I've been sick these days, and since i have the movie in my computer, i watched it again. I just want to say that when i first watched it, i felt it was excellent, but after going through all the movies, i cann't say that it's outstanding, but it's still good. Below is the comment i made when i first watched it:
Después miré la película Tráfico, creo que está es una de las películas más excellentes en la historia del cine de droga. Comparar está con otras películas que tienen la misma tema, Tráfico figura todos los aspectos acerca de droga, de la distribución al tráfico de droga, de la drogacción al drogadicto y de la anti-droga al dejar de la droga. Todos estos argumentos se representan en una manera parelela por tres cuentos por un montón de papeles, que no ninguna de las personas es el principal personaje, sino la única protagonista es la droga. Este punto lo hace notable.
Aunque el senario parece una cooperación entre las administraciones del control de drogas de los Estados Unidos y de México, en verdad el director establece una distinción entre las acciones del control de drogas de estos dos países. Generalmente, cuando se define el cine las imagenes y las posiciones del anti droga, lo que se refleja por la tema es que, para los Estados Unidos, muestra un papel positivo constante; pero en contraste, para México, sus personajes positivos que están en el lado del control de droga son más complicados y tienen más cambios entre la justicia y la maliginidad.
En primer lugar, hay un contraste notable entre el tono de color de fondo. En San Diego, el fondo es azul frío. Sin embargo en cada ciudad del México, es amarillo turbio que nos da una impresión sin desarollar y de sucio. Por lo tanto en el cine, México parece más pobre y su sociedad parece más desordenado.
En segundo lugar, la posición verdadero y potencial del representante del México gobierno, Capitán Salazar, es otro ejemplo que forma la total de impresión de debilidad de la sociedad de México. En la misma posición del trabajo, el jefe de la oficina del control de droga de los Estados Unidos, Robert, es un papel positivo contantemente, por lo menos no trabaja para cualquiera de los distribuidores del droga. Según unas informaciones, el papel de Capitán Salazar es creado de acuerdo con un capitán actual con misma situación en la historia del México, quien muestra la corrupción y el crimen que incrustados en la sociedad mexicano.
Por último, el papel del policía mexicano, Javier, es el personaje más complicado que experimenta un cambio del su sentimento para su trabajo. Como un personaje positivo, la posición de Javier hasta el lado de justicia y de maliginidad en cuanto al control de droga cambia cuando pasa el senario. Sin embargo para Montel y Ray, los policías americanos, sus imagenes son constantemente justos y brillantes. En pocas palabras, la retrata describe por el cine sobre el control de droga de México es más negativa y oscura.
3/26/2009
3/18/2009
¡Three Amigos!
Racking my brain again...
Recalling all of these movies i've watched up to now (including Traffic) concerning Mexican culture, tradition, and custom, i have a vague feeling of the existence of a significant margin b/w the first 7 (Que Viva Mexico is counted) and the last 4. Obviously, Hollywood films present more sophisticatedly artistic, cinematic, and dramatic technics and devices, but once there is heterogeneous perspectives upon a specific object, it always comes controversy. North americans have different viewpoints with those of latinos, and even within the group of hollywood, directors always attempt to dig different aspects of a same object, or i should say it's just because they have their own outlooks on it based on their personal experience. Although the first group of films have a sort of same tendency, but in general, they all incorporate both "good and bad" for a particular race (latinos), but hollywood apparently has an inclination of going to extremes - either barbaric folks or progressive outsiders, either uneducated mexican women or brave US women, and either tactful mexican cop or crafty US officer...I wonder which one is more onto the verge of the true representation of mexico? Of course i know that there is a cinematic device called "dramatization", but as an audience who has no background knowledge about mexico, i always have a tendency to classify those properties either humanistic or ethical shown in the moive, so i guess if i only have a chance to watch only one of them, i might get biased idea.
Back to Three Amigos...
