The movie I screened was called Burn After Reading by The Cohen Brothers. The film was about a C.I.A. agent that writes his memoirs after being fired from his job only to have it fall into the hands of two very eccentric gym employees out to exploit their findings. The storyline sounded weak to me, but I went and saw it anyway. Big Mistake. This film had no heart. There was absolutely no emotional arc. It was more or less a mess of events meshed together around one memoir. It was obviously a satire of sorts, but it was also a waste of ten dollars.
A few points:
The story was told from a couple of points of view. There were multiple protagonists and it was hard to identify the antagonist. There was Linda Litzske, the self-conscious gym employee that only wants to have multiple cosmetic surgeries but has just had her insurance denied; Chad, a happy go lucky jock of sorts. He is also a gym employee. Osborne, who was played by John Malchovich, the C.I.A. agent with the memoirs that were stolen by his wife, the cold and stuck up pediatrician Katie who has plans to wipe out his accounts and leave him for George Clooney's character Harry.
The story begins with Osborne being fired from his job. When he tries to explain to his wife that he was fired from his job, all she can talk about is picking up cheez-itz. From there we find out that Harry and Katie are having an affair while the two of them are both married. Her plans are revealed that she wants to leave Osbourne for Harry after he wiping out all of his accounts leaving him penniless.
Then we meet Linda Litzke, the self-conscious Hard Bodies gym employee who has the same lawyer as Katie. He advises her to get the surgeries if it'll make her feel better about herself. I started to wonder, why is a lawyer telling his client to get surgery? I was a little confused as to who he was: A therapist or a lawyer.
The rest of the film was slow. There wasn't much going on except that Chad, Brad Pitt's character gets killed for absolutely no reason after hiding out in Osbourne's closet in hopes of finding out more information about him. He and Linda Litzke got their hands on his memoirs after a disk containing the information was found at their job, The Hardbodies Gym.
After Harry kills Chad, the story basically takes a downward spiral from there. Events were meshed together, there were no reveals about the connection between Harry killing Chad and his new concubine Linda looking for him, how the C.I.A and Harry were connected in the first place was never revealed so that the audience was just left confused, dumbfounded and without the two hours of their lives they just wasted.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Anchorman - Posted on Behalf of Sam Walthall
Sam Walthall
Second Blog
This week I watched ‘Anchorman.’ I was definitely able to trace the text’s information on narrative form from the very beginning of this film. It starts off with a third person narration, about the story of news anchorman, Ron Burgundy. In the exposition, Ron Burgundy is seen at his desk at the news studio, preparing to go on the air. These scenes establish the protagonist as a vain and selfish news reporter in everyday life. Then, when Veronica Corningstone starts working at the news station, Ron’s goal is to restore equilibrium in his life; before Veronica, he was number one. Direct address is used in the opening of the film – each major character introduces themselves to the audience. When Veronica gets to the station, she introduces her character through first person narration. After the characters are all established, the film switches to a consistently narrative storytelling form. The plot (syuzhet) also introduces obstacles for Ron, in this case primarily through the actions and desires of others (Veronica). In this type of comedy, backstory often doesn’t enter the plotline, but it does meet the three act narrative form in that the plot follows what the first paragraph of page sixty-eight establishes; the film introduces characters and takes them through different obstacles from their antagonist. There are power shifts between Ron and Veronica, such as when she types on the teleprompter and ruins Ron’s career. The film also achieves a climax in a bear pit at the zoo, and ends with proper closure for each relationship (Ron and Vince Vaughn’s character, Ron and Baxter, Ron and his fans), and specifically the one between protagonist and antagonist – Ron Burgundy and Veronica Corningstone.
Second Blog
This week I watched ‘Anchorman.’ I was definitely able to trace the text’s information on narrative form from the very beginning of this film. It starts off with a third person narration, about the story of news anchorman, Ron Burgundy. In the exposition, Ron Burgundy is seen at his desk at the news studio, preparing to go on the air. These scenes establish the protagonist as a vain and selfish news reporter in everyday life. Then, when Veronica Corningstone starts working at the news station, Ron’s goal is to restore equilibrium in his life; before Veronica, he was number one. Direct address is used in the opening of the film – each major character introduces themselves to the audience. When Veronica gets to the station, she introduces her character through first person narration. After the characters are all established, the film switches to a consistently narrative storytelling form. The plot (syuzhet) also introduces obstacles for Ron, in this case primarily through the actions and desires of others (Veronica). In this type of comedy, backstory often doesn’t enter the plotline, but it does meet the three act narrative form in that the plot follows what the first paragraph of page sixty-eight establishes; the film introduces characters and takes them through different obstacles from their antagonist. There are power shifts between Ron and Veronica, such as when she types on the teleprompter and ruins Ron’s career. The film also achieves a climax in a bear pit at the zoo, and ends with proper closure for each relationship (Ron and Vince Vaughn’s character, Ron and Baxter, Ron and his fans), and specifically the one between protagonist and antagonist – Ron Burgundy and Veronica Corningstone.
Equilibrium (2002) - Directed by Kurt Wimmer
In a Fascist future where all forms of feeling are illegal, a man in charge of enforcing the law rises to overthrow the system.
---
The first time I saw this movie, I was amazed by the kick ass fight scenes and the size of Christian Bale's biceps; I kid you not. The second time I saw this movie, I rushed to IMDB.com to see if anybody else felt as passionately about it as I did -- I was met with mixed results. This is one of those movies where you won't enjoy it if you have to focus on suspending your disbelief; you just have to take it at face value and not wonder about the science behind a drug that can suppress human emotion or the incredible geometry of the fight scenes.
Equilibrium is a movie about humans fighting to regain the right to feel; but you won't have to look hard beneath the surface to uncover it's jabs about depression medication such as prozac and librium. Especially not with a city named Libria who's inhabitants are doped up on a drug called Prozium which turns them into emotionally suppressed zombies -- all except for the hierarchy, who are emotionally suppressed fighting machines. In Libria's world, medication prevents the idea of ever having to suffer through another nuclear war (because by their time, WWIII has come and gone). They are bent on destroying emotion triggers, such as music, paintings, art, and especially books. If you look at how many people are medicated in our day and age, it's not hard to believe that people might turn to a drug like Prozium to keep them from doing harm to one another.
Throughout the film, Christian Bale's character, John Preston, struggles to overcome Prozium; and once he does, he wants that struggle to be worth something. He wants everyone to see the beauty he sees and the horrors he's witnessed -- because without feeling, what is the point of breathing? As one character says, "it's just a clock ticking down to your death."
Back to prozac and librium, we must assume that based on this movie, people on prozac are suppressing their pain. What's the alternative the movie presents? Therapy. Talk therapy. Because that's how John Preseton makes it through the turmoil -- the more he talks, the more the wool is pulled back from his eyes, the more he is able to appreciate art and books, the more he is moved to tears by a Beethoven record, the more he is able to "do the right thing" -- and the right thing is: defeat the big, bad government who is behind the production of prozac -- I mean prozium.
Edit:
I would like to add some thoughts and comments about the narration and representation of the characters in the film.
An important aspect of the film that I neglected to touch on in my original post is the idea of being a "sense offender". Sense offenders are part of an underground movement in which people cease "taking the dose", or stop their daily intervals of prozium. It is Preston's job as Cleric to destroy contraband (music, books, art, etc.) and to bring offenders in for processing. Processing is really just a neutral term for execution; Father, (like Big Brother from the novel 1984) the leader of the current government, decided that sense offenders must be put to death so as to set an example and keep people from endangering society.
Preston's journey begins by accident: his prozium capsule breaks and he is unable to get a replacement. He begins to feel and claws the coverings off his window to behold the beauty of the sunrise. This is extremely huge for him -- he's never experienced anything like this and runs into the bathroom to try and inject himself with a new dose. When he catches sight of himself in the mirror, he realizes just how ridiculous he looks with an injection gun pointed at his neck.
Moments such as this, which are untraditional in many films because they portray a character's inner struggle, are frequent throughout the film -- but that's why I like it so much! I think the writer knew what he was doing because although film is supposed to show you how a character feels through events, it is still successful if the translation of a character's emotions comes across. This writing is successful because I can easily understand the point of view of the character.
I can understand why he would want to look at footage of his wife's processing which struck him once he realized that his new love interest was about to be sentenced to death because he brought her in for processing.
I can understand why he would rescue a copy of Mother Goose from a sense offender's hide out even though his best friend and fellow Cleric did the exact same thing at the beginning of the film.
I can understand why he would rescue the most adorable little puppy ever from being executed simply because as humans, we see and empathize with the puppy's vulnerability.
I am struck by the power of these moments even though we really should be witnessing events as opposed to moments of character clarity. As a writing major, this makes me question whether or not it's okay to pass up the chance to write a moment like one of these. I say go for it -- especially if it could move an audience the way I was moved.
Then again, Christian Bale is one hell of an actor...
---
The first time I saw this movie, I was amazed by the kick ass fight scenes and the size of Christian Bale's biceps; I kid you not. The second time I saw this movie, I rushed to IMDB.com to see if anybody else felt as passionately about it as I did -- I was met with mixed results. This is one of those movies where you won't enjoy it if you have to focus on suspending your disbelief; you just have to take it at face value and not wonder about the science behind a drug that can suppress human emotion or the incredible geometry of the fight scenes.
