Cubase Sx3 Mac Dongle

Since we must do ... (2)

Continuation and conclusion thus:

In The Mood For Love (2000, Wong Kar-Wai)

Speaking of Bergman, Godard said that there are certain films for which we have to say that approxi: "It the best movies! "And that would be enough. "The truth is their truth. They carry deep within themselves, and yet, the screen splits to each plan to sow to the wind. Tell them: this is the most beautiful films, says it all. (Bergmanorama, Cahiers du Cinema, July 1958) This could be written for In the Mood For Love ; and most films on this list actually, but particularly for Wong Kar-Wai.

The truth of In the Mood For Love is simple, that is, it tends toward the eternal. From a modest gaze but sensual, Kar Wai presents the greatest despair in love, we are sharing all the claustrophobia of an impossible love, with blows of role play and mirror splitting, a framework through gestures and stopping halfway. The staging is traditional and eloquent, each scene is a great assembly and spatial relationship. Just see this scene in a cafe, meeting encounter between two lovers, the first third of the film: he first speaks of her handbag, the plan is remote, as the conversation. But the question on the bag is not quite trivial, he would like to have that for his wife. At this word, "my wife", the plan changes to get closer to her cup of coffee to his lips, looking up at him. It is isolated in the plan. Follows a reverse-field, where they both remain alone in the frame, because through this banal discussion clumsily hides these feelings that neither one nor the other dare not express. Until announces that it wants to turn to ask a question: the camera pans quickly towards him, looks up at her. The sudden movement of the camera translates his emotions, his heart beating suddenly while hoping that she will ask. At the same time, for us this panoramic viewer raises the tension by emphasizing the value of this question, the unspoken words in the dialogues is in the image. But she inquired as to his tie, the conversation resumed and the reverse-field which isolates ditto. Their discussion, however, tends to find their common points, they seek to get by evoking their respective wives and husbands ("My wife in the same bag, my husband at the same tie), but the images and editing shows very well that these words are used instead to remove them, or rather the distance of their love. Thus, always separated by a door, a mirror assembly, when finally a hand approaches another, when the head lands on a shoulder, if that contact brief and simple exalts all their pent-up passion. Indeed, it is the most beautiful films.


Werckmeister Harmonies (2000, Bela Tarr)

"We ask the question: on what basis our belief that a harmonic order which relate all final masterpieces really exists? It follows that we should not talk about research, but recognition anti-musical musical, a scandal hidden for centuries, particularly desperate, and we will reveal. Hence this shameful situation, like what all the intervals of the musical masterpieces of centuries are inherently false. This means that the musical expression, the magic of harmony and consonance, is entirely built on false foundations. Yes no doubt we must speak of fraud, although some undecided people are content to talk of compromise. But this compromise is that when the majority of pure musical tone is a mere illusion and that truth, the real pure intervals do not even exist? "That's what

are Werckmeister harmonies for Eszter, a character in the film Tarr: an art fraud. Specifically, he speaks of the range to equal temperament divides the octave into twelve equal segments, the most popular line in the West today, that in fact that is used routinely now for almost two centuries. However, it is simply an agreement: hearing today a part of the 16th century, played by instruments as awarded at the time, as it was headed, and we could not suffer very long that we seem to be a festival of dissonance the instruments and even voices would sound fake. The scandal speaks Eszter is in two stages, first there's almost exclusive use of the tempered scale, ubiquity that educates our ears to a range at the expense of others, yet equally valid, and thus restricts the expressive possibilities of music. More importantly, according to this line says Eszter achieve harmony divine or heavenly, whereas before, with Pythagoras, for example, merely instruments granted "naturally" and even if we were to drop some keys, because we knew that "the harmonies are heavenly domain of the gods . "In arrogance, the man tried to grab all the harmonies, which the tempered scale would, in that it allows all conceivable modulations, but this division of the octave intervals creates distorted which, by Usually, our ears have become accustomed.

