Change Your Image
lmaldarella
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Cameraperson (2016)
"Cameraperson"
"Cameraperson" is recent film by veteran documentary cinematographer Kirsten Johnson. It is composed of several different scenes that were filmed by Johnson over her career for various other documentaries all over the world. The images in this film may be familiar to some members of the audience because they were originally filmed for other documentaries. They aren't all final cuts though; many of them are clips of trying to set up the camera or getting the right angle or frame along with clips from the family life of Kirsten Johnson. The first thing that struck me about this film was how captivating it is from the first frame to the last; I could not look away from the screen no matter how opaque the shot might seem at the moment. The first twenty to thirty minutes or so will have most members of the audience, including myself, confused as to what exactly the point of the images we are seeing is. Patience is required in the viewing of this film. Once it clicks, and you'll know when it does, it becomes all the more engaging. This film tells many stories, not chronologically, but nonetheless effectively and perhaps all the more moving. At its core, "Cameraperson" is an autobiography of Kirsten Johnson. But it is also a meditation on human suffering, the wonder of the world around us, the ethics of nonfiction film, the sadly ironic contrast between the beauty of nature and the extent to which it can be defiled by evil, and an examination of the filmmakers own family. We see her in scenes taking place at her New York apartment, home in Colorado Springs, and far away ranch as she interacts with her mother, a victim of Alzheimer's disease, her father and her twin boys. These scenes are surrounded by scenes of shepherds in the Bosnian Mountains, desert plains, city streets, and government black sites. The ethics of documentary filmmaking, as I mentioned earlier, are also examined. Is it more moving to see images of a body that has been torn to shreds after being dragged by a truck, or to see the chain that dragged him being held by the prosecutor as he speaks about the atrocity? This question is answered in one scene, split in to two parts and book-ending several other scenes. In the first scene, we see the lawyer talking about the book of images that they distributed to the jurors to prevent causing further pain by having to show them in trial. The second comes directly after a conversation had with a film professor as he talks about the depiction of violence in nonfiction film and how it ultimately ends up being disrespectful, becoming entertainment. We then jump to a cut of the cover of the book of photos; we no longer want to see what's inside as we did before. Bringing attention to the art of filmmaking is also a theme in the film, particularly in recognizing the technical aspects of filmmaking. Most people don't think much about the cinematographer when they think about a great film. Shots are attributed to the director, but this film brings a special attention to the person behind the camera making all the shots work, and staring directly through the lens of the camera into the eyes of human beings. In film, especially nonfiction film, the cinematographer is responsible for establishing the human connection between the audience and the subject. "Cameraperson" does this especially beautifully because at the end of the film, we are able to see how the experiences and people Johnson has filmed connect her to them, us to them and her to us. This is an autobiography not merely because it is a compilation of the footage that has touched her throughout her extensive career, although it is that, but because she has her own story that is also full of pain, loss, love and life just like those she connects with as a Cameraperson.
"Cameraperson" is directed and photographed by Kirsten Johnson, distributed by Janus Films and released by Criterion. It had its premiere on January 26th at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival. It is not rated. I gave it four out of four stars.
Babel (2006)
Babel
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is the greatest director and filmmaker of the 21st Century. Without fail, every single entry into his portfolio of masterpieces ranging from 'Amores Perros' to 'The Revenant', has only reinforced that fact in my mind.
Following in the steps of two of his previous works, 'Amores Perros' and '21 Grams', Inarritu's 2006 masterpiece 'Babel' serves as the powerful culmination of his trilogy of multiple interlocked narrative films.
