Head's Up!

Hi Film Appreciation ladies and dudes.
Just a quick head's up, I may show a different film tomorrow, or even short films. I haven't completely decided yet. I also reserve the right to show Beyond the Valley of the Dolls as planned. We'll see!.........Stacy

Canceled Class Monday

Hi film class.
I apologize for canceling class tonight. I live in University City, MO and was in traffic from 4:30 to 7:15 trying to get to SWIC. Traffic was gridlocked for 15 miles because of what you see in the photo. I-55 at the state line was abruptly flooded in the storm and was closed in the middle of rush hour, stranding cars in the middle.

Anyway, you evaded a quiz this time! Look for one on Monday. Also your term papers are due at the beginning of class. Good luck! Stacy.

Keeping it Real

Bicycle Thief has everything that a bad day has in it for all of us. Antonio's bike gets stolen, he gets rained on, he can't make any money and he gets beat up. Just when opportunity is knocking the world seem to have a way to makes answering the door impossible. I imagine this scenario is even more true for the people of a war torn country. The way the camera almost never looks away moving through the city puts you in the terrible day with Antonio and Bruno. There is no cut away, transition, or fade to save you from the reality that this is neorealism and there will be no warm and fuzzy at the end.
According to Moviediva.com the poster that Antonio is hired to paste on the walls of the city is of Rita Hayworth in the movie Gilda. The essay on Bicycle Thief goes on to speak of the irony of this event taking place in the back story of an Italian neorealism film since Gilda is an example of the escapism that most people of Italy wanted. I imagine watching this film again would yield many more powerful messages, I loved it!
Kevin Washington

The bicycle thief

This film was an italian neo realism that portrayed a man and his son, and their struggling family. Its obviously an on location film in the crowded city streets of rome. Traffic everywere, people everywere and ect.

The movie also goes to show alot of residential areas in the downtown portions of the city,such as when our main characters were confronted, by wat seemed to be a mafia type crowd, when he found his bicycle thief.

Over all, the structure of the movie gave a old school real life feel. It seemed not to have much structure at first up until the bicyle was stolen. The movie came off as to what seemed to be an ordinary day for our character, and really did not have that hollywood resolution or happy ending.



Dom Wheeler

The Bicycle Thief

The Bicycle Thief is a story of struggle that knows no borders to race, gender, time, or space. I can totally see why this film was part of the Italian Neo-Realism movement, it showed how life was for people then without sugar-coating it. There were extremely long takes on the confrontations that the main character had gotten himself into, in particular when he accused the thief of stealing his bicycle and the community came to the aid of the thief. Judging by the size of the buildings and the lighting the crew was most certainly on location in the streets of Italy. Although most the actors were non-professional, they acted so well in fact that I feel they were better than most are today. They did however have one thing on their side, this kind of behavior and life was normal for the area and time frame it was filmed in. Around 99% of the scenes were filmed in very rural working class areas. The other 1% was when they went into the bar to get "tore up" and forget everything. Unfortunately there wasn't a real resolution at the end of the movie, but this is the truth of the matter. I feel the director was trying to make a statement that there are no real resolutions in life, only compromises.

Jake H.

Dude, Where's my Bike?

This movie could be used to define neorealism. It certainly was taken place in a natural setting and had a very local feel to it. Watching this movie made me feel like a friend told me a story and it is exaclty as I would envision it. The lack of hollywood resolution in this movie really showed its reality since in the real world people do not always get their problems solved the conventional way.

By: Omar Reece

The Real Bicycle Thief

I thought The Bicycle Thief fit the bill for Italian Neorealism flawlessly. It was set on-location in the busy streets of Rome's working class neighborhoods. The real time action showed us everyday people of the time struggling to feed their families and stay out of the streets. There was no resolution, as Antonio never finds his bicycle and continues to walk through the poverished streets. I'm not sure if the actors were professional or not, but I'm assuming huge Italian celebrities of the day wouldn't have shown the world how ugly their country was becoming by playing roles such as Antonio's. Nonetheless, I thought the actor who played him did a phenomenal job of portraying the effects a Facist government has on ordinary people.

With that being said, the real "bicycle thief" was not the man in the street, but rather the government, or (more specifically) Mussolini. A bicycle is typically a symbol of freedom, as one pedals it exactly where he/she wants to go. In fact, movies such as The Wizard of Oz depict people who ride bicycles, such as Dorothy, as having a hunger for freedom. Therefore, it didn't matter who literally stole Antonio's bicycle; what matters is that its absense has a lasting effect on Antonio and the police (a product of the government) could care less. That bicycle was to be a "way out" of the streets for him, as it provided him work and allowed his family to eat. At the film's end, however, Antonio is seen walking hopelessly through the streets among the others, proving that the government has robbed him of his freedom. This is completely different from the Antonio who sits to the side and refuses to beg for a job that we see at the beginning of the movie.

Paige Brinkmann

So much for my happy ending...

Michael Kera

In class we discussed how neorealism followed the mundane routines of ordinary people. I think that is gobbly-gook. In all seriousness could this movie have actually happen, yes. Are the events in this movie real? Yes. I read a scriptwriting book and the author posed the question would you go see a movie about a guy who is happily married, has a good job, and great kids? No. Because the premise of the movie would be. Guy wakes up, Wife made breakfast, guy goes to work, guy comes home, guy eats dinner, guy goes to bed, and the cycle starts again. Would you honestly go see that movie? I wouldn't. There needs to be action. In Bicycle Thief's case; poor man gets a job, but dilemma he needs a bicycle to have the job. So the family pawns some sheets to get money for a bike. First day on the job, the man's bike is stolen. He has to find the bike to keep his job. He becomes desperate. He smacks his son. He accuses some young man of stealing his bike and causes an uproar. He eventually tries to steal someone else's bike. End movie, a failure. Real people can have movie moments without being an undercover assassin or a psycho killer. Shit happens.

Real people. Real problems. Using non professional actors can sometimes give a sense of realism. Finding a real person with real problems work. Everyone is an actor. If you find someone real who has gone though the situation of the character you are placing him or her into comes easier. We talked about actors in class once; there are method actors and character actors. Method actors try to experience what their character has experienced, like Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, and then Character Actors like Sarah Michelle Geller who I cannot separate from Buffy. If you find a father with no job and two children to feed, and that is your character, desperation should come easier to him than Mr. Monopoly.

I would say most of that movie was shot on-location. Since the genre follows normal people, you would have to be on location for the shoots. But now, if you wanted to shoot something like this, you would need permits, money, and connections; unless you were using your house. I don't know how it was back in that time period, but now a days it is difficult to shoot in a church, even for a wedding. The service probably was not a real service, but I am curious to know if it was actually shot in a church or on a set.

Victim of circumstance

This film is a very good example of Italian Neorealism. It was filmed in a very working class area and seemed to be very real in it's interpretation of life at that time. It's black and white with no special effects or special lighting or noise. It all appeared to be a very natural setting, consistent with the Italian Neorealism. The showing of the flea market with hundreds and hundreds of bikes and bike parts really put in perspective for me that the demand for bikes was very big at that time. The reality for Ricci is that his life was on the way to turning in a positive direction. With the use of his bike, he can keep his government job and his family will prosper. The bicycle thief unfortunately was doing what he had to do to make a living for his family and by stealing Ricci's bicycle, made his families day a little brighter.
Even in this day and age, when times are tough, people turn to this means of survival.
It's an unfortunate situation when people are forced into crime when times get bad. Ricci was not a thief, but did steal a bike for the betterment of his life and the life of his family. The basic instinct of survival made Ricci steal someone elses bicycle. He was not a thief but couldn't think of another positive solution to the problem of having no bicycle.

