Just listening to the Proms concert tonight, the highlight of which, for me, is the Walton violin concerto, played by Midori with the CBSO under Andris Nelsons. It is a piece that is never played as often as it deserves and I do not know it very well, certainly not as well as his viola concerto, and it is a great performance of a great bit of music.
Two of the other main pieces in tonight's Prom are by Richard Strauss: the tone poem Don Juan and the Dance of the Seven Veils from Salome. I have to admit to having a bit of a problem with Strauss's tone poems, despite liking his operas and especially the Four Last Songs. The problem that I have with them is the same one that I have with the novels and short stories of Franz Kafka and that is that they have absolutely fantastic openings, but the rest of them just doesn't live up to the expectations these openings arouse. Think of the beginning of Also Sprach Zarathustra or Till Eulenspiegel, then try to hum another part of either. Then recall the first sentences of Metamorphosis or The Trial and try and come up with another memorable quote from either.
Yet another brilliant Prom from what is shaping up to be a superb season.
The final piece is Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky, a cantata arranged from the music he composed for Eisenstein's film of the same name. I have a real weakness for Russian composers, so I am also looking forward to this one.
Saturday 30 July 2011
Wednesday 20 July 2011
Down Those Mean Streets A Man Must Go...
...who is not himself mean.
http://cinemart-online.co.uk/2011/07/19/re-viewedre-assessed-mean-streets/
Just posting a link to an article I've written for the Cinemart website.
http://cinemart-online.co.uk/2011/07/19/re-viewedre-assessed-mean-streets/
Just posting a link to an article I've written for the Cinemart website.
Sunday 17 July 2011
Frank Serpico, Where Are You Now?
With all the revelations about police corruption in the Met. I couldn't help but think back to one of Al Pacino's great early 70s movies, 'Serpico', sandwiched between the two parts of 'The Godfather' (alright, first two parts, I suppose I have to acknowledge the existence of part three, if only for Andy Garcia's riff on Bobby de Niro *taps side of head with side of index finger*).
One of Al Pacino's greatest performances, he plays Frank Serpico in Sidney Lumet's movie, based on the true story of a police officer who spoke out against corruption in the New York Police Department, earning the dislike of some of his fellow officers, who... Well, no, I won't say. Just check out the movie and watch it - it is one of the great early 70s cop movies with a similar almost documentary realism to William Friedkin's excellent 'The French Connection'.
One of Al Pacino's greatest performances, he plays Frank Serpico in Sidney Lumet's movie, based on the true story of a police officer who spoke out against corruption in the New York Police Department, earning the dislike of some of his fellow officers, who... Well, no, I won't say. Just check out the movie and watch it - it is one of the great early 70s cop movies with a similar almost documentary realism to William Friedkin's excellent 'The French Connection'.
Thursday 5 May 2011
The Greatest Movie Ever?
This is, of course, an incredibly pointless question, but one which for years has had a standard answer, at least as far as most film magazines or colour supplement surveys are concerned. There is no such thing as the greatest movie ever, in the same way that there is no such thing as the greatest piece of music, or the greatest meal, or the greatest painting (another one with a standard answer - the Mona Lisa, which is incidentally not even the greatest painting by Leonardo, let alone the greatest painting ever, but I digress...)
The usual answer for the Greatest Movie Ever is Orson Welles' 1941 classic 'Citizen Kane' and, just like the Mona Lisa, it is not even the greatest movie that Orson Welles made, or at least that is what I have always thought, preferring both 'The Magnificent Ambersons', even in its butchered-by-the-studios state (getting an original print of this is high on my to-do-when-I-get-a-time-machine list), and 'Touch of Evil' (worth it for the opening tracking shot alone). However, the other night I was recording CK off the telly and as I wasn't in the mood for watching it at the time, but couldn't be bothered to turn off the telly, I had it on in the background with the sound off. This was a revelation - freed from following the plot of the film I was able to dip into it and watch it as pure cinema and I was suddenly aware of just what an incredible movie it is. Some of the shots are beautifully composed with multiple layers at different depths, the juxtapositions, both within the frame and by montage are fantastic and the swooping and sweeping camera movements, right on the edge of technical capabilities, judging by the occasional wobble, are inspired. In short, it is a technical masterpiece and a how-to masterclass for aspiring directors.
