MYST-Casablanca

Casablanca tells the tail of an American man played by Humphrey Bogart, who own a bar in Casablanca. This place is the hot spot in Morocco for all of the people looking to escape the horrors in Europe, fly to Lisbon and then to America. The Nazis currently control the people who get in and out of Morocco, so most of the refugees are stuck. Then a famous French escapee of the concentration camps and his wife turn up (Ingrid Bergman). Bogart's character has an unknown past with Bergman, as she asks to get her and her husband out of the country. Its a love story that is also very political in nature, with each character representing the politics of their birth nation. 

This is probably Bogart's most known performance and in my opinion one of his best. Although he is great in the African Queen and iconic in The Maltese Falcon, in Casablanca Bogart plays a very complex character who represents America's political stance during world war two. Also, he has so many memorable lines in this movie that are still used and quoted today. I think those two features make this performance one of his best, and probably one of the best of all time. 

Now one of my  favorite scenes from this movie is a little cheesy but still moving. At one point the Nazis are singing a German song in the bar in front of these French refugees. Then the French escapee asks the band to play the French song "Les Marseillaise". The band looks at Bogie and he gives them a nod. Then the band plays it and the whole crowd stands up and sings until the Germans sit down. It is a beautiful metaphor for how the Americans acted in the war, and how the war would turn out if the Americans helped. 

I thought it was great. 5/5 stars.

1935 Hooked on You

1. Synopsis: Essentially, our lead played by Frank Sinatra is the son of an immigrant in New Jersey. He falls in love with the daughter of an immigrant played by the wife of Harry Cohn. Sinatra is very sleezy trying to get this classy girl. Then after that Sinatra looses his hand and it is replaced by a hook. Then in the end she falls in love with him despite his disability and the morale is to treat people with disabilities and immigrants better.
2. Genre: Musical Drama, we wanted to have more than just songs to entertain.
3. Studio: We chose Columbia because we really wanted to have Frank Capra direct because he is my personal favorite from this time period. Also, this gave us the excuse to use Cohn's wife as an actress.
4. Cast and Crew: We all liked Capra because we liked his style and he also could be our cinematographer which was nice. We took Joan Perry, Cohn's Wife, because she would be something that Cohn made Capra do as a gesture of loyalty almost. So then we decided on Sinatra because he is the son of a Sicilian immigrant and Capra is from Sicily. It all made sense, putting people into each of these roles. Also, this is early in both Sinatra's and Capra's career,  so it seemed like a good match in that sense as well.
5. Hays Code/ Technology: We decided that it would be better to have a hook hand instead of just a stump because that might offend some people at the Catholic Legion of Decency. Also, Capra would show his fluid camera style in this movie with lots of swooping shots.
6. Changes: We argued a lot about the plot, I wanted it just to be a money maker to start Capra's career before he did his other works. Kevin wanted it to be called Opium Den and have it be all about junkies and Harry wasn't wild about the idea of a musical. We all figured it out in the end but I don't love that it isn't a pure musical thing and that they only sing three time. Sinatra's appeal is in his looks and voice, he is a pretty poor actor so this movie might have been a complete bust.

FFS- Scorsese

Martin Scorsese is no doubt one of the greatest film makers of all time based on awards, critiques and film fans alike. Three of Scorsese’s films made it onto the American Film Institute’s “The 100 Best Films of All Time” list (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas). Now obviously many things make him a great, his plots are deep and enthralling, he always seems to get the most out of his actors and his staging of shots are unbelievably good. However of all of the things Scorsese does well, I am going to talk about his use of lighting and staging of shots in Raging Bull, Taxi Driver and The Departed.

Now the focus/point of all three films are very different however Scorsese uses the same elements to achieve these effects. In Raging Bull, the point is to depict the emotional trauma of Jake La Matta’s life. Taxi Driver deals with social issues of Prostitution, Mental health, and the scum that inhabits the night life in the rough parts of NYC. And The Departed shows the workings of organized crime and the holes in our justice system.

