Director Movie Club Post 2: Spielberg

As Garrett pointed out last week, Spielberg always makes movies that takes it's elements into the highest plain. In contrast to Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, I watched Saving Private Ryan. Although both movies are from very different times, and on very different subjects, Spielberg's touch is still evident in both movies. (Note: Many people made this movie great, but since we are analyzing Spielberg as an autuer, we will give him most of the credit.)

As Indiana had to make a choice between his mission, and Marion, the squad under Captain Miller (Tom Hankes) must decide whether to push forward with a mission risking the lives of the many to let one soldier home. Spielberg always has his characters fight internally over what is moral, and some other virtue or lack there of. This is somewhat similar to Akira Kurosawa and his themes of internal struggle. Spielberg shows the constant struggles of the soldiers. Throughout the film, the soldiers must decide on keeping their own lives, or protecting others.

As the movie opens, it seems as if it would represent D-Day as just another battle completely Americanized by Hollywood. Spielberg tricks the viewer into thinking that the battle will be shown as the Americans sweeping through the German armies, but as the first soldiers attempted to get off the boats, thousands were killed on the spot. By showing the amount of pain and anguish the soldiers were in, Spielberg shows the amount of bravery the soldiers had. This is apparently the film that Spielberg first showed the dark side of war. In fact, it was one of the first films to show the dark side of war. In this, Spielberg is obviously not the average director as he always strives for something new, something greater.

There are various similarities and differences between the Indy Series and Saving Private Ryan. While both movies have equally gory parts (considering one is a war movie), Saving Private Ryan isn't all "gung-ho" about it. In Indiana Jones, there are multiple gun wounds, and head explosions, but the viewer doesn't see it as a bad thing. On the other hand, the viewer genuinely feels the pain of the soldiers. In terms of character development, we see a lot more in Saving Private Ryan as this is a film that talks about character's growing as they experience more, while Indy just goes around owning up everybody. Yes, owning up.

I personally loved the film, and thought that it was a truly powerful film as it showed both sides of war. It is not a film like Schindler's List, and Saving Private Ryan  actually shows the battle scenes. It is a must-see, unless you are squemish (I really mean this), but Roger Ebert gave the movie five stars, so trust me, its good. 

Film Noir is over....hello, documentary....

Well.....the film noir section of Art of Film class is over. I don't really know what to say. I have heard that people really love film noir and think its phenomenal. Now if you are unclear about what it exactly is, then look at a previous post...it's hotlinked. Personally, I didn't think that the movies themselves were neccessarily bad, but I didn't like them either. One of the biggest pet peeves of mine when it comes to any story is when it leaves you with no sense of closure. (I hate really revealing and cheesy closings, but at least have one). If you are like me, then film noir is not for you. There might be one out there that is for you, so you should at least try the genre, or to some, style. I also don't really like the circular plot line. There isn't a clear resolve, or narrative. I mean...if you just saw the beginning and the ending and 5 minutes in between, then you get the whole story already.

That aside, film noir is still a significant and interesting part of American film history. It started a whole series of new filming and narration techniques. I have to say though, some of the B-movie film noirs really pissed me off in one category. THE FEMME FATALE IS NOT HOT. You can't be a femme fatale without the looks, it just doesn't work that way I'm sorry. I mean Katie Moffett in Out of the Past was nice, but some of the women look somewhat scary....

In closing, Film Noir was not for me, but you should go look at it anyways.

Film, Film, and More Film (Noir)

We had our first taste of film noir today in our film class. Apparently few people have seen film noir and know that this genre is what it is in. We barely had an hour of viewing so my ideas about it aren't too numerous. I think it is a very interesting genre. Most likely all of us has seen something somewhere reference the idea of a detective in a dark office. This is most likely derived from the original film noir. I personally would not prefer the story. I think that it is too one-sided and doesn't have too much plot. It is fun, but many of them were B-films so I guess they might be.

On a different note, I have recently heard about this Netflix deal. Well...I heard about it a whiles ago, but I have only recently really looked into it. Aside from the few movies I feel adamant about owning, I think that Netflix is truly good for movie viewing. It is very convenient and has a reasonable price of 5 dollars a month for basic membership (Hollywood Video....3 dollars a rental....AND YOU HAVE TO DRIVE!). Man...I sound like a commercial.

