Taxi-Scene-Fornication
Print
Recently, I watched Taxidriver, CSI 9 and Californication S1. Three completely different experiences within days of each other. So felt the need for a release in the form of a value-pack review, sort of.
Taxidriver – All along, I’d heard about Travis Bickle and his exploits and the ’symbolism’ his character portrayed, which is one of the reasons I sat down to spend 1 hr 53 mins. But then, as I was sitting through I realized I wasn’t sucked into it. Yes, something in it wasn’t strong enough to arrest my attention span which typically has an incredibly low threshold. But I waited for Bickle’s character to unfold and see what a ‘masterpiece’ Scorsese had unleashed onto celluloid only to find I was pushing myself to it. I remember some folks who rambled about what a beautifully crafted work it was that would leave you dumbfounded. I guess I was waiting for all the hype to pay off.
Bickle just didn’t figure in my scheme of things. While it seems like it was a deliberately-built character, I found myself wanting him to take the bull by the horns and drive the dramatic premise ahead. He was almost too passive for his reputation throughout the film until the end which seemed to nudge me a little with some slow violent-gore combo but again didn’t feel it was enough. Probably because the timing is very essential when you watch a movie. When you’ve watched N films in the same genre, you start having extreme expectations.
But I did notice some elements that I thought were interesting in the portrayal of a gritty drama.
- Focus on the mundane. Scorcese’s success probably came from his ability to show the ordinary in extraordinary light. The mundanity is one of the characters by itself and I think it is an essential part of evoking the mood of the film if you are aiming for that.
- Establishment of Bickle’s character step by step through his actions and inactions. In spite of the overall crafting of the film, I felt the deliberation of his character was evident in the sense of impending action(which I thought later didn’t pay off). I recently filmed a short where during post I realized what mattered was the nuances of a character’s actions than what dialogue or explicit action he/she may deliver. So Scorcese does just that with Bickle very methodically.
- POV shots. Bickle’s POV of what’s happening around him on the streets adds to the film’s tone. As he watches other people’s personal moments like when he sees the prostitutes, the pimps, the ’scum’ and all the shit lying around – interacting with each other – he takes it all in, as we do too. For me, the atmosphere sunk in as the lights strobed through the darkness.
- Educating the audience. In this case, the types of weapons and their usage when the gun salesman explains to Bickle what each does. While it may not particularly interest some, it still is an efficient way of engaging the audience with the details of the character is interested in.
On to the next. Rewind a few years. I’d watched a Crime-based drama series a long time ago when it first launched. Didn’t get much time to engage myself. But I wanted to. It seemed like a first with the blue-black dark setting, striking actors portraying striking characters, lights streaking through the screen in quick succession. Then on and off I got glimpses of it, until recently. CSI Series. Season 9 now. Man, what diligence. I’m still studying more, trying to figure it out. Grissom’s sleepless pursuit of the fingerprints, Langston’s academic influence on his meticulous procedurals, Willow’s(who I thought to be an airhead) relentless deductions, Nick’s calm deliberation, the sundry creative ways a person could be sent to the CSI lab to be put under the microscope – all contribute to an intense engagement.
When I thought about what the characters were upto, I couldn’t really tell what was extraordinary about them. Mostly characters felt they had to follow their ‘jobs’ which they did well. I don’t know why they all have to be emotionally rigid so as to not shed even an inkling of despair. On the other hand, what is brilliant about the series is its attention to detail(which obviously is what the show depends on) and the amount of research that would have gone into the production. The characters’ genius segue very well into one another making them almost too believable in the sense that I figure Grissom may actually know more than real-life CSI analysts. The writing shows a great amount of confidence in the subject material because the plot just ploughs through without really waiting for the audience to get it. But then, the glossy visuals and extensive educational graphics about the interactions of bodily fluids and meths and weapons gives the audience a sense of knowledge and empowerment. Like I said above, about educating the audience as a significant element of a narrative, this is a classic example because we are not taken for granted. That makes me feel I can give my time to watch the show.
And ah, the power of a raunchy, cocky narrative of one man’s quest for sexual conquests amidst an emotional turmoil with his ex who’s about to be married to another man who doesn’t quite fit her bill. Californication season 1. Ok either one can’t figure out Hank Moody(David Duchovny) at all or I think he’s too much of an unbelievable character but who still begs to be watched for his snarky, cocky attitude and the ability to say things we normally can’t say. For those who are unaware, Hank Moody is a writer in LA who’s undergoing The great depression in his writing career. We don’t understand whether it is due to his situation with his ex and his daughter or he’s just got a case of the writer’s block or maybe both. Sometimes, the things he says are so outrageous that you wonder whether one can push the envelope so much and get away with it, “I may not go down in history but I will go down on your sister”.
