Drive it Home!

Its finals week and I have quite a bit of studying/ writing to do, so today I am leaving you with a short, and hopefully sweet, post! Farewell!

Mulholland Drive is one of those movies that makes your head hurt after you watch it. The plot is convoluted and, in my opinion, may not make any sense at all. The acting was, at times, distant, strange, and it wasn't until the end of the movie that i actually started feeling for any of these characters. But I will give the movie one thing... the direction was awesome!

If there has been one thing that this course has taught me is that direction is about 75% of what makes a movie great. This film is the prime example. Let us start out with the opening scene, watching the black silhouettes dance along the blue backdrop. We later realize that this scene what brought Betty/ Diane (Watts) to Hollywood. But at the start of the movie we know nothing other than this is an awkwardly beautiful scene, ended with the stunning face of Naomi Watts. 

What is key here is that we learn later, when the story goes topsey turvey on us, that these silhouettes are dancing along the surface of the "blue box" that is the Oedipus for the plot twist. This is probably, in my opinion, the most important realization of the movie for it does exactly as the reading proclaims Lynch to do. It creates an "onslaught against the very stability on which time and space depend" (38).

But why is this important? Since the movie starts off in this unknown dreamscape image, that we later learn is both a mix of reality and fantasy, we are placed in an awkward position... do we believe the events that are about to take place or do we question each action to find the truth? Now obviously we are not limited to those choices but i believe a combination of both will lead the viewer down the line that Lynch has drawn for us.

Naturally Born And Bred

This is more of a venting post today then a movie review:

Natural Born Killers is one of the only movies of the class that I have seen and one of my faves. That being said I'm not going to review this movie but rather touch on a couple of things I have noticed over the countless amount of times I have watched this...

From a directorial standpoint, I think Oliver Stone's best shot scene in the whole film happens within the first ten minutes. The scene inside the car, showing the outside world in a variety of different film clippings, newspaper snippets, and a cocktail of different songs, embodies the movie itself. Horses, Indians, headlines saying "Route 66 Latest of Grizzly Attacks," Demons that look like Mickey, and civilians are all, in one way or another, symbolic of the movie and the culture at the time. The article Small Ceremonies points out that Killers is a western in a way, a "re-inscription of Manifest Destiny, the national myth that legitimated our own version of 'ethnic cleansing,' appropriated land and resources, and attempted to destroy and discredit" savagery of our culture (176). The movie is extremely violent and these small scenes as Mickey and Mallory ride in their car, in my opinion, reflect the identity loss of the 90's. Why did Manifest Destiny exist? To create and legitimize a national identity that ranged from "sea to shining sea." Mickey and Mallory have no identity. The Navajo man says that they are both suffering from a sickness, being a loss of spirit and guidance, and this mass killing spree, ending with the killing of the Navajo man, is a way to find that identity. In a way this is very representative of the 90's in general. The Berlin wall had just fallen, signaling the end of the Cold War. The Communist were no longer a threat to America. America had won but in the process loss the way of distinguishing themselves from the rest of the world. Simply, America had nothing to fight for or promote in the world; they were now just another democratic state in the world. The country was in need of another manifest destiny to find their role in the international landscape.  

Yet I would also like to comment on an article by John Grisham entitled Unnatural Born Killers. The article Small Ceremonies asks the questions "Does Natural Born Killers itself make a meal of viewer's souls? Does it tap into and ultimately feed destructive powers" (169)? Essentially John Grisham would respond to that question with an utmost and affirmative yes. Stone himself says the film reflects the violent and bankrupt culture of America and shows the "power of the media to fascinate, addict, and posses" (170). Yet Grisham says that the film did just that, possessed two individuals from this bankrupt culture to kill in a way that the movie promoted. His article focuses on two people called Sarah and Ben who decided to travel to Memphis to see the Grateful Dead, and ended up killing two people in a way similar to Natural Born Killers. As they drove to Memphis they spoke openly of killing people, randomly, just like Mickey spoke to Mallory. The profile of these killers are crucial to his argument: nothing in their past indicated violent tendencies. But once they saw the movie, they fantasized about killing, and their fantasies finally drove them to their crimes. Yet even if NBK drove these people to kill, Stone's message behind the movie still rings true. The media, which includes Hollywood, does have the power to fascinate, addict, and posses this violent and bankrupt culture, especially during the new media boom during the 1990's. The 90's gave America the birth of widespread cable and satellite television, allowing the typical American household to have access to 100+ channels. The media could essentially reach more people in many more ways. This included movies, which could be made cheaper, quicker, and played on various theaters and television channels. Why would NBK be exempt from the media's power to fascinate, addict, and posses? 

Thanks for listening to the rant and if you want to comment on the article by Grisham as well here is the link...

