Long Time No See!!

it's 1:30am... just waiting for the sudafed to kick in...

Sheesh!  School has really got me busy this last week!  I am taking 3 classes, all to do with cinema.

1)  Intro to Film Analysis - don't let the title fool you.  I thought it sounded like a breeze but within this last week I've learned a lot!  And it's no wonder the class is worth 4 credits!  Two movie screenings a week is a lot for me.  By Thursday I kind of feel movied out due to the effort of seriously analyzing movies you've only seen once or not at all.

2)  Contemporary Cinema - I think this class (at least according to the syllabus) sounds interesting.  It deals with movies after the decline of the studio system and classical Hollywood.  However, I kind of wish I were with the other TA that teaches the class (I had him last semester) because the one I have now just seems like he hates his life in class.  On the plus side, he's hot. 

3)  Modes of Film and Video Production - aahhhhh, my bread and butter for the semester.  The introduction production class that will be my gateway to other production classes her at the University.  I am so incredibly stoked for this class, it's not even funny.  The second day of class we were asked to write a 1-2 page personal statement on why we are taking the class.  After a lengthy 1.75 pages of my background in film (which isn't much), I said "I'm not taking this class to pass time or actually earn a physical degree since I already have one, but I'm taking this class because I hope one day making movies will be my livlihood." 

I think I'm going to color code the titles of the films just so I don't have to constantly specify which movie goes with which class.  This will be Intro to Film Analysis and this will be Contemporary Cinema.  So the movies we watched last week:


Citizen Kane
Considering that I hadn't seen the movie since I was like 12 years old, watching it again now made me respect the movie a little bit more.  I remember watching AFI present its top 100 Films in 1998 and it named Citizen Kane as the best movie of all time.  So, I went to the movie store and rented it.  Looking back, I don't know what I was expecting.  But what I did feel at the time was disappointment that an angry black and white film would be the best movie.  Even watching it again with a critical eye, I'm not sure it's the best American movie ever.  The things that the movie generally gets noted for is the technical procedures Orsen Welles uses throughout the film, which theorist David Bordwell (a University of Iowa Alum!) argues was already being used in Hollywood at the time (i.e.: showing the ceiling in shots, ... that's all I can think of off the top of my head). 

This is one of my favorite shots and really shows the use of deep focus.

The Grand Illusion/La Grande Illusion
I may or may not be a little in love with Jean Gabin.  I had seen clips from the movie before and happened to look up the Wikipedia page before coming to class.  And good thing.  I knew that the movie was being shown in a different screening room.  I was a little late, but made it right before the TA pushed play and took a seat a little toward the back.  Big mistake.  I soon realized that the room was not in stadium seating and unless you had a pretty nice people window, you could not read the subtitles 4th row and back.  So (instead of moving, because that would make way too much sense), I drew dinosaurs talking about how the room was not a good room to watch a foreign movie and read subtitles. 

So I'm sure my reputation as a responsible film student is tarnished to you!  BUT WAIT!!  If you call now you get to know that I actually checked out the movie from the public library and (plan on) watching it tomorrow... during another screening, but I've already seen Children of Men a few times.  So, bah!

Since I didn't see much of the film at the time, I happened to catch a nice one shot after the French men had started singing the national anthem during their play performance.  It was very nicely done :)



The Wild Bunch
Holy wow, kids tourturing bugs!  Aside from the amount of violence (which was considered a lot back then but probably pretty mild now) and sex in the movie, I am just not a big fan of Westerns.  I don't know what it is.  I think it may be the slow natured pace of the movie, but even with this one with constant action I felt like 'snore...'  Although, I have to admit that I was pretty antsy through the 2.5 hour movie on Thursday because it was by birthday.  Anyway, I guess overall, I'm happy I saw it.  It really showed a clear definition between Classical Hollywood and I guess what would be known as Contemporary Hollywood (or the aesthetics of what we know of Hollywood today). 

Reading this Sam Peckinpah article tonight also helped me realize just how crazy mean (yet depressingly true) kids can be!  At the beginning of the movie, a group of young children are torturing some scorpions with red ants and eventually set them all on fire.  After the opening scene gunfight, some little boys are make believe shooting at another little boy and pushing him to the ground.  While one of the Bunch's members is being dragged behind a car, some children are riding him through the streets and poking him with sticks.  But I understand what Peckinpah was trying to convey... anger, violence and sadism are just kind of a characteristic we are all born with.  Heck... that's probably why we like watching people get rocked on the football field or watch NASCAR to see a crash (even though I don't watch NASCAR... ever). 