There’s so much sex in the series that one starts to wonder if its soft-pron or whether that the American audience has to be titillated to such levels to get them to sit through a half hour episode. On the other hand, for all those who have an inkling of doubt as to whether sex sells…get this straight…Damn, it does! Being one of the most primal things of life, writers can’t ignore it. I don’t mean overt orgies or pixels and pixels of bare skin, but that which makes a point in the context of the larger narrative.
Also, there are quite a few cliche breakers in regular conversation that break out the mold. I can’t remember any at this moment but you gotta see it to figure what I’m talking about.
The relationship between Karen(Natasha McElhone) and Hank is well entrenched in history aka that-which-invokes-feelings-of-nostalgia. I have a ‘list of elements’ that I believe creates compelling narratives and one of them is nostalgia. I mean, who doesn’t have a soulmate ex that didn’t work out for some reason or the other? Maybe you still regret it…your whole life…that’s exactly what’s happening to Hank in the first season. Natasha plays the Karen character to the T. Sexy, light-hearted, beautiful, smart, everything at once, makes you wish sometimes.
Tags: American Film and TV, Californication, Crime Scene Investigation, TaxiDriver
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Seems like you were watching movies just to kill time. Fine. But when you write an article and publish it on PFC you are wasting others time as well. It should remain a forum to discuss cinema. A lot of the articles here are nowadayz like…well..i liked it..i dint like that.. what i had as breakfast.. whom did i talk to yesterday…etc..etc…
loading...
Thanks Chandan. But it would help if you could throw some light on how you would discuss cinema.
loading...
There is hardly anything for the reader, if you talk of movie as a whole. You are simply saying, i watch a lot of movies. You did analyze 4-5 aspects but they were just so obvious. Wrong structure. you thrust your opinion before analysis or involving the reader. You did no research before writing about a 30-40 year ol’ movie. To write in 2009 on Taxi driver means you should mention racism, vietnam war, diary of the serial killer, why he was shown a hero at the end, why the pimp was white that too, harvey kietel, why the girl appears in the last scene. Rather than an article it looked more like a youtube comment.
loading...
Well, while you do try to make some sense in your perspective, you seem to have a tailor-made solution for certain aspects that a movie critique should possess.
One need not read into things that aren’t there or something a movie vaguely references to. Sometimes a movie is as is, what a viewer sees, feels or experiences at face value, he/she expresses.
One need not be pretentious about what he/she understands and expound on things that just don’t necessitate explanation when a million perspectives have already done that.
Seems like you worship Taxi Driver’s unseen symbolism and all that pseudo-intellectual cinematic discourse about what an impact the movie made.
‘Wrong structure’? Wow. And what exactly is ‘the structure’ for writing an analysis or opinion. I’m guessing you are one of those who has a day job in an unrelated field, religiously follows Syd Field, the 3 act structure, attends every class/workshop there is out there and all that jazz when it comes to cinema; lapping up every rule in the book and tries to throw it around to feel you have something important to say because you are aspiring to make a film but keep reading and waiting on the sidelines and only trying to analyze the crap out of every movie there is because you probably lack the guts to go out there in the trenches and fight the good fight.(see how i’m reading between the lines when i haven’t even seen you? seems like this is what you expect a viewer/’analyst’ to do when what they see is as simple as ‘fire is hot’.)
‘no research before writing a movie’? – what was that? I thought to write about a movie, you only need to watch it. Period. Maybe you are suggesting i should have read what the ‘great critics’ have already hammered into our heads and plagiarize their views and pretentiously add my stamp to it?
Maybe you are disappointed someone just doesn’t share your opinion of a supposedly great movie. To me, it was another movie which deserves its rightful opinion on what it seemed like. Nothing more, nothing less.
loading...