Jill L.

all else fails steal

This film is a perfect example of Italian Neorealism. It fallows all the rules of an Italian neorealism film. The film action is just like real life. All the action is what you would expect in every day life. one scene that shows this is when Ricci gets his job. In this scene he tells the guy giving out jobs that his bike is in the shop and right way other people start to yell that they have bikes. This is what would happen in real life that many people need a job you would do any to work just like those men. Another reason why this film fits the Italian neorealism standers is that the setting is always in a working class neighborhoods. In this film their are two types of "working class" neighborhoods.the first one is were the working class actually live. The neighborhood were Ricci lives. in this place their is no work. the second one is were everyone works. You may be thinking that this is not a working class neighborhood but it has the personality as were they live. They have the same personalities because they both have the same pace. In the town were Ricci lives all the people travel in and out of the city as a group. When they hit the town were they all work the same thing happens. The scenes that best show this is after Ricci gets his bike stolen and is waiting for the trolley.
As I had said earlier this film is just like real life. All the people in this film look and act like the people did in that time. Everyone was trying to make a living. As bad as it sounds the boy how stole the bike was doing what he need to do to survive. Another reason why I believe that this film is like real life is that all the characters react to the different events like any on of us would. Their are two scenes that show this well. The first one is when Ricci is trying to get information from the old man. In this scene Ricci keeps following and asking the old man were the boy is that stole his bike. This is what most people would do if they had something stolen from them.the second scene that shows that was when Ricci confronts the boy who stole his bike. In this scene you see the people in the boys community stick up for him. They try to run Ricci out of their town. This is what most people do when someone is bothering someone that they know. Even though the boy deserved it. In this film all the action is just like real life. Every thing that happen is what happens every day people go to work then come home. this film has no real resolution. Witch is good because it would not be an Italian Neorealism film and it would have taken a way from the real life feel. If Ricci would have gotten his bike back the viewer would have been happy but in real life you rarely get your stuff back.

I would be angry too...

Italian neorealism, oh my goodness, I would be just as angry as the Italians if The Bicycle Thief was a total representation of my country and lifestyle, that goodness it's not. It was the most interesting mundane film I've ever seen, second only to Castaway. But it is a the epitome of Italian neorealism! It is very obvious that the film, set in a medium sized town with very distinct neighborhoods, was shot on location in its entirety. The town is a working class area, easily identifiable by the pawn shop type place where Antonio purchases his very needed bike after pawning his sheets for the cash. Antonio is supporting his wife and two children but can't find work mirrors any poor town in the world. This was the story of an ordinary family which is the backbone of Italian neorealism. Nothing about this story was overly heroic, no special effects, now totally awesome sound track....nothing, just like everyday life. I can almost bet that the reason the neorealists shyed away from professionally known actors is to avoid the pricetag and because pretending to do something you already do is very simple in the case of boring working class families. They really didn't have to try hard to act out the stories they were telling, because they were too close to their own. As they were walking through the town I realized how long the distances were, but the directors got the full take with adds to the film's unique boringness. The Bicycle Thief had a definite protaganist, antagonist, conflict, but no real resolution. He lost his bike...but did he keep looking, did he keep his job, or find another? This film does magnify the horrors and devastation of life after war. I think for some Italians this was a breath of fresh air though to see films that actively portray how they think, feel and live. Do The Right Thing follows the guidelines for Italian neorealism, it could possibly be dubbed, Black neorealism.
Kerstin D.

Do the Write Thing:

Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" fits into the indie world because at the time, and probably today as well, Hollywood would never produce this. Hollywood movies obviously go towards movies that offer entertainment to the largest audience it can find. As a result the movies produced are watered down. A person doesn't have to think too much when watching them or at least must think about something they have already thought about. "Do the Right Thing" gives people something else. These were the views of a few cultures, mostly people living in areas like Bedstuy in Brooklyn. The ideas presented in Lee's movie were not ideas that everyone came out and talked about.

Jonathan Donovan

The right thing???

This was a movie that didn't really fit with the title. The right thing wasn't at all what was shown to the audiance. The racism, violence and other negative activity was very obvious. It was however very obvious that it was an idenpendant film. I don't believe there is a production company that would allow the terminology that was used in parts of this film. It portrayed several different races hollering out racial slurs against other races, kindof offending everyone. I think that was the point. Again, the right thing wasn't done in this movie.

Jill L.

Do the Right thing

This movie was interesting. Full of characters that don't really fit the "as advertised" form of a commercially funded movie. It was fun to watch how they all interacted with one another in a kind of chaos theory-esk way. At the center of the block though stood the pizzeria tainted by the bad blood between father and son. As temperatures were on the rise it brought tempers and hate with it. There was tons of dialog that would never make it past a ratings board, and never go over well with the common American movie-goer. I feel that this is mostly why Do the Right Thing would never have made it as a first production Hollywood movie. It's just too much for the average consumer to comprehend. It pushes the envelope to the limits for racism, personal values, family values, and relationships. Although I never lived in a place like the one in the movie, I felt it was honest and pulled through a sense of humanity and truth that a normal scripted movie cannot or will not show.

Jake H.

drunks have the right morals

You can tell that this is an independent film because of the realism. Each person probably can relate to all the characters in this film to someone in their lives. Mookie of example is a man that has constant conflict. his biggest conflict in my opinion s job verses his friends. He is trying to make a living but when his friend comes in and starts telling Sal that he needs to put black people on the wall you can tell the problems that it causes for mookie. Another character that is relatable to the viewers are the three black men. Those three men remind me of some of my coworkers. They complain all day and never do any thing about it. In the scene were they are sit en their they all say they need more black business but no one dose any thing about it. Another reason why they remind me of my coworkers is that they sit on the cornor all day and make fun of each other. At work their is a group of guys that do the same thing. My favorite character is DA Mayor. When first see him you think that he is a bum because he is drunk and dirty. In reality though I believe that he has the best morals of any of the characters. The first scene were you start to see that he is a good guy is when he tells Mookie that he should always do the right thing. Another scene were he shows us that he is a good guy is when he saves the little boy. When the boy's mother starts to punish him Da Mayor tells her to take it a little easier on the boy because of what he has been though. The final reason why you can tell the Da Mayor is a good guy is that he is the only one when the riot starts that keeps a level head. This could be because he is drunk. In that scene he takes Sal and his boys to a safer spot while everyone else destroys his shop.
Another reason why you can tell that this is an independent film if by the language that Hollywood films they do not cuss the whole movie but in this film it never real stops. Also in most a main stream films you would not find this much racism. in this film every group hates the other. The cops hate every one, the Hispanics hate the blacks, and the blacks hate the Koreans. The final way you can tell that this is an independent film is that all the conversation seam like a real conversation and big films I don't think that you get that. In the scene were the kids are jumping Da Mayors case the emotions that are being portrayed are what I believe it would be like in real life. The words seam more real then a scrip to me.

