Inside Llewyn Davis

I adore this shot.  It's so symmetrical down the hallway that there could almost be a mirror right down the center, but then the shot is off set by the banister of the staircase on the left side foreground of the screen.  We have a long shot of Llewyn walking towards the doors at the end of the hallway.  To add to the symmetry we see here, the rug on the floor is a pattern that is also very symmetrical.  Even the shadows in the hallway are symmetrical.  The color is all very drab and using light blues, greys, whites, and tans are the only reason that the black banister really stick out.

This shot is very interesting because we have Llewyn standing in the foreground and even though he's nothing but a silhouette, his figure is still the only thing in focus in the shot.  It's also interesting how we can see his hand even though the whole shot is dark, but just not quite as dark as his shadow.  The light of the break lights are some of the only contrasting objects in the frame along with the lights of the semi truck coming out of the fog in the background.  I just love the way the light coming through the fog is just so perfectly bright that it illuminates the outline of Llewyn but doesn't brighten the shot too much that it changes the mise en scene.

This shot really stood out to me because of the way they use reflections in two different planes.  There's the reflection in the walls of the building itself, but then also in the puddles of water on the ground.  We see Llewyn in a long shot as he walks down the sidewalk towards the camera.  This is also a deep focus shot because Llewyn, the background, and the stage door in the foreground are all in focus.

Moonrise Kingdom

Screenshot Analysis:

One of the most interesting things about Wes Anderson films is his extensive use of reflection symmetry.  The tree house is positioned in the direct center of the shot with trees on either side of the background.  The camera is using a long shot to incorporate the entirety of the tree house as well as to put the height of the tree in perspective by showing the troop leader and the two scouts.  In this shot we can also observe Anderson's use of contrast to create humor.  The fact that the tree house itself is so much wider than the trunk of the "tree" holding it is a far fetched concept because in reality, something with those proportions would simply fall over.  Another interesting aspect of Anderson cinematography is his use of imperfection.  If we focus on the rungs of the ladder up to the tree house specifically, we see that they are not evenly spaced as if they were built by a stage crew.  Imperfections like these really give life to Anderson's shots and by extension, his entire film.

Oh Brother, Where Art Thou

I grew up watching this film.  Over the years I have probably seen it upwards of 40-50 times and I have yet to grow tired of it.  I can quote almost every line and it continuously makes me laugh.  Something that my parents pointed out to me at a very young age, has always stuck with me, to this day, as one of the most interesting cinematic tools ever used in a movie.  I am referring, of course, to the reflection of fire off of the warden's glasses.

The reason that this is so interesting to me is because the warden is associated with the character of the devil or (because this is an adaptation of The Odyssey) Hades. At one point in the film, Tommy is describing his meeting with the devil at the crossroads.  He explains that the devil does not actually look as he is thought to (as Everett describes "red and scaly with a bifurcated tail, and he carries a hay fork"), but is actually "white . . . with empty eyes and a big hollow voice [and travels around with a hound.]"  This is very obviously associated a description of the warden as we saw him when the authorities burned down the barn that our protagonists were sleeping in.

I am going to focus on the scene where this tell-tale reflection happens for the second time.  This scene begins with a crane shot, moving down from silhouettes of trees being illuminated by lightning, to a close-up range shot of a yelling jailer.  The shot then changes to the medium range shot of the person who is whipping, who we soon find out to be Pete.  The scene changes again to what would be best described as an over-the-shoulder shot to Pete being whipped with an out of focus, smiling torch carrier in the close background.  Although this torch carrier is out of focus, his excited visage proves most intriguing for it subtly shows what can only be perceived as a worker of the devil, or a "demon."  His obvious sadistic temperament towards the torturing of another human being shows Hades' corruption of others and strong discipleship (I'm not trying to send a theological message here, I'm just simply explain how I interpreted elements of this film.  I just want to make sure that's clear).

After this, the scene changes to a different over-the-shoulder shot; this one over the shoulder of one of the officers and focused on Pete.  Once again, we see the other officers in the background smiling, and now we hear them laughing as well.  We begin to hear the Warden speak and Pete's look of pain from the whipping actually changes to one of terror, which is to be expected when coming face to face with the devil.  This time the shot changes to what starts off with a long shot of the warden approaching the crowd, and as he walks closer and closer, eventually becomes a close-up shot.  This is the shot when we see the fire reflected in the glasses.  The reality of the character mirroring of the warden and the devil is really emphasized here when he begins to speak of God.  He actually talks as if he himself is a follower of God and does his work.  I just cannot downplay the cleverness of this shot.  I honestly believe that whoever thought to do this, deserves an Oscar specifically for this idea.  

Just because I do love it so much, I'll display the first time that this very important shot is exhibited in the film as well.

