Kung Fu Hustle

I really liked looking at this film as a post-modern movie.  Something I’ve noticed about the post modern movies we have watched in class is that they all make it a point to point out their artifice.  They draw attention to their fictitious natures in an attempt to undermine mainstream conventions such as characterization and narrative structure.  This movie, along with the other postmodernist films we have watched, play with stereotypes.  They use familiar character stereotypes and plot stereotypes (for example, the misguided hero who learns a lesson, or the heroes journey), but play with the narrative structure.  They play with the typical narrative structure by creating a scrambled chronology of events, switching character identities, and providing no historical signifiers.  Another way this movie pointed out its artificiality is with its comedy.  I really liked the over the top humor and action.  The exaggeration and the sound effects really set up the tone of this entire movie.  The corniness reminded me of Kung Pow or Monty Python, and it forces the fact that this is a movie and not real life onto the audience.

The reading discussed the lack of “Chineseness” in the film, but I think this merge of eastern and western culture was purposeful.  It surely fits the bill for a post-modern film.  The Asian background was saturated with several western film, actor, and director references such as the Matrix, Ghostbusters, Quentin Tarantino, Acme cartoons, The Shining, Fred Astaire, and The Untouchables.  These references were taken out of context, but were noticeable to those who have watched a lost of American movies, providing both comedy and globalization.  There is an immersion of eastern and western elements that create both a wider audience and reflect the situation of Hong Kong.

Blade Runner

Let me just start off by saying Harrison Ford was my first actor crush I had as a child (other than David Bowie).  As soon as I saw he was playing the main role, I immediately was into this movie. I was expecting an Indiana Jones type of character, or possibly even another Han Solo, but I found him to be out-shown  by the other characters.  It wasn’t Deckard’s story, it was the replicant’s story.

It was a strange mix between Brave New World and Star Wars, which I enjoyed, but the pacing was too slow for me to really love the film.  I was expecting a lot of action or at least a fast paced plot, but I got neither.  The movie kind of dragged on (and on, and on).  Also, I was very frustrated with how little information the audience was given.  I felt like I was missing so much of the story.  I wondered how L.A. became what it was, why they chose Deckard out of all the blade runners, what the other what the previous generations of replicants were like, how the Nexus-6 replicants escaped and why they were so special, how Deckard tracked them all down (besides Zhora), why Roy saved Deckard after chasing him all through the house after he’d killed Pris, and why Deckard and Rachael were allowed to leave together.  I’m usually fine with not receiving the entire story in a film, but in this case I felt like too much information was missing.

I found it interesting how this movie both followed and went against conventional dystopian societies.  These types of societies are usually characterized as being a repressive and controlled state, often under the guise of being a utopia.  This movie followed a more Huxley-based, less obvious dystopia, with the citizens having freedom to go and do as they will, yet they are constantly under police surveillance.  It is the replicants who face the most danger and regulations.  I also liked the lighting.  I thought the shadows and blue tones it added to the suspense and futuristic element of the film.

Mulholland Drive

I have seen David Lynch’s work before (Twin Peaks (tv show which Lynch actually is in) and Fire Walk With Me (movie based on Twin Peaks which again Lynch is in, as well as the amazingly fabulous David Bowie), and I could not help but notice all of the parallels between this movie and the two works I have seen.  I wondered if these elements and themes were consistent among all of his work or if it was just these three pieces.  So, I figured I would point them out before I got into the specifics of Mulholland Drive.  First off, I noticed right away that the music was done by the same person as Twin Peaks and Fire Walk With Me.  This music really adds to the suspense and the eeriness of all three films, and really drives all three pieces.  There are so many instances where there is such limited dialogue, yet the viewer understands what is going on because of the music.  The music speaks as its own character.  Another similarity was the inclusion of Michael J. Anderson in the cast.  I was super excited when I saw that (yes, small things like that amuse me).  Also, Lynch seems to enjoy playing with the idea of sexual exploration and exploitation.  This movie really pushed boundaries with the scenes between Betty and Rita/Diane and Camilla.  A few other similarities between this movie and the two I have seen were the idea of a mysterious man, the supernatural, disconnected cops, and a missing girl.

