Two movies about serial killers which are considered masterpieces .

Their strengths? the bad guy of course... but also the relationship between the bad guy and the 'good' guy... and the empathy you can have towards the bad, even the fascination/admiration you feel.

I'm fascinated by Hannibal Lecter, John Doe, Kaiser Sauze... Bad guys are interesting because they are so human and so far from human vertues...

And they put into question what's good and what's bad...

Hannibal is smart, has a high level of education, knows how human beings act. That's his biggest strength and why he's so terrifying. The knowledge , the search for the absolute knowledge, the truth... coming so close to what the society wants from you and totally lose his mind

Here’s just a small review of Be Kind Rewind, the new movie of Michel Gondry, my favorite director... for X reasons : I love his way of thinking, of filming just like you enter his head, you enter your own head. He’s himself, with his qualities and defaults, that’s what I like...

Well, first impression as usual : I was happy at the end of the movie, I laughed and thought during the movie.  I actually enjoy the movie , really. It put a smile upon my face. But I have mixed feelings. The end, the begining.. no, I didn’t get it.

The movie begins slowly, some shots seem useless, with no logical links. I usually like this kind of disturbances but not that time. I like the very begining with the ’movie’ but then came the story, the presentation of the characters and for about 10/20 minutes I wasn’t there. Why? dunno... I have to watch the movie again maybe. Well after that, the sweding began and all was funny, smart , entertaining and interesting.

It’s quite a declaration of love ... Michel Gondry shows and embrasses his love for cinema, for movies which are considered as masterpieces, for movies he had lived and grown with which aren’t considered as masterpieces (ghostbusters could be the main example).  Ghostbuters sweeded ! That was very funny and it reminds me Plan 9 for Outer Space and all Ed Wood’s movies. It’s like he always wanted to make those movies himself... just like me! If I could get back in the future, I’ll make Eternal Sunshine of the spotless Mind, all the same of course because i just love this movie, but I will see my name on the big screen and I will enter Eternity and I’d finally achieve something in my life that people could watch, admire or not, and so share a bit of my solitude in this world (I’m not dramatic but that’s true, we are alone in our heads). And that’s partly what this film is about. Why do we love movies? Because we identify ourselves to the characters and sometimes to the director, the scenarist. I did feel this way while watching the movie...   and Why do we want to be on TV? To be recongnized? Why do we want to be sure that everybody is aware of our success/despair/love... because we are alone? Because we can die at any time?

That’s what I like in Michel’ s movie. I always ask myself questions with no real response. And maybe that’s all a movie must be about... uncertainty, no answer, life indeed. That’s why i finally like the end of the movie because it is a human reaction. It is like he makes the end of the movie just like the audience want to make it. Idealistic, unrealistic, optimistic... and another idea comes to my mind : Hollywood used to make some preview to determined the end of the movie, to see if the editing has to be changed. Is that so shameful? I can’t be didactique about that by now. If the movie is strong enough it shouldn’t previewed and adapted to the audience tastes. But what if the movie is crap? maybe it could help some movies...

well,  I love Michel Gondry’s work definitively, be Kind Rewind may not be my favorite movie but i love it all the way. It has different layers, which is very smart and that makes great movies and great director... still, i’ll die to question him about some interpretations of his movie (mine of course ) just like I’m dying to meet great movies soon (Daarjeeling here I come!)

I watched this amazing movie written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (boogie nights, punch drunk love, Magnolia (I know, frogs at the end of the film was just something useless... )).

Well, to sum up my feelings, I may say that it is brilliant, that I was speechless when I left the cinema. That the cast is just unbelievable (what a surprise!), that the script is so smart, that the way it is shot is so GREAT. Anyway, I may say that I love this film. It remind me of a lot of movies that I also appreciate a lot, like Aviator, Citizen Kane ...

But above all, to appreciate this film, you have to be prepared, to immerse yourself into this film, into his main characters. Daniel Day Lewis helps a lot into this process. You see the Oil man, the real one, the one who is misanthrope, the one who doesn’t trust human beings. And the strength of Daniel Day Lewis is to make you believe in such a story. You even get some sympathy for his character, you understand why he is acting like that, why it’s better to do everything on your own than to work with other people.  He is the self made man ’par excellence’, a self made man who is selfish, who built his empire himSELF. But he’s not so selfish. He’s never really alone. First there is his ’son’, then there is his ’brother’.But still, he’s by his own. When he considers that these ’close’ people are useless, he kills them (literally speaking or not). Why? because he’s a self made man. Because he can’t stand betrayal (his ’brother’) and he can’t stand failures (his ’son’s’ deafness). But in his quest of perfection, he wins and loses everything. Of course he got the mansion of his dreams (was that really his dream?... ), of course he got money, he has succeeded. But he’s alone. The only human being that could have possibly help him was his son. But he made unforgivable mistakes when he wants to keep him, to protect him, to rule his life.

