“Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)” Movie Review Or How To Become A Shakespearean Superhero

Year: 2014

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu

Writers: Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Armando Bo

Stars: Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, Naomi Watts, Edward Norton, Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan

“Birdman” is essentially the story of a washed-up superhero movie star, who’s trying to find meaning in his life, torn between the allure of the Hollywood blockbusters he was once a part of and the pure artistic success he could find by making “real” art on Broadway. To what extend Michael Keaton plays himself is a matter of speculation, but casting the man who was the first famous live-action Batman back in 1989 (also an awesome Beetlejuice) was more than perfect. And not just because it’s “meta”: admittedly older than the average superhero, with no cape or mask and at some point only in his tighty whities, just like Bryan Cranston, Keaton relies only on his great acting skills and probably delivers the role of his career. But I suspect that we will get much more from him.

I must say that, despite Keaton (Riggan in the film) being the star, the movie actually feels like an ensemble piece with amazing performances from Emma Stone (his daughter Sam), Zach Galifianakis (his producer and friend Jake), Naomi Watts as the actress Lesley and Edward Norton as the genius on stage Mike. And probably because of that I often felt more interested in these supporting characters. Naomi Watts and Edward Norton particularly stood out for me, giving intense and emotional performances. Lesley’s desire to get on Broadway and Mike’s struggle to be himself in real life, rather than on stage, are even more touching than Riggan’s “virtue of ignorance” and vanity that allow him to often disregard his family and loved ones.

 And although not everyone wants to be an actor or a writer, everybody reaches that point when they ask themselves “what do I amount to?” So, it’s safe to say that film is rather relatable, but I personally wasn’t as stirred or touched as much as I was watching other movies in 2014. But I still don’t think the movie actually tries to get the Spielberg effect and make the audience sob in unison.

“Birdman” explores its themes with a lot of humour, unconventional camera work and even some fantastical imagery. The camera floats throughout the theater, interestingly, almost like a bird and bounces from one character to another. As a result in a very beautiful, almost dreamlike manner the camera movement, along with the seamless editing (digitally improved), colour pallet and the occasional winking at the audience (like cutting off the music, the changing location of the drummer) accentuate the amazing craft of movie-making and remind us of the very fact that we are in a film. That’s why I don’t think that the very cinematic “Birdman” simply sides with Broadway, while completely destroying summer blockbusters.

So, obviously, the most amazing thing about the movie is the cinematography and editing. It is really gorgeous and entertaining on purely visual level, if that makes sense. And no wonder – the film is handled by some of the best, also Oscar-winners: Emmanuel Lubezki (“Gravity”, “Children of men”, “The tree of life”, “Sleepy Hollow”) is the director of photography and the editing is managed by Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione ("Good Night, and Good Luck.", "Ocean's Eleven", "21 Grams").

The beautiful and fluid cinematography that makes the film look like it’s just one continuous shot takes you behind the Broadway scene and inside the world of the actors. And although it has its particular flavor in this movie, it must be noted that the one-take movie has been done some times before with projects like “Russian Ark” by Aleksandr Sokurov or “Silent House” by Gustavo Hernandez and there are also numerous movies with just a few takes like Gaspar Noe’s “Irreversible” (I give this example, because we also have the floating camera here). But most important is Hitchcock’s “Rope” from 1948 that also looks like one take (it was actually shot in 10 segments, but only because the film magazine for the camera is about 10 minutes long and must be replaced). And despite setting the film in just two rooms, Hitchcock basically achieved the same effect that “Birdman” has, but with no digital assistance.

Going back to the content - the humour in the film is really, really great. I actually didn’t know that the movie has a strong comedic side and was pleasantly surprised. The dialogue is intriguing and snappy; Michael Keaton and Edward Norton are explosive. Still, I have a few tiny, not really complaints… things I’ve noticed: There are a few monologues (the speech that Riggan gives to the critic and especially his daughter’s rant) that basically tell us in too many words things that we’ve already understood quite well from the movie. To me these sounded a little bit redundant and fake, despite the fact that the movie is quite fantastical. I just don’t like over-explaining in movies, but who knows – may be the idea of these scenes was to represent the classic stage monologue. Thus, the movie feels a little bit self-important at times, constantly trying to remind us how important and philosophical it is, especially with these “Tree of life”-type of images thrown in the editing. For example, I think that another movie from 2014 “Frank” deals with similar themes more subtly and laconically.

And while I’m comparing - there was one point in “Birdman” when I had the realization that it is very similar to “Back Swan”. If you saw it you know, which scene I’m talking about. However, “Birdman” had a delightful and surprising turn that proved me wrong. Still, there are many similarities with the theme of ambition and perfectionism, as well as the dream-like, hallucinogenic elements that the two films share.

What I really liked about “Birdman” is that it bashes quite a lot the superhero movies, while somewhat ironically turning its protagonist into a kind of superhero (because of his abilities, imagined or not, and… his looks towards the end). I can’t get into more details because - spoilers. This is also a bit of a spoiler: By the end of the film Riggan manages to achieve both the popularity as celebrity he once lost (via social media and viral videos) and the critical acclaim for his artistic work in the theater. And however you decide to interpret the very ending, I think it’s still going to be an appropriate conclusion to the story of a man on the edge of sanity, fighting for his work and for his right not to be forgotten.

The movie currently has 8,7 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2562232/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

8,0 from users and 89 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/birdman-or-the-unexpected-virtue-of-ignorance

94% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/birdman_2014/

Trailer:

Classics Movies: Woody Allen’s "Manhattan"

  

Year: 1979

Director: Woody Allen

Writers: Woody Allen, Marshall Brickman

Starring: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Michael Murphy, Mariel Hemingway, Meryl Streep, Anne Byrne Hoffman

Gershwin’s “Rhapsody In Blue” and a celebratory montage of New York sceneries that resolves into a purposely over the top fireworks. That’s our introduction to Woody Allen’s hometown in the classic romantic comedy “Manhattan”. The scene is also accompanied with the narration by the main hero Isaac, who can’t decide in what way to begin his novel, pondering on how his protagonist sees the city.  

