I really enjoyed this film, and I'm not normally a fan of Westerns.
However, I didn't see where John Ford was sympathetic towards the Indians in this film. They were immediately shot and killed as "savages" in this film like all the others. Plus, when the wife of one of the men who was an Indian came in, the man [I think it was the bank man]instantly yelled savage and freaked out. I don't find that sympathetic at all... I did like that she was the one who went and told the Indians where the men were staying at.
Also, I thought it was a nice contrast with most of the film being shot in a stagecoach, since it was about the stagecoach represented progression through the West of what was to come, roads and railroad tracks.
The frontier represents freedom; whereas, civilization is structured with laws. Dallas and Ringo could not function in a structured society, since they both were outlaws. They had to go even farther from structure and farther south to Mexico.
OHHHHHH The man who played Buck was the voice of Friar Tuck in the Robin Hood cartoon!! That was awesome!!!!!!
I don't really have anything else to say...
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Plagues and Pleasures on the Salton Sea
I guess I'm just going to talk about the guest filmmaker and his documentary this week, since I don't remember what we watched last Tuesday...So Chris Metzler's Plagues and Pleasures on the Salton Sea is a great, funny film about these eccentric folks in no-man's land of the Salton Sea. One thing I did not like were all the graphics that were used; I thought it was unnecessary and over the top. But other than that, I thoroughly enjoyed all of the footage that was shown. My favorite character was the lady who smoked the cigarette in the golf cart, not knowing what gave her cancer. ha! Anyways, I thought she was great, being very blunt and straight-forward about her opinions. I really don't have anything to say this week, so I'm cutting this one short. :]
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Blonde Venus
The beginning of the movie was beautiful; I loved how it opened in the past, then we learned the rest of the story between Ned and Helen via a bedtime story to their son. However, it is hard to be sympathetic to Helen, for she leaves her husband taking their son. When Ned finds she has been seeing Mr. Townsend, Helen never really gives him an explanation; she just leaves. When she is leaving her son in hotel rooms by himself, it is hard to relate to her and want her to succeed. Although it was interesting how I had to keep reminding myself that I did not like her because she is framed and lighted in an ethereal aspect that causes you to want to like her. None of the characters were very sympathetic except Johnny, the son.
Another element I noticed was how Helen plays the seductress to the "T" with her come hither looks like when she simply seduces the detective while she is on the farm with one simple look, making him forget that she was the one he was actually searching for.
I also thought it was great how the descent into Hell was literally going down into the South, although Texas is definitely not Hell. :)
Another element I noticed was how Helen plays the seductress to the "T" with her come hither looks like when she simply seduces the detective while she is on the farm with one simple look, making him forget that she was the one he was actually searching for.
I also thought it was great how the descent into Hell was literally going down into the South, although Texas is definitely not Hell. :)
Friday, October 31, 2008
Triumph of the Will (1935)
In Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will, the beginning always amazes me. It begins in the clouds—it’s very dream-like. Hitler was a dream to the German people; he was going to rebirth the nation. I disagree with you [Dr. Hendricks] on the basis that Hitler was a god-like [Greek] figure; whereas, I view him more as the Messiah coming back to resurrect a nation—to revive it—to save it.
He is also filmed in a much lighter light than others, expressing that Arian quality that he loves. At the closing ceremony, the camera zooms back to view the audience and Hitler up on stage, emitting a shining light that was almost too bright to look at, relating him back to the Messiah figure.
During the first parade after Hitler arrived, the camera cut to children, all different kinds of people, including a cat to show the support of all the different walks of live Hitler received, including animals. The camera is always at a lower angle to make him appear larger than life and god-like; whereas, the crowds are filmed at low angles to make them look like peons! Also, the shadows of the people marching were shown before actually seeing the soldiers or people. This serves to demonstrate that the people will always be in the shadow of Hitler while he ruled?
A lot of cameras were used during this documentary, and it is evident through the many diverse shots Riefenstahl has.
He is also filmed in a much lighter light than others, expressing that Arian quality that he loves. At the closing ceremony, the camera zooms back to view the audience and Hitler up on stage, emitting a shining light that was almost too bright to look at, relating him back to the Messiah figure.
During the first parade after Hitler arrived, the camera cut to children, all different kinds of people, including a cat to show the support of all the different walks of live Hitler received, including animals. The camera is always at a lower angle to make him appear larger than life and god-like; whereas, the crowds are filmed at low angles to make them look like peons! Also, the shadows of the people marching were shown before actually seeing the soldiers or people. This serves to demonstrate that the people will always be in the shadow of Hitler while he ruled?
