9.5/10 Blancanieves - I was very surprised with this movie, and liked it much more than I originally thought I would. I didn't think a movie could be so well constructed and portray so much emotion without any spoken dialogue.
9/10 Seconds - I really like this movie. I thought it's content was original, and for the 60s, its camera work was really extraordinary. I would love to see a remake of this movie today and see how it is redone. I loved the story, and the production qualities of it.
8.5/10 Devil's Backbone - Even though I am not usually a fan of horror or scary movies, once I moved past the initial scare, I thought the story was very interesting, and even sort of liked it. I liked the approach it took on the "monster" and made it almost someone not to be afraid of. It was not what I would consider a traditional horror movie, and I liked that aspect of Devil's Backbone.
8/10 Zero Dark Thirty - Overall, I actually did not enjoy watching Zero Dark Thirty purely for the subject matter in the movie. By no means am I a patriot, and I was uncomfortable with whole situation from the start. BUT, I do think this movie was well written, well produced, and well shot and this is the reason why I am giving it an 8/10 whether or not I agree with the subject matter.
7.8/10 M - For a movie made in the 1930s, I thought M was actually pretty interesting, and the performance in the end by Peter Lorre was outstanding. I think that sort of performance would win him an Oscar in these days.
7.5/10 Double Indemnity - Overall, I found this movie pretty mediocre. Nothing to great, but nothing to bad about it. I enjoyed it, but really wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again.
7/10 Sherlock Jr. - I think the main reason why this movie is lower on my list is mainly because of the fact that it's old. I don't dislike it. Not at all. I think it was ingenious for it's time and it was a cute story. But not really anything I would go out of my way to watch just because of how dated it is.
6/10 The Piano - The music in Piano was it's redeeming quality. I loved the piano music and the particular piece that is well known from the movie. Otherwise, I hated the story, and I don't like the way any sort of conflict was resolved in the movie at all.
5/10 El Topo - El Topo is probably the weirdest movie I have ever seen. It's redeeming quality is how weird it is, and for this reason I would want to show it to my friends. Even so, it was painful to watch, and had a very rough painful plot line to watch through.
4.5/10 Do the Right Thing - This movie should be called Don't Do the Right Thing. I understand it is trying to be controversial, but all it seems to me is to be encouraging racism, which I am an avid advocate against. I don't understand it, and did not like any part of it.
2/10 Hitch Hiker - This movie was easily my least favorite movie this semester. I would not wish anyone to sit through and watch this movie. Not only was the story line boring and predictable, the camera work was unoriginal, cookie cutter, and just bland. Nothing about this movie made it stand out, and never do I want to watch it ever again.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Blancanieves
Knowing nothing about the film Blancanieves, I went into it preparing myself for a rough hour and a half watching an old, outdated, foreign, silent, black and white film when it begun. I could tell within the first few shots that maybe this movie was not what I thought it was going to be, and that I had cast my judgment too soon. From the quick cut scenes, close ups, and modern cinematography, I knew that this movie had to have been made within the last couple years. Surprised at this, I decided to give this movie a shot, and maybe it wouldn't turn out to be as bad as I thought. Boy was I right. This movie I found utterly fascinating following the story of a Spanish Snow White and the Seven Dwarves with it's own twist. I didn't see it at first how it could be Snow White, (you would think the title would have gave it away, but because I wasn't really thinking, I didn't even realize blancanieves means white snow... or you know... Snow White), but as the movie developed and with the introduction of the bullfighting dwarves that's when I really saw how the title fit. It amazes me that a silent movie can convey such a story with no spoken dialogue, just a few written words on the screen here and there.
The beginning of the story opens up of a bullfighter who gets mauled and becomes paralyzed. At that same time, in his wife gives birth to Carmen, but his wife dies in the process. He then later marries his nurse, Encarna, while he was in the hospital, and Carmen goes to live with her grandmother, until her grandmother dies. Carmen from there goes to live with her step-mother, who turns out to be a gold digger and evil, and her father, but her step-mother prevents her from seeing her father, and Carmen's step-mother also forces her to live in the barn and do very tedious harsh chores. She eventually sneaks in to see her father often, and they develop a great relationship. Years pass, and Encarna kills her husband, and sends Carmen out in the woods, and has her worker attempt to kill Carmen. Here in the woods is where the bullfighting dwarves find her, take her in, and then she eventually becomes a great bullfighter with them. But, Encarna shows up at the big bullfight, gives her an apple, like in Snow White, Carmen eats it and she dies.
While that story may seem somewhat predictable, the way the story was presented was entirely different from anything that I expected. The music fit perfectly in with the movie with the serious tones, the flamenco dancing music, the traditional bullfighting music, and any other piece fit perfectly in with the scene. The cinematography in this movie was superb, and I suppose it had to be so to really be able to portray the story without having spoken dialogue. The extreme close ups really helped express the emotion of the characters. Without inflection or tone of their voice, emotion can be very hard to read. The actors were brilliant with their facial expressions (and sometimes a little overdone, but honestly I think that was a bit of the point. Most movies in the silent film era had over-expressed faces, and I believe that they were trying to mimic those films, but done in a newer, better, more modern fashion) and they were able to make the me understand almost all that was going on in the film. On the topic of cinematography, one shot in particular that I loved was after Carmen's first communion and when her grandmother died, her first communion dress was shown white, dipped in water, and then when it came out it was black. I do not know if the water was actually supposed to be the literal dying of the dress, or if it was just symbolism, but either way, I loved the scene. It showed that the dress that was once used to be for a celebratory time, was now changed into an object of a mourning period.
All in all, this story is heartbreaking and depressing. You keep expecting the "good guy" to win, but at the end, no one is really there to triumph. Carmen's life was harsh, and you keep hoping for her to get a break, but she never truly does. Even when Encarna dies by the bull (at least that is what is implied, it is never really seen), Carmen does not get that satisfaction of knowing her worst nightmare has finally perished because Carmen had already fallen to Encarna's apple trick. And at the end, when she is encased in the glass coffin, you expect when she is at the circus, that while people are kissing her to awaken her, that eventually her true love will come along, kiss her, and she will be all better. But the dwarf who was really in love with her, he kisses her in the final scene, and at this moment you expect her eyes to flutter open, and maybe, just maybe she may be able to finally live out her life happily. But, because not all fairy tales end happily, instead a singular tear runs down her face, she remains asleep, and her beloved dwarf lies down beside her. Nobody is happy, and nobody is satisfied.
Each aspect of the film I thought was brilliant. I would say the Blancanieves is on the top of my list for movies that we watched this semester. The cinematography, the acting, and the story line were way above my original expectations and I am happy to say that I was wrong about what I thought I was going to be seeing. I would definitely recommend this film to any others who are interested in learning about film, and other film fanatics. I don't know if everyone would be a lover of this film, but I would recommend it to those I know would appreciate it.