Isaac’s second ex-wife is writing a book on their love life and separation, while he’s trying to maintain a causal relationship with 17-years-old student. At the same time he falls in love with his best friend’s lover, after initially disliking her. Yes, sounds so trite and soapy. But not when Woody Allen is behind the camera. This is the kind of movie that even people, who, like myself, don’t like romantic comedies, should see. It is a treat for every movie lover, if solely for the masterful cinematography by Gordon Willis (“The Godfather”) and editing by Susan E. Morse (“Hannah and Her Sisters”), because every now and then they turn the film into a living painting.

As most Woody Allen’s films “Manhattan” also deals with intellectuals quipping at each other, while discussing interesting cultural, but sometimes empty topics. As Isaac points out in one scene - in certain cases not “biting satire”, but “bricks and baseball bats get right to the point.” Many of the heroes in the movie are wealthy, well-read and a bit pretentious, but often simply lost and lonely people. Woody Allen’s character looks for the answers to his problems in the changing cultural landscape around him, later in the movie clarifying that his book is about “decaying values”. And we can see how he often projects this pessimistic view of the world on the new generation, represented by his young girlfriend Tracy - “You were brought up on drugs and television and the pill”. But after all, he is the guy that works for the television, the guy that constantly refuses to accept the changing world and takes advantage of Tracy’s affection. And by the end she is the one that wisely corrects him on the subject of decaying morals, because “not everybody gets corrupted”.

When you talk about “Manhattan” you can’t forget the masterful visual storytelling that is particularly strong in two major scenes – the cabinet with the monkey skeleton and the planetarium scene. The scene in the biology cabinet adds to the humor of the situation, while making us ponder over love’s role in evolution and our place in the universe as species. The monkey skeleton sits silently next to Issac, who, as a superior specie that models himself after God, is trying to make sense of love and human relationships. Still, the monkey comically reminds us of the unpredictable, unclassifiable and often primal nature of love. In terms of our feelings and internal drive, it is possible that we haven’t really developed much. And the rest of the movie points to the same thing – sometimes the obvious “good” choices are the worst and no matter how hard we try to be informed, logical and to rationalize the world we live in, our nature is still emotion-driven and intuitive. And just like with art, we can’t always explain what sums up the ultimate chef-d-oeuvre.

In this world where everybody has a psychoanalyst, Woody Allen’s character ironically states “Nothing worth knowing can be understood with the mind.” But both Isaac and Mary (Diane Keaton) are often described as “cerebral” or “rationalizing” and we see that in the long run this is not necessarily the best way for them to maintain a relationship. There’s something else that I've noticed - with beautiful, yet simple cinematography and understanding of space, “Manhattan” often separates the couples with shots that leave one or the other out of frame during a conversation. This is emphasized and wonderfully realized in the scene where Mary and Isaac kiss for the first time. Although it is very romantic and sweet, for the entire scene they are almost never both in the frame, moving in and out of the door frame, where the camera is fixed. I wonder, is there a possibility that Allen decided to shoot the scene in this way in order to hint to us that no matter how much they try, Isaac and Mary can’t really become one? It might be far-fetched, but I like the idea.

But the best and most memorable scene from the movie is definitely the conversation in the planetarium. In almost full darkness all we see is the giant planets and these people’s tiny, almost unrecognizable figures. They walk through the lonely and cold cosmos, discussing the small troubles we humans have, looking so lost and insignificant next to the vastness of space. It’s such a beautiful and surreal scene, provoking so many feelings and interpretations: Are they small grains of sand drifting in the infinite darkness or simply aliens to each other? Maybe they are alienated from their own world…

Speaking of beauty and cosmic harmony, the soundtrack is comprised of wonderful compositions by Gershwin, including instrumental versions for many of his popular jazz songs. It is a powerful and energetic, but elegant companion piece to the beautiful black and white cinematic version of New York that Allen gives us. The performances are top-notch, I especially loved Mariel Hemingway, who is so subtle, tender and poignant. As a whole “Manhattan” is philosophical, funny, touching and magnificently shot – a true Woody Allen classic, well above the average romantic comedy.

The movie has 8,0 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079522/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3

8,5 from users and 82 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/manhattan

98% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/manhattan/?search=manhattan

A little taste of the movie – the bridge scene:

“Gone Girl” Move Review

Year: 2014

Director: David Fincher

Writer: Gillian Flynn (screenplay/novel)

Stars: Rosamund Pike, Ben Affleck, Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry, Carrie Coon, Kim Dickens

“Gone Girl” is a movie that reminds us that David Fincher is one of the very best directors working today. He is back on form with a haunting, visceral and stylized retelling of the Gillian Flynn’s novel of the same name. Writers often fail to adapt their own books for the screen, but Flynn did a fantastic job unifying all threads of the intricate story into a coherent script. 

The movie tells the story (or rather “stories”) of Nick Dunne (portrayed by Ben Affleck) and his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike). The mystery starts on the day of the couple’s fifth anniversary when Nick finds out that his wife is gone. As the plot unfolds he becomes the center of media speculations and his life turns upside down when he becomes the main suspect. But while we see his version of the story, we also get the chance to peek into Amy’s thoughts almost entirely via her diary entries.