For Eszter, the issue is not just artistic, but also theological: it is God himself that we are cut off, or at least of His Creation of Nature, a God that we could not recognize if he deigned to show up. The whale stranded in the village center, is this God, this Nature, which only the main character, Valuska seems to recognize as such, only he stops in front of his eye to pierce the depths of metaphysics. He ends up in an asylum, while the whale is neglected, dying. In the opening scene, already Valuska create a ballet with drunks to simulate a solar eclipse. An eclipse is a moment of darkness occurs in the order of nature, a sort of temporary disruption of the harmony necessary for its maintenance. The scene brought Valuska as sensitive to this order of things, this natural harmony and metaphysics it supports, which is reinforced by its special relationship with the whale. The range in equal temperament imposes an arbitrary order to Nature to make it more pleasing to man, more convenient and easy to handle especially, but there is nothing really natural. The eclipse disturbs the order while in part, it creates disturbance and follies, but it is only temporary. The tempered scale, for now, is constant and there is no indication that we will soon return to a system using multiple lines, it is as if we set aside a whole section of Nature. Moreover, from a false premise, that range is trying to hide the eclipse, in that it enables man to touch all the harmonies, even those that were previously not allowed by instruments tuned naturally. There are two kinds: that of Nature, with its share of chaos, and that of man, which is madness, blindness, by its very nature.

Werckmeister Harmonies shows a moment of chaos, a village living a moment of insanity when the crowd seized the streets and ransacked a hospital madness arising from the mysterious appearance of a prince accompanying fairground. What should we infer from this? There is a natural order which man can not or should not break? Not really: the theory of Werckmeister has claim to mimic a cosmic order, or restore the system by a natural perfection that eludes the man otherwise. The failure of this range, or use, it is this claim to perfection, this desire to match nature then it is only one facet. As long as man is not more modest, says Tarr, as it ignores a part of nature, as obvious as it is, like a whale in the center of a village, he is the victim of folly. Moreover, political systems like communism are not they, in fact, ideas that are meant pure, who profess allegiance to a natural order and justified historically, and that ultimately, as in Hungary and the Balkans, for derail completely? The surreal atmosphere of the film seems less likely for a Hungarian citizen, there is something that takes him to the everyday; but the tempered scale, is it not as a cultural reality?

It is customary to say that Tarr runs clips from ten minutes of scorching virtuosity (he would do more, but the Kodak censorship forcing him this time he says), his director of photography is of the most beautiful, his films are exquisite slowness, Werckmeister Harmonies creates an atmosphere gently surreal, David Lynch said some (but not the two filmmakers share a dreamlike perfume). It should say, more importantly, Tarr seems to reach such a formal perfection that one wonders whether it also is not trying to compete with God.


Elephant (2003, Gus Van Sant)

It's been a while since I want to talk about this film, because of several topics discussed here, the relationship of film to reality and abjection rivetienne in particular, I'll probably end up putting myself more seriously than in this short exegesis. For now, note the relationship with Kracauer, as Still Life, not only for the allegory of the Medusa ( Elephant allowing us to conceive the horror of real crimes), but also in its simple relationship to reality. At first mannerist, with its slow, its plans for scrolling clouds and impressionistic soundtrack, Van Sant is actually closer to reality. Unlike the Polytechnique de Villeneuve, for example, Van Sant never try to give meaning to events, it does not use an interpretation (in feminism Villeneuve) to construct his film, instead it has all without prefer one or the other (violent video games, teenagers rejected by others, negligent or absent parents, etc.). In this sense, it retains a certain authenticity of the real, in that it deforms do not fit into a specific pattern. There was a general feeling of this fantastic film that presented the real remains senseless until the end. The characteristic of fantasy is precisely that ambiguity, irresolution: the ghost is not fantastic, but its supposed manifestations, when we hesitate between the supernatural and the assumption of madness. At the end of Elephant, this sense of irresolution is present, something happened that we can not understand and nothing has been done to bring us a satisfactory understanding of track. If we come away overwhelmed Polytechnic is because the topic has been hammered for an hour, because the killer was elected to represent the oppression of women by men is because that 'as a man (in my case) you feel constantly assaulted. But also and especially because this idea is devilishly simplistic, it is a symbol on an event to try to identify more or less arbitrarily. Polytechnic does not call into question this idea has been around for twenty years and he forgets what is real, it can not address than through an ideology that inevitably leads us away from what happened that day. This is not a question of mere reconstruction of the facts, maybe all the gestures are strictly faithful to the real (and I doubt it unimportant), but there is a way to transpose, the film and especially the structure that undermines any sense of reality. What bothers finally in Polytechnic , this is not the events themselves, but this ideology that tries to convince us they support. The feeling fantastic in this film is zero, Villeneuve was clearly resolved and chosen his camp, be it supernatural or madness or whatever.

