The movie Suspiria really had an effect of on me. Yes it was cheesey and its age showed in the acting, dialogue, and effects. But movies with bad effects are looked at with a more forgiving attitude.
Suspiria was very interesting we follow a character who's immediately thrown into an unfamiliar place where everything is pretty strange so she doesn't want to make any assumption on the strange happenings at first. I also like that this movie had so many female characters. Allowing the audience to appreciated a lot of different personality from the women. Sometimes in film we get the opposite problem, there'll only be one female character. And writers try to make up for it by throwing every type of female personality into just one person. So the writing isn't as entertaining. But in Suspiria we got a lot of different personalities. Suspiria as a horror is also a very 'nervous' movie. It will avoid outright jumpscares but make things gradually uncomfortable like with the maggots in the building.
Women are tied very closely with the witch genre. Sometimes I wonder how this happened. Historically, witch hunts targeted males and females. Men were also called witches. During the salem with trials men were also persecuted. It seems that female witches are strongest in story telling though. In fairy tales witches are always female. Like Ursula the Sea-Witch or Baba Yaga. I think this is because as people over the years we have and expectations of women to act kind and selfless. Which is silly anybody could be selfless or selfish, but when we see a female character act cruelly especially an older one (who's supposed to be sweet and motherly) people think it's unnatural.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
King Rat
King Rat was actually a pretty frustrating book for me. I think that it just withheld too much information from the reader. Some of the positive things of King Rat was that it was at least interesting. I liked that the author chose to use urban myths and treat them like reality. King Rat himself was a fun character because he had absolutely no glamour about him. He ate trash, he spoke in a thick poorman's accent, and he was lean and creepy looking. Which is pretty fun because kings are supposed to be regal and expensive, it's seems only right that the king of rats would be complete trash. The characterization of the birdman was also fun. I like the way the flute was a part of his introduction.
But ultimately it was too little information with too many words. I'm a Computer Animation student so I couldn't help but think that if I translated the 60 pages I read into the screen it would take maybe 5 minutes to deliver all the information given. I understand that the writing is part of the personality of the book. Some moments really caught me as a reader. When Saul took his first bite of trash and the writer explained in such detail I almost felt like is was chew cold soggy meat. Disgusting but memorable, it was a really good moment of writing. But for the most part I did just want to get to the point. I think I could've like King Rat more if it was edited down a bit.
I will say one excellent use of a myth in story telling was in the movie Candyman. The historical myth and urban myth came together in one character, the Candyman, in a really entertaining effective way. Candyman is probably one of my favorite American ghosts if not my favorite.
But ultimately it was too little information with too many words. I'm a Computer Animation student so I couldn't help but think that if I translated the 60 pages I read into the screen it would take maybe 5 minutes to deliver all the information given. I understand that the writing is part of the personality of the book. Some moments really caught me as a reader. When Saul took his first bite of trash and the writer explained in such detail I almost felt like is was chew cold soggy meat. Disgusting but memorable, it was a really good moment of writing. But for the most part I did just want to get to the point. I think I could've like King Rat more if it was edited down a bit.
I will say one excellent use of a myth in story telling was in the movie Candyman. The historical myth and urban myth came together in one character, the Candyman, in a really entertaining effective way. Candyman is probably one of my favorite American ghosts if not my favorite.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Audition
Ok so I'm a pretty big fan of Miike, I enjoyed 13 Assassins, Sukiyaki Western Django, and Ichi the Killer. So I had a feeling that I would really like Audition.
One thing about Audition that really stuck with me was at the beginning of the movie before it started. The actress that plays Asami says that if you're a man watching this movie you should learn to be afraid of women. But if you're a woman watching this movie you should see things from Asami's point of view. This stuck with me through out the movie.
I noticed that through out most of the movie we're not really given a chance to see things from Asami point of view. We see everything from Aoyama's point of view. There are a lot of moments where the camera is even literally in his point of view. Aoyama's is an interesting character in the fact that he is NOT a good person. He even has some downright despicable characteristics. Like is love of younger women. But easy to say he wouldn't call himself a bad man. When we are first introduced to him you can't help but feel bad. His wife died and he went years single. He seems to have taken good care of his son all by himself. He seems like a normal sympathetic character. But he decides to have this "audition" or show to find a new wife. The scene with the multiple women auditioning is really uncomfortable, it's a little sick and very disrespectful. The entire movie is from Aoyama's point of view letting the viewer either relate to him or judge him. Aoyama remains just likeable enough to relate to, but you can also understand why someone might hate him. It's still hard to see it from Asami's point of view. I don't think I hate anyone enough to fill them with needles and chop them up. I am glad in the end Asami was stopped.
