Hey y'all. Back again. Here's my special features post!
Blogger still sucks, but I'm making due. here goes.

Scene composition!

I hope I got some serious action for agreeing to watch this movie in the first place (no worries, I'm sure I did.) But it ended up bein ok BECAUSE, there was an awesome scene composition and editing behind the scenes special feature. They disect a few scenes with good explanations of why and how and what. Real good stuff for teaching what camera angles and framing do to convey meaning. (if the lion king thing ever gets old)





















Sound Design.

Pixar has begun a tradition of awesome special features, and this is no disappointment. The sounds of this entire world had to be created along with the characters and environments. The high tech sound creation is sometimes no more useful than good old fashioned techiques, good thing they take a look at that too.

Definitely wanted to be a sound designer after I saw the special features for LOTR. G'head, call me a geek. I'll kill you, and get it on ADAT.

Makin stuf look good.

They filmed this movie in springtime in mississipi. It looks dust-bowl-ish because of state of the art (at the time) post production. Definitely worth checkin out this stuff.

The invisible man + old school animation. OR, the last hurrah of the old school animator.

Awesome. Watch the special featured and then watch the movie to find out where they goofed stuff, even better.

Story development.

The Incredibles.

Brad Bird is a storyteller first and foremost. I was gonna post a picture but blogger sucks again.

Bird and his cohorts do an awesome job of explaining what motivated characters, and how they tick and why they do what they do and how they do it. Someone say runon sentence. Anyway, it's quite the ordeal. Somethin like an hour of special features footage, plus 2 commentary tracks. Bangin stuff.

Till next time boys and girls, be cool.

DVD Special Features

I'm going to post about DVD special features, as soon as I'm no longer pissed at just how gay blogger's html composer is. Good day bitches.

And the fun shall continue

Ok folks, and this time by folks, I mean Kathy, and maybe Mike if he gets these updates...
Now, at the request of Kathy, I'm going to continue this tom foolery on a limited basis, but on one condition:
When writing for class, I always had an angle, a purpose, a keyword, something for each movie that I could generate a coherent thought about. From now on, I will require someone to provide me with such a starting block. Feel free to get creative, I just need something to talk about.
This week, however, is a freeby.

Bram Stoker's Dracula
and a word of inspiration...... legend.
Yes yes, that'll do nicely.
For what is Dracula if not a legend?
I'm relatively new to any serious inquiry into vampire lore, but from what I've seen, they're creepy and awesome.

Some Common Vampire Legends C/O the FVZA (Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency....seriously I'm not makin this shit up... www.fvza.org... no foolin)

1. Vampires sleep in coffins
- probably not true, a vampire would sleep wherever it feels safe
probably arose from the fact that when people were infected with whatever various and sundry disease was believed to be vampirism at the time, they were interred before they died, I guess to save time or something.

2.Vampires can be repelled by garlic
- while vampires have heightened senses to compliment their superhuman strength and durability, garlic serves only as a particularly pungent odor, and is really just a temporary distraction. I.E. garlic is to a vampire in bloodlust as the lingering stank of my last turd loaf is to me en route to my next.

3. Sunlight causes vampires to burst into flames
-according to the good folks at the FVZA, vampires have hyperdilated irises, therefore sunlight blinds them. Also, for some reason, the neural connections in a vampire's brain go haywire when sunlight hit's their skin? I dunno if I'm buyin this anymore. Your tellin me vampires COULD walk in the day if they were middle eastern women with sunglasses?, or bought snuggies? Kinda makes em seem a little lazy.

OK, enough of that nonesense, back to the movie.

Gary Oldman (commissioner gordon in the new batman movies) is a bad-ass extreme in this one. Old man, young man, monster, bat-thing, werewolf, fog, creeper, you name it, he does it. I hope the vocal work is all natural, because that was friggin sweet, I suspect some heavy tampering with his voice though.

Anthony Hopkins is Abraham Van Helsing, a crazy old doctor in this rendition. Often fun to watch, but more often a WTF kinda guy. Guy's crazy as a rat in a tin shit house.

