Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Citizen Kane: The Greatest Movie Ever Made?

In a word, no. Sorry, but I just don't see it.

I'll be the first to admit that Citizen Kane is a revolutionary film. It certainly breaks with the established "Hollywood" style of cinematograpy. In fact, the cinematography is something I would expect of a late-20th Century (1970s-1990s) film, not one made in 1941, so it certainly was groundbreaking in that regard.

It is also one of the few (to my knowledge) major Hollywood films to feature an almost completely unknown cast. Sure, Welles and company were famous for doing radio shows, but none had ever done a Hollywood picture before. That and the fact that no-name Orson Welles was given almost complete creative freedom over the picture was all but unheard of at the time, and is in fact a very rare occurrence still today. So it's revolutionary in that regard as well.

Also, there is of course the famous battle over the film's production. Never before or since (again, to the best of my knowledge) has there been such a controversy over a film's release. William Randolf Hearst did everything in his power to ensure that the film would not be finished and then, once production had wrapped, to keep the film from ever being shown. Not even Passion of the Christ caused that kind of uproar. If anything, this served only to make the film more famous and more successful.

So, Citizen Kane was groundbreaking in terms of cinematography, casting and creative control, and in terms of the controversy it caused. These are all great things, to be sure, but they're not enough to make the film "The Best Ever." And, unfortunately, neither is anything else about it. The acting is generic 1940s, as are music, andthe special effects (save for the parakeet). So, yes, it is a great film, but I just don't see how it can really justly be called "The Greatest."

Sorry.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Citizen Kane (1941) Review

I enjoyed Citizen Kane. I'll say that right upfront. I enjoyed it, but at the same time I do not think it was the best film I've seen in class so far, nor do I think it is/was the best American film ever made.

After class, someone (I cannot for the life of me remember who, sorry. EDIT: It was Andy. ) summed up my feelings almost exactly: "It was the most mediocre 'best film' I ever watched." I agree wholeheartedly. Nothing about the film seemed all that spectacular or groundbreaking. At most, it broke from the traditional "Hollywood Style." cinematography, with the establishing shots, two-shots, back-and-forth-shots, etc. Instead, the film's cinematography seems to be more "modern," more typical of what we'd expect to see in a theater if not today, then perhaps in the latter 20th Century. Aside from that, however, and the phenominal acting by Orson Welles and the rest of the Mercury Theater cast, the film seems to be a typical product of Hollywood in the late 30s and early 40s.

What struck me most about the film was the sympathy I wound up feeling for Kane himself. He is by no means a nice man. Far from it, he ends up being a control-obsessed tyrant. Still, Kane had enough money so that he could snap his fingers and have nearly anything he wanted, but the only time in his life when he was truly happy was when he was a young boy with nothing, nothing but his imagination and his sled, his Rosebud.

I enjoyed Citizen Kane. I really did. However, while I do think it is a must-watch film, I don't consider it to be the best film ever made. It just doesn't stand out enough to me.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Film Noir: An American Style?

Film noir is unique in that it is genre/style of film (whichever you prefer) that is almost wholly unique to American cinema. Other genres like action, romance, suspense, and even comedy, span every country and every culture in the world because they are, by their very nature, universal and understood by virtually everyone. Film noir lacks this universality because it is a distinctly American style born of distinctly American roots and causes.

What really gave birth to the film noir genre was the fear and uncertainty surrounding America in the late 1930s. Fear of the war that everyone could see was brewing in Europe and uncertainty over the lingering effects of the Great Depression, combined with the lingering memories of the gangster era and the corruption it exposed gave rise to a blend of filmmaking techniques and plotline that were virtually exclusive to Hollywood during the late 30s to the early 50s.

The dark, shadowy urban settings, the reluctant, burned-out, sometimes drunk anti-heroes, the questionable moralities of all the central characters in film noir were previously unheard of anywhere in cinema, buthe their dark, ambiguous nature perfectly represented the pessemistic confusion that was permeating through the nation at that time. Because this confusion was not as prevalent eslwhere in the world - if existant at all - the resultant films were utterly unique to America.

While elements of film noir have slowly made their way into other countries cinemas, and even into other genres, the core of film noir remains firmly rooted in America due to the unique conditions and circumstances surrounding its origin.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Film Noir Journal

11/19/08

I've just finished watching Blade Runner and The Maltese Falcon, so I now have a pretty good idea of what film noir really is. It's not a genre, per se, of film making, but a style. It can cross genres easily, from the classic whodunits of The Maltese Falcon and Double Indemnity, to the futuristic science fiction of Blade Runner. After careful analysis, here's my list of what makes a movie film noir:

Required (or at least highly desirable):
  • Very dark (lighting), with lots of shadows
  • Very dark and somber mood or feel
  • The hero or protagonist is either a cop, ex-cop, or private investigator
  • The hero usually becomes involved in the situation against his will or better judgement
  • The hero narrating the film in a flashback voiceover
  • Murder, or some other sort of crime
  • Some sort of plot twist
  • All nonessential dialogue is very short and to the point
  • The characters (or at least the protagonists) all smoke and/or drink rather frequently
Optional (but preferable)
  • All the men wear fedoras and trench coats
  • Corny dialogue (between characters in love, anyway)
  • Liberal use of the words "dame" and "baby"

In my opinion, out of the four films I've watched, only Double Indemnity is a true example of film noir because it meets the most of my requirements, and not just that the film feature a flashback narration by the hero (The original cut of Blade Runner had such a narration). Granted, the other three films all featured characteristics of film noir, but only Indemnity seemed (to me) to fully embody and embrace the style of film noir.


11/15/08

Two films down, and I'm getting a better idea of what film noir is. It's beginning to seem less like a genre to me and more like a style of filming. Touch of Evil and Double Indemnity are both gritty detective films, but only Indemnity seems (IMO) to be noir-ish: Touch is just too bright and "happy" at times.

With that in mind, here's my updated list of what makes a film noir movie:

Required (or at least highly desirable):
  • Very dark (lighting), with lots of shadows
  • Very dark and somber mood or feel
  • The hero narrating the film in a flashback voiceover
  • Murder, or some other sort of crime
  • Some sort of plot twist
  • All nonessential dialogue is very short and to the point
Optional (but preferable)
  • All the men wear fedoras and trench coats
  • Corny dialogue (between characters in love, anyway)
  • Liberal use of the words "dame" and "baby"

11/12/08

So, yesterday was my first real exposure to film noir. I was right: I like this genre. However, my exposure is (as I said) extremely limited, so I'm still trying to figure out what makes a film into film noir . Here's what I've got so far:

  • Very dark (lighting), with lots of shadows
  • The hero narrating the film in a flashback voiceover
  • Murder
  • All the men wear fedoras
  • All nonessential dialogue is very short and to the point
  • Corny dialogue (between characters in love, anyway)
  • Liberal use of the words "dame" and "baby"
It's not much so far, I know, but I've still got 3 more (and hopefully) different films to watch, possibly along with some outside research, so I'll definitely be able to expand my knowledge of film noir over the coming weeks.

The Maltese Falcon (1941) Review

I enjoyed The Maltese Falcon. While there was nothing really special about the film (aside from Humphrey Bogart, of course), like Casablanca, it's just one of those films that pulls the viewer in and doesn't let go until the end.

Honestly, I think the reason I enjoyed the film so much is because I love a good who-done-it. Problem is, I usually have them figured out by at least the halfway point, and while I did have most of the plot figured out by about 2/3 of the way through the film, I didn't figure out everything until it was explained at the end. That's what I really loved about this film: it kept me guessing.

Artistically, as I said, there really isn't anything that sets this film apart. The cinematography, mise-en-scene, and editing are all typical of the classic 1930s-1950s era of Hollywood. As I said, nothing special, but the acting is where the film shines. Bogart is, as usual, superb, as are Mary Astor, Syndey Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre. Personally, I thought it was excellent to see those last two in full-fledged roles and not just the bit parts they had in Casablanca.

While it's nothing special, The Maltese Falcon is a true gem. It's worth a watch. Trust me, you won't regret it.

Blade Runner (1982) Review

Frankly, I was disappointed by this film. It was a bit too gory for my tastes, but nowhere near to the level that would make me not like it the way I do.

The cinematography in this film is absolutely amazing. Who would have thought scene after scene of polluted urban sprawl could be so... so... beautiful? Likewise, the random roving spotlights that are omnipresent throughout the film lend it an Orwellian feel, almost as if Big Brother is always watching.

Likewise, the mise-en-scene is fabulous. Everything, and I mean everything, looks like it belongs in the worn, dreary, distopian city that is LA in 2019. From the clothes to the cars to the weapons, to the building-covering jumbotrons, everything looks real - even more stunning once one realizes that there is no GCI in the film whatsoever.

Editing, while not as strong as the cinematography or mise-en-scene, is also very well-done, giving the film a definite noir-is feel to it. It doesn't do quite as good a job of building tension as I would like, but it is adequate nonetheless.

I guess the reason I didn't really like this film is just because it was so hyped, for me anyway, that it had reached a standard that no film could realistically live up to. I would have like to have watched the cut with Harrison Ford's narration, though. Maybe that would have made it seem better. But, either way, I have to admit that Blade Runner is an excellent film and should definitely be watched, especially if you're a science-fiction junkie.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Touch of Evil (1958) Review

I hate to admit it, but I really did not enjoy Touch of Evil that much. It wasn't a bad movie by any means; it just didn't draw me in nearly as much as Double Indemnity did. I guess part of the reason was that I had read about the film long before I watched it, so I knew most of the major twists. Even so, I knew Psycho's twist before I saw that, and that film still drew me in...