This story reminds me of course of the story of Howard Hughes in his big mansion in Aviator, of the story of Citizen Kane (Mansion, the rise and Fall of course too) but it also brings modernity in this kind of stories. There are many similarities between their stories but i don’t know why I had the impression that there is something else in this movie. The way it is shot probably. Citizen Kane was very innovative but the narration has nothing to do with There Will Be Blood (the budget neither). Then Scorcese has a very classical way to shoot a movie. Paul Thomas Anderson seems to be a classical director and it is also his strength. I mean, even if the movie lasts more than 2hours, even if the scenario respects the chronological order, there is something else that I couldn’t express by now.

well, actually, I think that Paul Thomas Anderson is smarter than Orson Welles in his way to make us think about the reasons of the actions of the ’hero’. Orson Welles made it the center of the story with the investigation around the rosebud mystery. Paul Thomas Anderson didn’t ask clearly the question which is smater to me... You see it, you live it, you ’undestand’ it. The music and the beginning of the movie plays a huge role in this movie too. This music, at the beginning, and then this shot, on the hills and then the tittle..THERE WILL BE BLOOD. Hell yeah, you are ready to see blood and you want to see blood (It’s not a Tarantino’s movie??). And you feel the blood, you feel this tension. But actually, it has nothing to see with Kill Bill or Reservoir Dogs regarding the number of deaths or cut arms and legs. It is There Will Be Blood. Like a wish, like a motto, like hope! I may say that the strength of this film is that There Will Be Blood is There Will Be Blood and nothing more, nothing less. Inspired by classical movies, classical characters, classical shooting, classical music... A classic, to sum it up

Well, after all these years of studying hard (the harder that I could... or not), I finally enter the real world... the one with responsibilities but above all the one with total freedom... or maybe more freedom. I’m going to live in Paris, big city, the romantic city the... blablabla; all these craps are not for me.

I want to discover what the real Paris is. Not the one describes in some movies, not the one the tourists are visiting. I want to know what a real "Parisien"is, how it feels to be in a city we can describe as cosmopolite. All these monuments, these museums, these people. To me it’s like a big market... to me it’s like without any soul, any particular rythm that makes it a particular city as Toulouse is for me. But I don’t know Paris at all and I’m dying to discover that my first feeling towards this city is totally wrong. I think I will discover why so many people are attracted to this city, why they come in Paris and never come back to their hometown. Personally speaking, I’m attracted because I haven’t found the real Paris yet. So I hope i will have time to do so.

So let’s go to work, welcome to real life... I hope I will remain that little idealistic girl in this jungle...

Well, I just watched the new Cronenberg.

A great movie... Intense, crude violence and great actors. It is the kind of films in which you forget that Viggo Mortensen in the King of the LOTR and that Vincent Cassel is french and the son of... Spoiler, by the way, I'm gonna talk about the movie...

Viggo impersonates so well this 'departed', he gives all his body, all his soul. It's fascinating. But I may say I was angry to see in some forums that some spectators were waiting for a sequel of this movie. They ask themselves different questions about this movie : Will Anna and Nikolai will see each other again... Come on guys, open your minds! Why people are so obsessed by love stories. I mean, of course, we hope to find love etc, but come on, the majority of love stories in cinema ends tragically. Because of the society, of people themselves, because love is not enough sometimes. Nikolai choose to live this way, he keeps a mystery with his tatoos, it is quite exciting to think about his tatoos, to imagine a story behind them... And this movie is also that. You can imagine whatever you want after the end of the movie. Maybe he will die the day after, maybe she will meet someone else and totally forget him, maybe Kirill will find his way to his homosexuality, maybe he won't, maybe he will try something with Nikolai because Nikolai is very helpful, maybe maybe maybe.

Movies are not here to give you answers and a sequel won't be fait to this movie. When you get every answers in a movie, it is entertainment. Maybe should we just enjoy to watch a movie and after ask ourselves what's going on after in the lives of the 'heros' and we should also watch our own lives to see what's going on after today...

People are not silly, they can think by themselves, i'm damn sure of that. I think that Art is here for that, to make us think and not to give us something which is just entertainment... Television is here for that, not cinema... I believe in people, in cinema so i'm sure that Cronenberg, Tarantino, Ken Loach, Michel Gondry and all the great screenwriters will survive in this world of entertainment...