Other secondary characters were also believeable if not spectacular: Cary Elwes as Arthur, Bill Campbell as.... Jesus, I can't do this anymore

KEANU REEVES AND WINONA RYDER?
What the holy crap was he thinking?
it's like Pauly Shore bailed on being dracula, and Coppola said "shit, now I actually gotta make a serious movie"
I don't know if I've ever heard worse british accents than my mom doing an Austin Powers impersonation after a round of Jack Daniels, but Keanu is close.
In all fairness, there were boobs..... quite a few boobs. And Tom Waites, who I didn't know acted, that was a pleasant surprise.

Ok rant over. This was actually a solid find, It's very true to Stoker's original, the visual effects are elegant and very effective (except that blue flame shit, what's that all about?)
The shape transitions were cool, but probably a little over-used. The whole movie was a fairly creepy affair, but I loved the way the sets used for the castle seemed just that much creepier.
This is a story that might take a few viewings to fully appreciate, but I'm down with that.

That's what I got for now folks. Maybe more to come on this one, but it's bedtime right now.

Movies of the week! finally

Hello boys and girls, how are you?
Good?... Good
Anyway, it's after 4:00 AM on a friday morning, I'm was mildly to moderately drunk about 3 hours ago, and I decided to watch August Rush.... Wow. I'm not sure if it was me, or Jim Beam that liked it as much as I think we did, but it was friggin awesome. Music is all around us, it's in us, it connects us. It's a harmonic that only some can here, because only some are listening. MMM, just gives me goosebumps. Robin Williams is the dude, end of story.
Here are my top Robin Williams Movies.


-Jakob The Liar
Williams plays a Jew behind German lines in WWII who instills hope in his people, this proves to be far more important than actuality.


-Good Morning Vietnam
Williams plays a military radio man who's humor brings morale to the soldiers of the Vietnam conflict, to the detest of his superiors.


-August Rush
As I said, I was a little drunky when I saw this, but it was frickin awesome. A Fairy tale that IS the story, not just one that tells the story. There is no narrative, nothing extra, just what you need to see. And such MUSIC! A journey for your ears and your heart.



-One Hour Photo
Williams's creepiest movie ever. He plays a photo hut manager who places himself into the lives of a seemingly happy family, then discovers they are no quite so happy as they seem. Absolute must watch. The story is told very very visually, and quite bluntly, if you know what to look for.

Media Influence, SiCKO

Oh boy, first, my apologies for the lateness of this blog entry, but it's taken me some serious time to decide just what it is I think about healthcare. Granted this is really about the influence of media on public opinion and the way in which movies, like all art can direct thought, make you believe something, make you question something..... I think my stance on healthcare in the U.S. is an important part of that. So let's begin with my reaction to SiCKO and the Kurt Loder article.

To begin with, I was born and raised republican, though taught to stand by my beliefs. I'm sure my dad's kickin himself for that one. Every time I bring up a topic like this, we spend hours fighting about it. This was a particularly heated one, I actually called my brother un-American. Here's my synopsis of what I believe is the basic idea of capitalist medicine is (mostly dictated by my dad's capitalist idealism):
Americans will pay for the healthcare they need because they know that if they're willing to pay for it, someone is willing to compete for that pay. Therefore, not only will competitors battle for price, but also for the best procedures, the best materials, the best service. Also, new research will flourish because of the promise of financial payoff for discovery. Cancer research will continue because a cure for cancer can be sold on the open market.
Here's the problem with that:(in my opinion)
When capitalism is applied to goods and services, cheeseburgers for example, the price is dictated by what the consumer will pay; those who simply cannot afford what most can afford must go without. This is fine for cheeseburgers, not so good for medical attention.
If your house is on fire you expect, in many communitites, that it will be responded to and put out by a tax-paid service implemented to protect the community. If your child is kidnapped, you expect to be assisted by trained and tax-paid professionals. But when your child has a broken leg or a brain annuerism you should have to shop around for the best price? Does that sound right to anyone?
I understand that a totally tax funded healthcare system would still be costly. MRI's still cost money, hip surgeries still cost money, blood transfusions, doctor salaries, administrative structures, etc etc, they all cost money. But why is this service, which I consider essential, so different? Because a profit can be made from it; enter health insurance, or "regulation on the wrong side" as I call it. You saw the movie, you know what they can do and can't NOT do. It's a collossal hose job. It's capitalism at work. The people making money realized they could all make more money if they all made a shit show of it. It's collusion. It attempts to regulate need, not cost of healthcare. This is why healthcare is such a different issue; everyone needs healthcare.
Enter my dad's "better idea": regulation.
Regulate healthcare like electricity. The government determines that one entity is a monopoly (i.e. capitalism has failed) and regulates the cost of services, and therefor the profits of the company. Regulating the cost of an MRI or a doctor's consultation, therefore regulating the salary of the doctor, and the profit of the hospital. That's all fine and dandy, or is it? It's no different than socialism for doctors and hospitals, but we've still gotta pay for it, and it doesn't regulate insurance companies, so john q. public is still gettin reemed for an "essential service"
Americans consider themselves a generous people, we give millions of dollars to struggling countries for food, hospitals, and healthcare education. But we do that of our own freewill right? Why should we be FORCED to pay for other people's healthcare? Bull. Everyone pays for my fire department and my house has never burned down. Everyone pays for my police department, but i've never been robbed. Everyone pays for my postal service, but I rarely enjoy the mail I get.
This discussion ultimately ends in the "oh my God, I really AM a democrat" epiphany on my part, and my dad walking out of the room pissed off at his heretical socialist son.

