A Few Words on Oscar 2015

The numerous winners and nominees of this year’s Oscar have already planted their flags in Hollywood cinema, some contenders even have worldwide impact from their original works. A number of these deserve mentions, and it is worthwhile to look into their works and gain more insights on ‘how to do it great’.

Birdman – Best Motion Picture of the Year

Possibly one of the most visually ambitious films of the year, Birdman takes it big this year, with Best Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, and of course Best Cinematography. I have already devoted 2 blog entries in the past weeks to delineate such a fascinating film (this may be futile as the camera movement of the film is just turning round and round).  Iñárritu, director of Birdman, is a first-rate director who wants to capture a sense of realism that will resonate with the audience. That is why Birdman is shot in one continuous take, to afford a fluidity that can more reflect the microcosm of one introvert’s life. The main character is sort of a Ferris wheel, and the other characters are the passengers. These characters step in and walk out of the protagonist’s life experience, like theatre performers step in and out of the stage. One can simply not happen without the other.

If you are interested in Iñárritu’s work, I would also recommend ‘Amores Perros’ (2000), my introduction to this great director. Acclaimed as the ‘Mexican Pulp Fiction’, it is a beautifully crafted story that will inspire generations of cinestates.

Boyhood

Boyhood is a thoughtful film and a bit of a cliché. It is a film that has been shot for, like, 12 years! (is the director’s surname ‘Link-Later’?)  This obviously testifies to the perseverance of the crew and their passion to share this to the world. The winner for Supporting Actress, Patricia Arquette, is smashing here, but I will already remember her as Alabama in Tony Scott’s ‘True Romance’ (1993), for which the ‘talkie’ screenplay written by Tarantino. This smoky stuff has a passionate adventure with the Elvis Presley wannabe, and from her I learnt that word known as ‘monogamous’,  which is more likely a term you encounter in an Evolutionary Psychology textbook. If you are interested in Richard Linklater’s work, I would also recommend ‘Dazed And Confused’ (1993), a high school movie that is on Tarantino’s top 10, too.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Wes Anderson scored big this time, as The Grand Budapest Hotel took home Best Makeup, Production Design, Costume Design, Original Score. Wes Anderson has always been an interesting director. He has developed a highly unique visual style, and the secret here is you always have to look beyond the surface of his films (that is the funny part) and drill deeper into the hidden meanings. To me, it seems to be the case because he has stated that he is influenced by 2 film masters. The first is Luis Bunuel, whom Anderson is quoted to say that he has dreamt of Bunuel every other day, a bit less often than Mike Nichols maybe. Bunuel’s surreal masterpieces serve as appearances for which humanity’s unconscious desires and secrets are hidden therein. The second one is Shohei Imamura (今村昌平), who also depicts the contemporary Japanese society and at the same time evacuates the hidden underbellies and the greasy ‘truths’ of his culture. For me, I vividly remembered ‘The Royal Tenenbaums’ (2001), which Gene Hackman starred as the dodgy Granddad, and such as unusual blend of family members made the so-called Magnificent Ambersons sound like Mary Poppins! Wes is a great guy and his work contains spark of genius, for sure.  

Nightcrawler

Another mention goes to ‘Nightcrawler’ by Dan Gilroy, for which Jake Gyllenhaal stars as the hungry underdog who is also a free-lance journalist. Obviously this is a nice exercise in gritty realism, which I can think of another of my recent favorite, Ryan Gosling’s ‘Drive’ (2011), who is sort of a free-lance drive-away. Jake Gyllenhaal is cool, man, I am a big fan of him. You should also check out Prisoners (2013), in which Gyllenhaal is the sort of cop who can’t stop his eye flinching at all. Some calls this extravagant but I call that cool! Another flick you should go for is ‘End of Watch’ (2012), in which this ex-Marine hot head is literally diving into a dark complex where some like 20 AK-47s are blasting the hell out of him and his partner. I think he is on a roll!

