Personally, I really enjoyed the film Kung Fu Hustle. It's the only film that we've watched in class that I've actually seen several times before. However, I think that watching it the class, I looked at things from a different perspective than I normally would just watching it normally. I noticed some of the references that I hadn't thought of before and I think it made the movie funnier to me in that way.
Probably the one connection that was mentioned that I hadn't looked at but really made sense, was that this was like a Kung Fu movie combined with Looney Tunes. Originally, I saw parts like the high speed chase down the road as corny and over the top. However, looking at it as a cultural reference, it actually gave it some meaning and I found it more entertaining. Some of the other over the top, goofy special effects I looked at similarly and it began to make the movie as a whole a lot more meaningful from a cultural standpoint.
One of the things I've always noticed about this film though, is how far is strays from your traditional Kung Fu film. I've seen some older Kung Fu movies like ones starring Bruce Lee and you can't even compare them to this. The morals of this film are very grim and violent whereas with traditional films people would fight honorably (except sometimes for the main villain) and shows a moral code. One of the visual shocks in Kung Fu Hustle that show the lack of the code is when the leader of the axe gang shoots the woman in the back. It's such a blunt disregard for a sense of decency, but in a way, I think that is what helps to drive the plot.
Though a lot of the effects and ideas push Kung Fu Hustle away from traditional Kung Fu films, they're what make it more accessible to a more western audience. When people don't hold traditional ties to martial arts, they aren't as connected to when the film starts to bend the rules a little. I think this is where the success of this film lies. In a way, it's an exploitation Kung Fu film but not in a way that it exploits traditional martial arts. I think that it exploits the fact that it isn't traditional and it draws a much more varied crowd to the audience.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Mulholland Drive
Throughout the beginning of the film, I was viewing it as something closer to a murder mystery like movie. However, once all of the characters switched parts, I thought to myself "Oh god, it's Last Year at Marienbad again!" We're seeing different events at random times and I'm lost as to what is or isn't real anymore.
After seeing the whole film and looking back though, I feel like if anything was more of a dream, it was the beginning before the character switch. To me, all the characters reversed roles of actor and the parts they play. Betty was bubbly and energetic through everything, more like a part you'd see in something like a romantic comedy. However, when she goes for her audition, she becomes very raw and sexual similar to how Diane was. While she's playing the part, we catch a brief glimpse at the real person of Diane, giving evidence for everything being reversed and unreal.
One of the things I noticed about the film was the old couple Betty met at the beginning. Once they leave in the limo, they are seen laughing to themselves. At the very end of the film, they appear once again laughing obnoxiously at Diane. I feel that in the film, they are the only ones who remain similar between the different parts. I think that they represent the reality that this is all just a dream, chuckling at the beginning cause they know the truth and laughing obnoxiously at Diane because they know it's come to the end of the dream.
I felt very similar about this film as I did to Marienbad because both play with that idea of what is real. However, I think that Mulholland Drive did it weirdly, in that, it's not a character that is what we think is the only reality, but the place. All of the character change roles, people aren't what they seem, but unlike Marienbad, the place is always the same. It's a strange thought that the place is what's real but it's constantly filled with illusions but I think it rather suits the purpose of this movie well.
After seeing the whole film and looking back though, I feel like if anything was more of a dream, it was the beginning before the character switch. To me, all the characters reversed roles of actor and the parts they play. Betty was bubbly and energetic through everything, more like a part you'd see in something like a romantic comedy. However, when she goes for her audition, she becomes very raw and sexual similar to how Diane was. While she's playing the part, we catch a brief glimpse at the real person of Diane, giving evidence for everything being reversed and unreal.
One of the things I noticed about the film was the old couple Betty met at the beginning. Once they leave in the limo, they are seen laughing to themselves. At the very end of the film, they appear once again laughing obnoxiously at Diane. I feel that in the film, they are the only ones who remain similar between the different parts. I think that they represent the reality that this is all just a dream, chuckling at the beginning cause they know the truth and laughing obnoxiously at Diane because they know it's come to the end of the dream.
I felt very similar about this film as I did to Marienbad because both play with that idea of what is real. However, I think that Mulholland Drive did it weirdly, in that, it's not a character that is what we think is the only reality, but the place. All of the character change roles, people aren't what they seem, but unlike Marienbad, the place is always the same. It's a strange thought that the place is what's real but it's constantly filled with illusions but I think it rather suits the purpose of this movie well.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Heathers
A cynical satire of the dramas and hierarchies of high school. We see Veronica, the lead character, thrust in the frustrations of popularity and the stress it brings upon her life. J.D., the seeming rescuer, turns out to be a deadly psychopath with more problems than anyone else we see. It brings to light the various issues that come along with high school life, putting them into a view that is, in a way, frightening.
