I noticed that Mr. Bennett had made a post on the great lines that he found from the Asphalt Jungle. The two lines he noted were terrific lines and I am sure the most significant of the film. However, even though we are only half way through, I believe I have some more good lines and also some thoughts on the film.
First, the lines I have taken note of are:
"I don't want your opinion of the law." - Emmerich
"A drink habit, the only one I got that don't get me in trouble." - Cobby
"I'll make a real killing."
"I gotta get this city dirt off me."
The next one is taken out of context but I believe that Cobby says that "he might have had a little load on" and he wishes that Dix "wasn't so touchy" because Cobby wants to "feel big."
"Money makes me sweat."
"Everyone of those guys has a screw loose somewhere."
"If you want fresh air, don't look for it in this town."
These are the quotes I had for now. However, in terms of the content of the film itself, there are some things to discuss.
First, the way the film has been structured so far, I have gotten quite intrigued by the numerous double-crossings and other things planned in the heist. It seems like a story where all of the characters seperate stories are going to collide in one big scene. I could be wrong, but it seems like each character seems to be weaving their story closer and closer together.
I am also very interested in the way that Emmerich is bankrupt and trying to double cross his own men to get rich. This seems like it is heading for disaster for him and several other characters but it is hard to tell. All of the characters I think I can understand relatively well and understand their motives and their personality, except for Dix Handley. He still seems like a man of mystery and I can't understand his motives as a petty thief or the rationale behind getting involved in this heist. He is the one character I haven't grasped yet, and that could be the intent of the film.
Finally, and this is an irrelevant thought but one that I keep being reminded of. This is that everytime I hear the name Emmerich, I always think of Franz Kemmerich from All Quiet on the Western Front. Now obviously I am not trying to draw a connection between the two because none exists but every time I hear the name, I think of Paul frantically yelling, "Doctor, Franz Kemmerich is dying." Then of course, the doctor has no response because he does not know Franz as anything other than Bed 26 and one of his 12 leg amputations today.
But I digress, that last point had nothing to do with the Asphalt Jungle beyond the fact that the name and the scene from All Quiet on the Western Front stick out to me everytime that Emmerich is on screen because the name similiarity.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Unforgiven
So, I was able to finish Unforgiven this weekend on my own, since I wasn't in class on Friday. And I don't know if there was any time for discussion but all I can say is that the ending to Unforgiven was incredible. In reading one of Mr. Bennett's comments on the film, I completely agree that the image of Clint Eastwood standing after killing everyone, is as iconic an image as any in film, and may be as powerful in film as say a word of dialogue like "Rosebud" in Citizen Kane. On a whole, the film was just amazing and the ending added to it. Even the image of Morgan Freeman standing in that coffin, is an enduring image that may never leave my mind.
I didn't get a chance to write a post during the movie like I usually do but there were some things about the film that I noticed while watching.
For one, when Will Munny is speaking to Morgan Freeman about his motives for coming out of "retirement" he says that he is only doing it for the "money". He really just needs the money for his family and for himself and he is not doing it to go back to the way he was before. "I need the money." However, I took this to mean that he needs the "Munny," meaning that he had lost his true personality when he got married and he needed to get it back. He wanted to rediscover his "Munny" once again. Now, he also needed the literal money but I also feel that he needed to find himself and go back to the man he used to be.
The scene that also speaks to this is when he is unable to get on his horse the first time, showing how out of practice he was and how in order for his life to be fulfilled, he needed to go on this mission and kill the two cowboys. "I used to be a great rider before your mother came. I used to be a great rider."
He even says that he isn't like that anymore. "I'm just a fella now. I ain't no different than anyone else no more."
Also, as Mr. Bennett stated, there were several instances where the people spoke of stories and exaggerations and different things that they saw. These include:
(early in the film, when the first man comes to visit Will)
"You are the one that killed Charlie Peppers and the other men aren't you?"
"You robbed the train, didn't you?"
"You don't look like a killer. Well Pete said you were the worst one if I ever wanted a killer."
"Pete said that, yea he did."
Next, the next scenes where they speak about how badly the women got cut up, beyond her actual wounds and the way that each person who tells of the story, expands and the exaggerates the story even further.
"I hear you been talking about the Queen here."
The shooting of the bird scene on the train and how the man tells English Bob how good of a shot he is, even though he is in face a very poor shot and could only hit one bird.
The entire story about the Duke/Duck of Death was exaggerated at that even the picture and that entire time was completely over blown.
When the Schofield kid claims to have killed 5 men, and then later admits that he had never killed anyone and would never kill anyone again. He wasn't cut out for this.
