The Ratings Are In and...

This semester, we watched 12 very different films. Ranging from Film Noir to Westerns to Foreign films, we were exposed to a wide array of cinema. As a whole, I enjoyed each movie we watched. Each was unique in its own way and I was able to enhance my understanding of film through each.  A few of the films I had seen before, but I enjoyed them just the same and since we discussed the movie at length, I was able to come away knowing more about it and appreciating it even more. I enjoyed this class very much, and I feel more confident now when I call myself a cinephile. With this in mind, here are my ratings for the 12 films:

      1. The Vanishing (Spoorloos) – Thought provoking and had a highly realistic feel. This film had a powerful ending that left an indelible lasting impression.

      2. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly – Quintessential Clint Eastwood western. An enduring film with many iconic scenes.

3. Detour – Intriguing plot kept me hanging on until the end. Great cinematography. 

        4. Sherlock Jr. – Humorous and largely entertaining. I always enjoy a good Buster Keaton flick.

5. O Brother Where Art Thou? – Great satire with memorable soundtrack. Casting and acting were excellent.

6. End of Watch – Great use of creative cinematic style. Provided a more realistic image of life as a cop.

7. Awaara – Great story, despite the lack of originality. Singing and dancing seemed out of place, but still a great example of a successful foreign film.

8. My Own Private Idaho –This movie felt like a real adventure. Great use of symbolism. The psychedelic nature made this film stand out.

           
9. Killer of Sheep –Bordered the line of boring. Did not help that it was in B&W. Cinematography was good.

                      

 10. Moonrise Kingdom – Good plot and excellent use of stylization. I felt overwhelmed by the heavy stylization.

11. Wendy and Lucy – Good acting, it seemed real, but there wasn’t much of a story. I also think it was too discouraging.

12. Freaks – Disappointing story, unusual cast of characters, and it made me feel uncomfortable.

End of Watch

End of Watch was chalked full of interesting shots and camera angles. These included very high angles, very low angles, close ups, distance shots, and just about anything in between. This is due to the fact it was filmed in a documentary style, employing handheld camera, dashboard camera, and even clip-on cameras attached to the uniforms of the two main characters, Officer Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Officer Mike Zavala (Michael Pena). The scene I have chosen to analyze comes towards the end of the film. It is the beginning of what will turn out to be the final call of duty for the duo of Taylor and Zavala. They are on a normal late night patrol when a van, driven by the Mexican drug cartel that has been pursuing the officers throughout the film, cuts across traffic and leads the officers to a seemingly abandoned building. The officers race in the building after the occupants of the van, only to discover it is an ambush. The scene involves a variety of different camera angles, most of which had been used previously in the film. The combination of camera angles makes the scene even more dramatic.

In this first frame, the view point is the dashboard camera of the patrol car. It shows the van just as it is about to run the red light and begin the car chase. The date and time stamp at the top of the screen add realism to the effect of the shot. This is just one of many unique and intriguing camera styles employed throughout the film that add to the authenticity of the documentary style.

This shot was a little confusing from a stylistic perspective. It is not clear where the camera is. It seems entirely possible the view point is the camera clipped to Zavara’s uniform, which would mean he is not necessarily keeping his eyes on the road. In order for this shot to work, he would need to be angled toward Taylor, which would take away from his ability to see the road ahead. If the shot is filmed from a different camera, the source of that camera is not clear, and the documentary style of the film loses credibility.

This frame is interesting because it is shot from Taylor’s point of view using the camera clipped to his uniform. He has just left the patrol car and is running after the driver of the van. He chases him up the stairs and into the building. Since the camera is attached to his uniform, the viewer sees things from about shoulder height, which makes for a neat effect when he is leaning in as he is running.

At this point in the scene, Taylor and Zavara are on their way down the hallway toward this main room. This particular frame is from the perspective of the Mexican drug cartel members who are waiting for the officers to come around the corner. From previous scenes in the film, it is known that the cartel is using a handheld camera to record from their POV. Why a dangerous drug cartel would be filming their incriminating exploits is beyond me, but that is just part of the film. One thing that does not add up however in this scene is the fact whoever is filming is holding a gun in the other hand. This might make one wonder why the image is not shaky. With one hand, the camera can only remain so steady, the frame should be blurry or shaky, but instead it is crystal clear, as if the camera is on a stand.

This frame is a mystery to me. It is not obvious who is filming this shot. It is not the drug cartel because they are still in the larger room, shooting at the officers. It is also not the officers’ uniform cameras or Taylor’s handheld camera. What does that leave? Is it possible the authenticity of the documentary style is in question here? It would seem like it.

