"Left hand Hate K.O.ed by Love..."

Radio Raheem. Undoubtably my favorite character from the entire film. From the moment he was introduced, I was all about Radio Raheem. Maybe it was the Public Enemy that did it for me, maybe it was the way that Radio seemed to command the neighborhood without saying a single word, maybe it was the fact that he looks remarkably like a friend of mine who goes to Kennedy, but it was something.

When Klob first mentioned how people didn't feel affected by Radio Raheem's death, I was extremely confused. Apparently most people who watch the film don't feel the same way that I do about Radio. First off, I find him likable. I can understand how people would just write him off as a hoodlum, but I don't see it that way. He's just a kid who wants to do his own thing without anyone getting in the way. To me, he seems like a pretty decent guy. The part where I most bonded with Radio Raheem's character was during his Love/Hate monologue. It was an absolutely amazing speech. I never expected such eloquent speech from a character who said almost nothing. The way he described the fight between love and hate was nearly spellbinding.

So when Radio Raheem was murdered, I felt it. To me, it was as if Mookie or Da Mayor had been murdered. To watch my favorite character's murder was even physically impactful for me. In my naivete, I thought that everyone else must have felt the same as I did, felt the same sympathy for Radio Raheem and his untimely demise. But as we began to discuss the film, I saw that this was not the case. People didn't seem to be affected by the death hardly at all. People saw the murder as another loss of life. But it was so much more than just a loss of life. It was murder. It was a life that is no longer continuing. It was a best friend, a son just gone. Radio Raheem's murder cannot just be overlooked or brushed away.

Maybe I'm a little crazy about this, but that's fine by me. In Spike Lee's commentary, he mentioned how often Radio Raheem's death was written off or not mentioned at all. I felt like he was coming from the same place that I am. But even in class, we talked about what exactly Lee did that made us feel less sympathy for Radio Raheem. I'm beginning to babble because I'm tired and I can't make my words express my thoughts well enough to be eloquent anymore. My point is that, even though some people say that the film-viewers were set up to not feel much compassion for Radio Raheem, I didn't see it that way. He was my favorite character and his death (not just his death, his murder) will stick unpleasantly in my mind for quite some time.

Acts of Violence Don't Win Wars

In response to the article from the Washington Post:

A lot of what was mentioned in the review from the Washington Post were things that we talked about in class. They focused on the balance between the warring sides, how Pontecorvo managed to tell the story of the battle of Algiers without (as Klob would say) "beating you over the head" with one side of the confrontation. This was a really important part of the film The Battle of Algiers. While I was watching it, I was thinking about the villain of the film (as I so often do). Although the French are the bad guys in this film, I found it hard to despise their villain-ness, something that is usually very easy to do. The fact is that these people were doing their job. They were using war tactics to accomplish what they needed to accomplish. While I could feel a general disdain for the French in the film, I couldn't manage to loathe them.

The article also commended Pontecorvo's style and ideas when it came to making the film. Although the film wasn't meant to be a documentary, it had the feel of one with hand-held cameras and newsreel film. Even in the documentary snippets we watched in class, it showed how realistic Pontecorvo made the film. Scenes in the movie almost doubled scenes that took place in real life. Part of this effectiveness was the fact that he shot on scene. The film really does take place in the Casbah and the characters really are Algerians. Like we've mentioned time and time again, the only professional actor was the one portraying Colonel Mathieu. Everyone else was either picked up off the street for their memorable faces or had actually been a part of the revolutionary movement.

Overall, this article gave deserved praise to the film The Battle of Algiers. To this day it is a timely piece of film literature. I enjoyed this film immensely, it made people talk. It brought up controversy and issues, often a mark of quality. Unfortunately, it also subjected me to watching torture at 8:30 in the morning....not my cup of tea.

I wish I had minions.

Usually, I am all about the villain. If I was ever in a movie, I would definitely be the villain. When I'm watching movies, I tend to pay really close attention to the villain. If I know who it is, I study their every move. If I don't have any idea, I try to figure it out. Sometimes I'm surprised, sometimes I'm not. Unfortunately, the villain in Chinatown was kind of disappointing.

Noah Cross. Rich, power-hungry, incest, overall jerk. Just not the best villain. Now, I cannot deny that he gets the job done. He starts strong by indirectly getting Gittes to investigate Mr. Mulwray (I'm still not entirely sure why). He continues his positive streak with murder. So far, even though it's unbeknownst to everyone else, Noah Cross is doing a pretty good job at villainy. After Mulwray's murder, Cross begins to slip a little. Enter the minions on cue. Normally, I have no problem with the use of minions for shady deals and dirty deeds. In the context of the film, however, it was not ideal. Considering that the identity of the villain wasn't revealed until the end of the film, nobody knew who the minions were working for. It seemed as though they were acting of their own accord, although this is rare for minions and such. I don't think that the minion-Noah Cross relationship should have been shown explicitly, but it would have been nice to have a clue or two as to who they answer to. Although the presence of the minions wasn't perfect, it wasn't a disaster. They added style to the villainy. Nobody really expected the midget minion (Polanski) to actually cut Gittes, but he followed through (which of course resulted in a horrified gasp from the audience). That is the mark of good villainy. Unfortunately, Cross' minions have hardly any screen time and the audience is forced back into guessing the villain's identity. When Noah Cross is finally revealed as the bad guy, it's a bit of a disappointment. Clearly he's bad. He raped his daughter, killed her husband, and seriously messed up Jack Nicholson's face. But there isn't anything really memorable about him. He didn't have any weird little quirks or trademarks, he didn't do anything so paramount that the entire world was in danger, there just wasn't anything that set him apart from all of the other villains in the world. A bit of a let down.

And has anybody else noticed that Jack Nicholson is a total creeper in most of his films? Yeah. Think about it...

Remember Me.

If you read my last blog post, you know that I was embarrassingly shocked by the end of Out of the Past and Jeff's death. So as not to make a fool of myself once again, I hardened my outlook on the film, prepared myself for the imminent death of Mike Hammer. It didn't come. Of course. Well, I suppose I have learned my lesson when it comes to films noir. Granted, I thought I learned it after the last film we viewed, but clearly I was mistaken. I know not to expect anything specific when it comes to this genre. Who knows what will happen to the characters? Clearly not me.



Anyway, I enjoyed myself while watching Kiss Me Deadly. It was an intriguing tale that successfully held my attention. The only problem that I had with the film was the villain. Now, I'm not trying to say that Dr. Soberin was a bad villain. Quite the opposite, in fact. I thought he was an exceptionally devious villain, clearly skilled in his field. He was also intelligent to boot (at least in the area of Greek mythology). My only complain is that the audience did not get the chance to get to know Dr. Soberin very well. Almost the entire film passed without showing his face, which only added to his mystery. But once he was finally exposed, there wasn't much more development of his character. We see him in his last moments, warning Gabrielle of the dangers of the box. Other than that, we don't get to find out much about him. Now, this was by no means the most disappointing villain I've ever encountered (that would have to be from the movie The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen where the bad guy turned out to be M, their mentor of sorts....stupid), but I was sad at the lack of exploration his character was given. Dr. Soberin clearly had depth along with a devious mind, so it's a shame that the audience wasn't able to see more of that. Anyway, at this point I feel like I'm running in circles. In short, Dr. Soberin = awesome villain who just didn't get enough explanation or screen time.

"He got careless and fell in the river."

In knew I would enjoy studying film noir. Out of the Past was an excellent place to start, considering how full it is of classic noir elements. What I didn't expect was that I would get so wrapped up in the characters and the story that I would forget the aforementioned film noir elements and grab onto a tiny bit of hope. I cannot deny it: I completely expected Jeff to somehow turn in Kathie, save the day, and survive to leave his dark life behind and run off with Ann to live happily ever after. For anyone who has seen the film, this is not how it ends by any means. In short, everyone dies. It was not only surprising to me that Jeff was unable to worm his way out of death, but also that the film wrapped itself up so successfully without any main characters. Every character of note except for "The Kid" met an untimely demise. Jeff's partner was shot by Kathie. Joe was hooked off the cliff by the Kid. Whit was shot (a second time) and killed by Kathie. Jeff was shot by Kathie. And finally, Kathie was shot by some creeper in a hood hiding behind a tree. This is a ridiculous amount of main character death to experience in one film. But I guess I should expect it, considering we're dealing with film noir. Logically, seeing as I've been fooled once, I should expect a bleak outcome from Kiss Me Deadly (which we are currently watching). We'll see which wins: my logical reasoning, or my ever optimistic hope.

"Where's the self-help section?"

"It's going to be gone soon."

"I know."

"What do we do?"

"Enjoy it."

The film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is far deeper than a simple plot summary would suggest. It is more than just a romantic comedy about an absurdly impulsive woman and a more shy, reserved man. It is an adventure into the psyche of two people who love each other. It is an exposure of their deepest passions and hatreds. It is a vision of personalities clashing, resulting in brawling emotions and sometimes harmony.


This film can even be viewed as a social commentary of sorts. In it's examination of the good and the bad of relationships, Eternal Sunshine brings to light much of what generally gets brushed under the rug in romantic movies. The relationship between Joel and Clementine is nowhere near perfect. She is impulsive to the point of recklessness and he is timid to the point of apathy. This film dares to delve into these sort of nuances. The film goes on to pass judgement, in a way, on relationships and humankind. Confused? I'll try to explain.


As the relationship between Clem and Joel deteriorates, Clem chooses the track of the chronic impulsive and has her memory erased of all evidence that Joel ever existed for her. Joel, hurt and infuriated beyond words by her actions, has the same procedure done. Both Clementine and Joel use the memory erasure as a form of revenge (here is where the judgement comes in). Instead of working out their problems like mature adults (and maybe severing ties, if that's what needed to happen), they avenge their scorned dignities by stooping to the lowest of lows and taking the easy way out. By erasing their memories, Joel and Clem didn't have to deal with their problems at hand. Clearly, neither character had learned in their life thus far the old cliche: "it is better to have love and lost than never loved at all." Although it is absolutely a cliche, it's a relatively poignant one. In the story, Joel decides to go through the same erasure procedure as Clementine did. He seems confident in his decision until the procedure actually starts to occur and he is being chased through his own memories. Looking back on his various memories of Clementine, he sees how much he loves her, how much she has impacted him. He begs the omniscient presence to let him keep just one memory, just one. Unfortunately, that is not an option. However, somehow (magically, divine intervention, fate, it doesn't really matter) Joel and Clem are able to hold onto one thought of each other. In doing so, they meet again and begin to fall into the spiral of love, having no conscious knowledge of the other person.


Now, hopefully (I realize that hopefully isn't actually a word in this context...I don't care) it is easier to understand my "social commentary" mindset. The one thing that could carry this even further is the alternate ending we fleetingly discussed in class. It wasn't included in the final cut of the film (which was probably a good call on Gondry's part), but it continued the story of Joel and Clementine. They fall in love again, only to fight again, only to have their memories erased again, only to meet again, only to fall in love again.....the cycle is endless. This proves the point of the futility of relationships, the absence of some people's ability to handle situations, to cope with what comes their way. Overall, I venerate this film. To some people, it is simply a romantic comedy. But to me, it is more than that. It is the tragic story of two people who cannot appreciate the love that they have for one another until it is being forcibly ripped from them. But maybe I'm just looking too far into this.


P.S. Undoubtedly, my favorite part of the film was when Joel was wearing his awesome sweater - the one that was covered in galaxies. I seriously want that sweater.

Do they ever shut up?

The film His Girl Friday was interesting to say the least. It was a bit of a change for me because I generally like the movies I see. Unfortunately, this film just rubbed me the wrong way. The tragic flaw of the movie (in my very biased opinion) was the incessant flow of dialogue. Now, I realize that this was completely purposeful and absolutely made the film what it is. However, it was a little too much for me to handle. The plot itself is fairly straightforward: girl loved boy, now girl hates boy. Girl is engaged, guy is jealous. Guy hoodwinks girl into loving him once again. Everyone lives happily (-ish) ever after. While this plain of a plot would generally be uninteresting, it is spiced up enormously by all of the little twists and turns. Throughout the entire movie, little things keep happening in the news world that slingshot the plot in a new direction. Every time Bruce gets arrested, every time a new story breaks, it sets the plot back a little. Overall, it is a very clever idea and works beautifully. The part that does not work is the constant dialogue. While its purpose is to focus all of the viewer's attention on what exactly is happening in the film, it is overwhelming. There are scenes where five or six different people are on the telephone, yelling away at their newspaper about the latest story. While this may be exhilarating for some people, it was absolutely exhausting for me. At times, the chaos of the movie literally affected me physically. As disarray ruled the film, I became extremely agitated and anxious, something that could only be remedied by my calm and structured second hour (AP Spanish 5). I'm not trying to say that His Girl Friday was a bad film because it wasn't. It was just too much for me to handle and remain sane.

"You can still throw a cat through the south wall..."

The film True Grit (Henry Hathaway, 1969) tells the story of Mattie Ross (Kim Darby) and her search for justice after her father is shot and killed. She takes it upon herself to see that the killer, Tom Chaney (Jeff Corey), is captured and put to death. For this arduous trek, she commissions the help of Marshall Rooster Cogburn (John Wayne). Together with a Texas Ranger, they track down Tom Chaney to put an end to his miscreant behavior. The film True Grit determines itself as a quintessential revisionist western with its unusually strong leading lady and its less than heroic hero.

Mattie Ross, the leading lady of the film, is not the archetypal damsel in distress present in most westerns. She is absurdly headstrong and self-sufficient, things she will not let anyone forget. When Mattie first meets Rooster Cogburn, she astonishes everyone with her forward nature. She sees Cogburn trying to roll himself a cigarette but doing it poorly. Instead of leaving well enough alone, she informs him that he’s not doing a very good job, takes it from him, rolls the cigarette properly, and sticks it back in his mouth. Cogburn is clearly taken aback at her actions, but something like this is just another day for Mattie Ross. Later when Mattie goes to see Cogburn at his home for business negotiations, she remarks “If I smelled as bad as you, I wouldn’t live near people.” She has absolutely no fear of offending or upsetting the people around her. When she meets La Boeuf (Glen Campbell), the Texas Ranger, they do not get along. Mattie even goes so far as to take a shot at Texans and the fact that, judging by La Boeuf’s appearance, they “cultivate their hair like lettuce.” The only time when Mattie seems remotely distressed is when she is captured by Tom Chaney and Ned Pepper (Robert Duvall), the bad guys for whom she has been hunting. However, even this small setback doesn’t dissuade her confident ways. She is captured only after she shoots Chaney in the ribs, something a typical damsel in distress would not dare to attempt. During her time with the Ned and Chaney, she does not rest in her constant flow of insults and attempts to escape. Clearly, this leading lady does not need saving. She can do it herself.

