Peliculas En Espanol Free

The White Ribbon

Facing the blank page I see the black and white images of the sublime and terrible Das weisse Band . Needless to use the word masterpiece for film by Michael Haneke: each work is a summit, an extreme. I do not have adequate tools for the interpretation, but I have a fondness for certain irresistible to the cinema of the highest Austrian director, and if I want to write something sensible I must first ask what to feed my passion. What makes all of Haneke's films so fascinating to me?

Answer simple but not trivial: fear. The cinema of Haneke's scary, frightening, strike without mercy on the weak points of the soul, and it hurts. The filmmaker is a kind of Viennese philosopher torturer, who can speak with equal effect to the irrational and rational components the human spirit.

There are two other traits of Haneke's films that are being emphasized. The first is the cold, which is accompanied by total control of the form: Haneke has a supreme mastery of the film medium, a technique so lofty that it can be used against itself - as in Funny Games, Code Inconnu or Caché - or rendered almost invisible - like in Das weisse Band . In all cases, Haneke moves with surgical precision and without pathos, methodically.

The second essential element in the film is Haneke moral judgments. In apparent contrast with the glacial form, is not indifference but a clear ethical vision, a quiet but clear-cut critical and severe, such criticism does not want to teach anything and does not seek converts. Haneke shows the behavior of his characters without condemning them, almost fatalistic, yet it is far from being a mere observer. He shows no wish to prove: paradoxically, Haneke is one of Europe's most directors seem to have followed and put into practice the famous motto Fellini.

In fact there is nothing to show in the cinema of Haneke, if anything, the opposite is true: at the beginning everything seems more straightforward, almost no development, but basically whenever there is a trap, because the circle does not close, does not add up and the feeling never came. This is perhaps the style of Haneke, the most disturbing and alluring at the same time, resulting in a film always surprising, counterintuitive and hopeless, but thanks to these features come with another paradox, to imitate "reality".

Michael Haneke is a master in short, an outsider, one of the greatest directors of contemporary cinema. However, this is nothing new, so that the Palme d'Or won this year by Das weisse Band might at first be a recognition given consideration ex-post the entire work of the director, but not so simple. Haneke never makes a film like any other, despite the recurrence of the items was said previously, and although I have seen virtually none of the other films in competition at Cannes in 2009 are inclined to bet that is higher than that of Haneke all the others, my bet is worthless, of course, but there is no doubt that Das weisse Band would remain a milestone without Palma.

Opera enigmatic and gloomy, in which black and white photo of the milky unsaturated and has a substantial value, Das weisse Band is an ensemble film and headless: the voiceover of one of the protagonists of the story is really just a ruse, a diversionary ploy by which the directing deliberately impede the understanding of the viewer. What is expected from the voice over a character who took part in the events recounted and recalls them from the future? Definitely a help to the understanding of such events, or at least a privileged point of view on this story. In contrast, at the end of the film will be clear that the young elementary school teacher, one to whom belongs the narrator, may not be of any help in explanation of events and their causes, knowing nothing more than what was seen and known by the audience itself. The first image of the film, a real estate flat landscape of northern Germany, is slowly emerging from a fade, as the mirror image, the last shot fades to black, and at the end of a series of mysterious and disturbing events - when it seems that a labile trace has been left to the viewer to let him find even a simple causal link between the incidents to which he attended - all sinks back into thin air without explanation. Just before the narrator had reported the attack in Sarajevo, and the tragic fate of Germany and of Europe itself.

What is most striking in my opinion the way in which Haneke manages to maintain an obscure and almost imperceptible tension throughout the film. There is always the sense of an imminent threat, an explosion of fiction next, but also the most significant events in the story follow each other without obvious links consequential and the most atrocious episodes, with almost no link with what follows them and what before them, they lose significance. Something similar happens with the relationships between the characters: there are those initially presented to an atom with only a name and a location context, which explains why they initially appear "Pure" and clean, without smudges, but also without psychology, as if they were images of classical antiquity. With the passage of the film the relationship between the actants become more evident in their duplicity obscene: Each report has a dual face, depending on whether you look at from the point of view of the public or the private sector. Meanwhile, the psychological characteristics emerge revealing the inner monsters, madness, betrayal and every other kind of wickedness ...