Interstellar

We can simply not ignore Nolan’s ‘Interstellar’. It is a bit of a snub at the Award Season, but for the record, ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ didn’t get that many Oscar nominations back in 1968. They have a similar fate, too – winner of Best Visual Effects. Certain films may not be recognized artistically at the time it is first released, and it requires multiple viewings because you can start to fully appreciate the little secrets behind these masterpieces (Vertigo, Blade Runner are prime examples). Nolan is a genius for sure. He is quite willing to touch on complex areas such as Psychoanalysis and Cosmology, and these are complemented by his stunning visual style (with his claim of inspiration from Kubrick and Malick, I am not at all surprised). We will just have to be patient. Some years later, we may not remember any of the aforementioned films, but then we are still bewildered by ‘Interstellar’, something beyond our reach.

by Ed Law

23/02/2015

Film Analysis

The Renoir Legacy

‘Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette’ (1876)

In the realm of art, there are two ‘Renoirs’, who have stood the test of time and inspired generations of artists and filmmakers. The first is Pierre Auguste Renoir, one of the epitomes of French Impressionism in the late 19^th century. The second is Jean Renoir, the former Renoir’s second son. Jean Renoir has 2 modern classics under his wings: ‘The Grand Illusion’ (1937) and ‘The Rules of The Game’ (1939). While the two Renoirs appear to be descended from different schools of style - Impressionism for Pierre Auguste and Naturalism for Jean – interesting parallels can be observed from Pierre Auguste’s paintings and Jean’s films. Indeed, the young Jean was greatly benefited from an artistic upbringing and support from his family members, and his brothers all eventually accomplished in various artistic fields. Here, I share with you my personal observations of the ‘Two Renoirs’.

Pierre Auguste Renoir

Pierre Auguste Renoir

Orson Welles has once remarked, ‘For the high and mighty of the movie industry, a Renoir on the wall is the equivalent of a Rolls Royce in the garage.’ (1) While Renoir paintings have elevated their reputations to such monumental status, his pioneering style was not as well-received when his first paintings were distributed to the general public. He is seen as a major figure in French Impressionism, which represents a break-away from the more classical approach to painting at the time.  With revolutionary brush strokes and innovative uses of novel oil colours, their work reflect an intimate ‘warmth’ even when viewed from the distanced eyes of modern audience. The Impressionists were also committed to capture a stronger sense of realism in their paintings. For instance, a number of artists advocated the idea of ‘en plein air’ - painting outdoors - so as to capture a stronger coherence to the natural environment in their work. This style is reminiscent of later cinematic movements such as Italian Neorealism and the French New Wave, which also advocated on-location shooting to achieve a stronger realism and a more authentic reflection of the real lives.  

The Theater Box (1874). Man spying on woman, woman peeping on man.

Luncheon of the Boating Party (1880)

The Swing (1876)

‘Deep focus’ in Pierre Auguste Renoir’s paintings

Deep focus is a photographic technique that has reached legendary status in many of Jean Renoir and Orson Welles’ works. By placing the majority of characters or settings in focus for a given shot, the technique provides a holistic view of the setting, instead of a more subjective perspective that involves close-up shots or point-of-view shots. When I appreciate many of Pierre Auguste’s work, I am struck by the observation that a number of his works feature a ‘deep focus’ painting style, and the result is a far more holistic view and the subject (for example a party) becomes far more vivid and fresh. In ‘Luncheon of the Boating Party’ (1880), we can see the ten-or-so guests, the nice puppy, the wine bottles and glasses are all clear in focus, and this tight-knitted arrangement leads to a coherent unity and draws all the guests closer as a result. A lively mass dance is depicted in ‘Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette’ (1876), when a majority of the characters are drawn in clear details and they are seen interacting with each other. While one may argue that this work also has a shallow focus element – as there are hundreds of dancers at the back, Renoir still managed to instill some colorful details to the background. Even for a tighter arrangement like ‘The Swing’ (1876), that is comprised of two groups of four, the ‘deep focus’ approach is still possible. Indeed, for the composition here, I can see uncanny resemblance to the ‘contract arrangement’ scene in Welles’ ‘Citizen Kane’ (1941)!