Equilibrium is a movie about humans fighting to regain the right to feel; but you won't have to look hard beneath the surface to uncover it's jabs about depression medication such as prozac and librium. Especially not with a city named Libria who's inhabitants are doped up on a drug called Prozium which turns them into emotionally suppressed zombies -- all except for the hierarchy, who are emotionally suppressed fighting machines. In Libria's world, medication prevents the idea of ever having to suffer through another nuclear war (because by their time, WWIII has come and gone). They are bent on destroying emotion triggers, such as music, paintings, art, and especially books. If you look at how many people are medicated in our day and age, it's not hard to believe that people might turn to a drug like Prozium to keep them from doing harm to one another.
Throughout the film, Christian Bale's character, John Preston, struggles to overcome Prozium; and once he does, he wants that struggle to be worth something. He wants everyone to see the beauty he sees and the horrors he's witnessed -- because without feeling, what is the point of breathing? As one character says, "it's just a clock ticking down to your death."
Back to prozac and librium, we must assume that based on this movie, people on prozac are suppressing their pain. What's the alternative the movie presents? Therapy. Talk therapy. Because that's how John Preseton makes it through the turmoil -- the more he talks, the more the wool is pulled back from his eyes, the more he is able to appreciate art and books, the more he is moved to tears by a Beethoven record, the more he is able to "do the right thing" -- and the right thing is: defeat the big, bad government who is behind the production of prozac -- I mean prozium.
Edit:
I would like to add some thoughts and comments about the narration and representation of the characters in the film.
An important aspect of the film that I neglected to touch on in my original post is the idea of being a "sense offender". Sense offenders are part of an underground movement in which people cease "taking the dose", or stop their daily intervals of prozium. It is Preston's job as Cleric to destroy contraband (music, books, art, etc.) and to bring offenders in for processing. Processing is really just a neutral term for execution; Father, (like Big Brother from the novel 1984) the leader of the current government, decided that sense offenders must be put to death so as to set an example and keep people from endangering society.
Preston's journey begins by accident: his prozium capsule breaks and he is unable to get a replacement. He begins to feel and claws the coverings off his window to behold the beauty of the sunrise. This is extremely huge for him -- he's never experienced anything like this and runs into the bathroom to try and inject himself with a new dose. When he catches sight of himself in the mirror, he realizes just how ridiculous he looks with an injection gun pointed at his neck.
Moments such as this, which are untraditional in many films because they portray a character's inner struggle, are frequent throughout the film -- but that's why I like it so much! I think the writer knew what he was doing because although film is supposed to show you how a character feels through events, it is still successful if the translation of a character's emotions comes across. This writing is successful because I can easily understand the point of view of the character.
I can understand why he would want to look at footage of his wife's processing which struck him once he realized that his new love interest was about to be sentenced to death because he brought her in for processing.
I can understand why he would rescue a copy of Mother Goose from a sense offender's hide out even though his best friend and fellow Cleric did the exact same thing at the beginning of the film.
I can understand why he would rescue the most adorable little puppy ever from being executed simply because as humans, we see and empathize with the puppy's vulnerability.
I am struck by the power of these moments even though we really should be witnessing events as opposed to moments of character clarity. As a writing major, this makes me question whether or not it's okay to pass up the chance to write a moment like one of these. I say go for it -- especially if it could move an audience the way I was moved.
Then again, Christian Bale is one hell of an actor...
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Ferraro - "Boy Eats Girl"
"Boy Eats Girl"
Directed by Stephen Bradley
2005
"Boy Eats Girl" is somewhat a mix of thriller and comedy. A boy confesses his love to the girl of his dreams, only to get killed later that night. He is ressurected, however, becoming a flesh-craving zombie who unwittingly infects others. And.... that's it. Seriously.
This film, which I came across on On Demand because the summary sounded too funny, lacks the structure that would normally make a movie enjoyable. Most movies have three to four act structures. This one seemed pretty straight forward; no act 1 decision, no clear mid-point, no identifiable beats, no plot points. Just basically from heart break, to death, to lots of blood, then the end. We don't even know who's suppose to be the protagonist and antagonist. The fim leads us to believe it's the boy, but near the end he tries to eat his friends and it's the girl (whose name comes first, and is up front and center on the promotional poster) who fends him off.
Although there is closure in the end, the boy getting the girl he loves, the only character change he gets is from alive to dead then alive again. We see his want (the girl) but he doesn't change to meet his need. The characters are one-sided and their personalities are flat, so it's impossible to connect with them. We don't even have any sympathy for the mother, who accidently kills her son and then performs a forbidden ritual to bring him back to life. We don't see her reaction to his death, we don't see how it affects her, nor do we see her drive to bring him back. She hangs him, then BOOM, he's suddenly waking up in the morning and she's cleaning her hands. She is worried, but so what? There's no suspense. We can only assume he's somehow a zombie, but nothing is there to keep us on the edge.
So yeah, this film was a flop for me. Maybe picking a thriller, thinking it was more of a comedy, and expecting to report a narrative structure on it wasn't too brilliant on my part. However, "Boy Eats Girl" does give a good example of what film has little to no structure.
Directed by Stephen Bradley
2005
"Boy Eats Girl" is somewhat a mix of thriller and comedy. A boy confesses his love to the girl of his dreams, only to get killed later that night. He is ressurected, however, becoming a flesh-craving zombie who unwittingly infects others. And.... that's it. Seriously.
This film, which I came across on On Demand because the summary sounded too funny, lacks the structure that would normally make a movie enjoyable. Most movies have three to four act structures. This one seemed pretty straight forward; no act 1 decision, no clear mid-point, no identifiable beats, no plot points. Just basically from heart break, to death, to lots of blood, then the end. We don't even know who's suppose to be the protagonist and antagonist. The fim leads us to believe it's the boy, but near the end he tries to eat his friends and it's the girl (whose name comes first, and is up front and center on the promotional poster) who fends him off.
Although there is closure in the end, the boy getting the girl he loves, the only character change he gets is from alive to dead then alive again. We see his want (the girl) but he doesn't change to meet his need. The characters are one-sided and their personalities are flat, so it's impossible to connect with them. We don't even have any sympathy for the mother, who accidently kills her son and then performs a forbidden ritual to bring him back to life. We don't see her reaction to his death, we don't see how it affects her, nor do we see her drive to bring him back. She hangs him, then BOOM, he's suddenly waking up in the morning and she's cleaning her hands. She is worried, but so what? There's no suspense. We can only assume he's somehow a zombie, but nothing is there to keep us on the edge.
So yeah, this film was a flop for me. Maybe picking a thriller, thinking it was more of a comedy, and expecting to report a narrative structure on it wasn't too brilliant on my part. However, "Boy Eats Girl" does give a good example of what film has little to no structure.
Street Thief
When i heard about street thief the other day from my brother i had to immediately add it to my netflix list. This is a documentary from A&E indie films. The director is Malik Bader, a newcomer to the film world. The director is also the star, Kasper Carr. Kasper Carr is a burglar by trade, and this film chronicles his methods. The film opens up with him robbing a supermarket, and then it goes into a series of interviews with Carr, and behind the scenes shots on how to be a criminal. What makes this particular film stand out from all others i have seen, is that it is a documentary that is completely made up but it is not a mockumentary like the angle that most of these contrived accounts take. The character of Kasper Carr is played by the director and played extremely well. It is mostly filmed with a hand held camera, with a few scenes done with a tri pod for interviews. Going into the film i knew how it was done, but i became completely immersed in the character of Carr and was believing everything he said and did. At one point in the film Carr calls off the whole project when one of the cameramen gets spooked when Carr allows them to come on a job. That was a huge emotional pull for me, i felt for him and i was just as angry he was. Most of the film is shot at night when Carr does his "casing" of a "joint" and this is the most interesting part of the film. Seeing the ins and outs of how to rob a store or hot wire a car are so gritty and then you have to remember that it is all contrived, and you think "wow this director has some serious creativity. This is definitely one of the most creative and ambitious films i have seen in a while. I will back up my claims because i know those two words are weak without support. Its ambitious in the sense that if you do not write a believable character or get the right actor to carry it out it will fail on every single level. Also they created a relationship between Carr and the documentary team that was extremely tense and raw.
The Prestige
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Based on the novel by Christopher Priest
Adapted Screenplay by Christopher and Jonathan Nolan
"Are you watching closley?"
They are the first words in the film, The Prestiege and the key to understanding the movie. The Prestiege is a film based off of Christopher Priest's novel of the same name. The basic plot of the story revolves around two magicians. Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) are two friends trying to make it as magicians, but when Alfred may or may not have caused the death of Angier's wife, the two friends become enemies. Each one sabatoge the other's magic shows for their own gain. And just when you think you've figured out which one has won, the film pulls yet another twist that turns the whole movie around and leaves you with an ending that you're sure to re-watch. I won't go into great detail about the big twist and reveal in order not to spoil it for you.
The emphasis I would lik to concetrate on is how Christopher Nolan decides to show the narrative. The film goes in no chronolical order. The film starts out revealing the death of Angier and the trial of the man believed to be his killer, Borden. For one, what you think you know is part of the trick. You spend most of the film beleving that Angier is dead, until the climax of the film when you find that he is alive and it's just another twist. The story's only connecting point are two journals. Borden reads Angier's journal while in prison, while Angier is reading Borden's journal in his search for an anwser in Borden's journal. The film never really goes into chronolical order until the end. While this may seem confusing, it's represented well in the film and comes together nicley in the third act.
