cabaret_emcee Reviews

The Celebration (1998)

Vows of Chastity: Alternatives to Hollywood

[1/10 · 17 September 2002]

`Festen,' or `The Celebration' as it is known in the US and UK, is a superb film if you look at it in the right context. Not only is it alternative to typical Hollywood filmmaking in that it is foreign from Denmark and therefore would naturally have its own differences and nuances about it, but that it was shot following a set of standards called the Dogma 95 Rules. In order to fully appreciate `Festen' you must come to understand why these ten rules were set in place and why the director, Thomas Vinterburg, felt it was necessary to film in this precise and odd manner. Otherwise the film may be interpreted as some low-budget independent film with a good plot but highly undeveloped and not entertaining.

The Dogma 95 Rules were set in place to restore truth back into the cinema. Nothing could take place that was not actually happening, so that everything the viewer was witnessing, although it may be a story and fiction, was being played out before them. For example, one of the rules states that the film must not contain superficial action. There are no murders that take place in the film because they would not be taking place in real life. Everything the screen shows you is real and therefore truth in its purest form that a fictional movie can offer. There are no illusions taking place- optical work and filters are forbidden. By doing so there is a sense of aesthetic purity in the film. Shooting must be done on location and temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. Knowing these rules before viewing the film gives you a certain level of respect for what was being done in the film. `Festen' is focused around the characters and the story, and by using these rules it more clearly sharpens and defines them because all the new technology and sensationalism is washed away and you are able to focus on the purer concepts of the film.

`Festen's' biggest fault is that although truth is viewed much clearer through these set of rules, the picture certainly isn't. These rules may seem to draw attention away from the fact that the film looks as though it was shot from a camera bought from Best Buy. It must also be understood that the camera must be hand-held, but any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. In contrast it's strongest advocate may be the rule that states that the director must not be credited. By not having the director credited alienates almost an director who might want to pursue such a radical project as this because he/she would not get a recognition for the film. At the same time it once again focuses on the film itself and not the fact that there was any production or technology involved in the process or making. It simplistically calls attention only to the actors/characters and what is going on in the film, because according to the Dogma 95 Rules nothing else matters. Therefore, in viewing the film within the context of these rules and understanding that the film is attempting to get back to truth and purity makes viewing it and unique and very enjoyable experience.

Limbo (I) (1999)

`Limbo' was in my opinion a truly awful movie.

[12 September 2002]

`Limbo' was in my opinion a truly awful movie. Before the movie was over I had already decided that I wanted it to end as soon as possible, and so when it came to the point that the ending was left open I really did not care because I was so glad to just leave the theater. Unfortunately I have not heard of any of John Sayles other films so I have only this one to base my opinion of him upon. Critically I can respect what he did with the ending, but the rest of the movie was just so uninteresting that it failed to make me care. I can watch movies and enjoy them critically- it's the only way I can enjoy `Citizen Kane`- because the brilliance of Orson Wells ideas and filmmaking techniques shine throughout the whole movie. In `Limbo' I honestly felt like Sayles was holding me hostage because he had a great idea for something that is not usually done at the end of Hollywood films. What Sayles must understand is that it is not enough to have a brilliant and unconventional ending but that you must also have a decent and intricately woven plot to keep the viewer interested so that by the end of the film it stays with them. As for closure, it is a very sensitive subject to be playing around with in Hollywood because it is so Non-Classical. The only way `The Fellowship of the Ring' got away with it and became a huge success is that audiences accepted the fact that the sequel would be arriving the very next year, and that the film was entertaining, unlike `Limbo'. I try to recall the films in classic cinema or any film in general that I have viewed that has not really brought about full closure in the end, and I believe I was satisfied with the picture. Because as long as the film works as a whole, then you do not need closure at the end. Life does not have closure, and films are stories of lives. I can probably name on one hand the sequels I have thought were of any value, because although the first film may not wrap up all the details of someone's life or what is happening, when the show is over so abruptly like this then you must think back about what you saw and appreciate why it ended that way. Unfortunately like I said I didn't see anything good in the first place. The only character of any worth in the film was Donna De Angelo, played by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio. The personality was lively and made me laugh, and I definitely connected with her character because she was the only one with any real sense of humanity in the film. The problem was her comedic lines were few and far between. Some of the supporting cast members were also great, but the focus of the film included excessively long scenes of fishing, her singing, and the Alaskan country. Perhaps Sayles would do a better job working for National Geographic, because the viewers do not need any real closure in a one hour documentary of the marsupial family.

Flirting with Disaster (1996)

Why or why not is `Flirting with Disaster' a typical Hollywood movie?

[3 September 2002]

`Flirting with Disaster' is definitely a typical Hollywood movie in many aspects but not in all of them. It fits the form of classical cinema or classical paradigm in that the director, David O. Russell, does not get distracted from telling the story with filmmaking techniques. It is a clear and precise comedy that never leaves the characters in action, and is done so in a way that works unlike many other films of this genre released today. The film is structured narratively, with a clearly defined conflict from the very beginning. Ben Stiller shines in his performance as a neurotic new father who is trying desperately to find his biological parents in order to name his newborn son. At one point in the film the viewer begins to become anxious and wonder if the same problem for the protagonist, Stiller, is going to continue on in the same form as it has in the past half of the movie, but luckily Russell then changes the flow of the film and brings it to a much more comedic finish than the first half.

The photography is shot in full and long shots throughout most of the movie. Russell must have used deep-focus shots when filming because the surrounding background is clear around the characters, using a wide-angle or short lens. The characters are never off of the screen except for a few instances when we see a plane flying or a car driving and then we have voice-overs. The dialogue is always continuous- there is never a break in the script which works well because the screenplay is well written and clever on its insights on the little inconveniences of everyday life. Although all of these events are too unbelievable too happen all at once, they are all real life comedic situations that could happen to anyone. When compiled together with this plot line, we have this film before us.

Although this is a typical movie in the sense that it does not break any barriers or do anything creatively in its techniques in telling the story, the plot and screenplay do enough justice in making the film entertaining for the audience and one of those films you can just sit down, relax, and have fun viewing because it makes sense and fits together. This aspect is not like many Hollywood films released today, with their gaping holes that leave the viewer feeling unfulfilled. Altogether this was a good film, even though it did fit many of the typical Hollywood stereotypes.