What Fincher and Flynn did so well is presenting us with two points of view, both not entirely truthful, both keeping parts of the story in mystery. And that’s truly revealing, especially after we find out who’s the “worse half”. The relativity of the truth is highlighted in a scene where Nick Dunne insist on telling the “true” story and quickly gets corrected – it’s “your” story. “Gone Girl” works perfectly as a thriller – it is atmospheric, suspenseful and brutal when it needs to be. But the best thing is that it’s so much more. A social commentary, a character study, an exercise in style, a treatise on marriage…

In many ways “Gone Girl” is a film about image – the image we create for ourselves, the way our loved ones see us, the labels society gives us, the distorted personality that media can create and destroy within a few hours for us. All the roles we assume in order to function in society could easily distort our perception of reality and ourselves. In “Gone Girl” Rosamund Pike struggles to achieve the perfect image of “The Amazing Amy” – a fictional character her mother wrote a series of popular books about. And as she says in the movie, “Amazing Amy” had always been one step ahead of her, always perfect, always better. How do you keep up with that? Amy sometimes even speaks as if she’s a fictional character and she might as well do what any true dramatic hero might do in a classic play. Amy is beautiful, rich, extremely intelligent and still her life is not always perfect. Surely, in “Gone Girl” this problem is explored in its extremities, but in modern society the image, the idea of the perfect job, the perfect family, the requisite success can often become the basis for extreme egoism, apathy, depression and all kinds of psychosis. Just like in “Nightcrawler” – the hero is the product of the society he/she lives in.

SLIGHTLY SPOILERY PARAGRAPH:

What are the social expectations for the perfect woman, for the perfect wife? One thing is for sure - these are some of the factors that create the Amy we see by the end of the movie. That’s why I don’t think that “Gone Girl” is in any way misogynistic, because how could Amy exist the way she is and get away with the things she does, if she didn’t live in a society with established stereotypes for women that she clearly takes advantage of: the stupid, but beautiful girlfriend, the accommodating wife, the helpless mother, the victim? Besides, it’s absolutely entertaining to see all these concepts turn around by the end.

On the other hand, Ben Affleck’s character is also exposed to social preconceptions – he is supposed to be “the provider” in the marriage, he is more likely to be aggressive and should feel oppressed because he doesn’t have the outstanding education his wife has. Thus, “Gone Girl” explores both sides of what marriage “should” be and the image it has to adhere to. Further on, the film shows how easily media (particularly TV news) can manipulate any story and any “image”, completely turning around the opinion we have for someone and even profoundly affecting their life.

“Gone Girl” has one of the most magnetic, complex and unique characters we’ve seen this year and one of the very few strong female characters in cinema. Gillian Flynn gave life to a hero that’s anything, but the typical female from either criminal or love stories. And Rosamund Pike made this extraordinary, bigger-than-life character appear absolutely authentic and captivating. She can simultaneously make us hate her and be sympathetic with her, while preserving the mystery and the wonder of the character. It is definitely a stunning Oscar-worthy performance. Everybody else in the movie also does a good job, but it’s her movie from beginning to end. Only Neil Patrick Harris, who plays Desi, doesn’t seem entirely in place. His acting is fine, but he is in the role of a rich stylish man, that inevitably reminds you of Barney (I guess it’s ok if you haven’t seen “How I met your mother”, but it got me out of the movie at times).

The entire film, not surprisingly, looks great. The attention to detail, characteristic for any film by Fincher, and Jeff Cronenweth’s work on the cinematography create a stunning atmosphere. Cronenweth had two Oscar nominations for David Fincher’s films (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and “The Social Network”) and he’s certainly keeping up. For the last a couple of films Fincher has also developed a symbiotic relationship with Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Reznor’s music seems to be the perfect addition to Fincher’s images. The minimalistic soundtrack for “Gone Girl” is just as mysterious, elegant and atmospheric as the movie itself and it perfectly complements the mood without being obtrusive. It gently seeps into the subconsciousness like a perfume and blood scented mist. It does its magic in the background and you don’t even realize when it’s present.

The movie has 8,5 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267998/?ref_=nv_sr_1

8,2 from users and 79 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/gone-girl

88% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gone_girl/

Trailer:

"Interstellar" Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: Christopher Nolan

Writers: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan

Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Mackenzie Foy, Ellen Burstyn, Michael Caine

"Interstellar" isn't easy to review without giving away spoilers and after just one viewing. And although I'd like to see some things again, I don't really think that I could get through all the three hours again. And I don't mind long movies, if they can capture my imagination for the entire runtime. For me, "Interstellar" did feel like a 3-hour movie, if not longer. The first hour I actually enjoyed - the setup was interesting and somewhat endearing, except for the expositional footage of interviews. The beginning of the film worked mostly because of the good performances of Matthew McConaughey as Cooper and Mackenzie Foy, who plays his daughter - Murph. The young actress is really exceptional.

The film’s logic becomes a bit questionable when a pilot, who worked as a farmer for the last a couple of years (at least), is sent to the first of its kind space journey without a single day of preparation. However, the second part of the movie is still quite enjoyable, despite some plot holes and absurdities. At one point, after the mission has started, one of the astronauts explains to McConaughey, who is a trained pilot and brilliant engineer, what is a wormhole. Not just that, he explains it in the way Carl Sagan would explain it to 5^th graders. It's just ridiculous - if Nolan doesn't believe in the intelligence of his audience, he could at least explain things without making his heroes look like idiots - couldn't they find a kid to explain to or something?

On the plus side, "Interstellar" works on emotional level, at least most of the time and that's mainly due to the solid performances. The movie represents very well the effects of relativity on the life of the characters (despite the fact that they constantly remind you - "yep, that's because of relativity"). The scene dealing with that somewhere in the middle of the film is probably one of the things that worked best. Although, after seeing many people grow older, suddenly there's this one character that haven't changed a bit - I swear I could hear silent laughs in the cinema. However, emotion and sentimentality often go a bit too far in this movie. After the first stop in the journey another intelligent scientist suddenly starts an entire monologue justifying a decision based on the power of love.

