Category: Great Films

My experience of the film was very positive. I thought the director, Steven Spielberg, did an excellent job of utilizing special effects throughout the film and making it an interesting science fiction film, while also making ET a heart warming story of a bond between Elliot, the main character and ET. 

The element that overwhelmingly stood out to me while watching ET was the use of special effects, especially on such a low budget. According to Box Office Mojo, ET only used $10.5 million dollars for their entire budget, while an average movie’s budget cost around $100-$150 million to make today. The use of special effects to create ET and other special effects throughout the whole film was groundbreaking at the time, especially at such a low cost. 

Another element of ET that stood out to me was the use of sound throughout the film. In the beginning of the film before the boys first meet ET and when ET is landing on Earth there is very ominous/scary music playing to create an element of fear and unknown. However once he boys befriend ET and start having more fun with him the music begins to lighten up and has a more joyful tune. Sound is actually what ET is most famous for, ET won several accolades including an Oscar for Best Sound and Best Sound Effect Editing “This musical element is the film’s most famous theme and ties to E.T.’s telekinetic ability to make Elliott and his friends fly on their bikes.  The theme creates a mood of wonder and amazement during the iconic scene when Elliot and E.T. fly past the moon,” (Davis). 

Critical conversations I read about the film raved about ET’s use of sound to set the mood and how the film achieved lofty goals on such a low budget. Critics also said that ET was a one of a kind film at the time and brought joy to their hearts. Roger Ebert even wrote, “This is not simply a good movie. It is one of those movies that brush away our cautions and win our hearts,” whcih is extremely high praise. 

I would say that the critical conversations I’ve read about ET fit what my experience of the film was as well. I was very impressed with the use of sound to add to the tone of the fil as well as the use of special effects to make the film seem more real even though it’s about an alien. 

 

Sources:

1. https://peterdavisfilmblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/10/e-t-the-extra-terrestrial-catagories-and-functions-of-sound/ 
2. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-et-the-extra-terrestrial-1982
3. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=et.htm 

This is one of the best silent films I have seen ever before. The English subtitles and the silent dialogue between the characters all pave a good way for the whole story. First of all, this silent film enables me to experience how lust, love, fear, and loyalty are intersected together to shape the Man called George’s life. Director Murnau gives the man Gorge a complicated motivation and look. He is seduced by the woman from the city and gets into the murder plan to her wife. The twist of his expectations of the better city life conjured by the city woman and his series of redemption behaviors such as begging for his wife’s forgiveness and tie the bundles of reeds around his wife, the audience is forced to predicate what the man will do between his wife and the city woman. By constantly rekindling the love between the man and woman,  Murnau does not let down the audience because the man always could identify himself in the crossroads of city life and love.

One of the most striking elements of this film is the mise-en-scene because it always makes the plots and characters so predictable to the audience. Murnau gives a realistic setting to the story such as the farm and the busy city roads and the lake, all of which make the performance of the characters so believable and natural. when the settings of the couple transfer from the farmhouse to the hectic and eventful life of the city, the audience feel natural to juxtapose the life of woman, man, and the city woman who persuades the man to sell his farm and kill her wife. Of course, the use of tracking shot contributes a lot to the imagination of the audience about the relationships between the man and woman after their trust crisis.

One of the critics I have read about the film is from James Blake Ewing. He describes that Sunrise is not simply about the depravity of life but the joys of life. I do agree with that because Murnau offers a lot of visual clues to shift the story by slowly rekindling and reuniting the man and woman. This resonates with both me and the other audience’s expectations of the transition of the story.

What makes this film a great film is largely associated with the performance of the two leading characters, the universality the film achieves by its realistic portraits of the city life during the 1930s, and the incidental music that blends smoothly throughout the movie. The emotions of the characters, the context of each shot, and the direction of the storyline are mainly built upon the setting of the city, which also drive Murnau to seek a depth of the city’s look and chaos that shape the man and women’s life during the early era.

“My favorite film-Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans” the guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2011/nov/16/my-favourite-film-sunrise

https://creativecriticism.net/?p=1612

 

                         

The American Friend, otherwise known in German as Der Amerikanische Freund, is a crime film.  Although in France it would be considered a neo-noir film. A neo-noir film is the new version of the genre “film noir”.  Film Noir came about in France in 1955 and was used to describe a movie that had more sinister story lines. The term film noir translates in English to “dark movie”.  Typically in Neo-noir films they like to use slightly tilted camera angles for an unsettling feel or even unbalanced frames. Typically the line between good and bad is blurred and the common theme is revenge.

