| |
Limited
Wes Anderson. He”s a terrific filmmaker with a unique point of view. From his dialogue to blocking to the way he choreographs the camera and envisions the production design... I”m a fan.
This afternoon I screened his latest, The Darjeeling Limited.
The film has style and control, and its clever bits, but character and story are lacking and some ideas are recycled from Wes' previous films. It was the related short film that played beforehand (a prologue) with Schwartzman and Nat Portman that had more tangible emotion and character; something you could feel and react to. Unlike a great lot of films, I'm not sorry that I saw Darjeeling. Then again, I was with friends and it was a free screening, and it was a Wes film, so there are worst ways to spend an afternoon. Another case of good ideas that needed better organization and development. I find it difficult to say anything poor about the filmmaker, however; his work is skilled and charming and the actor in me is always thrilled by his style.
Yesx2, there is indeed a short that plays beforehand, which is really a part of the movie, but dramatically (levels wise) doesn't fit. I never read the studio production notes (useless) or do much research on films beforehand because I like to go in clean and react to what happens in the theater. What does the story behind the making of the film matter? If it's not on the screen, it's not on the screen. When you screen films early, you have the ability to go in really, really clean. I hadn”t even seen a trailer for this film. Thus, I had no idea what to expect and hadn't heard anything about there being a short film involved.
This short I mentioned, with Nat and Schwartzman, it”s not going to be played in theaters. Guess where you get to watch it for free? Yep. When I learned that, I couldn”t help but immediately say, “”So Natalie Portman just did a nude scene for an Internet film?”
You have to watch the short online, which is some sort of new, new media blunder, I guess.
Online video is playschool. Drama doesn”t transfer to the 'Net well and the audience won”t be able to appreciate the filmmaking. The short is an intimate sequence. It does not belong on the Internet for free.
Taste wise, I have a huge issue with the choice, is all.
I don”t understand the point. Is the online vid intended to help sales? (I assume.) Why not make it part of the film in the first place? Why can it not be released along with the film and play beforehand as it is being screened both here and at festivals?
Oh, and guess what? If you haven”t seen the short prior to the film, then there are a few points where you will be confused. Not that I”m sending you to the film. The short is actually better than the film (which is part of what I meant by "levels"). If they're going to put something online, they should put the feature up and release the short theatrically. They have some problem solving to do.
Update: PaulyD was there, too.
Updatex2: I found out that they are going iTunes free download with the short, which is the classiest way to do it, but still. Wish you could see it like I did.
Now I will shift to another subject, semi-related, that launches me into a rant that ends in the same question I am constantly asking:
Andwtfisthis? A radio spot?
What, what, what are people thinking? So much talent, so much!”I”m surrounded by it”I”m swimming in it”I see it every day here, and not just on the lots or in studio” I”m not only speaking about artist talent, I”m speaking of business and marketing talent, too.
What the hell is going on.
Comments (8) | Permanent Link | RSS
|
|
|
