first movie in a long while yesterday - syriana, it was.
came out of it not being able to say it was a super movie but could not say i was not wowed by it. three-quarters through the film, i was actually slightly uncomfortable to be sitting through what felt like being given a lecture. did i fork out £9 to sit through a general knowledge class that bordered on an admonishment on america's wrongdoing (again). surely clooney and all the hacks giving expose after expose of america's and the current administration's wrongdoings realise that anymore of this and blase sets in. it was not like the people who could make a difference was sitting somewhere watching this and surely, it wasn't a message that everyone could heed and so, make a difference, e.g. recycling, the world is dying, etc.
we keep reading about it but no one seems to have any solutions.
we keep finding out deeper and darker revelations about the crimes of big corporations and goverments, of disguised exploitation of the masses for the tremendous gains of the (new) ruling classes. but what are the options? that is the question for another entry, i guess.
however, by the end of the film, i wanted to sit down for hours talking about it. i wanted to think again about each character, what their actions meant, what purpose each of the supporting roles were included to serve. i wanted to discuss the film and the situations the characters found themselves in, the different shades that coloured each of them, the way the next sequence seemed to not have a bearing on the previous but slowly showed to reveal other facets of each character, the way each action by each character gave each situation a different interpretation and thus, painted each situation into a more gripping and biting reality.
then to muse about how such a structure for a movie, although not new, was so powerful for this film. to me, it married an idea with a tool/technique so apt that it created a dialogue between technique and idea, between tool and narrative, binding it and giving it life - a life that transcends either realm to make it more than film-making, more than a film and more than a message.
yes, but is it art? to marry idea and technique to give an idea form and an articulation gives it resonance - a deep structure and not just a proliferating one. it should be art, if it's not.
alas, it was not to be - it was saturday evening and coffee shops close early in london. the shutters came down after half an hour at the shop as london prepared itself for the parties and the glittering tops. how does one find another interested to mull over such topics when the bright lights beckons.
have to find my own art now.
came out of it not being able to say it was a super movie but could not say i was not wowed by it. three-quarters through the film, i was actually slightly uncomfortable to be sitting through what felt like being given a lecture. did i fork out £9 to sit through a general knowledge class that bordered on an admonishment on america's wrongdoing (again). surely clooney and all the hacks giving expose after expose of america's and the current administration's wrongdoings realise that anymore of this and blase sets in. it was not like the people who could make a difference was sitting somewhere watching this and surely, it wasn't a message that everyone could heed and so, make a difference, e.g. recycling, the world is dying, etc.
we keep reading about it but no one seems to have any solutions.
we keep finding out deeper and darker revelations about the crimes of big corporations and goverments, of disguised exploitation of the masses for the tremendous gains of the (new) ruling classes. but what are the options? that is the question for another entry, i guess.
however, by the end of the film, i wanted to sit down for hours talking about it. i wanted to think again about each character, what their actions meant, what purpose each of the supporting roles were included to serve. i wanted to discuss the film and the situations the characters found themselves in, the different shades that coloured each of them, the way the next sequence seemed to not have a bearing on the previous but slowly showed to reveal other facets of each character, the way each action by each character gave each situation a different interpretation and thus, painted each situation into a more gripping and biting reality.
then to muse about how such a structure for a movie, although not new, was so powerful for this film. to me, it married an idea with a tool/technique so apt that it created a dialogue between technique and idea, between tool and narrative, binding it and giving it life - a life that transcends either realm to make it more than film-making, more than a film and more than a message.
yes, but is it art? to marry idea and technique to give an idea form and an articulation gives it resonance - a deep structure and not just a proliferating one. it should be art, if it's not.
alas, it was not to be - it was saturday evening and coffee shops close early in london. the shutters came down after half an hour at the shop as london prepared itself for the parties and the glittering tops. how does one find another interested to mull over such topics when the bright lights beckons.
have to find my own art now.