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.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, October 13, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
'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.
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.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
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...
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...
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)