So far, so good. But the last hour of the movie was exhausting. I lost interest in the forced melodrama and suspense. From the moment the character Man appears things become more and more convenient and absurd. Everything that happens with this guy rings false, his monologue is the most unconvincing thing ever and it’s assisted by surprisingly bad acting. After that the movie desperately tries to create tension again, which it regularly does via docking sequences - not one, but a few and not surprisingly they are all the same - 10 minutes of basically fitting ship holes. And we know that they'll do it anyway! However, the incredibly loud and booming soundtrack might keep you awake throughout all of this. Yes, even more disappointingly Hans Zimmer used two chords for the entire film and combined them with a lot of noise, really loud noise, but maybe the sound mixing is also to blame.

Towards the end the movie gets more and more convoluted, sentimental and convenient, which is the bigger problem. And being more convoluted and flashy isn’t equivalent to being more scientific or ambitious. There are so many things in the last minutes of the film that are there just for convenience and melodrama. Even the things that happen on Earth - the decision that the brother makes at the end and the forced tension between them (as if they're going to kill each other) - all this makes no sense, it's just a trick to create false drama.

Still, probably the biggest problem is that in order to explain and wrap up everything the film-makers decided to use a well-known sci-fi trope that's inherently problematic, because it's a paradox.

Surely, the movie is shot on film and looks good, we know that's the important thing for Nolan. It also has the most inconvenient robot - that bulky thing could not move like that in real life (probably the reason why his "action" scenes were edited so choppily), but that's a minor thing. The robot was the obvious comic relief, but it worked well, without him the movie would be too dreary.

I suppose "Interstellar" is an “ok film”, but the hype and its huge ambition turned it into a disappointment. It isn't among Christopher Nolan’s best movies, it's even much closer to the bottom for me. In comparison to other recent space movies – I’m still waiting for something as thought-provoking and engrossing as Duncan Jones’ “Moon” or visually immersive as “Gravity”. I actually can't really think of "Interstellar" as a sci-fi or an art movie - maybe a good family drama and above-the-average blockbuster. I just don't believe that the biggest challenges and existential questions facing humanity are to be explored by sentiment/the power of love and convenient plots where everybody's safe.

The movie currently has 9,0 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

8,5 from users and 73 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/interstellar

74% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/interstellar_2014/

Trailer:

Edgar Degas - "Art is a lie to which one gives the accent of truth"

Edgar Degas’ credo that behind the deceitful appearance of art should be found some kind of truth is characteristic not just for his work, but for the entire Impressionistic movement. For Degas and the impressionists the relation between “real” and “fake” was very important. Almost the entire 19th century was under the influence of Realism in art, which often served political purposes and featured mostly historical or religious figures, mythical and fictional stories, filled with smooth and refined bodies of nymphs and other magical creatures. But in the last part of the century, art, still lead by the French masters, become more separate from the political issues in Europe and the historical or religious themes. Impressionism redefined the meaning of realistic and truthful in art by exposing the hypocrisy behind the “realistic” paintings of the time and exploring the immediate sensations that the world offered. A group of innovative artists started exploring the modern life, the things and people that surrounded them, the nature with its vibrant colours and ever-changing light, the moment itself – the impression.

Impressionists captured reality as they saw it by using more expressive, unpolished techniques – the visible brush strokes, blank spots on the canvas, bright swirls of colours – they all remind the viewers that what they are looking at is just an illusion, an art form. But art form that captures a fleeting moment as the artist sees it; every particular artist with his own “accent” - we can easily recognize the stylistic differences between impressionists like Monet, Renoir, Degas, even Cezanne. Rodin did the same thing for sculpture and together they gave a start to what we now call modern art. Their less photographic, less polished, “unfinished” techniques were more capable of representing life as it is. And that’s what Degas tries to do, as he explained: "A picture is something that requires as much trickery, malice, and vice as the perpetration of crime, so create falsity and add a touch from nature." This also rings true with the critics of the day, who looked at the first impressionistic works as a blasphemy, a crime.

Before Impressionism was accepted even Courbet, one of the prominent realists, started indulging himself mostly with beautiful landscapes. Still, the true mediator between these two schools was Edouard Manet, who wasn't so much invested in the “realistic” and polished depiction, but in the expressiveness of the moment, the immediacy of the scene and its meaning for the society he was living in. And the painting that bridged the gap between the traditional and the modern was his “Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe” (“Launch on the grass”) from 1863, which broke every convention and became one of the most scandalous paintings in history. The work shows a naked woman in a way no one has seen before – she’s a not a mythological creature, but a contemporary woman, a courtesan that boldly stares directly at her audience. The men are dressed in modern clothes – the entire painting exposes modern society as it is, when no one would acknowledge all its realities. The lack of depth in “Le Déjeuner” and the use of artificial light intentionally emphasize that the painting is produced in a studio – that’s how even landscapes were painted before Impressionism took place. There are visible brush strokes and many clues mocking the hypocrisy of the society and art at the time, so consequently the painting was displayed in the “Saloon of the rejected” ("Salon des Refusés").

But the painting that defined the new movement and gave it its name was “Impression, soleil levant” (“Impression, Sunrise”) from 1872 by Claude Monet. It was one of his many beautiful landscapes, painted with energy and swiftness, capturing the brief impression in the sky, the moment when the sun lights the horizon. Critics often say that Monet “paints with light”, he is using clear, bright colors to give live to the sunbeams playing on the surface of the water and to capture all shades in the sky. With sweeping brush strokes he turns the impressionistic landscape into something much more intense and personal. The sun at center of the picture is a magnificent contrasting point that draws the attention and although it looks much brighter than the rest of the painting, it was actually measured that it has the same brightness as the sky and if you look at a black and white copy of “Impression, soleil levant” the sun is almost impossible to notice.

