Humans have fascination with revenge, whether it is because we like imagine ourselves getting revenge on those we despise, or because it is so foreign to us it's interesting, the truth that remains is revenge movies always sell. Some of the most famous revenge movies such as Kill Bill and Mad Max were huge box office success, Mad Max actually held the record for the most profitable movie for 20 years. So what I'd like to do is shed some light on lesser known revenge flicks, in hopes they might gain a little more recognition.
A year ago John Wick released in theaters and boasted an unexpected profit. Considered a main stream comeback for Keanu Reeve's, this film followed John Wick, a former hitman who changed his ways after marrying his wife. Some time she passes away to an illness, arranging for John to receive a puppy posthumously. After bonding with the pupper John house is broken into and he is assaulted, his car is stolen, and most damaging to him, his dog is killed. Losing his last connection to his wife John returns to his former ways and begins to hunt down the assailant, who happens to be his former boss's son. John's carries out his revenge in adrenaline fueled one night rampage, pulverizing anybody that gets in his way.
Five years earlier Law Abiding Citizen premiered. This film follows a similar trail as John Wick in which our protagonist is bent on revenge after his home is broken into and his wife and daughter a murdered. However after the arrests of these men the legal system fails to convict one, pushing our protagonist, Clyde, over the edge. This is when the two films differ, Clyde lacks the skill set John did. Being an engineer, Clyde opts to silently plan for his revenge, waiting ten years until one of the assaulters is to be lethally injection and switches it out the chemicals that cause him immense pain. Clyde also kidnaps the unconvicted killer and tortures him on video. Finding evidence that links him to the murders, the same attorney that worked for Clyde is now trying to convict him. However Clyde holds the upper hand in studying law for ten years, he knows they will need a confession from him to convict him. He uses this a bargaining tool and continuisly ups the anti. Taking out everyone that failed to do him justice, including innocents.
We see these two films take a very different route. One has a man going on an all out assault in one night to get back at those who wronged him, but never anyone else if he has to. Compare that to Clyde, who sits and wait and plans for ten years, to methodically pick off every single person who was involved with the legal preceding. Clyde's wait makes him grow insane, he is not afraid to pick off bystanders to make a point, he has become no better than the men he is fighting against.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Ring of Stars
When you discuss film franchises many can come into play. However the discussion would be pointless if you do not talk about the two possibly largest franchises to ever grace the screen, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. These two films do not only share reverence but also share the the iconic Hero's Journey despite a drastically different setting.
Let's begin with the protagonist's beginning. Luke and Frodo share a very quaint and simple beginning, a farm boy and and a resident of the shire respectively. They are launched into their journey by the acquaintance of old wiseman, Obi-Wan and Gandalf. They are as well accompanied by misfits. All these things are shared parts of the Hero's Journey. But what makes these too films unique? In Star Wars Luke has to come to terms with primarily external forces, connecting with the force, his father, being placed in the role of a leader, etc. Not to disregarding his internal struggles such as coming to terms with his own much like his father. Contradicting that in Lord of the Rings is Frodo's internal struggle. His dilemma battling his own constant temptation of the ring and longing for home. Again even those these struggles are prominent, we should not forgot his external ones as well, like a crossing a continent full of Orcs.
I know this post was a bit shorter and a lot more out format than the others. But going over certain literary trends in one of my classes had me thinking about this a lot and I really wanted to do a piece on these two series before the semester was over.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Fighting the Momentum
The idea of the twist ending has been around a very for a very long time in literature, some even claiming it goes as far back as Arabian Nights. Many directors use twist ending cheaply and are only in the film to make it's otherwise stale premise acceptable. But a few films perfect the shock ending almost as if it is an art.
One of the most foremost directors that heavily deal in twist endings is David Fincher. With his 1995 breakout film Se7en, Fincher launched himself onto the scene with an ending the punched audiences in the stomach. His next film, Fight Club, heralded one of the most famous endings of all time. We start by seeing into the life an unnamed corporate employee who suffers from chronic insomnia. Our protagonist begins to find solace in a man he befriended on a business trip, Tyler Durdan. The two begin to have routine scuffles outside of bars that attract attention from working class men. The group decide to begin a club for these men to meet together. However over time the club begin to evolve and go out of the protagonists control and directly into Durdan's hands. I can only minorly touch on the ending of this film without giving it away, but what makes it so great is simplicity and how well it makes sense. It is a seamless reveal that enriches the film as a whole
Christopher Nolan is a director that received massive praise for his recent films such The Dark Knight, Incepetion, and Interstellar. However one if his first films, Momento, is in my opinion his greatest, and certainly most under appreciated. Momento follows, and I use that term loosely, Leonard Shulty, a man who's wife was killed during a home invasion by two men, one whom escaped. Leonard suffered a head injury during the attack and is unable to retain short term memory. As he conducts his own investigation to find the second murderer he must himself notes and clues to remind himself of what's going on. What makes this movie unique it is told in reverse chronological order, meaning we see the last 5 minutes, then the 5 minutes before that, etc, etc. It is so different but at the same time so well done that, it almost makes each scene a new twist, yet still remaining fresh. The twist actually appears at the beginning of the chronological order, as opposed to fight club. Both films however are brought together by their endings, making it whole.
One of the most foremost directors that heavily deal in twist endings is David Fincher. With his 1995 breakout film Se7en, Fincher launched himself onto the scene with an ending the punched audiences in the stomach. His next film, Fight Club, heralded one of the most famous endings of all time. We start by seeing into the life an unnamed corporate employee who suffers from chronic insomnia. Our protagonist begins to find solace in a man he befriended on a business trip, Tyler Durdan. The two begin to have routine scuffles outside of bars that attract attention from working class men. The group decide to begin a club for these men to meet together. However over time the club begin to evolve and go out of the protagonists control and directly into Durdan's hands. I can only minorly touch on the ending of this film without giving it away, but what makes it so great is simplicity and how well it makes sense. It is a seamless reveal that enriches the film as a whole
Christopher Nolan is a director that received massive praise for his recent films such The Dark Knight, Incepetion, and Interstellar. However one if his first films, Momento, is in my opinion his greatest, and certainly most under appreciated. Momento follows, and I use that term loosely, Leonard Shulty, a man who's wife was killed during a home invasion by two men, one whom escaped. Leonard suffered a head injury during the attack and is unable to retain short term memory. As he conducts his own investigation to find the second murderer he must himself notes and clues to remind himself of what's going on. What makes this movie unique it is told in reverse chronological order, meaning we see the last 5 minutes, then the 5 minutes before that, etc, etc. It is so different but at the same time so well done that, it almost makes each scene a new twist, yet still remaining fresh. The twist actually appears at the beginning of the chronological order, as opposed to fight club. Both films however are brought together by their endings, making it whole.
Monday, November 30, 2015
The Red Pill
The idea of a home is something that every human can relate too, most animals as well. We all have our territories. Protection of said territory is one of the most primal instincts we have and can be one of the most emotional experiences one can have. Because of this, many forms of art and entertainment have used protection of home as a plot point. I will be discussing two films in particular that do not really stand high on scholarly ground. But rather are given breath by a large cult following.
When The Matrix premiered in 1999 audience had seen not much like it. Sci-Fi was not new but the cyber aspect of it was still in its infancy. The internet was only emerging from the fringe and was still foreign to many people. Beyond being a story about the weary's of technology and control, The Matrix is battle for home. After a cybernetic revolution, humanity has become the fuel for these new hyper-intelligent machines. With the majority of humans being supplanted in the simulated reality known as The Matrix while being hooked up to apparatuses, a small collection of humans have formed a resistance against the machines. We see here how humanities own home, earth, has been taken from them by their own creation, and now they are fighting to get it back. We see the deteriorated state humanity is in and how some are so displaced they don't even know what they are fighting for. But we see the certain visionaries that do not give up the idea of home, they are steadfast and unfaltering. And that's what inspires us as viewers.
