Film: The Big Lebowski
A quintessential cult film, whilst it has its share of strange moments, The Big Lebowski is grounded in reality. We have a pretty random selection of eccentric characters that, by dint of sheer coincidence, become slightly involved in the same story. Throughout the film, the focus is most definitely on The Dude (real name: Jeffrey Lebowski), whose real name just happens to be shared with (what appears to be) a successful millionaire wheelchair-bound old guy, complete with trophy blonde slutty wife.
The gist of the story revolves around this trophy wife, and her sudden (apparent) kidnap. By sheer chance, the millionaire has just met The Dude, and decides to ask him for help in getting his wife back. Of course, The Dude being the Dude, you can easily guess things aren't going to go smoothly for him, and you'd be spot on. It's hard to explain exactly what makes The Big Lebowski such a cool film. It's pretty funny in most places, though it's generally more of a "smile and quiet laugh" type funny than out-and-out "laugh out loud" funny. It doesn't rely on toilet humour or stoner gags, although The Dude does enjoy the odd puff of the "herb". I suppose what really makes this film is the characters of The Dude himself, and his best mate Walter. Steve Buscemi appears for a few brief scenes too, ably playing the two buddies' other bowling team mate, often ignored by these two in their heated discussions on politics and rugs.
Together, Walter with his borderline obsession for bowling, and The Dude with his love of wearing slippers, dressing gown, and drinking throughout the day, make the great slacker atmosphere so important to this film. Because, when you get right down to it, this is a slacker film - it's a film about stuff that happens to a guy who basically does nothing, and much prefers to let stuff happen to him, than to go out and make stuff happen. And he thoroughly enjoys himself, most of the time.
This isn't a stoner movie though, it's a slacker movie. So you can enjoy this without being a stoner, for sure.
5/5
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Monday, March 21, 2005
Film - Brazil
Or Terry Gilliam's Brazil, to be exact. Yeah, it's a film by that most imaginative of the (Monty) Pythons, the one who came up with those funny doodled cartoons, and had (has?) an obsession with large feet squashing stuff.
There're no cartoons here, although there are numerous moments of similarly dark humour.
The future world Brazil is set in is about as dystopian as they come. Almost every aspect of life is ruled over by a humungous system of beauracracy, but there's at least one group of rather successful terrorists determined to fight back. At the time the film is set, these guys have been setting off bombs for more than 10 years, although the minister being interviewed on TV just replies that this means the government is closer than ever to stopping them for good(!), shortly before a shop explodes - yet more handiwork of the terrorists.
The story itself follows one of the beauracrats, Sam Lowry, himself a bit of a daydreamer (but nevertheless good at his job) as he gets dragged into a series of events mostly beyond his control. What starts out as a job to correct a simple administrative error (in itself an ironic consequence of one worker's carelessness whilst trying to swat a fly) soon becomes a chase as Sam tries to catch up with a mysterious, good-looking woman he first spotted whilst at work. In an unrelated series of events, he gets to meet up with an underground repair man, something of a legend in this world full of steam pipes, where you usually have to wait weeks for an offically-sanctioned repair man. Ably played by Robert De Niro (before he was reduced to advertising credit cards), Archibald "Harry" Tuttle arrives to fix Sam's pipes after he makes a desparate call for a repairman, only to be told there won't be one available for weeks. They need fixing so badly because this dystopian future is also somewhat "steampunk" in that almost all the features of a flat rely on steam, somehow or other. At this point, if you've been paying attention to the film, you'll notice another of the great ironies in the story, but I won't spoil it here; suffice to say, it'll likely have you laughing out loud.
While this is going on, Sam gets it into his head that the woman is involved with the terrorists, and decides he'd like to join the cause. He also has to deal with his interfering mother, who keeps trying to get him to hook up with the rather plain-looking, and almost-never-speaking, daughter of a good friend of hers, who he really doesn't like. A good laugh comes from the moment we finally hear her speak properly.
Sam eventually cracks good and proper shortly after landing a new, better job in the beauracracy (thanks to his mum, who knows some powerful men).
