Paranoid Park (Gus Van Sant, 2008)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Don Lope de Aguirre
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: London

#126 Post by Don Lope de Aguirre » Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:08 pm

A man sliced in half by a train, crawling forward with what's left of his torso while his severed legs lay behind him on the gravel isn't "mundane" in my view.
You (obviously) need to put this in the context of the film as a whole...
Did you see it in a multiplex or rep cinema, Don Lope? The former probably won't be able to accomodate academy ratio, so will just screen it in 1:85. The latter should have no excuse!
I saw it at the UGC Haymarket...not my first choice but one of the very few still showing this film.
Last edited by Don Lope de Aguirre on Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
chaddoli
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

#127 Post by chaddoli » Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:10 pm

Mr. Ehrenstein,

Can you put spoiler tags on such material? I have seen the film, but many others haven't. And I don't think the specifics of the crime should be known. Or at least, some viewers might not want to know them before they see it.

And as to your post, I appreciate your comments on the film, and I loved it too in a similar way, but violence has nothing to do with whether or not a film is mundane.

David Ehrenstein
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
Contact:

#128 Post by David Ehrenstein » Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:24 pm

Sure it does.

As "Spoiler" tags are adolescent. Either you discuss the film or you don't.

User avatar
miless
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:45 pm

#129 Post by miless » Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:31 am

I found this film to be way overrated. Parts were almost brilliant (the shower scene), but others were excruciatingly dull and/or distracting due to bad acting or over-intrusive music/sound design. (It probably didn't help that the actors stuck around for a Q&A and seemed totally clueless)

It was good, but it certainly wasn't better than his last three films. It seemed very uneven and rushed. Great cinematography, however.

User avatar
tavernier
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm

#130 Post by tavernier » Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:07 am

Armond trashes it.

My favorite line from his review:
It’s a less credible view of skateboarding than Lords of Dogtown and dour Alex lacks the appeal and realness of Téchiné’s protagonist/lifeforce Johan Liberteau in The Witnesses.

portnoy
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:03 am

#131 Post by portnoy » Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:02 am

what in the living fuck does andre techine have to do with this movie

goddam armond is so fucking stupid sometimes

User avatar
foggy eyes
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:58 am
Location: UK

#132 Post by foggy eyes » Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:08 am

Hoberman loves it.

The more enthusiastic reviews seem to be rather forgiving to me - for example, I just can't find as much to like in Alex's presence or performance as Hoberman does, and struggle with the idea that there's more "inner life" here than in Elephant - there's more narrativity, but less observational reward. Although Van Sant has shifted to a more direct and involved perspective than in the previous three films, I'm not sure that it reveals anything more.

There is plenty to admire here, but I don't think the individual attributes complement each other well enough to form a coherent whole - the film feels like a series of sketches, variations on a theme, and too often lapses into formal self-pastiche (for example the slow panning shot over Macy and Rachel at the mall when Alex is reading the "obituaries" - why this liminal observation at this point in time?).

And Armond's review is another crock of shit. Is he going to be comparing The Witnesses to everything over the coming months? I also liked the film immensely, but, as with everything, it has its place...

Davidhare, seeing as you seem to be a little underwhelmed too , I'd love to hear your thoughts...

David Ehrenstein
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
Contact:

#133 Post by David Ehrenstein » Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:17 am

I have a review that will be appearing in the new issue of Film Comment.

Of course I liked it. A lot.

I'm a sucker for any movie with pretty boys in them.

User avatar
foggy eyes
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:58 am
Location: UK

#134 Post by foggy eyes » Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:39 am

David Ehrenstein wrote:I have a review that will be appearing in the new issue of Film Comment
.
Good to hear - I look forward to it.
I'm a sucker for any movie with pretty boys in them.
So that's the approach I'm overlooking...

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#135 Post by Antoine Doinel » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:33 pm

I saw this tonight completely by accident. I had planned to see Persepolis and as I was just about to purchase a ticket, a woman tapped me on the shoulder, asked if I was by myself (yes) and then offered me her extra ticket to a free advance screening of Paranoid Park (hell yes).

I can't really begin to describe how much I loved this film. A dream-state film about disconnection, Van Sant is in such control of his craft here it is just jaw dropping. The film is absolutely mesmerizing, and from the beautifully shot interrogation sequence early in the film, Van Sant magnetized me and and had me hooked. Perhaps because I'm going through some intense stress in my own life now, but Van Sant utterly nails self isolation brought on by situations that seem unreal, and it really resonated with me all the more. The much talked about soundtrack (and yes, sound design) only helps in aiding the film's shifting reality -- just as it becomes "real" it pulls away slowly back into a dream, floating beautifully. The true surprise of the film is how funny much of it is, particularly the "relationship" between Alex and Jen.

