Beauty And The Beast

Darren Milliron 12/18/11

Movie: Beauty And The Beast 1946

Language: French

Director: Jean Cocteau

Run Time: 96 minutes

Awards: Prix Louis Delluc (1946)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beauty and the Beast was filmed in black and white and at times was extremely dark and difficult to see the action. Certain shots at night are meant to be dark and mysterious on purpose to build up suspense for the audience but it might have been over done. The audience never gets a to see the color of the roses or the attire the beast wears. The girls room was always bright though and gave a sense that everything was okay and she was home. Unlike other parts of the castle which seems just scary at times. Random arms coming out of the walls. That's just wrong.

Roger Ebert had some choice words about the feel of the castle as well. "The Beast's dwelling is one of the strangest ever put on film--Xanadu crossed with Dali. Its entrance hall is lined with candelabra held by living human arms that extend from the walls. The statues are alive, and their eyes follow the progress of the characters." The castle was definitely one out of imagination and as a 1946 film they did a pretty good job to make it look pretty real at times.

Another article talks more about the cinematic effects used, "Cocteau was attempting to approximate the spirit of the tale by conjuring cinematic tricks. But he wasn't interested in special effects that you add in the editing room. He wanted to use tricks that could be caught on camera through superimposition, slow motion, and running the film backwards for dreamlike effect" In today's films everything is special effects and backgrounds are typically green screen. It is nice to see that they tried to make it look real as it could with minimal technology at the time. That is impressive considering what they had to work with back then.

In my opinion the movie was awesome consider it's from 1946 and spoken in French. The film quality was pretty poor and difficult to see at the times. Also the story line while a classic, was a little odd at times. Not just the arms sticking out of the wall by statues that stares and arms that pour you drinks. While original I just didn't expect it and I don't understand what the point of the castle was. Is the castle alive or does the beast command everything? That was left unclear and it's like having a piece of the story missing.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articleAID=/19991226/REVIEWS08/912260301/1023

http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/1946/beauty-and-the-beast/

Rear Window

Darren Milliron 12/18/11

Movie: Rear Window 1954

Language: English

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Run Time: 112 minutes

Awards: Edgar Allen Poe Awards- Best motion picture (1955)

National Board of Review- Best Actress

New York Ctritics Circle Awards- Best Actress

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rear Window was extremely interesting to watch and when relating it to film theory you have to mention the 180 degree rule. The entire film was basically filmed out of a window. And of course some shots inside of the home. But other than those two places the camera never goes anywhere else. Without using the 180 degree rule the viewers watching could lose track of where they are in the film and it's gets disorienting. Still weeks later I remember where everything is located in the courtyard. That tells me the director did an extremely good job on keeping the viewers focused.

An article by Roger Ebert actually doesn't really cover my thoughts at all of the movie. He mainly talks about how the leg cast is a symbol and he talks in depth about how the brightness and darkness of the shots and more of the story line rather than how it was filmed. Usually he mentions what I was thinking about the film but not this time. Another article does mention the camera technique used and how to keep a viewer interesting in the film when you only film in two location the entire time. The author suggested that film is slightly disorienting at times to the viewer but overall the the camera shots helped make it easy to understand the set up of the courtyard.

In my personal opinion this is another one of the great movies by Alfred Hitchcock and it broke rules at the time it was made. It was the most suspenseful movie we watch all semester and definetly a considered to be a great one.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000220/REVIEWS08/2200301/1023

Desperately Seeking Susan

Definitions-

1. Long Shot: Looking way out into the distance

2. Point of View Shot: Viewing from an actors perspective

3. Scene: Group of shots with a single action and location

4. Cut: Two different shot together to show the action from two different views

5. Cross Cutting: Going back and forth between two separate simultaneous actions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. A good of example of a extreme long shot in the film is when the lady was first following Susan in the city and she was looking way out in the distance crowd and could identify the pyramid on the back of her coat.

2. For a point of view shot we also can look at that same scene. When she looks through the scenic overlook binoculars at Susan it appeared as if we were seeing exactly what she was seeing and then the time ended on the machine and went black.

3. And for a scene, well the first one yet again I found interesting. The women following Susan through the city to see what she is all about. Buying he jacket and eventually losing her to the street of New York. It was mysterious and it had the viewing wondering what was going on at the time and who is this Susan?

4. And for cut we look at the scene where the guy trying to frame Susan was behind a door with a gun to Susan's head on the right side of the screen but the left side showed the hallway and all the guys were passing the door where she was being held.

5. And for cross cutting we can look at the end of the film at the magic club. Roberta's husband and Susan are there. The guy following her is there watching. And her new friend Mark is there with his friend Jim. So the whole circle of people is there and it just goes from group to the other until the drama builds and the action begins when she identifies the guy stalking her.