Scorsese’s use of shading and lighting throughout all of his works is more than just a way to depict the emotions in each scene; they display deeper meanings in the overall theme of the story. I think that the most evident of these is in The Departed. In the final shot we see the justice building of Boston glowing in the vast sunlight and a rat on a rail covered in shadow perfectly in line with the dome of the building. In a story all about rats in crime and the law, its sums up the movie. But the lighting ads more than that, it becomes slightly political in nature just based on the shading. We see the Police as a place that stands for clean, wholesome, law-abiding people by definition. Hence the building is bathed in sunlight. However, organized crime doesn’t survive without rats in the government and that is what you don’t know about. The rat is bathed in shadow, hidden from plain view. Light is also probably the most important feature of Raging Bull. Probably some of the most obvious is Vicky especially early in the film. Everything about her is white when she first appears, from her hair to her dress to the bed that Jake seduces her on. This highlights her youth, her innocence and her standing in Jake’s mind as the girl who “you don’t just bang and forget about”. But let’s not forget Taxi Driver and all of its focus on night and day. Just as Travis says everything comes out at night. The strange red lighting during his conversations at night, when his mental state is rapidly deteriorating, is to alert the viewer of the way that this conversation is actually affecting him.

Now, let’s look at Scorsese staging in each film. In Taxi Driver, when Travis goes to see Palantine arriving in his limo and he talks to the Secret Service man, Scorsese stages the shot so perfectly to emphasize Travis’ lack of appeal and his inability to fit in society. He has an inspiring campaign poster of Palantine in the foreground, a very tall clean cut Secret Service man in the middle ground, and an awkward Travis looking very undersized and uncomfortable in the background. This shows the importance of each of these characters but also the roles and their importance in the mind of Americans. People like Senators are talked about all the time, government looks out for your average Joe but little attention is given to those like Travis who really need it. In The Departed we have so many of really interesting shots but the two I want to focus on are of Damon before he enters the force and just after Nicolson dies. In the first shot Damon is inside a circle, the circle then expands out to show Damon alone outside with a lot of sunshine in the center of the street in the city of Boston.  The second time we see Damon alone in the dark in his office with busy people crossing back and forth with many things around him, the shot then moves to the circle we first saw him in at the beginning. The flipping of these shots is ironic because at that time in the movie Damon has a lot of support, in fact he has the entire mafia behind him. But in the final shot he is all alone, the leaders of the mob have been killed and the only tie to the organization he just burned. The shot symbolized not only the switch of him standing alone among the mob to being just another cop but also his incredible isolation now. 

MYST - From Russia With Love

From  Russia with Love is 1963 Bond movie starring the original Bond, Sean Connery. I thought that it was fairly good in terms of dialogue and plot, however some of the acting is poor and a majority of the special effects are very dated. One thing that did catch me off-guard with this movie is the amount of sexuality, in almost every scene there is a reference or a sexual tone displayed. 

The acting done by Connery is absolutely fantastic, this is the first film I have seen him in and now I understand why he should be the only Bond. He is silky smooth, quick witted and full of unshaken confidence. Although I found Daniel Craig's rugged version of Bond to be entertaining in Casino Royale and Skyfall, he becomes more of a soldier than a secret agent. Connery's Bond seems to prefer out smarting his opponents while Craig seems to use brute force. Connery's version just seems to fit the character of a secret agent much better than Craig's. 

One of the only flaws is that the female lead, despite being very easy on the eyes is pretty brutal as an actress and her character is very poorly written. At point she hopelessly over acts her love for James, even though she met him a day ago. Then her character altogether is fairly weak and slightly dim witted which is a let down. Compared to Eva Green's character in Casino Royale who is perhaps more witty than James creates interesting dialogue and character development that is lacking from From Russia with Love. 

The camera work is pretty much by the books but it works really well in the majority of scenes. For instance in the scenes involving the master criminal, we never get a look at his face only of his cat that he is holding in his lap. During these scenes they are on a boat because it allows them to have the shot tilt like a boat rocking in the sea. However, the tilted camera gives a subtle dutch angle to know that the plot is evil and diabolical. The only thing that would have made the scene better would have been more interesting lighting, because all of the actors are lit with the same amount of light. 

Overall I enjoyed it, pretty entertaining, I give it 3 and 1/2 stars out of 5.

