Thanks for your explanations z, always love hearing your thoughts on stuff I don't always jive with.. that's why I ask. You raise plenty of good points and many of your beefs on IDAHO, i e the Shakespeare (and Reeves, who I'm naturally allergic to 85% of the time) remind me of my own feelings when first seeing the film... I love the film so much that I just kind of "bloop" over my aversion to him when watching it now for the umpteenth time (as often happens to certain aspects of a long-beloved film. Just today me & Hare were talking in PM about the weakness of Jannings in the German Murnau... and similarly when watching this material I sort of go with the flow and tamp down those feelings to enjoy the whole).
Cannot get down with TO DIE FOR which I saw in the cinema upon release and feel the same today. But absolutely ELEPHANT is a great work of art, as I stated over on the GERRY or LAST DAYS thread. Saw it on release here in NYC on an old fashioned huge screen projected in 1.33. So frightening, sublimely sad, and brilliant. I still havent seen PARANOID PARK yet.
407 Mala Noche
-
HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:46 pm
Absolutely. It's an astonishingly successful experiment in trying to get very ordinary (in the initial sense of unpainterly framing used) images to speak of the terribleness of the death of those kids. The sadness and the deadly seriousness of the tragedy, to get to the awful, almost forbidden Something lurking amidst the confusion of it all (the covert sadness of the youthful idealism and romanticism gone awry in the case of the shooters.. in the Burroughsian sense that There Is No Such Thing As A BAd Boy), to get across in very real terms what that kind of murder is all about-- and how impossible it is to really get at what those terms actually are. All you're really left with is the event and your pulse up in the back of your throat. Thus the artifice and "hi art cinema" goes out the window as they obscure the reality of the whole thing. Hard really to articulate what he's getting at for all to understand... so elusive on the verbal plane beyond the obvious "longing" and the ode to the terribleness of that day, but what "else" is in the mise en scene is very elusive to the written word and that much more sublime. So in other words I understand your tears.
-
denti alligator
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:36 am
- Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"
Both Elephant and Gerry blew my socks off. Both films were extremely emotional experiences for me, though I know they left some people cold (Elephant as an "experiment" in form...). Idaho I like a lot, too, but not nearly as much as these two (hated Even Cowgirls; still haven't seen Drugstore Cowboy). The discussion here has got me very excited about this first film of his. Low on funds, though: gotta wait for that DVD Planet sale.
-
HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:46 pm
-
colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
I would agree with the praise and feel the same connection between all of Van Sant's films, even the ones I really can't stand (I'm not going to take drugs to see if his remake of Psycho is any better that way, although I will admit to finding the film more tolerable when I watched it once with a head cold and was doped up with Lemsip!).
Strangely the thing that put me off To Die For - the opening credits that describe every single twist and turn of the plot to come - was the same thing that felt perfect for the later 'death trilogy'. The way that the events are immediately laid out and then we are moved on by the filmmaker to find the power in the way that they then elaborate on the story. Davidhare's description of Elephant as being about the little moments, the fleeting moments that we miss as viewers when we are watching intently for twists, turns and plot developments, is what makes that film so perfect. Gerry and Last Days also, where death or escape are inevitabilites but what goes on between entrance to the desert or secluded house and the exit from them is what the film is most concerned with playing around with, not really the reasons the characters have for being there or for leaving those spaces. There are plot developments that give us greater understanding of the characters but they are not the main motivation, more I think we are supposed to focus on the 'real time' walking as something fascinating in itself and wonder what the characters are feeling as they are walking, not only for wondering where the person is going to and what they will do once they get there, though that factors in as well.
I'm not as harsh on the Miramax period as davidhare, and I actually really like Good Will Hunting. I get the impression that the three Van Sant periods show a necessary development from stuffing more and more ideas, filming styles and genres into a film in his first period (which I'd also think of as the more personal period where he is making films close to his own heart)
Then I'd suggest he moved to a period where he focused on the mechanics of storytelling, by moving in the opposite direction and simply crafting a simple, linear story in a more impersonal style, though still with slight personal touches, as in the flash frames of Psycho (Good Will Hunting looks restrained and austere compared to My Own Private Idaho or Cowgirls, and I don't think the Oscars Good Will won should be held against it, although it does reflect more on Oscars conservatism that it praised Van Sant for his most conventional film, even if I'd agree it was a beautiful handling of an excellent script).
