|
ESSAYS, ARTICLES, AND THEORIES ABOUT CINEMA
|
|
| |
|
|
| Sunday, May 4, 2008
|
|
El Mariachi (1992) |
 Among the typical moviegoer, the film El Mariachi (1992) might not make the list of favorites. Why is this? El Mariachi contains everything a Hollywood blockbuster should have: violence, sex, explosions, comedic lines, and action. Although having so many similarities, the film brings something to the screen that no blockbuster could ever produce: and that is heart. El Mariachi, while produced with only seven thousand dollars, contains a fascinating story, great acting and is beautifully shot as well. Since that is said, El Mariachi intellectually remains ahead of the typical American blockbuster. The film proves a large budget is unnecessary when it comes to making an action film. El Mariachi tells the story of the titular Mariachi (El Mariachi) who is coincidentally taken for Azul, a targeted hitman waiting to gain revenge on a prior acquaintance named Moco. The story follows El Mariachi as he struggles to survive this situation of mistaken identity.
While the story is somewhat unrealistic, it is very entertaining. The debatable question whether the events occurred by fate or coincidence is  answered in the final sequence. Like the nararrator says, El Mariachi lost Domino, his hand, his mind, leading him nowhere but the road. Fate brought him to Acuna, and takes him off into the "American-made" sequel Desperado (1995) and the prequel Once Upon A Time in Mexico (2003). El Mariachi attempts to get Domino back, but finds that Domino and Azul had been killed by Moco. Azul’s death symbolizes the demise of El Mariachi’s double. He no longer is confused with the hitman, because the nightmare worsens to the point where he symbolically becomes Azul. After killing Moco, he gets on the morotcycyle and rides off with the intentions implying he will begin where Azul finished.
 The film is also great because it comments and criticizes the way American films are perceived by those in foreign countries. In a sense, the film mimics on the fact American films contain overt themes. There is a hint of sarcasm when it comes to the violence in El Mariachi. Compared to some action-packed blockbusters, the violence in El Mariachi is perceived in a realistic manner. This gives the impression that if someone is shot, they bleed. Most American films tone down the realism when it comes to violence in order to attain a wider audience. When it comes to the director, this shows the difference between pleasing an audience and pleasing oneself.
Not only does El Mariachi contain overt themes, but minor themes as well. The small turtle appears twice in the film giving the implications of importance. The turtle could mean how fast life truly moves. The turtle is slowly progressing, but El Mariachi moves quickly. When El Mariachi walks into the bar and asks for a job, the bartender informs how the position is filled by a newly invented machine. El Mariachi can empathize with the turtle, because just like he passed the turtle, technology has managed to quickly pass himself.
 “Don't give me any money, don't give me any people, but give freedom, and I'll give you a movie that looks gigantic.” This is a quote by revolutionary filmmaker Robert Rodriguez, who financed El Mariachi by working as a drug experiment tester. He also shot the film himself, something uncommon among filmmakers today. The statement mentioned above says a lot about the way filmmaking itself has monstrously progressed. Rodriguez joins individuals such as Quentin Tarintino, Spike Lee, John Singleton, Martin Scorsese, and others who acquired a particular “street smart” that no school could teach. Rodriguez has the passion for creating films just as El Mariachi harbors the passion to play guitar and sing. The film shows how important mariachis are to Spanish culture. Just like the protagonist observed, it is a competitive occupation in some areas. |
|
posted by Will Lewis 11:29 AM
 |
| |
|
|
|
| Friday, May 2, 2008
|
|
Matador (1986) |
 Pedro Almodovar’s 1986 film Matador (1986) contains a lot to discuss. Almodovar himself has said if you think a coherent understanding of the film is met, then it is based on false pretense. In other words, there is not just one way to interpret the film. Although, in order to analyze the film, a small plot summary must be comprehended. “Matador” is a story about Angel (played by Antonio Banderas), a typical Spanish boy training to become a Matador/bullfighter. He proposes advice on getting women from his maestro, Diego. The advice he receives from Diego is to “treat women like a bull.” Angel attempts disproving the fact he cannot be with a women by raping Diego’s girlfriend, Eva. The next morning, Angel turns himself into the police and confesses to killing many other unsolved homicides in the previous month. Angel’s lawyer, Maria, ensures Angel’s innocence and goes on researching the case. Diego, after finding out about the rape, keeps a close watch on Angel, but is struck by Maria’s appearance. He follows her to a movie theater where King Vidor’s Duel in the Sun (1946) is playing. Both characters in Duels in the Sun (1946) are killed and happily die in each others arms in the end. Diego and Maria are both infatuated by the cinematic catastrophe and are brought closer together. The two characters share interest in sadomasochism. While they share an erotic and violent affair, Angel is proved innocent for the reason he faints at the mere sight of blood. Although he identifies the bodies of the ones killed in Diego’s garden, he is released. Eva tries reconciling with Diego, but finds out that Diego and Maria are both the killers of the unsolved cases. She finds Angel and the police and they all search for Diego and Maria. When the two killers are apprehended, they are found dead by passionate mutual suicide. While the very extensive and enigmatic plot is clearly a roller coaster of violence, sex, betrayal, and mystery, one way to approach the film is first examining the themes, characters, and then attempt pulling everything together.
