BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


21 Grams

 
 
Smoothly
11:25 / 10.03.04
A indubitably talented cast under the direction of Mexico's hottest writer-director team. But what did you think of it? A searing exploration of faith, addiction, death, redemption and identity; or an inconsequential formula piece for soap-opera sensibilities?
Your opinions please.
 
 
D Terminator XXXIII
13:38 / 10.03.04
I almost started a thread for this movie yesterday, but didn't. Doubts if I had anything worthwhile to contribute as a threadstarter ensured that I stopped myself in the nick of time.

The structure of the movie was by far the most interesting aspect, something I latched onto quite rapidly, actually, but which brought confusion to the friend I saw it with. Taken as a (re-constructed) linear narrative, it provides a soulful, raw mortality play, which raises interesting, valid questions, but which somehow in my mind feels a little slight. The fragmented narrative - which I took to be the collective memory of the principal cast during the movie - startles and disorientates; the circular segments that, err, circle around the, erm, central accident elevates an earthbound tale into something else entirely, to the realm of (and companion of) other self-conscious filmmakers such as Lynch, Christopher Nolan, Cronenberg, Gaspar NoƩ and Richard Kelly, who, in the process of experimenting with cinematic structure, have discovered that a less-linear narrative can achieve interesting, endlessly debatable results.

Because of the haste which we - my friend and I - went to our local art cinema, we inadvisably didn't relieve ourselves of urine, underestimating the running time of the movie (two hours), and therefore the last hour was tortous for the both of us. Too stubborn to miss what could concievably be crucial segments, we didn't dare leave the screening if only for a moment, which brought about impatience. I would have to see it again, in order to voice something more substantial than this - but as a recommendation, I would have to say that if you want to experience piercing portrayals (the three leads are all impressive) in a challenging and a still youthful cinematic narrative, then you can't go much wrong with this...
 
 
Future Perfect
15:31 / 10.03.04
The structure is important, though, isn't it? I mean more than providing a hook and allowing for a bit of brain work to piece it all together.

Seems to me that the point of the structure is to suggest that it can be more revealing/meaningful to *not* look at life in a linear manner, that often the way people's lives and events intertwine is much more like ripples on a pond created by these traumatic events. It felt to me that what the narrative was trying to do was follow the ripples, to get to their locus, where we'll really understand what's happening.

It also occured to me that 21 Grams is like a neat counterpoint to Magnolia. in Magnolia (which I also loved) you have this sense that coincidences and synchronicity (as we see it) can provide these opportunities for fantastic redemption and the resolution of all the sh*tty, messy bits of life, whereas in 21 Grams you have a real sense of these edges where people's lives brush up against one another providing even more misery and confusion and that any hope to be had is slight and fleeting.

It's definitely not one to miss, 21 Grams, and, as you say the performances alone are worth the entry. But there's a lot more to it than that.
 
 
LDones
23:16 / 10.03.04
Need to take the wind out of the praising sails a bit.

21 Grams was a really interesting film - I would completely recommend it to anybody interested in a challenging film narrative, but I couldn't help feeling like Inarritu was engaging in the fragmented approach when he didn't exactly need to dramatically/thematically/froma craft standpoint.

It ensure that the audience is paying near-complete attention from start to finish, but it's a bit of a cheap way to achieve that effect.

Every performance in it is fabulous - I have no love for Sean Penn as a celebrity or activist or whatever but he is a talented-ass motherfucker. Namoi Watts is fucking amazing, and Benicio Del Toro gives his usual 110%. The shots are great, the dramatic decisions are really interesting. I just think the chronological meddling does a disservice to a poingant story now and then.

Again, I'd totally recommend it, i just feel like a great deal of people jump on the Praise Of Genius because it's unconventional. It's great, no doubt - and even if I don't like it, I think it's an interesting experiment in hyper-fragmented narrative - but I would've liked to see a little less potentially manipulative trickery in favor of a face-first reflection on what was happening.
 
 
D Terminator XXXIII
10:21 / 11.03.04
Before sleep came last night, I lay and thought about the fates of the three main characters. I decided that the movie, no matter how bleak and hopeless it may seem, is ultimately about redemptive hope, albeit a twisted one at that.

It was quite interesting how the beginning of the movie alluded to their pasts, then proceed to confuse whether or not what we next saw lay in the characters' past or future, but the subsequent reconstructuring pretty much leaves Del Toro and Penn (+ Toro's family and Penn's Brit girlfriend) to an uncertain, possibly grim, fate.