To Die For never worked for me because his developing wish to move beyond the story and focus on characters and their reactions didn't seem to work in the conventions of a 'drama/thriller film' format where the audience is expected to have revelations about the characters during the course of the film rather than all in a big bunch at the start, so watching the opening titles seemed to spoil the following film and give a strange sense of deja vu while watching the film for the first time! I like the performances in the film, and Cronenberg's cameo, but I often wonder how the film would play without those opening credits - differently, better or more conventionally?
Psycho was just horrible, but it still fits into this idea of exploring the mechanics of storytelling, of seeing how the choices Hitchcock made turned the film into a masterpiece. The simple existence of a terrible colourised remake seems to show that there is much more to a great film than just a good script, but it also needs decent characterisation and acting beyond just the written dialogue to become a classic, or for the film to fit securely within its period or modern setting etc.
Even Finding Forrester is interesting thought of as an exploration by Van Sant of what needs to be done when you remake the themes from one of your previous successes (similar to the way Hitchcock or other directors created whole careers circling just one subject or genre and exploring it from different perspectives?)
Then the third period seems to suggest he has moved away from exploring story and is starting to look at mise en scene and characterisation in other forms. But I disagree with davidhare that this second period, though conventional, was just "paying the bills". That might have been partly to do with it (
as well as building up a reputation that allowed him to move back to more experimental works), but I also feel that this middle period was essential to Van Sant's development and something he needed to work through to reach the later films, so he could perhaps feel more secure in moving plot to the back burner and imparting his message to the viewer through less obvious methods such as through elliptical characterisation, shifting points of view over same periods of time, editing decisions that pick out or elimanate characters from the film, and so on.
Strangely the thing that put me off To Die For - the opening credits that describe every single twist and turn of the plot to come - was the same thing that felt perfect for the later 'death trilogy'. The way that the events are immediately laid out and then we are moved on by the filmmaker to find the power in the way that they then elaborate on the story. Davidhare's description of Elephant as being about the little moments, the fleeting moments that we miss as viewers when we are watching intently for twists, turns and plot developments, is what makes that film so perfect. Gerry and Last Days also, where death or escape are inevitabilites but what goes on between entrance to the desert or secluded house and the exit from them is what the film is most concerned with playing around with, not really the reasons the characters have for being there or for leaving those spaces. There are plot developments that give us greater understanding of the characters but they are not the main motivation, more I think we are supposed to focus on the 'real time' walking as something fascinating in itself and wonder what the characters are feeling as they are walking, not only for wondering where the person is going to and what they will do once they get there, though that factors in as well.
I'm not as harsh on the Miramax period as davidhare, and I actually really like Good Will Hunting. I get the impression that the three Van Sant periods show a necessary development from stuffing more and more ideas, filming styles and genres into a film in his first period (which I'd also think of as the more personal period where he is making films close to his own heart)
Then I'd suggest he moved to a period where he focused on the mechanics of storytelling, by moving in the opposite direction and simply crafting a simple, linear story in a more impersonal style, though still with slight personal touches, as in the flash frames of Psycho (Good Will Hunting looks restrained and austere compared to My Own Private Idaho or Cowgirls, and I don't think the Oscars Good Will won should be held against it, although it does reflect more on Oscars conservatism that it praised Van Sant for his most conventional film, even if I'd agree it was a beautiful handling of an excellent script).
To Die For never worked for me because his developing wish to move beyond the story and focus on characters and their reactions didn't seem to work in the conventions of a 'drama/thriller film' format where the audience is expected to have revelations about the characters during the course of the film rather than all in a big bunch at the start, so watching the opening titles seemed to spoil the following film and give a strange sense of deja vu while watching the film for the first time! I like the performances in the film, and Cronenberg's cameo, but I often wonder how the film would play without those opening credits - differently, better or more conventionally?