The Piano

After reading the prompts for this particular blog, I was actually relieved that the topic of rape was brought up.  While watching the film, I felt so uncomfortable during the sex scenes (which honestly doesn’t really happen to me in most movies), because I felt like Ada never was actually fully consenting to what was going on.  Every time Baines would make a move she looked concerned about what was to come.  She always appeared apprehensive, and not simply because the act was adulterous, but because she really wasn’t that attracted to Baines.  Even when she would eventually give in, it was never really of her own accord, and always took a good amount of persuasion on his part.  Baines was just trying to control her life just as everyone else in the film was trying to create an emotional prison for her.  The only reason that Stewart was mostly unsuccessful in his attempt to control Ada was because of how obvious his attempts were.  Simply being her betrothed was enough to convince Ada (and originally Flora as well) that she wanted nothing to do with him.  With Baines, Ada felt as though she had some kind of control over the events that transpired because Baines only used his words to convince her to sleep with him instead of using his marital standing with her as Stewart did.

The Vanishing / Spoorloos

Spoorloos (The Vanishing) originally was a Dutch film in 1988, but then was remade into an American movie in 1993 starring actors such as Jeff Bridges, Keifer Sutherland and Sandra Bullock.  Other than the obvious star power in the remake of the film, these two movies are in some ways exactly the same and in others vastly different.

The largest difference that occurred to me after watching both of these films was that in the 1993 version, the story was very obviously linear.  Just by looking at the contrasting arrangement of the scenes in the very beginning of the two movies proves this.  In the 1988 version, the film starts out with Rex and Saskia driving through France and arguing.  When they get to the gas station, Saskia's disappearance was definitely not forseen in any way other than the title of the film.  While in the 1993 version, the movie starts out with the scene of Barney (the equivalent of the Raymond character) testing the length of time a certain amount of chloroform would knock a person out for.  Although this exact scene also happens in the 1988 film, the placement in the storyline creates a much more mysterious and thrilling effect.  When this scene is first, as it was in 1993, it's very obvious from the get-go that the Barney/Raymond character is the reason for whatever may happen in the film.  In 1988, Raymond was initally introduced as some sort of con man as we see when he is putting on the fake cast at the gas station, but the audience doesn't really have any idea of his full intention with the ruse.  Maybe it was just because I watched the 1988 film before the 1993 film, but I felt as though in the 1988 version, there's much more of a (pardon my language) "Holy shit! What the hell is this guy doing!?" kind of moment. While in the 1993 version, there was a very logical sequence to the story where the viewers are basically looking at a story board saying, "Oh, so this guy is definitely going to drug somebody. Oh, those must be the people that get drugged," kind of thing.

Since I've compared the beginning of the films with each other, it's only appropriate that I now compare the endings.  In the 1988 version of the film, the end was much more of an ending to a horror film.  There is no resolve, the good guys do not prevail, and Raymond does not get his just desserts for killing Saskia three years before.  Rex wakes up having been buried alive and that's the end of it.  The film ends with his picture right next to Saskia's in the paper, as a newspaper declares his disappearance as mysterious and possibly linked to that of his wife's three years prior.  In the 1993 adaptation however, we see what can only be classified as a Hollywood ending.  Obviously there is a lot of action and strife to achieve this ending, but who really minds when a life is on the line?  In the adaptation, the Jeff/Rex character also awakens to find himself buried alive just like in the original.  Only this time, the film doesn't end when he runs out of breath screaming for Diane/Saskia.  This time we see a large turnaround when Jeff/Rex's secondary love interest Rita (Lieneke in the 1988 film) is able to find her way to the cabin that Barney/Raymond owns by way of his daughter who believes that she is the mistress her father is cheating with (which appeals to her because Wuthering Heights describes this as a romantic situation).  In this adaptation, we see resolve, we see justice, and we see Hollywood projected in yet another happy ending.

Annie Hall Scene Analysis

The purpose of the audio/subtitle disconnect displayed in scene analysis 3 was to connect the audience with the literal subtext of Alvy and Annie's conversation.  Although they were talking about the photographs that she had taken, the subtitles were relating the audience to what it really feels like to have what was is basically their first conversation with each other.

In the fourth scene analysis video, Woody Allen is mocking the social filmmakers of the 60s such as Jean Rouch.  Allen is using this mockery as a way for his character to cope with he and Annie breaking up for the first time.  This mockery serves as a device to include an objective view into other working relationships and also gives Allen the chance to poke fun which is a large component of his own comedy.

Annie Hall

Starting off, I'm going to say that I am fairly ambivalent about this film.  I enjoy the plot and I like a lot of what was said and it's definitely a very quotable movie.  But I hate Alvy so much.  All he does is whine and about halfway through the movie I just wanted it to be over because I was so tired of listening to him complain about absolutely everything. But that aside, I still think that Woody Allen's use of comedy is pretty successful.  If we completely ignore how I feel about this movie and even what I thought was funny we see that Allen's humor definitely has a place in this world.  A show like Family Guy which pulls from any and all media forms to create sketches that people will either recognize or not but still find funny.  An example of this is when Arty and Annie are in the park and they are criticizing everyone that passes them and they make up little back stories for them.  Stewie and Olivia do the same thing in an episode of Family Guy.








Regardless of how anyone feels about this film, just the fact that Family Guy pulls from it is cold hard proof that Allen's humor is successful and has impacted somebody (at least Seth MacFarlane, maker of Family Guy) in some way.