For some reason the blood didn't look that real in the movie :p

So that's all for my weekly screenings. I will try to post by the end of the week about the movies watched in class.

PS - I also happened to squeez in Big Trouble in Little China. I'm pretty sure I hadn't seen that movie in 18-20 years. It's just fun to see all the campy effects and a young Kurt Russell and Kim Cattrall. :D

Oh and Watchmen... which to me.. 7am is too early to watch a movie like Watchmen without knowing what you're getting into :)  I may also be in love with Patrick Wilson... because it took me a little bit to figure out that he was Raoul in Joel Schumacher's The Phantom of the Opera.  That and Malin Akerman is hot... which made Wilson and Akerman's love scenes especially steamy!

Captain America

Ok... vent time:  what parent pays $7.50 (matinee) for 4 bratty kids to sit through a movie?  Who is that enjoyable for?  Is that just some sick joke on everyone else in the theater?  And yes, I freaked out on these kids in the middle of the movie.  It was epic.  Probably more than the movie.

So Captain America directed by Joe Johnson... (sigh).  I didn't really have any or much expectations for the movie.  I don't follow comics except for when they're made into movies... then I'll get on Wikipedia and look up characters and their stories and see how well the movie did in comparison.  So not really knowing anything about Capt. America the story itself is pretty interesting.  Of course, this is from a person that doesn't know the characters or their stories and so the movie story is the only story I know.  So, please, if you know more about the story of Capt. America tell me how the movie did.

As for the flow... I thought it was mediocre to bad.  There was just too much jammed into one movie.  I'm not even sure if it were longer, it would still do the movie justice (it was a little over 2 hours).  I think the most intriguing part of the whole thing ended up being the development of Rogers, his journey to becoming the hero Capt. America and his romance with Agent Carter.  The whole supernatural thing with Red Skull Man (lol, the guys name really is Red Skull) and the blue cube deal was a little wacky and kind of messed with the story.  I think even if Red Skull had some nukes or something it would've been a better story instead of keeping us wondering "well what the hell does this blue cube do anyway?"  unless it is used sometime again later in canon or movies.

As a not-so-into-comics person, I enjoyed knowing that Howard Stark is Tony Stark's father.  That connection was pretty sweet.  I was almost expecting somewhere to find out that Agent Carter is actually Tony's mother.  Could be since she didn't get to finish her life knowing Capt. America.  So that was fun.

And finally, I really love Stanley Tucci.  I mean, he's just a lovable looking guy.  :)  And all I want Hugo Weaving to say is "Mr. Anderson............" and put on elf ears. 

In the movie's defense, I thought the use of color was well done.  I liked the use of the sepia "old" look used every so often.  Call me nostalgic if you will.  Cinematography was done well in some parts.  I think my favorite shot was when the bridge is separating Red Skull and Capt. America while the factory was blowing up. 

And I think Chris Evans is HHHOOOTTT .... er, good looking.  and Hayley Atwell is really pretty.  So, here's to good looking people everywhere!

ps - side note:  since I'm a big fan of The Tudors... it was fun to see Natalie Dormer be someone else besides Anne Boleyn. 

Holy Cannoli!!

It's been a long time since I've written a post!!  Sheesh!!  I know that all of my adoring fans have been ANXIOUSLY awaiting to hear from me!  (.......... crickets)

So what have I been doing.  I actually need to go back and look at my last post just to see what the last movie I watched was.

BRB.

Mk, Videodrom and Wall-E.

So since Tuesday I have written my paper on Vertigo.  After the 50th time it's still an awesome movie.  I like how the more I watch it, the more things I catch.  For example:  Hitchcock distinctly focuses on Kim Novak's profile and then the message is made clear why the profile was so important.  (When she's sitting in the green light and says "It's because I remind you of her.")

Then on Friday, I ended up working 13 hours and watched a plethora of movies!  And by plethora I mean 5.  I finished watching Bell, Book, and Candle with Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak.  Just go to the end of this post to find out what it's about.

