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.

Monsoon Wedding

Monsoon Wedding was an excellent film and a welcome follow up to Daughters of the Dust. It's got the look and feel of a Bollywood film without the unfathomable length or random music numbers. As you may have guessed from the title, it's about a wedding.

Aditi Verma is a young Indian woman who has just broken off an affair with a TV producer to prepare for an arranged marriage with an Indian man living in Texas. Neither her family nor her fiance knows about the affair, so there's even more tension than a usual wedding in the air. The movie follows the two days leading up to the wedding, with the tail end taking place on the day of the wedding itself. It has a few "twists," but most of them aren't that surprising.

All in all, Monsoon Wedding is another five out of five. It might even be my favorite movie from the class so far!

Daughters of the Dust

Oh boy. Daughters of the Dust is... Well, let's just say it's an acquired taste. Much like eating live insects or putting one's tongue in a light socket. I will say it's impressive how a movie that has a plot that moves forward can make you feel like absolutely nothing is happening.

Daughters of the Dust is the story of the Peazant family's crossing to the mainland. Well, actually that's not true. It's the story of the Peazant family preparing to cross to the mainland. It has some interesting dynamics, mostly around the friction between the old African ways and the new (Christian) ones. There's also some young vs. old dynamics in terms of the family itself. There's also an unborn child running around (which you might think would be exciting, but you would be wrong). There's a lot of dialogue, some unexplained visuals, and then more dialogue. Also, flute music.

I know there are people out there who can sit an enjoy this type of film, but I'm not one of them. One out of five if only because I can never have that piece of my life back. Normally I have some sort of witty warning here, but no one who is used to American film styles (and you all are) should try to watch this.

Casablanca

Casablanca is one of those films that tops everyone's lists of great films. It's easy to see why; the film is fantastic. It's a black and white film, but you should be able to get over than (If you can't, your pickier about your movies than I am. That's not a good thing). The one thing that might drive you up the wall, however is the World War Two brand of patriotism not so subtly woven into the piece. Oh, and the way the female character is totally helpless without a man to lead her around.

The movie takes place in the title city of Casablanca. It's a way-point for refugees attempting to escape the Nazis in Europe and get to America. Our hero is Rick, an America with a questionable past who runs Rick's Café Américain. He has a decent relationship with the important people of the city, including Captain Renault. The captain, despite being overdue for a kick to the face, warns Rick that an important Nazi official is coming to town. The Nazis are hoping to catch the dashing Victor Laszlo. Well, recapture, since he escaped from a concentration camp (We're left to assume the camp was run by a Colonel Wilhelm Klink*). To make matters worse, a woman from Rick's past is traveling with Laszlo.

Casablanca is awesome. I hesitate to award a six out of five, since that would make my rating system rather silly, but it's better than anything else we've watched so far. Anyone who can get past the sexism of an earlier, more stupid time will enjoy this film. Anyone else will probably tolerate it.

*Ten points to anyone who got that

Alternative Editing

The theme for this entry is editing, specifically that in the movies we've watched in the past few weeks. Run, Lola, Run and Bonnie and Clyde both played with the conventional styles of editing. We also saw a small portion of Breathless; a movie that lured those conventions into a dark ally and beat them with a two-by-four until they coughed up their lunch money. Breathless is a french art film (danger!) that saw what most film editors were doing at the time, but respectfully disagreed with their ideas of line of sight matching, 180 degree rule, and anything else that even remotely linked to "invisible" editing. It's a movie for people who like to see experiments in film and almost no one else.

Run, Lola, Run, however, works within the runs set forth by films before it. Rather playing with erratic transitions, it plays with the order of shots. The "and then" photo montages involving Jäger, Doris, and Mike are startling to say the least. The fact that the movie swaps from animation to real life seemingly without rhyme or reason is also an example of the movie's strange experiments with editing. But the thing Lola really messes around with is chronology. In your average movie, one scene leads to the next in a strong chain that leads directly to the climax. In Lola, all the scenes link together... Until suddenly we're back at the beginning. This isn't a flashback, either, this is a retelling of the story. And guess what? When that retelling ends, we get to see it a third and final time.

Bonnie and Clyde hides it's experimentation even more subtly. You wouldn't even notice anything was amiss unless you were looking for it. Every now and then, there's a cut that's just too quick or jarring. Eye lines don't always match, but they do flow. I'm not sure the 180 rule was ever violated, but I'd believe it if it was. Far removed from Lola and Breathless, this movie is reserved about it's experimentation. It saves them for it'd more important scenes; saving them for when you'll need that extra kick to get caught up in the emotion.

