lars von trier's 'dancer in the dark'

first off, as effeminate as this may sound, this film actually made me cry. that makes a total of two, the other being the beautiful grave of the fireflies (review for that one coming soon once i can get it back off a blasted german friend).

the genre concept for the film i love. lars von trier took the classic american musical and made something more of it. as a general rule i hate musicals, they're pulp for the masses, good for easy watching which occasionally come up with some stonking songs (you're the one that i want, ooh ooh ooh), but on the whole, pointless. this is the only musical i have ever seen which has purposeq to it, a truly engaging story and songs which have a meaning to the overall story, rather than bumping up the length of the flick and giving some rather camp guys the chance to spin on the spot.

a bit of info about the director might be in order i think, and a special thank you elyn for this information, i never heard about any of this before you. lars von trier is one director of several which make up a group called, from memory, Dogma. they have a strict sort of conduct to the way their films are made. camerawork is handheld throughout, acting is normally done on the first take, all locations and scenery have to be real, no studio shite (the fact lars von trier filmed it in Sweden despite that it's supposed to be set in Washington state doesn't count =p) and usually props aren't brought, they're usually on set, although i'm not sure about that one. dancer in the dark is one of the most famous dogma films, although i think that's mainly due to being bjorks debut film. i can only hope she makes some more considering her acting skill (in fact she won best female performance at cannes). but since seeing this i'm on the look out for other dogma directors.

right the intro, odd but pleasant. a mixture of obtuse shapes, warm colours and easy listening music, the sort of tune you'd only take a tertiary interest in normally. really the three minute intro is the sort of thing i'd like to wake up to on the TV in the morning. not quite sure what it's purpose is to the film, but maybe a second watch now i've seen the whole sad film might clarify it for me.

camera work: intriguing to say the least. two different films types were used in the film, depending on the situation. i don't yet know the real difference between digibeta, DV etc. but it has the feel that relatively cheap cameras were used. the camera type used for the majority of the film was the sort used by documentaries (typically used because they are fairly cheap considering the amount of film used up in such a recording style). so in bjorks character (selma) daily life is filmed with docu camera, giving it an edge of realism. the camera shakes and zoom is occasionally which is used, in my opinion, expertly, rather than the shivery zoomy innie-outie style used in the dire american drama 24. but when selma delves into her own world and the musical scenes kick in the camera drastically changes. the camera is tripodded or on a crane and doesn't pan or zoom, each shot is static. instead fairly swift editing is used to change from angle to angle, scene to scene.

editing: it changes throughout, for the first part of the film (before the shit hits the fan so to speak) the editing style is fast paced. you're taken from scene to scene rapidly, jumping form work place at the factory, to a night scene, to a shot in somebodies house, to daytime in a forest, it's continuous. the purpose of which is for lars von trier to encapsulate as much basic information as possible about the characters, their situations, background etc. the further the film progresses the slower the editing is and there's less sudden changes from scene to scene. within the first 30 minutes of this 2 hour and 20 minute film we know where bjork works, that's she's practically in poverty, she's losing her sight, the situation between her landlords (well, they basically are), and the first suspicions we have about bill.

i want to take a minute out here to say something very important. bill is the biggest and nastiest cunt i have ever seen in a film.

i think that smoothly (ha!) moves us into characters: i think bjork was a fantastic choice as selma, at the start of the film i had doubts about bjorks acting ability, it seemed a bit shakey at first, like she didn't really know what to do in front of the camera. very quickly though i started to understand her character and realised exactly why she was acting the way she was. and by the end of the film... a superb performance is all i can say. in fact all of the characters gave a great performance, there's nobody really that i can complain about. geoff was a great and slightly creepy character, but with an honest heart of gold. bill is...well i've already said that. selma's best friend was great, easy to anger but she realises the wrong she's doing and tries to reconcile things. selma's son is a character we don't see or hear much from, despite the fact he's the reason as to why the events in the film happen. even right at the finale (sorry, second to last song :). makes sense if you've seen it) you don't see him. which does open up the question, is selma's friend telling the truth? most of the characters are fully rounded and believable characters (although i have my doubts about the cruelty of bill) which adds to the reaslim of the story, it's not just the problems selma is going through, but other people as well.

