Showing posts with label Diving Bell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diving Bell. Show all posts

1.18.2008

The Diving Bell and The Butterfly

these next few posts are from the chicago international film festival that were left unpublished by the magazine i was writing for, but they are dealing with films that are out now or available for rent.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Julian Schnabel (2007)
10.12.2007
Julian Schnabel was originally an art star out of Brooklyn, New York. He got into filmmaking after his success as a painter. His debut film was the biopic of the artist Basquiat. His new movie, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, is the story of the French Elle editor (Jean-Dominique Bauby) who suffers a massive stroke and is diagnosed with “locked-in syndrome”. He is unable to speak or move. The only way he learns to communicate is through blinking.
The opening scene of the movie is all in the point of view of Bauby. The viewer becomes the character through the lens. The lens opens up and there is extreme overexposure and smearing of colors. There are rough edits that imply blinking and there is chaos and confusion, and the camera isn’t focusing, there is dizziness. But it’s all using the film conceptual as a sensory device. You, the audience, is waking up from a deep coma. Schnabel is using the camera in this way to make the viewer become attached to the character, who turns out to be kind of an asshole, but the feeling of experiencing what is happening to him is enough not to care. It creates an intense emotional bond with Bauby. Yet Schnabel does not show the character for the first 20 minutes of the film (other than a brief rock-n-roll styled flashback when it is revealed Bauby was the editor of Elle, with a Lenny Kravitz cameo in tow).
The scene where Bauby is revealed to the audience is after his one of his eyes is sewn up, to prevent infection (still point of view), so the eyelid covers the lens and the needle piercing the skin and coming through, then with a cut to black, and a pan around to uncover Bauby.
Janusz Kaminski (Chicago favorite, Columbia College alum) did an amazing job with cinematography; the colors are stunning and each shot is a piece of art within itself. Kaminski won the Technical Grand Prize at Cannes, while Schnabel took Best Director.
There is this question of Hollywood art cinema, which is this idea of independent filmmaking with unconventional camera style and editing. Which may seem really experimental to some people, but to a lot of the filmmakers it may seem pretty conservative. Yet I think it is still noticeable that this is something that probably seems really innovative. And for myself, at least, I think it is interesting to see this fusion of techniques to create a more provocative mainstream film. Editing shouldn’t have to be used just to create eye-line matches and continuity, but a conceptual feeling. Schnabel and Kaminski did a fairly good job of creating that synthesis. It had a narrative structured well enough for people to watch and not get tired of the techniques used, but I suppose it was “modern” enough for the viewer to take notice of them. Revealing that is a story being told to you through the lens. But it still is strange to hear that term, art film, in context to a Hollywood independent film.

1.14.2008

Golden Globes

The Golden Globes were announced last night. It makes me lose a lot of hope for the future of cinema. Growing up I always assumed that the award shows like the Globes and the Oscars represented the best films and actors picked by qualified judges, educated scholars, critics, and industry people. But over the years it just becomes more apparent that this isn't true. Sure, I'm satisfied with some of the winners of this years Globe, and I honestly can say I haven't seen a lot of the movies that were nominated. Why? Because it is not worth the time to go out and see a whole bunch of crap, when I have the opportunity to see much better films in Chicago.
(Unfortunately, like Jonathan Rosenbaum pointed out in his Critics' Choice 2007 article in the Chicago Reader most of the films that were worth seeing in Chicago were not even made in 2007.)

Without seeing the majority of the films I still have the ability to see the error in the Globes choices (in most categories).

Best Picture (Drama) to Atonement.
Some how this film beat out a number of actual good films that were released last year. Maybe the Globes think that nominating these films are credit enough. But Atonement beat out There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men, and Eastern Promises. Of course, I have not seen Atonement, but I don't really have any intention to see it. I haven't even seen No Country For Old Men or Eastern Promises yet (yes, I will see them soon), but I know that these films are going to be much more intriguing: visually and in the narratives. Same for There Will Be Blood, it was amazing cinematography and strong characters (see Best Actor). I don't think that we should be rewarding a film on their ability to sell a story that has been told before.

Best Picture (Comedy) to Sweeney Todd.
These films are probably great for enjoyment, but worthless to talk about.

Best Actor (Drama) to Daniel Day Lewis (There Will Be Blood)
Best Supporting Actor to Javier Bardem (No Country For Old Men)
Best Supporting Actress to Cate Blanchett (I'm Not There)
This is where the Golden Globes got it pretty right. I guess this year the actors and actress were undeniably the showstoppers. Unfortunately their coworkers didn't get much credit, but these people really did a good job.
Since I haven't seen No Country For Old Men I'll just say that Bardem seemed like the only contender in his category, but Filmmaker Magazine has called it his, "tour de force performance." Cate Blanchett made I'm Not There, without her performance (and David Cross' Allen Ginsberg) the film most likely would've been a celebrity driven over edited shot at a "postmodern" film. Good job, Blanchett. And Daniel Day Lewis (other than being extremely sexy) was the perfect fit for Anderson's oil tycoon, though I would've liked to see Paul Dano at least nominated for his role as the preacher.

Best Director to Julian Schnabel for The Diving Bell and The Butterfly
Beating out the Coen brothers, I thought Schnabel did a good job with Diving Bell but I think I'd rather see credit given to Janusz Kaminski (cinematographer) or to Juliette Welfing (editor), but I guess I have a special place in my heart for artists turned filmmakers.

Other points of mention:

Coen brothers won Best Screenplay.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was awarded Best Foreign Language Film, which brings up a point of contention that I had with a friend when we saw the movie at The Chicago International Film Festival. Schnabel is an American director, telling a French story. What exactly makes this film have the ability to be considered a foreign film? Is it just because it is in a different language? Or is it because the production companies are predominantly French? And when do you decide to have the film be in the original language, when you haven't in the past? It's just a point to bring up.

Daniel Day Lewis and Dillon Freasier in There Will Be Blood