The beginning of the story opens up of a bullfighter who gets mauled and becomes paralyzed. At that same time, in his wife gives birth to Carmen, but his wife dies in the process. He then later marries his nurse, Encarna, while he was in the hospital, and Carmen goes to live with her grandmother, until her grandmother dies. Carmen from there goes to live with her step-mother, who turns out to be a gold digger and evil, and her father, but her step-mother prevents her from seeing her father, and Carmen's step-mother also forces her to live in the barn and do very tedious harsh chores. She eventually sneaks in to see her father often, and they develop a great relationship. Years pass, and Encarna kills her husband, and sends Carmen out in the woods, and has her worker attempt to kill Carmen. Here in the woods is where the bullfighting dwarves find her, take her in, and then she eventually becomes a great bullfighter with them. But, Encarna shows up at the big bullfight, gives her an apple, like in Snow White, Carmen eats it and she dies.
While that story may seem somewhat predictable, the way the story was presented was entirely different from anything that I expected. The music fit perfectly in with the movie with the serious tones, the flamenco dancing music, the traditional bullfighting music, and any other piece fit perfectly in with the scene. The cinematography in this movie was superb, and I suppose it had to be so to really be able to portray the story without having spoken dialogue. The extreme close ups really helped express the emotion of the characters. Without inflection or tone of their voice, emotion can be very hard to read. The actors were brilliant with their facial expressions (and sometimes a little overdone, but honestly I think that was a bit of the point. Most movies in the silent film era had over-expressed faces, and I believe that they were trying to mimic those films, but done in a newer, better, more modern fashion) and they were able to make the me understand almost all that was going on in the film. On the topic of cinematography, one shot in particular that I loved was after Carmen's first communion and when her grandmother died, her first communion dress was shown white, dipped in water, and then when it came out it was black. I do not know if the water was actually supposed to be the literal dying of the dress, or if it was just symbolism, but either way, I loved the scene. It showed that the dress that was once used to be for a celebratory time, was now changed into an object of a mourning period.
All in all, this story is heartbreaking and depressing. You keep expecting the "good guy" to win, but at the end, no one is really there to triumph. Carmen's life was harsh, and you keep hoping for her to get a break, but she never truly does. Even when Encarna dies by the bull (at least that is what is implied, it is never really seen), Carmen does not get that satisfaction of knowing her worst nightmare has finally perished because Carmen had already fallen to Encarna's apple trick. And at the end, when she is encased in the glass coffin, you expect when she is at the circus, that while people are kissing her to awaken her, that eventually her true love will come along, kiss her, and she will be all better. But the dwarf who was really in love with her, he kisses her in the final scene, and at this moment you expect her eyes to flutter open, and maybe, just maybe she may be able to finally live out her life happily. But, because not all fairy tales end happily, instead a singular tear runs down her face, she remains asleep, and her beloved dwarf lies down beside her. Nobody is happy, and nobody is satisfied.
Each aspect of the film I thought was brilliant. I would say the Blancanieves is on the top of my list for movies that we watched this semester. The cinematography, the acting, and the story line were way above my original expectations and I am happy to say that I was wrong about what I thought I was going to be seeing. I would definitely recommend this film to any others who are interested in learning about film, and other film fanatics. I don't know if everyone would be a lover of this film, but I would recommend it to those I know would appreciate it.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Gender Roles In Zero Dark Thirty
Not too often is a political action movie with blood and torture directed by a woman. That is what sets Zero Dark Thirty apart from other films in its genre. Zero Dark Thirty was directed by Kathryn Bigelow, and her female direction makes the movie have a few interesting twists that typically a male director would not have. The topic of gender isn't screamingly obvious in this movie, but it's the subtle cues that make it important and something worth talking about.
The main character, Maya, is a female. This obviously leads to a different dynamic in the movie than what would be if a male was in the lead. Maya is a very strong woman. In many action movies, when there is a strong female character, she is usually sexualized by wearing tight or revealing clothes (for example Lara Croft in Tomb Raider, Sarah Connor in Terminator or the Sarah Connor Chronicles, Halle Berry as Cat Woman, and the list goes on). It is nice to see her as just a strong female woman pursuing to get her job done in the business world. Her character is comparable to Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs, in the way that they are both passionate about their job, finding their killer, and bringing about justice without having to be sexualized because they are women.
One thing that I thought was interesting about Zero Dark Thirty is the fact that while the movie was definitely about the path of finding and killing Osama Bin Laden, the focus was on Maya, and how she took that journey to get there. Her struggles and passion was what the film mostly focused on rather than all the buzz and others which I'm sure brought to his downfall. I think this is a unique aspect about this movie. Yes, it is a political action film, but it is also one telling the story of a strong female and her struggles to get her job done.
Something that would have been for sure left out in this movie if a male had directed it, is the friendship that had developed between Maya and her coworker Jessica. We see the two start off as coworkers having a bit of subtle female competition, and then develop into great friends, shown when the go out to dinner right before the bombing of the hotel. When Jessica is killed, Maya is very obviously upset, but not crying, and I think that shows that she is trying to make herself stay strong and direct her mourning into hate and passion towards finding Bin Laden, the man behind all these deaths.
In the last scene in the film, Maya is to be taken somewhere on a plane, and one of the workers on the plane asks her where she would like to go, and you see her go through an emotional battle seen on her face. This is the point when Maya can have her true point of vulnerability. After Bin Laden is dead, she can finally mourn the loss of her friends, and the struggle that ten years brought her to finally bring justice. I think also at this point, she is trying to figure out what she is going to do with her life now that everything she had been living and obsessing over has come to an end. This final scene is something that I think is definitely something brought on by woman direction. With a male director, I could see the end being possibly more about the celebration that Bin Laden is dead; the patriotism and excitement that their terrorist no longer lives. But, instead, the scene is dedicated to Maya, because this story is really about her, and her journey. And now, at the end, she finally has her time to let out all of the emotions she had kept inside for ten years, and figure out where to go next.
Kathryn Bigelow's direction of Zero Dark Thirty definitely brought an interesting light to the story of the journey of finding and killing Osama Bin Laden. A male director would have for sure taken the movie in a different direction; that direction wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but it would have been different whether intentional or not. But Zero Dark Thirty definitely brings into question some of the gender roles and comments on women's place that would not typically be seen in a male directed political action movie.
The main character, Maya, is a female. This obviously leads to a different dynamic in the movie than what would be if a male was in the lead. Maya is a very strong woman. In many action movies, when there is a strong female character, she is usually sexualized by wearing tight or revealing clothes (for example Lara Croft in Tomb Raider, Sarah Connor in Terminator or the Sarah Connor Chronicles, Halle Berry as Cat Woman, and the list goes on). It is nice to see her as just a strong female woman pursuing to get her job done in the business world. Her character is comparable to Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs, in the way that they are both passionate about their job, finding their killer, and bringing about justice without having to be sexualized because they are women.
One thing that I thought was interesting about Zero Dark Thirty is the fact that while the movie was definitely about the path of finding and killing Osama Bin Laden, the focus was on Maya, and how she took that journey to get there. Her struggles and passion was what the film mostly focused on rather than all the buzz and others which I'm sure brought to his downfall. I think this is a unique aspect about this movie. Yes, it is a political action film, but it is also one telling the story of a strong female and her struggles to get her job done.
Something that would have been for sure left out in this movie if a male had directed it, is the friendship that had developed between Maya and her coworker Jessica. We see the two start off as coworkers having a bit of subtle female competition, and then develop into great friends, shown when the go out to dinner right before the bombing of the hotel. When Jessica is killed, Maya is very obviously upset, but not crying, and I think that shows that she is trying to make herself stay strong and direct her mourning into hate and passion towards finding Bin Laden, the man behind all these deaths.