Independance and Freedom of Expression

Spike Lee's 'Do the right thing' movie clearly has the qualities I would expect in an independant movie. A major difference in independant films versus some big budgets is the freedom to do and show virtually whatever you want. This movie was able to draw on the realities in real people's lives. As I watched this movie I felt like I was watching East St. Louis live. The actors expressed very real emotions that I would expect. Hollywood movies seem to glamourize films to a point where they no longer seem as if they are really in our reality. They tailor more to entertainment value and high budgets, whereas Independant films are more about expressing a message.

By: Omar Reece

Do the Real Thing

When the heat rises things change. Tension seems to be synonyms with temperature in Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing. Things always had a way of coming to a head during the summer months in the neighborhood I spent most of my childhood in. Fights that were supposed to happen sooner exploded with no warning, usually resulting in violence later that night. The drunks roamed the streets later too... and so did the crooks. Although I grew up in California during the 80's, Bedford Stuyvesant seemed just like home. We didn't have the brownstones, or high rises, or all the concrete, but we had all the characters. Our drunk Mr. Crissy didn't pass out on the steps to someones two family flat like Da Mayor did. He slept flat on his face in my Grandma's front yard. Our dickhead police would smile in our mother's faces pretending to care about the community, all the while praying that we would get caught alone out past curfew so they could ruff us up. What they seemed to wish for even more was for you to fight back so they could kill you. I know this because they would say so while they slapped and pushed me around. Our Korean grocery store owner was actually Vietnamese but I really couldn't tell the difference when I was a kid, we just called it the "Chink's". Once when the owner saw me swipe some Bazooka gum off the counter while he was sweeping, he called me a thieving little nigger. But I was no more offended than he was when the people of the neighborhood called his store the Chink's just before making a trip there to spend their money. Now that I think of it, the first time I actually understood racism as something more than just the way things were may have been when I saw Do the Right Thing for the first time. It made me feel bad, I really didn't like the movie as a kid and didn't know why all my adult relatives were raving about it. Being taught from birth not to care about what people say, I was full of question for my parents about why someone would get so mad over being called a nigger when that was what everyone is always calling everyone. I guess you could say Spike Lee gave me my first racism reality check and that realism is what makes this film of the "Indie Spirit". It is snap shot of a small part of the populous' real lives, feelings, language and actions just how it goes. There is no dialogue changes for sensitive ears, the camera doesn't shy away from Rosie Perez's colored breast and black people are sprayed with a water hose putting an end to the myth that it only happened in the 60's. This film is of the Indie Spirit because when it was made, it was far too real for any responsible Hollywood studio to get behind. The risk that were taken only happen in the independent film world where maybe, just maybe, once in a while, money isn't the motivation behind the magic.
Kevin Washington

Indie and the Jones

Michael Kera

When I think of Indie movies everyday stories are what come to mind. In journalism everyone has a story to tell and Indies are just a longer way of telling a story. Hollywood needs to appeal to the masses, while Indies can usually find a nook or scene and appeal to that group. In a hypothetical situation: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX would be hollywood movies and Oxygen, Logo, BET would be Indies.

I feel Indies have more emotional stories than Hollywood. Indies are more likely to sometimes tell stories people don't want to hear about. In "Do the Right Thing" racism is brought up several times. The incident with the Hispanics and the Black community over the music volume. The three African men talking about the Korean grocery store in their neighborhood. All coming to the fight with the Italians and the Blacks, where the police kill the gigantic guy.

If Hollywood produced this people may find this racist and stereotypical because of the slanguage and the foul-language. I'm not denying Hollywood movies don't use foul-language, but sometimes there is a line. "Do the Right Thing" uses more foul language than Dexter on Showtime; sometimes it gets annoying and unnecessary. The way the people acted and reacted could be stereotypical. The people are loud, sometimes rude, and unwilling to change. There are exceptions like the younger sister and the younger Italian brother.

Love vs. Hate

I could tell that this was an independent film from the first line Samuel L. Jackson speaks. He states that his radio station may be "last on your dial," but it is still "first in your hearts." Such is the case with independent films; they may not be as popular as those of Hollywood cinema, but they tend to strike a special cord in their viewers that they don't experience from watching mainstream films. For example, any Hollywood film that I've ever seen has always presented love as a major theme. However, in Do The Right Thing, we get love vs. hate as a major theme, which I think opens viewers up to a whole new line of thinking, where Hollywood doesn't dare to take us. Independent films such as this one make us question the values and ideas we learned from popular movies. Honestly, I think it's about time we realize that falling in love, for example, is nothing like what it appears to be in Hollywood films such as The Notebook.

I get a truer picture of what love actually is from films like Do The Right Thing. Love vs. hate has always been a theme that has stuck out to me because, according to my beliefs, they are the same emotion. We get the same feeling when we strongly adore someone as we get when we strongly despise someone else, the only difference is the positive or negative stamp we put on the emotion. In addition, it is easier to feel the opposite emotion towards someone a person already loves/hates because the passion is already there. All they really have to do is "turn the dial" and percieve the feeling the other way. We see this in the film when Radio Raheem puts the "love" rings on one hand and the "hate" rings on the other, then puts the words side-by-side, equally.

Almost every relationship in this film seems to exemplify this type of rationale. The most interesting to me was that between Mookie and Sal. It's fascinating how Sal tells Mookie he is like a son to him, and Mookie (changing into uniform according to Sal's wishes) seems to comply. However, not 5 minutes later in the film, Mookie is seen smashing a trash can into the front window of the pizzaria, an act that begins the violent destruction of the business. I don't believe Mookie would've been able to perform this act of intense hatred had it not been for the intense love he already felt for his boss. This same type of fierce passion exists even in classical literature such as Wuthering Heights, and I believe it has been one of art's most interesting and prominent themes throughout history. In conclusion, I find it sad that Hollywood cinema, which is probably the most widely dispersed type of art, not only fails to present viewers with this type of theme, but lies to their viewers by giving theme a false hope of what life "should" be like. One really has to dig deep into literature or independent films to discover what I think is (along with destiny) the most interesting and true theme ever explored.

Paige Brinkmann

Go Sparta, It's Your Birthday.

So the Spartans have always been known as a fair and quite fearsome democratic nation, however 300 goes a little deeper. The ideology for Sparta is simply...be free and independant. In the exposition of the film, King Leonidas kicks a Persian messenger into a long lifeless black sinkhole. Although he acted alone he did not act without the "yes, dear, go ahead" nod from his wife, the queen. This is a direct representation of men and women's relations in ancient Sparta. This is not to say that all women were given such authority, but they were given a certain degree of respect from the men. The Spartan women were treated much like women in today's America are treated. We are able to speak up and not fear for our lives, but still don't hold a majority of corporate lead jobs or senate seats. The Persian women were not that lucky. The Persian women were viewed as, well in plain English, as sex slaves or just general slaves, but either way they were destined for some kind of servitude. Xerxes' women filled tent when the disabled Spartan traitor, Ephialtes, was being persuaded to kneel to the "kind god-king", was an eclectic brew of women, some voluptious and some scarred and deformed. But all were forced into Xerxes' herum.

The idea of losing their freedom, angered the Spartans into attack mode and that's just what they did. Freedom was so important to them that they were willing to risk their lives and for some, their childrens lives, to ensure that they could live in freedom not Persian slavery. That mirrors present day America very much. We have armed forces battling for out freedom every day, way more than 300, but willing to give up their right to live for our rights for everything. Pride and honor were their governing values.