The scene where the Schofield kid and Will Munny speak about what it is like to kill somebody was also one of the most powerful scenes I have ever seen. It spoke to the value of one human life and how difficult it can be for some people to actual kill people. That, as a matter of fact, the difference between life and death is controlled by the "pull of a trigger." The way that this scene shows the emotion of how much of an effect, truly taking the life of another person can be.
I hope to have more thoughts on this film, but I am too tired at this point to make any more intelligent comments. (It is quite likely that I have not made any intelligent comments but I don't want to bore people any further.) But if I get any flashes of brilliance (very doubtful) I will be sure to write them, but I was very happy to see the conclusion of this film because it was completely brilliant and an ending that truly culminated a film, something that is very rare in film.
I didn't get a chance to write a post during the movie like I usually do but there were some things about the film that I noticed while watching.
For one, when Will Munny is speaking to Morgan Freeman about his motives for coming out of "retirement" he says that he is only doing it for the "money". He really just needs the money for his family and for himself and he is not doing it to go back to the way he was before. "I need the money." However, I took this to mean that he needs the "Munny," meaning that he had lost his true personality when he got married and he needed to get it back. He wanted to rediscover his "Munny" once again. Now, he also needed the literal money but I also feel that he needed to find himself and go back to the man he used to be.
The scene that also speaks to this is when he is unable to get on his horse the first time, showing how out of practice he was and how in order for his life to be fulfilled, he needed to go on this mission and kill the two cowboys. "I used to be a great rider before your mother came. I used to be a great rider."
He even says that he isn't like that anymore. "I'm just a fella now. I ain't no different than anyone else no more."
Also, as Mr. Bennett stated, there were several instances where the people spoke of stories and exaggerations and different things that they saw. These include:
(early in the film, when the first man comes to visit Will)
"You are the one that killed Charlie Peppers and the other men aren't you?"
"You robbed the train, didn't you?"
"You don't look like a killer. Well Pete said you were the worst one if I ever wanted a killer."
"Pete said that, yea he did."
Next, the next scenes where they speak about how badly the women got cut up, beyond her actual wounds and the way that each person who tells of the story, expands and the exaggerates the story even further.
"I hear you been talking about the Queen here."
The shooting of the bird scene on the train and how the man tells English Bob how good of a shot he is, even though he is in face a very poor shot and could only hit one bird.
The entire story about the Duke/Duck of Death was exaggerated at that even the picture and that entire time was completely over blown.
When the Schofield kid claims to have killed 5 men, and then later admits that he had never killed anyone and would never kill anyone again. He wasn't cut out for this.
The scene where the Schofield kid and Will Munny speak about what it is like to kill somebody was also one of the most powerful scenes I have ever seen. It spoke to the value of one human life and how difficult it can be for some people to actual kill people. That, as a matter of fact, the difference between life and death is controlled by the "pull of a trigger." The way that this scene shows the emotion of how much of an effect, truly taking the life of another person can be.
I hope to have more thoughts on this film, but I am too tired at this point to make any more intelligent comments. (It is quite likely that I have not made any intelligent comments but I don't want to bore people any further.) But if I get any flashes of brilliance (very doubtful) I will be sure to write them, but I was very happy to see the conclusion of this film because it was completely brilliant and an ending that truly culminated a film, something that is very rare in film.
Friday, April 17, 2009
A Quick Note -- FYI
For anyone interested, the film Top Hat will be on Turner Classic Movies, (Directv Channel 256) on Monday, April 20th, at 11:00 pm. I know that this film was not very popular with the class but I also know that some people did enjoy it so they may want to see the end of the movie. Just wanted to let people know if they want to see some more Fred Astaire tap dancing.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Quiz Show
Today, I saw the Oscar-nominated 1994 film, Quiz Show, directed by Robert Redford, starring John Turturro, Paul Scofield, Ralph Fiennes (again), Rob Morrow and Martin Scorsese (surprising). Now, this is the 3rd film in the last week that I've seen that was nominated for Best Picture for 1995 in the last week, and let me point out that that was a complete accident but I will be doing a side-by-side comparison of these three and which I believed deserved the Best Picture.
This film revolved around an Congressional probe into fraud in the 1950's Game Shows. This was based on a true story, and actual investigation that followed in the 1950's. This film was technically sound, very well acted, with an engrossing storyline that made it difficult to look away from. I was absolutely entranced in the film from start to finish and I was even more interested because it was a true story.
Fiennes and Turturro were exceptional, as was the rest of the ensemble cast. (Scofield received an Academy Award nod, as did Redford and the screenwriter.) I thought this movie was executed very well, and the mix of suspense, surprise, and the constant plot twists and character juxtaposition, told the story from a few different angles and did it very impressively. I thought that the movie was very good. I was certainly recommend it and have people watch it for themselves because of its storyline, acting, and historical implications.
