This page renders best in Firefox (or Safari, or Chrome)
The Movies
I never realized quite how much movies mean to me until recently, when I subscribed to Netfilx and started watching the classic movies I really enjoy more frequently.
Here is what I am thinking about the main character of O Lucky Man!: the viewer is compelled to identify with him, to feel paranoid on his behalf. The mechanism for this, the driving force, is Travis' lack of self-consciousness. He moves through the world without putting together the strands of paranoia that are the fabric of the movie -- not exactly naïve; but unable to grasp how everything that happens in the world of the movie is directed at him. This is a little difficult for me to express:
A working definition of paranoia as the belief that everything that happens to you is connected and happens because of its effect on you.
Travis is the main character of this movie; and everything that happens in the movie happens because of its effect on him. Everything that happens in the movie is connected by virtue of being part of the same script. If Travis realized this -- if he realized he were a character in the movie -- he would be paranoid.
But he does not -- so you the viewer, as you get the levels of connection and of conspiracy against him, have to assume the role of his ego
This line of thinking needs some work. But it seems promising; it highlights how the experience of enjoying the narrative involves identifying with the main character as a key element, and starts working towards a mechanism for this process of identification.
posted evening of November 28th, 2008: Respond ➳ More posts about O Lucky Man!
Watching O Lucky Man last night reminded me in a couple of ways of reading Gravity's Rainbow. Now I've certainly been known to make spurious comparisons of various works of art to Pynchon; but I think this one stands up. What I'm getting at (beyond Travis' obvious points of resemblance to Tyrone Slothrop) is, the points where the sheer artistry of the medium -- the prose in GR, the images and soundtrack in O Lucky Man! -- overwhelms my ability to follow the narrative and I find I'm just basking in the beauty flowing by. And need to go back and reread to figure out what was going on. If all goes according to plan I will watch it again tonight...
I haven't talked about the music yet, just want to note that it's utterly delightful and makes me want to listen to more Alan Price and more Animals, of whom all I really know is their big hits. Also Anderson's use of ambient noise just about took my breath away. This is one of the best soundtracks ever.
This is a great movie. I'm going to need to watch it another time or two before I can really comment on it with much understanding. My initial reaction is that it's sort of like watching dada sketch comedy -- there must be good ideas in here for 5 or 6 movies, thrown together in an utterly reckless way. It would be so easy for it to suck -- but somehow it's wonderful.
Malcolm McDowell wrote the screenplay (at least he said he did in the fine documentary O Lucky Malcolm!, which comes with the DVD; he is not credited as the writer) and acts lead, and is just a trip to watch. I was surprised while watching the documentary to realize that I haven't seen any of the huge majority of his films that he's done since 1982.
Wow, this is unexpected and kind of exciting: Googling around for information about Benito Pérez Galdós reveals that Buñuel's Viridiana was (loosely) based on his novel Halma, and another of Buñuel's movies, Nazarín -- which I have not seen but sounds great -- is also based on a text by Pérez Galdós. Slant magazine describesViridiana as "noticeably derivative of the similarly-themed Nazarín," which it calls "Buñuel's 1958 masterpiece." Not sure how much use this knowledge will be for me; Halma does not appear to be translated into English and I don't even know what the title of the source text for Nazarín is. Still: interesting.
(Looks like the title of the source text for Nazarín is Nazarín -- Biblioteca Nueva published an edition of it and Halma bound together a few years back. No luck looking for translations though.)
Update: Dr. Rhian Davies of the University of Sheffield has compiled a list of Pérez Galdós's works in translation. Jo Labanyi's translation of Nazarín was published in '96. No translation of Halma apparently. Dr. Davies also let me know that Buñuel's Tristana (1970) is an adaptation of Perez Galdós' work of the same title. Tristana appears in translation in Colin Partridge's book Tristana: Buñuel's Film and Galdós' Novel: A Case Study. I have pulled an essay that deals with Tristana in some detail from Google's cache.
posted afternoon of November 12th, 2008: Respond ➳ More posts about Viridiana
Friday, November 7th, 2008
Took today off work for an excursion to the city -- Sylvia and I took my parents to the Bronx Zoo for a fun tiring afternoon. Afterwards we met Ellen at the China Institute in Manhattan, where we watched Weijun Chen's stunning new documentary, Please Vote for Me -- a chronicle of the campaign for 3rd-grade class monitor at Evergreen Primary School in Wuhan, China. Every year up until now*, class monitor has been appointed by the teacher; her innovation this year is to select three candidates and have them campaign for the office. You get to watch the class (through the eye of the the documentarian, who manages to insinuate himself completely into the fabric of the kids' days) independently create a primitive democracy, complete with patronage, bribery, voter intimidation...
The kids are just marvelous, completely unself-conscious on camera, totally engaged in being themselves. I had to sort of guard against over-interpreting what they were doing and saying -- at the beginning of the movie I was trying to read each thing said by one of the children as having special deep significance -- but when I got myself to quit that and just engage with them as children, I was really able to get into it and identify with the three candidates and watch them figure out how to campaign.
