The Brothers Bloom and the State of Film

*I wrote this article in order to accomplish several different tasks: To review The Brothers Bloom, to rant against its detractors, then look at the past, present, and future of Motion Pictures.

            To begin… I finally saw the first movie of 2009 that I actually loved. I mean there are plenty of pictures that have been released that I enjoyed, that I liked, that I cared for, but none that garnered my undeniable love. I talk of course, about The Brothers Bloom.

            Rian Johnson’s second feature length film, after 2005’s Brick, follows the story of two conmen brothers, Stephen and Bloom, as they con a wealthy heiress, fall in love, and learn something about their profession and themselves. It’s important to note that while Brick was an amazingly original first feature (It had everything you’d want in a Hard nose detective story, yet set in a completely unconventional locale) this is better. Its scope, its vision is enormous. It is really telling a story that the writer and director believe wholeheartedly in.

Stephen, Bloom, and Bang Bang

 

            The film begins with a band tuning up over the production company logos, then BANG! The sun rises and the story begins. From this point we are given a glimpse, merely a glimpse, into the troubled childhood of the brothers bloom. They move from foster home to foster home, and with each move a renewed strength in their relationship. This is probably one of the toughest feats that a film must overcome, making the audience believe that non-relatives are in fact relatives. Adrien Brody (Bloom) and Mark Ruffalo (Stephen) are brothers without a doubt, they look out for one another, they argue with each other, and they love each other. Throughout the film Rian Johnson makes sure to remind us, the viewers, of this fact, but he does it in such a way that doesn’t pull focus from the story being told. Instead it adds a layer of depth to the overall picture.  My favorite scene that exemplifies this feeling to a tee is the introduction of the nefarious Diamond Dog. Bloom sits alone at a bar, a glass of red wine before him. He slowly details a sketch of the woman he loves, Penelope (Rachel Weisz more on her later). Then a click, and another, sequentially rhythmic tapping echoes throughout the hotel’s bar. We as an audience are unaware of the meaning of this sound, but to Bloom it is all too familiar. His attitude changes quickly from lovesick puppy, to fearful child. He is pulled back to the nightmares of yesteryear, and we go back with him. With a missing eye, a tangled mess of hair, and a nomadic uniform the Diamond Dog is quite the presence. His scene with Bloom is emotional, and frightening. Something terrible happened and we feel it. Suddenly Stephen appears behind the two at the bar. The diamond dog says “We were just talking about you.” Without a moments hesitation Stephen breaks a wine bottle on the counter and jabs it into the Dog’s hand. Later Stephen grabs Bloom’s shoulder, “I’m sorry I wasn’t there.” Bloom replies solemnly, “You can’t always be there.” Regret, remorse, fear. It’s great stuff, and Johnson plays it in such a subtle fashion that it is hard not to admire his talents as a director.

Bloom Meets the Diamond Dog

 Penelope, the mark, is such a beautiful character, brought to life by the writing of Johnson and more so by Weisz. Her performance is simply amazing, which is strongly supported by the second female lead Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi). They develop a relationship that I can only describe as mutual understanding, and mutual respect for one another. They’re two women playing a game dominated by men, and their relationship is fantastic.  Penelope’s introductory scenes are all great fun, but really it’s Weisz’s naivety that pulls and holds it all together. She is a weary child who wants to live, and this movie gives her character the chance.

 From a filmmaking standpoint the movie is also fantastic. Rian Johnson’s stylistic flourishes that transferred over from Brick are just as evident, and just as effective in this film’s setting. Something I really liked was the lighting, and the lights in general. In every scene there was harshness to them, there was something very visceral about the way they played in each scene. Johnson’s use of whip pans, and emphatic dollies are wonderful, he employs a kinetic camera because a lively camera keeps the story moving, while a motionless camera does exactly what it implies it keeps the story motionless.

All in all this was truly the most fun I’ve had at the movies this summer, Star Trek was great, Terminator Salvation was a waste of film, but The Brothers Bloom is a moving picture in every sense of the word. You come out of it feeling like you were just told a story, a sweeping epic confined to the lives of two conflicted confidence men.