The American Friend is an adaptation of a book written by Patricia Highsmith, it was called Ripley’s Game.  The movie itself is about a man named Tom Ripley. Ripley is a very wealthy American living in Germany. Ripley makes a living by scamming people at auctions for fake art.  His partner would bring out some forged paintings and Ripley would be in the crowd raising the price in the auction. While doing his usual scheme he meets a very sick man named Jonathon Zimmermann.  Zimmermann is a picture framer and doesn’t have much respect for Ripley. The movie goes on to tell a twisted tale of Ripley making Zimmermann believe that he’s far more ill than he really is. He even went so far as to forge medical results to make Zimmermann desperate and more open to living a life of crime.  Zimmermann is actually unaware of Ripley’s part in falsifying his medical records and forms a kind of bond with him. This leads to Ripley protecting Zimmermann in a way from a gangster that wants to use him in a murder. Zimmermann begins to think that the mafia wants to kill him so him and Ripley set up in his mansion to wait for their attackers.  Zimmermann and Ripley kill their almost-assassins and then load their bodies up into an ambulance for disposal. In the end Zimmermann does find out that his medical records were faked and ends up abandoning his partner Ripley. Zimmerman ends up dying from some unknown reason while he’s driving away and that’s the end of the movie.

The director Wim Wenders originally wanted John Cassavetes to play the part of Ripley but he said no and suggested that Dennis Hopper be used instead.  Dennis Hopper was a very well known actor with a reputation “as a Hollywood enfant terrible” which means that he was a bit unconventional and controversial.  It’s been said that Wim Wenders has a very keen fascination with everything American and that’s very apparent in this movie as Ripley is a cowboy hat-wearing American.  At the time of production Hopper was having a particularly hard time in life but that only enriched his performance in The American Friend. At one point he even improvised a scene where he takes pictures of himself with a Polaroid camera while he’s crying.  He also uses a decent amount of other American symbols such as “a yellow New York taxi, a Thunderbird car, his jeans trousers and jacket, his cowboy hat, his jukebox and Coca-Cola machine, the pool table and Marlboro cigarettes. These numerous extra-filmic echoes add an additional dimension to Wenders’ portrayal of the impact of America on European culture (senses of cinema).  

The protagonist in this film is Zimmerman while the antagonist is definitely Ripley.  I personally really enjoyed the movie, however that could just be because I’ve never read the book it was based off of.  It turns out that when Patricia Highsmith first saw the movie she was incredibly disappointed in the adaptation of the characters.  In fact, Ripley was hardly shown for a good part of the movie. People also didn’t seem to be a fan of Ripley wearing a cowboy hat for most of the movie.  There also seemed to be some plot holes as well that left viewers feeling a little disappointed in the story line. According to Roger Ebert, a movie reviewer, Wenders had purposely thrown out parts of the story that would’ve made it more cohesive and would’ve made more sense all to prove a point: “that we watch [and read] thrillers as much for atmosphere as for plot” (rogerebert).  I can agree with his statement that people are often more intrigued by things at face value than what really lies beneath them. I think that this fact makes The American Friend an art piece or even a social experiment to see how well the movie would do without having to make the most sense. 

 

https://film.avclub.com/the-american-friend-is-a-tom-ripley-movie-that-doesn-t-1798186176

http://sensesofcinema.com/2012/cteq/american-friend/

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/3866-the-american-friend-little-lies-and-big-disasters

https://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/opening-shots-the-american-friend

 

The Godfather Part II is a crime film and the sequel to The Godfather.  It was nominated for twelve Academy Awards and ended up winning six of them, two being Best Picture (again) as well as Coppola’s award for Best Director.  

The Godfather Part II takes place in Nevada and some parts are even in Tahoe.  I found this sequel to be a lot more intense than the first movie. The opening scene is a beautiful church gathering for Michael’s son’s communion.  It pans over the guests and you can hear the priest blessing Michael’s son. It then flashes to scenes of great violence — Michael did what his father wouldn’t and ordered hits on the heads of the other five families that they are competing with.  There are also quite a bit of scenes in a court setting where Michael Corleone is under scrutiny by the FBI for his actions.

