Dennis Cozzalio posts a truly great assessment of this film's worth. I'm with him every step of the way. I thought Speed Racer was far better than just solid summer entertainment. It's an extraordinary accomplishment for all the reasons Dennis lists and more. The fact that it seems to be dying an ignoble death at the b.o. is tragic and pathetic and says all that need be said about what audiences really want to see and are prepared to be "entertained" by. Certainly, the evolution in narrative technique which is implicit within its formal achievement challenges the rudimentary, conservative style of something like Iron Man. Speed Racer wants us to process information in a different way and not just CGI information. It actually asks us to be open to new methods of engagement.
I want to post at length on it but I feel it demands/deserves more than one viewing just to get a basic handle on a portion of what it does. There is so much here to love and be thrilled by. For now, the above link couldn't possibly say it better.
Speed Racer (The Wachowskis, 2008)
-
Jeff
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:49 am
- Location: Denver, CO
Your assessment has intrigued me, and I may check it out. I think that the failure of the film to score at the box office rests solely on the marketing team though. I certainly wouldn't blame it on unsophisticated audiences. I have yet to hear anyone say they were skipping Speed Racer because it looks too cerebral or challenging.John Cope wrote:The fact that it seems to be dying an ignoble death at the b.o. is tragic and pathetic and says all that need be said about what audiences really want to see and are prepared to be "entertained" by.
Last edited by Jeff on Thu May 15, 2008 5:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm
-
Barmy
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 7:59 pm
Yes. It can't possibly be dying because the lead actors are nonentities, it is based on a cartoon no one ever watched and it comes across as a film for 7-10 year old boys. And, notwithstanding 300, these live action cartoons are not taking with the public. This is actually the sort of movie that I would normally go to at an IMAX, but it looks like a kiddie flick and it is supremely pathetic for an adult to enjoy a childrens film because it makes him feel like a kid again.
-
Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
I think that the reasons why SR failed at the box office were several:
- adapting an old Japanese anime show that young kids have never seen before and don't remember thereby potentially limiting your audience to people who grew up with and are going to see it for reasons of nostalgia. So, you really can't market the film on that angle if you want to capture a large audience.
- the film's star (aside from the visuals) is Emile Hirsch who is hardly a household name and not one that people are going to flock to en masse to see this film. All the other identifiable stars are in supporting roles only. At least with Iron Man and the upcoming Indy film you've got recognizable names like Robert Downey Jr. and Harrison Ford that will draw people in.
- The Matrix effect. I think there is still a lingering hangover from the backlash from the last two Matrix films that is hurting this new film. So many reviews for SR are referencing The Matrix films and how this new film is just more of the same -- all style and incomprehensible story/character development.
It seems to me that these 3 factors are what is hurting this film, box-office-wise.
- adapting an old Japanese anime show that young kids have never seen before and don't remember thereby potentially limiting your audience to people who grew up with and are going to see it for reasons of nostalgia. So, you really can't market the film on that angle if you want to capture a large audience.
- the film's star (aside from the visuals) is Emile Hirsch who is hardly a household name and not one that people are going to flock to en masse to see this film. All the other identifiable stars are in supporting roles only. At least with Iron Man and the upcoming Indy film you've got recognizable names like Robert Downey Jr. and Harrison Ford that will draw people in.
- The Matrix effect. I think there is still a lingering hangover from the backlash from the last two Matrix films that is hurting this new film. So many reviews for SR are referencing The Matrix films and how this new film is just more of the same -- all style and incomprehensible story/character development.
It seems to me that these 3 factors are what is hurting this film, box-office-wise.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Very good points Fletch. The other part of the equation is that Warners was pushing this as their big family film of the summer but the trailers didn't indicate that at all. Other than some shots of the kid and the chimp, the trailers mostly focused on the racing and the narrative scenes hardly indicated that this was something that Mom or Dad could take the whole the family to. And certainly, by advertising that it's by the creators of The Matrix isn't helping to sell the family angle. It's like Warners tried to market it both to families and manga nerds and failed on both ends.
I don't really think casting was an issue so much as Warners choice to not mention some of the other cast members who are much more well known than Emile Hirsch in the trailers: John Goodman, Christina Ricci, even Matthew Fox - the trailers oddly make very little mention of them. To any eight year old, I'm sure if trailered and marketed correctly, Speed Racer would like a cool racing movie. It was a boneheaded decision to try and sell the name Wachowski instead of any of the more well known cast names.
I guess it speaks to Warners continuing lack to understand their projects (The Fountain, Assassination Of Jesse James, shuttered indie divisions) that they couldn't make a 3D racing movie an easy sell.
Also, someone should be fired at Warners for allowing the budget on this thing to approach a (rumored) $300 million dollars (including marketing). For a niche property with very little mainstream awareness in North America, that figure is absurd.
I don't really think casting was an issue so much as Warners choice to not mention some of the other cast members who are much more well known than Emile Hirsch in the trailers: John Goodman, Christina Ricci, even Matthew Fox - the trailers oddly make very little mention of them. To any eight year old, I'm sure if trailered and marketed correctly, Speed Racer would like a cool racing movie. It was a boneheaded decision to try and sell the name Wachowski instead of any of the more well known cast names.
I guess it speaks to Warners continuing lack to understand their projects (The Fountain, Assassination Of Jesse James, shuttered indie divisions) that they couldn't make a 3D racing movie an easy sell.
Also, someone should be fired at Warners for allowing the budget on this thing to approach a (rumored) $300 million dollars (including marketing). For a niche property with very little mainstream awareness in North America, that figure is absurd.
-
Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
Agreed. They should be blanket marketing this film on every kids-oriented TV channel that they can -- maybe they are as I don't know watch 'em but they are only shooting themselves in the foot if they aren't.Antoine Doinel wrote:To any eight year old, I'm sure if trailered and marketed correctly, Speed Racer would like a cool racing movie. It was a boneheaded decision to try and sell the name Wachowski instead of any of the more well known cast names.
Oh, I know! It's an insane price tag. I understand that the Wachowski's apparently pioneered yet some more groundbreaking special effects but c'mon!Also, someone should be fired at Warners for allowing the budget on this thing to approach a (rumored) $300 million dollars (including marketing). For a niche property with very little mainstream awareness in North America, that figure is absurd.
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
I somehow don't think Barmy read all of Dennis' piece. Reps to Domino for doing that much.
The funny thing about audience reaction is this. When I saw it a few days ago my audience was hardly overflowing but it was a nice cross sample of people (some kids, people with kids, older teens, a few adults on their own) and their response was fascinating as it was the opposite of what I expected. They all seemed to completely get it and be on the same wavelength as the film, which, with something this radical, was a pleasant surprise. They laughed at the stuff that was supposed to be funny and did not laugh during the moments of earnest sentiment. This was particularly heartening to me as I fully expected a bunch of snide, pseudo-sophisticates howling at the perceived lack of cool (this would be a false perception anyway). One of the many things that was marvelous about Speed Racer, though, was the very fact that the Wachowskis do not take the oh so easy road of sending up or deriding their protagonist but rather celebrating him.
And much as I'd rather not engage Barmy on this, I have to say that the fact that he thinks the leads are "nonentities" says more about what he expects from performances than it speaks to any deficiency in the Wachowskis' conception. I don't want to take it this far but are Bresson's models "nonentities"?
Beside which, God forbid but I actually was impressed by the stoicism of Emile Hirsch and he had one of the most challenging tasks in the film. I never really watched the original cartoon but from the little that I did see I got the impression that the characters are intentionally flat, representative figures. Speed especially, in the film, can show little or no vacillation from his static core ethical convictions, the essential qualities of his character which Royalton derides as naive. I suspect that it's very hard in the current cultural climate for an actor to not want to give some kind of wink of recognition to the audience to confirm that, yes, he too recognizes how painfully inadequate and out of step such a broad, schematic portrait is; that he too is in on the "joke". But Hirsch never does this and his "playing it straight" is one of the film's great joys and most powerfully persuasive elements as it contributes to the overall transportive effect.