So, is it the Greatest Movie Ever Made? It's certainly up there, and is a possible winner for the Technically Greatest Movie Ever Made, but I still prefer his flawed follow up or any number of other movies by other directors.
The usual answer for the Greatest Movie Ever is Orson Welles' 1941 classic 'Citizen Kane' and, just like the Mona Lisa, it is not even the greatest movie that Orson Welles made, or at least that is what I have always thought, preferring both 'The Magnificent Ambersons', even in its butchered-by-the-studios state (getting an original print of this is high on my to-do-when-I-get-a-time-machine list), and 'Touch of Evil' (worth it for the opening tracking shot alone). However, the other night I was recording CK off the telly and as I wasn't in the mood for watching it at the time, but couldn't be bothered to turn off the telly, I had it on in the background with the sound off. This was a revelation - freed from following the plot of the film I was able to dip into it and watch it as pure cinema and I was suddenly aware of just what an incredible movie it is. Some of the shots are beautifully composed with multiple layers at different depths, the juxtapositions, both within the frame and by montage are fantastic and the swooping and sweeping camera movements, right on the edge of technical capabilities, judging by the occasional wobble, are inspired. In short, it is a technical masterpiece and a how-to masterclass for aspiring directors.
So, is it the Greatest Movie Ever Made? It's certainly up there, and is a possible winner for the Technically Greatest Movie Ever Made, but I still prefer his flawed follow up or any number of other movies by other directors.
Thursday 14 April 2011
Manichaean Art Criticism?
I was thinking about Francois Truffaut today, as I do occasionally, but probably not as often as he deserves, and was googling for cool pictures of him to add to my cool pictures folder. In the course of this I found that Google, rather bizarrely decided that a picture of Jean-Luc Goddard was actually of Truffaut. It was also a cool picture and so was added to my folder, but it was not Truffaut, although they were obviously closely connected, at least in their early days: both writing for Cahiers du Cinema, Goddard filming Truffaut's script for A Bout De Souffle, etc. This unwitting juxtaposition from Google lead me to ponder the differences between them and the fact that this pairing applies to so many other pairs of closely associated artists.
Looking at their films objectively, from a purely technical and cinematic perspective (with the cold detachment of Godard's 'cinema is truth 24 times a second') it seems to me that Godard is the better film-maker, but as a lover of movies it is obvious that Truffaut made the better films. There are five or six of Godard's movies that I love, but there are many more of his that are virtually unwatchable, whereas even some of Truffaut's weaker films are still great and his masterpieces are infused with a love and compassion which make him one of my heroes. In short Godard is the better film maker, but Truffaut is the better human being.
This contrast also applies to pairings such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, Ernest Hemingway and Scott Fitzgerald and Brett Easton Ellis and Jay McInerney. In each case the former is probably the better philosopher/writer, but the later is the better human being and so their books are the ones I prefer to read.
Looking at their films objectively, from a purely technical and cinematic perspective (with the cold detachment of Godard's 'cinema is truth 24 times a second') it seems to me that Godard is the better film-maker, but as a lover of movies it is obvious that Truffaut made the better films. There are five or six of Godard's movies that I love, but there are many more of his that are virtually unwatchable, whereas even some of Truffaut's weaker films are still great and his masterpieces are infused with a love and compassion which make him one of my heroes. In short Godard is the better film maker, but Truffaut is the better human being.
This contrast also applies to pairings such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, Ernest Hemingway and Scott Fitzgerald and Brett Easton Ellis and Jay McInerney. In each case the former is probably the better philosopher/writer, but the later is the better human being and so their books are the ones I prefer to read.
Thursday 31 March 2011
Vive Johnny Hallyday?!
I was pondering lately the problems that continental Europe seems to have with popular music. They have no difficulties whatsoever with classical music and you would have to be a fool to contend that they did, but it seems that only the Anglo-Saxon countries (alright, and the Celts) can do popular music successfully.
The problem is more complicated than it appears at first glance, because the latin countries (excluding Spain, who in this, as in so many other things, are a wonderfully distinct case apart) can do jazz pretty well. As proof then check out any of the Italian musicians on the Schema label or the Quintette du Hot Club De France, with everybody's favourite Belgian gypsy, Django Reinhardt. However they have a near total inability to produce decent rock and pop records.
On the other hand the germanic peoples seem to excel in rock and pop, especially of the quirky, experimental kind: the whole Krautrock scene, Trio, Kraftwerk, Bjork and the Sugarcubes, not to mention more mainstream acts such as Aha or Abba, but you try and think of a truly great germanic jazz artist...
Maybe it is the blending of Roman and Saxon influences in Britain that allow us to succeed in both areas of popular music, or maybe this is just complete rubbish. Regardless of this, we should be celebrating, listening to and enjoying the range of different musical cultures, not just in Europe but around the world.
Happy listening.
The problem is more complicated than it appears at first glance, because the latin countries (excluding Spain, who in this, as in so many other things, are a wonderfully distinct case apart) can do jazz pretty well. As proof then check out any of the Italian musicians on the Schema label or the Quintette du Hot Club De France, with everybody's favourite Belgian gypsy, Django Reinhardt. However they have a near total inability to produce decent rock and pop records.
On the other hand the germanic peoples seem to excel in rock and pop, especially of the quirky, experimental kind: the whole Krautrock scene, Trio, Kraftwerk, Bjork and the Sugarcubes, not to mention more mainstream acts such as Aha or Abba, but you try and think of a truly great germanic jazz artist...
Maybe it is the blending of Roman and Saxon influences in Britain that allow us to succeed in both areas of popular music, or maybe this is just complete rubbish. Regardless of this, we should be celebrating, listening to and enjoying the range of different musical cultures, not just in Europe but around the world.
Happy listening.
Monday 28 March 2011
Red wine with fish. Well that should have told me something.
So, as promised, after a slight delay, the Bond films. I make no apologies whatsoever for discounting huge chunks of them, as by the time we got to invisible cars they had given up any right to be taken seriously, which is a shame as Pierce Brosnan had the potential to have been a better Bond than he turned out to be. The 'only doing my job' exchange in 'Tomorrow Never Dies' recaptured the cold ruthlessness of Connery shooting Professor Dent, which was a far cry from the tongue in cheek Roger Moore, or the earnest Timothy Dalton. I also have not yet seen the Daniel Craig films, so I am witholding judgement on them for the moment.
The first film, 'Dr. No' sticks pretty closely to the book, apart from the substitution of death by radioactivity for death by suffocation in guano, and aside from a certain tentativeness makes a good solid start to the series. It is then followed by possibly the best of the films, 'From Russia, With Love', with its shocking pre-credit sequence, its brilliant set pieces, such as the fight at the gypsy camp and the powerboat chase, a fantastic villainess in Rosa Kleb and the great bit of snobbery that gives today's post its title, but which is less snobby than the book, where it is how Grant holds his knife like a pen that gives him away.
The next two are Connery at the peak of his form, relaxed and living the character, but they are also have the first seeds of the over the top gadget fests of the later films, especially the jet pack. 'Thunderball' also marks the first climactic battle between two teams of minions, this time underwater.
'You Only Live Twice' is the first that veers away completely from the book, taking only the title, the setting and the names of a couple of characters. It is also one of my favourites, despite it being the first of the real over the top, ludicrously unbelievable Bonds, partly for its Japanese setting, but also for the appearance of the wonderful Little Nelly. In retrospect it could be seen though as the beginning of the end.