 My trouble with this film is not the film at all in fact, but rather the negative criticisms that it received. I understand that everyone has their opinions, and that everyone is entitled to them. I understand if you didn’t like the flick that’s fine, hey I don’t like Field of Dreams so shoot me, but to give a film a negative review based on insubstantial comparisons is impossible to respect. Something that really bothered me about these reviews, almost every single one, compared it to Wes Anderson. If they don’t directly reference the director then they proceed to declare it as a cutesy effort in style. This is a frustrating statement because Johnson’s film is filled with colorful characters who are exponentially more interesting than anything coming out of Michael Bay’s toilet these days, yet he will probably get better reviews from these specific critics because film has lost its meaning with these people. Any way the comparison to Wes Anderson is a mockery. Every director is separate from one another (not including the Coen Brothers) they all utilize a set of tools that are meant to push the story forward, and they each add their own touches that help bring the audience into the picture. There are various similarities between the two directors, especially in this film, for example, the titles used to show us where we are in the con. In an Anderson film you may see this applied to a close up of a pencil sharpener then beside it, written in Futura Bold, “Pencil Sharpener.” Do we as an audience know and recognize the object as a Sharpener? Yes. Do we need a title to tell us it’s a pencil sharpener? Of Course not. Then why do it? Because it’s an artistic flourish that doesn’t need to be explained it just needs to exist. In Bloom, however, it serves a purpose. It lets the audience in on the con; we in essence become the conmen who get to play in this twisted game of deceit. Also the camera movements that Johnson employs, whip pans for the big reveal, dollies for emphasis, inserts, etc. are all very evident in Anderson pictures, but, and this may be news to many of the critics out there, Wes Anderson didn’t invent these. He in fact stole a lot of those stylistic flourishes from people like Martin Scorsese (who in turn learned them from someone before him), so again in terms of filmmaking, these so called critic’s arguments are void. Then I suppose there is the argument that the comparison to Anderson is rooted in the characters, their actions, what they wear, what they say, what they do, etc. is all very quirky, all very Anderson-esque. This is ridiculous to say because so much of who we are, are those things. Our names, what we wear, what we say, how we behave, is in fact who we are. Let’s put it this way a blond haired blue eyed girl named Stacy, who is president of Student Council, a captain on the cheerleading squad, and is dating the football team’s captain will never be grouped with the Goths. This is because that is not who she is, she is an over achieving popular girl, not a brooding rebel devoted to dark clothes and darker corners. We are who we are because that’s the way we present ourselves. So this argument is void as well, because this means that Johnson is an effective and possibly genius storyteller who loves his characters, and his stories, and is not a thief. Thievery in film has been said to be the catalyst for authenticity. It’s my belief that Johnson learned these techniques from films he loves and as Jean-luc Godard said “it is not where you take things from it is where you take them to,” and Johnson brings it to a whole new level. In any case the perfect film develops out of a balance of style and substance, and The Brothers Bloom gets close to accomplishing just that.

The Conmen and their Mark

This brings me to my next and final point… My locally renowned critic Joe Williams in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch declared that this film “… has the cast but not the story,” and that assembling “such a talented cast, dressing them in kooky costumes, writing them snappy dialogue and then giving them nothing interesting to do is a scam.” I’ve had issues with a number of critics across the globe, and very much so on this particular movie. The argument that this film has an “abundance of style” but lacks in substance is the true scam.

