#58-60 ("Ned Kelly")
Who would have thought over 13 years ago that I would be where I am today. In high school I was positioning myself to never enter another formal education setting. I had decided once I'd graduated from high school that I would be done with my education, that I'd gotten all I wanted out of it. I was someone who hated being told what I should study, what I should why, and why it was important. Let me decide for myself, I thought. I hated school. I found it dull, learning inside a box. I never considered myself an inside-the-box thinker. In fact, I resented it.
So, once I graduated I decided to "take a year off" to figure things out, to figure out exactly what I wanted in life, what I wanted to be. It was an important year in my life. I was working at a record store, thinking life doesn't get any better than listening to music all the time and getting free music once a week and going to as many shows as I wanted (sometimes for free). It seemed immature, but in actuality, I'd been forced to grow up faster than I would've preferred. I was paying rent for a single bedroom apartment by the time I was 19 years old, since right after graduating my father dropped the bomb that he'd sold the house I'd grown up in and I would have to find a place to live. We visited my uncle one night in early summer and he suggested I live in his apartment's basement. It was cozy. It was the first place I'd call home, on my own. Rent free. I lived there for slightly less than a year. Then, I found an amazing apartment building, in Lewiston, for pretty cheap. I lived in that one bedroom apartment for the next decade (that's right 10 years). I was an ideal tenant. Never complained. Always paid my rent at least one week in advance. Was clean (for the most part). I was a full-fledged adult.
Through those 10 years I attended two colleges, paying for my own education, Central Maine Community College (where I learned the first semester that I would probably make an excellent teacher, thanks in large part to my natural ability and also a gift I've always had, PATIENCE). While there, I also worked at the Community College's library (thanks in small part to my sister's connections, because one of the librarian's had worked with her at the Bates College library while my sister was attending there). I also self-published an anthology of poetry and short stories (that, looking back on, is actually pretty drivel and ridiculous). I discovered another natural talent, too: writing. I taught my poetry to an AP English class during that time period, as well.
I then attended University of Southern Maine for 4.5 years, completing my Bachelor's Degree and becoming certified as a K-8 teacher. I met some amazing people during those years, some of the greatest friends and acquaintances that I've remained in contact with throughout the years. Dated a few girls. Had many more mishaps than actual relationships. Ultimately, though, I think I grew up the most during those 4-5 years. I think I grew into myself as well. Gained the self-confidence I've needed and kept and built on ever since. I had a near-death experience in my Ford Contour on the way to see Jon Stewart in Boston one night. I found myself adopting a cute little black cat (who was the runt of the litter) who has been a constant in my life ever since, who has become a great companion through my years of bachelorhood and an extension of me when in a relationship. I named him Artex (after the horse in "The Neverending Story" my favorite childhood movie).
So, why this extended background of my college years. Well, let's just say, I've always enjoyed educating myself; or being in charge of my own education. I've never enjoyed being told what I should know. In high school, I decided my time and brain cells would be put to better use by memorizing lines from my favorite movies and lyrics to songs.
So, when I went to college I enjoyed that I was in charge of my education. Even though there were required courses, I picked courses that I was interested in. I took film classes, writing classes, etc. But, I've always had a soft spot for history and social studies. I've loved learning about the past and what it can teach us for the future.
"Ned Kelly" (starring Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom, finally in a supportive role, as well as Naomi Watts and Geoffrey Rush) is set in Australia around 1871.
Now, here's your history lesson for the day: right around this time period Australia was known for two things: (a) the British settlement of Australia was established as a penal colony, in other words, they shipped over 165,000 convicts to this land that would be known to us as Australia and (b) by 1871 over 1.7 million people had come to Australia thanks in large part to the gold rush between 1851-1871. Having convicts inhabit a land known to be a "goldmine" could only lead to trouble. Right? Perhaps that's why the people later took solace in calling Ned Kelly their national hero. Was he, in a sense, giving back what was theirs?