I was curious how the audience would react - I honestly thought half the audience would've walked out. But when the credits started rolling half the audience sighed from confused exhaustion, while the other half broke into applause.

A wonderful experience that I'm glad I saw on the big screen (I believe it was projected in it's correct aspect ratio). I can't recommend this film enough.

User avatar
miless
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:45 pm

#136 Post by miless » Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:25 am

Antoine Doinel wrote:(I believe it was projected in it's correct aspect ratio)
If it wasn't academy ratio, it wasn't correct.

David Ehrenstein
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
Contact:

#137 Post by David Ehrenstein » Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:35 am

Wow that's quite a reaction, Antoine. I never would expect the film to produce such a response. It's very subtle and intense. Did you get, for example, that the father is living with another man (who is played by Chris Doyle?)

User avatar
foggy eyes
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:58 am
Location: UK

#138 Post by foggy eyes » Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:06 am

miless wrote:If it wasn't academy ratio, it wasn't correct.
I'd be interested to know how this is being projected in the US. In the UK, Tartan have for some reason gone to a lot of trouble to make sure that nobody is able to see it in academy - they've instructed projectionists to screen it exclusively in 1.85 and only created digital masters fixed in that ratio. I desperately tried to convince one cinema to project their 35mm print in full-frame, but was eventually overridden by Tartan's incorrect mandate. Such a ridiculous and unnecessary situation (unsurprisingly, they have not responded to any complaints).
David Ehrenstein wrote:Did you get, for example, that the father is living with another man (who is played by Chris Doyle?)
This was very interesting - initially I assumed Doyle was playing Alex's father, then forgot about it when he was revealed later on in the toolshed. The relationship between the two only sunk in on the second viewing.

yoshimori
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:03 am
Location: LA CA

#139 Post by yoshimori » Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:29 am

foggy eyes wrote:
David Ehrenstein wrote:Did you get, for example, that the father is living with another man (who is played by Chris Doyle?)
This was very interesting - initially I assumed Doyle was playing Alex's father, then forgot about it when he was revealed later on in the toolshed. The relationship between the two only sunk in on the second viewing.
This "reading" requires that even the jilted wife has agreed to call her ex's supposed lover "your Uncle Tommy" when talking to her son. Not impossible, I guess, but it certainly wasn't for me the most obvious way to take it. I just understood the father was temporarily living with his brother (Doyle, aka your Uncle Tommy) while the father looked for a place of his own. No?

Is there something going on (in the film itself) I missed, or some other indication of a relationship? Or does the novel suggested a less than filial relationship?

User avatar
foggy eyes
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:58 am
Location: UK

#140 Post by foggy eyes » Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:48 am

You're right, yoshimori, but I think this could be read both ways - the Doyle character appears at the beginning without any introduction (which was why I initially assumed he would be Alex's father), but as his identity is not explicitly stated there is surely the space to accept him either as Uncle Tommy or the father's partner. Perhaps reading such a dynamic into the relationship between these characters is going a step too far, but for some reason it sprung to mind at the time.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#141 Post by Antoine Doinel » Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:16 am

David Ehrenstein wrote:Wow that's quite a reaction, Antoine. I never would expect the film to produce such a response. It's very subtle and intense. Did you get, for example, that the father is living with another man (who is played by Chris Doyle?)
Certainly I don't want to suggest the film is all on the surface, and you are right, it is very subtle and intense, but what surprised me most is how accessible the film was. There is an odd magnetism in this film, that I think is owed in large part to the editing and pacing, that keeps the audience right in the palm of Van Sant's hands.

But for me, everything about Paranoid Park, struck me so insistently, so directly that I honestly can't wait for the DVD arrive so I can watch it again. Van Sant's lovely shot/sequence repetition; the collection of overlapping sounds and white noise; the slow motion skateboarders; the walking tracking shots -- everything Van Sant puts up on the screen not only serves a visual purpose but resonates immensely with Alex's inner struggles and defense mechanisms. Also, as you had previously mentioned David, I love how - literally - the parents are out of the picture for the most part. There is a wonderful scene with Alex speaking with his mom while trying leaving the house to go to the mall that is so perfectly acted and shot - his hestitation and awkwardness as he keeps stepping in and out of the frame trying to get out the door - that it's unbearable. I actually kinda wished we never saw his father at all. I kept hoping that scene would keep him out of focus and in the background rather than giving us a full reveal (if I had one quibble with the film, that would be it). But, I can't stop gushing about this how perfectly Van Sant executes this film. While I admired Elephant as an exercise, I think Paranoid Park is the far more mature and assured work.