Psycho was just horrible, but it still fits into this idea of exploring the mechanics of storytelling, of seeing how the choices Hitchcock made turned the film into a masterpiece. The simple existence of a terrible colourised remake seems to show that there is much more to a great film than just a good script, but it also needs decent characterisation and acting beyond just the written dialogue to become a classic, or for the film to fit securely within its period or modern setting etc.
Even Finding Forrester is interesting thought of as an exploration by Van Sant of what needs to be done when you remake the themes from one of your previous successes (similar to the way Hitchcock or other directors created whole careers circling just one subject or genre and exploring it from different perspectives?)
Then the third period seems to suggest he has moved away from exploring story and is starting to look at mise en scene and characterisation in other forms. But I disagree with davidhare that this second period, though conventional, was just "paying the bills". That might have been partly to do with it (
as well as building up a reputation that allowed him to move back to more experimental works), but I also feel that this middle period was essential to Van Sant's development and something he needed to work through to reach the later films, so he could perhaps feel more secure in moving plot to the back burner and imparting his message to the viewer through less obvious methods such as through elliptical characterisation, shifting points of view over same periods of time, editing decisions that pick out or elimanate characters from the film, and so on.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Michael
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:09 pm
zedz, looking forward to reading your fresh thoughts of Mala Noche. I hope it still holds up well for you.Wow. I still haven't rewatched the feature, but Van Sant's sweet intro brought back happy memories.
I'm still pretty shaken by the film. I watched it again last night - more and more tears came. The last glimpse of Walt - as he looks out of the car window, talking to Johnny - the sweet soul keeps on bursting out of his beautiful face. What a perfect exit for Walt. Our own Cabiria.
I find the closing credits incredibly cathartic as the guys let out loose and have fun. Walt spreads out his legs, exposing the gigantic hole in the crotch of his jeans - did he roam my closet?
A devastatingly beautiful film. I wish I had seen it in the 80s, my life would had been richer.
Last edited by Michael on Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
sevenarts
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 11:22 pm
- Contact:
Those are interesting ideas, Colin, and it's good to see someone defend the unpopular middle Van Sant films, even if I don't quite agree. I never saw Finding Forrester (yuck), and my memory of To Die For is so hazy that I might as well have never seen it, though I remember thinking it was an OK thriller. You may be right that Good Will Huntin and the other 2 films reflected Van Sant's desire to focus on narrative for a change, but it doesn't change for me the fact that the film itself isn't very enjoyable. I usually don't mind Matt Damon, but he's just obnoxious in this, and the whole thing just feels like so much contrived sappiness. And it's not like it's a particularly distinguished film in terms of direction; it's just competently handled Hollywood pap of the worst kind. There's such a link, in my mind, between Van Sant's first period and his latest films, that thinking of the middle films as a development in between the two just seems counterintuitive.
Psycho, on the other hand, does have a real link to his more personal early and later work. I don't especially think it's a great film, and it's a bit unsatisfying to watch, but it does work conceptually for me, as a deconstruction of remakes, a gay reinterpretation of the original, and a formal experiment in color. I'd rather think about it and read about it than actually watch it again, but it is interesting in its way, and genuinely does feel like it is a real development in his career as opposed to the other Miramax films.
Psycho, on the other hand, does have a real link to his more personal early and later work. I don't especially think it's a great film, and it's a bit unsatisfying to watch, but it does work conceptually for me, as a deconstruction of remakes, a gay reinterpretation of the original, and a formal experiment in color. I'd rather think about it and read about it than actually watch it again, but it is interesting in its way, and genuinely does feel like it is a real development in his career as opposed to the other Miramax films.
-
criterionsnob
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:23 am
- Location: Canada
In one of the greatest years for DVD so far (Criterion and otherwise), this is without a doubt one of the nicest surprises. I've been dying to see this film for years and it exceeded my expectations. Beautifully shot and edited. The film flows at a nice brisk pace. I agree with Michael's thoughts. It's nice to see a gay character comfortable with himself for a change. It's hard to believe this film is over 20 years old. It feels so fresh and vibrant.
I'm a fan of a lot of Van Sant's work, but this is my favourite. I'd like to see him get back to making movies like this wonderfully personal piece of poetry.
I'm a fan of a lot of Van Sant's work, but this is my favourite. I'd like to see him get back to making movies like this wonderfully personal piece of poetry.
-
blindside8zao
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: Greensboro, NC
I'll probably end up getting this anyways, to see for myself, but, Drugstore Cowboy left me completely bored/unimpressed but Idaho completely wows me in every way (I even think that Reeves/Shakespeare completely works by creating a quirky feel to the entire film, as if you lived in a world of stilted Shakespearean actors, entirely artificial). Which side does Mala Noche lean on?
-
Cold Bishop
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:45 am
- Location: Portland, OR
I would say it falls more on the Private Idaho side... Much more personal than Drugstore Cowboy (which is easily of the weaker of the three) and with much less of a conventional narrative (similar to My Private Idaho's stringing together of poetic moments).blindside8zao wrote:I'll probably end up getting this anyways, to see for myself, but, Drugstore Cowboy left me completely bored/unimpressed but Idaho completely wows me in every way ... Which side does Mala Noche lean on?
-
Michael
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:09 pm
All I can say that Mala Noche is a whole lot better than Drugstore and Idaho. And as you can see here, more than one person has said it's Van Sant's best film. So now what are you waiting for?blindside8zao wrote:Drugstore Cowboy left me completely bored/unimpressed but Idaho completely wows me in every way ... Which side does Mala Noche lean on?
-
sevenarts
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 11:22 pm
- Contact:
I would say that of Van Sant's first three films, Mala Noche is far and away the best. Drugstore Cowboy is a fine but rather conventional slacker drama, redeemed to a great degree by the appearance of Burroughs in the third act. My Own Private Idaho is extremely interesting, but something of a mess -- and it has Keanu Reeves, which is a big point against it, and worse yet it has Keanu Reeves mangling Shakespeare. But Mala Noche is pretty much perfect, a masterpiece of desire and lust, economically told with some gorgeous cinematography and a real grasp of potent images.blindside8zao wrote:I'll probably end up getting this anyways, to see for myself, but, Drugstore Cowboy left me completely bored/unimpressed but Idaho completely wows me in every way (I even think that Reeves/Shakespeare completely works by creating a quirky feel to the entire film, as if you lived in a world of stilted Shakespearean actors, entirely artificial). Which side does Mala Noche lean on?
All three films are pretty different from each other, while at the same time clearly originating with the same creative mind. Nevertheless, I'd say Mala Noche is the clear predecessor of Van Sant's more recent films, starting with Gerry, and it has much more in common with the "death trilogy" than with anything in his other early films. Having seen this now, his career has taken on a very different shape for me. Before, I always thought of his first three films as a group, then the commercial period, and then a rebirth starting with Gerry. Now it looks more and more like everything between Mala Noche and Gerry represents a stylistic break, and the films he's making now are linking up with the aesthetic foundations he built in his first film.
-
Cold Bishop
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:45 am
- Location: Portland, OR
Sorry, but i will have to disagree and say that I find My Own Private Idaho to be his best film. I love the messiness of the film, and I actually feel Keanu works within the confines of the film. Mala Noche may be a masterpiece of desire and lust, but I find Idaho so much more moving and heartbreaking. But apples and oranges.sevenarts wrote:My Own Private Idaho is extremely interesting, but something of a mess -- and it has Keanu Reeves, which is a big point against it, and worse yet it has Keanu Reeves mangling Shakespeare. But Mala Noche is pretty much perfect, a masterpiece of desire and lust, economically told with some gorgeous cinematography and a real grasp of potent images.
