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!