Spoilers in multiple films will be in here.
Within the course of four films (the Maltese Falcon, Touch of Evil, Chinatown, and Brick) encountering the film noir genre has been interesting. Although Notes on a Film Noir by Paul Schrader says that "film noir is not a genre...It is not defined, as are the western and gangster genres, by convention of setting and conflict but rather the more subtle qualities of tone and mood...Film noir is also a specific period of film history." (230 Schrader) I beg to differ. I propose that the makings of noir in the way that Schrader describes it makes it a genre. There are conventions, expectations, and a general formula that makes up film noir. If noir was a time period in the history of film making it would have a distinct flavor to it. His argument is that "full lighting and close-ups, gradually undercut the German influence, and color cinematography was, of course, the final blow to the noir look" (240 Shrader). I still differ on that last part alone since I think Brick was definitely a noir and it had a high budget, full lighting, close-ups, and color. Also the mechanics of noir is still in Brick. In some ways Brick is more of a noir than Touch of Evil. Many of the elements of film noir are universal (which makes it a genre not a film time period).
The genre conventions(the characters, settings, props, and events) do make up the film and are repeated within the film contrary to what Schrader may think (and of course I being a sophomore in college know more than Paul Schrader)! The archetypes repeated within each film noir are the same in many, if not every, noir. The hero is most of the time a washed up hero who is preconditioned to descend into darkness in order to let justice prevail. In the Maltese Falcon, Sam Spade was already cold and distant when he met with Mrs. Wonderly and he was already having an affair with his partner's wife. By the time his partner died he really didn't have any remorse, in fact he actually replaced his partner's name on their company the next day. In Chinatown, Jake Gittes is already a washed up detective who left Chinatown to get away from whatever the system let him down for. There is a recurring theme with the main character which Schrader even addresses in his article which is that the heroes have "a passion for the past and the present but also a fear of the future. Noir heroes dread to look ahead" (Schrader 237). This is one way we are able to organize noirs like a genre. The setting is usually in the city and "lit for night" (235 Schrader). Both of these elements "creates a fatalistic, hopeless mood. There is nothing protagonists; the city will outlast and negate even their best efforts" (235 Schrader). Also within the story itself there are similar events that happen in all noirs, which is that there is usually a detective who meets a very beautiful woman but she is also a very dangerous woman (this is also known as the femme fatale). She is either a liar or a temptress of some kind and through the course of the film she leads the man on a very dark path which he usually takes willingly. The protagonist usually feels sorry or loves the femme fatale in some way that inhibits his ways of thinking. As he descends and his morality sort of diminishes he starts to also find out more about the femme fatale and all of her wily ways as well as he starts to find out about the case with the villains. He eventually descends so far into darkness that the audience might not be able to tell if the protagonist is good or evil. At the end of the movie the femme fatale and the protagonist have a falling out and the protagonist usually ends up taking up the path of goodness. The overall events all hover around the theme that there is no morality within justice.
Schrader not only describes in his own paper how there are certain conventions repeated in each noir (which makes it a film genre), but he also describes how there are certain expectations with each movie. There are aspects of each movie that allows the watcher to know whether the movie is noir or not noir within the first five minutes or so. The movie should have a feeling of "something is wrong" and that the main character should already have a dark side and not just be the classic ultra-pure archetype of a superhero. The making of a noir hero and the making of the setting (which is usually a dark setting either metaphorically or literally) and the events within the first five minutes (which is usually the meeting of the femme fatale or the actual event being told such as a murder) all point towards the genre of film noir. There is a style to noir, which makes it more of a sub genre but it is still a genre nonetheless and not just a style or a memento of an age long gone.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Brick
The first scene is a boy and a girl in the water presumably dead. We then take a trip two years back in time. Brendan is a school boy who right at the beginning of the movie. He gets a call from a girl named Emily who needs his help in some mysterious way. With the help of a kid called The Brain he hopes to get some information. Intercepting an invitation that was supposed to be from Emily, he is able to get to go to a party called Halloween in January.
In the party he is visited by a girl in red, also known as Cara, as he fixes himself a glass of sherry. They sit, they mingle, and she gives him a little bit of information ("coffee and pie oh my!"). Cara leaves for a couple seconds, asks him to wait, but he ends up getting out of the party altogether and following her. Some muscle-headed guy starts to yell at Cara and drives off. He ends up ditching the party.