The Nolan brothers also do an important rethinking of the story. In the novel, Angier's clones are killed almost instently. The Nolan brothers change this which provieds a bit of mystique to the film and a question that is never truley anwsered and is up to the audience to decipher it for their own.
The film also deals with many different themes and genres. Angier is a man obsessed with getting revenge, while Borden is a man who is literally living a double life. While the film is mainly a drama, it can also be seen as science fiction. In fact, Angier does acquire a machine that creates a clone of himself. And then the film switches roles. It makes Borden wanting revenge on Angier. And then it becomes who will have the last laugh. And if you follow the instructions given to you in the very beginning of the film and watch very closley, you'll see both men's sacrafice or a magic trick.
-Christopher Bergeris
Based on the novel by Christopher Priest
Adapted Screenplay by Christopher and Jonathan Nolan
"Are you watching closley?"
They are the first words in the film, The Prestiege and the key to understanding the movie. The Prestiege is a film based off of Christopher Priest's novel of the same name. The basic plot of the story revolves around two magicians. Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) are two friends trying to make it as magicians, but when Alfred may or may not have caused the death of Angier's wife, the two friends become enemies. Each one sabatoge the other's magic shows for their own gain. And just when you think you've figured out which one has won, the film pulls yet another twist that turns the whole movie around and leaves you with an ending that you're sure to re-watch. I won't go into great detail about the big twist and reveal in order not to spoil it for you.
The emphasis I would lik to concetrate on is how Christopher Nolan decides to show the narrative. The film goes in no chronolical order. The film starts out revealing the death of Angier and the trial of the man believed to be his killer, Borden. For one, what you think you know is part of the trick. You spend most of the film beleving that Angier is dead, until the climax of the film when you find that he is alive and it's just another twist. The story's only connecting point are two journals. Borden reads Angier's journal while in prison, while Angier is reading Borden's journal in his search for an anwser in Borden's journal. The film never really goes into chronolical order until the end. While this may seem confusing, it's represented well in the film and comes together nicley in the third act.
The Nolan brothers also do an important rethinking of the story. In the novel, Angier's clones are killed almost instently. The Nolan brothers change this which provieds a bit of mystique to the film and a question that is never truley anwsered and is up to the audience to decipher it for their own.
The film also deals with many different themes and genres. Angier is a man obsessed with getting revenge, while Borden is a man who is literally living a double life. While the film is mainly a drama, it can also be seen as science fiction. In fact, Angier does acquire a machine that creates a clone of himself. And then the film switches roles. It makes Borden wanting revenge on Angier. And then it becomes who will have the last laugh. And if you follow the instructions given to you in the very beginning of the film and watch very closley, you'll see both men's sacrafice or a magic trick.
-Christopher Bergeris
What's In A Name?
"The Name's Bond. James Bond."
The last words of Casino Royale pretty much sum up the film. Especially considering that it was a prequel to the other films starring the greatest spy to ever spy: James Bond. My original viewing of Casino Royale left me in a state of awe that took me the entire opening weekend to get out of. My most recent viewing, in order to review it for this blog, brought about some new knowledge and observations that I hadn't noticed before. Especially in terms of the actual story of Casino Royale.
At first glance, this movie seems to be nothing more than "another Bond film" with another actor playing the infamous spy. Though, while I'll admit that my Inner Male was in love with the action sequences and stunts that came from awesome team behind Casino Royale, it was the story of how he became Bond that truly kept my interest.
I won't bore everyone with the details of how the plot progresses and the climax. It's a Bond film. He has sex with women, beats some people up, gets caught, uses gadgets and saves the world. That's what happens every time. In this movie, though, we get to see how this became the formula for a James Bond film. What makes this film different than the other ones, I think, is the way the story is told. It comes off different than most action films. It opens with a mysterious conversation and James getting his second of two kills needed to become "00" status within MI6. Which, for the record, shouldn't be confused with MI5. Anyway, the entire movie shows the evolution of James. He goes from being a new agent with more emotions than he should have to a man that doesn't have anything to lose. Which hints at the overconfident, devil may care attitude that the other films have filled James Bond with.
Casino Royale is a mystery as much as it's an action movie. While the audience knows who the villain is and what the villain is after, there are still so many different twists and turns that you can't help but to go along for the ride or try to keep up. The card game that the movie is named for isn't even the most exciting part of the movie... and it's not even the end. It sparks a whole new set of problems that James has to deal with in order to keep himself alive and complete the mission. In the process, James has to rid the world of a woman that he was growing to love. It puts a damper on the rest of his life and provides a history to his womanizing ways.
If you haven't seen Casino Royale, I highly recommend it. If not for the action packed sequences and awesome stunts, but for the story of how random agent from MI6 becomes a legend. It's a story that's been told over and over, but this story has heart. And without that, you don't have a film worth the reel it's printed on.
But that's just one man's opinion.
- Jason "Double-0-Token" Newbern
The last words of Casino Royale pretty much sum up the film. Especially considering that it was a prequel to the other films starring the greatest spy to ever spy: James Bond. My original viewing of Casino Royale left me in a state of awe that took me the entire opening weekend to get out of. My most recent viewing, in order to review it for this blog, brought about some new knowledge and observations that I hadn't noticed before. Especially in terms of the actual story of Casino Royale.
At first glance, this movie seems to be nothing more than "another Bond film" with another actor playing the infamous spy. Though, while I'll admit that my Inner Male was in love with the action sequences and stunts that came from awesome team behind Casino Royale, it was the story of how he became Bond that truly kept my interest.
I won't bore everyone with the details of how the plot progresses and the climax. It's a Bond film. He has sex with women, beats some people up, gets caught, uses gadgets and saves the world. That's what happens every time. In this movie, though, we get to see how this became the formula for a James Bond film. What makes this film different than the other ones, I think, is the way the story is told. It comes off different than most action films. It opens with a mysterious conversation and James getting his second of two kills needed to become "00" status within MI6. Which, for the record, shouldn't be confused with MI5. Anyway, the entire movie shows the evolution of James. He goes from being a new agent with more emotions than he should have to a man that doesn't have anything to lose. Which hints at the overconfident, devil may care attitude that the other films have filled James Bond with.
Casino Royale is a mystery as much as it's an action movie. While the audience knows who the villain is and what the villain is after, there are still so many different twists and turns that you can't help but to go along for the ride or try to keep up. The card game that the movie is named for isn't even the most exciting part of the movie... and it's not even the end. It sparks a whole new set of problems that James has to deal with in order to keep himself alive and complete the mission. In the process, James has to rid the world of a woman that he was growing to love. It puts a damper on the rest of his life and provides a history to his womanizing ways.
If you haven't seen Casino Royale, I highly recommend it. If not for the action packed sequences and awesome stunts, but for the story of how random agent from MI6 becomes a legend. It's a story that's been told over and over, but this story has heart. And without that, you don't have a film worth the reel it's printed on.
But that's just one man's opinion.
- Jason "Double-0-Token" Newbern
Memento
Director: Christopher Nolan
Year: 2000
"Memento" is a Chris Nolan's second stab at a character drama dealing with a compulsive, overly-obsessive protagonist. The film follows the main character as he tries to piece together the mystery of his wife's murder. Nothing new here...wrong. This film throws in the interesting plot device of the main protagonist having short term memory loss. Through editing and backwards storytelling, Nolan attempts to put the audience in the uncomfortable position of our hero while also giving a small message.
All the while the character tries to piece together his past with the help of the people around him, they're plotting to take advantage of him. Every homemade tattoo he puts on his body, he soon forgets the true meaning of. "Memento" drives home the theme of how unimportant, permanent things are by using the tattoos as tools that further the protagonist's confusion. Throughout the film, the hero talks to a person on the phone about a client of his from the past. Half way through, we're giving clues that let us know that he might exactly be the man he's talking about.
Everything about this film turns us on our heads. We're provided only the details we're supposed to have, just like the protagonist, but what we think we know is later prove to not be true. The main thing I got from this film was how unimportant memory can actually become if we don't have control of it. This man is possibly a mass killer only because he can't remember. The world of "Memento" is depicted as one where no one can be trusted and love can sometimes drive us to do unspeakable things.
Year: 2000
"Memento" is a Chris Nolan's second stab at a character drama dealing with a compulsive, overly-obsessive protagonist. The film follows the main character as he tries to piece together the mystery of his wife's murder. Nothing new here...wrong. This film throws in the interesting plot device of the main protagonist having short term memory loss. Through editing and backwards storytelling, Nolan attempts to put the audience in the uncomfortable position of our hero while also giving a small message.
All the while the character tries to piece together his past with the help of the people around him, they're plotting to take advantage of him. Every homemade tattoo he puts on his body, he soon forgets the true meaning of. "Memento" drives home the theme of how unimportant, permanent things are by using the tattoos as tools that further the protagonist's confusion. Throughout the film, the hero talks to a person on the phone about a client of his from the past. Half way through, we're giving clues that let us know that he might exactly be the man he's talking about.
Everything about this film turns us on our heads. We're provided only the details we're supposed to have, just like the protagonist, but what we think we know is later prove to not be true. The main thing I got from this film was how unimportant memory can actually become if we don't have control of it. This man is possibly a mass killer only because he can't remember. The world of "Memento" is depicted as one where no one can be trusted and love can sometimes drive us to do unspeakable things.
