In the film there is a sense of nostalgia for past days, when a local shop (in this film a tobacconist’s) stood for a meeting place where people could share their ideas, pay one another company and most of all feel united by common values (e.g. friendship, etc.)
What do you feel nostalgic of?
The sequel Blue in the Face, did not meet the critic approval as Smoke. Can you say why? Is there anything you did not appreciate of the movie?
Both in Smoke and Blue in the Face, the film director and the filmscript writer, chose famous actors or celebrities from other artistic fields. Why? What is the effect?
Can you explain the title “Blue in the Face”? The dictionary meaning is “exhausted and speechless, as from excessive anger, physical strain, etc.”. Does this make sense?
The new film, called Blue in the Face, was shot in six days, and sometimes feels like it. The movie begins well, with an early scene where Mira Sorvino plays a woman whose purse is snatched in front of the store. Keitel races after the little boy who grabbed it, and hauls him back to the store, only to discover that Sorvino has taken pity on him and doesn’t want to press charges. Keitel, who has seen a lot of purses snatched, tells her the cops should be called, and when Sorvino doesn’t budge, what he does next follows a certain seductive logic.
The store’s owner (Victor Argo) reveals to Keitel, his manager, that he plans to close down the cigar shop and sell out to a health food chain. Keitel tries to explain that the store is a valuable part of the neighbourhood – that people use it to touch base and stay in touch, and that when enough places close, a neighbourhood dies.
That theme leads to memories of the Brooklyn Dodgers, and the way that
There are memories of the Dodgers, augmented with flashbacks, and then a surprise visitor to the store – Jackie Robinson (famous baseball player), turning up like an outtake from "Field of Dreams."
Lou Reed on living in
I’m scared of my own apartment. I’m scared twenty-four hours a day, but not necessarily in
Jim Jarmusch smoking his last cigarette ever:
Why is it in every movie there’s a shootout, and when they run out of bullets, they fling the gun away? Like it’s a disposable cigarette lighter or something. What’s up with that? Guns cost a lot of money. Can’t you reload it? You know what I’m saying? They always throw the gun out. And another thing in movies I think is real weird, like war movies, Nazis in movies. Why do they always smoke like in some weird way…like this? [Holds cigarette upright, between ring and pinky finger] Yah, vee haf vays of making you talk, Auggie.
personnally I feel nostalgic of my crew of friends that split up becouse of differnts ages,interests etc…
maybe the critic did not appreciate the film because of the non-story it deals with:I mean,the setting is the same of smoke, but there aren’t the same stories that underline the relationship with the previous film…maybe the documentary style didn’t like to the critic.
I found an interesting idea inviting celebrities to participate to the film because it can involve also people who like music and sport and so on…
I really didn’t understand teh title and his meaning…I will wait the discussion on the wednesday class to make up my own idea on it.
I liked the view of N.Y. gave by the film character interviewed…it is a truely vision of real life in a big city in which live together different types of etnies, religions, and people in general.
the previous post is mine….erica…sorry…;-P
I am nostalgic of the period in which everything was simple, but if it were possible to come back in past I would not like to see this period with the eye of a child. Every problem seems to acquire a different meaning at each age and it is less difficult to face an obstacle a period later because we see it with new eyes. I also find useless to be too nostalgic of a period because if you always look at the past you do not live your present idealizing a period that your mind has purified from bad things.
The movie was maybe not appreciate for its documentary-like format and also because the theme of nostalgia is threaten in an explicit way. It is also a film which makes the viewers scared from the habitat of New York which seems to be a jungle in which if you live you can make great experience , interiorizing things which can be difficult to meet in other places.Lou Reed is a living example of a people who is survived in New York.He is very scared from the coming corrupted society which is exemplified in “Walk on the wild side”.
The cigar store was a meeting point in the past for all the people living at Brookline. Now that the baseball team does not exist and that people are much more scared from walking outside they being to be speechless. The anger they prove make them not listening and speaking. An example is the wife of the owner of the shop who can not talk to him because he is not listening. The owner is entering in a new type of society in which the only thing that means something is the business. The cigar store is so a place were people can meet each other just for taking cigarettes and chatting.
