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 

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.

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.

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.