Elyse Stefanowicz - Ferris Buller's Day Off
Ferris Buller's Day Off
1986
Director - John Hughes
This film circles around a high schooler's dream to live the ultimate sick day. We meet a very sick Ferris Buller and his very concerned parents. They let him stay home from school and we soon learn that he isn't sick, he is planning to take the ultimate skip day. He pulls his girlfriend and best friend into joining into his scheme and they take the day to travel around and discover Chicago. They seem to narrowly dodge Ferris' mother and father and a very suspecting principle and yet have the time of their lives. They go to a baseball game, see a museum and even participate in a parade and still don't get caught. They make it home with minor war scars (Camron's dad's car being one) and learn a lot about their lives in one day. They live by the phrase--"Life moves by pretty fast, if you don't stop a look around once in awhile, you might miss it".
Since the first time I saw this film I've always loved it--it has everything, humor, drama and Matthew Brodrick. But when watching it for structures sake, I was surprised at how well written and composed it really was. It follows the three-act paradigm almost flawlessly and presents the characters with quite a dilemma, but still manages to be entertaining. The most interesting aspect I found was that the whole film is narrated in a diegetic form. Ferris lets us in on the world and what he is thinking simply by telling us. He steps out of the story constantly to assure the audience what is going on. Now this can be considered an easy way out to reveal exposition but in this film it adds to the story instead of taking away. Ferris' insight isn't only helpful but it is often very humorous. The audience even follows him into the shower which is usually somewhere that is kept separate. The diegetic element adds to the film as a whole and makes Ferris Buller's Day Off an enjoyable ride from beginning to end.
1986
Director - John Hughes
This film circles around a high schooler's dream to live the ultimate sick day. We meet a very sick Ferris Buller and his very concerned parents. They let him stay home from school and we soon learn that he isn't sick, he is planning to take the ultimate skip day. He pulls his girlfriend and best friend into joining into his scheme and they take the day to travel around and discover Chicago. They seem to narrowly dodge Ferris' mother and father and a very suspecting principle and yet have the time of their lives. They go to a baseball game, see a museum and even participate in a parade and still don't get caught. They make it home with minor war scars (Camron's dad's car being one) and learn a lot about their lives in one day. They live by the phrase--"Life moves by pretty fast, if you don't stop a look around once in awhile, you might miss it".
Since the first time I saw this film I've always loved it--it has everything, humor, drama and Matthew Brodrick. But when watching it for structures sake, I was surprised at how well written and composed it really was. It follows the three-act paradigm almost flawlessly and presents the characters with quite a dilemma, but still manages to be entertaining. The most interesting aspect I found was that the whole film is narrated in a diegetic form. Ferris lets us in on the world and what he is thinking simply by telling us. He steps out of the story constantly to assure the audience what is going on. Now this can be considered an easy way out to reveal exposition but in this film it adds to the story instead of taking away. Ferris' insight isn't only helpful but it is often very humorous. The audience even follows him into the shower which is usually somewhere that is kept separate. The diegetic element adds to the film as a whole and makes Ferris Buller's Day Off an enjoyable ride from beginning to end.
second post
Thank You For Smoking (2005)
Directed by: Jason Reitman
Nick Naylor is the chief lobbyist for the Academy of Tobacco Studies. He has the unique gift of being able to argue his way through anything, even if he isn't right. His job has a big effect on society, causing many people to hate him and give murder threats. But these are just part of the job for Nick. He's more interesting in doing his job "to pay for the mortgage." Nick's son, Joey, looks up to him like a god and wants to be just as good at arguing as his father. Life is looking good for Nick until the reporter he's been sleeping with, Heather Holloway, releases information he told her while they were having sex. Now Nick has to get his job and respect back.
This story's narrative is told in very sarcastic voice. Its exposition scenes set up this world where Nick is the king of representing the tobacco world. The opening is filled with non-diegetic images coming off cigarette cartons and old songs of how everyone should smoke. It really sets up a world that the tobacco industry wants people to believe, so therefore, the audience must be convinced as well.
The film uses Nick's voice over several times to tell the story, his thoughts, etc. This technique is used well with the type of story being told. Since the main character's job is to persuade people, his voice is used to persuade or explain the world as he sees it. The audience is under his control in a way. They are seeing the film essentially through his eyes and thoughts. Much of it is one-sided. In other movies, this could be limiting, but I think that it helped support the voice of the film. That voice is propaganda.
My main problem with the film was the development of Nick. I don't feel like he changed at the end. He was able to admit smoking was bad, but stood his ground and was able to win the case for the idustry, even though they had fired him. Afterwards, he works to teach others how to persuade the public that other products, even though are said to have health risks, don't. Other than that, the narrative aspects of this film were told in a very satirical, entertaining way.
Directed by: Jason Reitman
Nick Naylor is the chief lobbyist for the Academy of Tobacco Studies. He has the unique gift of being able to argue his way through anything, even if he isn't right. His job has a big effect on society, causing many people to hate him and give murder threats. But these are just part of the job for Nick. He's more interesting in doing his job "to pay for the mortgage." Nick's son, Joey, looks up to him like a god and wants to be just as good at arguing as his father. Life is looking good for Nick until the reporter he's been sleeping with, Heather Holloway, releases information he told her while they were having sex. Now Nick has to get his job and respect back.
This story's narrative is told in very sarcastic voice. Its exposition scenes set up this world where Nick is the king of representing the tobacco world. The opening is filled with non-diegetic images coming off cigarette cartons and old songs of how everyone should smoke. It really sets up a world that the tobacco industry wants people to believe, so therefore, the audience must be convinced as well.
The film uses Nick's voice over several times to tell the story, his thoughts, etc. This technique is used well with the type of story being told. Since the main character's job is to persuade people, his voice is used to persuade or explain the world as he sees it. The audience is under his control in a way. They are seeing the film essentially through his eyes and thoughts. Much of it is one-sided. In other movies, this could be limiting, but I think that it helped support the voice of the film. That voice is propaganda.
My main problem with the film was the development of Nick. I don't feel like he changed at the end. He was able to admit smoking was bad, but stood his ground and was able to win the case for the idustry, even though they had fired him. Afterwards, he works to teach others how to persuade the public that other products, even though are said to have health risks, don't. Other than that, the narrative aspects of this film were told in a very satirical, entertaining way.
Michael Clayton
Michael Clayton (2007)
Director: Tony Gilroy
Screenwriter: Tony Gilroy
Michael Clayton broke down the boundaries of typical lawyer drama, courtroom films. I was expecting a film that would be full of courtroom scenes and lawyers arguing on who gets what case. Most lawyer films, not all, have a tendency to make the final battle between the protagonist and the antagonist in the courtroom. Honestly, I’m sick of seeing that same scene over and over again. Every lawyer film can’t be as great as To Kill A Mockingbird and every lawyer can’t be self-obsessed. I’m incredibly pleased that Michael Clayton exceeded my expectations.
The beginning starts with a voiceover from Arthur Edens played by a brilliant Tom Wilkinson. He’s in a tyrant over something that is bothering him and whatever it is, the world needs to know. As he’s talking the camera goes through the corridors of a firm and then he stops talking once a bunch of workers are seen together about this “big” secret. Marty Bach portrayed by Sydney Pollack is on the phone with a reporter asking him about his opinion on this case that the audience doesn’t know about yet. At first it was annoying me that Gilroy wanted to leave the audience in the dark on this mystery case but I realized that was the creative device that made me want to watch more. The beginning really took me for a loop because I had know clue what was going on. Then, we finally meet Michael Clayton portrayed by George Clooney and I believe this was the best character he’s ever played. Michael is driving near the snowy woods and he gets out of his car. On a hill these horses mesmerize him as he walks closer and closer to them. Gilroy did a tremendous job of foreshadowing something big was going to happen. The three horses all had this sad look on their faces as if they knew trouble was brewing. Two of the horses didn’t face Michael and the only one horse faced him. It was incredible how these horses interacted with Michael. Michael tears up, which showed me that he was obviously in a rock and hard place. Then, Michael’s car blows up. From that moment of the film, I was hooked.
The story begins from four days earlier and Gilroy does an incredible job telling a story that happens over the course of four days and the aftermath of Michael’s car being bombed. Michael is asked to advise the senior litigator of Michael’s firm Arthur Edens. A manic depressive who lives in a child-like world that only his pills can bring him back to reality and Michael is given the job to make sure Arthur stays sane after he strips naked in a disposition. Arthur develops this odd fascination with a young lady who’s apart of a major lawsuit, which the audience still doesn’t know about. As the viewer, all we know that this lawsuit could potentially ruin this firm forever. Michael is labeled as the “bagman” and “the fixer” because he cleans and fixes everyone’s problems. Arthur’s guilt is killing him and he wants Michael to reveal that the firm is trying to protect a company’s (UNorth) pesticide that caused serious human tissue damage and cancer in thousands of people. Michael still doesn’t know but it is only assumed when Karen Crowder played by Tilda Swinton orders the death of Arthur and Michael. One man dies and one sees the light of truth.
