Citizen Kane - Pros and Cons

Hearing everyone's take on Citizen Kane definitely helped me to realize why I liked it. I also realized some things that I didn't like.

First of all, earlier I mentioned that I like the choppiness of the film. I realized that I also like the fast-paced-ness...we basically saw Kane's entire life within a two hour time frame. Grace pointed out a particular scene that I loved - when we saw Kane and his first wife Emily go through what seems like years of meeting for breakfast (umm, dinner?). I thought that that was really neat because it showed the decline of their marriage as well as Kane's transformation into a workaholic of sorts within a few short minutes. I like when things 'get to the point,' so to speak, so that's why I really enjoyed that scene.

A lot of people mentioned that they didn't like Kane's character...especially towards the end of the film. I still can't say how pleased I am with the character development. On one hand, it was interesting to see his decline without a specific reason given. It left me asking "what the heck happened that made him this way?" And sometimes I like when a movie makes me think like that. On the other hand, it kind of irks me that no reason was given for his decline! Like, what was the theme of the film? What was the point?! I think it was Lee that brought this up, and I have to agree with him in a sense. It was also brought up how the movie doesn't really make sense unless the viewer has an understanding of the historical context, and that is a good point. If I didn't have background information than I probably would have hated the film...

During class I realized another thing that I didn't like about Citizen Kane...it was all textuality and no presence. Not once did I feel emotionally moved or drawn to any of the characters. Maybe this is what Welle's intended - especially with his cold portrayal of Kane toward the end of his life. Maybe he didn't want us to have sympathy. Still, I would like to have felt at least some emotional pull. For me, that is (generally) crucial when it comes to whether or not I like a film.

However, I've still got to say that Citizen Kane is a great film. I appreciated it, and I can understand why it continues to be recognized as one of the greatest films of all time. I mean, movie buffs and critics tend to think they're more legit for liking bizarre films, so I'll give them this one!

Citizen Kane

I went into this movie thinking....no, knowing that I would hate it. I didn't think I would be able to even appreciate it, let alone be entertained by it. However, to my surprise, I actually really enjoyed Citizen Kane.

The best word I can think of to describe Citizen Kane is fun. I genuinely enjoyed watching it. The choppiness of the film made it exciting and fascinating. I really appreciated the fact that Welles had no concept of the typical Hollywood film because it made for a very new and thrilling experience. I loved the opening "news flash" (or whatever it was) about Kane's life. It totally threw me off and left me guessing how the rest of the film was going to flow.

My favorite part of the film was definitely the architecture. I've always had some weird obsession with large and elaborate buildings/palaces, and the influx of this in the film really caught my attention from the onset. Xanadu made my eyes happy, to say the least!

Welles did a magnificent job as Kane. His development as a character was especially intriguing to watch. The way he portrayed Kane was so precise that it makes it seem though he didn't trust anyone other than himself to take on the role.

And then there's rosebud. I really didn't think that we were going to find out what rosebud meant, so towards the end of the film I was itching to come home and google the possible meanings!! I was pleasantly surprised to find out that it was the sled (which was very clever!) but at the same time I was kind of hoping for a little bit of mystery to hold on to.

Overall, I really did enjoy Citizen Kane. I kind of still can't believe it because I was so set on hating it! I guess I must have a good taste in movies after all :)

so what IS film noir?

Film noir was an interesting genre to study because it's one that sort of slips under the radar. What's particularly interesting about it is that it isn't really a genre at all - it's more of a film style. This was especially apparent to me after viewing Blade Runner, which is genre-wise more of a science-fiction. It was also the case with Double Indemnity, which isn't completely a comedy, but it definitely has some components of a comedy film (as did Touch of Evil, now that I think about it).