I like it simply because it's funny. Wowww finally i've got to watch a movie without burning my brain cells or straining my heart. I like the light atmosphere it creats, and i'm not picky on comedies as long as it makes me laugh. Once again, characters have distinctive personalities that "didactically" presents me which group is evil and which one is angel; in this way, this seems unsophisticated, and i expect more complex traits of roles, which would be more attractive.
Recalling all of these movies i've watched up to now (including Traffic) concerning Mexican culture, tradition, and custom, i have a vague feeling of the existence of a significant margin b/w the first 7 (Que Viva Mexico is counted) and the last 4. Obviously, Hollywood films present more sophisticatedly artistic, cinematic, and dramatic technics and devices, but once there is heterogeneous perspectives upon a specific object, it always comes controversy. North americans have different viewpoints with those of latinos, and even within the group of hollywood, directors always attempt to dig different aspects of a same object, or i should say it's just because they have their own outlooks on it based on their personal experience. Although the first group of films have a sort of same tendency, but in general, they all incorporate both "good and bad" for a particular race (latinos), but hollywood apparently has an inclination of going to extremes - either barbaric folks or progressive outsiders, either uneducated mexican women or brave US women, and either tactful mexican cop or crafty US officer...I wonder which one is more onto the verge of the true representation of mexico? Of course i know that there is a cinematic device called "dramatization", but as an audience who has no background knowledge about mexico, i always have a tendency to classify those properties either humanistic or ethical shown in the moive, so i guess if i only have a chance to watch only one of them, i might get biased idea.
Back to Three Amigos...
I like it simply because it's funny. Wowww finally i've got to watch a movie without burning my brain cells or straining my heart. I like the light atmosphere it creats, and i'm not picky on comedies as long as it makes me laugh. Once again, characters have distinctive personalities that "didactically" presents me which group is evil and which one is angel; in this way, this seems unsophisticated, and i expect more complex traits of roles, which would be more attractive.
3/11/2009
The Wild Bunch
Personally I don't have much special feeling about this moive.
It's definitely long and the plot is huge, composed of a series of stories. All roles seem "bravo",
and the last shootout is tremendous, so perhaps for guys, this is really exciting.
I don't like the excessive violence in it, but I marvel at Peckinpah's shooting and editing
techniques, with my assumption that there has no "computer artificiality" been invented to
modify and embellish the shots at that epoch. So I was always wondering how he did it when I
saw the sparging of blood and particularly the shot of the explosion of the timber bridge and the
falling down of those horses. I guess Peckinpah would be one of the pioneers of this kind of
violent action movies, and also, maybe editing plays an important role in it.
It's definitely long and the plot is huge, composed of a series of stories. All roles seem "bravo",
and the last shootout is tremendous, so perhaps for guys, this is really exciting.
I don't like the excessive violence in it, but I marvel at Peckinpah's shooting and editing
techniques, with my assumption that there has no "computer artificiality" been invented to
modify and embellish the shots at that epoch. So I was always wondering how he did it when I
saw the sparging of blood and particularly the shot of the explosion of the timber bridge and the
falling down of those horses. I guess Peckinpah would be one of the pioneers of this kind of
violent action movies, and also, maybe editing plays an important role in it.
3/05/2009
Touch of Evil
It's so annoying to be late for the movie but finally I've got to watch the first 3 minutes. It's really a long shot, and i personally guess that the underscoring of the scene might be the most interesting one. Welles uses different sounds of, like, footstep, car horn, and broadcasting music to create an atmosphere that triggers me to "expect" something to happen on that particular car. I think its relationship between vision and sound goes quite effective, so I believe that background music weighs a lot in this movie.
The musical color in the movie is also remarkable. It differs from background sound, which pumps the sense of reality of the setting directly into my mind. Instead, Welles shots on desert landscape, the littery beard on officer Hank's face, and the filthy riverside...all these things contribute to a musical color that brings me a feeling of desolation.