Fifteen years earlier America had just started the 4th quarter of the Cold War and paranoia was high. The movie Red Dawn is a perfect example of how the fear of losing our home makes it's way into our culture. The film portrays an alternate history of a Soviet-Cuban invasion of American clay. In Colorado a group of teenagers resist the occupation, and much like in The Matrix they are forced to live in destitute conditions. We see in this film that even children will fight for their home when it is threatened. Our home is the most basic unit outside of a family, and we will protect it until our last breath,
When The Matrix premiered in 1999 audience had seen not much like it. Sci-Fi was not new but the cyber aspect of it was still in its infancy. The internet was only emerging from the fringe and was still foreign to many people. Beyond being a story about the weary's of technology and control, The Matrix is battle for home. After a cybernetic revolution, humanity has become the fuel for these new hyper-intelligent machines. With the majority of humans being supplanted in the simulated reality known as The Matrix while being hooked up to apparatuses, a small collection of humans have formed a resistance against the machines. We see here how humanities own home, earth, has been taken from them by their own creation, and now they are fighting to get it back. We see the deteriorated state humanity is in and how some are so displaced they don't even know what they are fighting for. But we see the certain visionaries that do not give up the idea of home, they are steadfast and unfaltering. And that's what inspires us as viewers.
Fifteen years earlier America had just started the 4th quarter of the Cold War and paranoia was high. The movie Red Dawn is a perfect example of how the fear of losing our home makes it's way into our culture. The film portrays an alternate history of a Soviet-Cuban invasion of American clay. In Colorado a group of teenagers resist the occupation, and much like in The Matrix they are forced to live in destitute conditions. We see in this film that even children will fight for their home when it is threatened. Our home is the most basic unit outside of a family, and we will protect it until our last breath,
Sunday, November 29, 2015
A Family of Lions
A man's strongest bond is often considered to be his family. He is quite literally born and raised with them. This bond has been explored by many works of literature and cinema, often dealing with how far one would go in order to benefit his family, whether he is forced upon the mantle or the mantle is thrust upon him.One of the most famous films covering this is Francis Ford Coppela's The Godfather.
I discussed several films that have been toted as the greatest of all time and The Godfather is no exception. This film is a miniature epic set in post-war New York, following the Corleone crime family and it's youngest son, Michael. Initially Michael is hesitant in participating in the family business, he has a serious girlfriend and is initially committed to her and their future. But after several events place Michael in a position where he must accept his role as the patriarch. We see Michael begin to betray his beginning values in order to secure his family's position, eventually transforming into an image of his father, the very thing he wanted to distance himself from.
Now is the part where I usually bring a second film up to compare it to, and I still am, but I'm going to change up my style a little bit in order to keep myself a little fresh. Normally I'd find some equally revered movie that I could couple with The Godfather, something that could tread on shared hollowed ground. However I could not think of something so I decided to go a bit off the rails discuss for the first time an animated movie.
In my limited opinion I believe The Lion King is the best animated Disney feature, and it shares several parallels with the The Godfather. We see Simba, the heir to Pride Rock, in contrast Michel Corleone. Where Michael was rejecting towards his family's business in the beginning, Simba on the other hand is eagerly awaiting his ascension to the throne. Both parties have groups invested in their demise, which leads to our protagonists exiles, Simba to desert and Michael to Sicily. And like Michael as well, Simba is called home by unforeseen circumstances to battle for his family and rise to his rightful position.
Both these films portray the lengths that a man will go through to protect his family and those who look to him to lead. Although these two films are extremely different in style, I believe they share a common thread in their core.
I discussed several films that have been toted as the greatest of all time and The Godfather is no exception. This film is a miniature epic set in post-war New York, following the Corleone crime family and it's youngest son, Michael. Initially Michael is hesitant in participating in the family business, he has a serious girlfriend and is initially committed to her and their future. But after several events place Michael in a position where he must accept his role as the patriarch. We see Michael begin to betray his beginning values in order to secure his family's position, eventually transforming into an image of his father, the very thing he wanted to distance himself from.
Now is the part where I usually bring a second film up to compare it to, and I still am, but I'm going to change up my style a little bit in order to keep myself a little fresh. Normally I'd find some equally revered movie that I could couple with The Godfather, something that could tread on shared hollowed ground. However I could not think of something so I decided to go a bit off the rails discuss for the first time an animated movie.
In my limited opinion I believe The Lion King is the best animated Disney feature, and it shares several parallels with the The Godfather. We see Simba, the heir to Pride Rock, in contrast Michel Corleone. Where Michael was rejecting towards his family's business in the beginning, Simba on the other hand is eagerly awaiting his ascension to the throne. Both parties have groups invested in their demise, which leads to our protagonists exiles, Simba to desert and Michael to Sicily. And like Michael as well, Simba is called home by unforeseen circumstances to battle for his family and rise to his rightful position.
Both these films portray the lengths that a man will go through to protect his family and those who look to him to lead. Although these two films are extremely different in style, I believe they share a common thread in their core.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Wild Nostalgia
Nostalgia is one of the strongest emotions humans have. Our connection and longing for the past is something that can bridge any nation or culture, it is a vital part of the human experience. People people experience nostalgia over different things, for some it could be his childhood home, for others it could be the laugh of their first love, or it could even be as simple as a home cooked meal mom used to make. Being one of the most moving and emotional human phenomenon, many art forms have addressed this and handled it different ways. Two outstanding directors in particular handled this in different, but effective ways.
Soviet director Andrei Tarkovksey is considered to be a master at evoking emotion from the viewer. His sense of cinematography and direction strikes a chord in the heart. This was exemplified in his 1983 film Nostalghia. This film follows Andrei Gorchakov, a Russian writer researching an exiled Russian musician from the 1700's in Italy. During his research his becomes distraught and distant from his only companion, his translator. Andrei often experiences visions of his family he left behind at home, as well as Russian landscapes. He becomes an acquaintance of mentally ill man who through his past, makes Andrei reflect on his own.
When watching this film one must take in to account what was special about the production of it. Nostalghia was actually the first film Tarkovskey made after being exiled himself from Russia. Which adds merely another layer to the films already complex system of nostalgic overlays. This allows Tarkovskey to direct this film from his own emotion, which produces a beautiful account of the pain a man experiences when he longs for that he cannot have. In the film it is mentioned that the exiled Russian composer Andrei is researching, Pavel Sosnovskey, returned to Russia from Italy to go back to his life as a serf, because he could not bare the pain of being away from his fatherland. I believe this mirrors Tarkovskey's own attitude towards the USSR. He felt abandoned by his home, but returning meant he would allow himself to become a slave the USSR's strict film regulations.
Where Tarkoskey's method was quite abstract throughout Nostalghia, director Ingmar Bergman took a more grounded approach in his 1957 film Wild Strawberries. It begins with a voice over by the main protagonist, Professor Isak Borg, who covers his distaste for many things, as well as his confessed distraught at the world. Following this we see his journey to a University across Sweden, along the way he accompanied by his daughter in-law, as well as a young couple and their friend. Throughout the trip, we begin to see glimpses of Borg's past, though he reminisces about them, we see that he was plauged by several misfortunes, producing the sour man he is today.
Bergman is helped out in this film by superb acting from Victor Sjorstrom, who plays Prof. Borg with flawless emotional mimicry. By allowing to see deeper and deeper into Borgs past throughout the movie provides us with keener understanding into why Borg is the way he is. However even in light of the bad things that have happened to him, we see that Borg still longs for the past, a part which I believe is telling the viewer that we must enjoy our experiences now, because they might be all the bit of happiness we have in our future.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
The Wolf of Lyndon
One of the oldest and most tragic tale is that of the man that who fights and claws for his goal and achieves, only for it to slip from his grasp. There are many films that be placed under that description, way too many for me to list. So in this piece I'm gonna be focusing on two in particular made by two great American directors.
As often as I've paraded Stanley Kubrick around as being one the greatest directors of all time, and in my opinion the greatest American director of all time, I haven't really talked about enough of his movies I feel like. So I'd like to cover what I feel like his most underrated and under recognized film, Barry Lyndon. Set in 1750's Ireland, Barry Lyndon covers the tale of Redmond Barry, a man who runs off from his quaint village and enters a the subtle world of the upper class 18th century Britain. Throughout the film, we see Barry rise and take advantage of his predicaments and be rewarded, culminating in his marriage to a very wealthy widow. We also see him grow colder and ruthless through this transformation. Only for his harsh ways to lead to his downfall.
