Throwing Paint On Canvas

I watched Natural Born Killers for the first time last semester. Since then, I’ve seen the film five times. I’ve watched it for two other classes and analyzed the film to no end and I keep coming back to this question that is very similar to what is proposed in the Small Ceremonies article we read for class: Was Oliver Stone’s film successful in satirizing the glorification of violence or did he simply make a film that glorified violence?

Before reading this article, I would’ve claimed that Natural Born Killers was overwhelmingly successful in commenting on this subject of humans being fascinated by and even worshiping violent figures. I would’ve said that Stone makes his film overtly satirical in how its characters support violence and therefore suggests that we should not continue in this way. But now I don’t think I see the film completely the same way anymore. In my opinion, the movie is genius. It’s technically stunning, combining various forms of media that clearly resemble, as Stone stated in regards to his process, “[a kid] throwing paint on canvas.” I’ll admit I’m frequently confused by some of Stone’s images and stylistic choices. His use of reds and greens and black and white, while at some points has clearly a deeper meaning (such as the sickness being felt in the green drugstore, and the clever reversal of an impacting color T.V. being witnessed by a black and white audience), at other times seems to have no logical connection at all and in my opinion could very well be a result of the frequent mushroom tripping location scouts he and his crew went on.

But going back to this debate of whether Stone is successful or not… that question is a little harder. I don’t think I agree with my old opinion in that Stone is overwhelmingly successful, because his film really doesn’t present to us a clear stance on this societal issue. But I also wouldn’t say that it is a film that is simply a product of the content it’s commenting on, which is what the article suggests. To say this would mean that we would completely disregard the intentions of the filmmaker and, in my opinion, ignore some very obvious clues that Stone is doing otherwise (one such being the scene in which various people of the public worship Mickey and Mallory and are clearly presented as being led astray and even idiotic). But I think part of the problem that Stone runs into is that he makes a film that holds an exaggerated mirror up to our society, showing us an exact over-the-top replica of our own world and doesn’t clearly show us how he feels the world should be. The article mentions that at one point Stone was going to kill Mickey and Mallory as opposed to keeping them alive and suggesting that their insanity will continue on into further generations. If Oliver Stone had done this, I feel like this would’ve been a way to “finish” his critique. But he decides instead to keep the characters in the film (not necessarily us) “stranded on the road to apocalypse” as they drive down the road in their R.V. with two children. And I think that’s what Stone wanted. He didn’t want a film that stated exactly what he thought should happen. Rather he wants audiences to take away from the film what they choose, drawing their own conclusions from the violent content.

Out of all of the movies I’ve seen, Natural Born Killers is probably the best example of a film that shows the controversy that a particular artist can bring about and how a piece of artwork can never possibly be interpreted the same way by everyone. One of the things that keeps me coming back to this film is how interesting the movie looks and how seemingly unrelated images and elements of mise en scene can come together and create deeper meaning, or at least help to create a unique world that no one has ever seen before. Whether Stone is successful or not, whether his film ultimately glorifies violence or not, I don’t think that this ultimately matters. I think what he’s able to do that so many people aren’t is emotionally engage his audience and get them to think about and discuss what they’ve experienced long after they finish watching. And isn’t that one of the overall aims of art? To invoke feeling and thought into subjects deserving of that attention? I personally think so. And even if my ideas concerning the film’s overall message change, even if the film affects me differently when I look at it in a different way, I’ll always be intrigued by and enjoy looking at Oliver Stone’s splattered paint on canvas.

"It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural Causes."

I know I'm not alone in this but Repo Man was such a strange film to me. It was one of the few on our list of movies to watch that I had never heard of and I was excited to see it. Our discussions in class about these types of films were interesting. This whole idea of 80's movies moving in a different direction of style over substance, where it completely had to do with image and the rest didn't really matter, intrigued me. But when I saw Repo Man I wasn't the least bit intrigued. It wasn't a horrible film but it wasn't a good film either. While interestingly blurring genres (the film has elements of science fiction, comedy, drama, horror, detective, western, and romance) the film was an overall disappointment. I went into it hoping to see another Blade Runner and ended up with another Dude Where's My Car?.

After watching Repo Man a second time I decided that there was absolutely no use in trying to find any hidden meanings or connections. I've come to the conclusion that it is merely a film that celebrates the bizarre, one that tries to entertain us by piling strangeness on top of strangeness. The world that director Alex Cox creates is one without any direction or sense. It begins with a scene where a cop disintegrates after looking into a macguffin of a trunk that apparently is holding four extraterrestrials that look like sausage, and the ridiculousness doesn't stop there. When Otto is sought out and chosen to become a repo man (which is never explained to us why and appears to be due to fate or chance) he is thrust into a world that is even more offbeat than the punk rock, rebellious youth world that we originally find him in. We soon witness a ridiculous, unordinary world that is without consistency and is overtly contradictory, one that rains a hail of ice cubes, contains glowing green cars, and gives lobotomies to people who aren't crazy. At one point early on Bud and Otto are driving and Bud says that he should dress like a detective. Moments later when the camera cuts to two longer shots, the scene goes from daylight to night time and then cuts back to daylight, all during the same conversation. While Bud preaches the moral code of repo men (I couldn't help but think of High Plains Drifter and what Eastwood was doing with moral codes) they snort speed while Bud claims, "Ordinary fuckin' people I hate em."

