This was a very complex film and hard to watch. The film showed the ending of the film at the beginning. The flashbacks always let you know the sequence of events leading up to the current event, but it got tiring and boring, and in the end, left some unanswered questions like:
1) Did Teddy and Natalie know each other?
2) Was Lenny Sammy or just like Sammy?
3) Did Lenny kill his wife?
4) Was Teddy a good guy?
The transitions between scenes was short and quick and used a flip-flop frame approach (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 190-197). Inside/out editing was used which made it hard to watch because you constantly had to reorient yourself to figure out what was going on (The Art of Watching Films, p. 198).
Some scenes were shot in black and white I guess to show his past life mostly, but it made you pay more attention to the dialogue than to the background. I guess the black and white scenes were about his memories and the colored scenes were about his real life. The director used an expressionistic use of color to show us this (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 236-237). The colored scenes were very colorful, especially the violent scenes, showing the mess his life is. A lot of cool colors of blue and being were used in the film such as his shirt, the motel doors, the walls in his motel room (The Art of Watching Films, p. 231).
The film was told in a subjective point-of-view. It tried to get you to feel what the character was feeling (The Art of Watching Films, p. 264). It did do this, but you really didn't feel any sympathy for him, especially when you realized he was a killer.
Eerie background music was played to help try and keep your interest in the suspense, which helped, but it made it hard for me to understand what Lenny was saying, so I had to have the subtitles on.
There was a lot of information in the chapters we had to read for this week, and it was hard to put into words. I thought I was going to have pages to write about, but when it came time to put it on paper, I couldn't come up with much.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Walk The Line
This film was shot similar to Memento in that it showed the end of the film in the beginning, but it was easy to follow and understand, and it didn't leave you with questions at the end of the film. The transitions between scenes used the dissolve method and used a form cut flow from one scene to another (The Art of Watching Films, p. 197). It was a story of redemption or of a second chance for Cash, and the director did a good job of showing Cash as a dark or complex person.
Outside/in editing was used in this film which made it easy to watch and understand. I prefer this to the inside/out editing method (The Art of Watching Films, p. 198).
This was a very colorful film. The characters always seemed so sharp compared to the background which sometimes made the background almost seem fake.
Music background in the beginning of the film was like blues or bluegrass, it made you think of the Cash family like hillbillies or backwoods people. It also had a lot of cricket noise in the background. There wasn't a lot of music playing when they were talking.
Reaction shots were used throughout the film to show how frustrated and unhappy Cash was throughout most of the film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 327).
Joaquin's acting is an impersonator actor, he tried to become John, whereas Reese is a interpreter and commentor actor, she filtered the role to fit with her qualities (The Art of Watching Films, p. 332). Both stars were a part of the star system, they had mass appeal (The Art of Watching Films, p. 333). Reese always seems to play perky roles and Joaquin plays more serious roles. According to the director, Joaquin is a messy sensual actor who finds his way and who you have to be careful with because he is willing to do anything over and over again the same way, even if he could get hurt, and Reese acts from the heart and comes to the scene with a plan and is a conscientious actor (Walk The Line, special features). June was kind of the foil in this film in that she was a definite contrast to John and she helped define his character (The Art of Watching Films, p. 345). The diner scene, for instance, June brought out John's real thoughts. June made him feel comfortable enough to be himself, and it was the beginning of their lifelong friendship. John didn't function well when he didn't have June.
The director, James Mangold, wanted the characters in the film to be musicians, since that was what the film was about, and wanted each character to do his or her own singing. He also let us guess what characters they were playing and then let us know who they were. The concert scenes still kept the storyline going because the director didn't want the effect of the film diminished during the songs, he wanted it to be a part of the film (The Art of Watching Films, special features).
Outside/in editing was used in this film which made it easy to watch and understand. I prefer this to the inside/out editing method (The Art of Watching Films, p. 198).
This was a very colorful film. The characters always seemed so sharp compared to the background which sometimes made the background almost seem fake.