Among great American directors, Martin Scorsese is always mentioned. Many of his films fall under the idea of a man fighting for what he wants, but I think the comparison with Barry Lyndon would fit best with one of his most recent films The Wolf of Wallstreet. While being a drastically different tone than Barry Lyndon, this film does not fail to mirror the raise and fall of an ambitious young man. We see Jordan Belfort began as an optimistic honest* stock broker, and through a fall of bad fortune, he begins to resort to scamming techniques. Gaining phenomenal success, Jordan rises to the top as one of the premier investment firms in New York, living life the executives of dream. And much like Barry, his own tactics that got him to his high position, ultimately lead to his life's entire collapse.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Monster Movie Madness: The Reckoning: The Final Chapter
With Halloween come and gone I figured I would give this series one more incarnations and raise from the grave. Since we've discussed films with similar techniques and themes and what they brought to the horror genre, I think my last article should be about what are arguably the parent films of the horror genre, and often considered the two most influential of the overall genre.
Being considered the father of American horror as well as one of the greatest American directors, Alfred Hitchcock had a very large impact on the entire genre of horror. I have mentioned many "parent films'' in my posts, including citing Halloween a the parent film of the "Slasher" sub-genre. That being said, I'd like to discuss the grandparent of the slasher genre, Hitchcock's Psycho.
Usually topping most top ten horror lists, Psycho's story of Norman Bates is often referenced but never beaten. The film starts out following Marion Crane, a young woman who steals a large sum of money from her boss and ditches town. Coming across the Bates Motel, Marion befriends the odd-behaving Norman Bates. After her apparent murder in the showers by woman. A private investigator and her sister begin in to take interest in Norman and his elusive mother Norma.
Psycho uses shadowy imagery and noir-esque cinematography, to create a hostile environment that keeps the viewer constantly on edge. In the famous shower scene, Hitchcock used almost strictly close up shots, which made an intense, fast paced scene that left much to the imagination. Hitchcock made the twist ending a big hit, which many horror movies followed in suit.
The silent era did not not boast many horror films,, mainly because they didn't really catch on in the mainstream until Hitchcock introduced into the main. Out of those that were produced in the silent era, none of which stand out and still send shivers down the spines of viewers like of the German Nosferatu. I remember being 8 or 9 at a time and seeing a still image of Nosferatu's Count Orlock and being freaked out, even though it was used as a joke. The physical horror of this creatures appearance still creeps me out as a 20 year old. Nosferatu sprouted from unofficial adaption of Bram Stroker's Dracula, Simply with the names and some details altered.
Nosferatu centers around Thomas Hutter, a German business man who travels to Transylvania to meet with his client, the grotesque Count Orlok. During his visits, he notices Orlock's strange behavior along with his own physical ailments, and begins to suspect what Orlock really is. After his suspicions are confirmed, Hutter must race to home to save his wife from the clutches of Orlock.
With the film relying heavily on visual terror, this film successfully disturbs and unsettles the viewer, making every time Orlock is on screen a palm-sweating experience. This physically exhausts the viewer, making each appearance more dreadful than the last.
Together these films set the path for every horror film afterward. It is in the small club of films that can claim the same impact on their genre. Without these two, the landscape of the genre would be climatically different.
Usually topping most top ten horror lists, Psycho's story of Norman Bates is often referenced but never beaten. The film starts out following Marion Crane, a young woman who steals a large sum of money from her boss and ditches town. Coming across the Bates Motel, Marion befriends the odd-behaving Norman Bates. After her apparent murder in the showers by woman. A private investigator and her sister begin in to take interest in Norman and his elusive mother Norma.
Psycho uses shadowy imagery and noir-esque cinematography, to create a hostile environment that keeps the viewer constantly on edge. In the famous shower scene, Hitchcock used almost strictly close up shots, which made an intense, fast paced scene that left much to the imagination. Hitchcock made the twist ending a big hit, which many horror movies followed in suit.
The silent era did not not boast many horror films,, mainly because they didn't really catch on in the mainstream until Hitchcock introduced into the main. Out of those that were produced in the silent era, none of which stand out and still send shivers down the spines of viewers like of the German Nosferatu. I remember being 8 or 9 at a time and seeing a still image of Nosferatu's Count Orlock and being freaked out, even though it was used as a joke. The physical horror of this creatures appearance still creeps me out as a 20 year old. Nosferatu sprouted from unofficial adaption of Bram Stroker's Dracula, Simply with the names and some details altered.
Nosferatu centers around Thomas Hutter, a German business man who travels to Transylvania to meet with his client, the grotesque Count Orlok. During his visits, he notices Orlock's strange behavior along with his own physical ailments, and begins to suspect what Orlock really is. After his suspicions are confirmed, Hutter must race to home to save his wife from the clutches of Orlock.
With the film relying heavily on visual terror, this film successfully disturbs and unsettles the viewer, making every time Orlock is on screen a palm-sweating experience. This physically exhausts the viewer, making each appearance more dreadful than the last.
Together these films set the path for every horror film afterward. It is in the small club of films that can claim the same impact on their genre. Without these two, the landscape of the genre would be climatically different.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Monster Movie Madness pt 5: Shaking and Screaming
As I previously mentioned in piece that featured The Ring, the J-Horror Remake genre became a hit in the early 2000's, which stemmed from the success of a parent film, Another horror sub-genre followed the same path, the "Found Footage" genre. Being pretty self explanatory, this genre shows films that appeared to be filmed on a handheld camera, during the events of the movie, and being filmed by a character in the movie, as if to appear that the footage was filmed, lost, and then found and displayed.
The parent film of this genre is often considered, though not technically the first to use this technique, The Blair Witch Project. Following three students filming a documentary in Maryland countryside, over the urban legend of a local witch. After interviewing several locals, the students venture out to get footage of the woods where the witch is supposed to inhabit. After losing the map, the students are appeared to be stalked throughout several nights and end up turning on each other,
What made this film so successful in the Found Footage format is lack of scripted dialogue. The script of this film only included an outline, which left all dialogue to be improvised, which portrayed a very real and natural dialogue in the film, which contributed greatly to viewer immersion. The actual harassment of the characters was much more subtle and less direct then that of Alien (which along with The Omen and The Shining are credited as influences, and all films I've covered earlier) with audience getting in sight of the witch.
The second biggest film to come out of this sub-genre was 8 years later, Paranormal Activity. Instead of our protagonists being lost in the woods with a camera, Paranormal is set in the home of a young couple, being filmed by several in-home security cameras that are set up after strange events. With each occurrence becoming worse and worse, the couple begins to question humor of the situation they began with.
Spawning many on-going sequels, Paranormal Activity struck a cord with it's audience by allowing us to see the action as it was going on, but with apparition actually being naked to the eye. This allowed for two things, 1: The viewers imagination was able to run wild, and 2: Related to the audience. Because let's be honest, a lot of people have been sitting at home and a door begins to creak open by itself or something of that nature. This is similar to The Blair Witch's decision to never portray the witch directly but rather play off the viewers imagination, often the most powerful tool for a horror director.
Both these movie do a very good job of what they set out to do, which is to a create a real feeling and looking horror film. Well I personally don't believe either one of these are groundbreaking or terrifying. There is once scene in one of the movies the sent chills down my spine that has never been done before by anything on screen. Watch both of them to find out which one.
The parent film of this genre is often considered, though not technically the first to use this technique, The Blair Witch Project. Following three students filming a documentary in Maryland countryside, over the urban legend of a local witch. After interviewing several locals, the students venture out to get footage of the woods where the witch is supposed to inhabit. After losing the map, the students are appeared to be stalked throughout several nights and end up turning on each other,
What made this film so successful in the Found Footage format is lack of scripted dialogue. The script of this film only included an outline, which left all dialogue to be improvised, which portrayed a very real and natural dialogue in the film, which contributed greatly to viewer immersion. The actual harassment of the characters was much more subtle and less direct then that of Alien (which along with The Omen and The Shining are credited as influences, and all films I've covered earlier) with audience getting in sight of the witch.
The second biggest film to come out of this sub-genre was 8 years later, Paranormal Activity. Instead of our protagonists being lost in the woods with a camera, Paranormal is set in the home of a young couple, being filmed by several in-home security cameras that are set up after strange events. With each occurrence becoming worse and worse, the couple begins to question humor of the situation they began with.
Spawning many on-going sequels, Paranormal Activity struck a cord with it's audience by allowing us to see the action as it was going on, but with apparition actually being naked to the eye. This allowed for two things, 1: The viewers imagination was able to run wild, and 2: Related to the audience. Because let's be honest, a lot of people have been sitting at home and a door begins to creak open by itself or something of that nature. This is similar to The Blair Witch's decision to never portray the witch directly but rather play off the viewers imagination, often the most powerful tool for a horror director.
Both these movie do a very good job of what they set out to do, which is to a create a real feeling and looking horror film. Well I personally don't believe either one of these are groundbreaking or terrifying. There is once scene in one of the movies the sent chills down my spine that has never been done before by anything on screen. Watch both of them to find out which one.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Monster Movie Madness pt 4: Holy Hell,
Horror films centering around demonic beings are personally some of my favorite. Really well written ones will delve into deep cabalic lore and use atmosphere and tension to create a terrifying film. During the 70's we saw a surge of these occult based movies, often attributed to the success of Rosemary's Baby.
Often the most praised demonic possession movie is The Exorcist. This film follows the attempts of a old, ill-faithed priest and his younger counterpart, along with a mother, to rid 12-year old Regan MacNiel of a demonic possession. After playing with a Ouija board, Regan invites a demon into her home and subsequently her body. After a fatal incident and strange behaviors, Regan's mother, Chris, enlists the help of the Church to perform an exorcism. During the process Regan's humanity begins to tear away as the demon takes control of Regan's body.
The Exorcist was widely known for it's gore at the time, which seems mild in today's climate, and it's use of vulgar language spouting from the a young actress, both of which were to unsettle the audience, and were very effective in doing so. The film also explores the relationship strain the mother of Regan endures during her possession, The film clearly portrays the Chris loves her daughter and her possession is tearing away at her as well. This adds a struggle a lot of viewers can identify with, seeing a loved one be destroyed by something that is beyond there control.
Another movie that is often considered a sister film the The Exorcist is The Omen. Dealing with a slightly different scenario, The Omen follows the story of Damien, a child who is adopted at birth by a couple who had a stillborn child, unbeknownst to the mother. When the child turns of age strange and evil things begin to take place around them, only to become increasingly more life threatening the closer the parents come to finding out the truth that Damien is actually the Antichrist.
The Omen spins a similar but different tale then The Exorcist. Instead of seeing the process of a girl being torn apart from the inside against her will, we see a boy who bestowed unimaginable power and uses it for himself, to the ill of other. The films horror techniques are different are more subtle than that of The Exorcist's, while the use of blood is still in play, it is much less grotesque, and in my opinion creates a better atmosphere. Just like The Exorcist, The Omen plays with the relationship of a loving parent pitted against an malignant child. We see her denial throughout the movie the pain she goes through being forced to choose between her own life and the life of the boy she raised.
Both these films create an excellent portrayal of demonic evil and the terror it would bring on a family. Using different techniques while telling similar tales, these two movies are an essential coupling for the Halloween season.
Another movie that is often considered a sister film the The Exorcist is The Omen. Dealing with a slightly different scenario, The Omen follows the story of Damien, a child who is adopted at birth by a couple who had a stillborn child, unbeknownst to the mother. When the child turns of age strange and evil things begin to take place around them, only to become increasingly more life threatening the closer the parents come to finding out the truth that Damien is actually the Antichrist.
The Omen spins a similar but different tale then The Exorcist. Instead of seeing the process of a girl being torn apart from the inside against her will, we see a boy who bestowed unimaginable power and uses it for himself, to the ill of other. The films horror techniques are different are more subtle than that of The Exorcist's, while the use of blood is still in play, it is much less grotesque, and in my opinion creates a better atmosphere. Just like The Exorcist, The Omen plays with the relationship of a loving parent pitted against an malignant child. We see her denial throughout the movie the pain she goes through being forced to choose between her own life and the life of the boy she raised.
Both these films create an excellent portrayal of demonic evil and the terror it would bring on a family. Using different techniques while telling similar tales, these two movies are an essential coupling for the Halloween season.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Monster Movie Madness pt 3: Home, Sweet Home
The Haunted House is one of the oldest tropes in the Horror genre, that can be traced back to tales of cursed temples in the ancient world. It has been done so much that it hard to have a haunted house tale that stands out from the rest. You must either have a very competent director, or a very clever marketing to create a success. The two films I will be discussing do exactly those.
Now I know I have mentioned my admiration for Stanley Kubrick on this blog before. And I will readily admit that I tend to be a bit biased towards his films. But I truly believe that he created one of the greatest, and by greatest I mean top 5 of all time, horror movies. I could probably write an entire dissertation over The Shining, and it's pretty much been done before, but for the readers sake and my own needs of sleep tonight, I wont. The Shining takes places in a closed-for-the-winter Hotel in Colorado, where Jack Torrance and his wife and son begin their tenure of being the hotels care takers for the winter. Having a natural psychic ability, Jack's son Danny begins to have ominous visions of the hotel and seeing ghostly figures. Months into the job, Jack's mental state begins to deteriorate as begins to have hallucination and conversations with dead patrons of the hotel. After becoming violent towards Danny and his wife, Wendy, Jack's last bit of sanity leaves as he begins to hunt his family down, all while the hauntings of the hotel become more and more vivid and real.
Kubrick's stunning cinematography and script coupled with Jack Nicholson's performance, portrays the devolution of the human psyche with astonishing subtlety and effectively. This film is riddled with little tid-bits that viewer subconsciously consumes but still feels the weight of. Kubrick uses little jump scares and almost solely relies on atmospheric eeriness and and unsettling imagery to do all the frightening that is needed. If there were truly ever haunted place that sought to destroy its inhabitants, Kubrick captured it flawlessly.
A lot of horror films use the "Based on a true story" tag pretty liberally and it has lost a lot of its weight in today landscape. However in 1979 when The Amityville Horror was the marketing ploy was fairly new and with the recent release of the tell-all novel by the same name, the film grabbed some attention and though a critical failure, it was a commercial hit. The Amityville Horror centers around a family who moves into a house that recently was plagued by a murderous father slaughtering his entire family. Immediately they notice strange phenomena as the house rejects a priest who attempted to bless it, and begins to drive the father into violent obsessive shut-away (sounds familiar right?) As the house haunting continue to get worse and worse, information comes to light about the houses satanic past. After a final terrifying night, the father comes to his senses and the families flee the house for good.
This movie gained a lot of attention for being based on a true story, and then subsequently because it wasn't quite so true. Many of the details were embellished or altered drastically, resulting in several law suits and tainting the movies legacy a bit. However purely from an objective standpoint the movie itself while succumbing to much more generic tropes than The Shining, still manage to produced a truly haunting and malevolent atmosphere. Even though it was a much more traditional haunted house moive, this film conveys cliches well and tastefully, to the point where it's well done enough you don't really mind them, and given it's age you can understand how influential it is to modern day horror films.
Both these films are excellent for different reasons. Though similar in the tale of a house tearing a family apart and driving the patriarch mad, they separate by taking two different routes down the road of conventionality and both ending up and the same destination of well done horror movies.
Now I know I have mentioned my admiration for Stanley Kubrick on this blog before. And I will readily admit that I tend to be a bit biased towards his films. But I truly believe that he created one of the greatest, and by greatest I mean top 5 of all time, horror movies. I could probably write an entire dissertation over The Shining, and it's pretty much been done before, but for the readers sake and my own needs of sleep tonight, I wont. The Shining takes places in a closed-for-the-winter Hotel in Colorado, where Jack Torrance and his wife and son begin their tenure of being the hotels care takers for the winter. Having a natural psychic ability, Jack's son Danny begins to have ominous visions of the hotel and seeing ghostly figures. Months into the job, Jack's mental state begins to deteriorate as begins to have hallucination and conversations with dead patrons of the hotel. After becoming violent towards Danny and his wife, Wendy, Jack's last bit of sanity leaves as he begins to hunt his family down, all while the hauntings of the hotel become more and more vivid and real.