            Have we forgotten what a story is? Yes. As a general audience we now lack the capabilities to focus on an actual narrative, we lack the emotional capacity to be swept off our feet, to be completely engrossed in the characters and the STORY that is being told. This is due to the fact that now, more than ever, films don’t tell stories they tell situations. It’s a frustrating state of affairs because now more filmmakers are being replaced by situationmakers. Situationmakers being people who tell about occurrences; things that happen that hold no true meaning. In essence situationmakers are creators of prolonged and glorified sitcom episodes. Where are the golden days of film? Where are the directors, I mean the real directors, who tell stories, the ones who live and die for film? Where are the heroes? Where are the unforgettable lines? Where is the heart? Where is the soul? Where are the films? They are all almost gone, lost in an indeterminable ocean of crap movies developed for the sole purpose of making money. This society has lost the love of an art form which made it’s impact in the 1930s and 1940s, now we are stuck in era with poor story telling, poor directing, and pretty faces without talent. There are a number of now mainstream filmmakers who look to restore the lost era including Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, and now Rian Johnson (just to name a few). Once these directors have passed we will be left with the situationmakers. Movies without any heart that don’t tell stories. Soon thereafter the situationmakers will be replaced by the gimmickmakers, and then at that point any remnant of film that was left over will be stamped out.  But for now here’s to looking back at the past, here’s to making movies that are works of art, here’s to telling stories.

            As I think more and more about this beautiful film it becomes clearer and clearer that Rian Johnson is a fantastic filmmaker and a fantastic storyteller, The Brothers Bloom is an adventure, a romance, a thriller, and above all a great movie. Go see it.

A Dish Best Served Cold… Ice Cream and Revenge: A Top Five List

I recently revisted one of my favorite films of the last ten years, Kill Bill Vol.1. It’s an amazing, amazing film. The excellence of which is exacerbated by the subsequent viewing of it’s superior “sequel” Kill Bill Vol. 2. As I sat in my bed recovering from surgery and watching a blond samurai wreak bloody revenge upon the five who deserved it most, I began to ask my self; What makes a good Revenge Film? This is an extremely difficult question to answer but I think the most basic need is a lead character who is both believable as the perpetrator of the revenge and is relatable as an emotional vehicle. There are some films that pull this off well, and others who fall flat on their asses.

It is evident that in order to establish a strong emotional connection which the revenge seeker the event that stoked the fires must be emotional wretching. For example, in Kill Bill a woman’s daughter is “killed,” she is thrown into a coma for four years, and her friends are murdered. Now that’s pretty fucked up. It’s definitely worthy of revenge. She is also believable as the one who can succeed in her quest for blood because she is a deadly killing machine, made possible by the convincing and strategic mythology that Quentin Tarantino so ingeniously developed to support this tale. Above all a revenge film must have violence, I’m sorry to say but it’s true. Now this doesn’t always have to be physical violence. Psychological violence is just as rewarding as severing limbs, and possibly more satisfying for the seeker of revenge, but needless to say some form of violence must be performed in order to provide payback for what was done.

An eye for an eye seems to be the respectable manor in which to bring about revenge. Sort of an honor among theives, but this may not always be an effective manifestation of the revenge. I mean suckas gotta pay, and bitches need to learn a lesson. You steal the girl I’m taking care of, I’m shoving a bomb up your ass. It’s a complicated and complex process to decipher the true appeal of a revenge film, so without further adieu, here is my top five revenge films of all time.

A DISH BEST SERVED COLD…

*I respectfully declined to include Kill Bill (1 and 2) from this list despite it’s more than adequate credentials. I believe it’s position as one of the greatest revenge films of all time has already been set, and my statement would only be gratuitous.

5. Get Carter (1971)

I’ve always had a soft spot for Michael Caine, I find him to be an amazing actor. He’s got that english suave without the snobbery. This quality shines the greatest in this film. Caine stars as Jack Carter who travels to Newcastle to attend his brother’s sudden funeral. It doesn’t take long for the gangster to suspect foul play and begin his reign of terror through the web of lies to find the grain of truth. Jack encompasses  the best qualities of a revenge seeker, he’s vindictive and amoral. He finds no qualms in handing out brutal deaths to those who’ve earned it. Also he, like The Bride, is an almost unstoppable killing machine. Another great piece is that the director Mike Hodges utilizes the north England country side as a representation of Carter’s inner turmoil dark, cold, and unforgiving.

