art & architecture...
        |
... articles
Imre Makovecz By Cameron Russell, Daily Update Just five years ago, there was hardly anything on the Web about the work of Imre Makovecz, the ingenious contemporary Hungarian architect. That’s changing now as people start to realize that he will go down in history as one of the great architects working at the turn of the century. Makovecz (born Budapest, 1935) has been influenced by the spiritual “anthroposophic” ideas of Rudolf Steiner as well as the urban, nationalist, folk-inspired works of fellow Hungarians, Odon Lechner and Kós Károly. His work also contains passing reference to the American organic architects, but is really something unique and exciting. He has conducted much original research in areas such as movement, proportions, community and nature. Makovecz is also a rather political figure. He was imprisoned at the time of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising against the Russian occupiers. His respect for traditional architecture expressed nationalistic yearnings at a time when communist forces maintained brutal control over Hungarians. His buildings stood in stark contrast to the brutalist concrete boxes of the Russians. He was threatened with death and banned from teaching or working in cities, but his magnificent buildings are now scattered throughout the countryside. Makovecz is deeply respected today by the general population in the same way that revolutionary poets and union leaders have been honoured in neighbouring countries. Even today, he often foregoes the hefty fees he could earn in other countries, preferring to design for Hungarian communities.
|
 |
|
|
... resources
|
|
Photos
|
Info
Books Imre
Makovecz: The Wings of the Soul, by Edwin
Heathcote. Architecture as Philosophy, the Works of Imre Makovecz, by János Gerle. Published by Edition Axel Menges. 252pp. Jan 2006.
Left: Sárospatak Culture Centre, Hungary (1974-1982), by Imre Makovecz Photos: C. Russell, Daily-Update (1987) |
| Art&Architecture Links 
Hard to know whether you're wasting
time - strange, but artistic...
EDITORIAL INTEGRITY:
EDITORIAL
INTEGRITY:
|
for
the class...
1. Read the above article on Imre Makovecz as a class. Underline any words you don’t understand then look them up in your dictionary. Perhaps do the dictionary work in small groups, presenting the meanings to the rest of the class. Ask your teacher questions as required to make sure you understand the meaning of each word. 2. Do you think it’s important for your country to have a national style of architecture, or is it okay for the buildings in your country to look like those in any other country? 3. After looking at all the photographs of Imre Makovecz’s buildings, describe the appearance of one of the buildings then explain what you think about it (either verbally or in writing). 4. What kind of architecture do you like, and why? What is your favourite building?
1. Like architecture, films are a popular form of
art. 2. Most film reviews are partly “objective” (in that they provide facts and deal with reality) and partly “subjective” (in that they provide opinions and could easily be disagreed with). Give an example of an objective statement in the review, as well as a subjective feeling or opinion.
1. Write your own review for any book, film, performance or artistic work that really affected you in some way. 2. Read any great books or articles lately? Please let us know...
... articles How to Write Reviews Extracted from Writing
Techniques, by Cameron Russell. A review is a type of opinion essay. You are usually giving your opinion on the quality of a book, play, film, concert or whatever. An opinion could just be “I think it was rubbish,” but a review must not only make a judgment, but also support the judgment. A strong review could do the following: 1. Briefly describe the work so that people know what you’re talking about. Somewhere in your review tell the reader where he or she can go in order to see/ hear/ buy the work. 2. Express your view on quality. It is up to you how you define quality, for example, was it enjoyable or clever or subtle or heartwarming or convincing or whatever? Your definition of quality should be appropriate. For example, a comedy should probably be funny (and there are different types of “funny” to consider too). 3. When writing, assume that the reader of your review has not yet read/ seen/ attended the work you are reviewing. Don’t spoil it for them by revealing the ending (if there’s an ending)! 4. Back up your view with reasons, arguments and/or evidence. Perhaps quote from a book or film or talk about particular parts of a performance. Which parts were worthy and which were poor, and why? 5. Perhaps make suggestions on how different parts of the work could have been improved. Look at things the writer of the production did not consider. 6. Assess how good the work is overall. Somehow rate it against some standard. A review will assess the work or somehow evaluate it (give a value to it). Is it very important or fairly important or not worth thinking about? Perhaps compare the work to other similar works. Is the work worth reading/ seeing/ attending? Is it creative and original? Is it thought provoking? Give both a subjective and an objective analysis. For example, you might say: “I personally enjoyed this book (subjective) because I like horses. However, even people who don’t like horses will enjoy this book because it contains truths that are present in the lives of all humans” (more objective).
