Analyzing Film Noir

Film Noir is commonly considered to be one of the darker periods in Hollywood's history. The dark overtones and somber music and acting can be attributed to the events that were occurring in the real world at the time (World War II was being fought at the time, and people in general were disillusioned). It gave the average citizen a glimpse into a darker world, a world of crime, corruption, and death. Although Film Noir is not generally considered a "genre" the characters in the movies can be broken down into different categories. Below, each stereotypical Film Noir character is outlined in detail.

The detective:

This man was usually the protagonist of any given film noir movie. He usually had a sidekick or two, and is entrapped, without fail, by the femme fatale. The common failing of the film noir detective is that, regardless of his intentions, he will usually end up causing more damage, rather then repairing damage already done. Mike Hammer (played by Ralph Meeker in Kiss Me Deadly (1955)) is probably the best example of this. Through his continued attempts to thwart the plans of the villain(s)
he unwittingly brings their plot closer to fruition. Indeed, the film ends by implying the end of the world as we know it via atomic destruction, and it is not an exaggeration to say that Mike Hammer was in fact the reason that the villains found the box containing the deadly weapon to begin with.


The femme fatale:

Film Noir movies commonly have what is referred to as a Femme Fatale, a generally sexy woman that will usually get the protagonist (the detective) into trouble. The woman in question may or may not be working for the antagonist of the film. The femme fatale' will usually be a lose cannon, and is probably in some sort of trouble with the law (Kathie Moffet played by Jane Greer in Out of the Past (1947) is a great example of this). Without fail, the femme fatale will have some hand in the downfall of the hero (although the hero may or may not die), and will usually have some deep, dark secret that is revealed at or near the end of the film.

The scheming villain:

For me, this is the most interesting character in film noir. Specifically, the villain is interesting not simply because he is a villain. He is interesting because of the way he does business. This is not a villain who takes sadistic pleasure in killing people. You will not see a scene in film noir wherein the main villain laughs insanely while he disembowels so and so (although that could be because of the time period in which these films were created)-indeed, the closest you ever come to that is probably the scene near the beginning of Kiss Me Deadly, when Christina Bailey (Cloris Leachman) is tortured to death with a pair of pliers. However, even during this rather macabre scene, their is no air of true insanity. She is killed quickly, and brutally, yes, but the viewer gets a sense that the main villain is doing only what he thinks is necessary to ensure the success of his scheme. Also, the main villain is almost never seen performing evil deeds himself. Instead, he relies on his trusty but dumb henchmen to do his dirty work for him. Truly, Film Noir villains fit the diabolical scheming mastermind stereotype to a tee.

Of course, their are other characters of less importance that make film noir what it is-the sidekick secretary, for example. But the three character denominations covered above, in my opinion, are the characters that truly make Film Noir what it is- a dark and somber toned film that gives the viewer insight into a world they would never otherwise set foot in.

Romantic Comedy analysis-Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

As usual, I'd like to start this off by saying something rather strongly-I do NOT believe "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michael Gondy (2004)) to be a romantic comedy-far from it. With very few exceptions, I found little to no humor in what was portrayed on screen- just the opposite, in fact. The sick desperation with which Joel (Jim Carry) attempts to keep Clementine (Kate Winslet) within his memories was chilling to a degree that made me grit my teeth once or twice-he even went so far as to "hide her in his humiliation" a scene that, to me, showed exactly how attached he had become. Further, watching Clementine gets emotionally tortured-yes tortured-by Patrick, a man who is only with her because of his sick habit of imitating Joel's romantic memories and patterns. The torture I refer to comes from exactly that. Clementine is able to realize that something is amiss when her boyfriend Patrick (Elijah Wood) continually imitates things that Joel did for her...one scene in particular comes to mind, that being the scene where Patrick re-enacts the "Honeymoon on Ice" that Clementine and Joel shared, reaching it's climax when Patrick imitates the "I'm so happy...I could die right here" comment. It is chilling to see Clementine sit up in distress and begin to walk around, obviously confused as to what is going on. This scene also serves to demonstrate that even after Lacuna has done its procedure, the receipients retain subconcious memories of that which they have decided to erase, causing huge emotional distress when the erased memories are brought up, intentionally or not. This is further demonstrated when Mary (Kirsten Dunst) who, at the time is dating Stan (Mark Ruffalo) is reminded about an affair she had (and subsequently erased) with the head doctor of the clinic in charge of said erasing procedure, one Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson). Ironically she is informed of the affair by none other then the good doctor's wife. This revelation apparently shakes her to her core, to the point of not only breaking off her relationship with Stan (strongly implied), but also breaking into the Lacuna offices, where the files of all the procedures are kept, and mailing them to everyone involved. The key point here, of course, is the fact that none of this depressing imagery and dialogue is in no way comedic-if anything, one must classify this movie as a "romantic-horror" flick, and a chilling one at that.