This sequel was a bit different in the narrative as they used flashbacks to give a look into Vito Corleone’s coming into power.  The interesting thing about the storytelling technique in this sequel is that Vito Corleone’s story kind of correlates with his son, Michael Corleone, and his rise to being the head of the Corleone family.  I was impressed with the manner in which Coppola did the flashbacks.  I imagine that there’s not a lot of room for error when it comes to organizing a plot in a way that the audience can easily follow.  I found that even with all the flashbacks and different family members to keep track of that it was still relatively easy to stay engaged and not become too confused.

     

There are two protagonists in the film, as they kept switching between Michael’s present day life and his father’s past life.  Both men are beginning to realize the lengths of their power and both want more of it. Just like the first film the goal at hand was being the most powerful family in the area by doing whatever they had to to get there.  It was apparent, however, that Vito Corleone seemed to have more of a moral compass than his son. In the first film Vito makes it clear that he won’t get involved in selling narcotics and only wants to stick with casinos.  He also promises to keep peace with everyone around. Michael had no qualms about getting into the drug industry and also ordered a hit on the heads of all five mafia families.

In this sequel there are a lot of close up shots of the characters.  The purpose of this is to give the audience a chance to see the actor’s emotions more clearly (eportfolios).  An example of this, along with angle choice is when Connie, Michael’s sister, is begging him to forgive their other brother Fredo.  While the camera is on Connie it’s kept at a somewhat high angle to give the sense of vulnerability on Connie’s part. When the camera was on Michael it was filmed directly at eye level.  This really emphasized the fact that Michael was above Connie both physically and in terms of power.

The use of light was interesting in this movie as well.  Oftentimes when they would show Michael Corleone the scene would be dark and gloomy.  It continues to get worse as the movie progresses and Michael’s life gets more and more difficult.  The purpose of this is to give the audience a sense of foreboding as they watch Michael struggle (reelviews). 

All in all, this sequel had outstanding reviews, just as the first The Godfather did.  It was with resounding agreement that people said this movie “represents the apex of American movie-making and the ultimate gangster story.  Few sequels have expanded upon the original with the faithfulness and detail of this one. Beneath the surface veneer of an ethnic period piece, The Godfather is not so much about crime lords as it is about prices paid in the currency of the soul for decisions made and avoided. It is that quality which establishes this saga as timeless” (reelviews).  I can wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I found The Godfather Part II to be even more intriguing than the first and I definitely look forward to watching the third one.

 

http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/godfather-part-ii-the

https://www.indiewire.com/2012/04/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-the-godfather-part-ii-252707/

https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/murphy16/2016/03/14/the-godfather-part-ii-camera-technique-scene-analysis/

Fantasia was released in 1940, following the successes of Walt Disney’s beloved Mickey Mouse, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and Pinocchio. It is a story combination of stunning animation that is complimented with as one would consider elites scores.

With his name established, Walt had other plans to pursue. With Fantasia, Disney hoped to achieve something else. Something greater. He once told his staff, “we’ve got more in this medium than making people laugh.” The new film, he said, would “change the history of motion pictures.” And despite its initial box-office failure and high criticisms, Fantasia grew to be one of Disney’s greatest creations in getting audiences to view animation in a different art medium. A respected one.

Now, mentioned above, why would someone believe the music in this particular film to be elites? Well, all the scores are classical pieces. With the rise of classical music during the renaissance, it has been heavily believed that the classics were made exclusively for the higher class and the educated. However, I believe Walt had no intentions for exclusivity and hoped for new listeners to experience classical music in a different way. The film was being developed just in the year before World War II, already taking a big risk for and early Disney movie. Having a film with animated visuals to complement classical scores was not exactly what audiences were expecting from young Walt Disney’s work history.

After Fantasia’s release, there were many mixed reviews. It was even considered to be a box-office failure. Before the movie’s release, Disney devised a first-of-its-kind, surround-sound system he called Fantasound, to be installed in first-run theaters. Disney imagined adding new segments in the future, so the film could be released again and again. But Fantasound turned out to be too expensive to install in every theater. The film had to be substantially cut. After early critical enthusiasm, NewYork Times even calling it a” delightful and exciting” creation, audiences seemed baffled or bored by it. It lost more than the modern equivalent of $15 million and nearly drove the company into bankruptcy.