Chinatown

Darren Milliron 11/29/11

Movie- "Chinatown" -1974

Language- English

Director- Roman Polanski

Runtime- 130 minutes

Awards-

Academy Awards- Best writing, original screenplay

BAFTA Awards- Best Director / Best Actor / & Best Screenplay

Bodil Awards- Best Non-European Film

Edgar Allen Poe Awards- Best Motion Picture

Fotogrammas de Plata- Best foreign movie performer

Golden Globes- Best Director / Best Motion Picture / Best Actor / & Best Screenplay

And many many more...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chinatown was definitely an interesting film and a genre I would put it in would be like a modern day Noir film. The film was shot in color which is not the norm for a Noir but it still had all the other characteristics. Also typical of Noir films is low lighting which the movie was full of, except during the day I guess. The crime, curious detective, suspense, and of course the girl where all present in Chinatown except the ending was not one to be expected. Most movies the good guy wins, but in this film that was not so. But hey, it's Chinatown.

An article we are going to look at is from the Chicago Sun-Times by Roger Ebert. In this article he talks about the genre a little bit and he said, "later actors were able to slip into the role of noir detective like pulling on a comfortable sweater. But great actors don't follow rules, they illustrate them." Jack Nicholson did an exceptionable job in Chinatown and it shows in the amount of awards the film won. Another thing Roger Ebert mentioned in the article was ""Chinatown" was seen as a neo-noir when it was released -- an update on an old genre. Now years have passed and film history blurs a little, and it seems to settle easily beside the original noirs. That is a compliment." I found that statement to be intriguing because I even called it more of a "modern day" Noir film.

Another article from EBSCOhost written by Wes Gehring and talks about the "dark" side of Chinatown. The movie had murder, violence, sex, and corruption. On top of that it ended with the bad guy winning and getting away with a lot of serious crimes. The detective is defeated at the end and the typical luring Noir female was killed at the end. These traits made for a good movie and really leaves one with a different feeling from other films. The article ends with a statement that nobody can disagree with, ""Chinatown" is a masterpiece of the dark side."

In my opinion Chinatown is a late era Noir film with a more modern touch than older Noir films. The film was full of suspense yet there were some scenes where nothing much was happening at all. The dark low light nature of the film is typical for Noir but at times it seemed to dark to the point where you can't tell what's really happening. Other than that the acting was fantastic and the plot was fantastic. The ending was unexpected when the bad guy won and that's just not how I expected it to all end.


http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000206/REVIEWS08/2060301/1023

http://library.kean.edu:2055/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=111&sid=ce029896-033d-48da-827a-d0db614d32f9%40sessionmgr115&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCx1cmwsY3BpZCZjdXN0aWQ9a2VhbmluZiZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#db=aph&AN=27538546

The Searchers

Darren Milliron 11/1/11

Movie- "The Searchers" -1956

Language- English

Director- John Ford

Runtime- 119 minutes

Awards-Directors Guild of America: SGA Award (nominee)

National Film Preservation Board: National Film Registry (winner)

Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films: Best DVD classic film release (nominee)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Searches started off with amazing images of the American west and for a 1956 film it must have been the modern day high definition. Even by today's standards the scenery and camera shots were just absolutely stunning and if the movie wasn't in color it wouldn't be able to give the viewer the full affect. At times the movie did seem to be slightly racist but the use humor helped to lighten the mood from the serious parts of the western. The movie had a little bit of everything from comedy to adventure and even over 55 years later it still has to wow an audience.

I always write the first paragraph (above) then look at an article by Roger Ebert and every time he always mentions everything I thought of. For example he said "In ''The Searchers'' I think Ford was trying, imperfectly, even nervously, to depict racism that justified genocide; the comic relief may be an unconscious attempt to soften the message." It's either we think alike or perhaps this is what John Ford was trying to do intentionally. He went on to say "Ford had an unrivaled eye for landscape, and famously used Monument Valley as the location for his Westerns, camping out with cast and crew, the company eating from a chuck wagon and sleeping in tents. Wayne told me that making a Ford Western was like living in a Western." Apparently the landscape for the film was carefully selected and for good reason, to wow the audience. It worked.

Another article talks about how democracy in the movie seemed to not apply to the west and west was law less and truly wild. Great movies can sometimes alter peoples thinking of something, in this case the west. The fact that it's based on the early beginning of our country sparks the interest in the minds of the people. Was that how it really was? The author even said "The american imagination has always been captivated by the drama of the frontier" People wonder how our country, now a civilized and lawful place, could have so different in the span of about two human life times.

The Searchers was the best western I have seen thus far. All in the same movie I was mad, happy, amazed, laughing, in suspense, sad, and in deep thought. Any movie that can do that while maintaing a good plot and good story line is a master piece in my opinion. Roger Ebert even said this about some of the scenes." These shots are among the treasures of the cinema." With a suggestion like that you know that this movie not only inspired films to come but sets the standards high for future film makers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20011125/REVIEWS08/111250301/1023

http://library.kean.edu:2055/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=112&sid=d069dcad-fb43-4fca-906a-2d8e2d51a510%40sessionmgr115&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCx1cmwsY3BpZCZ

jdXN0aWQ9a2VhbmluZiZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#db=aph&AN=36984657

Rashomon

Darren Milliron 10/18/11

Movie- "Rashomon" -1959

Language- Japanese

Director- Akira Kurosawa

Runtime- 88 minutes

Awards-Directors Guild of America: Best Director (nominee)

Venice International Film Festival: Best File (winner)

National Board of Review: Best Director (winner)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rashomon started off in mystery as the men were talking. It began with two men in absolute shock and couldn't believe this story of what had happened. They really built up the suspense quickly as the viewer wants to know what happened and what's the story! As the man begins his story the film goes to back in time and the viewer gets to see each person testimony, none of which even matched. This seemed important because each one is portrayed as a flashback which may have possibly started a trend we see even in modern films.