I have already written more than decency permits. I refer those who want to form an opinion about the movie seriously at this link .

How Long Should I Leave Mineral Oil In My Ear?

Lebanon

Lebanon Samuel Maoz opens with a shot of a sunflower field, properties in the light of day. Nothing happens for a few moments in silence, and then, gradually, a sort of metallic hum, far, begins to be felt. While the noise, that of a tracked vehicle, it becomes gradually a looming din the wind begins to blow, shaking violently sunflowers. It seems the title of the film, and suffered a heavy detachment of mounted film plunges the picture into the dark interior of a tank. The door of the circular water tower property reflected on the bottom of the passenger compartment is opened, and a soldier enters: the action starts. A caption warns us that in 1982, June 6, at the dawn of the first day of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and the camera will remain for most of the rest of the movie within this vehicle from the war, in a suffocating darkness.

A well-defined mode of perception is the exact center of the beautiful film Maoz, who won the Golden Lion 2009: monocular vision. E 'dark reflection in the circle that just gives us a clue: the opening narrow and uncomfortable, the only passage between the interior and exterior of the car, it makes a pair with another circular aperture, the viewfinder hence the Young guns Shmulik (Yoav Donat), just entered the service, keep the movements outside of the car and identify the targets. There is another way of seeing what happens out there, and the forces directing the viewer over and over again in the eyes of the mutilated boy through the viewfinder: a kind of artificial subjective, a cage in which the human visual perception merges with that of the war machine - or, rather, remains captive. The dull circle of the viewfinder does not allow more than simple shifts in the lateral or overhead, and a very small range of magnification, with the rough visual aid Shmulik need to do their work, which is identify and eliminate threats from outside, without fail, when ordered. But the boy does not seem to be up to the task: Shmulik use the viewfinder as an instrument of vision, and nothing seems to escape what is happening outside, but when it's time to aim and fire the young man can not pull the trigger to kill, overwhelmed by their emotions. And that's how Lebanon says the absurdity of war: this desire to reduce the human stereoscopic, with its breadth and its depth and simplicity of a horrible one-eyed, or, metaphorically, to remove from their supporters any remaining humanity and emotion and individuality, turning them into mere machines squeezed into well-defined roles and tasks. Why the war to each other that does not require the maintenance of an assigned role, and with it a position, and then obedience to orders received. Claims, the war, to oppose all'imprendibile complexity of reality with a few simple rules, always equal to themselves in time and space. The result of this claim was not long, however, to be recognized in all its atrocities, inside that viewfinder: I am death, blood, dismembered bodies and the torment of the absurd consequences of mindless violence will simplistic.

E ' for this reason that the war can not triumph: his attempt to control the chaos, from the inside face of metal housings trucks, military uniforms or ranks only creates more chaos. And it is the basic condition of humanity? Disorder, such as emotions, you can not control a long time: soon in fact - while the rigid and impassive Gamil, commander of the platoon to which the wagon is to support, comes and goes through the turret or you hear from the radio board taking orders and giving directions to follow - the situation began to plummet. Both inside and outside the ranks of the wagon, like individual psychology, jump in the air the inability to withstand the pressure, or rather, the compression that war produces. The tension increases dramatically, partly because of a Syrian soldier who first on the outside hits the tank with a rocket launcher, damaging it severely, then captured and taken prisoner, is put in chains in the cockpit. And 'This is the most obvious and yet another sign confirming the presence of the enemy, invisible, hidden but powerful, it is increasingly becoming a threat looming over time, while the instructions from the Israeli command become increasingly vague and the presence of the officer Gamil becomes increasingly blurred, to vanish completely. Left to themselves, with their war machine damaged and isolated in a hostile area, the four Israeli soldiers, the crew can then only rely on his instinct, the most irrational and uncontrollable nature. Will Shmulik, who from the beginning had led to confusion and anxiety because of his irrepressible emotion, the only one to say something about themselves and their past history with his grotesque but deeply personal and sincere will temporarily relieve the boy in mates the unbearable weight of events, and the same Shmulik has proved bearer of relief and mercy even to the Syrian prisoner, finally able to rescue the wagon. After I opened the door of the tower and be released first by the war machine, the blue light of morning the young man will stop to watch the opening sequence of the sunflower field, back now to his property alone.