Lynch blurs the lines between reality and unreality in this movie and in others.  One way he does this is with dreams.  Fire Walk With Me has several dream or dreamlike scenes, and Mulholland Drive includes both dream scenes and references to dreams.  For example, the one detective tells his partner about a terrifying dream he had about the cafe they are at.  The two go outside to investigate the place where the man in his dream was standing, and the dreamworld and reality become blurred when the man appears to the detective and scares him to death.  The motif of dreams comes up again when Betty says, “I just moved here from Big Lake, Ontario and now I’m in this…dreamplace.”  And that is the actuality of the film– it is a dreamworld.  Reality is skewed and life does not revolve around rules, it defies them.  This is seen in many instances, including the use of a passageway between worlds and the role reversal that occurs towards the end of the film.Also, in the beginning of the film the dialogue seems unnatural because of the way the camera focuses on the character speaking rather than their interaction with the other character.  This adds to the dreaminess and artificiality of the film.

I really like how Lynch handles suspense in this film.  The music creates an eery tone, and the camera angles add to the sense of tension and suspense.  The angles change throughout the movie, ranging from point of view shots to close up views of characters faces or eyes.  The camera will zoom way in on mundane objects, and in some shots the camera seems to stalk the characters, creating a paranoid feeling.  There are also several shots where the camera will show quick bursts of an image repeatedly, which causes the viewer to anticipate what is coming.  Another way Lynch handles suspense is by contrasting darkness with light and silence with sound.  By playing around with different pairings between these he causes the audience to be on edge because they don’t know what to expect to happen next.

In the article, “Everything You were Afraid to Ask about Molholland Drive,” the authors come to the conclusion that the movie is Diane’s “masturbatory fantasy cum fever dream in the moments before she commits suicide.”  This conclusion seems flawed for several reasons.  First of all, I feel like if this was Diane’s dream she would have had more of a reaction to her dead body when she discovered it.  Instead, it was Rita who panicked.  Also, the dream is not just in Diane’s perspective.  It switches between Betty, Rita, the detectives, the director, and the mysterious man.  That being said, I liked the idea that this movie isn’t Diane’s wishful thinking or dream after death, but is Hollywood’s narrative.  The dozens of movie references and allusions, the various stereotypical plots, and the disconnectedness between events and characters seem to support this reading of the movie.

Do the Right Thing

I’m going to start this now while it’s still fresh in my mind.  DISCLAIMER: This weeks blog post will be more personal/emotional than I would normally make it.  Apologies.

Let me start off by saying I should NOT be allowed to watch movies or television in class.  I’m much too sensitive for my own good!  (My friend was polite enough to tell me I should probably toughen up by watching small animals be kicked. How lovely.)  It’s not like I was raised in a world full of unicorns and butterflies, but for some reason I am always taken by surprise by unfair treatment of others, etc..  I thought I was going to have to leave during this movie because I was about to break down and cry.  The same thing happened last week with Annie Hall, and that movie wasn’t even particularly sad!  I hate crying in front of people, so I should probably come up with a Bryanna scale for movies and stuff so I can be warned ahead of time if I should watch it in public or not.  Anyways… This movie really struck a chord in me, and I wanted to preface my real post with this little tangent..

The reading describes the wanderings of the camera as depicting various vignettes.  A vignettes is like a snippet of a scene that depicts an impression of either a character or setting or idea.  In the movies case, it depicts all three.  From the start of the movie I could tell that I was going to see a lot of dynamics between the different races in the neighborhood.  I was expecting the tensions between the groups (Korean immigrants, latinos, Italian, African American, white), but I was really surprised by the dissent within groups.  For example, the difference in opinion between Mookie and Buggin Out.  Mookie does not see the problem with Sal’s pizzeria not having pictures of African Americans on the wall, and Buggin Out “bugs out” over the matter and tries to start a boycott against Sal’s.  Another example is seen between the two brothers, Pino and Vino.  Pino is very racist and does not want to have anything to do with the “niggers” in the neighborhood, whereas Vino becomes friends with Mookie and does not have a problem with the people in the neighborhood.

