Category: Film Analysis

Posted on

The Truman Show : A Tragedy Behind A Comedy

The Truman Show is a wonderful character study of a situation that no one has experienced. The Truman Show tackles the question, “What if my entire life as I know it, is manufactured?” This question is common for people to think about but has never been answered truthfully with a yes. However, this situation that Truman is in, is somehow never experienced by anyone yet everyone can relate to it on a fundamental level. The wonderful characterization that Truman gets early on in the film combined with Jim Carrey’s excellent performance as Truman lead to a masterclass film about a character study that has never been experienced.

The question that the Truman show asks is something almost everyone can relate to, even though it has never happened. While the question of a manufactured life seems to be extreme and unbelievable, no one can prove that it isn’t real. It’s an existential fear. The great thing about the Truman Show is that beyond just asking the question, it shows the ramifications of such a question being true. What happens to someone when they start to look for the cracks in their manufactured world? What happens when they start to believe that all the people around them are fake? What happens when their reality isn’t the real one? They psychologically break down.

Truman is shown early on as someone with dreams. He wants to explore and adventure around the world but is trapped on the island he lives on because of his fear of the ocean. While his desire to adventure seems to be an authentic goal or personality, his fear of the ocean seems to be manufactured for him. Truman’s fear of the ocean was caused by seeing his father washed away in front of him and presumably drowning. This was all faked and very tragic to think about. While people have lost loved ones in similar events, Not too many and perhaps none at all have found out that it was all faked. All the trauma, guilt, and sadness, all for something that never really happened. 

A scene that completely tells everything about Truman as a character comes at the end of the film, is Truman sailing out to find the truth of his manufactured world. As Christoff, the director of the fake show Truman is stuck in, desperately tries to make Truman turn around, he strikes Truman’s ship with lightning. Christoff has about as much power as any mythological god in comparison to Truman, but that doesn’t stop Truman. After the boat is struck with lightning, Truman yells “Is that the best you can do? You’re gonna have to kill me!” This ambition to explore and find out the truth about his world is enough to dare god to strike him down. 

A comment on a youtube review of the Truman Show by the account “user89076” says that “When Truman starts to see the patterns and oddities of people’s behaviors, thus getting closer to the hard truth of his existence, he acts in a way that would get him labeled as mentally ill or psychotic.” That idea is truly disturbing. Being mentally ill is by definition, having changes to one’s thoughts and actions that cause problems for functioning in social or work activities. Christoff gaslights Turman throughout the entire movie and this, if it was a real situation, would be another way he would. If you were the only one to notice the fakeness of the world, and everyone else denied this, you would probably be labeled as crazy. 

A journal article by Vanity Fair talks about the connection between The Truman Show and modern-day reality tv shows. It does make strong connections between the two, such as “When I watch reality television and people who live in front of the camera—there are many now who do—I wonder how much of this is real, how much of it is just because they’re in front of the camera. Do they really know themselves? But every time I watch one, I think of Truman.” – (Miller, 2018). However, the problem I have with this assessment of the film is that it misses the main point of the film, Truman does not know. A reality television star knows that they are being filmed, their personalities are faked for the camera. Truman was unaware of his star role in a reality television show. While a reality star would have their own problems with the medium, those are normally internal. Truman, however, has external problems. The problems are not with himself, they are with the reality around him. A reality star would have problems with their personality off-camera vs on camera and having no privacy. Truman is dealing with his entire reality breaking down around him, and no one is true to him.  

The Truman Show is an amazing film about a hypothetical scenario. No other actor could have shown the madness around the discovery of one’s reality being entirely faked as Jim Carrey. Jim Carrey gives an excellent performance that straddles the line between a tragic character, one that has discovered that everything he knows is manufactured, and a comedic character, one that most people have known Jim Carrey to play in the past. The Truman show is a film that showed many people the proficiency that Jim Carrey has for acting and the everyday man’s reaction to the crumbling of their reality before their unprepared eyes. 