Brendan then goes to see a man named Dode the next morning. Dode says at first that he has "enough on his plate without having to deal with a jilted ex." He asks where Emily is, Dode says "you better get it while it's good". Uh oh. We see that not only is Brendan smart and resourceful but is also a bad ass and a good slugger. He gives Dode a nice slug (it was actually so dramatic due to the shot if you love mis en scene). After that he asks Dode again where Emily is and slaps him around so badly. Basically she's with Dode and thinks that Brendan will only make things worse.
Turns out Dode was telling the truth. Dode meets up with Emily that afternoon and they hug and a letter is transferred between Dode and Emily. Brendan is overlooking the whole thing hidden in a hill. Later Emily and Brendan meet up and they have a talk about how Brendan judges people and Emily explains why she broke up with him in the first place. She came to say goodbye and he came to get her out of a tough spot with whatever is the brick or the Pin. At the end of the conversation they hug and Brendan ends up taking her notebook (where all of her letters are kept).
He finds one letter in particular. It's an uppercase A and midnight on the bottom. The Brain and Brendan try to figure out where this is pointing towards. This is the start of something big. The letter might be where the drugs are being taken and it's the upper crust of the whole thing. The A might be a random symbol, a symbol of the place, or it might be a drawing of the place. Hopefully Brendan can make this right and rectify all the wrongs.
In comparison to the rest of the noir films I have been seeing this was incredibly enjoyable to watch. Also it had some great cinematography, I felt that the characterization of the characters were very smooth (of course the reason I judged the others so harshly was because they weren't smooth and modern in terms of how they did it). Also I liked the way that the storyline progressed. It was more of a character driven story rather than a story driven by the plot.
I felt that the movie worked in many ways. I felt like the kid was just as resourceful as any other kid and that the Brain and Brendan had their vices and their strengths in whatever they wanted to do. There were also more modern themes which made the movie more interesting such as drugs being given to children and it seems to not also try and pose as a dark film even though it was. I felt that the earlier noir was trying to push too hard to try and be dark that it was almost forced. Even some of the dialog was forced. Also they actually made use of flashbacks something that the other noirs did not use flashbacks which made Brick so much better in my mind. I also felt that Brendan in many ways was smarter than the other guys in the Maltese Falcon and in Touch of Evil. The only problem I had with the movie was that it was in high school and they make it seem like as if these high school children are adults. They do address it though when Brendan is at leader's house and the mom comes and makes Brendan breakfast. It makes it all seem unrealistic.
Maybe it is the time period that these movies took place in but what I do know is that this movie is a good one to watch. I'd give it a 7/10 for educational value and a 9/10 for entertainment.
In the party he is visited by a girl in red, also known as Cara, as he fixes himself a glass of sherry. They sit, they mingle, and she gives him a little bit of information ("coffee and pie oh my!"). Cara leaves for a couple seconds, asks him to wait, but he ends up getting out of the party altogether and following her. Some muscle-headed guy starts to yell at Cara and drives off. He ends up ditching the party.
Brendan then goes to see a man named Dode the next morning. Dode says at first that he has "enough on his plate without having to deal with a jilted ex." He asks where Emily is, Dode says "you better get it while it's good". Uh oh. We see that not only is Brendan smart and resourceful but is also a bad ass and a good slugger. He gives Dode a nice slug (it was actually so dramatic due to the shot if you love mis en scene). After that he asks Dode again where Emily is and slaps him around so badly. Basically she's with Dode and thinks that Brendan will only make things worse.
Turns out Dode was telling the truth. Dode meets up with Emily that afternoon and they hug and a letter is transferred between Dode and Emily. Brendan is overlooking the whole thing hidden in a hill. Later Emily and Brendan meet up and they have a talk about how Brendan judges people and Emily explains why she broke up with him in the first place. She came to say goodbye and he came to get her out of a tough spot with whatever is the brick or the Pin. At the end of the conversation they hug and Brendan ends up taking her notebook (where all of her letters are kept).
He finds one letter in particular. It's an uppercase A and midnight on the bottom. The Brain and Brendan try to figure out where this is pointing towards. This is the start of something big. The letter might be where the drugs are being taken and it's the upper crust of the whole thing. The A might be a random symbol, a symbol of the place, or it might be a drawing of the place. Hopefully Brendan can make this right and rectify all the wrongs.