Repo Man is filled with ridiculous and puzzling characters and settings. All of the characters seem to be in groups and come in and out of the story without any logic or purpose. Characters like Plettschner who isn't introduced but is thrust into the film without warning, Miller who is clearly crazy while he dances and chants like an Indian and says things like "John Wayne was a fag", and Lite whose gun sounds like a futuristic laser pistol when fired, all make up the group that Otto is, at least at first, unwilling to join. Before this we see that Otto's family isn't any more normal as his mother and father sit on the couch smoking a joint, brainwashed by a religious infomercial on their television. The film's settings are equally bizarre. The streets are strangely vacant for being Los Angeles, something I would only guess has to do with production decisions or budget restraints. At one point Otto steals a car from a man inside a laundromat, a place where people casually lay passed out on the ground. The gas station and grocery store are filled with various products that all look the same and are strangely labeled exactly what's inside them. Every box, can, or bottle is almost featureless except for the various labels including "drink", "beer", "food", and "pretzels". This creates a very distinct look and allows the locations to seem as if they are surrounded by collections of words that randomly crash into one another. As it was mentioned in class by professor McRae the 80's were a time of numerous generic goods. I would like to think that the filmmakers are commenting on a particular point in history. But since I refuse to believe that there is really any underlying meaning to this film, I think the filmmakers are simply using the strangeness of this particular image to create something that is in some ways satirical but overall just cool to look at.

The film actually uses music in very interesting ways. Aside from a clever leitmotif of tense, sci-fi horror used during the Chevy Malibu scenes, the filmmakers set up interesting moments where music appears to address different genres and stereotypes. When Otto and Bud first run into the Rodriquez Brothers, the scene quickly turns into a chase sequence where they skid across large puddles of water while surf music is being played. When Otto is first riding in the car with Lite, they eventually turn on music that is clearly satirical as they ride down the rode listening to funk that could have just as easily not been diegetic. But at many points the music just seems strange, adding to this weird and cryptic feeling to which the purpose is unclear (Secret Agent Man in Spanish).



Overall, there’s just way too much to talk about regarding Repo Man. Much like the postmodernist Natural Born Killers, the film is a never ending collage of images that crash and collide, giving film students a lot to look at and potentially analyze. But unlike Oliver Stone’s film, Repo Man doesn’t seem to have a clear message or purpose that would be typical reasons for analysis. One thing that I did enjoy about the film was that Cox was able to successfully create a world that I’ve never seen before. He creates a world where normal activities include shaving people’s heads at work while discussing John Wayne’s sexuality. Where people wear one lens sunglasses at night. Where driving makes everyone more stupid. And where some deaths have no other explanation than that “people just explode”.

"I gots to say na nay no."

Petey Wheatstraw, The Devil’s Son-In-Law… I wish the title were more ridiculous than the film itself but this 1978 movie was one of the weirdest and stupidest films I have ever seen, and I’ve seen some pretty stupid movies. I don’t know how many people went to the library and finished watching the film (I can’t imagine a lot) but yes, the last hour is just as ridiculous, if not more so, than the 30 minutes we saw in class. I wish I could say there was something I really liked about Petey Wheatstraw but I honestly have nothing. For the sake of this blog, I’m going to search for some interesting points and possibly some redeeming value in the film. This should be interesting.

First off, I need to get this out of the way and say that while we were watching Petey Wheatstraw I couldn’t stop thinking about the movie Pootie Tang. Now, I haven’t seen Pootie Tang in a really long time but I remember that it had the same ridiculous and stupid humor as Petey Wheatstraw. Just by watching these clips one can see that it is definitely a film that parodies Petey Wheatstraw and blaxploitation cinema.













The film’s set design and wardrobe is enough to make you laugh and at least stand to watch the film for a little while. The zig-zag patterned carpet in the ambulance and the sequenced outfits were so cheesy. And at the end of the movie when Lucifer’s demons show up in spandex and face paint…oh my god. Not to mention, the film’s racist and sexual content is surprisingly heavy. Towards the end of the film, Petey Wheatstraw has an orgy with like ten other women in a bachelor pad given to him by Lucifer! As professor McRae said, this is definitely a movie we wouldn’t typically see.

Now as much as I really disliked this movie I have to admit that I am interested in this particular genre of films and it’s not because I for some reason have a secret love for over-the-top racist comedy kung-fu movies. I’m interested in these films simply because it is a type of film and being a film major, I feel like I can learn just as much from watching really good movies as I can from watching really bad ones. Not only that though, I think that there is more to Petey Wheatstraw than the poor acting, horrible editing, cheesy cinematography, and stupid stereotypical characters. (By the way I don’t plan on having many people agree with me, and I can truthfully understand why)

What interests me about Petey Wheatstraw and blaxploitation cinema is not necessarily the film itself but rather why the film was made the way it was and what that says about a particular group of people at a specific point in time. No matter how ridiculous a movie is, there has to be some reason for someone to ever want to make it and most times one can find underlying themes or messages. If anything, we can look at Petey Wheatstraw as being a part of film history, specifically African American film. Without these films we probably wouldn’t have seen talented filmmakers like Spike Lee making wonderful and poignant films like Do The Right Thing.

Also, there has to be something about Petey Wheatstraw that has made it stand the test of time. I mean come on we’re sitting in an American Film class watching the movie. Now I’m not going to claim that Petey Wheatstraw is in any way a great piece of cinema. It is technically and creatively a joke. But maybe the filmmakers had to resort to shock value and ridiculous moments in order to get people to actually think about African American lifestyles and issues. If anything I think every once in a while we need films like this to make sure that we aren’t taking everything so seriously. Or at least remind us aspiring filmmakers that we actually have a shot.

Long Live Clint Eastwood

Ok, back when we watched Stagecoach I wasn’t a big fan of westerns. John Wayne just for some reason wasn’t doing it for me. But after watching High Plains Drifter and seeing Clint Eastwood completely transform the way we think of westerns and heroes of the frontier, I have to say that I am not only entertained but compelled by this genre of film.

Before the film began, some of the concepts regarding revisionist westerns both in cinema and overall ideology were brought to our attention. As professor McRae was giving us this information, I found it interesting because earlier that same day in my Cormac McCarthy class professor Parsons was talking about the same ideas relating to McCarthy’s novel Blood Meridian. Not only were the ideas similar but I quickly found that the imagery of the film matched the imagery of the novel. I had my book down on my desk when the opening image of High Plains Drifter came on and was shocked to see that the cover of Blood Meridian was so similar it could have been taken from that screenshot (the horizontal lines of the sky along with the rocky ground on the bottom).

