The trailer of Ang Lee’s latest movie, Brokeback Mountain, finally hit the Net.
I’m an unabashed fan of Ang Lee’s work, ever since I saw Wedding Banquet many years ago. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was a masterpiece, and it’s a testament to Ang Lee that Chow Yun Fat’s popular gun totting image never came to mind. Bravo, Mr. Lee.
Even Hulk was amazing. I never could have guessed the story of a meathead like Hulk could be so meditative. I eat my words like yesterday’s Kung-Pow chicken.
Now, back to Brokeback.
Annie Proulx is an author I have greatly admired over the years, but her works are impossible to find in most Indian bookstores. She has undeniable skill, and she works it well. Her characters are real and flawed, and she sets them against the stark beauty and majesty of the American landscape. The grittiness of her stories hits you at full force, and leaves you gasping for more, yet you wonder if you have the balls (and enough tears) to read on.
Brokeback Mountain is the story of Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist. I am indeed glad Ang Lee is doing this, and not a Hollywood crow like… never mind. Hopefully his vision will be able to match up to this story. From the trailer, it looks more like a Gus Van Sant film than an Ang Lee, but let’s not count our Peking Ducks before they hatch. Yeah yeah, I know Ang Lee’s Taiwanese, but you get the drift.
The trailer: the dialogues are right out of the text. Yipee!! Heath Ledger and Jake G. … . I’m going to have a lot of fun with their southern drawls. Jake G.’s ecstatic “WOOOOHEY…. YEAH!!” in the trailer sounds suspiciously like what must have resounded in the White House the night they caught Saddam, that perv down in Eye-rack.
Brokeback Mountain makes its World Premiere at the Venice Film Festival, so hopefully by next week we’ll have reviews of the film.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Monday, August 29, 2005
I love Wood, Elijah
I finally saw Sin City. Albeit a screener, but since there are no immediate plans to release this film in India, I thought; what the heck. Take that, you fat-cat studio execs.
Talk about über-violent. That’s a lot of blood. Lots and lots. The only thing I can think of with more blood is George ‘Dubya’ Bush’s hands. But jokes aside, it’s a lot of blood. Did I mention how much blood was in this film?
Two things came up while I watched this film:
1. My lunch.
2. How disturbing it is that I was fascinated with Elijah Wood’s character, Kevin. Boy was he smooth, and I don’t mean smooth in a twink-sorta way (which he is). Think Bible salesman. Heck, stick a tie on him and he’s a Mormon missionary. Oh wait… that explains a lot.
Anybody else notice how cute that dawgy was?! Awwwwwwww.
I know I speak for a lot of people when I say this: I do not like Rosario Dawson. I actually let out a “Whoopie!” (how embarrassing) when Michael Clark-Duncan gave her a good one. Take that, Ho. That’s for Alexander, Bee-yatch!!
I give it “Two Thumbs Up!”. Just make sure to keep this for AFTER dinner. You’ve been warned.
Talk about über-violent. That’s a lot of blood. Lots and lots. The only thing I can think of with more blood is George ‘Dubya’ Bush’s hands. But jokes aside, it’s a lot of blood. Did I mention how much blood was in this film?
Two things came up while I watched this film:
1. My lunch.
2. How disturbing it is that I was fascinated with Elijah Wood’s character, Kevin. Boy was he smooth, and I don’t mean smooth in a twink-sorta way (which he is). Think Bible salesman. Heck, stick a tie on him and he’s a Mormon missionary. Oh wait… that explains a lot.
Anybody else notice how cute that dawgy was?! Awwwwwwww.
I know I speak for a lot of people when I say this: I do not like Rosario Dawson. I actually let out a “Whoopie!” (how embarrassing) when Michael Clark-Duncan gave her a good one. Take that, Ho. That’s for Alexander, Bee-yatch!!
I give it “Two Thumbs Up!”. Just make sure to keep this for AFTER dinner. You’ve been warned.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Dead End, or...?
Apropos my recent tirade about the difficulties of adapting a literary
work to the screen.
Enter Batman: Dead End.
A Short film, all of 8 minutes. Here is Batman, shorn of all his
glitzy goodies. Set in the backdrop of the Joker's escape from Arkham, Batman suits up to yet again capture that kooky clown. Without going into the story (all 8 minutes of it), i was struck by how this short film tried to cover parts of the Batman tale we never get to see on the screen. We see his bandaged body, while he suits up, preparing for yet another battle. The humanity and vulnerability of Batman has never been satisfactorily covered by any of the other films, yet this is the first thing we see here. A simple suit, much like something someone might contrive for Halloween. Indeed, Batman packs his utilities much like i might pack my lunch (we all have our priorities!), simply and without much ado.