My view of New York is absolutely different.The situation is change very much and I found the city a wonderful place where cultures can meet each other almost in harmony.A fact which stroked me a lot is that near the limousines and skyscrapers there are lots of poor people who are sent away from the police to give a good imagine of New York.When I went to the Bronx lots of people asked me if I wanted to be helped. that means that near lots of esteems there are lots of weaknesses. Auster would have not been such a great writer if he was not born in New York, because all the themes he writes about are taken from that society.
Perin Marco
I feel nostalgic of my previous years, when the only important thing was to play with some friends. Now the world is more difficult. We must be responsible of our action, we are put in a society where we feel lost. It was beautiful when our actions didn’t have an ulterior motive. Now, nobody do good action only to help a person, there is always a different purpose. I feel nostalgic of a world based on transparency, innocence, friendship: a hopeful world.
The film “Blue in the face” didn’t meet the critic approval maybe because it has not the same harshness and simplicity as “Smoke”. I mean that for whom had seen the previous film, it could be seem as a second part of it, a way to give space to those people that had a little part in “Smoke”. Furthermore the critics could have not appreciate the division in sequence with musical breaks.
I didn’t appreciate the poor acting. I know that the film is the product of 6 days of improvisation, but I like much a film with a unique story-line. Here, there were too many digressions. Although I like the idea of telling and describing New York from the eyes of the characters. Describing the Brooklyn of the past, the Brooklyn of the present and how Brooklyn could be in some years. All that in a comic spirit, where the “engine” was represented by the words (everyone has 10 minutes to speak) and the inspired principle was the spontaneity.
Blue in the face = to lose the breath. I think that this can be a good definition. The characters had 10 minutes to tell their ideas. Their task was to speak until they were without breath, until the author said them to stop. The colour blue symbolizes a suffocated moment, so represent the state of the characters where they must tell all their thought about Brooklyn in only 10 minutes.
Santi Monica
I feel nostalgic of my early childhood days, when life was like a game, when relationships were easier, when emotions and feelings were immaculate, pure, when you could play and have fun with “nothing”.
During the course of the film, we’re exposed to the Brooklyn of the past, the Brooklyn of today, and an idealized Brooklyn that exists only in memories tinged by nostalgia of the characters. The film explores this sense of belonging that makes this district of New York unique in the memories of its citizen (for example: the loss of the Dodgers team and the dialogues on Belgian waffles).
Blue in the Face is a low- budget companion piece of Smoke that was filmed in less than a week. It had no script and the direction by Auster and Wang was minimal: that is why there is no plot to speak of, but just a series of disconnected vignettes. The two directors provided comic situations around which the actors could improvise until they were “blue in the face”. This film is designed simply to entertain and is an entirely different sort of film from Smoke. From start to finish in fact, it is pure experimental fun, unprepared dialogues between characters, musical interludes and video inserts (for example: Gorham practicing being sexy in front of the mirror, Argo singing a country song, Jarmusch enjoying his last cigarette, Lou Reed being himself). So, whereas Smoke was a drama, Blue in the Face is surely a comedy.
Alessandro Piccin
I don’t feel nostalgic about any moment of my life, all days I live are better than the previous one because everyday I grow up and I became more independent and more responsible!
About the critics (why should I answer this question? I’m also a critic…). I think that the only possible reason is that the setting and the message are the same as smoke: Presenting the New York, Brooklyn and, in general, the American’s reality.
About the actors I want only to write that the film is not made by them and so the choose of them is purely to attract people “of the mass” and earn more money from the film.
I can’t explain the title of the film but I’m sure that Blue in face is something that comes suddenly and assail you.
New York appears in this film a normal metropolis with good and bad aspects! In the film is not represented the New York of luxury but the everyday New York
MrLory1990
All human beings have tha strange habit to utopize the past: we cancel from our minds most of the feelings we did not like, so we usually remember only the positive things of our past.
