CrocodileTears: "It's gotta be at least an 8."
No argument from me.
It's a gutsy film, it's got a backbone to it - a level of worked-through moral consistency and respect for the characters that's unusual. I'm not expressing that in a good way, I know. But it's not "promising" or anything, it's the work of a mature, serious mind, and the effect of that is much greater than fantastic style can achieve on its own. This is part of why I keep calling it a "real" film.
CrocodileTears: "I scored it very high."
Good. 10/10 is not too high for this. Maybe it's exactly right. And anyway this is the sort of film that deserves to have passionate fans.
I'm still jumping around in my reactions to Look Both Ways.
I have never seen this style of story-telling before. Sarah Watt seems to be a completely new thing. It's not just the devices, if I can call them that - the art, the quick successions of images - it's the angles things are filmed from, and the sound, and the overall pacing of the to-and-fro struggle.
(hands in the air, baffled) It needs more thought, and discussion. Maybe it will become clearer eventually.
All I can say now is "This is really, really good!!" - which is obviously true but not informative.
(laughing) Besides, the last movie (other than the sweet Jet Li movie Unleashed, which is quite different again) that really blew me away was The Island. So I'm going: "What is the light telling me?" (Michael Bay was using highly artificial lighting in a very stylised, symbolic way.) Sarah Watt didn't seem to want to do anything with the light. And: "These flocks of birds - such a big symbol! I should probably be taking this in some specific way." And yet I couldn't settle on anything specific. Yet you couldn't say Look Both Ways lacks for cleverness, it's just very different.
Justine Clarke as Meryl and William McInnes as Nick were solid, and I mean that in a good way. Good acting doesn't change, the character is credible or they're not. In this case, very credible. Nick seemed so real I could almost smell him, and have an exact sense of what his handshake would feel like. This was a guy deep in trouble, just as he should have been. (applause!)
Look Both Ways is a little beauty. People are going to treasure this for many years to come. I will.
reply
share
Cienna
19 years ago
The film had a lot of symbolism and humour.
The birds, homing pigeons. Perhaps reflecting Nick returning to his home. Now living in his father's shoes. Wishing he done more to help when his father was so ill. Feeling powerless in both situations.
The cricket match. Told he must block to save the outright defeat. Pointless in his current situation so he gets out going for the big slog.
I thought both Justine and Willian were terrific. So real.
I just hope that when I get the DVD they won't say the birds weren't real, that they were done with cgi.
reply
share
David_Blue
19 years ago
CrocodileTears: "The birds, homing pigeons. Perhaps reflecting Nick returning to his home."
Ta. I hadn't thought of that one.
CrocodileTears: "The cricket match. Told he must block to save the outright defeat. Pointless in his current situation so he gets out going for the big slog."
I missed that too! I just thought he was distracted.
But I thought it was a hoot when the other guy got his foot caught in the pram (baby carriage). Subtle - not. But it worked for me. :D
Unfortunately I can't remember his name, and none of these people seem to have given IMDb photos, but you know the one I mean.
CrocodileTears: "I thought both Justine and Willian were terrific. So real."
Yeah, definitely. They were the goods. And I liked the train driver and the widow too.
Normally I like big stars (or people who are obviously about to be stars), and I like them to act like stars. (I mean in terms of their star-y performances.) I think the classic example is Hugh Jackman, who I had never heard of before, as Wolverine in X-Men (2000). From the first moment you see him, not only is he 100% in character but he radiates "I am the star of this movie!" And it worked, it was of great benefit to the film that he could supply that.
But there's a time when it's immensely important to can the comedy and just be that character. This was that time. These were not flashy characters, and they were not feeling that flash. So you needed the main performances to be totally down to earth but still interesting. Which is what we got.
CrocodileTears: "I just hope that when I get the DVD they won't say the birds weren't real, that they were done with cgi."
(pokes tongue out at the cgi snob) Whatever works. Whatever works. (And if they were cgi, I couldn't tell either. I imagine they were real, though, just because filming the real thing would be cheap.)
reply
share
Cienna
19 years ago
I don't think the non-cricketing nations will get that going for the big slog scene.
I'm not really a cgi snob.
Just having a bit of a dig at some ducks from another film. It's a 'in' joke in case my online buddies are secretly stalking me.
If Hitchcock's "The Birds" was made now the cgi people could make it look real.
reply
share
thekimberleyclub
19 years ago
"If Hitchcock's "The Birds" was made now the cgi people could make it look real. "
I know this is getting off topic, but Hitchcock liked fakeness I believe, ie. really fake road backgrounds in car interior shots, I can't remember the exact reason, something about the "illusion" not really mattering or something. So I wonder if the "effects" in "The Birds" look "theatrical" for the same reason.
Sorry to be a picky film nerd, but some things were done that way for a reason.
reply
share
primitifcinema
18 years ago
Perhaps I missed the point but I am a big fan of offbeat and personal cinema (fellini, tarkovsky, bergmann, even the american indies -- hartley, haynes et al)
But this just seemed to be incredibly boring for me.
It read like an anti-smoking campaign with some patchy performances (sacha horler comes out alive) and wooden dialogue. It's easy to digest but there are just too many lazy devices. Pop songs over sequences, explanatory dialogue etc etc....
I like the animation. Wish the whole film had been that.
reply
share
Gemima
18 years ago
Yeah I'll go off the topic with you - there's a scene in Marnie (I think) where she's riding a horse, well pretending too in front of a projected background.
It is squirmishly, horribly, laughably fake looking. I was told that this looks so bad it simply couldn't have been an accident. Apparantly it was just part of Hitchcocks whole symbolism etc.
So yes - I've heard too that Hitchcock sometimes purposefully went for a fake feeling to certain scenes.
reply
share
Cienna
18 years ago
Yep. That's Marnie. I've just bought the DVD.
reply
share
Sagewhoknowsheronions
18 years ago
So you think it's possible they didn't really shoot the horse and I have been crying for nothing?
Yes, your online buddies are monitoring your CGI bird fetish CT!
No comment, but don't quote me!
reply
share