Do The Right Thing

Did Mookie do the right thing? I understand the reason behind his action, but the answer to the question is no. First of all, violence isn't the answer. Also, he directed his anger toward the wrong subject.

People often turn to violence when violence has been afflicted on them. But then the violence that they afflict will backfire. it is a vicious cycle that can and should be avoided.

Mookie threw the trash can through Sal's window because he was upset and emotional that jis friend died. if my friend died i would want to throw and break stuff, too. However, it is ridiculous that his throwing and breaking was directed at Sal. Sal and Radio Raheem got into a fight, but Sal did not kill him. Both were involved in the initiation of the fight. Mookie didn't do the right thing by engaging in violence, but his violence didn't sense. it would have made more sense if he had taken out his anger on the New York policemen.

Bringing Up Baby

I can’t decide if I like or disliked the film Bringing Up Baby. Several pieces of the storyline were ridiculous and completely unrealistic. One example is the jailhouse scene. How the law enforcement handled questioning the characters was so unrealistic that it bothered me. Another part of the film that would be unlikely to happen in the real world was when Susan lets loose the wrong leopard from the zoo’s cage. One would think she would notice that the cat has a completely different personality. Yet another scene, the ladder Susan is standing on is swaying profoundly. She doesn’t notice and she doesn’t fall, where real person in the situation would have. Apparently these scenes were supposed to provide the audience with light humor, but all in all I found the film, not horrible but, nerve-racking.

Pan's Labyrinth

I think the most amazing part of the film Pan’s Labyrinth was the overall design. This includes set design, costume design, and props. The set designer (Carlos Gimenez), the costume designers, and the prop builders (Hector Gil and Patricia Cuevas) made a spectacular team at blending all of their elements together. But what I found interesting was that the director, , created a lot of the original sketches for the set, costumes, and props.

Every set in the movie is built, no real buildings are used. One scene where this is significant is when the landscape of the princess’s land from the fairy tale in the beginning was filmed. According to the director of the film, Del Toro, they wanted it to look like a fantasy story as much as possible, and escape from real life “boring” construction. Del Toro further explains that, “we wanted to create a world where the fantasy and reality were equally designed to mirror each other”. Another reason why both Ofelia’s real world and fantasy world were built sets and not real was so that the makers of the film could create parallels of the worlds. For example, the hall behind the chalked door in her room was similar to the dining hall of her stepfather’s. As Del Toro says, this is all to symbolize that Ofelia’s fantasy world helps her make sense and cope with the terrifying, grim real world she lives in.

According to the special features disc of Pan’s Labyrinth, both the faun and the monster in the dining hall were played by actor in costumes. The faun’s costume, as opposed to a one piece suit, like most costumes of that nature, was devised of several pieces to fit on the actor.

One example of how well made the props were was the magical root that Ofelia placed under her mothers bed for the health and well being of her and her child to be born. It was physically made by the prop creators. It seemed alive, as it was supposed to. This added to the film’s ability to capture the viewer’s mind into its world.

MyDalring Clementine

I think one reason Ford avoided the conflict between the Earps and the Clantons throughout the middle of My Darling Clementine was to develop Wyatt’s character. If the story went right to Wyatt battling the Clantons, we wouldn’t have been able to see his true colors, making the whole fight less intense. Without the establishment of Wyatt’s so unique personality the interacting between him and the
Clantons wouldn’t mean as much. We learn that Wyatt doesn’t just kill anyone; that he does it for justice, not because he enjoys shooting people. The end would have a completely different meaning.

Another reason was to distinguish the development and characteristics of the town, Tombstone. Obviously the town played a big part in Wyatt’s story. This is why showing its development and characteristics was necessary. If it weren’t for Tombstone, Wyatt wouldn’t be a marshal, which would dramatically change the plot.

Citizen Kane

The element of film that had the most impact on Citizen Kane was narration. Throughout the movie we run into restricted narration. We know just as much information as the reporter who is questioning various people about Kane’s life. We know less than these people until they illustrate their stories. And of course, we are left out of having the knowledge of “rosebud’s meaning. If we knew what rosebud was from the start, the movie would be entirely different. We wouldn’t know how important it was to him. It wouldn’t make us think how it plays into his life and who he became. It wouldn’t have the overall impact on viewers that it did.

The mental subjectivity and point of view were important to the film’s effect. We saw everything about Kane from the outside in. We never saw from his eyes, only from others’ in his life. There are flashbacks, but again, not from his point of view, they merely show what he was doing. If we had seen everything from inside Charlie Kane’s head, subjunctive point of view, there would have been no mystery. The mystery of Charlie Kane is one of the key parts of the film. He is a complicated man, and that is how Orson Wells wanted to depict him.

Review: The Shawshank Redemption

Murder is what Andy Dufrense, played by Tim Robins, is convicted of. Murder of his wife and her other significant other: life in prison. This is what the viewer first learns in watching The Shawshank Redemption (1994), directed by Frank Darabont. It is unclear whether or not he is innocent, but the viewer learns later in the movie. The first person Andy talks to in prison is Red, played by Morgan Freeman, who becomes his teacher in a way. We see the contradictory relationship between Andy, banker, the prison guards and the Warden (Bob Gunton), which plays a key role in Andy’s fate.

I am not an expert on the way of life in prison, but the depiction of it in The Shawshank Redemption I find very interesting. I have a feeling that it is quite rare that a prisoner makes deals with the guards and does their tax returns. I don’t find it likely that a prisoner would receive grants to build a new library inside their prison. However, I think Darabont did a spectacular job directing and writing how the characters interact with one another. Most stories about prisons are all about the violence and the hate between prisoners. At the same time it would be unreasonable and unrealistic to show just the friendliness and companionship. The story of The Shawshank Redemption has a perfect balance of these aspects of prison life. There are “the sisters” who are violent, especially toward Andy, and they show guards beating prisoners who misbehave or simply because they feel like it. The dialogue is outstanding. Red gets rejected at his interview for parole, and another prisoner says, “I’m up for rejection next week”. It gives you a taste of what the mental state of prisoners is. They don’t have very much hope, which is a key part of the movie. The dialogue is comical, serious and fascinating without making it seem unrealistic, like it is set up. It makes the viewer feel as though they are with the prisoners and understand them; it seems real-life.

The symbolism was fantastic. The symbols were significant without being too obvious. Brooks (James Whitmore), the initial librarian and the oldest prisoner we meet, carries the most significant symbol of the movie; Jake the Crow. Jake fell from his nest, lost from his home and fresh start of life. He was taken in, living a life in the confinement of Brook’s pocket. When he was old enough and rehabilitated, he was set free. Sound familiar? Despite the involvement of confinement, his film is about freedom and hope. The scene where Andy breaks into the overhead speaker room and plays Mozart’s “The Marriage of Figaro” is a breakthrough scene. The whole prison hears it, and for a few moments, they are free.

The combination of the acting, Roger Deakin’s cinematography, and Richard Frances-Bruce’s editing made the movie that much more outstanding. The close-ups on the characters faces and the actors’ facial expressions made it that much more moving. Additionally, the long shots of multiple characters lined up in several different settings made the character interaction, again, seem so real. All the makers of this film including the producers, Niki Marvin, David V. Lester, and Liz Gitz were an amazing team at reinterpreting Stephen King’s story and creating it to be comfortably complex and truly moving.

Critique the Critic

Apparently Robert Erbert is a highly regarded and famous movie critic, so I would expect a lot more from him than what he has presented in his critique on Fight Club. Erbert over-dramatizes his views on the film and obviously didn’t look in depth, like one who watches a movie should, especially a critic.

First of all calling this film “cheerfully fascist” is a stretch. When he says this, I assume he is referring to Tyler Durden’s group of followers. But in no way is this so called “cult” fascist. Sure, Tyler led all of the men in a structured environment , but it was certainly not by way of oppression. It was all choice, they were all free to follow Tyler.

Secondly Erbert explains, “ In my opinion, he has no useful truths. He's a bully…”. As crazy as it sounds, just because someone beats another person up, it doesn’t make them a bully. In Tae Kwon Do, masters go extra hard on beginners because they are learners. They throw endless kicks and hand strikes to condition them. They are making them stronger and helping them achieve their goal. Tyler organizes fights and also participates in them not to crush someone’s dreams, not to slash their confidence, but to boost their strength and make them feel like they are important and that they can be happy in this messed up world of life.

Erbert claims that “None of the Fight Club members grows stronger or freer because of their membership; they're reduced to pathetic cultists”. I will say he states a reasonable point that they are in a cult. They follow Tyler’s directions, are enthralled in his philosophy and at many times repeat what Tyler has said. For example when Bob died, they all start chanting, “His name was Robert Paulsen, his name was Robert Paulsen”. However, Erbert didn’t back up his claim. Erbert didn’t give any specific examples of why they were a cult. Furthermore, Erbert doesn’t give enough credit to why they are involved in the cult-like group. They joined Fight Club because they wanted to belong to something and make some meaning of life. Tyler Durden and Fight Club gave them both of these things which made them stronger people.

Although sophisticates will be able to rationalize the movie as an argument against the behavior it shows, my guess is that audience will like the behavior but not the argument. Certainly they'll buy tickets because they can see Pitt and Norton pounding on each other; a lot more people will leave this movie and get in fights than will leave it discussing Tyler Durden's moral philosophy.

I can’t say Erbert is wrong on this one, but I can’t say he is correct in his prediction. I know a lot of people who did take Tyler Durden’s moral philosophy out of the movie and respected it. But I also know viewers of Fight Club who didn’t like the movie because all they saw was the violence. But this is because a lot of people simply watch the movie, they don’t experience it. Additionally, what most people think of the movie should have nothing to do with what he thinks of it.

introductory

hello. this is jess and this is my blog for art of film.