I enjoied more Smoke because there was a real plot, that there is not in Blue In The face. Probably that is the reason because the critics did not appreiciate it. The use of famous people is funny, because it reminds that they are not so different from common people.
About the title, i have absolutely no ideas. I am expecting a good explanation.
Damiano Verardo
I actually didn’t live such a long life, maybe when I will be 30 I would be nostalgic. The only thing I can complain about childhood is that you don’t have complications in relationship but I have to say that now-a-days I try to keep relations as simpler as possible, without searching dramas or fights, sometimes they are inevitable but I go over them.
I appreciate more “Blue in the Face” than “Smoke” but I can imagine why it becomes less famous, I suppose that is because of his specific topic, maybe only smokers of NY can understand it in a deeply way. But I have to say it was a great fun seeing Lou Reed acting with his strange model of eyeglasses or Madonna being a sexy telegraph postman.
The title is about a phrase Auggie said to his girlfriend that accused him to cheat on her, so he got upset.
My mental image of NY is of a city where, even if it is very big there are still some values left (friendship, love, loyalty). The cigars shop is a meeting point, but also a melting pot where different ethnics can talk and relate one to other.
Francesca Cazorzi
I agree with what Damiano has written about feeling nostalgic. Anyway when I think about my childhood I remember that all was simple and easy, so sometimes I would like to come back in the past but never grow up, but I know that is impossible.
Maybe “Blue in the face” does not meet the critical approval of “Smoke” because of the way it is narrated: there are pieces of stories that are not legate. In this film there is not a storyline: it is described Brooklyn, how was in the past, how is in the present and how would be in the future. This is why I don’t really appreciate the movie, but maybe for someone else this is why someone could appreciate it.
I found funny some exhibition of artist from other artistic fields like Madonna’s performance. Maybe the film director has chosen actors from other artistic fields to amuse who is watching the film..
New York is a city in continuous changing (as every city). In Brooklyn there are people from different countries and of different religion, so sometimes there could be some problems with relationships. It is nice to understand that Belgian waffles, the official food of Brooklyn have little to do with any food served in Belgium. So why are they called Belgium waffles) Maybe to capture the attention of the person who is pass along the street that could think: “ Well, I don’t have enough money to go in Belgium, but I have money to eat a Belgium waffles so lets do it” (ok, it is a ridiculous example XD).
Federica Battistin
Guarino Ilaria
Personally i can say that the only thing i feel nostalgic of is the presence of my relatives that are far from me.And i feel nostalgic even at the thought of not see largest part of my classmates once i finished school.
Blue in the Face did not meet the critical approval maybe because the character and the setting were somehow “recycled”.But often happens that films produced by the great American film industry,reproduces something already seen before such as films like “mission impossible” or “Harry Potter” or sequel like these.So i think that for these reason and also for the feature of the film and the way it was created the critic did not approval Blue in the Face.
Personally i found the film brilliant and i really enjoyed whatching it.It was strange but involving,funny but deep.It seems like a deep analysis of Brooklyn and its thousend faces.Reveals the pro and cons of this city with humor,hysteria and irony.The integration of pieces of “interview” made by ordinary people who entered and left the tobacconist s shop gives to the film authenticity as if the film had lived by this people.People of different ethnic groups living the shop in the sameway they live their Brooklyn.
I really apreciated this movie in it complex and even because i am really in love with Auggie:)I think he fully rappresent the soul of Brooklyn and incorporates the attitudes of those who live there.
Paul Auster chose celebriies from other artistic field and gave them very extravagant roles maybe to give to the film a relevant importance.The effect is a real bomb.
I think that more properly Blue in the Face is a way to express when you feel angry and you are losing controll.Is a way to express a feeling of deep anger.
Probably blue in the face has not received the same criticism of smoke since it merely give an image of nostalgic brooking, although there are some moment of reflection on life. The plot is less complex: it presents different types of characters, all dissimilar and particular, that one at a time added a special feature of district of brooking emphasing that what makes it unique is the promiscuity of ideas and races.
