Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008, starring Michael Cera and Kat Dennings) is beautifully simple. Its tiny cast play characters with no given surnames and its plot is set entirely in one night. It definitely isn't the best film I've ever watched, but it's elegant and artistic enough for me to watch it for the second time last night. The soundtrack is heavily centred within the Indie/Alternative genre and the film's plot itself is based around music.
What I like about Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist is how it subtly shows the audience the reality of how perfect nights are never perfect throughout, and always have some bad moments. It demonstrates how one person in a group of free, happy night-owls can be having an awful time. It communicates the grand imperfection of what could be great and (in a very cliche movie way) proves that life isn't a flawless story.
Through the personality of the character of Norah, the film emphasises how things don't happen smoothly: people are awkward, people are shy and situations are uncomfortable. (Sidenote: whilst I say Norah, this is also demonstrated through Nick's character, but that's generally what you get when Michael Cera plays a character so it's not much to comment on).
Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist is a 'Netflix at 10:00pm with a pile of blankets and a cup of tea' kind of film and it achieves that amazingly. It's enchanting, so free and it manages to be unpredictable - the kind of film you fall in love with.
(In hindsight, this post is probably a bit of an overreaction - but I guess it details just how I felt immediately after watching Catching Fire...)
Right. Where do I even start?
Okay, I watched Catching Fire on DVD just 20 minutes ago.
My immediate response?
That was NOT enjoyable.
In terms of mise-en-scene and cinematography etc the film was brilliant. The camera shots were a bit iffy at times in the way that they could have been smoother - my sister described some scenes as 'clunky' and, at times, you felt quite aware of the idea that it was something that was being filmed.
However, the plot, the acting and the general feel of the movie tore me apart. I used to be pretty invincible when it came to films, and the only movie to ever bring a slight tear to my eye was a few years ago when I watched Dean Spanley which contained a scene where a dog is shot. However, it now seems that I have become a bit of a weakling and I do cry a lot easier at films. Catching Fire, though, was incredibly intense. Words to sum the film up would include: distressing, traumatic and upsetting.
It was one of those heart-wrenching films from start to finish where characters have to be wished good luck very sincerely, have to say goodbye through streams of tears and end up screaming with emotional pain. And I don't understand how anyone could sit through 146 minutes of that and feel like they've had a good time.
However, the fact that I feel so strongly about this show how good the film must be to shake its audience in such a hard-hitting way. So kudos to everyone that took part in the making of the film, from the acting all the way to the set design.
For now, though, I think I might stick to more light-hearted films like Juno.
The initial camera shot in the apartment scene (from 1:00) shows the flat in low key lighting with many shadows surrounding the rooms that can be seen. This lighting, despite being in colour, is very typical of the film noir genre where shadows and darkness are used excessively throughout the films in order to create a dark atmosphere. When the character of Bridget begins to move and circle round the sofa as if enclosing her "prey", she is mainly in the shadows and a clear shot of her full face isn't seen until she is towering above Clay, displaying her control, dominance and power over him. The use of shadows and the way her hair hides her face fully represent the character's hidden, deceiving identity and portray her as the "spider woman" or the femme fatale that is creeping around in the shadows, manipulating and luring the people (men) surrounding her.
When the shot of Bridget's face is used, what immediately strikes the audience is her red lipstick and dark hair. This is similar to the way the femme fatale of the film Double Indemnity, Phyllis, is portrayed. The aspects of the characters' physical appearances are used to demonstrate their falseness. Whilst in Double Indemnity, Phyllis has "bottle blonde" hair and garish make up, Bridget in The Last Seduction has dark hair that hangs in her down, obscuring the clear view of her face and supports the idea of lies and sinister mystery.
The notion of Bridget masking herself is reinforced through the clothes she wears, again, similar to Double Indemnity. Phyllis in Double Indemnity wears excessive amounts of cheap-looking jewellery and elaborate clothes with ruffles, which displays her falseness and masked identity. However, when Bridget wipes her fingerprints off of the can of mace using her coat in The Last Seduction, it can be seen very clearly that her outfit is pretty much completely without any sort of colour which suggests at her dark, mysterious character. Bridget's dark, long coat hides her figure causing her to remain in the background without standing out too much. This differs from the scenes where Bridget wants to stand out in order to attract people that she can manipulate.The other characters in the scene contrast with Bridget's dark, shapeless figure, especially the character of the "fall-guy", Mike, who's "innocence" of sorts can be seen through the bright blue clothes that he is wearing and the rolled up sleeves which show open body language.