From that point on, I was fascinated by this connection not only between the two classes but between both the novel Blood Meridian and the film High Plains Drifter. Blood Meridian is a western novel that takes place in the mid 1800’s. The story is about a group of men (mixed races but mostly white) that travel across the country scalping both Indians and Mexicans, destroying towns as they go. As Barcley Owens claims, Blood Meridian can be read as in some sense a reaction to the Vietnam War, a time that divides history, making people aware that the heroism of the frontier was a myth. This subject is exactly what High Plains Drifter deals with. In a much less violent and bloody way (I’m actually now interested in seeing Soldier Blue because that seems a lot like Meridian), Clint Eastwood’s character The Stranger is perfectly representative of the members of Glanton’s gang in Blood Meridian. The first scene of High Plains Drifter, we see The Stranger enter a town, eventually killing men and raping a woman. This is almost exactly what happens throughout Blood Meridian and clearly reflects what people were seeing in their own lives. Vietnam allowed people to see the brutal and inhuman actions of American soldiers, leading people to believe that the nationalism and heroism was always only a myth. Blood Meridian and High Plains Drifter are also interestingly connected by their protagonists. They both share an ambiguity about them, clearly represented in the names that each character has. The Stranger is the main character in High Plains Drifter while The Kid is the main character of Blood Meridian.

Moving away from Blood Meridian, we can specifically look at High Plains Drifter for its connections to the Vietnam War and how these connections clashed with John Wayne’s interpretation of the west. Like I said before, when we watched Stagecoach, I didn’t like John Wayne. There was something about him that just screamed fake to me. Not only that, I didn’t find Wayne likeable. I actually found Clint Eastwood’s character more appealing because he seemed like a “real” and original character. There was something about the way Clint Eastwood looked in that movie that screamed not “fake” but “badass”.

I couldn’t believe how much control he had over the townspeople. One of the most memorable scenes of the film for me was when he had the townspeople pain all of their buildings red as he changes their sign from “Lago” to “Hell”. The fact that the film’s setting is renamed “Hell” could very well be connected to our new perception of what American conquest actually is as a result of us being in the Vietnam War. Rather than us seeing a classic and nostalgic western setting that we would see in a John Wayne film, we are seeing a corrupt and “evil” town. When The Stranger first steps into Lago, one could see this as Eastwood’s interpretation of Americans entering Vietnam, eventually killing innocent people and “painting the towns red”.

I really enjoyed what Eastwood did with the western film genre in High Plains Drifter. It is such a huge change from the corny, unrealistic, and frankly false image of the western that John Wayne represented. I recently saw Gran Torino in theatres and I wish I had seen these films and had this discussion before watching it. I can now see that Eastwood has continued to push the way we see the western genre and the classic western hero. He makes as big of a leap with Gran Torino as he did with High Plains Drifter by placing this classic idea and iconic character in a contemporary rural setting which deals with gang violence.

One thing that I really admire about Clint Eastwood is his ability to still be able to make these films even though he is pushing 80 years old. In the article it mentioned that as John Wayne got older, he was no longer able to fulfill his role. John Wayne’s image and iconic character began to suffer and die out with age. Clint Eastwood, now 78, hasn’t lost his edge as he points rifles at kids saying in that everlasting raspy voice, “Get off my lawn.”

"Why don't you pass the time with a game of solitaire?"

The Manchurian Candidate was definitely not what I was expecting. It was without a doubt the most twisted and original story that we've seen this semester. Although some of the other films were out there (White Zombie) this satire was filled with moments that were completely ridiculous as well as heartbreaking. This is a perfect example of a film that was without a doubt ahead of its time. I found myself not being able to concentrate on the technical aspects of the film simply because I was trying to follow the story. The story is surely what makes this film so engaging and a huge reason why it is considered a classic. With it's incredible performances, interesting undertones regarding communism, momism, and behaviorism, and overall engaging plot, The Manchurian Candidate is yet another one of my favorites this semester.

I just wanted to get one thing out of the way before I focus on the main points of my blog. The first thing I noticed about the film was the fact that it was black and white. I wasn't sure why this film was shot in black and white seeing as how color had clearly been established and used by the sixties and this I'm sure was a very huge film at the time. I know that certain films use this technique to create a particular mood or reinforce their message and maybe that's what the filmmakers were trying to do. I'm not certain but my guess would be that it was a stylistic decision that made the movie seem more like it was part of the times, a technique that is used successfully in very few other films (Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove).

With that note aside, I really wanted to focus on the story. Wow! Talk about a movie with so many twists and turns. The sheer number of exciting and memorable moments in this film is somewhat overwhelming. Not to mention, for how serious and sad it was at points, this movie was hilarious. One of my favorite moments of the film was when Raymond's mother, in an attempt to make things easier for her husband to carry out her demands, tells him that there are 57 Americans that have been found to be communist, a number which is triggered by his use of Heinz ketchup (57 varieties) in the scene. I actually found it difficult to distinguish what humor was intended and what we found funny simply because it is nearly 50 years later. Scenes like the karate fight were so over the top I couldn't help but crack up. Even the scene where Raymond kills his new wife and her senator father, although shocking, was somewhat humorous (I mean come on, I heard people laugh when Raymond shot the senator through the milk carton). Once again, I don't know if these particular scenes would've seemed funny back then but they are rather humorous today.

Although some of the more intense scenes could be looked at as being comical, I was surprised at the amount of violence that was in the film. The number of times people were shot in the head (particularly the exaggerated and bloody death of soldier Bobby Lembeck) was shocking. I know before we began watching it was mentioned in class that the film was fairly controversial after the assassination of JFK a year later. But this film had to have been controversial when it came out.

Another thing that really surprised me was the performances, particularly Frank Sinatra's. I can honestly say that he was very very good in this film and I went into it expecting the opposite. I'd never seen any of his films before. I actually don't think I was aware that he acted at all. But his performance was a delightful surprise.