Michael deals with being a father, having an estranged brother, being in debt, and having a career role that he doesn’t necessarily want. George Clooney exhibited a character that had all of the intelligence and maturity of great lawyer but allowed people to take advantage of him. The fact that Michael took it upon himself to clean up people’s law “mess” made him like a prostitute being sold for his worth and the pleasure he gave to law bending citizens. His character arc showed a man who finally admitted to himself that he was fixing everyone else’s problems but his own. I believe this was Clooney’s best role because he made a complex character easier to understand and he made Michael relatable. Sometimes characters with not “everyday” jobs like a waiter or a secretary are not easy to understand because not everyone will be a lawyer. Most films portray lawyers to be obsessed with winning cases and nothing else matters, by the end of the film they realize winning isn’t everything. That is way too typical. Michael Clayton was a surprisingly engaging film from the beginning to the end and, contrary to belief, this film wasn’t overrated. If you don’t want to tune into an archetypal lawyer film where 50% of the film takes place in a courtroom, I highly suggest this film. Michael Clayton delves into the psyche of a lawyer and the guilt most lawyers conceal when they take on cases that are not only incriminating but morally disgusting.
The Devil's Rejects
The Devil’s Rejects
The film set’s up its exposition with a montage of Polaroid photos of murdered human beings. This immediately gives the viewer the sensation that the film is going to deal a lot with murder and the people who committed these murders. While this montage is taking place a voice-over comes in explaining the upcoming scene where Sheriff Wydell and a large group of police officers invade a decaying farmhouse where the Devil’s Rejects live and commit their heinous acts.
When the scene actually begins, it shows a group of police vehicles moving in and surrounding the farmhouse that is completely dilapidated with broken bottles, rotting pig heads, and dead shrubbery. This gives the viewer a feeling of disgust and chaos. The scene then proceeds to a short montage of showing the police officers getting out of their vehicles and pulling out their weapons. It then cuts to a close up shot of Sheriff Wydell who begins important dialogue in the exposition with another officer that gives the viewer a good understanding of what his character is all about.(Sheriff Wydell: “Mr. Dobson, It’s time for us to do what the good lord would refer to as a cleansin of the wicked. And what my brother George, god rest his soul, would call a hundred percent
An example of a non-diegetic element within the film is when the Devil’s rejects escape the raid at their farmhouse and proceed to a motel in which they capture a touring group of musicians and hold them captive in their motel room. The audience knows that the group of musicians have no way of surviving their capture, however, the musicians cooperate with all of their demands thinking that it will help them get out of their predicament. This makes the viewer feel remorse for the musicians and adds to the drama and suspense of the film.
One of the key turning points of the narrative structure is when Sheriff Wydell throws away his sense of fair justice and murders one of the Devil’s Rejects he captured in cold blood, making his character become more insane, just like the characters of the Devil’s Rejects family. This turning point is what makes the film so suspenseful because you have two evils fighting against each other.
Brian Herron
2nd Movie Review
Walking Tall (2004)
Director: Kevin Bray
The other night I turned my TV on to see that Walking Tall, a movie staring the more famously recognized, The Rock, born Dwayne Johnson. I wasn’t expecting much but was pleasantly surprised in the end. The movie follows a man recently returning from the US army after serving for eight years. He is Special Forces Sergeant, Chris Vaugh, When Chris arrives in his home town seeking a job at the local mill he is shocked to find out it has been closed for six months, and that a former classmate of his named Jay has opened the Wild Cherry Casino that is now generating the small town’s revenue.
Chris meets up with his best friend Ray, Johnny Knoxville, and the two attend a friendly football game with their old buddies. The game turns ugly and this is the last thing Chris was anticipating for a welcome home. Ray and Chris are invited to join the boys at Jay’s casino that night but Chris quickly gets into a fight and is badly beaten by the casino thugs after he notices one of the dealers is cheating. This is a rude awakening or Chris, but not as bad as soon after when his young nephew Pete has an overdose on crystal meth supplied by the casino thugs. Now Chris is out for revenge with a 2 by 4 and destroys the casino. After a trial he is found innocent and is voted to be the new sheriff. He’s on a mission to clean the town up and he’ll do anything it takes. The remainder of the movie is basically Chris and Ray, now the only police in town, kicking everyone’s ass who deserves it and ultimately defeats Jay and the other criminal/mobsters in a bloody battle.
The movie is clearly a high concept film with an organized and structural story line. Its easy to follow and simple, but the actors provoke real emotion from an audience. There is great comic relief on Johnny Knoxville’s part and The Rock’s character is one you want to root for especially toward the end, which is usually what we hope or in a protagonist. There is some inventive action scenes and definitely great fight scenes. Some of the lines are corny but it isn’t overwhelmingly bad. It’s a film of pure entertainment that provides the audience with relatable characters in a believable and realistic situation. It makes the viewer put themselves in the character’s shoes, and the father in the film, played by John Beasley, provides a source of wisdom and honor that only lend themselves to the story. I thought the movie was really enjoyable and a nice break from your serious indie film. The characters weren’t cookie cutter and the locations made the movie that much more unique. It wasn’t up for any awards but was definitely worth my time. It’s a movie you can really get into if you like to see the bad guy lose, which most of us do, and the bad guy, Jay, was the kind we love to hate while still managing to be manipulatively charming. The story has a good message and shows what happens when someone really needs to stand up for what they know is right. We should all learn a thing for two from Walking Tall.
Director: Kevin Bray
The other night I turned my TV on to see that Walking Tall, a movie staring the more famously recognized, The Rock, born Dwayne Johnson. I wasn’t expecting much but was pleasantly surprised in the end. The movie follows a man recently returning from the US army after serving for eight years. He is Special Forces Sergeant, Chris Vaugh, When Chris arrives in his home town seeking a job at the local mill he is shocked to find out it has been closed for six months, and that a former classmate of his named Jay has opened the Wild Cherry Casino that is now generating the small town’s revenue.
Chris meets up with his best friend Ray, Johnny Knoxville, and the two attend a friendly football game with their old buddies. The game turns ugly and this is the last thing Chris was anticipating for a welcome home. Ray and Chris are invited to join the boys at Jay’s casino that night but Chris quickly gets into a fight and is badly beaten by the casino thugs after he notices one of the dealers is cheating. This is a rude awakening or Chris, but not as bad as soon after when his young nephew Pete has an overdose on crystal meth supplied by the casino thugs. Now Chris is out for revenge with a 2 by 4 and destroys the casino. After a trial he is found innocent and is voted to be the new sheriff. He’s on a mission to clean the town up and he’ll do anything it takes. The remainder of the movie is basically Chris and Ray, now the only police in town, kicking everyone’s ass who deserves it and ultimately defeats Jay and the other criminal/mobsters in a bloody battle.
The movie is clearly a high concept film with an organized and structural story line. Its easy to follow and simple, but the actors provoke real emotion from an audience. There is great comic relief on Johnny Knoxville’s part and The Rock’s character is one you want to root for especially toward the end, which is usually what we hope or in a protagonist. There is some inventive action scenes and definitely great fight scenes. Some of the lines are corny but it isn’t overwhelmingly bad. It’s a film of pure entertainment that provides the audience with relatable characters in a believable and realistic situation. It makes the viewer put themselves in the character’s shoes, and the father in the film, played by John Beasley, provides a source of wisdom and honor that only lend themselves to the story. I thought the movie was really enjoyable and a nice break from your serious indie film. The characters weren’t cookie cutter and the locations made the movie that much more unique. It wasn’t up for any awards but was definitely worth my time. It’s a movie you can really get into if you like to see the bad guy lose, which most of us do, and the bad guy, Jay, was the kind we love to hate while still managing to be manipulatively charming. The story has a good message and shows what happens when someone really needs to stand up for what they know is right. We should all learn a thing for two from Walking Tall.
Amadeus (1984)
Amadeus, directed by Milos Forman, is a biopic piece based on the
genius composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart released in 1984. The film is
the masterpiece in Forman's library, which includes the other powerful
biopic pieces Man On The Moon and The People Versus Larry Flint.
Amadeus is a film that is set in simpler times, in a more minimalist
world; but in this Forman has created a grand spectacle without the
requirement of special effects. The film consists of many simple
techniques that coincide with the time era of the film. While the
sets are extremely elaborate and seemingly over the top, the way the
film is shot and presented is simple to the eye. Forman uses a melody
of shot styles throughout the film to accomplish this task. During
the opera scenes he weaves in and out of long shots, mid shots and
close-ups. There also exists a form of parallel action in a sense as
Salieri (Mozart's rival composer) tells the story of his downfall simultaneous to the rise of
Amadeus. Forman's camera movement seems to be minimal as well. There
do exist some tracking movements; most notably at the beginning of
the film as Amadeus is chasing his love through the palace before his
performance. Most of the film seems to be shot very stationary and movement
is held to a bare minimal.
Of course what could be the most outstanding element of Amadeus
the soundtrack and beautiful score. Amadeus has sound coming from all
over the place as you would anticipate before viewing it and the sound
drives the film into its classical core. Where special affects
are the spectacle in most films that keep the viewer on the edge of
their seat, the score of Amadeus is its own special effect. The songs of
Mozart have been heard through generations, in the film though they
are presented in a new way that creates a freshness to the sounds of
old and now the present day viewer has more visualization with
the melodic notes than just a man wearing a gray wig, flailing his arms
frantically. The soundtrack is mostly light consisting mainly of
dialogue, and a wide array of subtleties that give way for the score
to be purposefully overpowering. The film's score is composite of
classical and opera. The most intelligent and innovative way the score
stuck out to me was during a scene where Mozart is seen at his desk
working on his newest opera "Requiem." The score is playing, he is seen writing
and as a character enters the room and breaks his concentration it is
realized that the score was a representation of what was going on in
Mozart's chaotic mind. Amadeus also makes use of a voice-over track
provided by the character of Salieri. It is he who is telling the story of Amadeus
through his eyes and each new scene is introduced to the viewer through his story telling.
