19 Mar 2010
--------------
Hari: Seen Hurt Locker?
Me: No. Yesterday it was 8.30 when I was ready to watch a movie. So I selected one with short running time - Ring 2. But 20 minutes into the film, power cut. Waited till 10, no power, so slept. Power resumed at 12 :( You?
Hari: Raging Bull. Again.
Me: Againa? Is that so good? I'm having the DVD, yet to see. Less priority because of all dreadful aspects: running time more than 2 hours, about a boxer, black and white, Martin Scorsese etc.
Hari: One wonderful aspect: Robert De Niro
Me: Should be, though I'm not a fan :) But he was good in Taxi Driver, Ronin and The Deer Hunter. Especially Taxi Driver. When talking to a security during his assassination attempt he looks exactly like a crank and in that talking-to-mirror scene.
Hari: Chanceless. It was like watching a different person playing the lead role in the second half. He must be a lunatic to have gained around 27kgs in 2 months to look the part of a boxer on his way downhill. I was in a dilemma to choose between Travis Bickle and Jake La Motta. Finally choose the latter.
Me: Oh, I'll see it soon. But I can never sit for a second time for a drama :) I always wonder how that is possible for any person :)
Hari: It helps in observing it more minutely! Why would Black and white be a dreadful aspect to you I wonder!
Me: hahaha I have given the wrong impression. I love black and white, just that I'm afraid to see a drama film in it. At the same time, I think films like Godfather and Eastern promises would have been very different and less likable if they were in black and white. The deep reds and blacks are very important in building the atmosphere of those films. That is why I insist on seeing films in original DVD prints and not with all colours washed out in the low quality prints :)
Hari: Afraid to see drama. hahaha! After watching Raging Bull, I was on youtube watching his interviews. There was also a lovely video tribute to him showing various clips from different movies. He is a different guy in each!
Me: A man who has grown to direct a spy thriller that will make Le Carre happy - Good Shepherd. You have seen that?
Hari: Nope. It was a recent movie shot in black and white?
Me: 2006. A long winded movie with slightly boring personal life intertwined into a brilliant spy thriller. It captures the mood of Le Carre's cold war novels perfectly well. If ever you'd be interested in seeing spy thrillers, this would be your type of movie.
24 Mar 2010
--------------
Me: By the way, yesterday I watched Raging Bull :)
Hari: Oh! So?!!
Me: hahaha So what? Drab. Though not boring. Absolutely not my kind of movie. I kept on wondering how you watched it the second time :)
Hari: Oh God! hahaha.... ok ok
Me: hahaha It is me who has to say "Oh God!"
Hari: We both have the right as our tastes are polar opposites :)
Me: hahaha yes yes. I too think they are polar :)
Hari: Not in the least impressed with De Niro or the camera work?
Me: I don't know much to appreciate performances :) De Niro is intense but didn't find him much impressive. May be that is because of the character he's playing - a pathetic, utterly despicable character. Even more than Al Pacino's Tony Montana in Scarface. I didn't like the film for two main reasons: 1. it is just a character drama and absolutely no plot, 2. De Niro's psychopathic extremities gets repetitive and tiring after an hour. B&W cinematography surely gives the feel of the 40s. More than cinematography, editing during the boxing scenes impressed :)
Hari: In my case I like a film when it is just a character drama and has absolutely no plot :D
Me: That is what I understood after seeing this film :)
Hari: hahaha....if you think this film has no plot then you should see Johny Deep's 'Dead Man'. You will hunt me down and kill me after that.
Me: Who is the director?
Hari: Jim Jarmusch
Me: Ghost Dog director? Seems Dead Man is one of the recent Westerns. I may watch :)
Hari: You know Ghost dog?
Me: I know the name of the film; Forrest Whitaker has acted; A remake of or inspired by Le Samourai. That's all I know
Hari: Oh yes. Same film. I din't like it that much. I watched it after Dead Man. And you said you might watch Dead man right? Ok, I tell you again YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
Me: hahaha. Now I've known one film you'll like for sure - Le Samourai.
Hari: When I tweeted that I dint like Ghost dog one guy said that I should have seen Le Samourai
Me: Yes. But now I get a doubt if you'll like :) Because it's not a character drama.
Hari: Not that I like only character drama...it has to have me hooked one way or the other
Me: I don't see any hooks in Raging Bull. But you see hooks that can hook you for the second time. That's the problem :) Ghost Dog is about a lone assassin, killing somebody and getting chased by police and a villain group?
Hari: My hook for Raging Bull was De Niro and his character development. Yes Ghost dog is about that...but it was too slow...Dead Man was even slower but...well...it was about existentialism! :D
Me: I don't see any character development in La Motta. He remains the same from the first frame to the last frame. Not even a hint of redemption. Maybe I don't have an eye for it :(
Hari: There is development. He keeps getting worse as the years pass by. He has a thick head and can't think straight. He starts with adultery, then becomes suspicious, jealous, loses interest in what used to be his passion, stuffs himself, becomes a sluggard, becomes paranoid that everyone is screwing around with his wife, becomes insecure when she leaves him, rants about his fate in that lonesome 'why why' jail scene, and finally becomes a totally different pathetic person far from the champion, making lame jokes as a standup comedian. He ends up blaming his brother for not taking proper care of him.
Me: Oh, super. So this is what character development is? This is what I think: Character development is not about change in a character. It is about how much we know about a character as the movie progresses. In this case, he's a nut and remains a nut from start to finish. All the happenings around him just repeatedly reiterate that he's a nut, nothing more (that is why I feel it's dull). Wrong?