Kill 'Em With Kindness

A short but sweet post today:

So this is where Samuel L. Jackson's acting talent is channeled from! Petey Wheatstraw is one of the stranger movies I have ever come across but, speaking honestly, I'm not that all surprised or shocked. After listening to Professor McRae's introduction to the film, asking us if we wanted to see Shaft or a woman give birth to a watermelon, I was stoked to see a nonsensical movie and was expecting to have my head explode from some of the strange things I'd encounter. Yet I walked away after 30 minutes of the film thinking "wow, that wasn't that strange!" But I guess I'm just numb to this type of exploitive film and I'll tell you why... 

Have any of you ever seen Tim and Eric's Awesome Show: Great Job? If you have you'll see the similarities between Wheatstraw and Great Job immediately, if not here is a link to some clips. I am in love with TEASGJ; the comedy is so bizarre and at times just plain shocking/ inappropriate. I can't tell you the countless times the show uses gay, black, Native American, disabled, and religious stereotypes to promote specific jokes. Petey Wheatstraw was doing the same thing, only the movie was focusing on black stereotypes instead of many of them.

There are countless other shows out there that do the same thing as Petey Wheatstraw and Tim and Eric's Awesome Show: Great Job (Chapelle's Show and South Park just to name a few) not to mention the internet has "enlightened" the public with very informative images and videos (thank you youtube and 4chan). Jump back ten years and I think Petey Wheatstraw would have gotten a much different reaction from the class. But the youth of today are numb to this exploitive film simply because we have seen a lot of it!

Go Ahead, Make My Day!

One of my first movie memories was watching Clint Eastwood in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly ride over a large grassy knoll and disappear into the sunset. Ever since then Eastwood has been one of my favorite actors to watch. High Plains Drifter, as well as A Fistful of Dollars, has been on my Netflix list for over two years but I hadn't gotten around to it until now. 

Review:

Drifter was made in 1973, at the high point of Vietnam protesting. One of the things I love about science fiction movies is that, if they do it right, they are able to make something so relevant to ourselves appear in an alien planet/ broken space craft/ neon internet wonderland. Westerns can do that same thing. High Plains Drifter, according to the McVeigh, is reference to the guilt and loss of innocence in America associated with the Vietnam war. It's a fascinating comparison that at first glance seems preposterous. But as the film unfolds references to the Vietnam war become apparent.

From a directorial standpoint, Eastwood clearly hits home in the rape scene near the beginning of the film. So much was discussed about this scene in particular yet very rarely did anyone touch on what made it so distressing to watch; the aftermath. To me the worst part of the scene was not watching her squirm (witch by the by was quite unsettling) it was watching Eastwood buckle up his pants and look down upon her. The lighting with just that particular shot was so incredible: Eastwood was almost completely veiled in shadows leaving just enough light to see his smirking face and his hands buckling up his belt. The ground up shot was so distressing, it remains vividly etched into my mind as I am writing this post. How does this relate to Vietnam? In all of the films I've seen Eastwood in (Torino, Pale Rider, The Dirty Harry Series, Unforgiven, Space Cowboys, ect) never once has he been displayed doing such a despicable, unforgivable act. Yes, it has been implied that he has done these things (Unforgiven is the film I am thinking of) but never have we actually seen him doing it, until now. The same goes for The United States at the time; throughout all of the wars we have engaged in up to that point (WWI, WWII, Revolutionary War, Civil War, Korean War, War of 1812) we were always viewed as the defenders of peace, never the aggressors. Yes, we have been accused of aggression (Korean War) but never has it been as blatantly obvious about American aggression until the Vietnam war.

Character wise, Eastwood shines once more. Earlier in McVeigh's article it was mentioned that after the Kennedy assignation the image of the hero changed. To quote "Kennedy was able to attach his persona [and energy] to the frontier hero despite his avowedly East coast character" (163). After his death, that persona and energy disappeared and LBJ could not fill the shoes left behind by JFK. Indeed, that is where Eastwood comes in. The town of Lagos (whose townspeople are despicable and cowardly to say the least) is left without a respectable town Marshall/ Sherriff after watching him fall to the hands of three "cowboys." With no one actually skilled with a weapon, they hire three gunman who Eastwood's Man-Without-A-Name character kills promptly when entering town. Eastwood is then thrown into defending the town. His character then terrorizes the town and seems to do more harm than good in defending the townspeople. If Eastwood's character was a "Kennedy hero" we would most likely see the same character emerge from Pale Rider (Eastwood plays a gun totin' Preacher with no name). Instead, because the ideal of the hero has changed, these morally questionable actions seem to be permissible. On a side note, most of Eastwood's best western movies happen in a span of 5 to 15 years after JFK's death and almost all of his characters perform morally questionable acts at best (A Fistful of Dollars in 64, For a Few Dollars More in '65, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in '66, Dirty Harry in '71, High Plains Drifter in '73, The Outlaw Josey Wales in '76, and The Enforcer also in '76).