Film Reviews - In a Nutshell Brief film reviews (arranged in alphabetic order):
CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON THE MESSENGER: THE STORY OF JOAN OF ARC
1999
122 mins (DVD: Universal Studios, released Oct 24, 2000) You've already heard enough about this one (and it did deserve the acclaim), so let's change the subject. Would you agree with us that the popular Hollywood actors of today are actually quite talented? Think of: Tom Hanks; Tom Cruise; Sean Connery; Julia Roberts; Mel Gibson; Jack Nicholson; Russell Crowe; Nicole Kidman; Annette Bening; Robert De Niro; Helen Hunt; Geoffrey Rush; Cate Blanchett; and Al Pacino, to name more than a few. And Daily-Update's picks for the best of the best? Four actors seem consistently capable of wonderfully subtle performances: Kevin Spacey (star of American Beauty), Milla Jovovich, Anthony Hopkins and Denzel Washington.
2000
105 mins (DVD: Miramax Home Entertainment, released Aug 7, 2001) 1987
99 mins (DVD: MGM Studios, released Jun 8, 1999) Chocolat is sometimes very obvious, even silly, but the film should be taken as a mystical fairytale. Read in that way, the film is enjoyable, but it cannot compare with the delightful classic, Babette's Feast. This Danish film won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film in 1987 and no doubt inspired Chocolat. Babette's Feast is truly magical, filled with undiluted beauty and simply-expressed emotions and meaning. What more can be said? Babette's Feast is a masterpiece and Chocolat is successful to the extent that it has drawn from the Danish work.
2000
122 mins (DVD: Artisan Entertainment, released Jul 24, 2001) Dr T received terrible reviews from just about everyone, and it is a silly movie, but it has two redeeming features. Firstly, Richard Gere, who usually performs as if he is standing in front of a mirror, is tolerable when he plays himself - a self-absorbed ladies' man. He plays this role in another recent lightweight film, Autumn in New York (which at least has Winona Ryder playing a flighty young woman). Secondly, the plot is surprisingly quirky. I found the surprise ending, which was universally-panned as "silly," to be the most thought-provoking part of the entire movie. Even the lack of technical skill in the Texas-Mexico twister scene draws comparisons to that famous Kansas-Oz twister.
2000
132 mins (DVD: Universal/ MCA, released Aug 15, 2000) Based on a real life person and a significant legal battle, Erin Brockovich is the story of the quintessential battler. The struggling, stressed characters inhabit settings typical of small town America. The realism of making ends meet, pecking orders in dingy offices and stark scrublands serves to make the magnitude of the David-and-Goliath battle all the more startling and inspiring. Julia Roberts plays the role with the dynamic energy essential for credibility.
2000
136 mins (DVD: Columbia Tri-Star Studios, released Apr 24, 2001) Critics have compared this film to another Van Sant film, Good Will Hunting, and with good cause. They are both standard, shallow, sentimental, motivational, boy-makes-good, formulaic fare. The public humiliation, largely self-imposed, of the bad guy will make you cringe, but there are a few redeeming features: Firstly, Sean Connery made the mistake of signing up and he plays the crusty reclusive writer with a range of emotions when lesser actors would have just been gruff. He also delights us with the mannerisms of a hermit. Secondly, the musical score is excellent, shifting from jazzy to reflective to Poesque as the mood demands. Finally, the movie is very good on the little details. On balance, this work may only excite teachers who want something for their English composition class.
2000
122 mins (DVD: Studio Home Entertainment, released Apr 3, 2001) Mel Gibson waived his usual astronomical fee to act in this comparatively low-budget film, but it was probably not a great sacrifice. Million Dollar Hotel is a real gem and Gibson seems to revel in his role. The story, by Bono of U2, is as complex as its characters. Jeremy Davies and Milla Jovovich (mentioned in American Beauty above and the Messenger below) turn in rich, faultless performances, the rest of the cast coming across as an ensemble gathered for a thespian master class. The hotel, which in real life was once the haunt of the rich and famous but is now a haunting place for down-and-outs, has enough life to deserve a place in the credits. This is close to a perfect film, although perhaps a little quirky for the tastes of some.