Also, the tone of the performances never wavers; everyone involved seems to get the proper level at which to play this. They don't have to invest these figures with standard notions of "depth" as it is the surface of their being which is always on constant display, the one which is seen most vividly and in constant dialogue with the surrounding wildly chaotic and unconstrainable environment (not to mention an unleashed technological bent).
The Wachowskis have great fun with the characters but not at their expense, and by this I'm referring to the fact that the film itself remains with them, loyal in spirit and respectful to their essential qualities. One of my favorite examples of this is the scene in which the ninja ("My God, was that a ninja?") attempts to drug Racer X and this character, always portentously masked, goes to the trouble of wrapping his face prior to fighting his assailant off. That's great, smart stuff; witty but also deferential to the elemental nature of this bold archetypal figure.
Someone else who's review I recently read got it right when they said that this was a world that had evolved past and around its human inhabitants. That about nails it and that is, as Dennis notes, what allows us to reconsider such archetypal figures afresh. The fact that my audience was with it actually does suggest that there's a sympathy for and an understanding of the basic principles or values of these characters even as they are put in collision with a world which is not amenable or conducive to their "naive" vision, and it is most certainly not adaptive to them. If anything, Speed Racer is very much about how to sustain core principles within a world of constant flux. This does not play down the supposedly archaic "be true to yourself" or "drive because you're driven" bromides. This and the whole basic thrust of the picture is, of course, familiar stuff; it couldn't be more so (though the "My God, it's full of stars" type apotheosis at the end was a another typically nice flourish on that).
Still, the Wachowskis are simply not interested in re-inventing that particular wheel. This is also why the supposed problem for the film of advocating an anti-corporate heroic stance while the film is financed by corporate money is not their problem but their critics. Speed Racer cannot be caught out by this kind of damning hypocritical contradiction because the issue is simply not at issue. I sincerely doubt anyone involved with this film missed that angle but, in this case at least, the meta-commentary is misplaced. The point lies within the film's rhetorical style not as some extra-textual observation. In other words, the film is actually advocating naive sincerity even in the face of the fact that such an investment can't exist independent of other coloration. But this film is about that one thread of earnest ambition and idealistic panache. The characters, in that sense, represent fully the unaffected hopes and dreams of an entire populace that wants to believe idealism can matter even when they well know there are so many other determining factors.
As a further aside, all throughout I kept thinking of Hirsch and Ricci as Johnathon Schaech and Rose McGowan in The Doom Generation, though Hirsch's characterization, of course, fell more within the realm of Schaech in That Thing You Do. Whatever the case, I thought of them not just because the actors' features were similar but because Araki too might have made something similar here. He is, most certainly, not the jaded cynic many have wanted to portray him to be and his take on the qualities of extravagant, heightened style mixed with a genuine longing might have resulted in something similar to this.
I remember reading an interview with Jon Favreau in which he said that one of his main priorities with Iron Man was to constantly keep on top of it so that it never pushed outside the realm of plausibility. I'm not sure how seriously to take that but I suspect he was quite serious and that's great for him and his audience if that matters to them but I have zero desire to see a film of that sort in which plausibility is a top consideration. It's amazing to me that we've entrusted modern mythology to a whole generation of directors who are obsessed with realism rather than almost ever indulging in surrealism, or even some identifiable, stylistic approach which may, God forbid, distract from the locked down, utilitarian purposiveness. Why is this always already flawed desire for authenticity and believability (authentic to what? believable to whom?) such a critical, determining factor? I'm glad Antoine mentioned the 3-D racing thing though as I initially wondered why a movie like this wouldn't be attracting more "Nascar dads" (and it probably will when they consent to watching it at home and on Blu-Ray). My gut instinct though is that these guys may have thought that the cartoon effects were in some sense belittling them and their own emotional investment; they want to see it kept real! Little do they realize that the Wachowski picture could not possibly be more true to ideals they may embrace and recognize as their own. It's tragic that there is such a distrust of the blatant aesthetics of heightened style that all people can seem to feel is self-consciously manipulated. Too bad.
