| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 16:23:29
Eastwood's companion piece to Flags of Our Fathers is no gung-ho wartime shoot-em up, but a poignant and dignified exploration of what connects people. That such connection is repeatedly severed by the rabid ambitions of individuals and states is the irony threading this tale.
It's set on the same island as Flags and covers much of the same territory, but this time from the Japanese pov. Here we have under-resourced troops defending a hostile landscape of no apparent importance commanded by a General who trusts his superiors and is convinced of the superiority of his men over the enemy. His growing realization that both he and his men have ultimately been betrayed provides Ken Watanabe with the seeds of a magnificent performance which constantly invades his authority with humanity. He's not above humiliating one of his officers for mistreating the men, nor of being somewhat in awe of Baron Nishi, a fellow officer who's been recently feted by Hollywood. And he's that rarely portrayed senior officer who has time for even the most humble of his troops. It's he who finally arranges a way out for another of the characters Eastwood makes us care about, an ordinary baker married to his sweetheart and with whom they have a baby daughter.
By allowing us into the lives of several men - through their shared conversations and illustrated flashback scenes drafted from the letters of the title - and contrasting these glimpses with the increasingly futile military exercises so far from home, as well as by introducing several scenes detailing both the humanity and brutality of US and Japanese soldiers, Eastwood's crafted a powerful statement not merely about war but about the commonality of all people, the shared values which make us all one species whatever color or religion or national identity. The silent question being asked throughout the film is why are we so hell bent on fighting ourselves.
It's a long film, yes, but a powerful one, a terrifyingly beautiful one, and one you must see.
|
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 12:46:07
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
If you know how to assess good acting, it transcends language. You can test yourself by watching a foreign-language film without subtitles ... you'll be able to tell, I promise! Good acting is about creating the illusion of believable human beings using every tool in the actor's repertoire.
As someone who lives in a non-English speaking country where subtitles of foreign films aren't always in English, I can certainly attest to this. When I saw Lives of Others I found myself not looking at the English subtitles the whole time, although I don't know German at all. That just emphasized exactly how excellent that film was.
|
| randall |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 10:33:26
No serious actor likes to be "spoon-fed," any more than a director likes to hear how to block a scene from an actor. In other words, a director who reads the line the way he wants it spoken is either a lousy director or is dealing with an amateur actor in desperation. What's more helpful is a descriptor of what the director wants: "More intense." "Pivotal to the scene." You can communicate that through an interpreter. After all, Sergio Leone did it early in Eastwood's own career... |
| turrell |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 04:35:09
Eastwood is a master planner - he almost always brings his films in under budget and on time - I assum in this case he knew every shot he wanted well in advance and bypassed most of the technical stuff by being so prepared. And then for the big variable - acting - as Baffy said likely between translators and Japanes speaking script editors he knew if the lines were correct and and in language he could see if the emotion was playing out correctly.
His efficiency is why he is able to turn out so many high qulity films year after year. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/10/2007 : 07:46:56
quote:
Originally posted by bife
I am curious as to how Eastwood was able to effectively direct a film shot in a language he presuambly doesn't understand. It would be interesting to get a Japanese perspective on this - whether he 'accepted' scenes in Japanese that he would have reshot in English, as his appreciation of the expressions/tones of the Japanese actors must have been impacted by him not understanding them. To an English-speaker at least, though, the acting came across very well.
Just what I wondered when he was up for Best Director. It would be interesting to know the process.
Edit: Sorry, didn't see Bafta's post when I made this one. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 06/10/2007 : 07:35:43
quote:
Originally posted by bife
I am curious as to how Eastwood was able to effectively direct a film shot in a language he presuambly doesn't understand. It would be interesting to get a Japanese perspective on this - whether he 'accepted' scenes in Japanese that he would have reshot in English, as his appreciation of the expressions/tones of the Japanese actors must have been impacted by him not understanding them. To an English-speaker at least, though, the acting came across very well.
Of course I wasn't on Eastwood's set, but I can't think he works in a vastly different way from other careful and discerning directors working in a language they don't speak.
Don't forget that directors are never alone alone with the actors when they shoot [teensy-budget apart] ... and if you search the extensive end titles on this one you'll find assistants and translators and advisers and a bunch of Japanese crew any and all of whom CE would have consulted.
I'm also not sure whether CE works with playback, but that would be an instant opportunity for him and his advisers to note anomalies in acting, sound, camera work, etc during each actual take.
Since he has such control over the film Eastwood would have been working with native Japanese speakers during both the scripting and casting process. So even before he got on set he'll have been confident of choices that could deliver his vision. Such a meticulous director as CE will undoubtedly have already been familiar with the work of some of his main players -- Watanabe for a start!
The editing process, too, affords opportunity to adjust ... pictures of this budget rarely rely on just one take of a shot. But, the question I believe you're asking has to do with how someone can determine an performance even though they don't share a common language.
If you know how to assess good acting, it transcends language. You can test yourself by watching a foreign-language film without subtitles ... you'll be able to tell, I promise! Good acting is about creating the illusion of believable human beings using every tool in the actor's repertoire.
If, on the off chance, you're asking whether Eastwood would be able to tell if an actor were saying a line with the same intonation he hears in his head ... well, that's not the way good directors or actors work. If a director - whatever the language - is telling an actor how to say something - first of all s/he doesn't understand the process of acting, doesn't trust his actors, and more importantly doesn't trust him/herself to let them do their work. Sadly, there are far too many of those around -- usually newbies who combine ignorance with arrogance. Happily they usually don't get very far in the biz --- well, either that or they end up working in cgi-land forever  
Sorry to ramble on -- but you did ask! 
Hope this helps
|
| bife |
Posted - 06/10/2007 : 07:04:55
I usually catch up on most of my film watching during trips to the US. Singapore Airlines generally has a pretty good line-up of 70 or so films on offer, and I usually get through 6 to 10 films during a return trip.
I flew last week to Portland via LA, and this month's line up looked, I thought, very week. Plenty of pop-fare; Shooter, Norbit, Wild Hogs etc etc, but lacking anything appealing to me.
The first four that I watched on the outward leg were all 'middling to good' (even Shooter turned out to be just about bearable), but I didn't have any confidence that I'd left anything decent for the return trip.
Turns out, though, that three of the best films I have ever seen were waiting for me.
Now it is true that my opinion of films watched jetlagged on a return flight while everybody else is sleeping can often be skewed; complex films can be too hard to follow and simplistic films can be overly welcomed due to the lower concentration required.
But I am pretty sure that Letters from Iwo Jima and Pan's Labyrinth will both stand up to a second viewing and still pass as 'classics'.
Both were subtitled, which normally makes them harder to follow and less suitable for airline viewing, but both were riveting, thought provoking and touching.
I am curious as to how Eastwood was able to effectively direct a film shot in a language he presuambly doesn't understand. It would be interesting to get a Japanese perspective on this - whether he 'accepted' scenes in Japanese that he would have reshot in English, as his appreciation of the expressions/tones of the Japanese actors must have been impacted by him not understanding them. To an English-speaker at least, though, the acting came across very well.
I want to see Bridge to Terabithia again - not sure this one holds up to a change in circumstances quite as well, but it had me almost in tears. Luckily it was very dark and my wife wasn't sitting next to me - I'd never have heard the end of it otherwise
Edit: for anyone interested (don't know why you would be), here's the eight movies that kept me occupied |
|
|
