(no subject)
Sep. 12th, 2006 06:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatAm bored. Keep picking up things, reading a little, dropping, jumping to something else. Nothing holding interest. Sent that essay I wrote yesterday to my folks - was told that I had a real gift for words and should consider trying to send things to magazines and newspapers, if I can find the right venue, even though fiction is my first love. Sigh. Herein lies the problem, finding the venue and sending the damn things to them. Have no troubles writing, just hate the whole sending off and getting rejected bit. LJ is just easier. I post. You like. You don't. No worries. But yes, I know, I should probably try to look into the whole freelance essay writing thing again.
Last night watched Inside Man via netflix.
The film came out earlier in the year and is directed by Spike Lee. Haven't seen a flick by Lee since Malcolm X mostly because Lee got on my nerves. I just could not make it through some of his films, too preachy, too clever, too self-congratulatory and well, just plain dull. I missed the energetic yet subtle confrontational style of Do The Right Thing, She's Gotta Have It, Crooklyn and School Daze before he got popular with Malcolm X. This happens with a lot of good indie directors - Hollywood discovers them, gives them a shit-load of money, the fame goes to their head, and they start forgetting how to craft a story around complex characters. Other examples of this phenomena include John Woo - who did the amazing Killer and Hard Boiled before getting co-opted by Hollywood and doing Mission Impossible II. Ange Lee is an exception - his Hollywood films are actually somewhat interesting and build on what he did before. So it does not always happen.
At any rate, if you gave up on Spike Lee after Malcolm X, Inside Man will surprise you. It's no less angry than his other works, but it isn't preachy, subtly showing as opposed to telling the theme. The story is a complex twist on the Heist plot. Proof that once again there are not new ideas or plots, just new ways of telling them. I can't explain it to you without giving away the story. What I can tell you is that the plot drives the characters forward and serves as an avenue for exploring them in greater depth. We learn a great deal about each of the main characters - there are four, without too much dialogue. The film also plays homage to some of the great "Heist" films, such as Dog Day Afternoon. Lee uses visuals to subtly emphasize his character's moods, explain their actions and provide information on the plot without the need of dialogue or lengthy exposition. One scene - which blew me away - has the camera propelling Denzel Washington's detective Frazier to the bank - he's light in soft brown, the light behind a neutral gray, and instead of having the actor run or race, we are shown his urgency and fury and anguish, by the lighting and how camera propells his still figure forward. I've never seen anything like it. And it is not an easy thing to explain in words. Another sequence, the first we see, has a solitary head, Clive Owen's, almost floating against a black background, in a space we cannot determine, speaking, with little emotion, all the emotion is in his eyes - and inflection of his voice. Of course, as Lee states in one of the DVD extras, he is aided in his task by an excellent cast - if you have the right cast, people who know what they are doing and can hold their own opposite one another, you can relax and just do your job while they do theirs. He's not wrong, casting is key in doing film, television or theater. How an actor chooses to interpret a role, how they embody it and play with the words does affect how the character and story will be seen. It's one of the many reasons why I prefer novel writing to screenplays or teleplays, I like to have control over my creation or at least think I do - a screenwriter has very little - more if they direct their script (why many screenwriters attempt to or insist on it - ex: Joss Whedon), but the actors do still affect things. Their chemistry with each other, how they interact, all of this is picked up by the camera - which is a sensitive beast. Lee mentions that it was imperative that he find actors who would not be intimidated acting opposite Denzel Washington (which does sound a tad congratulatory of Washington, but he has a point - if he cast a weak actor against Washington's Frazier, Washington would blow the other guy away. Washington is one of those actors I tend to follow from film to film - he's like Meryl Streep regarding verstality and range. And rarely does crappy roles. Haven't seen everything he does. But I do take notice. He also has a charisma or screen presence - which is why he's successful. And an ability to emote on film by doing very little - something not everyone can do. So they cast Clive Owen, Jodie Foster, Christopher Plummer and William Defoe opposite him. Yep, all four of those guys can hold their own. No problem.)
The film is not what you'd expect. None of the characters are necessarily likable at the start. It does not go down the old predictable routes. And the twists when they come make sense and aren't, oh cool, so much as oh, okay, yes, perfect.
But it's not the story that I keep flipping around in my head so much as how Spike Lee chose to shoot it. What he chooses to say through it. And how he portrays the characters. Like most of his films, he makes some interesting points about racism, how we all are in some way or another racist. How it affects our interactions with one another. He also, more importantly, makes points about class in a urban environment. Money. What people do for it and can do because of it. The extent to which someone is willing to sell their soul for money, and the extent to which they can redeem themselves once they have. But these themes, unlike in his other films, are toned down. They don't overtake the characters, they are subtle. The film also plays with our perception through the eyes of Charles Frazier, Washington's character. How things may not be what they appear.
Interesting flick. Highly recommend. And not one I'm likely to forget any time soon.
Okay, going to make dinner now. Dull day. Spent most of it applying for work. And trying to be patient. Tomorrow dentist appointment(ugh) and Thursday, outplacement services appointment (to review resume that I don't think needs any more frigging reviewing).
Reading queue: 1.Reading Like A Writer by Francine Prose (which is interesting, even though the author likes to show-off. In one passage she writes that she was reading books too quickly not taking enough time to appreciate them, to feel the words. So she decided to read Marcel Proust in French to slow herself down. Note to Ms. Prose, perhaps you should have skipped that speedreading class in high school? Hmmm, perhaps I'm lucky, I don't have this problem. I tend to read most things slowly, with a few exceptions. Never realized until now that it was actually a good thing.) 2.Swann's Way by Marcel Proust - we shall see if I make it through this baby, so far, so good. Was actually comforted by the language last night. This new translation is quite wonderful. And yes, there is a big difference between translations. I know, I checked, picking up two and comparing the first paragraphs. This translation's word choice is well, more poetic. It uses for example the word "scarcely" as opposed to "barely" in the second sentence. If I can't read it in French (my French is not that good), I want a good translation. 3. World Philosophies by Ninan Smart - Yes, we've delved back into this book. I'm reading all about Ancient Chinese Philosophy at the moment, and the history of Buddhism, Taoism, and Neoconfucism. Actually sort of like Neoconfucism - it is a possible originator of a brand of Buddhism popular in India, where yin/yang aren't separate so much as one - combined. 4) The New Yorker - which I do a better job of reading in Hilton Head than at home for some absurd reason.
Last night watched Inside Man via netflix.
The film came out earlier in the year and is directed by Spike Lee. Haven't seen a flick by Lee since Malcolm X mostly because Lee got on my nerves. I just could not make it through some of his films, too preachy, too clever, too self-congratulatory and well, just plain dull. I missed the energetic yet subtle confrontational style of Do The Right Thing, She's Gotta Have It, Crooklyn and School Daze before he got popular with Malcolm X. This happens with a lot of good indie directors - Hollywood discovers them, gives them a shit-load of money, the fame goes to their head, and they start forgetting how to craft a story around complex characters. Other examples of this phenomena include John Woo - who did the amazing Killer and Hard Boiled before getting co-opted by Hollywood and doing Mission Impossible II. Ange Lee is an exception - his Hollywood films are actually somewhat interesting and build on what he did before. So it does not always happen.
