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

Travis

Living life in the big city can give you a different view on the world. When we first met Travis, he appeared to be a simple, almost nieve young man. Just coming to New York after being released from the war he had a certain innocent demeanor about him. His simplicity in clothing and appearance says that he was just a working class man at first glance. Hearing that he will go to any neighborhood on the night shift in the 70's gives the idea that maybe he has seen alot in the war or he just doesn't have any idea that some neighborhoods are bad news.
When he sees a young lady he is interested in he puts on suit. Other than that scene, we see the same Travis to this point. His simplicity changes when there date ends abruptly. We see a much angrier side of him.
He tells us how dirty and disgusting the city is throughout the film. Changing himself is really when we see the biggest change in Travis. He starts working out, cuts his hair into a mohawk and begins to have a tough or more rugged appearance.
He came back from the war a simple man. He had to live out his anger to become a hero.

Jill Loucks

You talkin to me?= best movie line ever!!

Travis Bickle is one of the most saddest movie characters in film. He represents thousands of young men who have come back from some kind of war, and are completely thrown off. As a viewer I almost felt sorry for him throughout the entire movie because he was completely emotionally disturbed and had dillusions of happiness that could never happen to him.

In Taxi Driver, Travis was the main character, however, I believe that the city itself was a character. It was represented as a disgusting, horrible, stinky place that housed junkies, alcoholics, pimps, prostitutes, etc. Did the city itself ultimately drive Travis crazy? I don't think so, but I think it did play a major part.

The idea that Travis didn't care to drive in bad parts of town kind of gave me a background of his history. In Vietnam, he probably faced some horrific scenes, death, massacre, torturing, and he wasn't scared to go to the "bad part" of town. His physical appearence in the beggining starts off completely normal, a little messy, not well kept, he didn't really care about his appearance. As the movie moved on, his appearence changed bit bit. When he met Betsy, he tried to dresss himself up, wearing a suit jacket and tie, but failed impressing her by bringing her to a dirty movie. When his character completely turns into the slaughterer he wishes to be, he begins to tone and excercise his miscles and bulks up. His facial expressions are more vacant than before, however, his true insanity when he tries to have normal conversations with people (ex-the secret service agent, he smiles and acts TOO normal)In the finale, when he completely loses it, sporting the Vietnam jacket, the mohawk, and his gun holsters, his looks completely represent where his mind has gone. Robert De Niro brings to the screen how real mentallty unstable people are and how real murderers possibly suffering from post traumatic stress are.


Julia Andria

The true age of Punk

From the beginning of Taxi, I enjoyed the cinematography and the music that Scorcese used. The narration of De Niro over the entire movie just solidified what was taking place on screen. While he would be writing in his journal, I could actually feel how frustrated he was getting at the city around him. He kept getting hung up on certain words that had tons of influence on the way he was acting. In particular when he was speaking about the filth and the dirt on the streets in the city he went to a skin flick right after. This gave the audience that he could possibly be lonely, we later saw him again talking about the filth and dirt walking along the streets and how sick it made him, but all that was shown on screen were men and women most likely couples.
Perhaps he was working so much so that he wouldn't have to realize how lonely he really was. One man so far from home with nobody to talk to or and friends but the other drivers. After he met Betsy(Shepherd), he also met Iris(Foster). The next scene when he was taking Betsy out for a movie it was of a skin flick. Perhaps he was so desensitized by seeing hookers and johns all night long that he didn't see what was wrong with the movie.
After he shot the robber in the store he was sitting in his apartment teetering a tv on edge. It's not so much the tv that is what was significant, but more so what was playing. A forbidden love story and how the woman won't let the man know she's in love with him. Suddenly he pushes the tv over and it breaks. I feel this is the turning point for his character, that was when his transformation into what he was to fully become was almost taking fruition. De Niro fell over the edge much like the tv did.
After that point, you could see the direct change in his attitude and even the way he spoke. Normally a timid quiet driver he became enraged and would strike up conversations with anyone. When the final transformation happened I knew it was almost time for the big bang at the end. He shaved off the sides of his hair to create a mo-hawk. The signature move of most punks in the setting time. To fortify that he was just lonely, at the end of the movie and after the shooting at Iris's building he became a hero. Everyone loved him, he was a hero to the community and to the city for trying to clean up the streets. When Betsy got in his car, he acted as if he wanted nothing to do with her since he got what he wanted from the beginning. A bit of attention and respect.