In comparison to the rest of the noir films I have been seeing this was incredibly enjoyable to watch. Also it had some great cinematography, I felt that the characterization of the characters were very smooth (of course the reason I judged the others so harshly was because they weren't smooth and modern in terms of how they did it). Also I liked the way that the storyline progressed. It was more of a character driven story rather than a story driven by the plot.
I felt that the movie worked in many ways. I felt like the kid was just as resourceful as any other kid and that the Brain and Brendan had their vices and their strengths in whatever they wanted to do. There were also more modern themes which made the movie more interesting such as drugs being given to children and it seems to not also try and pose as a dark film even though it was. I felt that the earlier noir was trying to push too hard to try and be dark that it was almost forced. Even some of the dialog was forced. Also they actually made use of flashbacks something that the other noirs did not use flashbacks which made Brick so much better in my mind. I also felt that Brendan in many ways was smarter than the other guys in the Maltese Falcon and in Touch of Evil. The only problem I had with the movie was that it was in high school and they make it seem like as if these high school children are adults. They do address it though when Brendan is at leader's house and the mom comes and makes Brendan breakfast. It makes it all seem unrealistic.
Maybe it is the time period that these movies took place in but what I do know is that this movie is a good one to watch. I'd give it a 7/10 for educational value and a 9/10 for entertainment.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Chinatown
Jake Gittes,an LA private investigator, is hired by a woman who calls herself Mrs. Mulwray. She tells him that she suspects that her husband cheated on her and that she wants some confirmation upon these suspicions. Mr. Mulwray, it seems, only cares about water and nothing else. All he does is hang around the waterways, riverbeds, and other water outlets. There is one time that Mr. Mulwray is having a fling with a young blonde and Gittes is on the scene with his camera. One photograph and a large front page headline later another woman comes into his office.
According to her, she is the real Mrs. Mulwray. The woman who hired him was just an imposter. The real Mrs. Mulwray threatens to sue for defamation and libel. Now we have a story. Jake Gittes has been embarrassed and wants to talk to Mr. Mulwray. As he learns of Mr. Mulwray's whereabouts he sees that Mr. Mulwray is indeed dead. Plot twist!
That night he "wanders" into the reservoir area once more (where he tried to meet Mr. Mulwray the first time) but is confronted by two goons, Claude Mulvihill and his short midget friend. The short midget takes a part of Jake's nose and says to get the hell away from their business. The next day Jake receives a call. It's Idra Sessions (also known as the imposter in the beginning of the movie) and she gives him some information.
Who is this woman in actuality? What happened to Mr. Mulwray? Will he be able to keep the honor of his good name?
This movie I would say entertained me for about the first hour or so. The first hour is full of action and drama and all the plot elements are all separate but they still all make the movie. Then the movie settles down. We see Mrs. Mulwray. She's a mess and she takes Jake down with her in this whole debacle. As we go further into the movie I feel like the investigation sense of this film noir is taken and the investigation takes a back seat for character development, where we learn more about Jake and Evelyn (Mrs. Mulwray). Jack Nicholson (Jake) is phenomenal like always but we don't see his character fleshed out. If you like mis en scene, this movie has a bunch of cool shots where we see things from a weird camera angle. In one scene we are in the back seat as he is backing away from an armed horseman and to see that one shot as the horse is galloping towards us raises the tension and the excitement. It was a great shot.
The parts of the movie that I guess didn't work is one of the characters. Mrs. Mulwray's father is not the nicest of guys and at first they paint him as a sophisticated guy but the thing is that they didn't lead us up with any clues that he would be the type of guy that he would be. There was no build up and no subtle clues for a nice second viewing. Monsoon Wedding did a better job setting us up for the surprise.
I guess I give this a 6/10. It got kind of boring for the last half hour.
According to her, she is the real Mrs. Mulwray. The woman who hired him was just an imposter. The real Mrs. Mulwray threatens to sue for defamation and libel. Now we have a story. Jake Gittes has been embarrassed and wants to talk to Mr. Mulwray. As he learns of Mr. Mulwray's whereabouts he sees that Mr. Mulwray is indeed dead. Plot twist!
That night he "wanders" into the reservoir area once more (where he tried to meet Mr. Mulwray the first time) but is confronted by two goons, Claude Mulvihill and his short midget friend. The short midget takes a part of Jake's nose and says to get the hell away from their business. The next day Jake receives a call. It's Idra Sessions (also known as the imposter in the beginning of the movie) and she gives him some information.