Luckily the next film sees the first of the back to basics Bonds, a recurring theme throughout the series whereby a particularly rich dish is followed by a simpler one and in this case it is a particularly tasty one. George Lazenby has been unfairly panned for his portrayal of Bond, but watching impartially puts him up there in the top half of the table. The film has some spectacular action sequences and one of the most stunning endings of any of the films. This is the bond film beloved of the true Bond fan.
The return of Sean Connery in 'Diamonds are Forever' is a huge disappointment. He is pretty much 'phoning in the performance and it is hard for an audience to give a shit when the main actor so obviously doesn't. It is the first film where the humour is more than just a casual throwaway to accompany the action and the climactic battle in the villain's lair is the first of the silly ones, lacking the charm of the volcano in 'You Only Live Twice'. The first disappointment, and the first proof that Lazenby was not the worst Bond ever.
Roger Moore got off to a reasonably fun start with the voodoo themed 'Live and Let Die', although because of the resequencing of the books Quarrel has to have become his own son, having (spoiler alert!) died in 'Dr. No'. By the second Roger Moore movie it has become obvious that the Bond films have become parodies of other genres - 'Live and Let Die' is a riff on the blaxploitation boom in the seventies and the follow up 'The Man With The Golden Gun' is a parody of martial arts movies, ironically given that 'Enter The Dragon' is in many ways a parody of the western spy genre. It is also a disappointment, compared to 'Live and Let Die'.
Moore regains his mojo with 'The Spy Who Loved Me', which actually remakes 'You Only Live Twice' only with submarines replacing spaceships and is arguably the peak of the Roger Moore era, and the SF cash in 'Moonraker' is much weaker, despite being one of the most overblown movies. It is the sort of Bond film beloved of people who talk about the gadgets being the most important aspects of the films, as opposed to such things as plot and characters.
There was another palate cleanser next in the form of 'For Your Eyes Only', which I would probably pick as my favourite of Roger Moore's films, although the pre-credit sequence involving dropping Blofeld down a chimney in a wheelchair is rather embarrassing and a little insulting - the man killed your wife for God's sake. In the books he strangles him, which is far more satisfying plotwise than the comedy killing in this film. However, after this it settles down into a gadget lite Bond film - the Bond car is a deux chevaux - which is a return to the earlier Bond and reminds me at times of 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'.
The next two films are pretty forgettable and Roger Moore has crossed the line from being a bit too old to play Bond to being a bit too old to play M and any final semblance of believability is thrown out of the window.
The whole Dalton era was a misjudged attempt to return Bond to his roots and I sometimes wonder how Dalton would have fared if he had taken over sooner as it was an uphill struggle to stop the series being considered a laughing stock. The Brosnan era started well, but if Dalton was an attempt to remake Connery, Brosnan soon became an attempt to remake Moore, although the Chop Socky parody of 'Tomorrow Never Dies' was more successful than 'The Man With The Golden Gun', but eventually the Brosnan era runs into the same problem of gadgets and over the top villains becoming more important than characters and plots and so this has necessitated yet another return to basics with Daniel Craig.
As I said, I haven't seen 'Casino Royale' and 'Quantum of Solace', but when I have I shall report back on them and whether I was shaken or stirred, or indeed whether I gave a damn.
The first film, 'Dr. No' sticks pretty closely to the book, apart from the substitution of death by radioactivity for death by suffocation in guano, and aside from a certain tentativeness makes a good solid start to the series. It is then followed by possibly the best of the films, 'From Russia, With Love', with its shocking pre-credit sequence, its brilliant set pieces, such as the fight at the gypsy camp and the powerboat chase, a fantastic villainess in Rosa Kleb and the great bit of snobbery that gives today's post its title, but which is less snobby than the book, where it is how Grant holds his knife like a pen that gives him away.