 After viewing the film, right away it is obvious “Matador” is deeply rooted with psychology. One of the major goals Almodovar achieves is this sense of placing taboos in an environment nonexistent to anything beyond the cultural norms. Almodovar takes the idea of sadomasochism and applies it to bullfighting. We see this through images of sex juxtaposed with images of bullfighting. Angel himself experiences what he calls a feeling of vertigo. Amodovar bases most of Angel’s psychological characterization on Scottie from Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo (1958), where the character is afraid of heights, but in this case metaphorically.
 Angel is one of those characters that many can relate to on a sublevel. A lot of people are clueless to their capabilities. Angel is a young virgin, who is afraid of homosexual desires, so he proves his masculinity by raping Eva. Although grotesque and absurd, Angel comes to grip with reality afterwards. He does not prove his masculinity by raping Eva, but shows his licentious ignorance to making decisions. While Eva tries running away, she falls and cuts her head. She looks up at Angel with a broken expression upon her face and Angel faints from the sight of blood. While trying to show toughness, instead the only trait existent at that moment was weakness. With a guilty conscious, Angel even turns himself into the cops. After Eva comes to the police station, she insists that he did not technically rape her. This serves as a huge slap to the face of Angel, because he is turning himself in for a crime that he was proud of committing, now is being dismissed by the victim herself. The actions are justified within the film by his progression as the hero in finding the killers.
In the opening of the film, Diego pleasures himself to 80’s snuff films. The shock effect begins within the first three minutes of the film. Almodovar chooses this shock effect for a reason. If everyone made assumptions based on something at first glance, then society would condemn anything beyond ordinary standards set by society. And that is exactly what happens within the film and outside of the film with viewing audiences. Diego himself is an interesting character. While fascinated with the connection of sex and violence, he contains passion for bullfighting as well. Being an ex-bullfighting champion and maestro to Angel, he soon finds the love of fighting bulls slowly connecting to reality where the bulls transition into people. He later finds the only way to see through this is to give into his urges.
Maria appears in the beginning of the film when she kills one of the murder victims. The scene is eloquently juxtaposed with images of bullfighting and Diego’s lecture on how to make the kill. She also kills the victim the same way a matador kills the bull after the fight. She also never appears vulnerable. The character appears as the seductress, but only in her own bubble. It is ironic how she is the lawyer for the man convicted of the crime she committed. At first, she appears innocent, but once she breaks through that persona, her true self surfaces and takes control.
Religion plays a huge factor in the story as well. In a world where religion is easily confused for morality, the macabre becomes repressed more often. Angel feels like his mother continues demanding himl to live up to a religious standard. It is mentioned through dialogue that Angel’s father was a killer and went insane. She constantly badgers Angel to not act like his father and accept God. This theme exists in many of Almodovar films. Angel asks to speak with a psychiatrist, but his mother demands he see a priest. This serves as a constant struggle for his psyche until finally he allows instinct to take control. Angel even surrenders himself to the police for a crime he did not commit. He might feel the only way to escape his mother and the suppressed world is to incarcerate himself in order to dig deep inside.
 If anything, Amodovar handles the taboo themes delicately with no personal bias. He does not convey sadomasochism as negative or positive. He merely shows how it exists and affects the relationship between two people. The relationship between Maria and Diego is quite fascinating. When they kill each other, Almodovar retreats to classic cinema with symbolism giving homage to Vidor’s Duel in the Sun (1946). The film ends with the death of “the lovers.” Almodovar pulls from classic Hitchcock again with the body of the young man from the beginning hidden in the garden of Diego’s home. Hitchcock’s sense of irony, most famously depicted in The Trouble with Harry (1955)and Rope(1948) is present in this situation. In both films, a body is dead and is located somewhere conspicuous, where the audience knows, but the characters in the film, whom come across the spot many times, fail to notice. This is the case where Angel warns a man going through the garden not to eat one of the mushrooms for the fact they are poisonous. We find out the body is buried deeply underneath those very mushrooms. Even later on in the film, the detective, while questioning Diego, comes across the mushrooms. Almodovar gives notice to the objects more than once implicating reason. Not only does Almodovar symbolize well, but like always, he exemplifies in imagery. Take for instance the scene where Diego finds out that Eva knows the secret, it is beautifully shot where the camera follows Diego up the stairs, Diego puts his hands around Eva’s neck, and he swings her around where she’s hanging over the rail of the stairs. All of this is performed in one motion. Once again, Pedro Almodovar proves the world he is an excellent filmmaker.
|
|
| posted by Will Lewis 4:59 PM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amores Perros (2000) |
 Critcially acclaimed director and Mexican, Alejandro González Iñárritu has brought America, Mexico and other countries many superb films, but one that stands out is the film that brought him to fame. Amores Perros (2000), Iñárritu’s first feature is one of a kind. This film contains something that most cinemas fail to achieve, and that is heart. Everything in the film happens for a reason, either by reaction or accident, but definitely provoked intentionally. This is a landmark on human beings and the consequences following decisions made – whether good or bad. Despite all of the errors in the English translation from Spanish (which also contains much slang that Americans will fail to connect with due to a cultural and language barrier), the title Amores Perros indicates “love is a dog” or “love is a bitch” from the American phrasing. I am going to analyze the film by its title in reference to “love is a bitch,” because while it might be a misconception, it does tie into the film itself which is the main source of analyzing. In the film, three stories are told, and I am going to show how the disintegration of love is not only apparent, but a theme in each story.