Honestly, this movie just doesn't strike me as being very film noir. It's just a bit too bright, and the characters at times seem just a bit too happy. There also isn't very much use of shadow in the film, and the overall ambiance is just too bright.

Regardless, it's still a very well-done movie. Charlton Heston and Orson Welles are brilliant in their respective rolls as Vargas and Quinlan, while Janet Leigh (who still doesn't have good luck with motels) does a good job as Vargas' new (and somewhat clueless) wife. Similarly the plot is very well-developed and should keep people (at least ones who don't know it beforehand) entertained.

Overall, I think that Touch of Evil is a good movie by itself and is definitely worth a watch. However, I don't think it fits into the category of Film Noir very well.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Double Indemnity (1944) Review

Double Indemnity was my first genuine exposure to the genre/style of film noir, and I have to say that I genuinely enjoyed it.

As far as the noir-aspect of the film goes -
murder, the hero narrating portions of the film via a flashback voiceover, very dark locations with a lot of shadows, corny dialogue that made liberal use of the words "dame" and "baby" - it was about what I expected. Granted, the closest I've come to film noir before this is Who Framed Roger Rabbit and the Tracer Bullet strips in Calvin and Hobbes, but nevertheless the film struck me to be typical (or possibly even stereotypical) film noir. And I enjoyed it anyway.

Film noir aside, I thought the film was excellent. I especially enjoyed the acting. Barbara Stanwyck genuinely struck me as a murderous black widow of a wife, while Fred MacMurry does an excellent job as Walter Neff. I especially liked Edward G. Robinson's near-obsessive portrayal of Keyes.

Billy Wilder did an excellent job of building the tension up throughout the film. My favortie scene has to be where the car stalls out while MacMurry and Stanwyck are about to make their getaway.

Overall, I thougholy enjoyed Double Indemnity. It's a great introduction to film noir, and if you're interested in the genre (and even if you're not), you should definitely watch it.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

What Makes a Movie Great?

Hmm... good question. Not an easy one to answer, either. The problem is that there are just so many different aspects to a film that it's impossible to peg down which one makes a movie great. Actually, in my opinion, for a movie to be truly great, it must fulfill several of the following requirements:

QUALITY ACTING. No, I'm not talking about having A-list celebrities in the film (although that can help). What I mean is that whoever is in the starring roles, or any role for that matter, must put on a good, believable performance. For example, Casablanca wasn't supposed to be a great film, but the quality of acting by the leads and the interaction between them is what took the film from being another mediocre Hollywood churn-out to one of the greatest films of all time.

CHARACTERS THE AUDIENCE CAN IDENTIFY WITH. The best acting in the world doesn't mean squat if the audience doesn't care about the characters they portray. That's another reason why Casablanca is so great; the audience feels for Rick, they understand how Ilsa broke his heart and how he is torn between love and hate. It's also why Star Wars (the original, not the **** sequals), for all it's flaws, is so revered: the audience identifies with Luke Skywalker's desire to leave his home and explore the galaxy and learn more about his mysterious father.

GOOD MUSIC. Music can, in some cases, make or break a film. Star Wars is an excellent example of this. If the score had been written by someone else, or if it had been scored using pre-existing music (Lucas' original intent), it would have lacked the same impact that makes it so memorable. Similarly, without its trademark theme, Jaws would not have been nearly as scary as it turned out to be.

A CLEAR STORYLINE. The best acting and the best music and the best characters are all worthless if the audience can't figure out what's going on. Mind you, the story doesn't have to be blatantly obvious, but it has to make enough sense that the audience can clearly understand what is going on. There also has to be a point to the story that the audience can pick up on and understand. An audience should not leave the theater asking themselves "What the heck just happened?" or "Why should I care?"

CINEMATOGRAPHY, MISE EN SCENE, and EDITING. The reason Akira Kurosawa's and Sergio Leone's films are so well-renowned is that they both expertly employ cinematography. The wide open views of the countryside make the audience feel like they are actually in the film, while the tight close ups in Leone's westerns bring the tension in the film to a fever pitch. Similarly, mise en scene can be very important. Just look at Hitchcock's films. Everything in the shot adds to the overall effect of tension in the film. Remember all the portraits that were stairing at Marion in Psycho? Finally, Editing is crucial to the film. Properly done, transitions between shots become all but invisible, further drawing the audience into the film. In contrast, poor, jerky editing throws the audience out of the film and back in their seats, making it harder for them to become emotionally invested in the film.

"BREAKING THE MOLD". Let's be honest, here. All The Matrix really is is just a bunch of cardboard acting and gratuitous voilence, with a bit of hokey Zen philosophy thrown in for good measure. Yet the film was a runaway hit. Why? Because no one had ever seen anything like it before. No one had ever attempted special effects like that before, and they blew the audience away. Basically, a film has to be unique, or at least contain something that has never been seen before if they are to be truly great (which is why sequels usually suck).

