Semi-OT: Kubrick's The Cell
Gregg V. Carroll
second viewing in widescreen and see if my feelings about it would change.
Was thinking about it from the "weirdness" posts, and wondering why it
doesn't qualify when it should.
As a psychology student, I was excited about the premise, but felt let down
in finding out that it was only a plot/visually-driven film. I still feel
that way, but it occurred to me that it might've made a spectacular Kubrick
film, seeing as how his films are everything The Cell tried to be but are
character-driven. The Cell had every potential to be a real mind-fuck of a
film, but it pulled back from that at a number of points in the story (or
was "weird" almost in a arbitrary way - like, "Oooh, this is weird! Look!
How freaky!" shock-value thing).
I have to wonder what elements Kubrick would've focused on (besides making
it an hour longer <wink>) and and what he would've jettisoned. The first
time I saw it, I remembered being disappointed that Tarsem didn't follow
through more on Lopez's character getting entwined more deeply in the
killer's mind - she "snapped out of it" too easily. It might've been
interesting to see her become the "abuser" from her role as the "healer," a
more ambiguous protagonist. Explore the possibilities of gray area in human
"good/bad" perceptions of behavior. The potential of being seduced by evil
in a relevant and realistic way.
Thoughts?
- Gregg
Director
Kubrick would be Vicent D'onofrio.
Gregg V. Carroll <gr...@outplace.net> wrote in message
news:B774D4C3.8238%gr...@outplace.net...
Delta5Qmp
cell) doesn't qualify when it should. >>
It wasnt mentioned in my post in the string because i was sticking to movies
that didnt suck the proverbial big one. the Acting and writing destroyed an
otherwise strong premise. The directing was rather cool though, that is part
of why i own it. the other reason i own it is for the imagery-
The imagery is the best ive ever seen on film. The Cell, had it been 50min and
devoid of any actors, would have been a great work of art, and an amazing trip.
Tarsem did a wonderfull job of organizing Ishioka and his art team to create
some of the most mind blowing visuals i have ever seen, they were
inspirational. But sorry, that movie was an exercise in cliche and
averageness. (The purple cape unraveling was soooo cool though, wish it were
in EWS...)
Kubricks Cell? we can only imagine...
Gregg V. Carroll
> << Was thinking about it from the "weirdness" posts, and wondering why it (The
> cell) doesn't qualify when it should. >>
Actually, I wrote the above wrongly...
> It wasnt mentioned in my post in the string because i was sticking to movies
> that didnt suck the proverbial big one.
... what I meant to say is that it *should've* qualified for our lists -- in
other words, it's a shame that it doesn't. I wasn't implying that I think it
should, I feel quite the opposite. Just thinking that it was a waste of
potential. Not that it should've been weird for the sake of being weird, but
in some significant, worthwhile way. In short...
> But sorry, that movie was an exercise in cliche and
> averageness.
... I agree.
> Tarsem did a wonderfull job of organizing Ishioka and his art team to create
> some of the most mind blowing visuals i have ever seen, they were
I'm almost not even impressed that much with the visuals. I kept thinking,
"Okay, this is from Nine Inch Nails 'Closer' video, and this looks like
REM's 'Losing My Religion.'" It was a bit like watching a "Best Of" slide
show of every music video made in the past 20 years.
It had that antiseptic cleanliness to it that videos have. Kubrick's films
are shot cleanly and precisely, but there's something fundamentally
different. Perhaps it is that Kubrick's methodology of filming supports the
film rather than being the actual subject. Even if you were to watch, say,
EWS and The Cell on monitors next to each other with the sound off, ignoring
the story lines to some degree, there's a very distinct difference between
the two. The Cell draws attention to itself whereas EWS doesn't. Well, it
does -- I mean, how can you not be affected by the lighting at the XMas
party or design of the masked ball ceremony when Dr. Bill first enters --
but The Cell is kind of like flashy jewelry, it's just too... something.
- Gregg
Delta5Qmp
potential >>
I agree, forgive my misinterpretation of your post.
<< It was a bit like watching a "Best Of" slide
show of every music video made in the past 20 years. >>
Some music vidoes have been visionary in terms of imagery (Tool's Schism) , and
i am all for the migration of their directors to the movie world, Fincher,
Tarsem, Even McG all make for interesting, if not amazing films (Emphasis on
fincher). No one has yet to recreate that kubrick distance you speak of. when
someone does it will signal the return of a cinematic messiah (How overstated
was THAT!?).
<< The Cell is kind of like flashy jewelry, it's just too... something. >>
Keep in mind i didnt like the cell, but i do kindof enjoy when cinematic
techniquery and oddity calls attention to itsself. its fun. Overdone camera
moves pull you out of the film, but they give you something fun to look at, its
a trade, but for better or worse im glad we have both kinds of films to see.