Paul Auster probably has chosen the same setting of the other film because between the tow films there is a link: as in smoke time was a set of instants all similar but different, in blue in the face the society is composed of many individuals all similar, but fortunately each different and particular.
franceso marson
I feel nostalgic of my childhood, the period in which all was so simple compared to now, but I also feel nostalgic of the moments in which I felt happy. In this moment I really miss last summer… The best summer I’ve ever lived (for the moment) and every time I hear a song that reminds it to me, I feel glad but also sad, because I know that moment will never come back, and next summer will be completely different… The exams at school, at university… All will change, also people around me. And I’m already nostalgic of them, even if the year has not finished yet.
I think “Blue in the face” did not meet the critical approval as Smoke because of its contents. It is a pleasant movie, but is more similar to a documentary than to a tragicomedy (as Smoke), and the themes treated are not as deep as those approached in the previous film. I really liked this film, because there is continuity with the previous one (in the setting, the characters) but also some news, that makes it completely different. I did not appreciate the appear of Madonna, because she is always half-naked… But this element “fits” the film, anyway.
The effect is strange… We can see artists improving their capability of acting, and this makes the movie really interesting. I really appreciated Lou Reed’s theory about glasses… It seems absurd, as many things in life, but it is not.
The title makes sense, because Auggie tells he is “blue in the face”, in fact he is angry… Life deceives men, and when you think something is over, it comes back on time (see his lover of youth).
New York seems to be a really complicated city… There are so many cultures living there, and so many problems between them… Ney York has also a symbol, Belgian waffles, that are not Belgian, actually. It is a city guided by interests, as the Auggie’s boss will to sell the shop and the disappearance of Dodgers demonstrate. Anyway, the fantastic thing is that “tradition” wins in the film, in fact a player (who’s now dead) “appears” to the boss and convinces him not to sell the shop.
Giulia Marcassa
I’m honest,i don’t like so much the film “blue in the face”, I don’t understand the sense of it.I only saw in the film people who quarrelled,who talked about the city,who expressed themselves about something in particular and who opened up with Auggie.”Smoke” is better than “blue in the face”,because in this last film there is nothing special,the scenes are not linked each other,the film is dotted with sketches from Brooklyn, there isn’t a real plot.Yes,there are famous actors and celebrities from other artistic fields because they represent the icon of American culture and Paul Auster wants to criticize the society of USA.They don’t give a beautiful image of them:for example Madonna who is almost naked (as she is used to be) and has a singing telegram,she does an appearance,but then,what does she do?Nothing.I am not surprised that she accepted to do only this,because she wanted to appear in the film even if for few seconds.
Well “to get blue in the face” means “to get angry,to get mad” and this makes sense because in the film you see people who have got problems and who run to tobacconist’s shop, where works Auggie,to tell him their problems as if he is a confidant.
The view i get of New York?Well,I always thought about New York as the most busy city in the world,with lots of people who walk and run up and down in the roads. You see it also in other films.When I saw the film i thought the same, because you see lots of people,the skywalks full of people,but there is another element that distinguishes New York from other cities:well in every part of the world there is always somebody who steals.I don’t know why,but I think that in New York is more often than in other parts.Yes also in London but New York is the Melting Pot,things like this happens everyday there.It is also true,and I think this thing not only because I saw it in the film but because I thought,there somebody helps you to catch the person who has stolen you something.In Italy, for example,the thieves don’t act during the day,seldom,but in the night and they steal in the house most of all.It is also true that if happens something during the day, nobody helps the person who is in difficulty,everybody thinks about her/himselves.So,I agree with Lou Reed when he said that he is scared,yes he isn’t scared in New York because it is his city and he knows it,but in other parts he fears.I am scared also in my country and in my city because nowadays you should see behind you everywhere.I am scared also to get out in the night…Perhaps this is the reality…..
Santarossa Barbara
Blue in the face is not as “intellectual” as Smoke, it could be the reason why the critic was not too enthusiastic about it. Then it is an experimental movie, a sort of documentary, it is uncommon and perhaps they appreciate a more traditional kind of films. on the other hand I personally found this originality its strongest point.
