Based on Mario Puzo's novel of the same name, Francis Ford Coppola's 1972 masterpiece, "The Godfather," is a panoramic view of family and of mob activities in the 40's.
This is where the lines between right and wrong; good and bad are blurred. Vito Corleone is a faithful and loving family man; many call him "Godfather," but still others call him a murderer.
Michael Corleone is a WWII vet - an American hero. Like a good American, he wants to blend in and live the honest life with his blond girlfriend. However, when the family needs him he answers the call with great abandon comparable to those tragic heroes from the ancient Greek era. And like those great dramas, the story progresses with a staggering body count and an ethical metamorphosis.
Sorrow, joy, and high levels of ambivalence are all active elements in this film.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Critically Analyzing, "Apocalypse Now"
The film utilized a pretty varied array of shots for different kinds of scenes. In the beginning, there were off-screen helicopters that we could hear before we could see. The battle-ravaged jungle would fade out as sequences of Captain Willard's face and the whirring ceiling fan which he was facing would fade in, and vice versa. In between the fading in and out the images would be superimposed on one another, and this was a recurring phenomenon throughout the film. It was a way to seamlessly weave shots together, but it also may have represented an emotional state which most of the characters shared. I felt as though the days sort of just dragged on for those men.
There were close-ups for character revelation and dialogue, and crane shots for the helicopter fly-ins and skirmishes. Medium shots were instructional and long shots were contemplative, especially towards the end.
Colors seemed very important in the storytelling, not only because it took place in the Vietnamese and Cambodian jungle, but because the point of the story was that nothing is ever clean-cut black and white. Red and orange were probably the most prevalent because of the associations and presence of blood and fire. Shadows and night were also powerful elements. The shadow was mostly utilized when Willard finally met Kurtz. For most of that scene, neither the audience nor Willard could see his face for the shadow covering it.
I felt that this film emphasized the value of representation more than it did presentation, and I definitely experienced it as an example of presence. The presence wasn't so much the made up of the characters as it was created by the emotional and mental states of the characters.
There were close-ups for character revelation and dialogue, and crane shots for the helicopter fly-ins and skirmishes. Medium shots were instructional and long shots were contemplative, especially towards the end.
Colors seemed very important in the storytelling, not only because it took place in the Vietnamese and Cambodian jungle, but because the point of the story was that nothing is ever clean-cut black and white. Red and orange were probably the most prevalent because of the associations and presence of blood and fire. Shadows and night were also powerful elements. The shadow was mostly utilized when Willard finally met Kurtz. For most of that scene, neither the audience nor Willard could see his face for the shadow covering it.
I felt that this film emphasized the value of representation more than it did presentation, and I definitely experienced it as an example of presence. The presence wasn't so much the made up of the characters as it was created by the emotional and mental states of the characters.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Viewing, "Apocalypse Now"
The movie was set in Vietnam and Cambodia, and at no point was there a flashback or visual allusion to the States. It follows the mission given to army Captain Willard concerning a seemingly insane renegade Colonel Kurtz.
Almost everyone I know has either seen this movie or heard of it, and it seems to be infamous a little more than it is famous - which is understandable because it's a powerful film and as a certain character teaches, power is not always good.
There are few people in this country (and others) who don't find the Vietnam conflict detestable as a general concept. Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say that this film was an anti-Vietnam flick, but it was most definitely nodding toward an anti-war flick. The fact that it was made in 1979 just validates that in my mind. The conflict was fresh and like most fresh wounds the healing process was itchy and uncomfortable.
Loosely based on the Joseph Conrad novel, "Heart of Darkness," this movie is full of undertones, overtones, and cynical tones. It blurs the lines between good and evil, and that's the whole point.
Almost everyone I know has either seen this movie or heard of it, and it seems to be infamous a little more than it is famous - which is understandable because it's a powerful film and as a certain character teaches, power is not always good.
There are few people in this country (and others) who don't find the Vietnam conflict detestable as a general concept. Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say that this film was an anti-Vietnam flick, but it was most definitely nodding toward an anti-war flick. The fact that it was made in 1979 just validates that in my mind. The conflict was fresh and like most fresh wounds the healing process was itchy and uncomfortable.
Loosely based on the Joseph Conrad novel, "Heart of Darkness," this movie is full of undertones, overtones, and cynical tones. It blurs the lines between good and evil, and that's the whole point.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Critically Viewing, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"
Since we read the chapter on cinematography and then discussed its points in class, I feel that I have a much improved understanding and appreciation of the process and the art.
This movie was a good icebreaker in the discussion of the chapter. It broke many rules, but at the same time it set many standards.
When writing a book, the author must establish the characters and establish the plot through dialogue and description. That's all there is to it, right? Wrong. The author must use nuance and tone to convey the ultimate theme of the story as well as to tie up the plot.
When making a movie, the director/cinematographer must establish the characters in the actors and establish the plot through dialogue, image, and sound. That's all there is to it, right? Wrong. The director/cinematographer must use visual/audio nuance and tone to convey the ultimate theme(s) of the story as well as to tie up - or leave untied - the plot. It seems deceivingly simple. When I read the chapter on cinematography, I was amazed at just how much one person's perspective on life matters and translates into the film, and just how much an artistic perspective must be interwoven with technology exactly. If something isn't properly coordinated, it screws up the whole thing.
"Diving Bell" was sort of traditional, at first. There were credits and there was soothing and stereotypically Parisian-type French music. The backgrounds, which were x-rays of the human skeleton seemed to be metaphorical as well as literal - especially the part where it flashes many x-rays at an impossible pace to follow. I felt this also set the tone for the rest of the movie. It was rich with metaphors and second meanings.