After watching Double Indemnity, I thought I knew all there was to know about film noir. That film, in my opinion, is the ideal example of a film noir because it is a blatant display of the 'good guy gone bad' because of the 'femme fatale' and their suspensful crime story with twists and turns. But then after watching the other films, I realized that there are actually many more components that go into what makes a film noir. Our discussion in class about 'what is film noir?' was certainly helpful in showing me what is/isn't crucial in a film noir. Whether this agrees with that or not, here is my list of what defines a film noir (listed from most to least important!):

- a dark and shadowy feel (both visually and figuratively)
- suspenseful story (usually crime-related)
- a flawed/imperfect hero
- a femme fatale (she doesn't neccesarily have to have bad intentions, but she may simply be a weakness for the hero)
- dramatic music
- a city setting
- smoking/alcohol consumption
- flashbacks
- narration

This list is clearly much shorter than the one we compiled in class, but I think that these components (especially the first three) are absolutely crucial for a film noir.

Something I've also been thinking about is that film noir generally have a gloomy, almost depressing feel to them. Even the comedies are...dark. And it's almost like everything going on is a secret from the outside world; there's always someone hiding something.

This is just a guess, but I think that maybe film noir came as a reaction to the happy-go-lucky films that preceeded it. People were sick of everything always being perfect and having a happy ending, and this was especially the case after the Depression and WWII took place. Film noir kind of gave an outlet for people to see the corruption in other people's lives.

As I mentioned earlier, film noir was really an interesting (sub)genre to study. Even though film noirs are still being made today, I think that the style still goes very unnoticed! I'll definitely be keeping my eyes open for film noirs from now on!

The Man Who Wasn't There

I watched The Man Who Wasn't There on my own time for our study of film noir. I can't say that I enjoyed it very much, although I did appreciate it. It was definitely a great example of film noir, which is exactly what the Cohen brothers were going for. It was almost humorous because it was like there was a blatant overload of film noir aspects.

First of all, this very recent film was very purposely in black and white. Secondly, there was a good deal of narration throughout the film. There was also the expected shadowy darkness throughout the majority of the film, cigarette smoking, a "suspenseful" plot with many twists, an imperfect lead character, etc. Basically everything we went over in class last night to describe film noir was present in this film! However, I found it to be quite dull and boring. I think that the Cohen brothers were kind of striving for that, so I can appreciate it, but I prefer to have some sort of entertainment when I watch movies!

Billy Bob Thorton did a good job as being the "harmless barber" who got caught in a string of unfortunate events, but there was nothing likeable about his character. I didn't even care when he...well...I don't want to give away the ending! Although I obviously just did...

As I mentioned, I appreciated this film for its use of the film noir style, but I can't say that I found it to be an enjoyable experience. In fact, I'm glad that I got to watch it on my own time so I could "accidentally" miss a few minutes of it while I got food from the kitchen or browsed the internet...

Blade Runner

Loved it! Blade Runner is one of those films I probably wouldn't have seen if it weren't for film class, and I'm so glad that I did. At first I was thinking, how can a science fiction film possibly have a film noir style? But it definitely did. The music, lighting, cigarettes and alcohol - they all pointed to film noir. In fact, I picked up on the style at the very beginning of the film when Deckard was interrogating one of the replicants because interrogations are definitely a charactersitic of film noir.

If it weren't for the film noir style, Blade Runner would probably just be another forgettable science fiction film. Clearly that is something that Ridley Scott tries to avoid (Alien is one of my favorite films...and it is far from forgettable!). The concept of combining science fiction with film noir is so bizarre - I still can't quite figure out how it worked - but it did! Scott definitely took a risk with Blade Runner, and I'm glad he did.

As much as I loved a younger Harrison Ford (was he really 40?!), I'd have to say that my favorite character was Pris, played by Daryl Hannah. She was so creepy yet cute at the same time. The same goes for Roy...why do the bad guys always have to be so darn handsome? He really creeped me out towards the end with the howling and what not. I was pleasantly surpised when he saved Deckard's life. It made me a feel a little less guilty for rooting for him during the fight scene, haha!

Overall, Blade Runner was not only entertaining, but also a great example of an off-beat film noir.

Touch of Evil. Ew.