During the film, I felt that the lack of a stable adult presence contributed much to what the students were experiencing. Veronica's parents are made up of a mother who sounds like an informative recording and questionnaire and a father who is, as said by Veronica herself, an idiot. J.D.'s father is an egotistical madman who blew up his mother. Even at the school, the teachers' biggest worries when a students kills them self is when school should get let out early. What are the students supposed to think when all they have is a teacher telling them that they should embrace killing themselves.
Speaking of killing ourselves, a lot of the film focuses on teen suicide. Everyone talks about why they did it and how expressive their suicides are. In reality, no one actually killed themselves besides J.D. at the end. no one goes past the point of investigating what happened and instantly glorifies them. Even the police take a rather apathetic stance towards the deaths, just accepting what they find as reality. Now the students are also in a society that doesn't seem to care as well.
Both these and more allow J.D. to go on a power trip using Veronica. We try to see him as a good guy and yet he steadily drops into a being a darker person. His supposed desires sound someone righteous but his methods are insane and destructive. After he's gone, Veronica goes and takes the red scrunchy that's symbolized power in the film. However, instead of taking the place as "number one", she talks to the girl who's been mocked and shunned the entire movie. In a way, she can make J.D.'s goal of breaking down the school hierarchy a reality but in a useful, positive way.
This film brought forth some of the horrors of high school and in many ways, we could relate to it. The way in which this film hits home, is that it creates a story that is believable for the real world. Though over dramatized (or maybe not), the experiences in the film occur every day in schools. It lets us look back at our own high schools and think about them in a new light (or once again, maybe not).
During the film, I felt that the lack of a stable adult presence contributed much to what the students were experiencing. Veronica's parents are made up of a mother who sounds like an informative recording and questionnaire and a father who is, as said by Veronica herself, an idiot. J.D.'s father is an egotistical madman who blew up his mother. Even at the school, the teachers' biggest worries when a students kills them self is when school should get let out early. What are the students supposed to think when all they have is a teacher telling them that they should embrace killing themselves.
Speaking of killing ourselves, a lot of the film focuses on teen suicide. Everyone talks about why they did it and how expressive their suicides are. In reality, no one actually killed themselves besides J.D. at the end. no one goes past the point of investigating what happened and instantly glorifies them. Even the police take a rather apathetic stance towards the deaths, just accepting what they find as reality. Now the students are also in a society that doesn't seem to care as well.
Both these and more allow J.D. to go on a power trip using Veronica. We try to see him as a good guy and yet he steadily drops into a being a darker person. His supposed desires sound someone righteous but his methods are insane and destructive. After he's gone, Veronica goes and takes the red scrunchy that's symbolized power in the film. However, instead of taking the place as "number one", she talks to the girl who's been mocked and shunned the entire movie. In a way, she can make J.D.'s goal of breaking down the school hierarchy a reality but in a useful, positive way.
This film brought forth some of the horrors of high school and in many ways, we could relate to it. The way in which this film hits home, is that it creates a story that is believable for the real world. Though over dramatized (or maybe not), the experiences in the film occur every day in schools. It lets us look back at our own high schools and think about them in a new light (or once again, maybe not).
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Shaft
Yeesh, late start on this one. My bad, combination not being here and forgetting when I finally got back. ANYHOO...
How is masculinity viewed? As times and styles change, so do how we view eachother and ourselves. The changes between the old and new versions of Shaft help to show how these views have changed over time. It shows the a more defined ideal of what is viewed as being a man and what that desirable person is like for the time.
In the original version of Shaft, we see your typical "Love Machine". Finishing the job while getting laid along the way. That pretty much explains his character throught the movie pretty well. When asked by another officer where he was going, he simply responds "To get laid, where are you goin?" and then laughs. He displays his sexuality very openly and it intimidates others. It was mentioned about how he reacts (or doesn't) to the gay bartender. I don't feel this was so much of his possibility of being open to homosexuality, but that he was so sure of himself sexually, he had no reason to be affected by it. Not to say that means he doesn't have a tough side to him as well as sexual. He clearly states in various ways not to screw with him and doesn't back down to anyone.