In the last scene in the film, Maya is to be taken somewhere on a plane, and one of the workers on the plane asks her where she would like to go, and you see her go through an emotional battle seen on her face. This is the point when Maya can have her true point of vulnerability. After Bin Laden is dead, she can finally mourn the loss of her friends, and the struggle that ten years brought her to finally bring justice. I think also at this point, she is trying to figure out what she is going to do with her life now that everything she had been living and obsessing over has come to an end. This final scene is something that I think is definitely something brought on by woman direction. With a male director, I could see the end being possibly more about the celebration that Bin Laden is dead; the patriotism and excitement that their terrorist no longer lives. But, instead, the scene is dedicated to Maya, because this story is really about her, and her journey. And now, at the end, she finally has her time to let out all of the emotions she had kept inside for ten years, and figure out where to go next.
Kathryn Bigelow's direction of Zero Dark Thirty definitely brought an interesting light to the story of the journey of finding and killing Osama Bin Laden. A male director would have for sure taken the movie in a different direction; that direction wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but it would have been different whether intentional or not. But Zero Dark Thirty definitely brings into question some of the gender roles and comments on women's place that would not typically be seen in a male directed political action movie.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Devil's Backbone: Suspense
Devil's Backbone is a movie that is full of suspense and haunting images that will leave you hoping to fall asleep in the night and wish those images will not visit you in your dreams. One scene that really shook me was the scene about on hour in when Carlos confronts the ghost of Santi. This scene is somewhat what you would think a stereotypical horror scene is, but even so, it still makes you want to cover your eyes and turn away because of the fear it makes you feel.
The scene starts with Carlos coming into the kitchen to see the ghost of Santi's back. Santi begins to turn around, and as he does so, the camera begins to zoom in on his face, and this comes to highlight Santi's grotesque nature with his pale skin, cracked skull with blood coming out, and cold, dead eyes. This image is obviously haunting, and causes Carlos to run away.
Carlos runs back into the dormitory, and a long shot is shown of him bending over at the end of the hall, trying to catch his breath. It shows him up close bending over, then at the end of the hall, and then once again up close, but his head is covering the hall. This creates the feeling that maybe he is not so safe, and sure enough as he lifts his head, at the end of the hall there is a silhouette of a young boy, assumedly Santi.
The scene starts with Carlos coming into the kitchen to see the ghost of Santi's back. Santi begins to turn around, and as he does so, the camera begins to zoom in on his face, and this comes to highlight Santi's grotesque nature with his pale skin, cracked skull with blood coming out, and cold, dead eyes. This image is obviously haunting, and causes Carlos to run away.
The shot reverses back to Carlos, who shakes his head, obviously quite frightened, and the shot goes back to the end of the hall, but this time much closer, and sure enough this figure is Santi. This close up shows him walking towards Carlos, and its also makes it feel like Santi is walking closer to you.
Immediately afterwards, the shot moves to an over the shoulder shot behind Santi that lets you know that Santi sees Carlos, is moving forwards, and going after Carlos.
Santi begins walking towards Carlos at a very slow pace (about the speed that most horror movie monsters move) but even at this pace, you know that Carlos is going to be caught up to. A shot of Santi's feet is shown to even emphasize the fact that Santi is not moving quickly, but Carlos is paralyzed by fear, so this allows Santi to gain some ground on Carlos. A bit of shot reverse shot goes back and forth between Carlos and Santi, and then once again a long shot of Santi down the hall, similar to the first hall shot shown above, but this time Santi is moving.
Carlos turns to run, tries to get in a door, and it is obviously locked, increasing the urgency of the situation. He turns to another door, and a close up of him opening the knob is shown emphasizing the fact that this door is unlocked, but inside is just a closet, so it creates a sense of false security. Carlos goes to get inside the closet, but Santi has completely caught up to him, and is now standing next to him.
This shot can been seen as almost an over the shoulder, but it also emphasizes that Santi has the upper-hand. He has gained on Carlos, and the way he is closer and higher up on the camera indicated the idea that he has the power in the situation. Carlos quickly gets in the closet and holds onto the handle while Santi tries to get in. Then, a close up of Carlos holding onto the handle is seen to put emphasis on the fact that the handle moving stops, making it seem like Santi has finally gone away.
Of course at this time, the music gets really quiet to put the viewer on edge. Is Santi really gone or is he still standing outside, remaining quiet so that Carlos will gain false security? Carlos looks through the keyhole of the door to see if Santi is truly gone.
The keyhole is empty. This close up is shown from a point of view perspective of what Carlos is seeing. This shot creates such a sense of urgency, making the viewer pray that nothing will pop up on the screen and that perhaps Santi is truly gone and everything will be okay. The camera zooms in even closer, each passing second creating more suspense and more fear. The silence feels too fake, and there is no way that Santi is actually gone. And of course, a after a few seconds, surely the part in the movie that made me jump out of my skin, is Santi's eye staring into your soul right through the keyhole.
Afterwards, we see Carlos again in the closet holding on for dear life onto the doorknob and the camera tracks back to show Carlos's struggle to keep the door closed. The scene fades to black, and then the next shot is of the same hallway, but the lighting is now orange and bright indicating that it is the morning. A woman opens up the door of the closet, Carlos awakes, yells and runs out. This shows that Carlos is safe and made it through the night.
While this scene is somewhat stereotypical of what you would think a suspenseful scene would be, it still shakes you to your core. The cinematography makes you feel like you are also in Carlos's place, and the urgency to get away is heightened intensely. The dark colors, and the blues makes you feel hopeless and alone. I think this scene to create suspense was done flawlessly, and gave me quite a fright.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
The Piano: Rape?
In the movie The Piano, two characters, Ada and Baines have a sexual relationship that is quite controversial because it could potentially be considered as rape. But the the real questions is whether or not it is actually rape, or if it is a consensual sexual relationship.
To summarize, Ada, who has not spoken since she was six, for no apparent reason, is sent off, along with her daughter to marry a man she has never met before, Stewart. Ada has been playing the piano since she was a little girl, and she sees it as her way of expressing her voice. When she comes to her new home to marry her new husband, he leaves the piano on the beach because he does not have enough help to carry it and does not understand the importance of the piano. Once she is settled in, she goes to Baines, Stewart's right hand man and interpreter, to take her and her daughter, Flora, to the piano on the beach. Afterwards, Baines makes an arrangement with Stewart that he would like the piano in return for 80 acres of his land, and that Baines would like lessons on how to play. This is just a ploy so that he can get closer to Ada and use her for her body. Once Ada begins to go over for lessons, Baines tries to make physical advances on her, and she is very upset by these advances. Baines then makes a proposal for her, that at each visit that she comes over and he is allowed to do things to her, then she gets one key back on her piano. She bargains back that she would do it for the black keys, which is far less than grand total. At one of their first lessons, he tells her to lift her skirt so he can see her legs, and he touches her leg through a hole in her stockings. This exchange increases every time that she goes over to his place: two keys for him to touch her arms, 5 keys to lay down with him with clothes on and 10 keys to lay down without clothes on.