I hated Touch of Evil. Hated it!! In fact, I hated it so much that I don't know if I can say that I even appreciated it. It was choppy. It was boring. I felt like I was watching a circus freak show. Now, normally I would enjoy watching a circus freak show, but the weirdness stopped short of being entertaining so it was just...weird. And boring. It was like a mix between freak show and normalcy. I needed more freak show. And then there was the fast-pace/choppiness of the film. It made it seem like Welles was trying to make a boring plot more exciting by making it so hard to follow, but I just found it to be bothersome and unexciting

Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I need someone to explain to me the "brilliance" in Touch of Evil...because all I know is that it was probably the worst movie-watching experience of my life. I feel like it's one of those films that people don't actually enjoy, but they pretend to enjoy it because they feel like they are supposed to. Like "oh it's so artistic, and Orson Welles is a genius, so I must like it!" Well sorry, but you can't fool me.

Double Indemnity

Double Indemnity was definitely a great film to kick-off our study of 'film-noir.' I loved it!! After watching both Casablanca and Double Indemnity I can safely say that I absolutely love classic Hollywood films. In fact, I feel like I've been missing out because I always assumed that they'd be well, boring. But it turns out that I love the simplicity and glamour that classic Hollywood films present....especially the typical love story between the "man's man" and the beautiful, classy woman. Gets me every time...

Anyway, Double Indemnity was just...delightful! The mixture of suspense, drama, and comedy kept me engaged the entire time, which isn't an easy task. I especially loved Fred MacMurray's role of Walter Neff. You could almost tell that he was purposely exaggerating every "baby" and kiss with Phyllis, and I appreciated his sense of humor. I was not as enthused by Barbara Stanwyck's portrayal of Phyllis - until the twist came at the end. I totally understood that casting decision at that point in the film! Because it was like (hate to say this but)...I always thought she was kind of ugly and she just covered it up well, but then her ugliness just showed through completley when I realized what a tramp she was! And speaking of the twist, I certainly was not expecting it, but I was thrilled by it. It took the film to a whole different level...perhaps a 'film-noir' level? I can't say I've read the Keith Grant handout yet, so I'll get back to that question...

So far I can definitely say that I think 'film-noir' is more of a style than a genre - especially since Double Indemnity could be considered part of a few different genres. So far, I would say that 'film-noir' generally adopts a very shadowy and mellow dramatic feel - both of which I really enjoyed.

Cinematic Excellence

So the question is, what makes a film great? Some people would argue that it must be entertaining. Others would argue it's aesthetic value. Some might even determine a film's greatness by the actors. Maybe a film's greatness is simply found in the eye of the beholder. I can't say that there is one single aspect of a film that makes it great, rather it's a combination of many things. So here it goes. To be truly great, a film must:

- As I just mentioned, good acting is crucial. To me, acting can literally make or break a film. I'm not saying a film must have A-list stars (in fact, sometimes that can actually take away from a film), but character developement and relationships must be engaging, or I'll often tune myself out of the film.
- Cinematography. This has always been one of my favorite aspects of film, but I just never knew what it was! As with acting, cinematography can make or break a film. This was especially the case in Diving Bell.
- It must innovative. No one wants to see something that has been done before (*cough* sequels). For a film to be great it must either address a new issue/event or address it in a way that hasn't been done before.

Now, this is quite a short list, and I plan on adding to it in the future, but this is all I can really think of right now. I was going to add historicity, but then I realized that I don't think a film neccesarily has to be historically accurate to be great. I was also going to add genre, but after seeing Do the Right Thing I think genre is actually quite overrated...

Anyway, I would say that these criteria are timeless and universal when it comes to the greatness of a film. However, there is no denying that there is additional criteria that changes with the times and the culture. For example, within the past decade we've witnessed an age of the "mythical film," which began with Lord of the Rings, and led us to Harry Potter, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass, Pan's Labyrinth, and so forth. Now, I wouldn't consider all of those films to be great, but a huge chunk of the population probably would.

I guess my point is that the definition of 'greatness' is in a way timeless and ever-changing at the same time. I know that that is contradictory, but that's how our society is! And, that's how films are. Film is art, and directors are constantly trying to push the envelope and introduce new, innovative, and even controversial movies. So to say that there is one definition or set of criteria for a great film is naive.

As I mentioned, I do plan on editting this post in the near future. "What makes a film great?" is a question that I never really thought about much, and now I can't stop thinking about it! Hopefully I'll find that answer throughout the rest of this semester...

