
Blog
The blog is a space for essays, analyses, quick thoughts, and occasional rants on film.
FILMS THAT SHAPED ME #5 — RAN (1985)
Akira Kurosawa, at the moment, is my all-time favorite director. I remember the day that I first heard his name somewhere on the internet. He was supposedly a great director. I remember looking at the spelling of his name and knowing I would never pronounce it correctly, but now his name, and more importantly his films, have become more meaningful to me than I ever could have imagined. I was curious about his work, so I looked up some of his movies. I only recognized Seven Samurai, Kurosawa’s ultimate masterpiece. But one image struck me in particular, which was in Ran when Lady Kaide gets decapitated, and her blood splatters all over the wall in a brilliant red hue. I was astonished at that clip. There was something about it that drew me in. So, that very day, I purchased one of my first “blind buys” (something I do excessively nowadays) and bought Ran and Seven Samurai on a whim. As soon as it showed up on my doorstep, I tore off the packaging and turned on Ran. By the end of the film, I was in love. After Seven Samurai, I knew I had discovered something special. That led to Rashomon, which led to Ikiru, which led to Harakiri, and then The 400 Blows, and so on… That special thing I had discovered? The world of foreign cinema. I never would have come across gems like Aguirre or Persona if it weren’t for Ran. That’s why I credit it as the movie that introduced me to another layer of cinema I never even acknowledged.
FILMS THAT SHAPED ME #4 — INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009)
Inglourious Basterds, much in the same way of Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, not only introduced me to the great Quentin Tarantino, but showed me how dialogue is supposed to be written. QT is famous for his quotable lines and nonlinear screenplays, something that has affected my own writing in a prominent way. Although I’ve recently drifted from my former obsession with his body of work, I still endlessly appreciate the music that comes along with each conversation. Inglourious Basterds is arguably QT’s magnum opus. Yes, better than Pulp Fiction. Each scene builds tension like no other film, and the dialogue is read like poetry. It’s unbelievably entertaining and, at the same time, can also be analyzed. Inglourious Basterds made me fall in love with other films like Django Unchained and Kill Bill because of its style. The same way we can listen to two hit-men talk about cheeseburgers in Pulp Fiction, we can listen to the opening scene of Basterds, which appears useless until we pan down and see the Jews under the floorboards. Basterds has all the necessary QT-isms, and also can be an extremely fun time for those unfamiliar with the director. I know it was a spectacular adventure for me.
FILMS THAT SHAPED ME #3 — 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)
2001: A Space Odyssey taught me more about cinema than probably any other film. To this day, it’s my favorite movie ever, and when I first saw it (aged 12 or 13), I knew it was the greatest, even though not my favorite at the time. I was absolutely blown away by the special effects — I had to call my parents in and show them the Blue Danube scene because I was so impressed. Star Wars is a space movie famous for its effects, but 2001 doesn’t even seem like effects. It’s as if they really built the Discovery ship and flew it to Jupiter. It’s as if they truly found a towering monolith under the surface of the moon. It’s as if they really filmed what it’s like to go “Beyond the Infinite.” But enough about technicals; any film can have great CGI and still be subpar. Look at James Cameron’s Avatar, which was hailed for its visual magic, but can you quote even one single line from the movie? What makes 2001 great is the fact that it is about mankind in general. The whole film tracks the dawn of man, in which we were mere apes, until we discover weapons and power and (in the greatest match-cut ever), we flash forward thousands of years to see the fruition of our knowledge. We explore the unknown using our inventions until the technology itself (queue HAL) turns against us. 2001 is a sprawling odyssey that captures man’s achievements and downfall, and is easily the greatest piece of art created by any human being. There is a cold distance like in all Kubrick pictures, a sense that we are completely alone, and there is only silence and darkness where we search for God. Religion is utterly ignored throughout the runtime, and by the end, we have experienced a hypnotic journey that crosses the boundaries of all laws of the universe. 2001 is not just a film. It’s a triumph. It’s art. It is an odyssey.
