Earlier this week I finished reading a book on the artist Vilhelm Hammershøi. In keeping with last week's idea of a visual quote, here are reproductions of Hammershøi's paintings A Woman Sewing In An Interior (top) and Interior with Young Woman (bottom).
Friday, 20 February 2009
Friday, 13 February 2009
Gerry
Earlier this week I decided to rewatch Gus Van Sant's Gerry (the first time I saw it was several years ago). I know it’s a film which has its detractors, but I have to say that overall I find it a rather extraordinary and beautiful work. As I always do when I finish watching a film, I hit the net to see if I could find anything to read about it, and was rather surprised by some of what I found. For instance, in his review of the film, the critic Roger Ebert seems to express surprise at the film being described as 'existential', while in their interview with Van Sant SPLICEDwire refer to it as being 'about nothing more than two buddies getting lost -- very lost -- in the desert' (though they do at least see it as an existential work). In my opinion, to describe it as being about 'nothing more' than people being lost in the desert, or to miss its existential overtones, is to somewhat miss the point: the film is an open text, and can clearly be interpreted as an existential metaphor.
[Please note that the following paragraphs contain spoilers].
The two characters begin the film on a wilderness trail, looking for the 'thing'. However, they soon decide to deviate from the trail, and to 'fuck the thing'. No longer interested in reaching their destination, they turn around to retrace their steps, only to get lost in the landscape around them. It is a disaster that starts humorously, continues in despair, and ends in death.
Van Sant has stated in interviews how he always saw the 'thing' as being 'some kind of cave drawing' at the end of the wilderness trail, but readily admits to the fact that they referred to it only as the 'thing' in order to open it up to wider interpretations. And my interpretation is as follows: we begin our lives by following our goals, our desires, our 'things'. But as we get older and they seem ever-further from our reach, we abandon them, ending up lost in the desert of life. Left confused and without purpose, we wander aimlessly through our lives, only to die a cold and meaningless death. At the end of the film, when Matt Damon's character is 'back on the road', it can perhaps be seen as him once more finding his way in life, free to start looking all over again for the 'thing'.
Of course, this explanation of the film is only my personal interpretation, but hopefully it illustrates the film's existential edge, and proves that it is about far more than just what it presents on its surface.
[Please note that the following paragraphs contain spoilers].
The two characters begin the film on a wilderness trail, looking for the 'thing'. However, they soon decide to deviate from the trail, and to 'fuck the thing'. No longer interested in reaching their destination, they turn around to retrace their steps, only to get lost in the landscape around them. It is a disaster that starts humorously, continues in despair, and ends in death.
Van Sant has stated in interviews how he always saw the 'thing' as being 'some kind of cave drawing' at the end of the wilderness trail, but readily admits to the fact that they referred to it only as the 'thing' in order to open it up to wider interpretations. And my interpretation is as follows: we begin our lives by following our goals, our desires, our 'things'. But as we get older and they seem ever-further from our reach, we abandon them, ending up lost in the desert of life. Left confused and without purpose, we wander aimlessly through our lives, only to die a cold and meaningless death. At the end of the film, when Matt Damon's character is 'back on the road', it can perhaps be seen as him once more finding his way in life, free to start looking all over again for the 'thing'.
Of course, this explanation of the film is only my personal interpretation, but hopefully it illustrates the film's existential edge, and proves that it is about far more than just what it presents on its surface.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Another Quote for the Week
I was doing some reading up on various things to do with acting today, and came across something that Sanford Meisner said, which seemed poignant enough to warrant an extra blog post:
"You know it's all right to be wrong, but it's not all right not to try"
"You know it's all right to be wrong, but it's not all right not to try"
Saturday, 7 February 2009
Quote for the Week
Earlier this week I went to see the new print of Barry Lyndon which is currently enjoying an extended run at the BFI Southbank as part of their complete Kubrick retrospective. It's a film which just keeps getting better and better with each subsequent viewing, and is also, in my opinion, one of the greatest films ever made. It feels fitting, therefore, that I should choose a quote from Kubrick's masterpiece as my Quote for the Week. However, in keeping with the power of Kubrick's images, and the emphasis he placed on them in all of his films, it seems only right that it should be a visual quote. And so I leave you with this, one of the most beautiful and striking opening images in cinema:
Sunday, 1 February 2009
Quote for the Week
Earlier this week I finished reading Italo Calvino’s novel Invisible Cities. It’s such a beautiful and poetic work that I’m not quite sure what to say about it other than that it is utterly sublime. It’s the type of work which it’s difficult to make notes on as, quite frankly, the whole book is worth nothing down. However, I’ve decided to distil this little quote from it, as I think it really captures something which is not only beautiful, but which we all need to keep in mind once in a while:
It is not the voice that commands the story: it is the ear.
It is not the voice that commands the story: it is the ear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)