My first Tribeca Film Festival! It was a lot of fun. The tickets sell fast. So, I just saw the first thing available. The big dog Alex Acosta always talked about making a Mockumentary, and that was my main in influence for choosing this film over some other film about vampires--or something crazy like that. I got lucky. The film was awesome. I seem to have liking for films where directors play themselves, making a film about the process of making a film, or in this case the hardships of being a female actress.
It was definitely a great experience. I'm proud of myself having the guts to venture to New York City, to be around what I love most. It was a year of trying times, maybe I should make a mockumentary about college grads giving everything up to peruse film. Note to self.
On a social networking site, a film connoisseur expressed his love for the film Crash. Crash was great a film. But it’s my hunch, the lifeblood of Crash traces back to the author Raymond Caver—a poet and writer of short stories. Craver’s work, famous for dealing with his marriage, his children and struggle with alcoholism, influenced Robert Altman to write the film Short Cuts, which debuted in 1993.
Both Crash and Short Cuts are great films. Though the similarities are obvious: both films are set in Los Angeles; both films cut between a series of people linked together; both films have a police officer who abuses his power; both films have a couple on the rocks; and both films even have small child that brushes with death.
The exception? Short Cuts is no where near conventional or adheres to the standards that well with American audiences.
The police officer in Short Cuts never has the chance to redeem his transgressions, the couple in Short Cuts never truly makes up, and unlike the little girl who leaped into her fathers arms in Crash, the boy in Short Cuts, accidentally hit by a car, dies.
To me, the themes of both these movies deal with our imperfect world, were nothing is flawless, and we continuously crash into each other.BUT FOR ME, Short Cut’s provides of more a challenge. There is no easy way out. The story doesn’t allow one to feel good in the end. Often, unfortunately, life is the same way.
Personally, I would love to see more challenging stories with black and Latino issues. NOT TO SAY CRASH WASN’T A CHALLENGE, I ENJOYED THE MOVIE! I could sense the Hollywood in film. I would love to see a candid scene, not necessarily a woman standing nude, like in Short Cuts, but scenes of minorities in their natural element, unvarnished—the very element that minorities unnecessarily feel a shame of: like black women walking about side with rollers in their hair. That's one aspect that I admired about Short Cuts, the blue collared characters in the film were relatable. Why can’t can we see blue-collar minority characters?
Is it because minorities have been so inflicted with racism, the belief that one race is superior to another? We strive for a portrayal that’s always free from any shade negativity, furthermore, feeling the need to prove ourselves: we’re just as intelligent, we have class. I feel the most important thing, in terms of art, is to know thy self, to appreciate the positivity and face the negativity, ultimately diving deeper into ones flaws.
What I find interesting about Short Cut’s is the film is obscure. Altman was nominated for Academy Award for Best Director in 1993, but he and his film Short Cuts lost to Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List. Since then, it’s been a film of mystery. I encourage anyone who wants to see a different style of story telling to pick it up—if there’s a cool enough video store in your area that carries the film. If not, I believe the whole film is on youtube. Ahh Good old youtube.
He started with neo realism in the 1940’s. In the 60s and 70s, his films would mold into his signature style: one of dream like states told in an episodic fashion. In his second to last film, Intervista, 1987, Federico Fellini looks back. Much like his earlier film 8 ½, Intervista, gives a back stage pass to the film making process.
However, this time Fellini stars as him self. A trio of Japanese journalist, shooting a documentary, follows Fellini, asking him questions while live on set. The journalists learn Fellini is directing an adaptation of Franz Kafka’s Amerika—the story based on Fellini’s first visit to a movie studio called The Cinecitta.
The story line cuts intermittently between the trio following Fellini and his crew, as they face the obstacles of filmmaking, and the story of young Fellini’s first day at The Cinecitta. Younger Fellini, played by Sergio Rubini, hops on a bus, heading to the movie studio. Humorously, the older and wiser Fellini watches Rubini traverse the world of his distant past.
Cameramen angle their lenses through the windows; the bus picks up speed, and the story begins, as if the cameras where never there. When wild elephants and Native American’s spring from the Italian countryside, it’s apparent: we’re watching a Fellini Film. As a habit, while viewing Fellini’s films, I watch for symbols, representing America. (Reading or understanding Kafka’s play may prove handy in understanding this film.) Most of his films seem like an inside joke or arcane knowledge about the filmmaker. Intervista is rich in references to Fellini’s career, and fans of Fellini are definitely in for a surprise.
Many consider Intervisita to be Fellini's late masterpiece.I honestly don’t know the criteria for this honor, or do I fully understand the significance of this film—I was two years old when it debuted. Still I think Intervista is wonderful closure to a life of film making. It is a celebration of the craft and the energy placed into a successful production. Fellini acknowledged everyone that contributes to production's success: the actors, the crew, and the cinematographer. I especially enjoyed seeing the lighting equipment. Though, I understand the importance of light, seeing this large-scale production, and the massive lights used for an entire dark street, put my rinky dink projects in perspective. I dare not ruin this film, but it’s must watch for people interested in film making and fans of Fellini.
The classic structure of exposition, climax and resolution is staple for storytelling; though when challenged with the abandonment of logic and reasoning, the viewer is in for interesting film. And "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie," is with out doubt no exception to this rule; it opens the door for the arbitrary, the contradictory, the outrageously offensive, and the controversial—everything that makes great satire. This satiric story teases the viewer, as if telling a joke and hording the punch line. With obvious exaggerations in the story, it's apparent the Director, Luis Bunuel, is providing a riddle that's almost impossible to crack.
Bunuel, a Spanish director,creates a world that has roots to surrealism: dialogue, is mysteriously shadowed by harsh sounds, and dream sequences begin with out warning—the events all bizarre and impossible in our reality make perfect sense to bourgeoisie in the film; their precarious life style of drug trafficking, sex, expensive cuisine and rubbing elbows with politicians is apart of being high class; a life style opening the door for contradiction.
The story follows a group of bourgeoisie and the their acquaintance Don Rafael Acosta, ambassador of the fictional country Miranda—which the story alludes is some where in South America. Rafael is a drug trafficker with a pesky assassin from Miranda on his tail. His coterie of high class makes the attempt to sit down for dinner, lunch and tea, yet their plans are foiled every time. And with every spoiled meeting, they seem become more acceptant of these odd disturbances.
Hilariously, this group of individuals, schooled in propriety, is anything but genuine and refined: the hostess for the gatherings decides to keep her guest waiting in order to have sex. Because of the long wait, her guests leave in fear of being raided by the police.
Being from a middle class background, I watched the ambiguity with a smile. Old clichés, over used yet rarely incorporated in daily life, come to mind: There’s two sides to every story, and everything that glitters isn't gold. The Bourgeoisie were very rich and very flawed. Oddly, every where on Earth, practices of the lower class are written off as inferior: sipping a martini as opposed to gulping it down takes precedence over tolerance and acceptance. And if viewed carefully, I feel Bunuel’s stretches his themes towards the U.S.
Rafael, an ambassador, candidly mentioning the arrest of a U.S Ambassador for drug trafficking was a red flag. A Cadillac, a tank in the streets of Paris, for me was another. I’ve watched this film twice, and I’m sure it will take a few more sittings to absorb as much from this film as I can. I honestly feel the bizarre elements in this form of expression are not to be wholly understood. And many other elements are strictly for the filmmaker’s personal satisfaction. I see this film as an invitation into some one’s worldview. Fortunately for Bunuel he was free from constraint, free from the usual shape and aesthetic viewers become accustomed to,ultimately,in the end,carving his imagination as he saw fit.
