The Trip

The Trip is a 2010 film directed by Micheal Winterbottom, that follows Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon as they go on a road trip. The film’s strongest aspect is its script writing along with its visuals of various locations.

The Trip’s screenwriting and improvised production helps drive the narrative of the film forward by following the journey of these two people. In an interview with Winterbottom, he stated that the film’s script was roughly only “50 or 60 pages” that created the foundation for the film. He said that, “Broadly speaking, I wanted to show two people who are sharing a lot of experiences together with very different views of the world. “ These two characters often contrast with each other as the film progresses. Though one has a firm family life and the other is seeking to get back into a strong relationship with his girlfriend, they both share the desire to outdo the other in some way. This is most exemplified in the long restaurant scenes where the two characters partake in a humorous banter and actor impersonations. Since the film was digital, the actors could partake in long periods of improvised conversation. This helped add to the spontaneity of the humor and the realness of the characters.

The film’s humor is both referential and to a degree, almost highbrow. To understand many of the quick jokes and impression references, one has to have some knowledge of film. This is where The Trip excels because most of the film’s humor comes from these two characters desire to express more knowledge than the other. They are constantly feeding off of each others jokes while trying to impress the other person. In the background they have very different desires in life. Steve Coogan lives an unfulfilled life and his constant sarcastic remarks reveal that his character is insecure. Coogan is always trying to make himself laugh to counteract the depression he feels in regards to his dysfunctional love life. These traits make Coogan a well written and complex character. His dialogue is revealing without giving too much exposition. Additionally, Brydon acts as a foil to Coogan because of his stable family life. Coogan and Brydon are characters that an audience wants to follow and learn about which makes the The Trip very compelling film to watch. In the clip below, one can see the tension and humor build as Brydon and Coogan compete with their Micheal Caine impressions.

Another advantage that The Trip had in being a digital film is its constant change in location. Coogan and Brydon journey across a variety of landscapes and restaurants and this was made possible because of the ease of setting up and dissembling a digital camera equipment. The restaurants that the two characters visit provide an interesting location for the two characters to be in and interact at. Most of the time in the film, the characters are more interested in themselves than the food which is supposed to be the focus of Coogan’s job. This also adds to the film’s humor but on a more visual level. Often times Coogan will receive less appetizing food than Brydon, who usually orders scallops. This simple, reoccurring visual imagery adds to the film’s humor. Also, there are numerous scenes where Coogan is alone outside, trying to make long distant phone calls. This also adds to the film’s satire and self reflectiveness because Coogan struggles to make phone calls to his distant girlfriend while he is visually alone outside. Though it is at first funny, there is a strong undercurrent of Coogan’s disjointed life unfolding on the screen. Below is an example of one of the many landscapes seen in The Trip, which takes place in Northern England.

Micheal Winterbottom’s choice to make The Trip digital allowed the film’s humor and characters to develop and make the film what it is. The screenwriting and production led to both a funny and introspective road trip movie that is incredibly unique.

Source for the interview: http://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/steve-coogan-philomena#_

Nuovomondo

Nuovomondo, also known as The Golden Door, is a 2006 film directed by Emanuele Crialese that focuses on Italian immigration in a surrealistic fashion. The visuals of the film help encompass the struggles that the immigrants are going through to better convey the emotions that they were feeling.

When Crialese was interviewed and asked about the scene with the steamship in the harbor, Crialese responded with saying, “I actually made the film around that image. I had a clear, easy image in my mind coming from a precise sensation I wanted to evoke. A sensation of land opening–one piece of land going to another. ” Here, it is obvious that Crialese liked to use visual imagery in Nuovomondo to tell the story instead of have exposition through dialogue or other means. At its heart, Nuovomondo is a film about a family trying to make a better life for themselves and for generations to come. Crialese found that this best way to express their journey was by showing it. This is somewhat problematic though because simply showing linear events would not capture how the characters were actually feeling. Crialese found a creative solution to this by generating a surreal mise en scène throughout many parts of the film.

