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.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
