The world of cinema should always be thankful to Woody Allen. He is that shining sun under whose gaze even the ordinary particle musters the gleam to shine to its glory. Every moment that he picks, takes that special shift from transitory to transcendental that you seem intoxicated by it for days and month to come by. And all this is done with such genius that hardly seems cloying; it’s rather inspirational to have such genius. True that his films may be overt in his self-indulgences and bear a typical maverick expression which only Woody can do.
His actors are very deftly handled in terms of space, inner conflicts. I even noticed some emotional jumps during conversations but somehow they feel liberated and deliver improvised performances with pauses or beats or gestures which only real life dialogue can evoke. Also they all seem to speak the woody allen speak at times out of their own comfort blocks but that’s again not too overboard. The point is all this adds to the mood and may be even intentional, sort of.
Woody may be laying too much emphasis on dialogue, the good old debate of showing versus telling. He may be a bit too liberal with flamboyance or cerebrally motivated lines which seem out of place with the characters at times but the overall impression is far too aesthetically sweeping to ignore.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
World History of Films
Upon receipt of a very special book on “World History of Film”, my first reaction was – why didn’t I think of it? After endlessly unsettling days of frantic search over news papers, blogs, journals and words of mouth, I finally met the very sizeable - although a little more western than my taste – anthology of films and film norms over the past one century.
It was rather uncanny to have received such a book at such needy times when my gaze constantly moved from one idea to another, often capping my vision. It’s hard not to feel guilty watching a film a bit too late. All the things that matter most in your life should be done as early as possible.
Hence, the book is a rather miraculous serendipity.
Cinephiles come in all sizes, but a serious film-lover can’t always remain a passive lover. S/he needs to graduate to higher sense of purpose that only emanates from pure love. You might end up making a mediocre film, but believe me; a mediocre credit is far better than non-credit.
A particular downside of watching too many films by different filmmakers is what I call ‘fungible filmic ideas’ – you tend to see the world through all those filmmakers, ignoring the most essential tenet of finding your own voice - the second most difficult quest besides the proverbial quest of the meaning of life.
Good cinema develops a positive sense of intuition. During La Samurai, I could predict the fate of ritualistic suicide. I knew it was going to end in a celebratory death of the protagonist, even though it didn’t become obvious until very late in the film. Was it because I had seen too many films of this genre? No, it is one of the most unique films I had seen – a lone killer out to have it on nobody but himself. In fact, it’s one of the most difficult films to classify into a particular genre.
Sometimes surprises look fabricated, almost fake. You can sense that it couldn’t be automatically concluded without doubt. La Samurai was almost abstractly quite and in the words of a famous critic – ‘unbearably perfect’.
Some other times you leave it to the film to fill that void between the surprise and non-surprise. A good film always lives up to the expectation. During The Purple Rose of Cairo, I got surprised but still felt acutely aware of the reality. The film mingled the real and unreal, ever so smoothly that they become inseparable almost indiscernible (I may be over-emphasizing).
You want to wind up with a lasting sense of pleasure after devoting hours, energy, life and emotion into a film. And often a film that doesn’t seem to work on the surface enters into a sublime depth leaving your hollowness illuminated with beauty; such a film leaves you breathless yet doesn’t intoxicate you. One such film is The 400 blows.
It was rather uncanny to have received such a book at such needy times when my gaze constantly moved from one idea to another, often capping my vision. It’s hard not to feel guilty watching a film a bit too late. All the things that matter most in your life should be done as early as possible.
Hence, the book is a rather miraculous serendipity.
Cinephiles come in all sizes, but a serious film-lover can’t always remain a passive lover. S/he needs to graduate to higher sense of purpose that only emanates from pure love. You might end up making a mediocre film, but believe me; a mediocre credit is far better than non-credit.
A particular downside of watching too many films by different filmmakers is what I call ‘fungible filmic ideas’ – you tend to see the world through all those filmmakers, ignoring the most essential tenet of finding your own voice - the second most difficult quest besides the proverbial quest of the meaning of life.
Good cinema develops a positive sense of intuition. During La Samurai, I could predict the fate of ritualistic suicide. I knew it was going to end in a celebratory death of the protagonist, even though it didn’t become obvious until very late in the film. Was it because I had seen too many films of this genre? No, it is one of the most unique films I had seen – a lone killer out to have it on nobody but himself. In fact, it’s one of the most difficult films to classify into a particular genre.
Sometimes surprises look fabricated, almost fake. You can sense that it couldn’t be automatically concluded without doubt. La Samurai was almost abstractly quite and in the words of a famous critic – ‘unbearably perfect’.
Some other times you leave it to the film to fill that void between the surprise and non-surprise. A good film always lives up to the expectation. During The Purple Rose of Cairo, I got surprised but still felt acutely aware of the reality. The film mingled the real and unreal, ever so smoothly that they become inseparable almost indiscernible (I may be over-emphasizing).
