Post by Casablanca on Oct 24, 2009 15:42:28 GMT -5
This is the second review in a series of re-reviews I am doing. I have a nice list of films I have been meaning to get too. The re-reviews are mostly to films that I am doing for some reason; either I forgot them, have been meaning to do them, or a sequel is coming out.
The next film will be “A pre-Ricochet Fight Indy Film (need to decide which one)”. After that, I have a list made out of:
[Not in order.]
A Moral Aroma
X-Men 4
The Comic Shop
The Hand of God
A pre-Frankenstein SCF
Captain Scarlet 1 (I might make it 3)
A Jester film that is not TLC
That is open to change, and will take quite a bit, but I am on a great start, and have read a few, again, already. Just need to type reviews.
---------------------------------------
I suppose that it is one of humanity’s greatest gifts, and greatest curses, that one does not have the capability of a choice family, picking the one which appeals to them; in this, you deal with the hardship, the hypocrisy, the insistent disagreements and pains; yet at the same time, there is something of an maddening, fractured, unorthodox beauty to the ruined dinners and the nights spent crying; something of a twisted suburban nightmare/dream. “Eleanor Rigby” captures that beauty; as it also captures the darker side of the moon, and in so, becomes a product of its own intent. There are characters who annoy you with their insincerity, as much as because of others sincerity. Some of the cast, I enjoyed, because of their wit and humor; and, others because of their cruel and knowing sarcasm. It’s a film that knows with every act of meanness, or every single argument; there is some inner peace lying there. Call it cathartic, call It sadism, or simply call it the bearings of a typical modern family; no matter what its label, it is one o the few things which are undoubtedly recognizable to all.
Hanelle has really written a few nice films; films which focus on character and plot more than the pretense of enjoyment. Films which are not made her self-egotism, but for an audience; and that is all to apparent here. This is a touching film for an audience of wider range then most films I see. It is meant to be embraced by anyone, despite preference or personality- it is universal. With its vast variety of characters, and its tall family tree, there is a bit of something for everyone; largely in part due to the individualistic, and quite identifiable voices each character holds. You have Eleanor, and her sappy-good-to-be-home attitude; Thomas, Lauren, Joan…all radically different people, and, with only a few exceptions, have radically different ideals and notions. That is, perhaps, the films real achievement; while story and dialogue go on varying levels; the characters having qualities specific to them is faultless, and something that must be seen to be believed.
However, one thing which is both a compliment, and a grievance, to the film is that my criticisms bare little heaviness. I have some, yes; but with a film as seen here, many of them will be definite to me, and, most likely, something considered a “high point” in the film for others. That’s how this works here, everyone is allotted their own insight and their own penchant; all going back to what I stated earlier, there is a bit for everyone, but, naturally and inevitably, a bit that doesn’t suit you as well. For example, I thought that this was a sprawling ensemble piece that could use a bit more breath. I liked the musical chairs between character and character, though too often did we catch the tail end of a note. Is it realistic? Yes. Does it work? Yes, for the first few times; but I must admit that the film came off, at the end, as a television episode, and not so much a full featured film. If it is any consolation, however, it was a wonderful episode.
My only other, and it is my last, gripe is one that I will catch heavy fire for, and if I am not shot down immediately, it will only be good fortune. I didn’t take as large a grasp to Eleanor’s personality, initially, as some other readers seemed to. Granted, she is a marvelous character, and during such scene (with Lenny, singing “Let it Be”, or the entire party-fiasco), I see greatness; but when she firsts come in, I was not sold. Why do I realize I am bound to catch gripe for this? Because, after those first few scenes, she grew to be one of the most lively and realistic characters I have seen in a film on this site, despite not being my favorite from the film (which is Joan), and this makes me admit to differing from a technicality. In terms of importance, and structure, I think Eleanor is one to go down in MR history, as she is, really, the first full out success in bringing humanity to the screen, regardless of story, or personal, bias. For me, though, she worked better on that level, than Joan did, on a more touching level.