I realize that this post is short but I realize that people are probably less familiar with this than Forrest Gump or Shawshank, so I will give more comments when I compare the three of them and will analyze all of them more deeply, and this one especially so I will hold some of my comments for now.
But I would definitely suggest that people watch this, because the story had me hooked and I was deeply interested in the characters and their stories.
This film revolved around an Congressional probe into fraud in the 1950's Game Shows. This was based on a true story, and actual investigation that followed in the 1950's. This film was technically sound, very well acted, with an engrossing storyline that made it difficult to look away from. I was absolutely entranced in the film from start to finish and I was even more interested because it was a true story.
Fiennes and Turturro were exceptional, as was the rest of the ensemble cast. (Scofield received an Academy Award nod, as did Redford and the screenwriter.) I thought this movie was executed very well, and the mix of suspense, surprise, and the constant plot twists and character juxtaposition, told the story from a few different angles and did it very impressively. I thought that the movie was very good. I was certainly recommend it and have people watch it for themselves because of its storyline, acting, and historical implications.
I realize that this post is short but I realize that people are probably less familiar with this than Forrest Gump or Shawshank, so I will give more comments when I compare the three of them and will analyze all of them more deeply, and this one especially so I will hold some of my comments for now.
But I would definitely suggest that people watch this, because the story had me hooked and I was deeply interested in the characters and their stories.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Forrest Gump
Today, I watched Forrest Gump, the 2nd time I've seen it but the first time I was on a bus, so that doesn't really count. This Best Picture winner from 1995 (post about this coming soon), starring Tom Hanks (Oscar-winner) and Sally Field told the story of a man with an IQ of 75 and his interaction in history in the 1960s and 1970s (but I'm sure people know this movie well.)
The movie was an interesting take on the events of the 1960's and 70's and how one man, and a man like Forrest Gump can effect and comment on these traumatic and exciting times. Forrest Gump is an incredibly memorable character and Tom Hanks portrays him beautifully and amazingly, showing the range of emotions on these man, who although he may have been clinically slow, his insight into the world was quite deep.
The film was very good but not groundbreaking or incredible in any aspect. The most interesting aspects of the film in my opinion were the interaction with the great historic events of the time, and also the similarities that could be drawn between this movie and Benjamin Button (I'm not saying it's a good thing but it was interesting to note.) For those who don't know, Benjamin Button and Gump, the screenwriter for both films was the same so therefore the similarities are not shocking. (Nick mentioned this at one point if people read his comments) In my opinion, it diminshed the stature of Benjamin Button just because Forrest Gump came first and it was a better put together movie but both movie certain had independent ideas and characteristics.
Another interesting thing that came to mind during the film were the allusions to other films, watching the film, I felt like some of the shots were very similar to films I had seen, either before this movie or after it. (The ones that came after were obviously homages to this film). The most glaring and obvious example of this was the clear homage to Midnight Cowboy in one of the scenes with the song "Everybody's Talking" and the famous and ironic line "I'm walking here." Also, a film that came to mind at one point was that one of the shots looked very similar to the shot in All Quiet on the Western Front when Paul is carrying Kat back to base after getting shot. This could very easily be made up on my part but it felt very similar and brought that image to my mind.
On the other hand, like I said, some of the shots of Benjamin Button were like this movie and also one of the shots reminded me exactly of a shot of Tropic Thunder, which also probably wasn't done on purpose but then again it is possible. There were other shots that struck me in this way but I could not figure out exactly where these were from.
The final element of the film that also was placed in the film very subtlety was a discussion on existientialism versus anti-existienialism. Forrest says "I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze," plainly stating the two arguments of the ideologies, and in this case, the ideology between his mother's ideals and his friend's thoughts. Finally Forrest comes to the conclusion that, " I think maybe it's both. Maybe both is happening at the same time." And who knows, maybe Forrest is right, but regardless it seemed very interesting that in this film that discussion came up when I was not expecting it.
This is a rather long review, and I apologize but in the end, I have come to the conclusion that people should watch this movie, mainly because it was a multiple Oscar-winner, it had several clever elements, a good story, strong acting, and was overall a very good movie. I do recommend people watch it although, in my opinion it was not a perfect movie. I would like to hear people opinions on this movie though because I know that many people have seen this.
The movie was an interesting take on the events of the 1960's and 70's and how one man, and a man like Forrest Gump can effect and comment on these traumatic and exciting times. Forrest Gump is an incredibly memorable character and Tom Hanks portrays him beautifully and amazingly, showing the range of emotions on these man, who although he may have been clinically slow, his insight into the world was quite deep.