Kubrick's stunning cinematography and script coupled with Jack Nicholson's performance, portrays the devolution of the human psyche with astonishing subtlety and effectively. This film is riddled with little tid-bits that viewer subconsciously consumes but still feels the weight of. Kubrick uses little jump scares and almost solely relies on atmospheric eeriness and and unsettling imagery to do all the frightening that is needed. If there were truly ever haunted place that sought to destroy its inhabitants, Kubrick captured it flawlessly.
A lot of horror films use the "Based on a true story" tag pretty liberally and it has lost a lot of its weight in today landscape. However in 1979 when The Amityville Horror was the marketing ploy was fairly new and with the recent release of the tell-all novel by the same name, the film grabbed some attention and though a critical failure, it was a commercial hit. The Amityville Horror centers around a family who moves into a house that recently was plagued by a murderous father slaughtering his entire family. Immediately they notice strange phenomena as the house rejects a priest who attempted to bless it, and begins to drive the father into violent obsessive shut-away (sounds familiar right?) As the house haunting continue to get worse and worse, information comes to light about the houses satanic past. After a final terrifying night, the father comes to his senses and the families flee the house for good.
This movie gained a lot of attention for being based on a true story, and then subsequently because it wasn't quite so true. Many of the details were embellished or altered drastically, resulting in several law suits and tainting the movies legacy a bit. However purely from an objective standpoint the movie itself while succumbing to much more generic tropes than The Shining, still manage to produced a truly haunting and malevolent atmosphere. Even though it was a much more traditional haunted house moive, this film conveys cliches well and tastefully, to the point where it's well done enough you don't really mind them, and given it's age you can understand how influential it is to modern day horror films.
Both these films are excellent for different reasons. Though similar in the tale of a house tearing a family apart and driving the patriarch mad, they separate by taking two different routes down the road of conventionality and both ending up and the same destination of well done horror movies.
Monster Movie Madness pt 2: Stalker
The idea of being stalked by an unseen predator is on of the most primal fears human beings, dating back to our times as cavemen. This fear is very easy to be used in horror movies by simply shrouding your antagonist in mystery and having them kill characters one by one. Often this gets very formulaic and predictable, but if the director plays it out just right, it can create some very well crafted films.
Currently in the Sci-Fi world, few names hold as high respect as that of Ridley Scott. Not always a Sci-Fi director, Scott's first film, The Duelists, actually won best film at the the 1977 Cannes Film Festival. However inspired by Star Wars, Scott looked to take on an effects heavy film, so he took the job directing Alien. This films takes place on board a futuristic commercial spacecraft headed back to earth, during the trip the crew inspects an alien ship that is broadcasting a strange signal. During the inspection, one crew member is infected with a parasite, causing his stomach to later burst open by an escaping baby alien. From then on the alien feeds and grows, picking crew members one by one in the shadows.
Alien has become one of the most influential SciFi/Horror movies with a lot of credit to Scott's visual talent. However visuals can only take a film so far, without proper tension building, Alien would not of been as much of a success. Scott uses bluff's and long drawn out scenes to continually build up tension on the viewer. With the setting being on their own ship, the crew members own home is being invaded, the place they are supposed to feel safe is where they are now constantly at risk of there life. This creates a constant on edge vibe that reflects back at the audience.
Around the same time, another legendary director was leaving his first boot prints on the scene. In 1978 John Carpenter released Halloween, the influention slasher flick I covered in my last article. In 1982 Carpenter released released his own SciFi/Horror film, The Thing. This film is very similar to Alien (the two often pitted against each other for prominence in the genre), but at the same time stands tall on its own merits. The Thing follows the crew of an Antarctic research base that is infiltrated by a body stealing alien. Starting out in a stray dog the team takes in, the alien quickly begins to makes it's rounds through human bodies. Once the crew figures out that the alien could be inside any of them at any moment, they begin to turn each other, which only works in favor of the alien.
Both directors in these films use location of the antagonist to not only create an edge for it, but inflict a psychological terror as well. Alien's creature is crawling through there, ship, which has been their home for months. They are constantly in the presence of it, and because of the ships many crawlspaces and vents, they have no idea where it could be. This same technique is used in The Thing, but in this Film the alien is inside there literal bodies. They could be standing next to their killer, having a coffee and chat with him, and have no idea, and neither does the viewer. In my opinion this is what makes The Thing such a great film, because Carpenter keeps the audience in the dark, we share the paranoia that the protagonists feel, which forms a connection between the two. Both these films do a wonderful job creating tension that effects the viewers, and that makes them stand out among normal horror films that have something stalking a group of people. Both of these are essential viewings for the Halloween season
Currently in the Sci-Fi world, few names hold as high respect as that of Ridley Scott. Not always a Sci-Fi director, Scott's first film, The Duelists, actually won best film at the the 1977 Cannes Film Festival. However inspired by Star Wars, Scott looked to take on an effects heavy film, so he took the job directing Alien. This films takes place on board a futuristic commercial spacecraft headed back to earth, during the trip the crew inspects an alien ship that is broadcasting a strange signal. During the inspection, one crew member is infected with a parasite, causing his stomach to later burst open by an escaping baby alien. From then on the alien feeds and grows, picking crew members one by one in the shadows.
Alien has become one of the most influential SciFi/Horror movies with a lot of credit to Scott's visual talent. However visuals can only take a film so far, without proper tension building, Alien would not of been as much of a success. Scott uses bluff's and long drawn out scenes to continually build up tension on the viewer. With the setting being on their own ship, the crew members own home is being invaded, the place they are supposed to feel safe is where they are now constantly at risk of there life. This creates a constant on edge vibe that reflects back at the audience.
Around the same time, another legendary director was leaving his first boot prints on the scene. In 1978 John Carpenter released Halloween, the influention slasher flick I covered in my last article. In 1982 Carpenter released released his own SciFi/Horror film, The Thing. This film is very similar to Alien (the two often pitted against each other for prominence in the genre), but at the same time stands tall on its own merits. The Thing follows the crew of an Antarctic research base that is infiltrated by a body stealing alien. Starting out in a stray dog the team takes in, the alien quickly begins to makes it's rounds through human bodies. Once the crew figures out that the alien could be inside any of them at any moment, they begin to turn each other, which only works in favor of the alien.
Both directors in these films use location of the antagonist to not only create an edge for it, but inflict a psychological terror as well. Alien's creature is crawling through there, ship, which has been their home for months. They are constantly in the presence of it, and because of the ships many crawlspaces and vents, they have no idea where it could be. This same technique is used in The Thing, but in this Film the alien is inside there literal bodies. They could be standing next to their killer, having a coffee and chat with him, and have no idea, and neither does the viewer. In my opinion this is what makes The Thing such a great film, because Carpenter keeps the audience in the dark, we share the paranoia that the protagonists feel, which forms a connection between the two. Both these films do a wonderful job creating tension that effects the viewers, and that makes them stand out among normal horror films that have something stalking a group of people. Both of these are essential viewings for the Halloween season
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Monster Movie Madness pt 1: Past Transgressions
In the spirit of October I've decided my next few posts will be centered around iconic horror movies. And specifically the reoccurring and often formulaic themes they tend to have.
A common fear of human beings is the fear of what the future holds, which is rooted from our primal fear of the unknown, not knowing what lies ahead is scary for us, we don't know what to expect, if we don't know what to expect then we can't prepare, and if we can't prepare often we fail. However the two films I will be talking about aren't about the fear of the future, but rather our fear of the past, the fear of what we or did, or in these cases what someone else did, and how they will come back to haunt us.
One of the most played out sub-genres of Horror is the slasher flick. Usually characterized by a lone antagonist slaughtering promiscuous teenagers one by one, only to be temporally handicapped by the last surviving girl and possibly her love interest at the end of the movie, only to return with vengeance in the following sequels. This entire sub genre can be all traced back to arguably the first of it's kind: John Carpenter's Halloween. Set in the quaint little All-American town of Haddonfield, Illinois, Halloween follows the escape of Michael Myers, a criminally insane patient who murdered his older sister when we has 6. After escaping the hospital, Myers begins to stalk local teenage babysitter Laurie Strode. After several dismissing several sighting of Myers, Laurie's friends begin to be methodically killed off. After discovering the bodies of her friends, Laurie faces off with Michael in the final showdown of the film, which afterwards, forever impacting the horror genre, Michael's body seemingly disappears, leaving him open to much more mischief in the following sequels
One of the themes of Halloween could be interpreted as Isolation. We know from an early age Michael was disturbed and disconnected from conventional morality. It is important for children, especially young ones, that they are taught the difference between right and wrong. For whatever reason Michael did not absorb this lesson. To no fault of his own he was severely disillusioned, it was an almost unconscious act when he killed his sister. After being institutionalized he was isolated from the world, he received no love from his doctors, this traumatized him. We know from psychological studies that often childhood trauma places the victim at forever that mental age, stagnating any emotional growth. For this reason Michael never learned not to kill. Even his psychiatrist in the film, Dr. Loomis, expresses his regret for not handling Michael's case more in a more caring manner, he admittedly treated Michael as a puzzle to be fixed, not a human to be cared for. We see his mistakes, as well as the parents, come back to destroy the lives of others, most importantly Michael's.
