Da Godfada

It's hard for me to give an exact review of this movie. It's one of my favorite movies, but it's hard to say exactly why. The film has an excellent narrative. Each moment builds upon the last in its own way. There is so much anticipation for Michael to kill Sollozzo, and when Sonny is murdered there is another anticipation whether you know it is going to happen or not. The acting helps this be effective. Everyone in the film does an excellent job with their part. These moments and their development would not work if not for the talent behind the roles. Overall the film is very good, but there is another appeal to me.

For me, I think my love of this film is more personal than anything. I've seen films that have similar qualities as The Godfather, but I don't like them as much. The story has a huge part in why I like this movie. I've always had this obsession with movies about organized crime. The Godfathers, Goodfellas, Casino, and Pulp Fiction are all some of my favorite movies. It has taken me awhile to figure out what really draws me to them. Yes, they're all incredibly well made, but part of me relates to the characters. Not in their violence, but in their pursuit in life. For me, Godfather ends up representing an alternative lifestyle. I think it's a glorification of living outside of society's rules. You don't have to get a real or legitamte job to be successful. I think you can achive your dreams doing something outside of the norm of a typical nine to five office job. That's what the characters in this movie want, and it is apart of their motivation. So yes, it is crucial that the film is well made, but ultimately I'm more drawn to the actions the characters take to live this lifestyle.

pic: movieimage5.tripod.com/godfather/

apocalypse now...again

The scene's cinematography that sicks out the most to me is in the Kurtz murder scene. The color for one is huge part of the scene. During the actual murder there is clearly a gold/yellow tint to the shots. I'm not exactly sure what it means. It could be referring to the napalm scene where yellow is used. It also could just be used to draw attention and separation to the scene because it is such an important moment.

The showing of the ox is another interesting choice. It helps go between presence and textuality. There may be a semiotic use for the image of the ox, but it could also be just used aestheticly. Either way it draws the viewer out of the murder for an important spilt second, but then your drawn right back into pressence realizing the brutality. Because the ox murder is so brutal the viewer isn't taken to textuality for the length of the shot. Instead you are pulled for a second, but the then brought right back realizing how gory any killing is. I mean, no one watches that, and isn't emotionally effected on some level.

The moment after Kurtz is killed does a perfect job finishing. Kurtz is shown in incredible focus with low white light, and then it goes to Willard in a different lens less in focus for just a bit. This is a great transition that jars the viewer from the murder. Then Willard is shot in the same lighting that Kurtz had been shot. He stays in this lighting up until he gets on the boat to leave Malasia. There are a number of different ways to read this. It could represent Willard becoming Kurtz for a while, Willard bearing Kurtz's burden of insanity, Willard's own insanity, Willard beating Kurtz at his own game, or Kurtz's blood now being on Willard's hands.

Without a doubt in my mind this murder scene is one the most crucial in the whole movie. The cinematagraphy does a terrific job not only complementing it, but adding it's own pressense to the scene. It brings a needed change in mood. It's what makes the scene really special.

apocalypse now and later

I wasn't all that excited by the idea of watching this movie, but I have to say by the end I was blown away and confused. I'm not a fan of war movies or big epics so a Vietnam War movie sounded lame to me. It's why I've never sought out to watch this movie......Well I was wrong. I was dead wrong, and I'll be the first person to admit it.

I shouldn't say that I loved the whole thing. That wouldn't be true. For a lot of it I felt like it was this long boring journey down the river with gun shots and yelling every so often. It had it's moments with Robert Duvall's character yelling about surfing and Clean dying to his own mother's voice, but those moments were few and far between. I can appreciate how difficult it must have been to shoot all these busy scenes, but for me it wasn't until the end that my outlook on the movie really changed.

Once Martin Sheen gets captured things start blending together. It was tough to tell what happened, and Marlon Brando's character only tripled the confusion. Though, something is communicated during this time that changes the feel of the movie as a whole. I'm not sure what it is, but I think a big part of it has to do with how it was shot. As Willard makes his way to Kurtz and kills him it becomes the climax that the whole movie has built to. It's intense and gripping and leaves that feeling well after the movie ends.