FILMS THAT SHAPED ME #2 — THE SHINING (1980)
The Shining was a film I watched when I was 10 years old, and at first viewing I was kind of indifferent. I loved the masterful shots, the suspense, the setting, and the characters, yet it was such a different type of horror film. I think the reason I was slightly let down was because it was such a supposedly terrifying movie, and I was hardly scared once. But that’s because before The Shining, all that horror movies meant to me were in the jump scares and gory mutilation. I never realized the art of it until The Shining, and with each viewing, I appreciate it more and more, and find I’m more scared by it all. When I was 10, I thought it was good. When I was 11 or 12, I re-watched it and thought, “Hey, this is better than I remember.” By 13, I loved it. I remember spending a weekend at my uncle’s lake house where I watched it 4 times in 2 days. I was completely obsessed. The same goes for films like The Dark Knight and The Departed, only those two films are nowhere near as good as The Shining and are missing the kind of delicate art most Kubrick films contain. The way Taxi Driver introduced me to analyzing film, I have to credit The Shining to introducing me to loving cinema in general, and that is a debt I can never repay.
FILMS THAT SHAPED ME #1 — TAXI DRIVER (1976)
There have been numerous films over the years that have made me who I am. With each movie I watch, I like to think that I am taking another step toward my goal. There have been a few select films that have turned me into a cinephile, one of which being Martin Scorsese’s masterpiece Taxi Driver. I had heard about it several times, I was familiar with the “You talkin’ to me?” quote, and I was eager to watch it. Luckily it was on Netflix, so one day I started it with my mom. After the first 20 minutes, she said it was too slow. It was a slow-paced movie, but definitely not boring. So I continued without her, and after making more progress I realized its greatness. The shot that grabbed me was when Travis was speaking on the phone, being broken up with, and the camera tracks away from the main scene to watch a vacant hallway. Right away I identified with the shot. It was saying “Don’t look at this. It’s pointless. It’s painfully inevitable. An empty hallway is better than this,” and I knew exactly what it was saying because at that moment I realized that the position of a camera can tell a story in and of itself. By the time the movie was over my jaw was on the floor and I knew it was one of my new all-time favorites. Taxi Driver introduced me to rule-breaking and analyzing; to the deeper side of film that hides in the shadows. The character study of Travis Bickle is not only lonely and captivating, but makes for one of the greatest films ever.
SENSORY REALISM IN AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD
I recently rewatched Werner Herzog's masterpiece Aguirre, The Wrath of God. I loved it even more the second time around. In fact, I consider it to be the best film of 1972 (step aside, Godfather). But one thing stuck out to me in particular. Of course, it's the first thing everyone notices — the sounds and visuals. Those are the most basic aspects of a film, but in Aguirre, they are done with such expertise that I felt it necessary to write about.
The opening shot alone is horrifyingly beautiful enough to show the audience the tone and grandeur of what’s to come. A misty mountainside, covered in grass and trees and rock; a line of soldiers make their way down like a trickling stream of water. Humans are tiny and almost unobservable, but as we pan down sluggishly, they grow larger and larger in the foreground, climbing upward rather than scaling down. Maybe this is a metaphor? Humans are no match for the forces of nature, but as we plummet deeper into the soul or into the secular world, humans are seen as large and powerful because they rule over the ground upon which they walk. Notice how half the screen is the mountain while the other half is left completely white with fog.
Another shot that grabbed me was when the group of soldiers were making their way across the river, huge green mountains in the background, cloudy sky above, and murky brown water below. From far away, we can barely make out what’s floating atop the wooden raft. Toward the shore, whitecaps splash over the muddy waves. But what makes this shot truly powerful is the audio that goes along with it. Not only are our eyes being stimulated, but our ears, too. Both senses transport us to the time and place of the film, making it eerily realistic.
The soundtrack is a slow, bellowing chant, a singular note that gradually becomes more and more intense. It reminds me of something religious, the kind of godly hum that accompanies the glorious rays of heaven. Something otherworldly, something divine, something stronger than any human force. The light blowing of the Indian’s flute is comically diminutive in comparison. Maybe the haunting song is the beckoning call of greed and fortune, maybe it's the all-powerful disapproval of the gods above, or maybe it's the soul of humankind itself.
Aguirre is filled with incredibly significant themes, and the hypnotic odyssey which inspired Apocalypse Now is made complete with its startling cinematography and sinister audio. This masterpiece will live on as one of the great films about the flaws of man.
