Archive for the 'Cinema and Architecture' Category

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” (2009)



of narrative space

Who saw and keeps seeing the Harry Potter franchising and thinks a little bit about it knows where it is going to (or supposed to). The franchising is unusually long, for films that work a single story-line, even more when the evolution of the age of the characters matters. It started 8 years ago, it will finish its release (we suppose) in 2 years. So a decade with the same characters. But more, a decade with the same viewers. That’s the trick, each film does not attempt to target new audiences, instead it attempts to get the ones who saw the previous films. Of course new publics are welcome, but picking up the regular one (that started in the books) seems to be the main purpose. That’s why every film is ‘darker’ than the previous one, because if the first one was to be seen by someone with, say, 10 years, than the last one should be watchable by someone with 20. It’s a clever idea, and which apparently has allowed all the new films to be bankable despite the long duration of the characters. Also, i suppose, that’s why Chris Columbus got out of the boat after the third one, he has his imagination shifted into targeting children, and “families” in the way. When Columbus got out, they had trouble replacing him, and i think the two previous films are absolute cinematic disasters. The last one, specifically, is a total mess in every respect. Well, Yates must have seen it plenty of times, and made it partially up in this one.

What we have in this new episode better than in the previous two is a certain building of the tension from scene to scene. They understood they don’t have powerful drama in their hands, the books are funny depictions of appealing bits of mythology but rooted in teenage fantasy and adventure, and that can’t be changed. So they wrote the film accordingly to the possibilities they had. It makes it watchable in those terms. Well, the large form is absolutely inexistent. The film is a collection of loose chapters, the thin links the book (i suppose) provide are absent here so the film works as an illustration of certain moments in the story. But generally speaking, each episode is competently made.

But something is really great here. It’s the depiction of space through the election of the framing. What i mean is that space is present, it is used as an important (the most important) bender of dramatic dynamics, meaning that every scene has a life because of how it is framed, In the space. I collect examples of how space is used in cinema and this is a good catch, which does use space in a rare way, through the frame. It’s in the exact positioning of close and far elements (objects, elements of the architecture such as walls or doors) as well as in how characters come up in the space (and where) that the magic happens. This film does it well enough. The true tension of the scenes is in how they are spatially used. As spectators, we are dismissed into believing it is The story, the dialog the characters that make us feel uneasy, or driven away, but it is the space, here bended by the frame.

So now, in the 6 films we have, there are 2 which matters for what they do with space: Cuarón’s Azkaban and this one. Cuarón is someone who ostensibly moves in and through the space, hanging on characters or rootless for the sake of the space itself. This version depends on the staging of space, and finding the meaningful frame (in this case in a space which can and is previously thought up). I personally prefer what Cuarón does, but i really enjoyed this version, and it positively surprised me. (Orson Welles masters both types of space exploration, and can deliver both of them in the same film, changing the mood of space exploration! that is unique).

My opinion: 4/5

This comment on IMDb

Blindness (2008)

“Blindness” (2008)



spatial white

At certain points of their lives, many artists feel the need to descend to the abysses of human degradation, of absence of humanity (or radical shifts of values). It’s the catacombs Piranesi brilliantly imagined, it’s Dante’s hell. The basic intent of this kind of journey, i suppose, is not so much to imagine a possible reality where we might live, but to mirror our own reality, the rotten bits of our many times ridiculous existence. Exaggeration is a device artists often use to enhance whatever they try to say. Blindness, the novel, was Saramago’s descent to the catacombs, the darkest piece of writing of a dark ironic pessimist (or an optimist of another kind of humanity). Meirelles, who had previously made to dark films, uses the novel to make his own descent. As a matter of curiosity, he admitted he wanted and failed to adapt the book, and eventually went on to direct Cidade de Deus. The mix of ideas and creative minds is deadly powerful, and the effect really is what’s intended. This is a well crafted representation of a possible hell, of a possible reality, of our actual reality(?).