Bonnie and Clyde

Right behind Lola, we have Bonnie and Clyde. It's the story of two people (three guesses what their names are) who go on a mad robbery spree across the depression-era south. Along the way, they deal with complex issues like love, erectile disfunction, and banjos. Especially banjos. It's a Robin Hood tale that leads them, and the other members of the Barrel Gang, down the long road of crime and punishment.

My synopsis may seem rather short and vague, but that's only because Bonnie and Clyde has a whole lot of action and (mostly unintended) humor without actually having a complex plot. It's the age-old tale of Girl catches Boy trying to steal her mother's car, Girl runs away with Boy, Boy and Girl go on crime spree. What more is there to say? The acting's painful at times and more than one of the characters left me wishing for a horrible cliff-related accident. Still, there are worse things (like subtitles).

Bonnie and Clyde gets a four out of five, with the understanding that I'm being generous. I know a lot of people didn't like it, but I think their attitude might be different if they had been close enough to my table to hear the occasional comments that were exchanged. Banjos may never be the same again...

Run, Lola, Run

Ooooh boy. Run, Lola, Run is quite a movie. Between the thundering techno and merger of animation and live action scene, this movie is quite a ride. As usual, this movie comes with a warning: be ready to accept what this movie throws at you. This movie doesn't care about your feeble need for cohesion and continuity. Things just sort of happen in Run, Lola, Run and you need to be ready to handle them.

The movie is about Lola, a redheaded woman who has just learned that her boyfriend, Manni, is about to rob a convenience store in order to try and recover the money he lost to a homeless man on the subway. The money's so important because he was serving as a middle man on a dimon deal for a gangster named Ronnie. The only way Lola can stop him is if she gets the money herself before noon. And the only way to do that... Is to run.

Despite it's overwhelming quirks, Run, Lola, Run is a fantastic movie. It has plenty of action and the visual style is certainly entertaining, if hard to follow. It earns my second five out of five for really just being so damn awesome. Just be warned: there is about a half-second of bondage.

Hot, Hot, Hot!

While Do the Right Thing may not be set in the past, don't let that fool you into thinking it doesn't rely on Mise en Scéne. This entire movie is dedicated to making you feel the heat, no pun intended. From the loose-fitting, bright colored clothing of the characters to the brilliant red paint on the building behind ML, Willie, and Sid, Spike Lee and his team have do everything they could think of to portray the swelter. The heat of this movie is more than temperature, however. About halfway through the movie it seems like plot wandered of and we were treated to a series of hateful, slur-filled monologues by several of the characters. It's sudden, it's unexpected, and makes you feel really uncomfortable, but it works somehow. The blocks is a pressure-cooker and this scene is to bring everything that has been implied to the surface. From that point on, the cards are on the table and you can begin to see how dire circumstances really are.

When Sal confronts Buggin' and Radio, the seals locking back all that emotion begin to blow. The smashing of the boom-box is Sal's release and everyone else bursts as a result. When Radio is killed, the whole block reaches the boiling point. Even though Da Mayor is quick to jump to the aid of Sal and his sons, nothing sort of true release can satisfy them. It is Mookie who really saves their lives by turning the destructive energy on the building. His cry of "Hate!" is a clear reference to an earlier monologue from Radio about the battle between love and hate. Though hate had taken over the block for the evening, Mookie's actions ensured that it would not be as lasting a victory as it could have been. Buildings can be rebuilt after all.

Always Do The Right Thing

Do the Right thing takes place in the hottest day of the summer in Brooklyn. It tells many tightly interwoven stories going on the block, which can be disorienting if you're the kind of person who needs to keep perfect track of those things. If that happens to be the case, you need to put those feeling aside.

Do the Right Thing is easily the best movie we've see so far. It explores the ideas of racism and bias that would later be explored in Crash, but it does so without the same feeling of incrimination the later movie sports. This is a film about how extreme circumstances can push otherwise normal people much farther than they're willing to go.