Music background in the beginning of the film was like blues or bluegrass, it made you think of the Cash family like hillbillies or backwoods people. It also had a lot of cricket noise in the background. There wasn't a lot of music playing when they were talking.
Reaction shots were used throughout the film to show how frustrated and unhappy Cash was throughout most of the film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 327).
Joaquin's acting is an impersonator actor, he tried to become John, whereas Reese is a interpreter and commentor actor, she filtered the role to fit with her qualities (The Art of Watching Films, p. 332). Both stars were a part of the star system, they had mass appeal (The Art of Watching Films, p. 333). Reese always seems to play perky roles and Joaquin plays more serious roles. According to the director, Joaquin is a messy sensual actor who finds his way and who you have to be careful with because he is willing to do anything over and over again the same way, even if he could get hurt, and Reese acts from the heart and comes to the scene with a plan and is a conscientious actor (Walk The Line, special features). June was kind of the foil in this film in that she was a definite contrast to John and she helped define his character (The Art of Watching Films, p. 345). The diner scene, for instance, June brought out John's real thoughts. June made him feel comfortable enough to be himself, and it was the beginning of their lifelong friendship. John didn't function well when he didn't have June.
The director, James Mangold, wanted the characters in the film to be musicians, since that was what the film was about, and wanted each character to do his or her own singing. He also let us guess what characters they were playing and then let us know who they were. The concert scenes still kept the storyline going because the director didn't want the effect of the film diminished during the songs, he wanted it to be a part of the film (The Art of Watching Films, special features).
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Good Night, and Good Luck
This was a very realistic film, you could imagine that it was like this back in the 1950s. The choice of black and white was great for this film because it gave you a sense of the 1950s era as well as letting you pay attention to the characters without being distracted. I think color would have had a negative impact on this film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 91).
Wide-screen format was used in making the film, but it appeared wider on my television screen than Slumdog Millionaire did. Most of the shots in Good Night, and Good Luck revolved around an office setting whereas Slumdog Millionaire revolved around an entire city. Panning was also used a lot less in this film compared to Slumdog Millionaire.
I couldn't tell if this was filmed using smooth-grain or rough-grain film stock, but I am going to say rough-grain film stock was used even though there were a lot of close-up shots. In The Art of Watching Films, it says that rough-grain film stock has become associated with a documentary here and now quality (p. 93), and this film seemed like sort of a documentary theme to me.
The script was well written. It gave you an idea of what kind of power the government had over you back then, I guess the correct terminology would be censorship, and the script gave you a sense of the fear Murrow, as well as his colleagues, felt in trying to butt heads with the power of McCarthy.
The four factors on the setting and its effects were done well in this film:
Hard front lighting was used and it made you see the film as you would see it if you were really there (The Art of Watching Films, p. 117). The film seemed mostly shot as an objective point of view, you felt like you were watching through a window. Even the close-up scenes felt like you were just watching, like when you would get a close-up of Murrow, he wasn't looking at you, you knew he was looking at Mr. Friendly (The Art of Watching Films, p. 127).
The camera technique used fixed-frame movement with some panning and tilting. Most of the panning was done during McCarthy's answer to Murrow's previous telecasts and all the shots seems to be at eye level (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 138-139).
This was a good film, and the director did a good job of letting you know what it was like back in the 1950s. Freedom of speech has come a long way since then.
Wide-screen format was used in making the film, but it appeared wider on my television screen than Slumdog Millionaire did. Most of the shots in Good Night, and Good Luck revolved around an office setting whereas Slumdog Millionaire revolved around an entire city. Panning was also used a lot less in this film compared to Slumdog Millionaire.
I couldn't tell if this was filmed using smooth-grain or rough-grain film stock, but I am going to say rough-grain film stock was used even though there were a lot of close-up shots. In The Art of Watching Films, it says that rough-grain film stock has become associated with a documentary here and now quality (p. 93), and this film seemed like sort of a documentary theme to me.
The script was well written. It gave you an idea of what kind of power the government had over you back then, I guess the correct terminology would be censorship, and the script gave you a sense of the fear Murrow, as well as his colleagues, felt in trying to butt heads with the power of McCarthy.