A lot of cameras were used during this documentary, and it is evident through the many diverse shots Riefenstahl has.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Duchess (2008)
Director Saul Dibb tells the story of the Duchess of Devonshire, Georgina, who was a spirited woman, involved in politics, affairs of her husband, gambling, a woman of impeccable fashion sense, a woman that everyone loved except for her husband in the 2008 film, The Duchess. Keira Knightley portrays the vigorous Georgina who is stuck in a loveless marriage with the Duke [Ralph Fiennes] who has countless affairs, for he resents Georgina because she has only birthed girls and he longs for a male heir. Georgina is in love with a friend prior to her marriage, Charles Grey [Dominic Cooper]. She becomes fast friends with Bess Foster [Hayley Atwell], which results in Georgina inviting Bess to stay at her manor. Bess soon begins sleeping with the Duke, leaving Georgina devastated that her friend would betray her. Soon, there are three people in the marriage, and Georgina cannot get out without losing her girls. She starts an affair with Charles Grey and wants to leave her husband, but with threats about her children, she returns home to live with her husband and Bess. She does conceive a child with Charles Grey, in which she is forced to give her up to Grey’s family in a heartbreaking scene. The film ends with Georgina in this loveless marriage with her husband and Bess. It was very depressing, melancholy, and sad. It portrayed such a great woman, but viewers saw no depth with her. There was no character development of any of the characters, nor were there any sympathetic characters either. Georgina seems like a wonderful, courageous woman, but the film displayed none of those qualities—only demonstrating how she was stuck in a horrible marriage of three.
The Orphanage (2007)
In The Orphanage, directed by Juan Antonio Bayona, a family of three, Laura (Belen Rueda), Carlos (Fernando Cayo), and an adopted son, Simon (Roger Princep) return to the orphanage where Laura grew up to transform it into a home for handicapped children. However, Simon has always had two imaginary friends, but when he arrives at the old orphanage, he starts having more “friends” that are invisible to his parents. Strange events occur, leaving Laura convinced something is wrong. Simon soon vanishes without a trace, leaving his parents dumbfounded and devastated. Laura begins to believe that Simon’s imaginary friends are responsible for his disappearance. To discover the whereabouts of her son, Laura begins to play the games with the imaginary friends. She discovers her son is actually dead and ultimately kills herself to be with him and the other children.
The plot of the movie is intense and horrifying with many twists to shock viewers. It begins with a flashback of Laura as a little girl at the orphanage with all of the other children that lived there, playing a game. This effectively establishes the setting of the film and helps later tie in the strange occurrences to these children from Laura’s past. When the title appears, viewers are able to see the tone of the film—a horror film—for the title is presented in a very creepy manner with children’s hands ripping paper to reveal the title. Simon becomes very aggressive when his parents do not believe him about his friends, especially when Laura does not buy into his “game” that his friends played where they place clues of misplaced items in different spots to lead them somewhere or when Laura does not come see Thomas’s house the day Simon disappears. Something that still perplexes me is that when Simon was dressed in Thomas’s clothes, he slams his mother’s hand in the door, breaking her finger, and pushing her in the bathtub. Why does he do that? I would expect it of the ghost but not Simon, so that was shocking.
The film then weaves Benigna [Montserrat Carulla] into the whole plot, the woman who Laura found wondering the grounds one night and then died in a freak accident. She used to work at the orphanage and was the mother to Thomas. When Thomas dies in the caves from the other children’s game, she sought revenge on them, killing them all.
Eventually, Laura learns through the help of a mystic woman that the reason her son could see the “friends” was because he was close to death. In order for Laura to find her son, she asked Carlos to leave her at the house alone for two days. She sets the home up exactly like it used to be when it was an orphanage. She begins to overdose on medicine, so she will be able to see the children. They begin to play the game like with Simon and lead Laura to Thomas’s room, where Simon is sleeping [as a ghost]. She begins to carry him out of the room, insisting for him to pretend it was just a dream. When the ghosts disappear, she sees Simon lying on the ground, dead, for when he ran from his mother that day; he fell down the steps and died. Laura then kills herself to be with him. The children simply wanted someone to take care of all of them, and Laura took that role at the end of the film.
The plot of the movie is intense and horrifying with many twists to shock viewers. It begins with a flashback of Laura as a little girl at the orphanage with all of the other children that lived there, playing a game. This effectively establishes the setting of the film and helps later tie in the strange occurrences to these children from Laura’s past. When the title appears, viewers are able to see the tone of the film—a horror film—for the title is presented in a very creepy manner with children’s hands ripping paper to reveal the title. Simon becomes very aggressive when his parents do not believe him about his friends, especially when Laura does not buy into his “game” that his friends played where they place clues of misplaced items in different spots to lead them somewhere or when Laura does not come see Thomas’s house the day Simon disappears. Something that still perplexes me is that when Simon was dressed in Thomas’s clothes, he slams his mother’s hand in the door, breaking her finger, and pushing her in the bathtub. Why does he do that? I would expect it of the ghost but not Simon, so that was shocking.