Casablanca

What can I say? Casablanca was phenom. Before watching it I had no idea of the genre, plot, or characters. All I knew was that it was supposedly really good, it starred Humphrey Bogart, and that the line "here's lookin' at you, kid" was in there some place or another. Unfortunately hearing that line 43584782 times before kind of took away it's impact, but whatev. That's my own problem I guess.

As a girl, I'm always a sucker for a good romantic film, and seeing Ilsa's eyes swell up at the sight of Rick did me in right then and there. Coming away from Casablanca, the love story is what made it so brilliant to me. Although I lovedlovedLOVED the film personally, I can't really understand why it is considered one of the greatest films of all time. I mean, I would certainly consider it that, but I wouldn't quite think that generations of movie buffs would as well. Usually the "brilliant" films are ones that are either a) incredibly visually appealing/artistic or b) socially relevant. Casablanca wasn't really either of these, in my opinion. It was, however, a film with great acting, character developement, and an interesting plot. So, since when is that enough to make it one of the greatest films of all time? My vote is for Humphrey Bogart.

Unfortunately I haven't yet done the reading on historicity or whatever, but I'm kind of glad I didn't. It allowed me to view the film without searching for this-or-that, and I was able to really appreciate Casablanca for its greatness as whole.

Raging Bull - Initial Reaction and A Closer Look

I will say off the bat that I really enjoyed Raging Bull. I didn’t think that I would like it at first because I generally (aka always) don’t like sports movies, but it wasn’t just a film about boxing. I think Robert De Niro did a fantastic job portraying Jake La Motta. I really got the impression that Jake was his own worst enemy. I can’t think of any part in the movie where I actually sympathized for him. He had such a great life going for him – success in boxing and a family that he loved – yet he gave it all up. But for what? That’s something I still can’t seem to answer. What the heck was it that caused Jake to let go of everything good in his life? Maybe he thought that he didn’t deserve it. I really don’t know.

This film was definitely a good one to watch for the purpose of studying editing. First of all, there’s the fact that the entire film was in black and white. I can’t really figure out why Scorsese decided to do that, though. Maybe its because it gave more of a “gloomy” feel. Or maybe that’s how Jake saw the world around him – in black and white.

I also liked the close up shots, mainly in the love scene between Jake and Vicky. It really caused me to be drawn into the lives of the characters. This was also the case when Jake was fighting. It was almost like the close-up shot got me into the head of Jake La Motta. What the heck is going through his mind when he is fighting? Sometimes I thought that he didn’t even care if he killed the other fighter, or even if he killed himself. The final fight scene where he let the other fighter hit him was very effective. The slow motion shot caused me to think “what the heck is he doing? Why isn’t he fighting back?!” That question was answered, of course, when he told the other fighter, “you couldn’t get me down.” It was almost like a pride issue. Jake wanted to know that he was in some weird way…unbreakable.

As far as continuous versus disjunctive editing – I would say that Raging Bull included both. The film was basically the sequence of a few decades of La Motta’s life (continuous), but at the same time there were a lot of abrupt scene changes (disjunctive). There was also the scene that basically fast-forwarded through 10 years, and it almost seemed like we were watching home videos. I really liked that because it gave me a sense of reality. It also made me think “hey maybe things will work out for Jake after all.” Obviously that didn’t happen. I would consider that sequence to be disjunctive, but I’m not sure if that’s correct!

And then there’s the acting/character development, which I don’t feel like spending much time talking about! All I’ll mention is that Vicky’s character was…interesting. It really bothered me how indifferent she was to EVERYTHING around her (or at least that’s how she came off). But I think that that made the film even more intriguing because she wasn’t the typical housewife/trophy wife. Even though Jake was clearly nutso, I feel like Vicky didn’t do anything to change it. She didn’t even try. At some points I couldn’t blame her, but at other times I just wanted to scream at her for not snapping some sense into him. That’s what wives are supposed to do, right? :)

Overall, good film. Good editing. Liked it.