4. Memento (2000)

 

Since this movie nobody has doubted Christopher Nolan’s ability to spin an effective yarn, something with great twists and an even more compelling plot device. Guy Pearce plays Leonard a revenge seeking, spiked hair, CRS sufferer, who, as his disease implies, can’t remember shit. His only way to map his progress on the path f revenge is through a series of tatooes that he has scattered across his body. A few scenes pop out to me: He talks on the phone as he removes bandages from a newly inked tatoo. It reads “Don’t Answer the Phone” “Who is this” he ask. BOOM! Suspense, thrill, action. I mean this films got it all. Also the fact that it plays out backwards is ingenious, and that fact that it works is godly.

3. Point Blank (1967) and Payback (1999)

 

This was a tough one, I can respectfully recognize both of these films separately, both amazing films in their own ways. I tend to prefer Point Blank over the more recent adaption of Donald Westlake’s source material The Hunter. Mel Gibson can hold his own, but Lee Marvin is… well, Lee Marvin. The guy just screams machismo, it’s unfortunate that I wasn’t introduced to him until I saw The Dirty Dozen a few years ago. The basic plot synopsis is: Man and Partner pull of heist, Man’s partner and Man’s wife fuck Man over and steal Money, Man seeks revenge and his share of the cash. It doesn’t get much deeper than that, I mean but what can you ask for all you need is a vindictive protagonist and you’re set to go.

 

2. Mad Max (1979)

 

My preference of the three Mad Max films is most certainly in number two, The Road Warrior. I mean that film rocks, but the foundations started in ‘79 with this post-apocalyptic romp starring the then nobody Mel Gibson. Gibson plays the aforementioned Max who polices a post WWIII Australia. He seeks the arrest and deals out justice to crazed gasoline hunting maniacs. However, everything gets rotten in denmark when these loonies decide it’s a good idea to murder Max’s wife and child. Now that’s an amateur mistake. “The chain in those handcuffs is high-tensile steel. It’d take you ten minutes to hack through it with this. Now, if you’re lucky, you could hack through your ankle in five minutes. Go.” That’s about as fantastic a line you’ll get.

1. Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

I’ve included Sergio Leone’s best multiple times on my website, listing it as one of my favorite films of all time, and one of the greatest spaghetti westerns of all time. The fact remains though that this film accomplishes a lot in it’s three hour running time, it has revenge, greed, love. It’s an opera in the most basic of terms, and it’s amazing in even simpler terms. Charles Bronson’s harmonica deals out a prolonged and long awaited redemption upon the emblematic and ruthless villain Frank. A man who’ll do anything to make a quick buck. I’ve said it once before, but is it not brilliant that Leone cast Henry Fonda as the epitomy of evil when in the eyes of audiences across the globe he is the epitomy of Good. Leone flipped all pre-set norms on their heads and produced a masterpiece of both revenge and westerns.

This concludes my list of the five best revenge films of all time I’ll include some honorable mentions at the bottom. Also if anyone who reads this has something to add, feel free to leave it in the comments section as always.

Honorable Mentions:

-Last House on the Left

-Man on Fire

-Death Wish

-The Count of Monte Cristo

-Old Boy (Looking back on my list I would actually add this one, however alot of people find it inaccesible because of it’s controversial subject matter. But that’s bull shit so above all see this one.)

-V for Vendetta

So there are a lot of great revenge flicks out, it’s all about knowing where to look.

Inglourious Basterds

Entertainment Tonight did the unthinkable last night and actually gained an audience that isn’t obsessed with bullshit celebrity gossip. They gained viewers who tend to be marked as Film Geeks, in turn for the debut of the Inglourious Basterds trailer.

I too was among the ranks of viewers who wanted to see Taratino’s new WWII epic last night, and was sorely disappointed. Apparently ET can’t achieve the most simple of tasks, shutting  up when they play a clip. I don’t want to hear a play by play, and I especially don’t want to hear about “Brad Pitt’s New Movie.” I just want to watch it.