In the beginning, there is a severe car accident (which appears more realistic than most American-made stunts) that ties three stories together. Told out of sequence, the first story is titled “Octavio y Susana.” Octavio is in love with Susana, but the only problem is Susana’s  marriage to Octavio’s brother, Ramiro. Susana is treated very poorly by Ramiro. Some might argue that he treats her like a “dog.” Octavio truly loves Susana, but Susana cannot pull herself away from Ramiro. After much torment, Susana finally decides to leave Ramiro and run off with Octavio, but at the last minute, she takes the money that Octavio has made for the two of them and leaves with Ramiro. This sense of tension is the first of example how “love’s a bitch.” On the way to the vet to have his dog examined from a stabbing at what he called the last fight, Octavio hits another car.
The car Octavio hits belongs to Valeria. In the world of fashion, Valeria is heavily known as a gorgeous supermodel. This begins the second story entitled, “Valeria y Daniel.” Valeria’s big career and enchanting appeal prompts a love  affair with the married Daniel. While Valeria suffers a broken leg from the accident, Daniel’s affection for her slowly fades. We see this in the symbolism of the enormous billboard of her across the street which he stares at constantly. This is the second case where “love’s a bitch” in the film. The tension where Daniel’s love with the image of Valeria and not the real person comes full circle when he fails to protect her after the accident. Valeria’s love for modeling dies when she realizes the process of being famous one day and a stranger the next. This in another context can be comprehended as a shot to the Hollywood system as an entity.
Back at the accident, with both cars and drivers needing dire aid, it is a beaten-down old college professor/hitman who comes to help. He acquires Octavio’s dog, Cofi, which he nurses back to health. This begins the final story “El Chivo y Maru.” After taking Cofi in, El Chivo tries reconnecting with his abandoned daughter, Maru.  El Chivo is not completely a bum, although his lifestyle is of a hermit-like atmosphere. He also makes ends meat by killing people for a living. El Chivo comes home one day to find all the other dogs he has taken in as well dead. Among the pile of flesh is a blood-soaked Cofi. In a reaction brought on by a rush of anger, El Chivo puts a gun to Cofi, but cannot pull the trigger. In this wonderfully crafted scene filled with vast emotions represented cinematically, El Chivo realizes that Cofi and he are the same. Both he and the dog have been trained to kill. Nature has taken its course and nothing could have prevented the deaths they cause. Thus concluding the final reason in the film how “love’s a bitch.”
None of the stories end with a happy conclusion. All the stories show how love is flawed. After the accident, Octavio waits for Susana at the bus station and she fails to show, Daniel leaves Valeria and she is left alone, and El Chivo does not reconnect with his daughter in person. All of these downfalls show how in their circumstances love is possibly missing. Susana does not love Octavio, Daniel does not love Valeria, and Maru does not love El Chivo. It is truly sad, but it shows the cruelness of reality. This film breaks everything Hollywood represents, but also concludes the film with the main characters not having met their goals. This is truly great, because it shows how in reality, goals are not always met at a conclusion, but also conclusions themselves sometimes do not exist. In many circumstances the ending can serve as the beginning. And all of this was sparked by a single event – the car accident. Yes, sometimes life just leaves people wandering in search for meaning, just like El Chivo by the end of the film wandering through the desert. |
|
| posted by Will Lewis 7:32 AM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Endgame Endcredits |
This essay will present connections, with the aid of scholarly criticisms, between Samuel Beckett’s Endgame and the formation of the Theatre of the Absurd and David Cronenberg’s Videodrome (1983), David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (2001) and the formation of the Cinema of Cruelty. Absurdist writers like Beckett have laid the cement for the foundation that Cronenberg and Lynch have taken to the extreme and built-up further. These two individuals have taken themes from Endgame, and formulated them into moving images. Many will argue there is no use connecting the Theatre of the Absurd with the Cinema of Cruelty, because film is not language, but it is.
Before identifying the connections between the works, it is vital  to establish a coherent understanding of the Theatre of the Absurd and the so called Cinema of Cruelty. Before the classification of the Theatre of the Absurd, a writer named Antonin Artaud published a manifesto in 1938 titled The Theatre and Its Double (Esslin 383). This revolutionary text aimed at changing the theatre into a surrealist movement where a return to “myth and magic” in what he called a Theatre of Cruelty is now evolved into film (Esslin 383). Artaud beautifully demands, “Everything that acts is a cruelty. It is upon this idea of extreme action, pushed beyond all limits, that the theatre must be rebuilt” (qtd. on Esslin 383). This idea aimed at moving away from the present mainstream realism, and foreshadowed the oncoming “anti-theatre” movement (Esslin 384). At the time, audience and critics loathed this idea of a “surrealistic theatre” movement, and this drew Artaud into a horrid state of poverty and eventually delusion (Esslin 385). In reality, Artaud had become an actor in his own play. The despair he underwent signifies the very ideas of the Theatre of Cruelty. These ideas heavily influenced the Theatre of the Absurd and eventually evolved into the Cinema of Cruelty.
Into the late 20th Century, Artaud’s ideas became more noticed and eventually formed into new .jpg) ideas, one work by Martin Esslin titled, The Theatre of the Absurd (Esslin 22). Esslin eloquently states:
“If a good play must have a cleverly constructed story, these have no story or plot to speak of; if a good play is judged by subtlety of characterization and motivation, these are often without recognizable characters and present the audience with almost mechanical puppets” (Esslin 21-22)
Aside from a few differences, Esslin began where Artaud left off. This idea of existential anti-theatre, anti-plot, and anti-hero at this time launched off like never before and into new mediums as well. There are many connections between works of the Theatre of the Absurd, specifically Samuel Beckett’s Engdame, and a newly progressive post-modern extremity known as the Cinema of Cruelty, specifically David Cronenberg’s Videodrome and David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive.  “There is nothing real outside our perception of reality, is there?” asks Barry Convex in David Cronenberg’s Videodrome (Cronenberg). This question is quite puzzling and brings forth a new analysis in the study of existentialism. Just as the quote pertains to the film, it presents light into Endgame, where reality exists solely in the room (Esslin 62). Not to mention, the audience or reader’s perception is focused only in the room and nowhere else. Videodrome’s protagonist, Max Renn, portrayed by James Woods, constantly searches for a new medium that challenges and alienates an audience to the point of utter insanity (Cronenberg). Beckett’s piece of work, excluding the sexual extremity, serves as a contender for Max’s criteria search. Endgame is itself a piece of work that breaks standard narrative and form, but also challenges the reader to find meaning in a diatribic banter (Esslin 45). Both writers achieve an anti-progressive story by eliminating the factor of time. Just as Cronenberg eliminates time and places the audience in the present (Browning 17), Beckett does the same by emitting lines referring to a forgotten “yesterday” and an unknown comprehension of a coming tomorrow (Beckett 32). Another connection linking Endgame to “Videodrome” is the constant stagnation, where the option of suicide is apparent. Philosopher and novelist Albert Camus says “belief in the absurdity of existence must then dictate his conduct” therefore “suicide is a solution to the absurd” (Camus 5). With all of the chaos consuming Max’s brain, at the end of the film, he sticks the gun to his head and the picture fades black with the sound  of a gunshot (Cronenberg). Endgame closes with a similar ending, where Hamm asks for Clov, but receives no answer, implying Clov’s consideration to leave (Beckett 84). Clov states that death presides outside, therefore by leaving, he kills himself (Esslin 63). In both situations, Cronenberg and Beckett prefer leaving the interpretation of the ending to the interpreter (Esslin 65). Camus also points out “the Absursd is not in man nor in the world, but in their presence together” (Camus 23). This means once man realizes the nothingness brought on by his existence in this world, he is then given the choice to end his life. Both Max and Clov feel the sense of nothingness brought on by their existence and therefore are “rewarded” with this option. Both Endgame and Videodrome also present characters who feel physically claustrophobic in  their own means of surrounding. Max finds himself in a state of claustrophobic mania brought on by a newly surrounded world of conspiracy (Cronenberg). Cronenberg takes this idea to an extreme, where Max, instead of finding himself as a victim of oppression, is instead the very product being distributed by this conspiracy (Browning 11). In the sense of being stranded is more thought in terms of a large area of space, such as stranded on an island. Beckett however breaks the definition by stranding the two characters in a room and presenting the logic of the world, which exists solely in the room, slowly closing in on them to the point where Clov suggests this as a reason for exiting (Esslin 63). Aside from Cronenberg, another individual whose works contain  similarities to Endgame is David Lynch. More so, Lynch’s Mulholland Drive(2001) and Beckett’s Endgame shift away from contemporary standards and bring forth an anti-narrative form of storytelling. Rather than a typical straight-forward story which appears in the films showing at the large-chain movie theaters, Beckett and Lynch prefer breaking a typical narrative up into tiny pieces (Holden). Those pieces are then flattened into one plane where the interpreter begins piecing the puzzle together just like in James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake and T.S. Elliot’s The Waste Land where the interpreter begins piecing the puzzle together (Barrett 50). This form of expression seems a bit like Cubism. The idea of Cubism springs from severing meaning and reattaching with an intended mindset (Barrett 49). This Cubistic approach is seen in directors as they cut and splice spools of film together for a finished reel, and writers as they scratch out and write in words in sentences for a finished paragraph. Keeping this in mind, the glue that binds Lynch and Beckett together is the rejection to a higher authority. Beckett retreats from Broadway just as Lynch isolates himself from Hollywood (McGowan 11). Another connection between Mulholland Drive and Endgame is the deliberate alienation brought on by Lynch and Beckett. Many film and theatergoers typically go to the theater/re to engage in a world of escapism, and for entertainment. Beckett and Lynch also denounce this idea. This idea of alienation comes from playwright and theorist Bertolt Brecht’s “Alienation Effect” where: “The essential point of the epic theatre is perhaps that it pleases less to the feelings than the spectator’s reason. Instead of sharing an experience the spectator must come to grips with things” (qtd. in McGowan 5). This is obvious in Mulholland Drive where within the film itself, Lynch has a character acknowledge the fact everything that had been seen to that point is fake (Lynch). Beckett does somewhat of the same idea with Clov’s acknowledgement to the audience when he refers to the audience as a “multitude… in transports… of joy” (Beckett 29). Here we have the actors responding to the audience and both mediums are on the same plane with the audience. All is metaphorically level and even. Examining work also must require a breakdown of all elements through techniques. Lynch and Beckett have both used techniques in conveying  surrealism (Holden). Lynch achieves this dream-like world through “character, mise-en-scene, editing, and in structure” (McGowan 12). Beckett manages to show the human condition by giving the audience a structuralized group of babblings and imagery that intertwine (Esslin 25). Both authors use characterization to its fullness. In Mulholldand Drive, there is an actress, a cowboy, a director, a hitman, and the mob (Lynch). In Endgame, there is a handicap man and two elders who live in trashcans. Right away, it is quite clear that it is absurd. This is taken further with dialogue. In Mulholland Drive, one character says: “Well, it’s the second one I’ve had, but they’re both the same. They start out that I’m in here, but it’s not day or night. It’s kind of half-night, you know? But it looks like this, except for the light. And… I’m scared like I can’t tell you. Of all people, you’re standing right over there, by the counter. You’re in both dreams and you’re scared. I get even more frightened when I see how afraid you are, and then I realize what it is. There’s a man… in back of this place. He’s the one doing it. I can see him through the wall. I can see his face. I hope that I never see that face, ever, outside of a dream” (Lynch). This character recollects a dream and then realizes the dream occurring once again (Lynch). A very similar monologue appears in Endgame, where Hamm says: “I once knew a madman who thought the end of the world had come. He was a painter – an engraver. I had a great fondness for him. I used to go and see him, in the asylum. I’d take him by the hand and drag him to the window. Look! There! All that rising corn! And there! Look! He’d snatch away his hand and go back into his corner. Appalled. All he had seen was ashes” (Beckett 44). Hamm, who is the painter in his own story, actually recollects this memory and relates this into terms as the world outside fading from what could be corn, fading to ashes (Esslin 62). Both statements are examining the unconscious, and tie it to reality.