You want to wind up with a lasting sense of pleasure after devoting hours, energy, life and emotion into a film. And often a film that doesn’t seem to work on the surface enters into a sublime depth leaving your hollowness illuminated with beauty; such a film leaves you breathless yet doesn’t intoxicate you. One such film is The 400 blows.
Monday, February 7, 2011
कुछ काली बुदबुदाहटें
वो अपना मीठा सा मुँह लेकर
सामने चली आई
उसके माथे की चमक से जब नजर हटी
चाँद बेदाग़ मालूम हुआ
उसके घुलते नैन,
सोने की चाह में
जागते रहते
उखड़े फूल की खुशबु की तरह
उसकी नाराजगियां
जेहन को पैवस्त करती
उस कड़वे सुख की लकीरें
धुंए के बालों की तरह
खिचती जाती
और रुख की मिट्टी
गीले आसुओं को
पीने तैयार हैं
सामने चली आई
उसके माथे की चमक से जब नजर हटी
चाँद बेदाग़ मालूम हुआ
उसके घुलते नैन,
सोने की चाह में
जागते रहते
उखड़े फूल की खुशबु की तरह
उसकी नाराजगियां
जेहन को पैवस्त करती
उस कड़वे सुख की लकीरें
धुंए के बालों की तरह
खिचती जाती
और रुख की मिट्टी
गीले आसुओं को
पीने तैयार हैं
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The modern film arrivistes
We are coping with a "niagara of visual gabble". It's very hard to zone oneself out of the visual over-information we are living with. We are swamped by the stampede of emotions relayed to us via TV, Internet and Bollywood. Come friday, and we have an quick flick ready to be visually embraced by thousands of movie-goers across the nation. Public consciousness has been subject to some serious visual, aural memorizing. No matter how moving the creative work, it fails to leave enough impression into our consciousness. It has become absolutely imperative for an art product to literally sweep the audience into its realm, otherwise it will fail to leave a mark.
Is this matter of fact which artists, especially filmmakers have to learn to get used to? Is it a capitalistic consumeristic reality of our postmodern era? The world has shrunk and people are presented with varied choices of entertainment. Such abundance impedes our ability to appreciate art, especially film art. I confine more to the film art because it is far more accessible to masses than any other form of art in contemporary societies, developing or developed alike. Television has also become a carrier of movie notions into our mindsets. People rely more on television since movies don't last in theaters much. Uncanny wisdoms have silently seeped into the labyrinth of modern tastes. People watch movies perfunctorily and pass snap judgements using such wisdoms. Every common movie goer can boast of being a movie critic.
Lets shift the attention to filmmaking briefly. Before going there we need to acknowledge the technological advancements into photography in recent times. Camera and photography has become a pervasive hobby. A visit to any of the social networking sites can testify that. People are aggressively pursuing their photographic passions so much that lines have completely blurred between a professional and non-professional photographers. Post processing techniques have made it possible for one to take their hobby to a level of perceived professionalism. Enter, modern cameras with video capabilities. Professional filmmakers admit the power of an iPhone to make reasonably good quality videos. Such capabilities abound, leads to gadget obsessive cultures. One can capture quick footage, edit it superficially, lay their favorite song in the soundtrack and post the film on youtube and voila you're a filmmaker already!
What challenges does it leave to a film practitioner? Although film technique is too vast to be be fully pursued as a hobby, it still leaves the market open for a range of competition between not so evenly matched skills and changes the rule of the game.
Is this matter of fact which artists, especially filmmakers have to learn to get used to? Is it a capitalistic consumeristic reality of our postmodern era? The world has shrunk and people are presented with varied choices of entertainment. Such abundance impedes our ability to appreciate art, especially film art. I confine more to the film art because it is far more accessible to masses than any other form of art in contemporary societies, developing or developed alike. Television has also become a carrier of movie notions into our mindsets. People rely more on television since movies don't last in theaters much. Uncanny wisdoms have silently seeped into the labyrinth of modern tastes. People watch movies perfunctorily and pass snap judgements using such wisdoms. Every common movie goer can boast of being a movie critic.
Lets shift the attention to filmmaking briefly. Before going there we need to acknowledge the technological advancements into photography in recent times. Camera and photography has become a pervasive hobby. A visit to any of the social networking sites can testify that. People are aggressively pursuing their photographic passions so much that lines have completely blurred between a professional and non-professional photographers. Post processing techniques have made it possible for one to take their hobby to a level of perceived professionalism. Enter, modern cameras with video capabilities. Professional filmmakers admit the power of an iPhone to make reasonably good quality videos. Such capabilities abound, leads to gadget obsessive cultures. One can capture quick footage, edit it superficially, lay their favorite song in the soundtrack and post the film on youtube and voila you're a filmmaker already!
What challenges does it leave to a film practitioner? Although film technique is too vast to be be fully pursued as a hobby, it still leaves the market open for a range of competition between not so evenly matched skills and changes the rule of the game.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Notes from a filmmaker's diary
Memories of a film move you, so much that you vibrate with her emotion, within her world. You want to be one with that world. It resonates within you and outside you, thus evoking a sense of longing for that world. How many times have I heard the music of Truffaut’s “Stolen Kisses” and have just pined to see it?
A film also needs some time to grow on you. Depending on the subject and treatment of the filmmaker it may take a finite time to draw you into it. Very, very few films have achieved this from the first scene and first line. One good example is “Pulp Fiction”. There is something (I still don’t know what) in the mood of the film that makes you love her from the first shot. This technique of instant intoxication is present in many Hollywood films, which casts its spell from the opening frame. Very often it is used - although not always inspired by the narrative - to grab the audience’s attention from the first scene. This is also one of the popular techniques of screenwriting practiced in Hollywood.
Film is the science of repetition, of doing that exercise over and over again until you feel satiated and de-satiated. I wrote, re-wrote, read, wrote and re-wrote that script but still that elusive something is missing.
Memory and grief have a strange connection. You are thrown back to past memories in your most weak and fragile times. Somehow that memory saves you from further dilapidation.
Characterize the space and let the actors enter into that space. Many good filmmakers like Bresson will use space to convey an emotion which no actor or music can. It contributes very significantly to the “world of the film”, through some psychological genesis.
A good film has a tendency of finding its audience.
Are true creators really lonely people or they just revel in their own glory? A true artist has no right to shun himself from the rest of the society. He owes them too much to remain divorced.
A film also needs some time to grow on you. Depending on the subject and treatment of the filmmaker it may take a finite time to draw you into it. Very, very few films have achieved this from the first scene and first line. One good example is “Pulp Fiction”. There is something (I still don’t know what) in the mood of the film that makes you love her from the first shot. This technique of instant intoxication is present in many Hollywood films, which casts its spell from the opening frame. Very often it is used - although not always inspired by the narrative - to grab the audience’s attention from the first scene. This is also one of the popular techniques of screenwriting practiced in Hollywood.
Film is the science of repetition, of doing that exercise over and over again until you feel satiated and de-satiated. I wrote, re-wrote, read, wrote and re-wrote that script but still that elusive something is missing.
Memory and grief have a strange connection. You are thrown back to past memories in your most weak and fragile times. Somehow that memory saves you from further dilapidation.
Characterize the space and let the actors enter into that space. Many good filmmakers like Bresson will use space to convey an emotion which no actor or music can. It contributes very significantly to the “world of the film”, through some psychological genesis.
A good film has a tendency of finding its audience.
Are true creators really lonely people or they just revel in their own glory? A true artist has no right to shun himself from the rest of the society. He owes them too much to remain divorced.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Death of a salesman
Tragedy is a voilent force. It is profound. It doesn't put you through emotionally orgasmic fits like thriller or comedy does. It is far more subliminal and potent. Dramatic tragedy is almost celebratory. You cannot subdue your temptation to erupt in applaud and awe.
Truly tragic stories are highly psycho-analylitical, where people end up being what they never wanted to be, but couldn't help it. Tragedy may not have the verbal or situational acrobatics as other forms of theatre. They grow slowly, draw you in and if played out well you never get bored out of them. Even the best comedies suffer from the slack even if faintest. But tragedies have an upward narrative trajectory.
Death of a salesman, by Arthur Miller, is a classic tragedy. Truly modern in fervor yet so classical and universal. The sense of brutal conflict and sheer hopelessness of life can bring an entire family to a breaking point. There is no way out, not even death, for a truly tragic human. The hopes parents pin on their children, the unfounded hatred which children develop for their parents and the utter stalemate out of it. People don't change. They are too powerless to change anything, anything around them. People should never venture out changing the world. You are too humble for that. Human heart is too noble to be tricked into some emotional jitterbug. It may be only faintly influenced but nothing more.
To be Contd.....
Truly tragic stories are highly psycho-analylitical, where people end up being what they never wanted to be, but couldn't help it. Tragedy may not have the verbal or situational acrobatics as other forms of theatre. They grow slowly, draw you in and if played out well you never get bored out of them. Even the best comedies suffer from the slack even if faintest. But tragedies have an upward narrative trajectory.
Death of a salesman, by Arthur Miller, is a classic tragedy. Truly modern in fervor yet so classical and universal. The sense of brutal conflict and sheer hopelessness of life can bring an entire family to a breaking point. There is no way out, not even death, for a truly tragic human. The hopes parents pin on their children, the unfounded hatred which children develop for their parents and the utter stalemate out of it. People don't change. They are too powerless to change anything, anything around them. People should never venture out changing the world. You are too humble for that. Human heart is too noble to be tricked into some emotional jitterbug. It may be only faintly influenced but nothing more.
To be Contd.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