At first, it seems like this exchange could be taken as rape because it does not seem like Ada really wants to go through with it. She is reluctant, but eventually agrees. This is why I do not think that their sexual relationship is rape. She negotiates the terms of the sexual nature, and if she did not want to go through with it, she could walk out at any point. He is not forcing her into anything. Instead, their arrangement is more like prostitution. She is "getting paid" for her sexual favors. Prostitutes are not seen as getting raped, but rather offering their bodies in return for something they want.
What is attempted rape though is when Ada is leaving the house to see Baines, and her husband tries to make her love him, and he drags her down and tries to force himself sexually on her. She desperately tries to escape, and she does not wish to have that sort of relationship with him. I think this is an important contrast to show the difference between her husband's attempted rape and her sexual relationship with Baines. One is completely not consensual, and the other is reluctant (at least at first, later on she goes willingly) but she does indeed agree on their sexual relationship. This is why I do not see the relationship of Baines and Ada as rape, but rather as a form of prostitution.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Do The Right Thing: What is the right thing?
I don't think a movie has ever made my blood boil as much as Do the Right Thing. This movie is the antithesis of it's title, and very few characters actually do what I believe is the right thing. I'm not sure exactly what point this movie was trying to get across; sometimes it seems like it is against racism, and then in the next few moments it seems to be advocating it. I don't really agree with much of anything in this movie seems to be portraying because it goes against my set of morals and what I think is the right thing to do.
I think the main thing I believe in is that all living things are connected, and each organism deserves respect for it's life and well being, and following, ending in love. I think if everybody began thinking in a mindset of love for each other instead of hate or jealousy, the earth would begin to start to look like a better place. Love for each other doesn't necessarily mean that we have to like each other, but mean generally that we respect that they can have their own opinion, culture, appearance and background, and hope for their well being and success. Each human being is created equal and should be given equal opportunities in life. Now I'm not an optimist saying everyone has those opportunities given to them when they are born because not everyone is brought up in the same family, country, culture, etc. But, just because someone comes from a different background does not make them any less of a human life who does deserve these opportunities.
I was hoping when watching Do the Right Thing that it would be a movie about racial justice and showing each race as equal to each other as the next. I think that may have been what the movie was trying to say, but it utterly and horribly failed. What it seemed to me was that the movie was advocating that the African American race deserves equality and success, but not other races. This becomes evident when "Buggin Out" points out that there aren't any "brothers" (meaning African Americans) hanging on the "wall of fame" in Sal's Famous Pizza shop, and instead there are only Italians. Think about this though: Sal is the Italian owner of his Italian restaurant serving Italian food. I see absolutely no problem with Sal being proud of his heritage by putting Italians up on the wall of his Italian restaurant. I think if the roles were reversed, and if this was an African restaurant in the US, ran by African Americans, serving African food, no one would have any problem with there being a wall of fame for famous Africans or African Americans. No one would question why there isn't, for example, a Korean up on the wall. And if anybody sees a problem with this, they reserve the right to no longer eat at this restaurant anymore.
Another point that really bothered me in this film was the air of entitlement held by the characters. The African Americans were upset that Italians and Koreans were running successful businesses in their neighborhood. Instead of trying themselves to create a successful business, they sit on the street corners and hang out doing nothing to better themselves; this is even pointed out by the three men who sit on the street corner saying they have all these plans to make things happen, but instead of trying, they sit on the corner and do nothing. Everyone has an equal right to try and be successful in this world. Instead of trying to get revenge on those who are more successful than you, you need to instead go out of your way to better yourself and make that successful business. You can't sit around on a corner hoping that success will be personally handed to you.
Nobody in this movie seems to be doing the "right thing". The entire movie is hypocritical. Radio Raheem, the man who is eventually killed in the end by the police, wears two knuckle rings, one on each hand, one saying hate, and another saying love. When Mookie, the main character, asks Radio Raheem about them, Radio Raheem explains them saying how love will overpower hate. Yet Radio Raheem is disrespectful towards Sal by bringing his loud music into his restaurant, and this obviously makes Sal mad. Instead of being loving and respectful towards Sal and his restaurant by turning off, or turning down his music before entering, which is a common courtesy, he keeps it on and loud, which raises tensions, and when Sal breaks his boombox (which was not the right thing), Radio Raheem attacks Sal (also not the right thing) and this eventually leads to the police being called, and this costs Radio Raheems life because the police officer does not stop chocking him (also wrong).
Almost every single action in Do the Right Thing is wrong. Instead of trying to solve the racism issue in their community, they just aggravate it, and portray "justice" by burning down Sal's Famous. This is not justice. This is wrong. In William Bartley's article, "Wavering Hero: Do the Right Thing", he argues that Mookie, towards the end, must throw the garbage can through the window of Sal's. That notion is absolutely ridiculous. NOTHING is forcing Mookie to destroy that building. NOTHING makes him destroy another man's property okay. This act is not one of justice; it is an act of hate. By throwing the trashcan through the window, Mookie pushes the riot even further, and this causes the riot to completely destroy Sal's restaurant. I'm not sure what compelled Mookie to throw the trash can. Previously, Sal had even said that he thought of Mookie as another son, and then Mookie turns his back. And for what reason? Mookie was a horrible employee at Sal's restaurant, constantly being late and taking way to long on deliveries by going off and doing his own thing, but yet Sal still offered him a place at his shop. Mookie decides to have the mob mentality and go along with the thoughtless actions of the riot. The right thing to do in that situation would be to try and make it stop. At least make it a point to show the rioters the errors of their actions.
Very few people in this movie seem to actually be doing the right thing. "Da Mayor" actually seems to be one man that at least somewhat respects human life. He saves a child's life, pulls Sal and his family away from the riot, and pulls Mother Sister out of it also. He seems to somewhat have his head on straight and tries to make the community a better place.
I think one of my favorite quotes is between Mike Wallace and Morgan Freeman on the issue of Black History Month during a 60 minutes interview:
"Wallace:Black History Month you find...
Freeman: Ridiculous.
Wallace: Why?
Freeman: You're going to relegate my history to a month?
Wallace: Come one.
Freeman: WHat do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.
Wallace: I'm Jewish.
Freeman: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?
Wallace: There isn't one.
Freeman: Why not? Do you want one?
Wallace: No, no.
Freeman: I don't either. I don't want a Black History Month. Black history is American History.
Wallace: How are we going to get rid of racism until...?
Freeman: Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man. And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You're not going to say, "I know this white guy named Mike Wallace." Hear what I'm saying?"
I think this conversation really brings out a point we all need to really recognize. Instead of constantly trying to create equality by bringing up the issue of racism, and continually pointing it out, we need to stop talking about it and start respecting people as human beings.
What I believe is right, and the right thing comes down to common human respect which is exactly the opposite of what Do the Right Thing is showing. By trying to point out that racism is bad and leads to violence, all it really seemed to do was advocate entitlism and racism.
I believe in love. And I believe that love and respect is the "right thing". Instead of seeking revenge, we need to respect each other and learn to respect ourselves. Once this has been truly accomplished, people will begin to do the "right thing".