Posted on

Night of the Living Horror Performance

The Night Of The Living Dead is a suspenseful movie, including multiple major segments. The first most important segment would be “They’re Coming to get you”. As Barbra and her Brother Johnny are at a graveyard, Johnny begins to joke around ” They’re Coming to get you” he says multiple times.  As Barbra tells johnny to knock off the obnoxious jokes, she runs into an actual zombie. She then screams for johnny’s’ assistance. As he attempts to rescue his sister, he is ultimately knocked unconscious  and Barbra is left to defend for herself.  Another important segment is when everyone is stationed at the safe house, As Harry, Tom, Ben, and Barbra. They all are informed on the situation and have a better understanding. Two attempt to flee in a vehicle but die, due to engine flames. Everyone are ultimately bit and turned into zombies. These segments are situated  this way to create the most suspense as possible , keeping the viewer waiting for scenes to come.

This Film can be seen as Horror. This is evident as the characters are being attacked by zombies creating an intense feeling of fear and shock , expression(s) shown throughout the entire entourage. The Story has a specific plot, as the base characters get a inital glimpse of the upcoming issue.  The characters then come together, attempting to rid of the issue. Finally the issue gets a hold of the characters, ultimately making the characters zombies. Its told this way and not in another way, because this plot creates the most suspense, making the viewer thirsty for what comes next. It supports the horror genre as fear is displayed throughout the entire plot.

All performances are suited to give the viewer a horror or fear type feeling. The performers act on different roles as Barbra is seen as the initial main, then Ben takes immediate command of almost every decision, displaying how the story creates an emergence of any character to take leadership regardless of fear, to take down the antagonist(s) (Zombies).

The most important character is Ben, an unknown actor. Barbra was also apart of her first major film. I feel as if they chose these characters due to them being new in the movie scenery. Creating the basis and start of something special to come.

Each actor matched their role; Ben being the leader and the rest being back seat drivers, ultimately assisting the leader to the destruction of the enemy. The plot can be deemed as unrealistic due to the viewer never being exposed to real torture or gore or death (camera doesn’t catch actual moment of impact). This isn’t a bad thing because at the time of production of this film, this was acceptable and doesn’t take away from the overall plot: Zombies ( Horror) .

Posted on

Why Does Gothika Get No Respect?

Movie: Gothika

Main characters:

Halle Berry – Dr. Miranda Grey

Penelope Cruz – Chloe Sava

Robert Downney Jr. – Dr. Pete Graham

Charles S. Dutton – Dr. Doug Grey

Summary of the plot:The film starts with the scene where psychiatrist Dr. Miranda Gray works in a psychiatric clinic which almost reminds a prison. The facility has multiple cells that are well equipped. Dr. Gray has a discussion with Chloe who spent almost 3 months in the facility because she murdered her step-father who was raping her. Dr. Miranda works closely with Chloe to lead her to a conclusion that she murdered her step-father and wanted her to realize what she did. During the discussion Miranda shares her thoughts with Dr. Miranda but doctor thinks that it’s simply a non-sense information. Before leaving, Chloe says “Never trust the person who thinks that you are crazy”.

On the way back Mirnada gets into the accident where she thinks that she almost hit the girls who was standing in the middle of the road. Miranda runs out of the car trying to help a stranger, but it turns out to be a ghost. After this,  Dr.Miranda loses consciousness, and wakes up already in her hospital, but as a patient. She finds out that her husband was brutally murdered, and she herself is the main suspect, although she does not remember anything that happened after the accident. The ghost is trying to communicate with Miranda, cutting messages on her body, but her colleagues think that the girl inflicts wounds on her own.

Meanwhile, Miranda begins to get closer to her former patient named Chloe, who claims that she is being raped in the clinic and earlier Dr. Gray always thought it was not true. Once a ghost opens the door to Miranda’s room she follows to Chloe, managing to see the back of her rapist. Chloe later tells her that this man said that Miranda herself would be his next victim. Miranda begins to remember that she indeed killed her husband, but the ghost of this girl infused her body, so she decides to figure out how that happened.

Miranda runs away from the clinic and gets back home. In the basement of the old barn, she discovers a room in which there is a bloodied bed, a box with medicines and video equipment. On one of the tapes, she sees her husband involved in the rape and murder of a girl. At this time, the police arrive and detain Miranda. Sheriff Ryan, who was her husband’s closest friend, asks her how she found out about all this because he doesn’t believe in the ghost story. Miranda is trying to describe the psychological portrait of the second criminal and realizes that the sheriff himself is a murder.

Then, Miranda fights sheriff. She was able to kill sheriff and survive but not without the help of the ghost.. Almost immediately after this, Pete appears, who also guessed what really happened.

