The older movie reviews are coming, I promise. In fact, I just saw a film last week from 1941 called Hellzapoppin'. I'll post that review soon. The original Ocean's 11 will also hit within the week. For now, I have a couple of housekeeping reviews for you. One is a documentary I saw at the Gene Siskel Film Center and the other was a Sundance Film Festival winner.
Personal Velocity
Review by Jon Waterman
**1/2
This is the story of three women. Delia moves upstate to try to get away from her abusive husband and start a new life with her kids. Greta tries to deal with her sudden success as an editor and reassesses everything from her past. Paula tries to get away from the scene of a horrible accident that left her mentally scarred by driving up to her mother’s house with a teenage runaway hitchhiker she found along the way.
Writer/director Rebecca Miller (daughter of playwright Arthur) gives us a look at three very distinctive stories and lumps them on top of each other. Collectively, the three don’t have a whole lot in common, actually. There are a lot of similarities that apply to two of them, but not all. I wasn’t even left liking all of them. I felt Greta’s character (played by Parker Posey) was actually quite despicable. However, in a strange way, that’s part of the movie’s charm.
What’s good about the film is what’s fresh. What’s bad about the film is everything else. First – the fresh. The three women never meet. Their lives don’t intersect. The only bit of connection between the half-hour stories is a little news blurb that lets you know they’re all within the same television station’s reach. Frankly, I could have done without even that. It would be better to know that it’s happening all over, rather than a centralized location. It was good to show that you don’t have to like a character to be interested in their story. It actually makes it more fascinating if you don’t like the person, because without that connection, it’s more voyeuristic. Also, even though none of the stories were connected, per se, the film still managed to “wrap up.” It didn’t feel like the third story ended, it felt like the movie ended.
The not so fresh aspect was the cinematography. For the most part, I can’t stand digital video. This was not an effect or purposeful utilization of the format. Everything was too blown out/overexposed and too much like a home movie for a narrative. It’s disappointing, considering the cinematographer is Ellen Kuras (“Blow” and a better example of what digital video could/should look like, “Bamboozled”). The potential saving grace is the interludes that use stills. Not only do the forward the action without the regular “velocity,” but they also transport us deeper into the mindset of the character. It is a little quirky and gimmicky, but overall effective just the same.
The movie essentially is a somewhat interesting experiment. It dabbles with some conventions in storytelling and presentation. But, although the changes are relatively minor, the potential impact is large. I can’t help but think there’s a similar message hidden within the context of the movie. However, in the end, it didn’t really “move” me too much.
+++++++
Tall: The American Skyscraper and Louis Sullivan
Review by Jon Waterman
*1/2
Near the turn of the century, architecture was on the verge of a revolution. Buildings were slowly getting taller, but there was still a limit as to how high they could go while keeping the structural integrity intact. While the battle for more height raged on, the battle of artistic expression in buildings emerged. One school of thought took old world designs and adapted them to be placed within modern structures. The other school of thought, including Louis Sullivan, believed that the aesthetics should look forward, not back, and try to create something fresh and original.
Honestly, all of that talk about battles may be true, but it doesn’t really capture the essence of this documentary. The sense of struggle isn’t really portrayed and no real threat is posed to the audience. Instead of it being New York (Daniel Burnham) versus Chicago (Sullivan); classical versus modern; bricks versus steel, the approach was much more docile and co-existent. It made the film a little more boring. Perhaps I just never recovered from the opening sequence.
The film starts with a long series of images that shows off the beauty and, at the same time, mechanics behind buildings against soothing music. The grainy 16mm film and the overall sound quality and music choice gave off a feel of a segment from “Sesame Street.” The length turned it from poetic and nice to somewhat poetic and dull. The movie struggled to find a consistent voice. It had to balance between teaching the uninitiated and keeping it interesting for those already in the know. Parts of the film would be great to show a grade school class, so that they could learn the very basics of architecture. It would work quite nicely were it to be a purely educational piece, explaining how taller buildings came to be and how they work. However, the whole historical aspect of the people involved in creating skyscrapers just demolished the project.
After walking out, I still didn’t exactly grasp what Sullivan had to do with anything. He seemed to want tall buildings to be made, but the movie talked a lot about how he couldn’t get much work after Burnham and his crew took over stylistically following the 1893 World’s Fair. So, how he shaped the downtown cityscape we see today is a little beyond me. I also couldn’t walk down any particular street and point out a Sullivan building. The movie dwells on Frank Lloyd Wright a little too long. I suppose it’s noteworthy to show that he was working under Sullivan, if only to further highlight Louis’ importance in the architectural world, but I don’t need to as much as was told.
Unlike the masters’ buildings, director Manfred Kirchheimer’s film doesn’t exactly stand up. The structure is there, but inappropriate and lends nothing towards what should be the overall purpose of the film. There are some great shots and it’s aesthetically pleasing. The narrator (that eventually shows up) does a nice job, as well. This one could be interesting for architecture buffs – and even better for younger kids who may be interested, but if you know anything about the history, you probably know this stuff already.