On to the actual point:
OF COURSE movies are supposed to make us think, feel, belive something.
In most drama, and fiction that's usually something more universal: love, hope, friendship whatever. Non-fiction (especially documentaries (especially political documentaries)) often carry a more creator-specific tone. In this case, socialized healthcare. Now I think Michael Moore is just as much of a giant douche (both in size and attitude) as anyone else, but lets face it, the healthcare system we operate under is a turd sandwich. Why has nobody done a documentary on the word "socialism" every time I said it at my house, someone else's ears perked up and ran for a flaming torch. Just because it didn't work for everything at once doesn't mean it can't work for essential services. And just because the Russian's tried it doesn't mean American's have to hate the word just because....... well just because. This reeks of the lack of universal good and evil, and the human inability to determine it if there was.
As long as there are cheap people, republicans will oppose universal healthcare, but as long as there are sick people, democrats will support it. Take a number and have a seat folks, your in for a ride, either way.

"Movies" of the week

Lets do something a little different this week. Instead of movies, I'm going to highlight some dreams I've had, that really should be movies. Let me first remind you, that I realize I'm crazy as a rat in a tin shit house.

Raptor Hunters - Not long after watching Jurrasic Park, I had a dream-turned-nightmare that my brothers and father started a raptor extermination business. We'd ride around the jungle in a white jeep hunting and killing velociraptors. This was all fine and dandy till one of my brothers and I fell out of the jeep and had to run throug the jungle for our lives. When we finally did get back on the jeep, for some reason my dad thought it would be awesome to start spinning cookies in a clearing. he spun too fast, I flew out of the jeep and landed broken legged and helpless in the jungle, said "oh shit" and woke up.

Pink is My Kinda Lover - So I'm riding down a dirt road in an all black and white world in a pink Ford Model T driven by Inspector gadget in a pink trenchcoat and hat, and the pink panther riding shotgun. I'm in the back seat. We drive out onto a frozen lake, and get out to go ice skating when I notice the pink power ranger trapped in the ice beneath. Cut to scene 2, the lake has melted, it's now summer and colorful outside, and there's a mario coin floating in the water above me. I swim up to grab it, but as soon as I touch it I begin to sink. I release it, and I float again..... then I wake up.
The Search For the Crown Jewels of Crazy - Imagine the movie the Goonies right up until they find the pirate ships, except instead of a band of misfits, it's only my brother and I. Also we find a room full of arcade games and the floor is covered in quarters. I warn against him playing one, but he does anyway and falls down a trap door. Eventually I escape the cave, and find a secret passageway under my bed, turns out the Crown Jewels were there the whole time. I walk into my closet (which apparently is where the reigning heads of England meet for nightly meetings.) And offer to sell the newly rediscovered crown jewels to the Queen (who incidentally is my grandmother) She offers only 5 dollars, which I scoff at, and return to my room with the jewels in a burlap sack. I throw them to the ground and stomp on them, only to discover that they were in fact only bean shaped billiard balls.