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Ran (1985) Review

Straight up, I didn't enjoy Ran nearly as much as I thought I would, though not for the reason you might think. Essentially, the movie is Shakespeare's King Lear, only in Japan with the Samurai. In both high school and college, I have read and reread King Lear so many times that I know the story backwards and forwards. As a result, the film's plot was not a surprise to me at all: I knew pretty much what was going to happen and when. It kinda sucks when you know the ending before the film even begins.

However, if you don't know the story by heart, the film is absolutely spectacular. The cinematography is excellent, highlighting feudal Japan's wide-open spaces. Even the interior shots feel open and unconfined. The whole effect gives the film a grand, epic feeling. It reminds me of a Sergio Leone western, unsurprising since Leone was a student of director Akira Kurosawa's work.

Acting is good, I guess. I'm not familiar at all with Japanese cinema (this was the first Japanese film I've ever seen), so I cannot really comment on it. I can say that it did not feel forced or over-the-top, though.

While I didn't like Ran as much as I hoped I would, it is still a magnificent film and is definitely worth a watch.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Daughters of the Dust (1991) Review

I'll be perfectly honest with you. Daughters of the Dust has definitely been my least favorite film I've reviewed so far. I really did not enjoy it at all, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the narrative style was confusing. Unlike traditional narratives, there was no real chronology. Now, I'm not one of those people that gets confused by flashbacks or flash-forwards, but the thing is I can usually tell when those events are occurring. There was no real sense of time in this film. I don't know if the events took place over the course of a day, a week, or even just a few hours.

Partly as a result of this, I had a hard time figuring out exactly what the story was. Don't get me wrong, I figured out the basics: family of islanders is going to move to the mainland, creating conflicts between the different generations. I could also figure out the various conflicts: Violet's Christianity at odds with the rest of the family's tribal beliefs, Haagar being pissed at everyone who doesn't want to leave, Eli broken up over his wife's rape, Yellow Mary at odds with the rest of the family over her past, etc. The thing is, I couldn't figure out the source of a lot of these conflicts. Why do the rest of the women consider Yellow Mary "ruint"? Why is Haagar so pissed off all the time? Why won't Eula tell Eli who raped her?

I think that the main reason for this is the fact that nearly all of the dialogue is spoken in the particular and peculiar dialect of the islanders. While I was able to figure out the gist of it (I think), a lot of the subtle details blew right passed me because I really could not understand what the people were saying. If there had been subtitles, I think this wouldn't have been a problem.

However, since I couldn't understand them, since I couldn't figure out what the root of a lot of the conflicts were, since I couldn't really get a grasp of the entire storyline, I found the film to be quite boring. It was the longest 112 minutes I've ever sat throught. Even Return of the King felt shorter than this film.

While I can't really call Daughters of the Dust an out-and-out bad movie, I can say that I found it highly confusing and that I really don't reccomend it unless you're really interested in alternate storytelling methods. Otherwise, you should probably avoid it.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Casablanca (1942) Review

Casablanca is considered by many to be one of the best film ever made. After watching it last night, I agree wholeheartedly.

Taking place in Casablanca, Morocco, just before the US entered the Second World War, the film features an all-star cast including Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, and Claude Raines. While the majority of the film takes place inside Rick's (Bogart) club, it still exudes an air of exotic mystery and danger.

Honestly, I was amazed at Humphrey Bogart. He always has the same uninterested look on his face, always talks in the same disinterested monotone, yet he manages somehow to convey so much emotion to the audience Even so, at the same time it's difficult to know what he's thinking. Claude Rains' Captain Renault, on the other hand, is the polar opposite Bogart's Rick. Perpetually good-humored, with an always-ready chuckle, he's the perfect foil for Rick's eternally-grumpy attitude. It's truly amazing to see these two friendly enemies continually spar good-naturedly against each other. Although it's clear that the two characters do not fully trust or even like each other, the "beautiful friendship" that emerges at the film's end didn't come as much of a surprise. Conversely, even though I knew how the film ended, I was still shocked by the climactic twist.

Unfortunately, due to the film's legendary status, many lines and scenes have become cliche. Here's my take on that: who cares? Casablanca is one of the greatest films ever made, and YOU MUST WATCH IT!!!!!!!!!

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Bonnie and Clyde (1967) Scene Analysis

Okay, for this one, I'm going to do something a little different. Rather than analyze part of a film I've already reviewed, I'm going to talk about a scene that I actually analyzed in class; specifically, the first bank robbery in Bonnie and Clyde.

The scene is a straightforward example of continuity editing. All of the cuts are smooth, and many are either invisible or hardly noticeable. In fact, one cut, just after Clyde enters the bank, is so smooth that it took a frame-by-frame analysis to determine that there really was a cut at all: the camera went from a medium-shot of Clyde barging into the lobby to an eyeline match of him surveying the inside of the bank.