I haven't personally seen the 2000 remake of Shaft, but thanks to the reading and the power of the internet, I have a basic idea at least. In this version, he is definitely showing a much more violent side. A lot less love and a lot more screw you. The idea of masculinity is leaning much more on the tough side. Living in this time, we can see that in a lot more movies today. We see the hero as the tough guy who can beat up everyone else. It shows that we as a society view things differently than back during the time of the original Shaft. Samuel L. Jackson is often viewed as that tough guy in movies so it makes sense why he was chosen to play a tougher part. It's a stark contrast to the nature of the original Shaft.
However, what caught my attention alot was the idea of differences between race. I think the scene with the pen and the mug expresses the movie for me. When they point eachother out as being not so white or black, kinda shows that they're not as different as we make them out to be. I honestly saw the most difference in the black community itself. We see Bumpy as the richest character in the film which conflicts with how we often see things. Regardless as how he obtained his money, he lives a much more luxurious life compared to many living on the streets. I'm not really sure how I should close this, so you can just close it yourself, SHITTY! (bleh, that was stupid even for me)
How is masculinity viewed? As times and styles change, so do how we view eachother and ourselves. The changes between the old and new versions of Shaft help to show how these views have changed over time. It shows the a more defined ideal of what is viewed as being a man and what that desirable person is like for the time.
In the original version of Shaft, we see your typical "Love Machine". Finishing the job while getting laid along the way. That pretty much explains his character throught the movie pretty well. When asked by another officer where he was going, he simply responds "To get laid, where are you goin?" and then laughs. He displays his sexuality very openly and it intimidates others. It was mentioned about how he reacts (or doesn't) to the gay bartender. I don't feel this was so much of his possibility of being open to homosexuality, but that he was so sure of himself sexually, he had no reason to be affected by it. Not to say that means he doesn't have a tough side to him as well as sexual. He clearly states in various ways not to screw with him and doesn't back down to anyone.
I haven't personally seen the 2000 remake of Shaft, but thanks to the reading and the power of the internet, I have a basic idea at least. In this version, he is definitely showing a much more violent side. A lot less love and a lot more screw you. The idea of masculinity is leaning much more on the tough side. Living in this time, we can see that in a lot more movies today. We see the hero as the tough guy who can beat up everyone else. It shows that we as a society view things differently than back during the time of the original Shaft. Samuel L. Jackson is often viewed as that tough guy in movies so it makes sense why he was chosen to play a tougher part. It's a stark contrast to the nature of the original Shaft.
However, what caught my attention alot was the idea of differences between race. I think the scene with the pen and the mug expresses the movie for me. When they point eachother out as being not so white or black, kinda shows that they're not as different as we make them out to be. I honestly saw the most difference in the black community itself. We see Bumpy as the richest character in the film which conflicts with how we often see things. Regardless as how he obtained his money, he lives a much more luxurious life compared to many living on the streets. I'm not really sure how I should close this, so you can just close it yourself, SHITTY! (bleh, that was stupid even for me)
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Vanishing Point
Vanishing Point, with its naked women and racial violence, is indeed an exploitation movie. It pushes some of the moral boundaries that other movies weren't willing to cross. Kowalski was a desirable character for the time, doing his own thing, not getting slowed down by "The Man". We learn about his past and his misfortunes and try to look into his character but it still remains difficult to understand him. In the end, he kills himself in a blockade set up by police leaving us asking, why?
The character Super Soul tends to act as a guardian angel to Kowalski throughout the movie. However, once the radio station is attacked, he lies to Kowalski about the police. From this point onward, we notice that the man Super Soul has listening to the police radio and giving information goes from being black to white. This almost represents that Super Soul sold out and is now controlled by "The Man". The guardian angel who was helping to lead Kowalski to freedom is now no longer free himself.
We spoke about Kowalski as being an anti-hero, my view of him came out slightly different. Though he's speeding and evading cops throughout the entire movie, I never saw him as an actual bad person. All I noticed were the old stories of him being a hero and how he was still kind to strangers on the road. He seems more like a misunderstood hero lost from society rather than your traditional anti-hero. I think in that way, it made it so he is more likeable by the viewer.
Though Kowalski's death at the end almost seems pointless, it does represent a possible deeper meaning for Kowalski. All his life, he's been losing things against his will. Driving his car into the bulldozers was his last act of freedom, rather than allowing himself to be caught, meaning he ended everything on his own terms. However, though his death is violent, they did not make it out to be gruesome. All there is to be seen is the exploding car. In the end, we do not see a body, nor blood, just a smile.