Many were amazed by the advancement in using Fantasound in earlier theaters only. However, many others were also appalled by the visuals. It was deemed even as a far as wild and brutalizing. I believe it was greatly criticized merely from the fact that the audiences were expecting films such as Pinocchio and Snow White again. But many at the time seemed to not understand the actual significance of the tools used in creating the story, making it a great film and in fact very similar to Snow White.

The combination of classical music and vibrant and bouncy visuals create a sense of fantastical realism. It is the same pattern that Walt has done within Snow White and MGM’s The Wizard of Oz. Walt always knew that in order to change the value of animation as an art form, the audience first needed to be grounded into the story and characters while also enjoying the lively art animation was supposed to be. Just how Walt brought realism to Snow White’s features and life struggles and just how Victor Fleming wrote deep relatable themes in the relationship of Dorothy’s friend group, bridging the “elites” classical music to playful animated characters helped ground the genre of animation and allowed all classes and social groups to experience, essentially animated classical music in a new way.

The movie itself did not bring Disney to the high class status Walt Disney was hoping for but it opened a long bridge of utilizing classical music within animated pictures for generations to come.

Sources:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/922891.pdf?ab_segments=0%252Fdefault-2%252Fcontrol&refreqid=excelsior%3A69b82aeb1bae6f3166e18a1141fe02bd

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/disney-fantasia-critical-box-office-failure-180956963/

The Godfather is an American crime film from 1972.  It was directed by Francis Ford Coppola and won a total of four Academy Awards such as “Best Picture” and “Best Actor” in regards to Marlon Brando (Geeks).  The story itself is set in 1945 New York and follows the Corleone family. The Corleone family is made up of quite a few Sicilian mobsters and the dad, Vito Corleone, is the famous “Godfather”.  

 

The opening scene of The Godfather is the day of his daughters wedding, where it’s tradition to not turn down any requests.  It shows The Godfather in his office talking to various men about their troubles and really gives you an idea to just how powerful he is.  At one point it showed a man sitting by himself during the celebration of The Godfather’s daughter’s wedding and he was just practicing his introduction and thank you to The Godfather over and over; he was so nervous about the meeting that he didn’t seem to even notice the bystanders that were watching him with concern.

At first the protagonist seemed to be The Godfather as that is the title of the movie and that was the focus in the beginning of the film.  However, at some point during a feud with another Italian family Vito Corleone is shot and hospitalized. While he is laid up in the hospital, unable to defend himself, another mobster plans an attack on him and orchestrates it with the local police.  Michael Corleone, The Godfather’s son, shows up at the hospital just at the right time and saves his father from being murdered. From that point on the protagonist becomes Michael and the plot is about his rise to being the head of the family company as well as a vicious mob boss — arguably more ruthless than his father.

 

There’s one goal in the movie and that’s power.  There are 6 powerful families that are referenced and always seem to be taking pot shots at each other.  One family would act, the other would retaliate, wash, rinse, and repeat. While that’s a very basic overview of the goal at hand, there’s a reason the film won the awards that it did, it’s very good.

 

The production of The Godfather was very interesting to me.  Coppola estimated that the first film was made using around 6.5 million dollars.  Coppola also said that today a studio probably wouldn’t be willing to take a risk on The Godfather the way they did back in 1972.  Another interesting tidbit is that Al Pacino, the actor that played Michael Corleone, wasn’t really wanted for the part. The Paramount studio executive, Bob Evans, didn’t want to use Al Pacino as he felt he was too short for the character.  This led to Al Pacino auditioning for the same part over and over because Coppola really wanted him but Bob Evans did not (nofilmschool).

 

The actors in the movie were both well known stars and lesser known stars.  Marlon Brando was already an iconic actor, but that came with some consequences.  The president of the studio absolutely did not want Marlon Brando to be a part of the production and in an attempt to dissuade Coppola he said that Brando would have to put up a million dollar bond stating that he wouldn’t cause any problems during the production (nofilmschool).  Coppola accepted with no hesitation and didn’t tell Brando about the interesting deal. Brando ended up knocking it out of the park. Al Pacino and Robert Duvall were both somewhat new to Hollywood and The Godfather seemed to launch them into fame (geeks).