Mis en scene in 'Do the Right Thing'

In my last post I mentioned how the characters' brightly colored clothing caught my attention. I also mentioned how this was somewhat misleading because many of the characters were violent and corrupt. Let me expand on that. First of all, the bright colors gave a fun and happy feeling to the neighborhood, but in reality it is wrought with racism and hatred (which is most evident during the fight/riot scenes). Secondly, the clothing seemed like something little kids would wear. That, combined with the fact that no one besides Mookie seemed to actually have a job, caused me to think that the majority of the characters didn't really want to grow up. They just wandered around the neighboorhood all day, oftentimes looking to get into some sort of mischief (i.e. the fire hydrant, picking on the mayor, boycotting Sal's, etc.).

After viewing the fight/riot scenes again, something that really stuck out to me was the social blocking. During the fight in Sal's restaurant, you see almost every character piled on top of each other in one shot. I can't say for sure what the significance of this was, but it gave me the feeling that all of the tension and underlying racism just exploded. Everyone was unloading their frustrations, which had been building and building up until this point (especially Pino's). The blocking was also significant when Mookie and Jade were sitting next to one another on the street corner watching the riot take place. To me it signified that they realized there was nothing they could do. The riot was still taking place, and people were still running all around them, but they separated themselves and sat in disbelief.

The scene where the cops kill Radio Raheem is particularly disturbing the second time around. The use of the nightstick as the murder weapon definitely made a difference because it shows more of the intention of the policeman. I'm not saying that the cop knew and/or wanted Radio Raheem to die, but it seemed like more of a personal, hands-on attack than if he were to shoot him with a gun (not that using a gun would have been any more civil, but I would think it would be easier to accidentally kill someone that way). My point is that the nightstick as a prop definitely intensified the scene.

I won't even try to get into the racism aspect of the film because even though we had an hour long conversation on it in class, I'm still not sure where I stand or what to think. I do know that I believe Spike Lee's intention with this film was to raise questions rather than answer them, and he did so very effectively.

'Do the Right Thing'

I haven't heard much about this film, so I didn't know what to expect going into it. I wasn't sure if it was a comedy, a drama, or what....and in fact, I still don't really know what genre it would categorized in. When it first started, I got a 'Fresh Prince of Bel-Air' feel (who knew Rosie Perez could dance like that?!), but it turned out to be much, much more.

The colors of the film were probably what stuck out to me the most. Everyone was dressed so colorfully - even the most violent of people. These bright colors were misleading of the neighborhood as a whole, which was obviously quite corrupt.

I do remember thinking a few times, "what's the plot?" But all of those questions were answered towards the final scenes of the film. I can honestly say I wasn't expecting the fight/riots that took place. But then thinking back, I'm not entirely surprised that it happened.

How the film ends is very disheartening because it shows that everything in the neighborhood goes back to the way it was, which makes me think that another riot is going to happen sooner or later.

While Do The Right Thing wasn't particularly the most enteraining film I've ever seen, I'm definitely glad I saw it. The social implications of the film are still extremely relevant today, and Spike Lee was very successful at conveying that message.

A Closer Look at 'The Godfather'

Unfortunately I was unable to make it to Wednesday's class, so I missed out on the discussion about The Godfather. I'm sure everyone missed my input! :)

I mentioned in the last post how much I appreciated the mis en scene in The Godfather, so let me expand on that a bit more. One thing I totally forgot to mention was how excited I was to finally see the horse's head in Jack Woltz's bed!! I really don't have a sick mind, I swear, but I've just heard so much about this scene and seen so many parodies of it in the past. It was even more shocking than I had imagined, and I loved it!

Another thing that made The Godfather particularly enjoyable was that is was one of the only movies I've ever seen where I didn't separate the character from the actor. Since I used to be an actor myself, it's second nature for me to analyze the acting of a film rather than becoming engaged in the characters. This was not the case. What is even more suprising is that many of the actors were well-known, which makes it even more difficult for me to take their characters completely seriously, but I still forgot that Michael was Al Pacino and that Tom Hagen was Robert Duvall. This may be due to the fact that they aren't as recognizable to me in their younger years, but nonetheless it was a refreshing change of pace for me.