The camera angles in this movie were really interesting, and the reading points out, “Do the Right Thing’s camera nonetheless resembles some of its characters– it behaves like them.  It is highly mobile, and given to assertive advancing and retreating.”  I really like this idea of the camera reflecting the characters and their surroundings.  Also, I noticed Spike Lee used dutch angles!  The purpose of these angles was not as clear to me as it was in The Third Man, but it seemed as though the higher angle (the one looking up at the character) showed that the character in the lens had more power and the lower angle (the one looking down at the character) showed that the character had less power.  The angles occur on several occasions, but one that stood out to me in particular was the scene between Da Mayor and Mother Sister (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qru3WdOfj8s).  Mother Sister has more power than Da Mayor because she watches over the neighborhood and is “respectable” in contrast to the drunken Mayor.  Another scene I noticed in particular was between Buggin Out, Radio Raheem, and Sal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ4y7GPeFBY&feature=relmfu).  In this situation Buggin Out and Radio Raheem had the power (in numbers, not respectability this time) and Sal was portrayed at a lower angle.  Another camera angle I noticed was the straight on view that breaks the fourth wall.  This is done when everyone is saying racial slurs about another group.  This causes the remarks to be directed at the audience and not a particular character, forcing the audience to feel the hatred and anger of the characters.

One scene that I took notice of was the one where Buggin Out is enlisting Radio Raheem to join his rally against Sal’s pizzeria.  Behind them is a brick wall that has the message “Tawana told the truth” gratified on it.  I figured the message was probably important if it had been put into the scene, so I typed the message into a search to see what I would find.  The information I found was astonishing.  Tawana Brawley was a fifteen year old African American girl who accused six white males of brutally raping her (at least one having been a police officer).  The article I read said, “On November 28, 1987, Tawana Brawley, who had been missing for four days from her home in Wappingers Falls, New York, was found seemingly unconscious and unresponsive, lying in a garbage bag several feet from an apartment where she had once lived. Her clothing was torn and burned, her body smeared with feces. She was taken to the emergency room, where the words “KKK” “Nigger” and “Bitch” were discovered written on her torso with a black substance described as charcoal.”  Tawana’s case went to court and was concluded that she “had not been the victim of a forcible sexual assault and that she herself may have created the appearance of an attack.”   The reading also questions the insertion of the “Tawana told the truth” message, but it leans towards a connection between the attention Sal gives Jade and Tawana’s case.  I read it as pertinent to the arguement of power in the movie.  The police hold all power which is seen first in the scene where the man’s car is sprayed with water and they decide to not do anything about it, and again at the end of the movie when they come to break up the fight and end up killing Radio Raheem.  Police brutality is called into question, as is the idea of violence and absolute power.

Annie Hall

I really really really liked this movie.  The relationship between Annie and Alvy seemed so realistic in regards to it not being perfect and the two struggling to find themselves and keep their relationship alive.  I liked that it didn’t have a happy ending and that Annie didn’t let Alvy pressure her into something the two weren’t ready for.  Although Alvy was a total jerk, I still couldn’t help but feel bad for him.  He did care about Annie, he just had so many issues that he was destined to have the relationship fail.  Alvy was somewhat sexist in his objectification of women (when he and Annie first were talking to one another his thoughts were all sexualized), and he was very controlling (seen when he pressures Annie into taking “adult learning” classes).  All of these characteristics are played down because of Alvy’s narrative.   The article says, “As narrator, Alvy does not intentionally distort things: he is not “crazy.”  Nevertheless, from first to last — Alvy’s prologue and epilogue frame the narrative, and move us toward viewing his role sympathetically — the representation of events is noticeably one-sided and reflective of a familiar masculine bias.”  Alvy is an unreliable narrator.  The story is told from his perspective, and because of this he attempts to portray himself in the best light possible.  He wants the audience to be on his side and to sympathize with him.  The camera angles reflect this.  By having the camera straight on Alvy and having him look right into the lens the fourth wall is broken, and a documentary style (and more realistic) movie is created.