The disability of Ephialtes, was warmly welcomed by Xerxes, however King Leonidas was not as open to the idea of having a crippled aid him in an already uneven battle. The Spartans were a gene pool of perfection, but every once in a while there would be a not so perfect creation that would have to be discarded as if it weren't a human life but a weakness in the fabric of an independant society. There is no room for error in Sparta. At the opposite end of the spectrum was Xerxes' misfits which welcomed anyone as long as they would kneel to him and embrace him as a god-king.

300 really did a good job of highlighting the difference is societal views and politics. Although they were very different in the treatment of their citizens, the Spartans and Persians, they both were adamant that their way of life is the correct one.
Sorry it's late! :(
-Kerstin D.

"Stop hitting yourself, Stop hitting yourself"

The Spartan value system in the movie 300 can easily be compared to Americas value system in the 1950s, and the representation of Persia could parallel modern world views of America. King Leonidas brags that the women of Sparta are as strong and as brave as the Spartan men, all the while they are not allowed to speak in the senate and the Queen is ridiculed for being a woman. The disabled, acting as another negative representation, are portrayed as inadequate, physically and mentally, for the Spartan nation but not for the Persian army. Just like some nations today believe that Americans have a deformed value system, the Spartans believed that the Persian army was not only physically deformed, like its monsters, but mentally as well.

As long as we are over generalizing here, the 1950s carried with it a value system based in morals, tradition and image, the atomic family. It was thought that by being a patriotic, God fearing do-gooder american one would be considered normal. Men were thought to be strong and brave and ready to fight for his country, to happily give his life for his family, and his sons knew they would follow in his footsteps. Going into the army was thought to "make a man out of you." Women were honored and adored and every man was taught how to treat a lady, but politically and culturally women were mostly thought of as mothers and daughters, not politicians and leaders. These very principles are used to describe the people of Sparta. Its men are patriotic warriors ruled by mystical oracles, its women cannot speak in front of senate but are loved and adored by men, its young boys train to fight when they are young then go on a journey to become a man.

There can be many lines drawn between the representation of the Persian army in 300 and the modern world view of America. The Persian army is massive. It has covered most of the world. They are portrayed as decadent and depraved. The army is made up of many nations accepting anyone. (even though America is struggling with immigration laws, we are still a country of immigrants) The disabled in 300 are tossed out of Sparta only to be accepted by the Persian army, enlisting not only Quasimodo, but also people with saw arms and anger issues. This tells the Spartans that as long as everyone falls in line with depravity, its cool.

-Jonathan Donovan

Society & Fantasy

I looked at this movie as a generic example of how society is typically viewed. The protagonist, King Leonidas, fits the stereotype of a war hero perfectly; he is strong, brave, and beautiful. Viewers are led to believe that he and his army of 300 other watered-down versions of himself are the "good guys" of the war. Therefore, it didn't suprise me that the Spartans were all beautiful, just as people who do the "right thing" are typically portrayed. The Persians, on the other hand, are designed to repulse. Unlike their sacrificing enemies, these men engage in indulging, "sinful" behavior that is reflected in their unattractive appearances. Their king, the antagonist, will allow anyone, even the disabled, to join him, so long as they bow down and worship him. His failure to be selective gives him a devilish, "bad guy" appearance.

The women in this film also fit societal stereotypes. Queen Gorgo and the rest of the Spartan women are outspoken about their beliefs, yet never cease to support the values of their men. In fact, their main goal is to raise children to become just as strong and brave as their fathers. These are all qualities that "good mothers" and "good wives" are believed to have. Persian women, on the other hand, are very sexual and are never seen caring for children or supporting their men. Perhaps this is why the Persian men appear so sinful and wrong? They have no support system from the women who should be "taking care" of them.

I don't know anything about the Greek mythology that inspired some events in this film, but I took a class last semester in Norse mythology and was able to draw some interesting parallels. First, I noticed how even though King Leonidas knows his Spartans will fall, he decides to fight anyway. In The Prose Edda, Norse gods like Odin and Thor know they can't prevent Ragnarok (the end of the world... I'm not sure if I spelt it right), but that doesn't stop them from fighting Loki's evil spawns and the frost ogres. This, I think, glorifies King Leonidas even more for fighting for what is "right" for his people despite the fact that he will fall. I also noticed that, after a Persian plunges a sword through the captain's body, he inches himself further onto the blade to deal his enemy a lethal blow. This is exactly what Mordred does to kill his father, King Arthur, in Le Morte Darthur. I think more in-depth explorations of these events would be very interesting to unravel, and I wish I could have used this movie to help with some analysis papers last semester!

Paige Brinkmann

This is Sparta!

Ive always loved this movie, not for the acting or anything like that, but just the simple fact that it is a movie that makes you wanna go out and whoop some. Its overall a movie about pride and honor. The overall theme just shows the pride and respect the spartans have. Yes they are very cocky and somewhat if not crazy, but its in a good way.


The spartans views on their woman is a good one with respect and equality. Afterall "the woman are he ones who give birth to the spartans". Versus the Persian view on woman, whom keep them as slaves and are nothing more than used for labor and pleasure it seems like.

The Spartan way of life seemed to be one that was of great physcial strength and beauty. As you can see in the movie all the of the younger male spartans were ripped and in great shape along with thier female counterparts. This showed an ideology on how the spartans were and what people thought of them. This left no room for the disabled.

Dom Wheeler

pride and honor

The Spartan view of men and women is a cross between old views and modern views. The newer views for the men was that the boys were to be left alone in the wild to become men. In today's world they are not left in the wild per say but they still go out on their own. Another one of the newer views is how the men viewed women. In older times men would never had listened to a women. In the film the viewer could tell that the Spartan king had a true respect for his wife the queen. This was best shown in the scene when the Spartan king came back from his meeting with the oracle. One of the older views the Spartans had that does not always hold true today is that the men only had one profession. The women on the other hand seemed to have the same crossed views between now and them. The queen is portrayed in a manner that makes her character look very strong and independent. This view would not have been true in the old days it is more constant with modern times. One of the older views was when the queen talked to the counsel. In this scene you can tell that all the men did not really want to listen to her. This scene also shows how strong her character really is.
The Persians on the other hand had views that were more constant for the time of the movie. All the people were their to serve the king. The Persian king did not care about his solders they were only their to concern the enemy. Another one of the older views was that the king was a god and his top guards were invincible. The Persian women were portrayed as a weaker character. they were servants and only their for the pleasure of men. The Persians did not care if you were disabled or not. The more you were deformed the better you were. I believe this to be true because in the scene were the general gets his head cut off the "guy" cutting it off has claw arms. They win by shear mass were as the Spartans win by their skills.
The Spartans were all about honor and pride. This traits was what drove the Spartan army. In contrast the Persian fought because of fear. Most of the solders in the Persian army were from places that Persia had defeated. The viewer could tell this from the scenes when Persia is attacking the Spartans. They had rhinos and elephants that used to try to push through the Spartans. As I had stated earlier the Spartans fought with pride and honor. All Spartan solders were just that Spartan solders. They did not fight because they had to it was because the wanted to. One of the best scenes that showed this was when one of the Spartans was hoping that the Persians had someone in their army that could challenge him in battle. That scene showed the pride that the Spartans had for battle. It was an honor to die in battle for Spartans.

