What Is The Greatest Cinematic Experience I Have Ever Had ?

What is it to have a great cinematic experience? As much as the art it derives its existence from, a great cinematic experience is subjective to its very core. I have read various testimonials of couples on the internet talking about how Norman Jewison’s Moonstruck made them fall in love with each other. I, on the other hand would readily make a case that watching a submarine fight while sitting on a beach would be a far better way to spend one’s time than watching the same movie in question.

In these few recent years during which I have fallen madly in love with this art form, the question of how a movie is perceived differently by every individual has hounded me persistently. And it’s not just confined to either a negative or positive response. Even to this day, the lovers of Francis Ford Coppola’s haunting masterpiece Apocalypse Now are debating whether to hail it as a pro or anti war movie.

One of the most pivotal and obvious reasons a movie may allure some and parry others is primarily because of its subject matter. A person who hasn’t gone through heartbreak may not think twice of Marc Webb’s (500) Days Of Summer after having seen it. However, it will stand out as a favorite of one who has experienced this heart-wrenching ordeal because the movie illustrates his life situation, which induces a personal experience for him in the cinema hall rather than a mere steady flow of 24 frames per second.

Another factor causing a major divide among the audiences is one’s perception of cinema itself. A friend of mine who lives a floor above hails Micheal Bay’s Transformers as the greatest movie he has ever seen. This opinion of his was obviously met by me with great dissent and inept sarcasm (Micheal Bay is so dumb he got locked in a grocery store and starved). But the more I think about it now, I don’t see his opinion to be flawed at all for when he walks into a cinema theater, all he expects to take from it seems to be unabashed entertainment which Bay seems to offer.

And as I realize now, I could go on and on about the various factors which seem to be responsible for this psychological phenomena, but none of them would be a concrete factor which one can consider the principal reason for a person to either hate or love a movie. In the end I truly believe, a movie is to a person what he is or has been.

But, dear reader, it was your inquisitiveness towards my own personal experience which brought you to this paragraph. And the answer to the titular question is a relatively well-known movie from Paul Thomas Anderson titled Magnolia. Why ?

Because after watching it, I knew the movie had changed me irreversibly, but I had no idea how. Many of the meaningful moments in our lifetime seem to ascertain themselves with deep, life changing philosophical depth, but somehow, the most important among them always seem to evade their greater meaning from us, as if to make us revisit and learn from them from time to time.

One of my greater fears I have as a human being is I have depleted my quota for the emotions a human being feels in his lifetime and what I am feeling now is just lesser version of what I have already felt. But after watching Magnolia, I knew I was feeling something deeper than anything I had felt, but I also knew I would never have the words to describe it.

For me watching Magnolia wasn’t just a cinematic experience, but more or less, a life experience. And a profound one too.

(Share your greatest cinematic experience and your thoughts on the different perception of movies in the comments)

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628 YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.comPhoto Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.

The Cinema Of Andrei Tarkovsky

There was a time when visual suzerains held cinema-going audiences spellbound with their every frame a painting modus operandi, hiding beneath these visual orgasms philosophical undertones to be sought after and admired, and in case of savants, comprehended. When I first chanced upon this blogathon, the name that popped up in my mind instantly was that of Quentin Tarantino, a true master of fiery dialogue and the power it unleashes on the minds of the audience. However, if I forsake for this moment my preference for the verbal aspect of cinema than the visual, I cannot seem to think of any other name than that of Russian film-making’s prized gem christened Andrei Tarkovsky.

I belong to the 21^st century. Consummated by fast-paced movies, this is a generation which seems to forgive and even adore directors who forsake art if they seem to provide ample entertainment. So obviously, when I was introduced to the cinema of the likes of Ingmar Bergman and Terrence Malick and Bela Tarr, the reaction was reminiscent of a drug addict’s to rehab. However, when the sepia-coloured screen faded in, I was completely mesmerized.