On the same note, The Godfather is one of the only films that I did not textually analyze throughout the entire three hours. In fact, I don't think I did much textual analyzation at all! This is very unlike me, but I really enjoyed it. I usually get really antsy when a movie gets to the two hour mark, but the three hours of The Godfather seemed to fly by without any boredom ensuing.

Back to the mis en scene. I really loved the sequence of scenes that took place in Siciliy. It was a flash of light and nature as opposed to the dark, city life that took up the majority of the film. It also really helped to develop Michael's character - especially seeing him fall in love and then tragically lose his wife. It almost justifies his decision to really delve into the "family business." The fact that the setting was in Siciliy made it seem like it was Michael's last chance to escape the horrors of New York City. He was in a beautiful safe-haven (which we learn isn't so safe after all) with a beautiful woman. He could've had a whole new life, but the trouble followed him and forced him back into a life of violence and crime. The film would not be as effective if it were not for this change in scenery.

So there ya have it. I'm tempted to watch The Godfather II and III, but has anyone seen them?! I don't want to ruin the greatness that I was left with after the original...

The Godfather

The Godfather has got to be one of the most popular films in American history. Heck, even my mom said it was one of her favorite movies. I really appreciate a film that can gain critical acclaim yet still be entertaining and popular the general population at the same time. The Godfather is proof that a movie doesn't have to be boring or difficult to follow in order to be considered a great film.

Because we're beginning to study mis-en-scene I made it a point to pay attention to that at least a little bit. What I picked up on the most was the everyday happenings that would go on all around the Corleone family - Connie's wedding, New York City during Christmas, the stop in Chinatown (which very obviously turned violent) - it really made me feel like the Corleone's were just another family with their own little business. In fact, I am almost jealous of the bond and love that is present within the family. It was sometimes hard to remember that Don Vito was actually responsible for the murder of so many people because he just seemed like a nice old man at so many points in the film. Basically the mis-en-scene is what made the film seem so realistic because the Corleone's didn't come off as some evil family lurking in New York City - the seemed like a normal, loving family.

I feel like I've accomplished an important task in life by finally watching The Godfather. And I've also fallen in love with Al Pacino circa 1972!

Apocalypse Now - Presentation or Representation?

It’s been about a week since I first watched Apocalypse Now, and I still can’t seem to answer one of the most pressing questions: was it a film about presentation or representation? I know there’s no right or wrong answer to this, but I can’t seem to settle on one or the other. Would it be a cop out to say that it was both presentation and representation? I feel like it is. So here is what I’m thinking.

I first thought this film to be more of a representation of the Vietnam War. The emphasis on the characters and their inner struggles with sanity are what made me feel this way, in addition to the overall lack of actual war/battle scenes.

But then on last Wednesday night’s class we watched a clip from Hearts of Darkness where Coppola said something about how the film “is a film about Vietnam/War”….in other words, it was more of a presentation. As soon as he said that I thought, hey, he’s the director…maybe I should listen to him! And then it made me think about the fact that Vietnam was a war that led to insanity and uncertainty among the soldiers. It wasn’t just these select few that we watched – it was a widespread event. I mean, it has pretty much been established that Vietnam was a pointless and unjust war, so the emphasis on those brutal, and in my opinion unfair battles was not merely what Coppola wants us to think happen. It really did.

So which is it?! Since this is my blog, I’m going to go ahead and admit that I still haven’t settled on an answer. I’m also not going to apologize for the lack of commentary on the cinematography because I simply can’t get the presentation/representation battle out of my head!

Speaking of which, I will say that after reviewing cinematography of the last scene of the film on Wednesday definitely gave me a whole way of thinking about the film. It really was a fight of good against evil….and the war brought that out in people. It’s not just the soldier’s sanity that was being threatened, but their judgment of what is right in the world. The shadow that almost overcame Willard’s face showed me that he was *this* close to becoming what Kurtz had become, which caused me to actually sympathize for Kurtz.

All I can say is that I’m glad the film ended the way it did because it meant I didn’t watch “the horror” for two and half hours in vain!