Heath Ledger plays the title character, who is known in Australian history for his notoriety (for beating authority figures and robbing banks) and his otherwise Robin Hood-esque legendary status among the inhabitants of Australia. In reading up on the history behind Ned Kelly, I came to discover that he was what Australians call a "bushranger" or a highwayman with his own supporting cast of gang members. He is revered in Australia as having a reputation of courage, chivalry, charm and kindness (stealing from the rich and giving back to the poor). He did want he felt was necessary. The film starts off with him attacking an officer after being accused of stealing a horse (whether he did or not doesn't seem to matter) and then being fired upon (unjustly). He is imprisoned for 7 seven years, returns home and accepting a life for himself that is quickly brought to a halt when another officer (keen on charming Kelly's sister who dismisses his advances and pisses off said officer) accuses Ned Kelly of shooting him (for which they imprison Kelly's mother...for some reason, which I never understood), but this sets off Ned Kelly and he is off to seek justice (for himself, mostly) and vengeance (for his mother's false imprisonment).
The film quickly turns into an Australian outback gangster film, but with a heart and soul (and mind). The difference, I believe, in this "foreign" set film as opposed to our American crime gangster films is that Ned Kelly has a conscience. He believes what he is doing is right and justified. There is enough back-story to support his reasoning and make you feel sorry for him (in his inevitable demise). I was disappointed that the film ends simply with Kelly's capture after a bloody shoot-out with the cops. I wanted to see his trial (during which I read about his insolent behavior... judge says "may god have mercy on your soul" to which Kelly replied "I'll see you there when I go"....ah man, that's just good film fodder! And then his execution, which I would think is an important piece of the legend, since he is seen as an Australian hero/martyr, especially if the filmmakers were going for a sort of "Braveheart" of their own. Regardless, I was engaged in the story and thought it was done well. I've never seen a film of Heath Ledger's that I wasn't impressed with, in large part because of his natural ability to act. (His role as the Joker in "The Dark Knight" will forever stand the test of time.)
........................................................................
"Kill Theory" is an independent film that does the "Saw" movies even better than the Saw movies do themselves, perhaps because it takes its time to develop the story. Now, don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed the original "Saw" film because it focused more on the psychological aspect of killing and saving oneself.
In "Kill Theory" we have 7 college friends setting up a long weekend of partying and celebrating at the rich kid's father's lake house, in the middle of nowhere. The film could have quickly turned into another slasher cliche of beautiful girls and cocky guys getting gutted for amusement, but the filmmakers took it in another direction. They actually make you feel bad for these friends, stranded in a beautiful home, being terrorized by a "killer" who plays a game with them. You see, he tells them that they have to kill each other by 6 a.m. or they will all die. So, dialogues ensue, secrets are revealed, and killings happen, either by their own hands or by the killer's hands (as he sits/stands idly by somewhere outside and watches the core group of friends quickly unravel). What's great is that you don't really ever see the killer (at the very beginning and then again at the very end). He is more of an omnipresence in the film. He is the puppet master.
I watched the film because Agnes Bruckner was in it. I remembered her from her excellent role in another indie film years ago titled "Blue Car." I was impressed with her then and I enjoyed seeing her in what could have been a typical teenager slasher film, but was actually a surprising enjoyment.
There is plenty of death and blood if you are looking for horror, scares aplenty, but the film also focuses more on the psychological impact of being terrorized by a stranger set to kill you if you don't kill others first.
........................................................................
Then I watched "Antichrist" which is Lars Von Trier's extremely controversial film about a husband and wife who experience the ultimate pain of their only child's death. What makes their story interesting is that the little boy fell to his death from an open window in their apartment (in the slow-motion set opening sequence over a piece by Handel for effect, obviously) while the parents (played by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) are having intense and passionate sex, neglecting the well-being of their child.
Lars von Trier sets up the film in an interesting way, telling the story in parts (with a Prologue, 3 Acts and an Epilogue). The 3 Acts are titled "Pain, Grief, and Despair" respectively. Willem Dafoe's character is a therapist and he witnesses his wife's mental well-being taking a toll after their son's death, so he decides they will travel into the woods and stay at a cabin there, where they will go through these stages together.
The film gets really weird and disengaging at this point and I sort of lost interest in both the story and the characters. I think I expected more, perhaps because of the controversy surrounding it, and I was ultimately let down by the film's impact. I am not quite sure what Lars von Trier was trying to convey and whatever it was, I feel, got lost somewhere along the way. It might have to do with the fact that the characters are simply given pronoun names: He and She. It might have to do with the obvious religious undertones: the cabin in the woods is titled "Eden." It might have to do with the fantasy aspect he gives the film.