Marshall Reuben J. “Rooster” Cogburn is not the most wholesome of western heroes. In short, he is a fat old drunk with no qualms about killing. The first time Cogburn’s personality is exhibited is during court proceedings when he is being cross examined. Upon being asked how many men he has killed in his four years as a Marshall and with a little bit of coaxing, Cogburn admits that the number is no less than twenty three. Even during the course of the movie, Cogburn kills men without a second thought. Rooster Cogburn is also not very principled for a western hero. In short, he is a drunk. The majority of Cogburn’s scenes somehow incorporate him drinking whisky. At one point, he falls off his horse he is so drunk. He then tries to cover himself by stating “We camp here. Right here.” Mattie does her part to try to keep him from drinking with scorn and minor bribes, but Cogburn sticks to his guns (and his bottles). Aside from his crude behavior, Cogburn is a slightly peculiar character. He lives with a Chinaman named Chen Lee and an orange cat named General Sterling Price (he also has a bead curtain in his doorway). While speaking to Mattie about his “family,” he describes his relationship with General Price by saying “He don’t belong to me, he just rooms with me.” Throughout the movie, Cogburn tends to rub people the wrong way. Tension is especially palpable between him and La Boeuf. At one point, Cogburn says to him “If you’re lookin’ for trouble, I’ll accommodate ya’.” He keeps up this rough persona for most of the film. In an unforgettable scene when Cogburn faces off against Lucky Ned Pepper and his posse, personalities rage against each other. Before the shootout begins, Ned calls out “I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man,” to which Cogburn characteristically replies “Fill your hand, you son of a bitch!” In the segment that follows, Cogburn is shown riding his horse as fast as he can, reins held in his teeth and a gun in each hand, blazing away. He really is a man of true grit.

The film True Grit tells a story of good people being wronged and of justice being served. Mattie Ross wants nothing else in the world but to bring her father’s killer to his knees, and Cogburn is willing to help (with a little incentive, of course). Along with La Boeuf, they adventure along, searching for the wrongdoers. Instead of the typical damsel in distress, the film provides Mattie, an eager, stubborn, headstrong girl who is wise beyond her years. Instead of the typical western hero, the film provides Rooster Cogburn, a drunk, ruthless, fat old man. These significant aspects of the film make it a revisionist western as opposed to a classic where the hero is good and moral and the leading lady needs to be saved. This is not a conventional way to go, but it is just as enjoyable to experience. Although the characters of True Grit are not emblematic for westerns, they are certain full of true grit.

A Darker Side of Things

Will Munny's epic inner struggle between good and evil is a key point for the movie Unforgiven. When Will is introduced, he is done so as a reformed murderer and drunk. He claims that his wife has brought out the good side of him and that the evil ne'er-do-well is gone forever. At first, the audience accepts this as fact even though it seems a bit awkward that he keeps repeating the statement. As the story and Will's character progress and Will is still constantly repeating how his wife cured him of his miscreant behavior, it is clear that Will needs to make a constant and conscious effort to uphold this. On the surface, Will appears to be a fine relatively upstanding member of society. When he initially thinks of returning to the old life and pulls out his gun, he can't hardly shoot to save his life. When he tries to mount his old horse for the first time in years, he ends up splayed across the ground. After his first few stumbles, he gets into the swing of things.

For me, the moment I knew that the infamous Will Munny had returned was when he was riding into town to avenge Ned's death. There is a shot of the empty whisky bottle as Will throws it down into the muddy ground (in the rain, no less). For me, this is the moment when Will returns. He is no longer playing Mr. Nice Guy. Will is bloodthirsty, out for revenge, out to settle a few scores. Within minutes of the empty whisky bottle, Will Munny has hit his stride. He absolutely annihilates the men in the bar and is showing no remorse whatsoever. Even though this is where Will Munny clearly emerges as a bit of a "bad guy," the audience doesn't begrudge him for it. In their eyes, his actions are fairly justified. In a typical western mindset, Will is doing his duty. His best friend Ned was murdered which leaves Will no choice but to avenge his death in the only way he knows how. Everyone tries to deny it, and they really may hate themselves for it, but they are secretly elated that Will exacted his revenge. This is what movies can do to people. Little Bill got what he had coming to him. And whether we like it or not, we agree.

"He's the fastest jack in Jefferson County..."

When thinking about Bill Murray's various works, what generally comes to mind is "Saturday Night Live", "Rushmore", "Ghostbusters", and "Charlie's Angels". Slightly less well-known is Murray's performance in "Groundhog Day" (1993). Murray plays the character of Phil Connors, a weatherman and all-around pompous jerk. He takes off for Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania with his producer Rita (Andie MacDowell) and cameraman Larry (Chris Elliot) to cover Groundhog Day just like he does every other year. Except this time, when Phil wakes up the next morning, he finds he is reliving the same day. The day is relived countless times until Connors finally makes the changes necessary to get past February 2 and move on with the rest of his life.

Some may say that Bill Murray is an incredibly versatile actor. His roles range from Raleigh St. Clair in "The Royal Tenenbaums" to playing himself in "Space Jam." Even these two characters are miles apart. On the other hand, there is a definite argument that Murray has gotten a bit typecast through his time in movies. All of his roles tend to be a little bit "out there." He always seems to play a somewhat peculiar character. In "Groundhog Day," Murray's character Connors has no idea why he is stuck reliving one day over and over and he has no idea how to stop it. At one point, he ponders the fact that he might be a god. Not necessarily normal behavior. In "The Royal Tenenbaums," Raleigh St. Clair is once again not the most normal person ever encountered. Extremely eccentric, this is another almost typical role for Murray to have. Just becuase Murray seems to play similar roles does not mean he does them any less justice. For all of the characters he plays, Murray fully invests himself in their lives and mannerisms. During his time as Phil Connors, he is very convincing as a somewhat despicable character. This, however, does not totally sway the viewer from liking him. Especially as the film progresses, Murray turns into a good guy. In fact, he turns into the perfect guy. This is fairly reflective to the real life Bill Murray. For example, during shooting one of the scenes for "Groundhog Day," there were countless spectators and bystanders milling about and watching the production. Seeing as it was a very cold and gray day, Murray took it upon himself to get an obscene amount of donuts and provide one to each and every spectator. Not saintly behavior, per se, but definitely a kind gesture. Personally, Bill Murray was a great choice for this role. He comes off as a pompous jerk with impecable sneers and jeers, but as the film (and at the same time his character) deepens, he changes and matures in to the role. This film is more than just a romantic comedy. It is truly a story about the choices we make and how they can affect the rest of our lives. Connors was stuck in a day he hated until he finally did it right. And he had to make an effort. He relived the day countless times (enough times to learn French and the piano). Some days he really made an effort, some days he didn't. Some days, he tried to kill himself. Nothing would let him move forward in his life until he lived the day as best as he could. Murray's acting beautifully reflects his confusion, misery, depression, and final happiness.

It's all relative anyway....

The battle between good and evil has been raging since the beginning of time and will continue to rage until the end. Sometimes the difference between good and evil is as clear as black and white. More frequently, shades of gray blur the edges. In the film "Stagecoach," a battle between good and evil is clearly waged. The only difficult part to interpret is what side people are really on.

In this film, the "bad guys" are pretty obvious. The first response one would probably provide is the Indians. Their only real presence during the film occurs when they are attacking the stagecoach. In typical fashion for when this film was released (1939), the Indians are depicted as savages. They attack the innocent occupants of the stagecoach without provocation or reason. Whether or not you care to look at the moral implications of depicting the Indians in a certain way, the fact remains: they are the bad guys in this film. But how bad are they? Seeing that the Indians only take part in a small portion of a film, it is natural to look for another villain. Luckily, one need not look far. Gatewood can absolutely be viewed as a bad guy. Although the film doesn't do a very thorough job of explaining his position, he has stolen quite a bit of money from the bank. Aside from that, he is a complete jerk in general. He is uppity, crabby, rude, and nobody really likes him. While he isn't hurting any main character in the film, he most definitely is not a good guy. Depending on what is considered "bad," even Lucy Mallory and Hatfield can be considered bad guys. They really only care for themselves and are horrified by the fact that they are in the company of "lesser" members of society. While this isn't exactly "evil" per se, it is certainly not "good."

Even the good guys in this film are a little difficult to pick out. The most obvious good guy is Ringo (John Wayne). Even though he is an outlaw and a murderer, he is the hero of the story. He sticks to his guns (ha) when it comes to treating people with the dignity and respect they deserve. Ringo even falls in love with Dallas, a woman declared rather untouchable by the rest of society. The plot is set up so that Ringo is forced to avenge the death of his father and brother (who were killed by Luke Plumber). Normally, murder automatically makes somebody a bad guy. In this case, however, Ringo doesn't seem to have any other choice and the murders he commits are done in the name of justice. As such, he still retains his rightful place as hero. Ringo even does his part to physically rallies with the "forces of good" to defeat the bad guys (the Indians). During the chase scene, Ringo is perched on top of the stagecoach, shooting Indians off of their horses right and left. And when Buck is shot and some of the reins are dropped, Ringo executes the risky maneuver of jumping from horse to horse to retrieve them. So although Ringo is shunned by society because of his reputation, it is clear that he is the true "good guy" out of all of them. Although we must remember, good and evil is just relative.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen...

Citizen Kane is considered one of the greatest American movies of all time. While this statement is arguable, Citizen Kane has made a lasting impact on film culture as we know it. The eerie saga of a man's rise to power and ultimate downfall is an absolute classic. To explain all of the aspects that make Citizen Kane so phenomenal would take more time than I have, so for now my focus is mise-en-scene.

The lighting in Citizen Kane is blatantly impactful on the film as a whole. Low-key lighting plays a key role (sorry, the pun really wasn't intended) here. The first most obvious occurrence of low-key lighting is when Kane, after taking control of the Inquirer, writes and signs the Declaration of Principles. During this entire sequence, the immense shadows cloud Kane's face. As Leland speaks his skepticism of Kane's declaration, that very skepticism is reflected onto the audience because of the lighting. Kane's face is in deep shadow while he discusses his principles. This really hints to the audience that Kane isn't necessarily going to keep up his end of the bargain. By putting Kane's face in shadow, Kane becomes a bit of a "shady character." The other most obvious example of low-key lighting in Citizen Kane is in the character of Mr. Thompson. Even though Thompson is in many scenes of the movie, his face is never shown clearly. He is always in the shadows and freqently off to a corner of the screen. This helps to emphasize the fact that really, Thompson is not an important character in the film. His presence helps to move the plot along, but his presence ultimately does not affect the rest of the characters. The use of low-key lighting makes perfect sense because at the movie, even after spending two hours learning about Kane's rise and fall, the audience really hasn't discovered anything at all. It is all still hidden beneath the shadows.

The setting is also an important aspect of mise-en-scene in Citizen Kane. At the height of Kane's power, he is constantly surrounded by people. In the sequences at the newspaper, the place seems cluttered and bustling with people. It is almost chaotic the way that people bump into and speak over each other. Kane is also in a mass of people while he is running for political office. It is particularly noticeable after Kane's extravagant speech. As he emerges, he is hardly able to move for the crowd that surrounds him. Flashbulbs go off as reporters take pictures and there is so much hustle and bustle that the audience almost loses Kane and Emily in the crowd. As Kane meets his ultimate fall from power, the opposite affect is presented. Kane seems to become more and more abandoned and alone as the film progresses. After he loses the election, there is the famous scene with Kane and Leland alone in the office. The two men look extremely alone in the room that was once filled with chaos and people. This isolation gives a sense of despair and instills pity in the audience. As the film continues and Kane and Susan live in their mansion, the feeling of isolation only increases. When Kane and Susan have dialogue, their voices echo across the giant empty rooms. Although they are surrounded by beauty and wealth, they have no one but each other. The final moment of abandonment is when Susan leaves Kane. After she leaves, a famous shot approaches. It is the shot where Kane is seen (in deep focus) through two doorways and a giant open room. In this shot, Kane seems utterly and desolately alone. And of course, he is alone. A lifetime of riches and power could not keep him from what he dreaded the most.

City of God

The true story that “City of God” is based upon is one riddled with corruption and violence. This film delves into the underworld of Brazil, a place where most don’t survive past their youth. Under the direction of Fernando Meirelles, the film exploits what lies beneath the beauty and tourism of Rio de Janiero.

The film takes place in the City of God, deceivingly named seeing as the city is one of the worst slums of Rio de Janiero. Filth dominates the setting, giving the true appearance of absolute desolation. This turns Brazil from paradise into hell. The eerie high key lighting of night and the almost frantic speed of shots during some sequences only further exaggerate this pure hell.

While Braulio Mantorami’s screenplay for “City of God” (adapted from Paulo Lins’s novel of the same name) is beautiful, the most impact comes from the characters in the movie. It is important to take into account that the film is in Portuguese. As such, all of the dialogue has been translated. Oftentimes, something important is lost in translation, but in “City of God,” the script retains its beauty and grace. The film is narrated by Rocket, whose real name, exposed at the conclusion of the film, is Wilson Rodrigues. Rocket (Alexandre Rodrigues) tells the story with a series of flashbacks of his life and the lives of others. Every few minutes, the story changes with a freeze frame, jumping around in order to explain each character’s background – something essential to the viewer’s ability to comprehend the film.

Ultimately, the film is about a terrible favela of Rio de Janeiro. It is filled with drugs, death, and hardly any hope to escape. The protagonist (Rocket) wishes nothing else but to become a photographer and escape from the City of God. Unfortunately, the conditions in the City make that nearly impossible. Still, he doesn’t give up and, more importantly, he doesn’t give in to the world of drugs and “hoodlums.”