Who is this woman in actuality? What happened to Mr. Mulwray? Will he be able to keep the honor of his good name?
This movie I would say entertained me for about the first hour or so. The first hour is full of action and drama and all the plot elements are all separate but they still all make the movie. Then the movie settles down. We see Mrs. Mulwray. She's a mess and she takes Jake down with her in this whole debacle. As we go further into the movie I feel like the investigation sense of this film noir is taken and the investigation takes a back seat for character development, where we learn more about Jake and Evelyn (Mrs. Mulwray). Jack Nicholson (Jake) is phenomenal like always but we don't see his character fleshed out. If you like mis en scene, this movie has a bunch of cool shots where we see things from a weird camera angle. In one scene we are in the back seat as he is backing away from an armed horseman and to see that one shot as the horse is galloping towards us raises the tension and the excitement. It was a great shot.
The parts of the movie that I guess didn't work is one of the characters. Mrs. Mulwray's father is not the nicest of guys and at first they paint him as a sophisticated guy but the thing is that they didn't lead us up with any clues that he would be the type of guy that he would be. There was no build up and no subtle clues for a nice second viewing. Monsoon Wedding did a better job setting us up for the surprise.
I guess I give this a 6/10. It got kind of boring for the last half hour.
Touch of Evil
The opening scene starts out in Mexico with the sounds of swing, old cars running everywhere, and a finely dressed couple. We then see Mike and Suzie Vargas. Mr. Vargas is a cop who gets drug criminals and recently got a part of a big mob family arrested. The newly married couple kiss and an exploding car crashes into the scene. So much for a happy time. After a little investigation we meet Hank Quinlan, a rather rude sort of guy who is captain of the local policeman. To add to the exploding car crash Uncle Joe, one of the members of the Grandi family, is telling Mike to get out of their business and lay of their brother in Mexico City. To boot, the inside of the Grandi family mob is separating as some of the members in the lower rung of the whole family are trying to assault Mike, something that was not planned. We learn that Hank is the type of guy that would go and sacrifice himself. That is why he has a cane. He ran in the way of a bullet intended for another person. The investigation goes on and just like many of the movies in the time of film noir the story isn't triangular but rather it's more of a line. It rises in tension until the last minute. Will Mike catch Mr. Grandi? Will Suzie ever be able to get away from Mr. Grandi and his thugs? Will Hank figure out what's going on in this explosion case?
I personally enjoyed the movie but then again I understood a lot of the Spanish dialog so that added more for me. Also I love the sense of mystery so the story was more or less reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes (well without the whole British accent thing). I also enjoyed the tension between Vargas and Quinlan. It really seems to touch me now that we as a nation sort of have this same tension with the immigrants that come to America.
I thought that the whole music imagery and symbolism worked. I thought that the switch between the Spanish music and the swing music made me think more about what the two types of music symbolized. I think it was representative of the tension between the two sides. I also felt that the characters in this movie were much more developed than in the Maltese Falcon (of course there was also not in the Maltese Falcon they were trying to display a certain theme). What I really think did not work was the characterization of Quinlan. I thought although he was an enjoyable character, he had this whole thing of being the archetype of being the washed up cop with a really really crappy back story. The problem I have with this is that although it contributes to the story, it doesn't allow for the characters to be believable. I'm always thinking that this is just some story. It's not believable.
Overall I give this movie as a whole a 7/10. It's not the best movie but it certainly is entertaining.
I personally enjoyed the movie but then again I understood a lot of the Spanish dialog so that added more for me. Also I love the sense of mystery so the story was more or less reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes (well without the whole British accent thing). I also enjoyed the tension between Vargas and Quinlan. It really seems to touch me now that we as a nation sort of have this same tension with the immigrants that come to America.
I thought that the whole music imagery and symbolism worked. I thought that the switch between the Spanish music and the swing music made me think more about what the two types of music symbolized. I think it was representative of the tension between the two sides. I also felt that the characters in this movie were much more developed than in the Maltese Falcon (of course there was also not in the Maltese Falcon they were trying to display a certain theme). What I really think did not work was the characterization of Quinlan. I thought although he was an enjoyable character, he had this whole thing of being the archetype of being the washed up cop with a really really crappy back story. The problem I have with this is that although it contributes to the story, it doesn't allow for the characters to be believable. I'm always thinking that this is just some story. It's not believable.
