skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Not many of the high school set films made at the moment will still be relevant in 30 years. Not many teen films come close to those of John Hughes.
I think the difference is that this film doesn't try too hard. A run through the school, a dance around the library... it doesn't need to be extreme. It's about who the kids are and how they get to know each other. Why they behave the way they do, why they conform to the stereotypes they've adopted. It's about understanding them, which I feel is why this film is such a classic, and why it resounds for so many people. Teenagers want to be understood, and this film takes the time to do that.
The scene where the characters tell why they are in detention is famous for being unscripted, yet it's so moving and provoking. By trusting them to ad-lib that scene, Hughes caught something raw and honest, which is so often missing amidst the hijinks and extremes employed by most teen films. And Hughes shows that the great mistake Mr Vernon makes is in demanding respect without giving it to these kids, and not even attempting to understand them.
Every time I watch this film, I am once again surprised by how good it is.
Final Thought: If you're going to call them The Breakfast Club, at least reference it at some point in the film before the final line...
Up Next: Brick (2005)
Watching Breakfast At Tiffany's makes me wish I had studied the novel at school. I know that the film changes certain plot elements, particularly the ending, but I would be curious to pick apart the book. The films leaves me feeling somewhat similar to how I did when I finished reading "The Catcher In The Rye", except that I loathed that book.
I bought this film because it's one of those classics that I thought I should have. Incidentally, that's the only reason I read "The Catcher In The Rye" at all, because it's labelled a classic and I thought I should. I guess I expected to be more moved by both. In the case of this film though, I didn't leave with a thorough dislike of it. (I really, REALLY don't like "The Catcher In The Rye"). I will admit though that I feel... indifferent. Perhaps it's partly because, gorgeous as Audrey Hepburn was, she does seem a tad miscast as Holly Golightly. The character is superficial and vague, which is hard to believe of Hepburn. I have trouble connecting with narratives where I can't see why I should care about the characters. I think that Breakfast At Tiffany's is a film that I need to watch repeatedly, in order to uncover Holly's substance.
Final Thought: Having grown up listening to Henry Mancini (as mentioned previously), I find the score to this film very familiar and comforting, so I did enjoy that.
Up Next: The Breakfast Club (1985)
I thought I'd seen this film at least twice.
I was almost right.
I've started it at least twice, and then fallen asleep, been distracted, or had to leave.
This means that I've seen sections of it, but it turns out that I have never seen the end.
That means that, each time I see this, I'm surprised by how great Matt Damon is in an action movie. Matt Damon huh? Who would have thought?
I still feel like I need to watch this film again. I missed some intricacies as I was revelling in merely being conscious for the whole thing. It's a bit terrible that I've fallen asleep in a film so gripping.
It's a great film, it really is, I'm just still a bit unsure of what actually happens. I missed key parts of narrative by exclaiming "Omigod I haven't seen this bit!! Oh things make much more sense now!" And it's not that the film is overly complex, I just have severe gaps in my absorption of it.
I need to be less excitable next time.
Final Thought: Thinking about it now, I still can't actually recall how things tie together. Dammit.
Up Next: Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961)
The Seamstress told me I should watch this film. I fear it was talked up to me a bit too much, but then again, I did watch it whilst making dinner, so I was somewhat distracted for the first portion of it.
It seems a decent film. It didn't change my life or anything, but I did enjoy it. I must admit though, it didn't leave me with a great deal to say about it. The underdog-makes-good storyline is a safe bet to receive audience support.
Alan Rickman's presence elevates the film. Rachael Taylor, though I find her wonderful, her character isn't really there for any particular reason other than to foist irrelevant sexual tension on the tale.
I didn't really connect with it though, so I just... don't have much to say about it.
Final Thought: Perhaps I should have paid more attention to the first half of the film...
Up Next: The Bourne Identity (2002)
In my final years of high school, I had a great English teacher. A teacher who made the syllabus interesting and who didn't expect you to fit in to a mold, but rather wanted you to find your own voice. It was this teacher who one day insisted we go to the cinema and see Billy Elliot. He also insisted that we go see Fight Club, but that will come later.
So I went to the cinema, not really knowing what to expect of this film, and within the first minute I loved it. Billy is endearing before he even says anything. Dancing is just something that he happens to find himself doing, though it is bewildering for everyone else in his life, and he is more than aware of that.
I think I like this film because it isn't self conscious. It's just frank. Yes, kids pick up on more about their parents than they realise. Yes, you're more likely to get through to a kid if you talk to them as an equal. And yes, dancing is pretty great.
Final Thought: Just how many family issues could be solved by dancing it out?
Up Next: Bottle Shock (2008)
This is another film that I didn't like the first time I watched it. Perhaps I watched it just after having seen Edward Scissorhands for the first time. I was so blown away by Edward Scissorhands, way more than I expected to be (more on that when I get to it). So I did Big Fish a disservice by watching it soon afterwards. I came at it with expectations and it didn't fit in to them.
Then, a few years later, every second blog I read seemed to rave about this film. Coincidence or something, I don't know, but for a month I felt like all these writers I didn't know were telling me that I simply had to give Big Fish another chance. I did so, and couldn't understand what I hadn't liked about it the first time around.
The most beautiful thing about this movie is that it champions the oral tradition. It's all about the telling and passing down of stories. Of taking the time to tell them and listening to them. Of how important they are in the building of a child's imagination and how stories can connect families and friends. The sight of everyone telling stories at the funeral is wonderful.
Then there's the recurrence of "This isn't how I die". And the popcorn moment, which is stunning. And the moment in the bath... It's not often that you see such relaxed romance between older couples in films. Or couples of any age for that matter.
There's actually so many things I love about this film that it is an utter mystery to me that I didn't enjoy it the first time around. This movie inspires me. There is wonder in it. It makes me want to go for a walk.
Final Thought: I swear, Danny DeVito missed his calling. He should have been a ringmaster.
Up Next: Billy Elliot (2000)
I just... don't like this film very much. I would normally assume that I watched it due to liking Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, but that can't be the case because Being John Malkovich came out first and I definitely saw it at the cinema. And I don't even think I liked it then, so I must have bought it purely because John Cusack was in it. This was not a Be Kind Rewind experience - I did not enjoy it more the second time at all. All I kept thinking as I watched it was "Did I really enjoy this the first time I saw it? Why do I own this?? Everything is just so uncomfortable..."
It's really quite bizarre to have John Malkovich be the most likeable character in a film. Not to be insulting, but it's really against the grain for him and I'm not sure it's intentional. I enjoyed this film the most whenever he was on screen, and his exploration of his own subconscious is very inventive.
All in all though, I dislike this film. It'll be going to the second hand store tomorrow.
Final Thought: It is interesting to see story elements in this film that Charlie Kaufman clearly managed to make more successful in Eternal Sunshine.
Up Next: Big Fish (2003)
