Darren Aronofsky, filmmaker, directyor, artist, writer, autuer. What more can you say to describe the man. Despite having only five films under his belt, the impact he's left on the cinematic landscape is incredible and quite a feat for someone with very little in the ways of higher education. While most remember him getting notice for Requiem for a Dream, Aronofsky made his feature debut with the 1998 thriller Pi. Co-written with the film's star Sean Gullete, Pi lays down the foundations of a contempary tech thriller with some grainy cinematography, taut dialogue and an atmospheric score.
the film deals with our protagonist, Max, a brilliant Mathematician. Max's goal: find the key number to help sove the universal equation regarding life. Here, he is torn between aiding that of a group of Hasidic Jews and a Wall Street firm that intends on using his talent for financial gain. Along the way, MAx deals with fixing his supercomputer, coping with visions of a disembodied brain, and various stomach churning moments of cinematography.
The best aspects of Pi is that it shows a budding Darren Aronofsky laying the groundwork for his iconic techniques. The stomach churning camera rigs, bizzare imagery, a haunting score and so on. His dierection of actors is alsdo impressive, Sean Gullete makes you feel for him, his paranoia, confusion, you feel just as disoriented as Max thanks to Gullete's facial expressions and body language.
On a final note, the techno driven score by Clint Mansell is just to die for, with heavy influences from NIN, it effectively gives you chills as well as allowing you to ump your head along.
Overall, a good first outing for a fantastic director. Til next time folks.
- Til next time folks.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Film as art
Film as Art
For a film to transcend from its classification, as a film to a work of art is tenuous process that often uses time as its judge. Does the message of the film hold up, are the characters still relevant, how well written is the story, etc. For me, one film that lives up to those factors is the Gene Kelly classic Singin in the Rain. Singing in the Rain is the story of the classic Hollywood film that tells the story of the industry’s transition from silent films to talkies. The people concerned by this the most are the silent film stars, namely leading man Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly), his sidekick Cosmo Brown (Donald O’ Connor in a stellar performance) and Lockwood’s leading lady, Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen). As mentioned before, the conceit of the film is the conflict between Lina’s transition from silent to talkies, due in part to her squeaky voice. To combat this, Lina enlists Don’s budding love interest, Katy (Debbie Reynolds) to dub her in the moving picture. From there, people clash, dance, argue and sing. Oh how they sing.
Metatextuality is now common place in the entertainment today, shows like 30 Rock and Community frequently reference films and television shows within their programs, sometimes even lifting tropes from a genre and milking it for a whole episode. While Singin in the Rain doesn’t necessarily reference specific Hollywood films, the film instead pokes fun at the overacting of the silent often to great comic effect. Also, Singing in the Rain holds the distinction of being a jukebox musical, for which the film does not have any original songs; rather it uses preexisting songs during its musical sequences. Even the titular Singin in the Rain, did not originate from this film; the film that holds that distinction is The Hollywood Music Box Revue, circa 1929. However, one of my favorite songs, from the film, also holds the distinction of being in one my favorite scenes in from the film. That would be O’Connor’s Make Em laugh, which holds the distinction of being the lone original song from the film (but don’t let Cole Porter hear you say that).
The scene in question has O’Connor describing his love for comedy. OF which he dictates that his main goal in Hollywood is to “Make me laugh”. O’Connor’s physicality as a dancer is impressive and his athletics don’t slouch either. Aside from traditional dancing, O’Connor shakes, flips, stumbles, hops up and down, pantomimes a date, and my personal favorite, runs up the fake wall of a Hollywood set. Granted he lip-synched his song, but regardless, his performance hides this fact and makes you truly believe this man is singing and dancing at the same time. O’Connor was an entertainer true and true and he took it all the way to the hospital. Literally, he was hospitalized after filming because his cigarette habit killed his stamina. But to go back on point, this scene stands as my favorite because of the purity of it. An entertainer is in his element, he’s happy and he does not want to do anything else but make people happy. For me, that is true pure, jubilance right there.
