++Spoilers++
Almost a months ago now I went to the Dendy Cinema at the Opera House, to see the newly released Before Sunset.
I’d been meaning to see Before Sunrise for a long time. It had been recommended to me, and I was quite interested as it seemed like quite an interesting film. My sister suggested that I see Before Sunset first - because why should I have a clearer recollection of their first meeting than either of the characters.
The premise – in the first film two twenty something American’s meet as they trek through Europe. And as they part in the first film they promise to meet each other again in 6 months. They don’t exchange contact numbers, and didn't meet as they arranged.
In Before Sunset nine years had passed since their first meeting, and Jesse had written a book, (fictional work, based around that meeting in Venice], Celine walks into the book store where he is doing an interview.
The dialogue between these two characters drives the film. Incidentally Delphy and Hawke are credited in writing the script. And this plays a significant part in the success of the film. The dialogue is beautifully written. It expresses an uncomfortable distance at first, then as the nervousness of the meeting, and the failure to meet as arranged is explained and resolved the dialogue draws the two characters closer together again.
The cinematogrpahy adds a great deal to this film. The film begins with a sequence of shots of Paris, places that through the remainder of the film we will see Jesse and Celine travel.
The ending is sudden. I’m left wondering did I really want this to happen. Did I really want them to end up as they did? At the same time, is it the death of their relationship, a fate they sought to avoid by not exchanging details after their first parting. Their relationship was initially built from a connection that happened on a train and a night in Venice, it was this passionate encounter that ruined every other relationship for each of them. Did they give too much of themselves on that night, so they could no longer give enough to make any other relationship work. Jesse’ marriage is like babysitting, and no longer ‘romantic’. Celine is currently in a relationship were her partner is away a lot of the time, and his attention is suffocating not comforting.
Yet as we are reacquainted with these characters we learn each of the characters has been longing for the reunion. Jesse, went to Venice, and in part wrote the book for this reason – that they would meet each other. Celine wrote a song inspired by their meeting. The both are lead to second-guess why they did not exchange numbers which was seemingly to maintain the chemistry of their relationship.
The film poses many questions. It deals with the themes of love, romanticism, idealism, consequences of choices, maturing. The film asks can we capture and keep the feeling of living for the moment, the feeling that Jesse and Celine had as they meet in Venice for the first time, and rekindled during their time in Paris. Would seeking to continue their relationship ruin it? Is joy really in the journey and not in the destination?
As the film ends, the curtain is not brought down on our leads relationship, the curtain is not brought down on their fragility, and the curtain is not brought down on their doubts. They are together. Will it last. Maybe. We don’t know. And perhaps this is the best way to end the film.
In a sentence, Before Sunset is a film that has leapt off the screen and onto my favourite films of the past few years, and one that I'm very keen to see again.
Some reflections on the Path to Life. "You have made known to me the path of life; you fill me with joy in your presence" (Psalm 16:11)
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
A Weekend on Film
Over the past weekend I’ve been and seen two films, the Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg film The Terminal, and M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village. Both of these films are to a certain extent a parable (or parody) of the 21st Century America.
Spielberg in The Terminal shows us, the America he loves, highlighting an America built on the back of Immigrants. And an America that needs to trust in the generosity and resourcefulness of those who move into the country. The lesson for us is that rather than fearing those who are different, America, and us too, should be more open to those who seek to come to our shores.
The film is inspired by the true story of Merhan Karimi Nasseri. Who was expelled from Iran, and has been living in Charles de Gualle Airport, as he has no documentation to enter France, and can not be sent back to Iran. In the terminal Viktor Navorski, arrives at JFK, and while he was in transit a coup erupted in his home country, invalidating his travel documents. America is now closed to him, and he can not be sent home. So he is told to live in the transit lounge.
Hanks plays the role quite well. In the beginning most of the action is silent. Hanks runs from monitor to monitor trying to see the news of his home town. The optimism of his character is appealing. He makes the best of the situation, making himself a bed in a disused gate due to renovation, he eats the free crackers with mustard and sauce. While he is there he gradually teaches himself english, and builds a reputation among the workers in the airport. Hanks is asked to intrepret between the customs authorities and an inbound passenger who is seeking to bring medicine in to save his father. Hanks translates the medicine is for a goat, allowing the medicine to be imported into the country without documentation. A reputation gained through standing up for the intent rather than the letter of the law.