There has been a lot of time between the theories of Artaud and the emergence of Cronenberg and Lynch. These two writers/directors have kept the Theatre of Cruelty alive. Just as Artaud pushed for surrealism and the need for extremes, Beckett explored the solidarity of the Absurd, and Cronenberg and Lynch have experimented with transitioning the extreme to a new medium (McGowan 4). From what started out as the cruelty of the human mind presented on stage has become the cruelty of the connection with mind and body shown on the screen. Endgame, Videodrome, and Mulholland Drive are all woven into the same existential ideology that creates progression. Artaud said that change is necessary for theatre to progress (Esslin 383). Long after Cronenberg and Lynch have passed on, there will emerge more thinkers who take in the theories of Artaud, Esslin, Cronenberg and Lynch, and use this as a springboard to something even more surreal, absurd and extreme. If this body of ideology has progressed from the stage to film, who knows what it is capable of progressing to next? |
|
| posted by Will Lewis 6:15 AM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Norte (1983) |
 In the film El Norte (1983), Enrique and his sister Rosa live in the Guatemalan town of San Pedro, where they live a life different from the typical American. Enrique and Rosa flee from San Pedro to avoid mass hysteria brought on by military police force. Enrique and Rosa are thrown into a nightmare when their father is killed and plans are made by the police to come back and swarm through the villages once again. Enrique and Rosa see no reason to stay in San Pedro. San Pedro symbolizes a newly rising hell for the two characters. A metaphorical fire seeps through the ground causing Enrique and Rosa to flee nowhere else but north. Enrique hears about this beautiful world know as “El Norte” where everything will be right for the two. They venture off on an odyssey with everything at stake in order to step foot on this glorious land. They make their way north to the town of Tijuana, where they are surrounded by vast crowds of tourists. In a sense, Tijuana symbolizes purgatory. Enrique and Rosa work their way out of the depths of San Pedro to this new world that comes off a bit too strong. The people there really treat the land as if it is someplace in really bad condition. On their way to El Norte, the two meet a guide and are forced to crawl through the sewer  tunnels in order to reach America. In the tunnels, Rosa and Enrique encounter a swarm of rats. The rats cover the two and create suspense that can be compared to that of Alfred Hitchcock in The Birds (1963). Once Enrique and Rosa reach El Norte, everything changes. To these characters, Los Angeles symbolizes heaven. They find even the worst conditioned apartment as a four star hotel. The mere thought of a toilet that flushes is a miracle to them. Enrique runs into trouble at first adjusting to the society of hard labor working as an undocumented immigrant. He discovers the vast competition and begins feeling like an outsider. This is a major economic break for Enrique because he is forced to begin playing the game of capitalism. Rosa discovers beauty in fashion magazines and modeling. She desires to look just like the women in the magazines, but she ends up working in a sweatshop making the clothes that the models wear. The story takes a turn with Rosa and Enrique discovering that El Norte was not exactly all they had hoped it to be. In fact, both individuals run into a big lesson on what it truly is like to live in America as an  immigrant. Enrique works his way up to a pretty high status as a waiter, but a jealous Chicano waiter informs the INS of Enrique’s employment, causing Enrique to run for his life. This waiter snitches Enrique out because he saw how far along Enrique was coming along and became envious to all he received. Rosa runs into trouble in the sweatshops and is forced not to work. Along the way, Rosa begins feeling sick and it is introduced that she has in fact been infected with a serious illness from the rats in the sewer tunnels. In her death bed, she tells Enrique, “We are not free.” She touches on an emotional subject, because this can mean several different things. One of the opinions is that she means they have been traveling north searching for a paradise and trying to break free, but she realizes the only way they will ever truly be free is to literally die. They imagined El Norte would be this heaven, but metaphorically was just earth, and the real way to heaven is death. After the death of his sister, Enrique is put in a rough situation. He is suddenly faced with many life-changing decisions. Enrique puts on his father’s hat and begins to look for construction work. He, in a way, realizes the importance of living after experiencing a death and gives into the  world, and this motivates him to become a better person, fight harder to get work, and prosper the life he has left.The film is directed by Chicano filmmaker Gregory Nava. One item this film contains is style. The film distributes a wide range of symbolism brought on by imagery. In order to tell a great story through film, merely physical actions are shown through acting and a great use of directorial techniques. El Norte definitely succeeds as a great story and artistic cinema. Two scenes come to mind that really show true skill. The first is of Rosa passing out as she vacuums the floor. The shot is seen from above and a spiral staircase wraps around the frame leaving her body lying directly in the center. The other is the head of Enrique’s father hanging from a tree with the sun setting in the far ground. El Norte shows how it is like to struggle for survival and enlightens people of other cultures in the world. |
|
| posted by Will Lewis 5:56 AM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Roaring Twenties (1939) |
Throughout America’s history, the 1920’s stand out as the most scandalous era known to date. Never has America been encapsulated by such a roaring storm. Every waking event, from the beginnings of Prohibition all the way to the 1929 stock market crash is compiled into Raoul Walsh’s 1939 gangster classic The Roaring Twenties (1939). The film opens with a foreword by the writer, Mark Hellinger stating:
“It may come to pass that, at some distant date, we will be confronted with another period similar to the one depicted in this photoplay. If that happens, I pray that the events, as dramatized here, will be remembered. In this film, the characters are composites of people I knew, and the situations are those that actually occurred. Bitter or sweet, most memories become precious as the years move on. This film is a memory – and I am grateful for it” (The Roaring Twenties).