The film was very good but not groundbreaking or incredible in any aspect. The most interesting aspects of the film in my opinion were the interaction with the great historic events of the time, and also the similarities that could be drawn between this movie and Benjamin Button (I'm not saying it's a good thing but it was interesting to note.) For those who don't know, Benjamin Button and Gump, the screenwriter for both films was the same so therefore the similarities are not shocking. (Nick mentioned this at one point if people read his comments) In my opinion, it diminshed the stature of Benjamin Button just because Forrest Gump came first and it was a better put together movie but both movie certain had independent ideas and characteristics.
Another interesting thing that came to mind during the film were the allusions to other films, watching the film, I felt like some of the shots were very similar to films I had seen, either before this movie or after it. (The ones that came after were obviously homages to this film). The most glaring and obvious example of this was the clear homage to Midnight Cowboy in one of the scenes with the song "Everybody's Talking" and the famous and ironic line "I'm walking here." Also, a film that came to mind at one point was that one of the shots looked very similar to the shot in All Quiet on the Western Front when Paul is carrying Kat back to base after getting shot. This could very easily be made up on my part but it felt very similar and brought that image to my mind.
On the other hand, like I said, some of the shots of Benjamin Button were like this movie and also one of the shots reminded me exactly of a shot of Tropic Thunder, which also probably wasn't done on purpose but then again it is possible. There were other shots that struck me in this way but I could not figure out exactly where these were from.
The final element of the film that also was placed in the film very subtlety was a discussion on existientialism versus anti-existienialism. Forrest says "I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze," plainly stating the two arguments of the ideologies, and in this case, the ideology between his mother's ideals and his friend's thoughts. Finally Forrest comes to the conclusion that, " I think maybe it's both. Maybe both is happening at the same time." And who knows, maybe Forrest is right, but regardless it seemed very interesting that in this film that discussion came up when I was not expecting it.
This is a rather long review, and I apologize but in the end, I have come to the conclusion that people should watch this movie, mainly because it was a multiple Oscar-winner, it had several clever elements, a good story, strong acting, and was overall a very good movie. I do recommend people watch it although, in my opinion it was not a perfect movie. I would like to hear people opinions on this movie though because I know that many people have seen this.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
12 Angry Men
Today, I watched the 1957 classic starring Henry Fonda and Ed Begley, and directed by Sidney Lumet. (Yes Nick, I have now seen it so you can't yell at me anymore). Maybe it is because I am very interested in the legal system or maybe it is because it is just that good, but I found the movie to be absolutely extraordinary. I fear to make a claim that is too difficult to back up but this may very well be the best movie/my favorite movie. Now obviously I am very young and have not seen enough films but I believe that it is my favorite movie, so far in my life.
Once again, I am sure that alot of you have seen this film but to give a quick background, the movie centers around a jury room and a murder trial, and the deliberation of the 12 jurors. One of the incredible parts of this movie was that so much action could take place in a courtroom where in fact not much action could actually take place. The acting by all of the jurors was outstanding and the logic of the case and everything that was involved in it kept my eyes completely hooked to the screen and I really could never take my eyes off it. If anything this movie was far too short and I didn't want it to end, although I am sure that if it were longer, it would lose some of its effectiveness.
Now I know that people many times feel that they are detached from Black and White because they do not live in a black and white world but I never felt at all detached from the film and I felt that Lumet kept me completely in the film and I often felt like I was sitting in the room myself, part of the deliberations.
The movie was not perfect, but it was close in my opinion, and the cinematography, done by Boris Kaufman, who also filmed On the Waterfront ,was incredible. The decision to use certain long, continuous shots and also certain close-ups were almost always done flawlessly, with the exception of a couple. But it was truly beautifully filmed.
The entire movie from beginning to end had me hooked and locked in and I was addicted to the entire movie. Whether it was the great acting, the brilliant story, the terrific camera work, or all of the above (I lean towards that), the film was terrific.
I completely recommend this film to everyone and more than Shawshank which I just reviewed but definitely watch both of them. This movie was a near masterpiece.
Once again, I am sure that alot of you have seen this film but to give a quick background, the movie centers around a jury room and a murder trial, and the deliberation of the 12 jurors. One of the incredible parts of this movie was that so much action could take place in a courtroom where in fact not much action could actually take place. The acting by all of the jurors was outstanding and the logic of the case and everything that was involved in it kept my eyes completely hooked to the screen and I really could never take my eyes off it. If anything this movie was far too short and I didn't want it to end, although I am sure that if it were longer, it would lose some of its effectiveness.