Before cutting to the film, i should say something. There is a little Brazilian documentary, practically unknown. It’s called “Janela da Alma” (window to the soul, free trans.). It’s about vision, of course, it’s about observing, about what it means to a number of artists to watch, to see. To use the eyes to grab the world, and to express feelings. Among many interesting real people and artists that collaborate, i’ll talk about 2 of them. One is Saramago, who wrote the novel, Blindness. The other one is a blind photographer (forgot the name) who photographs out of intuition, obviously not caring for the final result which he can’t see, but doing photography as a means to get to the world. It’s a terrific concept if you think about that. I recommend you watch that documentary, before or after this film. You may find interesting things in it. In the film there is even a moment when Ruffalo’s character photographs out of “blind’s intuition” as he says…

(possible spoiler)

The dramatic arcs are similar to what we have in Irreversible. We land straight in hell, we get as dark as we can, right from the beginning, and we go up the stairs towards light, as we move on. That’s why in this film we don’t have much of a prelude to what’s going to happen. It’s a powerful device because it doesn’t allow us to be rational, as spectators we feel as much in the dark(white) as someone who suddenly lost his seeing abilities.

Basically, the film becomes a study on how civilization would be without a basic column, the eye sight. “what would happen if…?”. It’s simple and effective device and, because it deals with vision, and the game of taking it out, it’s purely cinematic, literally visual. Meirelles obviously got it, that’s why he wanted to adapt it in the first place. All that happens is the consequence of not seeing. Several things can be taken from here: after the initial chock of loosing vision, people adapt, and create conflicts, hierarchies, new conflicts and new hierarchies, but we are supposed to identify to what we see (and if you have a conscience you will). New groups are formed, new friendships, new “families”.

Meirelles is a highly visual director. In this one, he is much more of a “framer” than in his previous ones, where the skill was in rhythm (editing). Oh, this one has fine pieces of editing, starting at the beginning. But it is much more architectural in its approach. After all, the issue of loosing eyesight and relating to the world is purely spatial. It’s a matter of one’s relation to a world conceived to be seen. Being an architect himself, Meirelles certainly appreciates this better than other directors.

So, the visual game he plays, is space, and colours (b&w). The photography is highly depurated, contrasting when there has to be a contrast, but mainly developed around over exposed almost white pictures, and total darkness, which actually exists for probably 30 seconds in a specific scene, when Julianne Moore looks for food in a basement.

The acting is good, Julianne Moore is at the top of her game in the way she is intense without over exploding, and in how she shows us a surface at the same time she suggests there are other faces to her character. So, she is the leader here, literally in the story, since she’s the only one that can see. All the others play along, except for McKellen who often sounds just arrogant as an actor, the kind that believes actors are what the whole film (and all the films) are about. Strange, given the fact that he was also a screenwriter in this film. Glover’s character was interpreted by Meirelles as an alter-ego of Saramago. His acting is quite good though limited in time, and the off voice has the right tone. An interesting trivia is that when we first see him, he hears the radio, and what he hears is European Portuguese. The off voice Glover gives and that radio detail are what Meirelles uses to tell us that’s his designated narrator, an on screen appearance of Saramago.

Meirelles claims that earlier cuts of the film had a more repulsing effect, where more dark and shocking and that, even by the studio influence, he watered down the final cut. I think he might have hit a little bit harder on that key. It was also what the whole story is about.

My opinion: 4/5 this didn’t change my life but it certainly created a lasting mark on me

This comment on IMDb


Number Seventeen (1932)

“Number Seventeen” (1932)



3 visions

If this had been Hitchcock’s last movie, it would only have some historical interest today. But because he went on to direct films such as Rope and Rear Window, this little film (and others) becomes important for us to trace where his curious camera eye began.

I want to check other Hitch’s films from this time, but right now, for my eyes, in this moment he was strongly attached to two existing visual conceptions and wanting to develop his own.

So we have strong contrasts, where shadow draws actions, or objects or even characters and that defines the mood of the action, following German expressionism (that would later support perfectly the narrative construction of the noir films). Hitch is not a genius in this film, but he mastered it quite well. This is present in the first part of the film, in the house.

He also follows Eisenstein, and the train section is a quite good montage. He handles the models quite well, and the editing has a good rhythm and balance. Once again he is competent.

But the great thing in here is in the first half of the film: the camera movement. I bet he chose that house with that stair pit so he could play with what interested him the most. The camera moves and explores space, the scene where the detective (and ourselves) get into the house for the first time is a precocious demonstration of what his ‘Rope phase’ would bring. The first third of the film is basically going up and down the stairs, finding out things, exploring them with the camera.

