?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Funny Face - Le Journal de Saravana [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Saravana

[ website | About Poetry ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Funny Face [Oct. 26th, 2004|10:57 pm]
Saravana
I saw « Funny Face » yesterday, and I must say, this is an awesome movie. Here is the list of its awesomeness:

1) The woman who leads her fashion magazine with an iron fist, ruling over a hilarious hive of female fashion editors. That fits my matriarchy dreams perfectly.
2) The expression of love for Paris. A time now sadly gone by.
3) Fred Astaire, not “any actor” this man… expressive, sensitive, not some dull faced man made of stone, he!
4) Audrey Hepburn, intellectual, dreamy, difficult, impulsive.
5) The dancing, amazing. Those were the good Hollywood days, the reason why I love Bollywood (Indian movies), where theatre, dancing and other older expressive arts are still alive.

This made me realize that in movies, I don’t go for realism; I go for artificiality and exaggeration. Why? Because too often, movies put people in unrealistic setting and make them do psychologically realistic things. I don’t like that. I think movies should put people in realistic setting (the street, the house) and make them do implausible actions (dancing, singing a conversation, have outrageous fits of temper, lust or aversion, etc.) That is what I call art.

I am not interested in knowing how a human being like me would act in some hypothetical situation I never faced or how normal people from other backgrounds than mine act. I am interested in how an extraordinary human being can change the present and see it in new ways. I am interested in seeing artists on screen. Not in admiring the artistry of the director.

Yes, I do know the movie is cheesy, but the point is, we know this is not meant to represent something to aspire to. There is no pretense this could happen to us. Everytime you would be lured into thinking so, the movie becomes so scatty you lose that temptation. Eh. Dancing and singing act as some kind of wake up call: "This is not real, you idiot!".

Of course, I will say otherwise tomorrow. I know movie and theatre are two separate arts. I merely resent the fact there is so little theatre on screen.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: andalus
2004-10-26 10:24 pm (UTC)
how i love that movie! I'm so tired of new movies about boring and uncomfortable individuals that i'm supposed to love because they're human. If I wanted to see dumpy people acting dumbly I'd leave the house more. Realism's so uninspired, where's the magic? Where's the beatnik dancing? Bonjour Paris!
(Reply) (Thread)
From: duchessdandy
2004-10-30 08:16 pm (UTC)
I have only ever seen the first part of that movie, but what I saw was great and you've just reminded me to see the rest of it.
I love that age of Hollywood, like 'Singin' in the Rain' with big ensemble tap-dancing numbers, or movies where everyone just bursts into song and the entire street knows the dance steps...

Everything now is so homogenised and ordinary - if I'm paying $14 to see a movie I want sequins and feathers and bag-ladies as chorus dancers, damnit!
(Reply) (Thread)