Ultimately, I wanted more and I felt slightly cheated.
So, once I graduated I decided to "take a year off" to figure things out, to figure out exactly what I wanted in life, what I wanted to be. It was an important year in my life. I was working at a record store, thinking life doesn't get any better than listening to music all the time and getting free music once a week and going to as many shows as I wanted (sometimes for free). It seemed immature, but in actuality, I'd been forced to grow up faster than I would've preferred. I was paying rent for a single bedroom apartment by the time I was 19 years old, since right after graduating my father dropped the bomb that he'd sold the house I'd grown up in and I would have to find a place to live. We visited my uncle one night in early summer and he suggested I live in his apartment's basement. It was cozy. It was the first place I'd call home, on my own. Rent free. I lived there for slightly less than a year. Then, I found an amazing apartment building, in Lewiston, for pretty cheap. I lived in that one bedroom apartment for the next decade (that's right 10 years). I was an ideal tenant. Never complained. Always paid my rent at least one week in advance. Was clean (for the most part). I was a full-fledged adult.
Through those 10 years I attended two colleges, paying for my own education, Central Maine Community College (where I learned the first semester that I would probably make an excellent teacher, thanks in large part to my natural ability and also a gift I've always had, PATIENCE). While there, I also worked at the Community College's library (thanks in small part to my sister's connections, because one of the librarian's had worked with her at the Bates College library while my sister was attending there). I also self-published an anthology of poetry and short stories (that, looking back on, is actually pretty drivel and ridiculous). I discovered another natural talent, too: writing. I taught my poetry to an AP English class during that time period, as well.
I then attended University of Southern Maine for 4.5 years, completing my Bachelor's Degree and becoming certified as a K-8 teacher. I met some amazing people during those years, some of the greatest friends and acquaintances that I've remained in contact with throughout the years. Dated a few girls. Had many more mishaps than actual relationships. Ultimately, though, I think I grew up the most during those 4-5 years. I think I grew into myself as well. Gained the self-confidence I've needed and kept and built on ever since. I had a near-death experience in my Ford Contour on the way to see Jon Stewart in Boston one night. I found myself adopting a cute little black cat (who was the runt of the litter) who has been a constant in my life ever since, who has become a great companion through my years of bachelorhood and an extension of me when in a relationship. I named him Artex (after the horse in "The Neverending Story" my favorite childhood movie).
So, why this extended background of my college years. Well, let's just say, I've always enjoyed educating myself; or being in charge of my own education. I've never enjoyed being told what I should know. In high school, I decided my time and brain cells would be put to better use by memorizing lines from my favorite movies and lyrics to songs.
So, when I went to college I enjoyed that I was in charge of my education. Even though there were required courses, I picked courses that I was interested in. I took film classes, writing classes, etc. But, I've always had a soft spot for history and social studies. I've loved learning about the past and what it can teach us for the future.
"Ned Kelly" (starring Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom, finally in a supportive role, as well as Naomi Watts and Geoffrey Rush) is set in Australia around 1871.
Now, here's your history lesson for the day: right around this time period Australia was known for two things: (a) the British settlement of Australia was established as a penal colony, in other words, they shipped over 165,000 convicts to this land that would be known to us as Australia and (b) by 1871 over 1.7 million people had come to Australia thanks in large part to the gold rush between 1851-1871. Having convicts inhabit a land known to be a "goldmine" could only lead to trouble. Right? Perhaps that's why the people later took solace in calling Ned Kelly their national hero. Was he, in a sense, giving back what was theirs?
Heath Ledger plays the title character, who is known in Australian history for his notoriety (for beating authority figures and robbing banks) and his otherwise Robin Hood-esque legendary status among the inhabitants of Australia. In reading up on the history behind Ned Kelly, I came to discover that he was what Australians call a "bushranger" or a highwayman with his own supporting cast of gang members. He is revered in Australia as having a reputation of courage, chivalry, charm and kindness (stealing from the rich and giving back to the poor). He did want he felt was necessary. The film starts off with him attacking an officer after being accused of stealing a horse (whether he did or not doesn't seem to matter) and then being fired upon (unjustly). He is imprisoned for 7 seven years, returns home and accepting a life for himself that is quickly brought to a halt when another officer (keen on charming Kelly's sister who dismisses his advances and pisses off said officer) accuses Ned Kelly of shooting him (for which they imprison Kelly's mother...for some reason, which I never understood), but this sets off Ned Kelly and he is off to seek justice (for himself, mostly) and vengeance (for his mother's false imprisonment).