I really liked the complication of gender roles that is portrayed in this movie.  At the start, Alvy is portrayed as the smart, financially stable, desirable, comical man and Annie is portrayed as the flaky woman who takes pictures.  Alvy plays the dominant role in their relationship, and Annie is shown to be the problem and the less capable partner.  As the movie progresses we see Annie evolve and become empowered.  She then begins to escape the relationship in different ways.  She begins to take classes at the local college, she speaks her mind, and eventually, she leaves Alvy.  Annie becomes dominant and it is Alvy who is left alone and unchanged.

Suspiria

This movie was strange to say the least.  I am not a fan of slasher films or of gore in general, but this movie had an artistic feel that made the gore seem more acceptable than in other Argento films (such as Jenifer — ugh disgusting).  The music and the reoccurring color theme added to the terrible beauty and horror of the movie.  The opening scene sets the audience up for what they should expect (a thrilling and terrifying experience) with both elements as well.  The color red acts somewhat as a signifier as well, making the audience pay closer attention and look out for hints as to who might be evil.  For example, when the worker boy is first introduced to the movie we the audience see him with a red bandana in his pocket, foreshadowing his involvement with the coven.  You see the color red appear over and over again, not just in the lighting but in the costumes of characters (red nail polish, red lipstick, etc.), the color of the building, the “red room” Miss Tanner references.  The entire film is coated in red, literally and figuratively.  The connotations that go along with the color red are blood, danger, fire, power, anger, and malice.  All of these things fill the movie.  The movie begins with a murder and ends with a murder and fire.

Maitland McDonagh’s writes, “With the exception of Suspiria and Inferno, Argento’s films are all gialli, psychological/detective thrillers whose overt concerns are the mechanics of crime and punishment.  Yet her rejects the model of the classical mystery in favor of something less reassuring, more chaotic” (6).  I don’t completely agree with this statement.  I think that Suspiria still fits into (at least my understanding of) Argento’s gialli genre.  The movie centers around a mystery and the main character’s experience in discovering the truth.  She faces psychological and thrilling conflict, and eventually wrong is put right.

I thought the idea of female evil versus male evil was very interesting, and also very true.  When a woman is the evil presence in a film or novel they are manipulative and not forward with their treachery, and they pick their victims based on jealousy or personal or intimate reasons.  They approach the issue cautiously and intellectually, and many times their torture is based in domestic situations.  The male evil presence is much more direct and physical, and many times they act in a rushed way and are driven by emotions such as anger.  They terrorize their victims, and many times their terrorizing is sexualized.  Their victims tend to be somewhat random as well.  This is seen in Suspiria.  The main witch manipulates other women into joining her coven and protecting her, and then the coven manipulates those around them to do their bidding.  The women use intellect and manipulation, whereas the men they enlist use brute strength.

Some random things I was confused about or noticed:
– why would the witches not just kill those who slighted them or posed a threat?  they obviously had enough power to make Suzy automatically sick, so why not just kill their enemies off?
– the sign on the front of the building looks like it is dripping blood in the rain — this was just such a cool image
– why exactly was the witch still doing at the dance school?  I understand that she started the school but what happened??

Shorts

Okay so I’m going to just vomit my thoughts for each piece…

Maya Deren:
“Meshes of the Afternoon” — This film had me on my toes.  I still am not sure whether the husband somehow killed the wife, or if the wife killed herself, but I honestly don’t think it matters.  I think this short was about a woman who was struggling internally  with some issue.  This is reflected in the images within the film (the shadow which almost seemed like its own character, the mirrors, repetition).   The issue may or may not be connected to the male figure or it may just be a fear of death.

