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.

Killer of Sheep

Yes, I most definitely found this film difficult. There were a few reasons, one being the seeming lack of a plot, another was the scenes inside the slaughterhouse of the sheep being slaughtered. The lack of an obvious plot was the main reason I found Killer of Sheep to be a difficult movie. Typically in a movie, every character, every line of dialogue, and every action is significant to adding to the plot. This did not seem to be the case in this film. Perhaps there is a plot, but just did not see it. I did follow that Stan was the main character and that most of the actions seemed to revolve around his life somehow. The earlier scenes of the film, the ones depicting the neighborhood kids messing around and playing, made no sense to me. I understand what is being shown, but I can't figure out why it is relevant. What does that have to do with Stan's life? I suppose it could show that he lacks the control of his life to keep his kids in line and away from negative influences. If that is the case, it was very subtle. Another instance was when Stan bought the motor for his car and upon loading it into the truck and driving off, the engine fell out and became unusable. Finally, the scene at the end of the movie, when Stan and friends are driving to the race track and the are gets a flat tire. It turns out that Stan doesn't have a spare. To me, all these scenes spell out a life of misfortune. Someone who just can't quite get things right. If this is indeed the theme or plot of the movie, it was not as obvious as I feel it should have been. Only now, as I am writing this, do I see the pieces being somewhat put together. This movie certainly takes some serious thought to understand, and a second or third viewing couldn't hurt either. This is what I have gathered without having completed the reading assignment yet and without watching the introduction video which at the time of this writing was not posted yet.

The reason I think the scenes involving the slaughterhouse and the sheep make the movie difficult are due to the graphic nature of the scenes. Also, their relevance to the story. I assume there is to be some sort of analogy between Stan's life and the sheep, but I was never able to make the connection. As a result, the scenes were all about the violence. As far as the gore, the scene that really stood out in my mind was the one where a sheep's head was removed from the sheep's body and was carved up. For a few seconds, I had to turn my head due to the blood and gore. Overall, these scenes lacked clear relevance and therefore seemed to only serve as a means to introduce graphic content into the film.

The other aspect of this film that I found difficult was seeing Stan struggle and knowing I as the viewer had to sit back and watch. It is painful to watch someone struggle and know there isn't anything you can do to help. From what I could tell, Stan is trying to live a good, honest life. However, life just seems to continually beat him down. His friends try to coax him in to helping them commit a crime. He says no, but they continue to harass him. His attempt to get a new motor for his car ends in utter disaster, and on his way to the racetrack, the car blows a tire. His life is one misfortune after another. The difficulty of all of this struggle is eased by Stan's fortitude, his refusal to give up. He continues work hard at his job, and despite his inability to control his kids, he still gives it an effort. Stan seems to be an optimist who expects things to turn around at some point. After all his suffering, he will be rewarded in the future. No rewards seem to come in the movie, which is difficult to watch, but the viewer can hope, like Stan, that in the future, good things will come his way.

The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, a classic, action-packed Western and the epic finale in director Sergio Leone's Dollars trilogy. Throughout this fine film, there are a multitude of showdowns and gunfights. The Man with No Name (referred to as Blondie in this film)(played by Clint Eastwood) has a trigger finger seems to itch every few minutes. While many of the shootouts are important, as well as thrilling and captivating, it is the final scene of the movie, where Blondie, Tuco (Eli Wallach), and Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) have a Mexican standoff that is the most intense. This scene is the much anticipated climatic showdown that the audience has been patiently waiting for. In order for this scene to carry so much power and set itself apart from the other showdowns, many different elements including camera movement, music, and lighting must work hand in hand. First of all, the setting of this scene is a large open patch of stony land surrounded by a large make-shift cemetery. The ominous grave markers allude to the fact that at least one of the three men will not make it out of there alive. The lighting of the scene is very bright. This is a result of the scene taking place in the desert where natural sunlight is abundant. Darker light would have cast a darker feel on the scene, and might have radically changed the mood, but the brightness seems to work in this scene.

The music adds to the anticipation of the showdown. Coupled with camera movements, viewers can not wait to see what happens next. The music is mostly just a few chords on a guitar being strummed at varying tempos on top of a drum beat and mixed with a trumpet, but when this is added to rapid back and forth shots of each character and their facial expression, a feeling of heavy anticipation is created.