Jake H.

I Can't help myself

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



Julia Andria

Taxi Driver: not bad

If a good movie is measured by how subtly it divulges information and the presence of rich interesting characters, then Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver is a good movie. Although Scorsese uses a few short cuts, like the interview in the beggining catching the viewer up on Travis Bickle, information on the back story and character of Bickle is told through clever cinematography and reliance on the performances of the actors to portray the specific mood and intentions of the character. By showing his cluttered apartment, his frantic journal entries, his eyes shifting back and forth during his night shifts, and his mostly unkempt appearance the viewer can see how lost and confused Bickle is. Reactions pull most of the wait in this movie. Without having much said the audience learns just how much Bickle despises the "filth" in the streets, that Tom is attracted to Bettsy, that Bettsy is coutiously attracted to Bickle, and that Bickle becomes continously more uneasy and dillusional. his non-verbal reaction to iris being taken from the cab, his reluctance to give up the bill "Sport" gave him, and his final decision to save Iris through a murder/suicide all show his human need to protect and serve those in need, acting as a juxtaposition to his chaotically pessimistic personality. This complexity just shows that Bickle is a very round character. The other characters in the film are mostly flat characters. They provide enough information to know their motives and values. They help set Bikle off from the rest, further showing his seclusion. This contrast between a rich, interesting, round character and a group of simple, easy to read, flat characters highlight the many neuroses of bickle. I believe this defenition explains Bickles character very well.

According to Dr. George Boeree, effects of neurosis can involve:
"...anxiety, sadness or depression, anger, irritability, mental confusion, low sense of self-worth, etc., behavioral symptoms such as phobic avoidance, vigilance, impulsive and compulsive acts, lethargy, etc., cognitive problems such as unpleasant or disturbing thoughts, repetition of thoughts and obsession, habitual fantasizing, negativity and cynicism, etc. Interpersonally, neurosis involves dependency, aggressiveness, perfectionism, schizoid isolation, socio-culturally inappropriate behaviors, etc."
-im not sure how to do citation on a blog, but i got this off of Wikipedia (Boeree, Dr. C. George (2002). "A Bio-Social Theory of Neurosis". http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsyneurosis.html. Retrieved 2009-04-21.)

By Jonathan Donovan

Taxi

Taxi was a weird movie, Our main Character was definetly crazy. With his Background being a vietnam war veteran and uneducated prior to joining the service, it kinda set the stage for something tragic to happen.

Travis' physical appearance was that of an ordinary man, there was nothing that really gave away his mental state in the begining of the film. After getting his job as a nightime taxi driver, Travis starts to associate with people again and decides to go out and chase after a female politician supporter. After unknowingly insulting her on their first date she rejects him and sets his mental state over the edge. After this incident Travis decides to take things into his own hands an make a difference in his city. Travis' opinoin on the city is that it is full of scum and it needs to be dealt with, he feels even the politicians are crooked in my opinoin. I got the feeling he felt they werent doing their job to clean the streets up.

After he decides to take things into his own hands he buys weapons cuts his hair into mohawk, and actually tries to kill the local politician at a rally and kill a local pimp on the streets.

This movie kinda threw me off, i thought the ending was somewhat crazy, he was renowned as a hero? I feel that this is crazy because people dont really know what was actually going through this mans head. He obviously needed help and was without a doubt in a mental state of insanity.