The film quickly turns into an Australian outback gangster film, but with a heart and soul (and mind). The difference, I believe, in this "foreign" set film as opposed to our American crime gangster films is that Ned Kelly has a conscience. He believes what he is doing is right and justified. There is enough back-story to support his reasoning and make you feel sorry for him (in his inevitable demise). I was disappointed that the film ends simply with Kelly's capture after a bloody shoot-out with the cops. I wanted to see his trial (during which I read about his insolent behavior... judge says "may god have mercy on your soul" to which Kelly replied "I'll see you there when I go"....ah man, that's just good film fodder! And then his execution, which I would think is an important piece of the legend, since he is seen as an Australian hero/martyr, especially if the filmmakers were going for a sort of "Braveheart" of their own. Regardless, I was engaged in the story and thought it was done well. I've never seen a film of Heath Ledger's that I wasn't impressed with, in large part because of his natural ability to act. (His role as the Joker in "The Dark Knight" will forever stand the test of time.)
........................................................................
"Kill Theory" is an independent film that does the "Saw" movies even better than the Saw movies do themselves, perhaps because it takes its time to develop the story. Now, don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed the original "Saw" film because it focused more on the psychological aspect of killing and saving oneself.
In "Kill Theory" we have 7 college friends setting up a long weekend of partying and celebrating at the rich kid's father's lake house, in the middle of nowhere. The film could have quickly turned into another slasher cliche of beautiful girls and cocky guys getting gutted for amusement, but the filmmakers took it in another direction. They actually make you feel bad for these friends, stranded in a beautiful home, being terrorized by a "killer" who plays a game with them. You see, he tells them that they have to kill each other by 6 a.m. or they will all die. So, dialogues ensue, secrets are revealed, and killings happen, either by their own hands or by the killer's hands (as he sits/stands idly by somewhere outside and watches the core group of friends quickly unravel). What's great is that you don't really ever see the killer (at the very beginning and then again at the very end). He is more of an omnipresence in the film. He is the puppet master.
I watched the film because Agnes Bruckner was in it. I remembered her from her excellent role in another indie film years ago titled "Blue Car." I was impressed with her then and I enjoyed seeing her in what could have been a typical teenager slasher film, but was actually a surprising enjoyment.
There is plenty of death and blood if you are looking for horror, scares aplenty, but the film also focuses more on the psychological impact of being terrorized by a stranger set to kill you if you don't kill others first.
........................................................................
Then I watched "Antichrist" which is Lars Von Trier's extremely controversial film about a husband and wife who experience the ultimate pain of their only child's death. What makes their story interesting is that the little boy fell to his death from an open window in their apartment (in the slow-motion set opening sequence over a piece by Handel for effect, obviously) while the parents (played by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) are having intense and passionate sex, neglecting the well-being of their child.
Lars von Trier sets up the film in an interesting way, telling the story in parts (with a Prologue, 3 Acts and an Epilogue). The 3 Acts are titled "Pain, Grief, and Despair" respectively. Willem Dafoe's character is a therapist and he witnesses his wife's mental well-being taking a toll after their son's death, so he decides they will travel into the woods and stay at a cabin there, where they will go through these stages together.
The film gets really weird and disengaging at this point and I sort of lost interest in both the story and the characters. I think I expected more, perhaps because of the controversy surrounding it, and I was ultimately let down by the film's impact. I am not quite sure what Lars von Trier was trying to convey and whatever it was, I feel, got lost somewhere along the way. It might have to do with the fact that the characters are simply given pronoun names: He and She. It might have to do with the obvious religious undertones: the cabin in the woods is titled "Eden." It might have to do with the fantasy aspect he gives the film.
Ultimately, I wanted more and I felt slightly cheated.
Comments
Post a Comment