“Ritual in Transfigured Time” — I did not like this film.  My ADD kicked in hardcore and I found myself zoning out.  What I did get out of this film is that the female character seemed to be searching or running from something (again, possibly the male figure).  It seemed like she was haunted my something.  I liked the part where the dancers froze and turned into statues, and I had to wonder if the pauses in the film reflected critical memories (that led to her death?).

Stan Brakhage:
“Mothlight” — I LOVED this film.  I don’t know why but I thought it was so beautiful.  I thought it was so freaking cool!  I loved catching glimpses of flowers, grass, and insects.  I felt like I was the moth.  I flew, crawled along the ground, climbed flower stems, and lived the life of a moth.

“Garden of Earthly Delights” — I didn’t understand this, but I liked the glimpses of flowers.

“Window Water Baby Moving” — I loved the (terrifying) beauty of this film.  I think that the non-linear structure, editing, cuts, angles, and pacing added to the personal feeling and brought the viewer into the moment.  I loved that it showed the whole process of birth.  It didn’t show just the pain, it showed the excitement, peacefulness, pain, fear, and happiness.  I also like the idea of dynamic silence — I think that the silence spoke more than an actual narrative would have.

Harry Smith:
“Part I” — I liked the reoccurring symbols in this film (circles, squares) and I really liked the cyclical feeling that really stood out during the sun/moon part.  I thought this was very eery and it kind of creeped me out.

“Part 4” — I felt like this film reflected the differences between modern culture and ancient culture (the police man versus the indian) and I feel like there were some religious undertones as well (the serpent, Mayan calendar).   Other than that I have no idea what was going on.

“Heaven and Earth Magic” — Again, I was super confused and didn’t get much out of this film.  I feel like it marked the progression of time (from Egypt to the pilgrims, etc.) and symbolized creation (the man shaping the woman, tools, etc.).

Rosemary’s Baby

This was probably my favorite movie we have watched so far.  I really enjoy “old school” horror, mostly because I can’t handle gore.  Valerius writes, “[Rosemary’s Baby] is a story of violence, deceit, and misappropriation of a women’s body by people she trusts that make pregnancy a Gothic spectacle.  This violence and deceit is built up throughout the film, and the audience is sucked into the movie in such a way that they also are afraid.  This film was effectively suspenseful and terrifying for several reasons.  The pacing of the film was probably the most effective element of the horror.  By slowly building up the story the audience becomes closer and more invested in the main character.  The slowness builds the tension and creates a kind of paranoia.  The audience knows something is wrong and something bad is going to happen, and by lingering on certain scenes the horror is intensified.  The camera angle also built upon the horror of the film.  By being close up and personal to the main character and providing her point of view (such as when she is reading the book Hutch left for her or when she is playing with the scrabble tiles) the audience feels a connection to the events that are happening.  The audience is placed in the characters shoes and the angle eliminates the prospect of distance between the viewer and the character.  This point of view causes the watcher to only know what Rosemary knows and nothing else.  If Rosemary can’t see something, neither can the audience.  This adds to the paranoia, especially in the scenes that are dreamlike.  For example, in the rape scene Rosemary is half drugged and cannot process all that is happening.  She believes she is dreaming and therefore so does the audience.  This blurs the line between reality and dreams, and builds on the horror and paranoia.
Another aspect of the film that built on the feeling of fear is the time period in which it was filmed.  Velerius writes, “in the intervening years, the heat of debate has been a powerful catalyst for reactions among medical, legal, religious, political, commercial, feminist, and anti feminist agents in reproductive politics, and the debates that have changed shape in response.”  She then continues to discuss abortion and the rights of women.  This discourse helps shape the importance of a film such as this, and helps provide a background for the horror in such a situation as the rape shown in Rosemary’s Baby.