The funny thing about audience reaction is this. When I saw it a few days ago my audience was hardly overflowing but it was a nice cross sample of people (some kids, people with kids, older teens, a few adults on their own) and their response was fascinating as it was the opposite of what I expected. They all seemed to completely get it and be on the same wavelength as the film, which, with something this radical, was a pleasant surprise. They laughed at the stuff that was supposed to be funny and did not laugh during the moments of earnest sentiment. This was particularly heartening to me as I fully expected a bunch of snide, pseudo-sophisticates howling at the perceived lack of cool (this would be a false perception anyway). One of the many things that was marvelous about Speed Racer, though, was the very fact that the Wachowskis do not take the oh so easy road of sending up or deriding their protagonist but rather celebrating him.
And much as I'd rather not engage Barmy on this, I have to say that the fact that he thinks the leads are "nonentities" says more about what he expects from performances than it speaks to any deficiency in the Wachowskis' conception. I don't want to take it this far but are Bresson's models "nonentities"?
Beside which, God forbid but I actually was impressed by the stoicism of Emile Hirsch and he had one of the most challenging tasks in the film. I never really watched the original cartoon but from the little that I did see I got the impression that the characters are intentionally flat, representative figures. Speed especially, in the film, can show little or no vacillation from his static core ethical convictions, the essential qualities of his character which Royalton derides as naive. I suspect that it's very hard in the current cultural climate for an actor to not want to give some kind of wink of recognition to the audience to confirm that, yes, he too recognizes how painfully inadequate and out of step such a broad, schematic portrait is; that he too is in on the "joke". But Hirsch never does this and his "playing it straight" is one of the film's great joys and most powerfully persuasive elements as it contributes to the overall transportive effect.
Also, the tone of the performances never wavers; everyone involved seems to get the proper level at which to play this. They don't have to invest these figures with standard notions of "depth" as it is the surface of their being which is always on constant display, the one which is seen most vividly and in constant dialogue with the surrounding wildly chaotic and unconstrainable environment (not to mention an unleashed technological bent).
The Wachowskis have great fun with the characters but not at their expense, and by this I'm referring to the fact that the film itself remains with them, loyal in spirit and respectful to their essential qualities. One of my favorite examples of this is the scene in which the ninja ("My God, was that a ninja?") attempts to drug Racer X and this character, always portentously masked, goes to the trouble of wrapping his face prior to fighting his assailant off. That's great, smart stuff; witty but also deferential to the elemental nature of this bold archetypal figure.
Someone else who's review I recently read got it right when they said that this was a world that had evolved past and around its human inhabitants. That about nails it and that is, as Dennis notes, what allows us to reconsider such archetypal figures afresh. The fact that my audience was with it actually does suggest that there's a sympathy for and an understanding of the basic principles or values of these characters even as they are put in collision with a world which is not amenable or conducive to their "naive" vision, and it is most certainly not adaptive to them. If anything, Speed Racer is very much about how to sustain core principles within a world of constant flux. This does not play down the supposedly archaic "be true to yourself" or "drive because you're driven" bromides. This and the whole basic thrust of the picture is, of course, familiar stuff; it couldn't be more so (though the "My God, it's full of stars" type apotheosis at the end was a another typically nice flourish on that).
Still, the Wachowskis are simply not interested in re-inventing that particular wheel. This is also why the supposed problem for the film of advocating an anti-corporate heroic stance while the film is financed by corporate money is not their problem but their critics. Speed Racer cannot be caught out by this kind of damning hypocritical contradiction because the issue is simply not at issue. I sincerely doubt anyone involved with this film missed that angle but, in this case at least, the meta-commentary is misplaced. The point lies within the film's rhetorical style not as some extra-textual observation. In other words, the film is actually advocating naive sincerity even in the face of the fact that such an investment can't exist independent of other coloration. But this film is about that one thread of earnest ambition and idealistic panache. The characters, in that sense, represent fully the unaffected hopes and dreams of an entire populace that wants to believe idealism can matter even when they well know there are so many other determining factors.