The character Super Soul tends to act as a guardian angel to Kowalski throughout the movie. However, once the radio station is attacked, he lies to Kowalski about the police. From this point onward, we notice that the man Super Soul has listening to the police radio and giving information goes from being black to white. This almost represents that Super Soul sold out and is now controlled by "The Man". The guardian angel who was helping to lead Kowalski to freedom is now no longer free himself.
We spoke about Kowalski as being an anti-hero, my view of him came out slightly different. Though he's speeding and evading cops throughout the entire movie, I never saw him as an actual bad person. All I noticed were the old stories of him being a hero and how he was still kind to strangers on the road. He seems more like a misunderstood hero lost from society rather than your traditional anti-hero. I think in that way, it made it so he is more likeable by the viewer.
Though Kowalski's death at the end almost seems pointless, it does represent a possible deeper meaning for Kowalski. All his life, he's been losing things against his will. Driving his car into the bulldozers was his last act of freedom, rather than allowing himself to be caught, meaning he ended everything on his own terms. However, though his death is violent, they did not make it out to be gruesome. All there is to be seen is the exploding car. In the end, we do not see a body, nor blood, just a smile.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Dr. Strangelove
Right off the bat, I like the fact that this movie called a nightmare comedy. If I had heard that before watching the film, I would be thinking like a really bad horror movie that ends up being funny. However, there is nothing that could better describe this film than nightmare comedy. Given the time period this came out, they really were making fun of everyone's worst fears. I was actually amazed that they were able to get away with it, with it being such a touchy subject for the time. However, the way that everything was done made a lot of ideas look funny rather than scare people.
When we look at the Cold War, we see two nations with the capability of ending the planet through nuclear weapons. Yet in the film, they make the phone conversations between the two leaders seem like small talk between two friends like the world isn't on the brink of destruction. They make it seem like noone is concerned about the possibility of nuclear war and it makes the idea less imposing. They make it seem like it's not something worth worrying about so it's backwards thinking compared to how the world is afraid of nothing but that at the time.
The other thing about the film is the way juxtaposition to make nuclear war not seem so bad. The way they use the clips of nuclear explosions at the end mixed with the song that doesn't fit makes it seem almost peaceful in a way. When we think nuclear war, it's the end of the world, but they make it like "Oh it's not so bad." They also make certain ideas in the film confusing in the film through similar methods. When the commander rides the nuke to it's target, whooping and cheering, it makes us feel like he's had a great success and done a great deed for the country. However, when you think about it, that event single handedly could end the human race so he was technically cheering in causing the single most destructive event in the world. Suddenly, we can't really decide who's the good guy anymore. We always view America as the good guys and after this, it kind strains that idea so we aren't really sure what the good guys would actually do in this situation.
One of the things this film manages to do is point out the futility of the cold war. I think this could be seen today with the Iraq war. The reasons for being there are rather obscure at this point so people might not be able to see the point anymore. Similar to the cold war, it just has the potentional to end a lot without any actual reasoning.
By today though, it's easier to watch this movie and see all the humor in it. However, at the time of the cold war, this still had the potential to scare everyone who saw it but in its own way that's a good thing. It managed to point out many of the problems of the cold war while still maintaining a humorous nature. That's a very difficult thing, especially for how serious the time was so they should be applauded for their efforts. I certainly enjoyed the movie for what it was and can see myself watching it again in the future. It's a fun movie that you can pull a lot from and has a rightful place in movie history.
"Mein Führer...! I can walk!!"
When we look at the Cold War, we see two nations with the capability of ending the planet through nuclear weapons. Yet in the film, they make the phone conversations between the two leaders seem like small talk between two friends like the world isn't on the brink of destruction. They make it seem like noone is concerned about the possibility of nuclear war and it makes the idea less imposing. They make it seem like it's not something worth worrying about so it's backwards thinking compared to how the world is afraid of nothing but that at the time.
The other thing about the film is the way juxtaposition to make nuclear war not seem so bad. The way they use the clips of nuclear explosions at the end mixed with the song that doesn't fit makes it seem almost peaceful in a way. When we think nuclear war, it's the end of the world, but they make it like "Oh it's not so bad." They also make certain ideas in the film confusing in the film through similar methods. When the commander rides the nuke to it's target, whooping and cheering, it makes us feel like he's had a great success and done a great deed for the country. However, when you think about it, that event single handedly could end the human race so he was technically cheering in causing the single most destructive event in the world. Suddenly, we can't really decide who's the good guy anymore. We always view America as the good guys and after this, it kind strains that idea so we aren't really sure what the good guys would actually do in this situation.
