I was tempted to do imagine a Kurasawa version of Highlander, but that would be too easy. Just add extra decapitations, dismemberments, and gallons of blood.
Instead, let's look at how much he does with colors and lighting. I'll start with Stray Dog. Here we have light, gray tones that emphasize the heat. It's black and white, so he can't do much with color, but the rough grays almost seem to give it a dusty orange color. The lighting and composition are so well controlled that you can forget that it is all in black and white.
Next, there's Yojimbo. Kurasawa controls the lighting and composition well again, but he puts much more emphasis on contrasting the black and white in the frame rather than pushing a lot of gray. For example, the shots that take place in the hut while Sanjuro is recovering have a lot of contrast between shadows and small strips of light. In fact, it seems like the light in those shots are shadows cast by the darkness. Those darker shots set the tone and intensity as the film stops making jokes and heads toward the conclusion.
Finally, we've got Ran. Ran had color. Color is good. Kurasawa made good use of color in several ways. The dynamics of the battle scenes were organized and clarified by giving the different sides their own colors. That simplified what would have been chaotic shots. He also used color to set the mood. In the beginning of the movie, the entire landscape is green and blue; nice, calm, bright colors. In the last scene, the entire landscape is this dull orange, lit up by a sunset at the horizon. The shot gives us a sense of a somber conflict.
Basically, Kurasawa did a fantastic job using colors and lighting in his movies. They set the tone and organized the composition of the shots.
Alfred Hitchcock
I've recently discovered a trick through which you can detail the aspects of a director/auteur: imagine if they had created Highlander.
Now, Hitchcock didn't do much in the way of science fiction or supernatural powers, so that bit would need to be cut. Next, the main character would have to be lost, in over his head, and on the run from the law - a traditional Hitchcock hero. Let's throw in a blond femme-fatale and a convoluted plot for good measure.
Here's the story I've come up with:
Connor MacLeod wakes up in a small town hospital with no memory. Over the next few days, he is attacked by strange swordsmen and finds articles in the newspaper that describe him as an escaped murder suspect. Along the way are references to a mysterious "prize", a blond woman who needs his help, and an obsession with finding the witness named in the newspapers. The twist is that he is that witness, and the woman who "needed his help" was the real suspect. The people hunting him are playing a twisted game, and he's their prey. At the very end, he explains all this to a cop who is secretly holding a sword.
The plot has the second twist, the classic femme-fatale, the "wrong man", and the dark tone common in Hitchcock's films. There is no real physical confrontation, just the threat of one. To fit Hitchcock's style, big events would be shown indirectly through shots of the newspaper. I've included the conspiracy from 39 Steps, the minor betrayal from Vertigo, the memory loss from Spellbound, and the creepy small town atmosphere from Shadow of a Doubt. I kinda just threw them all together. Still, I think it would be interesting. I'd watch it, at least.
Now, Hitchcock didn't do much in the way of science fiction or supernatural powers, so that bit would need to be cut. Next, the main character would have to be lost, in over his head, and on the run from the law - a traditional Hitchcock hero. Let's throw in a blond femme-fatale and a convoluted plot for good measure.
Here's the story I've come up with:
Connor MacLeod wakes up in a small town hospital with no memory. Over the next few days, he is attacked by strange swordsmen and finds articles in the newspaper that describe him as an escaped murder suspect. Along the way are references to a mysterious "prize", a blond woman who needs his help, and an obsession with finding the witness named in the newspapers. The twist is that he is that witness, and the woman who "needed his help" was the real suspect. The people hunting him are playing a twisted game, and he's their prey. At the very end, he explains all this to a cop who is secretly holding a sword.
The plot has the second twist, the classic femme-fatale, the "wrong man", and the dark tone common in Hitchcock's films. There is no real physical confrontation, just the threat of one. To fit Hitchcock's style, big events would be shown indirectly through shots of the newspaper. I've included the conspiracy from 39 Steps, the minor betrayal from Vertigo, the memory loss from Spellbound, and the creepy small town atmosphere from Shadow of a Doubt. I kinda just threw them all together. Still, I think it would be interesting. I'd watch it, at least.
Black Hawk Down
I really enjoyed this movie. I was in a mood for a story, and that's what I got. I already knew a little of the plot, but not enoughto make it predictable. The conflict was clear and defined early on. It was a simple challenge of survival; waiting until help could arrive. Spread throughout was character development, impressive shots, and a soundtrack that backed the tension and emotion in the characters.
I think a large part of the film's success was its realism. The actors' grim was pretty critical. I mean, if they'd been sitting there with ironed clothes and manicured nails, I would have been a little suspicious of their authenticity. Instead, they had mud and sweat on their faces, and they held their weapons like they knew how to use them. Which, because of the training the actors were required to undergo, they did.
That's really what this movie was about: reality. It was a real plot, a real setting, and real soldiers. Well, they were actors, but they were as close to soldiers as Hollywood can get. The music? The sound editing? Just complements; little added touches to accentuate the intensity of the film. When I saw Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven, it was all about the camera and sound. Here, it was all about the genuine story. Of course, Ridley Scott's finer touches were great. But this one goes down to realism.