Welcome to the Jersey Shore

Michael Kera

Sparta’s society values and our 21^st century values have not changed very much. Obsessed with genetic perfection, keeping others silenced, and having social order was common then and now.

In Spartan society you have to be the perfect specimen you were thrown out like yesterday’s garbage. As teenagers they are thrown into the wild to fend for themselves and learn how to be a man. In order to be a “real” man you need Taylor Lautner’s abs, SHOUT EVERYTHING HE SAYS, and make everything he does EXTREME!!! RAWR!!! The Persian society didn’t really define what a man was, except for being ruled by Lady Gaga.

Taylor Lautner's Abs The king and Lady Gaga

Our women can fight as well as our men, Spartan women give birth to real Spartan men, they contribute to society and by the way they cannot speak in public and only one is really featured in the entire movie. So women are not valued members of society except TO KEEP THE ARMY ALIVE!!! RAWR!!!! When the queen is not having sex, she makes witty comments and then stabs people.

If you are deformed then go to Persia where Angelina Jolie will adopt the deformed and turn them into little monsters. Seriously, turned into monsters; the large giant pig with razor hands, darth vader, the jabberwocky dance crew, the gray hulk. According to the Spartans if you have any deformations you are cast out of society and thought that you can’t do anything.

People are comfortable where they are. People don’t like it when social order is disturbed. The order goes like this, Oracle, Strange minion things, Council, King, Men, Boys, Queen, Women, Servants, others, disabilities. The king couldn’t act without consulting the strange minions and the oracle. Then when he went against them, the council said he had to get their approval. The council didn’t even want to listen to the Queen.

Honestly I think the video explains everything the best.

300 Video

This is not for my actual blog post, but this is what I was thinking of when we were watching 300

Part of the screen gets cut off so yo may want to watch it on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPQRaGpgUBQ

-Michael

The Sound of One Wing Flapping **READ THIS**

Please read the essay The Sound of One Wing Flapping by Elisabeth Weis before next week's class, Wednesday July 7, and be prepared to discuss it. Click on...... http://filmsound.org/articles/Hitchcock.htm

Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, and Memento

If I could watch Memento for the first time again I might think that the story breaks the rules of commercial narrative film making. Now I realize that the film only bends the rules. However the rules aren't bent frivolously. Without the bending of these rules the film would run from A-Z with little suspense and almost no attachment to the narrator himself.
I love it when a film makes me say "Oh now I get it!" The clarity or what a first time viewer may perceive as a lack of clarity is really evident at the point at which we are provided with true closure. The clue to this is the opening scene running in reverse. Next we can tell only in retrospect that Teddy deserves to die and Leonard is breaking free of someone who is taking advantage of him. the rule of unity is also bent, how far depends on if you've seen it before. This is the real magic of the film for me. By prefacing the cause with effect we feel just like poor Lenny shuffling through his photographs trying to make sense of each event in the film, giving us character identification at its best.
Pushing the limits of commercial narrative film making was very important to the overall feel of the film. This allowed the story to keep its true meaning. In Memento Mori, the short story the film was based on it says "Time is an absurdity. An abstraction. The only thing that matters is this moment."
Kevin Washington

Memento - The circle of trust

Memento violated the conventional ways of movies being told in a chronological aspect, but as far as the 5 rules that are to never be broken I believe it did do its job by the end of the movie. As a whole the exposition where we should've learned much about the characters in the first 10-20min failed. I was still very confused for at least the first hour of the movie then I started to feel like I was finally understanding what is going on. Character development was a bit rough as I never really figured out how they were developing characters when we really never knew anything really about them and the jumping around in timelines did make it confusing to me. There was unity in the movie since the audience did know what the cause and effect of Lenny's character was. He was clearly wanting revenge for his wife and we saw how he had head trauma. In conclusion I do feel that this movie walked a very fine line as far as breaking the rules in movie making.

Omar Reece

Memento: A Skewed Narrative

First and foremost, all narrative films will clearly define the time, place, and character motivations within the story. I felt that Memento adhered to the rule of clarity; viewers are aware by the end of the exposition that Leonard is staying in a hotel during modern times while trying to avenge his wife. Although his progress and clues aren't clear until the end of the film, I believe viewers are provided with enough information in the first 15 minutes to follow the story. In fact, the first scene shows Leonard shaking a Polaroid picture out of focus rather than into focus, which hints that events in the story will take place in reverse. Unity, the second rule for narrative films, involves the use of cause and effect to help viewers understand the actions of the characters. Although done so in a skewed manner, I believe this film was unified. Rather than understanding that certain events shaped the motivations of characters, viewers were baffled by the characters' actions before they understood why they behaved the way they did. Thus, the film had qualities of effect/cause instead of the traditional cause/effect. For example, we learn that Leonard kills John G., but we don't understand why until we see his tatoo that reads, "John G. raped and murdered my wife." Although viewers are confused for a while about Leonard's motivations, I feel they eventually recieve the unity necessary to piece together the bits of information given.

The third rule for narrative films is character identification. This is achieved when viewers feel as if they are in the shoes of a character in the film or can relate to their situation. I think it would be easy for anybody to identify with Leonard. They scene that first shows us his tattoos conveys the abundant love he flet for his wife and the struggle he must go through because she has been taken away. Everybody loves someone or something, and imagining that love being lost forever leaves one with the same anger Leonard feels. Narrative films also give viewers a sense of closure. Although the conclusion to Leonard's story of revenge occurs at the beginning of the film, viewers still need to see the earlier events in the story to completely understand Leonard's situation and motivations. For example, knowing how Leonard went about not trusting Teddy gives readers closure by knowing that he deserved to die in the beginning of the movie. Finally, unobtrusive craftmanship, or failure to allow viewers to believe the film is not reality, is the final guideline all narrative films must aloow. Memento definitely adheres to this rule; not once are viewers conned into believing this film was all staged. Superb acting and flawless editing draw us away from the craftmanship of the film and into the backwards, mirrored reflection that has become Leonard's life.

Also, I just wanted to say that this is the type of movie I need to watch 10 more times before I get the blank look off my face! This blog was really hard for me to write interpretively because the movie threw me back and forth so many times that I forgot so many important scenes. I really enjoyed all the confusion, though. This movie will definintely make a repeat appearance when I'm bored in my dorm room this fall!

Paige Brinkmann

Here We Go Again! And Again!

Memento adheres to some of the narrative film rules, however, it blatantly disses a couple as well. The film's chronology is a bit out of whack but I think that's what gives Memento its unique flair and captures the audience. I think its fair to say that anytime a movie begins with a flashback it holds the audience in tight, because they want to find out what is going on in real time that prompted the flashback at the beginning. Right away the viewer understood a part of his back story, that Leonard had a "memory problem" as he would often refer to it. I really don't feel he had a very strong turning point because every morning was a new turning point it The clarity of this film is wavering-- it is clear that he wants to murder his wife's second killer however through his loss of creating new memories he can never remember the people he encounters on his journey. One unbroken rule of this commercial narrative film is character identification. Any viewer can fully understand the feelings Leonard has toward avenging his wife and the problems he encounters as a result of his condition. This film is abstract however it still allows the viewer to connect to the main character, although it is very outside of the box. Another rule unbroken, but can easy be said to have been broken is the idea of unity in the characters actions and reactions. The reasons behind Leonard's actions were very clear and the effects of those actions were just as evident. He chose to create a dramatic mission and the effects of that choice added to his already unique situation. The rule that wasn't broken, but was shattered is the rule of closure. We know that he murdered a man, but was it the right man or was Teddy telling the truth at the end of the film? We don't know if Sammy Jarkis is in the mind of Leonard or if it was Leonard. There a different variations of what is acceptable for closure at a movie's end, but mine is pretty simple; if I have to ask a question about what happened next, then there is no closure! Memento definitely draws viewers in with its very real emotional elements. Most people would feel similar to Leonard if found in his position and he is acting out of love and anger, not just evil murderous intent. Overall I think Memento adhered to the five rules of narrative film in a very complex and sketchy way, but the one's it broke were solely for artistic purposes.