About the cameos present in the movie, I must admit that I did not recognise most of them, for example this Lou Reed that I had never seen before seems to be very popular in the US. Anyway, the role played by Madonna is quite ridiculous, I though that she had been employed just for marketing reasons but your interpretation is more interesting than mine: the authors decided to speak a language that also common people can understand, and this language expresses the consumer American culture. Summarizing, it is social criticism. Actually it is true, these celebrities are not famous for their exemplar life or high works. But does it mean that the authors chose them… to criticize them? This could give a sense to Madonna’s presence in the movie!
The central point of the movie is Brooklyn, (Mr Auster is obsessed with it, isn’t he?) but the interesting thing is that this time the city is shown by real inhabitants, who say some statistic about it and by the “free” comments of the actors: its pro & cons, the urban legends, the peculiarities that make it unique.
It is a very nostalgic and passionate portrait of the city.
federica zille
“Blue in the face” is a film by Wayne Wang and Paul Auster which deals with the people and the life in Brooklyn. The main Character, Auggie, is the same as in “SMOKE” by the same directors and also the set is unchanged. Auggie is the shop-assistant in the same cigar shop of the first film and, as in the first film, his store is the shelter of the buyers, who held together by a series of circumstances/coincidence. The film has some ideas which had been left behind in the previous film, giving the film some peculiar characteristics: as far as the shooting, the actors and the language are concerned. The shooting makes the film look like a documentary, most of the characters, were probably taken from the street, in the sense that they were not professional actors. This choice contributed to make the documentary style more realistic. Furthermore the characters, despite they show a very different cultural background, are part of a common American culture. They are witness of the racial integration and, in the film, the cigar shop symbolizes this ethnical mosaic. Nevertheless this film has lots of characteristics of ordinary films: what happens in this store is so unnatural that could be possible only in a film. Wayne Wang, Paul Auster and the actors play with the plot and do the most illogical things in making a documentary. An example of this is Jackie Robinson’s ghost, that appears in order to save the store and unrealistic vision of Brooklyn as a kind of heaven on earth.
Concluding this is the most unusual film by Paul Auster, which gives the audience a positive feeling of hope and trust in other people’s help.
Nicola Truant
“Blue in the Face” is a film really full of nostalgic moments and speeches: all the people that appear in the film speak about their cheerful youth, their past, their previous loves and passions and also about their several and different vices ( the most common of them is obviously smoking!).Everyone who is asked for his own memories about the Dodgers Team, tells they were more than a passion for Brooklyn people, they were like an obsession, even for those who can stand baseball, as they were a pride for the inhabitants of the poor and chaothic Brooklyn and a big disgrace when they moved to Los Angeles. By the way, during the movie some people are interviewed about what they know about their neighborhood and what they like or dislike of it: there are people coming from all over the world, from deeply different cultures, religions, countries, all talking about their lives in brooklyn and what do they feel about them. There is a black man who tells the huge number of muslims that live in New york, and in particular in Brooklyn; and there is a man wearing arabian clothes who tells how many black people are in New York; or an old, poor and anguished woman who tells the number of murders happened just in Brooklyn the year before. (i don’t remember very well who precisely tell what, but the most important thing is the situation and the feelings they create all together with their words spoken through so different accents!). So Brooklyn appears to be a messed up place where gangsters, murderers,beggars,and any kind of miserable people live together, but, in the same time, is a site where there are still people who try to protect themself from its too complex and dangerous reality, thanks to their friendship, mainly born in Auggie cigar’s store. In fact it is this incredible confusion that make the protagonists feel “blue in the face”: thy are so overwhelmed by the life that flows very fast around them, that they need to recover for a while, not to be swallowed by anger and depression.
Although lots of famous actors and celebrities were called to play a role in this film it didn’t get the same success as Smoke did. I think that’s because of the plain and simple plot, which in fact had been totally improvised! and that’s why the movie story can’t be complicated or heavy, as it has been shot in 6 days and without any script. Most of the famous actors seems to be enjoying themselves during the film, as they can finally do and say whatever they want and also let people know the reality where some of them were born and grown up.