Hari: He was a nut earlier and still was the bronx bull...people respected and feared him...and he was a nut later too but a real nut now....there is a difference between the two... from power to disgrace he takes a fall due to his stupidity, arrogance, short-sightedness, suspicion etc., I think character development need not be between two extremes like good and bad... it can as well be the stages between two points of equally bad situations
Me: Please read this again: "Character development is not about change in a character (whether from good to bad or from bad to worse). It is about how much we know about a character as the movie progresses." I think you're talking about the change in character while I'm talking about the audience's knowledge about a character.
Hari: Ok got it. But you mean you everything you knew about La Motta at the beginning is exactly the same at the ending?
Me: Absolutely yes. That is what I think.
Hari: Oh I dint think so.
Me: hahaha. Substantiate. I think whatever you think, like he standing up against the big bosses, gaining the title, losing the match and his private life because of his meanness etc., are things that happened to him. There is not even a change in his character. As a character he's the same throughout the movie. What other dimension of his character do you come to know as movie progresses?
Hari: I thought as a handsome boxing champ he was a confident person in life. But was surprised when he turned out to be insecure when his wife says the opponent is good looking and wreaks vengeance by smashing his face. He always could be seen to be in good terms with his brother though he had frequent run-ins with everyone else, but when it comes to his wife, he even suspects his brother.
Me: For me it was crystal clear from the beginning that he's eccentric to the point of psychopathic. I was waiting and waiting for something interesting to happen based on his character, nothing did. I was waiting at least something, let alone interesting, to happen based on his character, again nothing. All that happened were repetition of the same events, till the end. In a sense it occurred to me that whatever happens after he meets his second wife is a back story of his earlier marriage. His first wife whom we see quarreling with him; he should have gone through the same routine with her too.
Hari: hmmm...interesting...maybe I was too awed by the way he played the character that I did not bother about anything else...he seemed real...and putting on 27 kgs so that he could get the sluggishness and mannerism right was something that was stunning to me... maybe I was more awed by his acting and the cinematography in the boxing scenes and anything else...
Me: I think now you've understood your own opinion on Raging Bull a little better :)
Hari: nope...still not very clear until i understand character development first!
Me: hahaha You know very well that there is a lot more to a movie than character development. So if a character impressed you, only a part of the movie impressed you :)
Hari: haha...ok no further arguments. me too leaving now...bye!
Me: Just one line: It's not argument but discussion :)
Hari: sure sure.thanks for starting it...now I want to know the various aspects to look for while appreciating a movie...i don't usually analyse a movie like that...its a matter of feeling... i like it or don't like it... i don't question myself why it is so
Me: hahaha Personal feeling is the foundation of all analyses. All the best for your learning :)
Hari: danks! bye
Me: Bye :)
13 Jul 2010
--------------
Me: Hello, have you seen The Hurt Locker?
Hari: Yes
Me: Liked it?
Hari: It was ok. Nothing much happens. The story as such is naturally tense because it involves ticking bombs ready to explode. You saw?
Me: Yes, I saw a few weeks back. So nothing struck you as special? Character-wise what do you think?
Hari: நான் பார்த்து ரொம்ப மாசம் ஆகுது...saw it immediately at the time of release... character-wise I think the guy is good at what he does and so naturally enjoys it...it doesn't appear as a threat to him...maybe if I had seen it again recently I could comment on it better
Me: So your overall impression of the movie is that the movie is slow but very tense since it involves bombs. In short it's slow but good thriller. Correct?
Hari: Hmm...so you are planning to shoot a movie involving a bomb ready to go in under your boss's seat?
Me: hahaha. No, I asked about The Hurt Locker in relation to our discussion we hand few months back on Raging Bull :)
Hari: Oh. About Character development? What is your opinion about the movie?
Me: First and foremost the movie is a character drama. It's a character drama given thriller coating. The ever-present question, "what type of character is he" is the pivot on which the entire movie revolves. Each and every scene gives us an opportunity to guess the answer to that question. That he remains an enigma till the end is an icing on the character development cake. That it is very tense and thrilling comes only second. I don't know what the critics think, for I've stopped reading reviews few months back. But the above is my opinion. Corollary: Raging Bull should fall at The Hurt Locker's feet and beg.
Hari: Raging Bull is based on a real life character of a boxer called Jake La Motta. Hurt Locker is imagined. In the former, if you find the character never changes during the course of the movie, it may be the reason that the real Jake La Motta just lived that way.
Me: hahaha Real or not real is not a question at all. As a movie what does it bring to the screen? That is the question. As I've already told I think character development is not about whether the character changes or not but about how much we come to know of the character as the movie progresses. I'm not asking why to make a movie based on a never-changing bum like Jake La Motta but that why the movie was not taken in a way that it creates an interest in a bum that is JLM. For your information, The Hurt Locker also is based on a reporter's account of real life incidents surrounding a particular soldier and I vaguely remember that the soldier even sued the filmmakers for using his story or something like that.
Hari: I don't understand how you say it was uninteresting. Here was a guy who once was ruling the boxing world but reduced to a standup comedian now...to know that even a person, so powerful and menacing in a boxing ring can be so vulnerable and full of insecurities and paranoia when it comes to his personal life is interesting...and above all I don't like raging bull from what I got to know about the character...for me it was the way it was portrayed by De Niro... the effort and the way the boxing matches were shot...
Me: Our whole discussion was based on the idea that you found Raging Bull a good character drama. திடீர்னு இப்படி பல்டி அடிச்சா I have no problem :)
No comments:
Post a Comment