Recently, I've fallen in love with the films of Nicolas Winding Refn. "Recently" is kind of misleading, though, because I'd watched Bronson several years ago, and loved it. I saw Drive in the theater and loved that. And I just recently went to see Only God Forgives and was blown away. I didn't connect all these films as being from the same guy until walking away from the theater after Only God Forgives, but in hindsight, I don't know how I could have missed it. I knew Only God Forgives was a follow up to Drive, since it had been talked about as such, both films starring Ryan Gosling. When I realized this was the same guy who made Bronson, it made me appreciate all three films even more. Each is great on their own, but when you can identify the director's personal style, I think you appreciate his work even more.
I was intrigued enough to seek out more of Winding Refn's work, and watched Valhalla Rising. I knew, at that point, that I was a hardcore fan. Had I watched Valhalla Rising when it came out, I undoubtedly would have loved it but interpreted in context of Bronson, Drive, and Only God Forgives, it becomes even more impressive because you understand why you're seeing what you're seeing. By way of example, Valhalla Rising is an explicitly Jodorowsky-esque film, and because Only God Forgives was dedicated to Jodorowsky, I know that he was a major influence on Winding Refn, and the themes become more prevalent and recognizable. I just think it's a more complete film experience.
After watching Valhalla Rising, I watched Drive again. As much as I liked Drive when I saw it originally, it somehow felt like an even better film once I had an idea of Winding Refn's style. It's interesting, but the people who didn't like Drive seem to be people who just aren't really into film as a medium. Everybody likes movies, but people who are really passionate about film, really liked Drive. That doesn't just mean it was alluding to other films, Tarantino style, although it did do that, some. Just that, if you understand film making as a language, and films as personal expression, you understand what he was doing with Drive, and this is all the more true if you understand Winding Refn's language in particular. All the things that annoyed people about that film were done for a very specific reason. It's a carefully crafted, amazing film.
I'm alluding, in part, to auteur theory. The idea that the director is the primary author of the film, and that his or her personal style is the most decisive element of the viewing experience, shining through whatever other aspects of film making are involved. The more familiar you are with an auteur's work, the better able you are to recognize and appreciate these personal flourishes. Tarantino is a good example, since he's very popular and most people who are interested in film have seen all his work. Tarantino has a very distinct style, and while I can't succinctly describe it (maybe "mash up"), everyone knows a Tarantino film when they see it. Compare those films to True Romance or From Dusk Til Dawn, films he wrote but didn't direct, and you're looking at entirely different animals. It was thought in the past that the writer was the primary author of the film and that the writer's personal style was most responsible for the finished product. We have seen that this is not the case.
Some auteurs are very recognizable to all. Everybody knows what a David Lynch film is like. Or a Kubrick film, a Hitchcock film, an Ozu film, or a Cronenberg film. But can you spot a Soderbergh film by watching five minutes of it? Or Polanski? Or even Spielberg? These are trickier. Basically, I'm just struck by how much better you understand film, and thus, how much more you enjoy it, the more of it you watch. I'm in the midst of a personal project to watch every film Werner Herzog ever made. I'm learning to read Herzog's language, and each film of his I watch helps me appreciate them all, all the more.
Another, semi-related factor of your film language being improved by watching more films, is gaining new appreciation for old films. (I may digress a little here, but that's ok.) For example, I recently rewatched Bram Stoker's Dracula for the first time since 1997, and while I remember thinking it was "okay", holy shit, that movie is awesome. The film didn't change, I did. I was simply not prepared to appreciate the baroque madness of it. Gary Oldman meant nothing to me as an actor, I couldn't catch the subtle Legosi intonations of his accent, his Caligula giggle. Coppola was a foreign language to me, and I probably just thought "This movie seems way too over the top." without realizing that's exactly how he meant it to be. Watching it now, for vampire movies, I'd rank it with my favorites, along with both versions of Nosferatu, Let the Right One In, Shadow of the Vampire ,The Lost Boys, Interview With the Vampire. Keanu Reeves was still pretty bad, though. Also, notice how, with the possible exception of Murnau's Nosferatu and Shadow, those films all have pretty strong gay subtexts? Another thing I wouldn't have been able to appreciate without a more robust film knowledge, although that one also just has to do with life experience. As you get older you tend to understand things better, in any context.
I guess I'm saying that, while everybody knows you get better at something the more you do it, it also works with totally passive experiences, like watching movies. The more you watch, the better they get, and the better they get, the more you want to watch. Self perpetuation is its own reward.
No comments:
Post a Comment