The squid and the whale is a film with a story based on experiences director Noah Baumbach had. We follow Walt and Frank as they learn to live through their parents divorcing, figuring out split custody for themselves, and for their cat. It's clear that the boys pick sides, Walt with his father, and frank with his mother. The whole family changes as they manage to learn the ropes of their new lives, and by the end of the film, they are all remarkably different people. This film left me a little confused. Not because of it's plot, but because it was hard to understand what everyone truly wanted. On the surface, we see that Joan wants to leave Bernard, but at the same time, Although angry at her decisions, Bernard wants to save his marriage, and his family. Walt wants to seem intelligent, dense (the word I heard the most in this film, aside from "difficult" and "ass-man"), and like his father. I also think Walt just wanted to be a 16 year old boy, learning about girls, but his influence and advisor, Bernard, wasn't the best one. The hardest to decipher was Frank. At first, he just wants his parents to stay together, for everyone to be under the same roof, and to keep the cat. But as the story moves forward, Frank starts drinking beer and wine, compares his bone structure to his mother's, Masturbates in public and smears his semen on bookshelves and lockers, and that scene with his mother's lingerie and the condom. I just don't know what to make of that. I've heard stories about divorce from real people, seen it in tv shows and movies, and read about it in books. Nothing as been quite as strange as this, so naturally it makes sense that this is based on Baumbach's experiences. In an interview for indiewire.com, Baumbach explains, "Two contrasting things kept me from writing this story: on the one hand, everyone deals with divorce – it’s too universal. On the other, it’s too specific to my family, and won’t resonate beyond that." I didn't know this film was actually something Baumbach went through, so I had an "ah-hah" moment when I read that this was someone's story and not something created by some weird author from a messed up book or something like that. Baumbach also says, "Unconsciously, at some point I just let go and thought, Let’s see what happens." I think for having this moment of carefree-ness turned out well, although I wasn't really a fan of this film. While explaining Joint custody, the boys both ask about the cat which I thought was extremely funny A different idea that floated around in my brain while watching the squid and the whale was Claustrophobia and isolation. This is a theme we've seen in a couple films we've watched this semester, but I think the form it takes in this film is a bit different. Writer Mark Asch in the article The Squid and the whale / Men don't leave, says "Family members, especially in the city, live on top of each other." This is easy to agree with because this family lives in New York, where everyone is cramped and scrambling for space. Not only are they in close quarters because of their small houses, but Walt and Frank are being transferred from one parent's house to the other, and that's where they stay, especially Frank. Walt ventures out a bit once he begins dating Sophie, but frank on the other hand, is at home, either at his lefty desk at his Bernard's house, or drinking beer at Joan's. There's also the scene when Joan and Ivan go out of town and Bernard is supposed to pick him up, but goes on a trip with Lily and Walt and leaves him behind for a couple days. I think this also shows isolation, and I don't mean so much literally, even though that's also true, but because Frank doesn't really have much of a place in this. He wants to be around Joan, but she spends time with Ivan, and Walt and Bernard are with each other or with Lily. It just seems to me that Frank was estranged and an isolated character in this film, and I felt a bit bad for him. I feel ya, frank. I'd cry too if I were in your shoes
0 Comments
Carol, Directed by Todd Haynes in 2015, is about two women, one a divorcing mother, and the other a young sales clerk, who fall in love and brave a heartbreaking end to their relationship. While watching this film, I noticed more visual elements that I found striking or worth mentioning rather than focusing on the story. Don't get me wrong, the story that Carol tells is an engaging one that kept my interest, but there was so much else going on that had my attention. The distinction between the use of colors in the film and Therese's black and white photography was one of the first things I took note of. It was easy to catch onto Carol's constant wearing of something red, a scarf, hat, lipstick, nail polish, or more obviously, a dress or coat. This theme is seen throughout most of the movie, and almost disappears once Carol ends it between her and Therese. After their split, Carol wears more bland and emotionless colors like brown, beige, green, or black. This holds true with the feelings that both Carol and Therese are having, since they are no longer together, they both have this aura of lacking emotion and almost have a ghostly appearance. Although the colors shift from Carol's vibrant reds to drab browns, Therese's photography remains black and white, when she takes pictures before Carol, of carol, and after Carol leaves. I think this is a strong contrast between the separation that is Carol and Therese - Carol, a wealthy (former) wife and mother, who appears to have "it" figured out, and Therese, a young woman working a job she doesn't seem pleased with, finding her passions and interests, and still working her way through life. While reading Anna Leszkiewicz's article titled "Behind Carol: the photographers who influenced Todd Haynes' award-winning film" for Newstatesman.com, She writes about the photographers that motivated Haynes to film a certain way, have Therese photograph a certain way, and even decide the costumes and makeup for Carol. Leszkiewicz writes, "Aptly for a film that prioritizes female perspectives, many of these photographers were women: Ruth Orkin, Helen Levitt, Esther Bubley and Vivian Maier were all major influences for the team behind Carol." I thought it was really cool to read that Vivian Maier was a photographer that influenced these decisions in the film, because seeing the types of photos that Therese took made me think of Maier's photography, specifically the way Therese composed