halfway through the film the story changes from hopeful optimism to near crushing fatalism. despite the fact everything seems to be going wrong in selma's life she always has a smile on her face, she smiles through it because she has such hope for her son. but by the seminal climax, which is about half way through the film the perspective changes. although there are still chances of hope they get swiped away almost immediately by a complication, a person, or even a lie designed to protect somebody. after the seminal climax one of the most striking songs in the film begins, a song where selma is able to adjust the way she feels, the only way that reconciliation can occur. when the characters admit their mistakes, apologise and think in a logical light, it was my favourite song in the film by far, well except the very final one. admittedly the final song wins in potency, it was the point that the tears really started rolling.

it could be said in the film there is a lot of pity piled on selma, but i don't agree with that. i think really people help her as much as possible, not because of her illness, but because the simple beauty of her soul makes people want to help her. she never takes advantage of anyone's kindness.

a few niggling things in the film. first off bjork's accent. it's odd to say the least. she seems to jump from a east european accent to an almost RP pronunciation and even an essex twang of not pronouncing her 't's. although that seems to sort itself out through the film, that or i was adjusting myself to her voice. the other one being the song by the train tracks, which i thought was oddly cruel. when geoff realises selma can't see properly anymore a new song starts, one where geoff tries to tell her she hasn't seen enough in life, and where bjork argues there's nothing more left to see. since geoff is deeply in love with her it seems odd he should mock her in such a way, even though of course the musical is only in her head.

there's a sentence in the film which stuck in my head, a simple one that isn't announced with any particular enforcement. 'in musicals' nothing bad ever happens'. this is of course the twist in lars von triers film. everything bad does happen, but as the songs in 'normal' musicals are fluffies to the overall happiness of the production, really they are the only escape in 'dancer in the dark' from the pessimistic view of selma's life.

i urge you to watch this film, it's not really famous and not for all tastes (particularly if you're not a bjork fan since she wrote the songs) but it's potency on the audience is strong and really does evoke emotions in you, better than any major hollywood film. a film that is essential watching in my opinion and so deserves to go in my category of 'masterpieces'.

hopefully coming soon, grave of the fireflies, another feel good movie of sorrow and pessimism

mark mylod's 'the big white'

i found this film sitting in a bargain bin in a wall mart here in shenyang. i didn't know what it would be like since it was only priced at 3 and a half kuai (about 26p) but it did have robin williams in it. i'm not as such a robin william's fan but lately he's been cropping up in alternative comedies (take note here of danny devito's brilliant and crude film 'death to smoochy') instead of the typical mainstream pulp (RV is a good example of this). and after seeing him play serious roles such as 'insomnia'. 'patch adams' and '24 hour photo' it's good to see he's not just a mediocre comedy actor, but also has real acting talent. so after seeing it included robin williams i thought i would give it a shot.

the blurb on the back of the dvd case doesn't give you much information about the film. all it says is that a broke travel agent is finds a dead body and uses it for financial purposes and at the same time two nasty people are also after it. this is a good thing since it meant i was totally thrown off by the beginning of the film.

since it's set in alaska the predominate colour in this film is of course white, from the snow covered land and mountains of the local town, to the bleak and lifeless insurance building one of the characters works in. although not as such a subtle reference to say, bitterness or heartlessness of the characters or even insanity as it was used in 'insomnia' it's more just for the fact it's set in alaska.

the opening of the film is sublime looking. vast mountain ranges covered in powdered snow, all pristine and white. as the camera pans over an ice covered road we see a woman in pyjamas and slippers running through the snow. instantly i thought to myself 'ah, that's where the body comes from', which looks even more likely when the woman collapses on the road side. instead it's not, she is picked up by the local sherrif and turns out later on to be robin william's wife in the film. in fact the corpse is presented in a much more novel way. after this beautifully shot scene we see the local dumpster by a lit up sign. people come and go in their cars and dump their refuse in it before driving off. the last shot in the montage features a birds eye view of the dumpster. a car drives up to it and two men get out and run to the boot. as you can already imagine they're dumping a body in the dumpster. as they chuck it in and the lid of the bin closes it's the end of that scene.

i could write out the plot but that would be pointless, so instead i'll focus from a media perspective. first off, the camera. although not exactly original in the film it's a film which doesn't need to be, or at least that's how i feel. sadly the director at some points decided that since it was an alternative film it needed to have some alternative camera work. as such we are 'treated' to two shots which are shot from foot level where the camera races along, jumping and jaunting about. it doesn't as such fit in with the rest of the film, and is slightly jarring. there's not much more to say about the camera because as i stated before, it's not entirely original.