The use of flashbacks to tell the story is a fascinating approach. It gives the ability to jump around in time without confusion. The movie begins dramatically with rapid-fire shots of one gang chasing after a chicken. After this opening sequence, Rocket narrates the story into one flashback after another. The film montages through the life of one apartment always used to sell drugs and passing from one person to another with odd rapidity. It also speeds up, explaining all the while, how exactly the rule of gangs became so predominant in the City of God. Rocket starts by giving narrative background on each character, then talking the way through their life story. After each character is explained, it switches with a freeze frame and continued narration. The presence of flashbacks also allow scenes to be seen multiple times from different points of view. Although it sounds as though it would be difficult to follow, the film makes itself crystal clear.

After one hour and fifty-two minutes, the film finally catches up to where it began. At this point, the fact that the film is based on a true story begins to dawn. The cast and the acting in the movie made this reality even more poignant. Except for the character Carrot (a leader of one of the two gangs, played by Matheus Nachtergaele), none of the actors in the movie were known. Instead of hiring famous Brazilian actors, the actors came straight from the favelas of Rio. Some even came from the City of God. When these people act, it is astounding. The actors aren’t just playing roles in somebody else’s story. They are reliving parts of their lives, parts of their histories. The impact is immeasurable.

One of the most obvious and jarring aspects of this film is the sound. Throughout most of the film, there isn’t much in terms of background music. As such, when there is music (thanks to Ed Cortes and Antonio Pinto), it is carefully chosen and placed to fit the setting and plot perfectly. The most important sound in the film is the diegetic sound. In this film, that is mostly made up of gunshot. This focus on one sound creates the feeling that this extreme violence - this absolute chaos and corruption - is the norm for people living in the City of God.

As the story of Rocket and his time in the City of God winds down, so does the war between gangs. With his photography, Rocket is able to document what no other person could possibly have documented. The end of the war in the City of God finally freed Rocket from his prison.

Ponder, if you will...

The movie Stranger Than Fiction came into my life at the perfect time. Personally, I think it was fate.


I received the movie Stranger Than Fiction as a birthday gift from my aunt Jane in the middle of August. When I watched it for the first time, I was spellbound by the way the film made me feel. The movie made me continue to think long after I finished watching it. Even the time or two since then that I've seen the movie, it has had the same effect on me. Maybe it would help to give a little bit of perspective background on the last two months of my life.


At the beginning of August, my dad collapsed at work. They took him to the hospital, where, after two days more hectic and stressful than anything you could possibly imagine, it was clear that my dad needed to have valve replacement surgery. Although it is a risky surgery, it is a fairly common one, something that happens successfully every day. Luckily, my dad made it out just fine and is home now after spending about three weeks in the hospital. From a medical perspective, my dad should have died after what had happened, considering how screwed up his heart was. But he didn't, making me wonder if there is someone looking out for me.


Just this past weekend, as I'm sure everybody has heard, there was a car accident with two girls from Minnetonka and the cousin of one of them. Both of the girls died; Kylie in the accident and Kelly the next night at the hospital. I was friends with Kelly before she died. We were in choir together at her church, so I've seen her a few hours twice a week since our freshman year. At age 17, Kelly shouldn't have died. She had a promising lifetime ahead of her, but unfortunately it was a lifetime she would not have the opportunity to experience. In this case, the odds stacked against her, no miracle happened for Kelly. She died, leaving her broken hearted family and friends behind.


Obviously, I've recently experienced both the positive and negative sides of Fate, Destiny, Doom, whatever you choose to call it. This is why the movie Stranger Than Fiction hit so close to home for me. The movie deals with a man, Harold Crick (Will Ferrell), who knows his fate is approaching but has no control over it. His life is being narrated as a novel by a woman named Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson). Unbeknownst to Eiffel, Harold is not just a character in her story, but a very real person. The dilemma is that Eiffel has a reputation for killing every single main character in every book she has written. Clearly, there is a problem. Nobody wants to die. And so a beautiful struggle between art and life and responsibility is born. Questions are raised regarding what the greater good is, what effect choices will have on otherwise unconnected events.


It's difficult to truly explain what I'm trying to say without blatantly giving away a key part of the plot, but I'll do what I can. Harold Crick's dilemma poses the question "how much control do we really have?" Are we all just part of a story whose narration we can't quite hear? Does it matter what choices we make? Who will it affect? And who, exactly, is writing our lives? These are questions that nobody can answer very satisfactorily. This is because they're questions that make you think. They make you reflect on your life, what happens to you, what happens to the people around you. They make you uncertain, they make you wonder. They make you unsure of things you may have been rock solid on before. We all have to make decisions in life. And in Stranger Than Fiction, Harold Crick makes the most beautiful selfless choice possible. Who of you could do that?

Eastern Promises

Upon reading Roger Ebert’s review of the film “Eastern Promises,” I look forward eagerly to when I will be able to see it. Unfortunately, it is not currently playing in the general vicinity. Judging by Ebert’s review, the movie is a fabulous and engrossing work.