I also need to mention the editing in this movie. It's absolutely AMAZING. I first noticed it on the lunch date when there was a jump in the footage. I thought it was just a mistake in the editing. But later on when the movie shows the rest of the date it returns to the point of the broken footage. This shows us that Aoyama did get all the information from her on the dates but the director withheld that information from the audience. It's really really clever!
One thing about Audition that really stuck with me was at the beginning of the movie before it started. The actress that plays Asami says that if you're a man watching this movie you should learn to be afraid of women. But if you're a woman watching this movie you should see things from Asami's point of view. This stuck with me through out the movie.
I noticed that through out most of the movie we're not really given a chance to see things from Asami point of view. We see everything from Aoyama's point of view. There are a lot of moments where the camera is even literally in his point of view. Aoyama's is an interesting character in the fact that he is NOT a good person. He even has some downright despicable characteristics. Like is love of younger women. But easy to say he wouldn't call himself a bad man. When we are first introduced to him you can't help but feel bad. His wife died and he went years single. He seems to have taken good care of his son all by himself. He seems like a normal sympathetic character. But he decides to have this "audition" or show to find a new wife. The scene with the multiple women auditioning is really uncomfortable, it's a little sick and very disrespectful. The entire movie is from Aoyama's point of view letting the viewer either relate to him or judge him. Aoyama remains just likeable enough to relate to, but you can also understand why someone might hate him. It's still hard to see it from Asami's point of view. I don't think I hate anyone enough to fill them with needles and chop them up. I am glad in the end Asami was stopped.
I also need to mention the editing in this movie. It's absolutely AMAZING. I first noticed it on the lunch date when there was a jump in the footage. I thought it was just a mistake in the editing. But later on when the movie shows the rest of the date it returns to the point of the broken footage. This shows us that Aoyama did get all the information from her on the dates but the director withheld that information from the audience. It's really really clever!
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Interview With a Vampire
One thing surprising to me about Interview With a Vampire was that there were comical scenes. The book is considered very dark and dramatic, and though it is i was still surprised that Rice would go through the effort of putting in any comedy at all.
One example is Louis' first night as a Vampire. The scene it's self is powerful and we have louis reflecting on his humanity and watching the sky before the sun rises. But Lestat, essentially ruins this poetic moment when he awkwardly mentions that he only had one coffin, meaning that the two men would have to share a coffin for the day. Louis got angry and frustrated but in the end they did share a coffin, lying on top of each other, and it was awkward and hilarious.
In class we mentioned this could be a homoerotic scene on purpose. When I was reading the relationship between Lestat and Louis, it didn't seem homoerotic since Louis would merely hate Lestat (and himself) while Lestat would become frustrated at Louis for repressing the vampire urges. But looking back at the two I can call the duo a couple. After all they are two men in a very close relationship, they do everything together. Lestat chose a man to turn into a vampire, not a woman. They even "adopt" Claudia. Lestat and Louis clearly don't have a good relationship but I still see a relationship between them.
Another bit of comedy happened shortly after Louis drank human blood for the first time. This is another HUGE moment in Louis's life. For the first time in years after trying so hard to not drink human blood he takes a bite out of a young girl, Claudia. He is so distraught and once again Lestat ruins another dark poetic moment with glee. Lestat is so happy he's singing and dancing with the corpse of the mother in the room. Louis is in absolute anguish and Lestat is overjoyed. Louis becomes so frustrated that he just runs away among the rooftops with Lestat chasing behind, jeering. And in the Chase Louis closes a large window behind him and Lestat runs into it "arms outstretched like a bird, he then slowly slid down the glass." At this point the book had me chuckling to myself. It was like a scene out of Screwy Squirrel.
These moments, that I find hilarious, do serve a purpose. Later on when Louis meets other vampires in France, he learns that Lestat is not thought that highly of. It might be surprising at first since he is LESTAT, one of the most famous vampires of fiction. But he does make basic mistakes. Forgetting to order a second coffin for Louis, running into windows, turning a child into a vampire: these are all mistakes. Lestat isn't very good at being a vampire. (Louis is much worse at it since he doesn't want to be a vampire.) Reading this book I felt like I was witnessing two people that didn't really know what they were doing trying to make it through life.
I didn't read anything past when Claudia killed Lestat, but I do plan on finishing this interesting and entertaining book.
