Journal #25: Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain/ Amélie
Director: Jean–Pierre Jeunet
Writer: Guillame Laurent, Jean–Pierre Jeunet
Actors: Audrey Tautou, Mathieu Kassovitz
Release Date: 2001
122min
A lonely, sensitive Parisian girl decides to help strangers and ends up finding love.
Comment on the meaning of colors in the film:
The film’s colors are faded throughout the film to symbolize the loneliness and lack of excitement of Amélie’s and the other characters’ existence. However, at the end of the film, when all the characters finally step out of their shells (Amélie risks herself for love, her father leaves to travel the world, the tabac lady releases her fear, etc), the colors are restored to vibrant levels. In addition to this, the colors red and green clearly have a greater meaning. Red and green are the only colors that Amélie ever wears, the train station is green, the gnome is red and green, Amélie has a red bedroom and a green television, and the bridge where Amélie skips stones is green, just to site a few examples. This leads one to wonder what their significance is. The color red is associated with lust, anger, and strength. It is the color of the 1st/Root Chakra, which connects one to their physical self. Green symbolizes nature, peace, money (not relevant in this context), and growth. It is the color of the 4th/Heart Chakra, which connects one to the heart and deals with giving and compassion. With the application of this new knowledge to the film, one uncovers another deeper level of Amélie and the protagonist’s character. Amélie, like all humans, is wired to need love. While she learns how to give love to others through the good deeds she does, she still yearns to have someone who loves her, a desire strengthened by the fact that neither of her parents were affectionate with her. Her mother dies while she is still young, and though Amélie longs for a just a hug from her father, the only time he even touches her is when he gives her medical examinations (of which the excitement of him being so close to her makes her heart beat so fast he diagnoses her with the fake heart condition that makes Amélie’s life even more miserable). It is obvious that Amélie has a gaping hole in need of filling with some love, particularly the love of a masculine figure, the culmination of which is found in sex, thus explaining her lust and the use of red throughout the film. Though Amélie never outwardly expresses any anger, it is highly likely that anyone whose parents ignored them, who lives in almost complete solitude and is frustrated with their life, would feel at least some anger. Amidst such shortcomings, Amélie has enormous strength. It keeps her going when her mum dies and when her father retreats into his own grief oblivion, it encourages her to pursue the owner of the mysterious tin box and to help Nino discover who the bald man in the photo booth is. This might surprise some viewers, given Amélie’s introverted personality, but often it is the quieter ones who have the most determination and fortitude. As to red’s connection to the 1st/Root Chakra, this does not relate too much to Amélie, except maybe to re–emphasize her need for sex. The meanings of green fit Amélie as well. When she is depressed, she skips stones; an act that involves her with three of the four aspects of Nature: earth (the stones), wind (the air), and water (the river). Amélie’s adult life is relatively peaceful, apart from her inner turmoil. She lives in a quaint French village, works in a simple café, and has relatively no sources of stress. Green also stands for growth, one of the themes of Amélie. The protagonist begins as a timid, lonely little girl and through pushing herself to be more social, starting with helping strangers and culminating in making love to her heart’s true desire, Nino, ends as a confident and awakened woman. Her change is drastic. The symbolism of the 4th/Heart Chakra relates directly to the film’s principle storyline: giving to others. Amélie takes delight in bringing joy to other people anonymously and finds that making strangers smile fills her with the best feeling in the world. At least until she discovers how it feels to make someone she truly loves smile (Nino) and then to sexually give herself to him and versa vice! Surely that must be better.
The film’s colors are faded throughout the film to symbolize the loneliness and lack of excitement of Amélie’s and the other characters’ existence. However, at the end of the film, when all the characters finally step out of their shells (Amélie risks herself for love, her father leaves to travel the world, the tabac lady releases her fear, etc), the colors are restored to vibrant levels. In addition to this, the colors red and green clearly have a greater meaning. Red and green are the only colors that Amélie ever wears, the train station is green, the gnome is red and green, Amélie has a red bedroom and a green television, and the bridge where Amélie skips stones is green, just to site a few examples. This leads one to wonder what their significance is. The color red is associated with lust, anger, and strength. It is the color of the 1st/Root Chakra, which connects one to their physical self. Green symbolizes nature, peace, money (not relevant in this context), and growth. It is the color of the 4th/Heart Chakra, which connects one to the heart and deals with giving and compassion. With the application of this new knowledge to the film, one uncovers another deeper level of Amélie and the protagonist’s character. Amélie, like all humans, is wired to need love. While she learns how to give love to others through the good deeds she does, she still yearns to have someone who loves her, a desire strengthened by the fact that neither of her parents were affectionate with her. Her mother dies while she is still young, and though Amélie longs for a just a hug from her father, the only time he even touches her is when he gives her medical examinations (of which the excitement of him being so close to her makes her heart beat so fast he diagnoses her with the fake heart condition that makes Amélie’s life even more miserable). It is obvious that Amélie has a gaping hole in need of filling with some love, particularly the love of a masculine figure, the culmination of which is found in sex, thus explaining her lust and the use of red throughout the film. Though Amélie never outwardly expresses any anger, it is highly likely that anyone whose parents ignored them, who lives in almost complete solitude and is frustrated with their life, would feel at least some anger. Amidst such shortcomings, Amélie has enormous strength. It keeps her going when her mum dies and when her father retreats into his own grief oblivion, it encourages her to pursue the owner of the mysterious tin box and to help Nino discover who the bald man in the photo booth is. This might surprise some viewers, given Amélie’s introverted personality, but often it is the quieter ones who have the most determination and fortitude. As to red’s connection to the 1st/Root Chakra, this does not relate too much to Amélie, except maybe to re–emphasize her need for sex. The meanings of green fit Amélie as well. When she is depressed, she skips stones; an act that involves her with three of the four aspects of Nature: earth (the stones), wind (the air), and water (the river). Amélie’s adult life is relatively peaceful, apart from her inner turmoil. She lives in a quaint French village, works in a simple café, and has relatively no sources of stress. Green also stands for growth, one of the themes of Amélie. The protagonist begins as a timid, lonely little girl and through pushing herself to be more social, starting with helping strangers and culminating in making love to her heart’s true desire, Nino, ends as a confident and awakened woman. Her change is drastic. The symbolism of the 4th/Heart Chakra relates directly to the film’s principle storyline: giving to others. Amélie takes delight in bringing joy to other people anonymously and finds that making strangers smile fills her with the best feeling in the world. At least until she discovers how it feels to make someone she truly loves smile (Nino) and then to sexually give herself to him and versa vice! Surely that must be better.
Journal #24: Mitt liv som hund/ My Life as a Dog
Director: Lasse Hallstrom
Writer: Lasse Hallstrom
Actors: Anton Glanzelius, Tomas von Bromssen, Anki Lidén
Release Date: 1985
101min
A little boy is sent to live with his uncle while his sick mother rests, and he learns much about life, people, and himself.
Explain the meaning of the film’s title
Writer: Lasse Hallstrom
Actors: Anton Glanzelius, Tomas von Bromssen, Anki Lidén
Release Date: 1985
101min
A little boy is sent to live with his uncle while his sick mother rests, and he learns much about life, people, and himself.
Explain the meaning of the film’s title
I must admit that the first time I watched this incredible film, I did not understand the title at all. But, upon the second viewing, it clicked. There are two dogs in Ingemar’s life: his real dog Sickan and the Russian space dog Laika whose story he narrates over the image of a starry night sky. On top of the pain his sick, angry mother causes him, Ingemar also has to deal with leaving his beloved Sickan, his true friend, behind when he goes to his uncles’ in Smaland. Laika is forcibly shipped off into the galaxies for human research and starved to death as her nourishment slowly whittled away. Laika symbolizes Ingemar, who is shipped off, against his will and all alone, to Smaland. He feels like he is left on his own, to fend for himself and learn the trials of life the hard way. He is treated like a dog. Ingemar sees his trip to Smaland as having the same mission as Laika: human progress. Laika was sent away to gather information for science and Ingemar is sent away to give his dying mother some rest so that she can hopefully heal. Ingemar also draws comfort from Laika’s story and uses it to put his own tragic situation into perspective, reasoning to himself that he is at least better off than poor old Laika. Though Laika’s journey ends in death, Ingemar’s journey ends happily with a loving family and a promising future.