Let's highlight some aspect in an article from the Chicago Sun-Times by Roger Ebert about the film. To my surprise he talked about the flashbacks in the movie and called them "smart" while calling other films that use them just to fill in information as "lazy". He also mentions that the movie ends with "three self confessions of the murder, but no solution". This definitely is a new concept in film at the time and might lead to some people who don't understand it.

Another article I want to take a look at is from EBSCOhost and talks about an interesting fact. Why did the bandit admit to killing the man in the woods? The possibility could be that he and in fact everyone else truly believes they are telling the truth. Perception is key and in the movie the commoner even says "men can't tell the truth, not even to themselves". It makes one think, do things really happen the way we perceive them to? That's an interesting and deep statement.

In my opinion this movie for the time period was very well done. There were a few odd camera angles such as looking straight up of the sky through the tree canopy and from directly below the actor. I really don't see that in a lot of movies and to be honest I'm not sure whether I like it or not, it got my attention and it looked cool but it's just not what I'm use to. On another note I really did get the feeling that I was watching a modern day murder mystery at times during the film. Seeing several peoples interpretations of the same event was pretty interesting and reminded me of something out of "12 Angry Men" or "My Cousin Vinnie".Overall my rating of "Rashomon" is a 7/10.

Citations:

http://library.kean.edu:2055/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=125&sid=c414f699-472e-4212-9054-14799b8be931%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCx1cmwsY3BpZC

ZjdXN0aWQ9a2VhbmluZiZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#db=aph&AN=9608216262

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articleAID=/20020526/REVIEWS08/205260301/1023

The 400 Blows

Darren Milliron 10/4/11

Movie- "The 400 Blows" -1959

Language- French

Director- Francois Traffuat

Runtime- 99 minutes

Awards- Cannes Film Festival: Best Director (winner)

British Academy of Film: Best British Film (nominee)

New York Film Critics Circle: Best Foreign Film (winner)

Academy of Motion Picture Arts: Best Original Screenplay (nominee)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One may ask, "How does this film relate to the larger topic of film theory?". Right off the bat I want to mention the very last scene of the movie. It's a long continuous shot of Doniel running away from the detention camp to the ocean. Most films would use a montage to lapse the time and but in this film they followed him for several minutes of just running and this seems very different from any other movies one would see in the United States. Another thing to talk about would be the ideogram at the end of the final scene. The boy makes run a for the ocean and finally gets there running right to the waters edge. He finally looks into the camera and the movie ends as a still image. Early in the movie we learned how he never saw the ocean and wanted to go there one day. The final scene of him by the ocean represents an idea or concept to the viewer that he finally made to the ocean, but what now? The end leaves you with a lot to think about.

Let's relate some published articles to the screening. First one comes from the Chicago Sunday Times by Roger Ebert. He had something to say about the last scene of the movie which I found interesting,

"The film's famous final shot, a zoom in to a freeze frame, shows him looking directly into the camera. He has just run away from a house of detention, and is on the beach, caught between land and water, between past and future. It is the first time he has seen the sea."

According this article he relates the ideogram of the ocean and Doniel as him being "caught... between past and future". I saw the ideogram in that final scene and it seems as if author of this article caught onto as well which really helped to back up my claim.

The next article is from EBSCOhost from the Academic Search Premier is a movie review by David Sterritt. In the article he refers to the movie as a "master piece" and even says

"This said, it's ironic that Truffaut felt uneasy about some "experimental" touches... the tracking shot showing Antoine's flight from confinement, the unforgettable freeze-frame at the finale."

It seems as if I am not the only one who was impressed by the end of the movie. It was different and unexpected from what I usually think of a movie. The ending left the viewer with more questions than answers. Francois Truffaut wanted to leave and imprint in back our minds with this final scene, and I think he was really successful in doing so. It seems as if that is the most memorable scene for everyone.

My personal opinion I think this movie was ahead of it's time. Some of the humor seemed more modern day, brief periods of minor nudity, and there was even some bad language. In American films at the time I don't think they could even show a toilet bowl or a husband and wife sleeping in the same bed! For a 1959 film they could have filmed it in color. Now they could either have filmed in black and white intentionally or perhaps the technology just wasn't available in France during that time period. In the States color TV had already made an appearance in 1953 and wasn't available in Europe till 1960! (See article) Overall the movie had a lot of interesting scenes and was really able to keep me entertained and focused throughout, difficult for most movies to do from that time period. I would have to agree and say it's the best foreign I have ever watched and I really did enjoy it.