By having scenes that seemed almost ethereal at times, the audience could travel along with the family and experience their hardships in travel as they might have. A strong example of this is seen in the recurring imagery of the giant sea of milk. The family and other characters in the film would be swimming in a vast sea of milk which symbolized both their travel, their hope for future wealth and the sheer collective bond that the immigrants felt with each other. This scene was also used for closing the film and it helped bind the film together from a narrative standpoint. While the milk scenes would occur, there would be anachronistic music playing in the background. The music is symbolic in the idea that people today still experience similar feelings that these characters did. The promise of a better life and the desire for wanting a better life is something that many can still relate to. Below is an image of the family in the sea of milk.

Another quintessential scene in is in the beginning of the film is with the “propaganda” pictures of America. In these pictures are images of Americans with obscenely large pieces of fruits and vegetables. The images had a comical appearance because of the gargantuan size of said fruits and vegetables but these images actually had a great deal of importance to the film. When the soon to be immigrants were viewing these pictures they were in awe. They saw these pictures and felt hope. Here is a surreal image of giant fruit.

The imagery and production of Nuovomondo make it a remarkable film. The aesthetics that bolster surrealism provide a commentary of Italian immigration. They convey the feelings of human desires that normal dialogue and realistic scene visuals would not be able to do. Emanuele Crialese wants the audience to establish a connection with the characters in the film. He brings us to Ellis Island with them and makes us feel their struggles as they journey through an endless sea in hopes of a better life.

Source for the interview: http://www.newyorkcool.com/archives/2007/May/interview_Golden_Door.htm

Living In Oblivion

Living In Oblivion directed by Tom DiCillo features strong scriptwriting and a solid narrative that was used effectively to create a twisted comedy. The bulk of Living In Oblivion centers around the problems of film making, specifically looking at independent films. DiCillo’s experience in the movie industry and his strange sense of humor created a fantastic narrative that is both fantastical and realistic.

When speaking about Living In Oblivion DiCillo said, “What was so surprising to me was the joy and pleasure I found in writing scenes that had originally been nightmares to me; absolutely excruciating to experience. I wrote the first half hour in 4 days.” DiCillo’s script was translated well from a production standpoint. The characters that originated on paper pull more than Nick Reve is the main protagonist of this film. This character’s dynamics and changing personally make Living In Oblivion a solid character driven piece. Reve’s personality is constantly shifting between highs and lows. When everything on the shoot goes from bad to worse, Reve becomes crestfallen and frustrated with himself. Reve as a character is easy to relate to for both those that work in the film industry and for those that work in any sort of collaborative creative medium. Reve later regains his spirits when his mother accidentally wanders onto the set gives a near perfect screen delivery which better exemplifies the joy and magic of film. Living In Oblivion features other well executed characters including the stoic Peter Dinklage playing Tito and Catherine Keener playing the emotional devastated Nicole. These characters on screen are believable while they perform the roles of distressed actors in this meta film narrative. Below is a solid example of humorous character interaction in the film.

In addition to the characters that drive the film, the visual aesthetic and changing story perspectives tie the movie together. At its heart, Living In Oblivion exists in a world of chaos. Tom DiCillo said that “I wrote Living In Oblivion in a state of mind teetering somewhere between homicide and suicide.” The first two parts of the film meander around in a universe were nothing happens as planned. The final part shares in this, with the exception of a scene being finished due to accidental brilliance. In this scene, the dream sequence, the weird, off the wall visuals of the set that they are filming transcends into the film itself. There is a malfunctioning fog machine, overly saturated colors and unsettling music. Though the audience knows that these elements are for the film sequence being shot within the film, the film itself begins to take on these qualities. By having characters dream different outcomes of the story, coupled with occurrences of strange visuals makes Living In Oblivion incredibly surreal. The film will often shift between color and black and white, which enhances its dream-like aesthetic. Below is a picture of the filming within the film, in a scene that is in black and white.

