boom boom shoot shoot

I don't really like war movies.
Well, the truth is, I don't really like war in the first place.
Basically war movies are about death, which makes me sad and I don't want to feel sad.
Saving Private Ryan, The Hurt Locker, Pearl Harbor... they all made me cry like a baby.
But suddenly, when we were watching the 1 hour war TV show, I was riveted. This show gave the characters a background, I felt for them, I wanted them alive. There was no dehumanization of war because we were introduced to war by these humans, people who were experiencing it all for the first time as well. The character we all loved the most (of course the newcomer or "cherry") has to die. Why did he have to get hurt? He was so sweet and kind and outgoing and encouraging! Through this character we lose our innocence about war, we realize that what we're seeing isn't just there for entertainment value, this is what happens in real life. And he seemed to truly love his life. Some of the other characters stories drew me in as well. The soldier with the glasses and bad temper seemed like an interesting character. The two women soldiers within their troop seemed like they had more of a story than they told. The amazing singer seemed like he had more of a story to tell. I also loved how they interconnected his song into a slower, almost acoustic tempo while they were lifting the soldier who had parts of his body blown off away.
Basically, the story felt real to me. Put a bunch of strangers in one place and see what happens seems to be a successful storyline to go with, but adding the fact that they are in war made the story even more interesting and foreign. I loved the filming techniques used, with lots of point of view, night vision and realistic fighting scenes. The actors were fantastic. Overall, this is something I would probably watch.
Another interesting look at war was the ABC show from last fall (that was later canceled) called My Generation. It was a look at a group of friends 10 years after the graduated from high school and one of the friends left a full athletic scholarship to college in order to join the army after September 11th. Friends mentioned how proud they were of him, how brave he was and how he left his wife who was pregnant to go overseas. It allowed for not only the look into this soldiers heart, but into the hearts of those around him. It was a more realistic portrayal of what it's like to leave part of your life behind whether you are at war or not. A part of the character missed war when he was at home and missed home while he was at war. Many shows and movies don't look that deeply into the multifaceted lives that soldiers have.

Monday Tuesday Thursday Wednesday

A few posts back I mentioned that You Got Mail is one of my favorite movies. Well, throughout You Got Mail there are countless direct references to The Godfather, especially the first Godfather. For the longest time, I didn't understand all of these references. I admit, I hadn't seen The Godfather until this past summer (thank you Netflix!) and I fell absolutely in love (though I think I enjoyed the second installment the most).
The wedding scene is so famous, and it's hard to ignore why. I love character development and the best way that Coppola could've introduced all of these characters so fluidly was through a scene like this. We see the sister getting married, Michael telling his girlfriend that he isn't like his family (oh you just wait Michael!), Sonny being a cheating and rude husband and Tom as the loyal and faithful servant to Don Vito. Through interactions with those he meets, we understand that the Don is a family man with an old fashioned view of his work. Because the movie is so long and action packed, the wedding scene might be forgotten but it truly is the most important. From this wedding scene we're allowed to see the characters grow and change. The first movie alone takes us through so many different phases and sequences, the wedding had actually placed set up for everything that was going to happen.
The character most changed throughout the trilogy is of course Michael, but the first pivotal first scene introduces Michael as a war hero. As a guy who thought it was ok to be late to his sisters wedding. As a guy who didn't feel the need to say hello to his family as soon as he came in. As a guy who looked down on the family business and told his pretty blonde girlfriend that he thought so. Michael, as it was so obvious, did NOT consider himself a part of his family or business. Contrasting this man from the wedding party to the final scenes of The Godfather III, it's incredibly apparent how much things had changed for this man.
The Godfather is praised as one of the best movies of all time, and I have a hard time disagreeing with this. These ruthless, vengeful and violent characters are given heart and a background through Coppola's fantastic filming and wonderful storyline. Watching the movie allows a feeling of inclusion. Viewers feel invited into this life of family ties, love and gangster killing. Viewers are allowed to dance and sing and eat at this big Italian wedding.

goo goo for gaga

I think everyone, even if they have to dig deep (maybe even way deep) down, LOVES Lady Gaga. Sure, she's weird and her music isn't all that amazing, but there's something about her that is incredibly appealing. Something that I really like about LG is her dedication to music videos, which is obviously a dying art form. Everyone complains about her winning just about every VMA category that she's put in, but compared to her videos, no one else stands a chance! It's not that they're necessarily better, but it's just so obvious that she puts an incredible amount of work into them. It's almost as if she thinking of the music videos as she makes her songs.
"Born this Way" was no exception to the rule. Yes it's weird. Yes it's gross. Yes it has nothing to do with the song. But it DOES get people talking! It does make you want to watch! After the disturbing intro, the music video begins with LG dancing (she even admits to this) very poorly (and somewhat   provacatively) in a bra and underwear. Even though she's dancing around in her underwear though, she doesn't come off as sexy. Maybe this is because she is incredibly, almost childlike, thin, but the audience doesn't feel as if they are staring at her boobs or butt. She takes up the entire frame, so rather than her boobs or face being center, it's actually her flat stomach. Later, she's dressed in an androgynous tuxedo wearing a face of makeup that makes her and her male counterpart look like skeletons, and not all that dissimilar. Throughout the music video there are shots of her wearing what looks like wax paper with tape covering certain bits, but again, this doesn't come off as sexy. That doesn't seem to be what she's going for. Instead, "weird" seems to be her most common label, and I think weird works for her, it's definitely something she should stick with.
When in comparison to some of the other music videos that we've watched, this one seems very PG to me. She's not dancing on a stripper pole or grinding against some guy. The best example that comes to mind is basically any Britney Spears video. What is Britney selling? Sex of course. She soley created the low-rise jean phenomenon in the early 00's and how did she do this? Through her provacitive music videos of course! Like LG, dancing is seen in every single one, whether group grinding with her fellow dancers, dancing on stripper poles or dancing on the ground, on a chair, in the air... everywhere! LG isn't like this. She's not licking her lips or doused in body oils. She's just a little weirdo who wants to dance!
Lady Gaga is good for all the girls and all the gays.

sad 60's

I wouldn't ever want to have lived in the 60's. The music, the fashion, the movies... they just don't appeal to me. In class we watched the 1970 documentary Gimme Shelter about the Rolling Stones and it's reaffirms by belief. First, I don't like the Rolling Stones, what a shock!! Second, everyone looked like they were high on just about every drug possible. Third, Mick Jagger was wearing lime green velvet pants... that were skin tight.
Despite my dislike for that particular decade, I did enjoy the filming styles of the movie itself. In class we discussed most of the "found moments" we liked, but I'll reiterate mine here.

1. I liked seeing Mick Jagger's reactions to things. First, when he was on stage and asking people to calm down so they could play, he sounded whiny, but when a Hells Angel whispered something in his ear this brief moment of quiet terror passed over his face. It was almost imperceptibly quick, but there was something so beautiful about that moment. He was quickly realizing that he could very well be in danger, yet he chose to keep signing for the crowd. Second, when he was in the recording studio, watching the film for the first time. The look on his face was so sad, and when he asked for them to rewind again and asked questions, he almost had an incredulous but defeated look to him. Almost as if he couldn't believe that something like this could happen at his shows.

2. I enjoyed the odd moments. Like when a dog runs across the stage, a naked woman tries to climb onstage or when a man who is quite obviously on some serious drugs is doing some kind of strange dance. The crying girls pressed up against the stage seem to have so recognition for what they're crying about and the audience doesn't even really seem all that excited to be watching this world famous band play. It's almost as if even person is so drugged up that they're not thinking correctly.

3. Finally, I really enjoyed the ironic twist the filmmakers took on portraying the authority figures. Cops are seen shrugging and looking panicked. Hells angels are seen as glaring hoodlums and free spirited dancers. They make sure audiences know that they damage that they caused on the man who died was absolutely ridiculous, by kicking him and repeatedly stabbing him.