One of the things this film manages to do is point out the futility of the cold war. I think this could be seen today with the Iraq war. The reasons for being there are rather obscure at this point so people might not be able to see the point anymore. Similar to the cold war, it just has the potentional to end a lot without any actual reasoning.
By today though, it's easier to watch this movie and see all the humor in it. However, at the time of the cold war, this still had the potential to scare everyone who saw it but in its own way that's a good thing. It managed to point out many of the problems of the cold war while still maintaining a humorous nature. That's a very difficult thing, especially for how serious the time was so they should be applauded for their efforts. I certainly enjoyed the movie for what it was and can see myself watching it again in the future. It's a fun movie that you can pull a lot from and has a rightful place in movie history.
"Mein Führer...! I can walk!!"
Saturday, March 13, 2010
La Dolce Vita
Big Movie. Lot to it. Missed half of what was going on. I'm not sure what it was, but my focus in the film was flip-flopping between different things inside of it the entire time. At times, I'm trying to pay attention to visual aspects and then I'd start focusing on the story and then I'm watching the interactions between characters. There was enough to take in that it was kinda hard to analyze what I was watching without getting interrupted by something new. It was almost like too much was important. It was also hard because because everything kept changing like first it's about some American actress and then we're watching a crowd chase around a couple kids who say they've seen a religious figure.
Marcello is the one character that left me questioning. I was never sure what he was doing or who he loved or if he even knew himself. However, how he is viewed visually conflicts with the normal view of the main character. Generally, you see the "hero" fighting for one person throughout the movie but Marcello is always inconclusive. Even physically he messes with the views of how we see romances. Anytime he is with a woman, he always ends up too close trying to kiss her. It plays with the idea of the romantic moment where the couple of the film ends up inching closer for the first kiss. However, it's always him trying to move closer while the girl is generally apathetic to the situation. After seeing it time and time again in the film, it starts to desensitize us to the moment. It eventually reaches a point where there is no romance and it makes him just look like a creep. It strains the concept of romance and flips the view on that particular situation.
I had trouble finding anything else in the film. However, I had conflicting ideas with the reading. The main idea was that people that the film made fun of Italy and religion. In the review, he talked about how it was actually the other way around and this is what I disagree with. They say it isn't making fun of religion and yet we see everyone chasing kids around with them giggling and playing. It makes it out to be a child's game made from their imagination. It feels like a direct shot a Christianity like it's all just a child's ideas. He also makes people look like idiots as people are dying they're just leaving them all on the ground outside hoping these children will save them in some way. It makes it seem like they want someone else to solve their problems.
Overall it was an entertaining movie for me, but I missed alot of ideas they put forth. I think it would have helped had the group had time to discuss the film as I would be able to get different views and opinion on different scenes. However, of my own ideas I wasn't able to pull much from it.
Marcello is the one character that left me questioning. I was never sure what he was doing or who he loved or if he even knew himself. However, how he is viewed visually conflicts with the normal view of the main character. Generally, you see the "hero" fighting for one person throughout the movie but Marcello is always inconclusive. Even physically he messes with the views of how we see romances. Anytime he is with a woman, he always ends up too close trying to kiss her. It plays with the idea of the romantic moment where the couple of the film ends up inching closer for the first kiss. However, it's always him trying to move closer while the girl is generally apathetic to the situation. After seeing it time and time again in the film, it starts to desensitize us to the moment. It eventually reaches a point where there is no romance and it makes him just look like a creep. It strains the concept of romance and flips the view on that particular situation.
I had trouble finding anything else in the film. However, I had conflicting ideas with the reading. The main idea was that people that the film made fun of Italy and religion. In the review, he talked about how it was actually the other way around and this is what I disagree with. They say it isn't making fun of religion and yet we see everyone chasing kids around with them giggling and playing. It makes it out to be a child's game made from their imagination. It feels like a direct shot a Christianity like it's all just a child's ideas. He also makes people look like idiots as people are dying they're just leaving them all on the ground outside hoping these children will save them in some way. It makes it seem like they want someone else to solve their problems.
Overall it was an entertaining movie for me, but I missed alot of ideas they put forth. I think it would have helped had the group had time to discuss the film as I would be able to get different views and opinion on different scenes. However, of my own ideas I wasn't able to pull much from it.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Last Year at Marienbad
First off, from a story standpoint, I got nothing out of this movie. It was too back and forth with what was real and what was fantasy that I couldn't get a solid concept. However, I think that let me focus more on a visual standpoint rather than try to pay attention to the events.