Back to film, I have also recently seen the movie Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I loved the style and the technique used in the film. The director loved to use tangible techniques versus CGI, which was readily at his disposal. I love the plot and them as well. For anyone who hasn't seen it, it is a must see in my book. Hm....maybe I should post a Terry List of Must-Sees. Anyways, I found one aspect especially interesting. The story is about how a man Joel wants to erase his girlfriend from his mind (literally), so that the pain will end, but realizes in the process that he wants to keep her. He says she is the one thing that has given his life a different taste. During the erasing process, he tries to hide his memories of his girlfriend in his other memories, so that she isn't erased. However, he hides her in his most humiliating memories, but those memories and those of her still get erased. While it is sad, it can be interpreted that his girlfriend has effectively help him overcome the worst moments of his life, because she guides him to all the memories and erases them for him. I just feel this is important to know.

Film Rant

We have just finished out our Western unit in class, and i have to say, I don't really like the early westerns that much. Although the action scenes and such are very well done, I personally don't like films that go too deep into it's literary element (or maybe it's because I have never seen so many films consecutively in my life). Anyways, I prefer stories that go a little deeper into character development like maybe On the Waterfront.

Now this isn't to say that Westerns are bad, just not what I'd prefer. As you may have seen in the scene linked above, they set the standard for many modern techniques used. The body double for John Wayne that jumped from horse to horse certainly built the excitement. Also, the smooth fading in of the cavalry bugle and the fading out of the music was a great job done by the sound crew. I mean, it's in these old movies that really took skill on the part of the actor. They had to create the feeling or image instead of having technology do it for them. I love CGI no doubt, but you gotta admire the actors skill.

On this note, I would just like to quick talk about Dracula. Now this is truly a film that required talent. For all lovers of vampire stories, everyone ought to see the one that started it all. I mean the skill of Lugosi makes for a much scarier vampire than Robert Pattinson. I'm just saying. I haven't seen his performance in Twilight yet, so i can't really comment too much on it.

PS. Please forgive me for some informal lingo like gotta. I just felt it neccessary.

Westerns - The Good, The Bad, and the Different

Even when I didn't know that the genre was called Westerns, I had already had the theme written into my head. The classic lonely, crazily good shot, outlaw was the hero, and the Indians or some idiot who shot people for no reason being the antagonist. Westerns all generally have the same theme or ideas. For example, the laws of the West never change. The law of lex talionis, of "an eye for an eye", is existent in all Westerns. The people acted their own laws. A great example is the Ringo Kid, played by John Wayne(pictured left), shooting the Plumber Boys in StageCoach.

This leads me into the next theme of the Western. Everyone is a great shot, but the bad guys. The antagonists can't shoot worth beans, while all the hero needs is one bullet per person.
In a 3v1 duel, Ringo guns down 3 people with 3 bullets, while all three shoot at Ringo simultaneously. It is also absolutely hilarious how accurate they are with shotguns at a range. I mean....all the shells that come out are supposed to spread out, but in movie Unforgiven, there is a huge explosion of shells in the chest of the people when shot. All in all, Westerns are great when you want to see some action flicks, but the traditional Westerns do nothing for the folks who want a meaningful plot.

YOU CAN ANALYZE A FILM?!?

I have seen many movies, and some I liked and some i liked a little less. I even started writing my own stuff, so I decided to take a Film class.

There is so much more to film than what you see on the big screen. It is so nice that there are writers and crews who do all the breaking down of what makes a movie good for us. I mean....there's contemplating what camera to use, the angle, lighting, and an infinite amount more of thinking.

I myself prefer to see action pieces with good character development. If one is missing, then I feel like the film doesn't really have closure.

Citizen Kane was one film I was introduced to in this said class. Okay...it had a really interesting story, and the presentation was really inventive. Problem for me was that it lacked action. I mean...the most violent action we see in the movie is the main character smashing his wife's (or should i say ex-wife's) room to smithereens.

It was a good break from such works as HEROES, but with the premiere on 9/22/2008, I think I'm going back to HEROES.

Stereotypes, and SHAKESPEARE!!....DUM DUM DUM(Dark music playing in background)

As always, "writers tend to reveal themselves more than they'd like in their writing." I think most things are influenced by our own beliefs, just like how the great Shakespeare does. For example, he depicted the nobles like Leonato as clean and sophisticated, while the watchmen were dirty and ragged. Maybe it was a correct rendering of the times, but it could be his own views. I see much class reference, but not so much racial, seeing as how he lived in England, and that would be mostly white majority. However, by depicting the Prince himself as black, he does show maybe he believes that all people should have rights to rule, or once again showing his own views.
I have heard that Shakespeare was Anti-Semitic, but it could be slander. I do believe he is a great man. While on the concept, I love the character of Benedick. I don't know why.