2000
110 mins (DVD: USA Films, released Apr 3, 2001) This is a consistently funny, at times hilarious, film. The interplay between the Freeman-Rock, father-son killers is very amusing. They are chasing Renee Zellweger who witnessed the murder of her sleazy husband and was shocked into the persona of Nurse Betty, her favorite soap star. Admittedly, the plot reads as a soap opera outline itself, but this well-crafted, rather dark film is much more than a soap spoof.
2000
135 mins (DVD: Warner Home Video, released Jun 19, 2001) This is a topical action film (albeit with long stretches of inaction). You may get a feel for the whole kidnapping experience, but it ultimately contains little that is memorable. Russell Crowe is playing a tough, closed character so you won't get to know or sympathize with him. Meg Ryan is altogether too lightweight to convey such emotional turmoil, so she comes across as a shallow, disaster-ridden soap opera character who still finds time to smile and fall in love. David Morse is the one character who offers "proof of life" as the hostage, but unfortunately he has no major character to interact with.
2002
94 mins (DVD: Miramax Home Entertainment, released 2003) This story about three aboriginal girls from the “stolen generation” is all the more heart-wrenching because it is true. The strength of character of the real-life girls as they trudged 1500 miles to escape is reflected in the amazing child actors. (watch the accompanying video on how the movies was made to see how the actors were chosen and how they were affected by the storyline). The director obviously embarked on a labour of love and ended up with an important historical piece. Also listen to the haunting music of Peter Gabriel, based on such things as wind and the call of magpies.
2000
117 mins (DVD: Warner Home Video, released Dec 26, 2000) The Art of War is a fairly typical, over-the-top action film, but with a little bit more of a plot than normal. Unfortunately, the plot tries too hard to be clever with regard to the United Nations and Sun Tze's ancient writings, neither of which have much to do with the thrust of the film. Rather than being mysterious it becomes laughable, but you can safely enjoy the action scenes.
THE MESSENGER: THE STORY OF JOAN OF ARC 1999
158 mins (DVD: Columbia Tri-Star, released Apr 4, 2000) A powerful film from start to finish due in large part to the remarkable efforts of Besson and Jovovich (as Joan). The dedication of Joan, whether misguided or not, was often touching. There was realism in the battles and court politics. And the movie captures the wonder of a young peasant girl being allowed to lead an army against a powerful enemy. Some critics said that they tired of Jovovich's shrill exhortations, but I thought this was a very natural reflection of the frustration of many a prophet. If anything, the scenes with Dustin Hoffman as the Conscience (or was it Satan?) were contrived, confusing and unfortunate. The church-state tensions, betrayal, attempted humiliation and ecclesiastical court grilling should have been enough to carry us through the slower prison scenes. All in all, this is a historical epic of quality to match Elizabeth.
1999
115 mins (DVD: Warner Home Video, released Apr 11, 2000) You would expect this film about soldiers attempting to steal gold from the Iraqis during Operation Desert Storm to be a run-of-the-mill action film, but it is surprisingly surreal and intelligent. It is well-researched, has a conscience, has amazing special effects and is quite tongue-in-cheek. The combination of insight, commentary and humor puts this work on a level with those great "war" movies of the sixties and seventies.
Film Reviews - In a Few Words Very brief film reviews (arranged in alphabetic order):
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - Spielberg movie with good actors and effects, but plot becomes labored. Still, the kids will like this, provided they can handle cruelty to robots and the thought of outliving their parents.
BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM - Generations, genders, races and classes all come to understand each other a little better, as heroic Jess ducks and weaves both on the soccer pitch and at home. Funny, charming and inspiring.
CITIZEN KANE - The classic film of all time, now out on DVD.
GET SHORTY - An intelligent satire of Hollywood and its artificiality, bluffing and claim-staking, rather similar to that other black comedy, Nurse Betty (reviewed above).
HITCH - Generally funny romantic comedy with Will Smith being himself.
MAGNOLIA - Excellent, highly energetic film, using the theme of extraordinary coincidences to draw the idiosyncratic characters together.
MEET THE FOCKERS - Wacky, contrasting characters are given life by some of the best actors around. They all seem to be having fun so we do too.
MOULIN ROUGE - A wild ride you will thoroughly enjoy, whether you're interested in song and spectacle or a practically new art form.