About a year later, Miranda walks along the road with Chloe, telling her that she no longer sees ghosts, and then sends her friend in a taxi. After that, she notices a boy who stands in the middle of the road. Miranda starts shouting at him to get off the, but the car passes through him without causing any harm. The girl understands that this was a ghost. And then she sees a poster with a photo of a boy, indicating that he was missing.

The production of the film was low budget compared to the revenue it generated. The film has scenes where the prison was located in Laval, Quebec. It was an abandoned building where they filmed prison scenes. The initial plan was to build the scenes without finding an actual building but the decided that it would give a real experience if they will find an actual building. Mathieu Kassovitz was the one who voted for the abandoned building located in Laval. He thought that it was perfectly fitting the plot of the film and connects well with the atmosphere of the film. Susan Levin who was producer of the film shared her opinion saying, “”When we were scouting locations during pre-production, we came upon the SVP and immediately knew that it was the place,” “The ominous mood and tone of this movie are perfectly personified by that prison.”

According to Rotten Tomatoes 14% of movie critics voted saying that it deserves watching while the rest negatively reviewed the film. Critics had two opinions about the film stating that the screenwriter does not explain the story well and there is almost no logic in the film while other critics greet the film by pointing out that the film has a twisted plot that makes it interesting to watch the film.

The genre of the film is horror and thriller at the same time. The film has a presence of psychological scenes but at the same time it illustrates murders almost in details with blood in the scenes. That makes the film to fall under two genres which are horror and thriller. There is no doubt that the film tend to be considered thriller since the film starts with doctor-patient dialogue where Halle Berry (Dr. Miranda) tries to understand the motive of the murderer. Later on, the movie shows how the main character murdered her husband where lots of blood was on the screen. Personally, I think that it fits perfectly since it has a great balance where thriller genre dominates while the horror is limited.

The movie has sounds that were well-picked. While watching I turned the volume down to analyze what it would like to watch scary scenes without the volume. It was a significant difference. The sound definitely has an impact on the viewers’ attention and overall quality of the film. Mise-en-scene: lighting in the movie was great besides the times when there were ghosts and special effects in the movie. I have noticed several times that the technology was not representing a well-drawn ghosts. For example, when Dr. Miranda met with the ghost for the first time it was glitching a little making it seem like the screen is broken. Stage of the film fits well with overall film. It does not jumps from one type of environment to another. However, prison seemed old but at the same time it was well equipped where bullet proof glass doors locked the patience. But at the same time the facility was not equipped with stable electricity which raises the question “You have money for the expansive glass doors but cannot afford fixing the electricity?” There is not a lot of content to analyze the costume of the actors since it represented real life examples of doctors, police officers and patience. Acting part was the most interesting to me. Halle Berry plays her role at her best. You can notice that her face expresses confusion when she realizes that she is patience at her own workplace. 

The film Gothika is a psycological thrillers that was produced in 2003.The film director was Mathieu Kassovitz and written by Sebastian Guiterrez. Main role belonged to Halle Berry who was psychiatrist. Budget of the film was $40 million whereas the revenue that the film accumulated was $141.6 million. The movie provides clues that the viewer can notice right from the beginning of the movie. For example, when Dr. Miranda works closely and discusses Chloe’s feelings, Chloe’s response was “You can’t trust someone who thinks you’re crazy.” I think that was the key to the entire plot of the movie. Honestly, while watching the film I knew that it gave the idea that if you only pretend that you understand or feel similar to the person who shares with you his or her feelings you cannot take actions that will help the person. Therefore, Dr. Miranda gets into the cycle where she looks from the patients’ lenses.

Another great example is when Chloe is saying the truth but with the perspective of the person who felt the pain at the highest possible level, “He came back again last night and tore me like paper. He opened me like a flower of pain, and it felt good. He sank into me and set me on fire, like he always does. Made me burn from the inside out.” Dr. Miranda lives in the reality and thinks that she only needs to rely only on the facts given to her. That again confirms the idea that it is hard to truly believe the person who experienced pain and who screams for help but you only rely on facts. Dr. Miranda decides to share her thoughts with her husband but he only calms her and forces to believe that she has to live in reality and throw away Chloe’s imagination of the world where the Devil exists.