However, one cannot simply under-rate the film more then I just have in the last two paragraphs; it is a treasure of a film, one which has its flaws deep inside, and all of them both subjective. It moves quickly and darts from character to character, and with a little more panning out that (filler, one could say bluntly), I can picture this movie being perfectly executed, where as now, we must suffice to “quite near”, which is still a heft achievement, which makes me declare here, in front of you as witnesses; I think this is Hanelle’s best film she has done. And, I say that, because despite little things I would have changed, there is likely nothing that everyone would have changed, as well as the fact, that if the small flaws were amplified to ninety percent what they are, it effected me more so then any film in recent memory, because of the bare minimalism, which rested on nothing but real emotional grasp. It took a risk, which I like to see, by revolving its entire run length on nothing but a feeling, and captured it so well that by the end of the film, that feeling remained.
I am not sure if anyone has, or will point this out, but I would be very interested in what all the readers took of the movie jumping between charm and bitterness; often a few times close together. If you’ll go back to my opening paragraph, you’ll see my view stated more then clearly, where I mention that the bitterness is not a change in mood, but the beauty behind the bad, which, in turn, makes the entire film circle around one axis. I think this movie knew what it was doing, and never exploited that. For example, are we ever given a single moment where a character is, unconditionally, depressed? No, throughout all the moments of agony and arguing, there is never pure hate, or pure anger; it is all hidden in a mask of family and underground love. That’s what tantalized me about this script more then anything, its reluctance to go into any conflict bigger then itself, and that makes it a humble film. It is likely this might turn off other views, however, as there is no real gunshot of a climax. It walks onto screen, stating (literally, in its narration), what we are about to see; a movie about the ups and downs of family, and how those two concepts co-exists together much more frequent then we may want to admit.
“Let it Be”, is sung throughout the film twice. Once towards the first act, at night, after everything has begun; once towards the end. It is a wonderful metaphor for growth. We have heard about the troubles of growth, the wonders of it, and the surprise when you meet someone again for the first time, in quite a while; and above family, that is the theme which is shot home; despite time passing, people never really change, or never really lose what they initially had in them. Saying this, the last 1/3 of the film is flawless. There is some beautifully done sequences, and everything comes together so touching (James introducing his daughter was a magnificent touch), that it shows what the first half had, which we couldn’t see from the start. This is truly a film you need to view, before you criticize, as the first and second half bits compliment each other, and at the end, seeing Eleanor on the airplane, as we have not earlier in the film, one could just as easily place that scene at the start of the film, with her declaring she is “going home”. This shows how multiple of a term “home” is, and how, no matter going to or leaving, there is always someplace to return to with its label.
Mary herself, is an interesting addition. We rarely ever truly get into her, and we never fully learn who she was (in depth); though she is a wonderful fit as a backdrop, almost like a setting. Everything acts and moves with her in the back of their heads; and she is a sheer catalyst for the bringing together of this family, like something of a trigger.
This film both is one of the most emotionally analytical pieces I have read; as practically each character can be sifted through; and it is also one of the films that most escape criticism. The flaws here, are the flaws of the characters; and as they are as real as can be written, it would be hypocritical of me to insult some of their motives, as, proven here, every and each person is different. The film ends with a quote (I cannot remember it), but it states, along the lines, that happy families have nothing that makes them different from another happy family; unhappy families, meanwhile, are all diverse in how they function. This is true with people; there are no happy characters here, because in so, we would lose that colorful vigor that everyone holds to himself or herself.
I am going to say something I don’t ever see myself saying for any other film, with scarce exception. This is a film that is purely an expressive effort. It does not swindle in plot, or cheat in pretense; but exists to express a feeling; and that is a magical attempt which I could never see having the courage to do. It doesn’t use ideas, nor plot; but takes a snapshot of a family and presents it as “take-it-how-you-will”. That is a daringly effective notion.
Overall, this a film which is deemed to be largely considered “middle brow” Hanelle film, when in reality, it is my favorite of her catalog, and the one film I can condone calling a accurate poignant, and touching, experience. It touches on every single emotion viable, and doesn’t “piano” it, which is to say strike on it; but it hovers over it, letting us see it inside and out, and how each character if effected by an action, and in so, it is never anything but telling the truth. Even in the musical choice, there is a sort of all-too-true saying; how even the broken hearted and the parted will see; they do. The ones who distance themselves in anger, or distance themselves in death (Mary obviously “sees” through making the right choice of giving Eleanor the estates); there is a right answer they choose.