The four factors on the setting and its effects were done well in this film:
- Temporal factors - The story takes place in the 1950s and its characters reflected that as well as the office setting.
- Geographical factors - Having the bulk of the scenes shot in a newsroom setting let you see how hectic news deadlines can get and let you feel the tension.
- Social structure and economic factors - Murrow wanted to let the public know what McCarthy was doing even though he didn't have the power McCarthy had, and it wasn't the norm for reporting.
- Customs, moral attitudes and codes of behavior - It was customary for newsrooms to entertain the public and to not make waves with the government in the 1950s, and the moral attitudes of the people involved in telling the injustices McCarthy was doing changed as they tiptoed through the processes (The Art of Watching Films, p. 101).
Hard front lighting was used and it made you see the film as you would see it if you were really there (The Art of Watching Films, p. 117). The film seemed mostly shot as an objective point of view, you felt like you were watching through a window. Even the close-up scenes felt like you were just watching, like when you would get a close-up of Murrow, he wasn't looking at you, you knew he was looking at Mr. Friendly (The Art of Watching Films, p. 127).
The camera technique used fixed-frame movement with some panning and tilting. Most of the panning was done during McCarthy's answer to Murrow's previous telecasts and all the shots seems to be at eye level (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 138-139).
This was a good film, and the director did a good job of letting you know what it was like back in the 1950s. Freedom of speech has come a long way since then.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Slumdog Millionaire
This film was a complex story told through constant flashbacks. Even though much of the film deals with tragic events in Jamal's life, it is baasically a love story. Jamal's life revolves around Latika. My husband says it is a serious version of the Joe Dirt film.
The film is in color, which helps you see the poverty. All the roofs were rusty, galvanized steel and showed how rundown and neglected the homes were. The school scene is in blue and white and lets you see how packed the kids were in a classroom and how all the kids wore blue and matched the bottom of the walls while the teacher wore white and matched the top half of the walls (The Art of Watching Films, p. 92). A lot of blue color is shown thoughout the film.
The film was shot for a wide screen which suits the story because it let's you see a lot of the background. This was important, since there were a lot of people in the scenes, and it showed how overcrowded Mumbai is. Panning was also used to show the expanse of poverty. Scenes were shot in both smooth-grain film stock and rough-grain film stock. One that comes to mind for rough-grain is the scene at the dump ground when Jamal and Salim were living in a tent (The Art of Watching Films, p. 93).
The setting for Verisimilitude was the setting. The film created a sense of real time and a real place and a feeling of being there (The Art of Watching Films, p. 102). You wanted the down and out to triumph, especially the ones that were being use by Maman, who seemed like a good guy, but was a villain. You could relate to the scenes of poverty and cruelty.
Lighting was generally made to look natural, but a lot of shadowing was used. In the scene where Jamal gets his picture autographed, the lighting changes from natural while the actor is signing the photo to a yellowish color to show Salim as being jealous that Jamal got his photo autographed. Most close-up scenes were shot using side lighting (The Art of Watching Films, p. 116).
The objective point of view was used in the scenes at Jarved's house. The subjective point of view was used in the scenes where Jamal is being interrogated and when the boys are being chased off the runway (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 127-128).
Zoom lens were used in a lot of the scenes for the game show as well as Jamal's interrogation (The Art of Watching Films, p. 140). High angle shots and low angle shots were used in the film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 152).
At the end of the film it shows you the answer to the question posed at the beginning of the film. This was cool because you had already forgotten about the question by the end of the film, and the answer made you remember it.
The film is in color, which helps you see the poverty. All the roofs were rusty, galvanized steel and showed how rundown and neglected the homes were. The school scene is in blue and white and lets you see how packed the kids were in a classroom and how all the kids wore blue and matched the bottom of the walls while the teacher wore white and matched the top half of the walls (The Art of Watching Films, p. 92). A lot of blue color is shown thoughout the film.