  

However, despite being part of the group and its independent exhibitions, Edgar Degas didn’t consider himself truly an impressionist, but a realist, who relied on his imagination, memories and a little bit of mystery to masks the truth behind the visible: "A painting requires a little mystery, some vagueness, and some fantasy. When you always make your meaning perfectly plain you end up boring people." The truth in a work of art depends on the interpretation of the viewer and the ability of the artist to show the truth as he perceives it without giving away too much. Degas painted what he saw and what he loved, everyday people and scenes, theater, ballet. He believed that although art was deceitful by its nature, it had the power to lead the person to profound revelations. Similarly, many philosophers, both ancient and modern, would vouch that the main purpose of the arts is to serve the truth. Heidegger stated that art objectifies the truth and Plato believed that its role must be to educate and humanize.

More than half of Degas’ paintings depict ballet dancers. He was fascinated by the beauty of the body and its movement, by the skills behind the art; so he painted mostly female dancers and everyday routines that happened behind the scenes. Like a painting, the ballet performance is the illusion and the trivial preparation, the hard work behind the curtains is the reality. That’s why his dancers are often depicted from unusual viewpoints – not from the audience’s perspective. Degas would often use the dark costumes of the ballet teachers, gentlemen from the public, the orchestra or the piano to balance the fresh bright colors in the composition with some black elements.

He often cuts off the figures with the frame of his paintings as if he was just a second too late to “photograph” the moment. It seems like Degas uses the picture’s frame to emphasize on the fact that we never see the entire truth, but just a tiny piece of the world – that small part that grabbed the attention of the artist. After that it’s up to the audience to give his works their own “accents of the truth”. The frame reminds us that a picture is carefully crafted work of art that’s given its dimensions by the artist, not by reality itself. His works are like a moments flowing through a camera, in which some frames don’t get exposed and remain in the dark.

Edgar Degas also had very particular way of painting nudes. His women aren't ancient princesses and goddesses, posing seductively on luxurious beds. He painted the trivial, intimate life of modern women, most often while they were bathing, rarely showing their faces. These paintings often create the illusion that the audience is a voyeur, peeking to see the women in these unusual, even unflattering poses, which are absolutely breathtaking and much more truthful to life. These women look real, but they are still far from us, they don’t sense our presence and often we can’t see their faces, so we can only dream about them and imagine “any woman” we want to create our own truth and experience.

"We were created to look at one another, weren't we?"

Edgar Degas also did sculpture. His first and most recognizable three-dimensional work is originally made of wax, which was very unusual for the time. “Little dancer of fourteen years” from 1881 was nothing like the other sculptures from the period – it wasn't made of bronze or marble. It wasn't smooth with perfect and elegant figure that would serve simply to showcase the skill of the sculptor to recreate realistic bodies dawn to do smallest detail. Degas’ work was always more than just the visible: "It is very good to copy what one sees; it is much better to draw what you can't see any more but is in your memory. It is a transformation in which imagination and memory work together. You only reproduce what struck you, that is to say the necessary." And the dancer was exactly that - it was unlike any other sculpture at the time.

She had real clothes on, except for her stockings, and she had some smeared wax on her bodice and hair (almost entirely covered wig), she wasn't life-size, nor was she small enough to be a doll. By Degas’ request she was displayed in a glass case.  What these unconventional artistic decisions tell us is that although very realistic, the “little dancer” is still art, an “unfinished” lie, created for display. Everyone was shocked, people said she was ugly and vicious, vulgar. They were probably offended because at the time ballet dancers were often seen as sluts. And we can see in many of Degas’ works rich men hiding in the corners of the paintings, often behind the curtains, silently observing the ballet dancers, creating an eerie atmosphere in a lot of his beautiful and at first sight entirely joyful compositions. In the 19th century there was a special room at the Paris opera – “Le foyer de la danse” - it was built specifically to allow the ballet dancers to meet with “ballet lovers”, where only men and ballet girls could enter. So, although there were many girls pursuing the ballet as a profession, there were others looking for rich men, who could offer them a better life. Degas captured the ballet girl in a crucial moment in her life, a moment somewhere between her childhood and her adult life when it will be determined if she’s going to have a career in ballet or the tragic fate of a street girl. A moment, which was about to reveal the truth, but didn't. I guess we have to decide for ourselves, in which future version of the dancer we want to believe.

The "accents of the truth" certainly most often depend on the context – the social and economic environment, the aesthetic and moral values of a particular historical period and social group. But the mysteries of the “Little dancer” go beyond that and there are still various theories on its meaning and the discussion about its aesthetic qualities goes on. But even if you don’t think she’s beautiful, art doesn’t have to be always beautiful, at least not in the conventional way. As Kant and David Hume loved to point out – beauty and truth can be two absolutely contradictory things.

Some even believe that the sculpture reflects the belief of Degas’ contemporaries that people with lower foreheads are more primitive. In a painting by Degas of two murderers in court we can see that he deliberately skew the truth by giving them more primitive features. In fact, one of Degas’ critics said that the dancer belonged in a zoological or anthropology museum. The new medical museum at France at the time featured numerous mutated specimens and wax figures displaying various medical conditions. They were also displayed in glass boxes. On the other hand, many critics also noticed similarities with the ancient Egyptian art and its simplicity, calling the “Little dancer” both “modern” and “classical”. The collector Louisine Havemeyer referred to it as "One of the greatest works of art since the dynasties of the Nile". Ancient art in museums was exhibited in glass cases, too. Egyptian and other ancient sculptures were sometimes wearing wigs and even some clothes.