On a side note: I found it interesting that they didn't use George Lucas's tape in the final cut. Most of the filming didn't feel that professional or planned out and it seemed strange that they used so few angles and views of the stage. Getting more audience reaction shots that weren't pressed up against the stage seemed like a better idea from my perspective.

film as an art

I feel as if this is some sort of philosophical question, because can anyone actually define art? We live in a time when a toilet seat was considered a form of art... so can everything be art? Are people art? What makes an artist? I never like to answer questions with questions though, so I'll try and define it as best as I can. Art for me is the expression. If something is trying to be expressed through the "self" or through admiration, I think it can be considered an art. For instance, my favorite painting (that I've yet to see anyway) is Sunflowers by Van Gogh. This is an art because Van Gogh expressed himself in the painting and and I express myself through loving the painting, because it has become part of who I am. Also, art evokes a sense of attachment, enjoyment and creativity. In all of these senses, film is quite obviously an art form. Film is a creative, enjoyable (excluding movies like Glitter) and definitely gives the audience a sense of attachment. Have you ever met someone who doesn't cry, laugh or even just give a little smile while watching a movie? I didn't think so.

While we watched the clips in class, the train film by the Lumiere's was very striking for the times. First, the train was moving forward, toward the audience. You see the edge of the station, a few people, but little else of the background. The train comes looming toward the screen, and even passes it by. As the train approaches the camera, the people approach as well, all looking at the camera perplexed. The way of dress and even the train as a mode of transportation sets the tone of the times, but it's the train who is the star of this short film. The people are not characters as they file in and out of the shot and it's easy to see that this documentary style filming is very much a realistic portrayal of that time period. Also, since it is one continuous shot, there is obviously no editing involved and the film truly captures the essence of the moment.

African Queen

The African Queen was a perfect example of the Adventure/Romance genre. Charlie drives his boat "African Queen" up and down the river when he's not working at the mine while Rosie and her brother are doing mission work in an African village along the river. It's obvious that Charlie and Rosie are extremely different, but their behavior is further juxtaposed when her brother dies, the German troops tear down the village and Rosie's only choice of living is joining Charlie on the boat. (end of ACT I) Rather than wallow in sorrow for her losses, she convinces Charlie of taking a dangerous stretch of the river to read the Nazi patrol boats and "torpedo" them. Charlie good naturally goes along with the idea but progressively they fight more and more often because Rosie is stubborn and Charlie gives in too easily. After a near death experience with the Nazi's along the river, Charlie and Rosie kiss and suddenly show their true feelings for each other. (end of ACT II A and climax) After a long, grueling and complicated journey down the river, they finally get to the German boat. They create their "torpedo" but before they can reach the Nazi's, their small boat sinks in a storm. (end of ACT II B) Charlie and Rosie are pulled aboard and are sentenced to hanging immediately. Just after they are quickly married by the captain of the ship, the Nazi ship hits the semi-sunken "African Queen" and the torpedo begins to sink the larger ship. Before anything too serious can happen, Charlie and Rosie are swimming towards a safer country that's just across the lake. (end of ACT III) It's obvious that the two characters "won" at the end of their action/romance adventure because they complete their goal of bombing the boat and they found love in each other.

This movie isn't much of a romance in the sense that there's forbidden love, or a distance issue (maybe because almost the entire movie takes place on a 30 ft boat!) but there is obviously a love interest between Rosie and Charlie who do love each other in very strange sort of ways. After the crisis of the heart occurs and they could have been shot by the Nazi's, they suddenly realize in a passionate frenzy (literally overnight) that they love each other. This aspect of the film is the internal struggle. Rosie is a ignorant and uptight kind of woman while Charlie is a fly by the seat of his pants kind of drunk. The external struggle is evident as soon as Rosie insists that they steer the boat down the most dangerous river and ram their tiny boat right into the huge boat for the sake of the worlds peace. In reality, what is one little boat in Africa going to make a difference? But I supposed the fact that Kenya was on the other side was an additional factor. The action-adventure is more so evident than the romance because of the fact that they are on a boat that doesn't always work and seems to be falling apart. They're surrounded by lions, elephants, hippos, alligators and disgusting leeches (why is it that whenever they were in the water, I was expecting Anaconda to come slithering up?) The idea of two very fragile humans against all the elements working against them adds a thrill of you never really know what will be happening next. The adventure loosens Rosie up and she even lets her hair down, and in a sense it straightened Charlie out, and he's seen less frequently with alcohol or cigarette in hand. Finally, I would have to say that they really did make this movie with many comedic elements. The entire class was laughing throughout the movie, which is remarkable that things from 1951 could still relate to 2011. "Darling, what is your first name?" after they have sex is something that is taboo to talk about even today!

