Awake - :thumbsup: :clap:
Printable View
Awake - :thumbsup: :clap:
:lol: Appadiya?! Don't remember that. But I don't think she ever plays the piano with conviction. Something eventful happens ! Hence why she couldn't get around to playing chords. Anyway, Piano doesn't appear in middle parts of the film.Quote:
Originally Posted by AravindMano
Btw It's actually very good. The way Kieslowski has captured music, and musical tones, reverberating around her. The scene where she traces the notes with her finger, the chord & chorus gets played in her head. :clap:
The Hurt Locker :clap: :clap:
Austin Powers 1 & 2 :lol:
Snatch - Total riot :rotfl3:
French Connection II a revisit.
With the word "sequel" getting a bad rep, I wonder if future generation, why, even the Gen-Y movie buff would ever remember this movie.
Sure it brushed dangerously with fish out of water gimmick at times (there were fishes literally in the opening scene which makes you wonder if heaven-sent director Frankenheimer is winking at us).
It may lack the pace of the original, and not even a car chase, but it worked as a thriller. And Gene Hackman...enna oru nadigar! :notworthy:
Edit: Kamal fans should really know this film and don't get me wrong, I liked that film :wink:
:-)Quote:
Originally Posted by AravindMano
First of, let me say that the charge of 'did not come together' well enough is the most subjective of all the subjective opinions that one can have about a film.
Why does the judge open up to Valentine ?
Ever since his 'betrayal' he has shut himself in and only 'observes' the world.
To him judging can happen only by consciously blocking out empathy (if I had been their shoes, I would have killed stolen etc.). He doesn't communicate with anyone but opens up to the Valentine nearly right off the bat.
Rather than being shrouded and cloaked he gets into 'deep' conversation mode almost rightaway. Even if that is supposed to be paradoxical, I felt that wasn't established at all. So all the conversations that followed made me uncomfortable on the lines of : why would she tell a random man all this, why would he tell her all this. And then him talking about the neighbors, making his life's 'work' vulnerable, several decadeslong secret in a few days (imagine Major Sundarrajan: idhu varaikkum yaarukkumE sollAma vachurundha ragasiyathai unakku naan solla pOrEn).
All I could see was, it was very 'convenient' writing. You want the audience to learn about all that, so you engineer such sequences that would strike low on credibility but move the story where you want it to
Amid all this she is the girl he never met (much like the younger replica of him - whatever that is supposed to mean). So he may have wanted to break all his silences and felt the urge to talk to her. That is fine too, but even that needs to be shown.
'The role of luck' is all very well. There too the crucial difference is how it is done/shown. The audience should be thrilled (okay that's supposedly a bad word, will think and replace with a euphemism) by luck. That we think we are in control and luck messes and interconnects things in ways we can't understand, should be presented very very credibly. Else it will be akin to DD stage plays : idhO avarE vandhuttaarE. Of course I am exaggerating, but prachanai ellAm oNNu dhaan.The other parts, like the suspicious boyfriend, were annoyingly cliched. Valentine's hesitant rejection of the photographer's kiss was the lone highpoint of that strand.
Anyway, this is what I mean when I say "it didn't come together too well'. Screenwriting is one tough job I say. Kurosawa apparently would have co-writers whose only job would be to audit him: hey you are cheating. you just want the character to say that/react that way. It won't happen like that etc. I think that is a vital part of the process. This is how these characters are, and I have shown you some things that happen to them, you take it from here - is something I find unsatisfactory. Aphorism-kum Poem-kum irukkura vidhyAsam.
OK, let me ask the deadly question: what is the all-pervasive red supposed to mean ? It is what it is-A ?
Adhu dhaan padaththOda crux-ngradhu ennOda karuththu.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
Let me first confess that most of my readings into the film happened after multiple viewing / discussing / reading about the film.
How did the judge send her the cheque to pay back for the dog's treatment, without knowing her name (forget even the address :) )? Why would he pay four times more than what actually could have cost there by bringing her to his home again? Every scene can turn out to be a "why"!
The Judge is the creator of the film who inserts himself into his creation and perfectly orchestrates his characters. (The obvious clue is of course the coin that gets flipped by the junior lawyer's lover). He knows what his characters talk ("eavesdropping"), he decides what his characters should to (when the lawyer's lover flips the coin to decide their trip, the Judge too flips one). His ultimate motive is, after all, to direct his two characters to find their match. (Whether the lawyer actualls *exists* is a different thing, he could be just the memory of the judge)
>>Ever since his 'betrayal' he has shut himself in and only 'observes' the world.
>>
Didn't get this betrayal thing, padam paaththu romba naaLaachu.
The three colours are the primary colours in France's flag - Red representing "fraternity" if I am right.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R