the photos and the way she placed people in the frame. Another element I noticed and appreciated was the realness of portraying New York in the 1950's, especially women's attire. When I saw women wearing cat eye glasses, petticoats, and ankle-length high waisted skirts, it was easy for me to understand what time period Carol took place in. The cars were also a dead giveaway of the 50's and the beautiful cars that were around in that time. I think the costume designers choices were spectacular, especially in differentiating the personalities of Carol and Therese. Carol was a bit of a more seductive and (Sexually) experienced and knowledgeable person; she wore red dresses with some cleavage, had her nails painted, make up done with red lipstick, etc. Carol was out there as far as her outfits. Therese on the other hand, was dressed more modestly - long sleeve shirts under her dresses, and her dresses, coats, hats, and everything else she wore had simple patterns and colors, which fit for her easy going and learning the ropes personality. Therese didn't stand out, she was a normal girl in her normal world, and Carol's contrast in outfits also worked as a visual representation of Therese's personality and tastes. A final contribution to the 1950's look is the overall color of this film - a foggy yellow haze cast over New York, our characters road trip, and the conclusion of the film. Below are some photos I've collected that I think are good examples of the costumes that Carol, Therese, and even Abbey, wore throughout the film. William Wyler's 1961 film The Children's hour follows two young female teachers who face a life-changing problem when one of their students gets a little upset for (seemingly) no reason. Teachers Karen Wright and Martha Dobie run the "Wright and Dobie School", an all girls Boarding school the two have built from the ground up. One of their students, Mary Tilford, thinks the teachers have it out for her, as she is constantly getting disciplined and in trouble. Mary frequently asks to speak with her grandmother, and one day while with her grandmother, she recalls a time that a classmate told her she saw Martha and Karen doing something she found suspicious, and Mary, seeking a way to get back at her teachers, turns this information into a lie, claiming her teachers are having sexual relations. "The overarching theme of 1961’s The Children’s Hour is that kids are the fucking worst." - Les Fabian Brathwaite, indiewire.com I couldn't agree more with the quote above by the author of the article "hay'sd: Decoding the Classics: 'The Children's Hour'". Throughout this film, I couldn't help but write mean things about the annoying, dramatic, and manipulative Mary Tilford Honestly, I wrote "asshole little girl" on my notes at least 10 times. I know, she's a little girl who clearly wants attention, but the ways she achieves this are what drove me nuts. I think I was more upset about the fact that she dragged her classmates into this and manipulated them into obeying her so this lie could work than being mad about the lie she told. In the same article, Brathwaite writes, "To depict homosexuality, or “sexual perversion”, however, one had to cast it in the most unsympathetic and unflattering light possible." I think this is especially true with Mary, because although this is a fabrication she's started, she shares the same feelings and views (as much as a little girl can) that her grandmother and the general society has, they think Karen and Martha's behavior is unflattering and unworthy of their sympathy in this situation. Something I found interesting that I compared to an earlier film is Martha's Suicide scene. The Children's hour was released in 1961, a time when censorship laws were much different from how they are now, and that can be anything from the way homosexuality is portrayed and responded to in this film, but also the suicide scene. We as an audience don't see much, if you didn't already suspect one of the two women would kill themselves, Karen's dramatic and almost slow-motion running into the school gave you a big hint, as well as her range of facial expressions, along with the shift of music. Karen beats at the door that just won't open in time to save Martha, and we see the shadow of her legs against the wall behind Karen, and the chair lies nearby in the scene as Karen is on the floor crying. When we put two and two together, we realize Martha committed suicide without having to actually see it. The scenes in The Virgin Suicides However, show the viewers a bit more to help them realize what has happened, bringing the story full circle. Cecelia's suicide attempt and death were both graphic compared to Martha's death, but there's also a 38 year difference between them. Clearly, censorship laws changed since 1961 to 1999 when The virgin suicides was released. Not to call myself a connoisseur of suicide scenes (which is extremely depressing - not my intention) but I've seen multiple suicide scenes in films and tv shows. One that's extremely popular right now is Hannah Baker's suicide scene in the Netflix tv Show Thirteen reasons why, which was released about a month ago. Her suicide scenes is extremely graphic, to the point where the specific episode has a warning before starting the episode. We see from start to finish what happens as Hannah kills herself. Another film I could compare this to is one of my favorite films, directed by Murali K. Thalluri in 2006 called 2:37. This film follows a group of high school students around and traces their connections to each other, all minus one girl that you don't see much during the film, who kills herself at the end of the movie. Her suicide scene is also very graphic, so it leads me to believe that there weren't many censorship changes in relation to death or suicide portrayals from 1999 to 2006 to 2017. There are other films aside from the two I've mentioned, some that you may know of are Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet (1996), Wes Anderson's The Royal Tenenbaums (2001), James Mangold's Girl, Interrupted (1999), and others I'm sure I'm forgetting. I had never thought about the role of film censorship in any films, especially films that featured controversial topics like homosexuality and suicide like in The Children's Hour, but It's neat to be able to take that into consideration while watching other films, or thinking about ones I've already seen, like the 4 movies I mentioned.