THOUGHTS ON REMAKES/REBOOTS/SEQUELS
Today I found out from a friend that a remake of Kurosawa's 1954 classic Seven Samurai could be happening. At first I thought he was referencing 2016's upcoming "The Magnificent Seven" which is a remake of the original Magnificent Seven, which is a Westernized version of Seven Samurai. So really, there already is an indirect remake of the film coming out this year, but, that's just not enough, is it? There just has to be a direct remake of the original masterpiece. And I don't think I'm jumping to conclusions when I say it won't live up to the original. Unless in some way, it turns out to be one of the greatest films of all time, wins a huge amount of awards (à la The Departed, a masterful remake), and overcomes all critical odds, it will most likely turn out to be a cheaply manufactured, cashgrab summer blockbuster without any "art" to it. And that's truly a shame, because it's the sad truth that in today's world, modern audiences don't want art. They want to sit back, relax with some popcorn and 3D glasses and enjoy the latest action flick. It's viewers like you and I that care about the deeper side of film. Going to the theatre used to be a huge night out, a special time of festivity and appreciation. Nowadays the floors are sticky with butter and some people may even be chatting on their cellphones while the movie is playing. Maybe the problem isn't that the movie industry has gone downhill, maybe it's that the movie-watching industry has plummeted. Seven Samurai? I'd bet nine out of ten people haven't heard of that. And it's certainly not because they're stupid or uncultured, it's because great films have been pushed to the back burner of society. People don't want to watch black and white, 3-hour, subtitiled films anymore. Movies are simply entertainment. So you can't blame people not for knowing about classic films; not enough people know about them, and not enough people would care to watch them. If Hollywood stopped making so many rehashes of other movies, maybe people would open their eyes to the experimental value and art of cinema. The film industry has already run out of ideas; at least half of all big productions are remakes, reboots, sequels, spinoffs, prequels, or some kind of re-do. I hope that after some time, audiences will grow tired. And when they do, they'll finally be able to see the side of film they never knew was there.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN WHIPLASH
After finishing Whiplash, the viewer has just enjoyed the final scene: a dazzling, heart-pumping, sweat-inducing display of adrenaline and skill. The audience may be thinking that Andrew finally proved himself and became “one of the greats,” at last accomplishing the goal he wanted his whole life. While walking away from the theater, a smile of efficacious delight may spread across the viewer’s face, a sign of happiness and completion. However, I believe that the ending to this 2014 film has a much darker meaning.
It’s the night of the jazz competition; Fletcher has convinced Neyman to play one last time for his band. For the entirety of the movie leading up to this scene, Fletcher has been a screaming, insulting, raging tormentor who has pushed Andrew to the limit — blood, sweat, and tears. He has made sure every waking moment for his student is a living hell, a swirl of anger and insanity. Now that he has finally been booted from Shaffer and is forced to teach a less-talented band, he recruits Andrew and we get a glimpse of how he treats his new students. For the first time ever in the entire movie, Terrence Fletcher seems to be an inspirational, motivational role model who says “Have some fun” instead of “Not quite my tempo.” He acts like a dog on a leash, restrained to a point of generosity that seems highly unusual for his character. We think: maybe this could be the new Fletcher, the one who has learned the error of his ways and will never overload his students. As Andrew walks on stage and the lights fade on, the musicians take their places and the show begins.
Right off the bat, Fletcher reveals his true colors. He sabotages Andrew’s performance, playing a piece he doesn’t have the music to, resulting in a mediocre presentation. He trudges off stage in embarrassment and failure, embracing his father and facing the fact that he didn’t earn his part. He could have walked out the door right then and there, turning his back on his musical career. But no. He goes back on stage, driven by his longing to please Fletcher. He sits down, and as soon as Terrence starts to speak, Andrew immediately takes the power from the instructor and begins a solo. This is what could throw the audience off, as it implies that Andrew, in an act of rebellion, is showing his skill and securing his place as a great musician. However, this impromptu decision is not actually defiance, but rather a stunt that aims for the approval of Fletcher.