Last edited by Cold Bishop on Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
nick
- grace thought I was a failure
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:42 pm
- Location: Rochester, NY
that would be my deduction as well. I haven't actually watched my criterion disc yet so I'm going to be rather dissapointed that those color sequences aren't there. But as you put it:
Does the criterion have the color sequence at the end? I couldn't tell by your post if that was rendered in black and white as well.
Did Gus change his mind about these segments? Criterion's website offers another piece of information:davidhare wrote:Gus is credited as having supervised the Criterion transfer
David,www.criterion.com wrote:Film Info
1985
78 minutes
Black and White/Color
1.33:1
Dolby Digital Mono 1.0
Not Anamorphic
English
Does the criterion have the color sequence at the end? I couldn't tell by your post if that was rendered in black and white as well.
-
Michael
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:09 pm
-
LightBulbFilm
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:11 pm
- Location: Florida
- Contact:
So I should wait till January to send the disc back?domino harvey wrote:repressing announcement
-
Rupert Pupkin
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:34 pm
hi there,
I've just read this post and the news about the b&w photos in Mala Noche (instead of colour) in their DVD...
Since I've never seen this movie, I didn't know about the 5 secs of color in this movie.
I bought this on dvdpacific (I live in France)- should I replace it via dvdpacific or should I deal directly with Criterion to get a replacement disc ? (I remember having contacted them 2 years ago for a missing booklet in Clean/Shaven...)
oops
I've just read this on criterion blog web site :
"Be sure to include a mailing address in the U.S. or Canada for the replacement as we cannot ship outside of North America. Please also include your email address in the package and we'll send your gift certificate by email once we've mailed you replacement DVD(s)."
what can do customers outside US/Canada to get a replacement DVD ?
I've just read this post and the news about the b&w photos in Mala Noche (instead of colour) in their DVD...
Since I've never seen this movie, I didn't know about the 5 secs of color in this movie.
I bought this on dvdpacific (I live in France)- should I replace it via dvdpacific or should I deal directly with Criterion to get a replacement disc ? (I remember having contacted them 2 years ago for a missing booklet in Clean/Shaven...)
oops
I've just read this on criterion blog web site :"Be sure to include a mailing address in the U.S. or Canada for the replacement as we cannot ship outside of North America. Please also include your email address in the package and we'll send your gift certificate by email once we've mailed you replacement DVD(s)."
what can do customers outside US/Canada to get a replacement DVD ?
-
Cold Bishop
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:45 am
- Location: Portland, OR
-
Rupert Pupkin
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:34 pm
ok, but since DVDPacific is a US retailer- since Criterion has put in place a replacement for the Mala Noche DVD according to their blog, perhaps there is something due to the forbidden export of DVD zone 1 and if I give an addy from a friend in US or Canada, that should work according to their web site ????davidhare wrote:As far as Criterion is concerned you can get fucked.
They did send me the missing booklet of Clean/Shaven in France.
-
Argonaut69
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 11:30 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest
I don't think anyone has commented on the most obvious difference between the Criterion DVD of Mala Noche and the French import from Mk2. Over the credits on the Mk2 disc is the same acoustic Spanish guitar track that has always been on any print of this film I have seen while the Criterion disc has a loud indie rock song. I'll take the Criterion disc as the definitive version (since Van Sant appears to have been consulted for it's production) but I wonder at the official reasoning behind the change.
-
Rupert Pupkin
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:34 pm
yeah me too, altough I'm live in France I did prefer the Criterion because of the Gus Van Sant approved edition and didnt buy the MK2....Argonaut69 wrote:I don't think anyone has commented on the most obvious difference between the Criterion DVD of Mala Noche and the French import from Mk2. Over the credits on the Mk2 disc is the same acoustic Spanish guitar track that has always been on any print of this film I have seen while the Criterion disc has a loud indie rock song. I'll take the Criterion disc as the definitive version (since Van Sant appears to have been consulted for it's production) but I wonder at the official reasoning behind the change.
But like you, I don't know and like to know - perhaps new (c) issues with the song ?
-
denti alligator
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:36 am
- Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"
-
Nuno
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 2:00 pm
- Location: Lisbon, PT
- Contact: