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.