Luckily, a real trailer was released today and it didn’t disappoint. Focused on Pitt’s big pump up scene as he hires his Basterds. WE get to see Eli Roth in his bat swinging glory, shoshanna as she runs from her would be captors, hitler pound his fists, and the rest of the basterds doing what they do best. It looks great thus far, and though the shots are short, Taratino’s stylized shots do come through… at parts. It’s still too little to judge but it’s looking greart thus far. Click here for the trailer.

Inglourious Basterds Teaser!!!

Well, well, well. It appears that old salty dog Quentin Tarantino has accomplished his long sought after dream. He has made his WWII epic Inglourious Basterds, and tonight he shares a small portion of that dream with the world.

Airing tonight, depending on the time zone you’re in, Entertainment Tonight will air a teaser trailer of Inglourious Basterds!!

If I still have any regular readers after by 5 month hiatus, then they will know that I have a nearly unhealthy infatuation with Tarantino. I mean the guy has a cinematic vision unlike anyone working today. Not to say it’s the best, there are plenty of directors that I like exponentially more than Tarantino, but that doesn’t erase the fact that he does things his way and it’s always awesome.

In anticipation of the long talked about teaser, ET has released a teaser for the teaser (i just want to see it stopping hanging it in front of me like a piece of meat), and my opinion is still out. I have no doubt I’ll love this movie, I mean I read the script way back last summer and I knew that it would be somewhat “off” which is what I look for in a tarantino flick.

One thing I’ve heard people complain about is Pitt’s accent. I don’t by any means hate the accent, in fact I like it especially for the character. It feels forced, and by god it’s supposed to. Do you really think the man who placed a blond haired blue eyed woman in the place of an epic samurai doesn’t know what he’s doing? Trust me when I say it’ll be fine.

My only complaint is that ET is billing the film as “Brad Pitt’s New Movie.” Wait, what? That’s bullshit, there are multiple story lines and only one of them has the pittster, he just gets top billing because of his A-list status, bull shit!

Anyways here’s the teaser of the teaser the rest will be aired tonight.

Coraline 2009

It has been far too long since my last posting, nearly 5 months I believe. I can only thank modern technology for my recucitation back into life. I was reinvigorated by a sweet, creepy, and wholly entertaining film I saw in theaters this weekend, Coraline. Since becoming a college student I’ve found that time is scarce, time which I would much rather spend sitting in a dark room watching a movie. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m no anti-social annie I just love movies clear and simple. However, when i do find time to hit the theaters I have seen some truly remarkable films. In recent months these films include The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire, Taken, and Coraline. I’ve been wanting to see the wrestler for such a long time, it’s just dissappointing I haven’t found time. And taken I saw as a prescreen at my school and how can you resist Luc Besson’s involvement in an action film.

Now to the centerpiece of this article: Coraline. This wonderfully creepy gem has been granted the rating of PG. In my mind this may be a little to lenient. It’s a scary film, and perhaps too unpleasant for the younger audience. Now I won’t go any further on the rating, because I have voiced my concerns about the MPAA before and this isn’t an argument I could ever win.

Henry Selick's Coraline

Now I say “scary.” Modern audiences whose systematic viewing of Saw and Hostel have led them to believe that being scary automatically means a severe loss of limbs and blood. Gore, while disturbing, means nothing essentially. It’s all shock value, as opposed to true scares.

So if it’s not gore that garners the scary nature of this film, then what is it? Well, quite simply it’s the story that Coraline tells. It’s bleak, and the central character Coraline Jones (Dakota Fanning) is not a very nice person. She rejects a potential friend in Wybie, she complains about her existence and her first order of business in the film is to find an alarmingly deep hole near the Pink Palace. A symbolic representation of her existence within her family unit. Her parents are busy, distracted, and all around unpleasant during the working hours. While there is no doubt in my mind that Coraline’s parents love her, they are to focused on their immense amount of work to notice and care for her.