Amadeus is a journey into biopic filmmaking that gives the
viewer a history lesson while keeping the interest level high. The film was
a triumph in 1984 winning 8 Oscars including best picture and best
director. Amadeus is in the top 100 films of all time and is a
timeless masterpiece that can be used in both studies and enjoyment
for decades to come.
genius composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart released in 1984. The film is
the masterpiece in Forman's library, which includes the other powerful
biopic pieces Man On The Moon and The People Versus Larry Flint.
Amadeus is a film that is set in simpler times, in a more minimalist
world; but in this Forman has created a grand spectacle without the
requirement of special effects. The film consists of many simple
techniques that coincide with the time era of the film. While the
sets are extremely elaborate and seemingly over the top, the way the
film is shot and presented is simple to the eye. Forman uses a melody
of shot styles throughout the film to accomplish this task. During
the opera scenes he weaves in and out of long shots, mid shots and
close-ups. There also exists a form of parallel action in a sense as
Salieri (Mozart's rival composer) tells the story of his downfall simultaneous to the rise of
Amadeus. Forman's camera movement seems to be minimal as well. There
do exist some tracking movements; most notably at the beginning of
the film as Amadeus is chasing his love through the palace before his
performance. Most of the film seems to be shot very stationary and movement
is held to a bare minimal.
Of course what could be the most outstanding element of Amadeus
the soundtrack and beautiful score. Amadeus has sound coming from all
over the place as you would anticipate before viewing it and the sound
drives the film into its classical core. Where special affects
are the spectacle in most films that keep the viewer on the edge of
their seat, the score of Amadeus is its own special effect. The songs of
Mozart have been heard through generations, in the film though they
are presented in a new way that creates a freshness to the sounds of
old and now the present day viewer has more visualization with
the melodic notes than just a man wearing a gray wig, flailing his arms
frantically. The soundtrack is mostly light consisting mainly of
dialogue, and a wide array of subtleties that give way for the score
to be purposefully overpowering. The film's score is composite of
classical and opera. The most intelligent and innovative way the score
stuck out to me was during a scene where Mozart is seen at his desk
working on his newest opera "Requiem." The score is playing, he is seen writing
and as a character enters the room and breaks his concentration it is
realized that the score was a representation of what was going on in
Mozart's chaotic mind. Amadeus also makes use of a voice-over track
provided by the character of Salieri. It is he who is telling the story of Amadeus
through his eyes and each new scene is introduced to the viewer through his story telling.
Amadeus is a journey into biopic filmmaking that gives the
viewer a history lesson while keeping the interest level high. The film was
a triumph in 1984 winning 8 Oscars including best picture and best
director. Amadeus is in the top 100 films of all time and is a
timeless masterpiece that can be used in both studies and enjoyment
for decades to come.
The Insider
THE INSIDER
Directed by: Micheal Mann
1999
A very persistent journalist, Mr. Bergman (Al Pacino) receives Cigarette and Fire Safety Product Study from Phillip Morris. He seeks to get help from Dr. Wigand (Russell Crowe) who was fired from his job, and who should be able to translate the documents into something comprehensible. After meeting with Wigand, Bergman realizes that the story isn’t at PM but in Brown & Williams Tobacco Company. Bergman said Wigand should be able to get $10 - $12,000 to share what he knows. Bergman discusses the news with his co-workers at the firm and wants to find a way around or through Wigand’s confidentiality agreement with Brown & Williams Tobacco Company. Wigand’s life began to unfold from when he was fired to getting threats, money and house loss from former CEO Sandefur. Sandefur told Wigand that breaking confidentiality agreements could result in consequences. Despite his confidentiality agreement, Wigand decides to do an interview with CBS.
The director, Michael Mann decides to oscillate between power and time amongst it’s characters. During CBS staff meeting in the beginning of the film, the issues comes up where Brown & Williams are afraid of Wigand. Fear pulls you down from authority, and because they are fearful of the information Wigand knows, makes him powerful. The shot where Wigand walks in the CEO Sandefur office blurry indicates that he’s not important, but showing the reactions of Sandefur doesn’t portray any confidence. When Bergman addresses Wigand’s power about letting the public know about what’s going on with Brown & Williams Tobacco he states, “there is one guy who can figure this out for you and that’s you”. As the movie unfolds the power is transferred to Bergman once he knows about the information in the Tobacco Company. Wigand is now depending on Bergman to set everything right.
Time is essential in the movie because after Wigand talks to Bergman about the documents Bergman found in his mail CEO Sandefur called him in the office to talk about signing another confidentiality agreement. This scene pushes the character into talking to Bergman about the Company. “More time, more time with the kids, more time together” is what Wigand states to his wife when they moved into their new place. After the confession at court Wigand comes home to no family. This scene was important to the film because it created an anticipation that everything wasn’t going to go well. The handheld camera at the prior scene suggests something unbalanced. When everything wasn’t going as planned according to time, Bergman calls some of his friends to push the public’s awareness of Dr. Wigand’s information. Michael Mann did an amazing job putting the fabula together. The camera movement, the syuzhet, the characters were well placed in time of the film.
- Anisha Payne
Directed by: Micheal Mann
1999
A very persistent journalist, Mr. Bergman (Al Pacino) receives Cigarette and Fire Safety Product Study from Phillip Morris. He seeks to get help from Dr. Wigand (Russell Crowe) who was fired from his job, and who should be able to translate the documents into something comprehensible. After meeting with Wigand, Bergman realizes that the story isn’t at PM but in Brown & Williams Tobacco Company. Bergman said Wigand should be able to get $10 - $12,000 to share what he knows. Bergman discusses the news with his co-workers at the firm and wants to find a way around or through Wigand’s confidentiality agreement with Brown & Williams Tobacco Company. Wigand’s life began to unfold from when he was fired to getting threats, money and house loss from former CEO Sandefur. Sandefur told Wigand that breaking confidentiality agreements could result in consequences. Despite his confidentiality agreement, Wigand decides to do an interview with CBS.
The director, Michael Mann decides to oscillate between power and time amongst it’s characters. During CBS staff meeting in the beginning of the film, the issues comes up where Brown & Williams are afraid of Wigand. Fear pulls you down from authority, and because they are fearful of the information Wigand knows, makes him powerful. The shot where Wigand walks in the CEO Sandefur office blurry indicates that he’s not important, but showing the reactions of Sandefur doesn’t portray any confidence. When Bergman addresses Wigand’s power about letting the public know about what’s going on with Brown & Williams Tobacco he states, “there is one guy who can figure this out for you and that’s you”. As the movie unfolds the power is transferred to Bergman once he knows about the information in the Tobacco Company. Wigand is now depending on Bergman to set everything right.
Time is essential in the movie because after Wigand talks to Bergman about the documents Bergman found in his mail CEO Sandefur called him in the office to talk about signing another confidentiality agreement. This scene pushes the character into talking to Bergman about the Company. “More time, more time with the kids, more time together” is what Wigand states to his wife when they moved into their new place. After the confession at court Wigand comes home to no family. This scene was important to the film because it created an anticipation that everything wasn’t going to go well. The handheld camera at the prior scene suggests something unbalanced. When everything wasn’t going as planned according to time, Bergman calls some of his friends to push the public’s awareness of Dr. Wigand’s information. Michael Mann did an amazing job putting the fabula together. The camera movement, the syuzhet, the characters were well placed in time of the film.
- Anisha Payne
Theresa - Good Night and Good Luck
Good Night and Good Luck
Directed by: George Clooney
2005
Good Night and Good Luck is a look at the historical events surrounding the battle between Edward R. Murrow and Joseph McCarthy. The film accounts the battles over Murrow’s show and his back and forth with McCarthy and Murrow’s fight to stop McCarthy’s witch hunt.
The film is meant to look like a historical account of the true events. They are very careful to appear to be historically accurate as possible, despite the freedom they take with parts of the story. The film being shot in black and white helps to achieve this feel of authenticity that is needed for you to believe this historical fight.
This movie connects on many levels for me because of the themes it tries to communicate. One of the main themes that comes across is the fear of that era. Everyone was deathly afraid of communism and of being labeled a communist. It is clear that even Murrow does not like communists and fears being labeled one because of the letter he signs at the beginning of the film promising that he has no communist ties. The film does not try to eject our modern ideals into that age by giving Murrow an enlightened view of communism v. capitalism. He did not like communists but did not want people that did not deserve that label to be branded with it because it was such a curse.
Another theme in his film is the fall of television. Murrow makes his opinion of television clear in how much he hates doing the person to person segments. He feels they are mindless entertainment and that the network should be driven by the news division. He is faced with the reality of primetime television when his segment is banished to biweekly Sunday afternoons because the network believes that people do not want to hear such cold facts. Although Murrow fights that they have to give the audience more credit, the network ultimately disregards him in order to protect itself.
Directed by: George Clooney
2005
Good Night and Good Luck is a look at the historical events surrounding the battle between Edward R. Murrow and Joseph McCarthy. The film accounts the battles over Murrow’s show and his back and forth with McCarthy and Murrow’s fight to stop McCarthy’s witch hunt.