Review of the Reviews

Pulp Fiction

Positive
By Desson Howe
Washington Post Staff Writer 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/pulpfictionrhowe_a01b66.htm

NegativeBy Stanley KauffmannNew Republic Critic
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/film/shooting#

Howe's review is organized so that the his opinion of the movie is the first piece of information given to the reader. He then continues on to talk about the acting, plot and writing. He is very quick and to the point with his information, however he does make a lot of references to other directors and other movies which is hit and miss with its potency. The review is very lighthearted and positive which ironically contrasts with the nature of the film. His main focus is actually on the director. Howe states that although his last two movies are  great films they are very similar in subject and he should avoid this topic to stay fresh.

Kauffmann's review doesn't talk about his opinion of the movie until midway through the review, he spends the first half talking about who Tarantino is and his life story. The author uses really long winded statements to reach fairly mute points, which makes the entire thing very hard to read. Also, most of his strikes against the movie are because of minor errors, two of which don't actually exist, or that the movie that has "fiction" in the title is slightly far fetched. He does make lots of references but they were to books that I have not read. His over focus is on how awful Tarantino is as a director but it comes off as fairly weak in its criticisms.

I agree with Howe.“PULP FICTION is everything it’s said to be: brilliant and brutal, funny and exhilarating, jaw-droppingly cruel and disarmingly sweet. Quentin Tarantino, the postmodern Boy Wonder of American crass culture, for whom the only thing to fear is boredom itself, has produced a work of mesmerizing entertainment. To watch this movie (whose 2 1/2 hours speed by unnoticed) is to experience a near-assault of creativity."  I really enjoyed the movie because it constantly provoked me and kept me on the edge of my seat during every scene. All of the dialogue was quick and witty and very funny. The acting was great by everyone in the cast which is rare. Plus the overall structure of the plot actually adds to the depth of the movie because every scene is disconnected from the next either because of time or characters, but they all weave together by the end to create a linear plot.


Again Howe's would be more convincing. He is quick to the point with each of his praises and slight criticisms where as Kauffmann takes a paragraph for each of his criticisms. This is key for me because if I want to read a review of a movie I don't want to find out the entire plot and back story of the director before you tell me if you think it is good or not. A review is supposed to be I thought-x because of-y, not a three page paper. I think it is valid points of praise or criticism based on fundamental parts of the film. Saying a movie sucks because it has a clerical error is kind of like saying the "I Have a Dream" speech by MLK sucks because he doesn't use perfect grammar. They are very minor in comparison to everything else in the film.

If I were to write a review of a film, I would keep it short and to the point. All I am doing is putting in my two cents, I am not writing a thesis paper on the movie. Also, all of my points would be about major factors to the film such as acting, writing, directing, cinematography, and plot/themes. People don't need to know that at one point the lighting changed from dusk to night 5 minutes faster than it does in real life.

I would avoid giving away too many plot points, it ruins the movie for those who haven't seen it. Also, I would never include funny or important dialogue because it ruins the significance or humor if you as the audience already know what is about to happen. Both of these critics made these mistakes, which was actually annoying. Lastly, I would let the reader know my opinion first and then give the evidence for my criticisms because that makes it much easier to understand the review as a whole.

Intro Survey

1. The first movie that I remember the most is Lion King. I remeber being deathly afraid of Scar and very upset that he killed Mufasa.
2. Gangster, Drama, Historical, and War
3. Horror, Teen, Romantic Comedy, and Musical
4. The Godfather part II, Saving Private Ryan, It's a Wonderful Life, Pulp Fiction and Good Will Hunting
5. Great dialogue, Deep characters and a provoking plot whether it is philosophical or emotional.
6. Man on a Ledge, Resident Evil: Retribution, In Time, and Mega-Shark v Giant Octopus
7. Bad Acting, Really illogical dialogue or plot, and lazy directing
8. Tarantino, Spielberg, and Arron Sorkin
9. Daniel-Day Lewis, Tom Hanks, Arron Eckhart, Tim Roth, and Meryl Streep
10. Pulp Fiction, The Godfather, and Schindler's List
11. It's a Wonderful Life
12. June 17th, 1994
13. Casablanca, Django: Unchained, Lincoln, Raging Bull and The African Queen