"Film noir is not a genre...it is not defined, as are the western and gangster genres, by conventions of setting and conflict, but rather by the more subtle qualities of tone and mood." -Paul Schrader (1972)
Dictionary.com defines genre as "a class or category of artistic endeavor having a particular form, content, technique, or the like."
Film noir's impact on cinematography is evident even today. Directors, writers, actors and others in hollywood are heavily influenced by this defining period in American movies. Development of film noir came from the post-war delusionment, need for realsim, German influence, and hard-boiled tradition. After watching both Out of the Past (1947) and Kiss Me Deadly (1955) it seems apparent that these films do have different conflicts however the setting is in the city. Most of the film noir's take place in cities just like most of the western films take place in the open range. But, for the most part, the aspect that separates film noir's from the realm of the genre (as defined by Schrader) is conflicts. The conflicts of classical westerns is very clear, there is a protagonist or reluctant hero that must overcome a difficult conquest to rescue someone and/or get revenge on the antagonist characters. Oppositely, there is no one description that can describe the conflict of film noirs; not even one phase of noir. The way to describe a phase of film noir is by describing the visuals and mood of the films. The basic definition of genre from dictionary.com shows that film noir is considered a genre. And since I have complete faith in dictionary.com and its factuality; film noir is a genre! This argument, after all, has little meaning because of what was previously mentioned about film noir, regardless of whether it's a genre or simply a style, its impact on future generations of film is what really matters.
In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Joel's (Jim Carey) memories are erased in a very interesting way. From the disappearance of facial features, destruction of the background, the dark (spotlight) lighting, and the eerie hollow sounds. Spotlight lighting reminds me of the focus of memories, since we will only remember details that we have focused on. All of the unnecessary information is quickly forgotten.
The traveling inside of Joel's mind is really the highlight of the film, and it is a large portion of the film takes place there. We are able to learn greatly about about who he is and why he behaves the way he does. An example of this is when Joel and Clementine (Kate Winslet) hide from the Erasers in Joel's early memories. It shows that Joel has always been mild-mannered, wants to please others, and wanted to receive more attention/affection from his mother. Also, most of Joel's memories are the bad, embarassing ones. It also shows that, no matter the age, memories that stay in our mind have a profound affect on us. This is apparent in Joel's memory of him getting peer-pressured into killing a bird, he tries to confront these bullies, showing that he is still affected in some way by this situation. Should have erased this memory? It was painful. But in some ways, it shapes who Joel is as a person.
I ask those that read this blog to think about their most influential memories; memories that still affect them in some way or another, do you agree that they shape your personality? And, would you erase a memory if you honestly believed that it would help your life?
There are significant differences between the "classical western" to the "revisionist western." Although they both have the same types of settings the major themes of the two sub-genres split into completley different arenas. Many times, revisionist westerns will show a different depiction of Native Americans, or question other aspects that are commonplace in the westerns of the past. The film Unforgiven (directed by Clint Eastwood) shows the act of killing, violence aren't as thoughtless as in John Ford's Stagecoach were Indians fall off their horses, dying with a single shot. Another big difference is the aspects of heroism and cowardice. Many of the characters are seen by many as heroic, or ruthless when really the "word of mouth" or print distorts the real image that is sometimes bathed in cowardice.
The appearance of blood and overall brutality of killing isn't seen in Stagecoach. This seems to be fairly obvious to the viewer; they want to focus their attention on the development of John Wayne's character and the survival of the passengers of the stagecoach not dwell on the facts that the numerous armed Native Americans weren't able to kill anyone...not a single person. Now let's turn to Unforgiven's depiction of murder and the prime example would be when Will Munny (Clint Eastwood) guns down a man who was complicit in the "slashing" of the town prostitute. This man has a slow painful death, he calls out for a drink of water, he complains of the pain from the bloody bullet hole in his stomach. This was just two diverging examples that show a divergent theme.
As far a cowardice vs. heroism: Unforgiven challenges the classic western the most in this category. It shows how journalism, story telling, and other means can create an image that is false and/or too idealistic. A good example of this is the character English Bob (Richard Harris) who is represented in books and most areas of the country as a larger-than-life cowboy. He is, however, exposed by Little Bill (Gene Hackman) as a drunk who just was lucky at the time. There are no chinks in Ringo Kid's (John Wayne) idealized personality and he is the almost-perfect protagonist of the film: he is still a "reluctant" hero because that was classic westerns have. Overall, these differences along with many others divide Unforgiven and Stagecoach into sub-genres of western films, but each film is key in Western genre's history.