I felt like right off the bat, the movie made it seem like you weren't supposed to see everything. It's like you're trying to take a tour but it keeps abrubtly jumping forward so you aren't getting a definite picture. We want to smoothly go through so we can look at what we want to and draw upon that but it jumps ahead regardless forcing you to look at something new before we can take in what we were looking at before. This trend continued when people are shown in the film. For short gaps, people just stop moving and we move by with no interactions or change. To me, this seemed like the jumps from before are still going on, we just see what was in the gap. Visually, we are getting to see what was in that gap, but it makes it so that even though we now get to see it, we still learn nothing from it.
Similar jumps take place while X is telling his stories of last year to A. We move around between past, present, and fantasy to the point that we aren't sure which is which. It distances us from reality to where we are trying to find our way back to what is real while it constantly pushes us farther from it. At one scene, the film tries to flip from night where everyone is wearing dark outfits to a completely white room with A in a white dress. The scene then flips back to dark and begins to flash between the two. It's almost as if the change is such a drastic contrast that it splits the scene into both reality and fantasy at the same time and it can't handle the change. It's one of the few times it forcefully pulls us back into view of which part is the present (at least what we think of as the present, to be honest, who the hell knows what's real or not).
One particular thing that I took note of was the game that M played throughout the movie. Every time the game is played, it's with different objects and though how things are taken out of the rows, M always ends up winning. I saw it as a symbolic representation of X's telling of the story. Though the time and place of the film is constantly switching, the story remains the same. Even when A asks questions like who and where, X just remarks it doesn't matter. Similar to how the details of the game don't matter, the outcome of both stays the same regardless of the variations.
Overall, it was complicated but it was entertaining in it's own way. It twists and turns making what might be a simple telling of a story into a complex "faux reality". As in the reading, the film gives X, or maybe A depending on how you view it, a very solipsistic view. We aren't sure what is real except for the single character themself. For all we know, nothing but that character is real and everything else is just a fantasy of the character. I'm sure everyone gets something different from this film depending on how they think of everything. For me, though I did enjoy it for the most part, was just a gigantic "What?"
I felt like right off the bat, the movie made it seem like you weren't supposed to see everything. It's like you're trying to take a tour but it keeps abrubtly jumping forward so you aren't getting a definite picture. We want to smoothly go through so we can look at what we want to and draw upon that but it jumps ahead regardless forcing you to look at something new before we can take in what we were looking at before. This trend continued when people are shown in the film. For short gaps, people just stop moving and we move by with no interactions or change. To me, this seemed like the jumps from before are still going on, we just see what was in the gap. Visually, we are getting to see what was in that gap, but it makes it so that even though we now get to see it, we still learn nothing from it.
Similar jumps take place while X is telling his stories of last year to A. We move around between past, present, and fantasy to the point that we aren't sure which is which. It distances us from reality to where we are trying to find our way back to what is real while it constantly pushes us farther from it. At one scene, the film tries to flip from night where everyone is wearing dark outfits to a completely white room with A in a white dress. The scene then flips back to dark and begins to flash between the two. It's almost as if the change is such a drastic contrast that it splits the scene into both reality and fantasy at the same time and it can't handle the change. It's one of the few times it forcefully pulls us back into view of which part is the present (at least what we think of as the present, to be honest, who the hell knows what's real or not).
One particular thing that I took note of was the game that M played throughout the movie. Every time the game is played, it's with different objects and though how things are taken out of the rows, M always ends up winning. I saw it as a symbolic representation of X's telling of the story. Though the time and place of the film is constantly switching, the story remains the same. Even when A asks questions like who and where, X just remarks it doesn't matter. Similar to how the details of the game don't matter, the outcome of both stays the same regardless of the variations.
Overall, it was complicated but it was entertaining in it's own way. It twists and turns making what might be a simple telling of a story into a complex "faux reality". As in the reading, the film gives X, or maybe A depending on how you view it, a very solipsistic view. We aren't sure what is real except for the single character themself. For all we know, nothing but that character is real and everything else is just a fantasy of the character. I'm sure everyone gets something different from this film depending on how they think of everything. For me, though I did enjoy it for the most part, was just a gigantic "What?"
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Nothing for Orpheus
Though there was alot to Orpheus, I am not doing a blog for it. I was confused enough from the film that I don't feel like I could write anything substantial. So, come back next week.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Vertigo
In my mind, Vertigo certainly was a dizzying film. From the cop falling off the roof in the beginning, to Judy falling out of the window at the end, everything fell out of place from what I expected. I had a lot of difficulty trying to understand all of the characters and it contributed to the difficulty of understanding the movie as a whole.
The camera angles of the film played a huge role in how I saw things. I felt that they worked the main character's fear of heights into how they shot him. Any time John seemed to be unsure of himself, they would film him from a low angle making it seem like he is up high. It's almost as if his 'high' expectations are affecting his vertigo.
They also work the camera in with Madeline/Judy (not sure if it is ever actually Madeline we see). The first instance is in the restaurant when we first see her. The close up on her is almost too close up. Her head fills the entire screen and it seems like it's boxed in. From that point on, there is a similar effect but they zoom out more and more each time on the close up. I feel like they did this to show how much we understand her character and the more we learn about her, the less boxed in she is. However, once we think she's dead and we see the real Judy, the camera is boxed in on her head. Suddenly, we don't know who she is anymore so the effect using the camera comes back.
On a personal level, there were times when I just couldn't take the movie seriously. One such situation was when John was following "Madeline" around. It's so completely obvious that he's following her around that there would be no way she wouldn't notice. Obvious explanations would be that she was in her "possessed" trance or that Judy wanted him to be following her so she purposefully didn't notice. However, even with good explanations, it just seemed so fake to me that I couldn't believe the situation.
All in all, after all the confusion, I did enjoy the movie. It had it's moments where it got wierd and sometimes creepy (obsessive John), but it was those times that just grabbed at my attention. It was a worthwhile film to watch even with it being difficult to understand.
The camera angles of the film played a huge role in how I saw things. I felt that they worked the main character's fear of heights into how they shot him. Any time John seemed to be unsure of himself, they would film him from a low angle making it seem like he is up high. It's almost as if his 'high' expectations are affecting his vertigo.
They also work the camera in with Madeline/Judy (not sure if it is ever actually Madeline we see). The first instance is in the restaurant when we first see her. The close up on her is almost too close up. Her head fills the entire screen and it seems like it's boxed in. From that point on, there is a similar effect but they zoom out more and more each time on the close up. I feel like they did this to show how much we understand her character and the more we learn about her, the less boxed in she is. However, once we think she's dead and we see the real Judy, the camera is boxed in on her head. Suddenly, we don't know who she is anymore so the effect using the camera comes back.
On a personal level, there were times when I just couldn't take the movie seriously. One such situation was when John was following "Madeline" around. It's so completely obvious that he's following her around that there would be no way she wouldn't notice. Obvious explanations would be that she was in her "possessed" trance or that Judy wanted him to be following her so she purposefully didn't notice. However, even with good explanations, it just seemed so fake to me that I couldn't believe the situation.
All in all, after all the confusion, I did enjoy the movie. It had it's moments where it got wierd and sometimes creepy (obsessive John), but it was those times that just grabbed at my attention. It was a worthwhile film to watch even with it being difficult to understand.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Laura
Goodbye, Laura. Goodbye, my love.
The film Laura, starts off as a "whodunit" murder case with Detective Mark McPherson investigating the murder of Laura Hunt. All the of the suspects in the case are shady in their own way, some of whom being affectionately involved with her. Everyone seems to love her and even McPherson starts to fall in love with her without ever having met her. However, the story takes a huge twist when Laura all of a sudden shows up alive. We find that it was a model who was actually murdered and then the search for the murderer continues with Laura being more heavily involved.
I felt it was this twist that changed the feeling of the movie. It went from being a murder movie to something more of a romance. The murder is still involved but seeing as it's now someone else's death rather than Laura's, the film turns away from it keeping more of the focus on Laura herself. Everyone is trying to win Laura over in their own way, some trying to "protect" her from the law, while others trying to place the blame on someone else. Even McPherson jumps in, seemingly trying to win her over while working on the case.
Moving from the murder to Laura's personal life, she always seems to just do what she wants. Waldo Lydacker, one of the men in love with her, always tells her what she should do. To some extent, she just seems to do the opposite out of spite. She does similar things every time someone tells her to do something, like when McPherson tells her to not call or leave. She wants to do what she wants and directly not what others want. It gets her into trouble sometimes but she continues throughout the entire film without fail.
Laura makes the perfect title for this film because that's exactly what it's about, Laura. At first glance, people might think it's about the murder, or McPherson, or any of the other characters but everything just comes down to Laura. It's her role that makes this movie into what it is and without her, it's just another generic title in this genre of movie.