Our story mainly revolves around Mookie, a young black man who's trying to make a living working at Sal's Famous Pizzeria. He's living with his sister and seems to be a bit of a deadbeat when it comes to his girlfriend and his son. The story also follows Sal, the owner of the pizzeria, and his two sons Vito and Pino. Sal is a kind man who's just trying to make a living, but Pino is openly racist. Things first begin to go awry when Mookie's friend, the aptly named Buggin' Out, decides to boycott Sal's Famous Pizzeria because the "Wall of Fame" has all italian americans and no black ones. What seems to be a silly dispute compounds with everything else on the block until... Well, why don't you just give the movie a shot?

Do the Right Thing snags an easy five out of five. It's both energetic and thought provoking without a looming moral accusation. Just remember not to get too hung up on the shifting stories; it'll all come together for the end.

Mise en Scéne in The Godfather

The Godfather is a movie that positively oozes Mise on scéne. Throughout it's nearly three hours of playtime, it commits to a presentation of the time period in which it is set. Beyond chronology, however this film commits itself to the presentation of character moods and ambitions in all of it's scenes. No where is this more apparent than in the Don's office.

The office has drawn shades and is only lit as well as necessary. The walls bear pictures of family, making it clear where priorities lie. The dominate feature of the room, however, is the desk of the Godfather. It makes a clear divide across the room, separating the one in charge from everyone else. When a more personal exchange is called for, he is the one who come out from behind the desk, not the other way around. The desk is clearly an heirloom and something of tremendous value to the Corleones. At the end of the film, we see that it is one of the absolute last things to be removed from the house.

The Godfather

Anyone who's seen this movie knows that it's plot-heavy. If you haven't seen it, know that I'm about to spoil the crap out of the first half or so.

The Godfather revolves around the life of the Corleone crime family. The movie begins with Don Vito Corleone, the title character, on the day of his daughter's wedding. Like all fathers, he spends the day talking with friends, dancing with the bride, and negotiating the hit on a couple jerks. After all, what's a wedding without some violence? When the nuptial festivities end, the Don returns to the important aspect of his job. First on his list is getting his Godson, the famous singer Johnny Fontaine, a part in a movie. To this end, he sends his adopted son/lawyer, Tom Hagen, to talk with the director. The director remains adamant and Tom gently retorts with a bed full of horse head.

Back home, Don Corleone meets with Sollozzo. Sollozzo is asking the Corleone family to add "narcotics" to it's list of "business practices." The Don politely refuses, so "The Turk" replies with classic mobster etiquette: he has the Don gunned down. The Godfather lives, in part because of luck and in part because you just can't kill Marlon Brando with anything less than a machete. His eldest son, Sonny, is thrust into leadership of the family and demands Sollozzo's death. Meanwhile, the idiot Sollozzo, continues to try to finish the job on Vito. Finally, Vito's youngest son decides to be important to the story and kill Sollozzo and his police captain bodyguard. He then flees the law by leaving the film entirely to star in an informercial for Italy and shotguns.

If you decide to watch the Godfather in one sitting, make sure that seat is comfy. This movie is longer than Apocalypse Now and far more redundant. Every half hour or so features a murder of an established character, yet this is done with such routine that it makes the affair of killing rather mundane. This movie earns a three out of five. Watch it for it's renown if you must, but know that it isn't as fast pace as you think. Warning: don't get attached to any of the characters. They will invariably turn evil or die. Or both.

Shots in Apocalypse Now

This may be a controversial statement, but I'm going to make it anyway: Apocalypse Now and The Diving Bell and The Butterfly are very different movies. No where is this more apparent than in the choices in shots. Whereas the 'Bell dealt in medium, close, and extreme close shots, Apocalypse Now is almost exclusively medium and long shots. It's obvious the audience isn't supposed to relate as intensely with Willard as they did with Jean. When we do get up close and personal with Willard, it's because he's showing his more animal qualities.

Of course, not all of the shots are about our intrepid captain. Many of the shots create a surreal feeling of the environment. One of the best examples of this is in Willard's final stop before heading deep into the jungle. In this chaotic military base, we see Willard and his quite mad surfer friend walking in front of a fiery mess of lights and explosions while distorted carnival-like music plays in the background. It really captures the feel of the place as an alien landscape of terror. When the boat finally arrives at Kurtz' camp, we are treated to haunting shots of deteriorating stone faces and exotic ruins. It demonstrates the disjointed thinking of Kurtz and the possible outcome for Willard.

Apocalypse Now

Apocalypse Nowfollows Captain Willard as he travels through the Vietnam War to assassinate the rogue Colonel Kurtz. When the movie begins, Willard has fallen apart during his time away from the jungle. He is jumpy, paranoid, and shows all the signs of PTSD. The military does call him in and we learn he's used to missions of a sensitive nature. He's told to head up river after Colonel Kurtz; a man who's gone mad and taken control of a tribal settlement in Cambodia. The people there think he's a God and he uses them to continue military operations. The river is long, however, and he hitches a ride with Chief Phillips and his crew of youthful drug addicts. Their journey takes them deep into the mayhem of the war and, ultimately, to the insanity of Kurtz himself.

Make sure you get comfortable before throwing this one on; this movie is long and you feel nearly every minute of it. Don't confuse this with the movie being boring, it's quite a ride, but it's deep and hard to watch without reading into every image. War does terrible, yet fascinating things to the human mind and Apocalypse Now strives to capture it. The constant thrum of choppers in this movie is enough to drive even the audience mad. In this movie, we see both violence and compassion, it's just that the compassion is quickly torn away by more violence.

I'm gonna go ahead and give Apocalypse Now a Four out of Five. It's worth seeing, if only so you can tear it apart with your friends afterwards. Caution: this movie may be especially rough if you have strong feelings about puppies, cows, or Marlon Brando.

Visual Metaphors in The Diving Bell and The Butterfly

If there's one thing The Diving Bell and The Butterfly exceeds in, it's the use of visual metaphors. These uses of "picture-language" range from the obvious to the truly bizarre and downright senseless. For this entry, I'd like to focus on what is arguably the strangest metaphoric image of all: the ice shelves.

The ice shelves appear twice in this movie: once, in the first half of the movie, they are shown breaking off and falling into the ocean. At the end of the movie, they are shown again, but with one huge difference: the footage is shown in reverse. When the ice flows first fall, Jean says that "His life feels like a string of near-misses," suggesting that the ice represents his pride and sense of self. Following this interpretation through, it makes sense that these things would be rebuilt by rising above his significant handicap to write a novel. What doesn't make sense, however, is the placement of this "rebuilding" clip. It's shown at the end of the film, after Jean dies. The director was so committed to the initial use of this analogy that he was willing to wrench us from the film, yet he saves the final punch for the end? Perhaps he's suggesting that, in death, Jean's life is rebuilt. That would certainly give the film some Christian warm-fuzzies.

Another thing that confuses me about this metaphor is why in the world it was chosen. The metaphors of a diving bell and a butterfly make perfect sense: his body has trapped him, but his imagination breaks him free. These ice selves are significantly more difficult to figure out than that. Are they suggesting that Jean's locked-in syndrome actually contributed to global warming? And that, in death, he was able to save the artic from melting? Of course not, this isn't based on the personal memoirs of Al Gore. So why ice? Why not buildings being demolished or termites taking down a wall? I just don't get it.

The Diving Bell and The Butterfly

The Diving Bell and The Butterfly is a French film based on the true story of Jean-Dominique Bauby. Exactly how "based on" the film actually is depends on who you ask. Jean is the editor of "Elle" magazine until a stroke leaves him totally paralyzed save for one eye. The movie opens as Jean awakes from the three-week coma resulting from said stroke. In time, he overcomes his handicap and writes a book (the book which the movie is based on). We relive Jean's life through flashbacks as he works to recover his lost mobility and in the end... Well, you can probably guess given the true story, but I won't directly ruin it. Just know that the last twenty minutes of the film are the best part.

Is it a good movie? I'm sure someone thinks so. Personally, I didn't like it. Firstly, the movie's in French with English subtitles. If movies were meant to be read, they'd be books. I just hate when I can miss an important dialogue by looking too deeply at an interesting visual element. Secondly, there's our main character. Mr. Bauby initially earns our sympathy due to his unimaginable affliction. As the movie continues, however, we learn about his lover and the mother of his children and how he basically treated them like crap. Certainly this is shown to us so that we can understand how his circumstances cause him to change, right? Wrong. Though he does seek some sort of forgiveness from his lover, he continues to lash out at the mother even as she tries to help him. Furthermore, the man continues to womanize, relying on his imagination to facilitate his desires. With that said, the scenes between Jean and his father are both excellent.

I give The Diving Bell and The Butterfly a three out of five. If you're into French artsy films, it's a must see. If you aren't, you'll probably continue to live a fulfilling life regardless.