From here on out, the scene is basically a series of reaction shots. First, the bank teller reacts with dismay when Clyde actually tries to rob the bank (it had failed some weeks prior). Next, a series of close-ups and eyeline matches portray Clyde's disbelief as he surveys the obvious signs of disuse and disrepair evident throughout the bank. Still not quite believing him (as the furstraition revealed in the last close-up on his face clearly revieals), Clyde hauls the teller outside to explain the situation to Bonnie, who immediately reacts with peels of laughter. Now thouroughly angered by the situation, Clyde shoots out the bank's window (intercut with shots of the teller wincing) and peels off down the road, deliberately running a truck off the road as he passes.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Raging Bull (1980) Review

This was my first Martin Scorsese movie, and let me tell you, it didn't disappoint. Everything about it, everything, was amazing, from the acting to the cinematography to the editing, everything.

What I find most fascinating about the film is that the central character, Jake LaMotta, a boxer whom I hesitate to call him a protagonist, is not a hero in any way. He's crude, he's mean, he has an anger problem, he's paranoid that his wife (whom he abuses) is cheating in him, and he'll do virtually anything to win the middleweight boxing championship. I do have to admire him for one thing, though. He refuses to be knocked down in the ring. Even when he loses the title, he brags to his opponent that he never knocked him (Jake) down.

Probably the only problem I have in this movie are some of the fight/abuse scenes. It was fairly obvious to me that some of the punches were pulled. While I know that all of the punches really were pulled, a fair amount just looked really fake to me. Admittedly, I'm reaching to find fault here, and given that I have some background in the martial arts, I'm not sure anyone else noticed, but still, it bugs me a little.

Bottom line, this is one of the best movies I have ever seen. It's considered by many to be one of the best films ever made. You must watch it at least once before you die.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Breathless (1960) Review

Did Breathless leave me breathless? No. (sorry). Did it leave me dazed and confused? Yes indeed. While the film is noted for its unconventional style of editing, that wasn't what bothered me: I actually got used to the abrupt cuts and shifts rather quickly. No, what bothered me was the ambiguity of the plot and relationship between the characters (and I'm an English major! I really should get better figuring this out!)

I figured that Michel's a thief who jacks cars for a living, and that he sleeps with (and lies to) a whole bunch of girls, but honestly, I couldn't figure out what he saw in Patricia. Likewise, I couldn't really decide how Patricia felt about Michel; she seems to go from loving him to hating him to loving him to running away with him to calling the police on him to telling him he called the police on him. Come on girl, make up your mind already! I also couldn't figure out why he was so desperate to hook up with Antonio. Michel said that Antonio owed him money, but I thought that get got the money from the guy in the travel agency...? Whatever.

Honestly, this is the first movie I've reviewed that I'm not going to recommend. It just left me too confused to like it.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Do the Right Thing (1989) Analysis: The Boom Box

If one particular character can be inextricably linked to one particular prop, it would have to be Radio Raheem and his beloved, ear-shatteringly loud boom box. While at first appearing to be nothing more than just a nonessential prop, it is actually significant on multiple levels.

Of course, the boom box is first and foremost an instrumental prop. Raheem carries it around with him everywhere he goes because he loves Public Enemy and their song Fight the Power. In fact, he seems to love the song so much that he cannot stand turning it off for more than a moment.

The boom box is also a cultural prop. What's more representative (or stereotypical) of the rebellious youth of the 1980's than a massive boom box blaring hard rock or hip hop. The box, more specifically, the song it always seems to be playing, also serve to represent Radio Raheem's "personal culture." Raheem takes the boom box wherever he goes, even into Sal's Famous Pizzarria, whether the device is allowed in the establishment or not. He also ensures that the boom box is always blaring at maximum volume at all times. When the noise draws the ire and protests of aggravated bystanders, Raheem just curses them off. Because of his blatant disregard of authority and because he adornes himself with a good deal of "bling, "Raheem could also be considered to be a forerunner of today's "gangstas." Thus, Fight the Power can very well be considered Raheem's anthem or theme song, as his actions are a perfect mirror of the song's title.

Finally, the box can be seen as a contextualized prop. It is the boom box, or rather it's destruction at the hands of an enraged Sal, that ultimately leads to Raheem's death at the hands of a (white) police officer, an act which causes the neighborhood's long-simmering tensions to explode into a full-blown riot that destroys the pizarria, along with all of the understanding between Sal and the rest of the neighborhood.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Do the Right Thing (1989) Review

Honestly, I went into Do the Right Thing not really knowing what to expect. The only previous exposure I had to Spike Lee was the controversy (for lack of a better word) over his comments about Clint Eastwood's film Flags of Our Fathers, so I wasn't sure what this film would be like. Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised, but for different reasons than I expected.

Firstly, the film doesn't really have a plot, at least, not in the conventional sense. Rather than having a single storyline, the film chronicles the events of one scorching hot day on a block in Broklyn, New York. Specifically, the film focuses on the tensions in the neighborhood caused by bigotry and racism. Ultimately the tension reached a boiling point at the end of the film, with tragic consequences.

Secondly, there is no real protagonist or antagonist. Each character has a unique set of flaws, specifically feelings of animosity towards other characters of different races. On the other hand, each character has a set of positive values as well. Even the police officers are viewed (briefly) in a good light as they help the neighborhood get rid of a raving mad man whose car was soaked by a fire hydrant.

Overall, I have mixed feelings about Do the Right Thing. While I did enjoy the film, I probably won't watch it again. While I could make sense of the story, I prefer films with clear, conventional plotlines (sorry, I'm an English major). Also, the film was just a bit too "loud" for my tastes; the music is blared at max volume, especially when Radio Raheem in in the story, and most of the dialogue is shouted, even when two characters are right next to each other. While it isn't one of my favorite films, I would say that Do the Right Thing is definitely worth a watch.

Monday, October 6, 2008

The General (1927)

Before I get into this review, I'd like to clear up a few things. First, this is the first silent film I have ever watched. I'll try my best not to compare it to the talkies, but I really have nothing else to compare it to. Second, I watched it on YouTube, so... yeah. That kinda speaks for itself.

Buster Keaton plays Johnny Gray, a patriotic Confederate engineer during the Civil War who loves two things: his locomotive, The General, and his woman, Annabelle Lee (Marion Mack). When the Confederate Army comes to town looking for recruits, Johnny is first in line to sign up. Unfortunately, the Army thinks he's more valuable as an engineer than a soldier. Johnny's leaving the recruiting station is misinterpreted by Annabelle as an act of cowardice, so she tells Johnny that she won't speak to him again unless he's in uniform. One year later, Johnny is still an engineer, and he's still driving The General. By sheer coincidence, Annabelle Lee happens to be a passenger on his train. Without warning a band of Union spies hijack the General at a meal stop-with Annabelle trapped on board! Determined to rescue both of his loves, the heroic (yet bumbling) Johnny sets off after them, and the chase is on.

Buster Keaton's acting is definitely the highlight of the film. Truly earning his nickname "The Great Stone Face," Keaton's character finds himself thrust into one hair-raising situation after another, reacting only with stoic disbelief at every turn. Even more impressive is that Keaton performed all of his own stunts. While this might not seem like much at first, take time to consider that the entire film was shot on real, full-size trains, all of which were moving, and the danger suddenly becomes very real. That adds another layer to the film; everything was shot with real trains, even the climactic wreck at the end. This decision made The General one of the most expensive films of the silent era (a whopping $400,000), but personally, I think it was worth every penny.

However, the film does have some faults. For starters, it takes a little while for the action to get going (the chase, which makes up the majority of the first half of the film, doesn't start until more than 20 minutes into the movie). Some of the musical pieces picked to accompany certain scenes seem out of place. My primary gripe is during the climactic battle scene, which moves at a very fast pace, the music is very slow, almost tranquil. While this isn't the only spot where the music doesn't seem to fit, it is the most noticeable. Also, I think that the caption cards may have been displayed for a bit too long (but then again, I'm a really fast reader). However, these faults are minor ones, and even with them, the film is definitely worth watching.

Amazingly, even though it is considered to be one of the best films ever made, The General was a major flop when it first premiered. Apparently, audiences were expecting another light-hearted comedy similar to Keaton's other works, not a serious action-drama. However, the film slowly but surely gathered a following, and while it took many years, Keaton's genious with this film was finally recognized.

Overall, I would say that if you enjoy silent films, definitely watch The General if you haven't already. (If you have, watch it again) If you've never seen a silent film before, you should still watch it; it's a great starting point into the era of silent films. Just make sure you watch it somewhere besides the Internet.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

The Godfather (1972) Analysis

Color and light play a significant role in The Godfather. It helps establish the film as a period piece, helps differentiate between the world of the family business and the outside world, and showing Michael Corleone's slow descent into the mafia underworld.

While it is not immediately noticeable, the entire film has a reddish-yellow tint to it, not unlike the subtle green tinge in The Matrix films. However, instead of conveying a sense of unreality, the tinting gives this film the feeling of being old and warn, not unlike an old photograph. It helps to remind the audience that this is taking place in the 1940s and 50s, not in the present day.

Light and color also play an important role in the film; it helps to differentiate between the world of the mafia and the "outside." This is best exemplified during the opening sequence, during the wedding. The wedding ceremony takes place out in the open in the bright sunlight and is filled with a multitude of colors. Inside Don Corleone's office, however, things are much different. The office is very dimly lit, filled with shadows, and composed of an array of black, gray, and muted browns. This theme of darkness inside vs. light outside continues throughout the film, and serves to highlight that the family's business is ultimately a different world from everything else around it.

