In our movie, The Three Little Pigs and the Big, Bad Banker, we took a spin on a classic story-book tale. The movie is about three brothers who are living during the Great Depression. They are struggling to get by in these hard times, while the bank is out to get them and their houses. The banker is trying to forclose the houses that cannot pay off their mortgages, and the youngest brother happens to be the owner of one of those houses. Robert Montgomery plays the youngest brother, who is also the main character. Coincidentally he is in love with the banker's daughter, who is played by Myrna Loy. The banker, played by Wallace Beery, will not listen to lovestruck daughter, who wishes to stay with the youngest brother, regardless of the status of his house and wealth. After the banker takes the youngest brother's house, he flees to his older brother's house, Clark Gable. Clark Gable plays a lawyer, who is having a hard time paying off his debts as a member of the middle class. They both end up fleeing to their oldest brother's house, who is played by Nelson Eddy. He is the richest and in the upper class, so the bank won't take his house. Clark Gable and the other brothers sue the bank and the evil banker, accompanied by Myrna Loy who goes against her father. They end up winning and getting their houses back.
We chose this as our movie because it addresses the financial crisis in the 1930s and provides the public with an example of bank corruption and how individuals are affected. The genre of this film is drama and romance because it is very real and conveys many serious messages. The romance part of the film between Robert Montgomery and Myrna Loy is perfect because they both acted in several romantic films in the 30s. This film will be directed by King Vidor and MGM will produce it. We chose MGM because in the 30s it was an up and coming studio that was prepared to make blockbusters and high-budget films, which we want our film to be. The actors chosen all have experience with MGM and have worked together. King Vidor is a director for MGM also. Myrna Loy is chosen as the leading female role because of her beauty and good looks for the camera. Robert Mongomery and Clark Gable were chosen for their big names and experience with acting.
Cinematography will be highlighted in this movie to really influence the way the characters are portrayed to the audience. The cinematographer will be James Wong Howe because he is known for his use of shadows. We had the idea for shadows and lighting to help the viewer decide which characters were good and which were evil. The banker will have a half-lit and eerie face to give the audience a mysterious and negative emotion towards him, while the other "good" characters will be fully lit and almost glowing to show their innocence.
The Hays Code affects our movie because we couldn't go as far as we wanted to with the relationship between the youngest brother and the banker's daughter. We also couldn't go as deep with the corruption of the banker, due to the influece of American opinion. We plan to shoot this film in black and white to show the contrast of lighting between characters.
The only thing I would have done differently, if I was working on my own instead of being in a group, is making the film on a lower budget and a much- lower scale. I feel like the message would have stuck with the audience longer if it was filmed on a low-scale because it would have captured the gritty realism of the time period and harsh times. I feel like the high-budget and huge picture film sugarcoats the true message trying to be portrayed. But the big-picture film does provide the audience with a happy ending and typical Hollywood plotline, which would make us a lot of money, so it is good.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Formal Film Studies
I chose to watch three post Vietnam war films that essentially protested the war. The films I viewed were Apocalypse Now (1979), The Deer Hunter (1978), and Combat Shock (1984). My main discovery after analyzing is that symbolism, style, and cinematography make these war films great.
Apocalypse Now was written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The film follows Captain Willard, played by Martin Sheen, who is sent on a mission to find and kill Col. Kurtz. This film depicts Vietnam war as a downward spiral to madness. The movie was nominated for eight Academy Awards and won two Oscars for sound and cinematography. The movie starts off with a high angle shot of an island, as if the viewer was flying over it, and then proceeds on to a scene in which helicopters are flying over a village. There are shots of the helicopter flying down to the village and the village fighting back. These scenes help the viewer feel like he or she is a part of the film and in the Lieutenant's crew. The use of high angles in this movie greatly influences the perception.
Specific camera shots play an important role in this film when Capt. Willard finally encounters Col. Kurtz, who has gone AWOL. The first look we get of Kurtz is a close-up where half of his face is lit-up. This shot lets the audience see Kurtz and get a good idea of what he looks like, but also leaves an eerie feeling. Another important scene is before Willard kills Kurtz, Kurtz is positioned in the doorway. He is almost entirely black and it's a shot of his whole body. We get a dramatic feeling from this shot as Kurtz awaits his death.