David Cronenberg’s “Eastern Promises” opens with a throat-slashing and a young
woman collapsing in blood in a drugstore, and connects these events with a
descent into an underground of Russians who have emigrated to London and brought
their crime family with them. Like the Corleone family, but with a less wise and
more fearsome patriarch, the Vory V Zakone family of the Russian mafia operates
in the shadows of legitimate business – in this case, a popular restaurant.

After that hint toward what the movie holds in store, the temptation to just brush it off as another typical mafia movie disappears entirely.

Ebert showers praises upon the writer, Steven Knight, who also wrote the script for “Dirty Pretty Things” (2002). He says He’s fascinated by the worlds within the London world. Here, too. His lines of morality are more murkily drawn here, as allegiances and loyalties shift, and old emotions turn out to be forgotten but not dead. This absolutely draws me toward the movie and makes me want to see it even more. It is a wonderful thing to experience a story. What is an even more wonderful thing is to experience the underside of that story. Instead of seeing what everybody else sees, we get a little bit of a treat in viewing part of a hidden world.

The cast (including Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, Vincent Cassel, and Armin Muller-Stahl) is another point of praise for Ebert. Although not all of the casting seems perfectly logical at first glance, they mesh together beautifully, each actor delving into their character’s life. “Mortensen is not Russian, but don’t even think about the problem of an accent; he digs so deeply into the role you may not recognize him at first.” Clearly, this performance by Viggo Mortensen is significantly more involved than in your average film.

Mortensen’s Nikolai is the key player, trusted by Semyon. We are reminded of Don
Corleon’s trust in an outsider, Tom Hagen, over his own sons, Sonny and Fredo.
Here Semyon depends on Nikolai more than Kirill, who has an ugly streak that
sometimes interferes with the orderly conduct of business. Anna (Watts) senses
she can trust Nikolai, too, even though it is established early that this
tattooed warrior is capable of astonishing violence. At a time when movie “fight
scenes” are as routine as the dances in musicals, Nikolai engages in a fight in
this film that sets the same kind of standard that “The French Connection” set
for chases. Years from now, it will be referred to as a benchmark.

From this, it is obvious that Mortensen’s character is absolutely fascinating. To be so trusted by the mafia, befriend an outsider (Watts), and live to tell the tale, is quite a feat. It is also very enticing to hear of the terrible yet amazing fight scene. To witness a “benchmark” fight is a rarity in today’s theater.

Ebert’s lack of discussion about the plot is at first puzzling, but he justifies it. “What the director and writer do here is not unfold a plot, but flay the skin from a hidden world…[giving away the plot] would be fatal, because this is not a movie of what or how, but of why. And for a long time you don’t see the why coming.” This absence of knowledge only makes the film more intriguing. Even before seeing the movie, an air of suspense is instilled. This is more than enough to make a person absolutely yearn to view a film. In Ebert’s final sentence of the review, he gives his last solid reason for such lush praise of a movie. “The actors and the characters merge and form a reality above and apart from the story, and the result is a film that takes us beyond crime and London and the Russian mafia and into the mystifying realms of human nature.”

Post Numero Uno

So hopefully this post will be sufficient enough for my blog to not be flagged....It's a spanish assignment from two years ago that I just found in an old file on my computer. So enjoy!

Un evento que me ha afectado en una manera positive fue cuando yo realizé que yo soy una superhéroe. Fue una día normal cuando estuve a la casa de mi amiga Eva. Nosotros estábamos jugando con Barbies en su sótano. Eva y yo empezamos pelearnos porque yo quise estar la principal. Eva corrió arriba la escalera para enfurruñar. En eso momento, yo descubrí que yo tuve superfuerzas. Excitado, yo corrí arriba la escalera para compartir el bueno noticiero. Cuando yo vi Eva, ella me golpeó con sus superfuerzas. “Eva!” yo grité. “¿Qué estás hacienda?” “Me llamo La Mala O, no es Eva,” ella dijo. La Mala O probó golpearme otra vez. Me evadí el golpe con mi supervelocidad. Antes de pude pararse, La Mala O huió. Dos o tres semanas pasaron antes de yo vi La Mala O. Durante esas semanas, yo desarrollé mis superfuerzas. Yo discipliné mi cuerpo y mente para estar listo por algo. Mi nombre nueva fue Capitan Zoom. Adriana no hubo más. Estuvo una día normal y yo estaba andando a escuela. De repente, La Mala O se apareció de ninguna parte. “Capitan Zoom,” cacareó La Mala O. “Voy a te matar!” “Pienso que no,” yo dije. Yo dejé de mi mochila y me convertí a Capitan Zoom. La lucha que seguió era gráfica y violenta. Nosotros nos peleamos por horas, pero alguien tuvo que ganar. Finalmente, yo emergí la vencendor. Yo vencí La Mala O. Eso evento sucedió tres años pasado. Ahora, yo peleo crimen en las noches. Yo pretendo estar un estudiante con una manera templada. Durante las días yo voy a escuela, pero en las noches otra vez soy Capitan Zoom.