Personal Velocity
Review by Jon Waterman
**1/2
This is the story of three women. Delia moves upstate to try to get away from her abusive husband and start a new life with her kids. Greta tries to deal with her sudden success as an editor and reassesses everything from her past. Paula tries to get away from the scene of a horrible accident that left her mentally scarred by driving up to her mother’s house with a teenage runaway hitchhiker she found along the way.
Writer/director Rebecca Miller (daughter of playwright Arthur) gives us a look at three very distinctive stories and lumps them on top of each other. Collectively, the three don’t have a whole lot in common, actually. There are a lot of similarities that apply to two of them, but not all. I wasn’t even left liking all of them. I felt Greta’s character (played by Parker Posey) was actually quite despicable. However, in a strange way, that’s part of the movie’s charm.
What’s good about the film is what’s fresh. What’s bad about the film is everything else. First – the fresh. The three women never meet. Their lives don’t intersect. The only bit of connection between the half-hour stories is a little news blurb that lets you know they’re all within the same television station’s reach. Frankly, I could have done without even that. It would be better to know that it’s happening all over, rather than a centralized location. It was good to show that you don’t have to like a character to be interested in their story. It actually makes it more fascinating if you don’t like the person, because without that connection, it’s more voyeuristic. Also, even though none of the stories were connected, per se, the film still managed to “wrap up.” It didn’t feel like the third story ended, it felt like the movie ended.
The not so fresh aspect was the cinematography. For the most part, I can’t stand digital video. This was not an effect or purposeful utilization of the format. Everything was too blown out/overexposed and too much like a home movie for a narrative. It’s disappointing, considering the cinematographer is Ellen Kuras (“Blow” and a better example of what digital video could/should look like, “Bamboozled”). The potential saving grace is the interludes that use stills. Not only do the forward the action without the regular “velocity,” but they also transport us deeper into the mindset of the character. It is a little quirky and gimmicky, but overall effective just the same.
The movie essentially is a somewhat interesting experiment. It dabbles with some conventions in storytelling and presentation. But, although the changes are relatively minor, the potential impact is large. I can’t help but think there’s a similar message hidden within the context of the movie. However, in the end, it didn’t really “move” me too much.
+++++++
Tall: The American Skyscraper and Louis Sullivan
Review by Jon Waterman
*1/2
Near the turn of the century, architecture was on the verge of a revolution. Buildings were slowly getting taller, but there was still a limit as to how high they could go while keeping the structural integrity intact. While the battle for more height raged on, the battle of artistic expression in buildings emerged. One school of thought took old world designs and adapted them to be placed within modern structures. The other school of thought, including Louis Sullivan, believed that the aesthetics should look forward, not back, and try to create something fresh and original.
Honestly, all of that talk about battles may be true, but it doesn’t really capture the essence of this documentary. The sense of struggle isn’t really portrayed and no real threat is posed to the audience. Instead of it being New York (Daniel Burnham) versus Chicago (Sullivan); classical versus modern; bricks versus steel, the approach was much more docile and co-existent. It made the film a little more boring. Perhaps I just never recovered from the opening sequence.
The film starts with a long series of images that shows off the beauty and, at the same time, mechanics behind buildings against soothing music. The grainy 16mm film and the overall sound quality and music choice gave off a feel of a segment from “Sesame Street.” The length turned it from poetic and nice to somewhat poetic and dull. The movie struggled to find a consistent voice. It had to balance between teaching the uninitiated and keeping it interesting for those already in the know. Parts of the film would be great to show a grade school class, so that they could learn the very basics of architecture. It would work quite nicely were it to be a purely educational piece, explaining how taller buildings came to be and how they work. However, the whole historical aspect of the people involved in creating skyscrapers just demolished the project.
After walking out, I still didn’t exactly grasp what Sullivan had to do with anything. He seemed to want tall buildings to be made, but the movie talked a lot about how he couldn’t get much work after Burnham and his crew took over stylistically following the 1893 World’s Fair. So, how he shaped the downtown cityscape we see today is a little beyond me. I also couldn’t walk down any particular street and point out a Sullivan building. The movie dwells on Frank Lloyd Wright a little too long. I suppose it’s noteworthy to show that he was working under Sullivan, if only to further highlight Louis’ importance in the architectural world, but I don’t need to as much as was told.
Unlike the masters’ buildings, director Manfred Kirchheimer’s film doesn’t exactly stand up. The structure is there, but inappropriate and lends nothing towards what should be the overall purpose of the film. There are some great shots and it’s aesthetically pleasing. The narrator (that eventually shows up) does a nice job, as well. This one could be interesting for architecture buffs – and even better for younger kids who may be interested, but if you know anything about the history, you probably know this stuff already.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home