The plot is fluctuant, absorbing and complete - good, for that i no need to rack my brain to conjecture what happens in the story, so i like this kind of movie in the way that saving my brain cells. Also I wanna express my praise for this plot. There is no character in the film is perfect to me, even the male protagonist, because the way Welles portrays makes me consider that this character is a fictional and typical one who is standing for justice. Well, I have to confess that i have a bias against American films, especially Hollywood ones, because many NOWADAY Hollywood productions are tragically becoming a useful instrument for those politicians to control public voice (eg. i never take those hollywood shots on mainland china or hongkong seriously), but this one might shows the truth. It reminds me of Traffic, which might also be what truely happens in US and Mexico, but that one to me is a little bit heroic and nationalist. I guess Welles tries to demonstrate the story in a "realistic" sense.
The musical color in the movie is also remarkable. It differs from background sound, which pumps the sense of reality of the setting directly into my mind. Instead, Welles shots on desert landscape, the littery beard on officer Hank's face, and the filthy riverside...all these things contribute to a musical color that brings me a feeling of desolation.
The plot is fluctuant, absorbing and complete - good, for that i no need to rack my brain to conjecture what happens in the story, so i like this kind of movie in the way that saving my brain cells. Also I wanna express my praise for this plot. There is no character in the film is perfect to me, even the male protagonist, because the way Welles portrays makes me consider that this character is a fictional and typical one who is standing for justice. Well, I have to confess that i have a bias against American films, especially Hollywood ones, because many NOWADAY Hollywood productions are tragically becoming a useful instrument for those politicians to control public voice (eg. i never take those hollywood shots on mainland china or hongkong seriously), but this one might shows the truth. It reminds me of Traffic, which might also be what truely happens in US and Mexico, but that one to me is a little bit heroic and nationalist. I guess Welles tries to demonstrate the story in a "realistic" sense.
2/25/2009
¡Que Viva Mexico!
Well, before putting my fingers onto the keyboard, i pondered this movie for quite a while. I missed the prologue, but still, i like it, for its distinct style and way of portraying, and my biggest impression is that it's really a typical Soviet one.
1. about music:
I thought it was an ancient documentary made by whatever country at first, until the last background soundtrack struck an exhilarating chord in my heart, I realized that it could only be a Soviet one. I'm totally not political, but due to my secluded memory traced back to my early ages for the influence of "red revolutionary radicalism" from Soviet countries, I definitely catch the theme (at least to my understanding). For the ending music, it just can't be more soviet and radical (e.g. another famous soviet song is The Sacred War in 1980', and both of them are representative soviet socialism). Sergei put it at the end of the moive, and i guess he did it with an obvious intention - to lay a stress on the circumstances under the revolution of social democracy in Mexico at early 20th century. As a soviet director, the mexican vital land and its contemporary social reformation surely inflamed Sergei's curiosity and fervor. As far as i know, Mexico and other Latin american countries like Chile and Argentina had already achieved success of the reformation of socialism, which unquestionably evoked an echo in the heart of Sergei.
2. about Soviet montage:
Basically this movie is composed of several different sections, with each story contains a particular topic belonging to a specific historical background. Except the maguey part (which signifies oppression and rebellion between serfowners and local slaves), there's nearly no plot! However i think i can tell what those different symbols or props mean when they are been "mechanically" put together. e.g. for the skulls and skeletons part, although people are dancing and even children are eating the sugar skull, since i have no knowledge on the "day of the dead" and because of my own cultural background, i can't persuade myself to accept the fact that it's not a weird festival. Until the last scene which i remember is a close shot of a boy's smiling face, i believe people are really feeling somewhat "happy" that day, and it's probably because their attitude toward death is optimistic. In short, this kind of segmented shots provide me a lot of space of imagination.
3. about aesthetics of violence:
It can hardly be categorized as a strict documentary or a feature film. Some sections have no voice-over at all, with only pure soundtrack, and story-like plot; but others are more like a documentary with a voice-over, but with no plot at all. Sergei put the documentary elements, the scenes for depicting the story plot, and actions like violence all together, forming a somewhat fabricated movie with a scenario which is demonstrated through a documentary way. Thus on the relationship between pure arts and material reality, Sergei stirs up the clear ambit of artificiality and documentary reality, which envelops the ability and the approach for an audience to comprehend the script and the society depicted in the movie by themselves.