WE MEET UP WITH CELINE AND JESSE AS THEY ARE DRIVING HOME FROM THE AIRPORT AFTER DROPPING OFF JESSE’S SON HANK. THEIR TWO DAUGHTERS, ELLA AND NINA, ARE ASLEEP IN THE BACKSEAT. THE FIRST OF THE MANY ARGUMENTS BETWEEN THEIR PARENTS FIRST OCCURS OVER AN APPLE, AND THIS IS THE MILDEST AND MOST PETTY ARGUMENT OF ALL. FROM HERE ON OUT, THE ARGUMENTS GET WORSE, AND EVEN TURN MEAN AND UGLY. THIS BICKERING AND YELLING IS AN ENORMOUS CHANGE OF CHARACTER AND COMPLETE DIFFERENCE FROM THE CELINE AND JESSE WE MEET IN BEFORE SUNRISE. I WOULD HAVE NEVER GUESSED THAT AS TIME PASSED AND CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGED THEY WOULD ACT THIS WAY. I THINK THIS MAY ALSO BE TRUE FOR REAL LIFE COUPLES, BEING YOUNG AND IN LOVE ISN’T AS EASY AS BEING AN ADULT WITH KIDS, A TIME CONSUMING AND MENTALLY DRAINING JOB, AND A SPOUSE DEALING WITH THE SAME OBLIGATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS. IN THE 2013 INDEPENDENT.COM ARTICLE TITLED “FROM SUNRISE TO BEFORE MIDNIGHT: JULIE DELPY AND ETHAN HAWKE CONTINUE FILM’S LONGEST LOVE STORY” HAWKE SAYS, “JUMP AHEAD, 10, 20 YEARS, AND YOU’RE MARRIED. ONLY YOUR MARRIAGE DOESN’T HAVE THAT SAME ENERGY IT USED TO HAVE. YOU START TO BLAME YOUR HUSBAND” AND I THINK THIS QUOTE WORKS PERFECTLY WITH MY OBSERVATION. EVEN THE ACTOR HIMSELF UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS HAPPENS IN REAL LIFE AND IT HAPPENED IN BEFORE MIDNIGHT. I had thought these two would have a great life, they seemed like the atypical couple, and that nothing predictable would happen to them because this was a love story. Near the end of the film Celine, yelling at Jesse, says, "You didn't say anything- you didn't have to" which is a typical, textbook example quote of a couple in distress. Hearing that definitely changed my overall position on how I thought about these two characters. I think that along with the idea of an "amazing and interesting relationship gone married, boring, and mad" isn't the only struggle viewers are witnesses to in this film. It's clear that Celine has lost interest in Jesse, whom she once found incredibly interesting, and that's faded and is no more, as well as Jesse feeling a little "bla" and looking for change. The two know each other better than they know the back of their hand, there's no new information, nothing exciting like there was before their kids and husband/wife life (even though they aren't married). Celine and Jesse miss their old selves, the people they were as individuals, and the people they were when they were together as young adults. A part in the film that really gave this idea away to me was when Jesse and Celine were in the hotel room, Jesse says "I used to wake up to that sound of your eyes opening and closing, and that brain of yours going two million miles an hour. I miss it, hearing you think." to which Celine replies, "I miss thinking, too". It might have been evident earlier in the film than at this point, but here is when I thought to myself and wrote in my notes that this transition from young to old is more difficult than they expected and predicted, they aren't the big thinkers they used to be. Some technical changes that I noticed were actually pleasant to see. The change I liked the best was the architectural change from the city buildings we see in Vienna and Paris, to the different architectural styles in Greee, especially in the ruins. I've taken an architecture class where I studied different architectural styles and even created blueprints for houses, so when I see architecture in any way, real life or film, I can appreciate it and the advancements that have been made and the different stylings. ANOTHER remarkable CHANGE AND IMPROVEMENT IS THE CAMERA QUALITY. WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS, AM