François Truffaut claimed that the most difficult thing for film to do is to portray thought. How does one person show what another is thinking? A Beautiful Mind probably achieves that elusive goal as well as any modern film. I did truly think the thoughts of Crowe's John Nash character without even knowing I had stepped into his shoes. That one act of empathy (multiplied by the film's many, many viewers) may rank as Ron Howard's highest cinematic achievement.
Alas, reviewers are often allowed only a polarizing thumbs up or down. And the choice between two extremes is frequently shaded in personal hues.
Lurking behind the film's paranoid narrative and celebration of spousal support is the notion that a man's value to others equals his ability to work, to hold a job, to earn a wage. A piece of me -- the ramrod-straight spine of me -- agrees with that. I want the world to pull itself up by the bootstraps, to stop whining about the economy, to trade welfare for entrepreneurship, to make things instead of excuses.
But another part of me -- the part of me that went to see A Beautiful Mind in 2001-- was unsure of his employment status, was polishing his resumé, was looking at the future through uncertain eyes. The thought that I was worth something only so long as I was meaningfully employed was another heavy brick on already-sagging shoulders. So as much as I respect this film for its rare ability to put me in the mind of another man, I could not at the time -- nor even now in retrospect -- call it "beautiful."
Andalusian Dog was my introduction to film school. A professor screened it for students the first night of class, then led us in extended deconstruction. I presume his intent was to inspire discussion with cognitive dissonance.
Collaborators Salvador Dalí and Luis Buñuel surely wanted to mess with minds when they made the film in 1929. And, yes, audiences often talk about the film at great length afterward. They are trying to make sense of a stack of surreal and disturbing images. But Buñuel himself argued that there was no sense to be made of them.
And so I heard in that night's soundtrack -- there beneath voices engaged in serious academic discussion -- distant, derisive laughter from the grave. I heard Dalí and Buñuel chuckling as we worked to rationally explain what we had seen and what it meant.
Maybe I don't truly dislike this film. Perhaps instead, I dislike the too-serious gaze of the scholar who cannot admit when the Emperor is indeed naked.
If there is one nobility in this awful film, it is the grace with which star George Clooney accepted responsibility for killing the Batman franchise. Ironically, his acting was the least of this movie's offenses. Clooney's mea culpa doesn't cover a script that was working too hard to arm Schwarzenegger with memorable quips and not hard enough to mine pathos from one of Batman's most emotionally interesting foes. One can only guess that director Joel Schumacher was aiming for a winking, Adam-West-era camp. Instead, the former department store window designer gave audiences something very much more like drag burlesque. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Batman fan from way back, but I had a hard time admitting it in the years between Batman and Robin and Batman Begins.
Tolkein is, admittedly, the gold-standard of fantasy world-makers, but his plotting is fairly weak and predictably linear. Fortunately, that's a pretty perfect combination for adolescent readers who are weaning themselves of childhood fiction. Tolkein gives twelve-year-olds (the age at which many fans first visit Middle Earth) the complexity of detailed settings without demanding too much in the way of parallel storylines. The triumph of friendship over greed and moral right over military might are conservative themes as easily grasped as the story's sparse plot lines. When Tolkein's young readers grow up, they no doubt take with them a fondness for these tales, even though they graduate to far more complicated narratives. Peter Jackson's films awaken that nostalgic warmth -- with all its benefits and shortcomings. Honestly: ring here, volcano there. Nine hours in between?
Seven starts weakly with a clichéd pairing of idealistic young cop (Brad Pitt) and weathered detective (Morgan Freeman). A string of themed murders suggests (but fails to deliver) a script which promises commentary on the natures of sin and innocence. What is perhaps most inexcusable, however, is the film's manipulative but nonsensical structure. Only because the twist ending demands that he know it -- and not because it's consistent with either character -- Paltrow's character reveals an important and intimate detail to Freeman, a total stranger. Sadly, this film eclipsed Copycat -- a similarly-themed but better executed film -- at the box office in 1995.
