Kingdom of Heaven

This movie has been one of my recent favorites and it’s not only because my hubby Orlando Bloom plays the leading role. When my group members told me that we were writing about director Ridley Scott, I must admit that I was almost terrified because although he has amazing plotlines, I’m not into the battle scenes and such. However, Kingdom of Heaven totally changed my perspective because Scott directs his films with such authority and he truly understands the essence of making a film that contains violence and making it seem not so bad after all because the audience gets so hooked on the film that we begin to oversee the blood spouting out and we concentrate on the little things that make up the whole picture. For example, the countless battle scenes are emphasized dramatically because Scott uses the close-ups and the slow motion camera lenses. This almost forces the audience to pay attention the immense detail, like the swing of the sword or the muscles moving as if they were in free space and not in the timing of reality. Also, I thought that it was really cool how the slow motion parts look a little blurred and I think this helps to emphasize how the characters are moving so fast, yet the timing has to be precise and careful because a little mistake can mean a wound or even death. In all, I loved this movie and the plotline was typical like some other films from Ridley Scott because you see a hero troubled between wanting to fight for justice or vengeance and at the same time, they long for the peace of mind that exists at home.

"The general who became a slave, the slave who became a gladiator, the gladiator who defied and emperor."

Although I have seen Gladiator before, watching it for the sole purpose of analyzing it and such made it that much more enjoyable the second time around! The part or parts I should say, that I’m choosing to analyze are the places where there is either flashbacks or recurring images of Maximus walking towards his family. First of all, these images in the movie are of a different tint than the rest of the film. This is probably because Ridley Scott wanted to present to us the image that Maximus was in a place that wasn’t yet attainable. It wasn’t until the final scene where he is reunited with his family in his mind before he is about to die that there is light that shines through the door, light the illuminates the prairie, and this is where we finally see what his wife and son truly look like. Before this scene, all we knew was how his home looked because Maximus at some point described it to Marcus Aurelius (Caesar) and we also say these images when Commodus’s men burned and crucified his family. I think it was extremely interesting how Ridley Scott decided to only show the faces of his family once Maximus was reunited with because it’s symbolized the importance of finally being with them. The only connection to seeing them for the entire year was not through pictures, but simply by mere memory and by the little wooden figures that he carried close to him. Also, I noticed that these flashbacks seemed to only come around when Maximus showed signs of emotional weakness and pain, and when his life could potentially be in danger (i.e. first battle against the Barbarians, before the gladiator scene, while he was weak and riding home, the slave cart, and before he fought Commodus). After the movie, I came to the conclusion that Scott decided to include these images at these particular times because although he was a tough man, his family was his weak point and their death produced a bigger wound than any other wound he ever received in his life as a soldier.

Stalker Much?

From all of the Alfred Hitchcock films that we studied in this unit, my favorite was definitely Rear Window because it was so closely related to Disturbia, which was like a modern re-make of Rear Window. Anyway, the scene that I chose to analyze was the part when Lisa goes into Thorwald’s apartment to find the Mrs. Thorwald wedding ring. In this scene, when Lisa flashes the ring to Jeff, Mr. Thorwald realizes what she’s doing and he slowly glares up in the direction of Jeff’s apartment and it’s implied that they make contact. It’s really cool because we see Mr. Thorwald through Jeff’s camera, so it was nice seeing images through that kind of perspective. But more importantly, what was so captivating about this particular scene was how Mr. Thorwald not only appeared to be staring back at Jeff, but he was also staring back at us! It was so creepy because while I was watching this, I actually felt guilty and scared at the same time because I felt like a stalker who had just been caught! Totally freaky. So props to Hitchcock for being able to accomplish this cool effect because when the audience is intrigued by small details like this, then you know that it’s a film worth watching.

my darling clementine

When I first saw this movie in class, for some odd reason I knew that the Wyatt Earp reminded me of another character in a movie that I had seen before and at first I couldn't think of who it was, but I finally figured it out at the end of the movie: he reminded me of HawkEye from The Last of the Mohicans! I later realized it because last year in APAL, we saw that movie to go along with the changes in the literary movements and how Americans writers began to move away from the European-type writing and this is how classic American writers not only introduced a new genre, but also new defenitions of the classic American hero. So anyway, both the hero in My Darling Clementine (Wyatt Earp) and the movie itself, remind me of HawkEye and The Last of the Mohicans because both heroes share similarities for the causes for which they are respectively fighting.

To begin with, both Wyatt Earp and Hawkeye typically represent the elements of the classic American hero. In Wyatt Earp's case,

citizen kane

I have to admit that when I was first presented with this movie, the first thought to run through my mind was something like this: "Black and white? Are you kidding? What kind of knowledge can we gain from a film that was made before I was even born?" Boy, was I wrong. I think that the best knowledge that I gained through watching this movie was all the elements that fall under the catagory of cinematography.
My favorite part in the entire movie was how the producers were able to emphasize and focus their attention on Charles Foster Kane through other means other than just showing him talk all the time. What I mean by this is the certain part of the movie where Kane is both literally and figuratively the mere center of attention. For example, towards the beginning of the movie, Kane is shown playing outside through the window pane while the three adults are deciding how Kane will live for the rest of his life. Also, there is an instance once Kane is grown up where there is a party going on with the new associates of The Inquirer in which Kane is shown dancing histerically with the women again through the reflection of a window and in this scene, Leland and Bernstein are talking about what the think of their partner and boss, Charles Kane. I just think that even with the lack of cool cinematic effects back in those earlier days, producers and directors were able to capture and unravel the importance of their main character in a way that was depicted through more than just words.
My second favorite part of the cinematic element was how depending on the lighting, the mood, the overall atmosphere, and even the symbolism portrayed instantaneously changed based on the lighting. For example, the part right after the newsreel is finished playing and the newspaper critics are united in a room, the lighting used is extremely low key because we are unable to recognize or even identify every single character on set. In this scene, and also the one in which Kane is getting ready to sign his Declaration of Principles, the low key lighting is used to add intensity and drama; it makes the characters appear shady and dishonest. Who would have known that with the right lighting, the meaning of a scene can change completely?
Overall, I guess my hypothesis was wrong because I actually ended up learning a whole lot out of this movie, not to mention that I also absolutely loved it! I guess it doesn't matter the quality of the equipment that is used; it matters more the the extra time and sacrifice that the movie makers are willing to put into the movie to create an amazing film.