The film was shot for a wide screen which suits the story because it let's you see a lot of the background. This was important, since there were a lot of people in the scenes, and it showed how overcrowded Mumbai is. Panning was also used to show the expanse of poverty. Scenes were shot in both smooth-grain film stock and rough-grain film stock. One that comes to mind for rough-grain is the scene at the dump ground when Jamal and Salim were living in a tent (The Art of Watching Films, p. 93).
The setting for Verisimilitude was the setting. The film created a sense of real time and a real place and a feeling of being there (The Art of Watching Films, p. 102). You wanted the down and out to triumph, especially the ones that were being use by Maman, who seemed like a good guy, but was a villain. You could relate to the scenes of poverty and cruelty.
Lighting was generally made to look natural, but a lot of shadowing was used. In the scene where Jamal gets his picture autographed, the lighting changes from natural while the actor is signing the photo to a yellowish color to show Salim as being jealous that Jamal got his photo autographed. Most close-up scenes were shot using side lighting (The Art of Watching Films, p. 116).
The objective point of view was used in the scenes at Jarved's house. The subjective point of view was used in the scenes where Jamal is being interrogated and when the boys are being chased off the runway (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 127-128).
Zoom lens were used in a lot of the scenes for the game show as well as Jamal's interrogation (The Art of Watching Films, p. 140). High angle shots and low angle shots were used in the film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 152).
At the end of the film it shows you the answer to the question posed at the beginning of the film. This was cool because you had already forgotten about the question by the end of the film, and the answer made you remember it.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The Contender
This film was interesting even though it was somewhat predictable (the President still wanting Hanson's confirmation). It did have a surprise within of Hathaway planning the rescue of the girl in the car that went off the bridge. This was very unexpected.
The Contender also has its theme in the title just like Good Will Hunting, but unlike Good Will Hunting where the title is about one person, The Contender could be about two people, Hanson and Hathaway, although I think it is mainly about Hanson.
There was definitely an external conflict between Runyon and the President and Hanson (The Art of Watching Films, p. 58-59). Runyon appears to have it out for Hanson because she was once a republican who turned democrat and Runyon wants to embarrass Hanson for her morality while also embarrassing the President for wanting her to be Vice-President. Runyon wants Hathaway to be confirmed as Vice-President and resorts to low-life tactics to try and force Hanson out and Hathaway in.
Gary Oldman played Runyon well. His appearance gave you the impression he was a little sneak. I'm sure the scenes showing Runyon eating meat as well as the President always ordering food have some sort of metaphorical meaning, but I can't quite figure it out. My best guess is that Runyon ate his food aggressively to try and show he was adamant about proving Hanson unfit for the job and the President was always trying to see if he could order something that the kitchen didn't have, which in the end just proved to be muenster.
All of the characters in the film were static characters, none of them changed during the course of the film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 69). Hanson strongly held on to her beliefs and felt she owed no explanation of her past, including exculpatory evidence. This did make her appear as kind of cold and aloof.
The director, Lurie, likes to direct political-based films and I think he did a good job of showing us a behind the scenes look at what goes on in the political circle. This was a good movie pick for me.
The Contender also has its theme in the title just like Good Will Hunting, but unlike Good Will Hunting where the title is about one person, The Contender could be about two people, Hanson and Hathaway, although I think it is mainly about Hanson.
There was definitely an external conflict between Runyon and the President and Hanson (The Art of Watching Films, p. 58-59). Runyon appears to have it out for Hanson because she was once a republican who turned democrat and Runyon wants to embarrass Hanson for her morality while also embarrassing the President for wanting her to be Vice-President. Runyon wants Hathaway to be confirmed as Vice-President and resorts to low-life tactics to try and force Hanson out and Hathaway in.
Gary Oldman played Runyon well. His appearance gave you the impression he was a little sneak. I'm sure the scenes showing Runyon eating meat as well as the President always ordering food have some sort of metaphorical meaning, but I can't quite figure it out. My best guess is that Runyon ate his food aggressively to try and show he was adamant about proving Hanson unfit for the job and the President was always trying to see if he could order something that the kitchen didn't have, which in the end just proved to be muenster.