Aside from the wonderful humor and incredible performances, there are so many memorable moments in The Manchurian Candidate. One of my favorite scenes in the entire film was the main “brainwashing” scene where all of the captured American soldiers are being controlled and programmed by the communist leaders. The most interesting part of this scene is how the filmmakers showed the soldiers being brainwashed into thinking that they are sitting in front of a bunch of old women while in reality they are actually being discussed and studied by the military. The scene is perfectly edited, cutting these two completely opposite situations together, forcing us to see things in a particular way much like the communist leaders are doing in the film.

What I found most interesting in the article Kiss Me Deadly: Communism, Motherhood, and Cold War Movies was the section on momism and its relationship to communism in during the Cold War. Before discussing about Philip Wylie, Rogin states that during the Cold War, Truman and his supporters claimed that the communist party "was a secret, international conspiracy to overthrow American government… and its members committed espionage." This idea is what The Manchurian Candidate centers on, with the communist government targeting Raymond and his men to brainwash in order to carry out their wishes.

Along with the brainwashing that is done to the American soldiers in the film, a similar type of brainwashing is done by Raymond's mother to Senator John Iselin. If there is one character that I hated in the film it had to have been Mrs. Iselin. Her character perfectly reflects the ideas that Wylie expressed with his theory of momism.    

According to Iselin, mom "was a self-righteous, sexually repressed, middle-aged woman" that "got men to worship her and spend money on her instead." Mrs. Iselin's dominant and manipulative behavior in The Manchurian Candidate is exactly this type of figure. Many of the films that we have seen so far this semester have discussed, although not always obviously, the role of women in society. The relationship between Mrs. Iselin and Senator Iselin reminded me of Jim's parents' relationship in Rebel Without A Cause. The wife called the shots, at some points even humiliating the husband. Unlike Rebel, there is without a doubt sexual tension between Mrs. Iselin and her son. Rogin mentions the scene in which Raymond's mother passionately kisses her son before the final scene of the film. When I first saw this I felt so uncomfortable, swearing that there was something strange behind Mrs. Iselin's actions.

The question was raised in class if this film was serious or satirical. I think it’s a little bit of both, but I can’t help but lean towards the satirical. There are moments that make this a very serious story such as the killing of numerous people and the tragic death of Raymond Shaw. But everything that happens in this film is so over the top and there are so many quirky moments that take us away from the seriousness and make us feel like we are watching something completely ridiculous. The main reason why I would lean more towards satire is that, while watching the film, I felt the story could have been told in a very serious way but the world was filled with characters and situations that just seemed off. I think that much of this comes from the amount of humor and exaggeration. Every moment where Raymond is led astray due to the queen of diamonds trigger makes us laugh because we know exactly what he’s going through and no one else does. Moments such as when Raymond walks into a lake and when he suddenly marries his ex-lover simply because she was wearing a queen of diamonds costume makes us laugh and allows us to recognize the over the top satire of this potentially serious story.

The Genius of Orson Welles

Being probably the only film student that hasn’t seen Citizen Kane, I was completely surprised and blown away by Orson Welles’ Touch Of Evil. The story itself is incredibly well written with some of the most interesting characters we’ve seen this semester. But what I took away from the movie was Orson Welles’ unconventional style that many have said was way ahead of his time. Now I had heard many things about this film before watching it in class including the film’s impressive opening shot. This is a really interesting place to begin looking at this film because we’re able to look at Welles’ talented cinematography and how the camera is not used to simply record the action rather it is meant to be a part of the action as well.

So let’s start with the cinematography. While watching Touch Of Evil the first time through I asked myself, “How many days did they have access to a crane on set!?” Most films don’t have the luxury in their budget to afford many crane shots unless it is completely necessary or vital to the film’s presentation or plot. In Touch Of Evil it seems like Welles took full advantage of not just a moving camera but the most complex, obvious, and most expensive ways to show that movement. This dynamic movement is never more apparent than in the iconic first shot of the film that everyone seems to be fascinated by.

The film begins with a close-up on a bomb that is being placed into a car. Immediately after this is shown, the camera tracks and eventually moves upward, our perspective climbing until we are level with the rooftops. The camera continues to track along the tops of buildings as we see the car that has just been planted with the explosive drive down the street in the distance. After showing this, Welles introduces us to two of the films main characters, Mike and Susie Vargas. One thing that the filmmakers establish right away with this shot is in many ways a theme of the film. Orson Welles uses his unconventional camera movement to express this idea of connectivity that we have with one another even though we are frequently unaware of this connection.

Overall the film is just incredible to look at. He does so much not only with movement but also with framing. I’ll be honest, watching that motel “rape” scene made me feel so uncomfortable and claustrophobic simply because of how tightly framed the shots were. It was just very violently intimate and disturbing to me. I read a review that Roger Ebert did of the film. I thought it was interesting because Ebert claimed that when first watching the film you must set aside the plot that is so confusing at times and just admire what is on the screen.

Now that I’ve addressed the technical aspects of the film, I want to get into some of the things that really interested and in some ways shocked me about the film. The story, like I said before is genius. I’m really surprised how engaging films like this and Double Indemnity are. I guess I always thought that I would be able to appreciate older films but never actually love them. But these movies are proving this belief wrong. I’m finding that what I recognize and love most about films are the characters. And characters, if done well, are both iconic and timeless (just look at Mike Vargas and Hank Quinlan).

I found Luz Calvo’s article to be particularly interesting. I’m actually getting kind of sick of people applying Freudian theory to their film analyses but I did find some of the things very relevant and similar to other films we’ve discussed this semester. One thing about Touch Of Evil that I actually really like is that although it clearly addresses social issues, the film isn’t consumed by these ideas. It’s strange. I think that it has something to do with the idea of seamlessness that I brought up in Singin’ In The Rain and classical Hollywood cinema. It’s like Welles is such a great filmmaker that he can seamlessly create a story that has so much underlying meaning but is also so entertaining that the film holds up without these hidden messages. I don’t know if we can really say the same for White Zombie.