In this final frame of the sequence, the camera perspective switches to a handheld camera carried by a member of the cartel. They are chasing after the officers and the camera is being held low to the ground. Also, this shot is sideways, lending authenticity to the handheld camera perspective. The lighting is good in this scene, it shows the shadow of the person and it is possible to almost make out the shadow of the camera in their hand. This particular frame is reminiscent of something you might expect to find in a Hitchcock film or a film noir.

Moonrise Kingdom and Benjamin Britten

Benjamin Britten was a noted 20^th century English composer and conductor. His work includes everything from operas to orchestral and chamber pieces. Britten's music is notable for its attention toward children, which is something it has in common with the cinema of Wes Anderson. Anderson's films often put their emphasis on the plight of the young characters, as is the case in Moonrise Kingdom. This shared focus on children is likely a strong motivation for Anderson's heavy inclusion of Britten into Kingdom's score.

One of Britten's more notable works, The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra, was originally composed with the intention of educating children in classical music. To this day, it remains among one of the most popular pieces included in youth music education.

Likely for this reason, it was featured early on in the soundtrack to Moonrise Kingdom. Another reason it could be featured in the film might have something to do with the structure of the piece. The work introduces each section of an orchestra and then combines them together at the end. Much in the same way is the structure of the movie. In the beginning, each character is introduced separately, and by the end of the film, each of those parts come together and interact together to fulfill the story's plot.

Among other compositions included in the soundtrack are selections from Britten's opera Noye's Fludde (which tells the story of Noah's Ark). At one point during the movie, in a flashback scene, Sam and Suzy are shown participating in an opera at a church. This is where they first meet. The opera they are performing is Noye's Fludde. Britten wrote the opera with young, amateur performers in mind, so it makes for an appropriate choice for this movie. In a way, there is almost a parallel between the story of Noah's Ark and Moonrise Kingdom. In the movie, Sam and Suzy, like Noah, are attempting to escape from a flood. Except for them, it is more of a figurative flood than an actual one. There is a flood of animosity about their running away together, liberating themselves from the hostilities they feel they live with. (Suzy is disdainful of her parent's treatment toward her and Sam is bored and tired of the scouts.) In this way, Captain Sharp and Scout Master Ward, among the other adults, become the water of the figurative flood that is chasing Sam and Suzy.

Another interesting connection to note is between Moonrise Kingdom and that of Britten's opera Peter Grimes. While no piece of music from Peter Grimes is featured in Anderson's film, there are other striking similarities. For instance, both stories take place in fictional coastal towns (Grimes in England and Kingdom in New England). Both examine the struggle of individuals against the masses and both stories feature a powerful storm. In Moonrise Kingdom though, the storm plays a more central role.

Also included on the Moonrise Kingdom soundtrack are various selections of Britten's works ranging from some of his orchestral pieces to selections from his version of "A Midsummer's Night Dream".

Wendy and Lucy

Recalling the list of movies we have discussed this semester, there is one that stands out as a suitable companion piece to Wendy and Lucy, and that is Killer of Sheep. Both films depict the protagonist struggling in society and both examine issues of poverty and class. In Killer of Sheep, the issue of race plays an added factor, whereas in Wendy and Lucy, the issue of class is related to gender. There are a few close parallels between the two films. In both, the issue of poverty and class is not resolved, the films end with the protagonist in much the same situation as they were when the film started. In Wendy and Lucy, Wendy almost seems to end up in a worse position than when she started. Initially, she had a car to sleep in and a dog to keep her company, but by the film's end, her car was sent to the shop and remains there since she can't pay for the repairs, and her dog is collected by the pound, where she gets adopted by another family. Wendy has plans for a brighter future however, as she promises to come back for the dog once she has made some money in Alaska. However, the fate of her journey remains a mystery. Her time in Alaska is not included in the story. In Stan's case, his plight does not necessarily end up worse off than before, but it does not improve. His friends try to involve him in a crime, which he manages to get out of, he unsuccessfully tries to replace his car's motor, and in general, society gives him a hard time with handling it all. In the end, he continues to work long, exhausting hours in the slaughterhouse while his family remains at home, by his side. Most importantly, he continues to be unable to alter the course of his life, no matter how hard he tries. Both movies paint dismal images of life in a world at or below the poverty line.


Interestingly, both of these films involve instances of damaged vehicles. Wendy's 1988 Honda Accord has a cracked engine and would cost $2000 to replace. Stan's vehicle also requires a new engine. In both cases, the characters are unsuccessful with replacing the part. Wendy can not afford a new engine and Stan's new engine fall out of his truck and cracks. These instances can be viewed as symbols of the lack of mobility each character faces in society. Both want desperately to improve their situation, but due to unfortunate circumstances, they are forced by society to remain where they are.