Killing Taste Like Chicken

Taxi Driver reminds me of a C.I.A. mind control case study, it's like a the Manchurian Candidate sequel (Manchurian II On The Loose). Either way it is an incredibly focused film. That focus being on the main character Travis Bickle. Being this involved with one character allows you to look so deeply at the character that you almost feel like him during the movie.

The important parts of Travis Bickle's back story are laid out in the beginning of the movie while he is being interviewed for a job as a Taxi Driver. He responds to the interviewer very candidly, in fact he even makes an attempt at humor by telling the interviewer that he rides around the city all night anyway so he might as well get paid for it. Not only does this show that Travis starts of with confidence, but also that he is socially adept. However if you listen to his answers to the interviewer's questions they were so odd that he would not have landed the job if not for his military background. So although Travis seems "okay" he has already developed odd behavior patterns that are associated with mental illness, PTSD (post tramatic shock disorder) to be exact since he is a vietnam war veteren. The confident Travis Bickle walks into an offic and right up to the most beautiful girl there and demands she go with him on a date and of course she does. But before that confidence is built he sat outside that office all stalker like. It is the confident Travis Bickle that demands that same pretty girl go on date two with him to the movies. It is the incompatent and now clearly a little weird Travis that takes her to the porno theater. After that disaster and heartbreak the crazy starts to get a little more clear. But by the time he stops taking his medication (what ever kind it was) and is preparing to assasinate a potential presidential candidate the porno movie seems harmless. He has militirized his clothing, custom cutting it so the can kill swiftly. He's shining his jump boots like a good Marine. Then there is the mohawk...

The move tagline is "On every street in every city, there is a nobody that dreams of being somebody." I don't really think Travis had a need to be sombody as much as he needed to kill. For some people, once they have taste for killing, they crave it. Travis was willing to go on a one way trip to kill a good man. He made sure the secret service would recognize him almost as if he was commiting suicide. Luckily his gun is turned on lowlifes instead, making him a hero. A bullet in the neck and arm, plus a comma seem to cure his manic state, changing his demenor back to normal. His confidence restored so well he sees fit to leave the girl of his dreams in the rearview mirror, but I always wonder what happens to Travis when the attention is gone and he craves blood once again.

Travis Bickle may very well be the best character in movie history. As long as we have soldiers coming home from war, trying to find their ninche in civillian society Bickle will be real and relavent.

Kevin Washington

The Freaks Come Out At Night

Travis Bickle from the film Taxi Driver, played by the handsome Robert DeNiro, was quite the round character. A discharged Marine and insomniac, he falls into a crusade to rid the flavorful New York City of its "whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal". Travis is undoubtedly an outcast. This is shown through his interactions with other characters throughout the film. When he occasionally stops by the local cafe with fellow taxi drivers, he doesn't ever really engage in conversation with them, mostly just listens and at times barely does that. He attempts to date Betsy played by Cybill Shepard, however, his lack of social skills prevails and he is denied her as her love interest. This is one event that led up to his character change. As the film goes on and the viewer hears the diary entry narration from Travis concering Betsy, it becomes very apparent this is not the first time he has been let down by a woman. Bickle's character is a minimalist, which is reflected by his clothing, his apartment, even his cab. He doesn't require much for life. As Travis witnesses more and more negativity during his late night cabbie runs, his personality morphs into this eerie being. He goes from mediocre to morbid. After the night when Iris, a prostitute played by Jodie Foster, was violently pulled away from his cab by her pimp, Sport [Harvey Keitel], he embarks on a mission to save her from the horrible life she leads. In preparation to complete the task at hand, Travis changes his lifestyle, to that of his former self as a Marine. His clothing becomes very militaristic and he sharpens his appearance to resemble the 70s punk rock look. He has evolved yet again. His journal entries are not as "lost" as previous entries, he now has a plan to execute, "I gotta get in shape. Too much sitting has ruined my body. Too much abuse has gone on for too long. From now on there will be 50 pushups each morning, 50 pullups. There will be no more pills, no more bad food, no more destroyers of my body." When he finally completes this transformation, he completes the act to save Iris. His character is strong at this point and is very guided and precise. When he feels he has completed what he was destined to do, he seems to be more content with himself. When Betsy enters in his cab, he looks as if he could care less, almost like she wasn't anyone special to him at all. I think thats due to him becoming stronger through the series of events that led him back to the cab.