Hopefully, this is the kind of heated discussion evolving during the years that Degas would appreciate: "Drawing is not what one sees but what one can make others see." You can always go back to his paintings and decide what beautiful lies and discreet truths Degas hid in the canvas exclusively for you.

"It is essential to do the same subject over again, ten times, a hundred times. Nothing in art must seen to be chance, not even movement."

"I assure you no art was ever less spontaneous than mine. What I do is the result of reflection and study of the great masters; of inspiration, spontaneity, temperament -- temperament is the word -- I know nothing."

For more on the impressionists in a more entertaining and emotional form check out the great mini-series "The Impressionists" from 2006. Produced for BBC and staring Julian Glover and Richard Armitage (currently playing Thorin in "The Hobbit"). And don't miss the brilliant series "Private Life of a Masterpiece", where I've learnt everything for "The little dancer" and many other works by various artists. You can find them both on YouTube, too.

The pictures in the post are from Wikipedia and Edgar-Degas.org.

“Nightcrawler” Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: Dan Gilroy

Writer: Dan Gilroy

Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, Bill Paxton, Riz Ahmed, Kevin Rahm

In “Nightcrawler” Jake Gyllenhaal plays Lou Bloom - a socially awkward loner, desperately looking for a job with the ambition to make a successful career. He almost accidentally starts a career as a “nightcrawler” – gathering morally questionable footage from accidents and crime scenes. The movie is written and directed by Dan Gilroy – writer for “The Bourne Legacy”, “The fall” and others. “Nightcrawler” is his debut as a director and he did an amazing job in character building, pacing and visual style.

Robert Elswit is the cinematographer for the movie and you can clearly tell that it’s done by someone with great experience and talent. (He worked on “Magnolia”,” Good Night, and Good Luck”, “There Will Be Blood”, “Mission Impossible”, “Boogie Nights” etc.). The movie just looks gorgeous - Gyllenhaal’s magnetic presence and the camera work are enough to make you stare at the screen for hours even if nothing’s happening. Well, I would do it. The details, light, camera angles – everything is great. For example, there’s a scene when one of Lou’s rivals gets in an accident and there’s a great dramatic shot from his point of view looking up to the camera shoved in his face. I also absolutely loved the sharp, rocking soundtrack by James Newton Howard. It shines with its energy, rich drums, a central guitar riff and haunting electronic elements.

The “Nightcrawler” starts off with an eerie, but beautiful opening shot of L.A. that quickly gives us the feeling of isolation and lets us know that the hero lives on the fringes of life. From the very first moment you hear him talk, you can feel that he reeks of weirdness and although he’s genuinely creepy you can’t take your eyes off of him. I literally watched the first few minutes of the movie with my mouth open, because I truly haven’t seen so fascinating character in a very long time. Everything he says is strange and enthralling, although sometimes absolutely hilarious. That’s another thing I loved so much about the film – the dark humor. In many ways “Nightcrawler” is a terrific black comedy.

All actors in the movie are outstanding – both Riz Ahmed and Rene Russo give powerful performances. But Jake Gyllenhaal is the most amazing thing in the film and not just because he’s the protagonist, he’s simply captivating - you can hardly believe that’s even him. Of course, he lost a lot of weight, but his performance by itself is something that I haven’t seen from him before, he is like a completely different person.

And Lou is amazing character to play – he’s polite and a little bit childish in a bizarre way. Everything he says is calculated to get him closer to what he wants, although you can clearly see that he took lots of online courses and read too many self-help, “young entrepreneur” type of books. As he puts it: “You can find almost everything if you look hard enough.” Makes you think about the role of internet in our lives, doesn't it?

Despite the fact that Lou turns out to be a complete sociopath with no moral restrains, you somehow understand where he’s coming from and at times you’re really excited for him to get his work done well. He is ambitious and smart, meticulous in his work, analytical and procedural. In a way he is the product and embodiment of the capitalistic society, in which success must be achieved at any cost. He lives in an oppressing environment with absurdly high social expectations and problematic priorities. Gyllenhaal himself said that he sees this move as a success story. In this way “Nightcrawler” goes beyond the crime thriller and becomes a very modern social satire. It also heavily explores the mainstream media, the “ethic” of journalists and how media executives decide what “the story” is by manipulating information to appeal or scare the public. By the end of the movie we realize that the news runners might be just as ruthless and psychotic as our protagonist.

As pacing the movie is perfect. There’s a lot of suspense and very, very well-done car chase sequence. You more or less know where the things are going, but when certain things happen, you still go: “That’s so messed up.” And Gyllenhaal’s character is just so intriguing, that I could easily spend at least 1 or 2 more hours in the cinema just observing him do his job. So, I have absolutely no complains and I am excited to see the movie again.

The movie has 8,4 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872718/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

8,3 from users and 76 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/nightcrawler

94% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/nightcrawler/

Trailer:

“Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes” Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: Matt Reeves

Writers: Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, Mark Bomback

Starring: Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Toby Kebbell, Keri Russell, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Nick Thurston

The story of “Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes” picks up about decade after the events in “Rise Of The Planet Of TheApes”. At that time the virus unleashed in the first movie has wiped out most of humanity, while the apes are thriving and building their own community. This film has a new director - Matt Reeves who did “Cloverfield” in 2008. The old team of writers is joined by Mark Bomback and the result of their collective effort is a better and smarter script.

“Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes” was quite good. But this one is better in every aspect – the themes are more thoroughly explored, the dialogue is smarter and the plot is meticulously thought through. All characters in this film are well-rounded, this time both apes and humans. Needless to say, Serkis as Casear and Toby Kebbell as Koba both give strong compelling performances. And how could you forget the adorable Maurice (Karin Konoval)?! As to the human characters – the leader of the group – Malcolm, played by Jason Clarke is absolutely fascinating. Clarke puts so much emotion and intensity in his character without even speaking, so you could easily believe that he’s a real person dealing with his fears and desperation in a critical situation. Gary Oldman in the role of Dreyfus, although given less screen time also manages to create an intense and believable character. Sadly, the female heroes are not as strongly presented.

“Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes” explores the main issues from the franchise more effectively, focusing on politics and diplomacy in time of crisis and war. It touches on our anthropocentric philosophy and self-entitlement as the better species. In a few scenes Koba takes advantage of this mindset to fool a few humans to think he’s just a stupid animal. And although kind of funny, these scenes are also very unsettling exactly for the same reasons. Simply, but effectively this concept is later reversed when Caesar says that he used to think that apes are better than humans.  

The movie does really good job at showing us the two sides of the conflict by focusing on two families from both species. We understand their fears and desires and by exploring the tension within both groups we see how thin the line between peace and war can be. On both sides we have the piece-makers and the assholes. But the film treats them equally, so we understand the motivations of the violent characters just as well.  

Strangely, the film has a little bit of “Jurassic Park” feel, at least for me. There are a few scenes with people nervously waiting in vehicles stopped in the middle of the rainy forest, a man dragged from under a car and the most obvious one – people hiding from a stampede of apes under a fallen tree. I don’t know if that’s on purpose, but as someone who grew up with “Jurassic Park” I absolutely loved it. Speaking of this, “Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes” builds tension very well. For a while it also turns into a war movie with well-directed action scenes and awesome dramatic shots. Of course, at the end there is a little bit of spectacle, not over the top, but suitable for a big blockbuster. Although well-done this act relies almost entirely on CGI that’s a bit noticeable.

The soundtrack by Michael Giacchino draws the attention with its more dominant use of percussions and a little bit old-school dramatic vibe that also reminds me of older movies like “Tarzan” or maybe the original “Planet Of The Apes”. I think it adds nicely to the great emotional pull and themes of the movie. And finally, I’d like to give this entertaining, endearing and smart cinematic adventure 5 Kubricks.

The movie has 8,0 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2103281/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

90% on RottenTomatoes -http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes/?search=dawn%20of%20th

8,2 from users and 79 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/dawn-of-the-planet-of-the-apes

Trailer:

Classic Movies: “Bande à part” (“Band of Outsiders”)

One of the inspirations for “Pulp Fiction”

Year: 1964

Director: Jean-Luc Godard (appears as Jean-Luc Cinéma Godard, it’s a joke for the way American directors present their movies)

Stars: Anna Karina, Daniele Girard, Sami Frey, Claude Brasseur

“Bande à part” is a New Wave film by one of the most influential French directors Jean-Luc Godard. Its title derives from the phrase “faire bande à part”, which means "to do something apart from the group." The film is an adaptation of the novel “Fools' Gold” by Dolores Hitchens.

Most Godard’s movies, especially these from the 1960s, are experiments in deconstructing the conventional Hollywood stories. In an interview from 1964 Godard said for “Bande à part”: “This movie was made as a reaction against anything that wasn’t done… It went along with my desire to show that nothing was off limits.” Despite the movie’s role mostly as a critique and exercise in reinvention, it is now considered one of Godard's most accessible films.

The story of “Bande à part” follows two wannabe gangsters - Franz (Sami Frey) and Arthur (Claude Brasseur) when they meet Odile (Anna Karina) in an English class. She is not only the “love interest”, but happens to live with her aunt and another tenant, who has hidden a large amount of cash in the house. The duo’s plan is to persuade Odile to help them steal the money.

By following this plotline “Bande à part” becomes a crime B-movie satire with sometimes poetic and profound insights that contradict its pulp origins and clichéd heroes. A lot of high literary references are in contrast with the source material and the popular culture that the heroes are immersed in. The movie nods to Shakespeare, Thomas Hardy, T.S. Eliot, Jack London, Arthur Rimbaud and others. This rich intertextuality helps Godard not just to criticize, but to rethink the clichés of cinema by inventing new imagery from the old. The male duo at the center of the movie often quote pulp novels and movies, even recreate legendary criminals and events (pretending to shoot at each other), dreaming of the romanticized life of crime. Interestingly, their English teacher is just as excited for Shakespeare as they are for crime novels, but just like them has become disconnected with reality.

There are many parallels between the reality and the literature referenced in the movie. Even the book, from which Franz reads to Odile (stating that it’s about a girl just like her) is actually titled “Odile”. The rude way in which Arthur courts Odile is in contrast with the love described in Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet”. The cool and witty criminals described in the books Franz reads couldn’t have planned the disastrous and comical robbery, which takes place in the movie. Similarly, the actions of Vincent and Jules in another unconventional crime film - Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction” seem contradictory to Jules’ favorite Bible quotation.

So, what happens if we live by the knowledge we acquired from pop culture? Does art at all have the power to change our ways? Probably not, since Goddard seems to constantly remind us that we’re watching a movie with a very present “auteur” behind the camera (very apparent in the sarcastic voice-over that sometimes breaks the fourth wall). For example, when Franz and Arthur tell Odile that they are going to make a plan for the robbery, for a second she looks straight into the camera asking “Why?” as if to ask us or the director. When she sings a song in the subway and when Arthur tells us a story from Jack London, they are looking at the camera again as to remind us that this is all made-up by emphasizing on the external literary text. It’s like saying: “Here are some fictional stories in our fictional story”. I guess that’s how Goddard would make “Inception”.