Conclusion

Eastwood is my second favorite actor of all time (if you haven't guessed by now, Harrison Ford is my number one). With that being said, I am extremely biased when it comes to reviewing his movies. So, therefore, it will be no surprise that High Plains Drifter receives a 9.5 out of ten, deduction coming from too few "go ahead, make my day" moments. If you would like to see Eastwood's best westerns, in my opinion, rent Pale Rider (acting sucks but the end makes the movie worthwhile), The Good The Bad and The Ugly, Unforgiven, and The Outlaw Josey Wales.

Mommies, and Commies, and Frankie... Oh My!

When I hear someone mention the Manchurian Candidate, I immediately think of the horrible 2004 movie with Liev Schreiber, a phenomenal actor in my opinion (watch Defiance), and Denzel Washington. So when I found out i was going to watch the original movie, needless to say i was not thrilled. But, much to my surprise, I instantly fell in love.  

Review:

The year is 1962. The United States in the midst of the Cold War and the Democratic and Republican parties are holding conventions to decide who will be the forerunners for the office of the President of the United States. The Communist threat looms in the shadows of every street corner. In every home mothers smother their children with too much protection and wives demean their husbands into submissive roles. American security, both the land and the family unit, were under attack.

The above premise gives way to the 1962 original Manchurian Candidate directed by John Frankenheimer, who also directed one of Robert De'Niro's best movies, Ronin. There is one particular scene in which I'd like to focus on my review that shows off the best of directing. The scene that jumps back and forth between the room in New Jersey and the Russian/ Chinese heads of state room. I don't know if his objective was disorientation or what but there is a part in this scene where Frankenheimer has the camera spins and capture the bored faces of soldiers, the Communist officials, and the Flower club in New Jersey. For me, this was the pinnacle directing moment in the movie: you don't know what is real and what is not. The Communist officials seamlessly transform into the Flower club girls and the background changes so gradually that you almost feel as though the plants behind Sinatra's head have been there the whole time. He really captures that feeling of being brainwashed. Also, the way the Communist officials and the New Jersey Flower club members interact is disorienting and incredibly well done. While you're watching the scene unfold and Shaw starts killing people, the seamless transition from these flower club girls and the communist officials add even more discomfort to the situation as well. Impressive directing of that particular scene!

Acting wise, I think Angela Lansbury made the biggest impression on me as the Soviet spy Mrs. Iselin. From the very beginning I knew something "fishy" was up with this woman. The article by Rogin talked about this feeling of Matriarchy and how powerful the feminine figure was becoming in the household. Mrs. Iselin was extreme of that feeling; she was controlling, manipulative, destructive, and embodied the polar opposite of what America was founded on. Even before she was revealed as a communist, I had a feeling that she was a red because everything she told her husband to do was contradictory to American societal norms. And let us talk about poor Iselin. The only thing he was really guilty of in this whole movie was that he fell in love with the wrong woman. Yes he was submissive and yes he was drunk the whole movie, but he was submissive because he was in love and drunk because he was unhappy (you could tell he was unhappy during the costume party at the end of the movie, grunting after Lansbury told him to go "sit in a corner"). 

Conclusion:

I've only talked about only a few things here but they were, in my opinion, the most important. The Manchurian Candidate scores a 8.5 out of 10. On a side note does anyone else feel as though Angela Lansbury was born old? She is only 37 in this movie and looks exactly like she did in Murder She Wrote!

A Touch... of Awesome!

I have not seen a good dramatic movie in sometime. Aside from Indemnity, the last drama that I've seen would have had to of been Revolutionary Road. That being said, I think I've fallen in love with movies again thanks to Orson Welles' Touch of Evil. Never in my life have I felt so uncomfortable from a movie and still walked away thinking "damn, I really enjoyed that." 

Review

Uncomfortable is really the word that sums up this movie. Why? Let's start with the opening scene. Evil begins with the camera following two couples as they cross the Mexican border, one in a car what is seconds from blowing up and another walking down the street. Now normally, most directors would give us close up, very personal views of the couples. Orson Welles give us that "personal" view periodically, yet the shot is set up so that the camera is moving at normal walking speed which, as far as I've seen, hasn't been done before. When you think about it, the scene was so simple and yet so uncomfortable, knowing that the car the camera was following was seconds from blowing up. 