Western Thank You Sayings

Rachel

I was lucky enough to see this documentary by Simone Bitton's festival International Ferrara, almost two months ago. I do not think I had many other occasions, and it is sad that the film has not enjoyed more widespread because Rachel is a courageous and dignified.

We are told the last day Rachel Corrie's life , U.S. activist 's International Solidarity Movement in Rafah killed March 16, 2003 by a bulldozer while opposing the Israeli army demolished the home of Samir Nasrallah, a Palestinian pharmacist. Rachel was twenty-three and a couple of months was in the Gaza Strip with other ISM activists, committed as "human shields" during the second Intifada.

The French-Israeli has collected a large amount of material: there are the filmed testimonies of the young fellow Rachel, as the Israeli authorities and those of the Palestinian inhabitants of the houses that the activists of the ISM had gone to defend. We are the parents of the murdered girl, her teacher and then a number of film footage, read in voice over e-mail that Rachel sent to her mother from Palestine alternates the stories of those who knew and loved.

There are essentially two purposes of the film: the first is to reconstruct the identity of the girl and groped to explain the reason for his choices, the second is to show the absurdity of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but these goals are actually indistinguishable since the war appears to us through the eyes of Rachel and his companions, while the same blank look irretrievably with every passing day spent in the Gaza Strip. Similarly, the merit of the work is double: first, directing the show great sensitivity in telling the soul of a person "without" and the portrait of Rachel is deep and touching, though never in poor pathetic. The various pieces of evidence used in the film are made to order in a fully delineated character, which becomes very clear rationale and objectives: despite being the daughter of its original culture, individualism and welfare, Rachel is a figure Another is that the meaning of life all-encompassing experience of elsewhere. Experience irreversible, like guess the letters his mother, if death had not learned, Rachel would not have been able to return to a certain world view and a short-sighted, calm individualism, these traits that probably had never been his, but that feature in an increasingly stifling the contemporary West, wherever it is.

The other great talent in the film is its size: Rachel is deployed, yes, but by no means a fanatic. It 's a movie that asks questions, observing and not condemnation. Nevertheless, his opinion is clear in showing the folly of that war and any war because war does not require thought, but only action, and thus transforms the people still object before deciding conflicts between friends and enemies among us and their . Only in this way it becomes possible to shoot for fun and acceptable to the houses across the border to raze civilian homes as if they were dominoes, ignore all the attributes of humanity of the "other side". The testimony of the young and anonymous Israeli tank crewman is terrifying because it reveals that at the point where he is now all is lost in terms of subjectivity remains only the ranks and roles, and to follow orders, and no space remains to realize the lives of others, or much less to make a comparison of its existence and that of those who which happens to be considered, with a horrible simplification enemies. In this foul blindness, the same with which the Israeli army tries to prove that Rachel's death was an accident, the result of a simple chain of cause and effect set in motion by irresponsible actions, the film contrasts with the clear gaze of protagonist: a vision that has at its center the individual, takes the form of observation and understanding, and becomes finally chosen and concrete action - and heroic. Rachel Corrie was and will remain the occurrence of a different color, when the horror is overflowing and everything is almost as bleak, impossible to perceive and understand. And if the specter of the futility and oblivion still seems to scare some of those who were companions of the murdered girl, the film ends with the images, sad but full of light, graffiti with the name of Rachel on the walls of houses in Rafah: to show the loving memory of the population towards a girl coming from the opposite side of the world to find his house.

Is Waxing The Best Method

Inglourious Basterds

Enough! You better start talkin
to us, asshole, cause we got shit
we need to talk about.

Mr. White

Inglourious Basterds (sic) is amazing. Can not make it here all the honor it deserves, simply jot down some impressions, long after having seen (and reviewed) the film.

an indispensable premise of dubbing: the original version is almost entirely subtitled. That is, they speak four languages: English, French, German and Italian too - a step short and exhilarating, regularly worn in our local version. This dubbing may seem an insignificant detail, but I believe it is not trivial, since the multiplicity of languages \u200b\u200bin the script is an aesthetically important. The Italian version, the only one I've seen so far in full and that I can write clearly identifies English as the language "base", and it does coincide with the Italian, the problem is that some scenes that are not in the original version in English are dubbed in Italian, however, miserably distorted the spirit the film.

That said, I go with the first point: I do not think it makes much sense to speak of "quoting" the cinema of Tarantino. I'm not even certain that the word citation fits completely in our case: the way in which QT works references to the history of cinema or the rest of human knowledge is not exactly the meaning usually given to ' use of the quotation. I'm thinking of the simple gift, the vulgar display of erudition, but also to the instrumental to a former prestige in order to give greater luster to its creation. Basically I think that these uses are outside the intentions of the director, and I wonder: a citation, to be considered as such, needs to force recognition? Let us assume that the answer is yes. In that case we should also admit that it requires a relative isolation within the text: in other words, the quote seems to good old common sense - whatever that is - easily recognizable and distinct from any of its companions are in the same henhouse.

But what happens in Inglourious Basterds and around the QT film, perhaps for the first time in the history of cinema? That quotes, if you still want to call them, are so numerous and close together - even to each other - to be indistinguishable from each other and their surroundings. In short, the history of cinema, Tarantino then ever before him, began to close in on itself. And he did so so decided it can no longer go back to being what it was before: that a line, maybe not straight, but continued to proceed, including tear and impact of all kinds, in one sense. This line QT has given a new trend, apparently regressive: that of a spiral centered on nothing. At the center of that maelstrom, in the heart of the QT film appearance and common sense want is the absolute vacuum: no effect, neither moral nor hope in the films of Quentin. Nothing. Apparently, only an accumulation of obsessive copying, reflections, dialogues rooms and free from any "truth" or verisimilitude (as damn funny). The Last Fine no longer exists in its place is an avalanche of trash taken from somewhere, a cathedral that will never consecrated because it was built with the remains of monuments too heterogeneous, even with the decomposed waste past. We want to find evidence of this in Inglourious Basterds ? There problem here is the criptotesti The Dirty Dozen and The Inglorious Bastards (Enzo G. Castellari latter of which appears in the film of QT with the role of an unnamed German official) here are the statements of QT on the same desire to create a "spaghetti western with iconography from World War II" (Wikipedia already has a rich voice on film), or all references to the German cinema of the Third Reich ... More ? In the sequence inside the cinema in Paris, the panoramic display a party in perfect Woody Allen style, while in the final shootout, there are a lot of shots from the final copy of Godfather III (not to mention the hilarious imitation of Marlon Brando by Brad Pitt, just before) ... I could of course continue to 'Finally, if only I owned a bit' over the so-called film culture. But the relevant fact is the ignorance of the average spectator and his inability to recognize all the quotes ( 'to ridàje ) present in the film is clear as day, and there is no need to be DAMS for teachers to understand that Inglourious Basterds is filled with references more or less obvious all'Altrove film. So what?

Then you can definitely believe this story as the author of QT nihilistic never anything else, a proponent of a cinema but exciting (or perhaps because) empty. There are good reasons to do it and we can not say that it is wrong, please. I myself have been convinced for some time, I spoke very badly about this blog, at the time of Death Proof .