His ‘McGuffin’ strategy is a mess here, where he still couldn’t make the plot enough simple and effective to make us forget it and concentrate in what he was doing in the eye. It’s confusing, and so complex (so many unnecessary characters!) that it may want to try to invent a meaning for all that. Well, i didn’t care and enjoyed this for the visual manipulation Hitch makes.

This film is broken into pieces (starting with the plot) and divided into cinema tendencies. Every bit is competent enough, but the overall result is quite messy. Well, he was experimenting.

My opinion: 2/5

This comment on IMDb

Batman Begins (2005)

“Batman Begins” (2005)



Getting into the film

Nolan and Bale are two of the director – actor whom i follow with more interest nowadays. Right now they make a good pair, and besides the two renewed Batman films (of which i’v only seen this one), they made the very good Prestige. This, on its own, makes me interested in this project.

It was ambitious, serious, and not totally flawed what was made here. Apparently Nolan really wanted to be part of this, and approached Warner Bro. to get the job. He knew he could bring something to the the superhero film, and probably Batman suited best what he likes to do. It’s a self-made superhero, he’s not created by accident, and in the process of the creation of his mask (which is Batman or Wayne?) there is a quest for an inner self, unlike say, IronMan, who plays science with his body. So, in Nolan’s vision, we need an actor that can act, and we need several cinematic and design devices that work. We have all of them sketched here, though not totally successful. Taking IMDb top 250 films, which as i write puts Dark Knight in 4th place, he probably solved the problems there. But than again, Shawshank Redemption is in number 1.

city: The conception of this has a lot to do with the city itself. There is clearly the intention to create something detached from previous films – “realistic”, in Nolan’s words. So this is modeled after Chicago, something we can recognize, and has a dark cloth falling over it, of decadence, social bankruptcy, corruption. The places are well explored, and used for the cinematic trick i’ll talk about.

A complaint: Gotham City used to be The world, in Batman. We didn’t even feel that there was a world outside it, it was self sufficient, and balanced, as a closed world where all is born. I’m sorry it couldn’t be kept like that.

cinema: Besides the Hollywoodian sequences of Wayne training, Wayne learning, Wayne building costumes, and finding places, there is something great, on the cinematic side. The main plot is played around fighting a “league of Shadows” which tries to spread an hallucinogenic gas for the city. That poison makes people see everything become their worst fears. They loose sense of reality, and start to fraction they’re own vision, and misunderstand/exaggerate what they see. The editing and pace of the film are built in accordance, so in the more active bits, we feel the film as the people of Gotham probably feel what they see. We become active viewers, and that’s great. It was only felt in some pieces, and that’s the flaw. Most of the time is spent on building the Bat’s world, and Wayne’s inner self. I wish we could have more, but i’d choose some of the sequences of this film to watch many more times. Christian Bale is in this ride, he knows what’s happening, and allows it to happen. Great work. This is what cinema is bringing new now and for a while. Making us part of the game.

My opinion: 4/5

This comment on IMDb

Das Leben der Anderen (2006)

“Das Leben der Anderen” (2006)


reasons to be Human

One of the living thinking minds i most admire is George Steiner. He is a man of great intelligence in the way he knows why knowledge is meaningful, and why it is important to Know. Among the many issues that have been a constant concern in his thinking life, one has been with me all the way since Steiner showed it to me: the brutal contradiction between human actions, or how he would put it; how can someone cry over night deeply moved by a Schubert Sonata, and in the next morning coldly order the killing of thousands of people.

This fundamental issue was vivid in my mind all the way, throughout this happily depressing film. There even is a direct reference to this question in it. So the theme here is how the meanings of art, or the simple reference to it can influence a mind trained to not be influenced and mechanically not behave humanly. Minds trained to trust what they’re taught.

The way this is put together is with one of the most subtle cinematic constructions i have (ever?) seen. The focus is on the artists, repressed artists, subjugated by a repressive regime. In the world framed in this film everything moves around them. Those artists are watched, constantly. We watch them, and in that watching we have the company of someone whose job is literally to watch. He starts with cold inhumanity (the first scene establishes that), obsessive watching, which that regime would probably consider simply ‘professional’.