 

The special effects for the movie were pretty cut and dry.  I felt like they did a good job with fight scenes or shooting scenes.  One interesting thing I found about the film, however, is that they had to make two different sets of prints with varying light levels.  When this movie was released it was really popular to go to drive in movie theaters and to prevent the image from being too dark because it’s nighttime during the showing the producers would go overboard and overlight everything.  They made the darker films for theaters. I just found it interesting how much thought goes into the little details of the movie. Lighting isn’t something I would normally take into consideration, however, I do know that when a movie’s lighting is off it makes me not want to watch the movie altogether.

 

The overwhelming majority of reviews of The Godfather all said that the movie was excellent; after watching the film for myself, I can agree with that statement!  

 

https://www.tested.com/art/movies/463501-filming-light-and-dark-side-godfather/

 

https://geeks.media/the-godfather-film-review-and-analysis

 

https://nofilmschool.com/2017/05/godfather-production-cast-reunion-panel

 

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-godfather-1972

 

The film I watched is one of the most representative works of Yasujiro Ozu, which is named Late Spring. One of Ozu’s writing features is telling a flat story but reflecting a profound truth. The story told in this film is happened between a single father and his sole daughter. After the early death of her mother, Ji Zi, the daughter in the story, stick together with her father and help each other in difficulties, and both of them are reluctant to marry firstly, but at the end of the film Ji Zi married someone because of her father’s white lie, leaving her father spend the left time of life alone. I am deeply moved by the great affection between the father and the daughter. Actually, we can say that the greatest affection among human beings is the love between parents and their children, so this film is of illuminating influence for me to handle my relations with my parents.

 

 

As for the impressive moments or scenes in the film, I was deeply moved by the moment that the father cheated Ji Zi that he decided to remarry someone and persuade Ji Zi to pursuit her own happiness, by which the daughter could begin a new life frankly. Actually, all of our audiences know that it is a white lie or just an excuse of her father, which aims to not to delay the future of Ji Zi. What’s more, the flat conversations occurred many times in the film between the father and daughter also enlighten me a lot. In the film, Ji Zi more than once expressed her determination to accompany her father all the time and never marry someone, but at the end of the film, with the persuasion from her father, she finally gave up her obsession. But indeed it was a kind of great love and responsibility as a child and the only partner of the old man in the world.

There are also some critical voices about the film. As audiences find, most of Ozu’s films are about the misfortunes in a family and some are about the topic that daughters refuse to get married and leave the family. Some may regard this is not a positive topic and the consistent techniques used in his film are dull frames, still scenes and inconspicuous sound effects, which are not encouraging and attractive for the audience. But my opinion is the opposite, it is the simpleness of the story and scenes that bring up a great and thought-provoking work. The common topics between parents and their children are also a light spot of his works, which is an everlasting issue in the world.

The excellence and success of the film Late Spring is definite. First, Ozu has a unique shooting character and a special way to tell a story to his audiences. Also, his success is due to the details of his emotional processing and hidden principles. What’s more, it is the emotional resonance with most audiences that make his works famous and valuable. So, we can find that most of the great films are successful for their unique detail processing techniques and the historical and practical significance for people’s life in modern society.

Sources

https://film.avclub.com/yasujiro-ozu-s-quietly-staggering-late-spring-returns-i-1798186831

 

The Sound of Music was released in 1965 and was produced and directed by Robert Wise in a form of a musical drama film. The film illustrates the way that music, lead by Maria, brings happiness back to the Von Trapp family and finally helps them escape from the powerful Nazis. By emerging music back into the family’s lives, Maria continues to convince people to understand that music has a mighty power to change even the most delicate situations into stronger family bonding and romantic feelings.

For the story of the Von Trapp family and of the events leading up to their concert attraction just prior to World War II and their fleeing from the Nazis, Wise in fact went to the actual locale, Salzburg, and spent 11 weeks filming his action among the pageantry of the Bavarian Alps. He caught the beauty and fascination of the terrain with his facile cameras, combining the gorgeous towering mountains and quiet lakes with the Old World grace of the historic City of Music, a great complement to interiors shot in Hollywood. One of the scenes that stood out was the sequence of the famous Salzburg Festival, which was actually shot in the spectacular Felsenreitschule, or Rocky Riding School. The stage of the vast amphitheatre is backgrounded by scores of arched tunnels carved out of the rocky mountain that surrounds the city and it forms an fantastic backdrop for the climactic scenes of the film, which then shows the Von Trapp family escaping after their appearance onstage while storm troopers are waiting for them in the audience.