All of the characters in the film were static characters, none of them changed during the course of the film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 69). Hanson strongly held on to her beliefs and felt she owed no explanation of her past, including exculpatory evidence. This did make her appear as kind of cold and aloof.
The director, Lurie, likes to direct political-based films and I think he did a good job of showing us a behind the scenes look at what goes on in the political circle. This was a good movie pick for me.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Good Will Hunting
This was a simple story, even though it portrayed Will's life as complex, and it kind of had a poetic justice to it. You wanted Will to conquer his demons and although the evil isn't punished in the film, you felt that if Will could overcome his fears that somehow the evil was being punished.
Internal truth is central to the film's structure and external truth plays a supporting role. You wanted to believe this story was true because Will had suffered and deserved a chance at a good life (internal truth), but you also knew that this was life as it is (external truth), and that sometimes bad things just happen (The Art of Watching Films, p. 46).
The story was told using linear structure, so the internal conflict of Will does not become apparent until the complication (The Art of Watching Films, p. 55). The major conflict of the film is Will himself. Will can't adjust socially because of his past. His character would be onsidered a developing character because he is not the same person at the end of the film as he was in the beginning. He has overcome his demons (The Art of Watching Films, p. 68). Will would also be labeled a round character because of his uniqueness and complexity (The Art of Watching Films, p. 72).
The title of the film, to me, could be taken two ways: one as Will Hunting being good and one as goodwill hunting, that Will is hunting for the good. Either way, the title named the theme of the film.
The scene that appears three time in the film, Chuckie going to pick up Will, is symbolic in that it shows Will as a symbol of success for the working class. In the beginning, Will believed that he didn't deserve any better than janitorial or construction work, and the third time the scene appears, it leads you to believe that Will finally believed in himself and that he deserved better.
In the article Coming of Age in American Films & Novels, it said that some felt director Gus Van Sant had lost his edge as a leading director. I felt that Van Sant's directing gave a sense of being there. He did an excellent job of giving a good understanding of Will without overdoing it.
Definitely two thumbs up!
Internal truth is central to the film's structure and external truth plays a supporting role. You wanted to believe this story was true because Will had suffered and deserved a chance at a good life (internal truth), but you also knew that this was life as it is (external truth), and that sometimes bad things just happen (The Art of Watching Films, p. 46).
The story was told using linear structure, so the internal conflict of Will does not become apparent until the complication (The Art of Watching Films, p. 55). The major conflict of the film is Will himself. Will can't adjust socially because of his past. His character would be onsidered a developing character because he is not the same person at the end of the film as he was in the beginning. He has overcome his demons (The Art of Watching Films, p. 68). Will would also be labeled a round character because of his uniqueness and complexity (The Art of Watching Films, p. 72).
The title of the film, to me, could be taken two ways: one as Will Hunting being good and one as goodwill hunting, that Will is hunting for the good. Either way, the title named the theme of the film.
The scene that appears three time in the film, Chuckie going to pick up Will, is symbolic in that it shows Will as a symbol of success for the working class. In the beginning, Will believed that he didn't deserve any better than janitorial or construction work, and the third time the scene appears, it leads you to believe that Will finally believed in himself and that he deserved better.
In the article Coming of Age in American Films & Novels, it said that some felt director Gus Van Sant had lost his edge as a leading director. I felt that Van Sant's directing gave a sense of being there. He did an excellent job of giving a good understanding of Will without overdoing it.
Definitely two thumbs up!
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Bully
Ugh! I am almost embarrassed to say I watched Bully as my second movie for the week. The movie was a lot more explicit than I expected, and not something I enjoyed watching.
The theme of the movie was social problems and dealt with teenagers that seemed to be in self-destruct mode, combatting problems of teenage sex, pregnancy and drugs. I would describe them as social outcasts.
Bully was based on a tru story that happened in California about a bullying teen that was struggling with his own sexuality while trying to live up to his father's expectations. He took out his anger on his best friend and was cruel and hurtful to all teenagers who came in contact with him. I feel that Bobby was portrayed as a very evil person by the author.
Other than Marty and Lisa, the other teenagers involved were just followers because they had nothing better to do. All received rather harsh sentences, some not so deserving of what they got. Since the film is based on the truth, and only the ones involved could tell their side of the events that lead up to the murder, it is hard to say whether the author portrayed each side unbiased. The author did, however, portray Marty and Lisa as immature and having no conscience, deserving of their punishment.
I would not recommend this movie. I feel that all the sexually explicit scenes were unneccessary and added no value to the theme and lessened the impact of the story. I'm sure the author wanted to show how careless these teenagers were and how they never thought about consequences, but this could have been done without constantly showing us them naked.
The theme of the movie was social problems and dealt with teenagers that seemed to be in self-destruct mode, combatting problems of teenage sex, pregnancy and drugs. I would describe them as social outcasts.
Bully was based on a tru story that happened in California about a bullying teen that was struggling with his own sexuality while trying to live up to his father's expectations. He took out his anger on his best friend and was cruel and hurtful to all teenagers who came in contact with him. I feel that Bobby was portrayed as a very evil person by the author.
Other than Marty and Lisa, the other teenagers involved were just followers because they had nothing better to do. All received rather harsh sentences, some not so deserving of what they got. Since the film is based on the truth, and only the ones involved could tell their side of the events that lead up to the murder, it is hard to say whether the author portrayed each side unbiased. The author did, however, portray Marty and Lisa as immature and having no conscience, deserving of their punishment.
I would not recommend this movie. I feel that all the sexually explicit scenes were unneccessary and added no value to the theme and lessened the impact of the story. I'm sure the author wanted to show how careless these teenagers were and how they never thought about consequences, but this could have been done without constantly showing us them naked.
On The Waterfront
My first movie was On The Waterfront. My first thought afterwards was that I wondered what the significance of filming people putting a cigarette in their mouth was. It appeared that they put one in their mouth after a stressful situation such as the priest on his way up with Dugan when he was killed or the bartender after Terry was not a threat with his gun anymore in the bar. Maybe that was the significance.
Anyway, the movie was about human dignity and standing up what's right, but I didn't exactly see it that way. I saw it as union and labor corruption and felt that Terry was never really sure if he wanted to do the right this; and his fellow union brothers didn't appear to be in much of a hurry sto stand behind him once he did stand up to the union. I think that Terry's reasons for fighting back were for revenge, not for doing what was right. He wanted to hurt the union for what they did to his brother more than for what the union was doing to the laborers.
Kazan wanted to make films based on his personal experience, and he wanted to tell the truth as he saw it for what was going on at the waterfront. Kazan wanted his films to reflect his own struggles, such as testifying at the House Committee on Un-American Activities as a witness.
Kazan wanted to show the struggles of the lower working class and the corruption of the unions in On The Waterfront and I think he did a good job of making it realistic. He told the human story of Terry Malloy and showed us right away in the beginning of the movie that Terry had a conscience and liking Edie only made him want to do better.
Anyway, the movie was about human dignity and standing up what's right, but I didn't exactly see it that way. I saw it as union and labor corruption and felt that Terry was never really sure if he wanted to do the right this; and his fellow union brothers didn't appear to be in much of a hurry sto stand behind him once he did stand up to the union. I think that Terry's reasons for fighting back were for revenge, not for doing what was right. He wanted to hurt the union for what they did to his brother more than for what the union was doing to the laborers.
Kazan wanted to make films based on his personal experience, and he wanted to tell the truth as he saw it for what was going on at the waterfront. Kazan wanted his films to reflect his own struggles, such as testifying at the House Committee on Un-American Activities as a witness.
Kazan wanted to show the struggles of the lower working class and the corruption of the unions in On The Waterfront and I think he did a good job of making it realistic. He told the human story of Terry Malloy and showed us right away in the beginning of the movie that Terry had a conscience and liking Edie only made him want to do better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)