Moreover, when Dr. Miranda rejects that she is a patience of the facility where she worked, she still wants to assure herself that she is sleeping and she has to think rationally, “I am a rational person. I believe in science. I don’t believe in the paranormal, and I don’t believe in ghosts, but if you are the ghost of Rachel Parsons, unlock this cell.” Once the ghost opens the cells she realizes that this was not a dream at all.

In conclusion, even though critics has two opinions about the film and negative review dominates I think the movie is still interesting and deserves to be seen. I believe that the plot was interesting enough to have its viewers pay close attention to every detail shown in the movie. Mise-en-scene composed of well developed plot where actors play their role like it they are real person of the film.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothika

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gothika

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gothika-2003

Posted on

A Great Gladiator

Gladiator (2000)

The Gladiator is the story of a soldier from Rome who became a slave. He is trained as a gladiator and escalated to challenge the empire. The Roman soldier is Spartacus. The Gladiator movie is set about 250 years after his death. The gladiator of the title is Russell Crowe who channels manliness for two and a half hours as Maximus. The film Gladiator (2000) is directed by Ridley Scott who was trying to portray the culture of Romans more accurately. However, there were some divergences from historical facts to enhance interest, to preserve narrative continuity, and for safety or practical reasons. The unbeaten gladiators were the movie stars. They were famous and consequently free men lined up to try their chance on the ground.

The imprecision’s are legion from the opening scene. The movie starts in the last part of Marcus Aurelius’s rule. He is renowned as one of the Five Good Emperors. He depicts what would happen when his son, Commodus, took his place. Marcus Aurelius is depicted as a great emperor who cared about his Republic. He looked forward to being the best monarch he could put his all and seeking to give the people of Rome their freedom. (Potter & David, 2010) The movie states that there was the last battle which was great on the eve of Aurelius’ death with the tribes from German. Nevertheless, in reality, there was a daylong battle in the campaigning season of 170 A.D., but the death of Marcus was on March 17,180 A.D, as he was almost launching another military campaign. The scriptwriters needed to shorten the chronology to save time in a lengthy movie, but they played loose and fast with some aspects of that battle. The movie has drastically squashed the chronology of the sovereign Commodus’ reign. He became the only emperor upon the death of his father in 180 AD and he was murdered thirteen years later on December 192 AD. Ward & Allen 2001, Even though the Gladiator has not precisely shown time covered, it appears Commodus was murdered not more than two years later.

Like its hero Maximus — the squinting, beefy, unassuming, indomitable Roman general-turned-gladiator — Ridley Scott’s film Gladiator is brave, impressive, ambitious, confident, competent, and commanding. Maximus’ story is epic in scope and expertly told; the world he inhabits is convincingly realized and vividly photographed; his enemy is unsettlingly dissolute and depraved; his defeats and setbacks are tragic and daunting; his struggle to overcome is heroic. If he has never heard of the Christian theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, he is, at any rate, an embodiment of the classical cardinal virtues of fortitude, prudence, temperance, and justice; especially contrasted with his contemptible opponent, who explicitly avows lacking them all.

Posted on

Inside Hollywood but Happily

Singin’ In The Rain (1952)

The plot of the film is an autobiography of Hollywood itself at the dawn of the talkies. The story is about a dashing, smug but romantic silent film star and swashbuckling matinee idol (Don Lockwood) and his glamorous blonde screen partner/diva (Lina Lamont) who are expected, by studio heads, to pretend to be romantically involved with each other. They are also pressured by the studio boss R.F. Simpson (Millard Mitchell) to change their silent romantic drama (The Duelling Cavalier) and make their first sound picture, renamed as the musical The Dancing Cavalier. There’s one serious problem, however – the temperamental, narcissistic star has a shrill, screechy New York accent. The star’s ex-song-and-dance partner (Cosmo) proposes to turn the doomed film into a musical, and suggests that Don’s aspiring actress and ingenue dancer-girlfriend (Kathy Selden) dub in her singing voice behind the scenes for lip-synching Lina. The results of their scheming to expose the jealous Lina and put Kathy in revealing limelight provide the film’s expected happy resolution.

Surprisingly, this great film that was shot for a cost of $2.5 million (about $.5 million over-budget), was ignored by film critics when released and treated with indifference (with box-office of $7.7 worldwide). It received only two Academy Award nominations – Best Supporting Actress (Jean Hagen), and Best Musical Score (Lennie Hayton) and didn’t win any awards. The film’s musical score Oscar nomination lost to Alfred Newman’s score for With a Song in My Heart.