In the way he gets involved with the subject of his watching (artistically modeled lives). Several things underline this: Art bends his mind to the point in which he plays double and starts writing an invented story to protect the real story the play writer is writing; He steals a book from the subject he’s watching, and secretly reads it at home; he asks a prostitute to stay with him longer than the deal would require, basically to be more than sex. Ultimately, he rewrites the ending of the whole story by hiding a forbidden object (a typewriter!) and thus secretly entering and changing the life of the artist.

This is a perfect expression of the dangerous of true commitment to true art, the art which embraces ideas that matter.

The camera is subtle, it moves most of the time, its movement doesn’t call attention, but always add up to the tension, mostly with subtle travelings. And watch the use of space. See how the interior of the apartment is used, how the cinematography carefully captures all the nuances and how they enlarge and diminish the inner space, in accordance with what the characters feel. Than notice how the humanity of that coloured environment is contrasted with the attic where the watcher stands, and even how he abstractly recreates the space below, from the sound of it.

Ulrich Mühe really had a deeply moving and intelligent performance. Very sad that he left us so early, here he really is something to look at, and performs fully in the field that most impresses me: that of subtlety, that kind of acting of great expression out of imperceptible moves. Most of it is in his face, so many times carefully framed.

The aftermath of the thing is when the artist writes a book, supposedly about the story we just saw. As if the film we had just seen was in fact made from the book. I was lucky to watch such a film. what a privilege.

Most of the times, i appreciate a film for its qualities as a vehicle for new/interesting ways to pass a story, or for how its visual quality/presentations gives me themes to dream about. This one works on the both previous aspects, but does it in a theme that matters. That’s so rare.

My opinion: 5/5, watch it if you want to feel more human.

This comment on IMDb

Uncovered (1994)

“Uncovered” (1994)


Kate and Barcelona

This is a worthwhile experience, despite all the many flaws the film has. It’s a weak work in most of the skills you may think of, related to film technique, and film expression:

The acting is childish, this applies to practically every participant. Exception made to Beckinsale, she moves around in a naive boyish manner, but she distills sex, she is that character who concentrates attentions, without being excessively aware of that. She does it well. The rest of the acting is weak. The editing doesn’t help as well. The premises for the montage work in a film such as this one weren’t so hard to follow. They just had to tell physical actions, linear and common. Yet there are transitions, basic continuity problems that aren’t solved, expressions in the faces that change, and so on. The music is also not well placed, it’s a bad soundtrack in its own musical value, but above all in the mood that transmits. The tribal references weren’t needed, and in the kind of story depicted, noir influenced, it would have been nice to have the music link the sets and evolutions in the story line.

But there are three things for which i think this is worth taking a look. One is the narrative structure, how the story moves on. This is based on a novel by Pérez-Reverte, the man who also wrote Ninth Gate. So we have a merging of art and life, the story happening in front of us was “written” or at least determined many years ago, buy an artist, in this case a painter. The first scene is masterful in transmitting this, really it was one of the most economic and meaningful first scenes i saw ever. It basically starts with a closeup of a hand in a painting (a hand as a synonym for power, ability to do things), and the camera moves away from the painting (it moves, it’s not a zoom out)and we get to see the border of the painting fully merged with the “real” environment surrounding it. This illusion of merger works for a few moments after which we get into the environment and momentarily forget the painting. This really works.

Other thing is the use of House Batló, by Gaudi. It’s interesting how the camera (and the editing) lies about the building, to enhance it’s qualities. It’s not a particularly brilliant exploration of the space, but it’s quite competent: what happens is, we get Beckinsale going up the stairs that lead to the first floor, she rings the bell in that first floor. These stairs are beautiful, they curve like the back of an animal, you get the sensation of elevation, instead of going up. Than this is edited and the inner space we get is from inside the attic, which is built with bows that remind an animal spine and bones. Later in the film, we have an outside establishing shot that leads the camera, from the outside, all the way up to the attic. We understand that the character lives in the attic, not in the first floor. This was interesting and showed a specific interest in playing with the house. A side note is that this film is a good opportunity for you to check the great ground floor of the house, which is today polluted by the bars which conduct the tourists, and the tourists themselves, lining up to get in, and filling the sidewalk around. Pity. I have a theory that tourism is literally killing and sucking life out of our best places in the world, but this is another discussion.