I think the main thing I believe in is that all living things are connected, and each organism deserves respect for it's life and well being, and following, ending in love. I think if everybody began thinking in a mindset of love for each other instead of hate or jealousy, the earth would begin to start to look like a better place. Love for each other doesn't necessarily mean that we have to like each other, but mean generally that we respect that they can have their own opinion, culture, appearance and background, and hope for their well being and success. Each human being is created equal and should be given equal opportunities in life. Now I'm not an optimist saying everyone has those opportunities given to them when they are born because not everyone is brought up in the same family, country, culture, etc. But, just because someone comes from a different background does not make them any less of a human life who does deserve these opportunities.
I was hoping when watching Do the Right Thing that it would be a movie about racial justice and showing each race as equal to each other as the next. I think that may have been what the movie was trying to say, but it utterly and horribly failed. What it seemed to me was that the movie was advocating that the African American race deserves equality and success, but not other races. This becomes evident when "Buggin Out" points out that there aren't any "brothers" (meaning African Americans) hanging on the "wall of fame" in Sal's Famous Pizza shop, and instead there are only Italians. Think about this though: Sal is the Italian owner of his Italian restaurant serving Italian food. I see absolutely no problem with Sal being proud of his heritage by putting Italians up on the wall of his Italian restaurant. I think if the roles were reversed, and if this was an African restaurant in the US, ran by African Americans, serving African food, no one would have any problem with there being a wall of fame for famous Africans or African Americans. No one would question why there isn't, for example, a Korean up on the wall. And if anybody sees a problem with this, they reserve the right to no longer eat at this restaurant anymore.
Another point that really bothered me in this film was the air of entitlement held by the characters. The African Americans were upset that Italians and Koreans were running successful businesses in their neighborhood. Instead of trying themselves to create a successful business, they sit on the street corners and hang out doing nothing to better themselves; this is even pointed out by the three men who sit on the street corner saying they have all these plans to make things happen, but instead of trying, they sit on the corner and do nothing. Everyone has an equal right to try and be successful in this world. Instead of trying to get revenge on those who are more successful than you, you need to instead go out of your way to better yourself and make that successful business. You can't sit around on a corner hoping that success will be personally handed to you.
Nobody in this movie seems to be doing the "right thing". The entire movie is hypocritical. Radio Raheem, the man who is eventually killed in the end by the police, wears two knuckle rings, one on each hand, one saying hate, and another saying love. When Mookie, the main character, asks Radio Raheem about them, Radio Raheem explains them saying how love will overpower hate. Yet Radio Raheem is disrespectful towards Sal by bringing his loud music into his restaurant, and this obviously makes Sal mad. Instead of being loving and respectful towards Sal and his restaurant by turning off, or turning down his music before entering, which is a common courtesy, he keeps it on and loud, which raises tensions, and when Sal breaks his boombox (which was not the right thing), Radio Raheem attacks Sal (also not the right thing) and this eventually leads to the police being called, and this costs Radio Raheems life because the police officer does not stop chocking him (also wrong).
Almost every single action in Do the Right Thing is wrong. Instead of trying to solve the racism issue in their community, they just aggravate it, and portray "justice" by burning down Sal's Famous. This is not justice. This is wrong. In William Bartley's article, "Wavering Hero: Do the Right Thing", he argues that Mookie, towards the end, must throw the garbage can through the window of Sal's. That notion is absolutely ridiculous. NOTHING is forcing Mookie to destroy that building. NOTHING makes him destroy another man's property okay. This act is not one of justice; it is an act of hate. By throwing the trashcan through the window, Mookie pushes the riot even further, and this causes the riot to completely destroy Sal's restaurant. I'm not sure what compelled Mookie to throw the trash can. Previously, Sal had even said that he thought of Mookie as another son, and then Mookie turns his back. And for what reason? Mookie was a horrible employee at Sal's restaurant, constantly being late and taking way to long on deliveries by going off and doing his own thing, but yet Sal still offered him a place at his shop. Mookie decides to have the mob mentality and go along with the thoughtless actions of the riot. The right thing to do in that situation would be to try and make it stop. At least make it a point to show the rioters the errors of their actions.
Very few people in this movie seem to actually be doing the right thing. "Da Mayor" actually seems to be one man that at least somewhat respects human life. He saves a child's life, pulls Sal and his family away from the riot, and pulls Mother Sister out of it also. He seems to somewhat have his head on straight and tries to make the community a better place.
I think one of my favorite quotes is between Mike Wallace and Morgan Freeman on the issue of Black History Month during a 60 minutes interview:
"Wallace:Black History Month you find...
Freeman: Ridiculous.
Wallace: Why?
Freeman: You're going to relegate my history to a month?
Wallace: Come one.
Freeman: WHat do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.
Wallace: I'm Jewish.
Freeman: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?
Wallace: There isn't one.
Freeman: Why not? Do you want one?
Wallace: No, no.
Freeman: I don't either. I don't want a Black History Month. Black history is American History.
Wallace: How are we going to get rid of racism until...?
Freeman: Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man. And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You're not going to say, "I know this white guy named Mike Wallace." Hear what I'm saying?"
I think this conversation really brings out a point we all need to really recognize. Instead of constantly trying to create equality by bringing up the issue of racism, and continually pointing it out, we need to stop talking about it and start respecting people as human beings.
What I believe is right, and the right thing comes down to common human respect which is exactly the opposite of what Do the Right Thing is showing. By trying to point out that racism is bad and leads to violence, all it really seemed to do was advocate entitlism and racism.
I believe in love. And I believe that love and respect is the "right thing". Instead of seeking revenge, we need to respect each other and learn to respect ourselves. Once this has been truly accomplished, people will begin to do the "right thing".
Thursday, October 10, 2013
El Topo: The Path to Enlightenment
I think this one particular shot is interesting because it alludes to Jesus on the cross. His feet are pierced and his arms are pierced, and he is walking like Jesus hung on the cross. Even during this scene he says "My God, why have you forsaken me?" which are words spoken by Christ while he was hanging on the cross. While I do not think that the Christian faith completely aligns with this scene, I do find the directors take on the faith interesting. I believe he is trying to say that El Topo is taking responsibility for his wrongs, and is ready to do so, in the same way that in the Christian faith that Christ took the responsibility of the sinners. The whole movie's point is about El Topo's path to enlightenment, or happiness, and I think this scene in particular shows that perfectly, because the only way for El Topo to truly be "enlightened" is by death because he cannot carry the weight of his sins.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Seconds and The Matrix: Dystopian Societies
In both the movies Seconds and the Matrix, they both present dystopian societies, or societies that are the opposite of a utopia. Each takes their own twist on the idea of dystopian world, but they each hold similarities to each other.
In Seconds, the character Arthur is presented with a new life. They would make it appear as if he had died, have him undergo serious plastic surgery, and he would emerge as a new man, who could have any life he wanted. At first he is hesitant to take the opportunity to completely start over, but realized he could not turn back, and must start a whole new life, and be "reborn". In the same way, in the Matrix, Neo is presented with the idea of knowing the truth, and choosing the path to enlightenment. Once he makes his choice, he is then "reborn" into the world of the Matrix, and realizes that everyone is just under a computer simulation.
