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.

Daisies

Daisies was easily the strangest movie I have ever watched in my entire life.  I'm not sure how I really feel about avant-garde film now that I've seen it but maybe I just need to give it a second shot with a movie that doesn't churn my stomach like this one.  For me personally, the only redeeming factor of this film was the humor.  Comparing it visually to Looney-tunes (minus the odd coloring effects and strange montage shots) would be a fairly accurate parallel.  The way that Chytilova used sound to emphasize the girls' movements adds an element of humor to the film unlike any I've seen in something that wasn't animated. One example of this is when the lighter haired Marie tied her knees together and started --for lack of a better term-- waddling around the girls' room.  They amplified the sound her feet were making in order to really draw it to your attention and make the whole gimmick a little bit more comical. I don't really think that you can accurately analyze the visual strategy of this film --not the humorous aspect at least-- without also including something about the sounds that are going on during the scenes.  Another example of this is the very first scene when the girls seemed to creak like rusty metal whenever they would move around.







Without the visual humor working along with the sounds the way clearly illustrated in the clip above, this film wouldn't have been as strange or as politically devious as it was.  I have the feeling that Chytilova wanted to make this movie as odd and as abrasive as she possibly could, both visually and by sound.

Women in Detour

This week I was instructed to watch the 1945 film noir classic, Detour.  Although there's really only 4 prominent characters in this movie, this film has a different outlook on women than what is common in the 1940's.  All of the female roles in this movie (Vera and Sue) seemed to be rather in control of their destiny and very motivated to get what they wanted out of life.  Although Vera definitely had malicious intentions, she was very cunning up until the very moment of her death.  I feel as though this movie is an early representative of feminism in that the 40's were not a time where women were usually out doing whatever they fancied.  The fact that Sue left Al in New York to pursue her dreams in Hollywood, definitely puts her in a place of power over the male protagonist.  Vera also asserted her dominance over Al throughout most of the entire movie by threatening to turn him into the police if he didn't do exactly what she instructed him to do.  And although it eventually leads to her drunken demise, Vera was very clearly in a place of superiority over the other characters.  I'm not sure how common this portrayal of women is in other film noir movies, but Detour definitely puts the female in charge of basically every event that happens.

"Freaks" for Equality

I know that there's a lot of controversy following Tod Browning's 1932 cult classic "Freaks" over whether he was truly depicting the "freaks" as he sought to -- as equals -- or if he ended up portraying them as the monsters the audience believed them to be to begin with.  Personally, I definitely see this movie as an argument in defense of equality and not the latter.

For my class, there was another prompt that we could blog about for this film and that was the argument over whether this film is a melodrama or a horror film.  I think that the these arguments go hand in hand as I feel as though most people who will say that this movie was a melodrama will also argue that it defends equality.  Likewise, viewers who think that this movie is a horror film will likely see it as a "demonization of difference".  To me, it really all boils down to that second to last scene where the "freaks" go after Cleo and Hercules.  If you watch that scene and your sympathy switches to favor Cleo, then you probably view this movie as a horror film.  You see the "freaks" as monsters who are going after this damsel in distress and they mutilate her out of cruelty and without regret.  If you're like me however, you probably would classify this as a melodrama.

A melodrama is defined as representing a struggle against or within the patriarchy.  Cleo creates this struggle by attracting the attention of Hans and encouraging his affections even though he's already engaged to Frieda.  She does this as a joke at first (of course until she finds out about Hans' fortune), which just showcases her affinity for cruelty, especially towards the "freaks."  In a typical melodrama, the issue that a woman causes is usually "solved" by either marriage or death.  In "Freaks," the solution is, I'll admit, a lot more brutal.  But when the "freaks" go after Cleo, I don't see it as them being irrational.  SHE POISONED HANS.  She didn't just break one of their company's hearts... She actually and legitimately tried to murder him.  Because of her murderous intentions, the resulting actions of the "freaks" should be considered as a self defensive move as opposed to in cold blood.

But how cool is that super old wine bottle though?

Something that just dumbfounds me about the reception of this film in the early 1930s though is the fact that the Parent Teacher Association and other organizations tried to ban it because they thought it was "morally indignant."  That, if nothing else, proves why this movie stands much more for equality than anything else.  They weren't lobbying for the ban because they thought that the "freaks" were portrayed as monsters, they were lobbying for the band because the "freaks" were being portrayed at all.  They didn't want their children seeing a movie about the "scourge of society."  Simply the act of putting these people into a movie like this is showing that they deserve to be seen and have their stories heard.  As it even was shown in the opening of the film, these people were outcasts; basically thrown away by their own families.  And on top of all that, they get treated on a regular basis like Cleo treated them in the movie.  And because it was obvious that Cleo was the antagonist of the film, I think it's expressing that "normal" people can be just as bad as disfigured people were believed to be, and that all these "freaks" want is to be accepted.

Humor and Sherlock Jr.