Made on a shoestring budget, this film is obviously made by a deranged fan (aren't we all?!), and is all the better for it. Plus it packs a couple of guest appearances that might just... well, surprise you.
Think Godzilla vs King Kong.
To be fair, something of this sort will not appeal to non bat freaks. Batophiles raved about the purity of its approach, and avowed orthodoxy to canon. Low budget acting aside, seeing Batman jump
reminded me more of Phoebe's free spirited running, than anything else. If you don't know what I'm talking about, Egads! Get off my page at once, Peasant!
A quick peek at IMDB's discussion page reveals the mixed response this short created.
As for me, loved the scene with the cape. Woah.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Zen and the Art of Film Adaptation
Some time back, my friend forwarded me a link to a review he wrote of the Batman movie… he hated it (“tears of blood”, as I recall). He felt real anguish over this appalling rendition of his beloved hero, and how it had missed (by a long shot) the depth and character of the Dark Knight’s saga.
It had me wondering: is it possible to successfully transliterate a beloved tale from one medium to another? The Graphic novel heritage of the Batman is a particularly difficult one to harness, striding both the written and the visual. Batman wouldn’t be the same in just text, and the over-the-top visual confetti in most Hollywood films isn’t the answer either.
This begs the question: is it even possible? Case in point: The Lord of the Rings. I had such intense expectations from the film (everybody knows that), and really looked forward to the film versions. But Fellowship was such an intense letdown. To me it seemed such a poor representation of the richness of Middle Earth, a watered-down poor man’s version of an amazing story. But I still simply adored the films, and saw them over and over again. Aditya was utterly sick of my fixation with Arwen’s entrance… I must have seen that 18 second clip over a thousand times… no kidding. I convinced people to watch the films, and ended up watching them again. People were pissed with my running commentary, but politely tolerated my fawning over these films.
To me the films were appalling. They had more flaws; factual and otherwise; than I can list here. But it was still LOTR. The story had me so worked up that even the poor onscreen rendition moved me to tears. The party tree, Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf… everything reminded me of the little things, from the book. The characters on screen were strengthened and reinforced by the book. The hobbits’ love of the Shire, their irrepressible joy and true nature; Aragon’s sense of destiny, and his willingness to give it all up… nothing was in the film, but it was in my mind. I couldn’t help but make the connection, and thus made the emotional connection to the characters on the screen.
So what is it then? What constitutes a successful crossover from book to box office? Artistic considerations aside (gasp!); it can’t cater to only a niche audience. I’ve been told that the ‘soul’ of the work should remain the same. Well, is it even possible? Every medium has its idiosyncrasies, and they do not translate well. While in Manga 10 frames devoted to a single falling drop is completely legit, for a smug movie version to attempt such a visual haiku would be hara-kiri. I know I’m going to be told… but what of Anime? Wouldn’t that be a visual rendition of Manga? Yes, but only to an extent. The idiosyncrasies don’t translate. Every Manga I have seen predominately uses Hiragana for the text, which has a tremendous influence on the overall effect the dialogue creates. Consider Anime in the original Japanese and the dubbed English versions. The effects they create are quite different. The English renditions strive for believability (which they achieve), while the Japanese voiceovers rarely try to create lifelike characters. The characters are more exaggerated, the girls are squeakier, and the men gruffer, and throughout an Operatic quality predominates. I understand some of the changes must be made for western audiences, and different audiences react differently.
But then, what counts as a successful crossover? Can any film hope to faithfully represent a cinematic version of a beloved classic? It’s said Bruce Wayne/Batman has mastered all forms of martial arts, and has attained complete physical mastery of his body. We must accept this, because it is part of canon. How is it possible for a man to ‘master’ the martial arts without understanding its meditative soul? It’s not. Yet Batman remains a deeply flawed man, clinically even a psychopath. Is it even possible for such a man to master the martial arts? Yet canon says so. 90 year old Zen Masters struggle to grasp the true spirit of a single Aikido Dojo, and yet this skinny white boy shows up and pulls a Karate Kid on them. Suspension of disbelief, yes; but a film must achieve that and more. A Batman film cannot target only Bat freaks. It has to reach out and be understood by audiences varying in their knowledge of Batman back stories. The true spirit of the Batman saga must come across to them as well. How do you do that? How much of the story can be deemed trivial and cut away? At what point are you cutting into the soul of story? Where does that Rubicon lie?