Kerstin D.

Travis - Hero or Psycho?

This movie I found to be low on entertainment value, but the message that was given was loud. Travis reminds me of many people I have met in my lifetime as far as looking for something bigger than a 9-5 job. Travis has a very isolated life and based on his choices and reactions I would say his backstory would be similar. He does have both parents alive since he was writing them a letter for their anniversary. His parents may have been expecting their son to be a great success and the pressure Travis felt from that forced him into isolation and lies. He lived in his own world.

His physical appearance went from looking confused and lost to finding some sort of purpose. When the movie opened with his eyes moving back and forth I knew this guy didnt have a clue what his life was about. As he started to figure out what he wanted to do, which was doing his part in cleaning up the 'filth' in the streets he seemed somewhat happier. By the end of the movie he appeared to have a sense of accomplishment.

When it came to Women he seemed like he knew the right things to do and say to get a date, but didnt have a clue what was appropriate. Taking his date to a dirty movie and not understanding why she was upset with him let me know that he didnt grow up learning what is and what is not socially acceptable.

By the conclusion of the movie I believe us the viewers had to make a decision whether to see Travis as a hero or a psychopath. He took the law in his own hands and although that appears to be a good thing when the law doesnt help you people are left with the moral dillema. By Travis killing in general in such a way where the taking of life didnt affect him scares me. He seemed to have no remorse and was enjoying his Rambo sort of role in life. In his case it wasn't revenge or any of the normal reasons driving him it was purely about taking out people who he felt were scum of the earth. So by the end of the movie the question remains hero or psycho?

By: Omar Reece

Bright Lights, Big Battlefield

The transformation of Travis Bickle's character, to me, stuck out as a metaphor for a soldier's internal battles during war. I missed some of the first scene of the movie, but it appeared to me that he was at an employment office being interviewed so that the interviewer would place him in an appropriate job. This was as if the interviewer was "enlisting" Travis into the city by finding him his place, just as a recruiter would do. (I know this essay isn't about setting, but I wanted to point out how New York City serves as a great metaphor for a battlefield- the busy streets, lights, buildings, people, and overall chaos reminded me of a jungle, which is where the war in Vietnam took place!) Also, I noticed that Travis began the film with a shaggy haircut and wore comfortable clothing as he consumed a myriad of snack food, all of which make him appear very juvenille. This childish appearance is telling of how many people go into the war without really knowing what they've gotten themselves into until they enter the "battlefield."

In fact, it isn't long after Travis begins driving a taxi through New York City that we see a transformation in his character. He becomes paranoid of all of the crazy people he sees and drives around at night, causing him to change his appearance and eating habits to support a more militaristic lifestyle. Shorter hair, a muscular body, healthy food, and possession of multiple firearms all prepare Travis to "battle" the fierceness of the city. I find it interesting that he keeps Palentine's campaign posters on the wall of his apartment. To me, this reinforces the government's strong influence on those who are involved in a war, as they inevitably determine the fates of their soldiers. Like many, Travis eventually becomes very angry with the government for his situation, causing him to cut his hair into a deviant mohawk and attempt to shoot Palentine. Interestingly, he keeps Palentine's posters up in his apartment, showing that no matter how angry he becomes, the government is still there to control him.