Now I know that people many times feel that they are detached from Black and White because they do not live in a black and white world but I never felt at all detached from the film and I felt that Lumet kept me completely in the film and I often felt like I was sitting in the room myself, part of the deliberations.
The movie was not perfect, but it was close in my opinion, and the cinematography, done by Boris Kaufman, who also filmed On the Waterfront ,was incredible. The decision to use certain long, continuous shots and also certain close-ups were almost always done flawlessly, with the exception of a couple. But it was truly beautifully filmed.
The entire movie from beginning to end had me hooked and locked in and I was addicted to the entire movie. Whether it was the great acting, the brilliant story, the terrific camera work, or all of the above (I lean towards that), the film was terrific.
I completely recommend this film to everyone and more than Shawshank which I just reviewed but definitely watch both of them. This movie was a near masterpiece.
The Shawshank Redemption
I finished watching the 1994 classic, The Shawshank Redemption the other day. (Please don't judge me for never seeing this film before but I guess I just never got around to it.)
Although most of you have probably seen it, the film was set in 1947, and starred Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins, as two murderers in a Maine prison. The movie was directed by Frank Darabont, and the cinematographer was Roger Deakins, the man who films all of the Coen Brothers movies, for those of you who love the Coen Brothers. (Sorry Benny.)
The film was very beautifully done, and the story was quite an emotional journey that showed the passage of time quite interestingly. The acting was terrific, as would be expected from these stars, and the hardness of prison life was very well portrayed throughout the film, whether it was the corruption, the illegal manuevers, or the violence, the movie seemed to portray prison life very true to life.
The movie, based off a Stephen King short story was an incredible film for the large part in the way that it was able to effectively tell the story of a lifetime, so succinctly and effectively. It is difficult for me to comment too much on the film because I felt wrapped up in the story and can never exactly comment on specific ideas but rather thought that the movie on a whole was exceptional and crafted in such a way that you felt completely engrossed in the characters and in their stories the entire time.
However, and I know that this movie is heralded by all but I personally found some problems with the resolution and last 40 minutes of the film, whereas I felt that for the large part, the first 2 hours or so were nearly flawless. I will not give away any details of the end of the film but I just had a couple of problems with the end, although I did like the ending of the film as a whole, I was not completely contented with all of the pieces of the ending. (Feel free to disagree with me heartily and I will explain myself, but I just was not fully happy with how the movie ended, but that is only a personal opinion.)
The Shawshank Redemption is a terrific film and I know that I am probably among the last people in the class to see the movie but if you haven't, I completely suggest that you do see the movie, because it is terrific and you can feel free to ignore my discontent towards the movie because I did think that it was great, just not perfect like some people may think. I do believe that everyone should see the Shawshank Redemption because of its terrific adapted story, great acting, and "beautiful" (beautiful in its ugliness) portrayal of prison life.
Although most of you have probably seen it, the film was set in 1947, and starred Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins, as two murderers in a Maine prison. The movie was directed by Frank Darabont, and the cinematographer was Roger Deakins, the man who films all of the Coen Brothers movies, for those of you who love the Coen Brothers. (Sorry Benny.)
The film was very beautifully done, and the story was quite an emotional journey that showed the passage of time quite interestingly. The acting was terrific, as would be expected from these stars, and the hardness of prison life was very well portrayed throughout the film, whether it was the corruption, the illegal manuevers, or the violence, the movie seemed to portray prison life very true to life.
The movie, based off a Stephen King short story was an incredible film for the large part in the way that it was able to effectively tell the story of a lifetime, so succinctly and effectively. It is difficult for me to comment too much on the film because I felt wrapped up in the story and can never exactly comment on specific ideas but rather thought that the movie on a whole was exceptional and crafted in such a way that you felt completely engrossed in the characters and in their stories the entire time.
However, and I know that this movie is heralded by all but I personally found some problems with the resolution and last 40 minutes of the film, whereas I felt that for the large part, the first 2 hours or so were nearly flawless. I will not give away any details of the end of the film but I just had a couple of problems with the end, although I did like the ending of the film as a whole, I was not completely contented with all of the pieces of the ending. (Feel free to disagree with me heartily and I will explain myself, but I just was not fully happy with how the movie ended, but that is only a personal opinion.)
The Shawshank Redemption is a terrific film and I know that I am probably among the last people in the class to see the movie but if you haven't, I completely suggest that you do see the movie, because it is terrific and you can feel free to ignore my discontent towards the movie because I did think that it was great, just not perfect like some people may think. I do believe that everyone should see the Shawshank Redemption because of its terrific adapted story, great acting, and "beautiful" (beautiful in its ugliness) portrayal of prison life.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Top Hat -- Hidden Meaning?