One thing that is important in these movies is to see that both are presented with an interesting opportunity to entirely change their life, and from then on they would never be able to look back. But, the truth that they choose turns out to not be as great as it seems. Arthur, now Tony Wilson after the surgery, is not content with his new life because he realizes that happiness is not just about money and your job, but finding people around you who you cherish and love. Ultimately, he wishes to be reborn again, but because of this decision he comes to his demise. In the same way, once Neo is brought to understanding the Matrix, he is constantly in a war and fighting. Like Arthur, because of his choice, he is also brought to an end.
These movies show dystopian societies with a choice to be brought to a better life. I think one of the main things to point out is the fact that even though they thought their situations were bad, "the grass is not always greener on the other side."
In Seconds, the character Arthur is presented with a new life. They would make it appear as if he had died, have him undergo serious plastic surgery, and he would emerge as a new man, who could have any life he wanted. At first he is hesitant to take the opportunity to completely start over, but realized he could not turn back, and must start a whole new life, and be "reborn". In the same way, in the Matrix, Neo is presented with the idea of knowing the truth, and choosing the path to enlightenment. Once he makes his choice, he is then "reborn" into the world of the Matrix, and realizes that everyone is just under a computer simulation.
One thing that is important in these movies is to see that both are presented with an interesting opportunity to entirely change their life, and from then on they would never be able to look back. But, the truth that they choose turns out to not be as great as it seems. Arthur, now Tony Wilson after the surgery, is not content with his new life because he realizes that happiness is not just about money and your job, but finding people around you who you cherish and love. Ultimately, he wishes to be reborn again, but because of this decision he comes to his demise. In the same way, once Neo is brought to understanding the Matrix, he is constantly in a war and fighting. Like Arthur, because of his choice, he is also brought to an end.
These movies show dystopian societies with a choice to be brought to a better life. I think one of the main things to point out is the fact that even though they thought their situations were bad, "the grass is not always greener on the other side."
Thursday, September 26, 2013
The Hitch Hiker vs Double Indemnity (AKA Why I Hated The Hitch Hiker)
Both Double Indemnity and The Hitch Hiker, according to the technical definition of film noir, which is a style or genre of cinematographic film marked by a mood of pessimism, fatalism, and menace, can be categorized as a film noir. But, comparing the films side by side, one seems like a true, dark, film noir, and the other seems like a cheap imitation.
In Double Indemnity, the whole air of the film felt like what a stereotypical film noir is like. It had the femme fatale, the murder, the crime, the dark nights, the suspense, the character development, the dark cinematic shots, the story, and the feeling that kept you on your toes. Even though from the beginning, Walter Neff was narrating and admitted to committing the murder, there was still a sense of question in the air of how and what the ultimate end for Walter would be. The story unfolded and through character development you can see how each of the main characters thoughts and motives really were. Double Indemnity kept you thinking, and was even a moral commentary on power and lust.
The Hitch Hiker was one of the slowest pace movies I have ever seen, and every aspect of the film was predicable. Nothing in the film felt like a film noir. The Hitch Hiker was barely even a crime drama. Even the title gives away everything that is going to happen in the movie. Right away the film starts saying, "This is the true story of a man a gun and a car. The gun belonged to the man. The car might have been yours...". The first shot gives away the plot of the movie. And without any story development before the action, right away, the hitch hiker Meyers gets in the car with Gil and Roy and holds them at gunpoint. The rest of the movie is summed up to them in the car, getting out of the car for food, getting back in the car, getting back out to sleep and then repeat. Nothing about the film kept me wondering what would happen. I knew that the killer hitch hiker would be caught and the two men would be safe because that is just the nature of most films. Good vs Evil. And in the 1950s, most of the time good would always win. From the start I could not wait for the movie to end. The only thing about The Hitch Hiker that makes it somewhat a film noir is how pessimistic it seemed, fatalism (the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable - AKA the predictability of the movie) and the menacing killer. Just because The Hitch Hiker follows the technical definition of film noir, by no means is it done well. The characters really had no development. Roy was the only one to show a bit of development but that was really only because he was under stress. But, any person in that same situation should have acted the same way, so nothing about it was original or surprising.
Double Indemnity was a film I really enjoyed watching, and held my suspense throughout. The Hitch Hiker on the other hand was boring, uninteresting, predictable, and made me want to pluck my eye out. The only thing these two films have in common is that they can both be categorized as film noir. But, in my own arrogant opinion, I think only one of these two films can be truly put under that category.
In Double Indemnity, the whole air of the film felt like what a stereotypical film noir is like. It had the femme fatale, the murder, the crime, the dark nights, the suspense, the character development, the dark cinematic shots, the story, and the feeling that kept you on your toes. Even though from the beginning, Walter Neff was narrating and admitted to committing the murder, there was still a sense of question in the air of how and what the ultimate end for Walter would be. The story unfolded and through character development you can see how each of the main characters thoughts and motives really were. Double Indemnity kept you thinking, and was even a moral commentary on power and lust.
The Hitch Hiker was one of the slowest pace movies I have ever seen, and every aspect of the film was predicable. Nothing in the film felt like a film noir. The Hitch Hiker was barely even a crime drama. Even the title gives away everything that is going to happen in the movie. Right away the film starts saying, "This is the true story of a man a gun and a car. The gun belonged to the man. The car might have been yours...". The first shot gives away the plot of the movie. And without any story development before the action, right away, the hitch hiker Meyers gets in the car with Gil and Roy and holds them at gunpoint. The rest of the movie is summed up to them in the car, getting out of the car for food, getting back in the car, getting back out to sleep and then repeat. Nothing about the film kept me wondering what would happen. I knew that the killer hitch hiker would be caught and the two men would be safe because that is just the nature of most films. Good vs Evil. And in the 1950s, most of the time good would always win. From the start I could not wait for the movie to end. The only thing about The Hitch Hiker that makes it somewhat a film noir is how pessimistic it seemed, fatalism (the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable - AKA the predictability of the movie) and the menacing killer. Just because The Hitch Hiker follows the technical definition of film noir, by no means is it done well. The characters really had no development. Roy was the only one to show a bit of development but that was really only because he was under stress. But, any person in that same situation should have acted the same way, so nothing about it was original or surprising.
Double Indemnity was a film I really enjoyed watching, and held my suspense throughout. The Hitch Hiker on the other hand was boring, uninteresting, predictable, and made me want to pluck my eye out. The only thing these two films have in common is that they can both be categorized as film noir. But, in my own arrogant opinion, I think only one of these two films can be truly put under that category.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Double Indemnity - Femme Fatale
During the era of film noir, roughly between 1930 and mid 1940s, women in society were generally seen as housewives, cooks, maids, mothers and not seen as all that significant in the role of society besides the roles already chosen for them. Most of the time they are seen as fragile characters or seen as a damsel in distress. What is interesting about Double Indemnity is that while the women are shown as the housewives, they also hold an underlying unusual quality. This quality was one of a darker nature, known as "femme fatale", and was portrayed by the character of Phyllis Dietrichson.