As a further aside, all throughout I kept thinking of Hirsch and Ricci as Johnathon Schaech and Rose McGowan in The Doom Generation, though Hirsch's characterization, of course, fell more within the realm of Schaech in That Thing You Do. Whatever the case, I thought of them not just because the actors' features were similar but because Araki too might have made something similar here. He is, most certainly, not the jaded cynic many have wanted to portray him to be and his take on the qualities of extravagant, heightened style mixed with a genuine longing might have resulted in something similar to this.
I remember reading an interview with Jon Favreau in which he said that one of his main priorities with Iron Man was to constantly keep on top of it so that it never pushed outside the realm of plausibility. I'm not sure how seriously to take that but I suspect he was quite serious and that's great for him and his audience if that matters to them but I have zero desire to see a film of that sort in which plausibility is a top consideration. It's amazing to me that we've entrusted modern mythology to a whole generation of directors who are obsessed with realism rather than almost ever indulging in surrealism, or even some identifiable, stylistic approach which may, God forbid, distract from the locked down, utilitarian purposiveness. Why is this always already flawed desire for authenticity and believability (authentic to what? believable to whom?) such a critical, determining factor? I'm glad Antoine mentioned the 3-D racing thing though as I initially wondered why a movie like this wouldn't be attracting more "Nascar dads" (and it probably will when they consent to watching it at home and on Blu-Ray). My gut instinct though is that these guys may have thought that the cartoon effects were in some sense belittling them and their own emotional investment; they want to see it kept real! Little do they realize that the Wachowski picture could not possibly be more true to ideals they may embrace and recognize as their own. It's tragic that there is such a distrust of the blatant aesthetics of heightened style that all people can seem to feel is self-consciously manipulated. Too bad.
-
Barmy
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 7:59 pm
I didn't read any of Dennis' piece. Someone mentioned Christina Ricci as if anyone cares about her, and I had to laugh. What has she even done in the last 5-10 years? If someone cool starred in this it would have a big impact on whether I would go. I haven't ruled it out. Harry!!! Knowles' observation that 4-year olds in particular grooved to it was not very enticing. Really the only appeal for me is the Wachowski involvement as I actually liked all of Matrix 2 a lot, and a decent amount of Matrix 3.
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
Dan Kasman has a fascinating piece up now considering Speed Racer in association with Godard's Sympathy for the Devil. It's not as far fetched as you might think. In fact, in a lot of ways it makes perfect sense. I certainly agree with his conclusions or at least where they seem to be pointing. One can only hope it's more than just aesthetic optimism.
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm
-
foggy eyes
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:58 pm
- Location: UK
Absolutely. I was a little confused by a number of points he makes though - how does any film actually forgo time and space? Comparing two films on the grounds that they embrace abstract ideas (by engaging with the world around them) is so elemental that one could end up performing frivolous and tenuous analyses all day long without getting anywhere at all.domino harvey wrote:That blog post was pointless Kuleshoving.
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
Well, if you could do it convincingly there'd be a few more acolytes for re-runs on the USA network.domino harvey wrote:I bet I could find ways My Sister Sam extrapolated on themes found in Apocalypse Now.
I think Dan actually points to some pretty specific ways in which the Wachowskis seek to dissemble or eliminate those kinds of implicit structural elements. And the analysis fits the subject. The thing that makes his analysis pertinent and legitimate is the fact that this effort to neutralize those kinds of always implied foundations seems very much to be part of the point of SR and this, by consequence, does link it to certain of Godard's meta-ambitions regardless of the veracity of this particular comparison. It doesn't feel like a reach to me because the film he's describing is the film I saw.foggy eyes wrote: I was a little confused by a number of points he makes though - how does any film actually forgo time and space?
Yeah, but once again I would go back to my earlier assertion that this is what sets SR apart to begin with. I can't imagine how someone could watch that film and not recognize that this drive for detachment from specificity of time and place is central to its project. This is not, in other words, just a case of grafting some pomo reading onto any old text (though I'll admit I have a weakness for that as I tend to think it's not a bad way to approach many otherwise disregarded works); it is, in fact, the wholly proper approach to take to a project grounded in the "elemental". Abstraction is never just abstraction but a particular kind. Here it's the association of what we think of as stock principles with the dismantling of recognizable formal context. By doing that the W's go a long way toward re-asserting the primacy of these principles and substantiating their persuasive appeal.foggy eyes wrote:Comparing two films on the grounds that they embrace abstract ideas (by engaging with the world around them) is so elemental that one could end up performing frivolous and tenuous analyses all day long without getting anywhere at all.