Overall I give this movie as a whole a 7/10. It's not the best movie but it certainly is entertaining.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Maltese Falcon
The Maltese Falcon is said to be the epitome of what film noir is all about. When someone is asked about film noir they usually think of a movie resembling the Maltese Falcon. Sam Spade is a private investigator. His partner Miles Archer and him are in the room and the two of them are relaxing when a woman enters. Miles is mesmerized by her looks and when this damsel in distress comes in he is there to protect. The woman's name is Ms. Wonderly. She asks the two of them to follow this scary man Floyd Thursby who has run off with her sister. Archer takes the job of tailing Thursby with joy.
One day later Tom Polhaus, a fellow detective, comes in later that day and informs Spade that his partner has been shot and killed while following Thursby. Later that night two officers come into Spade's wondering where he has been for the past few hours. It turns out the accusations are against Spade right now in terms of who killed Archer. Thursby is dead as well which knocks him off as a suspect.
Spade then gets a visit from Archer's wife who has been in an affair with Spade for some time now. This doesn't help Spade's cause. She asks if Spade would kill Archer so that the two of them could be together. He kicks her out of his office and later that night he gets the secretary to get rid of all of Archer's stuff and also to make the company name not Spade and Archer but just Spade. This seems to not help his cause out too much either.
We then learn that Ms. Wonderly is not a wonderful person at all. Her real name is Ms. O'Shaughnessy. She never had a sister in the first place. Thursby was just betraying her and was a partner. We then also meet Joel Cairo who offers five thousand dollars for a black bird that has recently arrived. Will Spade descend into darkness amidst accusations and betrayal? What significance does the black bird have? You have to watch to find out.
The character of Spade is also the character of Nick in Casablanca and the character is almost synonymous in terms of the spunk that the two exude. The two characters also develop the same way as the movie goes on but I find Nick to be the more warm character. The movie was kind of bland but at the same time it helped me think of what really is noir. The thing is that the overall storyline has a couple comic lines but the storyline is very linear and the characterization I think isn't that great. They sort of rush a lot of elements at the audience. An example is towards the end when the bird is found, the character of Spade almost seems to be going to be a bad guy but uh oh! Psych! He's been a good guy in disguise. There's no lead up to all of this though.
I guess I give this story a 5/10 for entertainment but an 8/10 for learning purposes.
One day later Tom Polhaus, a fellow detective, comes in later that day and informs Spade that his partner has been shot and killed while following Thursby. Later that night two officers come into Spade's wondering where he has been for the past few hours. It turns out the accusations are against Spade right now in terms of who killed Archer. Thursby is dead as well which knocks him off as a suspect.
Spade then gets a visit from Archer's wife who has been in an affair with Spade for some time now. This doesn't help Spade's cause. She asks if Spade would kill Archer so that the two of them could be together. He kicks her out of his office and later that night he gets the secretary to get rid of all of Archer's stuff and also to make the company name not Spade and Archer but just Spade. This seems to not help his cause out too much either.
We then learn that Ms. Wonderly is not a wonderful person at all. Her real name is Ms. O'Shaughnessy. She never had a sister in the first place. Thursby was just betraying her and was a partner. We then also meet Joel Cairo who offers five thousand dollars for a black bird that has recently arrived. Will Spade descend into darkness amidst accusations and betrayal? What significance does the black bird have? You have to watch to find out.
The character of Spade is also the character of Nick in Casablanca and the character is almost synonymous in terms of the spunk that the two exude. The two characters also develop the same way as the movie goes on but I find Nick to be the more warm character. The movie was kind of bland but at the same time it helped me think of what really is noir. The thing is that the overall storyline has a couple comic lines but the storyline is very linear and the characterization I think isn't that great. They sort of rush a lot of elements at the audience. An example is towards the end when the bird is found, the character of Spade almost seems to be going to be a bad guy but uh oh! Psych! He's been a good guy in disguise. There's no lead up to all of this though.
I guess I give this story a 5/10 for entertainment but an 8/10 for learning purposes.
Bollywood vs Hollywood
Thou shalt not judge a book by its cover. The major difference between Bollywood and Hollywood films lie not within the musical numbers that appear within the film to display a deeper theme but rather in the narration and the characterization of the movie in general. The narration and the characterization deviate and even challenge the "conventional" ways used by Hollywood.
