I've seen a number of experimental films one that comes to mind immediate is "The Umbrella of Cherbourg" It is a 1964 French musical and the unique and experimental part about it is that all the words in the film are sung. It's unique in it's musical style in which there are is no spoken dialogue at all,but just singing.
I've also watched Pink Floyd's The Wall which is called by Ebert "an experimental indie." It's a rock film with no actual concert scenes. It's an interesting blind of live-action and animation. It's a story told by both the audio and the visual elements on screen.
This next one isn't experimental by some accounts,but many consider it to be due to it basically being a drug fueled trip with out the drugs. Which is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It has some elements of it, but it's certainty up for debate.
So with these films and many more I haven't had a struggle watching the films thus far. I've seen a bunch of films experiential and not. I've gone to a film festival or two and have watched a lot of the different blocks including experimental and international ones.
One of the things in the film that I find interesting in this film is Portman's character who is acting in the film and in the reality of it as well she's playing a character who in turns play someone else. This opens up a discussion I find interesting concerning meta text and narrative in film and outside of film.
So look at the title "True" this obviously refers to the events in the film proper,but outside of that it's a falsehood or is it? I just find it interesting when characters in movies or TV are actors themselves similar to a character in a fiction piece who is also a writer. These characters can often be used to comment on some trend or trope in the work. In the nature of the actor though in the film they have to convince us that they are the character on screen some obviously do a better job at this than others.
Outside of the screen it's always an interesting thought of someone that's a good actor being able to convince someone of a notion they don't really share you don't think it's done,but then there whole job is to tell "lies". So it is an interesting musing.
I think part of this film has to do with feelings and emotions. Sometimes we can convince ourselves of certain things even though we don't believe them or act a certain way even though this isn't who are. Some people "become the mask" and start to believe they are who they pretend to be or believe in the ideals they were pretending to belong to.
It's like method acting where an actor can become engrossed in the part and forget themselves. On other matters though it's not uncommon to maybe be persuaded that something you believe in is just something your just making up. If you tell yourself something enough times or are told it by someone you're probably likely to start to believe it. Similarly to "Fake it till you make it"
Truth,beliefs and perception our complicated is is "art being like life or life being like art"?
This film isn't my first foray into Live Action Japanese cinema . Outside of this film though I find it interesting that a lot of the same or similar complaints that are thrown at Hollywood cinema are also thrown at Japanese cinema as well. I think in the cycle of things it paints an interesting picture that Japanese cinema inspired many American filmmakers and the Japanese film makers have been since inspired by American filmmakers.
Though on the subject of Rashomon
even at the time of it's release from what I've read it was accused by some critics of being too Western and that the directorial style of Kuroswa was too westernized. This is partially the reason for the films lack of success in Japan. Other critics though that the film was too stuck in the old ways and was time to move forward.
The funny thing about all this is that this type of film was not common of Japanese Cinema and when western audiences saw it they were under the impression that this was a standard though it wasn't.
One of the shames of watching this film in our current modern sensibilities is that this all seems to familiar. The shame being that this was once of the first places it shows up.
In my thoughts it feels that this film is rather under appreciated when it feels like Seven Samurai get's a lot of the praise and talk. Though that may be just my own perception of things
Though the films influence can't certainty be denied in general popular culture. It's interesting to see Kuroswa's birth so to say in that this film cements for people style that he will be associated with. I think it's really genius his the way he shot things using the sun and working with in his limitations and those of the time. Though the film is a rather simple story it really affirms the quote that limitation is one of the most important factors of art.
In the film Watchmen as well as its source material the character of Rorschach believes himself to be in a city that is corrupt and sees a diseased society. I think it can be argued that "M" shows us this same type of diseased society that Rorschach believes he inhabits. When we go to a bar in "M" it isn't glamors we see rotten food and spilled drinks. The cops and criminals it's hard to distinguish the two they both sit around and smoke cigars pretty non-nonchalant about the event's transpiring. At a point in the film we see a mob mentality an innocent old-man is attacked suspect of being the killer in a form of vigilant justice. Seemingly unable to control their base desire much like the killer claims that there is an evil that just compels him to murder children. The system is one that is corrupt that hurts the innocent. The ones that do are unsympathetic and while we the audience may see the criminals that want to hunt down the child murder as a anti-hero the film through the murder reminds us that these other criminals are just as bad. I feel it paints a bleak view of the system and one where only the Children are yet untoched by it's evil. I feel this film is a warning of sorts of what's to come when put in the historical context, Lang hates Nazism and it's on the rise when it's release and with this he' telling us something doesn't smell right.
In contrast if "M" just shows us a corrupt system and just says "that's just how it is" what does "The Bicycle thief" tell us. It gives us a reason of why the system is flawed. "The Bicycle thief" is a tale of an unfair system as well it's not inherently evil just flawed. Crime isn't something that taints us and puts us in the "evil" box it's a more complex issue than that. Though theft and murder are two extreme sides of the spectrum though some see it all the same. The common saying is "if there in jail their criminals who cares why they are there." This film though shows us that criminals are bad or evil necessarily but may be a misguided individual. Antonio's turn to crime is one of desperation. In his time of need no came to help him the police were useless and no good Samaritans to be found. Was it due to social standing maybe? Though what we do know is that when he finally got in the W column life was cruel and took it away from him. The bike was an achievement quickly robbed by someone trying to make it by. Antonio in the end turns to crime because he too is trying to make it by.
It's a cycle the system is a wheel that spins and spins. Could if be fixed here certainly? To me it all echos back to "To eat
like that, you need a million lira a month at least." The game's been rigged from the start and many have been doomed to fail.
(This film also shows us mob justice in it's chase scene at the end over the stolen bike at the end though here again while a crime was committed by the individual it can be argued that such forms of justice aren't really justice they focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation which can be argued and many strongly feel is what things should led to. We shouldn't seek just punishment but aim for rehabilitation)
"To eat
like that, you need a million lira a month at least."
Those are the words that Antonio tells his son Bruno when they are in the pizzeria and see the family eating the big plate of pasta. After searching for the stolen bike that the police have been no help in locating. It's a film I feel about the class struggle and a cycle of theft and poverty.
The scene in The Bicycle Thief at the end when a bunch of men are chasing Antonio and the bicycle he stole it shows the power of class when the Ricci's bikeis stolen and help is called for no one comes to aid. While in a moment of weakness Antonio steals the bike we have someone in the crowd a well dressed and groom man calls for help and they stop to track him down.
While the film doesn't show us much in the wealth dived it can be seen in the dress of background characters and the family that can afford a large portion of food. Society makes it difficult for this man to support his family,but he's trying his best even given in to crime at the end.
Though it doesn't excuse his behavior he isn't a rich man already stealing to become richer or a murder he's a man that wants to protect his family. I think as a post-war film it's interesting in a societal context. Post war many families that were once on top of the world where now much like Antonio and his family just trying to get by. While in other circumstances sometimes one can argue that War is profitable,but not for those everyday people. I think it's an interesting notion to think about the people that after a War are seemingly put together and are financially successful while everyone around them is not doing so great.
Though not the films message I think it's an interesting though to think about that Post Wars is when a lot of criminal activities take place with people trying to rebuild their lives and what not.
I think the film though is trying to show us the cycle of poverty and crime and what happens to lead someone down that road. It is there to make us not just label people "criminals" and see what drives crime. I think overall it's interesting to think about how there are crimes that are much more sympathetic than others then there are crimes that can be sympathetic on circumstance then there are those that just can't be rationalized or ever be felt that way except by twisted individuals.
I think the scene in M with the
children singing is an interesting one because this is a trope that
is common in setting a tone of underlining creepiness that involves
on having children present or singing in some fashion. A good
example and one the most famous examples is in Kubrick's The Shining
with the twin girls. Children and an outside setting is often used to
invoke a feeling of underling horror. I'd really like to know the
physiological reasoning behind that.
As I said previously I do find it
interesting that the other criminals are hunting for the murder it
could be framed as an anti-heroes and people you want to root for. I
find it interesting that in the world of criminals if there is or
isn't is another matter. But, the fact remains that we like to
believe that in this lawless world there are “rules” or most of
these criminals though they could murder a human in cold blood draw a
line and haven't lost all their humanity. This too is a common trope
and saying about those who harm children or women don't do well in
prison. Maybe it has to do with defending those that can't defend
themselves or a base psychological thing I don't know.
Another element in the whole things
that piqued my interest is the Kangaroo Court by Criminals this too
is a popular thing we've seen in a variety of things one that sticks
out is in Batman when the criminals take over and put people on
trial. Mostly businessmen panting parallels to recent events.
So What does M tells us about Mob
Justice? Is it in support of it or not? At the end the criminals and
the murder all get arrested so one can probably say no. Or is the
fact that sometimes there are things so rotten even the “lowest”
in society set to put things right and that there are things that
are base instincts just can't let slide.
“It's very hard to keep personal
prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into
it, prejudice obscures the truth.” The truth isn't something that
can be prefect defined often times truth can be clouded by our own
biases. The film takes an objective stance on truth that it's out
there but it doesn’t present itself until we search for it. The
quest of the film is eliminating that we already know the truth and
letting ourselves hear the opposite side of things. It is not to
manipulate or sway people from their original view,but to give them
something more outside of their own prejudice. The film shows us that
we can speculate and theorize, but there are only so many factors
that make up truth. We have to leave our notions at the door and
look at the evidence that is presented to us. Before we get to the
truth there is a feeling of uneasiness and uncertainty that is only
solved by coming to a conclusion that best fits the evidence we are
presented. The film never tells us who the murder is or if the boy
is actually the murder, but this doesn’t matter with the context we
are given the thing to know is that if the boy is guilty or not using
the evidence that is presented. The film is a struggle in the
obstacles we have to overcome in order to get to the truth. The
whole argument of truth is an interesting one that has been going on
for centuries. A common way to frame it is in sophistic rhetoric vs
a more platonic rhetoric. I feel when framing it that way Juror 8 has
a more platonic view on truth trying to achieve it from what he has
compared to most of the other jurors at first making claims on the
truth based on their biases. They say “The boy must be guilty cause
X” ,but he refuses to accept this and takes them down around where
he must force them to rexamine things.
The clip above is the famous catchphrase of the video game character Phoenix Wright he's known for proving his clients innocents on seemingly impossible cases and finding the real culprit. In 12 Angry Men the case seems hopeless for "the kid" the 19-year old on trail accused of murder. All the jurors vote "guilty" ,but one. This lone juror isn't swayed by the prosecutions evidence and his task now is to convince everyone else of the man's innocence. I think the film is a good glimpse into American culture of the 1950s both the real and the imagined.
"The defendant, when we glimpse him, looks "ethnic" but of no specific
group. He could be Italian, Turkish, Indian, Jewish, Arabic, Mexican.
His eyes are ringed with dark circles, and he looks exhausted and
frightened. In the jury room, some jurors make veiled references to
"these people." Finally Juror No. 10 (Ed Begley) begins a racist rant
("You know how these people lie. It's born in them. They don't know what
the truth is. And let me tell you, they don't need any real big reason
to kill someone, either...") As he continues, one juror after another
stands up from the jury table and walks away, turning his back. Even
those who think the defendant is guilty can't sit and listen to Begley's
prejudice. The scene is one of the most powerful in the movie." (Ebert's "Great Movies" series.
I can't help but agree with Ebert on this point about this being one of the most powerful scenes in the film. Even though these men believe the man is guilty they won't stand for him being dehumanized. He may be a criminal in their eyes,but that doesn't make him a monster.
Juror No.10s rant isn't out of place and what we most associate with the 1950s time period. Though in my modern sensibility I expect others to join in on it and I'm pleased when that doesn't happen. Though thinking about it that wouldn't make sense the film like I said is a picture of 1950s America though these biased and bigoted people exist like the film shows they aren't the majority. It's saying that some people may hold this attitude,but not everyone does.
The film is the power of the individual to make a change and changing the ruling consensus. The locked room to me can be read as a metaphor for society. Were all locked in a room with each other and can't get out. The best we can do when we disagree is try and solve it as best we can. We should be tolerant of others and not so quick to judge. We don't know much of the young man on trail if he's a good or bad person ,but that doesn't matter. What matters is giving him a fair trail. The power of this hasn't been placed in the hands of one ,but of a collective.
Well...Not really when thinking of the film and its title it's the first thing that pops into my mind. Though the film "The Red Balloon" and this song are unrelated or are they. Looking at the songs lyrics it's about 99 Balloons that are mistaken for UFO's and then shot down by pilots. This show of force then proves a war that last 99 years.
The songs upbeat mood would suggest a more happy experience if one doesn't look at the lyrics. When one thinks of balloons you get joyful images usually of childhood, but not always. In the film the balloon is childhood personified it's whimsical and playful. In the song it is the same,but it takes a dark turn and at first they start of as an unknown entity.
Both the song and the film use a fairly mundane object to tell a compelling and interesting story. In the film the balloon is mostly whimsical and playful presenting childhood. Though the symbol of the balloon could also be taken as sad in that the child is alone and just plays by himself with his balloon. The other sad thing is that the other children take his fun away and instead of being gentle with the balloon try their best to pop it missing the beauty of it. In the song the pilots want to shoot down the balloons to put on an entertaining show. This backfires on them and starts a war.
To move away from this song the film "The Red Balloon" also reminds me of the shorts "The Blue Umbrella" and "PaperMan"
"The Blue Umbrella" is a story of the titular blue umbrella and a red umbrella which are seemingly magical and fall in love while the human characters are blissfully unaware of the magic in the mundane.
Adam WarRock-PaperMan
"Paperman" is another case of mundane objects coming alive in magical wonder. In this case it is paper air planes coming alive and leading two people that meet each other earlier in the day back together. What all of these things share in common is an enchaining and coming alive of the everyday. I think the message of these all is that there is lots of wonder in our everyday even if we don't think about it. It may not be as wonderfully magic as these films,but it's out there or it might be that's up to you to decided
"The Red Balloon" is an innocence in childhood and about our amazement in that time. It shows though the adversity face then and now all that can be overcome. The time the boy in the film is most happy is when he's interacting with his balloon and just being a child. He;s naturally curious and wandering the streets,eating sweets embracing childhood plus most importantly his life. I noticed in the film there is kind of an "old yeller moment" where the boy stomps on the balloon letting go of it when he notices that it's in poor condition. It's a lesson in hard choices and learning to let go and how that can often lead to a reward. Though it's all out of a genuine care and not a cynical one.