Del Toro, having been an alcoholic and criminal, has at one point seen the light of the Catholic religion; and even though he resists the offer of a drink and has so far lead a righteous life, an unexpected occurrence sees him taking the lives of three people - made all the more cruel in that he could have saved one of them - and he subsequently rejects the religious salvation. After he has been released from jail, he flees from his family and starts up a harsh, new life, where he has resumed his alcoholism.

Penn has a history of 'extra-marital' affairs, something the long suffering Brit girlfriend has put up with, possibly in order to achieve her biggest desire: having his baby before his death. After the unexpected and live-saving heart transplantation, he is consumed with the desire to know wherefrom and how the organ came about his way. Having obtained the knowledge about Watts, and her now deceased family, he intervenes in her life. And not a moment too soon, because his body rejects the new heart, placing another short, limited time-span before his eventual death.

Watts is the story of redemptive hope. A former drug abuser, has now quit her habit and goes to self-help groups and leads a normal family life. The loss of her family sends her back to resume drug use, and after Penn appears in her life, they commence an ill-advised affair. The knowledge that Toro could have saved one of her daughters leads to an even more ill-advised revenge plan - which ends tragically, not with the death of Toro, but - likely - that of Penn. When she gives of her blood to him, it is discovered that she is pregnant. And even though there are so many choices she has to make, I'd like to think that she kept the baby and eventually started a new life from scratch.

These characters find themselves beyond hope, finds salvation only to lose it again - with the possible exception of Watts. There is a strong religious subtext running throughout, which was most blatant in the scene, where something has befallen Penn and blood covers his soles, quite the Christ-like image. But rather than being a two hour long advert to the Catholic Church, it is that which designates the best works of art: the movie resists to tack on happy endings, and with the uncertain futures of all the characters, we are left with more questions than answers.
 
 
HCE
23:49 / 11.03.04
Only briefly, because I'd like to go back and respond to comments above when I'm less tired:

I think the fragmentation was A) necessary and B) not particular point of interest in and of itself. There are people who will be thrown off by it, but at the risk of being called elitist, pretentious, blah blah etc. whatever, they are like people who won't watch movies with subtitles because it's too much work (rather than because it's difficult, or because, as Lina Wertmuller noted, the point is to watch, not read, films). I'd actually like to watch the film again to be able to make a more soundly-argued case for the nonchronological ordering of scenes as appropriate and useful.

Liked it much better than Amores Perros (which I also liked a great deal). It seemed more thoughtful, contemplative, reserved.

Like almost every movie I like, what appealed to me about it was:

A) accuracy of portraiture
B) sincerity (as opposed to irony)
C) beauty of tone, color, mise-en-scene, collage or editing
D) tenderness toward people

Although the narrative was interesting I don't think storytelling is an important part of the greater project of movies. I like stories just fine, don't get me wrong. They make for enjoyable entertainment, but I think this film sets out to do other things besides take your mind off your kids & taxes for two hours. I think it sets out to look at how people move through each other's emotional lives, purposefully and by accident.

Dark son, I can't believe you sat through it while needing to pee. I have a small bladder, I once walked out of 'The Sacrifice' because I needed to pee, which for me was, forgive me, a great sacrifice.

Future perfect, you make an interesting point about the possibility for redemption.

LDones, do you feel that you could make similar criticisms of Pulp Fiction and Memento? Because I think this film is completely different, I thought Pulp Fiction was quite gimmicky (still enjoyed it), and Memento needed the gimmick in order to work rather than wanted it in order to say more than it could have otherwise (still enjoyed it as well).
 
 
LDones
01:15 / 12.03.04
I think the term narrative was misunderstood in my post above - there seems to be a certain vogue about looking down at the word 'storytelling' while simultaneously misconstruing its meaning - Film is narrative - it is a sequence of concepts/images presented one after the other - a string of ideas with an in point and out point. It is also the method of communication of ideas during that period. Film is ultimately narrative. Storytelling is nothing more and nothing less than the act of telling of a story - describing a narrative. Neither has anything to do w/ escapism - recalling a single memory is narrative - relating that memory is storytelling.

That having been said (not to refute anyone else's opinions on the subject, just to let you know where I'm coming from), the out-of-order narrative technique in 21 Grams is far more drastic than most any film I've ever seen - very few scenes are presented next to others that are actually chronologically adjacent.