Paul Haggis's 'Crash' made a close second behind Eastwood's 'Million Dollar Baby' for the best picture of 2004, but 'Babel' is not only the best of 2006 by a long shot, it is the best picture of the 2000- 2010 decade because Inarritu's flawless direction along with his vision for film and characters paired with his and Guillermo Arriaga's personable and impeccable script create a film that effortlessly connects to the emotion and spirit of the viewer. 'Crash' was an emotionally effective film, Haggis knew this, but he had to force it to be. The film revolved around extreme and everyday cases of racism and prejudice that culminated in tragedy. Emotional manipulation was the name of the game. That is not to say manipulation discounts the film or in any way decreases its value. A director who knows how to force the audience into certain reactions, whether they be emotions or fear, is a director with skill. We don't have to look back far to remember Hitchcock admitting that he was not directing the cast in 'Psycho', he was directing the audience, "playing them like an organ." And 'Psycho' is no small feat of cinema. The difference between Haggis and Inarritu begins where the manipulation ends. Inarritu is not forcing anything upon the audience. His characters are not MacGuffins, their dialogue is not engineered as a mere plot device. We are presented with true, living and breathing characters in 'Babel'. They act and behave just as we would in similar situations. Plastic characters are unheard of in the world of Inarritu cinema. Real, raw humanity abounds and it is most to be admired.
At the onset of the film, we're presented with a home in the Moroccan desert where a man sells another man his hunting rifle. What appears to be an isolated event is soon revealed, through masterful structuring of events paired with stunning cinematography and editing, to be quite the opposite of isolated. 'Babel' is the combination of four stories that are ultimately revealed to be one, spanning four countries, sharing one overarching and powerful theme. Unlike other films in this genre, we are introduced very early to some of the connections between the different stories. Throughout the film, connection after connection after connection appear in sudden, often unexpected, and emotionally affecting ways.
Throughout the subsequent scenes, we are introduced to an American couple on a trip in Morocco, the couple's children at their home in San Diego with their Mexican nanny, and a deaf teenage girl in Japan.
This is Inarritu's most powerful and best film. Comparable to Asghar Farhadi's 'A Separation' in its portrayal of raw humanity, 'Babel' connects with the viewer in a way very few films can. By the end of the film, we find ourselves empathizing with every single character, a feat few can achieve. The brutal Moroccan police officers are just doing their jobs, whether we like it or not; Susan and the others are deathly afraid of the small Moroccan village, just as you and I would be; the Border Patrol is doing the right thing, they do not know the story as we do. Try as we may, we can find sympathy for every human reaction, justified by reason or not, in this film.
The word Babel is a reference to the biblical tale of the confusion of languages detailed in the book of Genesis. Resembling this tale, 'Babel' shows the sad and damaging affects of misconceptions, assumptions, and faithlessness. The film is about communication. It is about cultural assumptions, and how humanity, compassion, and the most basic human instinct of all time, love, transcend language, culture, race, fear and insecurity, and brings about true, loving human decency and connection. This film is effective because Inarritu's characters are human beings. They are not the fearless heroes in modern-day adventures. These people are ordinary humans brought together by extraordinary (although feasible) circumstances and through their barriers, connected by their one shared feature: humanity.
10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)
A psychological exercise in thrill
A follow up to 2008's "Cloverfield", this film was originally not a sequel and in my opinion works just as well on its own.
The story follows Michelle, who seems to be running from her problems. After being involved in a violent accident (or, was it?) on a dark road, she wakes up in an underground cellar, chained to the wall. Enter a masterfully creepy John Goodman who claims that the apocalypse is upon us, and he is doing her a service by allowing her to stay in his doomsday bunker. Things aren't as clear as all that.
The technical elements are well-done, but to be expected in a J.J. Abrams film. It is not, however, Michael Bay on one extreme, and it's not Steven Spielberg. The scenes flow together in a way that keeps us hooked and guessing the entire time. The cinematography can feel claustrophobic, and purposefully so. Ultimately, it all comes together effectively.
I have not seen the first Cloverfield film yet, so I will wait out of fairness to compare the two. I can say based off of what I know of the 2008 film, that this is more of an anthology than a sequel. It works beautifully as a stand alone, but for fans expecting a monster masher, this will disappoint. It's a psychological guessing game and a character study of 3 different people more than anything else.
The ending, which I will not spoil, is unpredictable and kept at arms length until the the last 10-15 minutes of the film at which point it hits you head on. While unpredictable, some may look back and see that it's obvious what was coming, but that should not diminish the experience during the film.
