ardent-1
Joined Oct 2002
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews13
ardent-1's rating
American film critics tend to intellectualize their film reviews, which is not necessarily a bad thing BUT I often wonder who are they writing for? and WHO are they trying to impress? The answer to both of these questions as one Japanese film goer once remarked to me, is themselves. Take GOZU for example, no more a popcorn film to Japanese society as say a film by PIXAR is to American society. SERIOUSLY!
However the critics here(In America) will write things like..."unmistakably David Lynchian..." which I suppose in someway is inevitable but nevertheless boring. THEN what usually follows this is a quick reference to the filmmakers other films. You know the one he did in(2001) and the ones he did in(2002) and (2003) I suppose this is a way to compare his films (TAKASHI MIIKE) to his other ones. Perhaps even a way of trying to define him, just in case he is trying to define his own self(something critics will also make reference to)
The plain old truth is GOZU is GOZU. Perhaps this might not sound like the intellectual stimulation you were looking for when you embarked on this COMMENT but it is it's own film, something most critics don't get. Like an artist painting a canvas. Sure there is a style the artist stays with but HOW you MUST ask IS each painting the same? They are not, just the same dynamic use of color is...SO how is this applied to film? Well let's just say Takashi Miike uses the Miike technique. Which in this film this technique is applied with the usual aplomb by the director.
By the way...when they review David Lynch films in Japan there is no mention of his work being "unmistakably Takashi Miikian..." then again perhaps there should be.
However the critics here(In America) will write things like..."unmistakably David Lynchian..." which I suppose in someway is inevitable but nevertheless boring. THEN what usually follows this is a quick reference to the filmmakers other films. You know the one he did in(2001) and the ones he did in(2002) and (2003) I suppose this is a way to compare his films (TAKASHI MIIKE) to his other ones. Perhaps even a way of trying to define him, just in case he is trying to define his own self(something critics will also make reference to)
The plain old truth is GOZU is GOZU. Perhaps this might not sound like the intellectual stimulation you were looking for when you embarked on this COMMENT but it is it's own film, something most critics don't get. Like an artist painting a canvas. Sure there is a style the artist stays with but HOW you MUST ask IS each painting the same? They are not, just the same dynamic use of color is...SO how is this applied to film? Well let's just say Takashi Miike uses the Miike technique. Which in this film this technique is applied with the usual aplomb by the director.
By the way...when they review David Lynch films in Japan there is no mention of his work being "unmistakably Takashi Miikian..." then again perhaps there should be.
A wise man once said a great song becomes a picture in which you can imagine the words. Now imagine a visually created musical universe of individual thoughts, all created by the same words, the same song. I know that might sound a little heady but even a MUSICAL has dialogue; words.
Les Parapluies de Cherbourg, an unwise man once commented, WAS a musical, it is not! After a while of watching the film you forget the dialogue is entirely composed of song, and even though there were no songs that i went away humming from this picture, the images slowly became something other than film, and the songs became something other than song.
With Les Parapluies de Cherbourg, Jacques Demy created something entirely new, something no other film maker has been able to achieve with film and music. Sure the great silent films of cinema's early days were able to achieve an atmosphere of people worship to which the entire film making industry the world over still suffers and although there was no dialogue and very little music, sometimes accompanied live with the showing of the film, silent films were never as Magical as this, simply because i have watched a few... and we always knew we were watching a film no matter how impressionable we were...
Not only does Demy manage to create a world in which nothing is real seem real, he creates a place, love and a film along with A song that you wish were a part of. No!!! that isn't what I want to say...what I want to say is this... If you see this film it becomes a part of you and you will become a part of it. And as I like to think...in ALL the old cinema's and film festivals and private living rooms where this film could, can, and will be played... I know where ever it is showing it just isn't the same without me.
Les Parapluies de Cherbourg stands as the only film ever made that is its very own genre. Others may have tried...but what sense does any art make if it doesn't at least attempt to be something original?
Les Parapluies de Cherbourg, an unwise man once commented, WAS a musical, it is not! After a while of watching the film you forget the dialogue is entirely composed of song, and even though there were no songs that i went away humming from this picture, the images slowly became something other than film, and the songs became something other than song.
With Les Parapluies de Cherbourg, Jacques Demy created something entirely new, something no other film maker has been able to achieve with film and music. Sure the great silent films of cinema's early days were able to achieve an atmosphere of people worship to which the entire film making industry the world over still suffers and although there was no dialogue and very little music, sometimes accompanied live with the showing of the film, silent films were never as Magical as this, simply because i have watched a few... and we always knew we were watching a film no matter how impressionable we were...
Not only does Demy manage to create a world in which nothing is real seem real, he creates a place, love and a film along with A song that you wish were a part of. No!!! that isn't what I want to say...what I want to say is this... If you see this film it becomes a part of you and you will become a part of it. And as I like to think...in ALL the old cinema's and film festivals and private living rooms where this film could, can, and will be played... I know where ever it is showing it just isn't the same without me.
Les Parapluies de Cherbourg stands as the only film ever made that is its very own genre. Others may have tried...but what sense does any art make if it doesn't at least attempt to be something original?