-
Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
Variety on why the film failed financially.
-
foggy eyes
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:58 pm
- Location: UK
Ok, I see what you're getting at - Speed Racer challenges the dominance of certain structural elements, and so does Godard. But then so do loads of other films. We could compare them all day long. Kasman's analysis of Speed Racer sounds fine (I haven't seen the film), but why lump Sympathy for the Devil in at the same time when it's such a different kettle of fish?John Cope wrote:I think Dan actually points to some pretty specific ways in which the Wachowskis seek to dissemble or eliminate those kinds of implicit structural elements. And the analysis fits the subject. The thing that makes his analysis pertinent and legitimate is the fact that this effort to neutralize those kinds of always implied foundations seems very much to be part of the point of SR and this, by consequence, does link it to certain of Godard's meta-ambitions regardless of the veracity of this particular comparison.
So it sounds like he's arguing that the Wachowskis are eliminating the spectator's sensation of the passage of time and replacing it with a relentless suggestion of speed and hyperactivity. This is all still related to filmic manipulation of time though - "time" hasn't just disappeared.Daniel Kasman wrote:Using digital cameras and hyper-extensive use of green-screen matting, the brothers flatten the image to the extreme of two-dimensionality, eliminating space and thereby eliminating a sense of time in their film.
I have to be petulant and note that you just can't have a film without space or time because they are implicitly part of the ontology of the apparatus. When Kasman says something like that, it doesn't really mean anything and just makes him sound like he's overreaching in order to justify the vagaries of a self-imposed argument. All he can do is point out that Godard is doing the total opposite to the Wachowkis by respecting pro-filmic time and space through the device of the long take:That a film which forgoes time and space can address nothing but the abstract?
So why bother comparing the two?tracking shots try to encompass some of the Black Power movement, from the enunciation of revolutionary rhetoric, to arming and violent action taken, all within the same shot, time and space. Make a song, make a revolution, cinematically represented almost identically.
I'm not trying to be confrontational at all, but there are so many pointless exercises all over the 'blogosphere' that things like this get on my nerves sometimes!
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
-
flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
-
moviscop
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:51 pm
- Location: California
Dude, no need to be bitter about it. At the end of the day you are the one with an "Inside" avatar.james wrote:Maybe tell them all how much they don't really like Speed Racer, and how if they'd just admit it, then you'll still respect their opinions.moviscop wrote:well hell, what do i say now?Antoine Doinel wrote:....says the guy who started the Wanted thread.
edit: did i mention that you were able to suck every shred of joy and humor from the last few posts?
-
chaddoli
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:41 am
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
What's so fucking hilarious about it?moviscop wrote:I think it is fucking hilarious how we are talking so seriously about Speed Racer.
I initially scoffed at this film as well, but the least you can say for it if you've seen it is that it is interesting. It's implosion of time (during the first twenty or so minutes, there is no now in the film, it is flashbacks within flashforwards, etc.), and also the total lack of interior lives of the characters. What could Speed Racer's crisis possibly be? What, he's not going to race? The Wachowskis have created a reality with it's own laws of motion and human development.
There are a lot of strange things going on in this movie, apart from the special effects, but I'm honestly not sure how effective I found it all.
-
hot_locket
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:39 am
-
Cde.
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:56 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Wow.
Add me to the small, but seemingly growing, chorus of praise. I looked at the initial trailers and thought I saw a disaster in the making, but in the three days since I experienced Speed Racer it has not left my mind.
Some spoilers within.
This is a phenomenal film on a number of levels. On a basic narrative level, it's all well worn formula, and yet I felt that there was an emotional directness to it unmatched in the modern blockbuster. The story of Speed's rise to greatness in the shadow of his brother is incredibly moving and involving. The Racer family dynamics are wonderfully portrayed, without the Wachowskis feeling the need to pile on the trendy 'dysfunctional family' cliches. In fact, this is a film that is in many ways 'uncool': the film doesn't mock its material or the characters, and as John Cope mentioned, it challenges the devotion to 'realism' (whatever that means) so prized by today's filmmakers and audiences. I think this general lack of 'coolness' is one of the main reasons that the film is being punished so heavily in reviews and box office. The film probably would have done great if Warners had released one of the earlier concepts for the film, which involved Vince Vaughn playing Racer X.