The next film will be “A pre-Ricochet Fight Indy Film (need to decide which one)”. After that, I have a list made out of:
[Not in order.]
A Moral Aroma
X-Men 4
The Comic Shop
The Hand of God
A pre-Frankenstein SCF
Captain Scarlet 1 (I might make it 3)
A Jester film that is not TLC
That is open to change, and will take quite a bit, but I am on a great start, and have read a few, again, already. Just need to type reviews.
---------------------------------------
I suppose that it is one of humanity’s greatest gifts, and greatest curses, that one does not have the capability of a choice family, picking the one which appeals to them; in this, you deal with the hardship, the hypocrisy, the insistent disagreements and pains; yet at the same time, there is something of an maddening, fractured, unorthodox beauty to the ruined dinners and the nights spent crying; something of a twisted suburban nightmare/dream. “Eleanor Rigby” captures that beauty; as it also captures the darker side of the moon, and in so, becomes a product of its own intent. There are characters who annoy you with their insincerity, as much as because of others sincerity. Some of the cast, I enjoyed, because of their wit and humor; and, others because of their cruel and knowing sarcasm. It’s a film that knows with every act of meanness, or every single argument; there is some inner peace lying there. Call it cathartic, call It sadism, or simply call it the bearings of a typical modern family; no matter what its label, it is one o the few things which are undoubtedly recognizable to all.
Hanelle has really written a few nice films; films which focus on character and plot more than the pretense of enjoyment. Films which are not made her self-egotism, but for an audience; and that is all to apparent here. This is a touching film for an audience of wider range then most films I see. It is meant to be embraced by anyone, despite preference or personality- it is universal. With its vast variety of characters, and its tall family tree, there is a bit of something for everyone; largely in part due to the individualistic, and quite identifiable voices each character holds. You have Eleanor, and her sappy-good-to-be-home attitude; Thomas, Lauren, Joan…all radically different people, and, with only a few exceptions, have radically different ideals and notions. That is, perhaps, the films real achievement; while story and dialogue go on varying levels; the characters having qualities specific to them is faultless, and something that must be seen to be believed.
However, one thing which is both a compliment, and a grievance, to the film is that my criticisms bare little heaviness. I have some, yes; but with a film as seen here, many of them will be definite to me, and, most likely, something considered a “high point” in the film for others. That’s how this works here, everyone is allotted their own insight and their own penchant; all going back to what I stated earlier, there is a bit for everyone, but, naturally and inevitably, a bit that doesn’t suit you as well. For example, I thought that this was a sprawling ensemble piece that could use a bit more breath. I liked the musical chairs between character and character, though too often did we catch the tail end of a note. Is it realistic? Yes. Does it work? Yes, for the first few times; but I must admit that the film came off, at the end, as a television episode, and not so much a full featured film. If it is any consolation, however, it was a wonderful episode.
My only other, and it is my last, gripe is one that I will catch heavy fire for, and if I am not shot down immediately, it will only be good fortune. I didn’t take as large a grasp to Eleanor’s personality, initially, as some other readers seemed to. Granted, she is a marvelous character, and during such scene (with Lenny, singing “Let it Be”, or the entire party-fiasco), I see greatness; but when she firsts come in, I was not sold. Why do I realize I am bound to catch gripe for this? Because, after those first few scenes, she grew to be one of the most lively and realistic characters I have seen in a film on this site, despite not being my favorite from the film (which is Joan), and this makes me admit to differing from a technicality. In terms of importance, and structure, I think Eleanor is one to go down in MR history, as she is, really, the first full out success in bringing humanity to the screen, regardless of story, or personal, bias. For me, though, she worked better on that level, than Joan did, on a more touching level.
