The most interesting thing of this movie to me is that this movie progresses mostly in narrow room between man and woman. The most time, they are just go to bed and restroom, so their motion is very limited in this narrow place. The camera shows their routine conversation.
In this movie, I concentrated on camera’s motion. When I saw this movie, I felt that many scenes from the room are connected with short scenes. They are look like cutted scenes each other. We cannot see continuous scenes, that is many scenes consist of short scenes. From this camera method, audience can feel more active about the movie and we have no time to be get bored. Also this camera method makes audiences imagine blank scenes. For example, the hero of the movie, Mishell, laid down the woman’s bed, but suddenly the scene linked with that he walked out from the restroom.
When I saw the movie, the camera doesn’t move smoothly. Camera moves naturally just like audiences are next to the characters. So the motion of camera has little shaking because camera hasn’t fixed sight. From this method, I felt that I am a participant of this movie, not just looking person.
This movie shows us very free mind to love someone. I thought that considering this movie conducted 1960, this kind of story was very challenging attempt. Looking deeply, the woman has fear man leaves her because he don’t love her any more. In the end, the woman behaves like she is very free to love someone, the woman desires Mishell loves her forever and stays next to her.
Some interesting comments here, Angela. Not quite sure I understand what you mean toward the end about Patricia's freedom, but both her and Michel's freedom certainly seem to be central to the film. That could be explored a bit more. What that tells us, perhaps, about the film's themes, and how the filmmaking itself helps to create this freedom. Why might this freedom be revolutionary or shocking?
ReplyDelete