The film is meant to look like a historical account of the true events. They are very careful to appear to be historically accurate as possible, despite the freedom they take with parts of the story. The film being shot in black and white helps to achieve this feel of authenticity that is needed for you to believe this historical fight.
This movie connects on many levels for me because of the themes it tries to communicate. One of the main themes that comes across is the fear of that era. Everyone was deathly afraid of communism and of being labeled a communist. It is clear that even Murrow does not like communists and fears being labeled one because of the letter he signs at the beginning of the film promising that he has no communist ties. The film does not try to eject our modern ideals into that age by giving Murrow an enlightened view of communism v. capitalism. He did not like communists but did not want people that did not deserve that label to be branded with it because it was such a curse.
Another theme in his film is the fall of television. Murrow makes his opinion of television clear in how much he hates doing the person to person segments. He feels they are mindless entertainment and that the network should be driven by the news division. He is faced with the reality of primetime television when his segment is banished to biweekly Sunday afternoons because the network believes that people do not want to hear such cold facts. Although Murrow fights that they have to give the audience more credit, the network ultimately disregards him in order to protect itself.
Wayne’s World: Reviewed by Davis Rivera
Inspired by a long-running “Saturday Night Live” skit, “Wayne’s World,” the 1992 comedy directed by Penelope Spheeris, is told from the point of view of Wayne Campbell, played by Mike Myers. Through exposition, we learn that Wayne is a man seemingly in his late twenties who still lives at home with his parents in the tiny suburb of Aurora, Illinois. Wayne hosts a local late-night cable-access show with his best friend Garth Algar, played by a well-coifed Dana Carvey at the peak of his career. The show consists as Wayne and Garth playing air guitar and drums, interviewing local people in a sarcastic manner and worshipping their rock idols and ideal dream women.
By chance, television executive Benjamin Cane, played by Rob Lowe, sees a snippet of the program while visiting his girlfriend and, when made aware of how popular the show is, instructs one of his producers to find the show. Cane eventually tracks down Wayne and Garth, offers to buy the show’s rights and keep the two hosts on for what he calls “a huge salary.” Wayne agrees to Cane’s offer, sells the show and is shocked when he sees the liberties Cane has taken with his show, including being made aware that Noah Vanderhoff, the show’s sponsor, has been guaranteed a weekly interview. The one high point in Wayne’s life at this point is his girlfriend Cassandra, lead singer and bass guitarist for the band Crucial Taunt. This brief moment of happiness doesn’t last, however, when Cane begins to take an interest in her career and steals her away from Wayne just as he has had a major fight with Garth.
Wayne eventually patches things up with Garth and arranges for a broadcast of Crucial Taunt’s basement performance to be shown in the limousine of Frankie Sharp, record company executive for Sharp Records. What makes this film so unique for, not just a mainstream comedy, but also any narrative film, is the ostensibly (to the audience) haphazard handling of situations contributing depth to an otherwise predictable plot. Sharp does indeed see the performance and shows up at Wayne’s house to confront Cassandra. In this jarring example of the vast differences that a denouement can bring to a viewer, Sharp tells Cassandra that it is the “wrong time,” a fire breaks out in Wayne’s basement, Garth dies and a clip is shown of Cassandra and Cane sipping drinks on a tropical island.
For many filmmakers, this kind of closure would provide just enough sense of the instinctive provocateur to both alienate viewers and probably win over critics but what Spheeris does instead contributes heavily to both her, and the screenwriters’ (including Myers himself), talent. Wayne directly addresses the audience (a recurring motif in this film), calls attention once again to the narrative as a process and decides he would rather see the “Scooby-Doo ending.” When that doesn’t satisfy him, Wayne reverts to a more typical approach, the “mega-happy ending,” which ends with both Wayne and Garth addressing the camera in a humorous way.
Not satisfied with having merely a creative ending, Spheeris also leaves us with a deep sense of the film’s own open-endedness (some, but not all, questions were answered in the sequel) and a deeper appreciation for her diegetic usage of music to add comic relief and a new perspective on an otherwise canonical song known to millions. In this instance, Spheeris presents Wayne, Garth and their friends in a car driving aimlessly when someone decides to put in a tape featuring Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Skipping the introduction, the film presents the song at the middle to stress the dynamics of Freddie Mercury’s vocals and to showcase Myers and Carvey’s keen sense of timing as they mimic the words in what has become one of cinema’s most beloved scenes.
In this scene and in many other scenes throughout the film, Spheeris has successfully attempted a good-spirited departure from the conventional narrative structure to an alternative formula that has proven to be a staple of our contemporary culture almost two decades after the film’s release.
By chance, television executive Benjamin Cane, played by Rob Lowe, sees a snippet of the program while visiting his girlfriend and, when made aware of how popular the show is, instructs one of his producers to find the show. Cane eventually tracks down Wayne and Garth, offers to buy the show’s rights and keep the two hosts on for what he calls “a huge salary.” Wayne agrees to Cane’s offer, sells the show and is shocked when he sees the liberties Cane has taken with his show, including being made aware that Noah Vanderhoff, the show’s sponsor, has been guaranteed a weekly interview. The one high point in Wayne’s life at this point is his girlfriend Cassandra, lead singer and bass guitarist for the band Crucial Taunt. This brief moment of happiness doesn’t last, however, when Cane begins to take an interest in her career and steals her away from Wayne just as he has had a major fight with Garth.
Wayne eventually patches things up with Garth and arranges for a broadcast of Crucial Taunt’s basement performance to be shown in the limousine of Frankie Sharp, record company executive for Sharp Records. What makes this film so unique for, not just a mainstream comedy, but also any narrative film, is the ostensibly (to the audience) haphazard handling of situations contributing depth to an otherwise predictable plot. Sharp does indeed see the performance and shows up at Wayne’s house to confront Cassandra. In this jarring example of the vast differences that a denouement can bring to a viewer, Sharp tells Cassandra that it is the “wrong time,” a fire breaks out in Wayne’s basement, Garth dies and a clip is shown of Cassandra and Cane sipping drinks on a tropical island.
For many filmmakers, this kind of closure would provide just enough sense of the instinctive provocateur to both alienate viewers and probably win over critics but what Spheeris does instead contributes heavily to both her, and the screenwriters’ (including Myers himself), talent. Wayne directly addresses the audience (a recurring motif in this film), calls attention once again to the narrative as a process and decides he would rather see the “Scooby-Doo ending.” When that doesn’t satisfy him, Wayne reverts to a more typical approach, the “mega-happy ending,” which ends with both Wayne and Garth addressing the camera in a humorous way.
Not satisfied with having merely a creative ending, Spheeris also leaves us with a deep sense of the film’s own open-endedness (some, but not all, questions were answered in the sequel) and a deeper appreciation for her diegetic usage of music to add comic relief and a new perspective on an otherwise canonical song known to millions. In this instance, Spheeris presents Wayne, Garth and their friends in a car driving aimlessly when someone decides to put in a tape featuring Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Skipping the introduction, the film presents the song at the middle to stress the dynamics of Freddie Mercury’s vocals and to showcase Myers and Carvey’s keen sense of timing as they mimic the words in what has become one of cinema’s most beloved scenes.
In this scene and in many other scenes throughout the film, Spheeris has successfully attempted a good-spirited departure from the conventional narrative structure to an alternative formula that has proven to be a staple of our contemporary culture almost two decades after the film’s release.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Isaac Richter- Once
Once
Released in 2007
Directed by John Carney
On the streets of Dublin, a hoover-repairman plays his guitar and sings his songs to the people who pass by. He plays known songs during the day, and songs that he wrote during the night when "nobody listens". But somebody does listen. A Czech girl selling a Big Issue magazine on the streets listens to one of this humble repairman's songs one night, and thus begins a week that will change both of their lives forever. It will drive him to finally go to London in search of his record deal, and her to try and patch things up with her husband.
The reason I haven't mentioned the names of these two characters is because the filmmaker chose not to give them any. We only know them as the Guy and the Girl. This narrative choice, however, doesn't hinder the power of the narrative. We first meet the Guy on the streets during the day singing a popular song, but with no soul to it. We later hear him sing one of his own songs, and we recognize the energy and love he puts into his song and we wonder why he's not playing this song in a crowded auditorium with millions of fans cheering him on. We meet the Girl, and she shares the same opinion that we do. From this first scene, we want the Guy to get a record deal and become famous, and we want the Guy and the Girl to end up together, because we recognize the instant connection between the two.
One thing that strikes me about this film is the fact that it uses almost no extra-diegetic elements. It doesn't stray from the diegesis. Even music, which is usually an extra-diegetic in films, is put into the narrative here, because our two main characters are songwriters and these songs say more about the characters than any of the dialogue said in the film. The only time they use songs as extra-diegetic elements is when they play them a second time over time passing by. This includes "When You Mind's Made Up" playing over the band's trip to the beach, and a second rendition of the Academy-Award-winning song Falling Slowly (which we first hear when our two character play it together in a music store) over the conclusion of the story and over the closing credits. This movie is categorized as a musical, and that genre is famous for using extra-diegetic elements (such as dancers in the street, or a character imagining he's singing on a stage) to contrive musical numbers, but this film keeps the songs grounded. They are played and sung by the characters in a music store, or in a recording studio, or at home alone with a guitar. There is one scene where the Girl is walking home, listening to a song without lyrics in a portable CD player, and as she hears it, she sings lyrics that she wrote to it. This is as close as any song comes to turning into a musical number.