MR & MRS SMITH - A far-fetched and shallow plot, yet entertaining action and characters.
O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? - A classic road movie based on Homer’s Odyssey. Like other Coen Brothers hits such as The Ladykillers and Fargo, this film has it all: restrained humour, charming characters and quirky insight.
PAY IT FORWARD - A teacher (Kevin Spacey) inspires a student to do good, but it's not quite as schmaltzy as it sounds.
ROMEO MUST DIE - Jet Li can't act, but it's a kung fu movie and he can kick. The action and effects are praiseworthy and tie in with the fairly realistic plot quite well.
SNOW FALLING ON CEDARS - A simply beautiful film with painterly direction by Scott Hicks (of Shine).
SPACE COWBOYS - Harmless fun, with Clint Eastwood; Tommy Lee Jones; James Garner; and Donald Sutherland.
THE BOURNE SUPREMACY - A real thriller, every bit as good as The Bourne Identity before it.
THE INCREDIBLES - Incredibly funny and clever.
THE MEXICAN - Julia Roberts tries hard to look interested and build up some chemistry with Brad Pitt. The latter, though, has an interesting role, having to play a vulnerable victim and a worldly hired gun at the same time. The Mexican setting also adds interest, but ultimately this is one for teenage romantics.
THE NEGOTIATOR - Like Panic Room and Phone Booth, this is a solid film, building suspense through interesting characters being thrust into a claustrophobic space. This is an action film with differences, including rich acting (especially by Kevin Spacey and Samuel L. Jackson) and a believable plot.
THE PLEDGE - Another fine performance by Jack Nicholson.
THIRTEEN DAYS - JFK's Cuban missile crisis.
TOWN AND COUNTRY - Drew shocking reviews, but not half bad for a' that. Okay, it's Hollywood at its fluffiest, but the screenplay was quite quirky and funny and the casting was suitable.
TRAFFIC - Hard-hitting portrayal of the drug scene.
WAITING FOR GUFFMAN - Another funny "mockumentary" from the maker of This is Spinal Tap and the recent Best in Show
WHALE RIDER - A magnificent film based on the legends of the Whangara people of New Zealand.
WHAT WOMEN WANT - A date movie that is very amusing if you don't take it too seriously.
|
FILM
REVIEWS - ESSAYS
These
"essays" on films (so-called because we don't bother to
introduce much of the plot) are arranged in alphabetic order.
2000 143 mins (DVD: CBS/Fox Home Video, released Jun 12, 2001) RATED: PG-13
STARRING: Tom Hanks; Helen Hunt; Nick Searcy; Geoffrey Blake; Jennifer Lewis
DIRECTED BY: Robert Zemeckis
WRITTEN BY: William Broyles Jr
This is a brave movie. On the face of it, the synopsis of a man on a desert island for over four years could put the potential viewer off. After all,
there would be no interaction between actors and no dialogue - just a long survivalist movie ahead. Were it not that the man on the island is
played by Tom Hanks, people would probably not have gone past first base and the movie would have been a corny flop. Fortunately, Tom
Hanks, as FedEx systems engineer Chuck Noland, lives up to expectations and the film is successful. The writer quickly sets up various
themes at the start of the movie that will be played out while Hanks' character is stranded and that will be resolved at the end.
Most obviously, there is time. Chuck Noland lives his life by the second before he drops into the ocean. On the island, all he has is a broken
watch containing a picture of Helen Hunt's character. Time is resolved later with the philosophy that all one can do sometimes is continue to
take one breath after another. There is also the theme of past, present and future, the film ending on a positive note with Hanks literally at the
crossroads. Unlike Unbreakable (reviewed below) this uncertain ending is handled intelligently (with many possibilities for the exiting viewer to
mull over, rather than with a big full stop halfway through a sentence). More expressively, the director plays with the theme of flickering light,
which symbolizes different things at different times.
Helen Hunt has the ability to quickly develop her character into a love interest on a deep level, which is just as well because she is not given
much time in this movie. Most of the film is on the island, as is appropriate. There is an appropriate balance in other areas too. There is just
the right amount of learning of survival skills to make it believable that Noland can survive. Later, the obvious contrast between our luxurious
city life and nature is not overplayed. In just a couple of actions of Noland, viewers can acknowledge what we already know - we are
disconnected from nature. This is another theme - man against nature. It is constructed as man against the four elements and is immeasurably
more engaging than that earlier man vs. nature film, The Perfect Storm.