There have been a lot of complaints about the supposedly deadening and dull CG racing that serves as the film's base, but I personally found these scenes to be incredibly in tune with the emotions at the core of the story.
This is probably the best case I have ever seen for the argument that CGI can truly move forward filmmaking. The collapsing of time within the film, replaced with the strands of moments sliding across the screen, is something unprecedented. The past and the present and the future are all one in Speed Racer, existing within a single frame. I was astonished when I realised the extent to which typical approaches to time in film had been challenged during the meeting between Speed and Royalton, and it must be said again, the architectural construction of the first 20 minutes as they leap across space and time while setting up the characters and themes of the film, must be commended as a stunning achievement.
It's often pointed out that Speed is an artist, and the race sequences really illustrate this, bringing out Speed's passion and dedication with either incredibly visceral directness or artfully choreographed graceful movements. When Speed realises that his own devotion to his ideals and his art has seemingly accomplished nothing after Tae-Jo's apparent betrayal, his anger is distilled into a furious solo drive around the circuit. For me, the overwhelming sights and sounds of the film serve as to distance the audience from small details of the work. This is not the only way in which this is done; the film seems to be trying its hardest to distance viewer from material (need I mention the absurd Chim Chim and Sprittle sequences, always positioned, for better or worse, so as to interrupt the action at crucial moments?). I felt that in creating this distance, the Wachowskis seem to be telling the audience "this is a movie, the world it has created is artificial", which causes one to focus on the broader experience and ideas that it offers, ultimately drawing us into Speed's idealism and worldview.
I think this is core to the point of the film. To me, it is a film about stages of concentration. If we're going to compare this to other films, Godard is a great start in relation to the formal accomplishments of the film, but thematically and in terms of it's effect I would pair it with Into Great Silence (now that's a double feature!). Like that film, it draws the viewer into the lives of its subjects seemingly contradictorily by using cinematic distancing devices, and winds up saying something about personal devotion to an ideal. In the anime-sourced effect of big floating close-ups flying across the screen, the Wachowski Brothers have found a new way to convey this on screen: in combining this element of a scene without the need for a cut, the gaze of the spectator is unbroken (most apparent in the shot before the final race in which all the concerned parties we've been following are overlaid over the starting-line of the Grand Prix) . The film to me ultimately became about the dedication and drive of an artist or any other individual seeking one cause or end with great passion. The climax, which Armond White dismisses as devoid of 'morality', and about nothing more than 'Speed seeking celebrity' is a brilliant answer to the concerns facing Speed up to that point of the film (the odds stacked against him, the shadow of his brother looming over, the potential corruption of his idealism and death of integrity in sport brought about by the influence of corporations, ect.). 'You drive because you're driven' isn't just a throwaway bon mot. With the support of his family behind him, Speed pushes forward against the odds and is ultimately liberated through his dedication to racing. The emergence through the tunnel more obviously signifies orgasm but most importantly to me it represents a moment of overwhelming inspiration, a burst of passion and of ideas.
All of this aside however, Speed Racer still stands on its own as a marvelously aestheticised spectacle, a symphony of sight and sound that gels with the heart and ideas of its story, in which a new approach to storytelling means that form is content and vice versa.
Really I need to view this film again before I can organise my thoughts better, and I cannot wait to do so. For now though, it is immense in just about every way. While the overall quality of releases to grace Australian screens thus far has not been great, this may well be the best new film I've seen this year.
Add me to the small, but seemingly growing, chorus of praise. I looked at the initial trailers and thought I saw a disaster in the making, but in the three days since I experienced Speed Racer it has not left my mind.
Some spoilers within.
