[New post] Before ... and After

Before ... and After

ayearatthemovies | May 30, 2011 at 9:45 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p1gpDb-ez

So I spent another enjoyable day (yesterday) watching MY classics which included Once, Before Sunrise and Before Sunset. And then today the guilt set it. There are a few "classics" that I still had not seen and I knew if I let this month pass by without watching them, I would regret it (or at least I would continue to feel guilty). And that's no good!

But before I get into that, let me just say a few words about the lovely romances that I (re)watched yesterday. I am pleased to be able to reaffirm that all three of these small films are really, really wonderful. I will admit that Once was not quite as enjoyable the second time around, only because it was such an unexpected treasure the first time that that surely can't be recreated. And because there's really not a lot to it (just a lot of charm and emotion and great music, like that's not enough) it's not like you could miss anything the first time around. But I still did love it, and (like Before Sunrise/Before Sunset), it would be great to have a sequel: Once More, Once Again, Twice??? In fact, I have so many ideas of what a sequel could be, I would love to write a screenplay. Except for the fact that the original was such a beautiful musical and I don't have a musical bone in my body, and that so much of the story was actually told through the lyrics of the songs, which again I would certainly fall short on. Oh well, if there ever is a sequel I'll be the first in line to see it. If you have a single romantic bone in your body, or if you have an inkling of Irish in you, or if you are musical, or if you've been in love, or if you like Irish people which, I'm sure everyone does, see this movie!

Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, Richard Linklater's lovely little films about Jesse (the American guy played by Ethan Hawke) and Celine (the French girl played by Julie Delpy), were just as good the second time around. I will reaffirm that if I had to choose, I would say that Before Sunset is the better of the two. It might be because I've been to Paris and I loved recognizing places in the city (as opposed to Vienna where the first was filmed), but I don't really think that was it. I think it's because the dialogue/conversation in the second film was sharper and smarter, certainly more cynical, as it came from characters who had certainly matured and had some difficult experiences along the way. At my age, I've certainly had some difficult experiences along the way so I suppose I could relate more at this stage in my life to the Jesse and Celine in their thirties (still a lot younger than me!!) than I did to the Jesse and Celine in their twenties. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the first film and appreciate and relate to their characters in that film, I did.

Really, considering their length and the fact that Richard Linklater did both films and Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy starred in both, it could almost be like they are one movie. It would only be three hours long which is shorter that one of the foreign classics I watched today! I notice on Richard Linklater's IMDb page (I know, I said I wouldn't rely on secondary aids but you know me and rules!), he has something due for release in 2013 called "Untitled 12-Year Richard Linklater Project" which is described as follows: "Boyhood is about the actual "growing up" of a child and see the changes in both him and his parents as it is literally filmed each year." So Linklater could have filmed his Before Sunrise in 1994 and then Before Sunset in 2003, put them into one movie and it would only have been the "9-Year Richard Linklater Project". Oh well, the important thing is that both films really are self-contained and easily able to appreciate on their own, but if you haven't seen them, I would highly recommend watching them together. They're lovely!

And so … let's move on to today's movies. The film I knew I would be mad at myself if I let a classics month go by without watching was acclaimed Japanese director Akira Kurosawa's 1953 classic Seven Samurai (there is apparently some debate as to whether the proper English translation is Seven Samurai or The Seven Samurai, most say the former but whatever). Although this film is so acclaimed and highly rated – it is #1 on Empire magazine's 100 Best Films of World Cinema, it has an 8.8 rating on IMDb putting it at #13 on the Top 250 list, it has a Metascore of 99/100, on Rotten Tomatoes it has a 100% fresh rating by critics and (only) a 96% favourable rating by viewers – I was still hesitant to sign on. I mean, with those numbers, who would hesitate but still …

Okay, despite knowing I HAD to watch this movie this month, I procrastinated for a number of reasons. First, it is 3 hours and 26 minutes long (is that not dissuading enough?). Second, it is one of those huge warrior epics (think Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, Gladiator) which really are not my favourite genres to start with, and then consider that it was made in 1953, in Japanese, with subtitles. Third … well I'm sorry, it's Japanese but I already said that and, really, I actually like a lot of Japanese films but it's not like French (or even Spanish) where I actually understand a little.

Alright … I'll admit this is a great movie, there's no doubt about that. There is a lot to it, it is not just a samurai warrior film, there is a lot to it that is relevant today and certainly to be appreciated today (almost 60 years later), both as a film viewer and as a world citizen. It is about fear, about loyalty, about honour, and even about love. That said, I'm not going to pretend I loved it. First off, did I mention that it's almost 3½ hours long! That's just too much for me. I have said time and time again that I don't think movies should be longer than two hours. Actually, when I decided to rewatch some of my favourites I considered Gone With the Wind and remembered that it was about 4 hours so I said forget that. I mean, I suppose if you're buying a ticket at the theater it's a lot of bang for your buck, and these long movies of the 1930s-50s (I don't think they do it anymore, it's probably too expensive) always had intermissions, but still.

After that rant, on the off chance that there are people out there that are willing to watch movies that are more than three hours long (okay, I know there's probably a lot of you) here is the idea (and if you think you know it because you saw Hollywood's version, The Magnificent Seven, you're right, except I saw The Magnificent Seven and at least I can really say that, despite the Hollywood cast, the original was better): Akira Kurosawa's heroic tale of honour and duty begins with master samurai Kambei posing as a monk to save a kidnapped child. Impressed by his bravery, a group of farmers beg him to defend their village from encroaching bandits. Kambei agrees (against his will, which is about the first 45 min) and assembles a group of six other samurai (which is actually very intriguing and humorous), and together they build a militia with the villagers while the bandits loom nearby. Soon the raids begin, culminating in a bloody battle. Okay there's more to it, but let's just say the villagers are ransacked, get tired of it, find some samurai who agree to work for little or no pay, the odd assortment of samurai begin to endear themselves to the villagers … and then the raids happen.

As much as I am sort of milquetoast about this movie (and I do mean relatively speaking, in relation to the "classics"), there are definitely people who love it, not just the critics. How about this review: "One of the greatest films ever made. When I saw this back in film school I became obsessed with Japanese cinema so much I got a minor in the language and spent 4 years in Japan. That's how damn good this film is. The only problem for new viewers is that the story has been remade dozens of time so the story might not feel fresh today, but that's no fault of the original."

Or this: "One of the greatest films ever made. When I saw this back in film school I became obsessed with Japanese cinema so much I got a minor in the language and spent 4 years in Japan. That's how damn good this film is. The only problem for new viewers is that the story has been remade dozens of time so the story might not feel fresh today, but that's no fault of the original."

So … even though I can emphatically say that I appreciated this movie, and certainly respect it for its cinematic influence, it is not one of my alltime favourites. I will write tomorrow about another Japanese movie that apparently vies with Seven Samurai for title of best Japanese film ever.

In the meantime … I'm going to pick Before Sunset as the movie of the day! Is that controversial when I've said how much I love Once? I do like them both but upon two viewings I just think Before Sunset is the "better" film that might stand the test of time and also might not have been as influenced by my obvious Irish bias (my second review of In America is coming, be forewarned).

Add a comment to this post