Hanks' acting is exceptional, convincingly portraying desperation, despondency and determination, humor and heartbreak without uttering too
many words. Hanks does, however, still have quite a few lines. Even on the island, in a reference to Lord of the Flies, Noland finds something
to talk to and this lets the viewer know more about what is on his mind. One last praiseworthy thing about the film is the attention to detail,
including how Noland weathers the island.
CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON
2000 120 mins (DVD: Columbia Tri-Star, released Jun 5, 2001) RATED: PG-13
STARRING: Chow Yun-Fat; Michelle Yeoh; Zhang Ziyi
DIRECTED BY: Ang Lee
WRITTEN BY: Du Lu Wang; Hui-Ling Wang; James Schamus; Kuo Jung Tsai
In Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991), one of Kevin Costner's many lackluster films, there is one bright spot near the end of the film when
King Richard I finally makes his appearance. I remember there was a pronounced collective gasp from the cinema audience when it was
realized that the Lionheart was being played by Sean Connery. It seemed at the time that this was perfect casting - the perfect cameo for
Connery. In Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, there is again this confluence of actor and character (which is altogether different from
stereotyping). Chow Yun-Fat's early career often involved playing rough but charming gangsters. As evidenced in Anna and the King, he is
now in the position to play dignified, philosophical characters of active background. Michelle Yeoh is able to return many a piercing look
and comes across as a serene woman of substance. Unfortunately for Mandarin speakers, her Mandarin accent is poor in comparison to
Chow Yun-Fat's. But getting Cantonese speakers to talk in Mandarin throughout is a big ask and a praiseworthy trouble.
Zhang Ziyi is also perfectly in character - raw and fearless, pouting and mischievous.
The feeling amongst many Chinese viewers seems to be that this is not the best Martial Arts film with regard to plot or effects, but they are
immensely proud that a Chinese film has at last been recognized by westerners. For westerners, the desert scenes of Central China will be
breathtaking, the plot authentic, the effects either off-putting or exciting and essential. The westerner will find the film something new and
fresh - an epic without the cast of thousands, a romance with very
little romance and a martial arts film with negotiation in place of
killing.
2000 154 mins (DVD: Universal Studios, released Nov 21, 2001) RATED: R
STARRING: Russell Crowe; Richard Harris; Joaquin Phoenix; Connie Nielsen; Oliver Reed; Djimon Hounsou
DIRECTED BY: Ridley Scott
WRITTEN BY: David H. Franzoni
In the old days, members of the audience would apparently faint when viewing an approaching train filmed using a camera between the tracks.
These days, nothing short of the over-the-top train sequence in Mission Impossible will get us remotely excited.
In the old days, we had to suspend disbelief when viewing jerky rockets on strings. These days, we need little imagination to share the trials
of the Apollo 13 crew.
For some years now, special effects departments have been churning out footage that is at least 99% realistic. Having mastered realism,
they have now gone on to put the viewer in all sorts of unlikely places, even alongside bullets. Gladiator has made full use of such technology.
The film can only be described as one long spectacle - literally bigger than Ben Hur. One has to wonder when some critics condemn the
background views of the Coliseum or the city of Rome. Perhaps they could inject a touch of imagination in gratitude for the privilege of
experiencing the Roman Empire in all its fading glory. Short of producing a snuff film or rebuilding ancient Rome, it is hard to envisage how
the realism could have been much improved (particularly with the battlefield and Roman scenes).
As for the rest of the film, the sound effects, cinematography and musical score are noteworthy. All actors turn in solid performances, Crowe
and Phoenix being supported by the likes of Harris and Reed. Above all, director Ridley Scott has created a work of art. He has painted
Germanic barbarism and Roman despair in dark tones; Roman decadence and opulence in luxurious tones; the outer reaches of the Empire
in stunning brightness; and the semi-conscious or near-death worlds in disorienting impressionism. Perhaps the only downside was the
rather stiff Hollywood ending in the Coliseum and the music
immediately following which sounded Celtic and didn't fit, beautiful
as it was.
