The Difference Between "Great" and "Greatest"

Well, folks, this is it. This is the culmination of all that is film blog. Our movie is none other than Citizen Kane, the movie that someone once decided had no equal and no one has bothered to correct them on. Kane tops everyone's list of great films, but I'm unconvinced. Don't get me wrong, it is good. I might even be persuaded to call it one of the best. It's not the best, however. One of the most obvious definitions of "The Greatest Film Ever" is that it has to be greater than all others. I think Psycho and some of the other movies that we've watched in this class surpass this film in terms of "Greatness."

But what is this "Greatness?"

What is Noir?

(Insert post here)

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

For my genre film, I chose to watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit. It's a 1988 film that takes place in a 1947 Hollywood where humans and toons coexist somewhat harmoniously. Detective Eddie Valiant is hired to tale Jessica Rabbit, wife of cartoon star Roger Rabbit. He catches her and Marvin Acme, owner of gag factory Acme Incorporated, in a rather compromising position. When faced with the facts, Roger goes a little nutty (er, nuttier) and finds himself wanted for Mr. Acme's murder. It's up to Valiant to doge the law and find out the truth.

This movie is visually engaging and modern enough to evade the pacing issues of the earlier films. Also, it's a parody, so there's more humor than any other examples of film noir (ie: it has humor). It captures the feel of the genre with the visual and story elements such as trench coats, dead partners, and alcoholism. More than these simple gags, however, the movie actually feels like a film noir. It borrows from other movies we've watched, noticeably Chinatown in the way Valiant refuses to return to Toon Town.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a treat to watch. It may not be the most "family friendly" movies, but the innuendoes stay at that. It's another perfect five out of five, though it might not be as good as Monsoon Wedding. Seriously, everyone should check that film out!

Chinatown

Chinatown, filmed in 1974, is the first noir we've watched with the introduction of color. It's amazing how a little thing like that can change the entire feel of a film. With our black and white films, I expected a fair bit of slowness and nonsensical plot elements. With the simple addition of the light spectrum, I hold the movie to a higher standard. Chinatown meets the challenge through most of it's length, but falls flat on it's face in the home stretch.

This is the story of JJ 'Jake' Gitte (played by Jack Nicholson!), a private detective with a knack for marriage-related issues. In other words, he catches unfaithful spouses inin the act. He's hired by Evelyn Mulwray to tail her husband Hollis. Jake follows through and snaps a few photos of the husband with a young girl. When the photos hit the press, however, Mrs. Mulwray confronts Jack. Yeah, it seems our unscrupulous hero was duped by another woman. Were you surprised? Then you clearly haven't been watching enough film noir. But wait, there's more! Suddenly, Hollis Mulwray "drowns" in an "accident" by the local reservoir. Then it's off to the races again with another rogue detective dodging both cops and thugs in a mad dash for the truth. And get ready for this truth, folks, because it's a doozy.

Chinatown takes another three out of five for film noir. Mr. Nicholson fills his character fantastically and the many other roles are filled with people who at least know what their doing. This movie could have netted a four for it's decent pacing, better acting, and holy-crap-twists. Why didn't it? It's a solid film right up until the very last minutes. Then it hits you with something you're supposed to believe is an ending. It isn't an ending, it's part of the greater Hollywood scheme to give me a rage-induced heart attack. Seriously, guys? You call that an end? What the crap was that?

Touch of Evil

I didn't like Touch of Evil. Like, not at all. Orson Wells did some great and brilliant things in his career, but this wasn't one of them. Filmed in 1958, this well meaning, but ultimately slow and boring film follows "Mexican" cop Mike Vargas (played by Charlton Heston) as he tries to unravel the mystery of a car bombing. Along the way, he crosses local detective legend Hank Quinlan (played by Orson Wells). Vargas discovers Quinlan is a bit... liberal with the law and calls the large man out on it. Quinlan doesn't appreciate this and attempts to destroy Vargas' reputation. Mostly people just hold pauses for entirely too long and ignore their wives' feelings of unease.

Visually speaking, Touch of Evil is amazing. There are a lot of shots which simply boggle the mind. The entire opening segment, for instance, is an excellent display of filmmaking. The movie breaks down in it's writing. There are pauses where they don't belong, scenes that our drawn out to create artificial tension, and Charlton Heston is not Mexican! I know, I know, superficial nitpicking. Seriously, though, it's really distracting!

Touch of Evil receives a three out of five. As previously mentioned, I didn't like it. Still, if you're a film buff *coughcough*Maness*coughcough* you'll really enjoy the visual elements of the film. Is you like compelling story and deep plot, however...

The Maltese Falcon

This week, we begin our delve into Film Noir, beginning with The Maltese Falcon. Sam Spade and Miles Archer are private eyes who are hired by the attractive Miss Wanderly to tail a man she believes means her harm. Archer takes up the task and turns up dead the next morning, along with his mark. Spade must unravel the mystery and dadge a few over-zealous lawmen who want to finger him for his partner's murder.

If you're looking for a solid primer into Film Noir, this is a good place to start. Like Casablanca, this movie suffers from some of the sexism of the day. It's not terrible, however, as the soft focus nonsense is no longer saturating the screen. It's got action and suspense, but it does tend to take it's sweet time in making any of that happen. It's not a bad movie, it's just slow (even for an older film).

When it comes down to it, The Maltese Falcon earns a three out of five. It's not a terrible film, but it is severely dated and slow. The suspense was mild at best and the attempts at "conflicted" characters was laughable at times. By the way, if you've been watching the movies I mention, you'll notice the cast is quite familiar. Many of the actors were also in Casablanca!

Who's Viewpoint is it, Anyway?

For these past three movies four focus has been on the differences in narrative. Casablanca is an example of classic Hollywood style, Monsoon Wedding shows us a style similar to that of Bollywood, and Daughters of the Dust is an example of a narrative that simply has no interest in anything that resembles convention.

The Bollywood editing deviates from the conventions of Hollywood in subtle ways. Rather than focusing on a single character and the events that directly relate to him/her, Monsoon Wedding shows us many distinct stories and how they weave together to form the event of Aditi's wedding. The narrative point of view fluidly shifts and the narration belongs to most, if not all of the characters. Traditional Hollywood focuses on a single character, but Bollywood seems to focus on an event and everyone it touches.

Daughters of the Dust, on the other hand, felt almost anarchistic in it's narrative style. While is does focus on the Peazants' crossing, it does so only loosely. Characters are given focus seemingly at random and there are many small, totally unconnected stories flying about. There is no narrative point of view... or perhaps there's every one? When every character has the spotlight, and is using it to tell their own story, you wind up with a confusing and downright boring narrative in which it seems nothing actually happens. Experimentation is a good thing, but there are some conventions that shouldn't be broken.