![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
They all have serial numbers
The 400 Blows (1959), Francois Truffaut. March 8, 4:30pm. View count: One.
Stalker (1979), Andrei Tarkovsky. March 9, 7pm. View count: One.
Holy crow, weekend of excellent goddamn movies. These have been out for a minimum of 29 years, so I will not cut for spoilers.
The 400 Blows (which we were encouraged to see while it was playing near us on the big screen by Optic) apparently has a title that means something rather non-obvious in french: 'to raise hell', or something of that sort. This is the useful thing I learned from reading the imdb page; otherwise it was pretty unhelpful. For some reason people think the puppet show scene (a long set of shots wherein a rapt audience of little kids watch a violent fairytale-based show) was just the most inspiring thing in the world, that oh, truly, children are amazing and their sense of wonder is like unto ambergris or some such in its preciousness. That scene actually made clear the most important concept the movie was putting forth: that children absorb all the terrible things they're given.
It was a surprisingly straightforward film; it took its time about things and let you absorb them. Beautiful environments, wonderful acting (and this despite no sync sound in the entire thing!), and a really believable kid buffeted by believable circumstance. Good stuff. This French New Wave thing MIGHT JUST GO SOMEWHERE.
Stalker: Oh criminy, I cannot believe I had not seen this until now. This was a really remarkable thing, this movie. I still have a hard time believing it came out in 1979; the look and feel somehow have nothing to do with that time period. If I had had to guess, I would have said it was made in the last ten years. Nothing dates it, except maybe, maybe the headscarf of the little girl. It's treated a lot like a stage play, which is surprising since that doesn't often come off well in film. The environments are pretty astonishing; so detailed, textured, composed.
A strange thing I happened to notice was that there were some strong parallels with another somewhat surprising movie. Stalker opens in sepia tone, holding that palette until the protagonist (Stalker) arrives with two guys at the Zone, which is very, very green and lush-colored. The Zone is also said to be a place that grants wishes. Protagonist is followed by and eventually takes back with him a black dog. Back in the normal (sepia) world, he even is shown in a sequence wherein a woman mops his brow with a cloth while he lies in bed. Now then! Surely this cannot be a coincidence. The departing point being that Protagonist considers the Zone his real home (and in fact that is the first thing he says there), and he is the one with the power to go back and forth between worlds, escorting normal people to get wishes, not the other way around (the power was in Stalker all along). Also there isn't really much there on a moment-to-moment level; no references, no clear analogues of places or characters. So, I suppose who knows, really, but I sort of enjoy the concept that Tartovsky decided to incorporate a little reverse Wizard of Oz into this film which concerns itself with whether what humans actually want is anything remotely good.
Stalker (1979), Andrei Tarkovsky. March 9, 7pm. View count: One.
Holy crow, weekend of excellent goddamn movies. These have been out for a minimum of 29 years, so I will not cut for spoilers.
The 400 Blows (which we were encouraged to see while it was playing near us on the big screen by Optic) apparently has a title that means something rather non-obvious in french: 'to raise hell', or something of that sort. This is the useful thing I learned from reading the imdb page; otherwise it was pretty unhelpful. For some reason people think the puppet show scene (a long set of shots wherein a rapt audience of little kids watch a violent fairytale-based show) was just the most inspiring thing in the world, that oh, truly, children are amazing and their sense of wonder is like unto ambergris or some such in its preciousness. That scene actually made clear the most important concept the movie was putting forth: that children absorb all the terrible things they're given.
It was a surprisingly straightforward film; it took its time about things and let you absorb them. Beautiful environments, wonderful acting (and this despite no sync sound in the entire thing!), and a really believable kid buffeted by believable circumstance. Good stuff. This French New Wave thing MIGHT JUST GO SOMEWHERE.
Stalker: Oh criminy, I cannot believe I had not seen this until now. This was a really remarkable thing, this movie. I still have a hard time believing it came out in 1979; the look and feel somehow have nothing to do with that time period. If I had had to guess, I would have said it was made in the last ten years. Nothing dates it, except maybe, maybe the headscarf of the little girl. It's treated a lot like a stage play, which is surprising since that doesn't often come off well in film. The environments are pretty astonishing; so detailed, textured, composed.
A strange thing I happened to notice was that there were some strong parallels with another somewhat surprising movie. Stalker opens in sepia tone, holding that palette until the protagonist (Stalker) arrives with two guys at the Zone, which is very, very green and lush-colored. The Zone is also said to be a place that grants wishes. Protagonist is followed by and eventually takes back with him a black dog. Back in the normal (sepia) world, he even is shown in a sequence wherein a woman mops his brow with a cloth while he lies in bed. Now then! Surely this cannot be a coincidence. The departing point being that Protagonist considers the Zone his real home (and in fact that is the first thing he says there), and he is the one with the power to go back and forth between worlds, escorting normal people to get wishes, not the other way around (the power was in Stalker all along). Also there isn't really much there on a moment-to-moment level; no references, no clear analogues of places or characters. So, I suppose who knows, really, but I sort of enjoy the concept that Tartovsky decided to incorporate a little reverse Wizard of Oz into this film which concerns itself with whether what humans actually want is anything remotely good.