I'd recommend the movie strongly to anybody interested in democracy and elections, which a lot of people seem to be interested in that nowadays. It was of course especially great timing for us to see what with Sylvia being that age -- I could recognize mannerisms and behaviors of Sylvia and her friends, from the kids in the movie -- but I think I would have loved it even without that element. It's available on Netflix. (Not only that, it's available for download on Netflix -- you can watch it right now!)
* I'm not completely sure what year this was filmed -- maybe 2005 or 6?
So the reason I wanted to see Rachel Getting Married, was the music, specifically Robyn Hitchcock. And I think the music was probably the best thing about the movie, in the end. But look: the music was sufficiently great that I can say that without denigrating the rest of the picture; it was a really fine movie.
A review I read (maybe in the Times?) criticized the reception scene as killing the rhythm of the movie and its plot, making the viewer lose track of what's going on. This seems like an absolutely baffling response to the movie (assuming I'm remembering it right); the reception was a totally integral part of what was going on (which was after all a wedding), it intensified and crystallized the characters, particularly of Kim and her mother.
Hm, just thinking this post needs a little more -- I finished it in a hurry before dinner -- The reason I chose the title I did is that I flashed on that song at one point in the movie when Kim was watching a car pulling in to her father's driveway. Kim's relationship with cars is definitely a focal point of the plot and of her character. The one thing I really didn't buy in the movie was her accident the night before the wedding -- that (a) was totally predictable and (b) didn't do the work it was supposed to. Auto-accident-as-cathartic-release just doesn't cut it in my book. Her not getting in an accident would have been more compelling; and the fight with her mother fills the need for violent release there.
posted evening of October 26th, 2008: Respond ➳ More posts about Music
Tonight we're going in to the city and listen to Spike Lee and James McBride discussing their new movie, Miracle at St. Anna. The talk is sold out! Exciting -- I'm looking forward to that star-struck feeling I get from being in the same room as an author whose work I respect. This movie looks like it's going to be really interesting!
Afterwards we will meet up with my sister and who knows? Maybe watch the presidential debate. If McCain succeeds in cancelling it we will just hang out and commiserate about the times and the mores.
I found a really well-written, informative review of Stroszek at Pajiba's Twisted Masterpieces. Recommended. Also, in comments thereto, the information that Joy Division lead singer Ian Curtis killed himself after watching this film.
posted morning of September 24th, 2008: Respond ➳ More posts about Stroszek
It doesn't really make sense to title the previous post "Replacing Aguirre in my affections"... I was meaning to get across my dawning feeling as I watched it, that maybe this is the greatest movie Herzog ever made. But actually it's great in a very similar way to how Aguirre is, though they are very different movies. I think maybe the signature feature of Herzog's story-telling -- as I watch his films anyway -- is the way he can bring me to identify with his characters at the same time as I see them as totally alien, completely different from me. So I'm inside Bruno's head and I'm freaking out about how weird and inexplicable he is. Well that and of course the amazing layout of images on the screen, and the fantastic soundtrack; these are more qualities Herzog's great films have in common...
“Silver Bell” performed by Chet Atkins and Hank Snow -- not actually on the Stroszek soundtrack, a different version of “Silver Bell” was on it and some different songs by Atkins. (Including “The Last Thing on My Mind&rdquo -- just fantastic.)
posted evening of September 20th, 2008: Respond ➳ More posts about Werner Herzog
may be Stroszek which I am watching now. This movie is exactly what a movie should be -- it is the ideal form "movie" that is in my mind when I give voice to the word. I think it is going to drive me to purchase a region-free DVD player -- am I right in thinking that such a thing exists? -- right now I can only watch it on my laptop and the image is pretty distorted; the characters and images on the screen are flattened so that it seems like you are looking up at the screen at a sharp angle.
I will try and figure out how to write a meaningful review of the movie and maybe post it later on.
(I wonder if this distortion is a property of the DVD rather than of the method of playing it. It would likely be cheaper to rent the DVD from Netflix, which will have a disk I can play on my TV set, than to buy a new DVD player. So that's what I'll do... Yep, strike all that above. I am watching the Netflix copy of the movie and it is sized properly. Way better this way.)
Scott of Conversational Reading has some new details about Pynchon's forthcoming novel Inherent Vice... And Wow! JDM of Ma Vie Nocturne publishes an excerpt!
Watching O Lucky Man last night reminded me in a couple of ways of reading Gravity's Rainbow. Now I've certainly been known to make spurious comparisons of various works of art to Pynchon; but I think this one stands up. What I'm getting at (beyond Travis' obvious points of resemblance to Tyrone Slothrop) is, the points where the sheer artistry of the medium -- the prose in GR, the images and 
soundtrack in O Lucky Man! -- overwhelms my ability to follow the narrative and I find I'm just basking in the beauty flowing by. And need to go back and reread to figure out what was going on. If all goes according to plan I will watch it again tonight...
great movie. I'm going to need to watch it another time or two before I can really comment on it with much understanding. My initial reaction is that it's sort of like watching dada sketch comedy -- there must be good ideas in here for 5 or 6 movies, thrown together in an utterly reckless way. It would be so easy for it to suck -- but somehow it's wonderful.
three candidates and have them campaign for the office. You get to watch the class (through the eye of the the documentarian, who manages to insinuate himself completely into the fabric of the kids' days) independently create a primitive democracy, complete with patronage, bribery, voter intimidation...
Scott of Conversational Reading has 