![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My friend Aaron shows me strange movies on a semi-weekly basis (mostly, I think, to be entertained by my reactions and commentaries).
I think some people I know would enjoy seeing these movies, but don't even know they exist, so I would like to talk about them. I cannot call this a review, for I am not versed enough in film as a medium to talk about a movie intelligently as compared to other movies in regard to film tropes, but I can talk about what I liked, what I didn't, and how the movie struck me personally in terms of plot coherence, mood, and design. So I will do that, and call it a ramble rather than a review.
--
"City of Lost Children"/La Cite des Enfants Perdus (1995)
IMDB review
Directed by Marc Caro and Jean-Pierre Jeunet, who apparently also did "Emile," which I have not seen.
Costume design: Jean-Paul Gaultier (!)
Rating: Rated R "for disturbing and grotesque images of violence and menace," which is the strangest qualification for an R rating I've ever seen.
I found nothing in this movie to be very menacing or grotesque; if I had this as a dream it would be in the "odd and surreal" category as opposed to the "hyper-terror nightmare" or "beautiful things" categories. (Please note: the author of this movie ramble has a high personal tolerance of and fascination with grotesquery and images of menace. Your comfort level may vary).
Child Warning: That being said, it should NEVER be shown to any child under the age of ten, especially one who still believes in Santa Claus and/or has a fireplace in their home. If I had seen this movie when I was six, I would have tried my best to block off the fireplace with boards or a heavy object of furniture.
Format: Available in America as a DVD with both English and French dialouge as well as various subtitles. I watched it in French with English subtitles. I don't know if it is available on VHS videotape. I recommend watching it in French with the subtitles.
Surreality Warning: This movie might set off some people's David Lynch thing; it's very surreal and has got a midget. It reminded me a lot of "The Triplets of Belleville," except for the fact it was live action.
Set/Design Thoughts: This movie is most like watching someone else's dream onscreen than anything I've ever seen before, including films like "Waking Life," which were specially crafted to invoke that sort of feeling. Then I spent a few days thinking about how it did that and came up with some explanations. It's lit oddly, it's got lots of strange camera angles (it seems as if half the movie is shot looking down from the sky, or through the viewing-lens of the brain-in-a-fishtank character) and it's got a plot where the viewpoint switches back and forth fluidly between characters, times, places, and scenes.
It's a very pretty movie, and has a beautiful rusted cityscape of mostly brown, black, and green, wherein color is used to tremendous effect.
The costume designs are great.
This movie blends computer animation and live action so seamlessly (and remember, folks, this was 1995!) that the only things I've ever seen to compare to its integration are "Last Exile" and "Spirited Away" (both recently made and of outstanding quality which I recommend on their own merits). In some ways, I think it's almost easier to blend computer animation with traditional animation than it is to blend it with live action. Either way, this film is definitely a technological achievement.
Main Characters (there are many who are inconsequential, and float in and out of the background as they are required):
One, a strongman.
Miette, a street urchin.
The Mariner, who collects things found in the sea.
The Doctor, who cannot dream.
The Clones. I think there are seven. It is hard to tell.
The Midget, who works with the Doctor.
The Boy, One's brother, whom One and Miette try to save from the Doctor.
Uncle Irwin, the brain in a fishtank, who gets migraines.
The Octopus, an evil Siamese Twin.
The Organ Grinder Man Who Talks to Animals, who worked in the sideshow with The Octopus, and who helps them out with his mind-control fleas.
Various & Sundry Street Urchins
Various & Sundry Members of Cyclops (the Hypersensitive Hearing and Night Vision Eyes Quasi-Masonic Sorta-Cult of the Blind)
The basic plot: The Doctor steals children's dreams to be his own, as he can no longer dream. One's brother might be his latest victim.
It is a very simple plot, but it moves through or touches on almost everything that happens in the movie. If I tried to describe the plot or movie any more, it would fall apart at the seams; one of its failings--the tendency to actaually fall apart if you try to read too much into it, or if you wonder if this scene relates to the plot--is also one of its greatest strengths. It's something you have to see. I'm definitely going to add this to my very small collection of DVDs.