Western Characteristics

When people here the word Western, most people have a similar mental image. A rough and tough cowboy goes on a quest for vengeance, a devious villain with a gun, and a damsel and distress. Amusingly enough, this is fairly close to the truth, as most characters in Westerns fall under common denominations, covered below.

The rugged cowboy/sheriff with a strong sense of justice

This character is usually the main character, or barring that, one of the lead roles. Usually, he will be fairly righteous, sometimes to the point of being hypocritical and often brutal (Little Bill in Unforgiven (Clint Eastwood, 1992) for example). Usually, he'll join up with the reformed outlaw that’s trying to take justice into his own hands, or will be cast as the antagonist of the movie who is trying to kill the protagonist, who is usually the so called reformed outlaw out for one more hit (Unforgiven again). In this situation, he is, at the very least, sympathetic to the antagonist if he himself is not filling that role.

The reformed outlaw

Covered briefly above, the reformed outlaw is exactly what he sounds like. At one point or another, this person has committed a crime (usually murder) and he has sworn off his old ways forever for some reason, be it his wife, his children, or the fact that he doesn't need the money from his "hits" anymore-maybe he just got tired of it. Regardless, the end result is usually this character. He usually will be tempted by his old ways at least once, and at will succumb to those desires without fail, at least once during the film. Usually, this person will become involved in at least one shootout during the course of the movie, during which he will kill villain X, thereby succumbing to his old demons and/or achieving revenge for his murdered brother, mother, girlfriend, or other tragically killed minor character who we rarely, if ever, see (an exception to this comes, once again, from Unforgiven-we often see the cut up prostitute, and her character is fairly well developed. We never see Will Munny's (Clint Eastwood's) wife, seeing as she's dead.


The main antagonist

This is the most bland of the Western stereotypes. The main antagonist is usually a man (read: always a man) who usually holds a grudge against the main protagonist, assuming of course that the antagonist is not part of a gang of thugs that kills people for fun, in which case the protagonist will probably have a grudge against said gang for killing the aforementioned wife/girlfriend/son/daughter. The main antagonist will never actually live through the film, and will usually be killed in a glorious and/or dramatic shoot out. He may or may not have an accomplice, and if he does, he'll either be the loveable sidekick that ultimately realizes that what he's doing is wrong, the person who didn't actually do anything and is just caught in the middle, or someone as rotten as the main antagonist himself.


These and other stereotypical characters combine to make the Western what it is-an oft times over done but always entertaining tale of redemption, love, and ultimately, facing old demons.