Finally, color and light serve to highlight Michael Corleone's descent into the Mafia underworld. Michael first appears in the film wearing a Marine Corps Dress Uniform. It is a dark outfit, yes, but for the next portion of the film, Michael appears primarily in a white shirt, signifying his relative innocence. The first time he appears fully in black is when he kills Sollozzo and McCluskey, his first action for the family. Michael returns to his white shirt while in Sicily, and outfit which he wears continuously until Apollonia is murdered and he returns to the USA. From there on in, Michael exclusively wears black, signifying his total immersion in the family business. He even begins wearing a black hat once he takes over the business, literally covering himself from head to toe with the blackness that is his legacy.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

The Godfather (1972) Review

Well, it was very different from what I was expecting, but I still loved The Godfather.

I knew it was, and expected it to be, a violent film. However, it was nowhere near as violent or as action-packed as I expected. Instead, I found it to be more drama and character-driven. Ordinarily, I'm not a fan of such films, but Francis Ford Coppola won me over with this film. It was fascinating to see Michael Corleone's transformation from a young man who wants nothing to do with the family business to a vengeful killer to the new Don Corleone.

The film is long to be sure (a hair under three hours), and while it did feel long, not once did I find it to be boring. Not even during the opening sequence, which alternates between random moments at Connie's wedding and Vito Corleone doing business, was I bored for even a second. Most films, I'd be snoring in my chair, but The Godfather had me hooked the whole way through.

In short, this is an amazing film, and like Apocalypse Now, you absolutely must watch it at least once before you die.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Apocalypse Now (1979) Analysys; The Do Lung Bridge


(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mANbl6QX9okP)

In terms of cinematography, this scene is probably one of the best in the whole film. Copola's expert use of lights helps to turn the scene from a straight-up battle into a surreal, seemingly drug-induced fantasy world.

The audience's first view of the bridge, a brightly-lit outpost framed by total darkness, serves to set the scene. In addition to being framed by spotlights, flares, party lights, and explosions give the bridge a fantastical quality, almost like an acid trip. Since Lance confides to Chef that he'd just dropped a tab of acid, it's likely that this was the view that Copola was going for. The scene quickly reenters the darkness, lit only by the occasional roving spotlight and quickly alternating between light and shadow. The shadowy, buring-out husks of helecopters only add to surreal, unearthly feel the audience is experiencing.

This feeling quickly reaches it's high point in one of the best sequences of shots in the entire film, as Willard and Lance make their way into the battle zone searching for a commanding officer. They first advance through a hazy wood lit only by fires and a far-off search light, then make their way to the edge of the bridge; a broken landscape of concrete and rebar sticking wildly into the air. The entire sequence is lit only by roving searchlights, random explosions, and the Christmas lights hanging over the bridge. The effect is that the audience feels that it is the midst of a war zone, not in Veitnam, but in some desolate, post-apocalyptic future. The sequence actually reminds me of the future scenes from the first Terminator film. Even more striking is that, except for a few random seconds, Lance and Willard are seen only in shadow, rarely in the light. It's as if they aren't really there, as if none of this is really here, it's just some drug-induced fantasy and soon we'll wake up or crash or whatever and rejoin the sanity of the real world.

The use of shadows and spotlights continues throughout the rest of the scene, but the first few moments are definitely the best and most representative of this style of bizarre and unsettling. cinematography.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Apocalypse Now (1979) Review

Wow. Just, Wow. This movie has completely blown my mind. Way beyond what I was expecting it to be.

Honestly, I thought this was just another Vietnam War movie, but it is so much more than that; it quickly descends into a surreal experience, almost an examination of the human psyche.

The acting in this film is absolutely astonishing. You can actually feel the characters' sanity slowly but definitely slipping away as the boat travels up the river. It's subtle at first, but by the time the boat reaches the Do Long bridge, you have to question whether Willard will follow through with his mission to kill Col. Kurtz or wind up joining him and his "tribe."

Adding to the surreal experience is Francis Ford Coppola's expert use of light, color, and shadow, which slowly but surely takes film from a cut-and-dry Veitnam War setting to the surreal, almost fantastical, world of Col. Kurtz.

Really, this film is so much more than what I describe here. It is so incredible, and has made such a huge impression on me that I cannot find the words to adequately describe it, other than to say this is without a doubt one of the best films ever made and YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST WATCH THIS FILM BEFORE YOU DIE. It is just that amazing.

I'll leave you with my absolute favorite clip from the film: the helicopter raid on Charlie's Point with Wagner blaring in the background.



(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBmFvg3dYu0)

Sunday, September 21, 2008

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007) Analysis

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly tells the story of Jean-Domininique Bauby, a French magazine editor who, after suffering a massive stroke, is left with a rare condition known as Locked-In Syndrome. Completely paralyzed save for his left eyelid, Bauby decides to dictate a memoir describing his experiences with Locked-In Syndrome.

The cinematography in the film is excellent, with much of the movie being shot from Jean-Do's first-person perspective. This unusual choice allows the audience to literally get inside Bauby's head and offers a unique perspective: inside the mind of a person who is all but cut-off from the outside world. The position, along with hearing Bauby's thoughts, also convey the powerful sense of isolation Bauby felt at not being able to move or even effectively communicate with the outside world. In addtion, the first-person scenes were all shot with a hand-held camera, giving them a rawer, more natural feel and bringing the audicence closer to being inside Bauby's head.