What do you get when you mix great rock and roll music, two counter-culture bikers, and the open road? Easy Rider. The film has been a cult classic since its inception and has some clear frustrations with intolerance that ran rampant at the time. Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda were independent film makers who decided to use their own favorite records to create another dimension for the open road. They were naive to think that all of the popular music would be in their movie and Fonda later said "...if the [film business] is tough, the music business really gets sticky".
The film featured artists such as Steppenwolf, Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Byrds, The Band, and many more artists that were making influential, counterculture induced music. All of the songs work so well into the scene, with the surroundings of untouched Americana and the two men who seem to be living the American dream. That is until they reenter almost any type of civilization where they are mistreated by scared individuals. There is no great music playing when this is happening. The famous movie critic Roger Ebert says that
"The budget was so limited, there was no money for an original score, so Hopper, the director, slapped on a scratch track of rock 'n' roll standards for the first studio screening. The executives loved the sound and insisted the songs be left in, and "Easy Rider" begat countless later movies that were scored with oldies."
I find that interesting that Hopper and Fonda might have stumbled onto this, I really can't imagine the movie without these "rock 'n' roll" standards bellowing through to the admiring audience.
The two main Easy Riders are Billy (Dennis Hopper) and Wyatt (Peter Fonda) along with a great but short lived friendship with George Hanson (Jack Nicholson). Together, Billy and Wyatt dream of getting to New Orleans for Marti Gras but things unfold like they want them to. The music really ads to the ideal feeling of the open road. Without it, there is a good argument that the movie doesn't have the same power. The obvious effect of the music was to add a spark to the long rides through the country.
The response to Easy Rider was astounding. The movie production costs were around $600,000 which was nothing compared to the millions it raked in.
Working on the docks and shipyards can be a tough job but if the union bosses are corrupt, it's hell. A great American film with that very plot was On the Waterfront. It starred a young Marlon Brando whose film career and fame was rapidly skyrocketing from instant classics. Brando is Terry Milloy, an ex-boxer that is caught up with the bad union bosses because of his brother and his rough past. In the beginning, he's a tough guy that seems to have no direction, a dirty mouth, and (almost) no concern for others. All that changes when he meets the girl of his dreams, Edie Doyle (Eva Marie Saint). With the help of the neighborhood priest, Father Barry (Karl Malden), Milloy tries to stand up against his former comrades and risks his life. Nobody in the shipyard wants to be considered a "rat" because their lives depend on keeping their mouths shut. Fear is best tool for these corrupt union bosses to go unnoticed.
The screenplay, by Budd Schulberg, allows for us to see the good side of Terry Milloy even before he realizes it himself. It tells the viewers that he is a decent person. John Friendly (Lee J. Comb), the mob-like union leader, seems to be worried about Milloy's commitment to his devilish ways. When he's in the room, Friendly treats him like a great buddy and shows him all the attention. Another man makes sure to tell Milloy he has a friend with them, almost to avoid his potential fallout. This is a key scene that disassociates him from them even though he had been around them for a long time. Another softening of his hard shell is when he is disappointed to learn that he was complicit in a murder because he thought they were going to beat up the dock-worker.
Many of the scenes start with a set-up shot or an extreme long shot which gives the film good balance, in my opinion. It is especially useful in the shipyard scenes and the roof-top scenes. Most of the shots, understandably, would from medium range which showed Brando or others from the waist up. Lighting almost all high-key; instead of shadows there is plenty fog and cigar smoke that dulls the frames and shows a darker side. That's the feeling I got from it.
I thought one of the great aspects of the film is its sound. According the credits, the people I should be thanking are James Shields and Leonard Bernstein. For a film made in the mid 1950s it had intelligent sound of ships and good timing on the mellow orchestra. The dialog seemed to good, other than a few phrases I had never heard before. For example, they don't use the word saloon much anymore. The one phrase that is still heard frequently today and the calling card for Marlon Brando is...
"...I coulda' been a contenda"
Another aspect that I found interesting was the wardrobe (Anna Hill Johnstone). The little roof-top-boys that hang around Terry Milloy have matching Golden Warriors jackets. Today, they're known as the Marquette Golden Eagles and it was just an interesting parallel to see. Terry and the rest of the dock workers had predictable attire and I felt the simplicity worked well with the nature of the film. It Brando's attire resembled Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I see many similarities between these two films and the actors themselves. Both Nicholson and Brando seem to carry their films all the way to classic stardom.