So Coraline, reacting to her preoccupied parents and lack of friends, finds refuge in a dream world filled with alternates to her own world. Their differences lie in buttons for eyes, forced cheerfulness, and gratutious ammounts of food. In a sense the “other” world is perfect. It’s in this relative perfection that Coraline finds refuge, but it’s all a facade something that Coraline discovers in her adventures in the “other” world.

Beyond the story, there are the characters. IN the real world all of the boarders in the pink palace attempt to live on the past glories of some career, this is nearly depressing as they all would rather spend their time living a past life then attempting to live their own life. A representation of Coraline’s own inner struggle. These boarders are also represented in the other world, except all of their past achievements are present achievements, which is important because if Coraline submits to the will of her other mother and allows for buttons to be sewn into her eye sockets then she can be whatever she wants, appealing for an impressionable young girl.

On a superficial level Coraline is lots of fun to look at. Bright colors, interesting characters and the 3d all come together in a feat of animation. Henry Selick did a fantastic job crafting a creepy world that seems real enough.

*****

Fall Fever!

Some people love the summer months for their warm weather, open pools, and blockbuster movie schedule. While I enjoy the whimsical and entertaining qualities of summer movies, I prefer the more serious, yet still entertaining nature of the FALL MOVIE LINEUP!

I am going to give my top ten most anticipated movies for Fall 2008, and my reasons for the anticipation. I will also include some films that premiere later in the season, because I can.

1. Burn After Reading: September 12th

     Reason for Anticipation: While part of me worries that the Coen bros. rushed through production to follow up their amazing No Country for Old Men and this will turn out to be another Ladykillers, another part of me thinks that the Coen’s are riding on a wave of genius and they can’t fall off their board. With an all star cast, and an intriguing story, Reading could be the new Big Lebowski.

2. Changeling: October 31st

     Reason for Anticipation: While I heart Clint Eastwood the actor, I love Clint Eastwood the director. Mystic River, and Million Dollar Baby are superbly crafted films. I do worry that this whole child kidnapped story is just common ground for the ol’ salty dog.

3. The Road: November 26th

     Reason for Anticipation: My favorite book of all time is being adapted into a movie, anticipation definitely rose when I heard John Hillcoat, director of The Proposition would helm this dark tale. Early production photos look promising and I’ve always really like Viggo Mortensen so his role should be pleasing. However, like all adaptations, there is the chance for it to fall flat.

4. Quantum of Solace: November 14th

    Reason for Anticipation: Do I really need to tell you why?

5. Australia: November 26th

 

    Reason for Anticipation: Baz Luhrman’s tale of a female Ranch owner and one of the workers during pre WWII Australia looks epic in scale, that and it looks gorgeous. While Moulin Rouge was not a great effort, it did look really really good, and I hope to see those amazing Australian landscapes shot just as well.

6. Zack and Miri make a Porno: October 31st

    Reason for Anticipation: This is my fingers crossed movie of the entire year. I am a Kevin Smith apologist, many people don’t enjoy a lot of his films, but I’ve always found them to be well written and very original. I just viewed the Red Band trailer for this over at Slashfilm and it looks hysterical.

7. Milk: December 5th

     Reason for Anticipation: A controversial subject matter tackled by a controversial Director may make one great film. Gus Van Sant may not be the most popular of directors but his films are always rather intriguing and very well crafted look for this one after its wide release date.

8. Defiance: December 12th

    Reason for Anticipation: This is a later one, and I have to say pre-release buzz is sounding pretty good. Jaime Bell is a great actor (if your basing your opinions of capabilities off Jumper go see Billy Elliot) and Daniel Craig is beyond good (Layer Cake). It’s story is really promising as well, so thumbs up for both an excellent cast and a great stories, more so than not these days that is a hard find.

9. Body of Lies: October 10th

    Reason for Anticipation: Ridley Scott. Russel Crowe. Leonardo Dicaprio. Story of one CIA agent fucking over another CIA agent. I’m in.