The Deer Hunter was the next movie I watched. It was directed by Michael Cimino and featured big name stars: Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, and Meryl Streep. It is a film about three young factory workers from Pennsylvania, Michael, Steven, and Nick, who enlist in the Vietnam War. They encounter many horrors throughout the war and end up being captured by the Vietcong as prisoners of war. At the prison camp, they are forced to play Russian Roulette each other, which is a famous scene in the movie. The movie won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Walken), Best Editing, and Best Sound. When the movie first came out, it was praised for concerning the psychological and social aftermath of the Vietnam War. Its symbolism is the greatest factor in that. It is an in-depth examination of how the war affected the lives of people. The film doesn't take a specific political stand on the war, but actually depoliticizes it. The movie turns the war into a play on morals and how negative and positive characteristics of the trio make it a deadly and destructive drama. The real enemy in the war is left out in this film, so it ends up being about internal struggles with masculinity and morals.
Combat Shock was by far the most different and unique film of the three. Being a low budget film, it did not have the realistic feel that the other two movies had, but used surreal elements that added to the insanity of the movie. This movie is about a disturbed Vietnam war veteran, Frankie, who struggles with post-war life. He is unemployed and broke, surrounded by junkie friends, constantly being nagged on by his wife, and dealing with his deformed baby. This movie opens with an intense flashback from the war. Then we get to see the depressing life that the Vietnam veteran post-war as the movie progresses with several hallucinations and flashbacks from the war. Buddy Giovinazzo wrote and directed this film on an extremely low budget, which captured the gritty and cruel world of a destitute Vietnam war veteran. This movie is praised by many for being a masterpiece due to its gritty realism, but others see it as one of the ugliest and most depressing film of the decade. Its unique style captures the horrors of the Vietnam war and provided an example of how it completely destroyed one veteran's life.
All three of these films are about the Vietnam War and how it affects the lives of veterans. They all have unique stylistic elements that set them apart from other films. These films marked a turning point in American history because during the Vietnam War, there were no films made showing the harsh reality of the war. These films opened the eyes of many throughout the nation and embarked a whole new outlook on the war. They are unlike Hollywood films prior because they addressed the Vietnam War negatively and expressed the cruel reality of it. Each director took a risk in making the films, and all of them provoked mixed reviews. Overall these films impacted American media by conveying political, social, and cultural messages that were not normally addressed. Each film did this differently through certain symbolic and stylistic elements.
The Deer Hunter was the next movie I watched. It was directed by Michael Cimino and featured big name stars: Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, and Meryl Streep. It is a film about three young factory workers from Pennsylvania, Michael, Steven, and Nick, who enlist in the Vietnam War. They encounter many horrors throughout the war and end up being captured by the Vietcong as prisoners of war. At the prison camp, they are forced to play Russian Roulette each other, which is a famous scene in the movie. The movie won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Walken), Best Editing, and Best Sound. When the movie first came out, it was praised for concerning the psychological and social aftermath of the Vietnam War. Its symbolism is the greatest factor in that. It is an in-depth examination of how the war affected the lives of people. The film doesn't take a specific political stand on the war, but actually depoliticizes it. The movie turns the war into a play on morals and how negative and positive characteristics of the trio make it a deadly and destructive drama. The real enemy in the war is left out in this film, so it ends up being about internal struggles with masculinity and morals.
Combat Shock was by far the most different and unique film of the three. Being a low budget film, it did not have the realistic feel that the other two movies had, but used surreal elements that added to the insanity of the movie. This movie is about a disturbed Vietnam war veteran, Frankie, who struggles with post-war life. He is unemployed and broke, surrounded by junkie friends, constantly being nagged on by his wife, and dealing with his deformed baby. This movie opens with an intense flashback from the war. Then we get to see the depressing life that the Vietnam veteran post-war as the movie progresses with several hallucinations and flashbacks from the war. Buddy Giovinazzo wrote and directed this film on an extremely low budget, which captured the gritty and cruel world of a destitute Vietnam war veteran. This movie is praised by many for being a masterpiece due to its gritty realism, but others see it as one of the ugliest and most depressing film of the decade. Its unique style captures the horrors of the Vietnam war and provided an example of how it completely destroyed one veteran's life.All three of these films are about the Vietnam War and how it affects the lives of veterans. They all have unique stylistic elements that set them apart from other films. These films marked a turning point in American history because during the Vietnam War, there were no films made showing the harsh reality of the war. These films opened the eyes of many throughout the nation and embarked a whole new outlook on the war. They are unlike Hollywood films prior because they addressed the Vietnam War negatively and expressed the cruel reality of it. Each director took a risk in making the films, and all of them provoked mixed reviews. Overall these films impacted American media by conveying political, social, and cultural messages that were not normally addressed. Each film did this differently through certain symbolic and stylistic elements.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Movies In Your Spare Time #1
The Lucky One
This movie was about a soldier who found a picture of a girl while at war that kept him safe. I originally thought this movie would be really stupid, but I ended up kind of liking it. I would give this movie 3 stars out of five. I'd rate it that because it was a decent movie that did a good job provoking emotions, but it was the not the best film cinematically.