This film has all of the makings of classic and has stood the test of time. Marlon Brando is considered one of the greatest actors of all time because of his ability to become "one" with the character and his undeniable charm. On the Waterfront will be enjoyed by many more generations to come, there's no doubt about that.
One of the most controversial issues in America today is abortion. It can cause such intense emotions because of it's connections to faith, poverty, race, equality, and sex. A moving documentary that deals with this very issue and which I'm interested in seeing is "Lake of Fire" directed and produced by Tony Kaye (American History X). Apparently, Kaye had worked on this film for 15 years and shot in black and white. Critics have enjoyed Kaye's neutrality in the film, keeping both perspectives open and honest but have emphasized it's "digusting" and "wrenching" approach. I hope to learn more about these frightening religious-fundamentalist terrorists who will do almost anything for this cause. This graphic film even has a scene of an actual abortion in all of it's nastiness.
One of the most famous movie critics of all time, Roger Ebert (full review) weighs in on the film,
"At 152 minutes, his film doesn't seem long, because at every moment something absorbing, disturbing, depressing or infuriating is happening."
It doesn't surprise me at all that there are "disturbing" or "depressing" things happening because abortion encompasses all of those feelings. A movie that has been in the making for 15 years, one would hope, would be engaging to an audience because of the sheer time length. If I worked on anything for 15 years it would, no doubt, be a masterpiece. But lets move on to more critic opinions.
To be completley honest, this next critic review almost makes me not want to see it. I can stomach some gruesome images but from the sounds of this review, I might not make it without losing lunch. Thankfully, this reviewer says that the documentary benefits from the black and white nature because, much like Schindler's List, the viewer won't be as affected to the ample amount of blood. NY Times: Manohla Dargis (full review),
"The film doesn’t employ narration or on-screen texts that reveal his views on abortion; instead, there are 152 minutes of talking-head testimonials, on-the-street interviews and archival and new visuals...the decision to use black and white was smart because, as with too much "Schindler's List," red might well have sent audiences fleeing from theaters. The absence of color blunts the force of the images, which allows you to watch the movie rather than avert your gaze and your rattled mind."
Documentaries, in my opinion, are almost always watchable because their is a connection present. Kaye is not seen as a documentary maker because of his previous work on "American History X" (that was a great film in my opinion). Many people don't know what the process of getting an abortion is, they just assume that it's a magical process that is over and no disgusting crap involved. It will be hard to justify abortion after seeing some of the images presented in the film. I would hope their would be a discussion about the affects of Roe v. Wade on crime and poverty. Most of all, it is a message that people need to see the consequences of their potential actions, like having unprotected sex. Dargis shows why people are willing to go at such lengths to stop abortion,
"It’s possible that Mr. Kaye opted to show several abortions because he wanted viewers, particularly those sympathetic to a woman’s right to abortion, to understand what stirs some people not just to action, but also to kill doctors."
I'll admit, I'm fearful of the images that I will see if I watch "Lake of Fire". Will it be worth it? One thing is clear, the issue of abortion and it's legality will never go away. I'm interested in seeing this film because I know that I will gain an understanding of the issue that I don't have now. This documentary, in my opinion, will not be the most enjoyable 152 minutes but it will, hopefully, help me gain knowledge on a complex subject. I read a book called "Freakonomics" and learned about the great Economist, Steven Levitt and his claim about Roe v. Wade causing the decline in crime. That's an economist view, now I want a moral view. I want to stop writing about abortion...now.
I'm Pro-Choice.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
I saw the movie "Inland Empire" directed by David Lynch and staring Laura Dern. During the movie, I kept wondering whether I was dreaming because the images that I was seeing had no apparent connection to one another. The film had no compact storyline, but if I were to sum it up I would say it was a horror movie that toys with the viewers unconscious mind. Laura Dern's husband in the film warns her that if she cheats on him she will face terrible consequences. I really enjoyed the movie because for the first time in a while, I had no idea what would happen next. Although it was confusing at times, it made up for it with constant suspense and intensity. Inland Empire is interwoven with the making of the movie, and the actual movie itself. David Lynch, nominated for four oscars for previous works, is a great director in my opinion because he breaks all conventions and doesn't feel like he has to create a film that will gain attention. Instead, he is content with making masterpieces that many people will never see. I want to watch another one of his films soon, most likely Mulholland Drive. The End.