For narration, the stories of Monsoon Wedding and Daughters of the Dust both make a point to not make one or two specific characters the main characters. Although in Monsoon Wedding Aditi and Hemant are supposed to be the main characters, it seems like they have the least amount of lines and that their overarching storyline almost takes a back seat to the rest of the characters. Similarly in Daughters of the Dust although the main storyline should be between Nana and the rest of her family, that storyline also takes a backseat to the rest of the characters' storylines.
In Monsoon Wedding, Aditi and Hemant are going to be in an arranged marriage but at the same time we barely see them get any screen time. There are a couple of different storylines that are juggled in this screenplay. One of the storylines was that Ria was sexually abused by her uncle and that he wants to do the same to her younger cousin Alijah. Another is how the father, Lalit, has to fund this grandiose wedding and he might not have the money to do so. This is customary in India but at the same time it is still stressful. Another is that P.K is instantly in love with Alice. The smallest storyline is Varun (the youngest son of Lalit) and how he is not as masculine as his father would like him to be.
All of these storylines are juggled and the challenge to Hollywood is that the subplots take over the actual plot and contribute that way. The challenge is to tell Hollywood to deviate from making all romantic comedies the same. Hollywood is almost boring to myself because of the fact that they all go like this: first two people meet, they flirt a little at first (they might get frisky in the process), they encounter something that separates them (such as another person), and then after a pep talk from their best friend they reunite. It's almost sickening how monotonous it all is. The challenge to Hollywood is if there are so many subplots then the narration makes the story and the characters (not the plot) make the stories all different.
The other part of Bollywood and Daughters of the Dust that is different is the way characterization works. In Daughters of the Dust, each little interaction causes individual characters to change which makes the overall story turn into another direction. In Daughters of the Dust the story goes on from conversation to conversation until finally the family decides to carry Nana's blessing off to the new land.
In Monsoon Wedding it more clearly does this by intertwining all the subplots to affect each character. Ria's conflict of being sexually abused when she was younger eventually transfers to Lalit's. He now must deal with the internal strife. The war is between having a community and having this extravagant wedding verses losing Ria forever because of something her uncle did. Eventually he changes and in the middle of the wedding he kicks out the uncle and tells him to never see his family again. The tiny subplot changes Lalit and transforms him into a man that cares more about family than for extravagance. It is something that makes the story so much more meaningful.
By using subplots to convey characterization and narration is an amazing and somehow unseen way to produce a wonderful movie. Hollywood's way of making a movie is almost invisible in terms of how they even put it together. The writing all seems the same but if subplots take over the actual storyline it might be risky but the outcome is something beautiful, where the audience cares for every single character.
For narration, the stories of Monsoon Wedding and Daughters of the Dust both make a point to not make one or two specific characters the main characters. Although in Monsoon Wedding Aditi and Hemant are supposed to be the main characters, it seems like they have the least amount of lines and that their overarching storyline almost takes a back seat to the rest of the characters. Similarly in Daughters of the Dust although the main storyline should be between Nana and the rest of her family, that storyline also takes a backseat to the rest of the characters' storylines.
In Monsoon Wedding, Aditi and Hemant are going to be in an arranged marriage but at the same time we barely see them get any screen time. There are a couple of different storylines that are juggled in this screenplay. One of the storylines was that Ria was sexually abused by her uncle and that he wants to do the same to her younger cousin Alijah. Another is how the father, Lalit, has to fund this grandiose wedding and he might not have the money to do so. This is customary in India but at the same time it is still stressful. Another is that P.K is instantly in love with Alice. The smallest storyline is Varun (the youngest son of Lalit) and how he is not as masculine as his father would like him to be.
All of these storylines are juggled and the challenge to Hollywood is that the subplots take over the actual plot and contribute that way. The challenge is to tell Hollywood to deviate from making all romantic comedies the same. Hollywood is almost boring to myself because of the fact that they all go like this: first two people meet, they flirt a little at first (they might get frisky in the process), they encounter something that separates them (such as another person), and then after a pep talk from their best friend they reunite. It's almost sickening how monotonous it all is. The challenge to Hollywood is if there are so many subplots then the narration makes the story and the characters (not the plot) make the stories all different.