The next two are Connery at the peak of his form, relaxed and living the character, but they are also have the first seeds of the over the top gadget fests of the later films, especially the jet pack. 'Thunderball' also marks the first climactic battle between two teams of minions, this time underwater.
'You Only Live Twice' is the first that veers away completely from the book, taking only the title, the setting and the names of a couple of characters. It is also one of my favourites, despite it being the first of the real over the top, ludicrously unbelievable Bonds, partly for its Japanese setting, but also for the appearance of the wonderful Little Nelly. In retrospect it could be seen though as the beginning of the end.
Luckily the next film sees the first of the back to basics Bonds, a recurring theme throughout the series whereby a particularly rich dish is followed by a simpler one and in this case it is a particularly tasty one. George Lazenby has been unfairly panned for his portrayal of Bond, but watching impartially puts him up there in the top half of the table. The film has some spectacular action sequences and one of the most stunning endings of any of the films. This is the bond film beloved of the true Bond fan.
The return of Sean Connery in 'Diamonds are Forever' is a huge disappointment. He is pretty much 'phoning in the performance and it is hard for an audience to give a shit when the main actor so obviously doesn't. It is the first film where the humour is more than just a casual throwaway to accompany the action and the climactic battle in the villain's lair is the first of the silly ones, lacking the charm of the volcano in 'You Only Live Twice'. The first disappointment, and the first proof that Lazenby was not the worst Bond ever.
Roger Moore got off to a reasonably fun start with the voodoo themed 'Live and Let Die', although because of the resequencing of the books Quarrel has to have become his own son, having (spoiler alert!) died in 'Dr. No'. By the second Roger Moore movie it has become obvious that the Bond films have become parodies of other genres - 'Live and Let Die' is a riff on the blaxploitation boom in the seventies and the follow up 'The Man With The Golden Gun' is a parody of martial arts movies, ironically given that 'Enter The Dragon' is in many ways a parody of the western spy genre. It is also a disappointment, compared to 'Live and Let Die'.
Moore regains his mojo with 'The Spy Who Loved Me', which actually remakes 'You Only Live Twice' only with submarines replacing spaceships and is arguably the peak of the Roger Moore era, and the SF cash in 'Moonraker' is much weaker, despite being one of the most overblown movies. It is the sort of Bond film beloved of people who talk about the gadgets being the most important aspects of the films, as opposed to such things as plot and characters.
There was another palate cleanser next in the form of 'For Your Eyes Only', which I would probably pick as my favourite of Roger Moore's films, although the pre-credit sequence involving dropping Blofeld down a chimney in a wheelchair is rather embarrassing and a little insulting - the man killed your wife for God's sake. In the books he strangles him, which is far more satisfying plotwise than the comedy killing in this film. However, after this it settles down into a gadget lite Bond film - the Bond car is a deux chevaux - which is a return to the earlier Bond and reminds me at times of 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'.
The next two films are pretty forgettable and Roger Moore has crossed the line from being a bit too old to play Bond to being a bit too old to play M and any final semblance of believability is thrown out of the window.
The whole Dalton era was a misjudged attempt to return Bond to his roots and I sometimes wonder how Dalton would have fared if he had taken over sooner as it was an uphill struggle to stop the series being considered a laughing stock. The Brosnan era started well, but if Dalton was an attempt to remake Connery, Brosnan soon became an attempt to remake Moore, although the Chop Socky parody of 'Tomorrow Never Dies' was more successful than 'The Man With The Golden Gun', but eventually the Brosnan era runs into the same problem of gadgets and over the top villains becoming more important than characters and plots and so this has necessitated yet another return to basics with Daniel Craig.
As I said, I haven't seen 'Casino Royale' and 'Quantum of Solace', but when I have I shall report back on them and whether I was shaken or stirred, or indeed whether I gave a damn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)