Pulp Fiction was extremely charming - the jumps in chronology only happened a few times, and created an interesting emotional progression for the piece. I like Tarantino as a director. I wasn't particularly wowed by Memento - the film is entirely based on a gimmick, rather than simply employing one, and while it rises above those beginnings in a number of ways it still felt a bit fluffy.

With 21 Grams you have a very interesting, emotionally unconventional director and three ludicrously talented lead actors playing out a heart-wrenching narrative that I don't think needed the extra tweaking by way of time-hopping. It's a totally valid narrative technique, I just don't think it added anything that wasn't there in the script and performances anyway.

It makes for interesting juxtapositions, but I can't think of a single reason to use it in the context of this story that isn't a little forced. I think there's a tiny level of sincerity that's robbed from the film by engaging in it, a kind of emotional momentum that's very slightly undermined.
 
 
D Terminator XXXIII
12:20 / 13.03.04
- very few scenes are presented next to others that are actually chronologically adjacent.

But what Inarritu went for was a thematical or emotional storytelling approach - the cuts across time and space are, if not chronologically adjacent, somehow linked, and demands to be interpreted in that manner.

Just because our minds - more often than not - seeks to untangle the storytelling approach, and recreate something that makes (more) sense, doesn't negate the fact that the movie - as it stands - has something to say with the way it presents it's information.
 
 
HCE
18:21 / 14.03.04
LDones, I see your point and accept it as valid, but must disagree. What do you think about the notion that perhaps the asynchrony (is that the right word or even a word at all?) was meant to deliberately disrupt the narrative flow to avoid the sense that naturally arises from chronological narration that B not only follows A, but happens because of A, and perhaps couldn't have happened any other way? I think this film did a good job of conveying the idea that things happen much more by chance, and we reach back and create these linear narratives , selecting some elements and ignoring or minimizing others -- and each character in this film weighed these elements -- the heart transplant, the car wreck, the meeting in the desert -- very differently. Each moment called up different past moments for each person, each person saw different sets of connections.

Do you see what I'm getting at? If that doesn't work for you that's fine, I just want to know if I'm expressing myself at all comprehensibly.
 
 
LDones
07:01 / 15.03.04
I totally see where you're coming from, but I think we're at 'agree to disagree'.

Either way it's a very interesting film with very honest performances from all involved, and well worth watching.
 
 
misterpc
10:42 / 15.03.04
Apart from the stylistic inventiveness - the fragmented narrative isn't new, but Inarritu is just very good at it - I actually think the film is extremely hopeful, but in the 'you've got to go all the way down to come back up' mode. Let me explain...

Watts' character is the most obvious. She loses her family and has to go through the various stages of denial before she can find peace. The film does a wonderful job of conveying the utter logic of her decisions - while at the same time making it clear that she is completely out of control. After Penn finds her, she has to face losing the man she loves (?) for the second time, a conflict which plays directly against her need for revenge against Del Toro - in the process reminding her that she cares about life, not death.

Del Toro falls from grace - goes back to drinking (although this is quite vague), then has the accident, then runs - and has to seek his redemption. He deliberately leaves his old life behind, tries to find penance in manual labour, and believes he can never be redeemed. Penn comes along and 'kills' him - although the final shot is never fired, del Toro truly believes that he is going to die and faces it down. Although he then goes back to assault Penn, he gets the chance to redeem himself by getting Penn to the hospital before he bleeds to death.

Penn follows a more conscious arc. Leaving aside the Brit girlfriend - who exists mainly to show us what a complete prick he is - he translates the fact that he has another shot at life not as a chance to make his own life right (and stop being a complete prick) but as a chance to put right Watts' life. His moment of redemption comes when he doesn't shoot del Toro - again putting the value of life above the value of death / revenge. Although he survives Del Toro's subsequent attack, he can die peacefully (finally).

This was all typed very hurriedly... I found the final assault very interesting, if only because it's not the climax of the film (Penn not shooting del Toro is, I think), but Inarritu doesn't seem to know what to do with it. There's no examination of the fall-out of that final struggle in the motel room at all... and I wasn't sure why.

The other interesting theme running through here is the loss of family. Watts loses hers horrifically, unexpectedly; Del Toro turns his back on his as penance; Penn deliberately avoids creating a family, only to try and creep in to take the place of Watts' family in her life. Any thoughts on that?
 
 
LDones
12:31 / 15.03.04
What Sean Penn's character goes through does not necessarily make him a prick - it's completely understandable if you examine the relationship and its context alongside his illness. Having a lover suddenly be forced into the role of caregiver in a situation like that is terrifying on both ends of the spectrum - if/when the roles change again a reconciliation can be very difficult. There is oftentimes an intense desire for a fresh start from a victim of disease who comes off of it, even for short periods of remission.

I'm not saying his character is a rad guy, but it isn't any more misguided or terrible than anything the other characters go through. I'd venture to say that Penn's character was the [i]least[/i] conflicted one of the bunch - at first he simply wants to move on with his life, and then his priority becomes to help someone else get hers back together.

The fallout of the climax is obvious, it doesn't need to be delved into - Del Toro doesn't go back to assault Penn, he goes back because he wants to die and he wants Sean Penn to kill him. Penn's character knew he was going to die before he shot himself - he wanted to end his pain and the pain of the two people with whom his life had become entwined. He gave his life so they could regain theirs (whether purposely or no). The few shots and scenes that chronologically take place after they arrive at the emergency room together say all they need to say about.. well, everything. The look between Watts and Del Toro and the fact that she knew that he had confessed to shooting Penn when she knew he hadn't said all she needed to know and vice versa.

(I find it interesting that I don't remember the characters' names - and I don't seem to be the only one...)

I don't think Penn was trying to enmesh himself into Watts' life to remedy his family detachment. He was searching for meaning, and desperately required a new direction for his life after coming off of a terminal illness. There's a little bit of silliness implied about the heart of Watts' husband driving him to find her, but it's thankfully glossed over.

Are there people out there who [i]don't[/i] think the message of this film is essentially positive? I find it hard to see that way.
 
 
HCE
17:09 / 15.03.04
I didn't think the film really had a message, either positive or negative, but if it had one I think it'd be best expressed by a favorite quote from Valis (which I thought I'd seen in the thread in Books but now can't find). I can't find the exact quote but it goes something like, "I think I know why we are put on this earth, and it is to discover that everything we love will be taken from us, probably due to an error in high places rather than by design."
 
 
LDones
00:42 / 16.03.04
Message was, perhaps, a bad word.

Ultimate feeling, I think, is better, though the Valis quote is certainly an interesting way of looking at it.
 
 
Icicle
14:16 / 23.03.04
I was a bit puzzled as to why they called it twenty one grams. It doesn't seem to have any relevance to the story at all except to the speech at the end, about the weight of twenty one grams being a stack of nickels etc. I'd seen the trailor which largely consisted of this end speech and was a bit dissapointed. I'd been looking forward to watching a film that might tell me what the twenty one grams is!
 
 
D Terminator XXXIII
16:43 / 23.03.04
The weight of life, yes?

How fragile life is. How unprecedented factors can alter a person's life. How vulnerably structured life can be.
 
 
eddie thirteen
19:06 / 10.04.04
I know this is gonna sound really lowbrow, but I'd be curious to know if anyone else who came to this film (particularly, as I did, with high expectations) found it to be sometimes so lacking in suspense as to be completely tedious. Much has been made of the film's structure, but I don't think its non-linearity really does much besides undercut any dramatic impact the film might have had. Since virtually every single plot turn in the entire film is telegraphed from thirty to ninety minutes ahead of time (i.e., ahead of when we will see a scene in full that we've already basically gotten the gyst of), I have to admit that I often found myself extremely...bored. To employ a cliche, I was riveted to what I was watching for about the first twenty minutes; after that, I knew about 90% of the film's entire story, and began to get increasingly annoyed and impatient with the whole thing. It's not to say that some especially good scenes didn't bring me back, emotionally, but too often I felt like I was watching a movie I might have really enjoyed if someone hadn't told me the ending ten minutes in. Is this just me?
 
 
lukabeast
03:19 / 11.04.04
I just caught this the other day, didn't really have any expectations for it. I found the structure interesting (I watch a lot of David Lynch movies), and the acting was great. I think however, were the story told in linear time, it would have been basically a crappy made for TV movie, and I would have been changing the channel to catch Family Guy reruns. So I am a bit unsure if I like the movie come to think of it. I would find it hard to recommend to anybody, and really it was only due to the structure gimmick that I sat through the thing...hmmmm.
 
 
Benny the Ball
19:18 / 11.04.04
I really didn't like it. I love Benicio Del Toro, think he is a great actor, in fact the cast are great, however I found that the structure rather than drawing me in, served to ensure that at no point did I find my way into the characters, and it became little more than the serving up of vignettes of melodrama which I found tiring after a while.
 
  
Add Your Reply