Noun
pl stigmas or stigmata
1. a mark of social disgrace: a stigma attached to being redundant
2. stigmata Christianity marks resembling the wounds of the crucified Christ, believed to appear on the bodies of certain people
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Proud =D
I don't even know the difference between 'classical' and digital styles of film-making and even I knew that something was up with Public Enemies. It was a disappointment but thanks, Schembri, I now know exactly why.
You're right, the picture took away from the costumes, set and overall feel of the era. But I think Michael Mann was trying to push this film above that of the regular cinematic experience; it was like he was trying to make it more realistic, harsher, a bit more documentary, and (I can't believe I'm saying this but) also a bit more 'raw'. Sometimes it was like he was distancing the audience on purpose.
While it can be interesting to watch and some might consider this as "pushing the limits of the medium", I think the most important and profound aspect of cinema, or any art form, is its ability to make people feel. Yes, experimentation is worth praise and recognition; though, it's often hard to determine whether it was successful or not because if the whole point was to be strange and daring then whether people approve really doesn't matter.
But if Michael Mann wants to make a film that will have a lasting place in people, (like another Departed or Children of Men) then experimentation should not take priority over that and with Public Enemies, it did.
I personally felt that the extreme close-ups actually took away from the intensity of the scenes. I remained strangely apathetic and objective throughout the whole movie.
Schembri note: Thank you for this terrific letter.
You're right, the picture took away from the costumes, set and overall feel of the era. But I think Michael Mann was trying to push this film above that of the regular cinematic experience; it was like he was trying to make it more realistic, harsher, a bit more documentary, and (I can't believe I'm saying this but) also a bit more 'raw'. Sometimes it was like he was distancing the audience on purpose.
While it can be interesting to watch and some might consider this as "pushing the limits of the medium", I think the most important and profound aspect of cinema, or any art form, is its ability to make people feel. Yes, experimentation is worth praise and recognition; though, it's often hard to determine whether it was successful or not because if the whole point was to be strange and daring then whether people approve really doesn't matter.
But if Michael Mann wants to make a film that will have a lasting place in people, (like another Departed or Children of Men) then experimentation should not take priority over that and with Public Enemies, it did.
I personally felt that the extreme close-ups actually took away from the intensity of the scenes. I remained strangely apathetic and objective throughout the whole movie.
Schembri note: Thank you for this terrific letter.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Asylum seekers blow-up
Some of these comments really pissed me off
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/comments/0,22023,25350618-661,00.html
Here's my two cents:
Do you know what's especially funny about all this discriminatory "go back to your OWN country" crap people are slinging? It's not just that most of them are probably descendents of the very convicts (like the criminals they're accusing these asylum seekers of being) that invaded Aboriginal land and maimed their way of life. No. What's even funnier is that these are probably also the very same people who supported our "very Australian" invasion of other countries (Iraq, Afghanistan...), causing the very violence, blood-shed and terror that half of these asylum seekers are running from. And don't pretend that what we did could be justified by a stupid tabloid-label: the war on terror.
IF YOU GAVE PERMISSION FOR US TO INVADE THEIR COUNTRY, WHAT AUDACITY DO YOU HAVE TO SHUT THEM OUT OF OURS?! And call them criminals for that matter?! Or cowards?! Do I see any of you taking a holiday to Pakistan?!
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/comments/0,22023,25350618-661,00.html
Here's my two cents:
Do you know what's especially funny about all this discriminatory "go back to your OWN country" crap people are slinging? It's not just that most of them are probably descendents of the very convicts (like the criminals they're accusing these asylum seekers of being) that invaded Aboriginal land and maimed their way of life. No. What's even funnier is that these are probably also the very same people who supported our "very Australian" invasion of other countries (Iraq, Afghanistan...), causing the very violence, blood-shed and terror that half of these asylum seekers are running from. And don't pretend that what we did could be justified by a stupid tabloid-label: the war on terror.
IF YOU GAVE PERMISSION FOR US TO INVADE THEIR COUNTRY, WHAT AUDACITY DO YOU HAVE TO SHUT THEM OUT OF OURS?! And call them criminals for that matter?! Or cowards?! Do I see any of you taking a holiday to Pakistan?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