I RIGHT? I THINK THAT WITH THESE CAMERA-QUALITY ADVANCEMENTS, THE SHALLOW DEPTH OF FIELD SHOTS IN THIS FILM ARE MORE EMOTIONAL AND GIVE THE FEELING OF WARMTH OR COLDNESS BETWEEN OUR CHARACTERS BETTER THAN IN BEFORE MIDNIGHT'S PREDECESSOR FILMS. I ALSO NOTICED THE HEAVY USE OF MID-BODY SHOTS, RATHER THAN MANY FULL BODY OR CLOSE UP SHOTS. I THINK MID-BODY SHOTS ARE NICE BECAUSE THEY INCLUDE BODY LANGUAGE, ESPECIALLY GESTURES, ALONG WITH FACIAL EXPRESSION, WHICH CLOSE UPS DON'T GET AND FULL BODY SHOTS LOSE THESE DETAILS. I've included a small slideshow with examples of the technical observations I made. "we appear and we disappear. we are so important to some, but, we are just passing through" - Natalia
"A MEMORY IS NEVER FINISHED AS LONG AS YOU'RE ALIVE" -JESSE I think it's safe for me to say we've all been in a position similar to what Celine and jesse are experiencing in before sunset. Let me explain - I'm sure we all have had an experience we wish we could relive, and this experience is something we think about time and time again. Maybe we don't obsess over it like Jesse did, to the point of publishing a book about it, but we can probably relate to this in some way or another, I know I did. IN MY SCREENING RESPONSE FOR BEFORE SUNRISE, I SAID THAT I THOUGHT JESSE AND CELINE WERE GOING THROUGH AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS OF "WHAT IS LOVE?". I THINK THIS IS STILL TRUE FOR BEFORE SUNSET, ONLY IT'S BEEN MODIFIED TO "WHAT WAS LOVE?" AS THE TWO ARE DIVULGING IN THEIR ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR CURRENT PARTNERS, AND OBVIOUSLY THE DAY THEY SPENT TOGETHER IN VIENNA. CELINE AND JESSE HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE NIGHT THEY SHARED, WISHING THEY COULD DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN AND HAVE THOSE FEELINGS AGAIN. ONLY NOW, THEIR LIVES ARE DIFFERENT - THEY'RE ADULTS WITH JOBS, PARTNERS, FAMILIAL OBLIGATIONS, AND EVEN WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME MINOR EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS. EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN YEARS AND THEY HAVE THESE OTHER THINGS GOING ON IN THEIR LIVES, THEY BOTH STILL QUESTION HOW THEY CAN BE TOGETHER, AND WHY THEY DIDN'T MAKE BETTER EFFORTS TO DO SO YEARS AGO. THEY ARE STUCK IN THE MEMORY OF THAT NIGHT, AND NEVER WANT TO LEAVE. IN both of these films, viewers really get to understand Linklater's filming techniques, his progression between the films (9 years in between), and where the two overlap. For example, in both films linklater uses many long scenes featuring shallow depth of field to keep the focus on Jesse and Celine. With these blurred backgrounds, it forces the viewer to not get distracted with the scenery of Vienna or Paris, and to really listen and look at the characters when they speak. There are also many shots of both Celine and Jesse in the same frame, whether they are both facing the camera, or if one is facing us and the other has their back to us. IT seemed to me that there were few shots of them separate, which I think aided the idea of how close these two are, and how close they want to be. Below are two examples of Celine and Jesse sharing the frame, and a background that is a bit blurred out because of motion and shallow depth of field. Overall, I thought this movie was equally as boring and uninteresting as Before Sunrise. I felt that the characters hadn't changed much, only Jesse looked like he aged more than 9 years, and Celine seemed a little more satisfied with her life than before. I did enjoy the final scene when Celine sings Jesse a song while playing her guitar, I thought it was really cute and seemed like it had purpose, unlike the rest of the film where I question it's meaning and importance.
I wasn't quite sure what to think of this film. to be honest, it seemed like it had no plot, it was all over the place with it's random and seemingly meaningless conversations between Jesse and Celine, and I didn't get that feeling of coming full circle from the beginning to the end of the film. In my opinion, it definitely does not follow the traditional trajectory that film plots have, which made it hard for me to think of a conclusional thought about this film. After reading Forrest Wickman's May 2013 article for slate.com, I learned that LInklater created this film after an experience he had with a woman named Amy Lehrhaupt. In the article Wickman mentions a podcast in which Linklater recalls what he said to Lehrhaupt about making this film, "I was like, “I’m gonna make a film about this.” And she was like, “What ‘this’? What’re you talking about?” And I was like, “Just this. This feeling. This thing that’s going on between us.” Even reading this after seeing the film, I don't fully understand what the point of this was - I didn't see this emotional connection that Linklater apparently felt during his time with Lehrhaupt, and that Jesse and Celine had as well. Before I divulge in some parts of the movie I did like, I have to say, I thought Jesse was such a weird and creepy character. First, his facial hair had to go, it was something I couldn't ignore and wish the costume crew had decided he shaved to give him a better overall appearance. The way he acts as an american in a foreign country is spot on, ignorant to the customs and first language of the country (not speaking any language other than english, even though he's been through many countries in the past month or so). I also found his extreme doubtfulness annoying and dull, because who goes to a different country and discredits everyone and everything you see, like the palm reader and poet for example. He couldn't even pretend to be fine with the fact Celine had her palm read and felt like it made a little sense, and seemingly wanted no part in the encounter with the poet but only did it because Celine wanted to. I couldn't wait for him to get on his plane and go home, but then I realized there's two more films with him in it. Great... Now, onto the few things I did like about this film and enjoyed seeing. first, I loved the classical music during the opening credit sequence. I thought that the classical music played over the scenic train ride was a really cool way to start the film rather than just slapping the names on a blank screen or overlapping the film as it begins. It helped me get into the mindset that this isn't in the United states, and that the characters have done some traveling, and what role a train ride would have in the movie. This was seen again when Jesse and Celine are taking the trolley/train through vienna, when they sit in the very back and ask each other questions about their relationship experiences. I liked that these different rides the characters went on took place in multiple locations, and even continued when Jesse and Celine roamed the city on foot, because a few of our previous films have taken place in small towns with just one location. It was refreshing to see all of this movement and new scenery. I loved the scene where Celine walks Jesse through the cemetery. I thought the cinematographers work in this particular scene was amazing; the colors were outstanding, and all of the different angles and perspectives were much different and gave me the feeling that this was a real moment that these two were having, rather than the random conversations in the streets of Vienna. I thought Celine's story of the people who washed ashore, were buried, and may not have names was interesting, and that it aided to the sense of realism. A quote I loved from this film is when she says, "If none of your family and friends knew you were dead, then it's like not really being dead. People can invent the best and worst for you." At first I laughed under my breath, but then I had an ah-ha moment when I realized it made sense when I thought about it. I thought it was funny that she's saying this as she's walking through a cemetery, but nevertheless I enjoyed it. For now, I guess my conclusive thought about this film is that Celine and Jesse were both enveloped by this feeling of being caught in an existential crisis of "what is love?" I'm hoping to get a better sense of this film as we watch the two films that follow this one, Before sunset and before midnight.
The Virgin Suicides is a 1999 film directed by Sofia Coppola. This film follows a group of high school boys who have a bit of an obsession with the Lisbon girls, 5 sisters, ages 13 through 17, who never leave each other's sides, and have an intriguing and TRANSCENDENTAL presence. The story begins when the youngest sister, Cecilia, attempts suicide by cutting her wrists. She's unsuccessful, but not long after this first attempt she jumps off the roof of the Lisbon home, and is IMPALED on their iron fence that guards their fortress. CECILIA'S suicide starts a snowball effect on the other sisters, and these 5 boys do their best to make sense of what unfolds before them. Anyone who's taken a psychology class understands how quickly Depression spreads. It can spread one person at a time, or multiple people, which is seen in The Virgin Suicides. This cycle of depression starts with Cecilia, and after her death, is diffused into the 4 remaining sisters, as well as their parents. Mr. And Mrs. Lisbon seem to have "normal" depressive behaviors, Ron Lisbon starts drinking, and has odd behavior at work, such as talking to the window plants in the staircase, and Mrs. Lisbon isolates herself in their home. On the other hand, Lux, Mary, Therese, and Bonnie seem to act like they did before. In Britt Hayes article for birthmoviesdeath.com, she writes, "Depression is a contagion, and it begins with Cecilia ... the virus of her depression becoming airborne and infecting everyone who inhales it." Hayes perfectly describes what happens in the Lisbon family, and we even see this in the group of boys that are involved with the story of the Lisbon girls, and also the people in their neighborhood, who we see gossiping, sharing their condolences or rumors. We don't really know if the Lisbon's neighbors had much to say about them before CECiLIA'S suicide, and when the girls are removed from school and kept at home, but it's clear that these events AFFECTED them in some way as well. Hayes also explains the effect of the girls being trapped in their own home, first figuratively, then later, literally. Hayes says, "We look into their home and wonder what could possibly make them want to escape so badly that they need to die: they have good parents in a normal home where they are well-fed and cared for, but suicide makes the least amount of sense to everyone else but the person who is suffering." The audience first gets the idea of estrangement in the form of being a teenage girl when Cecilia is meeting with the doctor and he asks "what are you doing here honey? You're not even old enough to know how bad life gets" to which Cecilia replies "Obviously, Doctor, you've never been a 13 year old girl." Even though she mentions being a 13 year old, I think this moment was a bit of foreshadowing for the dramas the other Lisbon girls face throughout the film - having to swallow any form of expression they have, such as lux having to burn her CDs, experimenting with boys, like at their party and when Peter and Trip came over to their house, and lastly, the homecoming dance. These things are all understandably stressful and/or confusing to these teenage girls, because they appear to have been kept on a very short leash and sheltered for a long time. Hayes says the girls have good parents in a normal home, but do they? I think Mr. And Mrs. Lisbon tried far too hard to be good parents, and because of this, the girls thought and acted in the way they did, and drove them to make the decision to kill themselves. the Dissolve's article titled "The Virgin Suicides is a window to Sofia Coppola's fixations", written by Genevieve KOski, helps me conclude my thoughts on the girl's isolation. through her writing, Koski illustrates a picture of the girls kept up in their house. Koski verifies my views by saying "the Lisbon girls’ already-strict parents become even stricter, they all but imprison their daughters in their own home, leading the girls to conceive and carry out a suicide pact." Near the start of the film when Mr. and Mrs. Lisbon are meeting with Cecilia's doctor, he suggests they allow Cecilia to have a social outlet outside of school so she could interact with boys her age, to which the Lisbon's are leery and don't seem convinced. Although they allow the girls to have this HELICOPTER parent supervised party, it clearly doesn't do much for Cecilia, and I don't think it did much for the other 4 sisters either. I think that if the girls had more opportunities to be out of their house, whether it be in an in-school activity, or getting to see the boys who are telling this story and try to help the girls out in the end, they wouldn't have been SUCCUMBED into the overwhelming depression that filled their home, and eventually won them over.
Paul Schrader's 1998 film Affliction is equally bizarre and thought provoking, which is also true of his film Hardcore. Affliction tells a tale of two brothers plagued by their father's actions. Rolfe, the younger brother, turns his past into a positive experience by teaching him to be the "careful adult" he currently his as a school teacher. his brother wade on the other hand, follows in his father's alcohol dependent footsteps. Wade slowly loses everything that has meaning to him, including his sanity and anything that keeps him level-headed, and makes a gruesome decision to kill his father before going missing. While watching this film, I couldn't help but think Wade strongly related to Jerry in the pledge. These two men have a downward spiral while trying to do something good that turns a bit messy. At the beginning of Affliction, when Jill isn't enjoying her time with Wade at all, and even calls her mother to leave, I felt bad for Wade. That feeling didn't last too long. When Jill's mother and stepfather come to pick her up, and Wade takes a swing at the stepfather, I felt for Jill when she said "I still love you but I want to go home" and understood her melancholy and upset mood. Something has big as having his daughter in his life slowly turns into having little meaning to Wade as the film progresses, which is especially true when he's driving with Jill and cracks open a beer, and Jill confirms that this is illegal, and Wade continues drinking, not long before Jill leaves with Margie (who is also leaving Wade). It was difficult to feel sorry for wade in any way after he ruined his relationships with Jill and Margie, which are seemingly the only things left that have some realm of importance to him. In Josh Zeman's interview with Paul ScHrader for FILMMAKER Magazine, Schrader says, "I wanted the audience to root for him because you know from the first line that it's not going to work out for him. So how do you still care for him? The actor has to get you to care for him", and continues to talk about Nick Nolte's great acting as Wade. It was interesting to read that Schrader attempts to set up viewers in this way, because I myself temporarily got caught in this trap. In the article I mentioned above, Paul Schrader APPLAUDED Nick Nolte for his acting. While in hindsight I can agree with his comments, when I was watching the film in class I couldn't help but think of Nick Nolte's character Augusto in the sad but compelling film Lorenzo's Oil. If you've seen Lorenzo's oil, you'd know that Nick Nolte plays a foreign man WHOSE son develops a disease that has no cure, and he does all he can to learn about the disease to find a cure. Clearly, that character is a 360 degree opposite to Wade in Affliction. It was a bit funny to watch Wade's decline in comparison to the great things that happened in Nolte's other role. In David Konow and Jim Mercurio's interview with Paul Schrader for cretivescreenwriting.com, they ask Schrader, "As Nick Nolte’s character loses touch with reality, the demarcation between what’s real and what’s in his head begins to blur. How did you deal with this stylistically?" to which Schrader responds, "There were several levels of reality. There were his conspiracy theories, which were in black and white, and there were his memories, which were in a highly grainy color, but those were the only things technically." I hadn't really noticed this when I was watching the film, but I thought it was cool that Schrader used this technical element in conjunction with Nolte's acting skills to portray the past and present situations Wade was faced with. To conclude, let's talk about the family dynamic between Wade, Rolfe, and their father, glen. I couldn't help but congratulate Rolfe for "never (being) afflicted by that man's violence", because he's so composed and rational, two things Wade clearly lacks, and glen too. Watching wade turn into glen was faster than watching a tornado roll into a town, it was frightening and almost hard to watch. The biggest difference I noticed between the two is that Wade INITIALLY had good intentions, and from what we saw, it never appeared that Glen had good intentions for himself, anyone or anything. Glen drunkenly asked wade as a child, "What are you a quitter?" and I couldn't help but think that Glen himself was the quitter - he essentially gave up his role as a father and husband, and was left an empty shell full of booze and anger. Wade follows in his father's footsteps when he yells the exact same words at Jack not long before that relationship is tossed in the trash.