Even when the camera shoots from the third-person, Bauby's feelings of isolation are still clearly highlighted. Many shots of him in his wheelchair only show him, often set against the wide-open background of the sky or coastline. There is at least one memorable shot of him in his wheelchair sitting on an isolated platform raised above the crashing waves of the incoming tide, literally cut off from the outside world.

What are probably the most memorable shots in the entire film are scenes of Bauby floating in an old diving suit (the titular Diving Bell) completely alone in a featureless, noiseless sea. While these scenes may not make sense at first to the audience, they are actually Bauby's own depiction of his situation: complete and total isolation from the rest of the world.

The superb cinematography in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, in addtion to providing the audience with a unique viewing experience, also serves to expertly highlight and depict the massive isolation that Jean-Do Bauby experienced during his struggle with Locked-In Syndrome.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007) Review

Honestly, I'm really split over this movie.

On the one hand, I found it quite boring. It's the story of a paralyzed man in a wheelchair who decides to write a book about his experience. I'm an action movie fan; how interesting could this really be?

However, the film's stunning cinematography is what makes this film worthwhile. A goodly majority of the film is shot from the first-person perspective of Jean-Do, chronicling his condition - and his innermost thoughts - in an incredibly unique way.

Really, it is this first-person perspective that makes the film work. If told from the traditional third-person view, it would most likely have been a singularly boring two-hour snorefest. Instead, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly immerses viewers in the unique perspective and situation of a man who can only communicate with his left eyelid. Truly an eye-opening experience for the audience, I definitely must reccomend it, if only for the truly magnificent cinematography.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Psycho (1998) Review

Honestly, I don't even know where to begin with this movie, aside from the fact that I thought it was awful.

The biggest thing I noticed was the overall lack of tension in the film. Whereas Hitchcock expertly built up the tension through the first 40 minutes of the film, Van Zant apparently made no effort to do the same. Even though I'd watched the original several times before viewing the remake, I could still feel that element of tension in the film. In the remake, I don't think there was any sense of tension until the conversation between Marion and Norman. I think this is primarily because in the original, Marion (and the audience) saw everyone but Norman as a threat to her, whereas in the remake Norman is the only threatening figure.

Part of this has to do with the acting. In the original, Janet Leigh portrayed Marion as a scared, almost paranoid woman who was certain she'd be caught at any moment. Anne Heche's Marion, on the other hand, seems almost bored with the situation and is not frightened when she is stopped or questioned. Rather, she feels frustrated, as if she just wants whoever is bothering her to shut up so she can go and get away with things.

Probably the biggest letdown, in my opinion, was Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. Contrasing his performance with Anthony Perkins, I feel that Perkins' Norman was like the awkward prepubescint boy who fell in love with his best friend's mother, whereas Vaughn's Norman was the creepy high school nerd hitting on the captain of the cheerleader squad. It is immediately apparent that Norman is crazy in some form or another; the peephole seem only serves to confirm that he's a pervert and the most likely candidate in the film of being the psycho.

I also feel that the use of color ruined the film. This is not to say that shooting the film in color vs. black and white was a bad choice. Rather, I feel that Van Zant's use of color was inappropriate. Everything in the film was very bright, almost to the point of being garish. I have never once seen a horror film where everything was all bright and happy. It just doesn't work; it ruins the tone of the film. On a similar note, every constume used in the film, especially Marion's dress, should be tracked down and burned in the name of good fasion.

The last thing that bothered me were the random shots of stormclouds and other nonsensical things whenever "Mother" attacked. I cannot for the life of me figure out what Van Zant was thinking when he put those in.

Final verdict: Watch the original. Please watch the original. Don't even give this film a passing consideration, especially if you've never seen a Hitchcock film before - you'll never want to see one if you do. It's just that bad.

EDIT 9-11-08:
P.S. Did California Charlie remind anyone else of Jerry Seinfeld?

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Psycho (1960) Review

After watching Psycho, all I have to say is, "WOW!" I don't like horror films, and I especially dislike slashers, but this film... well, it blew me away. I loved it.

What is amazing about this film is that for all its purported violence and gore, only two people actually die, and even then you barely see anything. Hitchcock expertly builds up the tension to the point where the audience is sure something is going to happen, and it is that tension, rather than the actual acts of violence, that scare the viewers so much.

Of course, the cast as just as important as the director. Anthony Perkins absolutely shines as the psychopathic Norman Bates. Like Andrew Robinson from Dirty Harry, it is nearly impossible to whether Perkins is really acting or if he really is psychotic.

Above all, it is the music that makes this film shine. The score more than anything else serves to build up the tension to the breaking point. The shrieking violins during "Mother's" attacks are particuarly memorable - and the most frightening. Like so many other films, should the score be omitted, or even changed in the slightest, the film would never have worked.