Mr. Bennett said before the film started that there would be suggestive commentary on different subjects, namely sexuality, and all of the cloaked dialogue that could get past the sensors. So far, I cannot comment much on the content of the movie because I haven't seen enough but there are certainly many double entredres of sexual language that appear throughout the film. Here is a short list of the ones I have found so far. (Now, of course, I could take things too far and some of these could easily be creations of my own mind that I am misinterpreting or taking out of context so feel free to disagree with any or all).
Note: Ginger Rogers' name in the film is Dale Tremont, which I did not realize so if anyone is wondering who Dale is, that is Ginger Rogers.
"I want you to come over to my hotel, now." - Horace Hardwick
"I want you to stay here for the night." - Horace
"Do you want me to press your pants?" - Bates
"We are Bates." - Bates
"I suddenly find myself dancing. It's an affliction. It only occurs at this time of night. In fact I feel an attack coming on now. There is only one thing that can stop me. My nurses putting their arms around me." - Jerry
"I'll tell him to put his arms around you." - Dale
"She wants to sleep and I'm going to help her and so are you." - Jerry
"Can't you go any faster?" - Dale
"I can but the horse can't. The horse is kind of tired today." - Jerry
"I prefer being in distress." - Dale
"You know what thunder is? When a clumsy cloud from here meets a fluffy little cloud from there, he billows towards her. She scurries away and he scuds right up to her. She cries a little and there you have you showers. He comforts her. They spark. That's the lightning. They kiss. Thunder." - Jerry
"We are caught in a storm but I know a place where we could be cozy and warm." - Jerry
"Bring it ahead. I'm going to be busy with someone else." - Dale
"His name is Adam." - Dale (first man created, bore children)
"I am too much protection for her." - Jerry
"For the woman, a kiss. For the man, the sword." - Beddini
"Get into my bedroom, quick. If anyone knew, it would be in the papers in an hour." - Horace
"We had been a little imprudent. We take all the blame myself. I'll take him to task myself. - Horace
That is all so far. The movie hasn't had much action or significance of which I have caught, but by far the most entertaining character is Beddini who has some very funny, ridiculous lines. It will be interesting to see how the movie progresses because as I've stated, I have never liked a musical in my life. I will give this one a chance though.
Note: Ginger Rogers' name in the film is Dale Tremont, which I did not realize so if anyone is wondering who Dale is, that is Ginger Rogers.
"I want you to come over to my hotel, now." - Horace Hardwick
"I want you to stay here for the night." - Horace
"Do you want me to press your pants?" - Bates
"We are Bates." - Bates
"I suddenly find myself dancing. It's an affliction. It only occurs at this time of night. In fact I feel an attack coming on now. There is only one thing that can stop me. My nurses putting their arms around me." - Jerry
"I'll tell him to put his arms around you." - Dale
"She wants to sleep and I'm going to help her and so are you." - Jerry
"Can't you go any faster?" - Dale
"I can but the horse can't. The horse is kind of tired today." - Jerry
"I prefer being in distress." - Dale
"You know what thunder is? When a clumsy cloud from here meets a fluffy little cloud from there, he billows towards her. She scurries away and he scuds right up to her. She cries a little and there you have you showers. He comforts her. They spark. That's the lightning. They kiss. Thunder." - Jerry
"We are caught in a storm but I know a place where we could be cozy and warm." - Jerry
"Bring it ahead. I'm going to be busy with someone else." - Dale
"His name is Adam." - Dale (first man created, bore children)
"I am too much protection for her." - Jerry
"For the woman, a kiss. For the man, the sword." - Beddini
"Get into my bedroom, quick. If anyone knew, it would be in the papers in an hour." - Horace
"We had been a little imprudent. We take all the blame myself. I'll take him to task myself. - Horace
That is all so far. The movie hasn't had much action or significance of which I have caught, but by far the most entertaining character is Beddini who has some very funny, ridiculous lines. It will be interesting to see how the movie progresses because as I've stated, I have never liked a musical in my life. I will give this one a chance though.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Hays Code
Today in class, Mr. Bennett again mentioned the Hays Code, the 1930's production codes that made many suggestive themes illegal to be put in films. I decided that since he mentioned it, I should look it up and the full text of the provisions of act is included in this link: (if anyone is interested)
http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html
But ironically about two and half weeks ago or so, I was watching the show At The Movies, the current reincarnation of the original Siskel and Ebert, a classic, unlike this currently weak show currently starring Ben Mankiewicz and Ben Lyons. But when I was watching the show, one of the critics suggested a DVD pick called the "Forbidden Hollywood Collection Vol. 3," a collection of 6 films that were created before the implementation of the Hays Code, covering subjects like wedlock pregnancies, mail-order bribes, and adultery.