Calvo mentions that the film addresses issues of colonialism and claims that the motel scene is a metaphor for this. I completely agree. This idea has come up in films like Stagecoach and White Zombie and I think it is particularly relevant here. Welles is also doing interesting things with stereotypes considering the fact that the people who are made out to be the villains (Mexican gang) don’t actually do as horrible things as we initially believe and are eventually double crossed by the true evil of the film, Detective Quinlan. In this way, Quinlan is much like Legendre in White Zombie. It seems now that the whole “corrupt cop” thing is becoming cliché and somewhat stereotypical. I wonder if that was the case back then or if it’s something new.



Although I think that overall the story is flawless, there were some strange things that I couldn’t help but be puzzled by. First off, I didn’t like that Charlton Heston was playing a Mexican. I read somewhere that Heston believable pulls off this role without seeming exaggerated or fake. I couldn’t disagree more. Are you telling me he couldn’t have changed his voice just a little bit in order to make his character seem a little more believable? I’m sorry but although the moustache was clever for a little while, I couldn’t honestly buy the fact that Charlton Heston was actually Mexican.


Also, what was up with the butch woman that showed up for 20 seconds of the film? I didn’t understand why she was there, and actually didn’t even know that it was a woman until looking at the reading.

One thing that didn’t necessarily bother me but certainly struck me was how much the motel scene reminded me of Psycho. Hitchcock made Psycho two years later and he seems to have taken a lot of what was in this film and put it in his own. Janet Leigh is in both films, the locations look very similar (or at least have a similar feel), and I think there are also some weird parallels between the night manager and Norman Bates.

Overall, I felt like this film was very interesting and extremely well crafted. It’s amazing how a filmmaker can address particular issues, stereotypes, and tensions and yet somewhat conceal these themes by creating a movie that is visually stunning as well. If there is one film that we’ve watched this film that I really admire for craft and style, it’s this film. I feel like I’ve been introduced to a genius filmmaker who I should’ve been aware of a long time ago.

Mr. Dadier is My Hero

A while back I saw a film that I would guess many people haven’t seen mainly because it wasn’t very popular and it was absolutely horrible. The movie was High School High, a comedy that stars John Lovitz and Tia Carrera (Cassandra in Wayne’s World) about a man that begins teaching at an inner-city school. The reason why I mention this movie is because there are two scenes in the film that directly parody both Rebel Without a Cause and Blackboard Jungle. The film contains a scene where Jon Lovitz plays “chicken” with a few rebellious students as well as a scene where Tia Carrera’s character is sexually attacked by a student only to have Jon Lovitz who, as the scene progresses, accidentally removes more clothes from her than the student. Although I couldn’t help but think about this terrible piece of cinema while watching these two pictures, it didn’t affect my viewing or opinion that both Rebel Without A Cause and Blackboard Jungle were wonderful films.
With that irrelevant information being said, I loved Blackboard Jungle. I know that I say this every week but this is one of my favorite films that we’ve watched this semester. I may just be a sucker for this type of story. I love the idea of characters being pushed and their potential finally being recognized and brought out by a particular person. I could really see why this film was groundbreaking. I know someone stated this in class, but I was really surprised that the filmmakers were bold enough to create a film like this in the 1950’s, one that addresses the issues of race and rebelliousness that was so apparent at that time. While watching the film, I had a similar reaction to Sidney Poitier as I did to James Dean. It made me want to see more of his movies simply because he was so powerful, his voice demanding as much attention as his physical presence. Another character that I really loved in the film that many people really didn’t was the teacher, Mr. Dadier.
Glenn Ford’s portrayal of Richard Dadier to me was absolutely brilliant, and despite what many people stated in class, I found his character to be genuine, caring, and selfless. I think in order for us to really connect with this character and not just judge him based on his flaws we must understand that he isn’t the perfect hero. Mr. Dadier has flaws just like anyone else and I think that it’s a little too much to ask our hero to be completely perfect. One point that I really didn’t agree with was that Richard Dadier was secretly a racist and that his “good guy” persona that he had while teaching was all just an act. It was cited in class that the moment where he says to Miller, “you black…” was the moment where his true colors began to show and that he was actually quite a bad person. I think that this moment shows that he is human and makes the statement that this type of thing happens to all of us. No matter how good we are, we all slip at times, but that doesn’t mean that we are secretly a horrible racist person. And the fact that he immediately catches himself, is astonished by his reaction, and apologizes for what he said says a lot about his character, for it takes a truly understanding and non-racist person to take back that comment in the 1950’s.
Another point that was made was that Glenn Ford’s character was sexist and was very flirtatious with the new teacher at the school. Alright, part of this I would agree with. I was a little shocked when he gave his pregnant wife wine while saying, “The wine is for the wife.” But aside from this, I thought that he was a caring husband who never intended to hurt his wife in any way. Also, once again, this is the 1950’s. Some of his behavior, although appearing a little bit sexist or degrading now, was probably normal in that time period.
Finally, it was mentioned in class that he was physically violent towards Artie West, slamming him up against the blackboard. Yes this particular action was a little bit inappropriate and over the top, but I didn’t think that it showed anything more than how frustrated he was. After disarming West and slamming him into the board, Dadier, whose face is almost in tears, repeatedly hits him up against it. I realize that this probably wasn’t the right thing to do, but once again, he is flawed just like all of us and his frustration for this particular type of rebellious youth finally comes out. But with all this being said, I feel like Dadier is a positive and moral character that tries to help these students no matter how hard they make it for him.
I think another issue is that Glenn Ford’s appearance isn’t exactly the most appealing and not what we think of as being our typical perfect hero. He doesn’t have that same type of presence that Gregory Peck does as Atticus in To Kill A Mocking Bird or even Sidney Poitier does as Miller. A presence that seems to radiate off the screen letting us know that everything they do will be positive and for the greater good. Rather Ford’s character is somewhat rough around the edges and isn’t always prepared to do what is politically correct. But this doesn’t mean he is a bad, uncaring, or racist person. He is just a flawed hero that still serves his purpose by continually going back and selflessly trying to improve the lives of others.

"You've gotta do something. Don't you?"

    Man, I’m really enjoying the films we’re watching in this class! Rebel Without A Cause is yet another film that I have heard so much about and I know I should’ve seen before this point but I’ve just never gotten the chance. This one is up there for one of my favorites we’ve watched this semester. Every single film we’ve watched thus far has made me feel like I’m watching “important” cinema. It’s really exciting because I’ve never seen this many old films that really seem to be groundbreaking for their time and have thus become classics. Rebel Without A Cause, probably more so than any other film, clearly comments on American society including families, parent/child relationships and rebellious youths. 

     Before I get into the cultural significance of the film, I just want to say a couple things that I really really liked. First off, the movie looked really nice. I know that it resembled many older films but I found myself really liking all of the washed out colors. All of the browns, grays, dull greens and unsaturated blues really gave the film a vintage look and I loved how it contrasted with the Jim Stark’s bright red jacket.

       Speaking of Jim Stark, I really liked James Dean in this film. Dean is someone that of course everyone’s heard of and so many people loved. But I’ve always wrinkled my nose at the thought of him. I don’t think it has to do with jealousy. I really could care less that he received so much fame and all the ladies loved him and he is considered iconic and perfectly symbolizes coolness and rebelliousness. It has nothing to do with that. I think that sometimes when we hear so many positive things about someone or something, for whatever reason, we feel like we need to go against the grain and take the opposite stance. But, despite some overacting (“You’re tearing me apart!!!”), I thought Dean was very good in this. Watching this movie made me want to see his other films (which sadly is very few).

      The last thing that I want to mention is that I really loved the story. I love films that take place over the course of such a small amount such as one day or a couple of days. I don’t know what it is. I think I just like the idea of something so important or significant happening in such a short amount of time. It just seems powerful.            

      As I mentioned up top, this movie clearly comments on American families and the perception people had on rebellious youths during the 1950’s. The first thing that struck me as being odd was in the beginning when the cops were talking to Plato. They said that he was "shooting puppies." Shooting puppies!? I don't understand, I can't picture this. It seems really creepy. But then again Sal Mineo's character bugged me throughout the entire film. He was just so strange that I couldn't connect to his character. Like was he really that scared of lights that he had to hysterically run out in front of the cops with a gun in his hand?

        Much of the problems and arguments that occur between parents and their children throughout the film are due to their disconnect. The parents really don't seem to understand the kids and the kids really don't seem to understand. In the article, Cohen says, "Always however, adults attempted to exert much control- physical, spiritual, intellectual, moral, educational- as was their right and duty." This is made obvious n the film by the fact that the parents (especially the mother ) always want to move whenever Jim has problems. They use it as an excuse to start over but never actually talk to Jim before they make their decisions. Another part that I thought was interesting was when Jim leaves his home in the morning and his father's concern is made apparent. The father says to Jim as he walks away, "Listen, watch out about choosing your pals. Don't let them choose you." When I first heard this I felt like it was something that a parent would say to a little kid, not their son in his late teens. I guess it shows how scared parents actually were for their kids and the tight hold they tried to have on them.   

       I absolutely hated the mother. Every time she said "That's a fine way to behave" or "That's a fine thing" I wanted to punch her in the face. Now that I think about it I also hated the father. They just seemed entirely into themselves, not caring at all about their son and what he is going through. In the scene where Jim wants to go to the police and tell them about Buzz’s death, I couldn’t believe the parents’ reactions. First off, you know there’s something wrong with the mother when she enters the scene saying, “I was going to take a sleeping pill but I wouldn’t until I knew you were home.” And I couldn’t believe how big of a baby the father was in this scene. I mean, come one he’s the man of the house and all he does is sit behind Jim and put his hands over his head. Concerning the father character, I really don't think I've ever seen a father/son relationship portrayed in this way. It was such a unique take on it where the son was so dominant and the father was so weak. 

    One of my favorite parts of the film was when Buzz takes Jim aside before the "chickie run" and says that he likes him. When Jim asks him why they continue to do this, Buzz says, "Well you've gotta do something. Don't you?" This is such a great line. I feel like it perfectly expresses how the rebellious youths most of the time were just searching for something do and searching to find their place in the world. 

        Another thing that I thought was really cool in this movie was the mansion.  As I was reading the article I thought it was interesting when Cohen referenced Elaine May's comment about the importance of  the household in the 1950's. May says, "The most tangible symbol of that [postwar American] dream was the home- the locale of the good life, the evidence of democratic abundance." It was interesting that most of this film didn't take place in the home and whenever it did there was nothing but arguments and confrontations. The only place where we see all of the kids truly happy is when they first enter the empty mansion. I thought this was a clever take on the role of the "home" implying that without the parents even a rundown old mansion is better than their perfect little houses where everything is provided for them.  

     Overall there is way too much to say about this film. I really enjoyed the movie and much like the other ones we've watched this semester I've made a conscious effort to go back and view it multiple times afterwards. I find that this not only helps me catch things I didn't the first time around but I also find myself appreciating them more. Rebel Without A Cause, in particular, was a really fun movie to watch because I felt like I was learning about and witnessing a part of both film history as well as American history.

                             

I'm Dancin' and Singin' In The Rain: Analysis of a Scene

When I was little my parents showed me the infamous scene in Singin’ In The Rain where Gene Kelly, in a moment of genuine happiness, dances and sings on the side of a street in the pouring rain. Although I can’t remember what age I was when I first witnessed this classic moment in cinema, I do know that I was young enough to not understand what exactly was happening in the movie, who the person was on screen, or the impact the film would eventually have on me. However, I was aware of one thing and perhaps the thing that matters the most. I was able to recognize that for whatever reason, this moment did not only show the simple joys of life but also was extremely important to the subject that I would later have passion for and devote my studies to.
After watching this film in high school and then again in this class, I’ve decided to analyze this particular scene for no other reason than that I love it so much. I know it’s the cliché scene to love and is the most recognizable and famous scene in the film but I think that this is the case for a reason. After studying what goes into making a film, I really want to figure out what exactly it was that the filmmakers were trying to do with this scene. While analyzing these technical aspects I hope to discover what it is that makes the scene so memorable and inspirational for so many people including myself.
The camera work in the scene is both simplistic and formulaic. Because there is such a close tie between camera speed, movement, and angle and the music, the scene flows fluidly and flawlessly. The shots that the filmmakers used are relatively simple yet carefully chosen and composed. The scene follows a relatively easy-to-follow formula. Throughout the entire scene, the camera remains fluid, never stationary, as it continues to follow the action. We begin with wide shots (often long and medium) that track the subject. These shots later dolly in and form close-ups. Once the close-up is established, the camera waits roughly one measure of the song and then cuts back out to another wide shot from a different angle. This camera motion is repeated throughout the scene, and never fully breaks away from the pattern. The simplicity of the shots (wide shot, dolly in to close-up, and then cut back to wide) perfectly reflects the simple joy of Don Lockwood’s experience. There is no complex, deeper meaning behind his actions. The perfect moment in Don’s life is also mirrored by the flawlessness of the editing and the camera movement.
The scene is roughly five minutes long and in that time nine cuts are made. Not only does this say a lot about the importance of Gene Kelly’s performance but it also says a lot about the filmmaker’s technique and priorities. Once again, the cutting of the camera from one shot to the next follows a pattern that perfectly corresponds with the music being played. The cuts are made whenever the song switches measures. This hides the edit, making the scene appear to run constant and flawless.
Aside from the camera work and the editing, a lot was put into this scene in order to create this flawless and memorable moment. The blocking of not only Kelly but also other actors that temporarily run in and out of the frame is extremely important to both the visual composition and the flow of the scene. Although we are meant to believe that this is a “spur of the moment” action, everything in the scene (including what was mentioned above) was carefully planned. Not only are Gene Kelly’s movements and footsteps perfectly synchronized with the beat of the song, but so is everyone else’s. A man quickly passes by, refusing to acknowledge Don. A couple holds a newspaper over their heads as they elegantly turn, wondering why Don is so happy in the middle of a storm. A police officer stops him. A man without an umbrella receives one from Don at the end of the scene. All of these people’s movements perfectly flow to the beat of the song much like the movements of the main character. Although the actions appear rehearsed, they are overlooked by the audience because everything, for whatever reason, seems to fit just right.

Of course, these technical elements would most likely not be recognized by normal film viewers let alone young kids (like me when I first experienced this scene). Although all of these techniques that the filmmakers used subconsciously lead audiences to feel the beauty and poignancy of the moment, there is something else that people recognize. This “something else” is much more on the surface and is the main reason why I was able to connect to it at such a young age. This, I believe is in the iconic and everlasting performance of Gene Kelly. In order to make this scene successful and force audiences to feel half of what the character is feeling, the performance had to be both believable and genuine. And although after all this analysis I see what it is the filmmakers were trying to do, I recognize that the camera, by itself, was not able to show the happiness and beauty that was so perfectly expressed in Gene Kelly’s performance.

"A Shimmering, Glowing Star in the Cinema Firmament."

On the surface, Singin’ In The Rain may seem like it could be incredibly cheesy. The fact that it’s a 1950’s musical alone could put some people off immediately. But this film is without a doubt a classic. There is something to be said about a film that is still so hilarious and relevant even after half a century. The film’s hilarious satire is only matched by its entertaining story and impressive performances.
I’ve seen this film three or four times now and it keeps getting better each time I watch it. I really feel like Singin’ In The Rain is one of those movies that grows on you even though it is so wonderful the first time you experience it. The first thing that struck me while watching this film again was the amazing performances. Yes, this is probably the thing people notice the first time watching, but I still couldn’t believe how amazing the actors and actresses were. Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor were so impressive. I can’t imagine people moving like that in contemporary films (this is probably the reason why so few films like this are made nowadays). But even more than that, I thought that their acting was superb. One person that I felt did an amazing job, and who many people cited as being their least favorite, was Jean Hagen as Lina Lamont. I would assume that she was putting on that voice which in itself is impressive. But not only that, Hagen made the character’s stupidity believable, putting aside her ego for the sake of the film. I thought she was strangely lovable. Her naïve attitude and her skewed sense of reality, made her seem innocent even though she was portrayed as the villain.

I will always maintain that the scene in which Gene Kelly sings in the rain is my favorite scene of the film. There’s something so lovable and deeply personal (at least for me) about this moment. I don’t know. I guess it just makes me happy. I’m all for movies not being corny and I often enjoy seeing films that portray the more “realistic” and often pessimistic aspects of life. But sometimes I just want a film that I can fall in love with because it makes me happy to be alive. And that, for me, is what that moment is all about.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film, and what creates a deeper meaning to the story, is the satirical undertones. The film frequently makes fun of the films of the 1920’s and 30’s and often points out the ridiculousness of the star system. I loved the fact that the film poked fun at Hollywood and the way we worship celebrities. The star system is never more clearly satirized then in the beginning of the film when Lina and Don address the fans outside the theatre. The obsessed crowd’s actions are completely ridiculous. One woman even faints after Don blows her a kiss. Don and Lina really echoed modern day star couples and reminded me so much of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.
But this idea that Singin’ In The Rain addresses the reality and the artificialness of films is what really intrigues me. When we talked in class about the film “never breaking the fourth wall” by revealing a crew filming the movie itself, I couldn’t help but wonder why. And the reason I’ve come up with is that no matter what Singin’ In The Rain is still a movie and although it satirizes the film industry and the way movies are produced it will always remain a product of that system. I couldn’t help but think that no matter how close the film gets to addressing the artificialness of filmmaking and in some ways becoming more “real” than other pictures, it will always be an artificial piece that could never be fully realized by the audience. No film (not even documentaries) can break that wall because audiences can never fully realize what goes into making a movie. By simply watching the film we would never know that there was milk put into the rain. We would never know that Gene Kelly was sick during his performance. And we would never know that Jean Hagen actually had quite a good voice and sometimes even dubbed over Debbie Reynolds singing.