In the highly underrated film, Hellinger’s introduction sets the mood for the rest of the film, establishing the movie itself as a memory that of a time when essence of society existed in the streets.
The film begins in 1918 with a progressing WW1, showing soldiers fighting and making a world safer for Democracy. The wonderful James Cagney portrays the role of Eddie Bartlett, a down-on-his-luck mechanic, who stumbles into the foxhole of George Hally (played by a young Humphrey Bogart) and soon become acquaintances. As the bombings increase, Lloyd Hart flies into the hole with the other two. All three then become acquainted, and the characters are equally established, and yet Eddie, George and Lloyd are all opposites of one another. Eddie is the protagonist, a kind-hearted, sympathetic man just trying to work hard and live a rich life. George is the antagonist, a black-hearted, unsympathetic man trying to backstab as many people to get ahead in life. Lloyd is the third wheel, a generous, humanistic lawyer trying to help out as many people in need. Eddie shares with the men all his letters from the many America women desiring a dream soldier, George boasts about the “good life”, and Jeffrey announces his intentions of opening up his own practice in the city. Although before the men can relax too soon, the war is over and the gentlemen head back home where opportunity and heartbreak awaits.
The story jumps a year ahead in 1919 with the events after the war. A news reporter announces the sudden alteration of culture with women’s  skirts becoming shorter, bobbed hair popularity, inflating cost of living, and Prohibition becoming the law of the land. Eddie arrives back home surprising Danny, his cab-driving brother, and discovers his old job had been given to someone else. Eddie ends up helping his brother drive cabs making up for the rent.
Another leap forward in 1920 when on 16th of January, the Volstead Act illegalizes the sale of alcohol and incriminates anyone involved in selling or distributing alcohol. One day Eddie is asked to deliver a package in a club for a woman  named Panama Smith. He delivers the package, but two federal agents stop Eddie and open the package, revealing alcohol, which breaks the Volstead Act. With the aid of his old lawyer buddy Lloyd, Panama is released, but Eddie is forced to serve time. Soon after spending a few hours in jail, Panama returns the favor and bails Eddie out. She introduces him to the great underground world of bootlegging. Together, Panama, Eddie and Danny use the cabs to transport illegal alcohol around town. After two years, Eddie racks up a large business with the restraints created by Prohibition. While making one delivery, he runs into Jean, his dream girl from the letter. Eddie tries to make Jean swoon with his money, but she is not impressed. After a while, he introduces Jean to Panama and Henderson, the nightclub owner, and gets her to sing for an audition. Jean slowly becomes the next big star as she performs late nights for the big buyers. Eddie introduces Jean to Lloyd, who shows much attraction towards Jean, but Eddie fails to notice.
 Two years after that, in 1922 Prohibition is entirely protected by law and enforced by full authority. College kids take an interest in the new trend of underground purchasing of alcohol and prices reach an all time high. Eddie heads back on the streets making buys with head gangsters. He persuades a deal with Nick Brown, an Italian who maintains a connection with the mob, but Nick refuses to compromise. While commandeering alcohol off Nick’s vessel, Eddie runs into his other longtime friend George, who ironically works for Nick.
Transitioning two year further in 1924, madness hits the streets with the organization of big-business gangs and the new invention of the Tommy gun. The murder rate hits sky high with brawls of rival gangs growing out of hand. Eddie and George team up and form a mob of their own, breaking into factories and George even begins killing people. After a while, Lloyd and Jean become a  pair. Eddie begins questioning George’s dependability when George informs him about the couple’s relationship. Nick Brown’s men put a hit on Danny and leave his dead body lying in front of the club. This sends Eddie overboard, searching for help from George, but has no luck. George even betrays Eddie by informing Nick about his friend’s plan. Eddie and his men break into Nick’s place and kill everyone. When returning, Jean breaks Eddie’s heart, announcing her intentions of running off with Lloyd, who has become fed up with Eddie’s gangster-like persona.
