Sonic Youth Gossip - View Single Post

!@#$%! · 03.30.2013, 06:13 PM

tom stoppard's anna karenina directed by some guy whp's name i don't remember

the trailer, at the movies, had looked spectacular, and i love the novel, and i like tom stoppard, so i HAD TO watch this.

at first it was QUITE FUCKING GRATING to adapt to the conceit that the whole movie is staged-- on a stage. kindasorta. at times the stage opens and you're in the fucking steppes. and then i thought: "oh, tom fucking stoppard, it's you and your fucking postmodernism you!" (that's the guy i was just talking about the otehr day who stuffed his plays with "theory," but i couldn't remember his name... well it is tom stoppard... anyway...)

so what happens here is that instead of getting some sort of realist recreation (like you had for example with fanny and alexander where the world is "there" in front of the camera) there is a fuckload of signifying, here. neither showing nor telling but rather "pointing at"-- bits of acting and staging that signify "here the person travels to the farm", "now they have moved to a restaurant", "and now these two are both horny." and there's a bunch of shots of little toy trains. kinda like an old godzilla movie. well, it's a kind of "telling", but it's quick.

it really breaks the conventions of narrative cinema and it's highly annoying...

...at first.

because, if you have read the novel, you know it's a massive motherfucker that takes forever to read (i read 1-2 chapters per day over a summer). and you know how movies adapt massive novels-- pick a thing or two, shine a light over it and obscure the rest, bam, it is done.

but here no! here every main piece of plot was covered! very little was missing! and this was done by-- signifyin'

****** SPOILERS GALORE NOW FURIOUSLY ENSUE **********

yes, tolstoy's disquisitions about oblonsky's calves weren't there; and levin's tortured dreams and meditations weren't spelled out word by word, but they were-- signified! you know what i mean? there was something always pointing at these things. so that if you knew the novel you could say "ah, here's where levin realizes he had been thinking wrong but living right" or, "oh shit, look at kitty's old dumb parents, all phegmy," etc.

******************SPOILERS NOW ENDED************

now how this looked like to someone with no knowledge of the novel whatsoever, i don't know. probably contrived and highly theatrical, like a baz luhrmann movie, and at times you almost expected them to break into song and dance, but fortunately (for me anyway) they didn't. regardless, all this posturing was still meaningful. plus, keira knightley's delicate neck/jawline and enormous canines are always fun to contemplate (as roland barthes made it clear-- the closeup is the reason for movies to exist).

so where was i going with this? oh yes. a high level of artificiality that serves the story well, i think. tom stoppard! you clever fucker!

the sets by the way were fucking exquisite.

3.5/5 maybe?? it was a long shot all along. and quite heroic. and it looks fucking great.

*******ONE LAST FAT SPOILER FOR THE ROAD *********

oh shit, i almost forgot-- the only part that really was lacking at the end and looked like fucking treason was they did not have vronsky going to war (in a train, of course, what else) and grinding his teeth full of deathwish. fuckers! that-- that was wrong, that. that! he doesn't just run away into the next pussy! not this time! hronged us you have with that wrong plot. does not compute. fuckers!

03.30.2013, 06:13 PM	#17018
!@#$%! invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: mars attacks Posts: 42,457	tom stoppard's anna karenina directed by some guy whp's name i don't remember the trailer, at the movies, had looked spectacular, and i love the novel, and i like tom stoppard, so i HAD TO watch this. at first it was QUITE FUCKING GRATING to adapt to the conceit that the whole movie is staged-- on a stage. kindasorta. at times the stage opens and you're in the fucking steppes. and then i thought: "oh, tom fucking stoppard, it's you and your fucking postmodernism you!" (that's the guy i was just talking about the otehr day who stuffed his plays with "theory," but i couldn't remember his name... well it is tom stoppard... anyway...) so what happens here is that instead of getting some sort of realist recreation (like you had for example with fanny and alexander where the world is "there" in front of the camera) there is a fuckload of signifying, here. neither showing nor telling but rather "pointing at"-- bits of acting and staging that signify "here the person travels to the farm", "now they have moved to a restaurant", "and now these two are both horny." and there's a bunch of shots of little toy trains. kinda like an old godzilla movie. well, it's a kind of "telling", but it's quick. it really breaks the conventions of narrative cinema and it's highly annoying... ...at first. because, if you have read the novel, you know it's a massive motherfucker that takes forever to read (i read 1-2 chapters per day over a summer). and you know how movies adapt massive novels-- pick a thing or two, shine a light over it and obscure the rest, bam, it is done. but here no! here every main piece of plot was covered! very little was missing! and this was done by-- signifyin' **** SPOILERS GALORE NOW FURIOUSLY ENSUE ****** yes, tolstoy's disquisitions about oblonsky's calves weren't there; and levin's tortured dreams and meditations weren't spelled out word by word, but they were-- signified! you know what i mean? there was something always pointing at these things. so that if you knew the novel you could say "ah, here's where levin realizes he had been thinking wrong but living right" or, "oh shit, look at kitty's old dumb parents, all phegmy," etc. **************SPOILERS NOW ENDED******** now how this looked like to someone with no knowledge of the novel whatsoever, i don't know. probably contrived and highly theatrical, like a baz luhrmann movie, and at times you almost expected them to break into song and dance, but fortunately (for me anyway) they didn't. regardless, all this posturing was still meaningful. plus, keira knightley's delicate neck/jawline and enormous canines are always fun to contemplate (as roland barthes made it clear-- the closeup is the reason for movies to exist). so where was i going with this? oh yes. a high level of artificiality that serves the story well, i think. tom stoppard! you clever fucker! the sets by the way were fucking exquisite. 3.5/5 maybe?? it was a long shot all along. and quite heroic. and it looks fucking great. ***ONE LAST FAT SPOILER FOR THE ROAD ******* oh shit, i almost forgot-- the only part that really was lacking at the end and looked like fucking treason was they did not have vronsky going to war (in a train, of course, what else) and grinding his teeth full of deathwish. fuckers! that-- that was wrong, that. that! he doesn't just run away into the next pussy! not this time! hronged us you have with that wrong plot. does not compute. fuckers!
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|