There are scenes in this film that are spoken in Czech and the director decided not to subtitle this (another extra-diegetic element, commonly used for languages that are not the movie's common language). There are scenes where the girl talks to her other in Czech, and the Guy is standing right there, not understanding a word they're saying. We're right there with him. There's a scene in which the Girl talks about her husband, and the Guy asks how to say "Do you love him?" in Czech, and when she tells, she asks hi the question in Czech. The Girl answers in Czech. The Guy doesn't know what she said, and neither do audience members who don't speak Czech (after some research, I found out she said "I love you").
Looking back at this film, I realize that all the narrative choices made by the director in this film were intended to make the audience relate to these characters. The Guy and the Girl are unique characters, but they could be any one of us, and therefore, we can relate to them as people going through different stages in life. We all have a dream, and we all have responsibilities that hold us back from these dreams, and this story is about a Guy who meets a Girl and realizes he has postponed his dream for far too long, so now it's time to leave and try to make his dream real. The Guy exists in everybody, and we all have the Girl trying to push us to our dream.
Isaac Richter
Released in 2007
Directed by John Carney
On the streets of Dublin, a hoover-repairman plays his guitar and sings his songs to the people who pass by. He plays known songs during the day, and songs that he wrote during the night when "nobody listens". But somebody does listen. A Czech girl selling a Big Issue magazine on the streets listens to one of this humble repairman's songs one night, and thus begins a week that will change both of their lives forever. It will drive him to finally go to London in search of his record deal, and her to try and patch things up with her husband.
The reason I haven't mentioned the names of these two characters is because the filmmaker chose not to give them any. We only know them as the Guy and the Girl. This narrative choice, however, doesn't hinder the power of the narrative. We first meet the Guy on the streets during the day singing a popular song, but with no soul to it. We later hear him sing one of his own songs, and we recognize the energy and love he puts into his song and we wonder why he's not playing this song in a crowded auditorium with millions of fans cheering him on. We meet the Girl, and she shares the same opinion that we do. From this first scene, we want the Guy to get a record deal and become famous, and we want the Guy and the Girl to end up together, because we recognize the instant connection between the two.
One thing that strikes me about this film is the fact that it uses almost no extra-diegetic elements. It doesn't stray from the diegesis. Even music, which is usually an extra-diegetic in films, is put into the narrative here, because our two main characters are songwriters and these songs say more about the characters than any of the dialogue said in the film. The only time they use songs as extra-diegetic elements is when they play them a second time over time passing by. This includes "When You Mind's Made Up" playing over the band's trip to the beach, and a second rendition of the Academy-Award-winning song Falling Slowly (which we first hear when our two character play it together in a music store) over the conclusion of the story and over the closing credits. This movie is categorized as a musical, and that genre is famous for using extra-diegetic elements (such as dancers in the street, or a character imagining he's singing on a stage) to contrive musical numbers, but this film keeps the songs grounded. They are played and sung by the characters in a music store, or in a recording studio, or at home alone with a guitar. There is one scene where the Girl is walking home, listening to a song without lyrics in a portable CD player, and as she hears it, she sings lyrics that she wrote to it. This is as close as any song comes to turning into a musical number.
There are scenes in this film that are spoken in Czech and the director decided not to subtitle this (another extra-diegetic element, commonly used for languages that are not the movie's common language). There are scenes where the girl talks to her other in Czech, and the Guy is standing right there, not understanding a word they're saying. We're right there with him. There's a scene in which the Girl talks about her husband, and the Guy asks how to say "Do you love him?" in Czech, and when she tells, she asks hi the question in Czech. The Girl answers in Czech. The Guy doesn't know what she said, and neither do audience members who don't speak Czech (after some research, I found out she said "I love you").
Looking back at this film, I realize that all the narrative choices made by the director in this film were intended to make the audience relate to these characters. The Guy and the Girl are unique characters, but they could be any one of us, and therefore, we can relate to them as people going through different stages in life. We all have a dream, and we all have responsibilities that hold us back from these dreams, and this story is about a Guy who meets a Girl and realizes he has postponed his dream for far too long, so now it's time to leave and try to make his dream real. The Guy exists in everybody, and we all have the Girl trying to push us to our dream.
Isaac Richter
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is the true story of Elle editor Jean-Dominique Bauby who suffers a stroke and has to live with an almost totally paralyzed body; only his left eye isn't paralyzed. It’s his only means of communication with the world through a series of blinks, once for yes, and twice for no.
I remember hearing about this movie a while ago and just now got around to seeing it, not really knowing what it was about. I’d like to talk about what I enjoyed most about this movie, the aesthetic choices the director Julian Schnabel made. Firstly, most of the film takes place through the eyes of the main character, Jean-Dominique. He has what’s called locked-in syndrome. Having the audience see the world literally through his eyes, makes me feel, on some level, like I’m walking a mile in his shoes in a way.
The picture goes in and out of focus as Jean first begins to adjust to his life after his stroke. At times, we’re given a very limited view of what’s happening on screen. There are a lot of close ups, and narrow shots. In some scenes the director chooses to focus on minor, like the way the wind blows someone’s dress, the swaying grass, the clouds, things that Jean would take notice of in his state of being.
The director was formally an artist and didn’t use conventional coverage. His take on the movie was very poetic and used the story as a way to convey art in a visual medium that supported the story.
~Brianna P.
I remember hearing about this movie a while ago and just now got around to seeing it, not really knowing what it was about. I’d like to talk about what I enjoyed most about this movie, the aesthetic choices the director Julian Schnabel made. Firstly, most of the film takes place through the eyes of the main character, Jean-Dominique. He has what’s called locked-in syndrome. Having the audience see the world literally through his eyes, makes me feel, on some level, like I’m walking a mile in his shoes in a way.
The picture goes in and out of focus as Jean first begins to adjust to his life after his stroke. At times, we’re given a very limited view of what’s happening on screen. There are a lot of close ups, and narrow shots. In some scenes the director chooses to focus on minor, like the way the wind blows someone’s dress, the swaying grass, the clouds, things that Jean would take notice of in his state of being.
The director was formally an artist and didn’t use conventional coverage. His take on the movie was very poetic and used the story as a way to convey art in a visual medium that supported the story.
~Brianna P.
Justin Afifi - Iron Man
Directed by: Jon Favreau
“Iron Man” is the big screen adaptation of the comic book hero of the same name. The film follows Tony Stark, a playboy weapon’s dealing wiz kid who is taken prisoner by terrorists after presenting his newest weapon, the Jericho missile. Stark is captured and told that the only way out is to recreate the missile for the terrorist group, “the ten rings.” While captured Stark comes face to face with the violence he’s caused making weapons and looks to make amends for his mistakes. Thus, Iron Man is born. As Iron Man, Stark attempts to take down any threats and become the hero that the world needs.
The film was driven by Robert Downey Jr. who has seemingly resurrected his career in the span of two hours. Every second he’s on screen you can’t help but be drawn into his portrayal of Tony Stark. Stark’s wit, charm, and arrogance are a perfect fit for Downey Jr as he is truly Tony Stark personified. The film also brings an A-list supporting cast. Gwenyth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Terrance Howard (James Rhodes), and Jeff Bridges (Obadiah Stane) do exactly what they’re supposed to in the roles of love interest, best friend, and villain respectively. Nobody can steal the show from Downey though. Even when each of said actors are at their best Downey throws in a one liner that steals the scene.
Jon Favreau steps into the spotlight as a blockbuster type director having previously helmed films like Elf and Zathura. Favreau appeases every fan boy with his numerous references to the comics and other mediums. Whether it’s the Iron Man ringtone on Rhodes’ phone or the obvious parallels to Robocop and Batman Begins, Favreau knows his audience and he respects them enough to have fun with them. Apart from appeasing to the fans Favreau creates a dynamite setting for a comic book movie. He presents an understanding and love for the material that’s only rivaled by Christopher Nolan and his Batman universe.
Iron Man stands out as one of the best comic book adaptations of all time. It exhibits a tone that balances fun and maturity perfectly which helps the film find a bigger audience than the dark and gritty Dark Knight or Sin City.
Justin Afifi - Robocop
Directed by: Paul Verehoven
Robocop follows Detroit City police officer Alex Murphy, a good cop with bad luck. After trying to arrest a group of criminals Murphy is violently gunned down by the villains. Murphy escapes death after his body is enlisted in the “Robocop” program. Murphy is reborn as Robocop and begins to clean up the streets. All is well until Robocop begins to have dreams of his life as Murphy. He begins to remember his wife, his son, and most of all his murder. Robocop starts to search for his killers and become the man he once was.
Robocop is the definition of action movies in the 1980’s. It showcases some of the most violent executions in any film but also displays an incredible amount of social commentary aimed directly at the Reagan years. The cynicism alone is enough to make the film special but it’s the story that makes Robocop great. Robocop not only harkens back to other action films like Terminator but to the works of Kurosawa.
Paul Verehoven presents a landscape that’s the 1980’s in overdrive. The corruption, violence, and go get em’ ideals of the 80’s are multiplied by a hundred. The action sequences are outstanding and actually add to the story. Verehoven successfully brings us a film that’s as violent as they come but balances it out with subtle humor that makes the film fun. Robocop is a genre film that still has legs and deserves a higher place in the action movie spectrum. It’s an action movie that exceeds it’s genre and for that it should be seen by all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)