Anyway, the touristic gaze can also be seen in the shots that depict the city. Here we also get lies, usually related to the intention of getting the establishing shots. Here i think they messed up. They didn’t have to show all the known places all the time. There are fantastic relatively hidden places in that city that show more of its mood and life than the monuments. One of those places is actually used, the St Antoni market (the protagonist lives in front of it). The place is alive, and they use it well in some scenes. But than they lie about the city, so we have her going from Batló, to Rambla, to the Temple, to the market as if they were close enough to walk to, one after the other, sequenced like i said. It’s a lie, i have nothing against it, but i have against making the postcard taking nothing useful out of it. A good use of common architecture is the one made with Beckinsale’s house, especial its central stairs, and central lifter. The use of Park Guëll is not particularly interest, except for some movement between columns, but that’s it. And in that movement, they inserted some staged flirting between couples. Very poor, very artificial, they didn’t need to do it, the park has an interesting life on its own.

My opinion: 3/5

This comment on IMDb

Tekon kinkurîto (2006)

“Tekon kinkurîto” (2006)


I saw two films here. One i cared about, and another one that made me bore.

the city:

there are strong visual ideas behind the good Japanese animations. This is a feature that has two sources, according to my interpretation: one is very notion of image int art and Japanese culture. Japanese art produces now and for many centuries before images which are as complex as pleasant, they have abstract concepts, but they are visceral in the way they touch the viewer. So, art in Japan (when really good, and really Japanese) has this double component, of being highly intellectual and highly attached to the public it hits, no matter where that public comes from. That’s why it’s been relatively easy the process of turning Japanese culture into an universal matter (at least the ‘image'(s) of the Japanese culture). The thing that amazes me is how quite different Japanese creators from different areas and different forms of expression tend to be highly coherent between them, even if not directly related. The other source comes from a certain form of expression which, once, cinema explored. i’m talking about expressionism, and the direct influence that the German films from the 20’ had in so many creations afterwards. Metropolis might be the most visible face of this influence, but films like Der Golem have today still a strong impact. This film is basically a product of these two (main) influences. We have a city, which is magnificent, coloured but dark (and, as the two main characters, ‘black’ and ‘white’). This city is worth exploring. It’s powerful, and it’s visual. It’s visual in a false two dimensional perspective. That’s because the images are more based in texture, color, and framing, than on 3d distances, point of view or perspective. So it has more of Metropolis than of Blade Runner. But it is false because the Japanese are very strong in reducing the means without loosing content. Which is to say, the deepness is all there, even though the image is apparently flat. So, this is a city worth visiting, and, no doubt, the strongest point in this film.


this was, on the other hand, quite disappointing. It made me bored to follow the threads here. Black and White, the film revolves around the connection between them, and we have some other lines to follow around. The old moral gangster, his almost-sun who is forced to kill him, and the superior forces (those who live on the sphere above everything. The concept was quite simple, a kind of ying-yang (as in fact is shown along the story in the shirt of our Black), trying to understand how opposites get attracted (and repulsed) and how the bounding between those opposites creates a ‘perfect’ relation. But there was too much noise. The kind of ‘noisy silence’, ‘dark coloured’ city we had, is totally gone in what concerns narrative devices and storyline. There is only one point of interest, because it’s visual and worked with the possibilities of the medium. The visions of White, which he draws, become often animations, with a totally different expression from the rest, allowing us to take it as something really drawn by hand. Those were powerful moments. But the rest wasn’t pleasing or interesting to follow, and in the final minutes, the whole thing falls apart, precisely when the city is gone of our site, and the whole graphic expression changes into something that doesn’t fit.

My opinion: 3/5, check it for the city…

This comment on IMDb

Tout va bien (1972)

“Tout va bien” (1972)


structural sketch

Godard always makes me think. I’m never indifferent to what he does, with a few exceptions. But many times the excitement about a film by Godard comes in the days after i saw it. This is one of those cases.

The setup is simple, he is working on the structural (re)invention of his own films. He probably was by than arrogant enough to believe he was working on the reinvention of the whole cinema (remember the “jean luc cinema godard” signature of Bande a part?). Well there are conclusions which came to affect other works by many other authors, but not always. I think this one is important as a milestone for Godard, in the great picture of his work and it is important to watch on the historical context of cinema than. Many things were happening in the beginning of the seventies, and the main issue was perhaps to clarify the meaning of cinema and its links to real life, the main question the nouvelle vague had raised but never satisfactory answered to that moment. So there are a few works from this period i think should be checked for they show different approaches from different contexts to a similar issue. Think about “F for fake” by Welles, “The conversation” by Coppola, “La nuit américaine” by Truffaut, a few years before Antonioni’s Blow up. In the root of all this projects (and some others) is, to my view, this cinematic concern of understanding whether cinema represents life, stages life, or is pure fiction which may influence life. This is probably the least interesting answer of the works i mentioned, but it is still worth a look.