Examine one of the film’s major themes: unpredictability
On of Mitt liv som hund’s themes is the unpredictability of childhood, adulthood, and life in general. Ingemar’s innocence is shaken from the beginning of the film by the sudden, unforeseen events that happen around him. Within the first minutes of the start, Ingemar is under a bridge with his friend, and upon pricking his finger and giving her some of the blood, pronounces them officially married. A piercing train whistle all at once interrupts this tender moment as the locomotive thunders along the bridge above them. Such an occurrence foreshadows how Ingemar’s peaceful life will soon be turned upside down. His dying mothers’ moods are unpredictable and Ingemar does not know what to think. One moment, he is playing with her on her bed, reading to her and making her laugh, and the next she is slamming the door on him and crying violently on her bedroom floor. His older brother surprises him too. Sometimes he is supportive of Ingemar and reassures him that it will all be okay, while other times he mocks him by sticking his penis in a glass bottle so it can’t come out. Who can Ingemar trust? He thinks he can rely on his uncle, but then instances come up that shake his trust again, like when he and his uncle are pretending to be dogs around his aunt, and all at once the two adults run into their bedroom and poor Ingemar is met with a door in his face–game over. Then there is the town daredevil who falls off the tightrope and appears to be dead, but then surprisingly leaps up unharmed or the old man who asks Ingemar to read aloud the descriptions in a lingerie magazine but then halfway through, snatches it from his hands and stuffs it under the pillow as someone enters the room. Ingemar, who cannot even drink a glass of milk without spilling it all over himself, now has to deal with all the adults in his life, the people he looks to for guidance on how to act in situations and around others, are inconsistent and unpredictable. But, he copies their behavior nonetheless, as he has nothing else to go by, yet gets scolded by the adults for it. He is acting like a child, but he is a child, and is punished for being what he is. Yet the adults act like children, even though they are adults, and are not told off. Ingemar sees this hypocrisy and unfairness and turns to Laika yet again, to console himself that things could be worse.
Journal #23: Les quatre cents coups/The 400 Blows
Director: Francois Truffaut
Writer: Francois Truffaut
Actors: Jean–Pierre Léaud, Albert Remy, Claire Maurier
Release Date: 1959
99min
A young French boy turns to stealing due to lack of love and understanding from the adults in his life and his peers.
Explain Truffaut’s shot choice in Antoine’s escape from the juvenile facility:
Writer: Francois Truffaut
Actors: Jean–Pierre Léaud, Albert Remy, Claire Maurier
Release Date: 1959
99min
A young French boy turns to stealing due to lack of love and understanding from the adults in his life and his peers.
Explain Truffaut’s shot choice in Antoine’s escape from the juvenile facility:
Antoine is able to make his escape during the football game (I must admit I wonder how they could tell the difference between the two teams as everyone is wearing the same thing. I mean at least have the jumpers versus the non–jumpers!) Antoine does a stellar throw in, then bolts under the fence, however a supervisor sees him and the chase begins. It’s shot in long angles, the two of them running across the hills, and then Antoine hiding under the bridge as his captor continues on above him. So far, the sequence is nothing special or terrible, it just communicates the action. Yet this next shot is where I begin to question Truffaut’s judgment as a director. For almost two and a half minutes, the camera tracks with Antoine, in a consistent M/L shot, eye level angle, as he runs along the French countryside path. There are no jump cuts, no inserts, no changes in angle or shot size, nothing. Apart from the slightly varying background, everything remains constant. It is very, very boring. There is no music, only the sound of his feet. I asked myself what he was thinking with such a choice. I thought that maybe Truffaut wanted to communicate just how much Antoine was running from, the magnitude of problems he was experiencing. His parents who hate each other and wanted to abort him, his short–tempered teacher, the alienation from his peers and the boredom and stupidity he sees in his society. The very long, single shot of his running escape (although it’s more like a jog) conveys this.
What is the nature of Antoine’s relationship with his mother?
The relationship between Antoine and his mother is quite complicated and unpredictable. She treats him like a slave, ordering him around to take out the trash and go to bed, get up, eat breakfast, and etc. No love in her voice at all. She is obsessed with her own beauty and sexuality, wearing tight sweaters, hiking up her skirts, gazing at herself in the mirror, and messing around with her boss. (This is contrasted with Antoine’s father who is an average–looking jokester who tries to discipline his son, but is not taken seriously.) Then when she meets him in the schoolmaster’s office, she affectionately embraces her son and comforting and pitying him. She confides in him about her childhood and bribes him to earn better marks in writing. It is a personal and touching scene and the audience gets the feeling that Antoine will be okay (this quickly disappears when Antoine copies Balzac in class and catches the house on fire). After this episode, the family goes out into town and everything seems rosy again. Both parents are loving toward each other and towards Antoine. The final straw in the relationship comes when Antoine is at the juvenile facility and his mother comes to see him, without his father. She tells poor Antoine that his father basically does not love him and could not care less what happens to him. This is all on top of Antoine’s confession to the psychiatrist that his mother tried to abort him and that she sold the only gift that he ever liked, from the only person he seems to have ever loved: a book from his grandmother. Now, he feels and is truly alone in the world, so he runs away to seek out a new life.
The relationship between Antoine and his mother is quite complicated and unpredictable. She treats him like a slave, ordering him around to take out the trash and go to bed, get up, eat breakfast, and etc. No love in her voice at all. She is obsessed with her own beauty and sexuality, wearing tight sweaters, hiking up her skirts, gazing at herself in the mirror, and messing around with her boss. (This is contrasted with Antoine’s father who is an average–looking jokester who tries to discipline his son, but is not taken seriously.) Then when she meets him in the schoolmaster’s office, she affectionately embraces her son and comforting and pitying him. She confides in him about her childhood and bribes him to earn better marks in writing. It is a personal and touching scene and the audience gets the feeling that Antoine will be okay (this quickly disappears when Antoine copies Balzac in class and catches the house on fire). After this episode, the family goes out into town and everything seems rosy again. Both parents are loving toward each other and towards Antoine. The final straw in the relationship comes when Antoine is at the juvenile facility and his mother comes to see him, without his father. She tells poor Antoine that his father basically does not love him and could not care less what happens to him. This is all on top of Antoine’s confession to the psychiatrist that his mother tried to abort him and that she sold the only gift that he ever liked, from the only person he seems to have ever loved: a book from his grandmother. Now, he feels and is truly alone in the world, so he runs away to seek out a new life.
Journal # 22: Cidade de Deus/City of God
Director: Fernando Meirelles
Writer: Paulo Lins (novel), Bráulio Mantovani
Actors: Alexandre Rodrigues, Leandro Firmino, Phellipe Haagensen
Release Date: 2002
130min
Two boys growing up in Rio's favelas take different paths–one becomes a photographer and the other a hood.
What is the significance of the beginning/end scene?
One aspect that makes this film so genius is the narrative sequence and how it starts where it ends, filling in the back stories in the middle so that when we return to the beginning again, we know everything that got them there. The first time we see the chicken chase scene, the chicken has no special significance other than being a chicken. But, the second time we see it, this chicken takes on a whole new importance: one can see it as a representation of Rocket. He sees the knives being sharpened for him, the preparation for his likely death, and decides to run for it. Rocket sees the life in the favelas that could await him and tries to run away from it towards photography. He takes one picture that lands him a job at the paper, and like the chicken that manages to temporarily hide behind the truck tire, thinks that he has escaped the dangerous life. But, the chicken finds itself caught between Li’l Zé’s gang with their guns and Rocket with his camera, resembling Rocket who is conflicted inside himself between the dirty, drug–dealing, violent slums and a prosperous future as a photographer. With the click of his camera, Rocket snaps the infamous shot (the sound of which becomes the gunshot from Ned that nails one of the gang members) and seals his fate as the artist he was destined to become and puts any possibility of becoming a hood behind him. The chicken escapes too.
One aspect that makes this film so genius is the narrative sequence and how it starts where it ends, filling in the back stories in the middle so that when we return to the beginning again, we know everything that got them there. The first time we see the chicken chase scene, the chicken has no special significance other than being a chicken. But, the second time we see it, this chicken takes on a whole new importance: one can see it as a representation of Rocket. He sees the knives being sharpened for him, the preparation for his likely death, and decides to run for it. Rocket sees the life in the favelas that could await him and tries to run away from it towards photography. He takes one picture that lands him a job at the paper, and like the chicken that manages to temporarily hide behind the truck tire, thinks that he has escaped the dangerous life. But, the chicken finds itself caught between Li’l Zé’s gang with their guns and Rocket with his camera, resembling Rocket who is conflicted inside himself between the dirty, drug–dealing, violent slums and a prosperous future as a photographer. With the click of his camera, Rocket snaps the infamous shot (the sound of which becomes the gunshot from Ned that nails one of the gang members) and seals his fate as the artist he was destined to become and puts any possibility of becoming a hood behind him. The chicken escapes too.
What effect does color have on the film?
Throughout the story, the color of the film changes to reflect the location, time period, and feelings of the characters. For example, during Rocket’s boyhood, the color tones are brighter and calmer, showing that though these times were still dangerous and difficult, they were still relatively peaceful and happy in comparison to what is to come. In some of the flashbacks, like the tale of Li’l Zé’s den and Otto’s story, the colors are faded and almost blurred, creating a surreal and dreamlike atmosphere. The rest of the film, documenting Li’l Zé and Carrot, their battles and such, has colors that are darker and dull, reflecting the evil in Li’l Zé and what the favela has become. The bright clothes that they wear contrasts with the darkness of the City of God.
Director: Giuseppe Tornatore
Writer: Giuseppe Tornatore
Actors: Philippe Noiret, Salvatore Cascio
Release Date: 1988
155 min
The relationship between a little boy and the town projectionist as they both age in Sicily.
What role does the Church play in the film?