But I speak of Elephant: I dare say this reality, and particularly events such as those represented in these films. They are fantastic in nature and therefore terribly distressing. Coming out of Elephant, we are not dull like stunned and out of Polytechnic, we are rather anxious in fact, absent from feeling Polytechnic. Specifically, the film does not take us down, as do the hammering of Villeneuve, but upwards. We have the impression of touching lives in Van Sant's film, there's a grace in the staging that is transmitted to the characters and gives them a pardon. In theories of literary fantasy, symbolism can escape the anguish: the ghost is not only factually be foolish, but also ideologically, he does not represent something, or anxiety is soothed by the intellectual game . Leaving aside all symbolism, Van Sant keeps the anxiety remains intact and closer to humans. He did not need a pool of blood rude to tell us what an idiocy as the executioner and the victim is the same thing, its staging, focusing on each character with much attention, so give them equal value. The problems they experience each and every one are also transferable from one to another, we are entitled to a general portrait of adolescence. As a result, Van Sant does not say that the executioner and the victim are interchangeable or two victims of something bigger than themselves, but they are also human. If symptoms of each are equally applicable to the other is that the actions in response are also: some take up arms, others swallow their pain. Both answers are just as humanly possible and if the use of weapons is reprehensible, gesture human remains before being ideological. Therefore

of Elephant we can say that it is a "great film", despite the subject matter or even through, thanks to the distance not just ideological, but respectful that the film employs. Beauty is not just about "beautiful shots" beauty comes first and foremost an ethic, which obviously is embodied in an aesthetic. Elephant is a beautiful film because it is morally right, that is to say closer to this reality that allows us to scrutinize.


Mulholland Dr. (2001, David Lynch)

Unfortunately for us, Lynch has been very little presence in the 2000s. We have at least left his greatest film, one of the strongest reflections and most original on the dream factory that is Hollywood. At first disconcerting, Mulholland Dr. is still easier to decode than Lost Highway or Inland Empire. Lynch played again on a double world, one dream and reality, an unconscious (or subconscious) and a conscious, there is no opposition between these two sides, there is rather interpenetration and entanglement. The first part is a dream, he dreamed by a young woman trying her luck in Hollywood, but is crushed by lack of talent. It is suspected that she expects to be an actress because she won a jitterbug dance contest (where the little old sneering accompanied dance steps) takes the lead to disillusionment hire a hitman to kill his lover and her rival. This story, he must decode the second part built by flashbacks, is not so important to understand, the dream that inspired it, the atmosphere that accompanies most importantly, is eloquent enough. Understand the plot of the film is secondary Lynch, know exactly how the key is found on the bedside table Naomi Watts for example, is useless, what to take is that this key indicates that the killer character in she agreed to perform his contract, and that this key, transposed in the dream, opens a Pandora's box. The second part gives us clues to interpret the dream, but most lies in the dream itself, that is to say the atmosphere evoked by the Hollywood dream and become disoriented nightmare.

By Club Silencio scene, Lynch reveals his art: everything is illusion, everything is magic in the cinema. By revealing the artifice film to us as the characters, Lynch shattered dreams and back to reality, it's time that we will switch from one to another. The character of Naomi Watts, the dreamer, his dream is to play in all aspects of its reality (the Wizard of Oz say, referenced Wild At Heart in ), she tries to give the starring role she can not hold in reality. His dream is the film that Lynch gives us, in that dreams and movies are synonymous, it plays on the codes Hollywood, marrying genres, he gradually perverted the dream of his heroine (so Hollywood) and finally destroy it. As in Blue Velvet there by an interior and exterior (dream vs. reality, conscious vs. subconscious), a world below which resurfaced in time to recall its existence. Hollywood has long been applied to push this as much as possible below, hence the idea entertainment or escape, but Lynch deconstructs the myth to show the ugly workings. Ultimately, this may seem like stereotypical way, the wicked decadent Hollywood upside for happy endings it offers, but the proof is terribly clever and resourceful. The last shot of the film is a reminder of the Club Silencio, therefore the artifice of cinema that Lynch admonition for us to take us back to reality, ours this time, he invites us to draw a parallel with his film. Mulholland Dr. is built on the twin, the perfect party responds to the real part, but the film is essentially a dream, the whole movie that reflects our reality. We must never forget that dream a reality emerges, that fiction has its basis in reality. Forget the dichotomy fiction - real as we often imposes, it is false, and Lynch reminds us constantly.


Tropical Malady (2004, Apichatpong Weerasethakul)

My number one without hesitation, and this since the first viewing at the FNC. The decade was marked by Asia, whether for films in the extreme Miike, rediscovered classicism a Johnny To (no room for him, unfortunately in this list), or this movie extremely slow, contemplative desire, who is darling of festivals and film buffs for some time (missing elsewhere Hirokazu Kore- Eda and Hou Hsiao-Hsien to my list). Apichatpong Weerasethakul, or my friend Joe is the weirdest and most audacious of these filmmakers slowly. The second part of Tropical Malady for me is the narrative cinema who discovers a new path for the virtual abandonment of figuration. The film is cut in half, literally, to break the lights come back in the room for a few moments before the film resumes, as if the film had broken. The second part opens on a new generation, a new aesthetic, giving the impression that the projectionist had the wrong reel, then the correspondence we appear, the allegory is revealed. Note that there is a similarity here with Mulholland Dr. in the construction of narrative, both of which are divided into two, the second part from light, shade, first metaphorically, while both playing on the dream. The second part of Tropical Malady is not really a dream, but it bears all characteristics, the Eastern tale of rare beauty set in a dreamlike atmosphere enchanting. Where Joe stands for Lynch, it is through this abstraction, this abandonment of the human figure (one could always say that the concept of narrative in Lynch is also pretty abstract at times).

Like to In The Mood For Love, Tropical Malady casts a sensual love, each plan breathes desire. The first part shows the budding romance between two young men, most classical, the staging is based on discrete actions to raise tension between the protagonists, until rupture of the film, while one of them disappears mysteriously in the dark to face ... what? A demon inside a repressed homosexuality maybe he should give himself fully to tame her lover? Or is it the waltz love itself becomes chase, the game of seduction transposed into the prey and the predator whose roles are interchangeable, which eventually meet in a final plan to the mystical beauty lightning, as if this tension subsided between the tiger and the soldier was that of love itself? In the experience, especially, that is the answer, in this scene so sensual, languorous in these plans and the soothing sound that evoke the splendor of mesmerizing love.

In the jungle Tropical Malady, the body of man merges into the wild, at times he seems to disappear completely in the dense tangle of vegetation as his silhouette is incorporated into the composition of the images c ' Here is what I call the abandonment of figuration, the film becomes an array of lines and shapes moving, accompanied by a soundtrack using the ultra-rich cyclic repetition of certain sounds to create a nocturnal haunting rhythm. Syndromes and a Century , the latest film by Joe, is structured similarly, abstraction is also included, among others in this plan than ten minutes from a pipe spewing smoke, again with a job hallucinating on the sound (note also that this list includes a majority of films are distinguished by their stunning sound processing). So there in the work of Joe in a new way of thinking about narrative cinema, hence its importance in this new century.