And finally, the most revealing of my childhood dreams.

About once a week, I dreamt about a family vacation to my aunt and uncle's house. On the way there in our station wagon (we didn't actually own a station wagon) we'd pass by a cheeto's factory that was spitting cheetos out of a spout on top. There were piles and piles of cheetos stacked around the factory. When one went inside, you could order cheetos like you'd order lunch at hardees, but it was all cheetos. You could order one cheeto, two cheetos, one thousand cheetos.... however many you desired. Anyway, after we left the cheeto factory we'd arrive at my aunt and uncle's house. I was, for some reason, left alone quite often at my aunt and uncle's house (which by the way was far larger than their real house, and wayyyy more deco;...maybe that's why I like art deco....) and if I moved the antennas on the tv just right, the mountain behind their house would open up, and reveal a marvelous land of woodland creatures and flowers and such. I could then go and frolick with the birds and rabbits etc. etc. etc.

This dream began when I was about 10 and recurred quite frequently. Then one night it changed, and I never had it again.

The trip there was the same, except that the cheeto factory had shut down. It no longer shot cheetos out of the spout on top, and we couldn't go in and order cheetos. We got to my aunt and uncle's house, I moved the antennas, and the mountain parted once more, but all I found there was a GIANT ROBOT STOMPING ON EVERYTHING!!!!!! I woke up crying and never wanted to fall asleep again.

---

You can't make this crap up

Movies and Religion... or The Matrix V. Your Mind

---

Lets jump right into the ARTICLE, shall we?
First of all, the "obvious" and "well documented" references to christianity, and Neo as a Christ figure. DUH. But not because it's obvious, or well documented. Every hero story is a Jesus story. Anyone who "saves" anything is a "savior" anyone who "redeems" anything is a "redeemer." Get over it. Though I will put some weight on the "resurrection" of Neo, because it's un-explainable, I think the Jesus reference is not as intentional, as unavoidable for the Wachowski brothers. Also, I object to the comparison of Trinity to Mary Magdelene, and Cypher to Judas. Mary Magdalene was a prostitute..... but redeemable, trinity was already "redeemed" when we met her. Plus she wasn't that good lookin in the matrix, would Maria Menounos have broken the budget? Though it's possible no tight leather pants could aspire to contain her amazing assets. But I digress. Back to Cypher not being Judas, or at leas my objection to the comparison. Judas did what he did out of shame of association, embarrasment to be connected to the guy everyone wanted dead...i.e. shame. Cypher did what he did out of a yearning to "be" rich, surrounded by women, and without worry... i.e. greed. The real issue here is to point out that these were both temptations of the devil: lucifer in Judas' case, Smith in Cypher's. Point out that Smith is analogous for Satan raises my final unanswered question about their comparision to Christianity, who/where/what is God? I propose that God, in the yet limited view of this episode of the trilogy, is the Matrix itsself. In later sequels, I believe this is further specified to the "Architect" of the matrix, but essentially the same point.
Here's where it gets interesting.
If the architect is God, and Agent Smith is the Devil, then what exactly does the matrix represent? And how does it compare to "actuality" for humans? Would you rather live underground, terrorized by machines, fighting for basic survival; or enjoying life with a house and a yard and a dog in Bismarck? If we are in a matrix.... do we really want to leave?
Is the matrix the garden of Eden?
Is the Oracle Eve? Or whomever was set free first?
Maybe they weren't set free, maybe they ran code from the databank of knowledge of good and evil.
Ultimately my point here is that in my opinion, the "obvious" connections to Christianity are somewhat naive.