The Catholic Church appears to play a central role in the film. Toto is an alter boy, though a reluctant one, and the Church censors the films Cinema Paradiso screens, making sure to keep the pure minds of the town’s citizens away from dirty images of breasts and kisses. And, Toto, or Salvatore as he is called when he matures, draws in his love Elena in the confession booth of all places. It is actually a beautiful place to set such a scene, as a confession booth is where one tells their deepest secrets to a trusted confidant. Here, Salvatore reveals his love for Elena, baring his soul to her with the confidence that though he has only spoken to her once or twice before, she will not betray him. This encounter is made possible only by Alfredo’s fake worry about some Bible story, which he frantically confesses to the father. It illustrates how little respect the people have for the religion they are supposed to be devout followers of and also how easily the leaders of the Catholic Church can be swayed into believing what the people want them to believe. However, none of the characters really seem to enjoy going to church and following the Catholic religion, except maybe Toto’s mother, who clings to the Church as her only hope since her husband died. Toto falls asleep during the service while he is meant to be ringing the bell for communion. All the people in Cinema Paradiso celebrate when they finally are released from the Church’s stringent restrictions and see people making love on the screen. The irony of it is that the audience members were engaging in far racier behavior in the back of the cinema while the censorship laws were still in place, right under the Church’s noses, yet were not punished for it. The place where everyone gathers is Cinema Paradiso, not the Church. The cinema is the center of the town, where people go to enjoy each other’s company and to find solace from the world. Salvatore, meaning salvation, leaves the Cinema Paradiso to experience life and becomes a filmmaker himself. Tornatore’s choice of nomenclature for his main character and the fact that the Cinema Paradiso replaces the church as the nucleus of the society, the sanctuary, suggests that film can be a form of salvation for some people. Through film, one can escape from the cruel reality, live out abandoned dreams, visit new places, meet loves and extraordinary people, and learn many valuable lessons. The Catholic Church at that time, or now days for that matter, was not offering up anything remotely as enticing.
What sets the love scene in Cinema Paradiso apart from all the others?
In almost every love story, and Cinema Paradiso is really a love story– the love of cinema, the love of life, and the love, though eventually lost, between two soulmates– there is a love scene. It is a challenge to create one that doesn’t just blend in with all the hundreds of others. Some directors decide to shoot it in dissolving closeups or maybe play it out in a series of medium shots, film it as one long shot or perhaps a mixture of all three. Tornatore’s love scene is one that stands out, and is probably my favorite love scene in all of cinema. One aspect of it is that the audience doesn’t see it coming. Salvatore is running the outdoor projector like normal, lying on his back on the ground and reciting the dialogue to the film on the screen. We see him in a birds’ eye view shot as he looks up to the sky, mouth open and soaking up the rain that is now falling on him. Then Tornatore cuts to show the audience running for shelter, which allows him to cut back to a side view, close–up of Salvatore. We see the open space above him in the frame, just waiting to be filled, and suddenly Elena crawls on top of him and fills that emptiness–both in the frame and in Salvatore’s soul. Next, he cuts to the film still playing on the projector, then back to the lovers in that same side view close–up, followed by another angle of the kiss, a not–quite straight–on medium shot. The cinematography is beautiful too– the way the moonlight shines through the gaps in their bodies and Elena’s wet hair, the occasional blue flash of lightening, the deep colors and shadows. Another reason why this scene is a favorite of so many could be that it is the ultimate fantasy of most people– to kiss their lover in the moonlight, on a deserted cobblestone Italian street, as they listen to the ocean lap against the walls and the rain sprinkle down.
Journal #20: Meet Joe Black
Director: Martin Brest
Writers: Ron Osborn, Jeff Reno,
Actors: Brad Pitt, Anthony Hopkins, Claire Forlani
Release:1998
178 min
Death takes the form of a handsome young man, in order to teach a wealthy old businessman about how to live, and in the process falls in love with the businessman's daughter.
What can one learn about editing from the film?
Besides basic points like how to edit for scenes of dialogue between multiple persons, scenes between only two people, covering a scene, inserts, and everything in between, one particular lesson to learn is the importance of patience when in the editing room. This is a forgotten virtue in most American films, though European films posses much of it (which I think is a main reason that most Americans shudder at the mention of a “foreign” film). A great example of a patient director and editor is the scene where Susan and the Young Man exit from the coffee shop (another touch that adds to the mystery and realistic portrayal of the subject matter, though it is hard, almost impossible, I suppose to portray Death realistically because no one knows what Death really looks like, is the fact that in the script and in the entire film, we never learn the man’s name). Outside the doors, they have a witty, thoughtful conversation that is covered in an original, certain–angled two shot, so that you also need to do reverses to get both characters’ reactions, and in POVs. After this conversation, Susan turns and walks away, as the Young Man watches her. Then he turns around and begins walking away just at the moment that she stops and turns around again to look at him. This continues back and forth, each time with a different angle, at least twice. It creates tension within the audience because they know something must be about to happen, otherwise the director would only do the action once, not three times. And sure enough, the fourth time, I believe, that Susan turns around, doesn’t see him, and turns the corner, the Young Man is violently hit by a car and killed on impact. If this scene were shorter or the cuts were sped up, the shock, disappointment and sadness the audience feels when the Young Man dies would not be nearly as great. Another example of patience in Meet Joe Black is the often lengthy pauses between actors’ dialogue. This is a nice touch because it focuses the attention not on the words, but on the actor’s expressions– we can see them thinking, digesting things, taking in feelings, etc– and allows the audience to mull over some of the wisdom in the lines. There is a fine line when it comes to patience in film, and Meet Joe Black might have crossed it, with a running time of 3 hours; long even by European standards. Based loosely on the 78 minutes long Death Takes a Holiday (1934), it received criticism from the American press for its’ supposedly unnecessary length, contrived story, and inconsistent acting. I must admit that the last act went on about ½ hour too long, but other than that, I disagree with all the points made by the critical reviews.
Director: William Friedkin
Writer: Robin Moore (book), Ernest Tidyman (screenplay)
Actors: Gene Hackman, Roy Scheider
Release Date: 1971
104min
2 NY policemen discover a narcotics case with French ties.
What separates the car chase scene in The French Connection from car chases in every other action movie?
Pretty much every action movie has some sort of high–speed car chase. A lot of them seem to slip through the cracks and merge together as one long scene. But, every now and then, one comes along that gets and stays noticed. The one in The French Connection is such a chase. The director had just made Bullet a few years back, which contains a fantastic car chase, but at the first production meeting, he told the crew that this new film must have a car chase better than Bullet. So, how did he pull it off? The car chases a train above it along the streets of New York. In 1971 , they didn’t have any of the technology today, so everything was actually filmed– the civilians almost killed and the red lights run through, all live. It was all improvised in way, they say a street they wanted to shoot at next, asked if they could and even though the answer was “No, you need permission from all the store owners first”, they went ahead, risking arrest and possible death, and just shot it right then and there. The driver, Bill Hickmen, went 90mph along about 26 blocks, facing oncoming traffic, riding along the sidewalk, and skimming a city bus along the way. There is a particular part where Gene Hackman driving the car, whizzing past the pillars of the train track bridge above, and a car comes off a side street, makes a left turn in front of Hackman, and the two collide. Thankfully, no one was hurt, but it could have been extremely dangerous. The crazy driving is raised to the next level because it is improvised. One take. The scene itself is improved with inserts of Gene’s frustrated face from various angles, his foot hitting the gas/brake, and alternating between his POV through/not through the windshield, low angle as if one is hanging onto the car’s front grill, the regular master of the car on its’ chaotic journey, and coverage of the gangster in the train as he tries to escape Hackman.
Briefly discuss the scene that ends the insane car chase:
The car chase finally ends when Gene Hackman catches up to the train at its’ stop, and the Frenchman gets out, about to make his way down the stairs, thinking he’s escaped. But, Hackman skids the car off the road, leaps out and meets the bad guy at the bottom of the staircase, gun poised. They confront each other, and we cut back and forth between them for a tense moment or two. Then, as the Frenchman turns to escape, Hackman shoots him in the back. We see Hackman leaning against the stair rail, the Frenchman’s scared face & then mid–turn, cut back to Hackman firing and then his POV of the shot enter the Frenchman’s back. Next, it’s a reverse so we see the Frenchman’s face of pain and surprise as he flings his arms back and rolls down the stairs to Hackman’s feet. There was a discrepancy over this scene because it is plain murder, which a good cop like Hackman shouldn’t do– the Frenchman was defenseless. But, when the film was shown in a 1,000 seated, full–up Manhattan theatre, everyone in the audience stood up in applause when the bullet goes into his back. The public likes to see bad guys get punished, whether it is fair or not.
Writer: Budd Schulberg
Actors: Marlon Brando, Lee J. Cobb
Release: 1954
108min
A once–was boxer fights against himself and the mafia of New York to expose the mob boss' crime and quell his inner demons.
Discuss the effect of “wordless–dialogue” on the film?