Scott Hicks directed this movie, who has never really directed any huge movies before. Zac Efron starred in this film, which gave it a child-like appeal. I was never a huge fan of his movies such as 17 Again and High School Musical. In this movie, he did a better job at acting. This was a Nicholas Sparks movie, so evidently very sappy and romantic, so Zac Efron was a good star. I enjoyed other Nicholas Sparks films much more than this one such as The Notebook and Dear John. They had better actors and a more convincing story line.
There wasn't much technique or style in this film. The war scenes were shot horribly and very unconvincing, opposed to actual war films such as Saving Private Ryan, which is the best movie ever. The weapons were inaccurate to the time frame and they attempted to disguise older model weapons as current ones. The style was very sappy and stupid (typical Nicholas Sparks), but even worse than his other films. The book was much better and the film failed to convey a convincing plot. The special effects were good, but could have been much better especially the explosions and scene where the little boy's dad dies.
The Lucky One trailer
This movie was about a soldier who found a picture of a girl while at war that kept him safe. I originally thought this movie would be really stupid, but I ended up kind of liking it. I would give this movie 3 stars out of five. I'd rate it that because it was a decent movie that did a good job provoking emotions, but it was the not the best film cinematically.
Scott Hicks directed this movie, who has never really directed any huge movies before. Zac Efron starred in this film, which gave it a child-like appeal. I was never a huge fan of his movies such as 17 Again and High School Musical. In this movie, he did a better job at acting. This was a Nicholas Sparks movie, so evidently very sappy and romantic, so Zac Efron was a good star. I enjoyed other Nicholas Sparks films much more than this one such as The Notebook and Dear John. They had better actors and a more convincing story line.
There wasn't much technique or style in this film. The war scenes were shot horribly and very unconvincing, opposed to actual war films such as Saving Private Ryan, which is the best movie ever. The weapons were inaccurate to the time frame and they attempted to disguise older model weapons as current ones. The style was very sappy and stupid (typical Nicholas Sparks), but even worse than his other films. The book was much better and the film failed to convey a convincing plot. The special effects were good, but could have been much better especially the explosions and scene where the little boy's dad dies.
The Lucky One trailer
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Review of the Reviews
The movie I reviewed was "Girl, Interrupted". This is a movie that was originally based off an autobiography and memoir, written by Susanna Kaysen. It is about a girl, Susanna, who doesn't know what's wrong with her, but does know she is miserable, so her parents send her off to a mental institution after a supposed suicide attempt. She finds herself among many girls who definitely seem to belong there, while Susanna feels like she doesn't belong. She continues to state that she wasn't trying to kill herself when she chased fifty asprin with a bottle of vodka. In the process of getting better, she meets a girl named Lisa, who likes to flirt with insanity and madness. Lisa brings Susanna down by escaping with her and convincing her life won't get better in that mental institution. It's a remarkable story about a girl coming of age, trying to find who she is, while battling mental illness.
The first review I read off rotten tomatoes, Review 1, was a very positive and encouraging review of the film. It was written first with a summary of the movie, stating the pros and cons throughout the explanation. The writer claims that the movie gave the narrative double-meaning and supports that with examples from the film. The tone of this review is very matter-of-fact. The writer states her opinion, but also allows room for the reader to make their own opinion. She doesn't use too much verbose language, it's more of a "state the facts" kind of article. The writer mainly focused on the plot and breaking it down for different audiences to show which parts some people may like, and which parts other would enjoy. This is a very dark movie, so it generally would be only for a particular audience, but the critic break downs certain aspects that would attract an eclectic audience. She talks a lot about the actresses, Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie, because they are famous actresses that definitely triumph in this film.