journal #2

Animated films don’t tend to get the publicity that other classic films do. Before watching Pixar’s “Finding Nemo”, I would’ve known why, but this film absolutely changed the way that I perceived animated films. I first saw this movie in 2003 when it hit the big screen and ever since, I can honestly say that it has been one of my all-time favorite, even compared to Disney films and that’s a pretty big deal. But I began to appreciate it much more viewing it the second time around because I caught on to aspects and elements that make the film terrific that I wouldn’t have noticed sitting in a movie theatre, chomping away on buttery popcorn.

“Finding Nemo” is a revolutionary work of art because it has so much to offer: vibrant and high quality pictures along with an explosive story. It is safe to say that this film literally takes your breath way because it’s almost as if you are experiencing the entire thing first-hand and are swimming helplessly through Sydney and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef alongside Marlin (Albert Brooks) in the quest to find his son, Nemo (Alexander Gould). The artists that worked on this movie really stepped up to their game because they filled the picture with finely detailed seascapes that emphasize the reality of this underwater phenomenon.

The story really begins when Marlin is forced to take his son, Nemo, to school due to Nemo’s excessive curiosity and tenacious spirit. Marlin is seen playing the role of the overprotective father because of his wife’s death and the implements that this event caused on Nemo, which was the result of a “bad fin”. However, when Nemo’s curiosity and Marlin’s fatherly devotion clashed in the dangerous Drop-Off, Nemo was suddenly taken by some divers (which turned out to be a dentist in Sydney) in his attempt to prove to his father that he was bigger and braver than he appeared. Consequently, Marlin swam uncontrollably through the life threatening ocean, encountering sharks, jellyfish, and other obstacles in his journey to save Nemo. Through the chaos, Marlin is acquainted with Dory (Ellen DeGeneres), a blue tang fish whose short-term memory loss adds comedy to the drama. What Marlin does not know, however, is that he is basically racing against time because within days, Nemo will be given away as a gift to Darla, the dentist’s niece, a little girl whose lack of expertise with fish can lead Nemo to turn belly-up.

Director and screenplay writer Andrew Stanton created a magnificent motion picture because he made everything come together as funny and also emotionally captivating. The filmmakers from Pixar know what they want and where they are headed because they are aware of the type of films that movie watchers want to see. They set a tone and mood that is appropriate for children, all while staying within the boundary of the humor that the parents perceive. “Finding Nemo” is definitely one of America’s finest animated films because it is imaginative and engaging for viewers of all ages. It’s sweet, totally.

journal #1

For this journal entry, I wanted to find a film review that would reflect the critic’s ability to critique a movie based on intellectual thinking and knowledge rather than based off of a biased interpretation of the film. I chose a review written by A.O. Scott from The New York Times for the movie Pan’s Labyrinth.
What I particularly loved about Scott that instantly set him apart from some of the other critics was the knowledge that he possessed to relate some of Guillermo Del Toro’s earlier films to his most recent, Pan’s Labyrinth:

This Mexican-born filmmaker’s English-language, Hollywood genre movies — “Blade
2” (2002), “Hellboy”
(2004) and the ill-starred but interesting “Mimic”
(1997) — have a strangeness and intensity of feeling that sets them apart from
others of their kind. In his recent Spanish-language films, “The
Devil’s Backbone” (2001) and this new one, he uses the feverish
inventiveness of a vulnerable child’s imagination as the basis for his own
utterly original, seamlessly effective exploration of power, corruption and
resistance.

This small bit of information provided by Scott about Del Toro’s previous films helps me in understanding the themes that exist in this film. I feel like sometimes critics overlook the importance of the themes or symbols portrayed in the plotline because they get carried away as they are desperately trying to convey whether or not they liked or disliked the film.
Apart from now being a fanatic about A.O. Scott’s reviews, my favorite part from his particular style of writing was how he describes that Pan’s Labyrinth is something more than just a movie:

Fairy tales (and scary movies) are designed to console as well as terrify. What
distinguishes “Pan’s Labyrinth,” what makes it art, is that it balances its own
magical thinking with the knowledge that not everyone lives happily ever after.

This small element of the review, especially the part in which Scott states that this movie is art, is what truly inspired me to take this course in the first place. I see film-making as an art because it’s a way of expressing feelings and emotions through moving images that all together capture the essence life to convey an overall theme or moral to a story. While some are meant to evoke happiness or sympathy, others are produced to create suspense or horror, but even so, film-making is a form of art that often times, the typical person oversees.
All in all, I feel that A.O. Scott’s film review of Pan’s Labyrinth reflected my opinion of the film. I say this because, like Scott, I never truly thought that I could appreciate a movie if it didn’t conclude with the typical “And they lived happily ever after…” scenario (Well, I guess it kind of did end happily, but in a different perspective). This review also introduced me into a new way of analyzing the movie because Scott interprets the film as being playful because it uses something as innocent as a children’s’ fairytale story to underlie and mimic the truth about fascism in Spain during the early 1940’s. So in reality, I guess there’s more to a film-review than just opinions because a professional one inspires the readers to think in a new, unforeseen fashion.