The interplay between Amelia and Viktor is quite humerous in places, leading to some of the more tender moments in the film. A couple that stand out is the dinner that they share, and the entertainment that Viktor’s friends. Viktor’s role leading to the marriage of two of the films characters is aslo quite humerous.
However, all that said, I felt the film was not quite there. It was a great idea, but dissappointingly executed. The motiviations of some of the lead characters were confusing at best, and it is hard to gauge Spielberg’s intent. Was Spielberg seeking to illuminate the ‘New’ America, if so, he has done it quite subtlely, and perhaps the ‘love story’ and comic elements have concealed his subtely. Through the film I am now interested in seeing Lost in Transit, a French adaption of the story of Merhan Karimi Nasseri.
Another film, with a different take on the 21st Century America is The Village. The Village does offer much for those with a bent towards psychology, both in terms of the plot, and in some sections the manner in which it is constructed. I found this to be a slightly frustrating film, as there was so much promise in the film, yet it was slightly disappointing in a few minor areas. Yet the film continues to grow on me. The performances by Bryce Dallas Howard [Ivy], and Joaquin Phoenix [Lucius] are stunning and their roles carry the film well. The relationships of the lead characters are also wonderfully done.
The film is set in a village in Pennsylvania in the late 19th Century. There are creatures in the woods. There is an unspoken agreement they will not be harmed by those in the woods, and they will not cross in the woods. There are two colours, ‘the bad colour’ that ‘attracts them’ the colour red bringing to mind violence and blood, and the town is guarded each night by men who wear yellow cloaks, the ‘safe’ colour. The perimeter of the town is also lined with yellow cloth, and yellow paint to protect them.
Lucius after the death of a friend desires to cross through into the forbidden woods to find medicine. The elder council decline to give permission. Luicius out of his curiosity crosses into the woods. The creatures over the next night enter the village, leaving more warnings. To reveal more of the synopsis, now that would be spoiling.
I have found the film effective, because I have been thinking about it. The film is a less optimistic take on the new America. Looking back I would also say that the cinematography, and the dialogue of the film is quite sharp in a number of places, the music and camera work beautifully creates the mood of the film from the opening to closing credits.
It’s hard to talk about this film without giving too much away. The film raises some profound questions. I am left in no doubt that Shyamalan has created a parable for modern times, I am beginning to feel if we seek to read too much, or too little from this film, its lessons will be lost on us.
If you have seen it – let me know what you thought; probably via email as it is quite a struggle to nail why the film was so insightful, and influential without revealing too much of the film.
Spielberg in The Terminal shows us, the America he loves, highlighting an America built on the back of Immigrants. And an America that needs to trust in the generosity and resourcefulness of those who move into the country. The lesson for us is that rather than fearing those who are different, America, and us too, should be more open to those who seek to come to our shores.
The film is inspired by the true story of Merhan Karimi Nasseri. Who was expelled from Iran, and has been living in Charles de Gualle Airport, as he has no documentation to enter France, and can not be sent back to Iran. In the terminal Viktor Navorski, arrives at JFK, and while he was in transit a coup erupted in his home country, invalidating his travel documents. America is now closed to him, and he can not be sent home. So he is told to live in the transit lounge.
Hanks plays the role quite well. In the beginning most of the action is silent. Hanks runs from monitor to monitor trying to see the news of his home town. The optimism of his character is appealing. He makes the best of the situation, making himself a bed in a disused gate due to renovation, he eats the free crackers with mustard and sauce. While he is there he gradually teaches himself english, and builds a reputation among the workers in the airport. Hanks is asked to intrepret between the customs authorities and an inbound passenger who is seeking to bring medicine in to save his father. Hanks translates the medicine is for a goat, allowing the medicine to be imported into the country without documentation. A reputation gained through standing up for the intent rather than the letter of the law.
The interplay between Amelia and Viktor is quite humerous in places, leading to some of the more tender moments in the film. A couple that stand out is the dinner that they share, and the entertainment that Viktor’s friends. Viktor’s role leading to the marriage of two of the films characters is aslo quite humerous.