I am talking about my viewing experience of the 1979 classic of Tarkovsky’s titled Stalker. There are very movies which penetrate deep into one’s soul and create an atmosphere which forces one to introspect on the very foundation of one’s existence. Stalker was one of the very few gems that conjured that atmosphere for me. As the movie progressed deep within the Zone, towards the room where one’s innermost desires were satisfied, I experienced my own subconscious tracing its path towards my soul and exposing a facet of it. A facet so veracious in nature that I was taken aback by the years I spent pretending to be oblivious of its existence. When Stalker neared its end, I was left sobbing inconsolably. Maybe when we look so deep into ourselves, sadness seems to be the only emotion invoked. Even if I say Stalker changed me irrevocably, I believe it still would be a gross understatement to the emotional impact this masterpiece by Andrei Tarkovsky unleashes.

But I believe that you, dear reader, still have a pertinent question hanging on the back of your minds. Why Tarkovsky? Why chose him over Welles or Ford or Hitchcock or Kubrick? Your question holds a firm validity since none of his other movies have even come close to Stalker’s greatness. The Mirror seems to be an artistic mess (a description I believe Tarkovsky intended it to be characterized by). His Solaris is an imperfect masterpiece in my opinion, oscillating between Tarkovsky’s and Stainslaw’s (the writer of the novel on which the movie is based) vision, in the end delivering a work-in-progress feel when the screen fades.

Well, the answer to the aforementioned question is crystal clear when I think about it. All directors have a distinctively personal work, say Malick’s Tree Of Life or Fellini’s 8 ½. With Tarkovsky, it was always personal. He intended every movie of his to be a pathway for the viewer into his own being, various cinematic models reminiscent of the pathways John Cusack’s character finds in Being John Malkovich.

All of Tarkovsky’s works were meditative in their nature, with soothing visual imagery at every turn.  It was not an attempt to lure the intellectuals or instill in his movies metaphorical subplots. On the contrary, it was his daring attempt to make art accessible to every layman. An opportunity to analyze and meditate upon the events which had transpired before. Unlike all other intellectuals who have graced the cine industry, Tarkovsky actually wanted ‘everyone’ to understand.

http://phyllislovesclassicmovies.blogspot.in/2017/03/announcing-favorite-director-blogathon.html

When Characters Take A Backseat – Children of Men & Blade Runner

In my efforts to catch up with the science fiction genre which I used to find abominable till a year ago, I watched Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and Alfonso Cuaron’s Children of Men today. And in those movies I found a binding link, a ‘Magnoliastic link’ as I prefer to call it on the basis of Paul Thomas Anderson’s masterpiece. Magnolia, as you may know if you have watched it, deals with tales weaved together by the workings of the fabrics of nature, or as we popularly refer it to – chance. It seems to be the case with Children of Men and Blade Runner, two movies in which the atmosphere takes ground gradually and the characters recede into the background.

The dystopian settings in Blade Runner and Children of Men are poles apart in nature. The world of Blade Runner is an orgasm to the eyes with its futuristic design. The movie is characterized by its hard-edged architecture and visual grandiose complemented by the neo-noir lighting scheme. The world of Blade Runner seems to be a consumerism-laden wasteland. It is a movie where one can keep the volume on mute and yet find oneself overwhelmed by the visceral visual experience.

The world of Children of Men is art design at its best. Alfonso Cuaron intended to give it a documentary feel, so the futuristic world of his is nothing more but the present world, except for its rusty and brunt nature. The settings seem to be a gradual yet horrifyingly certain extension of the present socio-economic conditions brought to its raw nature due to infertility, where the rich become richer but the poor do not become poorer. They perish.

The settings of Children of Men is futuristic, particularly evident from its automobile technology, however Cuaron blends effortlessly the post-modern world with the present. Take for example the cages in which refugees are held at railway stations. I can see that happening and that is where the true horror of the movie lies. That the current global politics has gradually receded to such banality and hatred that the world of Children of Men seems nothing but a distant reality.

But the most beautiful interwoven theme is that of hope and humanity surviving in the midst of all ruckuses. The scene in Children of Men where the baby is finally exposed to the world is one of the best I have ever seen. The reactions of the people, some bowing their heads with folded heads, soaking in the moment of witnessing the Messiah of all humanity restores some faith in me about the future. May movies like these hold the beacon of light in the midst of ignorance in dark times.

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628 YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes