Painting Light with Shadows and Making Film Noir

      After discussing the past four films: Fritz Lang’s M, The Maltase Falcon, The Third Man and Chinatown, I think it would be very beneficial to myself, and maybe my readers, if I discuss, my views at least, on film noir. Noir, which means “dark” stands alone from other films. I would like to start of with discussing if I think film noir is a genre or a mood/ sub genre and the I will continue with some of the elements that it contains. Lets walk through this dark ally together with my non dialect narration. 

A genre according to the authors of the book Film Experience, is “a category or classification of a group of movies in which the individual films share similar subject matter and is similar ways of organization the subject through narrative and stylistic patterns”(332). Even though film noir does have similar narrative, I feel that it is greater represented by the time that a majority of the films took place. A short essay by Paul Schrader, the noir period occurred during the second World War and the American films were held back from being given the French until after they were made. This is where I derive my answer from. I feel that film noir is more of a sub genre because the fact that a majority of the films that were made over a certain frame of time. I am not saying though that it is impossible to be able to make a film noir piece in today’s culture (for example, Chinatown and Sin City), but the impact that those films from that time had on their audience and the strong contrast to the films prior to them helps show this. In addition, the primarily section that I read on this genre (Film Experience and Paul Schrader’s Notes on Film Noir) strive to point out that it was American cinema that strongly stands with this sub genre. However, two of the three movies that I discussed were not American films. M was a German made movie that took place ten years before the popularity of film noir took place. The Third Man was made by a British film studio and is often regarded as the ending of the film noir period. 

I would also like to make the argument that film noir can be viewed as a subgenre to the crime drama because there is an over lap between the two, such as “characters that live on the edge of a mysterious or violent society, either criminals or individual dedicated to crime. Plots of crime, increasing mystery, and often ambiguous resolution. Urban, often dark shadowy setting where the stories take place (Film Experience 355).  Since there is such and overlap, I feel that it truly is a sub genre to the crime genre. For example, I would like to see an attempt of a remake or even a release of one of the films and to see what genre it would be placed in. (I was starting to get on my soap box, I will get off it it now :) ) 

Since it was a period in cinema history, I would like to agree with Schrader when he says that film noir is more of a set mood rather than genre. One of the first instances is the amount of German Expressionism that is present in these films. For example, noir is know for the smoky alleys and strong shadows of odd shapes. I would like to say that even though this is a movie of a horror genre, The Exorcist, it’s movie poster is a good example of the visual elements of film noir. Lighting tends to be a character of its own in this mood because a lot of the stories can be told by the shadows. For example, one of the first scenes where Harry Lime is seen by the audience is by his shadow. Lighting in general gave emphasis to certain objects or people in these films. 

In terms of narration, the stories often contain a pessimistic darker tone that was not seen to often. Due to the time that the movies were made (1940s-50s), the story lines reflected the society. There was three main types of story lines according to Schrader that would take place. The first was the detective that the audience would follow as they unraveled a mystery. However, after the war the moves became more crime and politic focused to reflect post war feelings. Lastly, the period of the “psychotic action and suicidal impulse”. I find it interesting that Fritz Lang’s M came out almost 20 years before this particular period occurred and there is a lot of overlaps since the man character killed to satisfy an urge. Women in these films where typically very sexual yet misleading, this could be seen by Evelyn in Chinatown and Brigid in the Maltese Falcon. These women character are a good example of Femme Fatale and can be found in a number of film noir films. 

A Whole Other World From My Knowledge of Film :)

       For A majority of my blogs, I have focused on the technical aspects of films ranging from muse-en-scene, cinematography, and editing. However, there is much more to films then the technical aspects. For example, who would pay to see a move that has no story, I most certainly would not. Today, I would like to take this time and talk a little bit of something that is a completely other world to me...Narratives. 

According to Film Experience by Timothy Corrigan and Patricia White, a narrative is “the emotional, physical,  or intellectual perspective through which characters, events and actions” (228).  In film there are many different types of narrative. A narrative can be broken into sub categories: plot and story. A plot is “orders the events and actions of the story according to particular temporal and spatial patterns, selecting some actions, individuals, and events and omitting others” (234). This is very often compared to a story, which is “the subject matter or raw materials of a narration, with the actions and events” (234). In other words, I feel that in terms of music, a story is like the original composition and the plot is how one can chose to arrange it. 

One of the driving factors of a narrative is the characters. The character in a story is usually able to be broken down into three models: values, actions, and behaviors. I would like to use the character Rick from Casablanca to explain this. Rick is known for being selfless man in terms of his value of whom he is such as a “gin-joint” owner who is tough and can throw a good party. The actions of Rick is he is torn by Ilsa coming into his establishment and in the end wants the best for her, so he lets her fly away with Ilsa to America. The last is behavior, which is he doesn’t care about anyone but himself. Going further, the change that this character undergoes shows that he is developed. For example Sam is consistent the entire film, Rick changed from whom he was in the beginning of the film. However, Rick is developed because he goes from this tight, not concerned about anyone man to a compassionate man. He is though able to keep some of the same traits though.

I would like to briefly talk about the structure of plots. One of the things that film goes are so accustomed to is  how the story progresses. One of the more traditional forms is the linear chronology, which is when events take place one after another. For example, the Godfather is able the events after the daughter’s wedding. Another type of structure is the deadline structure, where something has to occur at a very specific time. I like to think of the movie, even though it is very laughable, 12 Rounds because each of the steps much occur in order for a man to same his wife’s life. Casablanca is a good example of plot order because flashbacks and flash forwards take place with Rick and Ilsa. Lastly, I would like to mention the classic Hollywood narrative, which is the one that we are most familiar with it’s one or more character that lead the story that go to achieve something (263).  I will end there with my very brief attempt of narratives. 

What is Bollywood?

        I am writing this small blog entry because I am contemplating this term of “Bollywood”. I have heard of the term, but I never understood what it meant. I looked into term, “Bollywood”, a bit more. A Bollywood film is, according to Film Experience, as films from India that are “rootedness in Hindi culture and mythology, and elaborate song-and-dance numbers erupting in almost any genre” (415). A film that was told to me to be an example of this is Monsoon Wedding. This movie primarily is about the wedding that the father is trying to arrange a wedding and the events that occur around it. Because it discusses Hindi weddings, it touches base on the India’s culture. I have put a scene below to help demonstrate the music and dance that is scene in these types of films. In addition, traditions that revolves around a wedding. In the scene the women are singing and dancing about the desirable men they wish to wed. Like the definition that was said earlier in the blog, the scene along shows the impact that the hindi culture has.

At Least He Got Out Of China Town

it all comes back to Chinatown. I recently watched Chinatown for the second time and I still think its a movie that I still just can't get my finger. Released in the 1970s, much later film then most film noir films, Chinatown is a detective story starting Jack Nichalson as Gittes. A former police detective from Chinatown that started his own practice in Los Angeles. His work primarily is catching people who are having affairs. The film starts when Gittes comes in and a woman asks Gittes to watch over her husband, who she feels is having an affair. After a few times of following this man, the man is than murdered in a lake. The police feel that it was suicide while Nicholson's character feels it was murder. He then finds out that the woman that hired him is the sister of who she said she was. The next big question is who murder. While searching of this answer, he finds that the city is wasting water in the middle a drought. Does it match up with the murder? Dun dun dun...
I did enjoy this film only to a little degree because of the story and length of the film. I don't particularly like the story very much in the film Chinatown because I feel that is doesn't do enough to simply draw me into and care about the characters. For example, the story doesn’t give me just enough answers to get intrigued but not too much to make the story predictable. I feel that is what this film should have done. I also felt that the pace of the film was just so drawn out that I lost interest both times about part way through. I felt the ending was just ridiculous and not well written by the lines the characters were saying as well as how they were presenting them. I do however feel that Nichalson's character is very smart for he is cocky and arrogant but he can still get beat up and get his nose cut open. I still feel that there is some need to watch this film because it does show the audience what a femme fatale is capable of in film noir. I will explain what that is in my film noir blog entry I plan to write. The Evelyn character is a women that is able to lead Gittes with her mind and body but able to manipulate him from knowing other important parts of the story. She is a strong independent woman. I do feel that the lead characters, Gittes and Evelyn, were the only good concepts of the story for they kept everything moving.

The Third Man

Who was the man that was helping carry the body? I watch the movie The Third Man, it was much more entertaining then I expected. This film came out just past the point when film noir was slowly coming to an end. The Third Man, directed by Carol Reed was released in 1949. This movie tells the story of a crime novelist, Holly Martians, in post war Vienna that was looking for information about a friend of his that had died. The way that he knew the character, Harry Lime, was they were good only friends. The story about how Harry Lime was hit buy a truck and then rushed to the ambulance. The question that was raised was who was the third man that helped carry the body. As the story unfolds, there are many different versions to how Harry Lime died. Later it was revealed how Lime was involved with the black market with selling water with penicillin mixes while consumers thought that they were buying full penicillin. In addition, the man that Harry Lime worked with was missing. I really liked how the second half of this film had a lot of German expressionism while the earlier part of the movie had more of American Film Noir.
In the beginning of the film, the movie was a man searching for answers about Harry Lime. I did in fact feel a lot of connections to this film to Citizen Kane in terms of understanding and discovering the life of a recently dead man. The novelist, played by Joseph Coten, was a very interesting character for he would interview people to understand what really happened the day Harry Lime died. Later in the film, it seemed to grow darker both visually and in the story telling. The lead in to when Orson Wells character was amazing for it happened with very hard lighting and shadows. When he was revealed, he has a boyish charm to him but as the script later showed, he was a much darker individual. I felt that a perfect moment that the film was both noir and German expressionism was when he was discovered by the police when he was about to meet with Martins. The chase sequence was a beautiful displace of shadows.

The Maltese Falcon

So much for a piece of metal. Today, I watch the film The Maltese Falcon. This film, which is considered to be one of the first main stream film noir, was not the best movie that I have seen recently. The movie is about Sam Spade, played by Humphrey Bogart, has a woman come into his and his partner Acher’s office, The woman named Wonderly hired Sam to look for her missing sister who was last seen with a man named Flody Thursby. That evening, Sam’s partner is murdered. Sam was then placed under investigation for the murder because he is suspected to have disliked his partner and having an affair with Archer’s wife. In addition, the man that he was suppose to follow, also was murdered. After discovering this, he finds out that the woman gave him a false name. As the story progresses it seems that the focus is about this black silver falcon that is worth a large amount of money and all the characters, both good and bad, are searching for it. I honestly don’t know how I feel about this movie because the film didn’t seem to have the ending that was fulfilling.
After I watched this film, I felt as if I was let down. The main reason was that the entire time the character are chasing this very expensive piece of art, the one that is reveals is a fake. I also found it quite distracting that the female characters looked some what similar, which lead to a majority of the scenes being very hard to understand and let alone distracting. I did however, found that Peter Lorre gave a very wonderful performance, especially after after seeing him in M before watching this movie.

M Blog (will contain spoiliers)

German and black and white might not sound exciting. Recently, I watched the film titled M by the early director Fritz Lang. I truly enjoyed this film because it brought together the elements from silent cinema that I really enjoy (German expressionism and the more theatrical acting) and added german dialogue. Lang’s silent film directing techniques were very visible since this was his first film with sound. The very chilling introduction with the little children singing a song about getting kidnapped was a great lead into this film. The part that I liked the most about this movie is the story, use of sound, and German expressionism.
The story of this film is that a child killer was on the lose in a small German city. The killer caused a very large disturbance in the city. The faceless killer would lead the children to him by buying them something and then the scene would change. These events of killing led to raids on bar establishments by the police. These events would anger the owners of the bars and ruin businesses. In result, the owners felt that they needed to take maters into their own hands. The story then crafts into a story that leaves the audience wondering who is going to catch the killer: the police or the mob.
Since this was Fritz Lang’s first sound picture, he was able play with its elements. I felt that it was very clever the way he was able to have the audience be able to identify the murder was by how he whistled. Another example of this is that it is also the way that the character is able to be identified by a blind man. It seemed it was along the same lines as the Jaws theme, when the killer was approaching, the whistle would start up. It is also the way that the audience is able to understand when they are revealed the face of the killer because he is whistling the music while he looks into the mirror.
The German expressionism was very visible with this movie. Being made in 1931, it was right on the border of more films were able to contain sound. First, I would like to say that I really like the use of shadows. For example, there is a wanted ad for the child killer and then this large silhouette of a man in a hat appeared. This is able to inform the audience that this is an important person. I also just loved the use of lines. One of the first shots that got my attention was when the mother of one of the children in the beginning looks down into the stair case. It’s such a simple yet complex shot. Another example of German Expressionism is when the mobsters are going after the killer and the killer is locked in the attack of the building. The shadows of when the killer turns of the light gives off a very haunting effect and the wooden bars of the addict really adds the final touches to the scene.

Why I Like Citizen Kane Like All the Other Filmmakers (take 1)

One of the most discussed and highly acclaimed films, Citizen Kane,  is known as a classic. The 1941 film was directed by Orson Welels is also regarded as one of the greatest films of all times. I too agree. I would like to take a moment and discuss what I feel emulates what a great film is and then go into detail about why Citizen Kane falls under that title. 

Every year movies are made for the enjoyment of audiences, but what constitutes a great film. There are several levels of answers for this question:

 (Before I mention this, I would like to make maybe somewhat controversial statement: the number of Academy Awards that a film receives or even if it receives an Academy Award is should not determine if a film is great. These is no standard  for these awards to be given on and since I do see filmmaking a team effort, I feel that if an award should be given, it should be the best picture award should be the only on offered.  I will now get off of my soap box.)

  The first definition is that the movie should be ground breaking. It should push the film industry in a way that thats never been done before. For example, Star Wars invented technology in order to achieve storytelling for the film. The best word to describe what I mean is “risk”. A lot of movies in American Cinema don’t take artistic risks anymore. A majority of movies out today are what will get the most money and word of mouth in the opening weekend. The American cinema has always been a business rather than artistic atmosphere but I will not get to in depth about how I feel about that right now. 

Secondly, a movie should withstand the test of time and be accepted by multiple generations.  A movie that was meaningful to one generation may not necessarily able to be enjoyable to another. It should be enjoyable to an audience and not seem excessively out dated. 

Third, I feel that the term “greatest movie” is a term that is way over used to discuss a film and the term is even tainted for it is so overly applied.

 Fourth, a movie that is able to be enjoyable and be more revealing even time it is watched makes a film great. I will go more in-depth later in this blog but Citizen Kane does this for me. 

Finally, I feel that the greatest movies are able to impact who we are internally. Great movies don’t make us the viewers watch them but live them. This is why I feel there could never be a universal “greatest movie ever made” because it is the experience of the movie that is the strongest factor. In addition, it may be difficult to agree with other with what they feel is a great film because they may have different expectations. For example, I enjoy watching movies. It is simple and a given. However, the movies that I think are among the greats is the ones that if I have a horrible day or want a challenge, I put in one of my very selective movies. While that DVD or VHS tape plays, I forget the world and I put myself with the characters. This is actually more difficult for me to do because I tend to watch films objectively. I watch film more for the muse-en-scene, cinematography, and many other fundamentals of filmmaking. To not notice the mechanics of the film mean that they are doing a good job, which is not distracting from the story. I think a beautiful example of this is in the end of the movie The Fall, when the patients of a hospital sit together and laugh as old silent movie clips are shown on a screen, they are able to enjoy and this scene it impacting the viewers themselves.

Why do I think Citizen Kane deserves to be given the title of “a great film”. When the film came out, it was at the height of the Second World War. In a film class that I am in, my professor tell us that it is an interesting thing to notice that this film came out within a year of another famous film, Casablanca. My professor is right in pointing this out because it shows a very strong but artistic difference between the two films. Stanley Kubrick says that the most important thing is to go out and make. Casablanca was made to a formula, Citizen Kane was made by those who, for the most part, didn’t know the formula. They just made a movie. When this film was made, the cast was almost entirely made of radio voice actors and individuals that were inexperienced in film. It is evident that it was a group of inexperience individuals by a few mistake for instance, often the cuts between shots the mouth of the actor or the motions don’t match out with the prior cut as well as a lot of the then crafting Hollywood styles were being broken. I am a very big fan of  long takes and this film have plenty of them. This is one of the reasons why it is a great film because, even today, the cuts during a film are short. In Citizen Kane, the cuts go almost for an entire scene this give the cinematographer, Gregg Toland,  chance to shine in his camera movements. 

Gregg Toland Cinematography was brilliant in this film. In addition with Welles’ theatrical directing style, Toland would use the concept of distance from the camera to give more emotion to a point. For example, when Kane is talking to Susan in Xanadu. Toland also seemed to break the tend have a rule at that time where it was ideal for the camera to remain at eye level with the actors. For example, a majority of the movie, the camera is either at an upper or lower angle. This helped to emphasis the power that Kane possesses for as the film would go one, the camera progressively got higher to signify the of power that Kane had. I felt that a majority of this movie is able to be told by the blocking and cinematography alone. For example, the distance shots are later in Kane’s life when he is more alone, while he is surrounded and very close to people in the beginning of his life. 

The muse-en-scene is simply put amazing. Every thing is so critical to the story for example, the lighting was both cinematic and theatrical. Two examples of this is the room after the Kane newsreel ran in the beginning of the film. The rays of light that were seen in the small windows and making the faces barely visible. Another is the similar technique is when the reporter goes into the room to read Mr. Thatcher’s journal. The steam of light that goes to the chair was simply beautiful. Last, thing is just the amazing sets that were made such as the interior of Xanadu. 

The acting was pretty well done. It was evident though that a majority of the actors were radio actors or theatrical actors because there was a bit of over acting that takes place. For example, any scene with Mr. Barker when he was young. I do however must say that Welles was made for this role. One of my favorite moments in all of cinema that I have scene is the opera scene. What happens is after the veiws of the film see a shot of an opera from one perspective, they then scene it from Kane’s prospect. While Kane’s spouse plays the lead role, the people around him and other talk about how horrible she is. Then when the applause comes Kane sits in silence with hands at his side. When the clapping starts to die down he starts to clap and give a standing ovation. The emotion on his face it just remarkable. 

The only criticism that I have with this film is the editing. It seemed very sloppy for me. A few times it was very too notice able that the audio and the shots were not in sync. I did like how the editor, Robert Wise, did make the choice to do a lot of dissolves in his transition. Some of which are great. For example, later in the movie, he had the dissolve linger on so the foreground characters would seem to be in the same “world” as the background story. This was to represent flash forwards to present time. For example, the later scenes with Susan Alexander Kane. Also, the dissolves would be a way of going through object to get a better look. For example, scene would dissolve through a door to see what was happening inside of a room. 

This movie is a “great move” because it took many creative risks. From complex shots to the story itself. Even though a lot of people, including myself, don’t like the film when they first see it, it is able to withhold the test of time for it is still highly received. I will admit that this being my fourth time watching it, I enjoyed it even more then the third. Everytime I watch this film, I notice that there is something different about it. This time I noticed the editing more then ever. Feel Free to comment about this blog. I would like to hear your views. 

We’ll Always Have Paris

      Tonight, I just watched the classic film Casablanca and I am reminded of why I love this movie.  Directed by Michael Curtiz, The motion picture takes place in Casablanca during the Second World War.  Travelers infest the city as they wait to get exit visas to go to American.  The film centers on the character Rick Blaine, played by Humphrey Bogart, who is an owner of a very popular bar and cares a lot about his business. Everything changes when Victor Laszlo, played by Paul Henreid, and his wife Ilsa Lund, played by Ingrid Bergman, come into Rick’s gin joint. Victor Laszlo is one of the leaders of a group against the Nazi army and is looking for a way to get into america.  The story then reveals that Ilsa and Rick once met eachother in Paris while Victor Laszlo, was in a concentration camp. The Rick and Ilsa fell in love until the day she abandoned Rick on at a train station. As the movie continues, it demonstrated the tension in the town because of the war. A very good depiction of the governmental tension is when the German soldiers start to sing this anthem but it is silenced when Laszlo leads the restaurant patrons in a different national anthem.  The story in mainly focused on Rick trying to understand what happened between him and Ilsa, and Laszlo trying to figure out how to get back to America while Major Strasser, a Leader in the Nazi army, is trying to arrest him.

      I really enjoy this movie every time that I watch it. With classic lines such as “here’s looking at you kid” and “play it again Sam”, this film has been a culture phenomenon.  Even though this film may seem outdated, it still can tell a great story. I will admit that I always have trouble getting through the first twenty minutes where the atmosphere of the place and time is being established to the audience.  However, it is so worth wild when Rick discover that Ilsa in his establishment and watching flashback as the movie progresses. When the Rick and Ilsa meet for the first time since she left him is so well done because it is able to pull us into the story through the emotional context. In other words, there is something about this woman that does something to Rick. Also, the innocence of this film makes me fall in love with the story, let alone the time period when the movie was made.  For example, the sharp cleaver humor of the Captain Renault. A good example of the humor in this movie is when Renault says that he is closing down the business on the terms of gambling and then he takes his winnings. It was brilliant! When I watch this film, I find myself most drawn into the Rick character because I can really see the pain of the character went through when he talks about Paris. His hurt is visible when he makes Sam play "As time Goes By" on the piano. I personally am a hopeless romantic and just the line  “we will always have Paris" alone makes my heart melt. This is truly a brilliant film and I highly recommend it. 

Editing Is Not As Simple As It May Seem...

      When studying the editing in a film, it may seem extremely repetitive and sometimes boring. To avoid that as well as having a visual representation, I have placed a clip on the bottom of this entry that I will be discussing from the film Bonnie and Clyde. I also wanted to pick a clip that I have not seen or read other’s editing critique on. For instance, the end sequence is often discussed because of its quick and short cuts. The chosen clip takes place when Clyde’s brother has arrived with his wife to visit Clyde and Bonnie. I am going to analyze the clip until the character C.W. enters to avoid too much repetition (it is about a minute). The key points that I will be emphasizing are the length of the cut and consistency.
       The first shot is a long shot as the car is pulling up. The next cut already breaks the rule of invisible editing (that is when the rule of continuity is broken). It is violated because Cylde’s hands are down when it cuts to the next shot but his hands are up when he is seen in that shot. The following shot has a longer time then the other shots until it cuts to Blanche in the car. Notice the length difference in the three shots. For example, the shot of the brothers talking is the longest one, while the shot of Blanche is only a brief moment. The next time that the audience returns to a shot in the car is a good example of a reaction shot for she is laughing to her husband’s joke about prison food. When it cuts to the brothers again, there is a small shift in the shot because it is now a medium long shot. This is able to be scene because the frame now ends the men’s legs. This shot also prepares the audience for the next group of shots.
      When Blanch is introduced to Clyde, a really great thing happens. The shots transition to an over the shoulder in the car. This shot lines up with the prior medium long shot because it stays within the 180 degree rule. The shots then switches to over the shoulder of Clyde. The traditional Hollywood continuity style shot sequence is followed next. When Bonnie is introduced to Blanch there is an establishing shot of everyone in and around the car. The next shot is a close up shot on Bonnie and then a close up on Blanch. When they are done talking, there is a re-establishing shot.
      This minute clip shows that that the film Bonnie and Clyde is both a traditional movie by following Hollywood continuity as well as breaks a few rules of continuity as well.






*This is in no way intended to violate copyright laws*

This is Not My Final Answer...(Bonnie and Clyde)

I have no idea how I feel about this movie. The very notable film, Bonnie and Clyde, is a compelling tale of two people that meet and go on a crime spree. The story begins with Bonnie in her house and sees that a man is about to steal her car, she talks to him and then leaves with him. They begin their journey with robbing stories and then banks.  Along the way, Bonnie and Clyde pick up a few companions along the way such as C.W. Moss( the trusty mechanic), and Clyde’s brother and his wife.  The story follows these individuals through the best and worst of times. From the conclusion of the movie to now, I don’t think I know how to react to this film.

I would like to say that out of all the films that I have blogged about, this is by far the most neutral I have been. I feel that the way that it was done was very entertaining and has a few good ideas. For example, I like the how there was a side of innocence to the characters. For example, when Clyde tries to rub the bank and there is no money. Also, I liked how there was a somewhat Robin Hood story concept. However, instead of take from the rich and give to the poor, it was take from the rich and keep for themselves. A good example of this is when they are robbing the bank and the costumer was allow to keep his money. Lastly, I felt for the most part the pacing of the story was very well done because it didn’t feel to long yet not to short. 

I would like to say there was somethings that I didn’t particularly like about this movie, the first was the sound track. I felt that the banjo playing during the chase sequences felt a bit like a mockery of the robbery. While it did make me smile the first few times, it made me wonder how I was supposed to view this story as a comedy or a light hearted drama.  I think overall the cinematography was what really bothered me the most in this movie. For example, some of the shorts Cylde in the restaurant were slightly out of focus. Also, the picnic with the mother sequence was just a bit over exposed with gave it a hazy feel and blurry feel. 

And here I find myself in a full circle, I am back on deciding if it was a good or bad movie...

Pick your own adventure with Lola Rennt

Recently, I watched the very entertaining German film, Lola Rennt  which translates to Run Lola Run. Directed by Tom Tykwer and staring Franka Potente and Moritz Bleibtru. This film tells the story of a woman that gets a call from her boyfriend, Manni. The call consists of how Manni is in great trouble because he lost 100,000 rubes that he owes Vater, whom he is meeting in 20 minutes. This film tells the story three times with different series of events that occur. It is very clever in the way of storytelling because it tries to keep ideas fresh through out each sequence. By changing the story only so much, it allows the chance for this idea to occur but not be boring. 

I always enjoy watching this movie for it is like finding consistency among chaos. In other words, this film is able to take such great risks but not let those risks be distracting, such as in the French Film Breathless. In many films that try to take a different approach to telling a story often end up being more nonsensical rather then entertaining the audience. 

I think that this film is a very good example of blending four of the elements of cinema. The music has a very active presences in the movie because it changes with each time the story is told. It also helps the break the fourth wall with the audience for the fast paced beat has an impact on the audience. For example, the person sitting next to me was nodding their head unconsciously. The cinematography helped tell the story through shots that helped demonstrate the distance that Lola had to travel to achieve her goal. Muse en scene was very strongly depicted in this movie in so many ways. For example, costumes to show class difference between Lola and her father, and the big sheet of glass that was being carried around by the men. Lastly, editing was very vital to the storytelling because without it, the film would not have been as successful. Editor Mathilde Bonnefoy made many strong choices in this film editing to display time and emotion. 

The phone hangs up, shot of Lola and she is off. Bonnefoy created a vocabulary that would make the transition from past, future, and present understandable to her audience. The beginning of each sequence all had the same shots. Once that is  complete, the story was “given permission” to change. By doing this, it establishes that until that point, the same events have occurred and after that point, things will be different. This is also the same with the conclusion of each sequence, where the ending would occur and then a dissolve into red to the bedroom scenes would take place. 

The red bedroom scenes demonstrate the two shot, insert shot, and nondiegetic shot . It even has a pattern of saying something and then a reaction. When the scene is finishing, there is a reestablishing shot, dissolve and then back in real time. This is the only section of the movie where the format is the same. When scenes are repeated, the same scene is used but not the same exact shot for shot. For example, when the women is telling Lola’s father that she is pregnant, the first time it is scene, the shot is a medium close up shot, while the final time it is seen, the shot is a medium shot. 

The job of the editor is to connect a sequence of shots to tell a story. This is very visible because when Lola would have random run in to strangers, a series of still photographs would flash on the screen. When each sequence would occur, the photos would be different. It is interesting because the fact that each picture is just enough to give information to the audience to put the elements together to tell the sub story. 

The final two things I want to mention about the editing is shot length. The duration of time that the shot is on screen can make things very interesting. For example, before Lola runs into the woman with the carriage, helps establish that this run is not four blocks and that it is necessary that she does actually run. While on the other hand, I really like the series of shots that occur while she is trying to think of who would give her the money. The fast pace stimulates the speed her mind is trying to process this. Lastly, This film does a good job showing that a transition has to fully occur to be successful. For example, near the end of the first segment, Lola is running while Manni is about to enter the grocery store. The screen goes into a partial wipe transition and shows both characters and there movement. I just loved this moment.  

Sometimes, What is the Right Thing?

Filmmakers constantly try to tell their audience that there is something present which involve another sense other then seeing. The film Do The Right Thing takes place on one of the hottest day of the summer during the late 80s. Director Spike Lee’s challenge was bring that heat alive to his films viewers. In the movie, Do The Right Thing, there are many great examples of muse-in-scene to demonstrate heat to the audience through blocking, props, set and clothing. 

The way people are arrange can give off the idea of heat. A countless number of time in the movie, the places where individuals are placed, show that it is hot outside. First is the fact that a majority the shots include the filled porches in front of the houses. This blocking show that people find it cooler outside rather than inside. It give a chance for the characters to interact with one another and show how close this block is. A good example of this is when the group of four young adults (Martian Lawrence among them) sits on the steps, tell the audience that they like being with each other and like to talk to the people walking by. 

The natural use of props with blocking help show that it is very hot. There are two examples that I would like to mention about this. The first is the ice cubes that Mookie rubs along his girlfriends body. The fact they are quickly melting on her helps the audience think of how could the ice would feel on a day like that. In addition, Mookie’s sister, Jade, and two of the times that she is scene in the apartment. The first is her putting her head into a large bowl of water and the sensation of coldness that it gives her. The second, is how she is seated in front of the fan when Mookie come in to take a shower. 

Setting is very important to the idea of this movie. The filmmakers are very creative in how they are able to show heat through the atmosphere in the film. The first way they were able to achieve this was by color. A marvelous example is the red wall that the older gentleman sit in front of it. By the paint being a warm color of solid red, it gives a strong representation of heat.  Also the size of the wall, could show that the heat of it is unescapable. Sal’s pizza shop was also able to show how hot the day was because of its size. By it being so little and cramped, it makes on think it is very stuffy and tight. By having such a large oven in the set, does not just add to the credibility but also the makes me remember whenever I would cook during the summer and the warmth that would escape whenever that oven would open.

How people dress can tell a lot about the weather. In Do the Right Thing, the clothing the each of the actors wear helps show how hot it is. I would like to use the three gentleman that site in front of the red wall as an example. The clothing that they wear are open button down shirts, long pants, bowler derby and white undershirts. This is what some men in an older period would ware during a warm time. Most of the characters are wearing sleeveless shirts and shorts to show how hot it is. A good example is Sal’s sons, one of them is wearing a sleeveless and low collar shirt with shorts and the other is wearing a short sleeve t-shirt and shorts. 

Striving to Do The Right Thing

Always remember to do the right thing. Tonight I watch the stunning film called Do the Right Thing. One of Spike Lee’s first full length movies, Do The Right Thing, is a brilliant concept and idea brought to the screen. Taking place in Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn, New York City, the main idea of the movie is a block that both proclaims and exiles racism. Taking place on one of the hottest days of the summer, Sal’s Famous Pizzeria opens up, Mookie is late to work, and Mister Senor Love Daddy still does his radio talk show just like every other day. What happens when heat is added to the equation? The film follows a series of central characters through the day and the little events that take place. There are primarily two locations of the story: Sal’s Pizza shop and the street. This film contains so much with so little plot. 

I found this film very indulging and intriguing. I am a very enthusiastic when it comes to films that have it’s story lines focus on the people within the community. Another example of this idea is in Boys N the Hood and (oddly enough) the comedy Be Kind Rewind. Do the Right Thing presents racist tones but not in an in your face way like Crash but it is still able to leave a strong and meaningful message. In other words, it is a personal film that still contains enough distance from the story for viewers. There is only one thing that I don’t like about this film (*spoiler alert*) is that Mookie throws the trash can. However, this occurrence does bring up a good point: does the protagonist always have to do what we expect? In addition, this is one of the few movies that has the climax of the story at the end portion of the film. This allows the motion picture to have the sensation of a rubber band that was being stretched until it simply snaps. Overall, I give it 4 out 5 slices of pizza. 

Taking a Step Back from My Last Blog (The Godfather Spoiler Alert*)

       I would like to present the argument that the story of The Godfather would have been able to be told without the actors themselves. Even though, that would be a book, I would like to show a glimpse of where I am coming from. I do understand that I started to scratch the surface about how I felt the actors did in their roles, mainly Al Pacino; However, I would like to write this blog on other elements of the film that made the story for me with muse-in-scene. The Godfather is a story about family but there are individual changes that each character undergoes though out the film, the objects that I would like to focus on is the lighting of the Godfather’s office and Marlon Brando’s costuming.

The movie opens with “I Believe in America” is heard and there is a hard cut to a man looking towards the camera. The overhead light lights him in a way that shadows his eyes, and the lack of back lights makes him appear to be in a room of black as he stands out even more in the shot. The very low fill lighting just gives him enough light on his face so his shadows are not over dominating his eyes. The camera zooms out to reframe the out of focus head of Marlon Brando. He is also semi lit by a somewhat similar 3 point lighting.  This lighting plot helps give the office as a feel of a catholic confessional between the two men. As the cuts of the scene progress, the lighting changes. It is at first a bit distracting but as the scene goes on it is increasingly interesting. After the man among the dark background, it then cuts to a shot of Brando much more lit. When Brando get up and walks over to the man to talk to him, the long shot shows the room is also much more lit then the earlier part of the scene.  It is a high contrast view from to the shot in the beginning of the movie.  This sets the tone for the rest of the movie, which is the office tells the story of The Godfather. 

The scenes that take place in the office in the first part of the movie (Please refer to the prior blog for parts of the movie), the office remains dark and dimly lit. For instance, when Sonny dies or when Brando gets shot, the meetings in the office are dark and there is only so much light. At the end of the movie when Al Pacino takes over, the final shot of the film is fully light and everything can be seen in the room clearly. This represents the starting of a new era. 

What makes The Godfather, The Godfather. One of Marlon Brando’s most famous roles was made possible outside of just his method acting. The character of the Don is able to be depicted through many things, I would like to focus on mainly his clothing. Brando’s costume helps tell the transformation and the power that the character has. I am going to give a few examples of this: The first is the beginning of the film when his daughter is getting married. To help show that he is the father of the bride, he has a red flower on his tux, making him stand alone from the other men at the wedding. Second, his clothing at during the meeting with the drug dealer where Sonny speaks out. All the men in this scene are dressed extremely nicely in full suits but Brando is wearing a somewhat presentable shirt and a tie. This shows that he is so powerful that he can dress comfortably during meetings. Moreover, his clothing is even more relaxed when he gets shot at. He is simply wearing a nice button down and large jacket. When he returns after the hospital, his hair is unkept and there is no tie at all after that. Overall, his shows his decrease in power from when he is first seen in the film. What I do like but I won’t go to in depth about is that how Brando’s costume is becoming less and less nice but Al Pacino’s is getting more and for classier from the military uniform from the beginning of the film. Its a very interesting parallel. I find that Brando’s costume had a large effect how he handled the role overall. 

Leave the Pacino, Take the Duvall

   The Godfather is an excellent example of American Cinema at its best. The story focuses on the ideology of family and the mob underworld. The film is about the Corleone family during the 1940s. Based on the Mario Puzo novel of the same title, Francis Coppola allows audience to be a part of the Corleone family, and helps the audience create a relationship with characters in the film. The film has memorable lines (“Leave the gun, take the cannoli” and scenes, (the film director discovering the horse head in his bed). I would argue however, that this film has not lived up to the title of greatest film ever for three reasons: the second half of the film, Michael Corleone, and Robert Duvall.

     The Godfather part one can be broken into two parts. The beginning portion of the film is amazing to me. The story creates an atmosphere of the importance of family and the separation of family and business. I will go into more detail about how this is achieved in my next blog entry that will focus on mise-en-scene. The second part of The Godfather does not live up to the intensity of the first section. After the murders in the restaurant, the film begins to tell two stories: the home front of the Corleone family and the sub plot of Michael Corleone away from home. To me this section tends to drag on and is filled with loop holes (Does the family know anything about his Sicilian wife? Why has his jaw taken forever to heal?). But overall, I just don’t like the character of Michael Corleone.

     While I do enjoy this film, I am reluctant to one aspect of the film that ruins the movie for me: Al Pacino. I personally don’t like his acting style at all but I think that he received a lot of credit in the film industry after he portrayed this role. I must confess that I have not seen The Godfather two and three. One of the reasons why I didn’t like his performance is that the character of Michael Corleone is in the first half of the film,and thus his character should have developed more at that time. I felt that he was too much of a stranger to really care what happen to him later on in the film. I do understand the the first section of the movie is to establish an understanding of the family but I felt that Michael Corleone standing back and not joining the family’s work should have been presented more, rather than the audience just learning where he lives and his military uniform. I don’t know what order these scenes were shot in, but I feel Pacino’s understanding of the character seems stronger later on in the film. The change his character undergoes to present more through other aspects of mise-in-scene.

    I think what upsets me the most about this film is that Robert Duvall is the underdog, or unsung hero, of the film. I feel that he should receive much more credit for his role in this film because the aspects of the story that he presents makes the movie enjoyable for me. It is his performance that helps propel Marlon Brando’s character. I see Duvall’s character as the sturdy foundation that allows the others characters to change around him throughout the film. I want to type so much more but I will save that for my next blog…

The Color of Darkness *Apocalypse Now Spoiler Alert*

     Cinematography is critical to the concept of storytelling in cinema. As I watched Apocalypse Now, I found my mind in a constant daze. This film demonstrates how the audience is at the hands of the director, Francis Coppola, and cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro. The things that stood out to me while watching the film was the toning used, the representation used in the film, and what is in and out of the frame.
    Toning does not just add a shade of color to the film. In Apocalypse Now, there is an ongoing consistency of harsh yellow tones. These tones primarily give off a warm presence of the location, which is the open fields and dead land of Vietnam. One of the many scenes where this is used is when the Robert Duvall’s character is saying the famous “I love the smell of napalm in the morning”. In this example, the yellow toning does two things. The first is the time of day the scene is taking place. It is giving the audience the idea that the battle being fought is probably early afternoon. For instance, the toning would have a more red tint for dusk, dawn, or midday because the placement of the sun. Secondly, it is showing that it is warm. This feeling is pushed even further since the costume that Duvall’s character is not wearing a shirt. What is also interesting in this scene is the toning brings out the red and yellow smoke signals in the background.
      Toning can help bring out colors that may be over looked. This effect also allows the opportunity for more depth given to the shot. An example of this is when Chef and Captain Benjamin L. Wallard are in the jungle searching for mangos. This time the toning is blue to represent a cooler and night falling illusion. I really found it striking that the toning would create this depth with some of the plants in the scenery. For instance, the first shot of them in the jungle is an extreme long shot that gives off a good sense of depth. It’s all fully focus but thanks to the toning, there are certain green plants that stagger in the fore and background of the shot. Also, even though it is not essential, the blue toning makes the blue bucket that Wallard is holding stand out.
The representation that takes place in the movie is very strong. There are two specific examples that stand out to me. The first is in the very beginning of the film. This is an extreme long shot of a Vietnam jungle that is interrupted with fades and dissolves. When the scenes cut to the apartment, there is a fan with its blades spinning. With this image and the sounds of the helicopter in the background, it achieves the illusion that the fan blades are the blades on a helicopter. This is similar to the film The 39 Steps when the woman screams and the sound is a train whistle. In other words, the audience is prepared for something and the sound or image is able to represent what is supposed to occur. This is very different in the end of the film.
      When Colonel Walter E. Kurtz is stabbed to death at the conclusion of the motion picture, there is a very strong sense of representation. While the brutal killing is occurring, the tribe outside is killing a bull in a form of a ritual. This is a very strong and maybe even tasteful scene because it is able to show the gore but through the beast. Not once does the audience see the actual stabbing of Colonel Walter E. Kurtz but they do see hard slash that hacks onto the neck of the bull. Then there is also a sense of Brutus killing Caesar as this moment occurs.
      The cinematographer carries on a very difficult task of what to put and not put in the frame. This shown very strongly though this film and there is just a one out of many examples that I wish to point out (I don’t want to go to in-depth with it because some of the shots I likes were also because of the mise-en-scene). At the murder that I just mentioned is the last time Colonel Walter E. Kurtz is seen. The shot is just of his head. This is one of my favorite parts of cinema. I enjoy the idea that the audience has to image how Kurtz’s body looks without actually seeing the wounds. This concept of what the audience can’t see is actually one of my favorite things about cinema but it is starting to occur less and less because of CGI. But I will save that rant for another blog…

Hell for Two and a Half Hours

Francis Ford Coppola, the well acclaimed director of the Godfather, tells a tale that welcomes audiences to an unknown hell, the Vietnam War. The film Apocalypse Now is a journey of the human psyche. The story follows the character Captain Benjamin L. Willard, played by Martin Sheen, as he embarks on a mission to kill the Colonel Walter E. Kurtz in Cambodia for his unethical behavior and actions. Captain Willard is introduced to audience as a drunken man who has already seen war and is ready for the second round. The films starts with a very eerie feel as helicopters race by the camera and slowly fade shots of Captain Willard in his hotel room looking at a ceiling fan. He is given a letter stating he will be going on a mission to kill an exceptionally intelligent and a highly ranked individual, played by Marlon Brando. A majority of the film takes place on a boat traveling down the rivers of Vietnam. The characters throughout a majority of the film are very dynamic with personalities that grow throughout the course of the film. The movie does a very good job showing how different squadrons fight or how soldier can lose their minds in war. Even though the film may seem to drag on at points, the sections of the plot that show the psyche of the human mind make the film worth seeing. The script is very well crafted in a film noir narration that can be examined on multiple levels. Lastly, Marlon Brando and Martin Sheen give the performances of a life time with their strong grasps on their characters. Join the men who fought in this war in Apocalypse Now.

What I Saw in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (From the earlier post)

This film was pretty entertaining as well as nice presentation. There were many great concepts that took place as the film progressed in the cinematography in terms of blurriness, narration through the camera and color choices. At the opening of the film, the strong visibility of the high white balance gave a well defined presence of the lights in the hospital room and how they may have been blinding when the main character, Jean-do, opened his eye for the first time after the stroke. The fast motion and blurry images show confusion and tears that arose. 

     I loved the concept of being in the mind of the main character for a majority of the film. The fact that the filmmakers first showed this instead of the image of him outside the body was brilliant because it didn’t allow any preconceived thoughts of how I should feel about the character. For instance, there would have been a stronger urge to feel compassion for him because of what he is undergoing. It does posses the characteristic of the films The Russian Arc and Johnny Got His Gun because the narrator is able to be heard by the audience but not those who surround him. However, things shifted once we left the section of being inside his head.

Once leaving the first person thought process, it did two things for me. The first was it upset me because I actually like going through the recovery with character. It allowed an opportunity understand the fear that he was facing, such as when his right eye was being sewn shut. The idea of only being able to see only sections of his face, such as his lips were in the mirror, gave off a strong wonder of what does the rest of him look like. It seemed along the same lines of the 1920s silent version of the Phantom of the Opera because it is what the audience can’t see that is interesting. Second, the transition to the film being in third person was somewhat well done, by the flash of a frame that occurred immediately after his eye was sewn shut. But what was a good idea was when flash backs occurred, the frames were somewhat lower quality. This may have been a representation of hazy memories. To help show this taking place, the doctors scruffy beard in the beginning sequence is very well detailed and each hair is present and the flashbacks are somewhat more blurry.

The last thing that I want to touch base is color. The use of color and tone really helped push the movie along and tell the story. When the lead character was in the hospital room and felt a sense of aloneness, there was a tint of blue. When he was going through the idea of witch doctors, there was a strong septa tone of orange. Finally, I absolutely loved the red from virgin Mary statue both times it is shown (The bedroom and the store window).

The Diving Bell and The Butterfly.

What is life without a body? The Diving Bell and the Butterfly tells a captivating tale about a man,after having a stroke, is imprisoned within his own body. The semi-autobiographic film depicts what the real meaning of life is...interactions with others. Told through glimpses of first and third person narration, the film tells a story of redemption that can be found within suffer. The beginning of the film is told through the eye of Jean-do and him going through the steps that one must undergo, both physically and mentally, after being paralyzed. There is a very strong sense of humanity that is reviled as his narration takes place during the beginning of the movie but the images on the screen help tell the story in his recollection.

As the story progresses, he learns how to speak by his speech therapist through the only working body part that he possesses: his eye. Later in the film, the story takes a shift from the mind of Jean-do and can see the story from others interactions with him. To help understand the characters better, flashbacks occur from before the stoke took place. One of the two core themes are: the book that he is writing and the long process that he must undergo to achieve it and the life and relationships he used to have. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is able to demonstrate the desire one has to understanding self and what they were and what they will become.