Films, Films and more Films
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Everyday at the Traverse Film Festival proved more enlightening than the day before
Films, Films and more Films
Lotlita, a Stanley Kubrick film
I decided to view this film for many reasons, the least of which is that this is a Kubrick film. Stanley Kubrick was a bit of a revolutionary in his time. He chose this book to make a film and the book itself was revolutionary. Lolita was written by a Russian, Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov, in 1955. That was during the Cold War. The chance that a Russian author would ever find his material attractive to a Hollywood producer was a real change for the American society. The reason it caught the imagination of Kubrick is because of the 'creepiness' of Humbert, the scholar whom rents a room in a lonely widow's home after seeing her twelve year old daughter, Lolita, sunbathing in the backyard.
The film is an exercise in obsession. Humbert is sexually attracted to a pubescent child he watches grow into a woman knowing full well he could never have a relationship with her as a child. He has designs on the girl from the beginning and becomes a bit of a 'sexual confidant' to her as she develops into a woman. The widow/mother panders to his obsession in hopes to divert his passions in her direction. it works and eventually they are married. The obsession with Lolita doesn't end and the marriage enters into failure. Eventually the emotional turmoil of the mother's life results in a hysteria sending her running into the street and then killed by a car.
The plot spins all kinds of victimization of women. It was interesting to me that women 'of the time' were victims of their sexuality and not in control of it. A scarey reminder in the year 2006 when women's rights are under attack, beyond what Kubrick intended to the extent 'a male dominant' society could have to destroy a woman's right of self determination. I don't believe love obsessions belong exclusively to men and the ability for 'finding a relationship' is more a challenge in a society where women are esteemed for their accomplishments rather than their ownership of a vagina and uterus. Women, during Kubrick's time were still chattel, especially in this film.
It's meant to be a torturous film of emotion with fear as the basis to saving Lolita from Humbert and his obsession. All I can say is that to realize this film was revolutionary is a sad statement to the society so fascinated with it. Today. If a woman/girl found someone like Humbert stalking them it would be a matter of getting restraining orders and chasing him into prison for his inabilitiy to deal with his own issues. At least that is the ideal to protect women from obsessed men. Then there is the reality that manifested into the murders of Nichole Brown and Ron Goldman. We still have a long way to go, but, at least a path is now carved.
I enjoyed the film and found lots of reason to reflect. It was a lengthy film of over two and a half hours. Kubrick was a genius and very revolutionary. It may very well be, Kubrick in his own way was actually the imputus to the woman's movement. I mean, "yuk," who wants a Humbert in their lives !
The film is an exercise in obsession. Humbert is sexually attracted to a pubescent child he watches grow into a woman knowing full well he could never have a relationship with her as a child. He has designs on the girl from the beginning and becomes a bit of a 'sexual confidant' to her as she develops into a woman. The widow/mother panders to his obsession in hopes to divert his passions in her direction. it works and eventually they are married. The obsession with Lolita doesn't end and the marriage enters into failure. Eventually the emotional turmoil of the mother's life results in a hysteria sending her running into the street and then killed by a car.
The plot spins all kinds of victimization of women. It was interesting to me that women 'of the time' were victims of their sexuality and not in control of it. A scarey reminder in the year 2006 when women's rights are under attack, beyond what Kubrick intended to the extent 'a male dominant' society could have to destroy a woman's right of self determination. I don't believe love obsessions belong exclusively to men and the ability for 'finding a relationship' is more a challenge in a society where women are esteemed for their accomplishments rather than their ownership of a vagina and uterus. Women, during Kubrick's time were still chattel, especially in this film.
It's meant to be a torturous film of emotion with fear as the basis to saving Lolita from Humbert and his obsession. All I can say is that to realize this film was revolutionary is a sad statement to the society so fascinated with it. Today. If a woman/girl found someone like Humbert stalking them it would be a matter of getting restraining orders and chasing him into prison for his inabilitiy to deal with his own issues. At least that is the ideal to protect women from obsessed men. Then there is the reality that manifested into the murders of Nichole Brown and Ron Goldman. We still have a long way to go, but, at least a path is now carved.
I enjoyed the film and found lots of reason to reflect. It was a lengthy film of over two and a half hours. Kubrick was a genius and very revolutionary. It may very well be, Kubrick in his own way was actually the imputus to the woman's movement. I mean, "yuk," who wants a Humbert in their lives !