The concept of the war hero is very interesting in this film. Travis, still appearing as a deviant, kills the men who manage and support the prostitution of 12-year-old Iris. In this case, I believe he is trying to salvage an innocent victim by taking her out of the "war," but he goes about it in a brutal way. He wasn't truly justified in interfering in business that didn't involve himself, but he did anyway, and was labeled a hero for it by the media. I found this to be a metaphor for what the United States did in Vietnam because they attempted to force their values and government on a weaker nation. Not only does this continue to happen still today, but it also continues to be glorified. The media and government make common people believe the war is creating goodness in the world, when in fact, not many are able to see the brutality that goes along with it. In the end, I felt that Travis Bickle, like so many, becomes blinded by the government and conforms to its wishes. We are reminded of this as he acts more positively about driving the taxi cab and finally agrees to socialize and "fit in" with the other drivers.

Paige Brinkmann

finding your perpose

In this film you do not get a lot of information about Travis past from him. In the opening scene the viewer finds out that he has some education and he was a marine that was Honorable discharged. In this opening scene is very important because the guy that was interviewing him did not care for Travis at first. It was not until he find out that Travis was a marine did he "warm" up to him. The viewer kind of gets the feeling that he might not had got the job other wise. His military back round is mention in later scenes which tells the viewer the importance of it. He also tells the viewer that he has sleeping problems. The last peace of information that Travis divulges about himself is that he is lonely. He tells the viewer this twice. The first time he tells the viewer this is when he gives the record to Betsy. In this scene he gives her the record she does not want to take it at first but he tells her what else do I have to spend his money on. the second time is when he is helping Iris.
Even though Travis does not tell us a lot about his self verbally he tells us a ton non verbally. When you are first introduced to him you find out he is a former marine that can't sleep. With this information you get the feeling that he seen bad things when he was in listed. I started to take this view because he did not care were he worked and he rely did not socialize with his coworkers. The viewer also get the sense that his life is missing something. it is not until he meets Betsy that he starts to get his life in order. In the scene when he finally gets the nerve to talk to her you find out that he does have the ability to be around other people up until then he never real communicates with anyone. After he starts "dating" Betsy you get that feeling that his life is back in order because he starts to get organised. In the scene were he takes Betsy to the dirty movie the viewer can tell that he is warped because he does not see a problem with taking her their. After this they "break up" and he starts to revert to his old ways.
The viewer is first introduced to iris the hooker when Travis almost hits her at first you think nothing of it, but when she is in the car trying to escape you start to see the importance of her character. In the scene were Iris is trying to escape and Matt takes her back and give Travis the money you find out a little bit about his personality. He lets the money sit on his set of the cab until his shift is over this tells the viewer that he regents that he did not help her and that's when his life has a purpose again to help her. This is when the viewer starts to see the importance of his military career.He begins to train and gather the weapons he will need for his new war. When he goes back to his military ways he use his street close as his new "uniform." It is not until he saves Iris that you can tell his life is at peace.

From a wad of Cookie dough to carved out of wood...

Michael Kera

The general consensus between Scriptwriters and News Reporters is Show not Tell. Taxi Driver did an ok job at this. When we first meet Travis Bickle he is at the main taxi garage applying for a job. Right away we discover he has some education and an honorable discharge from the marines because he says so. As the movie progresses we see him writing in a journal and his handwriting is sloppy and he doesn’t have a large vocabulary. He says what he means, but ends up to him rambling because he can’t say what he means concisely. We see his military experience when he practices with his guns and how he works out. Towards the beginning of the movie his home is messy, later while he is on his date with Betsy he tells her how unorganized he is. My favorite show don’t tell scene is when he is getting to know Iris. He is dressed well with his hair neat and how he treats her is almost fatherly. The way he looked and acted showed concern for Iris’s safety.