The Artist's Family (1896)

Jean Renoir

Jean Renoir

Pierre Auguste’s second son, Jean, was born in 1894. Pierre Auguste’s family members and friends were often the subjects of his paintings, therefore a couple of famous paintings feature Jean the garçon. From these paintings, some lights could be shed about Jean’s childhood upbringing, which would significantly influence his cinematic vision in the later years. Jean has had very intimate relationship with his cousin Gabrielle Renard, who raised him and introduced him to many different facets of art, from puppet shows to the first movie he ever watched. To quote from Renoir’s autobiography, ‘She taught me to see the face behind the mask and the fraud behind the flourishes’. (2) That was his cousin who inspired him to look beyond the façades, and this was indeed the major theme of many of Renoir’s work (that is why I like him). While his father has also inspired and has encouraged him to engage in artistic activities, such as a brief stint in ceramics, Renoir has discovered his true love in Zola-esque Naturalism, for which he has adopted Zola’s literature work into a number of his films. On the other hand, Renoir was also highly inspired by Erich von Stroheim’s films, for which the dawning lights of ‘auteurism’ and ‘realism’ surfaced. Renoir and von Stroheim would eventually collaborate in 1937, when they filmed the one-of-a-kind war film known as ‘The Grand Illusion’. From all these influences, Jean Renoir has gone on to develop his unique ‘Renoir-esque Naturalism’, and also contributed significantly to the ‘Poetic Realism’ movement in the 1930s and 1940s. As of Poetic Realism, that is another story!

Gabrielle Renard and Jean Renoir.

An armed Jean Renoir.

Erich von Stroheim

Both Renoirs love the truth, and they have no reservations to pass that on with their stunning styles. To me, the word ‘Renoir’ signifies a touch of class.

By Ed Law

15/2/2015

以戲服人 Film Analysis - 34

Reference:

(1)  'Jean Renoir : The Greatest of All Directors', by Orson Welles. 18/2/1979, Los Angeles Times.

(2)  My Life and My Films, by Jean Renoir, 1974.

飛鳥俠 (Birdman) (下)

昨天說到，'飛鳥俠'獨特的拍攝手法， 令整部電影看似一個連續不斷的鏡頭 。 這當然算是一個創新的技術成就。 不過在我看來， ‘一shot直落’背後的意義， 並非只是單純地展示創新科技 － 這種拍攝手法其實跟飛鳥俠故事的哲理亦有莫大關係！

電影除了是由一個接近兩小時的shot组成之外, 導演亦運用了極具動感的運鏡風格。 觀眾隨着攝影機的足跡， 穿梭於代表虚幻的舞台， 車水馬龍的現實世界， 以至Riggan自己構想出來的科幻國度, 而且大家不時又會有一種天旋地轉的感覺。 在我看來， 一shot直落的拍法, 加強了故事的寫實感, 皆因生命中的每一件事都是絲絲入扣, 像一綫循環不息的迴索。 而且富動感的運鏡， 令到大家穿梭於不同的‘世界’， 使得虚幻和現實的分界變得含糊， 切合了電影背後的主題。 至於旋轉式的拍攝風格， 我覺得似在暗示主角把自己封鎖在自身的世界， 就像英語的'microcosm'一樣。 他沉醉在自己這個包含着虚幻建構和現實的自我世界， 跳着自己才聽見的圓舞曲。 他無法轉出自己的死胡同， 正面地面向世界。

人生如戲

‘飛鳥俠’最重要的mise-en-scene, 當然就是舞台! 我想導演利用了戲劇表演這個橋段, 其實是要去表現人性中'theatricality'這個概念。 在現實裏， 每個人都有自己的角色， 有一些角色可以令自己贏盡讚美； 但另外一些角色， 卻是‘可一不可再’。 對Riggan來說, 飛鳥俠是一個令其又愛又恨的角色。 Birdman在當年令他贏得了很多的認同, 甚至到現在其他人都只會記得他就是那位扮演飛鳥俠的演員。 他一心要脱離這個標籤， 但是現實中的不濟與這個過去存在了太大的反差, 就使他要面對片中的種種危機了。