The film’s setting is also a commentary on film making itself. The poor catering service and the arguments that arise within the production team show the trials that people go through in order to create a movie. While these were shown in the film purely as story elements, they are well rooted in the real world. DiCillo himself was struggling with making another film at the time of writing Living In Oblivion. DiCillo comments on this experience when he says “After the dismissive release of Johnny Suede it was extremely difficult to get my next script, Box of Moonlight financed. And so one night, after getting plastered on martini’s at my wife’s cousin’s wedding, I stumbled into the Idea; a series of events taking place right on the set of a no-budget movie.”

The surrealism in the Living in Oblivion is anchored by well written characters which makes the entire production of the film oddly believable. DiCillo pulled from his own life and created a memorable nightmare for audiences to share in.

Source for the interview: http://www.tomdicillo.com/blog/trivia/living-in-oblivion-2/

Blowup

Blowup, from 1966, directed by Michelangelo Antonioni is an astounding film for both its visual aesthetic and production. Blowup’s aesthetic and Antonioni’s approach to film production allowed Blowup to question reality itself without directly alluding to it.

The production process that Antonioni uses when approaching film led to its interesting aesthetic. In an interview with Antonioni, Antonioni said, “I may film scenes I had no intention of filming; things suggest themselves on location, and we improvise. I try not to think about it too much. Then, in the cutting room, I take the film and start to put it together, and only then do I begin to get an idea of what it is about.” This directors approach is striking similar to how an artist would paint a picture. Often they start with foundation of loose shapes and colors and then build and define the painting as time goes on. In a similar manner, Antonioni started with locations, such as an unassuming tennis court or  at first a mundane park and then he built on them to craft Blowup. Antonioni even felt the need to paint some of the grass featured in the film green just for the sake of it being visually more green. This production choice represents the mental ideology that Antonioni has. He is careful in what he films and how it looks because he is aware that in post-production these elements will prove to be the building blocks of a strong film.

Maryon Park, where the photographer finds the body is of particular interest. The grass is a vibrant green, the area is fenced in and the vast majority of this location is barren save for a few lone trees. These details are extremely important because they bring about a sense of isolationism and a set up for the voyeurism that the photographer takes part in. Though the park seems aesthetically pleasing at first, the audience later discovers that the location is incredible suffocating. Even when the photographer later returns to the park, the body that he finds is near the fence and not entirely concealed. This drives home the idea that nothing can remain entirely hidden forever. Here is a shot of the park, with its wall like fence in the background.

Also, when the photographer begins to take pictures of the man and the woman in the park, the woman becomes upset, presumably due to a breach in her privacy. In the park, there are few places for the man and the woman to be entirely concealed since the park is fairly open. During this sequence, the shots are held for large lengths of time which brings about a slow sense of pacing that is unique to this film.

The slow pacing also allows the audience to see the park as the photographer does. Since the shot changes are kept to a minimum, one begins to take notice of minute details, such as the sound of wind blowing through the trees coupled with the tree branches gentle moving. This level of immersion exemplifies Michelangelo Antonioni’s ability to incorporate the feelings of existentialism with little character dialogue. The feelings of being alone and watched are shown and not told which makes the visual mise en scene of Blowup incredible well executed.

Lastly the end of Blowup combines many of the ideas discussed above in a single instance. The photographer is by himself standing in a field. The camera shot shows nothing else besides the photographer and an endless sea of grass. Then when the photographer disappears. The view of the camera gives the audience nothing to visual focus on besides the photographer. The photographer is completely isolated yet there is still an audience watching him. Then when the photographer disappears the very plot of the movie is question with this small visual moment. The murder, the photos taken, the protagonist himself are possibly all mere illusions. This is questioning not just film but all art. In this single scene Antonioni asks the audience what meaning art has if no one is there to give it meaning. Here is the classic ending, featuring the not-so-silent mimes.

Source for the interview: http://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/interview-with-michelangelo-antonioni