However, all that said, I felt the film was not quite there. It was a great idea, but dissappointingly executed. The motiviations of some of the lead characters were confusing at best, and it is hard to gauge Spielberg’s intent. Was Spielberg seeking to illuminate the ‘New’ America, if so, he has done it quite subtlely, and perhaps the ‘love story’ and comic elements have concealed his subtely. Through the film I am now interested in seeing Lost in Transit, a French adaption of the story of Merhan Karimi Nasseri.
Another film, with a different take on the 21st Century America is The Village. The Village does offer much for those with a bent towards psychology, both in terms of the plot, and in some sections the manner in which it is constructed. I found this to be a slightly frustrating film, as there was so much promise in the film, yet it was slightly disappointing in a few minor areas. Yet the film continues to grow on me. The performances by Bryce Dallas Howard [Ivy], and Joaquin Phoenix [Lucius] are stunning and their roles carry the film well. The relationships of the lead characters are also wonderfully done.
The film is set in a village in Pennsylvania in the late 19th Century. There are creatures in the woods. There is an unspoken agreement they will not be harmed by those in the woods, and they will not cross in the woods. There are two colours, ‘the bad colour’ that ‘attracts them’ the colour red bringing to mind violence and blood, and the town is guarded each night by men who wear yellow cloaks, the ‘safe’ colour. The perimeter of the town is also lined with yellow cloth, and yellow paint to protect them.
Lucius after the death of a friend desires to cross through into the forbidden woods to find medicine. The elder council decline to give permission. Luicius out of his curiosity crosses into the woods. The creatures over the next night enter the village, leaving more warnings. To reveal more of the synopsis, now that would be spoiling.
I have found the film effective, because I have been thinking about it. The film is a less optimistic take on the new America. Looking back I would also say that the cinematography, and the dialogue of the film is quite sharp in a number of places, the music and camera work beautifully creates the mood of the film from the opening to closing credits.
It’s hard to talk about this film without giving too much away. The film raises some profound questions. I am left in no doubt that Shyamalan has created a parable for modern times, I am beginning to feel if we seek to read too much, or too little from this film, its lessons will be lost on us.
If you have seen it – let me know what you thought; probably via email as it is quite a struggle to nail why the film was so insightful, and influential without revealing too much of the film.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Ice-breaker...
Was reading a journal of mine from 1997, quite an interesting experience, and as I did this I came accross comments relating to dinner parties, and the question I am going to pose is this - You're arranging a dinner party, you can have any five guests to come (living or dead, real or fictional). Who would these five be and why?
For my list:
Paul.
I've always like his letters. Finding in him a great love for his brothers and sisters in Christ.
Bono
Because he is a fascinating man. Listening to some of his comments from various stages around the world, and reading the lyrics he writes with his band mates, it seems to me he is more intelligent than he lets on.
Robin Williams
if only to lighten the mood..
Chris Carter
While Chris was in my original list, I think now I'd be more likely to pick Aaron Sorokin, creator of The West Wing.
Rebecca St. James / Nichole Nordeman
I am a fan of their music. I think in the case of both these people their music is secondary to their witness for Christ. I admire the ministry of Rebecca. Partly because of spending time 'moderating' the chatroom, and Forum board I've seen it first hand.
+ As always, this list is subject to change. The first two are fairly automatic picks. Others that I'd like to include would be CS Lewis, Keith Green and the first time I did this list, I had Adolf Hitler in there as well.
Over to you dear readers.
For my list:
Paul.
I've always like his letters. Finding in him a great love for his brothers and sisters in Christ.
Bono
Because he is a fascinating man. Listening to some of his comments from various stages around the world, and reading the lyrics he writes with his band mates, it seems to me he is more intelligent than he lets on.
Robin Williams
if only to lighten the mood..
Chris Carter
While Chris was in my original list, I think now I'd be more likely to pick Aaron Sorokin, creator of The West Wing.
Rebecca St. James / Nichole Nordeman
I am a fan of their music. I think in the case of both these people their music is secondary to their witness for Christ. I admire the ministry of Rebecca. Partly because of spending time 'moderating' the chatroom, and Forum board I've seen it first hand.
+ As always, this list is subject to change. The first two are fairly automatic picks. Others that I'd like to include would be CS Lewis, Keith Green and the first time I did this list, I had Adolf Hitler in there as well.
Over to you dear readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)