The only thing i don’t like is the documentary way by means of which the director decided to shot the film: e.g. the division in chapters, the long monologues without any actions and the big jumps (both in time and place) from one of them to the other.
Simone
In my opinion “Blue in the face” has not meet the critical approval because of the lack of a precise story. I did not found a linearity in the plot, maybe for his documentary style. The choice to relate the history and life in brooklyn through numbers and statistics was good and somehow a novelty, but it was a little bit dispersive. The setting was the same of “smoke” and the characters had nothing in common, their stories did not cross each others in a clearly way as it happened in “smoke”. They have their own life, separated from the others. The only thing that somehow unite them is the meeting place, Auggie’s tobaconist.
Personally i did not find it so intriguing….it is not my standard of film!
Answering to the first question…I feel nostalgic of my childhood, it seems expected because, as i have noticed by the other posts, lots of other peolpe share my opinion, but if you reflect on it, childhood is the most pure period of our life. You have not responsabilities, you have not worries and you are still too inexperienced to understand the importance of life and all difficulties that are involved.
Now you must face reality in a different way…you can not take anything for granted and you must face all what comes to you with the awareness of your responsability. I feel nostalgic also of all good moments that i have passed last summer with my friends because i know that it will never happen again….yes, there will be lots of other special moments but those won’t never be replaced!
Marson Chiara
sincerely, i didn’t like so much the film. maybe because i prefer a story-line and in “Blue in the face” there isn’t a general plot. but, i appreciate that this film is the mirror of reality, more than “Smoke”, because the actors have improvised all film in 6 days. i think that Paul Auster has decided to do this experiment to exalt the capability of actors and to exalt the personality of the actors, who in general must be different person in a film, but in “Blue in the face” they were real, theri character was “be yourself” and i very like this aspect. but, for me it’s a difficult film to follow, because there isn’t a connection from beginning to the end and there were separated scenes where people sing, tell, dance and joke. the purpose to show the feelings, desires and Brooklyn’s memory of every person. personally, i’m a nostalgic person, but not for my early childhood, but for past happy moments. in general, i’m happy to be an eighteen girl because i know how go the world, but i’m not an adult yet. but i like to think my past…more over to remember happy moment…for example…this summer sang in a concert…well…everyday i dream that moment…i would come back on the stage to feel the same shudders. i’m a nostalgic person for past feelings and i like to remember happy moment, in fact more person say that i’ve a elephant memory!!! 😉
Laura Sist
Blue in the face might be boring to many because it doesn’t follow a standard hollywood paradigm of rising action, climax, resolve. It is more documentary style, although fictitious, and quickly jumps from story to story and character to character. The editing is an interesting component because it successfully brings together disparate themes and characters (who are improvising their lines and stories to some degree). This and some fantastical elements provide a very romanticized view of Brooklyn. Altogether a cohesive piece with some nice performances and some insight into what it is to growup and live in a special loved place.
Plazzotta Federico
Personally I am nostalgic of my childhood, or, without having to go too far with the memory, even some recent moments in the past. But the strange thing is that we always tend to desire, something in the future, and maybe we look forward to reaching it, and then, when we got it, we feel nostalgic of past time. As Giulia said, I also feel nostalgic for the period of life that I am living now, even if it has not finished yet, because I know that everything will change, in which direction is not known.
The movie “Blue in the face” deal with a strong sense of nostalgia, shared by all the characters in the Auggie’s cigar shop, which is, once again, an intimate and friendly place where everyone can share their personal experience, in this case, memories. Auggie’s cigar shop is only a small dot in the immense reality of Brooklyn: it is a separate reality, which has little in common with the city of murders and violence, or with the sickness of our society. In my opinion, the film focuses on a small and comfortable reality, which tries, as far as possible, to stay away from the chaos of the “global” Brooklyn. Even if I don’t know how to explain the title, “blue in the face” probably has to do with this sense of anguish at seeing the confusion of Brooklyn, which is taking the upper hand (this is the reason why there is the need to carve out a small space in order to be with friends and share experiences in tranquility). I think this movie has not received the same critic approval of “Smoke” because it was not much studied in the plot (so that was shot in 6 days), but in this aspect there is his truthfulness and closeness to reality.