Apocalypse Now

So I *thought* I had seen this film before, but embarrassingly enough it was The Deer Hunter that I was thinking of (duh!). It was a pleasant surpise to find out about halfway through that I was actually watching a film I'd never seen before!

I've heard a lot about Apocalypse Now, and it did live up to the expectations I had for it. The cinematography was indeed brilliant. It was a perfect film to watch after The Diving Bell and the Butterfly because it shows a completely different aspect of cinematography. While Diving Bell was all about the point of view shot, Apocalypse Now revealed much wider, larger shots. The colors are what captured my eyes the most. Different scenes had different color hues, such as the first war scene, which had an orange-y glow to it (I actually noticed this before you pointed out the "blue" jungle scene, Kevin!). I also loved the colorful flares throughout the film. I don't exactly know what the significance was behind them, but I found them to be beautiful bursts of color among a war-consumed Vietnam.

The scene that was most effective for me was when the multitudes of helicopters headed to claim their next village. The black shadows of the helicopters all in a row gave me the impression of a swarm of locusts headed to engulf their next meal. And, sure enough, I was right.

There's so much more that caught my eye: the sweat dropping off Willard's nose, the crescent of Kurtz's face when we are first introduced to him, the appearance of a Kurtz's "kingdom"....these are just some of the images that keep running through my mind when I think of this film.

Oh, and let me just say that my favorite character in the film by far was Lieut. Colonel Kilgore played by Robert Duvall. I can't help but think his portrayal of Kilgore was exactly what Coppola wanted. His character alone was one of the factors that caused this film to go from being one of presentation to representation, and that is basically summed up when he refers to the villagers as "f**king savages."

Overall, Francis Ford Coppola does a tremendous job giving a presentation and his representation of the Vietnam war, and a good deal of this is done through the cinematography.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - a closer look

After spending the last week studying cinematography, I can honestly say that it's something I've taken for granted. I especially realized this after viewing The Diving Bell and the Butterly and Visions of Light (as boring as it was!). I've learned that cinematography isn't just how the movie is filmed - it can change the entire aesthetic of the film and how we, the audience, interpret it. Although much importance still lies in the writing and overall story of a film, cinematographers are the true artists behind it all, in my opinion. Cinematography can truly make or break a film.

In The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, the use of the point of view shot from the very onset set the stage for the rest of them film. It was definitely a risk to be taken, but it could not have been more effective. The use of that shot for about the first quarter of the film also causes the audience to feel incredibly connected to Jean-Do before we even see his face. In some sense, I felt like I was Jean-Do. As people spoke to him, such as when Celine first came to visit, their faces went in and out of frame, which gave a us a very realistic feel of Jean-Do's constraints. The framing also gave the feel as though people were looking at him like he were a caged animal. This gave me an even further sense that Jean-Do was truly trapped in his own body. This is a very frightening thought - one that I'm sure that Julian Schnabel and Janusz Kaminski wanted to convey to the audience.

I also really enjoyed the outdoor scenes, such as on the beach and in the boat. I can't think of a better setting to represent freedom and beauty. As Jean-Do sits motionless and alone in his wheelchair with the vast beach around him, we get an even better idea of how trapped he is. The wideness of the shot makes Jean-Do appear even smaller and helpless. It must have been particularly difficult for him to sit there unable to run across the sand with his children, especially after his imagination shows us that he dreams of surfing and rolling around in the sand with his love. The beach and the ocean are clearly near to his heart. That's probably why he often dictated his book near the beach.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was a cinematographic masterpiece. I'm glad that Julian Schnabel was able to make a film that did Jean-Do's life justice, and a film that I will forever recommend for others to see!

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Since the moment this movie ended I haven't been able to keep it out of my mind. As I neared my apartment on the way home from class last night I realized that I didn't even turn on the music in my car, which is a rarity, because the scenes kept running through my mind. What I can't seem to figure out is how a movie that most people would consider depressing left me feeling incredibly...joyful. I can actually pinpoint the exact scene that left me feeling this way. It was when Jean-Do described the never-ending possibilities of his imagination. Image after image moved across the screen showing his dreams and fantasies. It was really just a glimpse of what was really going through his mind as he sat there motionless day after day. God forbid I ever became paralyzed like Jean-Do, but I found myself almost jealous of the fact that my imagination will never be that vibrant.