Unlike UP, I think that the African Queen focuses more on the adventure rather than the romance while UP focused more on the internal struggle of Carl and his need for "buddy love". This is easiest displayed for me when they begin Queen with a shot of an remote African village obviously very different than that audiences were accustomed to, much more adventurous than everyday life. UP begins with Carl's entire boring, seemingly unchanging home life, from childhood to elderly age. Similarly though, both stories need the adventure to find the romance or buddy love.

google

UP is better the second time around

I didn't like UP the first time I saw it. The first 10 minutes are great and tell the story of Carl and Ellie with a lot of heart and feeling, but Russell annoyed me and the story just felt too fake and silly. Talking dogs? The explorer looked Carl's age? The bird was what everyone wanted to capture? It just didn't make all that much sense to me.

While watching for the second time, I could see that this movie is a romance or "buddy love" between a young boy (annoyingly exuberant Russell) and his chosen father figure (crotchety old Carl). Carl's central problem is that he loved his wife and was never able to take her on the one adventure she truly wanted before she passed away. Now as an old man, he doesn't fit into the mainstream culture of cell phones, high rises and business suits and society wants to force him into a retirement home. Carl's external problem is that he doesn't feel ready to go into a retirement home and let go of his dream adventure. The solution? Why, tie balloons to your house and fly it to South America of course! His internal problem is letting go with the death of his wife. He associates all his memories of her into his house and doesn't like the world if she's not living in it. The triangle dynamic ultimately becomes Carl's choice of holding onto Ellie through holding onto the house, or holding onto Russell, who needs him. The crisis of the heart or the taste of death is when Carl decides to get rid of everything in the house (and later the house itself) when he realizes that he would risk everything to make sure that his new friends Russell, Doug and Kevin are safe from the crazed and elderly adventurer. The world isn't at stake and he doesn't willingly jump into the situation (like an adventuring Bond or Indy would) but Carl does his best to nobly sacrifice everything to save his friends. He learns that he should hold onto the memories of the wonderful adventure with his wife, but can also live to have other adventures as well.

Act I was a view of Carl's previous life with his wife Ellie and the discovery of what his life if like without her when she passes away. He literally separates himself from everyone in efforts to remain with her in spirit. His call to adventure comes when he has the choice of going to the retirement home or going to jail. Rather than succumb to society, he lets the balloons free and flies to South America. The crossing of the threshold happens when he decides to let Russell come along on his adventure. The midpoint crisis occurs when they land at Paradise Falls and they meet the Kevin, Doug and the dogs. Carl begins to realize that this might not be the adventure he'd anticipated. When they meet the old adventurer and he wants to hurt the other birds like Kevin, they realize that he's not a good person so they have to fight to get away. The road back begins when Carl realizes that his new mission is to save Russell, Kevin and Doug from the crazy adventurer. After a long, drawn out fight at the most high intensity action peak of the story, or the climax, Carl sacrifices his home and belongings to protect his friends.  The denouement occurs when Carl, Russell and Doug return back home. Carl takes a paternal role in Russell's life when he pins his scout badge and takes him for ice cream. Throughout a final slideshow of pictures and credits we can see that Carl moved into the retirement home but remained active in Russell's life and kept the dogs from South America. Carl's learned to accept that Ellie is gone, that he needs to be in a retirement home and that it's ok to care about other people.