2000 106 mins (DVD: Touchstone Video, released Jun 12, 2001 - Unbreakable/The Sixth Sense set released Nov 6, 2001) RATED: PG-13
STARRING: Bruce Willis; Samuel L. Jackson; Robin Wright; Spencer Treat Clark; Charlayne Woodard; Eamonn Walker
DIRECTED BY: M. Night Shyamalan
WRITTEN BY: M. Night Shyamalan
The cinematographer of Unbreakable, like that of Gladiator, has produced commendable work. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for
The cinematographer of Unbreakable, like that of Gladiator, has produced commendable work. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for director M. Night Shyamalan, who has taken every opportunity to draw attention to himself. Filming with train seats between the camera and the actors is as enjoyable as having twenty people file in front of you in the cinema. Why did he do it? Perhaps to convey the sense of unease that would be experienced by an eavesdropper - but the eavesdropper here was a child with no obvious signs of discomfort. Then we had a revolving comic and camera. Why? Perhaps our brain might work out that this uncomfortable spin was intended as an exclamation mark so that we wouldn't miss the centrality of the comic to the story. However, the importance of the comic book is hard to miss and we don't really gain anything, apart from dizziness, from the director's use of the camera. As writer, M. Night Shyamalan is also to blame for the plot. We have an ordinary security officer named David Dunne (played well by Bruce Willis), who gradually comes to realize he is an invincible superhero. We're not told why, but it seems hereditary. Dunne is helped in his realization by Elijah Price, a comic book dealer, (played by Samuel L. Jackson). I may be imagining it, but Jackson seemed to do a good job in all scenes except two. In one scene, he had to explain to Willis' character that he was a comic book character. In that scene, Jackson looked a little ashamed of his lines and lacked conviction. Perhaps he was also wondering "Why?" In the very last scene of the film, Jackson made a better attempt at conviction, but it still rang hollow. The last scene will probably be controversial because it will leave many people asking that same old question - "Why?" At the same time, there will be many who love it because the director tricked all those who had high expectations based on the ending in Shyamalan's previous hit The Sixth Sense. Perhaps Shyamalan is stretching his audience and making them work, but I prefer a film that touches not just the mind but also the heart, a film that may be appreciated by not just self-congratulatory film buffs who "get it," but also the average filmgoer. I am not talking about aiming to please everybody by following a wishy-washy predictable formula, but I think true quality may be enjoyed on many levels and from many aspects. If Shyamalan were an architect, he would be a Brutalist - a creator of ugly buildings which can be explained in flowery terms that will appeal to intellectuals. If people complain that the buildings are hard to live in, those from the Brutalist school will be likely to feel that bit more superior because the common folk just don't understand.
The cinematographer of Unbreakable, like that of Gladiator, has produced commendable work. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for director M. Night Shyamalan, who has taken every opportunity to draw attention to himself. Filming with train seats between the camera and the actors is as enjoyable as having twenty people file in front of you in the cinema. Why did he do it? Perhaps to convey the sense of unease that would be experienced by an eavesdropper - but the eavesdropper here was a child with no obvious signs of discomfort. Then we had a revolving comic and camera. Why? Perhaps our brain might work out that this uncomfortable spin was intended as an exclamation mark so that we wouldn't miss the centrality of the comic to the story. However, the importance of the comic book is hard to miss and we don't really gain anything, apart from dizziness, from the director's use of the camera. As writer, M. Night Shyamalan is also to blame for the plot. We have an ordinary security officer named David Dunne (played well by Bruce Willis), who gradually comes to realize he is an invincible superhero. We're not told why, but it seems hereditary. Dunne is helped in his realization by Elijah Price, a comic book dealer, (played by Samuel L. Jackson). I may be imagining it, but Jackson seemed to do a good job in all scenes except two. In one scene, he had to explain to Willis' character that he was a comic book character. In that scene, Jackson looked a little ashamed of his lines and lacked conviction. Perhaps he was also wondering "Why?" In the very last scene of the film, Jackson made a better attempt at conviction, but it still rang hollow. The last scene will probably be controversial because it will leave many people asking that same old question - "Why?" At the same time, there will be many who love it because the director tricked all those who had high expectations based on the ending in Shyamalan's previous hit The Sixth Sense. Perhaps Shyamalan is stretching his audience and making them work, but I prefer a film that touches not just the mind but also the heart, a film that may be appreciated by not just self-congratulatory film buffs who "get it," but also the average filmgoer. I am not talking about aiming to please everybody by following a wishy-washy predictable formula, but I think true quality may be enjoyed on many levels and from many aspects. If Shyamalan were an architect, he would be a Brutalist - a creator of ugly buildings which can be explained in flowery terms that will appeal to intellectuals. If people complain that the buildings are hard to live in, those from the Brutalist school will be likely to feel that bit more superior because the common folk just don't understand.