Analyzing Pan's Labirynth

First off, I want to make my position on this movie clear-I thought it was absolutely wonderful. The acting was superb, the costumes were refined, the music fit the scene, and the scenes themselves were rendered in such detail that I could scarcely believe I was watching a DVD-in particular, the labyrinth itself was beautifully rendered. But above all else, one thing stood out to me, and that was its amazing script. Upon further investigation, I found out that the director and the screenwriter were one and the same, one Guillermo del Toro. Hollywood.com listed his professions as director, special makeup effects designer. Interestingly, this list does not list screenwriter as a profession, although if the credentials on Pan's Labyrinth are to be believed, "screenwriter" must be added to his list of professions. He graduated from University of Guadalajara Guadalajara, Mexico. Del Toro has a large list of movies under his belt, ranging from "Dona Herlinda Y Su Hijo" a.k.a. Dona Herlinda and Her Son in 1984 to his latest movie, the subject of this analysis (or at least the latest movie that I could find that he had produced), in 2006. If one were to watch Pan's Labyrinth one could classify it as a horror movie without too many problems. Yes, their are some elements of fantasy and history, but who can honestly say they didn't shutter when they beheld the monster from Ofelia's second task, or gritted their teeth at the scene (SPOILERS) where the captain is torturing a captured rebel? Upon further investigation, it can be found that Del Toro was taken by the horror genre from a very young age. Apparently, he was terrified by the episode "Mutant" from the series "The Outer Limits" (ABC, 1963-65). After seeing monsters in his closet, the "bogeyman" if you will, he made a deal with all the monsters he was seeing-if they would let him into his bedroom without harm, he would devote his life to them. Ignoring the films of his amateur days, his first "real" film was “Cronos” (1992), which took a new look at the story of the vampire. His first Hollywood movie however, came in 1997, with Mimic. Ultimately however, Del Toro was not happy with the finished product, and he felt that the studio had put too much pressure on him. After that venture, he created the independently produced film "The Devil's Backbone" in 2001, after which he returned once again to Hollywood, directing "Blade 2" in 2002, and "Hellboy" in 2004. Interestingly enough, Pan's Labyrinth drew on the time and place covered in "The Devil's Backbone". A prime example of an artist drawing off of his own works. Pan's Labyrinth would ultimately go on to win five "Academy Awards Nods including Best Cinematography, Best Original Screenplay and Best Foreign Language Film."


ALL QUOTES AND INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG ENTRY CAME FROM
"http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/Guillermo_del_Toro/199287#fullBio"
Check it out!

The Godfather Review

Murdur. Extortion. Bribery. For some, these are taboo actions, certainly things that no law abiding citizen would consider. For the Corleone family, these things are a matter of course. The Godfather is able to give the viewer a morbid glimpse of the dark life.

The characters
The characters in this movie are phenomenal. Each is acted nearly flawlessly, giving the film a sense of realism. Best of all is the infamous Marlon Brando as the godfather himself who delivers his lines with such chilling intensity that you can't help but look behind your shoulder. Joining in this not so merry band of characters are his three sons, Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), Sonny Corleone (James Cain), and Fredo Corleone (John Cazale). Their are also other characters, but they are, in my opinion, of lesser importance, with the possible exception of Kay, Michael's girlfriend (Diane Keaton). However, even these more minor characters are portrayed incredibly well.


Basic Plot Summary

Upon viewing this film, one is quickly enthralled by its sinister beginning-a lively party is going on outside while a man (Bonasera) negotiates with Vito regarding a vengenace killing. We are then quickly exposed to the nature of the Carleone family, that of one of the "five families" in the mafia, and are introduced equally quickly to one of Vito's three sons, Michael Corleone, who at first states he wants nothing to do with the mafia business. The film follows various members and associates of the Corleone family, and gives the viewer a morbid glimpse into the world of the mafia. It also follows the aforementioend son, Michael, from his initial personality of a carefree young man to a cold hearted killer. In one particularly memorable scene, Michael's negotiations to buy out one "Moe Greene" (Alex Rocco), Moe storms out of the room while Mike sits stonily. His brother Fredo becomes enraged, saying
"Mike, you don't come to Las Vegas and talk to a man like Moe Green like that!"

Mike then calmly stares at Fredo, and replies in a chilling monotone

"Fredo, your my older brother, and I love you. But don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever."

Although this movie is probably not for the squeamish, it tells its dark story with such elegance that is hard to tell anyone not to see this. The quality of the acting was such that it had no problem making the viewer squirm when they are meant to, so to speak.


