living life to its fullest. Many people find solace in mulling about humdrum lives and not taking chances, and it is the actions of these people the film is opposed to. H&M does what every good piece of art should do: make Man step out of his life and examine it himself so that he can point out the trivialities in it, and then act upon them.
I start with this film because it helps in my cause. I choose with my actions to make people step back and criticize life for what it really is. By deviating from the norm (going to funerals, falling in love with someone four times your age) it makes one understand what it is to be human and how one can be able to become a derivation of that: human, but a new kind of human.
*Not all film reviews and analysis will be like this, but this is an excellent example of it.
::ASIDE:: Please know what I mean by a cult classic. I do not mean a piece of culture that involves a fanatic following that know the work backwards and forwards and sidewards and skywards. I mean a film that, when addressed in a public situation, is not well-known enough for Jon Smith behind you to join in the conversation because they saw it once way back when. From this definition, the films The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and Donnie Darko are cult classics, to which I say 'No, sir!' While I do acknowledge the fact that they are textbook examples of the 'cult' variety, they are not what I refer to when I say 'cult film'. They have embedded themselves so deeply into the mainstream culture that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can have an opinion on them.
While yes, Harold and Maude is known by a few people who saw it once, if it were happened upon in regular conversation Mr. Asshole Passerby would have a slim chance of knowing what you were talking about. There would be an even smaller chance that they would have enjoyed it on that viewing. I myself had never even heard about it until about four years ago when my aunt insisted this was a film for me. She was right.
The short synopsis of the film is: A rich, teenage boy named Harold is plagued by ennui and only finds enjoyment from attending funerals of strangers and faking his own death for his mother who, understandably, doesn't find it entertaining in the least. The other half of the titular duo is Maude, a 59-year old woman who lives life to its fullest as a free spirit, doing as she pleases and who also takes enjoyment in attending the funerals of absolute strangers. The two meet, and Maude takes Harold under her wing to teach him that life should, every day, be lived to its fullest. In the process, the two fall in love.
Yes.
A 16-year old boy falls in love with a 59-year old woman. Let that sink in for a second. And in the process, H&M makes itself one of the creepiest films that purposefully sets itself apart from others by completely disregarding modern film tropes. I wish not to spoil the ending, but it is extraordinarily powerful and perfectly fitting.
So why even discuss this film, when it makes a point to give you both the heebies and the jeebies? It is not merely because it is obscure or makes us laugh in the face of Pointless Life holding hands with Riotous Humour. But because it has such a great message of living life to its fullest. Many people find solace in mulling about humdrum lives and not taking chances, and it is the actions of these people the film is opposed to. H&M does what every good piece of art should do: make Man step out of his life and examine it himself so that he can point out the trivialities in it, and then act upon them.
I start with this film because it helps in my cause. I choose with my actions to make people step back and criticize life for what it really is. By deviating from the norm (going to funerals, falling in love with someone four times your age) it makes one understand what it is to be human and how one can be able to become a derivation of that: human, but a new kind of human.
*Not all film reviews and analysis will be like this, but this is an excellent example of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
