Change Your Image
sirwax_alot
Reviews
What's Bugging Seth (2005)
Good first feature, and definitely worth a view.
I saw this film as a part of the SCC (Spiritual Cinema Circle) for the December volume. I've got to say, i liked it very much. Now, that is not to say that it was a MASTERWORK FROM A GENIUS FILMMAKER, but it was very, very thoughtful and very insightful. Was it cheezy? Sure. I can only think of 2 films on the SCC that aren't. What i thought was more important is that Eli tried to break new ground on a subject that is a little untouched on for the most part. And even more, i think that in the end, what the filmmaker did at the end of the film was the least stereotypical move i have seen in a good while from a relatively new writer/director.
There will be people who disagree with me on that point but, it is only an opinion. So. At times the acting was a bit student filmish, but, it his first, and, i'm guessing low budget. So, i sympathize there. There were a couple of lines or acting where i rolled my eyes at cliché, but for the most part they were fairly few and far between. My other beef was the framing and focus of some shots and scenes. Again sympathize, it's the dudes first, we can't all be great directors. All in all, good first feature, and definitely worth a view... or two. :)
Jag är nyfiken - En film i gult (1967)
Brilliant piece of film on film on film
I don't know how or why this film has a meager rating on IMDb. This film, accompanied by "I am Curious: Blue" is a masterwork.
The only thing that will let you down in this film is if you don't like the process of film, don't like psychology or if you were expecting hardcore pornographic ramming.
This isn't a film that you will want to watch to unwind; it's a film that you want to see like any other masterpiece, with time, attention and care.
******SUMMARIES, MAY CONTAIN A SPOILER OR TWO*******
The main thing about this film is that it blends the whole film, within a film thing, but it does it in such a way that sometimes you forget that the fictions aren't real.
The film is like many films in one:
1. A political documentary, about the social system in Sweden at the time. Which in a lot of ways are still relevant to today. Interviews done by a young woman named Lena.
2. A narrative about a filmmaker, Vilgot Sjoman, making a film... he deals with a relationship with his star in the film and how he should have never got involved with people he's supposed to work with.
3. The film that Vilgot is making. It's about a young woman named Lena(IE. #2), who is young and very politically active, she is making a documentary (IE. #1.). She is also a coming of age and into her sexuality, and the freedom of that.
The magnificence and sheer brilliance of "I am Curious: Yellow/Blue" is how these three elements are cut together. In one moment you are watching an interview about politics, and the next your watching what the interviewer is doing behind the scenes but does that so well that you sometimes forget that it is the narrative.
Another thing is the dynamic between "Yellow" and "Blue", which if you see one, you must see the other. "Blue" is not a sequel at all. I'll try to explain it best i can because to my knowledge, no other films have done it though it is a great technique.
Think of "Yellow" as a living thing, actual events in 14 scenes. A complete tale.
Think of "Blue" as all the things IN BETWEEN the 14 scenes in "Yellow" that you didn't see, that is a complete tale on it's own.
Essentially they are parallel films... the same story, told in two different ways.
It wasn't until i saw the first 30 minutes of "Blue" that i fully understood "Yellow"
I hope this was helpful for people who are being discouraged by various influences, because this film changed the way i looked at film.
thanks for your time.