Do The Right Thing

I want to start by saying this was my favorite movie of Art of Film this year. I thought it was unique how Spike Lee was able to not just push one side of the issue of racism, but rather to show a possible real life conflict from both sides.

The question I have thought about is whether Sal is a racist. On one hand, he has providing a business in a very tough neighborhood, and is subject to tough conditions. Though, Sal doesn't have any pictures of African Americans on his wall. This for me does not make him a racist. I believe Sal is a racist because of his idea that he is superior than African Americans. He has every right to run his business the way he wants to. At the same time, I really believe Radio Rayhem's death was not Sal's fault. Radio Rayhem entered his business blaring music. Sal took it to the next step by smashing his radio. Radio Rayhem then took it took a physically harmful level when he threw Sal over the table. After the brawl was sorted out, the cops killed Radio Rayhem. I don't think it is right to blame Sal for Rayhem's death. It was a fight that had been brewing up for a while, and escalated fast. Sal was a racist, but was not responsible for Radio Rayhem's death in my opionon. In terms of the cops, there is never an excuse for what they did.

The Battle of Algiers

I listened to the NPR audio review of The Battle of Algiers. I think Kenneth Turan accurately describes the Battle of Algiers as amazingly realistic. He talks about how the movie is respected by both ends of the political spectrum, which is a great accompishment in my opionon. In listening to this review of The Battle of Algiers I began to think about torture in our day. It is common to see candidates, senators, and representatives to attack this administration for the use of torture in Iraq. Why shouldn't they - the adminstration is an easy escape goat. If you someone if torture is okay, the most common anwser will be no. Torture doesn't sound good. But the fact is that many of the congress men and women did know interrogation and torture was happening. Lets step back for a minute and phrase the question this way: Now keep in mind the men and women in the World Trade Center that faced the decision to burn to death or jump from 80th floor of the building. If the CIA definetively had the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks in custody, and they withheld usable information regarding the terrorist organization, members in the organization, and future plans of the organization, how sympathic would you feel for them? I don't sympathize with them. If a poll ran for the public with 3 options: 1) interrogate these men and let the public knows the details, 2) interrogate the details but don't tell us, 3) leave them alone. I have a suspicion that a majority would fall in the first 2, and primarily the second. Isn't that why we have the CIA - to do the dirty work to protect us?

Chinatown

Chinatown was the best of the film noirs we watched in my book, greatly because of the acting. I thought Jack Nicholson did a great job making JJ Gittes a really believable character. He got himself deeply involved in the Mulray case which helped me get into it. Faye Dunaway did a good job being the strong woman character in the beginning, not being emotionally affected by the men. Though, later let her emototions start getting in the way and breaking down. I also thought her acting stood out as a nice part of the movie. The incest between Evelyn and her father was beyond strange, and I wondered if it was really a neccessary part of the film. Anyhow, after a rather slow paced plot throughout the movie, the ending zoomed by. This was a nice change of pace, though seemed out of the ordinary. Although the ending was very pessimistic, I liked the feeling of closure and the surprise that Evelyn did actually get shot and died. I am used to the typical good guy gets away endings. The plot was complex which was a benefit to the slow pace and keep me thinking. In my opionon, the ending does actually come together pretty well, even though it is a little twisted.

Kiss Me Deadly?

Kiss Me Deadly is the ultimate film noir? Ya right! This movie from beginning to end was too unrealistic and frankly rather weird. The girl from the beginning of the movie seemed to have a whole different plot than the rest of the movie. Also, what was the heavy breathing from her all about? That was too weird. Mike Hammer was another story. He went around slapping people to get information out of them, which actually may have been the bright spot in the movie because how hilarious it was. The build up to the entire movie ended in a glowing box of doom. A glowing box of doom?! Inside the glowing box of doom was a ball of fire? How disappointing is that! We wait the whole movie for this secret box and its a mystical thing. After that I didn't care for either ending. If i chose one it would be the one where they died because it made me feel better that no one survived. Mike Hammer and Velda didn't deserve to survive the glowing ball of fire. Also, this ending provided more closure to me as it left the idea that nothing would survive all the explosions kept increasing. Maybe this was just the primitive idea to nuclear destruction, though, a glowing ball of fire is all the writers came up with? I was disappointed to say the least. In my view, Kiss Me Deadly was not the ultimate film noir, not at all.