Clearly based on the fact that it is Volume 3, there are two Volumes before this with a collection of several pre-Hays code films, and other commentary based on the industry before the Hays code put morality into movies. According to critic on At The Movies, this collection makes Clint Eastwood, "look like Dr. Phil", and some of the films star big actors such as James Cagney.
I haven't gotten to it yet, but I thought it would be interesting to take a look at some of the films personally, to say how the industry worked 80 years ago when it wasn't as innocent as I would have thought. I also would like to see the Celluoid Closet because that sounds interesting as well. If anyone is interested, you might one to check out one of the volumes.
http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html
But ironically about two and half weeks ago or so, I was watching the show At The Movies, the current reincarnation of the original Siskel and Ebert, a classic, unlike this currently weak show currently starring Ben Mankiewicz and Ben Lyons. But when I was watching the show, one of the critics suggested a DVD pick called the "Forbidden Hollywood Collection Vol. 3," a collection of 6 films that were created before the implementation of the Hays Code, covering subjects like wedlock pregnancies, mail-order bribes, and adultery.
Clearly based on the fact that it is Volume 3, there are two Volumes before this with a collection of several pre-Hays code films, and other commentary based on the industry before the Hays code put morality into movies. According to critic on At The Movies, this collection makes Clint Eastwood, "look like Dr. Phil", and some of the films star big actors such as James Cagney.
I haven't gotten to it yet, but I thought it would be interesting to take a look at some of the films personally, to say how the industry worked 80 years ago when it wasn't as innocent as I would have thought. I also would like to see the Celluoid Closet because that sounds interesting as well. If anyone is interested, you might one to check out one of the volumes.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Signs
As we finished Signs today, the second time I've seen it, but only the first time that I was actually conscious. I think that we can all agree that our brains hardly functioned at age 12, if they did at all. I enjoyed the movie more this time because I found more substance to it, but it was still not my favorite film.
Personally, I felt that the a main issue that I had with this film was that the film pretty much slammed ideology and ideas into the audiences' mind instead of doing it with subtlety and different techniques rather than through straightforward and direct dialogue on the subject. Overall, though, it was a good film, but I did not find it to be outstanding, or quite on the level of The Seventh Seal or the others we have seen in this class.
A couple of scenes that I did like involved the juxtaposition of two scenes. The first one is where Graham first comes out of the shower with only a bathrobe and walks into his children's room. Clearly, there could be seen as his washing himself clean of religion and faith. However, at the end of the film, he walks out of the bathroom, in his priest's outfit, with his faith restored, clearly symbolizing his second awakening and second baptism in a sense. This scene, although not subtle, was one that I liked the repetition of because of its powerful imagery.
Another repeated concept that I noticed was that in nearly every scene involving the aliens, outside, the wind chimes are tinkling and you can constantly hear that normally calming sound symbolizing something scary and unpleasant. It was very interesting in at least 7 different instances, I took note of the sound of wind chimes inside, and each time it signaled to the characters that they need to take some sort of action, but I am not sure if they serve as having some deeper meaning.
A third thing that I noticed when I was looking through my notes on the film, was something that Mr. Bennett brought to our attention about the Middle-Eastern "primitive method" that defeated the aliens. Earlier on in the film, the reporter on the television stated that "people flocked to their local temples, synagogues, and churches," again reaffirming the idea of the three different religions that empowered the people and allowed them to defeat the aliens.
Also, there may have been said already, so I apologize if it is repetitive, but it is clear that in religion, a person is baptized with water to cleanse them and give them a new innocence and purify them. In this film, the "water" or the "baptism" and strength of religion is what eventually killed the aliens. Therefore, the purifying, cleansing power of religion will overcome any outside force, stating that God truly is watching out for us.
It was also interesting that although Graham had lost his faith and no longer believed in God, and stated that no one was watching out for us and that we were truly alone constantly spoke to God in anger, so he had lost his faith in God's ability to help him but not in the concept. These are shown through the lines:
"I'm not ready."
"I hate you."
"Don't let this happen again. Not AGAIN!"
Clearly he has some faith in God but just no longer trusts God's decision making but still believes that there is something there, but in fact this God, happens to be evil and spiteful and not looking out for his goodness.
Personally, I felt that the a main issue that I had with this film was that the film pretty much slammed ideology and ideas into the audiences' mind instead of doing it with subtlety and different techniques rather than through straightforward and direct dialogue on the subject. Overall, though, it was a good film, but I did not find it to be outstanding, or quite on the level of The Seventh Seal or the others we have seen in this class.