This is a phenomenal film on a number of levels. On a basic narrative level, it's all well worn formula, and yet I felt that there was an emotional directness to it unmatched in the modern blockbuster. The story of Speed's rise to greatness in the shadow of his brother is incredibly moving and involving. The Racer family dynamics are wonderfully portrayed, without the Wachowskis feeling the need to pile on the trendy 'dysfunctional family' cliches. In fact, this is a film that is in many ways 'uncool': the film doesn't mock its material or the characters, and as John Cope mentioned, it challenges the devotion to 'realism' (whatever that means) so prized by today's filmmakers and audiences. I think this general lack of 'coolness' is one of the main reasons that the film is being punished so heavily in reviews and box office. The film probably would have done great if Warners had released one of the earlier concepts for the film, which involved Vince Vaughn playing Racer X.
There have been a lot of complaints about the supposedly deadening and dull CG racing that serves as the film's base, but I personally found these scenes to be incredibly in tune with the emotions at the core of the story.
This is probably the best case I have ever seen for the argument that CGI can truly move forward filmmaking. The collapsing of time within the film, replaced with the strands of moments sliding across the screen, is something unprecedented. The past and the present and the future are all one in Speed Racer, existing within a single frame. I was astonished when I realised the extent to which typical approaches to time in film had been challenged during the meeting between Speed and Royalton, and it must be said again, the architectural construction of the first 20 minutes as they leap across space and time while setting up the characters and themes of the film, must be commended as a stunning achievement.
It's often pointed out that Speed is an artist, and the race sequences really illustrate this, bringing out Speed's passion and dedication with either incredibly visceral directness or artfully choreographed graceful movements. When Speed realises that his own devotion to his ideals and his art has seemingly accomplished nothing after Tae-Jo's apparent betrayal, his anger is distilled into a furious solo drive around the circuit. For me, the overwhelming sights and sounds of the film serve as to distance the audience from small details of the work. This is not the only way in which this is done; the film seems to be trying its hardest to distance viewer from material (need I mention the absurd Chim Chim and Sprittle sequences, always positioned, for better or worse, so as to interrupt the action at crucial moments?). I felt that in creating this distance, the Wachowskis seem to be telling the audience "this is a movie, the world it has created is artificial", which causes one to focus on the broader experience and ideas that it offers, ultimately drawing us into Speed's idealism and worldview.
I think this is core to the point of the film. To me, it is a film about stages of concentration. If we're going to compare this to other films, Godard is a great start in relation to the formal accomplishments of the film, but thematically and in terms of it's effect I would pair it with Into Great Silence (now that's a double feature!). Like that film, it draws the viewer into the lives of its subjects seemingly contradictorily by using cinematic distancing devices, and winds up saying something about personal devotion to an ideal. In the anime-sourced effect of big floating close-ups flying across the screen, the Wachowski Brothers have found a new way to convey this on screen: in combining this element of a scene without the need for a cut, the gaze of the spectator is unbroken (most apparent in the shot before the final race in which all the concerned parties we've been following are overlaid over the starting-line of the Grand Prix) . The film to me ultimately became about the dedication and drive of an artist or any other individual seeking one cause or end with great passion. The climax, which Armond White dismisses as devoid of 'morality', and about nothing more than 'Speed seeking celebrity' is a brilliant answer to the concerns facing Speed up to that point of the film (the odds stacked against him, the shadow of his brother looming over, the potential corruption of his idealism and death of integrity in sport brought about by the influence of corporations, ect.). 'You drive because you're driven' isn't just a throwaway bon mot. With the support of his family behind him, Speed pushes forward against the odds and is ultimately liberated through his dedication to racing. The emergence through the tunnel more obviously signifies orgasm but most importantly to me it represents a moment of overwhelming inspiration, a burst of passion and of ideas.
All of this aside however, Speed Racer still stands on its own as a marvelously aestheticised spectacle, a symphony of sight and sound that gels with the heart and ideas of its story, in which a new approach to storytelling means that form is content and vice versa.
Really I need to view this film again before I can organise my thoughts better, and I cannot wait to do so. For now though, it is immense in just about every way. While the overall quality of releases to grace Australian screens thus far has not been great, this may well be the best new film I've seen this year.