Not forgetting the slightly nasty, very petty, pair of official heating engineers sent to fix Sam's flat (after Harry Tuttle has done his business). These guys really have it in for Harry, and as a consequence, pretty soon they have it in for Sam too. Although they get their comeuppance - in one of the funniest and most disgusting moments of the film - eventually.
Once he's got the girl safely in hiding (at his mother's flat), he thinks of a way to save her. The only problem is, it turns out it's rather more difficult to escape the suspecting eyes of the beauracracy than Sam thought. In the end, of course, it all works out...in a way. But you can (and should) find that out for yourselves, because Brazil is a top-notch film, and a damn good companion to George Orwell's 1984. A full 5/5
Ah, 1984. There are obvious similarities between 1984 and Brazil, indeed, imdb.com has it that Brazil's working title was 1984 1/2. However, there are also some rather large differences:
1)The beauracractic system in Brazil is woefully inefficient at getting stuff done.
2)Technology in the world of Brazil has, largely, not advanced far beyond that of the 1970s, we assume as a result of the beauracracy (technological advances still happen in 1984, where they benefit Big Brother)
3)Finally, in Brazil, the system appears to be in place more just to keep people in check, rather than to out-and-out control every aspect of their lives. It is meant to restrict them, just not control them entirely.
We also don't see evidence in Brazil of the government actually trying to control basic human instinct - you could say that in Brazil, the system wants control of peoples' minds, whereas in 1984, it wants control of peoples' minds AND hearts.
There are, of course, other differences, aside from the downright obvious difference in focus and characters of each, but I think those cited above demonstrate the general difference in tone between 1984 and Brazil.
Or Terry Gilliam's Brazil, to be exact. Yeah, it's a film by that most imaginative of the (Monty) Pythons, the one who came up with those funny doodled cartoons, and had (has?) an obsession with large feet squashing stuff.
There're no cartoons here, although there are numerous moments of similarly dark humour.
The future world Brazil is set in is about as dystopian as they come. Almost every aspect of life is ruled over by a humungous system of beauracracy, but there's at least one group of rather successful terrorists determined to fight back. At the time the film is set, these guys have been setting off bombs for more than 10 years, although the minister being interviewed on TV just replies that this means the government is closer than ever to stopping them for good(!), shortly before a shop explodes - yet more handiwork of the terrorists.
The story itself follows one of the beauracrats, Sam Lowry, himself a bit of a daydreamer (but nevertheless good at his job) as he gets dragged into a series of events mostly beyond his control. What starts out as a job to correct a simple administrative error (in itself an ironic consequence of one worker's carelessness whilst trying to swat a fly) soon becomes a chase as Sam tries to catch up with a mysterious, good-looking woman he first spotted whilst at work. In an unrelated series of events, he gets to meet up with an underground repair man, something of a legend in this world full of steam pipes, where you usually have to wait weeks for an offically-sanctioned repair man. Ably played by Robert De Niro (before he was reduced to advertising credit cards), Archibald "Harry" Tuttle arrives to fix Sam's pipes after he makes a desparate call for a repairman, only to be told there won't be one available for weeks. They need fixing so badly because this dystopian future is also somewhat "steampunk" in that almost all the features of a flat rely on steam, somehow or other. At this point, if you've been paying attention to the film, you'll notice another of the great ironies in the story, but I won't spoil it here; suffice to say, it'll likely have you laughing out loud.
While this is going on, Sam gets it into his head that the woman is involved with the terrorists, and decides he'd like to join the cause. He also has to deal with his interfering mother, who keeps trying to get him to hook up with the rather plain-looking, and almost-never-speaking, daughter of a good friend of hers, who he really doesn't like. A good laugh comes from the moment we finally hear her speak properly.
Sam eventually cracks good and proper shortly after landing a new, better job in the beauracracy (thanks to his mum, who knows some powerful men).
Not forgetting the slightly nasty, very petty, pair of official heating engineers sent to fix Sam's flat (after Harry Tuttle has done his business). These guys really have it in for Harry, and as a consequence, pretty soon they have it in for Sam too. Although they get their comeuppance - in one of the funniest and most disgusting moments of the film - eventually.