As to your question, I missed Chris Doyle, but I agree with foggy eyes that the father's orientation is open to interpretation.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

#142 Post by Nothing » Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:21 pm

My guess is that Tartan have decided an Academy ratio would 'put off' the general / youth audience they are seeking. Pissing off a handful of cinephiles will not be their concern, nor respecting the artistic intent of the director.

User avatar
foggy eyes
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:58 am
Location: UK

#143 Post by foggy eyes » Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:50 am

Nothing wrote:My guess is that Tartan have decided an Academy ratio would 'put off' the general / youth audience they are seeking.
Indeed. The other factor is sheer laziness - to reach this wider "youth" audience they have pushed for broader distribution and sent a number of prints to multiplexes that can't accomodate academy ratio (fair enough). The problem is that they couldn't be bothered instructing rep cinemas to project 35mm prints in academy ratio when they clearly were able to - this being made worse by the fact that City Screen (owners of the Picturehouse chain) opted for digital projection across the board from masters already fixed in 1.85. Optimum managed to get all this right with Elephant and Last Days (both of which I remember seeing in academy), so Tartan have just cut corners, sat back and hoped that no-one will notice.

User avatar
LightBulbFilm
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

#144 Post by LightBulbFilm » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:09 am

I grew up with a generation of skateboarders who acted very similar to those portrayed in this film. Many of those who I knew though, were never as passive and "gentle" as Alex. It almost seemed as if Alex was just a visitor to the sub culture. The only things about him that really put him there were that he skateboards and dresses for the scene. But I think Van Sant really wanted to show that. I think he really wanted to show that Alex really didn't have a "scene". He was an outsider from the societal "norm" and an outcast wanting an in on the skateboarding scene.

I had problems with a lot of the acting (The scene where he meets the pimply-faced girl at the coffee shop for example. Not only was her delivery of the dialogue tremendously shitty but she also couldn't pretend to drink a cup of coffee if her life depended on it.)

The "train track" scene was one of the most memorable scenes in a film I've seen in a while. Such a surreal moment. I was just left with my mouth wide open when I saw it.

The film had the same solemnity as Van Sant's "murder trilogy", I think as it was appropriate in all three of those films it was just as appropriate here giving the viewing audience a moment to try and catch up to what is happening and have some kind of connection with Alex. We have all been in a similar position (Maybe not as extreme as his) but we have all been on edge because of something we did and didn't want to get caught for. I think this film expresses it excellently.

A great film over all!

User avatar
margot
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:36 am
Location: nyc

#145 Post by margot » Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:03 pm

The conversation about Subway in the beginning interrogation scene is fantastic.

User avatar
margot
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:36 am
Location: nyc

#146 Post by margot » Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:53 pm

David Ehrenstein wrote:Gus frames the film entirely in terms of Alex (Gabe Nevins), consequently we never see his mother in close-up or full-face, nor any of the other adults outside of a police detective. He has a "best friend" who's not really a friend at all and a girlfriend who uses him as a sex toy and status object and nothing more. When he breaks up with her we see her lips moving in astonishment but what we hear on the soundtrack is a blast of Rota's score for Amarcord. Elsewhere Juliet of the Spirits (particularly the finale) pops up, but not for the skating. Rapturously shot by Chris Doyle this is a film I'm going to be looking at several times before saying any more.
I'm curious why you think Jared isn't a "friend at all" you're obviously right about Jennifer but I see nothing wrong with his relationship with Jared.

David Ehrenstein
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
Contact:

#147 Post by David Ehrenstein » Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:15 am

If Jared were his friend Alex could talk to him about what happened. There are key slow-motion shots from Alex's POV of Jared driving his car that clearly indicate a sense of suspicion about Jared. He's a friedn-whoisn't-much-of-a-friend like the girlfriend-he-doesn't-really-want-as-a-girlfriend. Alex is as solitary as any protagonist in Bresson.

User avatar
miless
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:45 pm

#148 Post by miless » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:24 pm

David Ehrenstein wrote:There are key slow-motion shots from Alex's POV of Jared driving his car that clearly indicate a sense of suspicion about Jared.
where you see suspicion, I see an almost creepy attraction. The way Jared is looking at Alex reminds me of how frat-guys look at the drunk chick who's passed out on their bed.

David Ehrenstein
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
Contact:

#149 Post by David Ehrenstein » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:57 pm

That's at play too.

User avatar
margot
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:36 am
Location: nyc

#150 Post by margot » Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:35 pm

Which elliott smith song was played when Alex burns the letter? Was it Angeles? If so when was The White Lady Loves You More played?

Post Reply