Kerstin D.

Round & round we go, who he'll kill nobody knows!

Surprisingly this movie really caught my interest early on. From the Polaroid un-developing to his last memory being in black and white this film definitely did not follow the rules of a commercial narrative. Firstly, the movie kept jumping between what was happening to what had already happened. That can get confusing for most people that go to the theater, if it wasn't for the distinction between the vivid colors and the monochrome then I myself would have been very confused.
Another thing that really made in confusing was that the whole film was moving backwards. As I mentioned the Polaroid earlier, it really set the motif for the entire movie, that either; A) Something horrible had happened, or B) That the rest of the film was moving backwards from the conclusion. In this case, both A and B were correct. I think the point when I started to piece it all together was close to the end. When Leonard went to Ferdy's to meet Natalie and she called him Jimmy through his window it all started to click together in my head.
The Last reason why this film didn't follow the five rules of a commercial narrative there wasn't really any closure to the entire movie. Yeah Lenny may have killed John G. over a year ago, but you never see him and you never really know if he'll kill someone else after he kills Teddy.


Jake H.

Amnesia???

The narrative form of this movie was definitely unconventional. We see in the beginning that the Polaroid picture in "undeveloping" and the blood is running up the wall. That is the first clue to the unclear unity of the film. The cause and effect seems to jump around alot since we are viewing several different times in Lenny's life. We are seeing the past, prior to his wife's death as well as what appears to be the present time and a little bit of flashback scene by scene.
Characters are pretty easy to identify with on the surface. Natalie appears to be a sympathetic caring friend to Lenny at first, then we find out the truth and her ulterior motives. The viewers know that according to Lenny's photos, Teddy can not be trusted. We don't really know why, however, until the end. And even then, there leaves some room for interpretation. No one is really who they appear to be in this film, but the audience is identifying with each of them scene by scene.
It takes the long way around, but we do get closure at the end of Memento. We find out the true rolls of all the characters and how they fit into the puzzle of Lenny's life. This movie does draw in the audience and provides them with resolution at the end of the story. It does however, NOT have a happy Hollywood ending!

Jill Loucks

welcome to the nut house

Over all I would say that this film does not follow the five rules of commercial narrative films. I believe that this film does and does not follow the five elements of a narrative film. I say it depends because I feel that this is one of those movies that some people would have trouble following. With that being said depending on how well a person can follow movies determines if it fits the five rules of commercial narrative films. The clarity of the film's events in the viewers mind determines if they can follow this film or not. If the viewer does not understand how the movie progresses they would not believe that the film follows the five rules. The black and white scenes are the past were as the colored scenes are the present. The viewer also needs to understand that the film is moving backwards from the opening scene when Lenny shoots teddy.
Another one of the rules is that you can identify character. I fond it hard to know for sure if the characters were good or bad. The main character Lenard the view feels bad for because he does not have a shot term memory but at the end of the film you find out that he is just as bad as the other characters. Lenny sets up Teddy which you find out is a cop. Teddy uses Lenny to kill criminals. Natale uses Lenny to keep the drug dealers off her back. I believe that their is no real good character so to speak. they all use Lenny's condition to their advantage including Lenny. The viewer constantly has to change their view of the characters. First you think Teddy's his friend then you don't. Next you think Natale is helping him but she is really out for revenge for her drug dealing boyfriend that Lenny killed. Finally you think Lenny is out to avenge his wife but he has already done this and forgot it but he still keeps killing when he finds out.
I also don't think that this film has closure for the viewers. Sure we know that Teddy's dead but we don't have any real closure with the other characters. Does Lenny start a new search for his wife's killer who is already dead. You also don't know what happens to Natale. I believe this movie ends with more questions for the viewer then during the film. As I have said over all I believe that this film does not follow the rules.

50 First Kills

Michael Kera

A story told in reverse and forward all at the same time is brilliant! The colored storyline is told backward and the black and white story line is told forward until the ending where they merge together. Speaking for myself, once the Polaroid picture faded and the blood ran up, I realized we were dealing with a guy with a mental disorder. So as the movie progressed, but time regressed in a sense, the reason became clear. I like how the movie was a series of events and causes. Either the script was brilliant or the editor was, or even a combination of the two. Every colored scene is an effect and cause all at once. The pattern I saw is a bit difficult to explain because the opening scene is in reverse, and all the other scenes are played forward, but placed backwards. I will explain the pattern backwards and then as if the movie was being played forward. Some of the causes and effects are the same thing, because a cause causes an effect which in return creates another cause. Effect (Guy is shot dead) -> Cause (Lenny finds a photo in his pocket saying to kill the guy), Effect (Teddy meets Lenny at the hotel) -> Cause/Effect (Lenny writes kill him on Teddy’s photo) -> Cause (Copy of a driver’s license for a John G. who is Teddy/ (Answer to earlier Cause)Teddy says he will be over), Cause (He receives a folder at dinner), Cause (He’s in bathroom). Forward Cause (He goes to the bathroom), Cause/Effect (He receives a folder he left at his table) -> Effect (He finds a driver’s license and calls the number) Cause (Teddy says he will be right over) -> Effect (Lenny writes to kill Teddy) -> Effect (Teddy comes over) -> Cause (Goes to abandoned place) -> Effect (Lenny finds his note to himself) -> Cause (Teddy gets shot). I really hope that made sense. The way this was styled leaves the viewer wondering what caused the incident we just saw.

Following the characters was easy because there were few and we saw them in roughly five minute bursts. Each character was clearly defined. As we start seeing pieces of the puzzle each character’s motives come to the surface. “Teddy” takes advantage of Leonard on several occasions, we just know not to trust his lies, but we don’t know why. Natalie seems innocent because she helps Leonard, but later she is revealed to be a manipulative b!tch.

The way it was written and edited together was amazing. I was not pulled out of the story once. We knew the narrator was Leonard because he lives his life in his head and that’s where we were: The Forgotten Memories, the black and white story and reverse storytelling is what he already forgot. Personally I felt it worked for this story because it would be boring for us as a viewer to watch this man’s life as it keeps progressing forward, as he forgets. It’s more effective if we don’t know, like he does. In the beginning we are at the drug location, and at the end of the movie we end back up there. Really if the story was told chronologically the abandoned house would have been in the middle and ending, but I felt a sense of closure because of the way the movie was pieced together. It brought the story full circle, begin and end in the same location. By the end we find out the whole story.

Final 17 minutes of Memento

Please view the following two videos before writing your blog post for this week. To view it larger, click the full-screen-mode icon at the bottom right of the video window.

Blog post topic: How does Memento either adhere to or violate each of the 5 rules of commercial narrative filmmaking established by Hollywood?


