The review on Full Metal Jacket by the New York Times tends to focus mostly on the director and how he created the film rather than the actual plot synopsis. Vincent Canby opens the review by talking about the style of the director and how he usually tends to deviate from the traditional style and narrative form of movies. We talked about this type of narrative in class; films that do not follow the classical paradigm. I thought it was interesting that Canby talked about how the movie may anger and puzzle the audiences due to its style and disorder. It is true that people tend to get angry/not like a movie because it has an inconclusive ending. The review does briefly talk about the plot of the movie and the setting. It gives some insight into the idea that it is a war movie and there is tragedy and violence. Canby also talks about the sarcasm of certain lines in the movie that are intended to create more irony and tension within the film. I thought it was very interesting that the review also compared this movie to some previous works by the same director. It made sure to let the reader know that Kubrick did not change his style of films; where disorder is the path to order. I had mixed feelings about the review. It was definitely a positive piece on Kubrick and his film. The way Canby described it, however, did not necessarily appeal to me. When I read the review, the first impression I had was one of complete chaos. It seemed to me like the film had no real order and that bothered me. I tend to like movies that have conclusive endings or that have some type of resolution. In my opinion, this movie had neither. Even though the movie had a very good review, the stylistic and structural aspects described did not fulfill my expectations.
No comments:
Post a Comment