Femme fatale can be described as a beautiful and seductive woman with a sense of mystery about her. A femme fatale brings the men who desire her to compromising, disastrous situations, and most of the time to their demise. This is the role played by Phyllis Dietrichson. She is a strong woman, confident in herself, and this is evident when seeing her for the first time. Walter Neff, an insurance salesman comes to the Dietrichson household to discuss auto insurance with Mr. Dietrichson, but when let inside the house by the main find that Mr. Dietrichson is not home, but there to greet him is Mrs. Dietrichson, standing at the top of the balcony in her towel, unfazed by the fact that another man was viewing her in such a way. When she comes down to meet Walter, then dressed, she discusses accident insurance, and right away Walter sees through her, and calls her out on her desires for her husband to be dead. Eventually, through both of their lusts and desires, they devise a plan to kill Mr. Dietrichson by making it seem like he fell off of a train to get a Double Indemnity sum from the accident insurance that Mr. Dietrichson was unware that Walter and Phyllis had made for him.
At first, Walter and Phyllis's plan seemed to go without a hitch, and it seemed as though their murder would go unnoticed. But the men and the insurance company begin to analyze the death and come up with the exact idea of how Mr. Dietrichson was murdered, they were just unsure of who was the accomplice alongside with Phyllis. Mr. Dietrichson's daughter Lola begins to meet with Walter occasionally and reveals that not only did Lola think that Phyllis killed her father, but that Phyllis was responsible for the death of her mother as well. This accusation brings Walter to realize that maybe Phyllis is not who she seems and does not truly love him.
Through a series of events, Walter comes to realize that Phyllis will be the fall of him, and that
she needed to be put to an end. He goes to visit her and she reveals that she never loved him and had been using him all along to get rid of her husband, and how she wanted to get rid of Lola and how she had killed Mr. Dietrichson's first wife. Phyllis shoots Walter as an attempt to kill him, but only hits his shoulder. Walter then shoots Phyllis and leaves the scene. The ending moments of the film are of Walter talking out his whole story in his boss Keyes's office.
These chain of events really illuminate Phyllis Dietrichson's character as a morally corrupt woman who holds great desires and is willing to take down anyone who gets in her way. This is what really defines those known as the femme fatale. The femme fatale idea goes against what the typical role of women is seen as and is evident throughout the film of Double Indemnity.
Femme fatale can be described as a beautiful and seductive woman with a sense of mystery about her. A femme fatale brings the men who desire her to compromising, disastrous situations, and most of the time to their demise. This is the role played by Phyllis Dietrichson. She is a strong woman, confident in herself, and this is evident when seeing her for the first time. Walter Neff, an insurance salesman comes to the Dietrichson household to discuss auto insurance with Mr. Dietrichson, but when let inside the house by the main find that Mr. Dietrichson is not home, but there to greet him is Mrs. Dietrichson, standing at the top of the balcony in her towel, unfazed by the fact that another man was viewing her in such a way. When she comes down to meet Walter, then dressed, she discusses accident insurance, and right away Walter sees through her, and calls her out on her desires for her husband to be dead. Eventually, through both of their lusts and desires, they devise a plan to kill Mr. Dietrichson by making it seem like he fell off of a train to get a Double Indemnity sum from the accident insurance that Mr. Dietrichson was unware that Walter and Phyllis had made for him.
At first, Walter and Phyllis's plan seemed to go without a hitch, and it seemed as though their murder would go unnoticed. But the men and the insurance company begin to analyze the death and come up with the exact idea of how Mr. Dietrichson was murdered, they were just unsure of who was the accomplice alongside with Phyllis. Mr. Dietrichson's daughter Lola begins to meet with Walter occasionally and reveals that not only did Lola think that Phyllis killed her father, but that Phyllis was responsible for the death of her mother as well. This accusation brings Walter to realize that maybe Phyllis is not who she seems and does not truly love him.
Through a series of events, Walter comes to realize that Phyllis will be the fall of him, and that
she needed to be put to an end. He goes to visit her and she reveals that she never loved him and had been using him all along to get rid of her husband, and how she wanted to get rid of Lola and how she had killed Mr. Dietrichson's first wife. Phyllis shoots Walter as an attempt to kill him, but only hits his shoulder. Walter then shoots Phyllis and leaves the scene. The ending moments of the film are of Walter talking out his whole story in his boss Keyes's office.
These chain of events really illuminate Phyllis Dietrichson's character as a morally corrupt woman who holds great desires and is willing to take down anyone who gets in her way. This is what really defines those known as the femme fatale. The femme fatale idea goes against what the typical role of women is seen as and is evident throughout the film of Double Indemnity.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
M. Police Vs Thieves
In the German film M by Franz Lang, a juxtaposition is present through the entirety of the story between the police officers and the thief guild, who are both going after the child murderer, the Mörder. Both the police and the thief guild have their own agenda's for going after the murderer. The police are there to restore peace to the people, provide justice, and to stop the murders of little children. On the other hand, the thief guild wants to take the murderer off the streets for another reason. Because of the murders, the police had increased activity on the streets, making it harder for the thieves to provide a living for themselves, however unhonorable they attempt to do so. Also, by capturing the murderer, the so called reputation would rise for the thieves to show people that not all criminals are child murderers. The most compelling reason for the thieves to go after the murderer is their conviction of who they believe to be an honorable human being. Even in the modern world, in prisons, there is somewhat of a moral code among the prisoners. Any of the prisoners who has been convicted of harming a child is thought of as no longer being a human. Even the criminals have a sense to understand even the most basic of morals.
The juxtaposition of these two forces is showing the way that each group of society responds under stress and believes that the murderer should be treated. For once, the police and the criminals have a common goal. In a way, they are almost working together. The criminals do not want the polices involvement in finding the murderer, but by capturing him, they are taking the murderer off of the streets, which is the ultimate goal of the policemen. These comparisons are there to show that even the most opposing figures can have a common ground.
Ultimately, in the end, the criminals do hand the murderer over to the police, and the murderer has a trial under the court of law. The point of the movie is not necessarily showing the fate for those who commit murders, but pointing out that they shouldn't have happened in the first place.
The juxtaposition of these two forces is showing the way that each group of society responds under stress and believes that the murderer should be treated. For once, the police and the criminals have a common goal. In a way, they are almost working together. The criminals do not want the polices involvement in finding the murderer, but by capturing him, they are taking the murderer off of the streets, which is the ultimate goal of the policemen. These comparisons are there to show that even the most opposing figures can have a common ground.
Ultimately, in the end, the criminals do hand the murderer over to the police, and the murderer has a trial under the court of law. The point of the movie is not necessarily showing the fate for those who commit murders, but pointing out that they shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Sherlock Jr. Scene Analysis
In the last third of the movie Sherlock Jr., there is a scene where the detective, Sherlock Jr., jumps out of the window and into women's clothing to disguise himself from his pursuers. The scene starts out with a wide shot where Sherlock Jr. pops his head out of the car that he jumped into to ride to the location with the man who stole the pearls. When Sherlock Jr. pops his head out, he sees that there is another hitchhiker on the car, hits him on the head, and leaps out of the vehicle to see who the hitchhiker is.
The camera cuts to a full shot behind the car, showing that the hitchhiker is just a friend in disguise, with a circular package that contains a dress, with which Sherlock Jr. arranges in a fashion that can easily be accessed.