I then moved on to 2001: A Space Odyssey.  I had actually received this movie when I was 13 years old and watched it once and thought it was the most messed up movie.  However, watching it again 12 years later, I am amazed at the camera tricks Kubrick used, especially the revolving space station/shuttle thing.  I'm not sure, and I haven't looked this up (even though I'm sure it's simple to find), but I'm pretty sure N'Sync used the same tricks to film the music video to Bye Bye Bye.  Ohhhh I miss JT with the highlights (not).  I am also pretty sure Fred Astair used the same effect in Royal Wedding.

yup.

Actually before I watched 2001, I watched The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (Heath Ledger's last movie).  Talk about weird movies.  At first I couldn't understand why Ledger's character kept changing in the imaginarium while no one else did... but then it made sense after I read Wikipedia.  He had died during production.  So anyway, the movie kind of messes with your perception a little.  It starts out with a sort of turn of the century traveling show and you think "oh, it's a period movie" but then you see other modern day things like the Eye of London and cars and modern magazines and then you think "What kind of weirdos willingly travel around like this?!"  It's like watching a Salvador Dali painting come to life and move. 

So other than the weird psyche of the movie, it was more alluring to watch Ledger knowing that this was his last film.  I felt the whole time I watched the little things he did.  His mannerisms, his gazes, what he touches and how he does it... etc.  It was actually kind of amazing what I felt watching him... especially knowing that this film came pretty much after Batman.  I had a little talk with my mom about young artists who died young (this started after seeing the cover of People magazine with Amy Winehouse on it).  It got me thinking about things like, "What if someone like Orson Welles or Audrey Hepburn had died young?"  Or I guess for younger people today, "What if Tom Hanks or Johnny Depp died 15-20 years ago?"

OTHER than Heath Ledger, I thought that Christopher Plummer did an AMAZING job.  I just felt so bad for him the whole time.  I kept thinking "Awww.... poor Captain Von Trapp."  What can you do?  However, it makes me want to see The Beginners even more now.  (To do list.)

Ok so... Doctor Parnassus and 2001.  Which reminds me... what the heck does the last part of 2001 mean?!?!  I've read different theories but I just want someone to say "Here it is."

Then I took out The Boondock Saints.  I know... watching the super artsy-fartsy ones on Friday.
(For time continuity sake, what's written above was done on Tuesday... it's not Friday... a week after watching Boondocks.)
I had watched the movie when I first came to college (7 years ago) because it was the "it" thing to do.  Pretty much, if you hadn't seen Boondock Saints or Supertroops you were a freak (as well as not being Liberal and a Cubs fan).  So anyway, watching it again made me convinced that I would totally to do what they do if I could get away from it... I know, that sounds a little psycho and demonic... but c'mon, after watching Oceans 11 you didn't think about robbing a bank?

I want these tattoos on my hands

After finishing Boondocks, I moved back into my Kim Novak collection and started watching Middle of the Night... which was fitting because by the time I started it, it was 1am.  It's just basically about an old man and a young woman who fall in love and in the 1950's that's not cool with anyone.  So this and and yada yada... you get the point... she's hot.  

Mk... so moving on to Tuesday.  Checking out my movies for the day at the library, the clerk (who looked a little punkish like to me) commented, "Getting into the deep stuff eh?  I dig it..."  Anyway, not only did I work a long ass day, but I watched a pretty weird ass (but beautiful!) movie.  I decided to take a stab at Raise the Red Lantern, which is a Chinese movie from 1991 (got nominated for Best Foreign Film).  It has that super simple but awesome cinematography quality to it.  All the pictures and shots were beautiful.  The storyline is a little crazy and spooky... but I guess you'll get that when you have 4 turn of the century concubines and a servant girl fighting over the Master.

Apparently, also, the movie, which was adapted from a book, is also a ballet.  I'm sure it would be beautiful to see.

Going on my Asian kick, I also got Seven Samurai!!!!!!!  I know, the film makers mecca.  I had seen the movie in my very last ever history class before I graduated and didn't pay much attention to the movie.  All I could think about was getting at least a B in the class and getting the hell out of Dodge.  So what would I care if some farmers need some samurai to save their village?!

Watching it again with a critical eye was really fun the second time around.  The use of slow motion, the angles and the panning action shots are pretty cool.  Also for a black and white, the use of the lighting was definitely noticeable.  I liked finding the conscious choices Kurosawa used in his direction.  It was just a lot of fun.  Especially when I constantly have people asking me if my A/C works in my parking booth... I really hate that question.