The reason why i think this is less rewarding than the films i mentioned above is because Godard, at this point, tended to ruin partially his films by dulling the viewer with his childish half baked conceptions of political ideologies. So he doesn’t focus so much on cinema as he does on politics. I like to believe that even than he had the notion of the lack of deepness in the ideas he depicts, but chose to understand that posture as a motivator of certain aesthetics conceptions. So, regarding cinema:

The film is in itself a rough structure, which contains several rough structures inside. The result is that we are able to check the mechanics of all the issues we watch: film, politics, and personal relations. Of these three, the only one that matters is the issue film-making. All is denounced so, in the beginning, we have a shot in which someone signs checks to pay film-related services (photography, film, script, etc) followed by an off dialog translating a stylization of the beginning of the film making process. Than we get a beautiful hole sequence inside a factory. We see the factory as a section, so we are able to simultaneously get what happens in every division of it (this structural denouncement was to be used in different context by von Trier, with Dogville). Even before we are allowed to understand we are watching a set, never for a moment one believes to be watching a real location (the colors are those of the french flag). The performances by the workers are also ostensibly stagy, so one doesn’t suspect we are watching real life being captured. So, fiction is announced. Like Truffaut in “la nuit américaine”, Godard finally assumes that film has a kind of dynamics which has not that much to do with life, and the role of cinema is not to capture life, but to create a life of its own, which has roots in real world, but has its own inner laws.

Than Godard ruins partially the experience. He assumes the political speech. He places still on the factory context several workers (actors performing workers, good to remember) unleashing terribly boring monologues (at least from by point of view, i’m not a May 68′ guy, older folks please comment on this) concerning their rights and their complaints. He places the actors talking directly to the camera, assuming once more there is a filming being made. Later he even assumes we can make our own film, when he puts Montand talking side by side with a camera pointing at us.

The third and clearly least worked out issue is the personal relation between Fonda and Montand. It is also told caring for the structure of the thing. So everything is stylish, cliché, but it is supposed to be like that. We end the film with possibilities on how their relation ends.

This is a cinematic sketch, like the demo of a film. I like that attitude, i like the aspect of “unfinished” project, roughness, provisional look of the film. It’s as if we were part of the process. And indeed we are.

Oh and there is a shot, that alone makes this worth watching. The relatively famous shot on a supermarket. We have the camera moving for about 15 minutes over a straight line, we watch the normal life of a supermarket, stuff happening, a staged “ideological” fight. Just that. The camera comes and go, the line it follows is parallel to the line of register boxes which register the clients shopping. We see the things at the level of the registers box workers. It’s just beautiful. It’s cinema, maybe not the cinema of truth, but true cinema. Really.

My opinion: 4/5

This comment on IMDb

Una Giornata Particolare (1977)

“Una Giornata Particolare” (1977)


contention and swinging cinema

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This is remarkably well done, a lesson in many aspects of film staging and economy of resources. Scola is someone i always come to face as a dear friend, for the great moments he gave me as i discover every time the world he creates with his films. Here is one of his most genuine compositions, quite complex in the way the things are placed to strike us as the simple thing in fact it is.

The basic idea is contention. Few characters, one single scenario (a courtyard housing building, probably built by fascists, or at least it has that monumental look). The first sequence is essential: we get lots of real footage and narrations of an historical day, when Hitler visited Mussolini in Rome. We see military parades, ceremonies, the whole description, this must last 5 or 6 minutes, fully with documentary material. So we get a background, useful on the social side (more than the politic) for what follows.

