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.
Friday, October 31, 2008
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.
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) and Sullivan's Travels (1941)
Both Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Sullivan’s Travels employ an exhilarating opening. Mr. Deeds… begins with a truck flying down a road and crashing off the bridge. Then a montage of newspapers and people telling who died in the car accident occurs. Likewise, Sullivan’s Travels opens with a gunfight aboard a fast moving train, although it is actually on film with Sullivan analyzing a film, creating a self-reflexive film.
In Sullivan’s Travels, Sullivan and others glamorize the life of the poor through his wanting to make a film about that lifestyle. However, when he truly experiences the mundane activities that the poor have to deal with such as sleeping with the multitudes in a shelter, being stolen from, and digging through the trash for food, Sullivan realizes that being poor is not such a charming life. Sullivan fully assimilates into the poor lifestyle when he is at the church and finally begins to laugh at the Mickey Mouse cartoon shown, like the others. This is also Preston Sturges’s way of making the film a satire of Hollywood, for the film seems to say that laughter alleviates everything, even social standing, in the way the film concludes and how it simplifies poverty.
As Sullivan’s Travels seems to celebrate cynicism, Mr. Deeds… is straight forward. Deeds romances his woman, unlike Sullivan. Even though everything bad happens to Deeds, he still ends up on top with the woman. The film also balances the character of Deeds between masculine and feminine to make him more endearing, such as singing in the rain and playing the tuba versus fighting and refusing help while dressing. Viewers tend to sympathize more with Deeds than Sullivan because Deeds was forced into his new existence; whereas, Sullivan chose it.
In Sullivan’s Travels, Sullivan and others glamorize the life of the poor through his wanting to make a film about that lifestyle. However, when he truly experiences the mundane activities that the poor have to deal with such as sleeping with the multitudes in a shelter, being stolen from, and digging through the trash for food, Sullivan realizes that being poor is not such a charming life. Sullivan fully assimilates into the poor lifestyle when he is at the church and finally begins to laugh at the Mickey Mouse cartoon shown, like the others. This is also Preston Sturges’s way of making the film a satire of Hollywood, for the film seems to say that laughter alleviates everything, even social standing, in the way the film concludes and how it simplifies poverty.
As Sullivan’s Travels seems to celebrate cynicism, Mr. Deeds… is straight forward. Deeds romances his woman, unlike Sullivan. Even though everything bad happens to Deeds, he still ends up on top with the woman. The film also balances the character of Deeds between masculine and feminine to make him more endearing, such as singing in the rain and playing the tuba versus fighting and refusing help while dressing. Viewers tend to sympathize more with Deeds than Sullivan because Deeds was forced into his new existence; whereas, Sullivan chose it.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Scarface (1932) & 42nd Street (1933)
Scarface and 42nd Street possess many of the same qualities: both have an underlying theme of the American Dream, deal with issues of the Great Depression, and they reflect viewpoints on prohibition.
One image I thought was very artistic in Scarface was the image of John holding the salt shaker like a gun pointed at Tony, after Tony took his woman to dance with. It was an effective scene, foreshadowing Tony’s imminent fate when the guns are all pointed at him in the last scene at his apartment.
42nd Street also deals with a gangster of some sort. Julian Marsh hires Murphy to threaten Pat, so he will stay away from Dorothy [because of Abner]. Marsh says, “what one man’s meat is another man’s Murphy.” This plays on one of the themes in Scarface because Tony is a hero and a villain at the same time. It is in the eye of the beholder to view their character and what group they belong to—the group of the heroes or villains.
In 42nd Street, there is a scene where Abner and some of the other members of the production are at Dorothy’s apartment. They are all drinking; it represents the drinking as very glamorous, for all of the guests are garbed in elegant, ornate clothing. Even when Abner is inebriated, it sets up as a very humorous scene, looking at alcoholic beverages as a funny, sophisticated socializing thing to do. This directly contrasts with the prohibition act that was taking place in society. Evidently, the filmmaker’s views on the act are against it.
Likewise in Scarface, Tony is shown drinking in ornate clothing. It seems that drinking is synonymous with the upper class and wealth. This film is also painting a very sophisticated picture of alcohol and demonstrating Hawks’ outlook on the prohibition occurring during this period.
One image I thought was very artistic in Scarface was the image of John holding the salt shaker like a gun pointed at Tony, after Tony took his woman to dance with. It was an effective scene, foreshadowing Tony’s imminent fate when the guns are all pointed at him in the last scene at his apartment.
42nd Street also deals with a gangster of some sort. Julian Marsh hires Murphy to threaten Pat, so he will stay away from Dorothy [because of Abner]. Marsh says, “what one man’s meat is another man’s Murphy.” This plays on one of the themes in Scarface because Tony is a hero and a villain at the same time. It is in the eye of the beholder to view their character and what group they belong to—the group of the heroes or villains.
In 42nd Street, there is a scene where Abner and some of the other members of the production are at Dorothy’s apartment. They are all drinking; it represents the drinking as very glamorous, for all of the guests are garbed in elegant, ornate clothing. Even when Abner is inebriated, it sets up as a very humorous scene, looking at alcoholic beverages as a funny, sophisticated socializing thing to do. This directly contrasts with the prohibition act that was taking place in society. Evidently, the filmmaker’s views on the act are against it.
Likewise in Scarface, Tony is shown drinking in ornate clothing. It seems that drinking is synonymous with the upper class and wealth. This film is also painting a very sophisticated picture of alcohol and demonstrating Hawks’ outlook on the prohibition occurring during this period.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Un Chien Andalou (1929)
Un Chien Andalou, by Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali, is really strange. I forgot I had seen it already, which is weird, since it was a very memorable film. However as soon as I saw the knife slicing the eye in the very first scene, I remembered the entire film or some key scenes from it. I found it interesting how I did not remember the title, but I remembered some of the most provocative shots [ants coming from a hole in the hand, knife slicing the eye, etc.]. The title is not important, but the content of a film should be the most significant part of a film. And Un Chien Andalou does this.
The film is very hard to follow, but it is compelling all the same. I find it intriguing that a film as radical as this is so gripping. I read in our book that the eye slicing scene is literally making a cut at normative vision of film. The film details from the first scene that this film will not be a "normal" film with that cringing shot. It is going to make viewers think and try to understand what is happening. In this film, it is almost impossible to fully deduce the meaning or themes of the film because there is such a disconnect in every scene from the others.
The film is very hard to follow, but it is compelling all the same. I find it intriguing that a film as radical as this is so gripping. I read in our book that the eye slicing scene is literally making a cut at normative vision of film. The film details from the first scene that this film will not be a "normal" film with that cringing shot. It is going to make viewers think and try to understand what is happening. In this film, it is almost impossible to fully deduce the meaning or themes of the film because there is such a disconnect in every scene from the others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)