Now, after many accolades, television screenings, and its resurgence after the release of That are Entertainment (1974), it is often chosen as one of the all-time top ten American films and generally considered Hollywood’s greatest and finest screen musical. Great care was made to authenticate the costumes, the sound studio set, and other historical details in the film. The film’s title song was paid twisted homage (of sorts) in Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971) during the brutal rape scene. At the same time that Singin’ in the Rain was being filmed, another MGM film exposing and satirizing Hollywood’s foibles was also in production – director Vincente Minnelli’s melodramatic The Bad and the Beautiful (1952), starring Kirk Douglas and Lana Turner, and Oscar-stealing Gloria Grahame who defeated this film’s Jean Hagen for the Best Supporting Actress honor.

 

Posted on

Contemporary Epic Template

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

 

Peter Jackson’s The Fellowship of the Ring premiered in theaters. The film opened to fanfare as the first installment of a long-awaited live-action adaptation of Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic fantasy series. But in the years since, it’s clear that it was more than that. Lord of the Rings wasn’t just a movie adaptation of a beloved series. It would set a template that Hollywood has followed for years since not just for epic fantasy, but the entire medium of film.

Since its release, there hasn’t been a production quite like The Lord of the Rings: an intense project that both adhered closely to the source material, but which also became an anchoring event in cinemas. Indeed, in the face of massive cinematic universe projects such as the Marvel, Harry Potter, or Star Wars films, a trilogy seems almost quaint.

Like the novels, The Lord of the Rings was essentially a single film split into smaller installments. Originally intended as a sequel to Tolkien’s debut The Hobbit, the novels are a story that grew in the telling, turning from a light-hearted fantasy adventure to a massive tome that would inspire almost every fantasy novel that followed it. The series has been adapted in the past with a series of animated films starting in 1977, but it wasn’t until the late-1990s that there was serious interest in doing a live-action version. 

Jackson had initially planned for the adaptation to run for two films, with studios pushing for it to be condensed down to one. When the project landed with New Line Cinemas, studio head Bob Shaye somewhat famously asked, “Why would I want to do two films? There are three books. Why not do three films?” The expansion to become a trilogy would allow Jackson to adapt each novel, and to adapt more of Tolkien’s original material. Production for the film started in October 1999, with Peter Jackson helming an ambitious project: all three films of the series would be shot at the same time in New Zealand over a 438-day shoot, with additional reshoots.

Posted on

War with Less Blur

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

 

The Film I decided to do my analysis on is the beginning scene to Saving Private Ryan (1998) by Steven Spielberg, the storming of Omaha beach.

The reason for picking this film is because I find that there was a lot of elements to the scene that was being played. Elements such as lighting, camera movement, camera settings, music, acting and the use of silence to form one of the most accurate depictions of war in film.

The scene starts with an establishing shot of the battlefield, then cuts to the boats and in this scene, we get to see the camera moving vertically in an aggressive way. This shows the strengths of the tides and how intense the war is going to become. The scene then starts off doors of the ships opens up and people getting killed, illustrating that the fight has begun.

Cinematographer Janusz Kamiński was Spielberg’s pick as a cinematographer for this film. Spielberg’s intentions for shooting this scene was not to glamorize war, but it was meant to let the audience understand the tragedy of war. The execution of the handheld camera shot magnifies the intensity of the film. Movement such as the camera walking and falling into the water shows the reality of war. Besides that, Janusz Kamiński also took off the coating from his camera lens to give a softer and a blur look to it, resulting in what looks like vertical lens flare.

After doing some research, I found out that this scene was shot with 45 degrees and 90-degree shutter angle and not the usual 180-degree shutter angle. This meant that there is less motion blur, and objects such as dust and smoke particles become more vivid and detailed. The decision to shoot at these settings is to give the film a much more realistic look to the film. Besides that, Spielberg wanted to make the film as real as possible, desaturating the color of the scene and also putting the camera up close to their faces, showing the reality of war. Little details such as vomiting due to seasickness, praying, hands shaking due to the thought of not coming back alive lets the audience relate that the soldier is too, humans as well.