There is no surprise that the music plays a huge narrative tool, but in also in corporation with wide shot visuals. This is especially shown when Maria made the children clothes from her window curtains and took them out into town. There is a long shot that audiences can see the beautiful mountains and the seven children all dressed in floral window drapes that shows, in hopes of the producer, the beauty in the family bonding in beautiful clothing within an open space in contrast to the uniforms their father insisted them to wear everyday inside the house. More interestingly, Maria then taught the children a music lesson on the seven keys – Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Ti. The Sound of Music purposely integrated this concept to show that each of the seven children have their own wider role in the family bond just as the seven keys of the music. When each of the keys take turns to sound or sound in harmony, they compose beautiful music all together.

Another pivotal scene that demonstrates this concept is in a later scene where the seven children form a choir to sing a ballad for their father’s potential suitor. The assembly of the children singing definitely was the catalyst in reminding Captain Von Trapp what peace music can bring. Using a medium shot, we see Captain Von Trapp’s emotional reaction to his children singing together in harmony. We then get a cutaway to the children singing, only to go back to Captain Von Trapp slowly entering the room to join the assembly. Within this sequence, the audience can see the father soften through the sound of music, which is something we have not seen before in the film until now. It does not even end there when we actually get to see the father play the guitar and sing to the children himself, embodying the bonding element Mariah always had with the children.

Despite all of the film’s stunning visual storytelling in family bonding, there were still however unforgiving critics who absolutely despised the beloved classic. It’s a historical context definitely added an extra intrigue to the Sound of Music phenomenon. Back in 1965, film critic Pauline Kael called The Sound of Music “the sugar-coated lie that people seem to want to eat.” She even goes on to say, “We have been turned into emotional and aesthetic imbeciles when we hear ourselves humming the sickly, goody-goody songs.” Many more harsh critics agreed with Kael. The New York Times’ Bosley Crowther’s initial review included calling out the film’s “cosy-cum-corny” direction and the plot’s “romantic nonsense and sentiment.” Soon after the film’s release, he posited that The Sound of Music would destroy the movie-musical genre, considering the excellence of West Side Story and My Fair Lady. 

It was more bitter than sweet to entangle my enjoyment watching the film with the harsh critics’ words during the time of the release but the musical continues to stand the test of time and touch many people’s hearts till this day.  Even if there are those who don’t see or feel the beauty of the film, at least they can hear the family sing the sound of music.

Sources:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3592972.pdf?ab_segments=0%252Fdefault-2%252Fcontrol&refreqid=excelsior%3Ab1aa3188e6eddcf7c8c3f6105aa0c1a1

https://www.thedailybeast.com/everyone-hated-the-sound-of-music?ref=scroll

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/may/17/the-sound-of-music-review-julie-andrews-christopher-plummer

Aguirre, the Wrath of God is a West German-Mexican-Peruvian historical drama.  It was directed by Werner Herzog, a German director, in the year 1972. The story takes place in 16th-century Peru.  In the beginning the camera pans over a beautiful view of the Andes mountains. On those mountains was a large group of Spanish conquistadors on their mission to find the mythical city El Dorado.  The travelers believed that El Dorado was a city with massive amounts of gold and that they could conquer it. After some time the men decided that they would create a group of 40 men that would go off on their own expedition.  They were given one week to find more information on El Dorado or the natives living in the jungle or that they would be presumed dead.  

The story of Aguirre, the Wrath of God is one of dictatorship, greed, and obsession.  The main character Aguirre (Klaus Kinski) initiated an uprising against the leader of the smaller group of men.  The original leader deemed their mission to be fruitless and that they should head back. Aguirre, however, was so wildly consumed with the idea of finding untold riches that he ranted about all the power the men could have if they were to find El Dorado.  He even referenced Hernando Cortes, the well known Spanish conqueror of Mexico in 1519. He told the group that Cortes had directly disobeyed orders to cancel his expedition and that he ended up being the ruler of Mexico. He then had someone shoot the original leader to instill fear into anyone that tried to suggest that they cancel their expedition.  As the men continued on their way to find El Dorado they come across many more problems such as illness and even cannibalistic natives that are following them along in the jungle.