飛鳥盡， 良弓藏？

一個人失去了他的利用價值時， 就會被人所遺忘。 如何面對這樣沉痛的回憶呢？ Riggan解决問題的方法, 似是幻想着飛鳥俠真的存在。 有評論者運用了心理學的觀點， 指出Riggan可能患上了妄想症 (片中的處理手法與'A Beautiful Mind' (2001) 的情況差不多)。 這的確是一個合理的看法 － 我覺得Riggan的角色亦似是有delusion of grandeur的情況。 這其實算是一種心理的防衛機制 (defensive mechanism) : 當面對着逆境所帶來的沉重壓力時, 人們都會把自己投射到一些更為堅強的角色, 以回復自己的信心, 這種情況藝術作品裏比比皆是。 例如在‘罪與罰’裏， 主角Raskonikov把自己幻想成拿破崙, 以達成自己的'殺人慾望'; 而在大衛連治的Mulholland Drive (2001)裏, Naomi Watts飾演的女主角亦把自己幻想成為著名的荷里冷活女星, 以在心靈上彌補現實中失敗的事業。 在Riggan的無意識裏， 他很想成為飛鳥俠，不過現狀的境况與這個理想存着極大的落差， 以至飛鳥俠不斷地控訴和嘲諷他。 就是這種現實和虚幻的衝突， 增添了戲劇的張力。 不過Riggan並不是孤島! 他的遭遇, 使我想走起了法國導演Jean Cocteau對 Orson Welles所下的一句評語 - 'an island surrounded by people'。 一方面Riggan要戰勝自己的心魔, 但同時都要與周圍的人交往, 才可以令自己重振雄風。 導演成功地塑造出多個寫實的角色， 每個角色都要面對自身的問題， 而性格上都各有獨特的陰暗面。 可悲的是， 這些角色都無法踏入Riggan的内心世界, 為他化解疑惑，使他變成了音樂盒子上那個不斷自轉的機械娃娃。 飛鳥俠看似是超级英雄， 但受導演的風格影響下， 實在是一部深切刻劃人性的佳作。

萬佛朝宗

飛鳥俠的故事採納了一種含糊的風格， 而結局更加是極具爭議性。 網上有很多不同的解讀， 大都甚具創意。 飛鳥俠的結局， 令我想起了Alan Parker在1984年電影Birdy中的最後一幕， 與飛鳥俠亦甚為相似 （大多數評論都認為主角Birdy患有亞氏保加症)。 在我看來， 飛鳥俠最後一幕包含着一種‘超越’（transcendence）的意義。  這就如莊子‘齊物論’裏齊萬物， 泯生死的説法一樣。Riggan的行為顯示他已經衝破生命和死亡的二元對立, 所以其實大家不必過份執着於一個絕對的意義! 這只是導演運用了一個具創意的手法, 去表達這種意思, 亦切合整套電影含糊的風格。 或者， 虚幻從來都不在現實的對立面上。

振翅高飛之際， 你又知道自己會飛住甚麼國度嗎？

（二之二）

by Ed Law

8/2/2015

以戲服人 Film Analysis - 33

飛鳥俠 (Birdman) （上）

人生如戲。 我們在每一場戲裏面， 都會竭力演好自己的角色。 每當在落幕之時， 總會有一些令自身感到驕傲的角色， 亦會有一些無法面對， 不願再次想起的爛角色。 何以在沉痛的過去和現實中取得平衡？ 這也許就是今年最優秀的電影之一 － '飛鳥俠' （Birdman) 裏面所探索的問題了!

故事的主角Riggan, 曾經以'飛鳥俠'一角贏得不少的掌聲。 不過巨星殞落之時， 卻令心魔釋出如絲似縷的陰霾。 一方面他希望演出舞台劇以重出江湖， 另一方面卻要抵受‘飛鳥俠’對他的冷笑。 他不是孤島 － 因為他也要面對各種不同的人物。 最終， 他真的把自己豁出去， 再度得到了陣陣掌聲。 萬佛朝宗之際， 又會不會是魂歸天國之時？ 相信剩下的， 只有Emma Stone那神祕的微笑。 ‘飛鳥俠’故事看似平平無奇， 而且它的包裝令不少人誤會為一齣超级英雄片， 不過片中其實蕴藏着豐富的心理學和哲學觀點。 尤其諷刺的是， 飾演主角的Michael Keaton, 其實就是九十年代'蝙蝠俠'系列的主角。 他在辭演後一直没有甚麼突出的表現， 飛鳥俠的故事可謂他的個人寫照， 亦可能是他從影以來的最大突破！