I'm still not sure what to think of it all, but any movie that can put you through that kind of experience isn't doing one thing right. It's doing many things right at the same time to trigger something in the viewer. I look forward to re-watching this film more on my own to try and understand exactly what that is.

picture:emmabolden.wordpress.com

divin cinematography

The scene that most interests me is the scene at the end of the film as he dies. I am fascinated that the camera stays still, but characters are framed differently. Like his wife is in a close-up with half of her face cut off. While his ex-wife is in the frame. It is also interesting how this scene is lit completely differently than the other scenes. It is very white. I also like how the shots used are often very short. The wife if cut up into a few shots with her framed in different spot each time. When a character moves to or away from the bed they are cut into different shots to move over. I think it does an excellent job of shifting to Jean-do's death and ending the film.

Le Scaphandre et le papillon (i know)

This is the second time I've seen this movie, and it was just as good the second time. For me, this movie is represented by Jean-Do's relationship with his girlfriend, ex-wife, father, and son. There is an emotional punch in these relationships that are the real effect of the movie. The circumstances and development of these relationships then mirror his diving bell trap of a body.

I have to admit I was so overwhelmed and awed the first time I saw this film by the point of view shots from Jean-Do. This wasn't as true the second time, but it was almost just as interesting. It was not as shocking so I could pay more attention to the different things the camera does to create this perspective.

This perspective is crucial idea of Jean-Do being trapped in his body. Without it the film doesn't work because the audience gets no sense of the diving bell that is being created. This perspective along with the work that is done in building his relationships help make this film unique in it's ability to captive visually as well as emotionally.

picture:the217.com

...psycho remake

For me, this remake fails tremendously. It sets out to introduce Hitchcock to a new generation by making a shot for shot remake. I think it also sets out to modernize anything in the story that might not work now. Yes, the casting may not have been perfect in many roles, but Gus Van Sant takes most of the blame for film's pitfalls. What is created is a dull, rushed, shot for shot remake with good ideas few and far between.

The pacing of the film is the first thing that hurts the film. One great thing about the original was it's ability to keep a tension throughout the film, but the remake has sped up different scenes. I'm not really sure why it has sped up certain scenes, but it keeps the film flat and doesn't allow for suspense. It doesn't make any sense that a shot for shot remake would try for such a different dull pace.

There are many ways the film is modernized. One way Van Sant has updated the film is by creating more of a concrete story for Marion and Norman. The original keeps many things in their relationship and in Norman secret. Anthony Perkin's iconic character is so creepy because of his awkward mystery. Instead of failing to mimic that character one of the only wise decisions was made. Vince Vaughn's Norman is given a more definite character. He comes off meaner and more desperate. Thus, there is an active decision made to remove any surprise. We know what Norman is like don't try and hide it, but this is certainly a poor substitute for the suspense and mystery created in the original.

Van Sant has also made some updates that aren't as well thought out that are the real mistakes of the remake. For example, the sounds added to the parlor scene and the bedroom scene add nothing good. Also, the images added to both murders make little sense. The scenes are some of the most loyally shot scenes in the remake, but Van Sant has added images that I guess accentuate the murders. It's like he wanted to stay loyal to the original and fart on it at the same time. I mean, if he wanted to do something like that he should have modernized it completely. He does it with the end of the film. Norman beats Sam over the head with a golf club. Then, he dives at Lila viciously, and she kicks him in the face. Why not do this to the two murders. I was dying to see mother dive into the shower and hack Marion apart. It would have modernized the shock in the original for today's audience.

Even if a director had a new vision for the script there is little it could accomplish. I don't think there is any way a remake of this film can be a real success. It will never come close to the original. At first, I thought a shot for shot remake was the only way to remake it, but it turned out to just lend itself to constant comparison to which it receives the shorter end of the stick.

PSYCHO!

To me, this is a great movie that keeps confusion and terror at a steady level through till the end with Norman's chilling look at the camera. It doesn't try to be this really scary complicated movie. It's a simple movie with a simple story, and it's executed excellently to be just that. The combination of the perfect presentation of Norman Bates and the involving score make this film work without almost any flaws. I can't say I was too impressed by some of the camera work or some actors' acting (psychologist) though. Some shots were cut into what should have been one shot. Then, while characters are driving there is still clearly a projection screen behind them. For me, this effects the movie. That said though, Hitchcock is still doing some really interesting things with the camera. Like the picture above or the shot that goes (almost) seamlessly from right on Marion's dead eye to the cash next to the bed. These shots give a personality to their scenes and the film helping it work as well as it does.