In the end though, Kubrick has the ultimate merge of these- he is stylistically
astonishing but never pulls you out. Scorsese does it too to a lesser extent.
If anyone knows how to do it, tell me. i got movies to make....
-RE
Gregg V. Carroll
>> Just thinking that it was a waste of potential.
> I agree, forgive my misinterpretation of your post.
You didn't really, I knew what I was trying to say but I didn't write it out
correctly.
>> It was a bit like watching a "Best Of" slide
>> show of every music video made in the past 20 years.
> Some music vidoes have been visionary in terms of imagery (Tool's Schism)
> i am all for the migration of their directors to the movie world, Fincher,
> Tarsem, Even McG all make for interesting, if not amazing films (Emphasis on
Oh sure, but still, Fincher films have some meat behind the visual style.
Almost progressively from Alien3 onwards. IMO Fight Club was the peak of
everything he'd done previously, visually and content-wise. If you watch his
films in order, you can almost see the stacking up of substance behind the
frames. In a way, I think The Game is a step backward visually and a step
forward in content from Seven.
> fincher). No one has yet to recreate that kubrick distance you speak of.
> when someone does it will signal the return of a cinematic messiah
I don't know that anyone should try and "recreate" Kubrick, as much as we
all miss him. That's kind of what I'm talking about in a way, the idea of
recreation. Or recycling. Taking a particular style of music videos and
putting them in a film together (around a rather flaccid script) just
because it hadn't really been done before.
I still maintain The Cell had potential both in story and in visual style,
but I think it was just too watered down for the masses. Digestible. When
you really examine the underlying potential of the story, it's actually
quite disturbing, but somewhere along the line, someone lost the cajones to
make it as it should've been made.
> << The Cell is kind of like flashy jewelry, it's just too... something. >>
>
> Keep in mind i didnt like the cell, but i do kindof enjoy when cinematic
> techniquery and oddity calls attention to itsself. its fun. Overdone camera
> moves pull you out of the film, but they give you something fun to look at,
Ummm, I see what you mean. I guess I feel especially jilted because just as
I was realizing the potential of the film when I saw it the first time, I
was being let down as it fell short of delivering the goods.
> If anyone knows how to do it, tell me. i got movies to make....
I don't know that you can learn it. I think a synthesis occurred in the gray
matter between Kubrick's ears that was a (unique?) combination of everything
that influenced him. Like intensely studying seemingly distant subject
matters then all of sudden seeing connections between them, it sort of
forges a thought process that is subconscious, but affects everything that
filters through it. A permanent "Ah-ha!" moment, an "Ah-ha!" making machine,
of sorts.
- Gregg
Delta5Qmp
Fincher is the director from the music video school that has some "meat" behind
his movies, but you say alien 3 onward- i include that one, i have a hard time
understanding why it is so poorly recieved. The only Fincher movie i dont like
is game, Visually it is a step back from 7, but content wise it had so many
twists that in the end you couldnt guess what would happen, there was so much
feigned confusion that also in the end, nobody cared what the twist would be,
or for its characters. Fincher is like star trek, the even numbered movies are
for some reason better than the odds. I expect panic room to be a stupid film
with great visuals. i expect rondezvous with rama to be at the top of sci fi,
right next to 2001 and, well, A.I.
Back to the cell, yeah, it was watered down. It could have been un chien
andalou, instead it was M. Butterfly (Not a knock against cronenberg, but you
get the idea). I wish somebody would reintroduce surrealism to mainstream
film. i hoped cell would do it, but as it did not, i am taking that task on
myself (I am a film student and my delusions of granduer are fresh and seem
atainable). It seems that cell served to inspire more great surreal visual
stuff than it contained. Spy kids did the same thing, but spy kids was better
because it was just so much fun, cell was WAY to serious to be taken like that.
As for Kubricks "Distance", i dont think it is an unatainable thing to learn,
there are parts that are deceptively simple- A lesson from barry lyndon: if
you end the movie with a coda that says "Theyre all dead now", it will distance
the viewer. Thats the obvious and simple way, how he made barry lyndon work
aside from that coda is a masterpiece of acting direction (Note that barry
almost never has an expression on his face), and of things that i will need to
see it much more to comprehend. It is a style like no other, mimicking or not
it is something i want to create in my work.
So- Kubrick's the cell- First of all, he would have acomplished the inside of
a mind bunuel style, through content, not through funky camerawork. The
outside world probably would have been a society different from ours, one more
expressive of the themes of the film. Thats another thing- it would have had a
theme. Tarsem must have forgotten that in favor of entertainment. All of
kubrickdom has something to say. For that reason i dont think he would have
been at all attracted to the cell as a project. But if he did, i bet he would
have had a field day with conceptual design (That he would never let us see)
and freudian symbolism. It would be quite a sight to see.