All in all, Singin in the rain has been and will always will be, one of my favorite films. From the song and dance numbers, the sharp script, beautiful cinematography, it is pure cinema right there.
For a film to transcend from its classification, as a film to a work of art is tenuous process that often uses time as its judge. Does the message of the film hold up, are the characters still relevant, how well written is the story, etc. For me, one film that lives up to those factors is the Gene Kelly classic Singin in the Rain. Singing in the Rain is the story of the classic Hollywood film that tells the story of the industry’s transition from silent films to talkies. The people concerned by this the most are the silent film stars, namely leading man Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly), his sidekick Cosmo Brown (Donald O’ Connor in a stellar performance) and Lockwood’s leading lady, Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen). As mentioned before, the conceit of the film is the conflict between Lina’s transition from silent to talkies, due in part to her squeaky voice. To combat this, Lina enlists Don’s budding love interest, Katy (Debbie Reynolds) to dub her in the moving picture. From there, people clash, dance, argue and sing. Oh how they sing.
Metatextuality is now common place in the entertainment today, shows like 30 Rock and Community frequently reference films and television shows within their programs, sometimes even lifting tropes from a genre and milking it for a whole episode. While Singin in the Rain doesn’t necessarily reference specific Hollywood films, the film instead pokes fun at the overacting of the silent often to great comic effect. Also, Singing in the Rain holds the distinction of being a jukebox musical, for which the film does not have any original songs; rather it uses preexisting songs during its musical sequences. Even the titular Singin in the Rain, did not originate from this film; the film that holds that distinction is The Hollywood Music Box Revue, circa 1929. However, one of my favorite songs, from the film, also holds the distinction of being in one my favorite scenes in from the film. That would be O’Connor’s Make Em laugh, which holds the distinction of being the lone original song from the film (but don’t let Cole Porter hear you say that).
The scene in question has O’Connor describing his love for comedy. OF which he dictates that his main goal in Hollywood is to “Make me laugh”. O’Connor’s physicality as a dancer is impressive and his athletics don’t slouch either. Aside from traditional dancing, O’Connor shakes, flips, stumbles, hops up and down, pantomimes a date, and my personal favorite, runs up the fake wall of a Hollywood set. Granted he lip-synched his song, but regardless, his performance hides this fact and makes you truly believe this man is singing and dancing at the same time. O’Connor was an entertainer true and true and he took it all the way to the hospital. Literally, he was hospitalized after filming because his cigarette habit killed his stamina. But to go back on point, this scene stands as my favorite because of the purity of it. An entertainer is in his element, he’s happy and he does not want to do anything else but make people happy. For me, that is true pure, jubilance right there.
All in all, Singin in the rain has been and will always will be, one of my favorite films. From the song and dance numbers, the sharp script, beautiful cinematography, it is pure cinema right there.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Time for a little culture.
This past break I made two trips into Manhattan. Did I go exploring? Not necessarily, I did however visit two museums based off the two periods based off of the visits I made. For the 1910- 1950, I went traversed to midtown and went to the MoMA. On the following day, the upper East side was calling my name and I paid a visit to the Frick Gallery on 70th street.
While at the MoMa, I was privy to the works of two artists, I blogged -is that even a word-about, there I got to see the works of Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali, and Matisse. Lets start first with Dali.