First Watch Part I.....






Then watch Part II.....





Then write away! See you next week!

Happiness is best shared

I have to say, this was one of my favorite movies. I remember reading the book originally when I was around 13 and to see this story brought to the screen was an amazing feat. The cinimatography was also eye catching. The longshots, the overheads, it was all amazing and complimented to the feeling of what was taking place on screen. While he was leaving his family behind the camera was always a distance away but still showing a full shot of him.
As he got closer to people on his journeys the camera focused more on him and the people he surrounded himself with. This showed a closeness or a bond between him and his friends. One particular part that was my favorite that was skipped was the old man. The old man he lived with for a short time that showed him how to work leather. He was wise and knowledgeable within his age. He also reminded me of my own grandfather, and I feel that was why Alexander stayed with him so long.
During the final scenes of the movie on the magic bus, you could see from the angles that he had distanced himself from society quite far away. Most scenes were shot with a telescoping lense from far distances, even when he was climbing the mountain to see the area they showed how far away the bus was from anything marking a man-made structure. He felt at home there, at peace with himself. In a way I feel happy about the ending. After his long journey he had finally realized what was missing, "Happiness is best shared"

Jake H.

Into the wilddd

This film was a great example of cinematography. The film uses tons of long shots and extreme long shots to show the brilliance of the enviorment and natural landscape chris ventures out to discover and explore. My favorite scenes in the movie were the close up scenes. For example, when Chris ventured out into the city, i personally got the impression that he was somewhat lost and alone and had no place being there. Especially with the bums and crowds of thugs on the streets. The Close up views of his face revealed alot of emotion to me and that he wanted to get away.
Another Scene i thought was significant with cinematography was when he was looking for berries towards the end of the film. There was tons of pannig and close ups in the scene. The swish panning in the scene gave a sense of desparity and excitment, this was something ive never really seen before or taken notice to in a film.
Overall i thought the movie was decent, disliked the ending, it somewhat creeped me out with the smile that was on his face, but thats just me, i was wanting the movie to end a bit more differently and have him atleast reunite with his sister.


Dom Wheeler

The Wild Man

As for as cinematography goes this film could not have been a better example for me when it comes to using it to tell a story of this type. There was many ELS shots in this film. I believe this camera distance was used to keep the audience in a natural environment. It was like we were there with Mr. Supertramp. I enjoyed when they used tracking movement and put the audience behind him as he was going through the woods. The cinematography made this movie as excellent as it was. If it was not for the use of camera movement and angles I believe this movie would not have captivated as many people as it has. At the very end of the movie when he Alex was dying the use of dutch angle was impressive as we got to see what he see's right before he dies and it was disorienting for us the audience. It made it a very realistic feeling and can generate more emotion in an audience.

By the end of this movie the discovery I made was that cinematography can very literally make or break an entire movie. The feeling that different camera movements and angles give the audience can indulge them as if they literally feel they are there with the character. Since there really was one main character in this entire movie cinematography was vital.

By: Omar Reece

Supertramp

The camera really was a fabulous narrater for me in this movie. Cinematography told a story beyond the characters. The extreme long shot when Chris is dropped off for the last time to walk the rest of the way on his journey is awesome. It really gives the audience a sence of what Chris has set out to do. His intension of living a simple life alone in the wilderness was intensified in this scene by the camera shot. The long shots in general really show big sky and huge amounts of lonely landscape and nature. Even though they are long, wide angle shots, it really gives a scence of what Chris is feeling and what he is seeing. Almost as if the audience is seeing what he sees.
A close up shot of Chris after he shot the Moose shows the audience the extreme emotion he is experiencing. The tears in his eyes and the sadness on his face wouldn't have been as obvious from a different angle or lense.
The most intense low angle shot was the end of the movie when Chris was dying. He is laying on the bus looking up at the clouds. The use of this shot shows the viewer the universe is calling him home with the camera. What an awesome frame. The directer wanted us to know Chris was at peace by the use of this camera angle. He really was trying to see the good in his parents when death was at his door. He even has a smile on his face knowing that death is close and he is alone.

Jill Loucks

True Alaska Shown

The best way to show the vastness of the Great Land (Alaska) is through panning with a wide angle lens. When Chris first arrived in Alaska there were alot of wide birds eye views of the moutain filled Talkeetna Range. This really helps give the viewer a sense of space and the size of the surrounding area. There were also many rack focus shots. The one that really stands out to me is when the shot starts out with a black and yellow caterpillar and Chris out of focus in the rear and then it switches to focus on Chris. That really emphasized the smallness of a human in the large natural landscape. One thing this movie seemed to repeat was the use of zooms. The seemed to always focus on a large natural scenic background and the then zoom in on the character fairly quickly or start on the character and zoom out to capture the background. The dutch angle technique was used a few times in this film. Once to emphasize his dizziness after getting beat up with a billy club for illegally riding on freight trains. Another time to show the disorienting and nauseating effects of a poisonious berry Chris ingested. There multiple low angle and tilt shots of Chris from the ground up, during the times when he is exploring the "real" Alaska outside of his "Magic Bus". I like that some of the low angle shots are stationary and almost buried in the snow, so as Chris is walking around it's very "matter-of-factly" as if nature was observing him. As Chris hitchhiked in the lower 48, many scenes tracked him as he walked when he was near highways and roads. There was a really cool point of view scene at the end when Chris was going to die and he stared up at the clouds in the sky. I started to feel if I was laying down myself and staring into the sky. Another prominent scene I remember is when Chris was kayaking down the river, it was filmed partly by handheld camera infused with dutch angles and rapid transition through both (I think they are "jump cuts") which added to the chaotic waters and Chris being all knocked around. This film was perfect to learn about camera angles and cinematography!

Kerstin D.

Director? I thought he was an actor?

After the Supertramp, eats the magic mushrooms he becomes extremely sick and Sean Penn uses the dutch angle to show this to his viewers. I know they weren't mushrooms but that is same thing Penn would have done if they were. Had a director with any real talent got a hold of this movie first it would have swept the Oscars. Emile Hirsch was incredible, and the ultra thorough Jay Cassidy who edited the film managed to place all the mistakes in places where they don't draw attention. Jay Cassidy is also the person responsible for Al Gore getting a Nobel Prize, weaving all those lies together so that it seemed soooo inconveniently true. But even a genius couldn't edited out that beautiful watch McCandless still had on way too late into the movie.
Well instead of an Oscar winner what we have is cinematography for dummies. I do give Penn credit for shooting on location, which was an obvious choice for this film. The beautiful North American landscapes go on full display in the long shots. My favorite of which is after he is dropped off in the Alaskan wilderness speaking to another human for the last time, walking away from us (society and viewers) as the camera moves out to show the wild in all it's snow white glory. I just wish he didn't have that watch on this late into his journey. The use of the close up may have been the one thing that wasn't always basic in the shooting of the film. As McCandless was burying his things his sister's narration plays over the close up of the digging and burying of his books, speaking of how their home life had hit rock bottom but still seemed to get worse as he digs. Then when he goes back and digs up these things, again the sister is narrating digging up more of the family's dirty truths. All in all the movies is beautiful, but the camera work just didn't take enough risk for me to be impressed by anything more than where they were shooting, and maybe that's the point. When you have these types of locations maybe you let that speak for the film. On a personal note, if you are reading this Mr. Penn, don't put 1996 model cars in your movie when you are claiming it took place between 1990 and 1992 some of us are actually watching.
Kevin Washington