While each movie focuses on class and poverty, they present strikingly different scenarios. Wendy actually seems to face more hope and opportunities than Stan does. In her case, race doesn't play along side her struggle, if anything, her gender would factor in to the equation, but this doesn't seem to be the case. As a result of her race, Wendy is able to navigate society in a slightly easier manner than Stan. She is still scrutinized and is held accountable for her actions, such as shoplifting the dog food, but her race potentially softens the blow. After an initial run in with the Walgreens security guard, she gets along well with him, ultimately befriending him. Later on, he lets her borrow his phone to help her locate Lucy. If Stan were faced with a similar situation, the outcome may have been different on account of his race. One can not be certain, but it stands to reason, even on a small, almost unnoticeable level, the color of his skin would have affected the security guard's actions and feelings toward him. With Stan, as if being poor wasn't hard enough, his race plays against him when it comes to bettering his life. He is faced with stereotyping which prohibits him from exploring certain opportunities that would be inherently easier for Wendy.

O Brother!

Throughout the film O Brother Where Art Thou, there is a continuous theme of trust. The film revolves around three escaped convicts Everett (George Clooney), Pete (John Turturro), and Delmar (Tim Blake Nelson) who embark on a quest to find a hidden treasure. As we find out later in the film, Everett is the one who organized the prison break. Pete and Delmar simply followed him, enthralled by the notion of getting rich and living large. Right from the start, they trusted Everett was being open and honest. However, they eventually learn that he was just looking out for his own well-being. He did not escape to locate hidden treasure, instead he escaped so that he could stop his wife from re-marrying. In so doing, he screwed over Pete and Delmar who only had a little bit of time left on their prison sentences, but will now be faced with many more years in prison.

Later on in the movie, there is a scene when the Delmar thinks Pete has been turned in to a toad (he was actually handed over to the authorities). Delmar is very concerned about his friend, believing what he thinks is true and refusing to continue on the journey without Pete in hand. Everett shows less concern. His interest is on moving forward with their mission, with or without Pete. Everett is again showing that he is only interested in helping himself and that his companions are an afterthought. There is even a scene where Delmar is hit by the bible salesman who is wielding a tree branch. After he is struck, Everett shows no concern, he continues eating his lunch and talking passively with the salesman. Even as Delmar attacks the salesman and is again struck by the branch, Everett still shows no sympathy.

At one point, Everett and Delmar and the toad encounter a bible salesman (John Goodman) who leads them to believe he will teach them the secret to his craft so that they may prosper from the profits. This turns out to be a lie however. The bible salesman is only interested in self-gain and uses the situation to steal from Everett and Delmar. The scene starts out with a very wide shot of a farm field. In the middle ground there is a lone tree. On right side of the tree is a lake, and on the left is Everett and Delmar's car (which they stole). Everett, Delmar, and the bible salesmen can faintly be seen underneath the tree, eating a picnic lunch. The next shots are medium close-ups of the bible salesman, Delmar, and Everett, as they are finishing their meal and getting down to business. As the salesman is explaining the bible selling trade, the camera is still at a medium closeup and is at a low angle as a means to add authority to the salesman's pitch and allow the audience to see his hand movements. The camera angle remains low as the salesman breaks off a tree branch. Once he has branch in hand, the camera switches between shots of the salesman, of Delmar, and of Everett. The salesman hits Delmar, who then fights back, but is struck again. Everett remains seated on the ground, chomping on a piece of corn. At last, the salesman hits him too. After one more fight with Delmar, the salesman wins and steals Everett's money before throwing the toad out of the box and crushing it with his hand. Once the salesman is finished with his tirade and has his stolen money, he marches off to steal their car. At this point the camera is again at a low angle and it switches between shots of the salesman and extreme closeups of Delmar, who is yelling in distress over the toad being crushed.

Trust is a critical aspect of the movie, as it ultimately drives the plot. It is the reason Pete and Delmar follow Everett on the journey, why they are taken advantage of by the bible salesman and even why Everett sets out on his journey in the first place. Everett has trust that his wife will listen to him and stop her remarriage because of his presence. Although trust is mostly used as a tool for taking advantage of other people, it still plays an important role. Pete and Delmar are really the only characters who truly trust each other and look out for another through the entire movie. 

My Own Private Idaho

Throughout the film My Own Private Idaho, there are several scenes which I would consider to be fresh and new. In particular, one scene, or rather a recurring scene, sticks out as one of the freshest. The main character, Mike, (played by River Phoenix) suffers from narcolepsy. Periodically during the movie, generally after a stressful or difficult incident, he passes out. When this happens, the next scenes are of a dream world depicting Mike and his mother. It is these dream-like scenes that I feel create new and fresh images. For one thing, these scenes incorporate an interesting technique, whereby they appear to be “home movies”. The scenes appear less staged and more spontaneous than the rest of the film, the camera shakes, and the coloring is different. The coloring is darker, giving off an eerie twilight feel. This technique separates these scenes from the rest of the film, helping them stand out. What's interesting, is that these flashbacks sometimes occur while Mike is awake, as when Mike's father is telling the “truth” about Mike's mother. In addition, building on the “home movie” effect, these snippets of Mike's memory have no sound or dialogue. Occasionally, there will be a voice-over, but it is someone talking in the present, no one in the dream-like scene is saying anything.

Nobody besides Mike knows about these flashbacks, they are his private memories, or in other words, his “private idaho”. They are a place he can escape to when the going gets tough. While other people, his own father included, talk negatively about Mike's mother, his own dreams are always positive. They are the product of his own mind and conform to his feelings and memories. His life as a gay hustler seems to be an unpleasant one. I got the feeling that he wants more out of life, that hustling is just a means to get by until something better comes along. Despite his dismal reality, he knows he can always escape to his “private idaho” where life is pleasant, no one gives him a hard time, and he doesn't have to hustle to survive.

The Vanishing

 When the movie first began, I had no idea where it was headed. I had done a little background reading from my trusty movie guide book, but that only gave me the gist of the plot. As Rex and Saskia were driving along, I was curious to see where the movie would go. Then came the scene where their car runs out of gas in the tunnel. I fully expected the event, Saskia's disappearance, to happen here. It seemed a bit early, but it would've worked. It just seemed right since she had just brought up her nightmare and then Rex leaves her alone. Also, when he returns with the extra gasoline, she is gone, but then he drives out of the tunnel and there she is waiting for him. I found this moment a little anticlimactic, although by introducing the conflict a bit later, it allows for more character development. The conflict happens not too much later, as the couple are hanging out at a rest stop before continuing on their journey. From my interpretation of the film, I agree with the critics, I would consider The Vanishing to be a horror flick. This is based on a couple of specific scenes, one involving the villain, Raymond Lemorne, and one involving the protagonist, Rex Hofman. Overall, Raymond Lemorne gave off vibes of Javier Bardem's character in No Country for Old Men and Robert Mitchum's character in Cape Fear. You can tell just by looking at these characters that something is not quite right inside their head.

The first scene which points toward the film being classified as a horror involves the villain of the story, Raymond Lemorne. Raymond has convinced Rex to travel to France with him so that he may finally learn the fate of Saskia. They are driving on the highway and Raymond is outlining to Rex stories from his past that explain who he really is and why he has kidnapped Saskia. The scene relies on medium shots mixed with close-ups of Raymond and Rex to show reactions and facial expressions. As with a good portion of the film, there is no music during this scene. As Raymond is revealing his past to Rex, his smiles and smugness illustrate his evil nature. It is evident that Raymond feels no remorse for his past and is more than willing to repeat his terrible deeds. He even admits to Rex that he is a sociopath. The fact that he knows what he is and he embraces it, openly declares that this movie is a horror movie.

The other scene that leads me to conclude The Vanishing is a horror film is one of the final scenes of the film. It depicts Rex Hofman finally discovering the fate of Saskia. The scene is pitch dark, then Rex ignites his lighter. The tiny flame creates a small path of light. Rex quickly realizes he has been buried alive. He sees the wooden boards above him and screams. This particular scene is intensely dark, far darker than any other in the film. Not only is the imagery of a man buried alive a dark one, but it is literally dark, since Rex is in a small box buried several feet underground. There is no music playing during this scene, which only adds to the impact. The shot is a closeup on Rex's face, focusing on his panic-stricken eyes. Soon the shot tilts up to show the boards above him. The scene creates a feeling of dread and desperation as Rex continues to switch his lighter on and off until finally, he switches it on, but the flame doesn't light as before, showing that the oxygen level of the box has diminished. The viewer can discern from this that Rex has only minutes left before all of his available oxygen is used up. The lack of lighting and the dimness of the flame incite panic in both Rex and the viewer. Rex was buried as a result of his own foolishness. He was so determined to learn the truth about Saskia that he fell in to Raymond's trap. This scene is certainly one of terror. After all, it is chilling to think a person could enjoy burying another person alive, and then eat a meal and show no emotion about the whole thing. Raymond's actions and Rex's reactions in this scene indicate that The Vanishing is in fact a horror film. A man endures an awful fate by a means which causes pain and suffering, a classic plot device in a horror movie.