There are many great speeches in On the Waterfront, namely Brando’s “I coulda been a contenda”, but one of the most impactful scenes is one in which the dialogue is inaudible. It is the part where Terry finally tells Edie, whom he truly cares for, of his role in her brother’s death. He tells her on the rocks by the edge of the water, but we cannot hear anything he or she says, due to the loud ship horn that drowns out the words. However, we can guess what he might be saying based on what he’s said multiple times previously (I didn’t know they’d kill him, he’s gotta look out for himself, etc). We alternate between Edie in tears, head in her hands and Terry, as he tries desperately to communicate his feelings and justifications for his actions to her. The effect of this ‘silent’ conversation is that the audience is completely focused on the actors’ facial expressions, pain and frustration. It also shows how empty Terry’s words are to Edie in her grief, going in on ear and out the other. In addition, it leaves it up to the audience to decide the text of the conversation. For a film so driven by sculpted dialogue, this scene in which there is none really stands out as an important and beautiful moment.
How does On the Waterfront relate to director Elia Kazan’s personal life?
Terry Malloy is a once–was boxer who gets in with Johnny Friendly’s gang, resulting in his involvement in some dirty stuff, like the murder of Edie’s brother. However, he is not fully committed to the group, as his older brother Charlie is. He’s also part of a worker’s union on the docks, which is controlled by Friendly. Through Terry’s struggle to rat out Friendly and bring him to justice in court for his murdering, gambling and mafia work, Terry battles his inner demons and emerges as a strong leader. The historical backdrop during the time Kazan made this masterpiece is 1950s America, when McCarthyism is in full swing. The HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) was searching for communists all over the country and brought in Kazan to name everyone he knew or thought was a communist. Kazan did testify, but it was not very helpful to the HUAC because he named people whom he knew that the HUAC had already discovered to really be communists. But, after his trial and with his now damaged reputation, the money the studio gave him to make his films was lowered by 50%, and he was free to make his film exactly how he wanted, without the studio watching his every move. So in a way, a bad thing turned into a great thing. Kazan had the liberty to be his own director and the trial experience inspired him to make perhaps one of the most celebrated films in American cinema.
Journal #17: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Director: Peter Jackson
Writers: J.R. Tolkien (novel), Fran Walsh
Actors: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellan, Orlando Bloom, Vigo Mortenson
Release: 2001
178 min
The hobbit Frodo Baggins from the simple Shire is entrusted with the task of carrying the evil Ring to the fires of Mount Doom in order to destroy it forever and bring peace to Middle Earth.
What techniques did the filmmakers use to achieve the different effects in The Fellowship of the Ring?
Normally for these film journals, I create 2 questions with about 300 word responses each. But, as the question for The Fellowship of the Ring that I chose has such a great depth and width for discussion, I will only do this one question. So, let us begin. Because Peter Jackson was creating an imaginary world, he had to make every piece of wardrobe, every prop specifically for the film. Although this is quite expensive, it adds that authentic, stylish look which separates the film from a cheesy Disney fairytale. Frodo’s Elvin chain mail vest and white floaty dress, among others, are works of art. The next thing that he incorporated was miniatures. Though they built many of the locations full scale, like the Shire for example, some locations would be too expensive for that and hardly practical, so the solution is to scale them down into miniatures, and then add the actors in post. Sometimes it looks like crap, but when done well, like in all the Lord of the Rings films, it is mind–blowing and a much more budget friendly option. Next, one may wonder how the filmmakers managed to make those hobbits look, well, like little hobbits? It was done using forced perspective. But not just any forced perspective– this was groundbreaking. Forced perspective is a technique where by staging actors at a certain angle, one behind the other, it will appear as if they are side by side, and that the one at the rear is much shorter. This had been done before, but only with a locked camera because once the camera started moving, the forced perspective was lost. In The Fellowship it was done for the first time with a moving camera. This was done by placing one character on a motion–controlled dolly that moved counter to the motion controlled dolly holding the camera, in such a way that the characters maintained their size cheats (scaled set dressings were also built to sell the look). A very good example of this is the scene where Gandalf visits Frodo for tea in Bilbo’s house. Ian McKellan was sitting on the moving dolly, with a regular size table/props, while Elijah Wood sat further back in the frame, with a smaller scale table/props. As the camera moves around the table, Ian McKellan’s chair moves slightly in the opposite direction. Very cool if you ask me. Another technique was scale compositing. Elijah Wood in real life is 5’6” but in the film, he’s 3’6”. John Rhys–Davis (Gimli) is 6’1”, but as a dwarf he’s 4’6”. How does that work in the same shot?! Well, what they did was film each actor separately in blue screen, and then composite those two images together into one shot in post.
Journal #16: 12 Angry Men
Director: Sidney Lumet
Writer: Reginald Rose
Actors: Henry Fonda, Lee J Cobb
Release Date: 1957
96min
One unsure juror over the verdict of a murder case is able to show the other 11 jurors that the case is not so clear–cut as they had first thought.
How is the rather basic story expanded to apply multiple areas and commentaries?
12 Angry Men is the tale of 12 jurymen who wage a battle of words over whether or not a teen boy is guilty of (and therefore worthy of the death penalty) killing his father. Only one man votes ‘not–guilty’ in the beginning, not because he believes the boy is, but because he’s not sure and doesn’t want to pass such a quick judgment on such a life–changing decision. The film deals with the importance of a jury (though some people believe it is silly to allow citizens who are uneducated in law to decide such things), with Communism, Fascism, McCarthyism, prejudices, social norms, telling the truth, human weakness, taking time before making a decision and understanding the reason’s behind people’s actions and words, instead of simply arguing your point. The simple, rather boring setting of a court office allows the focus to be on the dialogue, facial expressions, and letting the audience try to piece together the mystery and figure out their verdict as if they were one of the men in the room too.
What are some of the problems that might arise from the limited location?
90 of the 95 minutes in the film take place in a real–life jury room. It was live TV director Sidney Lumet’s first movie, which he shot in 17 days for $350,000. Due to the location of the film, it would be very easy for the film to become quite boring quite quickly. But, the cinematographer Boris Kaufman, who shot On the Waterfront , spices it up with varied shot angles and lengths, like extreme closeups, inserts, well–positioned medium shots, complete coverage of the room and all the characters, etc, and different cutting frequencies depending on the level of tension in each particular part. It is also difficult to maintain continuity, with all 12 men maintaining the same hand/body position from shot to shot, and the items on the table (like the switchblade, papers, pens, notecards,) in the same place.
Journal #15: The Graduate
Director: Mike Nichols
Writer: Calder Willingham, Buck Henry
Actors: Dustin Hoffman, Anne Bancroft
Release Date: 1967
106min
Benjamin, a recent college graduate in California, battles feelings of pointlessness, blankness, despair, confusion and imprisonment as he searches for meaning and human contact.
What is the significance of Benjamin’s “diver suit scene”?
Every scene in a film has a purpose, something it adds to the rest of the tale. This particular scene, in which Benjamin emerges, decked out in a full divers suit, flippers, and oxygen tank, from the kitchen to the backyard. Here, he is greeted by his parents and their friends, as he makes his way into the pool. From here on, it’s his POV through the mask with his breathing sounds laid underneath. Everyone’s clapping in his face, then he descends into the water, and when he tries to come out of the water, his dad pushes his mask back under. The scene finishes with a medium shot of Ben at the bottom of the pool, slowly pulling out until blends in with the murky water. Ben sees his life, his future, his elders’ expectations, the world, as a joke, loony, no point. Nothing is more absurd than walking out of your kitchen in a complete diver suit, to the applause of the adults. The things he has to do to earn the approval of his parents are absurd and embarrassing. Yet, he does them because he doesn’t really know what he wants. His entering the swimming pool symbolizes his feelings of being a fish going round in circles in his bowl. And, when he tries to go his own way, when he tries to break the surface and get out of the pool, his dad shoves his hand in his face and buries him back under into confusion and submission. This is just one of the examples of Ben’s obsession with fish and his similarity with those animals.
Every scene in a film has a purpose, something it adds to the rest of the tale. This particular scene, in which Benjamin emerges, decked out in a full divers suit, flippers, and oxygen tank, from the kitchen to the backyard. Here, he is greeted by his parents and their friends, as he makes his way into the pool. From here on, it’s his POV through the mask with his breathing sounds laid underneath. Everyone’s clapping in his face, then he descends into the water, and when he tries to come out of the water, his dad pushes his mask back under. The scene finishes with a medium shot of Ben at the bottom of the pool, slowly pulling out until blends in with the murky water. Ben sees his life, his future, his elders’ expectations, the world, as a joke, loony, no point. Nothing is more absurd than walking out of your kitchen in a complete diver suit, to the applause of the adults. The things he has to do to earn the approval of his parents are absurd and embarrassing. Yet, he does them because he doesn’t really know what he wants. His entering the swimming pool symbolizes his feelings of being a fish going round in circles in his bowl. And, when he tries to go his own way, when he tries to break the surface and get out of the pool, his dad shoves his hand in his face and buries him back under into confusion and submission. This is just one of the examples of Ben’s obsession with fish and his similarity with those animals.