Sometimes “Bande à part” can be really funny and full of contradictions, allowing the innocent and foolish Odile and her not so pleasant male counterparts with poor strategic abilities to occasionally provide insightful thoughts and exciting dialogue. The two male characters are actually not the most interesting part of the story, especially the more aggressive and meaner Arthur and I personally wasn’t that invested in their story. But Odile surprisingly gets more and more charming and mysterious as the film progress. For most of the movie, I actually expected her to turn out to be the biggest schemer, but while Godard follows the typical plot for the genre, he still plays with our expectations (in this case making me feel stupid when I realize that I have seen too many modern thrillers with too many plot twists), giving us characters that are not as good at romance and crime as we are used to seeing in the American criminal films. But Anna Karina’s performance is absolutely magnetic and for me the culminating scene of the entire film is somewhere in the middle when Odile starts singing in the subway while observing the lonely people in the train. This was so unexpected and striking moment, emphasized by great editing, that I suddenly started crying without even knowing why.

“Bande à part” actually suggests that there might be some social and economic reasons for the loneliness and anguish that result in the affection for the American culture. Paris in this movie is bleak, lonely and with no future for the poor. Still, we should have in mind that the American noir movies traditionally also have dark tones. The movie beautifully reflects the loneliness and despair of our heroes and their surroundings, which is synthetized in Odile’s song. Here we can see why Godard said in an interview that “Bande à part” is "Alice in Wonderland” meets Franz Kafka." We get a sense of the doom and despair omnipresent in Kafka’s books, as well as the frivolous and playful, childish behavior of the characters. Sometimes they really act like kids and ironically, Franz states that the robbery “will be a child’s play.”

Till the very end of film Goddard doesn’t stop juxtaposing the movie clichés with the reality of the heroes’ actions, thus questioning them and creating his own charming, mysterious and bleak reality. Another example of that is the difference between the “fake” killings in the movie and the “real” one. When Arthur mimics the death of Billy the Kid it looks realistic because that’s what he has seen in many movies. But in the scene when he’s actually shot it looks artificial and intentionally prolonged. Right before the end, after losing her lover Odile states “I’m disgusted with life” and Arthur ponders over “how strange it is that people never form a whole”. But just after that sad conversation they sail away, both in love, happy and full with expectations for their new life, just as the typical Hollywood movies should end. And the sarcastic voice-over promises us a sequel about the tropical adventures of the couple.

There are a few very famous scenes in Godard’s film that may seem quirky and random, but give “Bande à part” a feeling of freedom and playfulness that pleasantly surprises. The first scene features the trio, sitting in a coffeehouse, drinking Coke and smoking. Out of boredom, Franz suggests for a minute of silence and then suddenly not only the heroes become silent, but the sound of the movie is completely cut off, until Franz interrupts it ("Enough of that.") and we hear all the noises from the café again. This comical and memorable scene is probably the best example for the use of silence on film. The quiet minute could also be the basis for the “uncomfortable silences” that Mia and Vincent talk about in “Pulp Fiction”.

The second infamous scene is in the same café and includes the “Madison” dance that the three of them do, while the voice-over interrupts the music to describe their feelings. This scene inspired the famous dancing scene in “Pulp Fiction” and Tarantino actually named his production company “A Band Apart Films” after Goddard’s movie. There are even more similarities between the two films, which are in no way devaluating “Pulp Fiction”. In both we are introduced to a conventional crime story that has many surprising twists and turns. Both movies are parodies of the genre (and in a way homages, too) and both achieve wondrous moments of profundity between the romancing and the crime-doing. They also have a main character reading a cheap crime novel (Vincent and Franz) that falls in love with the wrong girl.

The third well-known scene from “Bande à part” shows our heroes, childishly storming through the Louvre, trying to break the record for fastest viewing of the museum, set by American, as the voice-over points out. In review for the movie I read that this could symbolize the brainwashing effect of the (american) pop culture on the youth unable to notice the rich cultural landscape around. But with the intertextuality of the film this scene could also represent cinema and art as a whole. New art is always influenced by previous works (signified by the hallways of the Louvre) and as Picasso said “Good artists copy, great artists steal”.  Still, Godard tells us that big percentage of the popular art runs like a child through the corridors of cultural legacy, blindly following the established commercial formula without stopping to reinvent its aesthetic and moral values. The Louvre scene could also simply mean that in most cases art doesn’t really change our lives; it hangs beautifully, yet quietly on the walls, while life passes way too fast through the endless corridors… 

As a whole, “Bande à part” is an interesting film to analyze and search for clues, especially for anyone who wants to know more about the history and development of cinema. It puts contemporary movies in context, while still enchanting the audience. However, while not long (about hour and a half) the movie might feel a bit slow at times. But this is also a result of what conventional cinema has thought us and it’s nice to challenge yourself sometimes. Finally, although I loved a lot of things about it, “Bande à part” didn’t become one of my top movies, but I still think that it’s an intriguing piece of inventive cinema that deserves attention.

Here’s translation of Odile’s song “J'entends, J'entends” and the entire song performed by Jean Ferrat:

I saw so many depart like that
All they’d ask for was a light
They settled for so little
They had so little anger in them
I hear their steps, I hear their voices
Speaking of things quite banal
Like things you read in the papers
Like things you say evenings at home

What are they doing to you, men and women
You tender stones, worn down too soon
Your appearances broken
My heart goes out at the sight of you
Things are what they are
From time to time, the earth trembles
Misfortune only misfortune resembles
So deep, so deep, so deep

You long to believe in blue skies
It’s a feeling I know quite well
I still believe at certain times
I still believe, I must admit
But I can’t believe my ears
Oh, yes I’m very much your peer
I am just the same as you

Like you, like a grain of sand
Like the blood forever split
Like the fingers always wounded
Yes, I am your fellow creature

The movie has 7,9 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057869/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

95% on RottenTomatoes  - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/band_of_outsiders/

7,6 from users and 88 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/band-of-outsiders