I've never watched such kind of movie before. For me, it's so unique.
1. about music:
I thought it was an ancient documentary made by whatever country at first, until the last background soundtrack struck an exhilarating chord in my heart, I realized that it could only be a Soviet one. I'm totally not political, but due to my secluded memory traced back to my early ages for the influence of "red revolutionary radicalism" from Soviet countries, I definitely catch the theme (at least to my understanding). For the ending music, it just can't be more soviet and radical (e.g. another famous soviet song is The Sacred War in 1980', and both of them are representative soviet socialism). Sergei put it at the end of the moive, and i guess he did it with an obvious intention - to lay a stress on the circumstances under the revolution of social democracy in Mexico at early 20th century. As a soviet director, the mexican vital land and its contemporary social reformation surely inflamed Sergei's curiosity and fervor. As far as i know, Mexico and other Latin american countries like Chile and Argentina had already achieved success of the reformation of socialism, which unquestionably evoked an echo in the heart of Sergei.
2. about Soviet montage:
Basically this movie is composed of several different sections, with each story contains a particular topic belonging to a specific historical background. Except the maguey part (which signifies oppression and rebellion between serfowners and local slaves), there's nearly no plot! However i think i can tell what those different symbols or props mean when they are been "mechanically" put together. e.g. for the skulls and skeletons part, although people are dancing and even children are eating the sugar skull, since i have no knowledge on the "day of the dead" and because of my own cultural background, i can't persuade myself to accept the fact that it's not a weird festival. Until the last scene which i remember is a close shot of a boy's smiling face, i believe people are really feeling somewhat "happy" that day, and it's probably because their attitude toward death is optimistic. In short, this kind of segmented shots provide me a lot of space of imagination.
3. about aesthetics of violence:
It can hardly be categorized as a strict documentary or a feature film. Some sections have no voice-over at all, with only pure soundtrack, and story-like plot; but others are more like a documentary with a voice-over, but with no plot at all. Sergei put the documentary elements, the scenes for depicting the story plot, and actions like violence all together, forming a somewhat fabricated movie with a scenario which is demonstrated through a documentary way. Thus on the relationship between pure arts and material reality, Sergei stirs up the clear ambit of artificiality and documentary reality, which envelops the ability and the approach for an audience to comprehend the script and the society depicted in the movie by themselves.
I've never watched such kind of movie before. For me, it's so unique.
2/11/2009
Batalla en el cielo
Yo miraba esta película antes del principio del esto semestre. Para serte franca, mi impresión general para esto film es que, yo fui sumamente sacudida por los primeros minutos del cine, y por lo tanto es la primera película que me da un sentimiento que está fuera de mi expectativa completamente.
1. Sobre las tomas eróticas:
Pienso que no es una película erótica, aunque tiene algunas tomas sorprendentes. La razón es que, para una película erótica, tiene que incluir unas tomas que pueden excitar las audiencias; pero en esta película, creo que no hay una persona se provoca una pasión sexual por las tomas eróticas - es imposible, especialmente la escena de los esposos (la pareja).
Creo que la intención del director a las tomas es que, simplemente para crear su estilo específico, porque todas tomas eróticas de otras películas son sexual y pueden dar un sentimiento sexual, pero lo que en esta película nos da un sentimiento triste y lamentable - es diferente de otros cines. Y por esto sentimiento al principio, yo puedo adivinar que está es una tragedia.
2. ¿Por qué elige los actores sin profesionalidad?
Creo que, en primer lugar, como todos saben, es un ejemplo de Italian Neo-classical form (as far as i remember). Siempre los personas corrientes sin profesionalidad del acto pueden provocar un efecto más verdadero a los lectores, porque no tienen una capacidad de representar los personajes.