It’s quite easy to see why Singin’ In the Rain has come to be known as a classic. Great acting, interesting story, impressive dancing and singing, and spot on cinematography are some of the many reasons why I have grown to love this film. It will always be one of my favorites and I’m sure the more I watch it, the more I will grow to love both the story and the unforgettable performances.

The Perfection of Double Indemnity

I heard something today that really opened my eyes and made me wonder about film appreciation and film criticism. In my Film And Special Effects course, professor Ferraro stated that when he taught a film history class, all of the students would repeatedly ask in droning voices, "Is this gonna be in black and white again?" This issue has puzzled me for quite some time. What is it about many contemporary audiences that makes them believe that just because a film is in black and white, or just because a film was made in the earlier days of cinema that that ultimately means that the film represents everything that is old, slow-paced, dry, corny, and unentertaining? Professor Ferraro's disgust and response to this behavior was what really made me want to get past my fears (yes, I too realize that I can have these beliefs from time to time) and watch any film for what it is actually worth. Ferraro said that when he watches a film, he tries to not only engage himself and be entertained by the story line, but he also tries to learn something. Every film, no matter when it was made, reflects the cultural aspects of a particular time and place. Ferraro stated, "I like to see why a film was set up a particular way, what particular styles, designs, and objects were common at those times, and overall, I wonder why this information was chosen by the filmmakers to be portrayed in the form of motion pictures." Ferraro went on to state in regards to the acting of older films, "Those actors aren't acting for you! They're acting for their own time. And anyone that cannot attempt to see a film for it's worth in regards to the time period it was produced, then they just don't get it." Ferraro's statement made me immediately think of Double Indemnity, a gem of not only early American cinema but also of films as a whole.

I really enjoyed Double Indemnity. Like I was taken aback by how good the movie actually was. Here was a film that was made in the early 1940's, black and white, relatively slower-paced, and yet it intrigues and engages contemporary audiences, making them feel as though they aren't watching a film that is over 60 years old. The movie to me just seemed perfect. I'm not one to not seek out the flaws of a particular picture, and I honestly couldn't find anything wrong with Double Indemnity. Everything from the engaging story line, to the entertaining and memorable performances, to the interesting techniques that the filmmakers used to give it that classic film noir look, made Double Indemnity a treat to experience. It is so infrequent that an older film comes along and makes me think to myself, "Wow. If this movie came out today, it would be just as entertaining, engaging, and well made as any of the best films of the year." Very few movies, in my opinion break away and refuse to be restricted by their times and become motion picture classics, but Double Indemnity is without a doubt one of these cases.

The film's story line is what really intrigued me. Right from the start, when Walter Neff is first shown driving hysterically down the street and then shown getting out, revealing that he is injured, I felt like I was seeing something groundbreaking for its time. The way that the film immediately plunges us into the story and forces us to know bits of information before the real story begins was very successful. I couldn't help but think that many of the non-linear story lines of contemporary cinema had to have been influenced by movies such as this. Although I stated above that the film was relatively slower-paced in terms of external action, I really don't think there was a dull moment of the movie. This was to me a perfect example of a movie without any "fat" on it. Every scene and every line of dialogue contributed to and built up the film's suspense. After watching the film I couldn't help but think that the story was simply a great idea. Walter Neff (whom I now consider to be one of the most interesting heroes I've ever seen in a movie) drove the internal and external action of the plot. The actor's voice, which reminded me so much of the Humphrey Bogart-like characters of these types of films, was, for lack of a better word, perfect. His dark and gritty, yet suave and clever tone made me honestly want that man's voice. I'm sorry but I couldn't get the way he continued to say "baby" out of my head. It was both hilarious and interesting at the same time. I've never heard of Fred MacMurray before watching this and it really made me want to see more films of his. It's things like that that really make me realize how much I truly loved Double Indemnity. I never watch older films and am like, "Man I really want to see what else that actor has done."

In regards to the look of the film, the word "perfect" keeps coming to mind. Double Indemnity was so good that the black and white film seemed like it was strictly a stylistic choice rather than a necessity. The lighting of the film was worth noting as well. Talk about strong parallels to German Expressionist films such as Caligari and Nosferatu. The areas of light and shadow seemed to not only make individual frames interesting but also created an overall mood of the film, something that seemed to fit just right. Nearly every scene contained the shadows of blinds, as they projected thick black lines across the bodies of the characters. This, as stated in the reading, perfectly symbolized the ultimate fate of the main protagonist. A group of scenes that stand out to me are the scenes in the grocery store. I loved the repeated use of the same location. To me, it not only made the audience connect to the environment and realize what the nature of the particular scene was before it played out, but it also contributed to the very surreal world that the filmmakers created. There was something weird going on with the universal-ness of the store and yet the strangeness of both the mise en scene and the composition of the camera angles.

I watched a behind the scenes feature of Christopher Nolan's film Memento where the director made a point of addressing Double Indemnity. After seeing Double Indemnity I couldn't help but see the connections between the films in both style and content. Both films had similarly flawed protagonists and were relatively the same in their stories and outcomes. Nolan stated that he went for a similar look for his film as that of Double Indemnity. Nolan particularly addressed the fact that Double Indemnity focused on and built up that look of an everyday setting. There was nothing about it that made it seem restricted to a particular time or place. While watching the movie, you feel as though this could happen anywhere and at any time.

To me, Double Indemnity was a treat to watch. It wasn't just something that I was greatly entertained by. I also greatly appreciated the picture. In many ways it impacted and inspired me, teaching me how truly "perfect" a film can be in both style and story line. I can honestly say the Double Indemnity is one of my favorite films that I've watched since coming to school. I am genuinely thankful for being given the opportunity to see this classic.