Five violent years later in 1929, Black Tuesday sends pandemonium through the city with American fortunes ruined. Everyone from the  hardworking farmer to the gangster felt the wrath of the crashing economy. Franklin D. Roosevelt is sworn in as president and the first act he accomplishes is putting an end to Prohibition. With the re-legalization of alcohol, the bootleggers soon find their business going down the drain with the economy. Eddie uses his share of the business for compensation of his own debts. Once out of the business, he becomes a bum, driving the cab for a living and runs into Jean again, who informs him that Lloyd has a job with the district attorney and is being coerced into sharing information regarding George and his business. She claims George sent out men warning her that if Lloyd talks, then he will die. Eddie, who slowly grows a conscious again, confronts George and kills him. While making an escape, Eddie is shot and dies.
An important fact is that Eddie went off to fight a war and came back jobless and without expenses. Bootlegging acted as the only solution for surviving. So in a sense, America created the gangster. Prohibition left a key to a door that would soon turn the gangster into an icon (Karpf 48). At first, these were poor Irish, Black, and other immigrants who came to America in search for a dream, but later once bootlegging took off, these dirty, hardworking fugitives became rich, and instead of taxation from alcoholic goods benefiting America’s capitalistic society, instead, profits went into the pockets of these poor men and women. This translates into an even trade: compensation for veteran and poor negligence.
Another fact is the symbolism of the picture itself. Director Raoul Walsh formulated a message for the film as not only a stamp in American History, but in cinematic history as well. Walsh used the film showing an analogous connection with the gangster film genre itself (Parish 137). By the late 1930’s, gangster films had reached their prime with such releases as Little Caesar (1931), William Wellman’s Public Enemy (1931), Howard Hawk’s Scarface (1932), and Michael Curtiz’s Angels with Dirty Faces (1938) (Dirks). Walsh, at this point in time, had mastered the genre of western pictures and even brought together the western and the gangster genre (Gomery). He grew up on the streets and knew the life of his gangster, so he mastered the genre better than most. Walsh desired making a film capturing the essence of the genre itself, and so The Roaring Twenties contains a storyline very similar to the gangster film genre (Dirks). Eddie works really hard to build a successful business from only what he learned on the streets, just like Walsh with the genre. And once the business hits its prime, everything falls apart leaving Eddie thrown back on the streets with no money and more importantly, without any recognition.
The film genre itself went through the great trend of the gangster films of the 30’s, showing off the morbidity of the Great Depression containing themes of poverty-stricken individuals (Dirks). Even the look of the gangster films in the 30’s, possess a real caliginous, grainy feel of realism in the picture quality itself. Film historian and director Martin Scorsese claims, “The Roaring Twenties shows a gritty reality that romanticizes the dark side of human nature” (A Personal Journey). Scorsese basically means that it is the gangsters themselves who are at fault because they are victims in a ruthless society. These individuals have been pushed around and through personal narrative, the film shows what happens when they just cannot take it anymore. All of this leads to the finale, where Eddie is shot and feebly stumbles through the streets he once was remembered on, walks up a few steps to a large church and collapses onto the steps where he dies in the arms of Panama in a frame paying homage to Michelangelo's Pieta (Dirks). A police officer emerges in the scene and asks about the man’s identity. Panama, while crying says, “This is Eddie Bartlett. He used to be a big shot” (The Roaring Twenties). This pivotal memory in cinematic history marks not only the end of a man and the 20’s, but also the astonishing era of the gangster film (Parish 138). Just like Hellinger avowed in the introduction, the glorious pictures of the 30’s are simply memories stamped in the history books just like those in the Roaring Twenties. |
|
| posted by Will Lewis 5:28 AM
|
| |
|
|
|
| Thursday, May 1, 2008
|
|
Stranger on a Train (1951) |
 Alfred Hitchcock’s 1951 classic Strangers on a Train is equally considered a clear masterpiece. The brilliantly crafted story written by Raymond Chandler, Czenzi Ormonde, Whitfield Cook, and based off the novel by Patricia Highsmith, is filled with memorable characters with haunting similarities and plenty of excitement to keep the less interested action fan satisfied. Hitchcock’s craving for suspense illuminates the screen with situations of held action until the right moment when the audience’s adrenaline glands rage like pistons.
Hitchcock is famously known for telling the story with the eye of a camera. Some might say the camera is his brush and then screen is his canvas. His abstractive smooth and steady dolly shots are mere brushstrokes to the director. The story begins outside of a train station with the focus on Guy and Bruno’s shoes as they step out of vehicles and follows all the way to the train. At first the focus is on Guy’s shoes: shiny and black, but then transitioned to Bruno’s shoes: black and white, winged-tip. That is to assume even though both shoes are different, both gentlemen walk the same and may have further similarities.
“Strangers on a Train” is an off-railed story about two men who, by fate, cross paths and agree to  exchange murders. Both characters are coherently established from the start. Guy Haines, portrayed by Farley Granger, is the rich, elegant, kind-hearted, tennis player eager to leave his intolerable wife for a senator’s daughter. Robert Walker plays Bruno Anthony, the sly, feminine, evil stranger who is ruled by his authoritative father. While both sitting across from one another in the passenger car of a train, Bruno attempts to cross his legs, but taps shoes with Guy’s and thus begins their “business arrangement.” The idea is a suggestion from Bruno to switch murders. Right away it is obvious that Bruno has an ability to read Guy like a book. Guy considers the idea ludicrous and exits the train at his stop with no intentions of running into Bruno ever again. Little did he know that Bruno’s plan had already begun.
