7/6/07. Laptop in by bedroom, by myself, 11:00pm
1) This film is not at all self-contained. I don't know if it would be possible to really judge it in any way except as a response to the rise of fascism in Europe. You could try but you'd kind of be missing the point.
2) So its 1938 or so and you're the most famous filmmaker in the world, and its obvious to you that what's happening with Hitler in Europe is all sorts of fucked up, but for some reason a huge percentage of everyone else is not seeing coming what you're seeing coming. What more could you think of to do than to make a film portraying Hitler as absoulutely ridiculous?
3) What did it mean to be the most famous filmmaker in the world in the late '30s? Certainly it meant something different than it would mean today. How would you feel about your film if five years later it turned out that the guy you did everything you could to make appear absurd was responsible for the horrific deaths of millions of people? I mean, at least you tried, but how would that effect your idea of the potential power of film?
4) So many hilarious moments in this film, but the ballet Hynkel does with the balloon/globe thing was funny and beautiful and pathetic and horrifying all at once, especially when he lays on his desk and bounces it in the air with his butt.
5) Film critics are dumb. The barber's speech at the end is effective because it doesn't fit in with the rest of the film. It's not a flaw.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment