Black exploitation film has been a genre I have taken an interest in for a few years now. A few years ago I just happened to stumble upon a documentary on IFC that was all about the history of Black Exploitation. Originally I only checked it out because Quentin Tarantino was one of the interviewees in it and I was familiar with Pam Grier (only because of Tarantino's "Jackie Brown"). So I watched the doc and learned about a genre that I never even knew existed. And I realized how influential and important this genre truly was.
The doc showed how films starring Pam Grier, were some of the biggest audience draws (Coffy, Foxy Brown, and Blacula II). I also learned more about Grindhouses- which were usually renovated burlesque theaters that showed exploiation films.
So when we went to watch the Petey Wheatstraw film, I was so excited because I knew what to expect- just cheesiness and a bunch of kung fu. I wish we could of watched the whole thing but now I will just have to add it to my NetFlix list.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Natural Born Killers
This is a film that I am very familiar with, for I own the DVD and have seen it numerous times. I have always been a fan of Oliver Stone- everything from JFK to Platoon. But, none of his other work compares to his guerrilla style film making with Natural Born Killers.
NBK is a crazy ride that takes the audience on a psychedelic, fast-paced, scary, eye-opening, and yet humorous journey. The film covers so many topics- everything from sex, violence, the media, love, and religion.
I love the cinematography in this film because it is different. Stone uses different filters and colors to provide more symbolism to what he is trying to convey on screen. I love how shots go from color to black and white when Robert Downey Jr's character comes on.
This film is pretty much the equivalent of an acid trip. Not that I would know from personal experience but I have friends who do and have told me that this is pretty close to it. What I found interesting in the reading was the description of Stone himself. I never realized how truly out there and messed up he was, and granted I knew that he did have some problems- especially when it came to politics. In the reading, a New Yorker article stated "Oliver Stone is a man much like Mickey: a man given to "tirades and bad behaviors, to womanizing and long, intoxicated journeys into the night." The reading goes onto describe how Stone would go on "mushroom fueled journeys to Arizona and New Mexico for location scouts." And how he was known to just fondle employees like it was no big deal on set. Becoming aware of this it all makes sense as to how messed up this movie is. It is now interesting to go back and watch this film knowing that Mickey is this exaggerated form of Stone.
The film also deals a lot with sex and incest. Probably one of the most intense and uncomfortable scenes is the "I Love Mallory" television show. It features Rodney Dangerfield as her father who is abusive- physically and sexually. In the piece it is shown that he raped his daughter Mallory. I remember when I first saw this years ago and feeling so strange and uncomfortable when the laugh track would be played at the most inappropriate times.
This scene is a very interesting one because it shows the effects of sexual abuse and one's psychological reaction to it. The reading discusses how Mallory's attraction to Mickey is due to her abusive father and upbringing. "As an incest victim, she has been broken in by her father and thus is primed for the sadistic Mickey's controlling embrace." I find this truly interesting because it does make sense. Here is a man who kills innocent people and does not show any regrets. But he is a man who loves Mallory, a man who will do anything for her. Mallory, a girl who has never been truly loved by a man in a moral way, naturally falls for Mickey, although blind to the many faults that exist within him.
Natural Born Killers is a film that studies childhood upbringing and the effects on children. It is a film that demonstrates early traumatic stress and trauma can result in drastic and scary measures.
NBK is a crazy ride that takes the audience on a psychedelic, fast-paced, scary, eye-opening, and yet humorous journey. The film covers so many topics- everything from sex, violence, the media, love, and religion.
I love the cinematography in this film because it is different. Stone uses different filters and colors to provide more symbolism to what he is trying to convey on screen. I love how shots go from color to black and white when Robert Downey Jr's character comes on.
This film is pretty much the equivalent of an acid trip. Not that I would know from personal experience but I have friends who do and have told me that this is pretty close to it. What I found interesting in the reading was the description of Stone himself. I never realized how truly out there and messed up he was, and granted I knew that he did have some problems- especially when it came to politics. In the reading, a New Yorker article stated "Oliver Stone is a man much like Mickey: a man given to "tirades and bad behaviors, to womanizing and long, intoxicated journeys into the night." The reading goes onto describe how Stone would go on "mushroom fueled journeys to Arizona and New Mexico for location scouts." And how he was known to just fondle employees like it was no big deal on set. Becoming aware of this it all makes sense as to how messed up this movie is. It is now interesting to go back and watch this film knowing that Mickey is this exaggerated form of Stone.
The film also deals a lot with sex and incest. Probably one of the most intense and uncomfortable scenes is the "I Love Mallory" television show. It features Rodney Dangerfield as her father who is abusive- physically and sexually. In the piece it is shown that he raped his daughter Mallory. I remember when I first saw this years ago and feeling so strange and uncomfortable when the laugh track would be played at the most inappropriate times.
This scene is a very interesting one because it shows the effects of sexual abuse and one's psychological reaction to it. The reading discusses how Mallory's attraction to Mickey is due to her abusive father and upbringing. "As an incest victim, she has been broken in by her father and thus is primed for the sadistic Mickey's controlling embrace." I find this truly interesting because it does make sense. Here is a man who kills innocent people and does not show any regrets. But he is a man who loves Mallory, a man who will do anything for her. Mallory, a girl who has never been truly loved by a man in a moral way, naturally falls for Mickey, although blind to the many faults that exist within him.
Natural Born Killers is a film that studies childhood upbringing and the effects on children. It is a film that demonstrates early traumatic stress and trauma can result in drastic and scary measures.
Repo Man
Where to begin with this film....? Well, I must say it was interesting and definitely had my attention- but unclear as to what I was keeping my attention for. The plot, well if there was a plot, was just about Emilio Estevez becoming a repo man and then discovering aliens. The part that got me was how it just ended with Otto (Estevev) flying away in the vehicle through the city. I really don't understand this ending, but do realize that maybe their is just nothing to get. In class we discussed how the eighties was time of experimentation with science fiction and all the new technology that was surfacing then. So this was a very interesting look into the future.
The area I would like to discuss is how the eighties represented a time of consumerism and commercial franchise. In the eighties- movies began to become saturated with commercial advertisements and product placements. In the reading, the author writes that "...such films identify and celebreate their landscape as American precisely by symbolically figuring our political franchise in the warm neon and comforting glows of the powerfully concentrated and yet spacially dispersed ubiquity of commercial franchise." The author then goes on to give an example of how Americans truly do find comfort and safety in the familiar glows a popular neon sign. In the film, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the McDonald Arches sign suddenly dies out. This creates a sudden fear for the audience- for something truly must be wrong for those ever glowing lights to fade out. It is so interesting how something as simple as a glowing M can represent so much for a society.
Not only is it McDonald's that is a huge part of American culture- but other companies as well. In Back to the Future there are numerous spots- Mountain Dew, Burger King, Nike, etc... In E.T.- at the dinner scene in the beginning when the kids are eating pizza and drinking pop- it is not generic- it is Pizza Hut and Pepsi. I grew up on these films and ever since I was a child I always noticed the product placement and yes, I honestly will trust these products over others. I buy Nike shoes and clothing, and I do prefer Pizza Hut over others.
So in a time of commercalism and consumerism, it is fun to watch Repo man and see how it pokes these ideas. Instead of showing actual labels on food or drinks- like all the other movies made around its time- they just include labels of "Food" and "Drink." Either it is just representing a time in the future where everything is generic in society or rather it is the director trying to make a statement on consumerism in America. But then their is the one thing that I am concerned with in this film- I am pretty sure I saw the McDonald golden arches in one of the scenes. So...I am not sure why the director would still put them in...especially after providing the generic food and drink items.
The area I would like to discuss is how the eighties represented a time of consumerism and commercial franchise. In the eighties- movies began to become saturated with commercial advertisements and product placements. In the reading, the author writes that "...such films identify and celebreate their landscape as American precisely by symbolically figuring our political franchise in the warm neon and comforting glows of the powerfully concentrated and yet spacially dispersed ubiquity of commercial franchise." The author then goes on to give an example of how Americans truly do find comfort and safety in the familiar glows a popular neon sign. In the film, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the McDonald Arches sign suddenly dies out. This creates a sudden fear for the audience- for something truly must be wrong for those ever glowing lights to fade out. It is so interesting how something as simple as a glowing M can represent so much for a society.
Not only is it McDonald's that is a huge part of American culture- but other companies as well. In Back to the Future there are numerous spots- Mountain Dew, Burger King, Nike, etc... In E.T.- at the dinner scene in the beginning when the kids are eating pizza and drinking pop- it is not generic- it is Pizza Hut and Pepsi. I grew up on these films and ever since I was a child I always noticed the product placement and yes, I honestly will trust these products over others. I buy Nike shoes and clothing, and I do prefer Pizza Hut over others.
So in a time of commercalism and consumerism, it is fun to watch Repo man and see how it pokes these ideas. Instead of showing actual labels on food or drinks- like all the other movies made around its time- they just include labels of "Food" and "Drink." Either it is just representing a time in the future where everything is generic in society or rather it is the director trying to make a statement on consumerism in America. But then their is the one thing that I am concerned with in this film- I am pretty sure I saw the McDonald golden arches in one of the scenes. So...I am not sure why the director would still put them in...especially after providing the generic food and drink items.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Westerns...More than meets the eye?
Probably the most interesting thing I've learned so far this semester is how many Western films are based off contemporary culture in America. Obviously films are created from scripts that are inspired by events and culture- but I guess I just never took into consideration the idea that even Westerns showcase this idea as well.
I find it so interesting to view a Western as just a cowboy/Indians type movie and then to view it with thorough understanding of what the director is actually trying to say. It is just so strange how a genre that was created out of Hollywood studio lots, portraying a huge exaggeration of what actually happened in the Old West- was used as another way- to create correlations to current events happening in America.
In class, we discussed how High Plains Drifter was inspired by the murder of Kitty Genovese, a New York City resident who was murdered in her window while being watched by her neighbors listening to her screams. No one did anything to help her and just watched her die. Eastwood and Tidyman (writer of High Plains Drifter) used this within their treatment for their film. In the reading, the author states - "Eastwood saw the story as a morality play and thus by its defintion, the film has a message beyond its form." Of course this is referring to his character, the Drifter, who doesn't play by any of societies rules.
High Plains Drifter shows Eastwood raping a woman in the first ten minutes of the film. Everyone in town knows what has happened and does nothing about it. They just let the Drifter go about his business. This is a major element in the idea of referring to current American events (the Genovese murder).
That whole rape scene is very weird and hard to fully understand. The audience sees this woman begin to insult the Drifter, who is just trying to carry on his own way. But after a while he decides that to shut her up he only has one option- rape. But the Drifter knows she wants it, and the audience can see this as she starts to moan and hold on to the Drifter in a very sensual way. So it is very confusing as to what the true message behind this is. Is Drifter a raper? Or is he a man fulfilling this woman's wants?
I loved this film and surprisingly have never seen it till this class. I have always been a fan of Eastwood (Unforgiven, Pale Rider, The Outlaw Josey Wales). And now realizing how even westerns have sub context - I am eager to learn more about the hidden motives behind other westerns.
I find it so interesting to view a Western as just a cowboy/Indians type movie and then to view it with thorough understanding of what the director is actually trying to say. It is just so strange how a genre that was created out of Hollywood studio lots, portraying a huge exaggeration of what actually happened in the Old West- was used as another way- to create correlations to current events happening in America.
In class, we discussed how High Plains Drifter was inspired by the murder of Kitty Genovese, a New York City resident who was murdered in her window while being watched by her neighbors listening to her screams. No one did anything to help her and just watched her die. Eastwood and Tidyman (writer of High Plains Drifter) used this within their treatment for their film. In the reading, the author states - "Eastwood saw the story as a morality play and thus by its defintion, the film has a message beyond its form." Of course this is referring to his character, the Drifter, who doesn't play by any of societies rules.
High Plains Drifter shows Eastwood raping a woman in the first ten minutes of the film. Everyone in town knows what has happened and does nothing about it. They just let the Drifter go about his business. This is a major element in the idea of referring to current American events (the Genovese murder).
That whole rape scene is very weird and hard to fully understand. The audience sees this woman begin to insult the Drifter, who is just trying to carry on his own way. But after a while he decides that to shut her up he only has one option- rape. But the Drifter knows she wants it, and the audience can see this as she starts to moan and hold on to the Drifter in a very sensual way. So it is very confusing as to what the true message behind this is. Is Drifter a raper? Or is he a man fulfilling this woman's wants?
I loved this film and surprisingly have never seen it till this class. I have always been a fan of Eastwood (Unforgiven, Pale Rider, The Outlaw Josey Wales). And now realizing how even westerns have sub context - I am eager to learn more about the hidden motives behind other westerns.
Monday, April 6, 2009
But Mommy...I don't want to...
First off, I freaking loved this movie. At first I wasn't sure if I would because I did not enjoy the remake with Denzel Washington. But maybe that is because I was a little too young to fully grasp some of the concepts and ideas of the film. However the original film was very good- from the actors to the dialogue, and the suspense to the plot.
I really enjoyed the cinematography of this film. I felt that the black and white worked well for it, using lights and shadows. I really enjoyed the whole hypntizing idea and the use of solitaire and the queen of diamonds to express that.
This film is interesting because it is a historic piece that mirrored current events of its time. It reflected the views and ideas that were spreading through the world due to the Cold War and Communism. It even dealt with the idea of "momism." Momism was coined by Philip Wylie, an author who wrote that "A mom was a self righteous, hypocritical, sexually repressed, middle aged woman...in which the women of America raped men." Wylie also discusses how the mom would manipulate husband and son for her own best interests.
The Manchurian Candidate is a perfect example when it comes to discussing "momism." In the film, Raymond Shaw, is a former Korean War POW who is brainwashed by Communists to become a political assassin. What is even crazier, is his own mother is somehow in cahoots with this whole operation. She is right up there with the other Communists when it comes to getting Raymond to assassinate their targets. Its interesting to watch this film knowing that the director is addressing the whole "momism" idea. Angela Lanzbury, the mother, portrayed the perfect manipulative mother. She was very calm with Raymond, but very decisive and clear with what she wanted- to have her son assassinate the newly official , so she can become more powerful.
What is also interesting about this film is how Raymond kills his mother in the end- instead of the elected official. Wylie discusses how in the unconscious mind- the "mom" disempowers the husband or son, and in the conscious mind - the "mom" becomes the target. In the film, when Raymond is "un-brainwashed" by Frank Sinatra, he begins to think for himself. He realizes he cannot listen to mother anymore and that she is the true target and the cause of all the evil that is being brought upon him. So Raymond turns the gun at her instead.
I'm not sure if I fully grasp this whole "momism" thing, but I feel I am starting to anyway, because it is pretty darn intriguing.
I really enjoyed the cinematography of this film. I felt that the black and white worked well for it, using lights and shadows. I really enjoyed the whole hypntizing idea and the use of solitaire and the queen of diamonds to express that.
This film is interesting because it is a historic piece that mirrored current events of its time. It reflected the views and ideas that were spreading through the world due to the Cold War and Communism. It even dealt with the idea of "momism." Momism was coined by Philip Wylie, an author who wrote that "A mom was a self righteous, hypocritical, sexually repressed, middle aged woman...in which the women of America raped men." Wylie also discusses how the mom would manipulate husband and son for her own best interests.
The Manchurian Candidate is a perfect example when it comes to discussing "momism." In the film, Raymond Shaw, is a former Korean War POW who is brainwashed by Communists to become a political assassin. What is even crazier, is his own mother is somehow in cahoots with this whole operation. She is right up there with the other Communists when it comes to getting Raymond to assassinate their targets. Its interesting to watch this film knowing that the director is addressing the whole "momism" idea. Angela Lanzbury, the mother, portrayed the perfect manipulative mother. She was very calm with Raymond, but very decisive and clear with what she wanted- to have her son assassinate the newly official , so she can become more powerful.
What is also interesting about this film is how Raymond kills his mother in the end- instead of the elected official. Wylie discusses how in the unconscious mind- the "mom" disempowers the husband or son, and in the conscious mind - the "mom" becomes the target. In the film, when Raymond is "un-brainwashed" by Frank Sinatra, he begins to think for himself. He realizes he cannot listen to mother anymore and that she is the true target and the cause of all the evil that is being brought upon him. So Raymond turns the gun at her instead.
I'm not sure if I fully grasp this whole "momism" thing, but I feel I am starting to anyway, because it is pretty darn intriguing.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Touch of Evil or a Touch of Class?
I have always been a fan of Orson Welles, especially with Citizen Kane. It is so impressive how this man writes, directs, and acts in his own films. And Touch of Evil doesn't fall short with this. First, I found Welles character as the crooked detective an amazing performance. He is so intense within this role that it just adds so much to the film.
Not only was I impressed with his acting skills, but I was really intrigued by the cinematography and his direction of the film. Obviously the very long continuous shot in the beginning is amazing and very impressive, and it makes me wonder how many takes it took for Welles to get it just the way he wanted it.
Another shot that I loved was the one of Uncle Joe when he was in his car. The medium shots that Welles used were very interesting and caught my attention right away. Another scene that I really liked was the ending. It is a beautifully composed shot = Vargas underneath the bridge holding his radio, while Quinlan and the other detective are right above him. To me- I feel that scene is a classic piece of cinema- that before this class may have never been a witness to.
I also really enjoyed how this was supposedly one of the last real Film Noir films. I really enjoyed the lighting in Touch of Evil. I thought the shadows were used effectively and truly did create that familiar vibe of Film Noir.
Aside from Welles acting and directing, I found the issue of race and stereotypes to be very interesting in this film. What surprised me was the choice to have Charlton Heston to portray a Mexican in brown face. Don't get me wrong, Heston was a great actor, I just didn't quite understand it at first. Then after reading the posts for the movie, I learned some of the possibilities for why this was done.
The reading discusses how Welles covers Mexican stereotypes and presents them to the audience. He has a gang of Mexicans in the movie, that all cover almost every stereotype in the book- leather jackets, violent, dirty, treat women badly, etc... But he also included Vargas- who doesn't lie, doesn't steal, is clean, and doesn't even look or sound Mexican. I am still trying to wrap my brain around this and what Welles is trying to imply with it. The reading points out that it reveals "predictable stereotypes of the Mexican subjectivity." Maybe having Heston in brown face is to break stereotypes, for it is so obvious to the audience that it is a white man. Does the audience not believe Heston as a Mexican because of his color, or is it because he is just not fitting into the stereotype of being a "Mexican", regardless of his color? I feel Welles is making it so obvious for the viewer to see that stereotypes are not always true. All I know, is it is a very interesting and confusing area to discuss.
Not only was I impressed with his acting skills, but I was really intrigued by the cinematography and his direction of the film. Obviously the very long continuous shot in the beginning is amazing and very impressive, and it makes me wonder how many takes it took for Welles to get it just the way he wanted it.
Another shot that I loved was the one of Uncle Joe when he was in his car. The medium shots that Welles used were very interesting and caught my attention right away. Another scene that I really liked was the ending. It is a beautifully composed shot = Vargas underneath the bridge holding his radio, while Quinlan and the other detective are right above him. To me- I feel that scene is a classic piece of cinema- that before this class may have never been a witness to.
I also really enjoyed how this was supposedly one of the last real Film Noir films. I really enjoyed the lighting in Touch of Evil. I thought the shadows were used effectively and truly did create that familiar vibe of Film Noir.
Aside from Welles acting and directing, I found the issue of race and stereotypes to be very interesting in this film. What surprised me was the choice to have Charlton Heston to portray a Mexican in brown face. Don't get me wrong, Heston was a great actor, I just didn't quite understand it at first. Then after reading the posts for the movie, I learned some of the possibilities for why this was done.
The reading discusses how Welles covers Mexican stereotypes and presents them to the audience. He has a gang of Mexicans in the movie, that all cover almost every stereotype in the book- leather jackets, violent, dirty, treat women badly, etc... But he also included Vargas- who doesn't lie, doesn't steal, is clean, and doesn't even look or sound Mexican. I am still trying to wrap my brain around this and what Welles is trying to imply with it. The reading points out that it reveals "predictable stereotypes of the Mexican subjectivity." Maybe having Heston in brown face is to break stereotypes, for it is so obvious to the audience that it is a white man. Does the audience not believe Heston as a Mexican because of his color, or is it because he is just not fitting into the stereotype of being a "Mexican", regardless of his color? I feel Welles is making it so obvious for the viewer to see that stereotypes are not always true. All I know, is it is a very interesting and confusing area to discuss.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
James Dean: The Ultimate Rebel
Finally I have seen this film. For years, my dad has been nagging me to watch it, but we never owned it on DVD or never caught it at the beginning on television. And man I was captivated by this film. Not just by the storyline but by James Dean's performance. I found some of his lines to be some of the greatest delivery in film history- "You're tearing me apart!" and "You already are involved!" Pretty much anytime Dean is screaming at his parents I loved. It just seemed so realistic, I don't know, it just really got to me. Being an actor myself, I was greatly impressed.
But moving on from that, I found the film to be very interesting. Compared to the Mystery Science Theater film we watched, there are numerous obvious differences. In the MST we are shown this perfect family, with instructions on how a typical day in the life of a typical family should be. But the reality is that no family is your "typical family" or perfect family, and there are certainly no instructions that will enforce this, well maybe Dr. Phil helps a little bit. But Rebel without a Cause shows how true American families operate. It shows how no family is perfect and that no matter how glamorous or wealthy a family may appear, there is always the chance of dark secrets to be hidden somewhere.
It is amazing to me how this film showcased how parents and children interact. Yes, the parents in this film were not really there for their children (either dead, just not caring, or too big of pushovers). But we see how children at that time dealt with this absence of parenting. And it is not good. We see a troubled little boy with no parents, who just wants to be loved by someone, and to help them keep their sanity. We see a teen boy who has no guidance from his parents because they don't come down on him like he wants him too. And then we have this girl who isn't noticed anymore by her father. So this leads her to find attention from the boys in town.
Now, the girl here I feel is the most messed up. Her boyfriend just died falling off a cliff, yet two hours later or so, she is running around with Dean and making out with him. It is as if the previous boyfriend meant nothing to her, just as long as she had another man holding her in their arms. I feel she was the character who needed the most help. Well, the kid with the gun needed serious help too.
But moving on from that, I found the film to be very interesting. Compared to the Mystery Science Theater film we watched, there are numerous obvious differences. In the MST we are shown this perfect family, with instructions on how a typical day in the life of a typical family should be. But the reality is that no family is your "typical family" or perfect family, and there are certainly no instructions that will enforce this, well maybe Dr. Phil helps a little bit. But Rebel without a Cause shows how true American families operate. It shows how no family is perfect and that no matter how glamorous or wealthy a family may appear, there is always the chance of dark secrets to be hidden somewhere.
It is amazing to me how this film showcased how parents and children interact. Yes, the parents in this film were not really there for their children (either dead, just not caring, or too big of pushovers). But we see how children at that time dealt with this absence of parenting. And it is not good. We see a troubled little boy with no parents, who just wants to be loved by someone, and to help them keep their sanity. We see a teen boy who has no guidance from his parents because they don't come down on him like he wants him too. And then we have this girl who isn't noticed anymore by her father. So this leads her to find attention from the boys in town.
Now, the girl here I feel is the most messed up. Her boyfriend just died falling off a cliff, yet two hours later or so, she is running around with Dean and making out with him. It is as if the previous boyfriend meant nothing to her, just as long as she had another man holding her in their arms. I feel she was the character who needed the most help. Well, the kid with the gun needed serious help too.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Singin' In The Rain
I have been wanting to see this film for many years now, and am extremely glad I had the oppurtunity. It wasn't my favorite musical, like the dance and song numbers were just alright. But for the storyline and what the creators were trying to do with this film is what really interested me.
I loved how the movie addressed the switch from silent films to "talkies." I thought it was hilarious with that scene when the actress could not figure out the microphone situation. I also really enjoyed her real high and annoying voice, a voice that is often used in musical theater (for the annoying girl ex. Anything Goes, Victor Victoria, etc...).
I found the reading for this film to be quite interesting. I enjoyed the section when discussing how the film "winks" at the audience. The film does this to make apparent to the audience that it's purpose is to point out Hollywood's faults and or techniques. I noticed this before even reading the article. In the beginning you have the main actor discussing to his fans his success story, which sounds glamorous, but on screen you see contradictory images. And this makes it very apparent to the audience, a feeling that you don't often witness or deal with in film, but when done correctly, it is very effective.
I loved how the movie addressed the switch from silent films to "talkies." I thought it was hilarious with that scene when the actress could not figure out the microphone situation. I also really enjoyed her real high and annoying voice, a voice that is often used in musical theater (for the annoying girl ex. Anything Goes, Victor Victoria, etc...).
I found the reading for this film to be quite interesting. I enjoyed the section when discussing how the film "winks" at the audience. The film does this to make apparent to the audience that it's purpose is to point out Hollywood's faults and or techniques. I noticed this before even reading the article. In the beginning you have the main actor discussing to his fans his success story, which sounds glamorous, but on screen you see contradictory images. And this makes it very apparent to the audience, a feeling that you don't often witness or deal with in film, but when done correctly, it is very effective.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Double Indemnity...Baby
Wow, now this is the first movie in the American Film class that really grabbed my attention from start to finish. I have been wanting to watch this film for years, but have never caught it on TCM or AMC. This film had everything a great Film Noir should have- dark settings, attractive femme fatale, cheesy dialogue (especially on the voice overs), and a great murder tale.
Double Indemnity had me guessing the whole time on what Phyllis really was up to. Was she truly a victim? Or was she just a self-absorbed brat who wanted everything when she wanted it? Well turns out she was just the girl who would do anything to get her way, no matter how many men she had to manipulate in order to get there. And that is what interests me so much with this film, like said in the reading, is that it "shows the attractive side to evil." Although ultimately each character ends up getting caught in the end, audiences are drawn to these characters. The audience doesn't really have a choice though it seems either, The main character is Neff, who commits the murder for Phyllis, but we the audience don't view it as being "that bad" because we are under the impression that the man who was killed was a little prick anyway who was supposedly abusive to his wife. But the audience sees two very attractive people, almost like in Natural Born Killers, where you know they are doing bad things, but for some reason their intentions almost seem right or moral.
And one other thing was that the dialogue reminded me alot of some of my favorite movies from the 1980's, that mock Film Noir- including The Naked Gun series. I know that it should be the other way around, but I grew up on The Naked Gun with Leslie Neilsen, so I'm used to it from him. But when Neff would say "Baby" and "How could I have known that murder could sometimes smell like honeysuckle?" That was a riot.
Double Indemnity had me guessing the whole time on what Phyllis really was up to. Was she truly a victim? Or was she just a self-absorbed brat who wanted everything when she wanted it? Well turns out she was just the girl who would do anything to get her way, no matter how many men she had to manipulate in order to get there. And that is what interests me so much with this film, like said in the reading, is that it "shows the attractive side to evil." Although ultimately each character ends up getting caught in the end, audiences are drawn to these characters. The audience doesn't really have a choice though it seems either, The main character is Neff, who commits the murder for Phyllis, but we the audience don't view it as being "that bad" because we are under the impression that the man who was killed was a little prick anyway who was supposedly abusive to his wife. But the audience sees two very attractive people, almost like in Natural Born Killers, where you know they are doing bad things, but for some reason their intentions almost seem right or moral.
And one other thing was that the dialogue reminded me alot of some of my favorite movies from the 1980's, that mock Film Noir- including The Naked Gun series. I know that it should be the other way around, but I grew up on The Naked Gun with Leslie Neilsen, so I'm used to it from him. But when Neff would say "Baby" and "How could I have known that murder could sometimes smell like honeysuckle?" That was a riot.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
My Thoughts on White Zombie
Hmmm...where to begin with this review. After first watching this film, I was undecided on how I felt about it. I mean I enjoyed the overall feel and mood of the piece, but couldn't really get wrapped around the plot. Honestly, I am not a horror fan at all, (except for The Shining), because it is so rare for a movie to truly scare me. But I felt that this movie gave an overall creepy vibe and I did enjoy that aspect.
After doing the reading that was assigned along with this piece, I actually became much more interested in the film. Once understanding the historical events that occurred in Haiti, and how much of that inspired or influenced "White Zombie," I had the urge to watch it again. So I did, not the whole thing, but most of the major scenes, to kind of see how everything did play out as it was said in the reading.
One of the main parts of the reading that really struck me was how Neil was the hero but still represented something else as well. Upon discovering that Madeline may have been kidnapped by natives, he responds "Surely, you don't mean she's alive? In the hands of natives? God, no! She's better dead than that!" It's just interesting how the underlying message really is conveying the racism factor that truly existed between US occupants and the Haitans during America's ruling. It is also interesting because the reading points out how Neil (the hero) represented the US occupants who led to "the disastrous effects on Haitian economic and social life." I feel that this film is not really enjoyable or interesting for the plot, but rather for what the plot is masking over- the historical events and relations between the different races on Haiti during the 1930's.
The film speaks alot about American Imperialism, and as in the reading states how people are not sure how much was deliberately put in. But that is why I found this film much more fascinating- a film that secretly reveals one of the low points in American history.
After doing the reading that was assigned along with this piece, I actually became much more interested in the film. Once understanding the historical events that occurred in Haiti, and how much of that inspired or influenced "White Zombie," I had the urge to watch it again. So I did, not the whole thing, but most of the major scenes, to kind of see how everything did play out as it was said in the reading.
One of the main parts of the reading that really struck me was how Neil was the hero but still represented something else as well. Upon discovering that Madeline may have been kidnapped by natives, he responds "Surely, you don't mean she's alive? In the hands of natives? God, no! She's better dead than that!" It's just interesting how the underlying message really is conveying the racism factor that truly existed between US occupants and the Haitans during America's ruling. It is also interesting because the reading points out how Neil (the hero) represented the US occupants who led to "the disastrous effects on Haitian economic and social life." I feel that this film is not really enjoyable or interesting for the plot, but rather for what the plot is masking over- the historical events and relations between the different races on Haiti during the 1930's.
The film speaks alot about American Imperialism, and as in the reading states how people are not sure how much was deliberately put in. But that is why I found this film much more fascinating- a film that secretly reveals one of the low points in American history.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Not My Man Godfrey
I disliked this movie for one major reason and liked it for another. I disliked this film because of the weak plot and boring storytelling. I could not really connect with the film, after being told it was a screwball comedy. If not told beforehand, I never would of guessed the genre. I may have said comedy but definitely not screwball. And I know people are going to say- "What about the guy with the gorilla impression?" and "What about Irene in the shower?." Yea...I can see how that is pretty outrageous and screwy, but didn't feel that it was sufficient enough to make it a complete screwball comedy.
Granted the only other screwball film I have seen is 'Bringing Up Baby,' I still feel "Godfrey" is lacking in the comedy department. I actually enjoyed Baby with its intense characters and wild adventure that the audience could go along the ride for. Baby just offered so many sexual innuendos and slapstick comedy that it was hard not to fall for the film. But with Godfrey, to be completely honest, I was just bored with the storyline, and laughed only a couple times.
One thing that I definitely loved about this film is not the comedy aspect of it, but rather the era that it depicts and how it reveals Americans living in one of the most horrific times as a country. The audience gets to see firsthand how an economic depression effected millions of Americans in the 1930's. That adds a great deal to the film I feel, because it shows how the film reflects something that truly did happen and affected everyone (all classes), even if it just meant interaction with one another (Like Godfrey becoming the Bullock's butler).
Another thing that I thought was cool in the reading that I read was how the film transmuted audiences front row and center to the lives of rich people. And its true, most movie goers in the 1930's were the middle class who were being affected by the depression and wanted to be taken to a world where life appears easier and more luxurious. They were brought into a hgih class world of champagne, ballrooms, and rich people scavenger hunts. THey were also taken right into homes with tall spiral staircases, chandeliers, and beatiful furniture.
ALthough My Man Godfrey fell short in the storyline with me, I still feel that it is a great piece of art to take a look back into one of America's grimmest moments and see how life can greatly be affected by the economy. Kind of scary...considering everything happening now...
Granted the only other screwball film I have seen is 'Bringing Up Baby,' I still feel "Godfrey" is lacking in the comedy department. I actually enjoyed Baby with its intense characters and wild adventure that the audience could go along the ride for. Baby just offered so many sexual innuendos and slapstick comedy that it was hard not to fall for the film. But with Godfrey, to be completely honest, I was just bored with the storyline, and laughed only a couple times.
One thing that I definitely loved about this film is not the comedy aspect of it, but rather the era that it depicts and how it reveals Americans living in one of the most horrific times as a country. The audience gets to see firsthand how an economic depression effected millions of Americans in the 1930's. That adds a great deal to the film I feel, because it shows how the film reflects something that truly did happen and affected everyone (all classes), even if it just meant interaction with one another (Like Godfrey becoming the Bullock's butler).
Another thing that I thought was cool in the reading that I read was how the film transmuted audiences front row and center to the lives of rich people. And its true, most movie goers in the 1930's were the middle class who were being affected by the depression and wanted to be taken to a world where life appears easier and more luxurious. They were brought into a hgih class world of champagne, ballrooms, and rich people scavenger hunts. THey were also taken right into homes with tall spiral staircases, chandeliers, and beatiful furniture.
ALthough My Man Godfrey fell short in the storyline with me, I still feel that it is a great piece of art to take a look back into one of America's grimmest moments and see how life can greatly be affected by the economy. Kind of scary...considering everything happening now...
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
