...
....
.....DON'T MIND IF I DO!
Ack.
Um.
I suppose for simplicity’s sake, I’ll talk about one of the
scenes I mentioned in my screening notes.
In the first ten minutes of the movie, there’s this scene
with the newly married couple are trying to get this stretch limo down a
winding and narrow road. The driver
himself can’t seem to do it, which leads to two passengers to take a shot at
doing it themselves.
To me, when I look at it through the lens of the impending
death of cinema, I see it as a commentary on the film community as a whole
throughout history. Film would come to
these difficulties over time, these winds in the road as film evolved and
changed, thus changing what the cinema was offering and what brought people in. And like with any invention, until something
replaces it, it’s a matter of trying to out do what came before. In this case, Justine and her husband were
other film makers, thinking they had the better way to go about it. Meanwhile, the driver and the other spouse
stood on the sidelines and playful taunted the driving person. It’s like how different film makers think
they have found the thing to really draw people in and make money in the
cinema. For awhile it was variety film,
then action films in the ninties, then super hero films were big until Mel
Gibson struck while the religious iron was hot and beat Spiderman. Then we moved onto having more computer
generated film, and now 3-d film. I
think that the limo’s jerking and uncomfortable movement is a great example of
where the cinema is going, as in it’s a slow movement where little positive
progress is made each time. And then,
finally, when someone does get it right and draw people in, i.e. when Justine
finally gets the limo here it needs to be, a planet collides with you the next
day and the limo is lost. Thinking of
the scene in terms of the whole film really drive home the futility of these
shiny new things in film trying to draw people into the cinema, when in reality
it is destined for doom.
First off, I feel like this is a very direct way to utilize this film as a metaphor for the progress (or lack thereof) being made by filmmakers today.
ReplyDeleteBasically I look at American film today as being divided into two categories: action blockbuster and “other.” Action blockbusters are highly anticipated. These films have trailers. They have trailers for their trailers. Frankly, it’s a little much. They have special effects, battle sequences, and often some other-worldly foe that must be defeated. My experience with these films is that the actual film cannot possibly live up to the hype. (Similarly, Melancholia concentrated on the events leading up to the end of the world, without really giving much time to the actual destruction at the end. Now, I’m not complaining. This is simply a metaphor.) And in some cases, it does not even seem like directors are trying to accomplish that. Why would they? If their blockbuster film is marketed correctly, they can make enough at the box office on the first weekend for their film to be worth it. In my opinion, this is the problem with cinema today.
I would classify Lars Von Trier’s Melancholia into the “other” category. When asked, most of my friends who do not follow film as religiously as I do had not even heard of this film. The people who saw Melancholia in theaters sought it out based not on overzealous marketing, but on critical praise. (Or at least I did.) Going into the film, I was not entirely sure what to expect, but I was wowed. Lars Von Trier is definitely one of those directors who has a vision and carries it out with his films. That is what makes him an amazing filmmaker, and whether you enjoy his vision or not, there is a wholeness to viewing his films that is lacking in the more superficial experience of watching a blockbuster.
Of course, Lars Von Trier is not the only director who I feel carries on the good name of filmmaking, but the list is shorter than I would like for it to be. Now obviously this is a very simplistic way of viewing film today. There are some good action blockbusters and many bad “other” films, but this is how I would best define the current state of cinema.
Is cinema at risk of “dying?” I would have to say no. It is at risk of changing and being redefined forever, but films are such a huge part of our entertainment system. I do not feel like they could be done away with. I would also argue that as long as there are directors out there who can execute their visions as effectively as Von Trier did in Melancholia, quality films will be produced for those who are interested in pursuing them.
-LB
This is a good analysis of some of the Melancholia's possible metaphorical meanings. On somewhat of the same note, I think that the scene in which John (Kiefer Sutherland) talks to Justine (Kirsten Dunst) privately can also be interpreted in this scene. While speaking, John tells Justine she should be happy and then asks her if she knows how much her wedding party has cost him and she says no. He then goes on to exclaim that it cost a ton of money and for most people would be not be affordable. Justine then responds to him by saying she hopes he feels the money is well spent. John says that depends on whether they have a deal that she'll be happy. This represents the rise of production costs and the loss of originality in Hollywood over the last few years and decades. Many movie studios believe that if they throw ridiculous amounts of money into the production of a film, via new technology and in many cases gimmicks, then audiences are bound to be happy. Also, they feel the money is well spent if they are granted even the appearance that the movie is successful (through box office gross) regardless of how audiences and critics like it (if they're truly happy with it). While I don't feel that the death of cinema is upon us, at least not when we have quality directors such as Scorsese, Fincher, Wright, Tarantino, and Anderson working,I do feel as though this type of paradigm which is subscribed to by a seemingly large number of big studios, is leading to the overall decrease in quality in the average film. Also, technological advances can be used to help improve the cinematic experience and films both but only if used correctly (i.e. Scorsese in Hugo, Wright in Scott Pilgrim). There needs to be a paradigm shift towards using technology to actually improve the quality of films and not just to make an easy buck. If they do this, and films improve, then the money should roll in by itself.
ReplyDelete- JG