Question #2
The second thing I would like to comment on in The Graduate is not really a question. There is a sequence in the film, starting with a fade in on the glistening swimming pool over Simon and Garfunkel’s ‘The Sounds of Silence’, that I think is unbelievable. Ben’s face is then reflected in the pool water (again the imagery of the prisoner, a fish, trapped in his prison, the water bowl) and after, cuts to Ben floating on his raft. He absently watches his suburbia parents fret over stupid nothings and is filled with confusion and desperation. Mike Nichols designed the sets of Ben’s house and the Taft Hotel so that they were similar enough to enable him to cut between the two in such a way that the audience isn’t sure which one he is in until they actually see Mrs. Robinson or not. He painstakingly measured the exact widths and lengths, the height and position of the camera, shot size and lighting to be identical in both settings. This creates a really cool effect and symbolizes the confusion, blankness, and despair that Ben is in. The best part is the last 3 shots. Ben leaps out of the pool as if he’s getting onto the raft, but the cut lands him on top of Mrs. Robinson in the Taft Hotel. Then, as a voiceover, we hear his dad saying to him, “Ben, what are you doing?” Ben turns towards the camera, which holds on him for a bit, creating a tension in the audience because they think that the father has caught Ben in the affair. But then relief descends when the next shot is Ben’s POV, looking up from the raft in the pool at his father, who is backlit by the sun, almost godlike, so that Ben can barely see him. Truly genius.
Journal #14: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Director: Terry Gilliam
Writers: Terry Gilliam, Tony Grisoni, Tod Davies, Alex Cox (based on book by Hunter S. Thompson)
Release: 1998
Actors: Johnny Depp, Benicio del Toro
Actors: Johnny Depp, Benicio del Toro
119 min
Journalist Raoul Duke and his "attorney" Dr. Gonzo travel to Vegas to cover a motorcycle raise, but the trip quickly turns into a drugged–out, psychedelic and insanely wild few days, which are funny but also frightening.
How does the cinematography mirror the feelings of the characters?
Terry Gilliam masterfully depicts the manner in which a drugged –out–of–his–mind guy might see the world, and not just any world, but Las Vegas, through his use of the camera and the way he arranges the shots. I don’t think there is a single moment in the film when Raoul Duke or Dr. Gonzo aren’t completely stoned. Thus, the camera angles are tilted in slightly odd directions, the close ups are cut off in abnormal places (like missing the top of a guy’s head or his arm) that most films would not do, the patterns on the walls and carpets actually move and appear to strangle Duke (though this is visual effects), and people’s heads inflate, become demented and morph into monsters. Also, though not simulating the effects of a drug binge, I noticed that a lot of the shots have an object framed either in or out of focus in the foreground, while the characters play out the scene or speak their dialogue in the back of the shot. This touch adds a bit of spice or flair that is simple, but nice.
How does Gilliam weave the prose of Hunter S. Thompson into the film and use the images to complement it?
A lot of movies based on novels that try to incorporate the author’s brilliant flow of words fail greatly, like The Great Gatsby. Fitzgerald has a lovely way of writing, but it is not captured in the film. Gilliam blends parts of Thompson’s work into the film through Depp’s genius and hilarious narrative, which switches between voice over and dialogue (adding to the drug–induced confusion effect the film has on the audience), in a way that it elevates not only Gilliam’s film but also Thompson’s work. One of my particular favorite examples is when Duke is sitting in the hotel bar, surrounded by many typical Las Vegas nutcases. Duke’s dialogue/voice over comes in, in Thompson’s phrasing, “We’re in right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo! And somebody’s giving booze to these goddamn things!” As he says this, we see Duke’s POV as the people slowing morph into monsters, the floor turns to a sea of blood, and the monsters begin to lick, kiss, hump and fight with each other. Not only is it a great piece of cinema, and an example of written word coming to live in moving images, but it is a very relevant comment on society during the 90s.
Director: Ethan and Joel Coen
Writer: Ethan and Joel Coen
Release Date: 1996
Actors: William Macy, Frances McDormand, Steve Buscemi
98min
A North Dakotan man's money making scheme of kidnapping his wife goes terribly wrong.
How does the manner in which the first scene is covered establish the rest of the film?
The only character shot in closeup is Jerry. Jerry’s close–up is also slightly low angled, to demonstrate that he is the one who’s meant to be wearing the pants in this deal, which is quite far from the truth. Through this decision, the audience can assume that he is the main character in the film, the one that the story revolves around. The coverage of the other two men in the scene, Carl and Grimsrud, is a two shot. This shows the audience that they are a team, and the fact that Jerry and this pair are on opposite sides of the table shows that the two parties are not on the same page or maybe in a bit of a face–off. The dialogue mysteriously sets up the story and right away, there is confusion over the time of the meeting, who’s who, what the job actually is, and etc. All this foreshadows the huge confusion that will follow as the film progresses. The cinematography is nothing extra–fancy, but it is crisp, clear, and perfectly matched with the narrative.
The only character shot in closeup is Jerry. Jerry’s close–up is also slightly low angled, to demonstrate that he is the one who’s meant to be wearing the pants in this deal, which is quite far from the truth. Through this decision, the audience can assume that he is the main character in the film, the one that the story revolves around. The coverage of the other two men in the scene, Carl and Grimsrud, is a two shot. This shows the audience that they are a team, and the fact that Jerry and this pair are on opposite sides of the table shows that the two parties are not on the same page or maybe in a bit of a face–off. The dialogue mysteriously sets up the story and right away, there is confusion over the time of the meeting, who’s who, what the job actually is, and etc. All this foreshadows the huge confusion that will follow as the film progresses. The cinematography is nothing extra–fancy, but it is crisp, clear, and perfectly matched with the narrative.
Comment on the clever ways that the scenes are linked together and the effect it has on the film:
The Brothers Coen are out–of-this-world creative in every aspect. A funny example of this is the opening title sequence of Fargo, in which the text “Based on a true story” comes across the screen. In fact, the story is entirely fiction straight out of the Coen’s heads. They had really wanted to make a film that was a true story, but they couldn’t find any that they liked well enough, so they made one up and said that is was true because they thought the audience might find it more intriguing! Very clever! But a more cinematic example is the way in which they cut from scene to scene. In the scene where Jerry goes into the automechanic shop to ask Shep if he has any way of contacting the kidnappers, you can faintly hear a song playing on the radio in the background. The next shot is of the kidnappers driving along the freeway, with that same song on the radio in their car. It leads right in so smoothly. Again, one scene shows Grimsrud munching a TV dinner in his hideaway cabin, staring at the tiny screen, on which some romantic drama (whose dialogue relates very well to Fargo) is playing. Then, the camera moves in on the TV and then they cut to a close–up of a strange sort of beetle. The camera pulls out to reveal that the beetle is an image in a documentary on TV. The camera continues to pull out and show more of the room. Then, they cut to show Marge and her husband sitting in their bed, watching the program.
Journal #12: Time Bandits
Director: Terry Gilliam
Writer: Terry Gilliam, Michael Palin
Release Date: 1981
Actors: John Cleese, Sean Connery, David Rappaport
116min
A boy and a gang of midgets pillage people throughout history using a time-travel map that they took from the Supreme Being.
Discuss mise–en scene in Time Bandits
Every set and location in the film demonstrates acute attention to detail and is purpose–driven. Kevin’s home perfectly depicts a British suburban living room with plastic covered sofas, TV dinners, fake plants and throw–up pink wallpaper; giving Kevin the need to dream of far–off places and to escape from his boring reality. Napoleon’s castle overflows with rich tapestries, golden jewelry, a lavish banquet and giant oil–paintings and makes you believe you are in the 18th century. Aboard the ogre’s vessel, the copper pot, wooden deck, billowing sail, shelves of potions in cobwebbed bottles and the hairy feet strung up from the ceiling, make the audience feel like they’re sailing along with the bandits. Wardrobe is also a critical part of bringing this film to life, from the Evil One’s eccentric “robe” to Robin Hood’s green doublet. The clothing of the bandits’ reveals their character, not necessarily their tops and bottoms, which are all very similar, but their hats. The leader of the group is Randall and he wears an aviator’s cap, suggesting that he is the pilot, in control of where the bandits go on their journey. Wally wears a leather pirate hat, symbolizing adventure– he is the one who makes their escape from the Evil One’s hanging cages possible. Fidgit is the silly one, who doesn’t really make any insightful contributions to the group besides act and look sweet. On his head is a colander, to show that his brain is like a sieve and all the facts just slip out; incidentally, he is the only one who dies. Strutter is the most intelligent of the bandits, so it is fitting that he wears round glasses and an English bowler. And Vermin does nothing but eat, so his hat is a brown hunting cap with a small bird’s feather in it. Clearly, character’s clothing and set dressing play a huge part in a movie’s authenticity.