Out of the Past

I don't think it is Jacques Tourneur's fault that I didn't enjoy this movie, but rather the fault of the genre. Film noir doesn't interest me like it does seem. The bluntness of the characters, the excessive smoking by Jeff, Kathie, and Whit, as well as the deaths by the hero at the end didn't sit well with me. Even the "action" was boring to me. I am the type of person that likes the high paced computer generated movies of today. I am the type of person that wants the hero to overcome all circumstances in his way and survive - like the Bourne movies. There's no way Matt Damon would stand a chance to survive what he underwent, but I don't care, the hero needs to live. Jeff Bailley was a likeable guy and was a bright spot in the movie, so thats why I felt even more frustrated when he died at the end. Kathie's manipulation and lies got old. I can see why some people enjoy film noirs, but you won't find me at Blockbuster renting another one.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

This was my favorite movie of the year thus far. Eternal Sunshine of the spotlight had a cast that I really enjoyed led by Jim Carrey and Kate Winslett. They both played roles I usually wouldn't expect, especially Carrey, who did an exceptional job. I found the movie very thought provoking in ideas such as what if a mind erasing experience was a reality. Would people do it? Would I do it? I also found the actual relationship story between Jim and Kate to be very accurate and believable. It is easy for viewers to see why they started dating, as well as to see why they broke up. They have contrasting personalities that came together well most of the time, but can also be very difficult to overcome. At the end I think the director did a good job leaving some interpretation open to the viewers, but at the same time keeping it rather optimistic. This is a movie I may have to go out and rent some night!

His Girl Friday

His Girl Friday really let me down. I had high hopes for this movie as our first romantic comedy, but I did not funny this movie funny, nor did I find the plot entertaining. The focus on dialogue wasn't enjoyable for me as a viewer, and if anything it was overwhelming. Everyone was talking over each other, and I felt annoyed. My humor wasn't fit for this movie. Furthermore, the plot was unimpressive. The concept that a murderer was on the loose in the newspaper company's building while two guys fought over a girl was very lackluster. Hildy also annoyed me and I didn't get why Bruce and Walter bothered to fight over her. I feel like two seperate stories were taking the place and didn't fit well in the same movie. This post has become the bashing of His Girl Friday, but yet, I don't feel bad.

Unforgiven

Unforgiven was the better of the two Westerns we watched in my book. Although it may not have been the true classical western in that William Munny was the hard nose killer in the beginning, I enjoyed this variety. I liked this change of pace because it showed insight into his character's inner struggle with how he used to live his life and how his wife changed him. The film made me truly believe he battled with this concept.

I also didn't find the ending as disappointing as some others are saying. William Munny goes on a killing spree but I don't think this is out of the question of how it may have actually happened. After battling so much inner struggles the whole movie, seeing his friend Ned dead outside the bar may have been the straw that broke the camels back for him. When William previously had said nobody deserves to die, he was saying life isn't fair. I think he reached the point at the end of saying who cares if these guys died? Ned didn't deserve to die. In general, I thought Unforgiven was simpler to follow as it was a story of the return of William Munny vs Bob the Sheriff. I enjoyed the slower pace at the beginning to set the film up, and then the high action at the end. For someone who doesn't consider themselves a fan of westerns, I enjoyed this movie.

Journal 3 - Pan's Labyrinth

Mexican producer, writer, director and makeup artist Guillermo del Toro takes the audience for a ride through fantasy and reality in Pan's Labyrinth. In a story about a girl living during the Spanish Civil War, Ofelia looks for an escape in Toro's fantasy land. When Guillermo del Toro tagged up with CafeFX VFX Supervisor Everett Burrell to work on the visual special effects of the film, true magic occurred. Toro is known for his horror movies and his directing of Hellboy and Blade 2, while the CafeFX team has worked with major films such as The Departed and The Aviator.

Pan's Labyrinth through its special effects is able to take a realistic account of the past and bring magical characters into it without viewers getting distracted. It was the fantastically unique characters that sets this film apart from other fantasys. Three faeries that occur in Ofelia's imagination come straight from computer generated animation. Although Animation Lead Ron Friedman noticed an interesting fact about their CG faeries.

“Male artists tended to design fairies that were sloppier in their movements,
sort of slovenly, with their legs spread. Female artists designed fairies who
appeared more proper, always keeping their legs together and perfectly posed.
Ultimately, we selected the female version. And, while we gave each fairy a
unique personality, one being more levelheaded than the other two who are prone
to argue, we kept them poised and pretty."

The giant toad living in the tree was a whole different story. The team at FX guide caught up with CafeFX VFX Supervisor Everett Burrell to have him explain the toad.

"The giant, grotesque (and hungry) toad started out as an animatronic puppet,
which was great looking, but a bit stiff as an actor so we inserted a
completely CG toad, which allowed for much more movement and expression,” says
Burrell.

The stick bug was one of the most fascinating characters because it appeared as real as anything. The cinematography team studied an actual stick bug to understand its movements and make the CG stick bug come alive. In transforming him from a real stick bug to the CG one they took and blended hundreds of still shots. The way Burrell described it to FXguide was,

"Because the director did not want to present the transformation as a simple
overall morph from one target to the next, careful planning of the action and
use of in-house software was utilized to allow the character to transform
different parts of its body over different periods of time—the legs, wings,
hands and body".

Another central character was the mandrake root who started as a live action puppet and became a 3D generation as he developed more and more. The most successful work done an fantasizing a character would have to be Pan. A character made out of the earth was played by Doug Jones who spent 5 hours a day getting this outfit together. The entire costume appears as it did in the movie except the legs were left uncovered. Green screen material covered his legs, and then the team went back and filled in the missing peices with sticks and roots. In summary, this was a fantastically well developed movie in incorparating realism with fantasy. The characters were made up, but seemed believable throughout the movie. Job well done Guillermo del Toro.

Stagecoach

In viewing the movie Stagecoach I have found it humorous on the Indians are depicted. Though, I think this is only a good thing because it shows that we understand the unfair biased of these old movies. The Indians are shown as the bad guys, and as savages, while the hero Ringo has to fight them off. How ironic is it that Ringo is fighting off the Indians when the Indians had their land invaded.

Movies always need good guys and bad guys, but I am just curious why the fashionable thing to do back then was dinstinguish the Indians so bluntly being the bad goods. In any case, Stagecoach has one hero we can root for - Ringo. He has to avenge the deaths of his father and brother, and is also falling for Dallas who many people thought was untouchable. I think it is clear the audience always needs someone to root for me, but I am just glad now days we are seeing the other point of view, too.

Cinematography of Citizen Kane

This post will focus on how Welles used cinematography uniquely in Citizen Kane to make it the film it became. First, the movie is well known for its use in the deep focus lens. A perfect example of this is when Charlie playing in the snow as a kid, but his parents are inside talking to Thatcher. You see Charlie clearly through the window even though he is far away. Second, the crane movements in Citizen Kane helped give the audience a sense of familarity. The opening seen starts on the No tresspassing sign and cranes up towards the house, while the closing shot cranes down to the No tresspassing sign. Furthermore, the crane is used in going into the house when Susan is being interviewed on two occasions. This gives the audience something they recognize. Finally, the low angle shots of Charlie throughout the movie gives him a sense of power. Not only when he is takling to Susan, but also during his campaign speech. In contrast, the high angle shots of Susan make her appear powerless. This is important in showing the type of relationship Susan and Charlie had.

Pulp Fiction

Pulp Fiction was directed by Quentin Tarantino in 1994. The screenplay was written by Tarantino and Avary who tell a convoluted story in the life of some mobsters. Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent Vega (John Travolta) play the roles of the hit men, Butch (Bruce Willis) is a boxer who is just trying to get by, and Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman) is the Mob boss's wife. Andrzej Sekula was in charge of photography, while Lawrence Bender produced the film. Together, these guys made a movie for the ages.

Pulp Fiction is similar to Tarantino's other big film, Resevior Dogs, in that the order of events shown are not in chronological order. We see events that happen later on first at times. In fact, the opening seen is what all other clips are working there way back too. In this way, Tarantino does an amazing job keeping viewers on their toes. In the streets of Las Angeles, Vincent Vega and Jules go around doing jobs for their boss. Butch is preparing to fight his last fight before he retires, and Mia is living the life of a Mob boss's wife. So how are all these people related? That is where the fun begins. Butch is approached by Vincent and Jules boss in a proposition to throw his fight for a cash reward. Separately, Vincent is asked by his boss to take Mia out on the town. In a series of twisted turns, and shocking surprises Pulp Fiction will memorize you for two hours. The conflict throughout the story is to figure out what the significance of the opening clip is. It appears unrelated to most of the film. A mysterious briefcase is sought after and becomes a major conflict. Symbols invoked in the movie are the briefcase, but also a watch that Butch was given. The background to the watch is another Tarantino specialty.

More so than the great screenplay and directing by Tarantino, the acting stood out above all. It was beyond superb. In fact, Travolta, Jackson, and Uma Thurman all received Academy Award nominations. Throughout the movie you get in the mindset that these are the actual characters, not actors playing the roles. I thought the costumes fit the roles of the individuals well. Butch was scruffy, while Jules and Vincent wore suits. I was impressed by the cinematography, too. Shots were far longer than what I was used to which gave the movie an uninterrupted feel to it. Furthurmore, the low angled shots showed the power of Jules, Vincent, the Boss, and Wolf well.

In summary, this is a movie that not a single person should go through their life without seeing. The directing style of Tarantino is a refreshing new style. The out of placed sequence of events is puzzling but comes together brilliant at the end. The acting is exceptional and the cinematography held it’s own. Nice job to the Pulp Fiction crew!

Grandmas Boy vs Superbad

Hey whats up guys? Danny Again! In the past two years I have seen two very similar movies in Superbad and Grandmas Boy. Both movies featured a lot of immaturity and a high school sense of humor. They showed smoking, drinking, and partying with a crude sense of humor that appealed to me. With such similar structures of cheap comedies, I don't get how film critics rated Superbad so highly (as the comedy of the year) and Grandmas Boy so poorly. As Scott Weinberg of efilmcritic said about Grandmas Boy,

I won't even bore you with the horrendous way this project was shot, cut, or
scrawled with crayon onto a roll of toilet paper.

Furthermore, the critics tomatometer on rottentomatoes.com rated Grandmas Boy a 16% and Superbad 87%. To me, all this is is a band wagon effect of a few critics degrading Grandmas Boy and everyone jumping on, and vice versa for Superbad. Allen Covert and Nick Swardson are hilarious throughout Grandmas Boy. I am interested in seeing if any other people that have seen both Grandmas Boy and Superbad agree with more, or if the critics prevail again.

Reviewing the review of Shawshank Redemption

I am reviewing this review of the Shawshank Redemption critiqued by Roger Ebert. I watched Shawshank Redemption for the first time this previous summer and fell in love with it immediately. I have since watched it several more times and enjoy it just as much each time. I believe Roger did well in hitting the main points on why this is such a popular movie, but i strongly disagree in his statement that it is slow at times, and possibly depressing. In my viewing, I thought it showed the life of a man falsely in prison who instead of dwelling on the injustice showed that you are who you make yourself to be no matter what the circumstances. Though, Robert can't help but agree with me a little bit.

"The
Shawshank Redemption" is not a depressing story, although I may have made it
sound that way. There is a lot of life and humor in it, and warmth in the
friendship that builds up between Andy and Red. There is even excitement and
suspense, although not when we expect it.

One reason I enjoyed this film so much is the great friendship shown between the two main characters - Andy and Red. It is rare to find a movie that is not any way romantically involved but rather pure loyal friendship. In this same regard why I enjoyed it so much, I believe Roger Ebert hit the nail on the head when he said:

"The
Shawshank Redemption" is a movie about time, patience and loyalty -- not
sexy qualities, perhaps, but they grow on you during the subterranean progress
of this story, which is about how two men serving life sentences in prison
become friends and find a way to fight off despair.

In summary, I believe Roger Ebert did a more than adequate job in setting up what you could expect from the movie, and possibly even more than you wanted in information regarding to the plot. He correctly gave credit to the director who did a brilliant job of making us feel like we were acutally in the prison with the guys. Roger says,

The director, Frank
Darabont, paints the prison in drab grays and shadows, so that when key
events do occur, they seem to have a life of their own.

Last, I believe Ebert could have even painted The Shawshank Redemption to be even more inspiring that he says. It isn't another "good feel" movie, it is a genuine movie that motivates and teaches us strong life lessons.

Wait, What?

I just got on blogspot and I think I'm a little bit late to do so, but that's fine. My name is Danny and I am in first hour Art of Film. My favorite T.V. shows are The Office and Lost, while some of my favorite movies are Shawshawk Redemption and Good Will Hunting. You'll hear more soon.