During the film there is a man narrating as if he’s reading diary entries, which I found to be helpful because it gave an insider’s perspective to the group we’re watching.  The entire film was done with just one handheld camera which gave a lot of scenes a very shaky look. The shots were often very blurry as well from rain or splashing water while the actors were in rafts on the river.  The handheld camera allowed for more free range of movement as the entire film was shot in the actual jungle. The actors spend their time primarily on rafts traveling down the river so it was necessary to use a camera that was easily mobile.  Herzog also had the film shot in sequence in an attempt to “convey the increasing desperation of the film’s scenario” (Deep Focus Review).

I found the story behind the production to be the most fascinating part of the whole movie.  The lengths that the director and actors were willing to go to film this movie was borderline insane.  The entire crew had to go to extreme lengths by hiking up a mountain near Manchu Picchu. The crew consisted of about 450 people as well as animals like horses, pigs, and llamas.  The weather was decently poor during their trek. The opening scene you can see the thick layer of fog that rolls about the mountain while they climb. They eventually reached an altitude of 14,000 feet and were walking along a cliff side with a 2,000 foot drop.  They were at a point where even the natives of the area were getting altitude sickness (Deep Focus Review). The actors also had to deal with poverty like living conditions because the budget for the film was only $370,000. At one point their campsite flooded and Herzog wouldn’t allow them to move locations because he was so obsessed with the film being exactly a certain way.  So instead they had some locals build large rafts and they continued on with the production while living on those.

    Herzog also put his actors lives at risk with the shots he was demanding.  For example, the rapids he chose to film in were so strong that during pre-production when he put a raft in the water it immediately ripped it in half.  When that happened the actors had to be pulled through the rushing water with ropes to bring them back to shore. Instead of finding a safer setting to film in he hired some local natives to make a stronger raft and said that they would do it in just one shot.  Later in the film there’s a scene where Aguirre is talking to monkeys. Herzog had locals round up about a hundred monkeys and just unleashed them on the scene. This led to Herzog, as well as other crew members, being attacked by the monkeys and having to endure it in order to get the perfect shot.

I think the most intense part of the production was that halfway through the production Herzog had shipped footage to Mexico to be processed but it was reported to be lost in transit.  This meant that everything they had completed so far was lost forever and they had no means to continue filming. Herzog was so obsessed with finishing the film, however, that he didn’t tell anyone about the lost tapes and continued on with the production.  By the power of some unknown miracle he was contacted a few weeks later and was told that the lost films were actually found in some customs office in Peru so they were able to piece them together for the whole film. I just think that Herzog’s level of dedication to this dangerous production really paralleled with Aguirre’s obsession with finding El Dorado at all costs.  Of course Aguirre’s story is much more dark and filled with death, but you get the idea.

Another interesting aspect to the production was the main actor Klaus Kinski.  Herzog had “described his relationship with Kinski as two oppositional forces of Nature that when joined reach a critical mass” (Deep Focus Review).  Kinski’s overbearing nature is actually what landed him the part. Before playing in Aguirre, the Wrath of God Kinski played a theatrical Jesus on tour.  He would basically stand on a stage with a microphone and rant about how he was Jesus and he would insult the audience who would then insult him back. While he was on the set of Aguirre, the Wrath of God he wasn’t much better.  It was reported that one night he was upset about some locals being “too noisy” in their tent so he took his rifle and fired off three shots into the tent. One man was shot in the hand and almost lost his finger but thankfully nobody was killed.  Kinski didn’t get in much trouble for his actions, Herzog just took away his rifle. It might seem like a crazy light punishment but it seemed Herzog was a bit crazy as well. Kinski had finally threatened to leave the production altogether and Herzog responded by saying that “the film was more important than either of them—and that if Kinski tried to leave, Herzog would get his rifle and put eight of the nine rounds into Kinski’s head, and then save the last one for himself” (Deep Focus Review) so as you can see both the heads of the production were quite unstable.

The film had pretty basic special effects due to their low budget.  They had real explosions but when it came to things like blood it was very obviously bright red paint being splattered.  One element focused on heavily in the film is noise. Almost the entire film there’s constant chattering of animals in the jungle or the rushing water in the rapids beneath them.  Occasionally Herzog would cut all of the noise and make everything disturbingly silent. This was to make the viewers uncomfortable, like the characters were in the movie, because it always followed with a wild attack from the cannibalistic natives hiding in the jungle. 

 

http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/m_friers/clips/internal-rhythm-aguirre-character-movement-wide/view

 

http://www.philfilms.utm.edu/1/aguirre.htm

 

https://deepfocusreview.com/definitives/aguirre-the-wrath-of-god/

 

I watched a classical Japanese movie Tokyo Story, which was directed by Yasujiro Ozu and released in 1953. The successful and great point of the film is that Ozu tells the audience the most common family story but reveals the deepest life principles with the simplest scenes and frames. The story describes a journey of an old couple to visit their sons and daughters who struggled for their life in Tokyo, but unexpectedly they received cold receptions and after their return to their hometown, the old mother died for illness. From the ordinary story and the simplest conversations among family members, I see the indifference of humanity; I understand the helplessness of human under the pressure of birth, death, illness, and death; I realize the loss of traditional values in the eastern world. In my opinion, this film worth watching over and over again for one can have fresh feelings every time you see it again.

There are many valuable scenes or moments in the film that should be studied and analyzed carefully. First, the obvious contrast between the indifferent attitude of the eldest son and daughter towards their old parents and the passionate welcome of their daughter-in-law whose husband had died for eight years shocks me a lot. In the homes of their natural son and daughter, the two old couple were treated as troubles and in order to avoid unnecessary issues, the two families together sent their parents to “enjoy” a sea journey, which left many uncomfortable feelings for the couple. However, Ji Zi, their daughter-in-law, acted very enthusiastic and filial and she actively chatted with them and never showed impatience. Second, the scene that Ji Zi chatted with the little daughter after the death of their mother is a very impressive and thought-provoking moment. In their conversations, the little daughter saw the attitudes of her old brothers and sisters towards their dead mother and her anger could not be hidden anymore, so she said that all of them were selfish. But Ji Zi answered surprisingly that one might become like that one day, and she would be also, because there were so many things in the world were unpleasant which may drive people to change to be someone they dislike or even hate. How helpless the words are. Undoubtedly all that she said were the truth and it is also the reason for the gradually bland world. What’s more, another scene stands out in the film is the final talk between Ji Zi and her father-in-law. Although her husband had gone for eight years, the idea of remarriage never occurred to her. She deeply kept in mind the status of a woman in a family and only when her father-in-law proposed her to remarry and forget her husband and begin a new life, did she feel relieved. The behavior of Ji Zi not only reflected her deep affection and faith, but indirectly showed her loss of individual identity under traditional ethics.

As for the critical conversations about this film, the prominent one is the controversy about the implications of the story. Lots of audience regard that the most important truth Ozu would like to tell is the indifference and unfilial actions of the sons and daughters, but some believe that there are more to find than that. Actually, people in different ages, with various experiences and from diverse places would have totally divergent thoughts every time they watch the movie. In my opinion, superficially, we can find that on the journey to their children’s home, the two old couple are treated perfunctorily and indifferently, but when we think of the deep reasons of this phenomenon maybe we can find the pressure from life and work, the elapse of time, and even the helplessness in one’s life are all causes of the tragedy. Just as Ji Zi said at the end of the film, everyone would become selfish and helpless as time went by, which is also the tragedy of the whole society.

What can be considered as a great film? What kind of great film is actually not good? Actually, in my view, there is more than one standard for us to evaluate whether a film is great or not. Take this film as an example, which I consider as a great one. All of the special effects, macro pictures, and even complicated plots are not found in the film, but the success of it relies on the profound truth the director tells the audiences with only a most common story, which contains unforgettable moments and scenes that can resonate with all audiences in different ages and backgrounds. So, we can conclude that not all great films are characterized by stunts, the most representative features of a great film are its connotations, everlasting taste for all audiences.

Sources

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/20/tokyo-story-ozu-arthouse

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/08/04/national/directors-vote-yasujiro-ozus-1953-tokyo-story-greatest-film-ever-made/