如果飛鳥俠最终可以名留青史， 那就一定和它的拍攝手法有關！ 本片的攝影師， 便是去年憑着‘引力邊緣’ （Gravity) 勇奪奥斯卡的Emmanuel Lubezki 。 他的前作都以使用long take手法而聞名。 而‘飛鳥俠’最特别的， 就是片中基本上完全没有剪接， 使觀眾在感官上覺得整套電影是連續的一場戲 （one continuous shot)。 這當然是一個艱巨的挑戰， 但又是否前無古人呢？ 非也！ 在1948年， 希治閣（Alfred Hitchcock)的奪命索(Rope)可能就是第一部接近完全用one continuous shot攝製的經典電影！說到奪命索， 其實在當時的技術是有頗高拍攝難度的。 因為一卷35mm的電影菲林, 只能拍攝大約十分鐘的影片。 ‘奪命索’片長大約八十分鐘， 那就意味着需要大约八卷菲林才可能完全拍攝所有場面。 所以嚴格來說， 此片並不能說是一個continuous shot 。 不過希治閣運用了極少的跳接和巧妙的過鏡技巧， 使觀眾都難以察覺到任何剪接的痕跡， 所以在感官上便以為整齣電影是一個連續的鏡頭了！ 由於‘飛鳥俠’是運用數碼技巧（digital)去攝製的, 所以就没有了'奪命索'所面對的問題了。 

科技助了一臂之力， 但是藝術問題還未解決！ 第一， ‘奪命索’的故事基本上只是發生在一間很小的房間裏， 但‘飛鳥俠’卻要轉換不同的場景； 第二， 導演Iñárritu的風格是十分dialogue-driven的, 這種拍攝手法又如何去調度電影的narrative dynamic呢? 關於第一個問題, 導演採用了一種極富動感的拍攝手法, 使觀眾可以輕易穿插於片中不同的場景。 這與電影大師Jean Renoir和Max Ophuls的風格可謂異曲同工。說到第二個問題， 其實現今拍攝對話的技巧， 往往偏於一個‘shot / reserve-angle shot'的手法。 那就是說每一幕鏡頭的焦點只放在其中一位對話者身上， 務求使觀眾都聚焦在那人身上。 當然， 這種技巧必需牽涉一連串的跳接。 但是怎麼可以把這些場景拍得較為有統攝性 （holistic) 呢? 美國電影大師威廉惠勒(William Wyler)的風格, 給予我們一個完滿的答案。 例如在The Best Years of Our Lives 的一場戲, 兩位男性角色在餐室裏對談。 那一幕的場景是接近對稱的， 而且Wyler用了深焦(deep focus)的手法, 使得兩個角色在這場戲中都有同等的重要性 （這種手法的意義， 在以後的文章再作詳談！）。  當然， 對話的場面是可以y用較為静態（static)的拍攝手法去處理。 諸如小津安二郎， 梅维爾， John Huston 等導演, 在處理對話的場面時都會用較為静態的手法, 镜頭距離往往是比中鏡更短， 而當然亦會運用很多’shot / reserve-angle shot’。 在‘飛鳥俠’裏， 情況卻是不盡如此。 因為拍攝的風格極具動感， 而且導演無心採取剪接的技巧， 所以片裏根本無法運用reverse shot的手法。 Iñárritu除了運用統攝性的攝影技巧外， 攝影機移動的方向性和速度亦深深影響了片中的narrative dynamic。 例如Riggan和女兒以吵架的一幕, 鏡頭用了接近一分鐘的時間聚焦在Emma Stone的角色身上, 不過鏡頭仍見輕微的動感， 微微晃動的鏡頭似在暗示之前染上毒瘾的女兒的浮躁情緒。 而在處理一些衝突的戲份時， 導演没有運用跳接的手法， 而是用了panning的手法, 加快了攝影機移動的速度, 把拍攝的焦點，由一個角色迅速地'飄移'到另一個角色身上。 ‘飛鳥俠’ 的魅力所在， 或許就是在這種難得一見的流暢動感上！

（二之一）

By Ed Law

7/2/2015

以戲服人 Film  Analysis – 33