![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
One of the films I enjoyed in Melbourne in 2001 was Amores Perros - which translates into something like "Life's a Bitch" or "Love's a Bitch". Somewhat like Pulp Fiction and Go it eschewed linear order in favour of telling several interlocking stories. A cameo in one story is the protagonist in another and so on.
This film, English language rather than Mexican-Spanish, is more ensemble, but, rather like Soderbergh's The Limey gives the impression that the editor dropped all the cans of film and lost the correct order for them. The question is whether it's worth the attention you then need to give it. He's no Tarkovsky.
Benicio Del Toro is driving home when he runs over Danny Huston whose heart goes to a sick Sean Penn who decides he wants to find Naomi Watts the widow of Huston who wants revenge on Del Toro whilst Clea DuVall auditions for Carnivale. Del Toro's Jack is a Judas figure, the betrayer, whose fall is necessary for Penn's Paul to be raised from the dead - although he like Christ presumably doesn't have long for this world.
It's very bleak, and any redemption in the form of love or sex is at a cost. It's Hollywood Arthouse, really. Would we care less if it were told in linear order. Sure not I'm.
Edit: Apparently it's an example of hyperlink cinema:
"The genre was generally identified as such in 2005 with Syriana, though its development can be traced back to the beginning of cinema, starting from 1975." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink_cinema
Does cinema really go back as far as 1975? I mean, that's pre Star Wars.
This film, English language rather than Mexican-Spanish, is more ensemble, but, rather like Soderbergh's The Limey gives the impression that the editor dropped all the cans of film and lost the correct order for them. The question is whether it's worth the attention you then need to give it. He's no Tarkovsky.
Benicio Del Toro is driving home when he runs over Danny Huston whose heart goes to a sick Sean Penn who decides he wants to find Naomi Watts the widow of Huston who wants revenge on Del Toro whilst Clea DuVall auditions for Carnivale. Del Toro's Jack is a Judas figure, the betrayer, whose fall is necessary for Penn's Paul to be raised from the dead - although he like Christ presumably doesn't have long for this world.
It's very bleak, and any redemption in the form of love or sex is at a cost. It's Hollywood Arthouse, really. Would we care less if it were told in linear order. Sure not I'm.
Edit: Apparently it's an example of hyperlink cinema:
"The genre was generally identified as such in 2005 with Syriana, though its development can be traced back to the beginning of cinema, starting from 1975." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink_cinema
Does cinema really go back as far as 1975? I mean, that's pre Star Wars.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Would we care less if it were told in linear order.
That's a pretty pointless question, isn't it? We are talking about a concious artistic descision. Would it have been different if it was made differently? Well yeah.
back to the beginning of cinema, starting from 1975.
Awesome.
From:
no subject
But we do talk about artistic decisions all the time (well not all the time, sometimes we're ordering pizzas but you get the rhetoric). There are a lot of single continuous takes in Children of God and ten (disguised as five) in Rope - were those the right decisions? There's one in Atonement which I saw this afternoon, and it simply added to my sense of unease. I suppose I was asking if Iñárritu needed to make it so blkoody complicated. Sometimes artistic decisions obscure the banal. (Although 21 Grams wasn't banal.)