Sin embargo, tal vez es de una otra causa. Hay un Francés director famoso llamada Robert Bresson, quien exprsaba su punto como, "Films must break away from the particular form of the theater. The actors should not have their own thoughts or thinking on the script; they are only a tool of the director; they do exactly what the director tells them to do; they should not take any emotion" (if my memory serves me right). En esta película, los actoress lo me parecen es sin emociones en los rostros, y con toda seguridad, los actores hicen lo que dicen el director; pero lo que difiere de lo punto de Robert es que, aunque los actores no tienen las emociones de los personajes (personajes en el guión), tienen sus propias emociones. Y tal vez es un punto más único del film.
3. Sobre los "rounding/cycle shots" and "static -motion shots" (i can´t find other words)
Usa muchos "rounding shots and static -motion shots", especialmente cuando el protagonista, Marcos, se atasca por su deseo a Ana y por su pecado. Personalmente, me gusta esto tipo de "shot", porque "rounding shots" siempre manifiesta una situación desordenada, y puede representa la "lucha" en la corazón de Marcos; y "still - motion shots" muestra un énfasis destacado el progreso de cómo piensa Marcos. - Creo que es un punto importante de la trama de esta película.
Por otras cosas, no estoy familiarizada con el religión de México, y por lo tanto, pienso que Marcos hice un "pilgrimage" (sí o no?) tal vez porque él trata de "limpar" su pecado delante del Dios.
1. Sobre las tomas eróticas:
Pienso que no es una película erótica, aunque tiene algunas tomas sorprendentes. La razón es que, para una película erótica, tiene que incluir unas tomas que pueden excitar las audiencias; pero en esta película, creo que no hay una persona se provoca una pasión sexual por las tomas eróticas - es imposible, especialmente la escena de los esposos (la pareja).
Creo que la intención del director a las tomas es que, simplemente para crear su estilo específico, porque todas tomas eróticas de otras películas son sexual y pueden dar un sentimiento sexual, pero lo que en esta película nos da un sentimiento triste y lamentable - es diferente de otros cines. Y por esto sentimiento al principio, yo puedo adivinar que está es una tragedia.
2. ¿Por qué elige los actores sin profesionalidad?
Creo que, en primer lugar, como todos saben, es un ejemplo de Italian Neo-classical form (as far as i remember). Siempre los personas corrientes sin profesionalidad del acto pueden provocar un efecto más verdadero a los lectores, porque no tienen una capacidad de representar los personajes.
Sin embargo, tal vez es de una otra causa. Hay un Francés director famoso llamada Robert Bresson, quien exprsaba su punto como, "Films must break away from the particular form of the theater. The actors should not have their own thoughts or thinking on the script; they are only a tool of the director; they do exactly what the director tells them to do; they should not take any emotion" (if my memory serves me right). En esta película, los actoress lo me parecen es sin emociones en los rostros, y con toda seguridad, los actores hicen lo que dicen el director; pero lo que difiere de lo punto de Robert es que, aunque los actores no tienen las emociones de los personajes (personajes en el guión), tienen sus propias emociones. Y tal vez es un punto más único del film.
3. Sobre los "rounding/cycle shots" and "static -motion shots" (i can´t find other words)
Usa muchos "rounding shots and static -motion shots", especialmente cuando el protagonista, Marcos, se atasca por su deseo a Ana y por su pecado. Personalmente, me gusta esto tipo de "shot", porque "rounding shots" siempre manifiesta una situación desordenada, y puede representa la "lucha" en la corazón de Marcos; y "still - motion shots" muestra un énfasis destacado el progreso de cómo piensa Marcos. - Creo que es un punto importante de la trama de esta película.
Por otras cosas, no estoy familiarizada con el religión de México, y por lo tanto, pienso que Marcos hice un "pilgrimage" (sí o no?) tal vez porque él trata de "limpar" su pecado delante del Dios.