The film Laura, starts off as a "whodunit" murder case with Detective Mark McPherson investigating the murder of Laura Hunt. All the of the suspects in the case are shady in their own way, some of whom being affectionately involved with her. Everyone seems to love her and even McPherson starts to fall in love with her without ever having met her. However, the story takes a huge twist when Laura all of a sudden shows up alive. We find that it was a model who was actually murdered and then the search for the murderer continues with Laura being more heavily involved.
I felt it was this twist that changed the feeling of the movie. It went from being a murder movie to something more of a romance. The murder is still involved but seeing as it's now someone else's death rather than Laura's, the film turns away from it keeping more of the focus on Laura herself. Everyone is trying to win Laura over in their own way, some trying to "protect" her from the law, while others trying to place the blame on someone else. Even McPherson jumps in, seemingly trying to win her over while working on the case.
Moving from the murder to Laura's personal life, she always seems to just do what she wants. Waldo Lydacker, one of the men in love with her, always tells her what she should do. To some extent, she just seems to do the opposite out of spite. She does similar things every time someone tells her to do something, like when McPherson tells her to not call or leave. She wants to do what she wants and directly not what others want. It gets her into trouble sometimes but she continues throughout the entire film without fail.
Laura makes the perfect title for this film because that's exactly what it's about, Laura. At first glance, people might think it's about the murder, or McPherson, or any of the other characters but everything just comes down to Laura. It's her role that makes this movie into what it is and without her, it's just another generic title in this genre of movie.
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Third Man
As I watched the film, The Third Man, I found the entire film to be just one large contradiction. Everything within the film ranging from characters to music was backwards from what you would expect. It makes you have to go deeper to understand the inner workings of the piece or else you end up with just a shallow interpretation of what the film could be about.
The first thing to jump out from what you think to be the norm is the music. Right off the bat, the scene is depressing, showing a once beautiful city falling apart and in ruins while telling of the hard times that have come as a result of the war. However, the entire time the music that is playing is quirky and light compared to the usual quiet and depressing music that matches the scene. This music spans the entire film without ever changing to a different tone, leading you to feel less serious about the events that are being undergone. It also gives the film an uneasiness when the music stops playing because suddenly there is nothing to lighten the mood.
The film also finds a way to confuse you with how you feel about the characters. Later on in the film, we find that Harry Lime, the supposed friend of the main character, turns out to be a harmful criminal and the audience is led to turn against him. However, as events transpire, you can't help but cheer for his success and escape. We are led to believe he is a bad person, but seeing his actually character with his friendly, cheery persona causes the audience to question it. Each character has similar patterns making so each character is seemingly different than at first glance. Anna is found to be depressed and lonely and yet she works as an actress solely in comedies playing a role as someone who is constantly happy. We are lead to feel differently about the main character in a similar way. As he digs deeper into the events that are transpiring, he sometimes questions whether he is doing the right thing which starts to cause the audience to question his actions as well. Though each character is conflicted in a different fashion, they all have similar effects on how it changes the way they are viewed.
Overall, these complications provide the film with a more in-depth experience. It pulls at your attention, sometimes causing you to wonder if you missed something when it really just flipped sides on you. It is an interesting film that certainly deserves a good amount of thought for what it provides to the audience.
The first thing to jump out from what you think to be the norm is the music. Right off the bat, the scene is depressing, showing a once beautiful city falling apart and in ruins while telling of the hard times that have come as a result of the war. However, the entire time the music that is playing is quirky and light compared to the usual quiet and depressing music that matches the scene. This music spans the entire film without ever changing to a different tone, leading you to feel less serious about the events that are being undergone. It also gives the film an uneasiness when the music stops playing because suddenly there is nothing to lighten the mood.
The film also finds a way to confuse you with how you feel about the characters. Later on in the film, we find that Harry Lime, the supposed friend of the main character, turns out to be a harmful criminal and the audience is led to turn against him. However, as events transpire, you can't help but cheer for his success and escape. We are led to believe he is a bad person, but seeing his actually character with his friendly, cheery persona causes the audience to question it. Each character has similar patterns making so each character is seemingly different than at first glance. Anna is found to be depressed and lonely and yet she works as an actress solely in comedies playing a role as someone who is constantly happy. We are lead to feel differently about the main character in a similar way. As he digs deeper into the events that are transpiring, he sometimes questions whether he is doing the right thing which starts to cause the audience to question his actions as well. Though each character is conflicted in a different fashion, they all have similar effects on how it changes the way they are viewed.
Overall, these complications provide the film with a more in-depth experience. It pulls at your attention, sometimes causing you to wonder if you missed something when it really just flipped sides on you. It is an interesting film that certainly deserves a good amount of thought for what it provides to the audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
