Filmtopia.info

I thought Pulp Fiction was a good film and I can appreciate why it was critically acclaimed, however I thought the film was very drawn out and it focused on too many unnecessary details that draw away from the story line. The movie followed the characters scene by scene and didn’t skip around at all which made it seem more realistic but it also just dragged the movie and it was somewhat monotonous at times.

A moment that stood out to me was when Vincent Vega and Mia Wallace were sitting at the diner talking. This scene seemed to drag on for a really long time and it felt like almost half of the movie was their dialogue at the diner and seemed somewhat unnecessary to spend that much time on one scene. 

One element of the film that stood out to me was the use of segmenting to help break the film down and make it easier to comprehend and prepare the viewer for what’s about to happen. The movie is very long so it’s broken down into 7 main segments- “Prelude to The Gold Watch (flashback), Prelude to Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace’s Wife, The Bonnie Situation, The Diner, The Diner ii, Prelude to The Gold Watch (present), Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace’s Wife, and The Gold Watch” (Wikipedia). This was a smart choice by the director ton split the film up into segments so that it kept the audience engaged and let them know what to look for in each segment of the film and what to pay attention to. 

I read varying critical conversations about Pulp Fiction, some describe it as an excellent film while others describe the film as “authoritative, influential, and meaningless” (Foster Hirsch). Other critics think that Pulp Fiction is a reference to postmodernism because it has several references to the 1950s and was even called a masterpiece, “Describing the film in 2005 as Tarantino’s ‘postmodern masterpiece … to date’, David Walker writes that it “is marked by its playful reverence for the 1950s … and its constantly teasing and often deferential references to other films”. He characterizes its convoluted narrative technique as ‘postmodern tricksiness’,” (Wikipedia). 

I can agree with the varying critiques of the film because I can appreciate how influential and important its references to postmodernism ast the time of its release were but I also can understand how a critic would be harsh and write that it seems “meaningless” at times because I also felt that way during the film. 

 

Sources

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulp_Fiction#cite_note-164

My experience of The Shining was good but it could have been better. I thought it was interesting in the beginning when the chef knows that the boys mother calls him “Doc” and reveals that he is psychic to the boy and that he knows that the boy is psychic too. I thought maybe the director could have done a better job explaining that part of the movie. Another element I was confused about was in the end after Jack dies and it shows the poster for the Overlook Hotel in the year 1921 and in the very front is Jack. There were also a few scenes that confused me. One scene in particular that confused me was when Wendy locks Jack in the food pantry and he somehow escapes later. The movie didn’t show how he escaped and it seemed unrealistic. Other than those confusing spots of the film, I thought the director did a great job of keeping the audience engaged and keeping the tone of the film eerie and creepy throughout the whole movie. 

The elements of the film that I was most impressed with was the sound, visual effects, and editing used in the film. All of these elements usually play a critical role in most horror movies but The Shining did an excellent job of utilizing all three. 

In the very beginning of the film during the drive up to the hotel there is scary music playing which sets the tone for the whole movie and makes the audience aware that something bad is going to happen at the hotel. Then when Jack arrives and interviews at the hotel the manager tells him about the murders that had previously taken place at the hotel. Then whenever something bad is about to happen during the movie, like when Danny has a vision or when Jack is chasing around Wendy with an axe, scary music is playing and it crescendos when there is an anticipation scene. Also the lack of sound throughout other scenes in the movie adds to the loneliness and isolation of the hotel making it even more creepy. 

The visual effects during The Shining also contribute to the overall tone of the film and give it an alarming feel. A scene that stood out to me with effective visual effects was when Danny was having a vision and saw the hotel lobby flooded with blood. The color red often appears in this film, for example when Danny becomes possessed and starts saying “red rum” he writes it on the door in red lip gloss, a lot of the rooms in the hotel have red in them, and the characters are also wearing red clothes in many scenes. I think this choice was done on purpose by the director to symbolize violence, blood, and murder and was a prequel for what would take place later in the film when Jack goes crazy and murders Dick who came to rescue Danny and Wendy. 

The other element of the film that impressed me the most was the editing of scenes and the different types of editing used to have an optimal viewing experience. There are several eye line match shots in the film that create anticipation scenes and make the audience jump from their seats. One eye line match shot in particular that stood out to me was when Danny was riding his tricycle through the hotel lobby and then it switches to his face and you can see his expression go from normal to terrified and then the camera switches from Danny to the two girls asking Danny to come play with them and then it flashes to images of their chopped up bodies.  Another scene that stood out to me using analytical editing was when Jack is going crazy and then he sits down at the bar for a drink and at first it looks like no one is there but then Jack starts talking to himself, the camera zooms in on his face and then he begins talking to Lloyd the bartender and orders a drink. 

Critics have written several different opinions on The Shining. Although most critics have overwhelmingly positive reviews of the film, many critics have different interpretations of what the film symbolizes. One famous interpretation was by Bill Blakemore who suggested that the film was symbolic of the genocide of Native Americans, the reasoning being that the hotel is said to have been built over an Indian burial ground, there are several Native American artifcats depicted throughout the film, and Dick Hallorann was murdered on top of a Native American rug when he returns to rescue Danny and Wendy. 

The critiques I read somewhat matched my experience of the film but I thought it left a little more to be desired. There were a few holes in the storyline that I mentioned earlier which confused me and I thought that the director should have put more emphasis on Danny’s visions and made them seem more realistic and last longer than they actually did since they play a critical role in the film. 

 

Sources

1. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/shining
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shining_(film)#cite_note-92

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/