During the 2000's another horror sub-genre seemed to kick off due to the success of a movie that was the first of it's kind. "J-Horror Remakes" are horror films that were original released in Japan, but were remade for the American market. J-Horror Remake is arguably not a genre by itself, but for the sake of this article it is. In 2002 the Japanese film Ringu was remade and released as The Ring. This films follows a cursed video tape, who's viewers are doomed to day 7 days after they watched it, and it's affect on one woman and her attempt to break the curse. After the death of her niece, Rachel Keller begins to investigate the rumors that her niece had watched the video a week before. Finding her way to the location of the tape, she proceeds to watch it, and is left a cryptic message by phone. Growing concerned, Rachel studies the tape which leads her to a lighthouse, where she recognizes a woman from the video tape in a picture. Research shows her the woman is Anna Morgan, who was a local rancher that commited suicide after her horses mysterious deaths. Following her lead, Rachel tracks down the husband of the late woman. She learns that the girl from the tape is Samara Morgan, the daughter of Anna Morgan. She is informed that Samara had psychic abilities and was responsible for the horse drownings, as well her mothers suicide. After being informed that Samara's father abused her and locked her away. Going another location Rachel recognized from the video, she finds a well and accidentally falls in it, finding the corpse of Samara, and receiving a vision of Anna throwing Samara down the well.
Here we see again the past mistakes of caregivers creating monsters of the present. Samara was a child gifted with extraordinary abilities. However being a child she naturally did not understand how to use them and what to use them for. She began to be seen as a curse by her parents, who treated her like an animal. Scaring Samara, this treatment and abandonment led her becoming an evil anomaly. Treated and cared for properly, she may have been able to do wonderful things with her powers.
Both of these films exemplify our fear of what our past mistakes could do to us, or even other people.
A common fear of human beings is the fear of what the future holds, which is rooted from our primal fear of the unknown, not knowing what lies ahead is scary for us, we don't know what to expect, if we don't know what to expect then we can't prepare, and if we can't prepare often we fail. However the two films I will be talking about aren't about the fear of the future, but rather our fear of the past, the fear of what we or did, or in these cases what someone else did, and how they will come back to haunt us.
One of the most played out sub-genres of Horror is the slasher flick. Usually characterized by a lone antagonist slaughtering promiscuous teenagers one by one, only to be temporally handicapped by the last surviving girl and possibly her love interest at the end of the movie, only to return with vengeance in the following sequels. This entire sub genre can be all traced back to arguably the first of it's kind: John Carpenter's Halloween. Set in the quaint little All-American town of Haddonfield, Illinois, Halloween follows the escape of Michael Myers, a criminally insane patient who murdered his older sister when we has 6. After escaping the hospital, Myers begins to stalk local teenage babysitter Laurie Strode. After several dismissing several sighting of Myers, Laurie's friends begin to be methodically killed off. After discovering the bodies of her friends, Laurie faces off with Michael in the final showdown of the film, which afterwards, forever impacting the horror genre, Michael's body seemingly disappears, leaving him open to much more mischief in the following sequels
One of the themes of Halloween could be interpreted as Isolation. We know from an early age Michael was disturbed and disconnected from conventional morality. It is important for children, especially young ones, that they are taught the difference between right and wrong. For whatever reason Michael did not absorb this lesson. To no fault of his own he was severely disillusioned, it was an almost unconscious act when he killed his sister. After being institutionalized he was isolated from the world, he received no love from his doctors, this traumatized him. We know from psychological studies that often childhood trauma places the victim at forever that mental age, stagnating any emotional growth. For this reason Michael never learned not to kill. Even his psychiatrist in the film, Dr. Loomis, expresses his regret for not handling Michael's case more in a more caring manner, he admittedly treated Michael as a puzzle to be fixed, not a human to be cared for. We see his mistakes, as well as the parents, come back to destroy the lives of others, most importantly Michael's.
During the 2000's another horror sub-genre seemed to kick off due to the success of a movie that was the first of it's kind. "J-Horror Remakes" are horror films that were original released in Japan, but were remade for the American market. J-Horror Remake is arguably not a genre by itself, but for the sake of this article it is. In 2002 the Japanese film Ringu was remade and released as The Ring. This films follows a cursed video tape, who's viewers are doomed to day 7 days after they watched it, and it's affect on one woman and her attempt to break the curse. After the death of her niece, Rachel Keller begins to investigate the rumors that her niece had watched the video a week before. Finding her way to the location of the tape, she proceeds to watch it, and is left a cryptic message by phone. Growing concerned, Rachel studies the tape which leads her to a lighthouse, where she recognizes a woman from the video tape in a picture. Research shows her the woman is Anna Morgan, who was a local rancher that commited suicide after her horses mysterious deaths. Following her lead, Rachel tracks down the husband of the late woman. She learns that the girl from the tape is Samara Morgan, the daughter of Anna Morgan. She is informed that Samara had psychic abilities and was responsible for the horse drownings, as well her mothers suicide. After being informed that Samara's father abused her and locked her away. Going another location Rachel recognized from the video, she finds a well and accidentally falls in it, finding the corpse of Samara, and receiving a vision of Anna throwing Samara down the well.
Here we see again the past mistakes of caregivers creating monsters of the present. Samara was a child gifted with extraordinary abilities. However being a child she naturally did not understand how to use them and what to use them for. She began to be seen as a curse by her parents, who treated her like an animal. Scaring Samara, this treatment and abandonment led her becoming an evil anomaly. Treated and cared for properly, she may have been able to do wonderful things with her powers.
Both of these films exemplify our fear of what our past mistakes could do to us, or even other people.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
The Gloriful Apocalypse
"War. War never changes"
When people think about war they often think of a handful of things that go along with it. Tragedy, Honor, Death, Destruction, Salvation, and Duty to name a few among other. Now I have never been in a war, and I probably never will be. But I like believe I have read and studied enough about it understand the basic emotions and conflicts it elicits. Often during during war the conflict of Duty v Conscious takes place. What your told to do vs what you ought to do. A lot of war movies play on this to the point where it's almost a cliche. But if the trope is done well enough, it can leave a powerful impact on the viewer.
One of the most celebrated war films of the last century is Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now. This visually stunning war epic follows Cpt. Benjamin Willard in the Vietnam war as he takes on a mission to hunt down a rouge Colonel who has taken his men to Cambodia. We see from the start that duty is being questioned by a fairly high ranking individual going completely off the grid. Willard is tasked to keep the mission as secret as possible, presumably because the US Govt would like to keep such a high level mutiny off the public radar. During his journey, Willard witnesses many things that cause him to question his own duty, the death of bystanders, deaths of his own men, and the shadiness of the military's own top brass. The film's conclusion resonates the questionable morality that comes with blind duty, but it also reflects the torture and pain soldiers go through when they are simply asked to do their jobs.
Now when I would tell most people I would compare Apocalypse Now to a Stanley Kubrick film, most people would assume it would be Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick's war film that is also set in Vietnam, also one of his most famous. But instead I'd like to use a lesser known Kubrick film and one of his first, Paths of Glory. This film follows the consequences that befall French soldiers during WWI who are, at the command of an eager General seeking quick promotion, tasked into a suicide charge against a well defended German anthill. After heavy losses, some men begin retreat from the battlefield, with one company refusing to leave their trench at all. Condemning them as cowards, their General court martials three soldiers as an example, if they are found guilty the penalty will be death. The soldiers commander, Colonel Dax, is determined to defend them in court, risking his own life as well. In this film we see what happens when a man is pinned against his duty to his higher ups, who this case were not concerned for the well being of their men, and his duty to underlings, his duty as a leader. Even facing his own death, Colonel Dax did not waiver his own duty to protect his soldiers, even against the likes of his own commander. The film also the conflict between duty and one owns self-interest. In some cases obviously one should choose their duty, but Paths of Glory argues that in a situation where the duty being tasked is pointless and is only out of the self-interest of someone else, you are a not a coward for protecting your own life.