The cinematographer of Unbreakable, like that of Gladiator, has produced commendable work. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for director M. Night Shyamalan, who has taken every opportunity to draw attention to himself. Filming with train seats between the camera and the actors is as enjoyable as having twenty people file in front of you in the cinema. Why did he do it? Perhaps to convey the sense of unease that would be experienced by an eavesdropper - but the eavesdropper here was a child with no obvious signs of discomfort. Then we had a revolving comic and camera. Why? Perhaps our brain might work out that this uncomfortable spin was intended as an exclamation mark so that we wouldn't miss the centrality of the comic to the story. However, the importance of the comic book is hard to miss and we don't really gain anything, apart from dizziness, from the director's use of the camera. As writer, M. Night Shyamalan is also to blame for the plot. We have an ordinary security officer named David Dunne (played well by Bruce Willis), who gradually comes to realize he is an invincible superhero. We're not told why, but it seems hereditary. Dunne is helped in his realization by Elijah Price, a comic book dealer, (played by Samuel L. Jackson). I may be imagining it, but Jackson seemed to do a good job in all scenes except two. In one scene, he had to explain to Willis' character that he was a comic book character. In that scene, Jackson looked a little ashamed of his lines and lacked conviction. Perhaps he was also wondering "Why?" In the very last scene of the film, Jackson made a better attempt at conviction, but it still rang hollow. The last scene will probably be controversial because it will leave many people asking that same old question - "Why?" At the same time, there will be many who love it because the director tricked all those who had high expectations based on the ending in Shyamalan's previous hit The Sixth Sense. Perhaps Shyamalan is stretching his audience and making them work, but I prefer a film that touches not just the mind but also the heart, a film that may be appreciated by not just self-congratulatory film buffs who "get it," but also the average filmgoer. I am not talking about aiming to please everybody by following a wishy-washy predictable formula, but I think true quality may be enjoyed on many levels and from many aspects. If Shyamalan were an architect, he would be a Brutalist - a creator of ugly buildings which can be explained in flowery terms that will appeal to intellectuals. If people complain that the buildings are hard to live in, those from the Brutalist school will be likely to feel that bit more superior because the common folk just don't understand.
The cinematographer of Unbreakable, like that of Gladiator, has produced commendable work. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for director M. Night Shyamalan, who has taken every opportunity to draw attention to himself. Filming with train seats between the camera and the actors is as enjoyable as having twenty people file in front of you in the cinema. Why did he do it? Perhaps to convey the sense of unease that would be experienced by an eavesdropper - but the eavesdropper here was a child with no obvious signs of discomfort. Then we had a revolving comic and camera. Why? Perhaps our brain might work out that this uncomfortable spin was intended as an exclamation mark so that we wouldn't miss the centrality of the comic to the story. However, the importance of the comic book is hard to miss and we don't really gain anything, apart from dizziness, from the director's use of the camera. As writer, M. Night Shyamalan is also to blame for the plot. We have an ordinary security officer named David Dunne (played well by Bruce Willis), who gradually comes to realize he is an invincible superhero. We're not told why, but it seems hereditary. Dunne is helped in his realization by Elijah Price, a comic book dealer, (played by Samuel L. Jackson). I may be imagining it, but Jackson seemed to do a good job in all scenes except two. In one scene, he had to explain to Willis' character that he was a comic book character. In that scene, Jackson looked a little ashamed of his lines and lacked conviction. Perhaps he was also wondering "Why?" In the very last scene of the film, Jackson made a better attempt at conviction, but it still rang hollow. The last scene will probably be controversial because it will leave many people asking that same old question - "Why?" At the same time, there will be many who love it because the director tricked all those who had high expectations based on the ending in Shyamalan's previous hit The Sixth Sense. Perhaps Shyamalan is stretching his audience and making them work, but I prefer a film that touches not just the mind but also the heart, a film that may be appreciated by not just self-congratulatory film buffs who "get it," but also the average filmgoer. I am not talking about aiming to please everybody by following a wishy-washy predictable formula, but I think true quality may be enjoyed on many levels and from many aspects. If Shyamalan were an architect, he would be a Brutalist - a creator of ugly buildings which can be explained in flowery terms that will appeal to intellectuals. If people complain that the buildings are hard to live in, those from the Brutalist school will be likely to feel that bit more superior because the common folk just don't understand.