Federica Cozzarin
“Blue in the face” is a documentary film whose task is to show different positive aspects of Brooklyn, a quite big district of New York. The setting is the same of “Smoke”, Auggie’s shop, but I think that this movie did not meet the critic approval because of its discontinuity in the plot and its topics, too close to the Brooklyn’s reality. Actually I really didn’t like the interview, because they were detached from the leitmotif of the movie. To tell you the truth, while I was watching the film I had fun, especially in the scene in which the little boy was caught after having stolen the girl’s bag; but when I came back home it hadn’t left in me any good or bad emotion. The nostalgic feeling comes out not in the parts in which the film treats with the past or the present Brooklyn’s reality, but in which there is the idealization of Brooklyn, the one which only exist in people’s memories, the one of the “Dodgers” age, the only baseball teams which came from there but also which soon was cancelled from the baseball American teams. The title “Blue in the face” stands for angry and the only time which is said is when Auggie’s girlfriend(Mel Gorham) is in front of a mirror, talking about him. I think it could also stands for the feeling that wafts on Brooklyn, in order to represent a strong feeling, to make the other understand it is an alive and multicultural district.
Carolina Braghin
Giualia Raineri
I don’t feel nostalgic because I’m convinced that I have to live my life without regret or nostalgia for the past. I’m proud of my whole life and the present is as good as the past. Sometimes I’m wondering if I have acted in a different way or I’m thinking at a period of two years ago but I get rid of this thoughts. The only way to apreciate the present is to live without nostalgia.
The sequel Blue in the face didnt meet the critic aproval because of the documentary form of the movie. The film is composed by many shot of scenes diffrerents from each other that hasn’t nothing to do one to other. There isn’t a main plot but the plot changes with the scene change. I don’t apreciate the documentary form of the movie because I prefer a film which has an entire plot that has a begin, a development and a end.
The title makes sense if we look at the way the film was shot: Paul Auster wanted the actors to recitate their role without a script. They acted and acted till they fell blue in the face as without breath.
NY is a city that I’ve never seen but I make an idea from the view of actor and Paul Auster too. NY is a city caothic where there isn’t a single culture but lots of different culture and habits cohabit inside. NY is as a multiethinc city, where you can find in it a piece of everywhere of the World.
What do I feel nostalgic of?? Ahah!! Good question!! I feel nostalgic of childhood, when I didn’t need to ask myself questions, where the only things I cared were: eat, spleep and play; when everyday was a new and beautiful day full of adventures and discoveries, which I faced always with a smile.
I personally didn’t like “Blue in the face” soo much. I think that the all story doesn’t make a sense. Ok…they are living and talking about NY and Brooklyn…and so what?? I can spot two main “stories”, the one of the four friends that gather together at the tabaconist’s shop, and the one of Auggie and his girlfriend; this stories, even if they are really strange, have somehow a meaning. But all the other sketches, like the interviews at the people who live in NY and at Jim Jarmush, don’t make a sense inside the story (and sometimes it is hard to spot even the meaning of them, if we take them separate). What maked me anguish even more is the for example the interview of Jim Jarmush is 10 minutes long, you see it speaded all over the film, 2 minutes at the beginning, then the camera focuses on Auggie’s relationship, then you see the interview at a newyorker, and then you return again to Jim Jarsmush talking nonsense, and then you ask yourself: “What the hell does all this mean??” I think the camera moves too fast from the situation to another, and this speed, that generally speaking paves the way and prepares the audiance to a tourning point of the story, doesn’t corrispond to a particular changement of the all story in its term.
In this film there are some famous actors and celebrities, but they play a marginal role in the story and their fame is here ironically minimalized, for ex. Madonna paly the role of a singing telegramm, a famous jazz player plays music in the street…
I don’t know why the director of the film wanted to cal the film “Blue in the face”, but for sure he gives to this idiom a different meaning from the one of the dictionary, as for sure I can state (at least) that this film doesn’t deal with anger and frustration.
Chiara Pinardi