The film then weaves Benigna [Montserrat Carulla] into the whole plot, the woman who Laura found wondering the grounds one night and then died in a freak accident. She used to work at the orphanage and was the mother to Thomas. When Thomas dies in the caves from the other children’s game, she sought revenge on them, killing them all.
Eventually, Laura learns through the help of a mystic woman that the reason her son could see the “friends” was because he was close to death. In order for Laura to find her son, she asked Carlos to leave her at the house alone for two days. She sets the home up exactly like it used to be when it was an orphanage. She begins to overdose on medicine, so she will be able to see the children. They begin to play the game like with Simon and lead Laura to Thomas’s room, where Simon is sleeping [as a ghost]. She begins to carry him out of the room, insisting for him to pretend it was just a dream. When the ghosts disappear, she sees Simon lying on the ground, dead, for when he ran from his mother that day; he fell down the steps and died. Laura then kills herself to be with him. The children simply wanted someone to take care of all of them, and Laura took that role at the end of the film.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Taxi to the Dark Side (2007)
Taxi to the Dark Side, directed by Alex Gibney, paints a horrifying picture of the torture used on supposed terrorist prisoners and deals with the corruption of high officials ignoring and portraying ignorance of these matters.
The film follows Dilawar, a man who was presumed a terrorist; he was wrongly arrested by an Afghan militiaman, who wanted to ingratiate himself with the United States soldiers. He was held in the American prison at Bagram, Afghanistan and was tortured so badly that he died after only 5 days. His legs were beaten so badly, that it looked as if a train had run over them. The film effectively uses Dilawar’s story to demonstrate the ruthless condemnation of the “Bush administration’s unofficially condoned policy of the torture of the prisoners, which is forbidden by the U.S. constitutional and military law and international agreements, but justified under the “necessity” of working the dark side.” Vice President Dick Cheney details that, “We [the U.S. government] have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will.” The “dark side” is torture, and if he is explicitly relating their treatment of prisoners to the “dark side,” then obviously, it is wrong. It also delves into interviews by soldiers who participated in the torturing. They detailed that it was unknowingly approved by their superiors, who feigned innocence at all of the claims all the way up to Bush.
It also employs provocative statements from Bush: “one by one the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice,” Bush said. He also exclaimed that terrorists are being treated “in a thorough and professional way.” These two statements are callous, for he knows exactly what “professional” way they are being treated, being beaten, mauled, ridiculed, dehumanized, and very inhumane treatment. However, he never uses these words because he is a pretentious bastard. One man details that we are fighting to protect our principles and liberties, yet we are not following those principles or liberties in dealing with prisoners that we so strongly believe in.
The film uses tactics to completely shock and provoke empathy from viewers: pictures of the beaten men, pictures of soldiers doing awful things with prisoners, reenactments, harsh statements, and pictures of Dilawar are repeatedly shown, etc. It is a very effective documentary.
The film follows Dilawar, a man who was presumed a terrorist; he was wrongly arrested by an Afghan militiaman, who wanted to ingratiate himself with the United States soldiers. He was held in the American prison at Bagram, Afghanistan and was tortured so badly that he died after only 5 days. His legs were beaten so badly, that it looked as if a train had run over them. The film effectively uses Dilawar’s story to demonstrate the ruthless condemnation of the “Bush administration’s unofficially condoned policy of the torture of the prisoners, which is forbidden by the U.S. constitutional and military law and international agreements, but justified under the “necessity” of working the dark side.” Vice President Dick Cheney details that, “We [the U.S. government] have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will.” The “dark side” is torture, and if he is explicitly relating their treatment of prisoners to the “dark side,” then obviously, it is wrong. It also delves into interviews by soldiers who participated in the torturing. They detailed that it was unknowingly approved by their superiors, who feigned innocence at all of the claims all the way up to Bush.
It also employs provocative statements from Bush: “one by one the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice,” Bush said. He also exclaimed that terrorists are being treated “in a thorough and professional way.” These two statements are callous, for he knows exactly what “professional” way they are being treated, being beaten, mauled, ridiculed, dehumanized, and very inhumane treatment. However, he never uses these words because he is a pretentious bastard. One man details that we are fighting to protect our principles and liberties, yet we are not following those principles or liberties in dealing with prisoners that we so strongly believe in.
The film uses tactics to completely shock and provoke empathy from viewers: pictures of the beaten men, pictures of soldiers doing awful things with prisoners, reenactments, harsh statements, and pictures of Dilawar are repeatedly shown, etc. It is a very effective documentary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)