The cinematographer of Unbreakable, like that of Gladiator, has produced commendable work. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for director M. Night Shyamalan, who has taken every opportunity to draw attention to himself. Filming with train seats between the camera and the actors is as enjoyable as having twenty people file in front of you in the cinema. Why did he do it? Perhaps to convey the sense of unease that would be experienced by an eavesdropper - but the eavesdropper here was a child with no obvious signs of discomfort. Then we had a revolving comic and camera. Why? Perhaps our brain might work out that this uncomfortable spin was intended as an exclamation mark so that we wouldn't miss the centrality of the comic to the story. However, the importance of the comic book is hard to miss and we don't really gain anything, apart from dizziness, from the director's use of the camera. As writer, M. Night Shyamalan is also to blame for the plot. We have an ordinary security officer named David Dunne (played well by Bruce Willis), who gradually comes to realize he is an invincible superhero. We're not told why, but it seems hereditary. Dunne is helped in his realization by Elijah Price, a comic book dealer, (played by Samuel L. Jackson). I may be imagining it, but Jackson seemed to do a good job in all scenes except two. In one scene, he had to explain to Willis' character that he was a comic book character. In that scene, Jackson looked a little ashamed of his lines and lacked conviction. Perhaps he was also wondering "Why?" In the very last scene of the film, Jackson made a better attempt at conviction, but it still rang hollow. The last scene will probably be controversial because it will leave many people asking that same old question - "Why?" At the same time, there will be many who love it because the director tricked all those who had high expectations based on the ending in Shyamalan's previous hit The Sixth Sense. Perhaps Shyamalan is stretching his audience and making them work, but I prefer a film that touches not just the mind but also the heart, a film that may be appreciated by not just self-congratulatory film buffs who "get it," but also the average filmgoer. I am not talking about aiming to please everybody by following a wishy-washy predictable formula, but I think true quality may be enjoyed on many levels and from many aspects. If Shyamalan were an architect, he would be a Brutalist - a creator of ugly buildings which can be explained in flowery terms that will appeal to intellectuals. If people complain that the buildings are hard to live in, those from the Brutalist school will be likely to feel that bit more superior because the common folk just don't understand.
don't really gain anything, apart from dizziness, from the director's use of the camera. As writer, M. Night Shyamalan is also to blame for
the plot. We have an ordinary security officer named David Dunne (played well by Bruce Willis), who gradually comes to realize he is an
invincible superhero. We're not told why, but it seems hereditary. Dunne is helped in his realization by Elijah Price, a comic book dealer,
(played by Samuel L. Jackson). I may be imagining it, but Jackson seemed to do a good job in all scenes except two. In one scene, he had
to explain to Willis' character that he was a comic book character. In that scene, Jackson looked a little ashamed of his lines and lacked
conviction. Perhaps he was also wondering "Why?" In the very last scene of the film, Jackson made a better attempt at conviction, but it
still rang hollow. The last scene will probably be controversial because it will leave many people asking that same old question - "Why?"
At the same time, there will be many who love it because the director tricked all those who had high expectations based on the ending in
Shyamalan's previous hit The Sixth Sense. Perhaps Shyamalan is stretching his audience and making them work, but I prefer a film that
touches not just the mind but also the heart, a film that may be appreciated by not just self-congratulatory film buffs who "get it," but also
the average filmgoer. I am not talking about aiming to please everybody by following a wishy-washy predictable formula, but I think true
quality may be enjoyed on many levels and from many aspects. If Shyamalan were an architect, he would be a Brutalist - a creator of ugly
buildings which can be explained in flowery terms that will appeal to intellectuals. If people complain that the buildings are hard to live in,
those from the Brutalist school will be likely to feel that bit more superior because the common folk just don't understand.
To finish on the positive side, the film was just starting to get exciting at the end (before the last scene) and we are no doubt set up for
Unbreakable 2.
|HOME| |About Us| |Privacy| |Copyright| |Disclaimer| |Terms| |DU Charities| |DU Jobs| |CONTACT US|