ON TO Buddhism, and Yogacara.... sweet.
This I liked.
What tools do we have to make decisions?
Senses and memory, right?
If you remember that the last time you touched a glowing red stove, it hurt:

1. you won't do it again because it hurt
2. you'll think it hurt because it was hot
3. you'll recognize that glowing red stove=hot=don't touch

But what if the stove wasn't actually hot? What if it was actually painted red, and really really cold, and your brain just interpreted it as hot instead of cold? You'd still avoid touching it, you'd still think it was because it was hot, and you'd still associate red stove=hot=don't touch. EVEN THOUGH that's not ACTUALLY the case. A little bit of lateral thinking, and the phrase "your brain interpreted it wrong" can refute the actuality of any experience you've ever had. In essence, our senses and memory are fallible, but because we have no other way to experience our world, we must depend on them to guide our decisions. The Yogacara discipline proports a higher metacognitive process, an existentialized way to experience the world around us, an absolute understanding of truth, an "awakening" from the matrix.

However there are disconnects here too. In Yogacara, an enlightenment brings you to full understanding of actuality and places you in a type of Nirvana, or one-ness with everything. Waking up from the matrix just means you have to survive on gruel, smell you'r neighbor's BO day in and day out, and never ever ever ever ever ever ever see the sun... at least for a couple thousand years.

Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but it seems to me like The Matrix isn't a "pro-wake up and smell the roses" statement, but a "ignorance really is bliss" statement.

If I really am in a matrix.... I think I'd rather just continue on enjoying it. Why do you think so many kids play video games?

Finally, I'd like to explore the "pedagogical questions" in paragraph 16:

How are WE "programmed?" - We are "programmed," as the article infers, by our parents, our societies, our experiences, our senses, etc. But none of it is really.... reality?

What aspect of OUR reality is artificially constructed and enslaving us within a conceptual prison? - I think this is a bit loaded, "conceptual prison?" more like best possible compass. Our construction of reality is the way it is so that we can make decisions and survive. It's all we've got.

Is technology liberating or imprisoning us? - This is less about religion and more about politics, but I believe that implementation of technology, like anything else, is guided by the experiential constructs of those who implement it. If they think it's a good idea, and beneficial to society, it's going to happen, wether your "reality" agrees with it or not.

Is materialistic capitalism leading to true happiness or unrequited addiction? - See "fight club"

Do our cherished religious views bring us together or divide us? - They bring together those who share them, and divide those who don't. If everyone saw a universal reality as it actually was, there would be no right or wrong, and therefor no need for, nor concept of religion.

That's my take on it anyway.

Movies of the Week (noir style)

Who Framed Roger Rabbit: Murder, mystery, 4 Academy awards, and cartoons. Noir meets fart jokes.

L.A. Confidential: Murder, mystery, drugs, hookers fixed up to look like movie starts.... Noir meets six million dollar man. "Gentlemen, We can rebuild her, we can think Russel Crowe is attractive"

Chinatown: Murder, Mystery, Roman Polanski.. ewww, Noir meets... well, Jack Nicholson.

Never seen it, but I hear a lot of noir in-jokes are based on this movie, I should probably check it out. Noir meets that flavor of pizza I've always wanted to try but never had the extra cash to risk it.

Acting via "The Dark Knight"

Ok first thing's first here. I can't talk about this movie without talking about how frickin much I love the post-modern deco noir style of the movie. Here comes some foreshadowing, ready?

"All my movies of the week

will be noir influenced movies......

ooooooohhhhh"

I defy anyone to suggest that this iteration, and for that matter all versions but the Adam West TV series, were and are very noir-styled pieces. Noir literally means black, or dark in french. The noir film was originated in the 1930's and generally relates to large urban settings, often detective stories, how is that NOT batman?

---

NOW you get to listen to me ramble about nemeses for a minute, in particular how this affects my monday night tv watching, and how pissed I am about it.

Nemesis was the greek goddess of divine retribution. She smote down those who succumbed to their hubris, and was a spiteful bitch.
The term nemesis came to denote one's arch rival, the exact opposite in many ways, but tending to stem from, or mirror many of the same tennets or characteristics of the protagonist. This is what differentiates a nemesis from any other bad guy.