In a documentary about The Last Seduction it is noted that the characters from Beston (Mike) were purposefully dressed in blues and browns that contrast with the New York characters' (Bridget and Clay) monochrome outfits. This hints at the idea of the New York characters being scheming and hidden in contrast to the Beston characters being open and a bit more vibrant (to a certain extent).
I found the very last scene quite interesting as, when Bridget's darkened-windowed stretched car drives away during the last 15 seconds of the film (from 5:45), it is dark, murky and it is raining. People are in the street with umbrellas and running around with coats. I think what this last scene is trying to say is that the ending doesn't deserve sun and bright skies because Bridget is surrounded by and surrounds people with a cloud of darkness and the rain and gloomy skies are Bridget's future. However, she is safe, warm and dry in her expensive car whilst everyone else is left out in the awful weather which represents her selfish way of making everything perfect for her and watching, and enjoying watching, everyone else struggle.
Let's start with the brilliant Donnie Darko. I only recently watched this film, and I'm glad I didn't watch it when I was younger because it's very surreal. After watching it, I watched it several more times and if there's ever a moment when I am feeling bored, I press play again.
It's perfect in every sense and I really love the soundtrack. It took me a few watches to get an understanding of the film, and I love the fact that you can interpret every scene and every detail in whatever way you wish. Donnie Darko opening (and perhaps my favourite) scene:
Similarly, I like the "cliche" film The Perks Of Being A Wallflower. I haven't read the book, but I don't tend to read very often. The film is beautiful, and, like Donnie Darko, has an amazing soundtrack. The characters are so rich and are so likeable - especially the humorous yet caring character of Patrick:
Now I move on to the wonderful Ferris Bueller's Day Off which I really cannot fault. I love the style and cinematography and the theme of the film is perfect. It expresses every young person's desire to be independent, to escape from education but not actually knowing where to go in life. It's fun and it has some powerful messages in. As I said in a previous post: "it's great to see a good film where young people are rebelling against the organised structure of life".
And finally, a film that is slightly different to the others, without that older feel to it: Scott Pilgrim Vs The World. I'm not a fan of comic books or video games, but what I really love about the film is the genius script and the quirky, strong characters. I've completely lost count of how many times I've watched Scott Pilgrim and it really is one of those films where the jokes never tire.
The Last Seduction captured my interest quite a lot and I think this was due to the clever character of Bridget and wanting to know her next move throughout the film.
I found the ending quite unsettling and it actually made me like the film less than I previously did, which is a shame but it shows how effective and shocking the ending is and just how awful Bridget's character is.
After watching the film, I realised that there were no characters that I liked - they were all unpleasant, weak or unlikeable in some way, shape or form.
What I found interesting what the small cast and the lack of characters. There are just three main characters, a few minor ones and several extras. This created a lot of focus on the important characters and kept focus on the plot around them.
The scene opens with two camera shots which establish Phyllis and Neff's positions in the room. The camera first uses a mid-shot of Phyllis standing up, then a shot of Neff sitting down which immediately creates the impression of Phyllis's power and superiority over the male character.
When Phyllis sits down in the chair, a lot can be said about the character's costume. The audience's eye, however, is drawn to the anklet she is wearing because of light reflecting on the metal. The anklet suggests that she is a woman of loose morals and the positioning of her body is very suggestive, which supports this idea of her character.
As Neff begins to ask about her anklet, and she responds, a closer shot of the accessories and clothes that Phyllis is wearing is used. What strikes the audience immediately is the number of large pieces of jewellery, the ruffled shirt, the garish make up and her hair. All these aspects contribute to making her look as false and as fake as she could. This represents the facade that she is as a person and hints towards the secrets and crime that come later in the film.
Another aspect of the scene that hints at crime is the use of lighting and shadows formed by the venetian blinds. This effect is used a lot throughout the film and could easily mimic prison bars which represent a sense of entrapment within the situation, and, more literally, the justice of crime - which is what the film is heavily based around.
In the part of the scene where Neff and Phyllis are standing, facing each other and having a playful conversation, the use of shadows is very interesting. During the shots where Phyllis can be seen from the front, there is no use of Neff's shadow in a very prominent way, which suggests the innocence and how unsuspecting he is. However, when Phyllis can be seen facing Neff, her shadow is cast on the front of his jacket. This creates a sense of Phyllis's power and how she can almost consume Neff, the unsuspecting "fall guy". The low position of the shadow suggests the size and height of the shadow could be creeping up, which happens literally as the film progresses where Phyllis has a lot of control over Neff. This idea of the creeping echoes the idea of Film Noir's femme fatales being called "spider women" who lure the "fall guy" into their wen and entangle them in it. This is what Phyllis does both within the film's plot and in the symbolic way using the shadows.
