Timecrimes (2007, Nacho Vigalondo)
This is a strange movie literature. I like both major influences: Robert Louis Stevenson and Alfredo Bioy Casares. The Invention of Morel stevensoniana was already a novel, but his poetic brilliance, its final image rarely found an author concerned with the nature of dreams. Several loans appear to me that the film has implied, including Robert A. Heinlein and Philip K. Dick, the latter known in depth by its director and screenwriter, but surprisingly the film side in question.
Where the film remains intact is phenomenal wealth as an aesthetic experience. Vigalondo use the camera in hand, dry flat for pain, but s and confirmed as narrator solvent and, above all, as a particularly gifted director to return to their expressive language without too much emphasis.
Where the film remains intact is phenomenal wealth as an aesthetic experience. Vigalondo use the camera in hand, dry flat for pain, but s and confirmed as narrator solvent and, above all, as a particularly gifted director to return to their expressive language without too much emphasis.
A very interesting to discuss this film is the anxiety of influence. We have already spoken of his literary models, but should be understood that Vigalondo, with an interesting film writing developed in his blog, is an anxiety of influence who speaks little and I suspect he knows a lot.: Martin Scorsese. Scorsese seems to me not only a great filmmaker, but ever more bizarre, a legitimate theory. Visibly, the film can from Rear Window and Body Double, but I want to dwell on that timeline, finally, when we take the philosophical or ethical considerations involving each, the work of a moralist (Hitchcock ) and a mild cynical (DePalma).
Scorsese is an important power in the work of Vigalondo. I could cite movies surely have influenced his work: The King of Comedy (1981) and After Hours (1984) would be two of the most important, no doubt. But more interesting is emblematic Taxi Driver (1976), a film still problem.
Vigalondo suspect is far from being a moralist, probably because I consider it pertinent to note his duel with Scorsese, who, unlike the more idealistic DePalma (its beauty and ugliness are not only ideal but ends Baroque , absolute spread their worlds or their images), is faced with the reality with some violence neorealist a shock that the director did not want to lose and, as Scorsese, is a responsibility that is born, precisely, the voyeur, the look. DePalma is a formalist, and I write this as a compliment, because his poetry is made of sensory memory and extreme film buff, but Scorsese has made his opposition cinema experience. There are many examples in his films, many in Goodfellas (1990), it suffices to compare the seductive sequence shot that proposes a change of narrator with the violent and paranoid cokehead climax of the film. It might be argued that the story requires such large oppositions, but suffice to see the fateful story DePalma (Carlito's Way ) to see how visible the difference between theoretical and formalistic.
Turning then to the line of Rear Window, it seems now quite clear that Hitchcock was, unquestionably, a great moralist, is Stewart's eyes to what ultimately , points and accuses. DePalma was also a cynical light: presenting a trauma of repression is through simulation that the protagonist than through the assumption another self who is busy becoming a monster and Hurd perfect crime. The cure of the protagonist of Body Double passes a seductive idea, worthy of Jean Baudrillard, based on misunderstanding, something that is not cause for mild farce but cynicism with optimism at the end.
It is true that the film Timecrimes more pessimistic of the author in so far that tells the brutal and sudden desire, delicate building itself and the sudden change in this. Although these indicators do not think Vigalondo is a conservative (and when I say r conservardo who I mean does not believe in the ability to change the human being), perhaps the resigned tone that takes his monster at the last moment in its history. This resignation is also self-awareness, especially in the memorable farewell object of desire and the haircut, interesting both for the notion of romance as counterfeiting involved. Counterfeiting puts him in the scale of Hitchcock and DePalma and turn it apart from both. But the consciousness of a monster of his act, their transfer of values, its moral and its gestation gesture of assurance, in the memorable end of the film leave many questions in the air.