The framing was mostly unconventional. For a good part of the movie, the audience sees things through Jean-Do's left eye (his very limited vision). This was incredibly important. Not being able to see certain things, wondering, and being frustrated with the situation put the audience right where he was, and long enough to establish an emotional connection or an understanding. Without this element, the movie could have been as exciting as an artfully done documentary (which can be nice, but it's not something that really impacts a person the way this movie impacted me).
The lighting and color represented a somewhat dreary outlook usually, except for when Jean-Do had flashbacks. The flashbacks were sometimes more vibrant and bright. The lighting was basic. It was pretty dark in the Berck-su-Mer hospital rooms and it was brighter when he was taken outside -pretty realistic.
As far as shots and depth of field go, things in Jean-Do's vision were either very close or considerably far. That, too, was metaphorical. When the movie was in 3rd person view, there was a scene where the depth of field was direct and intensely metaphorical. This was the scene in which Henriette (the speech therapist) and Jean-Do are sitting outside, "talking" and he expressed to her that he had decided to stop feeling sorry for himself. At first it was a long shot of Henriette and Jean-Do and then after he said that he was no longer going to indulge in self-pity, it cut to an extreme long shot. It was simple yet profound.
This movie was a good icebreaker in the discussion of the chapter. It broke many rules, but at the same time it set many standards.
When writing a book, the author must establish the characters and establish the plot through dialogue and description. That's all there is to it, right? Wrong. The author must use nuance and tone to convey the ultimate theme of the story as well as to tie up the plot.
When making a movie, the director/cinematographer must establish the characters in the actors and establish the plot through dialogue, image, and sound. That's all there is to it, right? Wrong. The director/cinematographer must use visual/audio nuance and tone to convey the ultimate theme(s) of the story as well as to tie up - or leave untied - the plot. It seems deceivingly simple. When I read the chapter on cinematography, I was amazed at just how much one person's perspective on life matters and translates into the film, and just how much an artistic perspective must be interwoven with technology exactly. If something isn't properly coordinated, it screws up the whole thing.
"Diving Bell" was sort of traditional, at first. There were credits and there was soothing and stereotypically Parisian-type French music. The backgrounds, which were x-rays of the human skeleton seemed to be metaphorical as well as literal - especially the part where it flashes many x-rays at an impossible pace to follow. I felt this also set the tone for the rest of the movie. It was rich with metaphors and second meanings.
The framing was mostly unconventional. For a good part of the movie, the audience sees things through Jean-Do's left eye (his very limited vision). This was incredibly important. Not being able to see certain things, wondering, and being frustrated with the situation put the audience right where he was, and long enough to establish an emotional connection or an understanding. Without this element, the movie could have been as exciting as an artfully done documentary (which can be nice, but it's not something that really impacts a person the way this movie impacted me).
The lighting and color represented a somewhat dreary outlook usually, except for when Jean-Do had flashbacks. The flashbacks were sometimes more vibrant and bright. The lighting was basic. It was pretty dark in the Berck-su-Mer hospital rooms and it was brighter when he was taken outside -pretty realistic.
As far as shots and depth of field go, things in Jean-Do's vision were either very close or considerably far. That, too, was metaphorical. When the movie was in 3rd person view, there was a scene where the depth of field was direct and intensely metaphorical. This was the scene in which Henriette (the speech therapist) and Jean-Do are sitting outside, "talking" and he expressed to her that he had decided to stop feeling sorry for himself. At first it was a long shot of Henriette and Jean-Do and then after he said that he was no longer going to indulge in self-pity, it cut to an extreme long shot. It was simple yet profound.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Viewing, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"
This is a 2007 French film based on the autobiographical commentary of "Elle" magazine editor Jean-Dominique Bauby, following his "cerebrovascular accident" (a massive stroke) which left him with locked-in syndrome. He was completely paralyzed and unable to speak.
I didn't have any expectations for this movie because before tonight I had no idea that it existed. Having said that, I made sure to keep an open mind. I must admit that I have some preconceptions about European films, and especially about French films. I repeat, I made sure to keep an open mind.
This film was exquisite.
It touched me deeply. Obviously, it wasn't a warm and fuzzy "feel-good" movie, but then again, maybe it was. It left me deeply reflective without any spiritual panic. Take that as what you will, just know that I have a certain fear of oblivion.
The photography and framing was shockingly poignant. As I mentioned, I have some preconceptions about French films, and one of them is an inexplicable talent for photography and framing. Even with that preconception, I was impressed. The entire cast was talented, and it was stupendously written. Rich with symbolism and depth, it's a film people could watch over and over.
I didn't have any expectations for this movie because before tonight I had no idea that it existed. Having said that, I made sure to keep an open mind. I must admit that I have some preconceptions about European films, and especially about French films. I repeat, I made sure to keep an open mind.
This film was exquisite.
It touched me deeply. Obviously, it wasn't a warm and fuzzy "feel-good" movie, but then again, maybe it was. It left me deeply reflective without any spiritual panic. Take that as what you will, just know that I have a certain fear of oblivion.
The photography and framing was shockingly poignant. As I mentioned, I have some preconceptions about French films, and one of them is an inexplicable talent for photography and framing. Even with that preconception, I was impressed. The entire cast was talented, and it was stupendously written. Rich with symbolism and depth, it's a film people could watch over and over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