Both these films portray a man who is tasked to perform a duty given to him out of self-interest by their commanders. While Apocalypse Now follows the man who does his duty, despite the moral ambiguity, and his own internal conflict with it before and after, it contrasts with Paths of Glory, which shows a man who fails his practical duty of following orders, but maintains his moral duty to protect his men and the consequences he must face from doing so. Both these films are made by two of best American directors that have graced the world of cinema. These two masterpieces are essential to anyone who yearns for a deeper understanding of war and the personal and moral conflicts soldiers must face.
When people think about war they often think of a handful of things that go along with it. Tragedy, Honor, Death, Destruction, Salvation, and Duty to name a few among other. Now I have never been in a war, and I probably never will be. But I like believe I have read and studied enough about it understand the basic emotions and conflicts it elicits. Often during during war the conflict of Duty v Conscious takes place. What your told to do vs what you ought to do. A lot of war movies play on this to the point where it's almost a cliche. But if the trope is done well enough, it can leave a powerful impact on the viewer.
One of the most celebrated war films of the last century is Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now. This visually stunning war epic follows Cpt. Benjamin Willard in the Vietnam war as he takes on a mission to hunt down a rouge Colonel who has taken his men to Cambodia. We see from the start that duty is being questioned by a fairly high ranking individual going completely off the grid. Willard is tasked to keep the mission as secret as possible, presumably because the US Govt would like to keep such a high level mutiny off the public radar. During his journey, Willard witnesses many things that cause him to question his own duty, the death of bystanders, deaths of his own men, and the shadiness of the military's own top brass. The film's conclusion resonates the questionable morality that comes with blind duty, but it also reflects the torture and pain soldiers go through when they are simply asked to do their jobs.
Now when I would tell most people I would compare Apocalypse Now to a Stanley Kubrick film, most people would assume it would be Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick's war film that is also set in Vietnam, also one of his most famous. But instead I'd like to use a lesser known Kubrick film and one of his first, Paths of Glory. This film follows the consequences that befall French soldiers during WWI who are, at the command of an eager General seeking quick promotion, tasked into a suicide charge against a well defended German anthill. After heavy losses, some men begin retreat from the battlefield, with one company refusing to leave their trench at all. Condemning them as cowards, their General court martials three soldiers as an example, if they are found guilty the penalty will be death. The soldiers commander, Colonel Dax, is determined to defend them in court, risking his own life as well. In this film we see what happens when a man is pinned against his duty to his higher ups, who this case were not concerned for the well being of their men, and his duty to underlings, his duty as a leader. Even facing his own death, Colonel Dax did not waiver his own duty to protect his soldiers, even against the likes of his own commander. The film also the conflict between duty and one owns self-interest. In some cases obviously one should choose their duty, but Paths of Glory argues that in a situation where the duty being tasked is pointless and is only out of the self-interest of someone else, you are a not a coward for protecting your own life.
Both these films portray a man who is tasked to perform a duty given to him out of self-interest by their commanders. While Apocalypse Now follows the man who does his duty, despite the moral ambiguity, and his own internal conflict with it before and after, it contrasts with Paths of Glory, which shows a man who fails his practical duty of following orders, but maintains his moral duty to protect his men and the consequences he must face from doing so. Both these films are made by two of best American directors that have graced the world of cinema. These two masterpieces are essential to anyone who yearns for a deeper understanding of war and the personal and moral conflicts soldiers must face.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
A Cosmic Shutter
As far as post-war Russian cinema is concerned, Andrei Tarkovsky towers over any other name one could mention. Tarkovsky is often considered on of the top 5 filmmakers of all time, appearing in lists with the likes of Bergman, Kurosawa, Ozu, and Kubrick. Tarkovsky's masterpieces are often considered Miiror, Stalker, and Ivan's Childhood. An often under appreciated film would be Tarkovsky's Solaris, a science-fiction film based on the Russian novel of the same
name. Solaris centers around a Soviet psychologist, Kris Kelvin, who is chosen to undergo a single man mission to investigate mysterious messages from scientists aboard a space station orbiting the planet Solaris. Aboard this space station, Kelvin begins to experience strange phenomena that begin to tear down his psych.
Another director who is often considered on the of best (but not quite near the top as tarkovskey), is American director Martin Scorsese, who is best known for his gritty dramas. However when Scorsese released Shutter Island he took a step out of his forte and created a refreshing (and underrated in my personal opinion) thriller/horror film. Shutter Island follows Teddy Daniels, a US Marshall sent to investigate the disappearance of a patient of the island's hospital for the insane. After mysterious clues and inconsistent truths, Daniels begins to question his own sanity.
In both these films we see a professional being sent to a setting where it is never 100% clear what's going on. The protagonist receive little to no help from characters outside themselves. Isolation is a key theme here in both films. In Solaris, Kelvin is the only sane member aboard the space station, even after the materialization of his deceased wife Kelvin is isolated by the crippling loneliness he felt on earth. In Shutter Island, Teddy trusts no one but his partner, the only person who eases Teddy's paranoia in the slightest, so once his partner disappears from the island Teddy's composure is is lost. This is actually where the two films contrast as well, Kelvin keeps a calm head in Solaris, analyzing the strange events and calculating how to react, keeping consistent with his characteization as a veteran doctor. However in Shutter Island, Teddy lashes out and acts out of anger and must control his outbursts, contradicting his nature as a detective. Both films end with a twist as well, However Solaris's twist is post-plot, meaning the twist only affects the plot at the end. I don't want to to give away Shutter Island's twist, but to those who have seen they will see how this contrasts as well.
Both these films are underrated works of outstanding directors. With Hallowing approaching fast on our calendars I recommend these two films for a night of comfy movie watching
Thursday, September 24, 2015
The Displaced Epic
Two posts ago I mentioned how Citizen Kane is considered one of the greatest films of all time, if not the greatest. I'm gonna talk about another contender for the greatest film of all time, and my personal favorite: David Lean's cinematic masterpiece, Lawrence of Arabia. This film centers around T.E. Lawrence, a snarky lieutenant in the British Army during World War One, and his assignment to assess the Arab rebellion against the Turks. Throughout the film, Lawrence begins to bond and sympathize with the natives, eventually growing to be a leader among them.
This "displaced soldier" concept has been redone numerous times. Most notablely by two distinct films, Dances With Wolves, and James Cameron's Avatar. The latter garnered a lot of criticism for being too close in plot the the former, but it seems Arabia's influence on both films slid under the radar.
While all 3 films a quite long, the length of Arabia pays off the most because you see Lawrence's character shift into a man who is truly torn by who he has become, in contrast to Wolves and Avatar, where you see little regret from the protagonists after they have made their transition of allegiances. This gives Arabia a much more real and grounded feel. And the act of Lawrence being ostracized by the people he's led also aids to this feeling. In comparison Avatar and Wolves are much more optimistic and hopeful, which is not inherently bad, but tends to be less appealing in my personal opinion.
This "displaced soldier" concept has been redone numerous times. Most notablely by two distinct films, Dances With Wolves, and James Cameron's Avatar. The latter garnered a lot of criticism for being too close in plot the the former, but it seems Arabia's influence on both films slid under the radar.
While all 3 films a quite long, the length of Arabia pays off the most because you see Lawrence's character shift into a man who is truly torn by who he has become, in contrast to Wolves and Avatar, where you see little regret from the protagonists after they have made their transition of allegiances. This gives Arabia a much more real and grounded feel. And the act of Lawrence being ostracized by the people he's led also aids to this feeling. In comparison Avatar and Wolves are much more optimistic and hopeful, which is not inherently bad, but tends to be less appealing in my personal opinion.