Classic Examples of Nemeses:
God - Satan
Harry Potter - Vouldimort
Captain Ahab - Moby Dick
Hester Prynn - Large Red Font
Sherlock Holmes - Professor James Moriarty

which brings me to
Dr. Gregory House - .....?
MANY FRUSTRATED EXPLETIVES!
I know you don't watch a lot of House, but here's the deal.
Foreman is constantly shown to be "like House" he wears the same shoes, he envies his intelligence, he often makes decisions based on "what would house do?" logic. He wears the same frickin SHOES!
BUT! he often shows vehement moral disagreement to his decisions, and often refuses to act as directed by House.
(The connection by the way is that House, and his surrounding players are "not so loosely" based on Sherlock Holmes)
Foreman is Moriarty! but they won't do it! Nothing changes permanently, Foreman's fired, he's hired again, yadda yadda yadda. They won't buckle down and boot Foreman so he can start terrorizing House Nemesis style, and it's PISSIN ME OFF!

What are supposed to be talking about? Oh yeah, acting.
WHY? praytell should Ledger not have been nominated for best actor? And why has no-one else raised a fuss about this? I don't care what role he had in what film, he gave the primo performance of the year, and should have been recognized as such. His character had more screen time than Batman, or Bruce Wayne individually. Though mostly through the dialogue of others, the story chronicled HIS journey (at least till the last scene.) And in a cast of all stars, he shined above. What a rip-off.
I'll continue this after lunch.

Movies of the week

Eastwood's triumphant return to bad ass-ness. Social importance, brooding violence, clint eastwood singing with jamie cullum. What more could I want?

One of the greats of it's time. A modified life re-cap for baby boomers. Good stuff.

I loves me a good noir film. Maybe it's just that I'm into that L.A. deco style, or just that I can't help but chuckle thinking about the joker as a private dick.

Feel gooder for the week, and suitable replacement for "memorable quotes" movie, if you ever get sick of princess bride.

Amelie (Cinematography)

First let's start by differentiating cinematography from art direction, at least along my lines; and by "my lines" I mean the red line. I see art direction as a mostly "in front of the red line" gig, and cinematography as nearly strictly behind. Cinematography, for me, consists of camerawork (angles, shot composition, camera motion etc., and post-visual (coloring, etc.)
I'll start with shot composition.
The visual story of this film dealt very heavily with faces; it seemed like every few minutes if not more frequently there was a tight and near-centered one shot of some one's face as they reacted to something. Tight shots like this are usually designed to focus blatant attention on things, reacting faces in this case. These "little things" are a huge focus in the movie and pointed out ever so bluntly in these shots.
I was also particularly intrigued by the shot in Amelie's father's garden, with the gnome.
There are many cases in the movie where the camera seems diminutive to the subject, but none so noticeable to me as in this shot. It strikes me like something out of the lord of the rings, when the fellowship assembles for the first time. The humans both kneeling, rooting in the dirt at his feet and the gnome stands proud and tall above them (or at least it looks that way.) This could be in reference to the change he will eventually inspire in his owner, or simply an indication of how boring and pitifully mundane amelie and her father feel at the moment, while the gnome is enjoying his first freedom in years (he'd been cooped up in the shed forever.)
There is a big contrast in this piece in concern to camera motion. Often it's slow and easy, comfortable if you will. This is ideal for highlighting the "simple things" theme. But often the camera moves quite fast, even (while on the train) nauseatingly fast and jumpy. This is, to me anyway, just another little 4th wall breech that brings you back into the realization that this is "just a story," so don't get too worked up over it. While the Amelie herself often looks directly into camera as if to chuckle at an inside joke she has with the audience, this bit of out of place camera work makes the more astute observer say "what the hell was that?" Almost like the cinematographer is playing with us, saying "I like the way your head bobs around on the cross-town train." or "we know she's got the key, but that mean old grocery store owner never will, will he?"
Now to post production go we.
And I will admit that this is a fudged line, but I think coloring in post is really a cinematographer's job over an art director. It's his/her shot, he/she should have complete control over how it looks.
This is a very colorful movie, but not like fireworks are colorful, or flowers are colorful. The colors in this movie are very subdued, or mellowed; almost as if there is no such thing as pure white. Almost like the camera is wearing sunglasses. I guess this could suggest the more relaxed attitude the film puts forth, but I'd be lying if I said I really solidly believed that.
Also many of the character's homes seem to have characteristic colors. Red for Amelie, green for the grocer, orange-ish for the landlady. I'm sure this relates to their personalities, and If I really wanted to I'm sure that site you showed us last week would tell me all about it.
There's my observations on cinematography in Amelie, or at least what I've got for now.

