Does "different" mean "good"?

The word “different”, in the modern-day lexicon has taken on a new meaning. Today, when something is described as different it means “exciting” and “better.” So every time a painting, a song, or even a film is labeled different, the artsy-type of our society run to wherever they can to get their fix of the exotic. Traditionally speaking, “Chungking Express” is different. Don’t get up just yet, because when I say “different” I do not mean “better.” There is no doubt that this film directed by Wong Kar-Wai is in a category all by itself. Modern film conventions do not apply to this cinematic work. There is no clearly mapped-out plot where boy gets girl, boy loses girl, and spends the whole movie trying to get her back like we are accustomed to find in films like “About Last Night” with Rob Lowe and Demi Moore. Rather two similar plots involving very dissimilar characters, one plot following the other, exist in the same Hong Kong setting. As the film begins, ominous music plays and fast moving, choppy, indistinguishable images flash across the screen. This chaotic perspective spotlights the first of four main characters, the woman in the blonde wig (Brigitte Lin). Just from the costume, we know she has something to hide. She adorns her characteristic blonde wig, while constantly wearing shades over a heavily, but simply, made-up face, all the time keeping her rain coat buttoned up. Instead of fully developing the entire main ensemble, Wong creates a revolving door of sorts. One character associates with another character that in turns crosses paths with yet another character that then introduces and plays a role in a second plot with other characters. The characters realize this idea during the film when cop 223 (Takeshi Kaneshiro) remarks that “everyday we brush past so many people.” A film that starts in one story and then suddenly leaves it and begins another one may seem unfulfilling to many viewers and at times it can be, especially when the audience is left with many unanswered questions. However, in its impressionistic style, the film does not worry so much about the details of the characters but rather the “essence of its subjects.” This style, while very appealing and distinctive, may not necessarily be able to be stomached by a casual filmgoer. We encounter the idiosyncrasies of each character and the many layers of their personalities. Cop 223 (Kaneshiro) is seen, at many points, as a wallowing, pitiful, and obsessive ex-boyfriend, but at other times he can be funny and is even seen enforcing law and running down a criminal. The blonde-wigged woman (Lin) is painted with a harsh exterior as a drug dealer but still gives cop 223 a nice conversation at the bar. Then we get to Faye (Faye Wong) who is quite an eccentric lady with just enough courtesy to make sneaking into a man’s apartment and redecorating and changing the food he eats not quite as odd as it should be. Finally, Cop 633 (Tony Leung) seems to be the most normal of the characters with the most stable life, but that turns out not to be the case. One unique aspect of the film and Wong’s filmmaking is that he gives us the ingredients to the story and then steps back, ending the film allowing us to construct a possible outcome to his story. “Chungking Express” offers many things besides a conclusion. So if you go to the movies for your informal education don’t buy a ticket for this film. But if you do buy the boarding pass for Wong Kar-Wai’s film, be willing to answer Faye’s question of, “Where do you want to go?”, as Cop 633 did, “wherever you want to take me.”

Sometimes graphic violence works. Here it doesn't

After seeing the end of Elephant I take back everything I said in my previous post. Well, not everything, only the stuff about the funny parts of this film. Once one sees the final scenes of this film, nothing could possibly be funny ever again. Gus Van Sant really ripped a couple of pages out of the Quentin Tarantino film bible. Those last few scenes are a mix of Pulp Fiction and any movie about high school. I don’t see how it could be possible for a bunch of teenaged non actors to be able to pull off such devastating roles as well as they did. I guess they just assumed it was another game. One thing that really shocked me was the extra footage. All of the kids are laughing and having fun with each other on and around the set. It seems to me that they don’t even realize what they’re filming. Also, while I usually like Tarantino-esque violence, it doesn’t do anything but make me feel disgusted by this film. I understand that this is a film that tried to show the awful things that can happen if we aren’t aware of problems, but Van Sant could have gotten his point across ion a much less graphic way. I felt what he was trying to get across before those two kids shot all of those people. He didn’t need to show the blood rushing down the floor and the bodies flying around like piñatas to make it clear the awful nature of violence. We get it Gus.