At any rate, if you gave up on Spike Lee after Malcolm X, Inside Man will surprise you. It's no less angry than his other works, but it isn't preachy, subtly showing as opposed to telling the theme. The story is a complex twist on the Heist plot. Proof that once again there are not new ideas or plots, just new ways of telling them. I can't explain it to you without giving away the story. What I can tell you is that the plot drives the characters forward and serves as an avenue for exploring them in greater depth. We learn a great deal about each of the main characters - there are four, without too much dialogue. The film also plays homage to some of the great "Heist" films, such as Dog Day Afternoon. Lee uses visuals to subtly emphasize his character's moods, explain their actions and provide information on the plot without the need of dialogue or lengthy exposition. One scene - which blew me away - has the camera propelling Denzel Washington's detective Frazier to the bank - he's light in soft brown, the light behind a neutral gray, and instead of having the actor run or race, we are shown his urgency and fury and anguish, by the lighting and how camera propells his still figure forward. I've never seen anything like it. And it is not an easy thing to explain in words. Another sequence, the first we see, has a solitary head, Clive Owen's, almost floating against a black background, in a space we cannot determine, speaking, with little emotion, all the emotion is in his eyes - and inflection of his voice. Of course, as Lee states in one of the DVD extras, he is aided in his task by an excellent cast - if you have the right cast, people who know what they are doing and can hold their own opposite one another, you can relax and just do your job while they do theirs. He's not wrong, casting is key in doing film, television or theater. How an actor chooses to interpret a role, how they embody it and play with the words does affect how the character and story will be seen. It's one of the many reasons why I prefer novel writing to screenplays or teleplays, I like to have control over my creation or at least think I do - a screenwriter has very little - more if they direct their script (why many screenwriters attempt to or insist on it - ex: Joss Whedon), but the actors do still affect things. Their chemistry with each other, how they interact, all of this is picked up by the camera - which is a sensitive beast. Lee mentions that it was imperative that he find actors who would not be intimidated acting opposite Denzel Washington (which does sound a tad congratulatory of Washington, but he has a point - if he cast a weak actor against Washington's Frazier, Washington would blow the other guy away. Washington is one of those actors I tend to follow from film to film - he's like Meryl Streep regarding verstality and range. And rarely does crappy roles. Haven't seen everything he does. But I do take notice. He also has a charisma or screen presence - which is why he's successful. And an ability to emote on film by doing very little - something not everyone can do. So they cast Clive Owen, Jodie Foster, Christopher Plummer and William Defoe opposite him. Yep, all four of those guys can hold their own. No problem.)
The film is not what you'd expect. None of the characters are necessarily likable at the start. It does not go down the old predictable routes. And the twists when they come make sense and aren't, oh cool, so much as oh, okay, yes, perfect.
But it's not the story that I keep flipping around in my head so much as how Spike Lee chose to shoot it. What he chooses to say through it. And how he portrays the characters. Like most of his films, he makes some interesting points about racism, how we all are in some way or another racist. How it affects our interactions with one another. He also, more importantly, makes points about class in a urban environment. Money. What people do for it and can do because of it. The extent to which someone is willing to sell their soul for money, and the extent to which they can redeem themselves once they have. But these themes, unlike in his other films, are toned down. They don't overtake the characters, they are subtle. The film also plays with our perception through the eyes of Charles Frazier, Washington's character. How things may not be what they appear.
Interesting flick. Highly recommend. And not one I'm likely to forget any time soon.
Okay, going to make dinner now. Dull day. Spent most of it applying for work. And trying to be patient. Tomorrow dentist appointment(ugh) and Thursday, outplacement services appointment (to review resume that I don't think needs any more frigging reviewing).
Reading queue: 1.Reading Like A Writer by Francine Prose (which is interesting, even though the author likes to show-off. In one passage she writes that she was reading books too quickly not taking enough time to appreciate them, to feel the words. So she decided to read Marcel Proust in French to slow herself down. Note to Ms. Prose, perhaps you should have skipped that speedreading class in high school? Hmmm, perhaps I'm lucky, I don't have this problem. I tend to read most things slowly, with a few exceptions. Never realized until now that it was actually a good thing.) 2.Swann's Way by Marcel Proust - we shall see if I make it through this baby, so far, so good. Was actually comforted by the language last night. This new translation is quite wonderful. And yes, there is a big difference between translations. I know, I checked, picking up two and comparing the first paragraphs. This translation's word choice is well, more poetic. It uses for example the word "scarcely" as opposed to "barely" in the second sentence. If I can't read it in French (my French is not that good), I want a good translation. 3. World Philosophies by Ninan Smart - Yes, we've delved back into this book. I'm reading all about Ancient Chinese Philosophy at the moment, and the history of Buddhism, Taoism, and Neoconfucism. Actually sort of like Neoconfucism - it is a possible originator of a brand of Buddhism popular in India, where yin/yang aren't separate so much as one - combined. 4) The New Yorker - which I do a better job of reading in Hilton Head than at home for some absurd reason.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-13 02:48 am (UTC)Can't hurt to try....
no subject
Date: 2006-09-13 03:46 am (UTC)On the other hand have noticed that essayists such as Johnathan Franzen, Joan Didion, and Francine Prose - don't necessarily write on demand either. They write on something meaningful to them and send it in.
Sooo..
Don't know. Nor really where to even submit. Plus job search!
But thanks, anyhow. On the gift part...lots and lots of practice. Nice to see it is paying off. ;-)