This film was indeed perfect for the study of cinematography. Jean-Do's point of view throughout the film (specifically in the beginning of the film) left me feeling incredibly uncomfortable...almost claustrophobic. This was just part of the brilliance in the cinematography. Beautiful scenery and bizarre angles swept through the screen and continued to grab my attention.

As beautiful as the cinematography was, I simply cannot get over the story of the film itself. Obviously the cinematography made the story even that more moving, but Jean-Do's character and his relationships with the other characters was very much thought-provoking. Mathieu Amalric did an amazing job of somehow conveying so much emotion with a single eye. We as the audience felt closer to Jean-Do than any other characters in the film because we could hear his inner thoughts as he lied there speechless. It showed his personality was not at all affected by his condition. It made me feel like I knew him.

If I haven't made it clear yet, I think that The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was brilliant, and certainly one of the best films I've ever seen.

'Psycho' a la 1998

So where do I begin? Maybe with the fact that Viggo Mortensen and his behind can pretty much save any movie. And Anne Heche's retro-style fashion has inspired me greatly...

But let's get to the good stuff. In all honesty, I was/am hesitant to admit that I don't find the film to be that bad. I was actually the first person to say something good about it during last night's class, which was then followed by others admitting there were some not-so-bad aspects of the movie as well. You're welcome. Seriously though, what's wrong with liking a movie simply because it's entertaining? Excuse me while I rant, but I'm sick of people saying their favorite movies are Donnie Darko and Garden State because they think they're "artistic." Puh-lease. Now, don't get me wrong, I've seen my share of indie/artsy films, many of them I find incredibly well done, and others I don't. But assuming a movie is good because Wes Anderson directed it or bad because it's a sequel is simply absurd.

With that being said, the original Psycho is clearly superior to the remake. However, I've seen worse remakes in my time. I applaud Gus Van Sant for doing the film shot-by-shot and almost line-by-line, yet still finding ways to modernize it. Anne Heche was a mediocre Marion. She fit the part physically, and I appreciate her trying to update Marion's character. However, she dropped the ball far too often - especially in the parlor scene. The chemistry between she and Norman (Vince Vaughn) was practically non-existant. Vince Vaughn, in my opinion, failed in his role of Norman. But I can't say it was all his fault...I think it was more of a bad casting choice. He lacks the innocence, kindness, and handsome appeal found in Anthony Perkins. I had sympathy for Perkins, but barely any for Vaughn....especially after the masturbation scene. Ew. No comment.

Overall, 1998's Psycho was a less-than-perfect remake of the original film, but did anyone actually expect it to measure up? They couldn't have. Props to Van Sant for even attempting to remake one of the most classic films in history....

...and for casting Viggo Mortensen as Sam.

initial reaction to 'Psycho'

'Psycho,' as far as I know, is the first psychological horror film...or at least the first one to gain as much attention as it has over the past four decades. I should probably catch up on my research before saying this, but I'm pretty sure that horror films before this one consisted of your typical werewolf/vampire villian (which, I can't help but still love!). What makes 'Psycho' particularly frightening isn't just the fact that the villian (which, it is arguable to even refer to him as that) is the psychotic Norman Bates, but that he first appears to be one of the kindest, most gentle human beings one can think of. It really makes you wonder if there is someone in your own life that may unexpectedly be...crazy! But interestingly enough, Norman Bates was not the only villian in the film. Up until Marion meets him at the motel, the villian in the film is Marion's guilt. The guilt follows Marion since the moment she left her house with the money, and ironically when Marion thinks she is going to defeat the guilt by returning home, she falls into the the trap of the other villian in the film - Norman Bates (well, his "mother").

What I enjoyed the most about 'Psycho' was that the star of the movie was Norman himself. His character(s) were the focus of the film, as opposed to the Jennifer Love Hewitts and Neve Campbells of today's slasher films. Norman wasn't just a killer running around with a mask stabbing people. He had a story. He had a reason for his madness.