Monday, September 14, 2015
The Scarred Bull
Out of the many subgenres that linger in modern cinema, one in particular was at the head of the pack in the 70's and 80's, this being the Italian-American Drama. At the helm of this movement was Martin Scorsese. After releasing the cultural phenomenon Tax Driver, Scorsese released Raging Bull in 1980. Raging Bull often considered Scorsese's best, was a biopic about Jake La Motta, a Middle Weight boxer trying to make it in New York City. Similarly later on in the 80's, Brian De Palma's Scarface was released. Scarface features Tony Montana, a Cuban immigrant who climbs the Miami crime ladder.
Both Montana and La Motta have forbidden loves. For La Motta, it's the local pool side teenager Vickie, who enamors the local mob members. For Montana, it's his own mob boss's wife, Elvira. Both these women represent a goal for the protagonist, an American woman to complete American Dream.
Each movie has a pivotal scene where the protagonists have realized their goals. In Scarface, it's probably the second most famous scene in the movie, Tony has just successfully taken over his bosses entire estate, he looks up in the night sky and see's the flashing words "The World Is Yours." In Raging Bull, the scene is not quite as obvious. At first you'd think La Motta's "The World Is Yours" moment is when he wins his title, except winning the title isn't what he wants, he wants to fight. When La Motta is fighting and winning THAT is when the world is his. Him winning the title is actually the climax, and the following parts of the movie is the falling action.
Scarface shows Tony's downfall, his plunge into coke filled rages and the failing of his marriage. All leading to the final showdown in his Mansion, Raging Bull takes a subtler route, after La Motta wins his belt, it skips year and we see Jake beat his wife and brother, accusing them of sleeping with eachother, After this, anothet time skip takes place, and we see him retired and fat, running sleazy clubs in Miami, almost immediately we see his wife leave him, and him being arrested and break down in his jail cell, beating his head and fists against the wall, despising how he became a shadow of his former self, unlike Tony Montana, who was killed before he could fully realize the depth of his failure as a brother, a husband, and a friend.
Both these films were the tale of flawed man seeking his stake of the American Dream, and acheiving it. Only to be to cut down by the very part of themselves that got them to the top, La Motta's anger, and Montana's ambition.
Both Montana and La Motta have forbidden loves. For La Motta, it's the local pool side teenager Vickie, who enamors the local mob members. For Montana, it's his own mob boss's wife, Elvira. Both these women represent a goal for the protagonist, an American woman to complete American Dream.
Each movie has a pivotal scene where the protagonists have realized their goals. In Scarface, it's probably the second most famous scene in the movie, Tony has just successfully taken over his bosses entire estate, he looks up in the night sky and see's the flashing words "The World Is Yours." In Raging Bull, the scene is not quite as obvious. At first you'd think La Motta's "The World Is Yours" moment is when he wins his title, except winning the title isn't what he wants, he wants to fight. When La Motta is fighting and winning THAT is when the world is his. Him winning the title is actually the climax, and the following parts of the movie is the falling action.
Scarface shows Tony's downfall, his plunge into coke filled rages and the failing of his marriage. All leading to the final showdown in his Mansion, Raging Bull takes a subtler route, after La Motta wins his belt, it skips year and we see Jake beat his wife and brother, accusing them of sleeping with eachother, After this, anothet time skip takes place, and we see him retired and fat, running sleazy clubs in Miami, almost immediately we see his wife leave him, and him being arrested and break down in his jail cell, beating his head and fists against the wall, despising how he became a shadow of his former self, unlike Tony Montana, who was killed before he could fully realize the depth of his failure as a brother, a husband, and a friend.
Both these films were the tale of flawed man seeking his stake of the American Dream, and acheiving it. Only to be to cut down by the very part of themselves that got them to the top, La Motta's anger, and Montana's ambition.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
The Social Rosebud
In 1941 Orson Welles released Citizen Kane, a film about a newspaper mogul, Charles Foster Kane, that rises to the top at the cost of everything dear to him. The movie was met with resounding praise and is often referred to as one of the best films of all time, if not THE best. It also drew attention from William Randolf Hearst, a real life newspaper mogul who Kane was based on. Hearst banned any of his media corporations from advertising the film, as well as ordering his newspapers to slander Welles. Despite Hearst's best efforts, Citizen Kane was still a phenomenal success.
About 70 years later the American director David Fincher released The Social Network, the dramatized account of how Mark Zuckerberg founded the website Facebook. The plot follows Zuckerberg's rise to prominence and how he distanced himself from one of his only friends. Sounds kind of familiar right?
While age distances the two films, they both share a timeless tale the can be dated back to Faust: A man gains everything he wanted but at the price of himself. Though opposite in personalities, the conflict of self v desire tears apart at Kane as much as it does against Zuckerberg. Both directors marvelously portray the pain that each of the icons bury under their pride of their respective accomplishments.
However The Social Network stops Zuckerbergs story short of Kane's, mainly because Zuckerberg's is still continuing. In this way The Social Network does not carry the weight that Citizen Kane did. With Kane the plot comes full circle and we get a resolution, but Network we feel shorted. While still offering a resolution to the Zuckerbergs lawsuit story, the film is not able to reconcile his entire life. This is at no fault of the director but purely do the circumstances.
The films can also contrast how two opposing personality can react in the same scenerio. Kane was flamboyant and an outspoken man who had a love for theatrics, he bathed in his glory and capitalized on any opportunity to be heard. Compare that to Zuckerberg who is an introvert and has actually been criticized for being too private when his entire fortune revolves around publicizing the details of others. For Kane it was his love of materials and all other things that dissolved his relationshipa, and for Zuckerberg it was his lack for other things that made him incapable of holding relationships.
The two films have been critiqued for straying too far from the inspiration, more so for Network than Kane. However even these critiques bring these films closer together in likeness. Many have stated that Network's portrayal of Zuckerberg was far too cold, and that he was never cruel or hurtfully sarcastic on purpose. It also kind of funny to note that no one ever came out and said that Kane was played too negatively on Hearst's behalf.
Many things get toted around as being "The Citizen Kane of this generation." But if you compare any movie along side of it. The only one that bares resemblance and any hint of being of the same tier of cinema, The Social Network is the only film in contest.
About 70 years later the American director David Fincher released The Social Network, the dramatized account of how Mark Zuckerberg founded the website Facebook. The plot follows Zuckerberg's rise to prominence and how he distanced himself from one of his only friends. Sounds kind of familiar right?
While age distances the two films, they both share a timeless tale the can be dated back to Faust: A man gains everything he wanted but at the price of himself. Though opposite in personalities, the conflict of self v desire tears apart at Kane as much as it does against Zuckerberg. Both directors marvelously portray the pain that each of the icons bury under their pride of their respective accomplishments.
However The Social Network stops Zuckerbergs story short of Kane's, mainly because Zuckerberg's is still continuing. In this way The Social Network does not carry the weight that Citizen Kane did. With Kane the plot comes full circle and we get a resolution, but Network we feel shorted. While still offering a resolution to the Zuckerbergs lawsuit story, the film is not able to reconcile his entire life. This is at no fault of the director but purely do the circumstances.
The films can also contrast how two opposing personality can react in the same scenerio. Kane was flamboyant and an outspoken man who had a love for theatrics, he bathed in his glory and capitalized on any opportunity to be heard. Compare that to Zuckerberg who is an introvert and has actually been criticized for being too private when his entire fortune revolves around publicizing the details of others. For Kane it was his love of materials and all other things that dissolved his relationshipa, and for Zuckerberg it was his lack for other things that made him incapable of holding relationships.
The two films have been critiqued for straying too far from the inspiration, more so for Network than Kane. However even these critiques bring these films closer together in likeness. Many have stated that Network's portrayal of Zuckerberg was far too cold, and that he was never cruel or hurtfully sarcastic on purpose. It also kind of funny to note that no one ever came out and said that Kane was played too negatively on Hearst's behalf.
Many things get toted around as being "The Citizen Kane of this generation." But if you compare any movie along side of it. The only one that bares resemblance and any hint of being of the same tier of cinema, The Social Network is the only film in contest.
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Introduction Post
This blog is going to center on taking two to movies from opposing genre's or time-periods that have similar themes, than comparing and contrasting them. I will analyze how each director handled their movies differently and what the take-away can be from both movies and how one may compliment the other, or contradict it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)