Wow I really dont like this film

Another day of Elephant equals to another day of not liking it at all. The caricatures keep on popping up in this film about Typical High School in Predictable, USA. If Gus Van Sant has any talent it is definitely in the comedic aspect of his film. Possibly the greatest scene I will ever see in a crappy movie is the one where the three superficial girls walk into the bathroom stalls and throw up on command like synchronized swimmers. I had a feeling it was coming when they felt fat after eating a salad WITHOUT DRESSING. Anyway if there is one bright spot on this horribly depressing film it is that scene. Now many of my peers would be asking me “Isn’t that one of the most depressing scenes? After all these girls are driven to a point of bulimia.” Ordinarily I would agree. However, in a film that portrays character types instead of people it is hard not to be amused at the sick nature of that stereotypical high school student. This entry may make me sound like an awful human being, but in a film that is such a downer with its message as well as the actual credibility as a film (I don’t think that makes sense) it’s important to find something to laugh about or to discover something redeemable about it. For me, that was a group of girlfriends struggling with a horrible eating disorder. For others it could be something else. But to save yourself for the wretch that this film is, please do what I did and find some amusement in this film.

This film does nothing for me

So far it seems like Elephant is trying too hard to be one of those films that’s “different.” Personally, it’s trying a bit too hard to be that kind of film. The director Gus Van Sant seems to be making an effort to show his viewers that this is a different type of film. I am more of a fan of a director that just presents his piece as it is and lets the audience decide what they should take away from it. All of the techniques or lack there of, doesn’t make the film any more interesting. All I can really find as memorable footage so far is all of the walking that the characters do. Is that supposed to symbolize something? Is that supposed to be some deeply rooted motif? Because if that is what Van San is attempting here it’s not working. I looked past all of that “artistic” garbage as was not very pleased the film, as of yet. It’s a film about school violence. I get it. But why does the director have to make a caricature of what that means. He has the depressed kid with a dead beat father and the dumb jock with the pretty girlfriend. He has the lonely girl who’s an outcast and works in the library, and shoots the whole movie, except for the opening scene, on a dreary, rainy, depressing day. We get it Gus school violence is depressing. Thanks.

Like Father, Like Son

“Both David and Peter Helfgott create odd and unusual ways to cope with their problems and in that way their relationship as father and son is shown clearly.” This is how I ended my most recent post. I know that. So if you’re going to comment, which no one ever does, please don’t comment about that. I just find it interesting that David and Peter have absolutely nothing in common. Peter is extremely rough around the edges as well as inside them. There is nothing soft or comforting about him, except maybe his voice, but even when he speaks softly, I can feel his anger. On the complete opposite side of the sensitivity spectrum is his son David. Geoffry Rush did an amazing job with this character and beautifully portrayed his soft-as-a-lamb personality. He never sees anyone in a bad light, always looks for the best despite living through such horrific conditions and does his bet to open up to everyone he meets. Take his first encounter with Gillian for example. He knows nothing about her and the only thing she knows about him is that he has just been jumping on a trampelene, his face covered in sunblock, his ears dawning a tape player and his body adorning nothing more than a free-flowing, open trenchcoat. Despite all the possibilities for this relationship to be a sour one, David makes her fall in love with him, just because of who he was. Back to my original comment though. Peter used his fierce anger to hide away his awful memories of being a Holocaust survivor while David hides behind a stutter and child-like innocence to displace his fear for his father. Both Helfgott men use devices to cast away their most deeply rooted feelings. Because nothing else shows that they truly are father and son, the way they deal with problems and stress is the only thing that they have in common.

Shout out to Brandon's Blog

The role of Peter Helfgott in Shine is a complex one. Usually the father is a strong character that brings order to the film and grounds the rest of the characters. While Peter is a strong character, or gives the appearance of being strong, he brings nothing but disorder and chaos to the other characters in the ensemble. As my colleague Brandon writes in his blog, “When he is upset, everything else stops and he has the floor to say whatever he pleases. He makes the children repeat little trite sayings that he chooses for them like, ‘I am a very lucky boy.’ He almost abuses his power in this way, as he makes his children suffer in order to obey their father’s orders.” I fully agree with Brandon’s assesment of the fury of Armin Mueller-Stahl’s character. Brandon goes on to discuss the implications about Peter being a Holocaust survivor. “Having survived a concentration camp, Peter Helfgott nearly creates one of his own, only this time he is one of the guards.” In fear of having his family torn apart once again, Peter does all he can to control all aspects of his household. He even goes to such extremes as to prevent David from pursung his dream to become a famed pianist by not allowing him to go to America. Over and over Peter is pictured alongside images evoking the feelings of the Holocaust. In the beginning of the film he is standing behind a line of barbed wire and later on there is a close-up of his glasses with the reflection of the blazing fire being revealed. Both David and Peter Helfgott create odd and unusual ways to cope with their problems and in that way their relationship as father and son is shown clearly. That point is to be talked about next.