Also off rotten tomatoes, I found my second review, Review 2, which was the negative one. This review is set up similarly to the other one, with the summary of the film first and stating the pros and cons throughout, but mainly in the last paragraph. This article has more of a snobby and negative tone to it, but also leaves some room for the open-minded to develop their own opinions. The vocabulary also has a negative connotation to it. The critic focused on the plot as being poor and that the main actresses weren't acting to their full potential. The critic also hates on the fact that this movie is about a girl trying to pull her head out of her ass, instead of focusing in on the people that actually belong in the mental institute. It didn't really make any strong references to other things, but it was assumed that this critic wanted to view a bigger picture film rather than a characterized narrative type film.
I actually really enjoyed this film. I found it very powerful and though-provoking. It truly made me revalue my own life. Certain quotes from each article that caught my eye were from the negative view of the movie such as, "The film is really about a teenage girl pulling her head out of her ass. As we all know, that can take a while. The flick does perk up whenever exploring the serious problems exhibited by the other girls.." This quote expresses the opinion that it isn't a good idea to make a film about a typically depressed teenager who doesn't know what to do with her life. It states that this is not a serious problem, but the director should have made a film about the others in the institute. I agree with this quote and statement being made, but it doesn't discredit the film. Films are supposed to be made from all different perspectives, this being one. Another film could capture the inside world of the others in the institution. Also the article says, "Sounding like the scribblings from a teenager’s diary, the 28-year-old Ryder lapses into self-parody.." This was meant to be a negative quote from the critic, but I belive that it's positive because it shows that the reality of the film. It is based off a narrative and memoir book, so it is supposed to be genuine and real, which would be the "scribblings from a teenager's diary." In the other article, it states similar things, but in a more positive and encouraging tone. For example, "The emotional highs and lows in Girl, Interrupted are honestly earned. This isn't a nobility-of-the-insane piece, or a triumph-of-the-human-spirit fable. It's just the story of one girl and the other wounded girls she spent 18 months with. And the moviemakers give the story a classical shape.." This quote proves that the film wasn't meant to show the inside lives of the clinically insane girls inside the institution, but to be a more relatable film for the remotely depressed members of our society. It's just a story of a girl finding her way, which is relatable to many.
I feel like the positive review would be more convincing if I had never seen the film. I say this because it has a more matter-of-fact tone, which allows the reader of the critique to develop their own opinion. The other has critic bias in it, which sways one to a certain side. The positive review also states the aspects of the film that could set off a viewer, but addresses them in a mature manner. The critic doesn't put their own opinion into it, but leaves it up to the viewer with the facts. It addresses the fact that "Girl, Interrupted" is a story of a girl finding her way, or "pulling her head out of her ass," but phrases it for the audience to decide. I belive a film review that wins over a reader is one that allows them to make their own opinion and decide for themselves, while still listening to the critic's argument.
In writing my own review of "Girl, Interrupted," I would definitely include the fact that it isn't a typical film. It can get very intense quickly. It will take you out of your comfort zone, but some may like that because it does tend to be extremely powerful. It provokes emotion. It isn't a film that you can just nonchalantly watch. I would not say it's a film about a girl trying to get her head out of her ass, but more of a film in which a girl finds her way through obstacles many wouldn't find themselves in. It's a new way of looking at things that many have probably considered, so therefore it's relatable, but it's a different perspective.
The first review I read off rotten tomatoes, Review 1, was a very positive and encouraging review of the film. It was written first with a summary of the movie, stating the pros and cons throughout the explanation. The writer claims that the movie gave the narrative double-meaning and supports that with examples from the film. The tone of this review is very matter-of-fact. The writer states her opinion, but also allows room for the reader to make their own opinion. She doesn't use too much verbose language, it's more of a "state the facts" kind of article. The writer mainly focused on the plot and breaking it down for different audiences to show which parts some people may like, and which parts other would enjoy. This is a very dark movie, so it generally would be only for a particular audience, but the critic break downs certain aspects that would attract an eclectic audience. She talks a lot about the actresses, Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie, because they are famous actresses that definitely triumph in this film.
Also off rotten tomatoes, I found my second review, Review 2, which was the negative one. This review is set up similarly to the other one, with the summary of the film first and stating the pros and cons throughout, but mainly in the last paragraph. This article has more of a snobby and negative tone to it, but also leaves some room for the open-minded to develop their own opinions. The vocabulary also has a negative connotation to it. The critic focused on the plot as being poor and that the main actresses weren't acting to their full potential. The critic also hates on the fact that this movie is about a girl trying to pull her head out of her ass, instead of focusing in on the people that actually belong in the mental institute. It didn't really make any strong references to other things, but it was assumed that this critic wanted to view a bigger picture film rather than a characterized narrative type film.
I actually really enjoyed this film. I found it very powerful and though-provoking. It truly made me revalue my own life. Certain quotes from each article that caught my eye were from the negative view of the movie such as, "The film is really about a teenage girl pulling her head out of her ass. As we all know, that can take a while. The flick does perk up whenever exploring the serious problems exhibited by the other girls.." This quote expresses the opinion that it isn't a good idea to make a film about a typically depressed teenager who doesn't know what to do with her life. It states that this is not a serious problem, but the director should have made a film about the others in the institute. I agree with this quote and statement being made, but it doesn't discredit the film. Films are supposed to be made from all different perspectives, this being one. Another film could capture the inside world of the others in the institution. Also the article says, "Sounding like the scribblings from a teenager’s diary, the 28-year-old Ryder lapses into self-parody.." This was meant to be a negative quote from the critic, but I belive that it's positive because it shows that the reality of the film. It is based off a narrative and memoir book, so it is supposed to be genuine and real, which would be the "scribblings from a teenager's diary." In the other article, it states similar things, but in a more positive and encouraging tone. For example, "The emotional highs and lows in Girl, Interrupted are honestly earned. This isn't a nobility-of-the-insane piece, or a triumph-of-the-human-spirit fable. It's just the story of one girl and the other wounded girls she spent 18 months with. And the moviemakers give the story a classical shape.." This quote proves that the film wasn't meant to show the inside lives of the clinically insane girls inside the institution, but to be a more relatable film for the remotely depressed members of our society. It's just a story of a girl finding her way, which is relatable to many.
I feel like the positive review would be more convincing if I had never seen the film. I say this because it has a more matter-of-fact tone, which allows the reader of the critique to develop their own opinion. The other has critic bias in it, which sways one to a certain side. The positive review also states the aspects of the film that could set off a viewer, but addresses them in a mature manner. The critic doesn't put their own opinion into it, but leaves it up to the viewer with the facts. It addresses the fact that "Girl, Interrupted" is a story of a girl finding her way, or "pulling her head out of her ass," but phrases it for the audience to decide. I belive a film review that wins over a reader is one that allows them to make their own opinion and decide for themselves, while still listening to the critic's argument.
In writing my own review of "Girl, Interrupted," I would definitely include the fact that it isn't a typical film. It can get very intense quickly. It will take you out of your comfort zone, but some may like that because it does tend to be extremely powerful. It provokes emotion. It isn't a film that you can just nonchalantly watch. I would not say it's a film about a girl trying to get her head out of her ass, but more of a film in which a girl finds her way through obstacles many wouldn't find themselves in. It's a new way of looking at things that many have probably considered, so therefore it's relatable, but it's a different perspective.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Film Studies Intro Survey
1. What is the first movie that made a strong impression on you? Forest Gump because it was the first "grown-up" movie I saw that really combined a bunch of different genres together in one to make it really interesting. It got me interested in historical and war movies more.
2. What are your favorite genres? Action/Adventure, Drama, War, and Comedy
|
3. What are your least favorite genres? Romantic Comedy, Foreign, and Silent
|
4. What are your favorite films? Saving Private Ryan, Goodwill Hunting, Girl Interrupted, Animal House, and The Dark Knight
|
5. Good characteristics? Though-provoking, creative, interesting
|
6. Least favorite movies? Anything with Nicholas Cage
|
7. Bad characteristics? Cheesy, unoriginal, and completely stupid
|
8. Favorite directors? Quentin Tarantino
|
9. Favorite actors? Anthony Hopkins, Bradley Cooper, Johnny Depp, Joseph Gorden-Levitt, Leonardo Dicaprio
|
10. Students in a film class need to see: The Godfather, Silence of the Lambs, and Wizard of Oz
|
11. Important films for people to see: Book of Eli, God Bless America, & Shutter Island
|
12. Oldest favorite film: Wizard of Oz
|
13. What's the best movie you've seen that's been released in the past 2 years? The Dark Knight Rises
|
14. Next 5 films on my queue: Watchmen, Expendables 2
|
Friday, August 24, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)