I think a large part of the film's success was its realism. The actors' grim was pretty critical. I mean, if they'd been sitting there with ironed clothes and manicured nails, I would have been a little suspicious of their authenticity. Instead, they had mud and sweat on their faces, and they held their weapons like they knew how to use them. Which, because of the training the actors were required to undergo, they did.
That's really what this movie was about: reality. It was a real plot, a real setting, and real soldiers. Well, they were actors, but they were as close to soldiers as Hollywood can get. The music? The sound editing? Just complements; little added touches to accentuate the intensity of the film. When I saw Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven, it was all about the camera and sound. Here, it was all about the genuine story. Of course, Ridley Scott's finer touches were great. But this one goes down to realism.
Gladiator
Right. Gladiator. You know, the one on TV? Every other weekend? Yep, that's the one.
So, yes. Gladiator is fantastic. Some people don't feel this way, however. Some people say that Gladiator is nothing but cliches, battle scenes, and semi-historical fantasy. They might point to the soundtrack, which is full of big, sweeping, unoriginal songs. Maybe some frown upon Russell Crowe's both depressing and simple performance. Or maybe, just maybe, they point out that there are a dozen movies like this; all loosely based on historical events filled with enormous battle scenes.
To these people, I say: shut up.
I started like you. I was silly and dismissive. I was about three minutes into the movie when I snapped out of it. All those other movies? They copied this one. Do you want to know why they copied it? Because it f-ing works! This movie has those impressive battle scenes with the cliche stylistic effects - because it came up with them! The soundtrack was something new and original when it came out; it only seems common because it invented the genre! Irked by Russell Crowe? It's Russell F-ing Crowe! Strange, depressed, and slightly insane is what he does! Beautiful Mind? Cinderella Man? Hotel telephones? Dude could do crazy in his sleep!
Gladiator is a piece of art. Ridley Scott pulled together a satisfying, well-made movie. It is original, touching, and mesmerizing. There is nothing wrong with this movie. Now, if you are prepared to accept that, I'm sure it's on TV right now. Go watch it.
So, yes. Gladiator is fantastic. Some people don't feel this way, however. Some people say that Gladiator is nothing but cliches, battle scenes, and semi-historical fantasy. They might point to the soundtrack, which is full of big, sweeping, unoriginal songs. Maybe some frown upon Russell Crowe's both depressing and simple performance. Or maybe, just maybe, they point out that there are a dozen movies like this; all loosely based on historical events filled with enormous battle scenes.
To these people, I say: shut up.
I started like you. I was silly and dismissive. I was about three minutes into the movie when I snapped out of it. All those other movies? They copied this one. Do you want to know why they copied it? Because it f-ing works! This movie has those impressive battle scenes with the cliche stylistic effects - because it came up with them! The soundtrack was something new and original when it came out; it only seems common because it invented the genre! Irked by Russell Crowe? It's Russell F-ing Crowe! Strange, depressed, and slightly insane is what he does! Beautiful Mind? Cinderella Man? Hotel telephones? Dude could do crazy in his sleep!
Gladiator is a piece of art. Ridley Scott pulled together a satisfying, well-made movie. It is original, touching, and mesmerizing. There is nothing wrong with this movie. Now, if you are prepared to accept that, I'm sure it's on TV right now. Go watch it.
Kingdom of Heaven
Kingdom of Heaven was.... yeah. I'm not having a very emotional reaction to it. I didn't come out of it impressed, but I wasn't disgusted either. The movie just never drew me in. I wasn't impressed by the plot or characters, and the acting was patchy. Edward Norton did a very nice job throughout, but the rest fell flat. It wasn't so much that they were particularly bad, they just didn't connect with me. I found myself thinking about the actors and their performance rather than the conflict or dialogue. That is usually a sign of either a bad movie or a bad critic. And I'm an amazing critic. If I had to rate my making-arbitrary-judgments-while-having-no-legitimate-experience ability, I'd give my self a 9.
Ridley Scott's hand on this film was fairly recognizable on this film. We've got the slow, dramatized action shots of Gladiator and Black Hawk Down. The unfamiliar setting evokes the same feelings of Blade Runner - unresolved confusion. Edward Norton's return from Fight Club was a pleasant surprise.
I never actually read many reviews of this movie (which gets rid of potential bias), but this really felt like an unimpressive melding of Gladiator and Lord of the Rings. I can't tell if he tried stuffing too much action in a emotional story or too much emotion in an action flick. However you take it, though, there was simply not enough of either.
Also, I just wish that Jeremy Irons would, just once, make a Lion King joke. I swear he could've fit in "my words are a matter of pride!" It would have been perfect! Oh well.
Ridley Scott's hand on this film was fairly recognizable on this film. We've got the slow, dramatized action shots of Gladiator and Black Hawk Down. The unfamiliar setting evokes the same feelings of Blade Runner - unresolved confusion. Edward Norton's return from Fight Club was a pleasant surprise.
I never actually read many reviews of this movie (which gets rid of potential bias), but this really felt like an unimpressive melding of Gladiator and Lord of the Rings. I can't tell if he tried stuffing too much action in a emotional story or too much emotion in an action flick. However you take it, though, there was simply not enough of either.
Also, I just wish that Jeremy Irons would, just once, make a Lion King joke. I swear he could've fit in "my words are a matter of pride!" It would have been perfect! Oh well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)