Cinematic Sunday

[icepixie]

Ow. Some friends from high school and I went bowling yesterday, and now I'm sore from my waist to my knees because I'm an old lady. Fun, but ow.

*

fiara and I saw Young Victoria this afternoon. It was good, but unevenly so.

The acting was excellent: Rupert Friend was charming as Prince Albert, Emily Blunt was convincing as independent-yet-girlish Victoria, and Miranda Richardson did a nice turn as the scheming mother with a hidden heart. The costumes and sets were also lovely.

The love story was well-paced, sweet, and nicely done all around. However, they seemed to have a hard time integrating the politics into that story. It ended up being unnecessarily confusing, I thought, but perhaps part of that is due to my ignorance; my knowledge of the Victorian political scene really doesn't pick up until the 1860s, and the movie ends in 1840. But for a big historical epic, it ran short; they could've profitably tacked on another half hour and avoided having to resort to screens full of text telling rather than showing how Victoria and Albert helped the poor, supported the arts, etc. etc.

I kept wondering what the significance of constantly seeing Victoria reflected in mirrors was. I have yet to figure out a good reason. One thought is that we were supposed to see her as a seen object, played with by her mother and Conroy. Then again, maybe the director just thought it looked cool.

Other than that, the cinematography was generally good; the editing, on the other hand, seemed a bit amateurish. There was more than one use of freeze frames, to which I went, "Didn't people last use these non-ironically twenty years ago?" Oh, well.

*

Continuing my sporadic attempt to catch up on some of the pop cultural milestones I've missed over the years,* I watched Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark tonight. I've been spoiled by The Mummy; I was expecting this to be like that one, and thus found it disappointingly dour. I guess that's the problem with watching the reinterpretation before the original.

Marion in particular just got kind of annoying. It was pretty obvious she was only in the movie to be the love interest rather than to contribute much of anything useful. (I guess she helps out in the firefight in Nepal. But then she gets kidnapped, and that's pretty much it for her independent action.) Maybe the point for 1981 was that she was there at all, and wasn't a screaming ninny, and it would take a few more decades to build up that kind of role into one who could kick as much ass as the male lead.


* Over the past five months or so, this has consisted of finally watching The Wizard of Oz, Footloose, Stage Door (debatably a pop culture reference point--although I recognized the calla lilies line--but a good movie nonetheless) and various Astaire/Rogers films. Oh, and The Awful Truth, but since it lived up to its title, I only managed the first thirty minutes before wandering away in boredom.

Comments

[serendipityxxi.livejournal.com]

I was pretty disappointed by the Indiana Jones series on the whole. It was okay but overall nothing special. There were better adventure movies to come out of the eighties, even the Chipmunks vs the Chipettes movie from 85 or so and I'm sure that borrowed heavily from the Indiana Jones set up. It's funny when the main female lead has more of an active role in a kids movie than in the one for grown ups. I feel like Indiana Jones himself wasn't a very dynamic character and they relied on Harrison Ford's acting to try to get away with that, but he just couldn't pull it off. The Mummy was definitely ten times better.

[eldivinomarques.livejournal.com]

I think the problem is that you didn't grow up watching them, and it's not the same watch the movies now (specially after have seen all the 'copies' like the Mummies series)than have seen and 'lived' them being a kid. I did and I'm a fan. Not a hardcore fan but I adore Indiana Jones, specially in the dark The Temple of Doom and I'm biggest fan of characters like Spalko from the last movie that, not being the best movie ever, made me remember the 'old times'. Oh, and sais this, I must add something more. Compare Indy to Mummy is not fair at all, it's like comparing Top Hat to any actual musical movie; perhaps the actual ones have better special effects or script, but it doesn't make them better. They may have a shinny appearence but they seriously lack of the essence that movies like Top Hat had and still have and, the same happens with Indy and any adventure movies. They may be thrilling but, in my humble opnion they are 'empty'.

[eldivinomarques.livejournal.com]

Oh, I forgot. With my previous post I didn't mean to say that movies like The Mummy and similar are bad, not at all, I just tried to say that they lacked of the spirit that the original had and, btw, yeah, Marion is annoying, very annoying lol but, as you well said, she was just there to be the love interest because in these movies, Indy is the main role... despite in the last movie they just screwed it up, and that's another story.*rolls eyes*

[icepixie]

Yeah, I think this movie loses a lot when divorced from its 1980s context. Too bad it's not possible to "unsee" something like The Mummy for a couple of hours in order to watch IJ without preconceptions.

Your comparison to Top Hat is an interesting one. To be honest, I don't think of the Astaire/Rogers films as "musicals" at all--to me, a "musical" is a Rogers and Hammerstein extravaganza that has a lot of singing, not a whole lot of dancing, and a fairly coherent plot. (Probably because they're what I grew up with.) A/R films to me are exquisite dance numbers and snarky banter held up by flimsy-yet-amusing plots and a bit of singing. Both kinds are great movies, but very different types of films.

[eldivinomarques.livejournal.com]

See? And I grew up watching FA/GR movies on tv since I was a kid and for me, despite they are not 'pure' musicals for you, if they sing and dance, they are musicals, or even musical/comedy if we want to define them better.

About Indy, well, it's all about tastes. You have your opinion, I have mine... so there is no use to fill these with posts as we will never change the other's point of view, lol

We may not agree, but I like to read about what other thinks about I subject I like.

[icepixie]

It's funny when the main female lead has more of an active role in a kids movie than in the one for grown ups.

Woooow. On the other hand, yay for teaching the kiddies about feminism?

I feel like Indiana Jones himself wasn't a very dynamic character and they relied on Harrison Ford's acting to try to get away with that, but he just couldn't pull it off.

That is kind of what it felt like. Honestly, he seemed more put-upon by the whole movie than anything else. I think there was a scene or two where he was supposed to be excited by the possibility of discovering this cool artifact, but he just seemed kinda bored.