Once he's got the girl safely in hiding (at his mother's flat), he thinks of a way to save her. The only problem is, it turns out it's rather more difficult to escape the suspecting eyes of the beauracracy than Sam thought. In the end, of course, it all works out...in a way. But you can (and should) find that out for yourselves, because Brazil is a top-notch film, and a damn good companion to George Orwell's 1984. A full 5/5
Ah, 1984. There are obvious similarities between 1984 and Brazil, indeed, imdb.com has it that Brazil's working title was 1984 1/2. However, there are also some rather large differences:
1)The beauracractic system in Brazil is woefully inefficient at getting stuff done.
2)Technology in the world of Brazil has, largely, not advanced far beyond that of the 1970s, we assume as a result of the beauracracy (technological advances still happen in 1984, where they benefit Big Brother)
3)Finally, in Brazil, the system appears to be in place more just to keep people in check, rather than to out-and-out control every aspect of their lives. It is meant to restrict them, just not control them entirely.
We also don't see evidence in Brazil of the government actually trying to control basic human instinct - you could say that in Brazil, the system wants control of peoples' minds, whereas in 1984, it wants control of peoples' minds AND hearts.
There are, of course, other differences, aside from the downright obvious difference in focus and characters of each, but I think those cited above demonstrate the general difference in tone between 1984 and Brazil.
Book - 1984
I actually finished reading this a good few weeks ago, but I've been putting off reviewing it because...well, it's kinda intimidating. OK, so it's "just another classic novel" like several I've already reviewed, without much difficulty. BUT, somehow, 1984 just seems to overshadow all those others. I suppose it's not just the book itself, but the reputation of it.
OK, let's start with the obvious. It's about communism! well, yeah, but there's a but...and here it is: taking onboard how clever 1984 is, I can't help but think that rather than just being clever, Mr. Orwell was a genius, and the idea of 1984 is not just to target communism*, but any kind of totalitarian regime. The book is general enough, that much of it could be applied, in theory, to any totalitarian government you could think of. 1984 makes the point, rather well, though without having to actually signpost it, that when we lose enough of our freedoms, we stop really living. We just "exist", as empty husks. Throughout the book, it manages to crystalise a number of thoughts I know i've had in the past, but never quite managed to put shape to them. This in itself, to me, is a good indication of Orwell's talent. Some of the ideas presented in 1984 are radical yet simple (and will probably have you thinking "of course! that's so bloody obvious!"). Then there's Room 101. On its own, this is a pretty nasty method of breaking someone's spirit. But there's a little more to it
*SPOILER ALERT*
See, part way through the book, we are treated to the realisation that the government's power in 1984 comes from their controlling of the "sexual instinct" of the members of the Party. That's what the book calls it, but you could call it the instinct to reproduce, one of the two most basic of human instincts. Even for all animals. Well, there's survival of the species, being a kinda mixture of these two, but anyway. The other is never actually mentioned, but plays at least as big a role - that of self-survival. It is this second basic instinct that the Party controls again through their entire setup, but ultimately, through Room 101. The idea of Room 101 is to show dissenters that their instinct for self-survival is their strongest instinct. To show them that their loyalties are not unbreakable.
So, the Party controls these two most basic of human instincts, and through this, their control extends logically to all aspects of party members' lives. Of course, it's not a simple matter; every home has a two-way viewscreen, which will be watched at the other end at some point. There's the constant re-writingof past and present news, books, and so on. There's the Thought Police. There's almost no freedom, and there's very little tolerance of individuality, as individuality is dangerous to The Party.
Then there are the "proles" - the non-Party members, making about 75% of the population, these people seem to have it worse off than Party members when we first read about them. But it doesn't take long to realise, they have somewhat more freedom than Party members. It's also somewhat ironic, that Party members are, by and large, prisoners of their own making.
1984 is certainly the most thought-provoking book I've read so far. There are some disconcerting similarities with the Party and...situatinos around the world right now. On the bright side, I think individuality is a good measure of how much freedom you have. As in, the level of diversity of people within a country is a pretty good indication of how totalitarian (or not) its government is. Here, I can only with any degree of certainty speak of this country, England. At the minute, we have a good level of diversity amongst the people living here (despite Charles Clarke's seeming determination to curb our freedoms). And i'm not too stupid to see that without any laws at all, we'd have total freedom - but with it, total chaos. I wouldn't mind watching that from a distance, but I doubt i could handle living it.
Doubtless, there'll be plenty of people out there who read/have read 1984 and have a completely different take on it...
*I'm well aware that ideal communism may not be totalitarian in nature, but the fact is the real-world occurrences have all attempted to be totalitarian
I actually finished reading this a good few weeks ago, but I've been putting off reviewing it because...well, it's kinda intimidating. OK, so it's "just another classic novel" like several I've already reviewed, without much difficulty. BUT, somehow, 1984 just seems to overshadow all those others. I suppose it's not just the book itself, but the reputation of it.
OK, let's start with the obvious. It's about communism! well, yeah, but there's a but...and here it is: taking onboard how clever 1984 is, I can't help but think that rather than just being clever, Mr. Orwell was a genius, and the idea of 1984 is not just to target communism*, but any kind of totalitarian regime. The book is general enough, that much of it could be applied, in theory, to any totalitarian government you could think of. 1984 makes the point, rather well, though without having to actually signpost it, that when we lose enough of our freedoms, we stop really living. We just "exist", as empty husks. Throughout the book, it manages to crystalise a number of thoughts I know i've had in the past, but never quite managed to put shape to them. This in itself, to me, is a good indication of Orwell's talent. Some of the ideas presented in 1984 are radical yet simple (and will probably have you thinking "of course! that's so bloody obvious!"). Then there's Room 101. On its own, this is a pretty nasty method of breaking someone's spirit. But there's a little more to it
*SPOILER ALERT*
See, part way through the book, we are treated to the realisation that the government's power in 1984 comes from their controlling of the "sexual instinct" of the members of the Party. That's what the book calls it, but you could call it the instinct to reproduce, one of the two most basic of human instincts. Even for all animals. Well, there's survival of the species, being a kinda mixture of these two, but anyway. The other is never actually mentioned, but plays at least as big a role - that of self-survival. It is this second basic instinct that the Party controls again through their entire setup, but ultimately, through Room 101. The idea of Room 101 is to show dissenters that their instinct for self-survival is their strongest instinct. To show them that their loyalties are not unbreakable.
So, the Party controls these two most basic of human instincts, and through this, their control extends logically to all aspects of party members' lives. Of course, it's not a simple matter; every home has a two-way viewscreen, which will be watched at the other end at some point. There's the constant re-writingof past and present news, books, and so on. There's the Thought Police. There's almost no freedom, and there's very little tolerance of individuality, as individuality is dangerous to The Party.
Then there are the "proles" - the non-Party members, making about 75% of the population, these people seem to have it worse off than Party members when we first read about them. But it doesn't take long to realise, they have somewhat more freedom than Party members. It's also somewhat ironic, that Party members are, by and large, prisoners of their own making.
1984 is certainly the most thought-provoking book I've read so far. There are some disconcerting similarities with the Party and...situatinos around the world right now. On the bright side, I think individuality is a good measure of how much freedom you have. As in, the level of diversity of people within a country is a pretty good indication of how totalitarian (or not) its government is. Here, I can only with any degree of certainty speak of this country, England. At the minute, we have a good level of diversity amongst the people living here (despite Charles Clarke's seeming determination to curb our freedoms). And i'm not too stupid to see that without any laws at all, we'd have total freedom - but with it, total chaos. I wouldn't mind watching that from a distance, but I doubt i could handle living it.
Doubtless, there'll be plenty of people out there who read/have read 1984 and have a completely different take on it...
*I'm well aware that ideal communism may not be totalitarian in nature, but the fact is the real-world occurrences have all attempted to be totalitarian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)