Difference Between Pointe And Ballet

Since we must do ... (1) Antichrist

... so do it well. What do we talk? List of course, one that should crown this decade. I therefore propose my top 10, in two parts, given the length of explanation. I wanted to avoid two to three words that are easy to categorize launches quickly without thinking too much and suggest rather a beginning of analysis, a line of thought, brainstorm that maybe I will finish later. Whenever possible, however, have not seen some of these movies from their theatrical releases. The length of the text accompanying each film has nothing to do with their respective wealth, but more with my memory.

The order is more or less random, except for the first three, my pedestal of the decade. I do not like award titles and playing the comparison, it is really impossible to point with certainty the film of the decade, exercise is especially interesting in retrospect. The list serves as a benchmark, she portrays more of me elsewhere that in recent years because these choices are primarily personal. Finally, while I often criticize the abundance of lists that usually does not exceed their function consumerist (that I have not eaten yet and I'm told most?), This does not prevent me from reading them all and I dote. It is also to avoid falling into that same trap of the simple proposition My favorite cultural analysis to simple classification. Do not look, however, an image of the Noughties, a sociological portrait of the film which ends a decade, and any attempt to circumscribe the latest trends and it's all about heart strokes. So

:


I'm Not There (2007, Todd Haynes)

I'm Not There aptly title: this is not a film about Dylan, even though it it will be ubiquitous. Dylan is a pretext, the canvas from which Todd Haines continues his reflections on identity, and here especially on the identity of the artist in connection with the Others. Far From Heaven equally successful, working the same themes, the inability to really express themselves, prison identity is society, the difficulty of defining for others. "Hell is other people" is the phrase that Haines continues to work from film to film. The

(the) character (s) I'm Not There represent various facets of the same personality is bursting a protagonist in some of its manifestations, but it is not real facets of this artist, rather than those that the company has stuck. There is this unforgettable piece of bravery that summarizes the whole movie, the artwork and the deconstruction of the song Ballad of a Thin Man: Haynes started the sequence by using images explicitly the words of Dylan, it connects to interpretation in fact, the critic played by Greenwood. It feels personally targeted by Jude Dylan, he is put in a cage as critical in a cage by the artist's interpretations: You hand in your ticket And you go watch the Geek Immediately Who walks up to you When he hears you speak And says, "How Does It Feel To Be Such A freak? "For the character of Greenwood, the geek is the artist who exhibited normally takes revenge by turning in turn critical freak like Jude likes to do justly, responding to criticism by other issues , by denying him the right to impose an interpretation, therefore an identity. Then the song stops, and Haynes destroyed everything he has just built: suddenly, the Black Panthers appropriate the song and reverses the interpretation of the critic (the freak, it's blacks ). Who is right? Both interpretations are allowed, and both trap if the artist by looking after it too much to comply with these imposed identities. Dylan, in fact, attempts throughout his career to escape the conventional identities, he plays with them to better thwart them, but society does not want an elusive artist, she wants to categorize, identify, to better assimilate . These identities imposed stifling, where the character of Richard Gere, representation of the artist who seeks to escape from society by taking refuge in his own universe, where even there it will be chased (the dual character of Bruce Greenwood).

The staging works well, Pennebaker pastiche here, here and here Godard Fellini, seeking identity in these styles, seeking to define themselves through these references, these cinematic conventions. At the same time, these references are an illusion, a movie buff to catch if you will, as Dylan himself defies his critics, particularly Jude Cate Blanchett, since Haines is not identified nor Fellini nor to Pennebaker, it does not attempt to say "that's influenced me and who therefore constitute my identity as a filmmaker "He rather plays with cinematic codes to better deconstruct, like Dylan fingered folk, rock, blues, gospel, etc.. Dylan is not a folk singer or a rock singer, he is everything at once, none of that and more, I'm Not There is not a film of Fellini, Godard or there is all this both times, nothing of this and much more.


Still Life (2006, Jia Zhang Ke)

This title is false: on the contrary, in Zhang Ke, it is still in transition, straddling between a quaint world that is lost gradually in a modern world quietly fantastic. So filmmaker movement, change, Zhang Ke is a nostalgic look at a China that goes, whether under the weight of an exaggerated artificiality ( The World ) or water from a river whose level is that rise, result of a dam, so that in a modern Still Life literally drown her past. However, movement is slow, it does not reverse a world in one day, there is a shift patient and gradual, made by planes of infinite patience, attention to these subtle tremors of a world still surviving. An appearance of immobility, but in fact everything moves. Zhang Ke captures what is this fleeting transitional process, which means it is pure cinema, as is Kracauer we discussed here . This tells us that German critic's own film is to capture what's real can not be transmitted otherwise is to say, just a reality in motion. There is also a fantastic feeling in Zhang Ke, which occurs as a modern incomprehensible (monuments taking off, UFOs that streak the sky) as a daily newspaper that escapes us because of its everyday same one to which we Never wear attention, but here we are delivered in all its mysterious glory, as is Kracauer.

We shall see that the majority of that list of movies that play on the fantastic feeling when dealing with dual universe (fiction-reality dream-reality, identity-imposed real identity, former world-modern world, etc.. ) but all these films are far from any dualism: they are films on transition, on what is common to these apparently conflicting worlds. It is therefore of cinema.


Hidden (2005, Michael Haneke)

I have not seen the tape white, but I suspect it could replace Hidden . Haneke, in any case, must appear on all charts respectable. It is indeed the only filmmaker who can create suspense from still shots on an empty street. Is that in Hidden , we never know exactly what we watch, who filmed the images we see. Haneke plays so very clever on the concept of viewpoint to destabilize our viewing position and force us to be an active control, thus to participate more closely in the action, without the comfortable distance that we typically offers fiction.

Much has been said about the anti-colonial message Hidden on his denunciation of the oppression of the Algerians by France: George refuses to be responsible for the actions he has placed child, despite a repressed guilt, like France still refuses his responsibility vis-à-vis the current living conditions of immigrants. George child acting, however, not by racism but just like a child who wants to keep the attention of his parents is not to say that racism, precisely, is a childish reflex? George sees himself assailed by anonymous videos and drawings, his aggressive response is understandable, to some extent. Haneke is not the moralizing that often accused of being, his films are far more nuanced: the actions of George is wrong, he attacked a man from a half-proofs (link terrorism-Iraq is obvious), but at the same time we understand his behavior and we can not condemn him completely. The problem is that he refuses to admit his fault. This discreet handshake in the last shot of the film, between the son of George and Majid, almost imperceptible detail that has caused much ink, would not it an act of optimism for the next generation?

That would ignore the views of this picture, in Haneke's central concept: it is an overall plan and fixed length, recalling the original plan, so a video. This is not a plan omniscient and impersonal merely tell, there is an image shot by a protagonist, the same one (or perhaps another, whatever) who terrorizes George. It's like waking up the monster at the end of a horror film: the beast was believed buried, but she is alive. Who shoots? The unanswered question, which was often discussed. Consider this: the drama occurs unknown when a camera is pointed in a comfortable middle-class couple, their homes are piling up books and videos, their culture. Them, they are used to scan the other, from the comfort of these fictions, but this time they are no longer spectators, they are observed, and this reversal of position does not suit them, because they all have one something to hide at first, but also because they do not accept that call into question their lifestyle while they allow themselves to do good for others (George's attitude toward Majid shows well). Who wants some social conventions and upset by the video if this is Haneke himself? And is it not also specifically at the viewer that this camera is pointing?

The "Who shoots these videos? Is a typical MacGuffin, a lure that is used to link us to the story more conventional thriller. Interest is also the abrupt end tells us quite enough. Videos submitted to George used to wake his guilt, as the film itself seeks to arouse guilt French; even a clue as what Haneke could be the author of these videos. Strangely, there is an implicit criticism of the process itself: it is not videos that agonize as George, it is rather the designs that challenge personally. Haneke addresses a less ferocious on TV in this film and our desensitization to images, but this, in his usual, is not absent, when George and his wife discuss their missing son, he is back Plan-a TV that broadcasts news of the Third World. There are three possible interpretations of this plan, all related: the simplest is that parents are too focused on their personal problems and they forget the rest of the world, while the latter is a consequence, it the dilemma the viewer: what should he look at him, fiction Haneke on a couple in distress or disturbing imagery behind on authentic events? and finally, another consequence: how is it that our eye is hopelessly attracted to this TV in the background while we watch a fiction? Television therefore draws our attention, but at the same time we let in the background (the vast majority of spectators are to be ignored to focus on the couple), that its role: it entertains. This can not be simply a video image that George wakes up, it will be a drawing, image rather than an estate, because the flood of TV buries the difference in abundance, hides the meaning in the differentiation. Haneke's film, and all his movies, is trying to find the primary power of childlike, he wants to give the images a force that denies the television constantly. Considering the visceral impact of his films, one can say he succeeded very well.


Gran Torino (2008, Clint Eastwood)

This choice will probably appear less obvious, but it must be emphasized the impeccable work of Eastwood during this decade: Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby , Flags of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima , Changeling and now Invictus ; Eastwood ample dominates Hollywood. Gran Torino, perhaps less successful than others, remains his most personal and perhaps most important in its own mythology. He finished his career here as an actor with a rare grace and elegance. Eastwood reworks the same character from the Leone westerns, the character he honed role-role, or rather it is morally walk: unnamed killer, he gradually learns to distance themselves from the violence that has made its mark up Unforgiven final where violence is used reluctantly. Gran Torino is a reply to Unforgiven, Eastwood corrects the last time his work: the situation is the same, we must act of revenge because the enemy is too far gone, there will be a duel. In Unforgiven, Eastwood abandons violence that had pushed so far, but in Gran Torino Finally, he made the right choice, he refuses any violent act. The final Gran Torino is very moving in the context of the work of Eastwood and in this sense the symbolism quite supported (Christ figure, the actor who sacrifices himself) is not a caricature: not only the young Vietnamese Eastwood bequeathed his old tank is also to us viewers, it's not just Kowalski who sacrifices himself, Eastwood is itself means that we as his gift, which kills his character as it is officially issued at the end of its stroke which leaves us the way his last teaching. Gran Torino has its faults, but the last act of a player in the paths of the most important American filmography recently, one of the few stars who chose his roles and has worked to make us follow his own thinking and philosophical journey.


I Do not Want To Sleep Alone (2006, Tsai Ming-Liang)

This list is the movie that I remember the least, that I feel less able to analyzed. It seems that we as a problem of distributors Montreal, which seems to deny us our pleasures Asian constantly. To my knowledge, no Ming-liang have been screened in Montreal, outside festival and cinematheque. When will we see her Faces ? I still rage against the lack of Voyage du Ballon Rouge (Hou Hsiao-hsien) in our rooms, the DVD does not do justice to such a great movie, with its transfer botching missed the whole game about colors.

Enough wailing, the memory of this film is not so vague, some plans are embedded in me, but for the final, especially, that I retain the Ming-Liang over another (What time is it there? would equally have been part of this list): no sound, as water on the screen, then the three protagonists appear, drifting on the same mattress floating music takes off, more aesthetic emotion of the decade, a QED title and therefore the work of Ming-Liang, focusing on urban isolation. Need we say more? That Ming-Liang is the largest contemporary cameraman? Tati he revives his way to create subtle visual gags? He shoots better than anyone loneliness? He can embody the music on the screen, giving his pop songs with lyrics seemingly mundane reality and a truth most devastating? Through his paintings anecdotal, Ming-Liang created the best atmospheres bittersweet, he plays with the absurd (in the sense of Camus) and delusional behavior (back all the clocks in Taipei to Paris time) to discuss the modern disillusionment, making it the largest and most important contemporary filmmakers simply.

suite very soon ...