The epitome of Procrastination, I sit watching 'Master and Commander'. Peter Weir is amazing. Utterly and absolutely amazing.
In the first 2 or 3 minutes of the movie, the only sound is the ocean. No music. No dialogue. Nothing loud. Simply the gentle susurration of the water. And yet, such an amazing amount of information is conveyed in that short period of time.
The opening volley - in the quite literal sense - was shocking. Completely shocking in its violence, its comprehensiveness. Even watching it tonight, for the n-th time, I am jolted from the mild, placid tension to a breathtaking, gut-clenching cringe from the screen. Yes, a feat of CGI; but the actual choice of imagery is the wonder. [sure, STFU&GBTW no doubt has a completely different opinion... don’t rain on my parade]
People can drone on about the ‘accuracy’ or ‘authenticity’ of the visual presentation (sure, I can be one of them). But the more amazing feat is the astonishing amount of the story which is told without words. Either in a simple visual manner, such as the initial minutes of the film, or as a miscellaneous background, a subliminal presentation, such as the dinner with the captain in the middle of the film where he announces the Galapagos Is. as their destination. It isn’t the dialogue here, but the simple manner in which the dinner occurs, with singing and drinking and drinking with everyone having a crewman behind his chair, with the absolute absence of any women (there are 2 on screen for about 30 seconds while they’re picking up stuff in Brazil).
It is the manner in which Weir frames the dialogue, with images and motion, and music which make the film so powerful.
I’ve read all of O’Brien’s Aubrey/Maturin novels, and several of his others. (Did you know he wrote Bedknobs and Broomsticks??) When I realized “Far Side of the World” was being made into a movie, I swore in delight. I then swore in frustration. If I decide to see an adapted screenplay, I avoid reading the book, if possible. It lets me take the film on its own merits. I was only on no. 8; Far Side of the World is no. 10. I had to put off reading the rest of the novels for a year and a half. Argh!
Quite a bit is missing; several bits are from other novels in the series. E.g., Ensign Hollum doesn’t commit suicide, he jumps ship with the gunner’s wife, whom he’s gotten pregnant. Dr. Maturin does name some huge tortoise after Capt. Aubrey, but it’s a few novels earlier when they’re somewhere in the Indian Ocean.
With the whole concept of framing the story, the entire story is on ship, with a brief respite on the Galapagos Is. There is no world outside of the crew. And yet, with such a small, enclosed space, it is presented as just that, a world within itself. This will assuredly remain one of my favorite movies of all time. The judgment of which is whether or not I’ll buy the next-generation of video medium (blue-ray HD DVD whatever).
Elizabeth’s rating:
Definitely go see it on the big screen at full price (if you ever get a chance)
1 - Go see it on the big screen at full price.
2 - Go see it on the big screen, at matinee prices.
3 - Buy your own on video.
4 - Definitely see it on video.
5 - Well, if someone else it paying for it ...
6 - Go get your teeth cleaned.
I’ve had to reconsider my movie-rating scale. I decided to add “buy it on video”, but I’m not sure where “buy your own” should be. Is this the highest accolade or not? There is just that certain ability to completely engulf you, when seen on the big screen. Not even the monster-HD can match it. I think “see it in the theater” will remain my highest recommendation. The full-price vs. matinee was simply how important I thought it was to see that way. Full-price isn’t simply a matter of “it’s the only way to see it” (some things come here at the indy-theaters, and simply will never get to the $2.5 discount place in Hopkins). Is the film so completely visually astonishing that you just have to see it on the big screen, even if it means paying $9? Then go pay $9. Whereas, “at matinee” means I’ll wait to see it in Hopkins at $2.5, but I still think the visual experience will be better there than on TV. I had previously had the list in order of importance to you, the viewer, in getting the optimal experience. E.g Star Wars on my 13” B&W TV just doesn’t match the front-row seat I had in 1977. Whereas “Pride & Prejudice” (A&E, of course) is okay on my (now 21” flat screen) TV.
A friend once asked me for examples on this scale. It was far easier to provide the extremes. Picking between must-see and ought to buy was harder, and perhaps far more dependent on personal tastes. I think most films I would otherwise give a 5 get weeded out before I see them. So, sticking to relatively recent films*:
1 - Master & Commander; Terminator; Alien **
2 - L.A. Confidential; American Beauty; O Brother, Where Art Thou; 7 Samurai
3 - Dogma, Better Off Dead, Blues Brothers (Ride of the Valkyries/giant police-chase scene definitely gets a “see it on the big screen” commendation)
4 - Four Brothers, 8-Mile, Painted Veil, Fargo
5 - Becoming Jane; Indiana Jones #2; Home Alone; Signs
6 - Boogie Nights; Charlie's Angels
* sure, you don't agree. go write your own blog.
**come on, everyone's going to put LotR there, be original
2 comments:
I recently rented the DVD of Master and Commander again because you had written about the music at my blog and I wanted to refresh my memory. Most of the music is original to the movie, but the one piece used to excellent (and wrenching) effect is Vaughn William's Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis. The first time we hear it is when the well-liked crewman falls into the ocean on the broken mast during the storm and they realize they must cut him loose in order to save the ship. The second time comes near the end, but I can't recall the specific scene, and it's very short. It may be after the battle when the young one-armed boy is by his dead friend. (Sorry, I don't remember all the character names.) The music Aubrey and Maturin play together was composed for the film and struck me as quite authentic.
So, I enjoyed seeing the movie again, and Aubrey didn't bug me as much as the first time -- the guy can do no wrong, has no character flaws. I still like Maturin as a character much more. What totally struck me this time was how isolated a ship's crew was back then -- not like they could whip out their cell phones and call home -- and SMALL on a large, large ocean. It still amazes me how incredibly courageous these men were to sail out on the ocean, especially the early explorers, not really knowing if anything was beyond the horizon.
the Vaughn Williams piece, as you put it, was wrenching. I cried. I would still have gotten misty-eyed, but that just grabbed me & drove home the utter helplessness - and hopelessness - of the scene.
Re: Aubrey - if you read the books, he is assuredly a falable creature. He's off having an affair with his commander's wife at the beginning of the first book. He comes across there as a rather naive person, relating to the realities of 'normal' (i.e., land-based) life.
Re: Maturin. I married him. I met Peter around book 7 or so. I was reading them all in a row. The further I got in the series, the more I realized he was just like Peter, who, I'm sure, would have become a natural philosopher had he been born 200 years earlier. Totally apathetic about social niceties, totally focused on whatever has his attention at the time, and absolutely unquenchable curiosity. And, yes, I like him - Maturin - as a character better in the books, too.
Post a Comment