However, one cannot simply under-rate the film more then I just have in the last two paragraphs; it is a treasure of a film, one which has its flaws deep inside, and all of them both subjective. It moves quickly and darts from character to character, and with a little more panning out that (filler, one could say bluntly), I can picture this movie being perfectly executed, where as now, we must suffice to “quite near”, which is still a heft achievement, which makes me declare here, in front of you as witnesses; I think this is Hanelle’s best film she has done. And, I say that, because despite little things I would have changed, there is likely nothing that everyone would have changed, as well as the fact, that if the small flaws were amplified to ninety percent what they are, it effected me more so then any film in recent memory, because of the bare minimalism, which rested on nothing but real emotional grasp. It took a risk, which I like to see, by revolving its entire run length on nothing but a feeling, and captured it so well that by the end of the film, that feeling remained.
I am not sure if anyone has, or will point this out, but I would be very interested in what all the readers took of the movie jumping between charm and bitterness; often a few times close together. If you’ll go back to my opening paragraph, you’ll see my view stated more then clearly, where I mention that the bitterness is not a change in mood, but the beauty behind the bad, which, in turn, makes the entire film circle around one axis. I think this movie knew what it was doing, and never exploited that. For example, are we ever given a single moment where a character is, unconditionally, depressed? No, throughout all the moments of agony and arguing, there is never pure hate, or pure anger; it is all hidden in a mask of family and underground love. That’s what tantalized me about this script more then anything, its reluctance to go into any conflict bigger then itself, and that makes it a humble film. It is likely this might turn off other views, however, as there is no real gunshot of a climax. It walks onto screen, stating (literally, in its narration), what we are about to see; a movie about the ups and downs of family, and how those two concepts co-exists together much more frequent then we may want to admit.
“Let it Be”, is sung throughout the film twice. Once towards the first act, at night, after everything has begun; once towards the end. It is a wonderful metaphor for growth. We have heard about the troubles of growth, the wonders of it, and the surprise when you meet someone again for the first time, in quite a while; and above family, that is the theme which is shot home; despite time passing, people never really change, or never really lose what they initially had in them. Saying this, the last 1/3 of the film is flawless. There is some beautifully done sequences, and everything comes together so touching (James introducing his daughter was a magnificent touch), that it shows what the first half had, which we couldn’t see from the start. This is truly a film you need to view, before you criticize, as the first and second half bits compliment each other, and at the end, seeing Eleanor on the airplane, as we have not earlier in the film, one could just as easily place that scene at the start of the film, with her declaring she is “going home”. This shows how multiple of a term “home” is, and how, no matter going to or leaving, there is always someplace to return to with its label.
Mary herself, is an interesting addition. We rarely ever truly get into her, and we never fully learn who she was (in depth); though she is a wonderful fit as a backdrop, almost like a setting. Everything acts and moves with her in the back of their heads; and she is a sheer catalyst for the bringing together of this family, like something of a trigger.
This film both is one of the most emotionally analytical pieces I have read; as practically each character can be sifted through; and it is also one of the films that most escape criticism. The flaws here, are the flaws of the characters; and as they are as real as can be written, it would be hypocritical of me to insult some of their motives, as, proven here, every and each person is different. The film ends with a quote (I cannot remember it), but it states, along the lines, that happy families have nothing that makes them different from another happy family; unhappy families, meanwhile, are all diverse in how they function. This is true with people; there are no happy characters here, because in so, we would lose that colorful vigor that everyone holds to himself or herself.
I am going to say something I don’t ever see myself saying for any other film, with scarce exception. This is a film that is purely an expressive effort. It does not swindle in plot, or cheat in pretense; but exists to express a feeling; and that is a magical attempt which I could never see having the courage to do. It doesn’t use ideas, nor plot; but takes a snapshot of a family and presents it as “take-it-how-you-will”. That is a daringly effective notion.
Overall, this a film which is deemed to be largely considered “middle brow” Hanelle film, when in reality, it is my favorite of her catalog, and the one film I can condone calling a accurate poignant, and touching, experience. It touches on every single emotion viable, and doesn’t “piano” it, which is to say strike on it; but it hovers over it, letting us see it inside and out, and how each character if effected by an action, and in so, it is never anything but telling the truth. Even in the musical choice, there is a sort of all-too-true saying; how even the broken hearted and the parted will see; they do. The ones who distance themselves in anger, or distance themselves in death (Mary obviously “sees” through making the right choice of giving Eleanor the estates); there is a right answer they choose.