After watching Buster Keaton's 1924 film, Sherlock Jr., I noticed how different (yet still effective) the humor was back in the silent film era compared to how it is now.  After researching more about movies in this time period, I found out that this type of comedy is called "Slapstick Humor," or comedy based on deliberately clumsy actions and humorously embarrassing events (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:slapstick).  The most accurate word in this description being "deliberate."  While watching this film, I could just not get over how perfectly choreographed every small movement was, and how absolutely hilarious that made it!  At the part where Keaton is shadowing the antagonist throughout the town, I was just about crying at how hilariously perfect the actors' timing was.

In movies today, I honestly don't think that directors could get away with something as casually perfect as this kind of gag.  Although we still do all love to see people falling and breaking things, that hasn't changed over the course of time, this kind of humor is now displayed much more sloppily.  In more modern movies, when people fall it is followed with a trail of obscenities or at the very least just seems much more like a real person falling.  Another more modern use of humor is something being ridiculously overdone to the point where it's almost painful to watch.  Example: In the movie Hot Rod with Andy Samberg, Rod falls down the hill for about two minutes.





Although it's the same exact same thing for the entirety of the scene, I laugh the WHOLE TIME.  Obviously what people find humorous in general hasn't changed all that much, but I think what has changed is our perception of film.  Back in the twenties when slapstick was the primary humor medium in film, movies were still a huge breakthrough that were simply amazing to witness.  When your audience is completely awestruck that they can even see you when you aren't there, you use much more finesse in your approach.  Now that movies are something that we all take for granted and a screen is something that you see wherever you look, when it comes to humor we aren't really looking to be wowed anymore.  People seem to find a lot more humor in something relatable which means we find awkwardness funny.  When a clumsy person falls, we don't casually slip into a back flip and land straight on our asses; We try and catch ourselves we fail at doing so and we look like a big bumbling idiot, so a big bumbling idiot is who we want to see fall.

My Top Ten

This is a list of my top ten favorite movies.  This list is definitely not set in stone. These are simply the movies that I will always --no matter what-- be in the mood for.  If you ever read the book The Perks of Being a Wallflower (which I highly recommend that you do --seeing as it is tied for my favorite book of all time) the main character says something to the effect of "My favorite book is always the last one that I read."  I would like to emphasize how legitimate that statement is when choosing a top ten of something so personally significant as movies.

1. American Beauty

Aside from Kevin Spacey being my favorite actor of all time, this movie really just gets at my fear of suburbia as it begs us to "Look closer..." at what life in America really is behind the curtains.

2. Donnie Darko

I've got to say that I adore movies that are difficult to understand until the fifth or sixth time that you watch them.  That is this movie.  And yet, I've never met anyone that got the same thing from this movie that I did so who really knows what this movie is actually about.

3. Stand By Me

Now I know this would make a lot more sense if I was a boy because like the Sandlot, this is the ultimate young boy story; but I just love this time period to be honest.  Anything in the fifties and I am all about it.  But this one especially.

4. The Perks of Being a Wallflower

There are a lot of great movie adaptations of books.  This one is by far one of the best that I've seen.  What was already my favorite book was made into one of the most spectacular coming of age films of our generation.  The author of the book was the director of the movie and the dedication to the original script is remarkably evident.

5. Hook

As a child, I watched this movie (without any inkling of exaggeration) EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.  And as a personal homage to Robin Williams (R.I.P.), this definitely makes it to my Top Ten.  A better Peter Pan could not have been found.

6. The Departed

For whatever reason, I LOVE crime movies about heists and mobs and what have you.  And with this cast, how could I like any movie better?

7. Animal House

This is my family's collective favorite.  Between the four of us, we can probably quote the entire movie word-for-word. "I'm a zit! Yah get it?"

8. Good Will Hunting

Just for future reference, I cry at more movies than I am willing to admit.  But this movie gets me more than most.  A perfect movie with a perfect soundtrack.

9. Ferris Bueller's Day Off

I'm pretty sure that every teenager who has ever seen this movie wishes that they could have a day like this. If I don't get to lip-sync to Twist & Shout at some parade, I didn't live my life correctly.  Whenever I can't decide what to watch.... This is ALWAYS my go-to.

10. West Side Story

Other than Disney movies, this was probably the first musical that I ever really watched. One week later I had every word to every song memorized.

An Introduction

My name is Mallory McCrate and I'm a sophomore at the University of Cincinnati. I'm majoring in International Business although I used to be in the field of engineering.  After I switched majors I wanted to take a course that was as far from the engineering discipline as possible. I stumbled upon this cinema class and completely fell in love with the course description.  I'm what you may call a "jack of all trades, master of none" (not to toot my own horn if that comes across as braggy), and when that description applies to you, it usually reflects your interests as well.  I like and/or love so many different things, but for my entire life there's only been one true constant that I've been passionate about. My friends regularly joke about how they can't agree to watch movies with me anymore because I don't just watch one... I watch six. (Or so they say.  They grossly exaggerate the severity of my addiction.) I am completely enamored of everything that goes into the making of a film, the incredible stories and the feelings that they invoke through their imagery.  Simply put: I. Love. Movies.