The one thing that stood out more than anything in this film is the use of lighting, specifically low key lighting. Whenever a shady deal is happening, the room itself seems to dim to reflect the mood. This is especially apparent when the Don (Vito) himself is on screen. With very few exceptions, the Don's face is shown either half or all in shadow, perhaps to reflect his own troubled inner self.
The last thing I wanted to mention about this film is its unbelievable soundtrack. Each song fits perfectly into the scene where it was inserted. As such, the already chilling effects of seeing what is considered "normal mafia business" is amplified even further by its amazing score-the main theme has, as far as I understand, has become famous.

Analyzing Robert Ebert's review of "Spiderman 3"

I saw Spiderman 3 a while ago, after it was released on DVD. My experience can be summed up in one word-underwhelming. Even though I was not, and still am not, experienced enough to give a credible review to a film, I didn't have to be to notice how the movie seemingly looped between meaningless fight scenes, the romance between Marie Jane and Peter Parker, and odd messages of "redemption." I looked at Robert Ebert's review to see if he could change my mind, or indeed, thought differently at all. However, I was glad to see Robert shared my feelings, specifically with the "baddies."

"Superhero movies and Bond movies live and die by their villains. Spidey No. 2 had the superb Doc Ock (Alfred Molina), who is right up there with Goldfinger and the Joker in the Supervillain Hall of Infamy. He had a personality. In Spidey No. 3 we have too many villains, too little infamy."

He goes on to speak with disdain of the Sandman, with all the character depth of a brick, (honestly, he's remorseful that he killed Uncle Ben, he escaped from prison, and now he has super powers, and an attachment to his daughter. It really never goes any further then that), the Green Goblin, or rather Green Goblin 2.0, who, although having slightly more character then the sandman, still is rather flat, and the black organism that creates "Venom" who truly has no character at all beyond "infect Spidey, once Spidey gets rid of me, infect his rival photographer and help him kill Spidey."

Robert also brings up the interesting point, near the end of the review, that the smae person who directed "Spiderman 2" a movie of considerable merit, also directed the train wreck that is "Spiderman 3." He goes on to list several interesting reasons for the wreck...perhaps the director (Sam Raimi) was paralyzed by the budget? In all honesty, I think I agree with his idea that the series may have grown too heavy on its feet. After all, as he says,

"How many times can we see essentially the same romantic scenario repeated? How much dangling in the air can one girl do?"

Finally, Robert points out plot holes that I hadn't noticed, but which are extremely troubling. The worst one was this;

"We know that Spider-Man's powers do not reside in his red suit, which lies in a suitcase under his bed. So how do fake Spideys like Venom gain their powers when they are covered with the black substance? And how does a microorganism from outer space know how to replicate the intricate patternwork of the Spidey costume, right down to the chest decoration? And to what purpose from an evolutionary point of view? And what good luck that the microorganism gets Peter's rival photographer, Eddie Grace, to infect, so that he becomes Venom! And how does Eddie know who he has become?"

How indeed? The alien, for all intents and purposes, is only an alien, be it parasitic or not. How does it grant Spiderman's powers to Eddie Grace (Peter's rival photographer)? An argument could perhaps be made that it copied Spidey's powers from the times that it was infecting Peter himself, but if so, how did it do that? And if it did, why does it need to infect anybody? It might just be powerful enough on its own. There is no backstory to explain any of this, leaving it up to the viewer to draw his own conclusions about nearly everything that is shown. In short, Spiderman 3 is an absolute travesty, and I can not in good faith reccomend it to anyone, friend or foe. Go watch Spiderman 2 again-at least in that movie, you got more backstory then a five second scene and/or flashback.

All quotes in this post came from the Spiderman 3 section of http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/greatmovies

Introductory Post

This blog is a required class assignment for an Art of Film 1 course I am currently taking. I'm looking forward to learning about multiple facets of the film industry. Of the things we have learned thus far, I was most intrigued by the lighting aspect. It is very easy, while watching a movie, to simply ignore a subtle touch like a random lamp that provides light to an otherwise dark room, or at least, its easy to ignore on the first time through the movie. However, when you go deeper, seemingly insignificant things like this have important meaning to the movie. I'm very interested to learn more things like this.