I did not write anything against you as a person. I simply said, your review rather comments did not suppose to be at a place which ‘we’ call passion for cinema. You simply lapped up on this remote chance to deride a person. ‘i guess you are one of those’….blah blah. ‘waiting on the sideline’..well, since you are interested about me..let me tell you..i am a mech. engg. from IIT-Delhi. Moved to Soft. engg. worked in Infosys, Sun Microsystem. i am not a painter, just appeared for a scholarship and found out i am one of 3 guys selected. moved to advertsisng. Worked with 2 start ups, who are doing well. In caricatures, there are just one or two people in India who can even compete with me. Was a cartoonist for a while. Was an animator as well copywriter. Want to make a movie? who doesn’t have a story to tell. ‘work in the rut’? Why should i do that. i want to make a movie. But i also want to make enough money to make a movie. ‘rule of books’?? i risked my degree to bring about changes in one of the most prominent educational institution in India/world. I have just started…anyways I am 28 years old and whatever i do i use my name. ‘Indie Films’??? what makes you think you represent that? ‘Worship Taxi Driver’? No, i like the movie. I do. Because people put an effort to make that movie. They did not work as you do, see..feel..face value. The amount of effort you put in reply if only you have put into the review. Guess what? I haven’t yet said anything against you as a person. i do not follow your writings even if you represent ‘indie films’. This was the latest post and it wasted my time. Why am i wasting my time again? you try to make it personal, i WILL make it personal. Every article here gets atleast 10-20 comments. Did no one read your analysis. They did. For atleast 4-5 Days it was right there on top of the homepage of PFC. One negative review of your review, that’s what you got. Does it not show your writing was ’shallow’ and useless. Why am i writing this, obviously you would have ‘guessed’ it. What a place to place ‘guessing game’ and deriding people without knowing them. What probably you might not have guessed, is that you are way too prone to take things personally or attack some one as a ‘person’ rather than talking over his views. Which makes you a poor reviewer.
loading...
Before I say anything, I apologize if I have personally attacked you. I just said some things in the same vein as your comments. With all the guessing, i didn’t mean it, maybe it wasn’t evident, but I only said that to make a point. You didn’t understand the sarcasm there. On the other hand, if you were seriously offended, then it’s food for your thought, because maybe what I said sarcastically may be true after all.
If you were honestly criticizing my review, I’d be open to it. But it was the way and the tone you said it. The way you started it, it didn’t seem like a Socratic dialogue. If my review ‘wastes others’ time’, then why did the moderator post it, he might as well have told me to rewrite it or send something else. If it has come through, then I am ready to accept readers’ responses whether they like it, hate it or are indifferent to it but don’t tell me I’m wasting others’ time because I don’t write something intending to waste time. It’s your choice to spend time on it or not comment on it. But seemed like you wanted to put down my writing. Even otherwise, your explanation about the structured way of ‘reviewing’ makes no sense like I had mentioned in my comments.
PFC is not a forum for ‘intellectuals’ or for ‘pseudo-intellectuals’, it is for those who ‘really’ are passionate about cinema. Who exactly is ‘we’ at pfc? Just because you think you think you are passionate about cinema doesn’t make you more passionate about it than anyone else. ‘Have a story to tell?’ Want to make ‘enough money’ to make a film? That doesn’t exactly make someone passionate about film. Instead you should be making them already.
I don’t know why you wrote your whole life history, I don’t care if you are Ivy League or the Prime minister of India or can make caricatures of IT guys’ asses in India. I wasn’t really interested in knowing more about you because of your attitude. As for me, I am not a reviewer or someone who waits to make my film. I’ve made films(small/big screens internationally), I make films and I will keeping making them(don’t ask me details and waste time telling me I don’t have the courage to reveal and that blaah). I don’t go around proclaiming my ‘passion for cinema’ and sit around criticizing what kind of reviews others should write. I had even mentioned in the start that this was ’sort of’ a review.
Get this, I don’t claim to know-it-all, in fact, I know nothing. And I know there are tons of critics who can go in depth, but my post was just an outlet according to my personal experience of the film, because the film failed to create an impact on me. As for my user name, I don’t represent it and I don’t claim to be the icon of Indie films. Maybe you should take things lightly. Keeping a random screen name is my prerogative. I don’t have the necessity to reveal anything.
As for you, good luck with your future filmmaking career. Maybe when I see your name on the big screen some day, then I’ll accept your passion for cinema, until then…
loading...
Well..there is no need devoting time on each other. Was drunk when i wrote the comments. Didn’t like you guessing about me, what kind of person i am. You apologized (only for personal remarks)..I apologize..All the Best..
loading...
Abhi aage kuch bolneka hai to phone uthake dono baat kar lo!
loading...
ha ha…that was a good one. Somebody had to lighten things up.
loading...