Ever since Neyman started training with his intense teacher, his whole life has been flipped upside down. Drumming took over his life — he had no time for a girlfriend, a family, friends, any type of social life or any other engagements in general. He had tunnel vision, and his only focus was for the praise of Fletcher. Between every bandage applied to his countless sores and blisters, after every exhausting night of non-stop playing, he was searching desperately for the acknowledgement of his instructor. Searching so hard, in fact, that the “line” Andrew later brings up in the dinner conversation was completely ignored and all physical, mental, and social boundaries were broken down. He was turned into a lifeless drone, but now that he has gotten space from Fletcher and ended his musical career, he has escaped the wrath of his teacher. When Andrew walks off stage in shame at the end, he could have abandoned his Fletcher-pleasing needs completely, and his problems would have been over. However, it is his foolish and instinctive idea that he must go back on stage to prove himself; after all, that is all he’s been wanting for the entire film.
The viewer might be thinking that Andrew has redeemed himself, interrupting Fletcher, starting a marvelous solo and instructing his own orchestra, disobeying his teacher’s demands and breaking free of Fletcher’s control. This is not the case, though. He really is still trying to impress Fletcher, showing him that he is competent and has the potential to be great. What at first is a rebellious act turns into a performance directed by Fletcher — he instructs Andrew through his whole “solo.” Terrence orders him to slow to a tap on the drums, and then pick up speed as Fletcher signals every move. He then takes his coat off in excitement and, watching his student play, he then has complete control.
The beat finally reaches its climax, then abruptly ceases at Fletcher’s hand gesture. We cut to an extreme close-up of both their faces, watching their true feelings unfold. The audience, like Andrew, waits for some sign of emotion in Fletcher. Andrew is anxious, staring into his instructor’s eyes and longing for some kind of signal. At last, Fletcher gives Neyman a smile, but this is not a grin of mutual respect, but rather joy that he has finally found his very own Charlie Parker. The dinner table conversation Fletcher has with Andrew is very essential to the viewer’s understanding of the final scene — while Fletcher and Andrew chat, Fletcher reveals that he always wanted to find his Charlie Parker: a trophy-student, a crowning achievement of training. He never truly found one, but he says that at least it matters that he tried. Now, on the jazz festival stage, Fletcher realizes that Andrew was that musical talent the whole time, but it took the student’s undivided loyalty for him to become aware of this. He gives the smile not because he is happy and proud for Andrew, but because he is happy for himself; he now “owns” Neyman and has a student willing to go over the “line” for him in order to become great.
Andrew smiles back, overcome with joy that he has earned Fletcher’s praise and acknowledgement, for now his one goal is complete. The “cheerful and inspirational” ending is really just a scene that epitomizes the dynamics of Andrew and Fletcher’s relationship — a dangerous game of harmful and over-the-top performances in hopes of recognition. To top it off, Fletcher then silently gives the signal for the whole orchestra to start, and we are blasted with a brassy, celebratory sound of achievement. We zoom in on Andrew, sweat dripping and blood trickling, using all his effort to impress Fletcher. He clashes the symbols and we cut to black, and some might feel an inspirational sense of joy, excitement, and triumph. However, the end is actually very unfortunate, since Andrew has finally given in to Fletcher’s wrath again, becoming his property and again focusing only on his teacher’s praise.
We end on a note of eerie remorse, and are reminded that Fletcher always was a villain, masking his true intentions through a delightful smile. Andrew has in fact completed his goal, but this is certainly not a happy ending, since his goal all along was to strive for greatness and, through this, make all sacrifices to do that. Fletcher has completed his goal too, finding his Charlie Parker and making him his property. Both characters reach a point where they feel good about themselves, but the audience is left with a despairing emotion, and we are unsure of our main character’s fate. But through Andrew’s actions to please Fletcher, we almost already know: a dark path lies in front of him. As the end credits flash by, we are sure that there is no escape — Andrew is trapped forever in his endless loop of hard work and pain. Fletcher, the manipulating, ill-tempered antagonist, has ensnared our protagonist and, even after Andrew’s attempts at breaking free, has cemented the fact that his student will always be focused on the one thing that drives him: Fletcher’s praise. But as we know from the dinner table scene, Fletcher believes that the two most dangerous words in the English language are “Good job,” and with that, we are ensured that the day Fletcher expresses his admiration will never come.