[Film] Calvin sorry but...

Calvin, I gonna have a biting tongue at a film, "fight club" which is your the best. As u know, I had seen it twice, first time on theater 6 years ago, and next time with u recently. I found a lot of good sources from this film at second time. I feel thx to u. But I hardly understand why this film have got so many praises from their supporing group. I will reveal it now.

Firstly, I will state Roger Ebert's saying,

"Fight club" Durden represents hidden aspects of the male psyche is a question the movie uses as a loophole--but is not able to escape through, because "Fight Club" is not about its ending but about its action. Of course, "Fight Club" itself does not advocate Durden's philosophy. It is a warning against it, I guess; one critic I like says it makes "a telling point about the bestial nature of man and what can happen when the numbing effects of day-to-day drudgery cause people to go a little crazy."

Although I don't 100 % agree with his saying, my main point is conneted with his point. Why they follow Tyler Durden? They are all minority outsiders. Someones are fat, jobless, a good for nothing. They are going to get a save from Tyler and idolize Tyler.They become excited at his speech, act, even fighting. But they need to be criticize.

Do they try to become a man like Tyler? Tyler can't change them, only take out people's aggresiveness instinct, even use it for his purpose.Quite villian. Their hero Tyler which they wanna be like? or follow? The masses in fightclub just follow him and get a "settlement" from him.Just settelment. Here is exmaple, barry bones, great baseball player, had grew with his godfather Willy Mayse. A talented baseball Aability ran in the blood of the family. After a hard traning and a willing, he is eventually passing over Willy's record. Here difference between hero and idol become clear.

What's the meaning of idol. They can't change them selves, can't reach to tylor in Tylor's circle. Because they are not changed, just found their instinct.
Why do audiences feel pleasure from them? They are more settling. Dazzling camera work and sounds, images are going fast to "reinforce" their explosion.Finally, Norton returns to his ego because fight club not going to correct way. But only him. The others are already crazy about their themselves.

At the ending, norton found his real identity, even masses still think he is Tylor. Here David fincher cut ending up dimly.It's very irresposible. The director had shown very clear depictions of violence and identical changes. Then when norton returns to reality.Just end up dimly...? Audiences are already dazzled and there are no self-reflection there (ending).
If fincher take second series of fight club? can the director talk about remained people in fightclub? They are useless. Just existed fora propaganda tylorism. If you want to get a settlement like a members, keep following Tylor, or not.. be superior him.

Fincher should have to examine about member left at the end, or not he had to keep praising fight club. He avoided both side. It's the why this film is a crap.Don't say about fight club in thems of philosophy any more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Film] Stranger than Paradise

Hungarian woman Eva came to his cusion Willy's home in new york. The story started from here.

"Stranger than Paradise" was very precious film for me. Even thourgh, I don't like to sort "my favorite film" and keep its illusion to mind, this film's memorable theme stimulated me very much. American society in this film is so far from the facet,a common wealth. The dim US (especially in Eva's view) is described there.

I don't know whether this depiction is fitted but, 'one shot is naturally developed to one scene'. Of course, a lot of films in history, showed the soul of longtake, but this film is different at their object. Usually longtake was used in a way to observe landscape or human's identity with long breath. However in this film, Jim Jamushi took longtake in different way. There are no extreme long shot or close up for longtake. Also he ignored highlighting fact on the plot structure. Just take long time in somewhere and show their normal life. Its synery is nothing, even a sence of emptiness is not there.

When I firstly watched this film, I couldn't be stimulated by any artistic element at all or couldn't feel any sence of boring. Just my eyes was kept at the screen... Oops too much talking about only camera:)

"Stranger than Paradise" is divided to 3 parts. 'New world', "After 1 year" and "Paradise". When Eva went and came back again after 1 year, the film starts to have a story. They move to florida, which called as paradise. Nothing happened on the way and nothing there. Willy silently talk to himself. "Everywhere is not different, just stranger than paradise that's it" Just simple style continually repeated, but perhaps we already found something in there and will be symbolizing it into our mind.

(Stranger than paradise, Jim Jarmusch, 1984)

[Film] Realism vs Formalism

In godard's film, La Chinese(1967) there is one scene university student talk about real artist of 1900's.They jot down a lot of names on the board and start deleting the name. Discussion is been going in the frame. Now is the turn of movie artists. There are two names left.Lumiere brothers and George Melious, Lumiere was first people invent film and Melious was first man try fatasy films like a "atrip to the moon"Because the students are described as realists supporting Maoism, it seem that they are going to choose Lumiere brothers who made realism film. However, they chose Melious in different notion with other arts area and said... "Lumiere recorded the world butMelious analysed the world.

Realism vs Formalism. It has been major controversy continually in film history. It may started from a big controversy betweenAndre baisan and sergei einsenstain in 1950. Andre baisan who was the most famous critic hardly supported realism. He really disagreed with formalised beauty in film (like a cross cutting or Mcguffin effect of Hichicok's way). In contrast Einsenstain,formalised film. If I mention a very simple example, in realism view, murderer have to kill people in the frame but in formalism view,only killer's knife or some connoted images can speak proxy. Baisan really hated this kind of method such as cross cutting and montage way.

Realism - crosscutting, a lot of sound effect and montage constructingFormalism - deep focus, longtake, other objective camera expression.

Hm... Let me briefly talk taking it to journalism. Nowadays a number of popular review of film just twist and hide a fact for good expression. If I particularly substitute it to now's controversy. Tabloid can be placed in Formalism. And academic analysis only concern abouta fact and the truth. Very realism facts... Now it's clear which side we should be.

Here is Andre baisan's saying

"Editors, who are editing for us, cut and make a decision instead of us. Because editor use a way to concentrate on one point,We just receive it without any idea. As a result, we are came off our right to define our stand."

Obviously it's true but...intolerance of metaphor(cutting) only work in academic. In forms of expression arts, I more support formalism.

[Film] A City of Sadness

Director : Hou
Hsiao-Hsien
Actors :
Leung Chiu Wai, Wou Yi Fang
Country : Taiwan
Run time: 157min

About Hou Hsiao-Hsien's "A City of Sadness" or all his films, many reviewers used to describe his films as "the beauty of abstained form". Here I wanna strongly insist it is wrong. What is the abstained beauty? His outstanding deep-focus and long shot(more stepped back)? In my view, his style like those is because he continually struggle with extenting to out of frame rather than abstaining in frame. In this film, all happenings , which should be shown to audiences, always occur out of frame. For example, Leung Chiu Wai's prison-mates once are called by a jailer. They had adjusted their dirty clothes as if they already know what will happen. Even, Leung Chiu Wai, who can't hear, can feel something from them. A while later, there are 2 sounds of gun. Leung Chiu Wai don't hear it, only audiences can hear it and imagine it. Here, the ones, who connects no-sounds and sounds, or beyond eyeshot and in frame, are an audiences. Like this way, the film is extented towards out of frame carefully, but continually.

Who are existed out of frame?us, audiences. Again, the director is trying to communicate with audiences. Of course, his way is so indirect, not like a direct communication of Woody Allen. His film is going centering around AUDIENCES, not CHRACTERS. Therefore, it has to be stopped to repeat "the abstained beauty" like a parrot. Hou Hsiao-Hsien doesn't worry to communicate with audiences. He continually knock on the door to us. When we communicate with him, his "real film" may start.