I really love this scene.  I wish I could find a better picture of it though.

Ohhhh, I just love Kikuchiyo.  He's so well written.  

I had also checked out The Aviator (I know Tron won the poll, but it's unavailable at the library :/).  I was interested in watching it after Raise the Red Lantern but the disk kept skipping in my player.  You bet the library will be hearing about this one!!!! :p

So tonight I watched Good Will Hunting.  Another that I had seen before but didn't really invest myself into it.  I'm pretty sure every time Robin Williams spoke I cried.  A well deserved Oscar win for him.  I also felt that Matt Damon should have gotten Best Actor, but I have never seen As Good As It Gets (which Jack Nicholson won the award that year).  If I haven't said it before, I am in love with Matt Damon.  I also thought Minne Driver was cute as hell in the movie.  And, even though I should try to limit my judgments when watching movies, I couldn't really buy Ben Affleck's performance... probably due to the other crappy performances from movies coming after Good Will Hunting. 

yup, you bet I cried at this scene

And so after I finished crying to the patrons coming through my line, I moved onto Bridge over the River Kwai.  I just love that, even though he doesn't really look like Obi-Wan Kenobi, you can tell it's Alec Guinness because of his speech.  I love the old hard-ass English man role!  But the American, William Holden, (so far) makes the Americans look like a bunch of pussies.  However, I can't cast any stones, seeing as I've never escaped from an enemy prison camp and ran through a jungle.  But compared to other Americans in other war movies.... I guess David Lean was just trying to make it more realistic, which in truth, I'm sure anyone who survives a war doesn't do it with marked grace.  

SO that's what I've been doing for this past week!  Phew!!  

PS - thanks to whoever voted that I would only make the Women's National Soccer Team if the whole league died out!  :D  

Thanks for reading! 

Theory Paper

As said in the post above, here is my theory paper for your ... scrutiny :)

Believe me, I know there are many things wrong with this (ex: my title assumes that my TA knows who Hitchcock is (snicker).  While I'm more than 1000000% sure I know she knows who Hitchcock is, it's not right to assume.  It makes an ass out of u and me :p)  I also started to get pretty exasperated at the end, so apologies Kaja Silverman, Alfred Hitchcock, Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak :/

Women in Hitchcock’s Vertigo

            Throughout the history of film, the role of woman seemed to be well defined on the screen.  She is demure yet complex, quaint yet common, and always beautiful.  Until recently, women had not broken this mold, and even today the breakage is questionable.  Kaja Silverman’s essay Sutures [Excerpts] tells about the idea of the suture theory and how the method is used to immerse the audience.  However, Silverman explores the idea of the use of women as a catalyst for the suture.  This idea is exemplified in Alfred Hitchcock’s movie Vertigo (1958).  With its two main female characters, played by Kim Novak and Barbara Bel Geddes, Vertigo took the extra step of not only using beautiful women to satisfy the viewers but to explicitly make women a spectacle. 

            Silverman’s article begins with the ideas of the shot/reverse shot and how the sequence is used to suture the audience.  Later, she argues that this same method is used to highlight the male gaze to a woman.  “Classic cinema abounds in shot/reverse shot formations in which men look at women.” [1]  Within Vertigo the first time John “Scottie” Ferguson (Jimmy Stewart) sees Madeleine Elster (Kim Novak) the shot/reverse shot it used, and even toward the end of the scene the shots are used quickly.  Aside from the shot, the way Novak is introduced to the audience is in itself a sort of show.  Among a red room, with patrons in neutral colors, Novak is dressed in an emerald gown and her blond hair signifies that she is the woman the audience is to advert their gaze. 

            The same concept is contradicted in an earlier scene between Scotty and Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes).  The beginning of their dialogue is void of any shot/reverse shot, meaning that Midge is not the focus of the audience’s or Scottie’s gaze.  In fact, in the middle of one of Scottie’s lines, the focus is not on him, but on the picture that Midge is drawing, implying that neither of their attention is really on one another so the audience is left feeling disengaged from the conversation at that moment.  Another incident that detracts Midge from the gaze is a point that Scottie criticizes Midge for being motherly, in which the first close-up reveals Geddes’ homely look – horn rimmed glasses, conservative sweater, simple hair and unflattering camera angle in which we have only seen Midge midpoint and upward. 