Next, the scene cuts to a three quarter shot of the man who stole the pearls in a room of men who he is trying to sell the pearls to. The men are quite excited over the pearls, and this shows that the pearls are indeed of great value. The scene cuts back to the full shot of Sherlock Jr. and he points in the other direction for the other man to hide. After, the camera shows a full length shot of the front of the building, which Sherlock Jr. runs in front of, and places the circular dress package in the window, and then he proceeds to stand and sway in front of the door, to draw attention to himself to the men on the inside.
The scene cuts back to the three quarter shot of the men in the building, and as they have seem to come to an agreement, the man who stole the pearls turns to leave, but then turns back when he notices Sherlock Jr. standing in the doorway. Next, the scene cuts to a mid shot of Sherlock Jr. to show that he is still standing and swaying in the doorway. The scene goes back to the shot of the men, and they leave their positions to get Sherlock Jr. The scene cuts back again to Sherlock, and he is shown from the side getting snatched into the doorway. Once again, the scene is back to the same shot of the room with the men, and Sherlock has been pulled in, searched and they take his gun. To show that he is not someone to be messed with, he takes the man who standing to the left's pocket watch even thought that same man just stole his. This shows Sherlock Jr. is sly, and they trade pocket watches back. Next, a mid shot of the man who took Sherlock's pocket watch is shown and then the scene cuts back to the shot of the room, where the man who stole the pearls points to another room, which when Sherlock looks in, he seems quite frightened. The scene cuts to a full shot of the other room where a man is in a full sized cage. After, the shot goes to a mid shot of Sherlock and the pearl thief, and then a text screen appears saying "That's a detective. When he's dead I'll put you in there," with the indication that the pearl thief said it. After, the shot goes back to Sherlock and the pearl thief. Then the screen shoots to another text post with the pearl thief saying, "And now I'll tell you where our little sweetie is this minute!" After, the shot goes back to Sherlock and the man where the man begins to describe where the woman is.
A fade in establishing shot of a barn and a car is shown and a man is forcibly taking the woman into the building. Next, a mid shot of inside the building is shown, he locks her in and she distressed she jumps up. This cut scene indicates that this is where the woman is being held. The scene cuts back to the same shot Sherlock Jr and the thief, and a text box comes up with the thief saying, "And she's there waiting for me." Back to the shot of Sherlock and the thief, he points to himself, indicating that the woman is there for him, and then gestures back to the man in the cage, meaning that Sherlock Jr will be locked inside while the thief goes to his woman.
This all leads up to the gag or the stunt shot. Next, the shot goes to outside the building where Sherlock is. The shot is somewhat of a long shot, but so that it shoes both the side and the front of the building, where the dress package is still sitting in the window. The side of the building fades away to show what is going on the interior, while still showing the exterior. This is not saying the side physically melted away, but to show what is going on the inside while still showing the outside of the building. Back to the scene of Sherlock and the thief, the thief waves the pearls in Sherlock Jr.'s face to brag, and in that moment, Sherlock snatches the pearls, jumps out the window through the package, and because the dress was inside, Sherlock is now wearing that dress as a disguise. The men in the building run outside, but cannot find Sherlock Jr. because they do not realize that he is now in the woman's clothing.
Each one of theses cuts and scenes all build up to that one shot, where Sherlock Jr. gets away. The way Keaton directs and shoots each shot seems ahead of his time, using techniques that were not the norm for films of the time. His trick shot and gags were innovators for film, and pushed the film industry into a new age.
The camera cuts to a full shot behind the car, showing that the hitchhiker is just a friend in disguise, with a circular package that contains a dress, with which Sherlock Jr. arranges in a fashion that can easily be accessed.
Next, the scene cuts to a three quarter shot of the man who stole the pearls in a room of men who he is trying to sell the pearls to. The men are quite excited over the pearls, and this shows that the pearls are indeed of great value. The scene cuts back to the full shot of Sherlock Jr. and he points in the other direction for the other man to hide. After, the camera shows a full length shot of the front of the building, which Sherlock Jr. runs in front of, and places the circular dress package in the window, and then he proceeds to stand and sway in front of the door, to draw attention to himself to the men on the inside.
The scene cuts back to the three quarter shot of the men in the building, and as they have seem to come to an agreement, the man who stole the pearls turns to leave, but then turns back when he notices Sherlock Jr. standing in the doorway. Next, the scene cuts to a mid shot of Sherlock Jr. to show that he is still standing and swaying in the doorway. The scene goes back to the shot of the men, and they leave their positions to get Sherlock Jr. The scene cuts back again to Sherlock, and he is shown from the side getting snatched into the doorway. Once again, the scene is back to the same shot of the room with the men, and Sherlock has been pulled in, searched and they take his gun. To show that he is not someone to be messed with, he takes the man who standing to the left's pocket watch even thought that same man just stole his. This shows Sherlock Jr. is sly, and they trade pocket watches back. Next, a mid shot of the man who took Sherlock's pocket watch is shown and then the scene cuts back to the shot of the room, where the man who stole the pearls points to another room, which when Sherlock looks in, he seems quite frightened. The scene cuts to a full shot of the other room where a man is in a full sized cage. After, the shot goes to a mid shot of Sherlock and the pearl thief, and then a text screen appears saying "That's a detective. When he's dead I'll put you in there," with the indication that the pearl thief said it. After, the shot goes back to Sherlock and the pearl thief. Then the screen shoots to another text post with the pearl thief saying, "And now I'll tell you where our little sweetie is this minute!" After, the shot goes back to Sherlock and the man where the man begins to describe where the woman is.
A fade in establishing shot of a barn and a car is shown and a man is forcibly taking the woman into the building. Next, a mid shot of inside the building is shown, he locks her in and she distressed she jumps up. This cut scene indicates that this is where the woman is being held. The scene cuts back to the same shot Sherlock Jr and the thief, and a text box comes up with the thief saying, "And she's there waiting for me." Back to the shot of Sherlock and the thief, he points to himself, indicating that the woman is there for him, and then gestures back to the man in the cage, meaning that Sherlock Jr will be locked inside while the thief goes to his woman.
This all leads up to the gag or the stunt shot. Next, the shot goes to outside the building where Sherlock is. The shot is somewhat of a long shot, but so that it shoes both the side and the front of the building, where the dress package is still sitting in the window. The side of the building fades away to show what is going on the interior, while still showing the exterior. This is not saying the side physically melted away, but to show what is going on the inside while still showing the outside of the building. Back to the scene of Sherlock and the thief, the thief waves the pearls in Sherlock Jr.'s face to brag, and in that moment, Sherlock snatches the pearls, jumps out the window through the package, and because the dress was inside, Sherlock is now wearing that dress as a disguise. The men in the building run outside, but cannot find Sherlock Jr. because they do not realize that he is now in the woman's clothing.
Each one of theses cuts and scenes all build up to that one shot, where Sherlock Jr. gets away. The way Keaton directs and shoots each shot seems ahead of his time, using techniques that were not the norm for films of the time. His trick shot and gags were innovators for film, and pushed the film industry into a new age.
Introduction
Hi! My name is Grace Hill. I am an Electronic Media student at the University of Cincinnati. I love watching and analyzing films and shows, even though I do not make time for it as often as I would like. My favorite movie is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Enjoy my blog posts for the class Going to the Movies: 20th Century Cinema!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)