The other part of Bollywood and Daughters of the Dust that is different is the way characterization works. In Daughters of the Dust, each little interaction causes individual characters to change which makes the overall story turn into another direction. In Daughters of the Dust the story goes on from conversation to conversation until finally the family decides to carry Nana's blessing off to the new land.
In Monsoon Wedding it more clearly does this by intertwining all the subplots to affect each character. Ria's conflict of being sexually abused when she was younger eventually transfers to Lalit's. He now must deal with the internal strife. The war is between having a community and having this extravagant wedding verses losing Ria forever because of something her uncle did. Eventually he changes and in the middle of the wedding he kicks out the uncle and tells him to never see his family again. The tiny subplot changes Lalit and transforms him into a man that cares more about family than for extravagance. It is something that makes the story so much more meaningful.
By using subplots to convey characterization and narration is an amazing and somehow unseen way to produce a wonderful movie. Hollywood's way of making a movie is almost invisible in terms of how they even put it together. The writing all seems the same but if subplots take over the actual storyline it might be risky but the outcome is something beautiful, where the audience cares for every single character.
Monsoon Wedding 9.4/10
Bollywood is an ever increasing ever growing style of film that differs from American films. If you liked Slumdog Millionaire and are willing to drift even more from America then Monsoon Wedding is the best film you might want to get. It submerges the audience into the Indian culture immediately.
The movie is character driven story (but not nearly as much as Do the Right Thing). For many reasons this movie is not a difficult movie to watch at all. The storyline is about the arranged marriage between Aditi Verma (Vasundhara Das) and Hemant Rai (Parvin Dabas) and how Aditi struggles to want the marriage. At first the array and plethora of differing names might be confusing but the story eventually pans out into a well written screenplay. The true beauty of this movie is not the overall story but how the screenwriter and the rest of the camera crew allows the story to be told by not including the main characters.
Another storyline within the movie is the comic relief of Parabatlal Kanhaiyalal 'P.K.' Dubey (Vijay Raaz). He is the wedding planner for the Verma family. At first he turns out to be an arrogant man who's only on his cellphone. Then we see his goofy side when Alice (Tillotama Shome) shows up. The development from comic relief to a truly heartfelt mini-story (which still has some funny moments within it) is the beauty of both the writing and the mis en scene.
Although Monsoon Wedding is a dark romantic comedy the development of each character helps the audience to connect to each one. It doesn't feel dark but rather it's a colorful story full of laughing, crying, and anger. Each character has their own story and eventually they all come together for a final dance which if the audience loves other cultures will thoroughly enjoy.
I personally loved the movie. The beginning of the movie was a little confusing with all the names being thrown and the subtitles helped a lot. For some people subtitles retract from the movie but I don't really care about them much. Also what might throw some people off are the more edgy themes that go along with the movie (such as child abuse). Just remember to keep an open mind within this movie in terms of culture and also in terms of having a good time.
9.4/10
The movie is character driven story (but not nearly as much as Do the Right Thing). For many reasons this movie is not a difficult movie to watch at all. The storyline is about the arranged marriage between Aditi Verma (Vasundhara Das) and Hemant Rai (Parvin Dabas) and how Aditi struggles to want the marriage. At first the array and plethora of differing names might be confusing but the story eventually pans out into a well written screenplay. The true beauty of this movie is not the overall story but how the screenwriter and the rest of the camera crew allows the story to be told by not including the main characters.
Another storyline within the movie is the comic relief of Parabatlal Kanhaiyalal 'P.K.' Dubey (Vijay Raaz). He is the wedding planner for the Verma family. At first he turns out to be an arrogant man who's only on his cellphone. Then we see his goofy side when Alice (Tillotama Shome) shows up. The development from comic relief to a truly heartfelt mini-story (which still has some funny moments within it) is the beauty of both the writing and the mis en scene.
Although Monsoon Wedding is a dark romantic comedy the development of each character helps the audience to connect to each one. It doesn't feel dark but rather it's a colorful story full of laughing, crying, and anger. Each character has their own story and eventually they all come together for a final dance which if the audience loves other cultures will thoroughly enjoy.
I personally loved the movie. The beginning of the movie was a little confusing with all the names being thrown and the subtitles helped a lot. For some people subtitles retract from the movie but I don't really care about them much. Also what might throw some people off are the more edgy themes that go along with the movie (such as child abuse). Just remember to keep an open mind within this movie in terms of culture and also in terms of having a good time.
9.4/10