I guess the only thing I can really say about it is: I liked it. I'm a person who likes surreal, odd, pretty movies, and dreams, which this reminded me of. I enjoyed the way attention was paid to the smallest detail of each character's habits and personality. I'm still not sure what actually happened in some parts of the movie, and I'm okay with that. It nearly set off my phobia of clockwork toys within the first five seconds of the film, but there was nothing too awful or terrifiying after that; that's my own personal idyosyncracy anyway, and I doubt that much in this movie would bother most people I know who read this journal. I think Rush-that-Speaks would either definitely love it or hate it; I'm betting on the former.
--
In other news, my recent dreams have concentrated on presenting me with images of nothing else except architectural embellishments and flight. I can't decide if I like that or not.
I woke up nearly crying recently, with the word hiraeth on my tounge; I'd only dreamed about the great variety of tiny stone flowers that adorn the underside of the archways and building facades at Bryn Mawr.
And as fascinating as it is to be able to examine at length the detailed carvings on the door of the built-in curio cabinet at the head of the stairs on the second-floor landing of the imaginary house, it's a bit creepy when the carving smiles at you and you realize that the wood's grain was picked specially to emphasize that special quality of unsettling-ness the figure has only when it's moving.
The flying dreams are worth those, though. Sun, wind, and sky. Seeing the trees below.
Nothing more needs to be said.
I am curious as to the mechanics of dreams, however: I recently saw an interview with Christopher Reeve (part of a memorial program), and he said that he always dreamed himself with legs, and had further heard that when you dream like that you're actually exercising, or trying to exercise, weakened or non-existant muscles.
I think I only dream myself with wings when I don't have opportunities to express that part of myself every day as I live, but now I wonder if I actually try to flap as I sleep, and if so, what that says about me. It's a fascinating concept. Someday I'd like to research more extensively on phantom limb syndrome and neural remapping in both amputees and otherkin, and perhaps write some kind of essay on it. I think the two are definitely related in some way. In the meantime, I just read, understand what I can, and think.
--
Getting up at an obscene hour tomorrow to get my passport paperwork taken care of.
I think some people I know would enjoy seeing these movies, but don't even know they exist, so I would like to talk about them. I cannot call this a review, for I am not versed enough in film as a medium to talk about a movie intelligently as compared to other movies in regard to film tropes, but I can talk about what I liked, what I didn't, and how the movie struck me personally in terms of plot coherence, mood, and design. So I will do that, and call it a ramble rather than a review.
--
"City of Lost Children"/La Cite des Enfants Perdus (1995)
IMDB review
Directed by Marc Caro and Jean-Pierre Jeunet, who apparently also did "Emile," which I have not seen.
Costume design: Jean-Paul Gaultier (!)
Rating: Rated R "for disturbing and grotesque images of violence and menace," which is the strangest qualification for an R rating I've ever seen.
I found nothing in this movie to be very menacing or grotesque; if I had this as a dream it would be in the "odd and surreal" category as opposed to the "hyper-terror nightmare" or "beautiful things" categories. (Please note: the author of this movie ramble has a high personal tolerance of and fascination with grotesquery and images of menace. Your comfort level may vary).
Child Warning: That being said, it should NEVER be shown to any child under the age of ten, especially one who still believes in Santa Claus and/or has a fireplace in their home. If I had seen this movie when I was six, I would have tried my best to block off the fireplace with boards or a heavy object of furniture.
Format: Available in America as a DVD with both English and French dialouge as well as various subtitles. I watched it in French with English subtitles. I don't know if it is available on VHS videotape. I recommend watching it in French with the subtitles.
Surreality Warning: This movie might set off some people's David Lynch thing; it's very surreal and has got a midget. It reminded me a lot of "The Triplets of Belleville," except for the fact it was live action.
Set/Design Thoughts: This movie is most like watching someone else's dream onscreen than anything I've ever seen before, including films like "Waking Life," which were specially crafted to invoke that sort of feeling. Then I spent a few days thinking about how it did that and came up with some explanations. It's lit oddly, it's got lots of strange camera angles (it seems as if half the movie is shot looking down from the sky, or through the viewing-lens of the brain-in-a-fishtank character) and it's got a plot where the viewpoint switches back and forth fluidly between characters, times, places, and scenes.
It's a very pretty movie, and has a beautiful rusted cityscape of mostly brown, black, and green, wherein color is used to tremendous effect.
The costume designs are great.
This movie blends computer animation and live action so seamlessly (and remember, folks, this was 1995!) that the only things I've ever seen to compare to its integration are "Last Exile" and "Spirited Away" (both recently made and of outstanding quality which I recommend on their own merits). In some ways, I think it's almost easier to blend computer animation with traditional animation than it is to blend it with live action. Either way, this film is definitely a technological achievement.
Main Characters (there are many who are inconsequential, and float in and out of the background as they are required):
One, a strongman.
Miette, a street urchin.
The Mariner, who collects things found in the sea.
The Doctor, who cannot dream.
The Clones. I think there are seven. It is hard to tell.
The Midget, who works with the Doctor.
The Boy, One's brother, whom One and Miette try to save from the Doctor.
Uncle Irwin, the brain in a fishtank, who gets migraines.
The Octopus, an evil Siamese Twin.
The Organ Grinder Man Who Talks to Animals, who worked in the sideshow with The Octopus, and who helps them out with his mind-control fleas.
Various & Sundry Street Urchins
Various & Sundry Members of Cyclops (the Hypersensitive Hearing and Night Vision Eyes Quasi-Masonic Sorta-Cult of the Blind)
The basic plot: The Doctor steals children's dreams to be his own, as he can no longer dream. One's brother might be his latest victim.
It is a very simple plot, but it moves through or touches on almost everything that happens in the movie. If I tried to describe the plot or movie any more, it would fall apart at the seams; one of its failings--the tendency to actaually fall apart if you try to read too much into it, or if you wonder if this scene relates to the plot--is also one of its greatest strengths. It's something you have to see. I'm definitely going to add this to my very small collection of DVDs.
I guess the only thing I can really say about it is: I liked it. I'm a person who likes surreal, odd, pretty movies, and dreams, which this reminded me of. I enjoyed the way attention was paid to the smallest detail of each character's habits and personality. I'm still not sure what actually happened in some parts of the movie, and I'm okay with that. It nearly set off my phobia of clockwork toys within the first five seconds of the film, but there was nothing too awful or terrifiying after that; that's my own personal idyosyncracy anyway, and I doubt that much in this movie would bother most people I know who read this journal. I think Rush-that-Speaks would either definitely love it or hate it; I'm betting on the former.
--
In other news, my recent dreams have concentrated on presenting me with images of nothing else except architectural embellishments and flight. I can't decide if I like that or not.
I woke up nearly crying recently, with the word hiraeth on my tounge; I'd only dreamed about the great variety of tiny stone flowers that adorn the underside of the archways and building facades at Bryn Mawr.
And as fascinating as it is to be able to examine at length the detailed carvings on the door of the built-in curio cabinet at the head of the stairs on the second-floor landing of the imaginary house, it's a bit creepy when the carving smiles at you and you realize that the wood's grain was picked specially to emphasize that special quality of unsettling-ness the figure has only when it's moving.
The flying dreams are worth those, though. Sun, wind, and sky. Seeing the trees below.
Nothing more needs to be said.
I am curious as to the mechanics of dreams, however: I recently saw an interview with Christopher Reeve (part of a memorial program), and he said that he always dreamed himself with legs, and had further heard that when you dream like that you're actually exercising, or trying to exercise, weakened or non-existant muscles.
I think I only dream myself with wings when I don't have opportunities to express that part of myself every day as I live, but now I wonder if I actually try to flap as I sleep, and if so, what that says about me. It's a fascinating concept. Someday I'd like to research more extensively on phantom limb syndrome and neural remapping in both amputees and otherkin, and perhaps write some kind of essay on it. I think the two are definitely related in some way. In the meantime, I just read, understand what I can, and think.
--
Getting up at an obscene hour tomorrow to get my passport paperwork taken care of.