“Body language often communicates more than words do.” In the beginning, Travis’s appearance is that of a slob; messy hair, unkempt appearance, stubble. He acts as if he has no care in the world. When he meets Betsy he is still unkempt but he has confidence and a cheerful demeanor. He gets the courage to go up to her and talk to her. It seems he might have a glimmer of hope in this dingy world. When he goes on his date with her he has a haircut, suit and cleaned up. He wants to make sure this date goes well so he will have another. During and after the breakup he goes into a slump, he becomes aggressive and messy again. He views the world as evil and needs a good cleaning up. Then after almost running over Iris and meeting “the sketchy man” the one who talked about shooting his wife, he becomes more aggressive and cocky, he buys some guns, and he starts to work out again. He wants to makea difference in the world, and clean the scum from the streets. When he finally meets Iris and talks with her, a new side of him comes out, he cleans up and shows a kind, gentler side. When he attends Palantine’s rally he sports a Mohawk, aviator glasses, and his everyday jacket. At the rally he sticks out like a soar thumb. Then he goes after the pimp to free Iris and get her out of the prostitute life. By the end of the movie, he is almost back to the way he was at the beginning of the movie.

Now for the segment I like to call Michael’s Miscellaneous.

I was a fan of Palantine’s rally speech because the statue behind him also had its arms raised. He chose a good location for his speech because the statue reiterated his point Palantine is for the people.

I also liked the ending shot of Betsy. The reflection of her face floating with out of focus lightsmade it seem almost ghostly, like she was just fiction in Travis’s mind.

Did Orson Welles Smoke Pot?

The video for A Touch of Evil is anti censorship propaganda. Referring to the censors rules as a touch of evil controlling the art of Heavy Metal. But when Judas Priest front man Rob Halford was asked about the song he explained that the references to demonic possession were actually metaphor for the effects that a woman can have on a man. The "touch of evil" is her vigi... Oh Touch of Evil, the classic film by Orson Welles? The one were the lighting tells so much of the story that you can probably watch it without sound and still be locked in suspense.

The version of the film that we watched in class contains what some Welles experts assume is how he wanted to movie edited, based on his 58 page memo to the studio, that he wrote after seeing their version of the film. Wanting to know exactly what it is like to be berated by Orson Welles after pooing all over his beautiful art, I went in search of the memo. When I found it I was disappointed to know that Welles is a consummate professional. He appreciated the studio giving him the opportunity to make the film, apologized for how long it was taking him to edit the film, and tried his best to help them get the most out of the film without costing anymore money on re-shoots. In fact, he is so detailed in his instruction that his genius shines through his humility, and by the end of the memo you feel like you just had a one on one session in a film class taught by Professor Welles. This is my favorite part;

"It would be the greatest mistake to cut out the references to the smell of reefers."

If you wanted to read the memo for yourself, you can find it on wellesnet.com, it sheds a lot of light on what Welles really wanted, hard light, with a lot of shadows.

Kevin Washington

Tell tale Shadows and light in Touch of Evil

Touch of Evil was the perfect movie to learn about different types of film lighting. Although the film was shot in black and white, it was just as visually intriguing as if it had been shot in full Technicolor. The black and white actually helped shape the mood of the movie. The play on light and dark throughout the film was very strong. As you watch the film, you can very easily spot the "innocent" and "evil" characters just by the lighting on them.

Mike Vargas, the Mexican cop (well it's actually Mr. Heston in horrible make-up, but that's a different subject) was well lit throughout the first half of the movie. However when he decides to take down the crooked, Captain Quinlan, his lighting changes to match with his demeanor. Vargas' lighting becomes a little dimmer as well as his body casts larger than life shadows on the background. This doesn't make Vargas look evil by any means, but it does actively represent his mood towards the situation.

Captain Quinlan was two-faced throughout the film, with almost all shots of him being side-lit. That represents his good and bad sides. On one hand he's a cop, so in theory, he is a good guy, but on the other hand he is a dirty cop, which makes him a bad guy. Quinlan's lighting was very constant throughout, until the end of the film, where he knows he's caught red handed and he was dying from the being shot by Menzies, all of a sudden his whole face was lit brightly. This change of light almost exonerates Quinlan from supposedly planting the evidence to put Sanchez in jail, because while Quinlan is dying, Sanchez confesses to the murder.