Who Killed the Electric Car?
What is there to say about this film? It is a vital 'need to see' film. This is a prime example of the lies coming out of DC. The technology is there. There is no reason to be dragging our feet on this issue. We have the means to change our society's impact on Earth and we need to take control of that direction with the commitment to never turn back. We can't. The Oil Age is Over.
This little car could easily be driven by people owning SUVs as most of the time there is only one person in the large and polluting vehicle and that is the driver. This quick to accelerate car could easily be tooled up for mass production resulting in a lower cost to consumers. GM made a huge mistake to invest in production of SUVs rather than taking a stand for a safer Earth. There are currently waiting lists for hybrids, there is no doubt in my mind this car would have taken off in popularity. With use would come wider spread infrastructure and Americans would have their answer to Kyoto, proudly again at the forefront, leading the way into the energy revolution we are all capable of.
This is a must see film. The insight regarding electric cars from the beginning of the horseless carriage is fascinating. The film educates to the power a "W"rong minded corporation and the ill effects it brings to a society of people seeking answers and not more problems. This film has shadows of "Roger and Me" all over it. It was a great film. Very nice inclusion for a film festival that would also screen "An Inconvenient Truth."
This little car could easily be driven by people owning SUVs as most of the time there is only one person in the large and polluting vehicle and that is the driver. This quick to accelerate car could easily be tooled up for mass production resulting in a lower cost to consumers. GM made a huge mistake to invest in production of SUVs rather than taking a stand for a safer Earth. There are currently waiting lists for hybrids, there is no doubt in my mind this car would have taken off in popularity. With use would come wider spread infrastructure and Americans would have their answer to Kyoto, proudly again at the forefront, leading the way into the energy revolution we are all capable of.
This is a must see film. The insight regarding electric cars from the beginning of the horseless carriage is fascinating. The film educates to the power a "W"rong minded corporation and the ill effects it brings to a society of people seeking answers and not more problems. This film has shadows of "Roger and Me" all over it. It was a great film. Very nice inclusion for a film festival that would also screen "An Inconvenient Truth."
Viva Zapatero!
This film won the Gold Place Winner of the Audience Prize of the Film Festival. I was fortunate to attend the first screening. We were enthralled with this woman intent on satarizing the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. Her name is Sabina Guzzanti and she was censored by Italy.
She is on the international indepentant filmmaker scene with no end in sight. The standing ovation began during the ending credits of the film and didn't stop for at least five minutes and then only when the staff took the stage stating she and Mike were on their way. We waited patiently and if there was no other film playing that night would have stayed with questions after questions after questions. Her talent was pervasive.
She is on the international indepentant filmmaker scene with no end in sight. The standing ovation began during the ending credits of the film and didn't stop for at least five minutes and then only when the staff took the stage stating she and Mike were on their way. We waited patiently and if there was no other film playing that night would have stayed with questions after questions after questions. Her talent was pervasive.
Her message was simple. We can laugh about men leaders whom we disagree and find overbearing in their authority and it's misuse. It was done with satire. She had extensive make-up to look like the Prime Minister with his partner in crime, Tony Blair, played by another actor with extensive make-up as well. They were great. Contrary to Italy's response in censoring her, Britain and Europe simply loved her upraorious talent.
Ms. Guzzanti is an extremely brave woman. She is without any inhibitions in expressing her views through a penetrating satire. In her expression of issues we could relate to for Italy and in commonality we all shared she was absolutely brazen without leaving a stone unturned. She is the future of political outrage, without a doubt.
As a woman among so many men, we need her there. She needs to realize the USA is also not the same either, jailing journalists, producing government films with designer outcomes, changing the game of freedom of speech, privacy and expression of decension in flag burning and otherwise. Sabrina should be willing in an international arena to take on the oppression of government as it affects her craft. She is capable of it. We look forward to more of her work as soon as this film, with it's subtitles, finds an American distributor. Her burgeoning influence was nearly thwarted by the way, when her film was never promoted at the Venus Film Festival EXCEPT on atypical venues on the INTERNET. After the word got around 'on the net' the film was a huge success. From there it was onto Europe and now Traverse City.
The real satire of Sabrina Guzzanti is to realize she is the daughter of an Italian Senator. "Politics are Us" is her claim to life and she wears it well. She promises more films about Italian issues including the oppression of a new Pope intent on returning the Catholic Church to the dark ages. She is a marvel. Pay attention to the name, she is only starting.