Wow. I'm not sure what to say or think about this film. I don't know if I should be sad or angry, or even confused. I'm somewhat speechless. The Mist is a 2007 film directed by Frank Darabont, which takes place in a small town that is enveloped in a mysterious and terrifying thick mist/fog. The Mist is an adaptation of Stephen King's book also named The mist. This film has strong religious themes and an undertone of political beliefs. This film is a rollercoaster of fear, anger, sadness, and terror. It's ending is also one you can't forget (or accept). The first thing I noticed about this film is the use of shaky cam. Shaky cam is where the photographer gives the illusion of a hand held camera and similar movements rather than being steady and smooth like most films. An example of this is film the Blair Witch Project. I think the use of shaky cam is perfect for capturing the characters emotions as it enhances their fear and tension, as well as the unknowingness of the mist. In Brian's commentary he says "the movie is about instability" and I think this relates well to the use of shaky cam. Another visual element I noticed and thought about was the unclear and foggy color white of the mist. Of course fog and mist are white, but that's not my point. what I saw was the use of white to portray pureness, light, and hope. On one hand, the use of white representing pureness, light, and hope works well with the idea of religion, because typically religion is a light and pleasant thing for people, and also provides hope for them. But on the other hand, my idea of religion and white is contradicted, as all of my descriptive works, pureness, light, and hope are things that are declining very rapidly in the characters as the film progresses. These definitions of white in this film are like flipping a coin, and as times it is easy to see, while it may also be difficult to notice. The fogginess and unclear, not-see-through color of the mist also plays well with the feeling of fear, because no one really knows what's out there, especially after the first encounter with a monster. In Nick Schager's interview with Darabont for Yahoo Movies, darabont says, "Even in The Mist, the monsters outside are only the context for the monsters who are your friends and neighbors, who you really have to worry about." When I read this, it definitely changed my mind on how I felt about the characters in relation to the monsters. At first I believed that the monsters were truly what the religious woman, Mrs. Carmody, was preaching about before the end of days. But when I read that, and rethought about it, it made perfect sense that Darabont used monsters rather than human-like figures in King's novel, because it really does exemplify how humans can be monsters, even the ones you know and trust, like when Private Jessup is blamed and used as a human sacrifice, and is locked out of the store. This film obviously is full of fear, both in the viewers and especially the characters. I think that for a 2007 scary film, where there is a plethora of different types of fearful and slasher plots, the mist really stands out. In darabonts interview with John Patterson for theguardian.com, darabont explains, "It's what I call the Lord of the Flies paradigm: you put people into a pressure-cooker of fear and terror, you shake 'em up and you see what they do. Do they start to work together, or do they start to descend into unreason and savagery and superstition?" I found this interesting, because I think this is evident not only in the trapped characters in the store, but also somewhat in people viewing this in a movie theater. Many people are together in a big, but small when full room, and many of them are feeling the same feeling: fear. OF course people seeing a movie in a movie theater can leave safely, it relates to the people in the store, but if they leave, there's a negative, terrifying consequence.