How are all the scenes connected to each other, besides the obvious that they’re in the same film? There are little threads throughout the movie that tie the beginning to the end and to everything in between, creating a flowing storyline. For example, in the opening scene, Kevin’s living room furniture is all covered in plastic. And, the Evil One covers all his furniture with plastic, as well as his three sidekicks. The television show Kevin’s parents are watching turns out to be the form in which the Evil One greets the bandits at his lair. Also, when the Evil One blows up and turns to charcoal bits, one is left behind. At the end when Kevin’s house is on fire, his parents open the toaster oven and find the left–over bit of evil inside, which they touch and are therefore blown up. King Agamemnon appears again as the fireman who rescues Kevin from the house fire. Many things from Kevin’s room can be found in the film, as it is all essentially his dream, such as the knights on horseback.
Every set and location in the film demonstrates acute attention to detail and is purpose–driven. Kevin’s home perfectly depicts a British suburban living room with plastic covered sofas, TV dinners, fake plants and throw–up pink wallpaper; giving Kevin the need to dream of far–off places and to escape from his boring reality. Napoleon’s castle overflows with rich tapestries, golden jewelry, a lavish banquet and giant oil–paintings and makes you believe you are in the 18th century. Aboard the ogre’s vessel, the copper pot, wooden deck, billowing sail, shelves of potions in cobwebbed bottles and the hairy feet strung up from the ceiling, make the audience feel like they’re sailing along with the bandits. Wardrobe is also a critical part of bringing this film to life, from the Evil One’s eccentric “robe” to Robin Hood’s green doublet. The clothing of the bandits’ reveals their character, not necessarily their tops and bottoms, which are all very similar, but their hats. The leader of the group is Randall and he wears an aviator’s cap, suggesting that he is the pilot, in control of where the bandits go on their journey. Wally wears a leather pirate hat, symbolizing adventure– he is the one who makes their escape from the Evil One’s hanging cages possible. Fidgit is the silly one, who doesn’t really make any insightful contributions to the group besides act and look sweet. On his head is a colander, to show that his brain is like a sieve and all the facts just slip out; incidentally, he is the only one who dies. Strutter is the most intelligent of the bandits, so it is fitting that he wears round glasses and an English bowler. And Vermin does nothing but eat, so his hat is a brown hunting cap with a small bird’s feather in it. Clearly, character’s clothing and set dressing play a huge part in a movie’s authenticity.
How are all the scenes connected to each other, besides the obvious that they’re in the same film? There are little threads throughout the movie that tie the beginning to the end and to everything in between, creating a flowing storyline. For example, in the opening scene, Kevin’s living room furniture is all covered in plastic. And, the Evil One covers all his furniture with plastic, as well as his three sidekicks. The television show Kevin’s parents are watching turns out to be the form in which the Evil One greets the bandits at his lair. Also, when the Evil One blows up and turns to charcoal bits, one is left behind. At the end when Kevin’s house is on fire, his parents open the toaster oven and find the left–over bit of evil inside, which they touch and are therefore blown up. King Agamemnon appears again as the fireman who rescues Kevin from the house fire. Many things from Kevin’s room can be found in the film, as it is all essentially his dream, such as the knights on horseback.
Journal #11: Dog Day Afternoon
Director: Sydney Lume
Writer: Frank Piereson
Release Date: September 1975
Actors: Al Pacino, John Cazale
125min
A man and his friend attempt to rob a bank, but things do not go as planned.
How is the film’s narrative atypical and what effect does it have on the audience?
Dog Day Afternoon opens with a montage depicting a hot summers day in New York City– the garbage men collecting the trash, people walking the streets or sunbathing on the beach. Right after that, we see Sal and Sonny in their car and the next thing we know, they’re robbing the bank. There is no set–up, the audience is thrust immediately into the story’s action. We learn about the characters piece by piece throughout the course of the film, discovering their motivation for the robbery about half–way into it, and getting glimpses of the different personages as the story evolves, as opposed to developing the character and setting up the plot. It starts out as a very simple tale, but slowly new elements are added, we see deeper into who Sonny is, and it becomes quite a bit more complicated. Yet, the majority of the film still takes place in the same location: the bank. The audience is caught off guard by the not–so–standard approach, leading to a feeling of excitement and increasing tension.
What effect does the style of dialogue have on the film?
The dialogue has a natural and un–scripted feel, which perfectly coincides with the story’s narrative, which has a similar sense to it. In fact, much of the dialogue was actually improvised, like the scene where Sonny struts in front of the bank, shouting,”Attica! Attica!” The telephone conversation was as well, the story behind which is quite interesting. Frank Piereson had originally written the final connection between Leno and Sonny as a conversation in front of the bank, surrounded by all the media and police, and ending with a proper kiss. But, Al Pacino refused to film such a scene due to the unrealistic and homosexual mood it would convey. So, Piereson rewrote the whole sub–plot of their relationship and put all of it– personal back–stories, their marriage, their love and why it wouldn’t work, into that one telephone call. That scene has such a real–life and intimate feeling about it, with humorous and tense undertones, even though it is essentially made up of just two shots. Dog Day Afternoon is proof that sometimes, less is more.
Source for story: Interview with Frank Piereson, screenwriter, June 1990, American Film, by Judson Klinger, "Save Our Script"
Source for story: Interview with Frank Piereson, screenwriter, June 1990, American Film, by Judson Klinger, "Save Our Script"
SEMESTER 1
Journal #10: Tootsie
Director: Sydney Pollack
Writer: Don McGuire
Release Date: 1982
Actors: Dustin Hoffman, Jessica Lange
116min
An unemployed actor pretends to be a woman in order to get work.
How is the audience introduced to the character Dorothy Michaels?
Michael, an actor with an awful reputation and unable to find a job dresses up as a woman in hopes he'll land a part in something. The audience is introduced to his plan, but isn't positive if he'll actually go through with it. Until the next short sequence, a series of shots showing the hustle of the New York city streets. It ends with a long, deep focus shot of a crowd of people. As the crowd moves closer to the camera, one woman appears to move into the center of the frame, assertively. Then, we suddenly recognize the face and realize that it is Michael in drag, as "Dorothy Michaels". A classic character introduction, showing how unique and influential this Dorothy Michaels will end up being–she stands out amongst the masses.
How does Michael's last line of dialogue at the end of the film give the story closure?
After Michael quits his job as Dorothy Michaels, he meets up again with his love interest and co–star, Julie. He says to her this beautiful phrase, "I was a better man with you as a woman than I ever was with a woman as a man." It takes a couple seconds for the audience to figure out the meaning of these words, but once we do, we realize that this is one of the morals of the film. True love is all about the other person bringing out the best in you, and vice versa. In addition, sometimes humans need to get more in touch with their "opposite sex side" so that some of those characteristics will be strengthened and they will become a better person overall. Michael was a harsh, critical and stubborn man. But, in Dorothy Michaels, he discovers that he has a soft, supportive and comforting side too.
How is the audience introduced to the character Dorothy Michaels?
Michael, an actor with an awful reputation and unable to find a job dresses up as a woman in hopes he'll land a part in something. The audience is introduced to his plan, but isn't positive if he'll actually go through with it. Until the next short sequence, a series of shots showing the hustle of the New York city streets. It ends with a long, deep focus shot of a crowd of people. As the crowd moves closer to the camera, one woman appears to move into the center of the frame, assertively. Then, we suddenly recognize the face and realize that it is Michael in drag, as "Dorothy Michaels". A classic character introduction, showing how unique and influential this Dorothy Michaels will end up being–she stands out amongst the masses.
How does Michael's last line of dialogue at the end of the film give the story closure?
After Michael quits his job as Dorothy Michaels, he meets up again with his love interest and co–star, Julie. He says to her this beautiful phrase, "I was a better man with you as a woman than I ever was with a woman as a man." It takes a couple seconds for the audience to figure out the meaning of these words, but once we do, we realize that this is one of the morals of the film. True love is all about the other person bringing out the best in you, and vice versa. In addition, sometimes humans need to get more in touch with their "opposite sex side" so that some of those characteristics will be strengthened and they will become a better person overall. Michael was a harsh, critical and stubborn man. But, in Dorothy Michaels, he discovers that he has a soft, supportive and comforting side too.
Director: Vittorio De Sica
Writer: Luigi Bartolini (novel), Cesare Zavatinni
Release Date: 1948
Actors: Lamberto Maggiorani, Enzo Staiola
93 min
A boy and his father search the streets of Rome for their stolen bicycle.
What is the significance of the film’s title, when it is properly translated?
Ladri di Biciclette is the original title in Italian. The film is commonly known as “The Bicycle Thief” but when properly translated, it is actually “Bicycle Thieves”. While some might shrug this grammatical error off as irrelevant, it alters the significance of the film completely. Singularly, the title states that the film deals with only one crook and then the innocent man who searches all day to find his stolen bicycle. But, with the plural, it comments on the society in post–war Italy. Now, the title says that everyone is a thief, prepared to make moral compromises for their own good and at the expense of another. In light of this greater meaning, I am surprised that the title of such an influential film has been allowed to be so commonly butchered. It is almost an insult to De Sica himself, and therefore, from now on, if I hear anyone call this film “The Bicycle Thief “ again, I will make sure to politely point out the mistake.
What is the purpose of the little boy, Bruno, in the film?
