It's time for a film review or two.
I watched one of my recent favourite films today for the 3rd time and i fell back in love with it.
Breathless.
I simply cannot fault this film, or the french new wave movement. Infact if i could go back to any era before my time it would have to be the 1960's, and i would of loved to have been born in paris, the language, the style, their art, are all so much better defined and beautiful in its own right that britian alone can't compare. However i can't speak french.
More often then not a film is much better in black and white, it's how its started, and artistically that is where it should have remained. So everyone saw avatar and was amazed by the colours and the 3D aspects of it all but it just doesnt compare to the classics. Everyone awarded james cameron for his so called "one of a kind piece" and the 3D novelty of it all but i just dont buy it. I watched Avatar without 3D to see if it was a structically made well but in all honesty it bored me, it didnt grip me in like we are supposed to be pulled into a film in the first few minutes, i was watching it purely on the basis that i felt i had to. But it's nothing special. Sure if i had watched it in 3D i probably would of been dragged into the awe of it all but surely thats not avatar USP? It's been done too many times before. And I don't think enough people actually appreciated what Burton did with Alice in wonderland in 3D, not because of the brillant casting (johnny depp, matt lucas & stephen fry) But for giving us the chance to witness alice in wonderland, our childhood favourite classic, originally in 1951 as this digitally remastered masterpiece. Burton doesnt try to better the classic, he makes it his own and i never thought i would be watching a totaully different, darker spin to carroll's classic tale that i both loved and adored as a kid.
Congratulations on that one Burton.
But back to breathless.
i idolise these characters, their lifestyles & attitudes. perhaps a sweeter version of natural born killers both films have the same underlying themes, fast paced way of life, a young couple in love but with a eye for fancy things. Always makes a good film. I love how influenced this film is by all different eras of film-making, i couldn't help but picture Patricia (jean seberg) as the classic femme fatalle who so cunningly acts as if she has her head in the clouds but really is the intelligent female. I love how females are portrayed in classic film, How they trick & allure men into false relationships or use mens sexuals desires to their wit to achieve what they want. The French New Wave film movement was dominated by male film-makers and this is so obvious in how they present their female characters. In Breathless Patricia is a femme fatale and promiscious, women are shown to trick men and are more often then not so called "loose women". However in 1960's socially men were still the stronger gender with more rights then women but in films women are shown the stronger more devious characters more often than not. Take Hitchcock for example, A strong user of femme fatales with the same characteristics more often then not - beautiful women, tricking men etc. Hitchcock himself was terrified of women, after a over-powering mother he never got over his fear/ never understood women. He was apparently an awful director to work with, with little or no respect for his female actors and his strange personality, his preference for blondes on screen as he thought an audience would be more wary of a brunette. Is this a valid claim or is it's hitchcock's weird, yet wonderful personality kicking in?
All the best film-makers are a bit fucked up but would we have them any other way?
No comments:
Post a Comment