now, idea for plot. i liked it. it wasn't something that needed heavy explanation since it all goes through at a steady pace and doesn't tax you too much. although i enjoy storylines that challenge me or make me think things over, with a comedy i would much rather be able to sit down and understand my way through it. and the big white does this, and yet still is able to be alternative in it's story line. one thing i like and which is pretty rare to find in an american film is that their are several things which are left open, never explained and which i know would annoy several people i know. a few examples of this would be whether or not robin william's wife overcomes her mental illness, also if her illness is real or she's making it up, why the guy was murdered by the two men, who the two 'hitmen's' boss really is and also where woody harrelson's character (raymond) has been for the last five years.

now one thing i would like to say is how much i liked the two hitmen. in most comedies when you get the hitmen characters they are always bumbling idiots. these two characters boarder on the edge, but pull it back and keep it sensible. in fact there is a very quick discussion between the two guys which is spoken in honesty about how it felt to kill the man, to which it's answered 'i don't want to talk about it'. in most films a moral or mental discussion like that would of been ignored. the two hitmen would of killed before but yet still simply be idiots. even when they hunt down robin williams they manage to do it by their own accord, rather then overhearing something or stumbling along. one thing that really touched me in the film is when you see the two guys attend the funeral of a character they accidentally murdered, and at which they are both actually sad, instead of a godfather respect sort of vibe. even when the hitman accidentally shots this character he screams out 'oh god no' and cries (this is despite the fact this guy just tried to murder them!). this is one of the selling points of the film to me. the dialogue between these two characters and their form of acting works well and adds a sense of realism to their characters which is missing in most other comedies (i would to add the jewish and black mobsters that collect [find characters real name] from his house, it's too ridiculous to be taken seriously).

to sum up this film is a good comedy if you don't mind it black, with a bit of gore (not to much mind, just a small scene) and some tourettes swearing in it which is thankfully never played over the top

gaspar noe's 'irreversible'

now to begin with i would like to mention a friend told me about this film and he said that there's a great scene in an alleyway where you see a couple shag from start to finish. he was almost right, if you count an anal rape scene as a 'great shag'. but i'll get to that later.

first off i want to mention how impressive i thought the movie was from an editing perspective. most of the scenes are shot in a single sweep, although at some points you can tell that digital post production was used when an actor may of cocked up half way through a 12 minute scene. the free flowing feel to the construction is certainly impressive and it almost puts the 11 minute battle field scene in cuaron's 'children of men' to shame in respects to choreography. as to the structure of the film, if you've seen momento then you'd understand how this movie plays.

i have a feeling many people seeing irreversible would say something along the lines 'they've used the same idea as momento', when interestingly it's actually the other way round. momento was a hollywood film using french cinematic techniques and genres; by this i mean the noir genre and a non linear plot line. this plot structure was first used in american cinema properly by tarantino in pulp fiction, where the story doesn't simply progress from start to end, but jumps about from one part to another. well momento and irreversible took it one step further and flipped the whole film round. the major difference between momento and irreversible though is that noe didn't want to make the film too accessible to the public. in momento when one scene ends it finishes on the start of the previous scene. in irrevesible it stops at exactly when the previous scene started, which at times means you have to sit there and think 'now is this the same scene or the next one?'

now from structure to camera work. simply put, it's insane. the first three of four minutes has the audience watching the camera spin round and round, rolling and looping through an alleyway. in fact for the first half of the film this is pretty much how the camera operates. it was a technique specifically chosen by noe to create nausea in the audience, think of that running scene in blair witch and you'll know what i mean. later on in the film the camera starts to stabilise in conjunction with the plot. unlike most films where the climax is obviously at the end noe has it right at the start, a scene so violent and perverse it verges on exploitation. although thats not to say its the worst scene, thats about 40 minutes in.

the camera works in reaction to the events on scene, the more sane and less disturbing it becomes, the more the cameraman starts to level out shots. after watching the whole film it's easy to see why noe reversed the plot line. by the end of the film the sweet and realistic conversation between marcus and his girlfriend alex helps the audience forget about the barbaric events. well, up until the point where marcus jokes to alex 'i want to fuck you in the arse', then all the imagery comes flooding back.