Posted on

Growing Up in Mockingbird

 

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

 

Most critics agree that the strength of To Kill a Mockingbird lies in Harper Lee’s use of the point of view of Scout. This point of view works in two ways: It is the voice of a perceptive, independent six-year-old girl and at the same time it is the mature voice of a woman telling about her childhood in retrospect. Lee skillfully blends these voices so that the reader recognizes that both are working at the same time but that neither detracts from the story. Through the voice of the child and the mature reflection of the adult, Lee can relate freshly the two powerful events in the novel: Atticus Finch’s doomed defense of Tom Robinson and the appearance of the town recluse, Boo Radley. The child’s voice gives a fresh approach to looking at the racism issue in the novel. Both Scout and Jem struggle with confusion over why some people are acceptable in the social strata of their community and others are not. As Scout wisely answers Jem, “There are just folks.” The mature adult voice serves to give the reader reflections on the events that a child could not yet see.

Regarding the plights of Tom Robinson and Boo Radley, Lee draws on the symbol of the mockingbird. Both Tom and Boo are victims of the prejudices of their community. Tom, who is an innocent black man accused of rape, is convicted by a white jury even though Atticus Finch proves that the evidence against Tom is false. Boo is another victim—first, of his father’s harsh religious views, and second, of the town’s ignorance and gossip. Both men are closely related to the symbol of the mockingbird. Atticus and Miss Maudie, their wise neighbor, tell the children it is a sin to kill a mockingbird because the bird brings only pleasure to humans. When Tom is killed trying to escape, the editor of Maycomb’s newspaper likens Tom’s death to the senseless killing of songbirds by hunters and children. Later, after Atticus and the sheriff decide not to tell anyone that Boo Radley killed Ewell in defense of the Finch children, Scout agrees and equates exposing Boo Radley to the curious town to killing a mockingbird.

Two major themes dominate the novel: that of growing from ignorance to knowledge and that of determining what is cowardice and what is heroism. The “ignorance-to-knowledge” theme is developed through the characterization of the maturing children. Scout and Jem both develop understanding and an awareness of the adult world as they grow through their experiences. Lee represents children as having a fairer sense of justice than adults. Thus, when Robinson is convicted, the children are the ones who cannot accept it. Atticus’ insistence that his children learn to be tolerant and not judge people only on appearances becomes one of the moral lessons of the book.

Posted on

The Prism of Communication: How Arrival Tells a Story

Analysis

Arrival by Denis Villeneuve subverts filmmaking’s norms and the audience’s expectations through a protagonist’s journey of discovery. Villeneuve unpacks  plenty of questions towards the audience as the narrative moves forward. The protagonist, Louise, is in a position with the audience assuming a perspective that the film is told linearly. As they observe Louise aloofly pass by a crowd looking at the news of the aliens, the audience assumes that she is apathetic since her daughter, Hannah, passed away recently. Villeneuve invites the audience to attach the familiarity with linear storytelling to his protagonist—acting as a blank canvas. In a movie in which the premise hinges primarily on communication, Villeneuve utilizes the film as a medium of communication to his audience presenting the two sides of the lens of filmmaking.

Villeneuve’s method is not unique in a general way, but the specifications that composes his method to communicate to his audience amplifies and elaborates the story. By subverting the order of how the story unfolds, Arrival’s plot becomes far more robust. If films have the duality of restricting the information or providing an omniscient stance to the audience, Villeneuve amalgamates the two by restricting the information that he is providing omniscience. For example, the introductory scene is an encapsulation of Louise’s relationship with her daughter, but the audience does not find out that this scene is an introduction to Louise’s acquiescence of the alien’s non-linear language. Every aspect that Villeneuve presents is an invitation to an assumption based on expectations but is subverted once the arrival of the climax and the denouement.

Since Arrival’s narrative revolves around a focalization of Louise and on top of his invitations to assumptions, Villeneuve plays with diegetic and non-diegetic sounds, blurs the line between the two, and presents another layer of non-linear storytelling. In the scene where Louise is dreaming, sounds and echoes overwhelm the sensations of the audience on top of a symphonic orchestra playing in the background, suggesting and realizing the omniscience the audience already has. Villeneuve removes the restriction of information by mimicking the process of learning a new language through the focalization on Louise—the languages are blended and Louise experiences, for the first time, the non-linear language.

Ultimately, the film is a lens to examine the human condition similar to how scientists study the aliens through a lens. Villeneuve even makes the emplacement of the glass the scientists look through similar to a movie theater. But, as the scientists—moreover, Louise, explores the non-linear language of the aliens, Villeneuve shifts the study on the audience: why do we think linearly?

Conclusion

Arrival belongs in the Top 100 films. It uses the medium of film and applies it to a familiar aspect of our lives—communication. The film is significant because unlike any other film, Arrival explores the audience as the one subjected to the lens of the camera. It applies all the audience’s biases and subverts all their assumptions. The film pushes critics to analyze a subject in a critical manner than before. It can only be unpacked with the technical diction that is learned through studying filmmaking. Because of the subject matter it explores, the filmmaking lexicon provides a more specific analysis of Arrival.

 

Sources

Personal: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/5cc7fb/official_discussion_arrival_spoilers/ (Links to an external site.)

Journalistic:

https://www.vox.com/culture/2016/12/8/13863260/arrival-director-denis-villeneuve-interview-spoilers (Links to an external site.)

Academic:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4628110/ (Links to an external site.)

https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/film.2018.0083 (Links to an external site.)

Posted on

5G. Film Analysis #2 – Publish your two-topic essay to the blog by WED 8/14 (2 hrs)

The scenes of this movie are very important and play an important  role in the overall plot of the story. Each individual segment displays suspense and makes the viewer anticipate the upcoming scenes to come. The overall plot is described thoroughly throughout the movie and without close attention the movie may seem confusing. When the mirror is re-discovered can be seen as the most important scene in the film. Everything following this scene will later lead to the climax and falling action(s) of the evil mirror. This selection of work would be easy for me describe,  due to the movie being very interesting and action packed. Each segment is suspenseful and truly fun to watch.

Special effects are also evident in this film. This film revolves around the illusion of something being there but it actually isn’t. The characters of this story has flashbacks during encounters of the mirror. Special effects are used to show the flashback while the character just stares in the mirror. The film is exposed multiple times, allowing these flashbacks to just appear and disappear with a close of the camera lenses. The mirror then posses their mother without the crowd actually seeing it. One scene shes normal than with the flip of a switch darkness comes, then she re appears as a demon, displaying obvious special effects .

A way to analyze the segments of this film, you’d have to break the film into smaller more explainable chunks. The movie can be looked as broken  into 3 chunks. Life prior, during, and after the encounter of this evil mirror. Some chunks are spoken in past tense but during present time, something similar to a flashback. These chunks are unified by action due to the mirror and all characters being present in each segment. Some segments are in fact out of order. During some scenes the producer would have the character experience a in dept flash back, allowing the viewer to build a logical bridge between the two actions. The producer also kept the actual meaning of the mirror away from the viewers to create a more dramatical suspense feeling. If the meaning was revealed earlier than the movie wouldnt be as interesting. The mirror can be seen as metaphoric towards the genre of horror. Whenever the mirror is seen, it can be labeled as a symbol of horror. As in film, the only actual scary parts described , only occur when the mirror is present in the film. This metaphoric comparison ultimately prepares crowd for a jump when this mirror is visible .

 

In my opinion this film wouldn’t be considered a great film due to it not having a signifigant impact on the overall genre of horror. The cinematography of this film is elite and usage of each individual segment plays a role in the huge success this movie had. Oculus is a tightly enacted chamber drama that just happens to include supernatural phenomena. By analyzing films critically, it allows viewers to get a better and well rounded understanding of the film prior to watching it. This way of analyzing films also allows the viewer to grasp a more enhanced ,thought out ,analytical conclusion.

Once my ideas where posted , I was told to not see the movie as  horror but to us the mirror as a metaphor for horror. The movie doesn’t start off scary, and in fact doesn’t get horror like until the mirror is re discovered . My classmate is maybe stressing that only when the mirror is apparent, there is horror evident. With this in consideration I was able to revise and add more needed information to validate the point my classmate made. My comments also showed the benefits of using the method of chopping segments. I was able to give one of my classmates an example of using this method. It was easier to do this,  becasuse it allows you to chunk up inforamtion and give it all at once, without confusing the viewer. This method better shaped my essay and hopefully our group essay!

sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oculus_(film)

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/oculus-2014

Oculus (2013) : Movie Plot Ending Explained