Hotel Rwanda
It was an interesting end to my film viewing day. Here again, Terry George's ability for bringing clarity to an impossible subject mired in chaos takes center stage. Terry George captured the violence of genocide in unexpected ways introducing it's promise right from the beginning of the film when a crate of machetes are dropped in a warehouse where they spill onto the floor.
Hotel Rwanda is a subject no one believed would find the silver screen. The stark reality of living within a genocide was more than anyone watching the film expected. The actual reality is that the bloodiness of the genocide was not nearly witnessed in this film so much as preceived. In one scene, Don Cheadle (click on) in his roll as the hotel manager, is a passenger in a truck taking supplies back to the hotel traveling in a fog along a familiar road they were reassured was 'clear' when he starts yelling to stop the truck as he believed they were off the road because of the very bumpy traverse. When he gets out of the truck to see how far off the road they were he steps on bodies. For as far as the eye could see there were bodies strewn across the road and in the jungle lining the road. In fact, the truck he was traveling was now standing on bodies and not the road surface. It was a horrifying, bloodless scene to the eyes but to the emotions it was as bloody a scene as I have ever witnessed.
The horror of Rwanda's genocide could not be captured on film entirely, no one would be able to sit through the film. Terry George's ability to bring that horror to an acceptable level for the civilized mind is the reason I find myself attending so many of his films. It is a film I will not readily forget. It left me feeling stronger in my values and more committed than ever to non-violent and vigilent resolutions. I stress vigilant as that is the place where the impetus lies and where the violence is still preventable. Once it begins, diplomacy has failed. Although diplomacy will be 'the end' of the violence what happens between is a result of failed programs to avert the imputus to the killing. It is frankly honest analysis that is required to bring proper programs and funding with effective use of that funding without corruption that stops such inconceivable cruelty.
The Rwanda Genocide was bigotry. Simple as that. Someone wanted power they didn't have and they chose to kill anyone along the way that wasn't their ethnicity to get it. The most interesting statement made by Nick Nolte, the leader of the UN peacekeepers, was "We are peacekeepers, not peacemakers." Nothing is more true. Nothing should be more expected than that either. War is not the place for the United Nations.
Hotel Rwanda is a subject no one believed would find the silver screen. The stark reality of living within a genocide was more than anyone watching the film expected. The actual reality is that the bloodiness of the genocide was not nearly witnessed in this film so much as preceived. In one scene, Don Cheadle (click on) in his roll as the hotel manager, is a passenger in a truck taking supplies back to the hotel traveling in a fog along a familiar road they were reassured was 'clear' when he starts yelling to stop the truck as he believed they were off the road because of the very bumpy traverse. When he gets out of the truck to see how far off the road they were he steps on bodies. For as far as the eye could see there were bodies strewn across the road and in the jungle lining the road. In fact, the truck he was traveling was now standing on bodies and not the road surface. It was a horrifying, bloodless scene to the eyes but to the emotions it was as bloody a scene as I have ever witnessed.
The horror of Rwanda's genocide could not be captured on film entirely, no one would be able to sit through the film. Terry George's ability to bring that horror to an acceptable level for the civilized mind is the reason I find myself attending so many of his films. It is a film I will not readily forget. It left me feeling stronger in my values and more committed than ever to non-violent and vigilent resolutions. I stress vigilant as that is the place where the impetus lies and where the violence is still preventable. Once it begins, diplomacy has failed. Although diplomacy will be 'the end' of the violence what happens between is a result of failed programs to avert the imputus to the killing. It is frankly honest analysis that is required to bring proper programs and funding with effective use of that funding without corruption that stops such inconceivable cruelty.
The Rwanda Genocide was bigotry. Simple as that. Someone wanted power they didn't have and they chose to kill anyone along the way that wasn't their ethnicity to get it. The most interesting statement made by Nick Nolte, the leader of the UN peacekeepers, was "We are peacekeepers, not peacemakers." Nothing is more true. Nothing should be more expected than that either. War is not the place for the United Nations.
That ended the day ...
.. and I was off to the Tall Ship for a bed and breakfast that literally 'rocked' me to sleep in the waves of the bay.
I was still contemplating a place where I could 'check out' the cuisine of Traverse City but the scope of possiblities was getting smaller.
I was still contemplating a place where I could 'check out' the cuisine of Traverse City but the scope of possiblities was getting smaller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)