Unfortunately, I was unable to find most of the pieces I used in the blog, so instead I went with some substitutes. Whislst at the Dali exhibit, I saw two of his works, Persistence in Memory and Illumined Pleasures. From what I saw online, I was not aware of how much detail Dali put in Persistence in Memory. The ants were surprising factor to me, the black of them on the clock popped out much more so in person than online. Also, the blue hues on the clocks and amber tones of the cliff in the background were of a richer quality. Definitely was much more appreciative of it in person than online. Also by Dali, I got to see a more recent work of his, Immortal Pleasures, published in 1929. Like his latter works, Dali utilizes a desert as his main area for his subjects. Here he showcases an abstract array of objects and figures all enacting in pleasure. Two faces are conversing on the top of an aquarium, a nymph blowing bubbles and other bizarre figures. Following Dali, I ran into Matisse, not of the latter blog but from the prior. Again, I was unable to find the work I blogged but I stumbled upon a piece that was covered in class several weeks ago. They had the Red Studio piece there and as just the word “Red” is one heck of an understatement. The color of the whole set pops out right at you as does the green leaves on the wine bottle. Other than the pallete, not much is different online as it is in person but otherwise it’s a fantastic piece. Also by Matisse was the women on a high stool. Drab greys abound in the one, but the draftsmanship in is remarkable with bold outlines on the table and the woman herself. One thing I would say that applies to all the pieces seen in the past visits are that online, you can’t get a clear view of the brushstrokes. In person, all of the pieces I’ve observed save for Dali’s have very pronounced strokes that look positively awesome. Seeing them up close is gives you a true sense of appreciation for the time and effort put in by the artist.
Finally, from MoMa, I happened upon the Picasso gallery, from there I happened upon Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. Out of all the pieces in the exhibit, this one was the most striking. First of all the piece is gigantic, certainly the largest I saw at MoMa’s save for the Jackson Pollock piece. My friend and I had to stand back in to completely see the piece in its entirety. The different tones such as the reds and pinks also stood out to me in person. Even the strokes left by Picasso stood out, especially on the nudes, every little finite little stroke of the brush was there in full detail.
The next day, I went uptown and went to the Frick to check out pieces by Reńoir and Manet. As previously stated, I was unable to find the exact pieces I used in the blog so I used what was available at the exhibit. There was privy see Reńoir’s the umbrellas. Like with Picasso’s piece one of the highlights of seeing a piece right in front of you, you can see every bit of detail used such as the brush strokes and such. The umbrellas also showcased Reńoir’s transition of human figures, with the three woman in the front are fully realized and detailed while the figures in the back or more abstract characters without any real definition to them. The hues of indigo and blue were quite a standout.
As for Manet, I capriciously found a lone Manet in the whole Gallery. The piece in question, Manet’s “The Bullfight” from 1863. The bullfight represents a few things about Manet, which I do enjoy. One of which is his use of primary colors especially dark re on the arena and the yellow on fighter’s capes. A highlight of the piece for me was the fresh look of the paint, it still looked like it was just dapped right out of the pallet and put on the easel, most notably the blacks on the bull and the toreador’s hats. However. One thing I noticed from seeing online as well as in person is the awkward stances of the toreador’s. They look very staged and not so much in the moment of the fight.
Privy to my viewing at the other exhibit were some other pieces I thoroughly enjoyed. One of these were the portrait of Sir Thomas More by Hans Holbein. The portrait has a photogenic quality to it, More appears as if he is right there in the frame just waiting for me to talk to him. The highlights of the piece are definitely More’s attire, the ruffles on his sleeve and his fur cuirass are meticulously detailed to the point that I could almost touch them. The second, more recent piece was Otterhounds by Edwin Landseer. Done in a draftsmanship style, the water colors of the piece give it a faded quality which went hand-in-hand with the the shadows on the figures of the dog. And finally, a sculpture caught my eye ( Bust of Antoine Cosevox). Like the portrait of More, it was eerily lifelike, with realistic whirls and a pronounced nose.
All in all, I had a fantastic time in the city at these galleries. I hope to see these again soon. Come the film screenings I think I may have something more precise in mind for a future trip.
While at the MoMa, I was privy to the works of two artists, I blogged -is that even a word-about, there I got to see the works of Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali, and Matisse. Lets start first with Dali.