if this film was flimed linear then i think there would of been even more walk outs from cannes then there was (200 our of 2400 people). nausea in the film as i've already discussed was used through insane camera work, the events on screens and even one more aspect, one which i thought would of actually been banned. for the first 30 minutes of the film noe uses a sound frequency which is often heard during earthquakes, it also is a sound that makes people fill nauseous. the only other example of such a sound being used in a film that i know of was resident evil. marilyn manson was the sound man for the film, and he used brown noise throughout the film, along with low frequency soundwaves to make the audience feel a big 'queasy'.

in essence i wouldn't say this film was for the kids, or any normal movie goer. you need to be in the right mind frame for this film, sadistic would be the best explanation. if you want to see exactly how far you can blur the line between pornography, exploitation and necessary on screen events then is the right sort of film. as i said in my last blog, i've watched it once before but i never ever ever will again. that's not to say i don't respect the film.

it's a masterpiece, of the marquis de sade variety, but a masterpiece still.

taratino's 'death proof'

very first post on a site i'll no doubt rarely update, but i'll have a go anyway.

currently i'm in china, on a teaching course. as such at night i have a fair amount of free time, and dvds are cheap here. i've been in my placement in north china for about 2 and a half weeks now and i've already bought 14 films for less then it would cost to buy one film back in the UK. the latest film i watched was taratino's new film 'death proof'. sadly the dvd didn't include tarantino's and rodriguez's films, but you can blame those evil weinstein brothers for that, they decided the concept of having two films one after the other was too difficult for the average public consumer, but enough about those two bastards, onto the film.

death proof in essence, is a definite tarantino film, and he's back up to standards ever since the two part farce that was kill bill. it has all the typical signs of a taratino flick; organic dialogue which doesn't develop the plot, but instead develops the characters, plenty of racist terminology, incredibly violent...violence, information about old american films and the back side of movies, retro looking locations in backwater america and of course references to his previous films.

a few of them to mention is the cigarettes 'red apples' probably most prominent in a poster in the first kill bill film, the made up fast food joint big kahuna burger (first used i think in pulp fiction), and even the kill bill whistle, you knows the one :)

admittedly reading the blurb on the dvd i was expecting it to be from stuntman mike's perspective and how a girl gang beat the shit out of him and he gets revenge, i was wrong. it's the opposite way round

the structure of the film is slightly odd to be honest, the best way to look at the film is to split it into two pieces. the first half concerns itself with the construction of stuntman mike's character. although saying that the most important information is only discovered at the end of the first half, via a very unbelievable policeman. though really i suppose you could say that's another taratino cliche, a pointless or ineffectual police presence when they occasionally feature in his films.

anyway back to the first half. as always the characters are developed through the dialogue, rather then some films where actions or events define them. the actions in death proof occur later on in the film, with the dialogue acting as a reason or even excuse for the occasional ghoulish violence. the main cast are females, all young, attractive and quite happy to show off a bit skin (one of the first shots in the film is off jungle julia's arse. all the females are sassy and in control of their lives and events, and most of the male characters (very few of them) are pricks. are friend stuntman mike seems ok at the beginning of the film, just a bit of a creepy old man with a lot of stories under his belt. in fact the sudden change in him does take you by suprise, specifically when you've got the wrong end of the stick. i won't mention much more other than one scene in the first half will make you cringe and shudder, i know it did to me and i'm usually ok with screen violence.

the second half of the film is almost identical in it's structure to the first film, lots of dialogue between the females, and then lots of action. yet again i won't detail to much otherwise i'll completely ruin the film.

right onto the visible aspects of the film. tarantino used some interesting ideas, things that pretty much only he can get away with. to keep in the spirit of 1950's american 'grindhouse films' he has pretty much completely ignored continuity. there's scenes where you know it doesn't completely fit with the previous one, with giveaways such as arm placement, cigarettes, even the way a character is facing. since these sort of films were shown in B movie cinemas there are occasional drop outs of colour and sound. some scenes either jolt and repeat a second of the footage twice. one of my favourite aspects is the cigarrete burns. you can see them as massive black marks on the top right side, and at some parts of the film either the end or beginning of a scene will be jumped and at one point the whole film drops out as the projectionist takes to long to load the next reel. in some parts of the film you'll get strolling lines across the screen as if the film has been damaged. all in all the visual editing and post production does give it the feel of being a really cheap grubby B movie

as for entertaining, i'm not so sure. several times i found myself checking my phone to see what the time was, other times looking around the room etc. at other points i was ignoring everything around me. i don't taratino has managed to create a flowing film, it can be quite hit and miss.

right that's enough from me, look out for my next review, irreverisble, a film i shall never ever ever watch again