Gelsomina gives me nightmares

Giulietta Masina in La Strada is possibly the weirdest character I have ever witnessed in a film. Is Masina that weird or is she just a very skilled actress playing Gelsomina and convincing the audience that she is nothing more than an absent minded woman. Personally this film takes a while to get off the ground. Sometimes this is okay. However, in this case the director, the great Federico Fellini, gives us nothing to chew on. He gives some information, but sparingly. He tells us that Rosa, Gelsomina’s older sister, and Zampano’s (Anthony Quinn) former “helper” has died. That, of course, is the reason why he comes back to Rosa’s family to pick up another “assistant”. After this brief context there is not much else for the audience to fully understand until much later in the film. For the first half, at least, there is just a collection of looks by Gelsomina. When she seems sad about leaving her family she smiles and when she is supposed to be happy, when they get work, she looks sad. Maybe there is a reason for this, but I just like to think that Fellini just wants to mess with our heads and confuse us further. Martin Scorsese said about Fellini that he had a great love for the circus and for clowns especially. It’s too bad that my love does not lie where Fellini’s does because, frankly the circus freaks me out and Gelsomina’s stares and gazes that characterize her as mentally slow add to that fear even more. All I have to say is that I hope this film gets a bit better, because it’s said to be from a redefining period, and so far it hasn’t redefined anything.

The piano, personified

As I commented in my previous blog, the thing I liked most about Shine was the central image of the piano throughout the entire film. It is not only something that David Helfgott does; it is a part of his personality. Even more, it is the main part of his character, linking everything throughout the movie together. It is the subject of the interactions between David and his father, Peter. It is also where all of those interactions take place. As I commented previously the piano is where David gains recognition. He is given the opportunity to go to America because of the piano. He is able to study at the Royal College of Music in England with Cecil Parkes (John Gielgud) because of the piano. When he is in the mental institution as an older man, it is the piano that attracts Beryl Ascott (Beverly Dunn) to him. This attraction turns out to be David’s ticket out of the hospital and it eventually allows him to live freely. After Beryl gets David out he goes to the piano bar and makes a name for himself, again. He meets Sylvia (Sonia Todd) at that bar who introduces him to the love of his life, Gillian (Lynn Redgrave). And finally, Gillian helps David get back to the piano and back on stage. The final parts of the film show David’s concert with everyone from his past as the audience. His flawless performance brings the audience to tears and causes David to breakdown, I think, because of the realization that his struggles have come to an end. However, everything at the piano is not happy. Like I said the altercations with his father take place there as well as his original breakdown. The piano, in this film, is a two-faced character changing the tempo and mood of the film throughout.

Having seen Shine once before (it doesn’t matter that I was 6 at the time) I was able to watch it the second time with different eyes. There were many things I had not remembered. For instance, I understood the first time that David Helfgott (Geoffrey Rush) had gone crazy and had a major mental breakdown. However, I didn’t remember how this happened. I didn’t recall the demon that had caused the exact breakdown. I knew that the piano was the sight of David’s ultimate high as well as his ultimate low. I didn’t remember that the Rach 3 was the specific piece that caused such pain. To me its interesting that music that is so beautiful can cause such anguish. Then again the piece symbolized so many different things. David’s father played by Armin Mueller-Stahl always pushed him to play Rachmaninoff because it was his favorite composer. There is one scene that sticks out to me in the middle of the film. It is after David has had many painful interactions with his father. David’s piano teacher in Australia comes to the Helfgott home in the night banging furiously on the front door. He screams to Peter (David’s Father) that he must let David go to America. The camera view changes to picture the inside of the dark house and then there is a close up of Peter in the dark, the reflection off his glasses providing the only light. To me it just sums up the entrire film.