Normally, I differ taking notes while watching a movie since I prefer to analyze them from a fresh point of view, remembering only what comes to mind at the moment. It's an exercise in which I've gotten used to remembering more of a movie everytime, which is why it felt quite exotic to do it in this one. A part of me feels glad I did it, because I feel like it analyzes the way I was processing the film quite well:
1. Joanna Hogg is pretty good at directing, but always, in all her scenes, something seems to need polishing (sound, lighting, even certain frames are missing).
2. The trailer is SO misleading.
3. It's up to the first 30 minutes that they show us a plot point that doesn't relate to the first installment. Until those 30 minutes, the plot remains STATIC.
From this moment on, I begin to remember that the purpose of cinema is not to be pleasant. In fact, many times, it is anything but.
4. The quite meta aspect of the film I think perfectly conveys the intentions of the first part. It makes me think that everything I'm writing in here is part of what is being criticized.
Spoiler alert: yes it was.
5. It just takes too long to develop that idea. Enough to make you wonder why it's divided into 2 parts, when it couldn't have possibly had the same impact if it wasn't.
6. It's criticizing the way filmmakers, especially aspiring ones, don't have that freedom to tell a story like people would think they do. And the lack of support to be able to land their ideas, due to the fact that they have a great lack of experience.
Even if there is initiative from people to understand the story they want to tell, this film shows that we will never get the true feeling that it evokes from the director as long as we are third parties.
7. The first film shows the lack of understanding of the people towards the story, this part tells that same lack of understanding, but at the moment of telling it.
8. Leads me to believe that it bends the rules in the beginning to make that point of view known. I don't fully understand if that decision works for me per se, but at least I can say I do understand it.
Second spoiler alert: it ended up working almost perfectly.
It's funny to think that both installments of The Souvenir opened my eyes in such different ways about the form and narratives you want to tell when making films. This itself just goes to show how detailed Joanna Hogg's direction is. You understand why there are two films, the reason behind the lines of entire scenes that seem to deliver nothing. These are things that, when you see them unfold on screen, do not stop conjuring rejection, for the same aspect of which we have cataloged films as "bad" or "good". When it comes to telling why, we have created an automated and repetitive mechanism that is only called to action when criticizing something. This film is an attempt, one of the most successful I've seen lately, to make us open our eyes.
The truth is, I needed this. I needed a movie to silence my criticism and make me reconsider. It is an extremely particular feeling that I think I will never neglect.
1. Joanna Hogg is pretty good at directing, but always, in all her scenes, something seems to need polishing (sound, lighting, even certain frames are missing).
2. The trailer is SO misleading.
3. It's up to the first 30 minutes that they show us a plot point that doesn't relate to the first installment. Until those 30 minutes, the plot remains STATIC.
From this moment on, I begin to remember that the purpose of cinema is not to be pleasant. In fact, many times, it is anything but.
4. The quite meta aspect of the film I think perfectly conveys the intentions of the first part. It makes me think that everything I'm writing in here is part of what is being criticized.
Spoiler alert: yes it was.
5. It just takes too long to develop that idea. Enough to make you wonder why it's divided into 2 parts, when it couldn't have possibly had the same impact if it wasn't.
6. It's criticizing the way filmmakers, especially aspiring ones, don't have that freedom to tell a story like people would think they do. And the lack of support to be able to land their ideas, due to the fact that they have a great lack of experience.
Even if there is initiative from people to understand the story they want to tell, this film shows that we will never get the true feeling that it evokes from the director as long as we are third parties.
7. The first film shows the lack of understanding of the people towards the story, this part tells that same lack of understanding, but at the moment of telling it.
8. Leads me to believe that it bends the rules in the beginning to make that point of view known. I don't fully understand if that decision works for me per se, but at least I can say I do understand it.
Second spoiler alert: it ended up working almost perfectly.
It's funny to think that both installments of The Souvenir opened my eyes in such different ways about the form and narratives you want to tell when making films. This itself just goes to show how detailed Joanna Hogg's direction is. You understand why there are two films, the reason behind the lines of entire scenes that seem to deliver nothing. These are things that, when you see them unfold on screen, do not stop conjuring rejection, for the same aspect of which we have cataloged films as "bad" or "good". When it comes to telling why, we have created an automated and repetitive mechanism that is only called to action when criticizing something. This film is an attempt, one of the most successful I've seen lately, to make us open our eyes.
The truth is, I needed this. I needed a movie to silence my criticism and make me reconsider. It is an extremely particular feeling that I think I will never neglect.