2/03/2009
El callejón de los milagros
Me gusta esta película mucho. En primer lugar, tiene una manera única del argumento. Al parecer lo que difiere con los 3 films pasados es que, tiene cuentos varios de una forma paralela, que cada cuento parece único que no tiene ninguna relación con otros cuentos directamente: el primero cuento es sobre Don Rutilio quien se enamora de un muchacho, y por eso su hijo Chava va a Estados Unidos; el segundo cuento es entre Alma y su amor Alber, el bueno amigo de Chava, y ellos se separan por la partida de Alber a Estados Unidos con Chava. Después de salir de Alber, Alma no puede casarse con un hombre viejo y rico por su muerte, y se hace una puta; el tercer cuento es acerca de Guicho, el empleado de Don Rutilio, y la dueño Susanita, y se casan tal vez porque Guicho necesita dineros - estos son tres cuentos principales que parecen distinctos, pero al fin, la última parte de la película nos da los finales de cada personaje. Por lo tanto, los argumentos son muy claro y con soltura.
En segundo lugar, el título es significado y metafórico. Es muy interesante que el título es traducido en dos maneras - "puta depravada" en Hong Kong y "el callejón del deseo/aspiración" o "la vida lamentable" en China. Yo pienso que la primera no es propia (sólo por intención comercial), pero ambos traducciones chinos son bien, pero la parabla "milagro" tiene más cosas:
Don Ru: tiene una familia corriente, pero desea un milagro de passión - muchacho Jaime;
Doña Cata: tiene la capacidad de advinar, pero desea un milagro de dinero - por enganar Susanita;
Susanita: tiene dinero, pero desea un milagro de amor - joven Guicho;
Chava y Guicho: tienen joventud y apariencia, pero desean un milagro de dinero;
Alma: tiene joventud y amor, pero desea un milagro de dinero también.
Pero por desgracia, los "milagros" no traen felicidad o buena suerte a los personajes al fin, sino traen la separación de hijos, el casamiento sin amor y la vida como una puta. Tal vez esto tipo de "milagro" es sólo una sátira - los personas desean muchos milagros, pero los milagros sólo son lamentos. Y tal vez los único personajes sin desgracia son Eusebia y la amiga de Alma, porque no tienen mucho deseos de "milagros".
En tercer lugar, la elección de la lugar es específica y se centraliza. El callejón es como un escenario que es el único lugar que se pasa todos los cuentos allí. Además de esta película, Mecánica nacional tiene el mismo rasgo, que la mayoria de la trama y el cuento ocurren sólo en el lugar de fiesta. El callejón es pequeño, pero también grande, porque contiene casi todos los desgracias y lamentos en la clase baja.
En segundo lugar, el título es significado y metafórico. Es muy interesante que el título es traducido en dos maneras - "puta depravada" en Hong Kong y "el callejón del deseo/aspiración" o "la vida lamentable" en China. Yo pienso que la primera no es propia (sólo por intención comercial), pero ambos traducciones chinos son bien, pero la parabla "milagro" tiene más cosas:
Don Ru: tiene una familia corriente, pero desea un milagro de passión - muchacho Jaime;
Doña Cata: tiene la capacidad de advinar, pero desea un milagro de dinero - por enganar Susanita;
Susanita: tiene dinero, pero desea un milagro de amor - joven Guicho;
Chava y Guicho: tienen joventud y apariencia, pero desean un milagro de dinero;
Alma: tiene joventud y amor, pero desea un milagro de dinero también.
Pero por desgracia, los "milagros" no traen felicidad o buena suerte a los personajes al fin, sino traen la separación de hijos, el casamiento sin amor y la vida como una puta. Tal vez esto tipo de "milagro" es sólo una sátira - los personas desean muchos milagros, pero los milagros sólo son lamentos. Y tal vez los único personajes sin desgracia son Eusebia y la amiga de Alma, porque no tienen mucho deseos de "milagros".
En tercer lugar, la elección de la lugar es específica y se centraliza. El callejón es como un escenario que es el único lugar que se pasa todos los cuentos allí. Además de esta película, Mecánica nacional tiene el mismo rasgo, que la mayoria de la trama y el cuento ocurren sólo en el lugar de fiesta. El callejón es pequeño, pero también grande, porque contiene casi todos los desgracias y lamentos en la clase baja.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)