10. W.: October 17th

      Reason for Anticipation: Why not? I mean, its got Josh Brolin, and it’s about a president who is about to leave office, and it’s by Oliver Scott (not a fan of all his work, in fact he is quite overrated but many of his films are decent).

 

That wraps it up into one tightly wound burrito of fall movie goodness and sour cream.

Release Date Woes…

In a few days (hopefully) I’ll be writing up an article about my Fall Season Anticipations, until then I have some very irritating news.

The Brother’s Bloom, the follow up film for Sophomore Director Rian Johnson’s Brick, was set for an October release date. Unfortunately, in a wave of release date fluctuations (DAMN YOU HARRY POTTER… AND TWILIGHT) Bloom has been tossed back to a limited release in December, followed by a Wide Release in January 2009.

This was one movie that I was really rooting for. If you haven’t seen Brick, then why are you reading this? You should be at your local video rental store, nay, you should be at your local video PURCHASING store picking this amazing film up. Adrien Brody is a phenomenal actor, and one of the only reasons I stuck through King Kong. Rachel Wiez is a gorgeous woman, who will be fantastic is this Con-man’s tale. And Mark Ruffalo, well, he’s Mark Ruffalo (Not a comment against, the Ruffster, he has the potential he just hasn’t proven himself. Although he got very close in Zodiac).

Lady Hollywood is such a tease, and this release date push back is driving me crazy… slut.

Tales from the West Side

As a film major I am required to view certain films in order to fully understand the merits of film as an art form. This semester as a prerequisite I’m taking a Film Appreciation-esque class. Through the semester we’ll tackle a different aspect of film, and then watch a movie that fully realizes that aspect. 

Luckily for me, I’ve seen all of the movies on this list for the semester at least twice. So I come into this year with a little bit of knowledge about the films I’m watching, but I don’t know everything and this class will help me learn as much as possible.

This week we tackled the aspects of Mise-en-scéne, and to provide a solid example of this certain topic we viewed West Side Story (1961). A film directed by Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise, it’s an update on the classic Romeo and Juliet story. Two feuding gangs in the west side New York are torn apart by their differences and eventually brought back together by a strong bond shared between a Puerto Rican, or Shark, Maria and her ill-fated lover, Tony, a Jet.

This film is truly a masterfully crafted piece of work, and after listening to my professors explanation of shots, and exactly why certain color schemes are used made me appreciate the film that film so much more.

For example, the introduction of the two gangs at the beginning of the film is filled with motifs and symbolism that I never really noticed until it was pointed out.

To provide a few examples: The Jets, the white gang, have a more earthy color to them, off white, brown, and green. While the Sharks, the Puerto Ricans, have a much more vivid color scheme such as purple, and red. Well, throughout this introduction we see first hand the tension and the need to own the streets. At one point two Bernardo and his buddies walk through the streets and run into a pair of Jets at a fruit stand. They follow them as they walk and then they run into a larger mass of Jets.

In the Background are buildings, one building is painted the color of the jets, and the other building is Red, a color associated with the Sharks. The two buildings mesh together, the red surrounds the white/yellow building. Not only this but on the white building is a sign in both English AND Spanish, which is just further evidence of these two cultures being forced to live together.

I had scene the movie before, many times before, and I think I enjoyed it the most this time. Especially for a musical which is a genre I’ve never found a lot of refuge in. The songs are all fantastically written, the choreography is spot on Robert Wise’s direction along with Jerome Robbin’s own skills as both a choreographer and a director meshed together into a great film.

All of the performances are good, if not exaggerated, but it’s a musical so the emotions are meant to be exaggerated. 

Here’s is the list for the rest of the year, I will write a little segment for each one we watch. Hopefully I’ll find more time, so my posts can be as long as I want them to be.

 

1. Raging Bull
2. The French Connection
3. The Conversation
4. North by Northwest
5. The Sweet Hereafter
6. Jaws
7. My Darling Clementine
8. Once upon a time in the West
9. The Bicycle Thief
10. The Player
11. The Godfather
12. 2001: A space Odyssey

Dorm Room Screenings

As I sit in my personal tuna can and stare at the grimy bowl once filled with cheerios I came to the decision that my over ten day hiatus from this blog must come to an end. From packing, unpacking, and getting aclimated to both the elevation and a new environment, time was scarce. Luckily on this slow wednesday afternoon I found the time.

