"Kramer vs. Kramer" Movie Review Essay & Film Analysis

- Kramer - who is it? -. This is what we
so happened that a few years ago turned out to be involuntarily involved in a divorce of good friends. Their apartment was not a frequent visitor, but I remember being at a party led off the baby to another room where the books read, guitar playing, as long as wee not heard thunder and lightning warfare. On divorce court ex-wife is not so much divide the property as a child. Since then, it's hard to give the film of this type, and plot-role review on behalf of the child, is not morally osilivayu. So that only the analytical boring officialdom.
Consideration of the film is divided into five segments.
You're dropped back shell. Do not worry, it will be better to crackle. You love to croutons were crunchy?
1. A film crew. 1a. Producer. In my opinion he was smart enough not to interfere with leading figures during their solos, but was unable to collect and structure the result. As a result, Dustin bent his line, Meryl - its ... the others too, had something to say, as a result of the film formed, but that turned out not so much the sum of its parts, as it was that a few terms, some of which appeared in brackets and had a way out, and some left behind ... 1b. Operator. He had hard, most of the staff was the same type of closed locations where it could be squeezed as this close-ups of faces. Since this was no problem, but say the episode - patsanchik looks out the window and type a "Pope - is that we have, and this is why." Papic a walking Wikipedia is such a skyscraper is such a tourist attraction. The child is excited, and the viewer is waiting for a colorful panorama, and it is not. In general shots outdoors rather primitive. All right, if it was a play, but then it would be possible to try to look for the angles. 1c. Zvukovik. The film has no dialogue shots, they are few, but they are there and there is a high class professional. But here there is nothing to do action or suspense, but because in some places the soundtrack was asking, and it too ... netuti. 1d. Dialogues. We offer, say, an ordinary family. Consisting of ordinary people, for all sorts of speechwriters did not hold to that, in my opinion, plus, because once again emphasizes the regular members of the drama.
You're a good mother. And useless dishwasher!
2. Those who do not Kramer. Firstly they have a lot in common. Actors and actresses were not playing archetypes that suddenly. Oddly enough, but it was ... original ... For actors and actresses often do not play as much a role as the archetype of a people and fellows. Here we presented a bunch of different people, but all of these people - are common, making history not a single private force majeure, a common story that could happen to anyone. Second. All who do not Kramer tried to be more than they are. Each of them played a role, and went behind the curtain. Well, someone came back a couple of times, but it is important that no one outplayed and not over-tighten the focus on
'Daddy, Daddy, -. He says - and you lost so much - and so is looking at me from the bottom up and says - but you have such a big nose is now '
3!. Patsanchik. General revelation. I expected him to everything from teen violent mayhem, to depressive autism. Nothing like this. This is the case when a small man either with adult prompting, whether dopetril himself that any extreme is bad there. As a result, even if the other shalturili - this angel would be stretched, if not the whole movie, then at least most of it
How is your job.? - OK-OK! Vice President of empty space!
4. Kramer himself. Well, that is Dustin. Despite the fact that he's (rumored) climbed in the filming process, but he did everything right. Namely. For example, he was not afraid to be "bad." Somewhere outplayed, somewhere I did not reach, but does the average man, and even in a stressful situation behaves as a theater actor at the benefit concert? I think no. As a result, the image received credible and life, but the most important thing is not even that, and that Dustin was able to show the evolution of his character from the beginning of the selfish NEsemyanina up loving (REALLY LOVING) father in the end
-. And how many friends you had everything? - I do not remember. - More than three, less than thirty-three in total? - Somewhere between
5.. Krameriha. That's really who I am quite well, did not like the way it is Meryl. And it's not that her character is not very positive. And that Meryl in my opinion is not taken the correct position. According to rumors it is to get into the filming process, for example, he rewrote his personazhihu in the scene of the court on a more politically correct. What is it? Maiden solidarity ??? She got the role of the cuckoo. So why it considers that it is necessary to play a character that's so pathetic and obviously exculpatory ??? She what? He considers kukushestvo good? Look again. At the trial, she asked her husband beat you? No. Your husband is a drunkard? No. Maybe money is not given or is there still any sins? No. That is, to show that she had nothing. In this case, when she begin to ask about the lover, it turns out that her lover in there. Good nun. And another note. At trial, Ted stands up for others, such as Margaret. Someone other than the lawyer said, word for Joan? And after all, it is enough to reject political correctness and play bitch, tear off, or there is still not any good chelovechitsu, well remember the "I'm not a mother. I - a viper ... ". And everything fell into place. But alas Meryl afraid to be bad. Yes cat with her. Even so. But now look. Take the character of Ted, and see its evolution. Take Margaret - even more. Even the patsanchika and then, much has changed. But Joan was like nothing tatty, so such, and left. You can certainly say that the screen time was not enough and so on. The fullness of God. At the same time, Margaret was even less, but what in principle it was in the beginning and what it has become in the end?
I think this is rather his failure than mine. Congratulations, Mrs. Kramer! You just copied marriage legislation
Any divorce - the mountain. Manipulation child - inhuman. In this film, specifically, I should not be more than the ups and downs of the story, and the situation and development of the characters. Alas, but Meryl was the only one who's obviously something nedoigrala ... and at the end say. People learn to be patient and understanding, and do not use in children ... yes, for any purpose.

How to cite this essay: