Catwoman

[matt35mm]

I saw the last 20-30 minutes of this movie.  My brother was watching it (he picked this one, prolly cuz of the cat outfit, despite my warnings), and my movie finished before his so I went in to watch the last bit with him.

Ahahaha.  He was the only one in there.  And it was the first or second week since it opened.  If he hadn't picked Catwoman, no one would've been watching it.  Total waste.

Anyway, yeah it looked very bad.  The fighting was pathetic and the music that played during the fighting was terrible.  The music was probably the worst thing about the fights, actually, except that people stopped to explain things while fighting.  It didn't even seem to work on a camp level.

Oh well.  Actually I was surprised to hear that it cost so much to make.  It looked like it cost about $60 million.  So (even though the entire movie was a waste of money) it looks like $40 million of its budget didn't even go into the movie.  Hmm.

After maturing quite a bit since having made this post, I have to say that I really like watching this movie.  Ever since the AMC channel has started showing it, I've been stopping to watch it each time I see that it's playing.

The construction of the film is incredibly fascinating to me.  I've never seen the traditional rules of filmmaking broken at such a rapid pace!  Every single scene has about 3 unnecessary cuts to every 1 cut you'd expect from a movie like this.  The longest a shot was held for that I counted was about 8 seconds long, with the majority of the edits coming every 2-5 seconds, and I'm not talking about only the action scenes.  Scenes with plain conversation, talking over the phone, walking down the street, are all covered by about 20 angles and the editor managed to squeeze every angle into the scene.

And I find it exhilarating to watch!  Some of that is due to sheer dumbfoundedness, sure, but I have to say that I almost never get into watching a bad film, even for camp value.  Much of the reason is that most terrible films are compatently (and boringly) constructed, and there's just nothing to grip me.  Stupidity alone doesn't grip me, and I don't really enjoy camp.

But this!  I've never seen a film like this before, and because of that, I find that I can't judge it on any terms that I would normally consider when watching any other movie.  I can only be enraptured and overwhelmed and wonder...

Is this what love is like?

The answer is no.  This is simply wonder, astonishment, and fascination with truly one of the most challenging films I have ever seen, right alongside with INLAND EMPIRE.  In fact, the experience of watching Catwoman for me is incredibly similar to that of watching INLAND EMPIRE, and everything I wrote starting from "But this!" could apply to my response to INLAND EMPIRE as well.

[Pubrick]

R U HI

[matt35mm]

I M not HI.

But I do think that this movie should be required viewing in film classes.

[Fernando]

Maybe this is the Ishtar of our time.

Silias: Buy it and confirm this.

[The Sheriff]

so was this a joke or what?

[matt35mm]

No.

[Ghostboy]

I think I agree. I watched the whole thing in bits and pieces on cable, and it's so bad that it's endlessly fascinating.

[matt35mm]

Hooray validation!

I'd stress that it's the construction of the film that's fascinating.  There's nothing fascinating about the script (which is just poor) or the acting (which is also poor).  That was what we could all tell from the outset, but how it's all stitched together makes my eyes bleed and my face smile and/or jaw drop.

[Gold Trumpet]

But do you recommend showing the entire film? The point is made with a description or a few segments being shown. For an intro film class, I understand the point in doing it. Establishes general points about Hollywood and its unnessary norms, but it's a moot point to make for any developed course. It just reminds everyone of what is already obvious.

[matt35mm]

No, I don't think that the whole film has to be shown.  Select clips would work fine, and maybe better.

The point, however, wouldn't be anything about Hollywood.  The points would be particular to this film and its construction, which is unlike any film, and therefore can't be used to stand for any kind of film.  I think that it would be useful to go through shot by shot, look at where the cuts are, and which angles are used, and contrast them with the norms.  There's very little that's normal about the way this movie has been put together.

I think it would fit in a class where you would show clips from several unusually shot and edited films, whether the film is good or bad, and to demonstrate the bizarre effects that angle and edit choices can potentially have.  Continually breaking the line and an average of 25 cuts per minute, along with very odd angles and strange camera movements is NOT the norm.  I believe that showing clips from this movie will demonstrate things that are not moot to a developed course.  It's not amateurishly put together, so that wouldn't be the point.  Rather, it's very complicated in its construction, very skilled, but with extremely odd--and, yes, bad--decisions.  Showing a clip from this movie with the sound off, I think, would stun a lot of people, especially those who have an idea of how and why films are usually constructed the way they are.

So, I don't know if it really belongs in an intro film class, although I suppose it could.  I'm not speaking of a "look, kids, a bad movie" thing, though.  That could be demonstrated with any number of other films.  There is something unique about film construction (mise en scene, as the professors would say) that can only be demonstrated with this film, because it only exists in this film.  And for the same reason, the points to be made would not be obvious points, because you could have never pointed to anything as an example of what this movie does before this movie was made.

And I'm not interested in making any ironic points, either.  I realize that I probably sound like I'm joking, or just crazy.  I think that if one actually watches the movie, or clips from the movie, while conscious about all the standard notions of how a movie is put together, then he or she will find just how actively Catwoman challenges those notions.  The result is a terrible and confusingly constructed movie, but not an illustration of norms by any means, nor does it serve a proof that one should stick with standard ideas of film construction.  It is a movie unlike any that I've seen before, and as a filmmaker myself, it has forced me to reconsider some things that I took for granted as far as film construction goes.

[Ghostboy]

Matt, have you read Noel Burch's Theory Of Film Practice? You should check it out.

[matt35mm]

I haven't read it, but it looks very interesting.  I'll try to check it out soon.  Thanks!

[Gold Trumpet]

That was an awesome post, Matt. You don't have to feel bad about this theory. You gave it enough credible evidence and meat with that post to even make me enthusiastic about watching the movie.

Obviously, I haven't seen the movie. I was counterpointing Matt up above, but I was more hopeful he would expand on his position. Which he did in excellence. I just shouldn't have written a post that acted like I truly understood his idea when it's obvious I didn't.

Ghostboy, I read half of that book you mentioned. It was fascinating but I want to look it over again. It was suppose to be for an essay on The New World but as some essays subjects go, it got lost in the shuffle and never was completed. It's something I hope to return to once I get a few projects I have on the table out of the way.

[matt35mm]

Thank you, GT!  That was mighty nice of you to say.

I hope you do get around to watching it someday, and maybe post your thoughts on it.