back to basics

Cinematography- In this film the director likes to jump between a medium shot and a extra long shot. When he uses the medium shot I believe that he is doing this because he wants to stress the character and their interactions with other characters. One of the scenes that shows this is when Alex talks to the hippie on the beach. By use the medium shot it allows the view to focus on the characters more than their surroundings. On the hand when he uses a extra long shot he is emphasises the surroundings. The best scene that shows this is when Alex is in Alaska right before he finds the bus. when he uses a extra long shot it also helps the viewer to get that Alex is alone. In these shot the viewer focuses on the scenery more then the character.The medium and extra long shots are not the only shots the director uses. He also use a long, close up, and extra close up shot.
The extra close up shot is hardly used in this film. The scene that i believe that this shot was best in was when Alex shoots the moose. I believe that he uses the extreme close up of the moose's eye to help show Alex's emotion about killing the moose. When ever the director wanted the audience to know about Alex's emotions he would shot a close up. The scene were this technique was most impact full in my opinion was when he was dieing and looking up at the sky. The long shot in my opinion was not stressed as much as the extra long shot or the medium shot because I feel in this film it would not of helped out the film. The scenes that had a long shot I feel that they were not as important to the viewer as the other two shots.
The camera distance was not the only aspect that this film stressed it also stressed camera angles and movement. In the beginning of the film they use a birds eye view switching to a high-angle view in the scene were Alex is graduating. I believe that he used this angle because it stresses the mass group more than if he had used a stationary movement on the same level. In that same scene they also pan across the graduating class to show number of people their. I also believe that the director did these to stress how he Alex was just like the other kids. Once Alex starts his journey the camera movement switches to a tracking movement. This helps the viewer to feel as though they are traveling with Alex.

Where the Wild Thing is...

Michael Kera

This time I’m going to start out with Michael’s Miscellaneous. For this post we need to talk about lens, focus, camera distance, camera angle and camera movement. I want to start off with movement. When was there nota camera move? From what I saw the camera was always moving, even when locked down on a tripod. With the tripod shots there would sometimes be a slight pan, normally you wouldn’t be able to tell, but parts of the background were moving out of frame. There were a few times the camera was still and when it was, it was jarring. So much of the movie was hand-held it felt like a documentary, and Chris/Alexander only broke the 4^th wall once when he was eating the apple in the montage. The documentary effect was cool and I feel effective, because we are following Chris/Alexander on a journey and when chronicling a journey, you would most likely go hand-held.

Now we know most of the shots were hand-held with some tripod use. But hand-held is a loose term in my opinion; they probably used a steady-cam, otherwise you’d want to vomit. I want to say there were a lot of long shots andmedium shots. Extreme Long Shots and Long Shots were used more for the “pure nature” scenes and Medium Shots for the people. Even the close-ups seemed farther away from the people. I think towards the end after he ate the poison plant the D.P. started using close-ups. They also used close-ups when he was writing in his journal. The shots made me feel not intimate with the story. It felt like Chris/Alexander was pushing his whole world away, including the viewer. Then again if the whole movie was close ups it would have felt awkward and too intimate.

The angles felt kind of blah. There were a lot of eye level shots.

There were a few high and low angles but none really suggested the visual dominance. It felt like more of a composition decision like our actor is up in a barn loft and we’re down here next to the man pissing on the ground. I may be reading too much into it, but except for the montages the shots were pretty boring. I remember the montages more than the actual movie like the apple montage and the typical “I have climbed a large mountain and now I will stand with my arms out while the camera spins around me.” I also remember the canted/Dutch angel because of how jarring it was. I usually love canted/Dutch angels but this shot looked like something someone learning how to use a video camera would do. It screamed look at this and how artistic it is.

Now for a wrap up of Michael’s Miscellaneous. I enjoyed the shots of the movie, especially in the very beginning, but I hate how it was told. Every so often the movie pulled me in and then spit me back out. During the apple montage when he broke the 4^th wall, I couldn’t stop thinking, “is this a narrative or a documentary?” This thought came back to mind when he was dying, couldn’t his “hypothetical” crew help him if he knew they were there? Also there were a lot of zooms, it felt like 90% of the movie was zooms. Now I like a good zoom every now and then, but it got annoying because in my mind zooms go along with documentary style. Too many zooms remind me of home movies. To end on a lighter note, the fly over during the graduation scene gave me chill because I liked it so much. Here is a cool shot to end with. Close up and slight extreme close-up of his eye.

Modern Transcendentalism

The very first thing I thought of when I heard Christopher wanted to spend two years in the wild was Henry David Thoreau's Walden. About two minutes later in the movie, viewers get a close-up of the books he brought with him to the bus, and Walden stands out in the stack. I love that Sean Penn set up Christopher's character to be a modern Thoreau or Emerson because (as we can see from all the cities and civilization) transcendentalism is kind of a dying art. In some scenes, the cinematographer shot close-ups of Chris's face to show his reactions to the beauty of the nature that surrounded him. The tears in his eyes really gripped me as a viewer and showed me that he understood everything Thoreau wrote about nature. We sometimes got extreme close-ups of just his eyes during scenes such as these, which made me think that he had the "transient eyeball" that Emerson refers to in Nature.

It didn't surprise me that Chris earned an A in a class about Apartheid; the scene where he spoke to the farmer in the bar about society reminded me of this. I think Chris saw his own family as Apartheid and, by leaving, he forced his parents to undergo a smaller version of the Truth and Reconciliation Conmmission. In one of the final scenes of the movie, we see his dad sitting in the street, and the cinematographer gives us a close-up of his shoes with no socks. Like those who went on trial at the TRC, he literally put himself in the shoes of his victim and owned up to what he had done. However, in the last moments of Chris's life, he imagines himself running into the arms of his parents and being disappointed because they still wouldn't see the world through new eyes. Such was the case with the criminals on trial at the TRC. Were they truly sorry for what they did, or did they just want amnesty? I think his parents simply desired the latter. Chris knows this, but he doesn't blame his parents. In fact, he even says at one point in the movie that they were blinded by society, just as the police officers and goverment officials in South Africa were manipulated into believing Apartheid's demands were ligit. Nonetheless, Chris embraced them at least for wanting amnesty, which I think is very mature and honorable.

The close-up of the final look on Christopher's face reminded me of my favorite quote by Henry David Throeau. He writes very beautifully, "If the day and the night are such that you greet them with joy...that is your success." The welcoming smile that Chris has on his face in his last moment of life breathes this quotation. He literally greets "the night" (or death) "with joy," just as he lived every day to its fullest. Christopher is the rare type of person I am happy for when death approaches, because I know how amused he would be to enter another world. After transcending his body so many times while surrounded by nature, he finally recieved the opportunity to do so literally. This reinforces my belief that Christopher is the closest person to Thoreau and Emerson the modern world has seen.

Paige Brinkmann

Couldn't find a funny RE-CUT of Hero

...but this was a cool pic!

The Avatar: Master of all the elements

I know we didn't need to do a blog post, but I feel in order to talk about a visual medium (Film) you need visuals. - Michael

Black = Water

Fire = Red

Earth = Yellow

Wood = Blue-Green

White = Metal = Purity

Green

Earth = Yellow