Lives of Old Men
Three months I've been gone. I guess i'm crawling back to you, bloody and pathetic. Need someone to talk about my stupid life with. Please.
Two movies this week!
No Country for Old Men was freaking ruthless. Nothing about this movie bugged me, which is rare. So good looking, such interesting characters, srsly great acting. It felt much shorter than it was. I skipped the book when it was released because the plot synopsis sounded so boring. I guess I forgot it was Cormac McCarthy. I wouldn't be surprised if the Sheriff's monologues are straight McCarthy. Beats out... um..., this is the only good movie I've seen from this year.
I watched The Lives of Others last night while K was sewing Roman drapes, or something. Entertaining and interesting, but I have one big complaint. It's sentimentality almost destroys its authenticity. the depiction of the Stasi very nearly made me sick, until I realized that the film depicts its characters very two dimensionally, good or bad. This takes away the heft of realism and leaves you wondering what you believe. Like propaganda. I was curious about it, so I watched some of the special features. The director is like thirty, max. He was not among the persecuted artists. Not surprising. I don't think that you have to live through something to depict it successfully, but it may take a little more skill than was displayed in this one.
Man, that sounds really negative. I didn't dislike the movie. It actually ties in well with this crazy awesome book I've been reading, The Rest is Noise by Alex Ross. A history of the 20th century through the biographies and works of its greatest composers, Noise has long sections devoted to real artists that faced the sort of oppression that Lives of Others tries to be about. Shostakovich was semi-forced into the role of composer laureate for the Soviet Union and spent most of his life in fear. Aaron Copland was blacklisted here in the states for appearing to have communist friends (and for being gay). I'm only to about 1955, so I've still got a ways to go. I'll write it up good when I'm finished.
4 comments:
Unlike you, there is one thing that bugged my co-worker about No Country. The obvious thing that probably turns a lot of people off. He said up until that point, it was one of the best movies he'd seen, but now, he can't express how much he hates it. You know what part, right? I'm trying to avoid spoiling. Do you think others are that upset by the omission?
I think even I know what Clif is referring to, and I didn't see the movie. I hang around movie nerds, but don't happen to be one.
If I had seen it, I would be counting my lucky stars that "the omission" took place. This of course, is dependent upon me actually knowing what the hell you are talking about, which is perhaps unlikely.
I don't like fightin.
Oh, and also, I'm telling that old man that you put his pic on your blog and called him an old man.
Rude.
what omission? is it when Llewelyn gets killed? i just assumed it was how it happened in the book. since all of the murders are from Anton Chigurh's perspective. but i admit after seeing No Country again that the body of Llewelyn doesn't look like Llewelyn at all. Even the second time i was like 'that's not him' but he's got the same shirt. and Chigurh didn't kill him.
Post a Comment