Now let's move to acting. Charlton Heston with his face painted brown playing Vargas, a Mexican government official... That last sentence just boggles my mind. Heston is good actor but come on, talk about miscasting. But, after reading Nericcio's article I understand what Welles was trying to accomplish. There is a line from the movie that states "this isn't the real Mexico," and I think that Heston supports that; he is not really Mexican. In fact, I don't think an "average" Mexican person was at all present in the film (most were prostitutes, drunks, or criminals). 

Then there is Orson Welles' character Quinlin, who is a fascinating creature. This overweight, overtly racist crooked cop is, at the start of the movie, idolized for his great detective skills (his hunches that come in the form of twitches in his leg). When Quinlin first appears a sense of relief and comfort falls upon the viewer, knowing that this "ace detective" is on the job and by the way the other cops react upon seeing him. Yet as the movie progresses we see the same characteristics emerge on Quinlin as we saw on Heston; he seems to be different than anyone else in the whole film. Think about it: he is a fat, racist, candy bar eating, cop who specifically asks for donuts and coffee. Welles not only is playing off stereotypes of Mexicans, as we have discussed in class, but he is playing off the stereotypes of cops and white American men as well. And this idea of a "border town" applies both ways... its neither Mexico or America, so stereotypes of Americans and Mexicans are present. 

Lastly, the acting by the stunning Janet Leigh. Boy was she phenomenal. Both the articles we've read for class talk of this infamous implied rape scene and the uncomfortable feeling the viewer gets from watching it unfold. Yet, never once do they give credit where credit is due; if it were not for the amazing work by Janet Leigh, her face of terror, the frantic movements under the bed sheets, the wild kicking of her legs as they were holding her down, all of these images created this very awkward feeling. 

Conclusion 

This is a movie to watch, reflect about, and then watch again. There have been only 2 movies in my life that I've rented, returned, and gone immediately to the store and bought: The Fountain and now Touch of Evil. This movie scores a 10 out of 10 and recieves my highest recommendation. Thank you Mr. Welles!

I'm All Wet And I'm Lovin' Every Second of It

Let me warn you before you read this movie review: I have seen many musicals and I've thought almost all were complete nonsense. I'm just not that into Hollywood musicals, the exceptions being Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge, Chicago, and Hello Dolly. That being said, here is my review of Singin' In The Rain...

Review:

I have to give credit where credit is due, there is better dancing and choreography in Singin' in the Rain than in any other musical I have ever seen. It puts to shame musicals like A Chorus Line and Grease. The "Broadway Ballet" number has to be the most flamboyant display of talent by Gene Kelly. But since we are on the topic, the dance numbers were far too long, pointless at times, and took away from the story. "Broadway Ballet" had to be at least ten if not fifteen minutes and by the end, I had forgotten what the was point of the dance number. And yes, I did get the joke in the dialogue following the number but still, it felt like all the film makers were doing was showing off Gene Kelly.

There was one particular scene that made me laugh rather hardily. "Moses Supposes" was just hilarious and so well done. The comedic timing was spot on and even the tap dancing scene was well done. I wish more musicals could pull this off but, as i mentioned in an earlier post, like Harrison Ford, Gene Kelly has the "IT" factor and could charm the wool off a sheep. And the Gene Kelly/ Donald O'Connor pair has such good chemistry they make the words literally come alive.

*In my opinion the Kelly/ O'Connor pair were just as good as the  Dean Martin/ Jerry Lewis pair*

Acting wise I really don't think there is too much to say that already hasn't been said. Gene Kelly is wonderful, Donald O'Connor is hilarious, and their supporting cast is electrified due to the two actors performances. However I have to say that I found Debbie Reynolds a little flat and uninspiring. There were so many great performances here and I felt that she was just not as bright as the other stars. For example, in the "Good Morning" song I was watching Gene Kelly and O'Connor perform; both were very active and almost making love with the camera. In the same scene Reynolds was stiff and only smiled. For Kelly it looked like fun but for Reynolds it looked like a chore.

As for the way this movie was shot: holy crap. The iconic "Singing in the Rain" scene was gorgeous and the camera angles that were taken made me feel like I was in a dream. It wasn't corny either or over the top... it really seemed to capture the essence of how a person feels when they are falling in love, that feeling of being untouchable. The song "You Were Meant For Me" was so simple in how the stage was set yet it was so beautiful. The camera was very personal but not in the uncomfortable way like in last week's Indemnity. 

Closing Comments:

As I stated before, I just can't stand musicals but this... this was an experience. Not only did I enjoy Singing In the Rain, I think it sort of deserves AFI's #1 musical of all time (even though Moulin Rouge is a little better). That being said this film gets an 8.0 out of 10, the deductions coming from the flat performance by Debbie Reynolds and the drawn out dance numbers in scenes like "Broadway Ballet." All in all however a very good movie, one worth watching again.