I can only say I do not envy the task.
My advice to Christopher Nolan… don’t ever sleep with the lights out. Be afraid of the dark. Be very afraid.
It had me wondering: is it possible to successfully transliterate a beloved tale from one medium to another? The Graphic novel heritage of the Batman is a particularly difficult one to harness, striding both the written and the visual. Batman wouldn’t be the same in just text, and the over-the-top visual confetti in most Hollywood films isn’t the answer either.
This begs the question: is it even possible? Case in point: The Lord of the Rings. I had such intense expectations from the film (everybody knows that), and really looked forward to the film versions. But Fellowship was such an intense letdown. To me it seemed such a poor representation of the richness of Middle Earth, a watered-down poor man’s version of an amazing story. But I still simply adored the films, and saw them over and over again. Aditya was utterly sick of my fixation with Arwen’s entrance… I must have seen that 18 second clip over a thousand times… no kidding. I convinced people to watch the films, and ended up watching them again. People were pissed with my running commentary, but politely tolerated my fawning over these films.
To me the films were appalling. They had more flaws; factual and otherwise; than I can list here. But it was still LOTR. The story had me so worked up that even the poor onscreen rendition moved me to tears. The party tree, Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf… everything reminded me of the little things, from the book. The characters on screen were strengthened and reinforced by the book. The hobbits’ love of the Shire, their irrepressible joy and true nature; Aragon’s sense of destiny, and his willingness to give it all up… nothing was in the film, but it was in my mind. I couldn’t help but make the connection, and thus made the emotional connection to the characters on the screen.
So what is it then? What constitutes a successful crossover from book to box office? Artistic considerations aside (gasp!); it can’t cater to only a niche audience. I’ve been told that the ‘soul’ of the work should remain the same. Well, is it even possible? Every medium has its idiosyncrasies, and they do not translate well. While in Manga 10 frames devoted to a single falling drop is completely legit, for a smug movie version to attempt such a visual haiku would be hara-kiri. I know I’m going to be told… but what of Anime? Wouldn’t that be a visual rendition of Manga? Yes, but only to an extent. The idiosyncrasies don’t translate. Every Manga I have seen predominately uses Hiragana for the text, which has a tremendous influence on the overall effect the dialogue creates. Consider Anime in the original Japanese and the dubbed English versions. The effects they create are quite different. The English renditions strive for believability (which they achieve), while the Japanese voiceovers rarely try to create lifelike characters. The characters are more exaggerated, the girls are squeakier, and the men gruffer, and throughout an Operatic quality predominates. I understand some of the changes must be made for western audiences, and different audiences react differently.
But then, what counts as a successful crossover? Can any film hope to faithfully represent a cinematic version of a beloved classic? It’s said Bruce Wayne/Batman has mastered all forms of martial arts, and has attained complete physical mastery of his body. We must accept this, because it is part of canon. How is it possible for a man to ‘master’ the martial arts without understanding its meditative soul? It’s not. Yet Batman remains a deeply flawed man, clinically even a psychopath. Is it even possible for such a man to master the martial arts? Yet canon says so. 90 year old Zen Masters struggle to grasp the true spirit of a single Aikido Dojo, and yet this skinny white boy shows up and pulls a Karate Kid on them. Suspension of disbelief, yes; but a film must achieve that and more. A Batman film cannot target only Bat freaks. It has to reach out and be understood by audiences varying in their knowledge of Batman back stories. The true spirit of the Batman saga must come across to them as well. How do you do that? How much of the story can be deemed trivial and cut away? At what point are you cutting into the soul of story? Where does that Rubicon lie?
I can only say I do not envy the task.
My advice to Christopher Nolan… don’t ever sleep with the lights out. Be afraid of the dark. Be very afraid.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Blog kiya jaye?
It's been a while. I hope that I finally have the time to post on a regular basis. If all goes according to plan, expect to find updates on my work, and my opinion on current affairs, technology, scientific developments, movies, books, and what-have-you.
For my old chums, hey!
If you're new to this blog; welcome. Enjoy your stay and I look forward to your suggestions.
For my old chums, hey!
If you're new to this blog; welcome. Enjoy your stay and I look forward to your suggestions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