..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

What makes a good movie?

            Cinema is my favourite art form for a lot of reasons. The first reason is that I just like to be in a dark and unknown place with 'the others' and then to realize that I experienced unconsciously something very personal next to them. In a theatre or in an opera, you are with unknown people but you have some common expectations which prove me that we are not living in a so individualistic world. This is why I think Art and cinema will never die. People need to go to watch a movie even if it is just for entertainment and/or escaping the 'real' world. They can go to watch a movie with their friends, their family or just want to watch it by their own, which is much more intimate to me. They could also watch television or watch a movie on a computer but I think the atmosphere of a cinema can't be replaced and people just like it. I do think this won't change.

            The strength of cinema, in comparison to other art forms, is that anyone could watch a movie since the childhood which is also possible with music and theatre but to me, it is easier to go to the cinema than to go to a concert. The movie gives you the pictures, the history so you can 'understand it' even if you're young and with no experience. Of course, it depends on the 'kind' of movies you are watching. What is more interesting in a movie is to read between the pictures and the sounds so you can imagine something more than just pictures on the screen. When you are listening to the music, you imagine the colours and the pictures in your head; when you read a book, you imagine the pictures and the sounds. In cinema, you can't. You have to make big efforts to imagine something else. That's one of the reasons why I like cinema and most of all, Great movies…

            So I will try to define what makes a 'good' movie and what makes a 'bad' movie.

            I used to learn something from a movie and I have great expectations from it. I want to think about what I've lived, what I've learnt from it and to feel something, have reactions (laughing, being disturbed, getting angry, crying…). If I can do that, I used to think that it is a great movie. What makes a good movie? It is a tough question….

            So I begin asking myself why did I like 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' and Tarantino's movies…Here came the fear of loving movies with no philosophical and sociological interests. Usually, when I came out the cinema, I just know if I like a movie or not.  My biggest fear is to realize that films I adore are just pieces of shit. So I took the risk of watching again my favourite ones and trying to analyse why I loved those films. I can say that it is quite difficult with Tarantino's movies. I just loved them. No rational reasons. It is just that I felt like enjoying myself when I watched them. Maybe I like more entertainment that I thought. But Tarantino is no pure entertainment. There are many techniques and references in his films and something else…You can fell his passion for cinema in his films. That might be the strength of his films. Moreover, there's always a part of entertainment in a movie. Getting bored while watching a movie doesn't mean it is a great movie. Art and Entertainment are definitively not so far from each other.

            So what makes a great movie?  The first answers might be: good screenplay, good director, good pictures, good soundtrack, rhythm, good dialogs, good actors but actually what makes a chef d'oeuvre is all the above blending together to create a whole that makes us forget the technical aspect, the performance of an actor, the sense of the words… When I forget that there is so much money invested on it, so many times spend on it, so many people involved in it, I finally think of the quality of the movie itself.

            We watched "Shortcuts" and "Last Tango in ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Paris", two very different movies but in a way they are really close to each other. I consider that both of them are masterpieces.

            First I appreciate the quality of the cast members. I totally forgot that Marlon Brando was the Godfather and that Jean-Pierre Léaud was far from being the best actor I've seen. The chemistry between the actors makes us forget that this is cinema. Actors of Shortcuts are also great and seem 'real' to me. Considering that cinema is a representation of a reality is something I used to think but it is definitively more than that. While watching "Cul de Sac", I was searching for the realness on the characters but it was quite hard. In fact, It just showed a different reality and not what I used to see and what I expected. Art is not necessarily supposed to show the Nature, the realness. So I finally think that actors are good when they totally mix with their characters and when you forget that they are actors.

            Then, in those films, the directors succeed in giving sense of the screenplay. The way it is filmed, the pictures, the colours are great. Techniques are important in a movie. When you don't see all the techniques, you can concentrate on the film itself. Of course you can ask why the director choose to shoot a scene this way but when a movie is great, the first time you watch it, you don't ask yourself why unless you are a film analyst or the movie is shit…

            Basically, the screenplays are also good and so as the dialogs. These elements are the basis of a film. But without a good shooting, a good soundtrack and good actors, they don't exist. As there is cohesion between these elements and the way it is shot and played, I can say the movie is good or not. All elements are connected to each others.

            So what is a good screenplay? I think that the plot and the theme are important.

The strength of these 'stories' is how they can resonate in you. I don't think that screenwriters are aware of every meanings can take their screenplays. Meanings are different from one person to an other. Taking 'Shortcuts', you can see a critic of Occidental society. There is a lack of communication between the characters which is quite ironic in a world where you can communicate with people who lived thousands miles from you. I also think the movie is about the levelling of values. The characters seem lost and don't know where their limits are. They don't know what to believe in. It is also a film about postmodernism because of that. Everything has to be tolerated and so people could do or think whatever they won't. It is quite nonsense and I really felt like that while watching the movie. Their lives haven't any sense and they don't know how to give them a sense. Nothing can't be seen as intolerable. It is the reign of subjectivity. All of the characters experience the underworld but they don't seem to learn from it. The earthquake represents the peak of the underworld, the total destruction of their world. But after that, life is just going on, the usual way. It is like they have no other choices but to go on the way they used to do. They are so stuck in their world that they can't escape from it.

            As for 'Last Tango', there is something about postmodern human beings. In the characters, there is a tension between who do they want to be and what the society wants them to be. The fact that Paul doesn't want to know the name of Jeanne displays the fact that he wants to be totally out of the codes of society and maybe get close to what human being is really. It is a representation of the absolute transgression of the codes, the mythologies that build the World. We could also see Paul as the representation of the cosmopolitism. He's not American, he's not French, he has no job… he wants to be out of the system but at the end, he comes back in the system because he develops a kind of feelings towards Jeanne because he doesn't want to be alone out of the system. Maybe that's his biggest mistake. He doesn't want to make the journey alone. But as soon as you make a journey on the underworld with somebody else, you create another system of values and you become socialized. In a way, this idea is close to the idea of Shortcuts. When the characters of Shortcuts experience the underworld, they are not alone. That's why they can't really learn from their 'mistakes'. To know yourself, you have to experience things by your own. Living in society means respecting codes of this society but knowing yourself implies to think about yourself out of the society.

            So these films are very much linked to the period they are made. You can't watch and really 'understand' a film without considering the context of this film. "Citizen Kane" is considered one of the best film ever because Orson Welles invented new techniques of filming, new ways to build a movie and the theme of the movie was and is still seen as a critic of the 'media' society.

            Kant used to write that the audience makes a work of art a master piece, not the work of art itself. I won't say that. Art can't exist without the audience but, for all the reasons I mentioned earlier, a good movie is not only a movie that professional critics like or that the audience likes. A good movie is the correlation of good screenplay, good techniques, good soundtrack and so on, and there must be a cohesion between these elements. If there is no cohesion, it might be a piece of shit or a movie 'about' incoherence. Form and fond are bound in every art form so if fond and form are totally working together in a movie, I think that this movie might be a masterpiece.

This film, which won the academy award of the best foreign picture, is quite great.

This is a story about Wiesler, a captain of the Stasi, the former federal Police of East Germany, who betrayed his camp to 'save' a writer and also the freedom that was missing during those times in West Germany. I have to say i'm pretty impressed by the actual german film industry and its dynamic. This film is well directed, the actors are just great...

There are not good and bad people, there are just human beings who try to act the better they can. There isn't too much drama, you are just stuck and you want to see what will happen next. Surprising, good timing. You went through different feelings, you understand what can push people to act against their own side. You can really feel the atmosphere and the tension of such a period and also the consequences of it.

German filmmakers are not my favorite's but I have to say that in their last films they show a real distance and analysis of one of their hardest period. Maybe the Art was the only thing that could save the freedom in the country at that time and this film just show this. Moreover I think about the power of the writing and the freedom of expression which are so necessary in every country. I realize that we have that chance in France. We have a lot of newspapers which can criticize the government and the measures they take. I don't think that Sarkozy could shut their mouths because they have to much power and that's just fine.

I don't know if it's the same in a lot of countries but I hope so. I know this is the main problem in countries lead by dictators. Some have to be brave, even if they can die. It's really easy for me to say that, I don't have to fight for freedom of expression. But I'm just an idealist who thinks that human beings are very brave and I do believe that freedom can beat all Tyrans or dictators.

I just watch this amazing film... I just loved it from the begining to the end.

Well, actually this is a film about creativity in the world of conformity. Charlie Kaufman is just an amazing screenwriter and I think he just has the power to make you enter his head... He wrote also Being John Malkovitch, Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind and Human Nature. What a chance that he found directors who were ready to adapt his screenplay.

This film is about his struggle to enter Hollywood without losing his creativity and his originality. It's also about his struggle to be part of the world and the society of glamour. He might despise this society but he also desires to be recognized by this society, by all those confident and good looking people. His twin, Donald, is just the projection of who he wants to be, ie a confident and convincing screenwriter. But if an artist is that confident, wouldn't it mean that he's no more an artist? I used to think that an artist should underestimate himself, an artist should be lost and unhappy, tortured...

Actually that's the point of the film. When you're so lost and so disgussed by yourself, maybe you can't create. Charlie is at a loss, feels useless. He even denies his convictions and goes to a seminary to "learn" some rules about screenwriting... He wants to get closer to his alter ego Donald but he definitely lost himself doing that.

The fact that Donald dies at the end shows that the only way to  find yourself is to listen to yourself and not to try to look like someone you want to be. Charlie wanted to be like that confident and happy screenwriter but it is not his personality. If you want to enter a universe, you don't have to stick to its codes or its rules , you just have to be yourself and be convinced that even if people reject you or even despise you, that doesn't mean that you're useless to them or to the world. You're just different and you show your differences. Everybody's different from one another. It is just a matter of showing or not showing who you really are.

Charlie Kaufman is pretty much recognized for his talent but he didn't feel right in this Hollywood World. He's just like, I don't want to be me, just leave me alone, I'm not that genius. He'd really like to be like his alter ego, but that's not him and I think he has found his way to be himself and this film shows how he did it.

I love that film, I just recommand it to the people who like entering brains of artists, who love Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Being John Malkovitch.

So I went to Paris during 6 days...There are a lot to do in Paris, I can tell but living there is SO expensive!

Well, I had the chance to have some friends there so I could sleep in their flat. I met Axel near the Place de l’Etoile. As soon as I arrived, I saw the Arc de Triomphe on the Place de l’Etoile and then I went with Axel to the Champs Elysées. Nice street indeed, I’ve already been there so no surprise...

We also walked in the famous Montaigne Avenue. What stroke me the most were the bushes in front of Gucci Store : they were shaped in the letter ’G’!

After I saw the Elysée, home of the President of the French Republic, Printemps a big store. On the roof of Printemps, there is a splendid view of the city and also the beautiful Coupole! After that we went to the Place of the Madeleine. We took the time to enter La Durée Café. They make the best Macaron in France! But you have to pay 6,7€ for a Coca Cola and 3,3€ for a coffee... Life is so expensive!

During the evening, we walked in The Marais, the nicest quarter of Paris to me. We saw the Hôtel de Ville, The Isle of the Cité and St Louis Island! Notre Dame is beautiful at night!! Walking on the Quais de la Seine was nice also...

The day after I went to Les Tuileries, next to the Louvre! We saw the Insitut de France where stettles The Acadamy Française. At night, we ate the best Fallafel in the world! You can find it in The Street of the Rosiers, in the Marais. We saw the Eiffel Tower at night, when it was lightening brightly! So beautiful!

The day after, I went to Georges Pompidou Center to watch beautiful pieces of Art! I saw master pieces of Mondrian, Kandinsky, Picasso (but it’s not the best place to see Picasso’s paintings), Philippe Stark (so fascinating!). The view is also great there. I walked a lot I can tell!! I used to go to Starbucks to have my morning coffee! i tried to go to each of them in Paris... Pretty hard!

During the rest of my trip, I saw teh Cinémathèque, which is great, the Jardin des Plantes, beautiful, the Museum of Orsay, The Place des Vosges (so great), the Museum du Quai Branly, The Café de Flore, St Germain des Prés, The Latin Quarter...You can do a lot of things in Paris but I can tell I was dying to come back to Toulouse. It is quite stressful to live there and the weather was so bad when I was there... Paris, je t’aime but by now I’d rather live in Toulouse because it’s quieter and warmer!

But I will come back there to see my friends of Prepa, Axel, Arnaud, Caro and so on!

I just realize that I hadn't spoken about my trip in Cannes during the International Movie Festival.

I went there hoping to meet (meet is a big word, just see would have been great) Quentin Tarantino, Wong Kar Wai, Jude Law and so on.

Unfortunatly, when you are just somebody in the crowd, you won't have the chance to see them closely. You spend your time waiting. Hey, Alain smile! An autograph!! That's the only thing you can expect from the Festival if you don't know 'somebody'. I saw a lot of actors, directors and journalists. That was great but I was shocked by some facts :

When Claude Lelouch was there, a lot of people didn't recognize him. So WHY DID THEY COME TO CANNES FESTIVAL! To see 'Stars' but they don't know anything about cinema. Cinema is a huge industry and I know the actors are really important for it but directors, scenarists are also important!

Well, I saw the french show 'le grand journal'. It was fun seeing the rehearsal and Les Guignol on live!

I just can't wait to come back there next year!