A huge concept in a Hitchcock film is the sheer fact that little key pieces make up the rising  action of a story, and are responsible for the reasoning behind that action. In Notorious: a key, in Shadow of a Doubt (1943): a ring, in Blackmail (1929): a painting in Vertigo (1958): a necklace, in Frenzy (1972): a pin, and in this case: a lighter. The focus is on the material possession that serves as a springboard to redemption or incarceration. Guy mistakenly leaves his lighter on the train with Bruno, which evolves to Bruno stalking Guy’s ex-wife and killing her. Bruno does just that. He follows her to a carnival and strangles the helpless woman. As the murder occurs, her glasses fall off, and the act is shown through the reflection of the glasses lenses. After the murder, Bruno holds Guy’s lighter and takes a few seconds to contemplate, leaving the audience with an idea what Bruno plans next.
The murder is announced to Guy, and Bruno approaches him with a morbidly elated persona. Bruno cites his excitement for Guy’s turn at murder, but Guy refuses and angrily ends all tides with the killer. Instead of taking the news easily, Bruno decides to stalk Guy and becomes well acquainted with his new girlfriend and her senator father. Bruno also remarks, “And I was very careful, Guy. Even when I dropped your cigarette lighter there, I went back to pick it up.” Suddenly the exchange turns into entrapment. Guy threatens to call the police, but Bruno tells him that in fact they both have committed the murder. He adds the notion why would he kill a girl he doesn’t know unless it was arranged. Guy is forced to play Bruno’s game and by his rules. Guy finally submits to the mastermind and agrees to kill Bruno’s father. Once night falls, Guy creeps into Bruno’s home, softly walks in the father’s room and whispers, “Mr. Anthony, don’t be alarmed, but I must talk to you about your son, about Bruno.” The lamp suddenly illuminates the area, revealing Bruno sitting in the bed. Bruno swears to achieve his reimbursement through his own twisted method.
The police follow Guy’s every move due to a faulty alibi. Guy plays in his big tennis match as Bruno takes a train back to a familiar area: the carnival. Guy, who once was a careful  experienced player, now is forced to win the match quickly. He plays his mind and heart out as Bruno nears the scene of the murder with lighter in hand. Guy wins the first set, loses the second, but reclaims the third. After finishing, he distracts the cops and makes a run for the train station, but the police are not too far behind. Here we have a natural reoccurrence of situations. Bruno returns to the scene where he murdered Guy’s wife and the both of them returning to the train which symbolizes the ever-longing lust for desire. At first, the desire was felt by Guy and Bruno to kill, but now Guy desires to survive this new world of coercion or incarceration. Bruno eagerly waits for night to fall, in order to drop the lighter in the crime scene so no one will recognize him. He stands in line, but the ride manager slowly recollects Bruno’s face, and off Bruno runs. Guy and Bruno clash into one another again, but this time Guy wants Bruno to give a confession to the police, and Bruno wants Guy dead. Guy chases Bruno onto a carousel. The police try shooting Guy, but instead hit the carousel worker which causes the ride to begin spinning at a high speed and finally to an uncontrollable velocity. The climactic runaway carousel scene finally comes to a halt with the ride breaking down and both Guy and Bruno being thrown from the carousel. The police find Guy and the ride manager reveals having no recollection of him. They find Bruno and he gives his final words attempting to bring Guy down with him, but fails as his eyes close, his hand opens up revealing the lighter.
A parallel theme is the plot itself as a comparison to a tennis match. Guy is a tennis player and if analytically contemplated about, the plot clearly resembles that of a tennis match. On one side of the court is Guy, but on the other is his opponent, Bruno. This analogy is clearly stated throughout the entire film. In fact, Guy plays his big match and the sets are compiled of Guy winning the first, losing the second and winning the third, thus winning the match. In the beginning, Guy’s wife is killed: A problem taken off his shoulders, hence the first set won by Guy. Although, Bruno uses the lighter as leverage and steals the upper hand with the ability to frame Guy, and so Bruno wins the second set. Finally, good overcomes evil with Guy fighting off Bruno and proving his innocence with the victory of the third set and the match.
Like two trains, Bruno and Guy crossed at the  tracks. One grossly indulged with life, and the other grossly indulged with death. Polar similarities hold the two as one. Bruno is a sense, Guy’s inner demon. The physical built-up of the evil conscious Guy innocently depicts in his mind. Notice how Guy never killed Bruno’s father. The only murders that occurred in the story were that of Guy’s wife, whom he wanted dead, and Bruno, which might have served as the murder of his evil self. The scenes of Bruno with his mother and father might translate as flashbacks of Guy’s own childhood. Bruno kills Guy’s wife by strangulation, which is a crime of passion. The psychological and sexual frustration might come from Guy and transpire through Bruno. After Bruno takes his final breath, the ride manager asks about the identity of this “mysterious guy.” Guy simply responds, “Bruno. Bruno Anthony. Very clever fellow.” |
|
| posted by Will Lewis 8:40 PM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.jpg)
شركة درة البيت
شركة تعقيم في دبي
شركة تعقيم في الشارقة
شركة تعقيم في راس الخيمة