Though the three movies are not all related to the class, I found it interesting that there have been three movies made in the recent past that concern the Apocalypse, and all of them take place in Britain (28 days later, Children of Men, and V for Vendetta. I also found it interesting that two of those movies portray the government in a very negative light.
Though Inarritu’s work with 21 Grams is stylistically very similar to the rest of his movies, his use of time seemed very different from either Babel or Amores Perros. Up until the very end, I found myself incredibly confused in trying to distinguish between present, past, and future. By not giving out substantial information for at least the first half of the movie, Inarritu once again plays with the expectations of the audience, though in other ways than with Babel. When significant information is actually given in a scene, that scene is followed by a flashback/flash-forward, and since we can’t distinguish the difference between them, we have no way of knowing whether the “information” applies or not. I found myself guessing my way through the movie up until near the end when all questions are answered. As an example, Inarritu shows the scene of the three people in the hotel room early on in the movie, though we are never told who shot the gun. Inarritu adds more and more to that seen as the movie rushes forward, but we never actually find out any of the information until the very end. Good technique for creating suspense.
What I found so interesting about Inarritu’s work is the way that he gives information to the audience. Throughout the movie, there are many moments in which we are led to believe that something will happen only to find out that it doesn’t. One thing that came up a lot in the Moroccan/American story was the concept of terrorism. I guess we could look at this from a post-9/11 point of view. One scene that I felt Inarritu used to play with our expectations was the very first one in the small Moroccan village. When Hassan brings the rifle to the family, he exchanges a few words with the father (none of which are subtitled.) He brings a gun into the house with the cartridges and explains that he can shoot a target up to 300 km away. Inarritu is very careful to never disclose the potential use for the gun until later in the scene. When I first watched it, I couldn’t help thinking myself, “what could they possibly need that rifle for?” Though we eventually find out that the need for the gun is innocent enough, the boys end up accidentally shooting a tourist, ironically causing America to go into a panic about terrorism.
Upon watching the movie again, I noticed a number of parallels between Ophelia and the rest of the world around her. Two specific quotes came to mind. The first scene was down in the labyrinth when the faun tells Ophelia that she is the Princess Moanna. Del Toro parallels this in the real world with the dress that Ophelia’s mother gives her. In reference to it, she says “you’ll look like a princess!” As another example, at the very beginning of the movie, Ophelia’s mother tells her she’s too young to be caught up in her silly fairy tales. Later on in the movie, as her mother is eating dinner with Captain Vidal, she tries to tell the story of how they met. Captain Vidal responds with ”you must excuse my wife. She hasn’t been exposed to the real world, and still thinks that people actually want to hear these silly stories.” While Ophelia and her mother have different views on life, in many ways they are the same. Looking at these parallels, it seems clear to me that both women would like to believe in a better world, or a fantasy world, if you will. Carmen has just been disillusioned by the realities of Franco Spain. We could even imagine that Ophelia is perhaps a spitting image of Carmen when she was that age.
As Prof. O’Connor noted in class, the concept of fantasy, or the fantastic, as it’s described theoretically, plays a huge role here. Throughout the movie, del Toro plays with the idea of fairytale vs. reality. Is the fairytale really happening? He allows the fairytales to s seep into reality every now and then, making us question whether what we see is actually happening, or just in the Ophelia’s imagination. An excellent example is when Captain Vidal finds the mandrake root underneath the bed. Naturally, it’s part of the fairytale, but if it is, and Ophelia is getting carried away with her imagination, how can he see it? Even at the very end, we’re never really sure whether the fairytale happened or not. At the end of the movie, in the labyrinth, the captain can’t see the faun she’s talking to, so does that mean it doesn’t actually exist? If it weren’t for the incident with the mandrake root, that could seem plausible… if the fairytale didn’t exist, then how did she escape from her locked bedroom to steal her baby brother? I think the fact that del Toro inspires these questions in an audience is what makes the fairytale aspect of the story so intriguing. It inspires hope for Ophelia while at the same time maintaining some sense of realism.
Obviously, this is a movie that showcases stylized violence and gore. For a movie so chalk full of it, did anyone realize how no one ever screams. The first scene that comes to mind is in The Hard Goodbye, when Marv is cutting up Elijah Wood. He even makes a point to say that he never screams, or makes any noise whatsoever for that matter. There are various other points in the movie when we think it would be rational to hear screaming, but don’t. When the Judge is sentencing Marv, it seems pretty obvious that she’s screaming, but Rodriguez mutes her voice while Marv narrates. When Marv kills the cops at the farm, not one of them yells (or at least not that I can remember.) What do you have to say about that? Perhaps screaming is too realistic. I think that’s part of the reason that I didn’t find the core quite so hard to watch as I did with other gory films. The agony component is missing, which to me is what makes suffering human and realistic. Or maybe Rodriguez is touching on the topic we discussed in class of invulnerability. Lots of possibilities.
If Y Tu Mama Tambien seemed like it was diving into real life in Mexico, Inarrú dives in deeper. This rawness of this film was very impressive to me. There was a lot of similar unrefined camera usage, though the thing that stood out to me most were the angles of many of the shots. One that really struck me was when the camera was looking through the window at El Chivo inside his house, as if it was a human observer watching him. I thought that was an incredibly powerful shot.
One thing about the movie I found notable was the relationship between three different stories taking place at the same time. In one story, Sara endures the hardships of a life in New York, while in another, her father endures the hardships of war. All along, Sara is narrating her fantasy story about the princess and prince Rama, which essentially mirrors the plot of the other two stories.
Though there’s never much of a symmetry between the two separate stories in Y Tu Mama Tambien, Cuaron does seem to enjoy weaving separate narratives into each other.
Did anyone else find it somewhat comical that throughout the movie, Luisa keeps talking about how men always fight over screwing women, and that in the end they really just want to screw each other (she says that multiple times.) Sure enough, by the end of the movie, voila! What a little alcohol can do…you know the rest.
Welcome to HISP355. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!