Unfortunately, I was unable to find most of the pieces I used in the blog, so instead I went with some substitutes. Whislst at the Dali exhibit, I saw two of his works, Persistence in Memory and Illumined Pleasures. From what I saw online, I was not aware of how much detail Dali put in Persistence in Memory. The ants were surprising factor to me, the black of them on the clock popped out much more so in person than online. Also, the blue hues on the clocks and amber tones of the cliff in the background were of a richer quality. Definitely was much more appreciative of it in person than online. Also by Dali, I got to see a more recent work of his, Immortal Pleasures, published in 1929. Like his latter works, Dali utilizes a desert as his main area for his subjects. Here he showcases an abstract array of objects and figures all enacting in pleasure. Two faces are conversing on the top of an aquarium, a nymph blowing bubbles and other bizarre figures. Following Dali, I ran into Matisse, not of the latter blog but from the prior. Again, I was unable to find the work I blogged but I stumbled upon a piece that was covered in class several weeks ago. They had the Red Studio piece there and as just the word “Red” is one heck of an understatement. The color of the whole set pops out right at you as does the green leaves on the wine bottle. Other than the pallete, not much is different online as it is in person but otherwise it’s a fantastic piece. Also by Matisse was the women on a high stool. Drab greys abound in the one, but the draftsmanship in is remarkable with bold outlines on the table and the woman herself. One thing I would say that applies to all the pieces seen in the past visits are that online, you can’t get a clear view of the brushstrokes. In person, all of the pieces I’ve observed save for Dali’s have very pronounced strokes that look positively awesome. Seeing them up close is gives you a true sense of appreciation for the time and effort put in by the artist.
Finally, from MoMa, I happened upon the Picasso gallery, from there I happened upon Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. Out of all the pieces in the exhibit, this one was the most striking. First of all the piece is gigantic, certainly the largest I saw at MoMa’s save for the Jackson Pollock piece. My friend and I had to stand back in to completely see the piece in its entirety. The different tones such as the reds and pinks also stood out to me in person. Even the strokes left by Picasso stood out, especially on the nudes, every little finite little stroke of the brush was there in full detail.
The next day, I went uptown and went to the Frick to check out pieces by Reńoir and Manet. As previously stated, I was unable to find the exact pieces I used in the blog so I used what was available at the exhibit. There was privy see Reńoir’s the umbrellas. Like with Picasso’s piece one of the highlights of seeing a piece right in front of you, you can see every bit of detail used such as the brush strokes and such. The umbrellas also showcased Reńoir’s transition of human figures, with the three woman in the front are fully realized and detailed while the figures in the back or more abstract characters without any real definition to them. The hues of indigo and blue were quite a standout.
As for Manet, I capriciously found a lone Manet in the whole Gallery. The piece in question, Manet’s “The Bullfight” from 1863. The bullfight represents a few things about Manet, which I do enjoy. One of which is his use of primary colors especially dark re on the arena and the yellow on fighter’s capes. A highlight of the piece for me was the fresh look of the paint, it still looked like it was just dapped right out of the pallet and put on the easel, most notably the blacks on the bull and the toreador’s hats. However. One thing I noticed from seeing online as well as in person is the awkward stances of the toreador’s. They look very staged and not so much in the moment of the fight.
Privy to my viewing at the other exhibit were some other pieces I thoroughly enjoyed. One of these were the portrait of Sir Thomas More by Hans Holbein. The portrait has a photogenic quality to it, More appears as if he is right there in the frame just waiting for me to talk to him. The highlights of the piece are definitely More’s attire, the ruffles on his sleeve and his fur cuirass are meticulously detailed to the point that I could almost touch them. The second, more recent piece was Otterhounds by Edwin Landseer. Done in a draftsmanship style, the water colors of the piece give it a faded quality which went hand-in-hand with the the shadows on the figures of the dog. And finally, a sculpture caught my eye ( Bust of Antoine Cosevox). Like the portrait of More, it was eerily lifelike, with realistic whirls and a pronounced nose.
All in all, I had a fantastic time in the city at these galleries. I hope to see these again soon. Come the film screenings I think I may have something more precise in mind for a future trip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)