Jesse's Movies of the Week

Time for a new tradition: Movies of the week get their own post from now on. So Bah! (no worries, the art direction assignment is down there too)

---

First time I watched "Contact" I fell asleep, not because I was tired, but because Jodi Fosters journey to space was like a frickin lullabye for the eyes. Way cool.

Tim Burton's fairy tale about fairy tales is, as all of his movies are, a visual masterpiece, and a great story to boot. Ewan McGreggor's tall tale tellin dad dies, but it turns out, maybe they weren't such tall tales after all.

This adaptation of Homer's Oddessy is set in the dust bowl south. Escaped con's seek a treasure that really doesn't exist. Rich with music, great visual design (the first to be entirely color corrected digitally) laughs and story, this is actually my feel good-er in a week full of feel-gooders.

Please Please Please Please show this in class before you ever let anyone think they can make a movie. If Tombstone is candy for the eyes, this is tequila and wild turkey strained through used coffee filters. Absolute rot-gut. Very little attention to detail, cowboys with earrings, bad color correction, and terrible special features. Exactly what NOT to do.

Art Direction via "American Beauty" and "What Dreams May Come"

---

American Beauty

How important is the set or location to the overall effect of the film?

The setting of a story, especially this story, is nearly, if not equally as important as any of the characters. Here the setting (the pleasantly oblivious suburban neighborhood where the Burnhams live) is something we can all relate to. This universe of normality is exactly where we all live (if not actually, then vicariously through decades of sit-coms and soap operas.) Without even hearing Lester's voice, we would know that he is us, this story is about YOU, and ME.

Why do you think this film is shot on this set or at this location? (many movies have one central set and other minor ones. Focus on the main set. If there are many locations, choose one or two of those locations and focus on them.)

As I said earlier, the location of this film sets the groundwork for our connection to the characters, and to the story.

What is the art director trying to tell you with the costumes chosen for the characters?

Lets look at the contrast between Jane and Angela. In their streetclohtes anyway. Angela's clothes are always colorful, flamboyant, and quite a bit sluttier. Her extremely external locus of confidence defines the way she dresses as totall as it defines the way she acts. Jane's attire on the other hand reflects her personality, subdued by the oppresively boring and embarrassing family she has to come home to every day.

Lester's clothes reflect his journey to happiness. In the beginning his clothes are stuffy, tight, motion limiting, formal and uncomfortable. As he discovers and lets go of how really pointless all of the responsibility and expectation of his life is, his clothes begin to be more about making him happy than making others happy, or showing others that he is happy.

Is the lighting for the film appropriate? Why/why not? Is it harsh and direct or is it soft and diffused (or somewhere in the middle)?
Explain the lighting.

Every scene obviously has it's own unique lighting design chosen to reflect or support the mood of the scene. For instance, the Kiss scene between Lester and Frank. At first, the single garage light looks like an interrogation lamp. Like Frank really is going to do exactly what we think he's going to do. But as soon as he starts to lean in close to Lester, it's obvious that it really was designed for intimacy rather than focused anger.

What is the director trying to tell you with the style of lighting chosen?

Art is really all about feeling. The look of a movie, a scene, a shot, even a single frame is a matter of visual art. Each scene and shot have a specific job in supporting, if not telling the story. The lighting of each scene and shot in this movie excellently mirror the dynamics and flow of the story of Lester Burnham and his friends and family. From the dully lit desaturated veneer of "contention" yearning to latch on to the bright red of the flowers, to the vibrant and pronounced oranges of Lester's uniform at the burger joint where he can finally be happy again, lighting shows us just exactly how we're supposed to see what it is we're seeing.

What colors are prominent? Why? What message is being sent?

The article talks a lot about red being symbollic of life, happiness, etc. This is evident in that everything Lester, and in fact, all the characters really truly want is vibrantly red. Wether that be a red sports-car, or the lips of a beautiful young girl for Lester, or the man on the bright red real estate sign for Carolyn.