The hotel scenes involving Susan Vargas, wife of Mike Vargas, contain amazing foreshadowing. When she enters the hotel room it was dimmly lit and as her time in the room passes it gradually gets darker. This is due to two different things, it was approaching night and everyone knows nighttime always equals trouble, and secondly she was soon to be in trouble with the Grande boys. The most significant lighting change was when the Grande gang entered Susan's hotel room and the soft lighting on her face, shows her innocence and fear, then the shadows overtake her and it fades to black. That made quite a statement, but then the viewer feels a slight relief when it's understood that she wasn't actually hurt, just sedated and taken somewhere else. At the start of the film, the viewer knows that something bad is going to happen to the Vargas' because as they are walking through the streets they are bouncing in and out of dark and light.

Also the cop, Menzies, Quinlan's right hand man, has some awesome shadowing techniques applied to him throughout the film. When Menzies and Quinlan interact with one another, Menzies shadow was always smaller than Quinlan's. This is very reflective on their professional relationship.

Touch of Evil is an amazing example of how lighting is very deliberate and effective in how a film is perceived by its audience.

-Kerstin D.

Dear Janet Leigh, please stay away from creepy motels!

TOUCH OF EVIL is a film I would have never considered watching, but the timeless mystery of it was extremely addictive I couldn't keep my eyes off of it. The film begins with an intense opening scene which had me on the edge of my seat. The audience knew the bomb was in the trunk of the car which constantly moved closer and further away from the characters Mike and Susie Vargas, the newlyweds. The beauty of this scene was the intensity and anticipation of what was going to happen. It captures the audiences attention and begins the question of "who done it?" early on.

The ensemble cast varies in acting styles and appearances. Charleton Heston playing a sexy mexican detective, Mike Vargas, was the last person I would have thought to play a mexican, and was almost too tan, but it's Charleton Heston so he can do whatever he wants. His relationship with Susie Vargas, Janet Leigh, bridges the gap between America and Mexico. Leigh plays the helpless damsel in distress and tends to get herself into extremely awful situations. On the other side of happiness is Quinlan, played by Orson Welles, the disgruntled detective who everyone looks up to but is unhappy with his life. Welles sets the bar for all of these stereotyped characters in future films. I'm not sure if it was the cigar that he continued to chew on or the fact his voice was very similiar to Mr. Potter's from IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, but Welles defines the term 'badass' in this film even if he was considered to be a bad guy. Minor characters including Uncle Joe, Tanya-the fortune teller lady, the 50's greaser Mexicans who stalked Susie, and the extremely akward yet adorable night manager at the motel all had one liners or essential scenes which makes this film a classic.

The lighting throughout the film was also an extreme element in the overall greatness of this film. Ironically, most of the types of lighting Stacy talked about before we watched the film were included in this movie. I was familiar with the Film Noir style of lighting, usually with a shadow around the face and only the eyes lit up or some other variation of that, but the lighting in this film was extreme and beautiful. Most of the characters, especially Quinlan, had hard lighting, but it was nice to see the soft lighting on female characters (Susie, Tanya-the fortune teller). Shadows! Shadows! Shadows! was what I wrote in my notes, they appeared EVERYWHERE! Tall shadows, bulky shadows, whatever kind of shadow they presented a form of mystery or a threat, and always left me asking, "What is happening? Is this guy good or bad?" Although Vargas (Heston) is attractive, and well liked, there were certain times the lighting on his face created a mystery or question of his integrity, and I found myself siding with Quinlan for a scene or two, just because of the shadow on his face! I think that is what makes a good 'who done it?' film, when you're so NOT sure, you begin to question the protagonist!



Julia Andria