Rear Window

I really enjoyed this movie.  I thought the concept of voyeurism was intriguing, especially when considering that I (the audience) was participating in the “secret” watching.  I loved the beginning of the movie with the sliding window shades and thought it set up the idea of the movie so well.  I also liked the complex question this film poses to the audience: is voyeurism an acceptable practice in certain situations, or is it always something to be damned?  And to what extent does voyeurism extend to the audience that watches films?

The one thing I really noticed in this movie was the relationships between characters (Jeff and Lisa, the Thorwald’s, the unnamed couple) and the unspoken story that was going on.  At the beginning of the film we watch Jeff talk on the telephone to his boss about Lisa.  He tells the boss that she is “too perfect.”  As the boss discusses marriage and how wives don’t nag anymore, they discuss, we see what Jeff himself is witnessing– a nagging wife berating her husband.  The reading states, “Jeff rejects the loss of freedom involved in the kinds of compromises that would be required by of him by Lisa’s picture of their possible married life together.” We can see Jeff’s hesitation and fear concerning marriage and his pessimistic views about love and relationships.   When we finally meet the character of Lisa we see Jeff’s lack of interest as well.  It is not until Lisa begins to join in on Jeff’s adventurous world and he sees her through his lens that we finally see Jeff’s affection for her.

We see the roles of Jeff and Lisa reversed in the Thorwald couple.  Mr. Thorwald cares for his bedridden wife.  Lisa, the fashionable Hollywood starlet, takes care of the (temporarily) incapable Jeff.  The power roles in the Thorwald’s and Jeff and Lisa’s relationships are seen in the Freudian symbols Hitchcock inserted into the film.  For example, the broken camera at the beginning of the movie reflects the incapability of Jeff (who also has a broken leg, reflecting castration just as Jeff’s fear of marriage and disempowerment does (page 5).  Thorwald is shown handling a big saw, reflecting his power and manhood.  Thorwald is clearly shown to be more of a capable man than Jeff.

I really liked the connection the reading made between Mrs. Thorwald and Jeff.  It says, “there is also a parallel between Jeff and the bedridden Mrs. Thorwald, each of whom spy on Thorwald and become subject to his murderous desires.”  Both Jeff and Mrs. Thorwald succumb to the temptation of spying (voyeurism) and suffer the consequences of their actions.

Last Year at Marienbad

While watching this film the first time through I got a haunted, hysterical feeling.  Many elements of the movie made me come to the conclusion (at least during the first time through) that none of the events were based in reality.  I thought that the main characters were either ghosts or caught in a dream.  The fact that certain snippets of the passing conversations of the people matched up with the events that supposedly happened leads to this conclusion, along with the horrifying organ music played every time the garden is showed, the fact that the hotel guests don’t seem to notice the main characters, and the non-linear plot.  While watching I thought that maybe this was a residual haunting.

Another reading of this film would be that it is a social commentary.  One thing I noticed was the haunting organ music that played every time a shot of the outside garden was shown.  This suggests that the outside world is a scary, unknown place.  That would mean that the hotel and it’s residents were known and safe and better than the outside world.  The organ music suggests that by stepping away from the norm (society) you risk the dangers of the world.

The reading suggests that this film is the product of solipsism.  It states, “In his famous Dream Argument Descartes reminds us that waking up from a dream can itself be part of a dream. No matter how awake we feel, we may still be asleep and in the grip of a dream. There is no possible way of getting “outside” of our minds to determine in what state we actually are; inescapably we remain imprisoned in our minds” (Bramann).  The ending of the movie suggests that the two main characters do not really escape the hotel, but remain stuck in it’s grasp.  By looking at this scene through the lens of Descartes’ dream argument the audience comes to the conclusion that escape is done not through the body, but the mind, and that the mind transcends physical boundaries.

After really dwelling on both the narrative and the visual elements of this film I think another reading that has not been brought up (but is related to solipsism) could be that the main male character X is just thinking over different variations of a situation concerning the main female character A.  I know that I work out situations and conversations in my head to try and imagine the different scenarios and reactions.  The ghostly feel and the dream-like quality of the movie led me to this possible reading.