One example is Louis' first night as a Vampire. The scene it's self is powerful and we have louis reflecting on his humanity and watching the sky before the sun rises. But Lestat, essentially ruins this poetic moment when he awkwardly mentions that he only had one coffin, meaning that the two men would have to share a coffin for the day. Louis got angry and frustrated but in the end they did share a coffin, lying on top of each other, and it was awkward and hilarious.
In class we mentioned this could be a homoerotic scene on purpose. When I was reading the relationship between Lestat and Louis, it didn't seem homoerotic since Louis would merely hate Lestat (and himself) while Lestat would become frustrated at Louis for repressing the vampire urges. But looking back at the two I can call the duo a couple. After all they are two men in a very close relationship, they do everything together. Lestat chose a man to turn into a vampire, not a woman. They even "adopt" Claudia. Lestat and Louis clearly don't have a good relationship but I still see a relationship between them.
Another bit of comedy happened shortly after Louis drank human blood for the first time. This is another HUGE moment in Louis's life. For the first time in years after trying so hard to not drink human blood he takes a bite out of a young girl, Claudia. He is so distraught and once again Lestat ruins another dark poetic moment with glee. Lestat is so happy he's singing and dancing with the corpse of the mother in the room. Louis is in absolute anguish and Lestat is overjoyed. Louis becomes so frustrated that he just runs away among the rooftops with Lestat chasing behind, jeering. And in the Chase Louis closes a large window behind him and Lestat runs into it "arms outstretched like a bird, he then slowly slid down the glass." At this point the book had me chuckling to myself. It was like a scene out of Screwy Squirrel.
These moments, that I find hilarious, do serve a purpose. Later on when Louis meets other vampires in France, he learns that Lestat is not thought that highly of. It might be surprising at first since he is LESTAT, one of the most famous vampires of fiction. But he does make basic mistakes. Forgetting to order a second coffin for Louis, running into windows, turning a child into a vampire: these are all mistakes. Lestat isn't very good at being a vampire. (Louis is much worse at it since he doesn't want to be a vampire.) Reading this book I felt like I was witnessing two people that didn't really know what they were doing trying to make it through life.
I didn't read anything past when Claudia killed Lestat, but I do plan on finishing this interesting and entertaining book.
Frankenstein
Something I find very interesting in the book is how obsessed Frankenstein is with his creation. He's working so hard on his creation he's just a shell of who he was (Kinda similar to the CA's working on their thesis every night) and there's a moment when he might actually speaking of love. "No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs" he's certainly very excited of about his the completion of his creation, but he's also patting himself on the back. He's a very self centered scientist already boasting on how he could build a new species. All that joy goes away when he actually brings life to his creature. I appreciate that the scene is actually quite short. We get a lot of build up and then the "spark or life" part of the book is only a few lines. It still hits pretty hard with the reader. He is absolutely disgusted at his creation!
This kinda reminds me of an old saying "You're a father when the baby is born, but you're a mother when you're pregnant." In way Frankenstein's 2 years of work on the project meant absolutely nothing emotionally. Only when he witnessed the creature was finally breathing and blinking (being alive) does Frankenstein finally realize what he did by creating life. And he runs away from this creature, that he earlier called a child. He abandoned his child.
I really do feel pity for the creation. Maybe I cannot judge Frankenstein since he described the creature like a hellish monster and who wouldn't find that shocking? But the creature was a stupid infant. It didn't choose to be frightening, Frankenstein made him that way. He enters the world and no one makes a place for him. I wonder what it would be like if Frankenstein didn't abandon his creation.
While reading the book i wasn't picking up on the gothic references. Maybe i just wasn't looking for them. They were very clear visually though like in Young Frankenstein and Nosferatu.
This kinda reminds me of an old saying "You're a father when the baby is born, but you're a mother when you're pregnant." In way Frankenstein's 2 years of work on the project meant absolutely nothing emotionally. Only when he witnessed the creature was finally breathing and blinking (being alive) does Frankenstein finally realize what he did by creating life. And he runs away from this creature, that he earlier called a child. He abandoned his child.
I really do feel pity for the creation. Maybe I cannot judge Frankenstein since he described the creature like a hellish monster and who wouldn't find that shocking? But the creature was a stupid infant. It didn't choose to be frightening, Frankenstein made him that way. He enters the world and no one makes a place for him. I wonder what it would be like if Frankenstein didn't abandon his creation.
While reading the book i wasn't picking up on the gothic references. Maybe i just wasn't looking for them. They were very clear visually though like in Young Frankenstein and Nosferatu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)