Perhaps as will the world after that discovery, as will the marriage after such crimes, or as the police succeeded in interpreting the facts. It is a disturbing image, of course. Vigalondo not Dostoevsky and this did not imply anything other than the weather center to unveil moral characters that are compelling for their brutal paradoxes. Hector change, but in the end, is a version a bit more bruised and disturbing the boring man of principle. They knew Albert Camus and George Steiner, both with regard to Kafka, but the power of disturbing and often generate images on the brink of madness, if generally correspond to the best fiction somehow seeking philosophizing.
And this does.
**
This film picks up where the previous work, the short Shock . Not a detail to chance. As I see it, C Hoque is a formal exercise near mint condition. In Shock , detected Roberto's brutal intelligence Alcover Oti a dip in the generic codes of action-adventure film and a tribute to western in duels. I agree.
Oti also aims Alcover Vigalondo the film contains a very elaborate speech on the failure of contemporary male, which I think is strictly true because, with the exception perhaps of three science fiction stories, most of bulk of his work (including Marisa and 7.35) is about a manhood in a conflict almost autistic with his own desire and their respective relationships.
The final plane crash is a humbled man. But above all, a man humbled by all the reasons he is unable to perceive. Not so much by the failure of his delusional defense of women, but because of who leads. It is a formidable detail.
***
should recover appointments Eugenio Trias on Vertigo. But there is an equally interesting piece in Literature and Evil by Georges Bataille, in particular superlative analysis of Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë:
"Eroticism is, I think I, ratification of life even in death. Sexuality involves death, not only because newcomers extend and replace the missing, but because sexuality is at stake the life of being played. Cloning is disappearing, and people disappear simpler asexual reproduction. Do not die, if death means the passing from life to decay, but that was at play, stop being one who was (as it is double). Individual death is only one aspect of the excess be proliferator. Sexual reproduction is not, assume time, more than one aspect, the more complicated, the immortality of life that came into play in the reproduction asexual: immortality, but at the same time, individual death. "
The Hector is a childless marriage and therefore boring. Jordi Costa pointed that "the foundation of all happiness in marriage (or family) are based on the tomb of an erotic fantasy that had to be destroyed." Is an accurate description and bright, but that would make the film in a purely pessimistic view.
This lack of interest, this captivating reenactment of vulgarity subject to a protection against the storm serves to expand the man who led the Shock and passing from a liability (and tedious) family man a real man Protector recommended not look back. Vigalondo commits the audacity to turn to the only moral reference for the film, a scientist played by himself in an awkward reactor of events in a child player of an invention that overcomes. That's why the film does not revolve around a doomed humanity but on a dark, hidden behind a yawn when there is another, awkward, flawed and unreliable. Or maybe they are just men.
"Eroticism is, I think I, ratification of life even in death. Sexuality involves death, not only because newcomers extend and replace the missing, but because sexuality is at stake the life of being played. Cloning is disappearing, and people disappear simpler asexual reproduction. Do not die, if death means the passing from life to decay, but that was at play, stop being one who was (as it is double). Individual death is only one aspect of the excess be proliferator. Sexual reproduction is not, assume time, more than one aspect, the more complicated, the immortality of life that came into play in the reproduction asexual: immortality, but at the same time, individual death. "
The Hector is a childless marriage and therefore boring. Jordi Costa pointed that "the foundation of all happiness in marriage (or family) are based on the tomb of an erotic fantasy that had to be destroyed." Is an accurate description and bright, but that would make the film in a purely pessimistic view.
This lack of interest, this captivating reenactment of vulgarity subject to a protection against the storm serves to expand the man who led the Shock and passing from a liability (and tedious) family man a real man Protector recommended not look back. Vigalondo commits the audacity to turn to the only moral reference for the film, a scientist played by himself in an awkward reactor of events in a child player of an invention that overcomes. That's why the film does not revolve around a doomed humanity but on a dark, hidden behind a yawn when there is another, awkward, flawed and unreliable. Or maybe they are just men.
0 comments:
Post a Comment