The birds is peculiar thriller/horror film made in 1963 and is directed by Alfred Hitchcock. A glamorous, wealthy woman named Melanie who is from San Francisco meets a Lawyer named mitch, also from San Francisco, and has a home on an island called Bodega Bay. In attempts to get back at mitch for making her look silly in a bird shop in San Fran, she sneakily brings two lovebirds to his home on the island. After Mitch finds out she was behind all this, she stays for dinner, and a whirlwind of terrifying recurring events occur, For someone watching this film in the 60's or 70's, this film was pretty scary. Around this time, Alfred Hitchcock was known for his horror films, such as Psycho in 1960, Frenzy in 1972, and of course the Birds in 1963. Technical ElementsOne of the biggest camera elements I saw in this film was the use of the composition rule called "the rule of thirds". This means that if you were to place a 3x3 grid over the shot, whatever the focus of the shot is, will be placed on/near a cross of 2 lines rather than directly in the middle of the frame. Rule of thirds is used in many art forms, personally I use it in my photography work. This rule adds a bit of indifference and asymmetry to the normal smack-dab-in-the-middle type of shot. I think that this method also shifts your focus and forces you to stray from the idea that everything is in the middle where we think it should be. Below is a brief slideshow of examples in the film where Melanie (the focus of the shot) is placed around where two lines cross. To give an example of the rule of thirds antagonist, here is a shot of melanie placed in the middle of the 3x3 grid rather than on a cross of the lines. Another camera element I noticed during the film was the use very fake looking backgrounds. The depth of field in some shots was off, giving the look of a background rather than true shallow depth of field. It's clear that many parts of the Birds are shot on location, but when they have this artificial look to their backgrounds, they're pretty awful. Character ConnectionsLet's face it, the sexual tension between Melanie and Mitch was obvious and ever-present. From their initial encounter in the bird store till the end of the film, these two had feelings for each other that laid dormant until about halfway through the film when they kiss. I thought this was odd, seeing that they have only known each other for a couple of days, but it works well with the plot of the film and the connections between the characters, so I understand why Hitchcock chose this relationship between the two, rather than complete strangers throughout. In Xan Brooks' article titled "My favourite Hitchcock: The birds", he elucidates that when Melanie is attacked on the head by the seagull, "serves her right and (the attack) takes her down a peg or two" , seemingly getting her off her high horse. It becomes clearer that after this event, she is more equal to Mitch, adding to the closeness and sexual tension between the two, because she's not really superior to him or better than him anymore. Another connection I made that's related to this idea is that Mitch is a handsome, chiseled man, and Melanie is a delicate, yet sophisticated blonde woman. I think that the casting of these two actors for their physical characteristics works well, because it fits the time period this film is set in (and in real life) and fits with the "damsel in distress" theme that is somewhat present during the film. XAN BROOKS ALSO WRITES "WHEN TEASING OUT THE MEANING OF THE BIRDS, MANY CRITICS TAKE THEIR LEAD FROM THE HYSTERICAL WOMAN WHO LINKS THE ATTACKS TO DANIELS' ARRIVAL ("I THINK YOU'RE THE CAUSE OF ALL OF THIS"). THIS IMPLIES THAT THE BIRDS ARE A MANIFESTATION OF SEX, SOME GALVANIC HORMONAL STORM THAT WHISKS SLEEPY BODEGA BAY INTO A GREAT COMMUNAL LATHER." I THINK THIS IS A GREAT OBSERVATION FROM BROOKS AND THE CRITICS HE SPEAKS OF, BECAUSE IT GIVES A REASONABLE BEHIND-THE-SCENES CONNECTION BETWEEN THESE EVENTS, AND MAKES THE BIRD ATTACKS A LITTLE LESS RANDOM AND HAVING UNKNOWN CAUSES. ANOTHER CONNECTION I MADE THAT'S RELATED TO THIS IDEA IS THAT MITCH IS A HANDSOME, CHISELED MAN, AND MELANIE IS A DELICATE, YET SOPHISTICATED BLONDE WOMAN. I THINK THAT THE CASTING OF THESE TWO ACTORS FOR THEIR PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS WORKS WELL, BECAUSE IT FITS THE TIME PERIOD THIS FILM IS SET IN (AND IN REAL LIFE) AND FITS WITH THE "DAMSEL IN DISTRESS" THEME THAT IS SOMEWHAT PRESENT DURING THE FILM. ColorsMy favorite thing to discuss: Color schemes. I think it's safe to say that the colors used in this film fit the time period very well as far as movie cameras and editing go. At this time there really was no need to make colors bright, vibrant, and flashy, because this is a horror film, where we want a stale, eerie environment with colors that don't distract us from the suspense and terror of what's going on. The colors are dull and flat, and I think that's typical of films in the 60's and 70's, and maybe even the 80's. It seems like the use of saturated in-your-face colors didn't happen until the 90's and beyond. There were very few times that strong colors were used, like Ms. Hayworth's red coat and mailbox, the night sky before a bird attack, and Melanie's green blazer, which was the exception as it was seen throughout the film. ConclusionTo finish my screening response, I'd like to share my favorite shot in the film. This is when we see the school children running outside to escape the birds that were grouped outside on the playground. I think this shot is the epitome of creepy and scary in this film, with its glooming sky, flock of birds, running, terrified children, and that chilling view of a house on a hill, but in this case, a school.
|
|