Why does De Sica choose to have Antonio’s son, Bruno, parade around with him the whole film? It seems counter–productive to his goal of finding his stolen bicycle as quickly as possible. Being a little boy, Bruno would slow him down, get hungry, tired, distracted and would be less of a hindrance if he just stayed at home with his mum and the baby. But, De Sica isn’t concerned with this; he places Bruno where he does for a greater impact: Bruno is the soul of the film. He expresses those human qualities that the audience identifies with and gets pulled into the film by. His sweet smile makes the viewer smile and when he cries and sniffles, the viewer feels a deep sense of compassion for him, much more so than when Antonio cries. His little steps besides the long strides of his father are perfectly juxtaposed, an adorable image of man and boy on a mission together. Bruno also acts as the sense of perspective in the film. For example, when Antonio is in the thick of his pursuit, he gets angry with Bruno and sends him over to these steps by a river to wait for him, while he keeps looking for the thief. Suddenly, he hears people shouting that a boy is drowning, and races to the bank, thinking it is Bruno. It is not, and he sighs with relief to see Bruno sitting on the steps just like he had told him to. This makes Antonio realize that, when compared to the life of his son, the stolen bicycle is not that important. And the fact that he doesn’t have much money isn’t important either, as in the next scene, Antonio takes starving Bruno to a restaurant, where the two enjoy mozzarella on bread. Bruno shows Antonio that family is what counts, not wealth, and that he doesn’t care if his father has a job or not, as long as they can be together.
Journal #8: Chinatown
Director: Roman Polanski
Writer: Robert Towne
Release Date: June 1974
Actors: Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway
130 min
A detective investigating an affair finds out about a murder, uncovering a scandal much deeper than he ever imagined.
What makes Chinatown a classic film noir?
One could write a 500 word essay on this topic, but I will restrain myself to a brief summary as this is a journal question, not a paper. Film noir is typically black and white, but Chinatown is in color. This is a small detail and not too important, as most films in the 1970s were in color. Film noir uses low–key lighting and high contrast, creating tension and darkness. Hard shadows cross character’s faces, making the story all the more mysterious. The offices in Chinatown have very little light, Venetian blinds, and there are numerous scenes that take place at night as well. Cigarette smoke adds to the dirtiness. The dialogue is acidic and sharp, the storyline surprising and fast–paced. Chinatown ‘s plot deals with murder, lies and corruption, all characteristic of film noir. Also, the protagonist is usually a detective, policeman or criminal investigator, such as Jake Gittes. Mrs. Mulwray fulfills the part of the femme–fatale, the sexy woman who lures the hero into a deadly trap (Chinatown has a twist in this aspect, but I will not spoil it for anyone who hasn’t had the pleasure of viewing it yet).
How is the entire film set up perfectly within the first 10 minutes?
Part of the genius of Chinatown is how everything is established so quickly, yet the audience, like Gittes, goes along and doesn’t see how it all fits together until the end. First off, we meet the hero, Jake Gittes, and discover that he’s a private investigator. A new client, “Mrs. Mulwray” comes in and hires him to spy on her husband, Hollis Mulwray, who we learn is the owner of LA Water and Power. To begin his investigation, Gittes goes to a public meeting at which Hollis refuses to build a dam that would give water to the San Fernando valley. A furious farmer barges into the court room with his sheep, saying his livestock have no water and no grazing land, and asks, “Who’s paying you to do that Mr. Mulwray?!” Gittes follows Hollis from the court to the ocean, and watches him walk along the beach. The run–off pipe in front of which Gittes is standing suddenly spews out a rush of fresh water, soaking him. Ironically, when he returns to his car, there is a slip of paper on his windshield with the words, “Save our city! Los Angeles is dying of thirst!...”. Gittes returns to his office, where one of his men shows him some photos he just took of Hollis arguing with a fat man in a hat. He tells Gittes the only word he could distinguish was “applecore.” (This ends up being a mis–hearing of a very important place that is central to the plot). Shortly after, the real Mrs. Mulwray comes into Gittes, threatening to sue him for spying on her husband. And from then on, Gittes is determined to find out who set him up with the fake Mrs. Mulwray, and why, and to get to the bottom of the water scandal. We know the two main characters, both of their dramatic needs, the two main antagonists, and the central conflict of the film. But, none of these clues make 100% sense until it all comes together in the end.
Part of the genius of Chinatown is how everything is established so quickly, yet the audience, like Gittes, goes along and doesn’t see how it all fits together until the end. First off, we meet the hero, Jake Gittes, and discover that he’s a private investigator. A new client, “Mrs. Mulwray” comes in and hires him to spy on her husband, Hollis Mulwray, who we learn is the owner of LA Water and Power. To begin his investigation, Gittes goes to a public meeting at which Hollis refuses to build a dam that would give water to the San Fernando valley. A furious farmer barges into the court room with his sheep, saying his livestock have no water and no grazing land, and asks, “Who’s paying you to do that Mr. Mulwray?!” Gittes follows Hollis from the court to the ocean, and watches him walk along the beach. The run–off pipe in front of which Gittes is standing suddenly spews out a rush of fresh water, soaking him. Ironically, when he returns to his car, there is a slip of paper on his windshield with the words, “Save our city! Los Angeles is dying of thirst!...”. Gittes returns to his office, where one of his men shows him some photos he just took of Hollis arguing with a fat man in a hat. He tells Gittes the only word he could distinguish was “applecore.” (This ends up being a mis–hearing of a very important place that is central to the plot). Shortly after, the real Mrs. Mulwray comes into Gittes, threatening to sue him for spying on her husband. And from then on, Gittes is determined to find out who set him up with the fake Mrs. Mulwray, and why, and to get to the bottom of the water scandal. We know the two main characters, both of their dramatic needs, the two main antagonists, and the central conflict of the film. But, none of these clues make 100% sense until it all comes together in the end.
Journal #7: Dances with Wolves
Director: Kevin Coster
Writer: Michael Blake
Release Date: 1990
Actors: Kevin Costner
181 min
Lt. Dunbar is stationed at a lonely post in the Western plains and befriends the Sioux Indians, facing many trials and decisions both before and after he forms this alliance.
What elements make the opening scene one of tension rather than sorrow?
The film opens with Lt. Dunbar lying on a bed in the medical tent, as two army doctors look over him. They quickly leave to attend to another matter, leaving Dunbar alone. Lt. Dunbar decides that if the doctors aren’t going to amputate his wounded leg, he has no reason to be there. So, he puts on his boots and walks out. That’s the basic action. This scene could be played in various ways in order to elicit certain emotions from the audience If the intended reaction was sympathy and sadness, the music would be slow, classic melancholy with soft piano, harps and violins. The editing would be elongated, and the cuts between shots more fluid and calm. But, as Costner wants us to feel excited and tense instead, he decides to use the exact opposite: fast, dramatic music with drums and quick, sharp edits. He cuts back and forth, rapidly, between close–ups of Dunbar’s bloody, strained face and the dangerous surgery tools, then back to Costner’s face and to a close–up of him shoving his wounded leg back into the tight boot. We see from Dunbar’s expression that it painful, but never for long enough at any moment to allow us to feel upset. The scene ends with Dunbar walking from behind, into the open frame and out through the medical tent.
Explain what makes the “Buffalo Hunt” scene a cinematic achievement:
After Dunbar has gotten to know the Indians better, he goes on a buffalo hunt with them. We see a herd of massive buffalo pounding the plains, as Indians chase after them at full speed, riding painted horses and firing their arrows. Dunbar joins in, fiercely running after the enormous creatures on his own fast horse, shooting at them with his rifle. It is when he becomes accepted by the Indians; his initiation ceremony. Wide angle shots of the entire scene are mixed with close–ups of the buffalo smashing to the ground, with arrows in their chest. There’s even a shot where it appears as if the buffalo are running over us, with their hooves on top of the camera; a reverse bird’s eye. All these angles make the audience feel the adrenaline of the Indians and Dunbar, as if they were a part of the hunt too. Now days, with the available technology, such a scene would most likely be computer generated and thus, less realistic, less exciting and nothing that special. But, Costner had to use real buffalo; and thank goodness he did because the effect it has on the audience is captivating.
Journal #6: Goodfellas
Director: Martin Scorsese
Writer: Nicholas Pileggi
Release Date: September 1990
Actors: Robert DeNiro, Ray Liotta, Joe Pesci
146 min
Henry Hill and his fellow gangsters pull jobs and advance their rankings in the mob world.
How does the opening scene tell the audience all they need to know about the film?
Goodfellas opens with three men, dressed in suits, driving along at night. They hear a banging noise from the back of the car, so they pull over. There is a close-up shot on the boot and whatever is making the noise is also moving the car a bit. One of the three men opens the boot to reveal a bloodied up man in a white sheet. Then, Tommy takes a 10in kitchen knife out of his jacket and brutally stabs the man six times, followed by Jimmy, who puts three bullets in his chest. There’s a cut to Henry, who’s standing back in shock at what he just witnessed Jimmy and Tommy doing. We hold on this shot, as Henry’s voice over says, “I’ve always wanted to be a gangster ”. This scene sets up the entire film. We meet the three main characters, Tommy, Jimmy and Henry, and can tell, by their wardrobe, that they are rich. However, when they open the boot and stare at the massacred man lying there, barely alive, we are not sure if the three men were framed or if it actually was them who do it. All confusion is erased when Tommy stabs him and Jimmy shoots him multiple times. We now these men are not good people. The taillights of the car cast a red glow over the entire scene, giving it an air of danger and violence.