A couple of scenes that I did like involved the juxtaposition of two scenes. The first one is where Graham first comes out of the shower with only a bathrobe and walks into his children's room. Clearly, there could be seen as his washing himself clean of religion and faith. However, at the end of the film, he walks out of the bathroom, in his priest's outfit, with his faith restored, clearly symbolizing his second awakening and second baptism in a sense. This scene, although not subtle, was one that I liked the repetition of because of its powerful imagery.
Another repeated concept that I noticed was that in nearly every scene involving the aliens, outside, the wind chimes are tinkling and you can constantly hear that normally calming sound symbolizing something scary and unpleasant. It was very interesting in at least 7 different instances, I took note of the sound of wind chimes inside, and each time it signaled to the characters that they need to take some sort of action, but I am not sure if they serve as having some deeper meaning.
A third thing that I noticed when I was looking through my notes on the film, was something that Mr. Bennett brought to our attention about the Middle-Eastern "primitive method" that defeated the aliens. Earlier on in the film, the reporter on the television stated that "people flocked to their local temples, synagogues, and churches," again reaffirming the idea of the three different religions that empowered the people and allowed them to defeat the aliens.
Also, there may have been said already, so I apologize if it is repetitive, but it is clear that in religion, a person is baptized with water to cleanse them and give them a new innocence and purify them. In this film, the "water" or the "baptism" and strength of religion is what eventually killed the aliens. Therefore, the purifying, cleansing power of religion will overcome any outside force, stating that God truly is watching out for us.
It was also interesting that although Graham had lost his faith and no longer believed in God, and stated that no one was watching out for us and that we were truly alone constantly spoke to God in anger, so he had lost his faith in God's ability to help him but not in the concept. These are shown through the lines:
"I'm not ready."
"I hate you."
"Don't let this happen again. Not AGAIN!"
Clearly he has some faith in God but just no longer trusts God's decision making but still believes that there is something there, but in fact this God, happens to be evil and spiteful and not looking out for his goodness.
Sunshine Cleaning
This weekend I saw the film Sunshine Cleaning, starring Amy Adams and Alan Arkin (always good) about a crime-scene cleanup crew. The lead, Adams, plays a cleaning lady who decides to go into business with her sister, cleaning up the blood and other things after a death/suicide/murder. The movie had an interesting premise but on a whole, the film experience was rather unsatisfying. Of course, like many of similar films, the movie had an independent feel, but many times throughout the film it was trying to hard and failed in many attempts.
The characters, for the most part, were not very relatable and you never really came to like any of the characters or feel connected to them. It was an odd story about odd people that could have been very good, but was not, and its subject matter was rather unpleasant.
The strongest component of the film, something I would have never seen two months ago, was its ambiguous, moral message, namely of the debate between the idea of existienialism and faith or religion. The different characters embodied the different philosophies but showed both of the sides very interestingly, and definitely with great subtlety. Not until after the film was over, when I was thinking about it did I realize that it was portraying an ambiguous message, and because of that I began to realize that it was a deeper film and not as disappointing as I originally thought.
The movie was not great by any means, but it was also not terrible. It did receive much critical praise and film festival awards, so it is possible that I missed something. Although, sometimes film festival winners are not for the mainstream audience. I would not totally disregard this film, but I would also tell you that it is not necessary to seek out this film. When it comes to DVD, it may be an interesting one to watch but it is certainly not worth searching for.
I will give it a slight recommendation because of its themes and deeper purpose, especially with the aims of the film class, but on a whole, I expected more from some great actors such as Arkin and Adams, and such an interesting and new premise as this.
The characters, for the most part, were not very relatable and you never really came to like any of the characters or feel connected to them. It was an odd story about odd people that could have been very good, but was not, and its subject matter was rather unpleasant.
The strongest component of the film, something I would have never seen two months ago, was its ambiguous, moral message, namely of the debate between the idea of existienialism and faith or religion. The different characters embodied the different philosophies but showed both of the sides very interestingly, and definitely with great subtlety. Not until after the film was over, when I was thinking about it did I realize that it was portraying an ambiguous message, and because of that I began to realize that it was a deeper film and not as disappointing as I originally thought.
The movie was not great by any means, but it was also not terrible. It did receive much critical praise and film festival awards, so it is possible that I missed something. Although, sometimes film festival winners are not for the mainstream audience. I would not totally disregard this film, but I would also tell you that it is not necessary to seek out this film. When it comes to DVD, it may be an interesting one to watch but it is certainly not worth searching for.
I will give it a slight recommendation because of its themes and deeper purpose, especially with the aims of the film class, but on a whole, I expected more from some great actors such as Arkin and Adams, and such an interesting and new premise as this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)