            While an audience can gawk at a woman throughout a whole movie, Silverman, as does her contemporary Laura Mulvey, explains that the arousal the woman may cause needs to be “neutralized” and that there are two ways to do this.  The first “involves an interrogation calculated to establish either the female subject’s guilt or her illness.”[2]  In Vertigo the main storyline is Madeleine being possessed by a troubled spirit.  Through this the audience no longer views Novak as a sensual figure, but is focused on her actions that would lead us to believe that she is in fact possessed.  Hitchcock does this deliberately through his choice of shots:  the bouquet of flowers and the style of hair are that in the portrait of Carlotta Valdes (Joanne Genthon).  The zoom-in on both objects is highlighted to the audience that something is not right about this woman. 

            The second “negotiates her erotic overinvestment”[3] which leads to an interruption within the narrative.  The only distinct scene from Vertigo is when Scottie brings Madeleine back to his apartment and we see that she is probably naked (or half naked) in his bed.  Although this is not a complete diversion from the narrative, it raises erotic questions within the viewer.  Such as, “Did Scottie undress her himself?” which he probably did since she is passed out at the introduction of the scene.  “Did he marvel at her?  Or did he carry out his job professionally?”  All these questions lead to something that Silverman refers to as the “dis-placement of the viewer”[4].  While we wonder all these things, we forget that she is unclothed in a stranger’s bed for a reason – to carry on a story. 

            Between these two “problems”, Silverman suggests that both are vital in understanding the locus of women especially since the “[erotic overinvestment] contains the potential to subvert the [guilt or illness].”[5]  The next scene is such an example.  When Madeleine enters the room to join Scottie she is in only a red silk robe and is accompanied by tonal, sultry music.  Taking a seat on the floor next to the fire, Scottie interrogates her about falling into the San Francisco Bay and other activities throughout the day.  Even though the shadow of uneasiness and supernatural is present, the chosen angles and shots of nearly all close-ups of Novak accentuate her beauty to the point that she almost mesmerizes her audience.

            After getting over these two dilemmas, the characters on the screen must establish who holds the power.  Silverman says, “The power relations which are inscribed into classic cinema through its scopic regime are by no means as stable as is the regime itself… [T]he identification of the female subject with specularity and the male subject with vision does not necessarily assure the later a dominant position.”[6] However, true to classic cinema, the male gaze dominates throughout Vertigo.  The concept of the power of the male gaze is used before the sighted in the last paragraph.  Right as Madeleine appears in the doorframe of Scottie’s bedroom, the camera shows Scottie from a low-angle shot (giving the feeling of power) and giving a longing gaze in her direction, definitely not from Madeleine’s point of view.  The camera then switches to Madeleine, with the feeling of apprehensiveness and exposure in the red robe, from Scottie’s exact point of view.

            In the end, Silverman claims that “writing a narrative by means of which [the woman] is defined.”[7]  Which to Silverman, who uses the works of Mulvey, “the woman is made to confess by a male character.”  Nothing is more explicit to this example than Scottie’s craze and need to transform Judy back into Madeleine.  Hitchcock even plays with this idea of confession when Judy sits in silhouette form in her apartment aptly stating that she reminds Scottie of “her”, while her profile is a reflection of the shots back in Scottie’s apartment.  Over time, Scottie becomes manically obsessed with the type of clothes Judy should wear, what color her hair should be and how it should be worn.  When the time comes that Judy put together the full package for Scottie, Hitchcock creates a green haze across the camera as if she is coming out of a dream and confessing that she is the woman he has been laboring over. 

            Even as Vertigo is considered one of the greatest American movies, it can be difficult to realize the role of women in the film.  Acclaimed movie critic Roger Ebert has even stated, “Every Hitchcock woman was humiliated.”[8]  So while the role of woman seemed to be well defined in Vertigo, she actually remains undefined and common.  In an idealistic world, the women, especially Kim Novak, harnessed the power of the suture through her beauty and wit.  However, it is through the gaze of the man, Jimmy Stewart, which defines the woman and her role.

---

[1] Silverman, Kaja.  Excerpts from chapter 5 The Subject of Semiotics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983).  230.

[2] Silverman, 230.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Silverman, 230.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Silverman, 233.

[7] Silverman, 234.

[8] Ebert, Roger.  Vertigo (1958).  rogerebert.com, October 13, 1996.  Web.  July 29, 2011.  <http://www.rogerebert.com/>