Explain the purpose of the still shots used periodically throughout the film:
Throughout Goodfellas, there are moments where the film freezes on one particular frame as Henry’s voice over plays. The first time this technique is used is a close-up of Henry, in the opening scene where Jimmy and Tommy re–murder the man in their boot. It tells us that the film will be about this character Henry and his journey to become a gangster, like he is at this current point. The next freeze frame is Henry’s point of view of his father standing over him and beating him. Henry’s family does not approve of him becoming a gangster, so Henry rebels and wants it that much more. The third is Henry’s silhouette, as he runs toward the camera from the cars he just exploded. It is Henry’s first “big job” as a gangster and holding on this moment conveys its’ importance. The next still shot is of the mob family embracing Henry after he gets off scotch free from his first court trial. He’s officially become an initiated gangster, this group is his new family. It is in this moment that he learns, according to Jimmy, “the two most important lessons in life: Never rat out your friends and always keep your mouth shut”, both of which Henry ends up disobeying, against the same person who gives him those words of wisdom. There are more of such freeze frames dotted throughout the film. If we were to make a picture book with each of these still frames as a chapter, it would create a step by step sequence of the most important moments of Henry’s story
Throughout Goodfellas, there are moments where the film freezes on one particular frame as Henry’s voice over plays. The first time this technique is used is a close-up of Henry, in the opening scene where Jimmy and Tommy re–murder the man in their boot. It tells us that the film will be about this character Henry and his journey to become a gangster, like he is at this current point. The next freeze frame is Henry’s point of view of his father standing over him and beating him. Henry’s family does not approve of him becoming a gangster, so Henry rebels and wants it that much more. The third is Henry’s silhouette, as he runs toward the camera from the cars he just exploded. It is Henry’s first “big job” as a gangster and holding on this moment conveys its’ importance. The next still shot is of the mob family embracing Henry after he gets off scotch free from his first court trial. He’s officially become an initiated gangster, this group is his new family. It is in this moment that he learns, according to Jimmy, “the two most important lessons in life: Never rat out your friends and always keep your mouth shut”, both of which Henry ends up disobeying, against the same person who gives him those words of wisdom. There are more of such freeze frames dotted throughout the film. If we were to make a picture book with each of these still frames as a chapter, it would create a step by step sequence of the most important moments of Henry’s story
Journal #5: The Godfather Part 1
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Writer: Mario Puzo
Release Date: March 1972
Actors: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan
175 min
The don of a New York mafia family becomes old and gives the business over to his son, who must learn the ropes and keep the Corleone family in control. Themes include revenge, action–consequence and hypocrisy.
Explain the reasons behind the lighting and music choice:
The lighting in Godfather Part 1 is high contrast, very dark sections mixed with very bright sections in a single shot, and low key, low lighting with an overall darker shade. Both of these styles give the picture a dark, somber and mysterious tone. It also creates sharp shadows across the character’s faces, reflecting their deceptive, brutal and cunning natures. It tells the audience that the Corleone family business is shady, violent and not for the faint of heart. The music also contributes to the mood; it has shades of sadness, suspense, and darkness woven through and is quite depressing as a whole piece. The only real happy music in the film is in the opening wedding scene, where everyone is dancing and naturally jovial.
What is the purpose in jump–cutting between the two scenes of the baptism and then the murder of the other family heads?
Michael has been asked to be the godfather of his sister’s baby, so he goes to the church for the ceremony. He has also ordered the murder of the other Five Family dons of New York. Coppola jump–cuts between these two scenes to let us know that both actions are occurring simultaneously. But, the bigger reason behind this choice is to create irony and to highlight the hypocrisy of human beings. A close up shot of Michael swearing his allegiance to Jesus Christ, the King of Love and the paradox of the Devil, is followed immediately by the head of another of the families getting trapped in a revolving glass door. Then, one of Michael’s men shoots him point blank a couple times, and the blood splatters onto the glass screen. The effect is haunting. The holy house of God and murder in cold blood– polar opposites. It communicates to the audience the truth that people put up these facades for the world to see, showing others that they are “good”, believing in God and His moral ways. But, they are really liars who enjoy doing dirty, dark deeds, with absolutely no sense of right and wrong.
Michael has been asked to be the godfather of his sister’s baby, so he goes to the church for the ceremony. He has also ordered the murder of the other Five Family dons of New York. Coppola jump–cuts between these two scenes to let us know that both actions are occurring simultaneously. But, the bigger reason behind this choice is to create irony and to highlight the hypocrisy of human beings. A close up shot of Michael swearing his allegiance to Jesus Christ, the King of Love and the paradox of the Devil, is followed immediately by the head of another of the families getting trapped in a revolving glass door. Then, one of Michael’s men shoots him point blank a couple times, and the blood splatters onto the glass screen. The effect is haunting. The holy house of God and murder in cold blood– polar opposites. It communicates to the audience the truth that people put up these facades for the world to see, showing others that they are “good”, believing in God and His moral ways. But, they are really liars who enjoy doing dirty, dark deeds, with absolutely no sense of right and wrong.
Journal #4: The African Queen
Director: John Huston
Writer: C.S. Forester, James Agee
Release Date: 1951
Actors: Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn
105 min
During WWI, a drunken boat captain and a moralistic Catholic lady set off together along an African river. They encounter many obstacles as they bond on their mission to blow up the enemy's war vessel. One of the overall messages is to look fear in the face and go after the adventure.
During WWI, a drunken boat captain and a moralistic Catholic lady set off together along an African river. They encounter many obstacles as they bond on their mission to blow up the enemy's war vessel. One of the overall messages is to look fear in the face and go after the adventure.
What were some of the complications in filming The African Queen and how were they overcome?
The production of this film was not at all easy. For one, the location was the Ruiki River in Zaire, Africa– rural, dangerous animals, dirty water, extreme heat, and malaria. The crew combated these problems by building huts and drinking only whiskey. Secondly, the whole movie takes place on a boat less than 30 ft long and it was shot in Technicolor, thus the camera was enormous. Three strips of black and white film went through a color filter that split the light beams and caught the reds, blues and greens of the image. These then produced 3 individual film strips, one cyan, one magenta and one yellow, which were combined into a single piece of film. On top of this, there had to be room for all the lights and the actors themselves. This was remedied by building a match of each section of the boat, placing it on a raft, and trailing it behind the African Queen. The crew had their own raft and Katherine Hepburn, the leading lady, insisted on having her own floating bathroom– all this formed a train of flotillas along the African river. But, all the trouble was well worth it and resulted in a classic film.
The production of this film was not at all easy. For one, the location was the Ruiki River in Zaire, Africa– rural, dangerous animals, dirty water, extreme heat, and malaria. The crew combated these problems by building huts and drinking only whiskey. Secondly, the whole movie takes place on a boat less than 30 ft long and it was shot in Technicolor, thus the camera was enormous. Three strips of black and white film went through a color filter that split the light beams and caught the reds, blues and greens of the image. These then produced 3 individual film strips, one cyan, one magenta and one yellow, which were combined into a single piece of film. On top of this, there had to be room for all the lights and the actors themselves. This was remedied by building a match of each section of the boat, placing it on a raft, and trailing it behind the African Queen. The crew had their own raft and Katherine Hepburn, the leading lady, insisted on having her own floating bathroom– all this formed a train of flotillas along the African river. But, all the trouble was well worth it and resulted in a classic film.
How did the political climate of the time effect the production of The African Queen?
In 1940’s and 1950’s America, a fear of Communism like that in China and Russia, began to take hold. U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy used this phenomenon to gain himself power. He announced his list of 205 communists who had invaded the United States, calling for their arrest and trial. More individuals were added to the initial 200, particularly actors and writers. Accusation of communism could ruin a career in seconds. John Huston, the director, Katherine Hepburn, and Humphrey Bogart were all blacklisted as communists. Because of this, no studio would finance The African Queen and the crew was forced to shoot in Africa and to obtain the money for the production some other way. The whole process was similar to that of independent filmmakers today.
In 1940’s and 1950’s America, a fear of Communism like that in China and Russia, began to take hold. U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy used this phenomenon to gain himself power. He announced his list of 205 communists who had invaded the United States, calling for their arrest and trial. More individuals were added to the initial 200, particularly actors and writers. Accusation of communism could ruin a career in seconds. John Huston, the director, Katherine Hepburn, and Humphrey Bogart were all blacklisted as communists. Because of this, no studio would finance The African Queen and the crew was forced to shoot in Africa and to obtain the money for the production some other way. The whole process was similar to that of independent filmmakers today.
Journal #3: Crash