This film is a masterpiece of suspense, I was literally on the edge of my seat from the first 5 minutes. Although lighthearted moments are employed, these only serve to add to the feeling of fear and the knowledge of the coming dread, whatever form that takes. During such scenes, I was not able to sit back and relax; I was preparing myself for what I knew was lying in wait.
The Revenant (2015)
A deep and subtle comparison between survival and life
The Revenant, (n. one who has returned, as if from the dead). The Revenant is a beautiful piece of cinematic art. First I will address the quality of the film. This movie is, in my opinion, unmatched by any other film in history in terms of its cinematography (props to Emmanuel Lubezki). Each scene begins, and sometimes ends, with a breathtaking shot of an equally breathtaking landscape. Each shot is essential to the scene's content. The direction is masterful. Inarritu once again managed to outdo himself. Every single scene has a purpose. Every single shot a meaning. Every word a purpose. The acting is superb. I will not buy into the "overdue Oscar" hype. Everyone who has won the Award for best actor deserved it. I will however note that none come close to DiCaprio's performance this year. No one could have brought the emotion that Leo brought to Hugh Glass. With none but a few lines of dialogue, Leo's acting has stunned me like never before. Hardy exemplified evil in a way that I haven't seen since Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs, Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, and Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men.
On to the film itself. I've seen so many people cite this film as simply a revenge western, a biopic adventure, and a survival movie. While it certainly employs aspects from all three of these, it isn't any one. This film is about life versus survival, man vs. beast, and the relationship between parent and child, love and revenge. It accomplishes its goals just as beautifully as its cinematography accomplishes its trip to the Oscars.
The environment of The Revenant is a violent and unforgiving one. It does not care whether you live or die. This is essential to the films success. The entire film is really a case study of the human spirit. Think about the bear. The bear is in the same environment as Hugh Glass. It faces the same dangers and difficulties. It has to eat, drink, and survive just like Glass. And it will do anything, I repeat, anything, to ensure the safety of itself and its children, including kill. In many ways, Glass is just like the bear. Glass is thrust into the brutal world of The Revenant and is forced to survive. Unlike the bear, protecting his child is not enough. If the bears cub is killed, she will not avenge it. She will not crawl from her grave, half- dead, to find the one who stole her child. Glass is human. There is more to life than survival. And he makes that all too clear. The film emphasizes his struggle to survive, but his struggle to survive is fueled by the struggle to live.
The bear attacked Glass because she saw him as a threat to her cubs. Glass attacked Fitzgerald because he killed his son. The difference between life and survival, in the minutes leading up to the haunting ending, is that life demands vengeance, while survival demands only breathing (although this assertion is strongly challenged in the last 15 seconds of the movie.)
All throughout the movie, Glass is portrayed as a bear-like creature. He eats raw buffalo, he grabs fish out of the river and rips into them, he sleeps naked inside an animal carcass. But why? To survive? No, he should have died. By all odds, he would have died. Why didn't he? Because the need to live, not survive, live, drove him out of his grave.
The subplot serves to further reinforce the strength of a parent- child relationship. The Indian chief will stop short of nothing to find his missing daughter. He slaughters hoards of people to find what was taken from him.
The ending. The seemingly unanswered question is this: was Glass staring emptily into the camera because he had not killed Fitz, but rather allowed his fate to be decided by the chief, or was it because he had fulfilled his quest for vengeance and felt no satisfaction? I choose to believe the latter, that after crushing death to find life, and completing his mission, he felt no satisfaction. Life, is more than revenge. His son was gone, he needed to accept this. This point is further reinforced by the grateful nod of the chief and his daughter as they ride past. The chief sought life, and found his daughter. He found life. Glass found revenge. He thought he was finding life, but he only found empty satisfaction. Why did his wife walk away form him at the end? Was she approving or disapproving of his actions? Throughout the movie, her words drove him forward, but, now that he reached his destination, she no longer is there to drive him. I see this as, "You've completed your mission. But, as Fitz said "Ain't nothing gonna bring him back". What will you do now? Will you succumb to death? Or will you truly find life?" That question rung in my head for the seconds of blackness following his empty and seemingly hopeless stare, and has rung for days after the credits rolled.