Comments 26 - 30 of 30
Movie comment on A Beautiful Mind
brian_fuller
François Truffaut claimed that the most difficult thing for film to do is to portray thought. How does one person show what another is thinking? A Beautiful Mind probably achieves that elusive goal as well as any modern film. I did truly think the thoughts of Crowe's John Nash character without even knowing I had stepped into his shoes. That one act of empathy (multiplied by the film's many, many viewers) may rank as Ron Howard's highest cinematic achievement.Alas, reviewers are often allowed only a polarizing thumbs up or down. And the choice between two extremes is frequently shaded in personal hues.
Lurking behind the film's paranoid narrative and celebration of spousal support is the notion that a man's value to others equals his ability to work, to hold a job, to earn a wage. A piece of me -- the ramrod-straight spine of me -- agrees with that. I want the world to pull itself up by the bootstraps, to stop whining about the economy, to trade welfare for entrepreneurship, to make things instead of excuses.
But another part of me -- the part of me that went to see A Beautiful Mind in 2001-- was unsure of his employment status, was polishing his resumé, was looking at the future through uncertain eyes. The thought that I was worth something only so long as I was meaningfully employed was another heavy brick on already-sagging shoulders. So as much as I respect this film for its rare ability to put me in the mind of another man, I could not at the time -- nor even now in retrospect -- call it "beautiful."
Movie comment on Un chien andalou
brian_fuller
Andalusian Dog was my introduction to film school. A professor screened it for students the first night of class, then led us in extended deconstruction. I presume his intent was to inspire discussion with cognitive dissonance.Collaborators Salvador Dalí and Luis Buñuel surely wanted to mess with minds when they made the film in 1929. And, yes, audiences often talk about the film at great length afterward. They are trying to make sense of a stack of surreal and disturbing images. But Buñuel himself argued that there was no sense to be made of them.
And so I heard in that night's soundtrack -- there beneath voices engaged in serious academic discussion -- distant, derisive laughter from the grave. I heard Dalí and Buñuel chuckling as we worked to rationally explain what we had seen and what it meant.
Maybe I don't truly dislike this film. Perhaps instead, I dislike the too-serious gaze of the scholar who cannot admit when the Emperor is indeed naked.
Movie comment on Batman & Robin
brian_fuller
If there is one nobility in this awful film, it is the grace with which star George Clooney accepted responsibility for killing the Batman franchise. Ironically, his acting was the least of this movie's offenses. Clooney's mea culpa doesn't cover a script that was working too hard to arm Schwarzenegger with memorable quips and not hard enough to mine pathos from one of Batman's most emotionally interesting foes. One can only guess that director Joel Schumacher was aiming for a winking, Adam-West-era camp. Instead, the former department store window designer gave audiences something very much more like drag burlesque. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Batman fan from way back, but I had a hard time admitting it in the years between Batman and Robin and Batman Begins.Movie comment on The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
brian_fuller
Tolkein is, admittedly, the gold-standard of fantasy world-makers, but his plotting is fairly weak and predictably linear. Fortunately, that's a pretty perfect combination for adolescent readers who are weaning themselves of childhood fiction. Tolkein gives twelve-year-olds (the age at which many fans first visit Middle Earth) the complexity of detailed settings without demanding too much in the way of parallel storylines. The triumph of friendship over greed and moral right over military might are conservative themes as easily grasped as the story's sparse plot lines. When Tolkein's young readers grow up, they no doubt take with them a fondness for these tales, even though they graduate to far more complicated narratives. Peter Jackson's films awaken that nostalgic warmth -- with all its benefits and shortcomings. Honestly: ring here, volcano there. Nine hours in between?Movie comment on Se7en
brian_fuller
Seven starts weakly with a clichéd pairing of idealistic young cop (Brad Pitt) and weathered detective (Morgan Freeman). A string of themed murders suggests (but fails to deliver) a script which promises commentary on the natures of sin and innocence. What is perhaps most inexcusable, however, is the film's manipulative but nonsensical structure. Only because the twist ending demands that he know it -- and not because it's consistent with either character -- Paltrow's character reveals an important and intimate detail to Freeman, a total stranger. Sadly, this film eclipsed Copycat -- a similarly-themed but better executed film -- at the box office in 1995.Showing items 26 – 30 of 30