Than we get our two characters, alone and ready to meet. They are, for sure, typical characters, the housewife, brainwashed by fascism in its male chauvinistic thinking, even though she suffers daily with that. Mastroianni is the free thinker, homosexual and politically against fascism. The drama works out perfectly, everything is really intense, there are lots of things being told (and specially being felt) by us as we move along to the ending, which has to be one of the saddest in film history, not only for the inevitable conclusion that after the dreamy day, all rests the same, but for the way that is shown visually. So i tried to check the mechanisms:

. we always get the radio on the background. It is the voice of the authority, the voice of the regime (notice that Mastroianni’s character is a radio voice who gets silenced for his sexual and political commitments). This always shows as a shadow to remind us of the initial footage, the dark world there was than;

. we have the caretaker, the crystallized result of ignorance associated to a manipulating regime (well, as in fact every regime is, totalitarian or “democratic”). She is always reminding our couple where they live in, the “truth” of the world, she’s the voice of manipulated ignorance; these two points build and represent the oppression and cruel/inhuman world/context.

Than we have our heroes, and the interaction between them. This is not explainable through words: one has to check it. But the magic here (yes, there was true cinema magic here) probably had to do with two things:

. the performances, by Loren and Mastroianni, which were, to my view, ideal in what concerns cinema acting: they were as intense as i have seen only a few times, and they were contained. Very few times i’ve watched something like this. We get faces slightly changing, shy movements; the choreography inside the apartments as they interact is really perfect.

. the camera: from this film i understood Ettore Scola is one of the best (and dearest to my taste) heirs of that sweet swinging camera that Hitchcock (may have) invented and that Godard, Polanski, dePalma and yes, Scola, came to caress. Check every movement. Check how the courtyard is explored, how the voyeur look into each characters apartment is made and above all, check how the camera moves inside the apartments. The movements have to do with the breathing and feelings of the characters, in a way close maybe to what Lumet did in 12 angry men (but this is even more meaningful, to my view). This approach lives on bringing the acting to the camera. There is no separated mechanics. What the actor does, and what the camera does are linked in such a way that one cannot tell who is more actor: the actors or the camera. Godard tried something like this in the apartment scene of Le Mépris, but here it is so much emotional and effective…

. also worth mentioning the structural basis. Someone commenting on IMDb referred the relation with Greek tragedies (having the radio play the chorus part). I enjoyed that observation. I agree with it but to that contention that Greek tragedies have, i believe there is something more visceral and clearly Italian that shows here, which is the operatic influence, in the way the story unfolds, with everything happening quickly, concentrating actions that in fact take longer in a very short time measure. Italians know somethings about making emotions surface. Isn’t this a much better homage to the best Italy has to offer than the crystallized vision of roman resurrection Mussolini invented and tried to spread? you make your choice, mine is made.

My evaluation: 5/5 if you want to experience everything cinema was able to offer so far, you’ll have to check this.

This comment on IMDb

Disclosure (1994)

“Disclosure” (1994)


Bad game

There are three elements i will refer here.

The first one has to do with choosing the actors. Michael Douglas is casted here to be Nick Curran again. Clearly. Demi Moore is supposed to perform Sharon Stone. Hot woman (well, in Moore’s case it pretends to be hot, but lacks every psychological qualities that Stone shows), who likes to lead the game. Douglas can perform the man in the dark being pup petered well enough (he is almost the noir detective); Moore is breasts, legs and underwear, not much more. So in this aspect we have chewed solutions, aiming at getting commercial success from tested formulas.

In second, we have the story folding. We are told the story will unfold as a game, which several parts are trying to control (Moore, the corporation guys, and Douglas running to catch the others). This game of “real life” is developed with a parallel virtual game, the Arcamax, a game of virtual reality which comes to be the key to the “real world” game. This is common theme in story telling, but it is quite clumsy and denounced here. And not quite intelligent, since the solutions and keys to the problems always come from little informatics tricks (the “do you have backups” stuff) or incidental things (the “the phone was on all the time i was with her” bit). No intelligent or complex construction.

In the third place, we have the cinematic “glue”, which is to say, how all these disperse elements are put together. Here i’m talking mainly about direction and some other options. This is the best aspect of the film. We have the interesting element of locating the main action in an island, it creates the notion of a game field, you get in there and everything you do is game (in the end prizes are attributed). The architectural space there is interesting, at least from a cinematic space exploration point of view. The directing is firm, Levinson is capable of covering some of the (many) flaws here. We get tension increasing in some moments, the semi-sex scene is relatively well made. But this is just what we have positive here.

My evaluation: 2/5 very few interesting elements.

This comment on IMDb