Today’s topic of discussion in this hopefully weekly, monthly, or even annually written batch of articles, is The Treasure of Sierra Madre.

A film, directed by John Huston, studies how greed, camaraderie, death, and harsh environments can affect prospectors in the early 1900’s.

I watched this movie for a few reasons. Mostly because it’s something I’ve never seen and decided it was about time to and because I’m on a quest to see films from earlier directors that I never got around to watching. Along with John Huston this list includes Howard Hawks, Orson Welles, Preston Sturges, Jean Pierre Mellville, Michelangelo Antonioni, and Francois Truffaut among others.

So before I parted ways with my more than enthusiastic parents (just kidding mom and dad if you do read this) I roped them into buying me a DVD. The Treasure of Sierra Madre is what we came up with.

Being a fan of The Maltese Falcon and more specifically both Huston’s direction and Humphrey Bogart’s acting, I was pretty stoked to check this out. I will say that I wasn’t entirely dissappointed, in fact I like it more than Falcon but Bogart’s acting was overshadowed by Walter Huston, John Huston’s father. That ol’ prospector was something, and Walter played the role so perfectly that you couldn’t help but see this man as one of ‘em old goldrushers with the toothless smile and a pickaxe.

The Film otherwise was great and the ending made the movie. Sorry for the short and sweet review but finding time is quit the job nowadays.

Straw Dogs (1971)

*Tied to Cinexcellence’s Unseen-Movie-Blog-a-thon

This weekend, or at least this Friday, I’ve decided to have a Sam Peckinpah double-feature. Straw Dogs and The Wild Bunch, two movies I’ve never seen but I thought it was about time to.

First up was Straw Dogs, the kind of movie I pass every single time I’m at the video store as I search through the endless sea of Dramas. I’ve heard fairly good things about this film, and with Dustin Hoffman along for the ride, how bad can it be? It can be good… but not great.

This film follows a man by the name of David Sumner, played by Hoffman, and his wife Amy as they find refuge in the English country side. While David tries to write a book, Amy catches up with her old pals, who aren’t as friendly as they used to be. David’s cowardly nature only leads to brutality inflicted upon the ones he loves and a man can only be pushed so far.

I’m sad to say the only Peckinpah film I had seen before this was The Getaway an awesome flick with Steve Mcqueen. His use of slow motion continuously throughout scenes of violence make the violence that much more real. Have you ever been in a situation where something crazy happens, like a car crash? When you describe it to friends and family, don’t you say “It’s like it was in slow motion.”? Well, I may not have ever been in a car collision but I’ve had some nutty stuff happen to me and I’ll be damned if I didn’t say that.

Anyways, that is what this whole film feels like. It feels like the retelling of a gruesome and horrific event to friends and family. I suppose that means that did a good job since it was adapted from a book.

The best thing about this film is that it doesn’t sugar coat shit (and by shit I literally mean feces). It doesn’t wrap the turd up in fancy paper and place a little cherry on top. The movie is about the raw emotionality of two people who are slowly torn apart by obsession with one’s projects, and a terrible force that wants to prove a point.

I didn’t like what Hoffman’s character became though. I suppose this ties into them not sugar coatin’ the shit, and I guess this is the prime example. Hoffman becomes mean, and at one point threatens to snap Amy’s neck if she doesn’t listen to him. Part of me appreciates that Peckinpah chose to go in this route, but the other part thinks it goes to dark.

And THAT is what I love about this movie. It doesn’t care how dark it becomes, because it is supposed to become that dark. My complaint should not be taken seriously as it isn’t a serious complaint, it’s actually a compliment towards the director and actor’s capability to completely flip what we thought we knew about the character and create something new and frightening.

 * * * * *