Eventually, once the three men are in position and are sizing eachother up, the music stops and as the wind blows, crows caw, adding to the feeling of fright. Later in the scene, the camera pans out and shows the three characters in the middle ground, standing in a triangular formation. The vast field of graves is seen surrounding the men, and farther out, in the background, the tree-laden landscape is seen. Next the camera zooms back in and alternates between close ups of each man and their holster. As the anticipation grows, the music resumes. The acting in this scene is excellent. The viewer gets a sense of what each man is thinking and feeling. Facial expressions are key to this scene, and each actor does a good job of displaying untrusting, shifting eyes, fear, nervousness, and a little bit of cool confidence.

As the scene progresses, the camera shows a low shot of each man slowing reaching down to grab his gun. This is complimented with additional camera shots of each man's facial expression as the intensity and anticipation heads for a climax. The music is still slow, but grows in vigor as each man is very close to pulling his gun. The trumpet returns and hits a crescendo as the intensity reaches its highest level and the viewer can tell bullets are about to fly at any second. At this point, the camera is switching between frames of facial expressions and hands over holsters in rapid succession. Now instead of showing the whole face, the camera has zoomed in on just the eyes. Finally, Angel Eyes pulls his gun. Tuco and Blondie follow suit and in a matter of seconds, guns fire and Angel Eyes comes crashing down. Still clinging to life, he tries once more to draw his gun on Blondie, but Blondie shoots him again and he falls in an open grave. Finally Blondie fires off two more shots to push Angel Eyes' hat and gun in the grave with him. Even immediately after the shootout, the acting is still high quality. Eastwood continues to display his confident ferocity while Eli Wallach shows fear and confusion. Costume did not seem to play a huge role in this scene. Each character was dressed in similar fashion as they were for the entirety of the movie. One important costume change of note however is Eastwood's addition of the poncho. Until arriving at the cemetery, he had not been wearing his trademark poncho. This new attire sets him apart from the rest of the characters in the scene and indicates that he will play an important role in the action that follows.

Awara

When I think of a musical, what immediately comes to mind are the films of Rogers and Hammerstein, which include The King and I, South Pacific, and Oklahoma! Each of these films consists of an interesting plot accompanied throughout by song and dance routines. The songs are catchy and memorable, and keeps the audience's attention on the story. When I compare the film Awara to these Hollywood musical masterpieces, I notice a lot of similarities.

Therefore, yes, I would consider Kapoor's film to be a musical. While overall it appears to be more of a drama, it does contain elements of a musical including numerous song and dance routines throughout the film. Awara begins as a courtroom drama, recounts the life and times of the main character Raj Raghunath, and ends back in the courtroom with Raj receiving his sentence. While it seems most Hollywood musicals start off with a riveting scene filled with music, this is by no means a requirement for all musicals.

One detail about Awara, is that it seems most of the songs and dances are there for entertainment purposes only. However, this is not always the case; the musical interludes add to and help tell the story on more than one occasion. This is not too different from Hollywood musicals which incorporate many song and dance routines into the actual story and use them as a means of telling the story. In addition, sometimes Hollywood films also include a song or dance number that feels out of place. This is just how musicals are. They are focused on integrating music into the story as a means of capturing audience attention, and promoting the range of the actor's talents. Song and dance are not merely passive parts of the film, they are actively telling parts of the story. 

Taking a Detour

 This film takes a major detour when it comes to intrigue. I have seen a number of film noirs in the past, and I felt this one sort of just lacked something. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the film, the story was interesting, and I liked how it seemed so believable. This particular story seems like it could happen to anybody, just a normal person trying to fulfill a personal goal who befalls unfortunate circumstances. The main character is sort of like the typical “everyman” archetype, and the leading lady fulfills the part of the femme fatale.

According to the online version of the Merriam Webster dictionary, an antihero is “a main character in a book, play, movie, etc., who does not have the usual good qualities that are expected in a hero”. Usually, the hero of a story displays desirable traits such as altruism, bravery, and fortitude. However, an anti-hero lacks these ideal qualities and instead displays a different set of characteristics. In Detour, the main character, piano player Al Roberts, strays from a typical anti-hero stereotype. While a stereotypical anti-hero would be selfish, cowardly, and weak, Roberts actually displays a mix of characteristics from both the hero and anti-hero stereotypes in order to attempt to fulfill his goals. The film begins with Roberts sitting in a diner, telling his tale through a flashback. Roberts is embarking on a cross-country trip to visit his girlfriend who moved to Los Angeles. He hitchhikes his way, with little initial success. Eventually, a car stops and gives him a lift. The car is driven by a bookie named Charles Haskell Jr. As the trip progresses, Roberts takes over driving while Haskell sleeps. As fate would have it, it begins to rain, so Roberts pulls over to put the top on the convertible. While doing this, Roberts opens Haskell's door to get his attention. Haskell falls out of the car and hits his head on a stone, killing him. At this point, Roberts panics. He fears the police will not believe the truth and assume he killed Haskell. In this situation, Roberts displays the anti-hero characteristic of cowardice; he makes assumptions that lead to his decision to dump Haskell in a pile of brush off the side of the road. He plans to make a quick getaway, but then he reasons he will need money for gas, and a driver's license. Here Roberts is using logic, which is a typical heroic trait. He is going beyond the scope of the typical anti-hero to add to the mystique of the film noir style. It could be argued that Roberts is displaying selfisness by taking the money, but since he plans to use it for gas and food money and not for his personal bank account, I would say he is being logical and selfless in this case.

As the story goes on, Roberts, now posing as Haskell until he can get to Los Angeles and dump the car, picks up a hitchhiker of his own, Vera, despite his better judgment. In this instance, Roberts again steps past the borders of the anti-hero framework to display an honorable trait of consideration. He offers to help Vera, when instead, he could have just left her alone. However, in order for the story to work, Roberts has to pick up Vera. There wouldn't be much of a story if Roberts left the rest stop by himself. One of the only ways for him to successfully advance the plot is to engage in heroic behavior and offer to provide assistance to someone in need. By some bizarre coincidence, Vera, like Roberts, had been given a ride by the real Charles Haskell Jr, therefore she knew Roberts was lying when he claimed to be Haskell. Vera then blackmails Roberts for her benefit. The pair at last arrive in Los Angeles. Roberts plans to sell the car off so he can back to his life, but Vera has other ideas. She plans to use Roberts to con Haskell's family and get rich quick. This is a pivotal moment for Roberts; he can either go fulfill the anti-hero stereotype and go along with the scam or he can conform to the heroic form and try to stop Vera. Roberts goes with the latter. Again, just in when Roberts faced the choice of whether to give Vera a ride, if he decided to go along with Vera's deceitful plan, the story in this movie would be drastically different and the film noir effect would be altered. In order for the film to maintain its sense of mystery, Roberts has to go against Vera's plan to create a conflict. Film noir thrives off the tension between characters rather than physical violence. If Roberts hadn't made up his mind to go against Vera, the tension between the two characters would have been lost. And the only way for Roberts to advance the plot in this manner is to engage in selfish (anti-hero) behavior.

As Vera presses Roberts to participate in the ruse, Roberts once again engages in behavior that goes against the anti-hero stereotype. He admits his own faults, that he is not perfect and does not know everything. In order to impersonate Haskell, he would need to know the man's life story, which he does not. He realizes he has limitations, which is something a classic anti-hero wouldn't do. Ultimately, Vera and Roberts argue. She plans to call the police on Roberts, but not before he attempts to pull the phone cord from the wall. Unknown to him at the time, the cord is wrapped around Vera's neck, and his pulling actually kills her. Back to engaging in anti-hero behavior, Roberts panics and leaves the hotel where the pair had been staying. He doesn't attempt to cover his tracks or hide any clues, he simply leaves the building. In the end, once Roberts has finished telling his story, he leaves the diner and is picked up by the police. Where an anti-hero would have tried to run or fight, Roberts returns to the hero stereotype and goes quietly. He does not put up an argument or a fuss, thereby accepting his fate, which is something a true hero would do. This works to maintain the film noir style because if he had put up a fight, the police would have turned to violence to stop him, and film noir prefers to rely on tension instead of actual physical violence.

Freaks

 First of all, Freaks was certainly different than most movies I have seen. After watching the film, I can see elements of both the horror and melodrama genres. Dictionary.com defines horror as a “motion picture calculated to cause intense repugnance, fear, or dread. Horror films may incorporate incidents of physical violence and psychological terror; they may be studies of deformed, disturbed, psychotic, or evil characters; stories of terrifying monsters or malevolent animals; or mystery thrillers  that use atmosphere to build suspense.” In contrast, the online oxford dictionary defines melodrama as “a sensational dramatic piece with exaggerated characters and exciting events intended to appeal to the emotions”.

With that being said, Freaks could be considered a horror film because it does indeed involve scenes of physical violence, in particular towards the end of the movie when the freaks seek out their revenge on Cleopatra, and turn her into a freak. This movie does examine deformed and evil characters as well. While in the beginning, the freaks come across more as normal people, than misfits, they become evil as the film progresses. Only characters who are truly evil would exact the kind of revenge that the freaks exacted on Cleopatra. I wouldn't consider the freaks to be monsters necessarily. I also wouldn't them to be purely evil. They have a sense of humanity and at the start of the film, they behave like the other, non-deformed members of the troupe. They came across as just normal people who happen to suffer from a disability, not terrifying monsters who are capable of violence. Lastly, I do feel that the movie used the atmosphere to build suspense. In various scenes, especially ones involving Cleopatra and Hercules discussing the murder plot, elements of the atmosphere including lighting and the soundtrack created a feeling of mystery. The viewer was unsure what would happen next, despite what was being said in the dialogue.

As for being a melodrama, Freaks contains many exciting events that often appeal to the emotions. However, the characters are not exaggerated. Events such as Cleopatra poisoning Hans do come across as “exciting” in that it grabs the audience's attention and leaves them riveted. The scene towards the end, when Hercules and Cleopatra are trying to run away together, but the freaks catch up with them and attack, in very exciting. At first the audience thinks Cleopatra and Hercules are going to get away with it, but then the screen shows the freaks lurking nearby, and the audience is left to wonder what the next move will be. Overall, the characters all behave with normal emotions that the audience would expect, there is nothing exaggerated about the characters, their actions, or their emotions. No one character stands out as being over the top or farfetched. Based on the evidence and the definitions, I would conclude that Freaks actually more closely resembles a horror film.

Sherlock Jr.

Filmed in 1924 and directed by and starring Buster Keaton, Sherlock Jr. is overall, an entertaining film. I have seen other Keaton films before including The General (1927)  and this one compares very well. I felt this movie lacked the amount of action seen in The General, but it still contained memorable bits of slap stick humor. One scene which especially stuck out in my mind was the scene at the end where Keaton's character is watching the lead actor on the big screen and mimicking his moves. I found this scene delightfully funny because Keaton's girl friend did not seem to notice his glances at the screen, and the scene seemed so casual. The scene sort of just happened as a result of Keaton and his friend being in that particular projection room at that particular moment in time . I liked how that worked out so well. I think the reason I find these older movies particularly humorous is the  fact that they are silent and therefore the actors must work extra hard to convey certain points. In doing so, some of the movements they make can be a little awkward or unusual. Therein lies the humor for me. Bear in mind that I am not poking fun at these timeless classics, merely finding an extra source of amusement within them.

Keaton's Sherlock Jr. is displaying a slapstick comedy. Slapstick is very action oriented. The jokes are centered around a character doing something unusual with their physical environment. The scenes of Keaton riding the motorcycle and sailing the car in the water exemplify slapstick humor.

Contemporary comedies tend to draw laughs more from dialogue oriented jokes. Naturally, this was not possible with silent films. Occasionally contemporary movies will feature a brief scene or two which involves slapstick or visual/site gags, such as in some of Mel Brooks' films. Specifically, in his film Robin Hood Men in Tights, there is a fight scene between Robin Hood and Little John in which both combatants use staffs, and as he fight progresses, the staffs continue to break in half. They continue to fight using one of the halves until eventually the staff is about a quarter of its original size and Robin Hood is able to knock Little John off of the bridge. For the most part however, modern comedies utilize dialogue-based jokes. A few examples of this are the movies Airplane!, and The Jerk. In Airplane!, the scene in which the stewardess is trying to understand what two passengers are saying and an elderly passenger announces “I speak jive”. This type of joke would not be possible with a silent film. Additionally, a slapstick joke would not have carried the same level of humor in the situation. In the Jerk, the scene towards the end of the movie when Steve Martin's character is leaving his house declaring he does need any of his possessions, but he changes his mind as he passes various objects including an ashtray, a paddle game, a remote control, and a chair. Again, this joke would not have carried the same effect if it was in a silent film.

This film also reminded me of another film I have seen which involves a similar concept. Woody Allen's classic The Purple Rose of Cairo. In that film, the plot is reverse of Sherlock Jr., instead of the main character going into the movie that is being shown within the film, the character from the movie within the film enters the real world. Similar humorous antics ensue, and the film is a success. 

Introduction

Greetings. My name is Rob Breen. I am a fourth year communications student (this is my last semester!) I am taking a film class because I am a cinephile. I love movies. A few years back I set out on a quest to watch all of AFI's top 100 movies. That journey led to many side quests and long story short I became hooked on movies. I have learned a lot about film during my journey, but I am interested in learning more. I have also dabbled in screenwriting a little bit. I haven't produced any films, but I have found I enjoy writing scripts. My favorite genres of film are dramas, westerns, and mob movies. My favorite actor is Clint Eastwood, I have seen nearly all of his films. As of now, I have seen 96 of AFI's top 100 and over 60% of best picture winners.