But today, with a few grams of wisdom in Moreover, all this seems like a pile of crap. Who, like me, you are entrusted with a vision of cinema tarantino literally superficial - especially appreciate the cynicism and cruelty (and quotes) - you lost the best part. In fact, all films are Quentin film of love, a boundless love for the cinema and fiction. Moreover, and here I open another way, what is left apart from the fiction? If anyone still has faith in the "reality" and the "real" come forward, we are going to drink with them. A couple of vodka-martini before dinner can certainly not that much harm, in those conditions, because the reality, even if there was any need to specify it, is dead and buried. Pasolini knew better and Baudrillard, el'hanno seen before many others, now that this death is under the eyes of all, how many of us to want to recognize? I do not know and I do not care that much, I'm the only one who likes to go to the movies. So I close my parentheses and return to that wonderful film subject that gives the title to my post and that really could be the masterpiece of our dear Quentin.

If Tarantino had only a cynic and a fetishist could possess all the technical skill? Maybe, but maybe not. I'll bet on the second hypothesis: if your vision is so simple, you do not need all that talent to do your job as a director, perhaps not even like to use. Then you need basic tools for your primary message (see, for example, the film director Eli Roth, film showing a wealth of directorial technique that is the wealth of technique shown by actor Eli Roth actor Inglourious Basterds ) . It 's just a personal opinion, however, who has seen the film can not fail to remember the sequence of the basement. It 's almost entirely spoken in German, and Italian and subtitled in the original version. Again, subtitles. The latter are usually quite harmful against the narrative tension, but not in this case, obviously. That sequence is technically perfect from beginning to end, it would own the film, and is not looking so tense that you can do is keep your eyes glued to the screen, you can not do anything almost, like blinking, move the chair or remember you're watching a movie. You can only watch and read the subtitles. Pure bravado, after all: it seems that the director wants to say: "I can keep you glued to the chair motionless with a scene in German, with subtitles." Very.

Tuto to reiterate that this QT with the camera is what he wants, even if there are no more doubts. Are already sufficient for its ability to camouflage certificate: Inglourious Basterds is a European film by an American author to the core, as madly in love with cinema overseas. Just compare it with other masterpieces of QT as Reservoir Dogs or Jackie Brown , USA works from the first frame to last, and not talking about actors or roles: the most fascinating parts of the film those in which the director is away from their culture of origin and then immersed in this atmosphere film for him totally "other" (I think the scene of the conversation between Hans and Shosanna, but also the parody of the German propaganda films in Pride of a Nation ).

Love, in short: Inglourious Basterds it oozes from almost every frame. It 's a slow film, composed almost entirely of dialogues and conversations: the slow and sweet in the director takes the time to follow his beloved characters and observe them closely, almost touches the faces (note the abundance of shots foreground, not at all then the last part of the film is titled "Revenge of the giant face"). This lovingly follow the characters to tell the truth is found in all the previous films, but love is a colder, more distant, perhaps more precisely American. It 's the most mature film to date QT? I do not know and I do not care, it is certain that it is more labor different than ours, perhaps because it has a history all its own: just remember that it took ten years to write the script (refer again Wikipedia for more tasty details.)

can not be Finally, forget another important gift of Inglourious Basterds . Tarantino has always worked with wonderful actors, it is undeniable, but their skills in the economy of the movies almost always finished in second place, perhaps because of the density of the script or dell'ingombrante stature of the author. Not that the recognition of Tarantino here is less, indeed, but we must recognize that acting Christoph Waltz (awarded Best Actor at Cannes 2009) is indeed formidable. The character of Hans Landa, who Tarantino said to be the best he ever created is perfect and memorable, the director also said that he feared Landa's role was impossible to play, but Waltz (which reads well in English and in French as well as his native German) has the "return" the film, to the delight of us and his audience. The cast also shine Mélanie Laurent (Shosanna, Revenge in person), Diane Kruger and Michael Fassbender.

I can not say more: welcome back Quentin, glorious, magnificent bastard!

What Do You Call A Monthly Anniversary

Shabla


Another session at the PRS, Shabla on the beat, Ask & Gue P. on the mic! Much love to the guys, it's a pressrewind thang baby!