Other comments:
I noticed several times the way shots were composed, especially early in the film, Lester felt to me like he was hanging. In their first dinner scene, the table is closer to one wall than the other, with Carolyn nearer the closer wall. This leaves Lester just "hanging" in the middle of the room, too far from any point of reference to be really noticed, not really in the middle of the shot, but not really on a third either. He's just kind of "there even though he doesn't really need to be."

I also wanted to comment about the use of the camcorder footage Wes Bentley (Ricky Fitts) comments on the special features that he thinks the video camera serves as sort of a more precise eye that looks without bias at what most people take for granted. Though the cinematography of the film was gorgeous, they chose to use quite a bit of camcorder footage. I think this really does give a sense of reality and relatability to whatever the camcorder looks at.

---

What Dreams May Come

How important is the set or location to the overall effect of the film?

There are many sets in this movie, and I don't really think any one could be called the "main set or location." One that I'd like to focus on however recurs in the movie, like musical variations on a theme: The Mountains. I suppose it could have to do with the fact that many of the scenes in this movie were filmed in my dear old Montana.
The mountains represent, to me, in all their permutations and variations, the sheer majesty and grandeur of the theme at that time. In the beginning it's Chris and Annie's love, when Chris goes to heaven, it's the boundless capacity of his imagination to extrapolate from what he loved in life, when he seeks his love again, it's the obstacle before him.

Why do you think this film is shot on this set or at this location? (many movies have one central set and other minor ones. Focus on the main set. If there are many locations, choose one or two of those locations and focus on them.)

As I said above, these scenes were shot in the Rocky Mountains of Montana, and digitally altered for their appearance in heaven. The live shots had to be grand and majestic to work, and I'm guesing the budget people said Montana was a better option than Switzerland.

What is the art director trying to tell you with the costumes chosen for the characters?

Initially their clothes represent their youth, but as they grow, their individual personalities and cardinal traits become infused with their garb. Annie's clothes are constantly changing, constantly fading little by little to the dark side, following her into depression as she loses everything she loves. Chris on the other hand is Mr. stability. His costume remains relatively the same throughout his adult life, strong but warm. Annie depends on this, and Chris's pride and joy in life is his ability to stand up under his ailing wife and support her in her time of need.

Is the lighting for the film appropriate? Why/why not? Is it harsh and direct or is it soft and diffused (or somewhere in the middle)? Explain the lighting.

Here I must admit that this movie is clearly above my level in terms of artistic interpretation. The subtext of fine art in the visual nature of this movie is really designed for those who have studied art, and know what their looking at. For the rest of us, let it suffice that we can just look it and go "oooo pretty."
In any event, I will say that on a basic level, the lighting in this film really follows Annie in the real world, and Chris's heart in his heaven. These two merge in the confrontation of Chris and Annie(post suicide.) Chris has found his children, and realized finally how much their death affected Annie, and that he was too pre-occupied with trying to bring her back to him to notice. He knows now just how bad it was for her, and knows even still (here's where the beauty of this scene comes from) that he'd rather live in that grey, dead, mournful, lost and perpetual hell with Annie than in his own vibrant, colorful happy heaven without her.

What is the director trying to tell you with the style of lighting chosen?

I think he's using lighting as a contrast, mostly between happiness and sadness (fulfilment and emptiness, etc etc.) Brightness and color equate to positivity, hope, etc. Desaturated, grey low wash-lighting equate to sadness, depression, damnation, etc.

What colors are prominent? Why? What message is being sent?

Here again I can only say that any attempt on my part to analyze color in this movie would be little short of pointless. There is so much color which I'm sure references so many different classical artists, paintings, statements, etc. that I'd be remiss in assuming I could accurately decipher just what the production team had in mind.
There is however a recurrence of that sort of cornflower blue-violet in the tree. I think this is sheerly due to it's connection with the tree itself, but it seems to represent the ethereal link between Chris and Annie, maybe that's the color of true soul mates, maybe it's their individual "wavelength." In any case it seems to represent their higher connection, above and beyond love and companionship.

Other Comments

I think animated films, and films that incorporate heavy artificial graphics often tend to be somewhat caricature-ish in art design. This isn't always a bad thing though, in fact I think it's what makes Disney movies interesting to watch. This film however not only uses a ton of C.G.I. but it does it without seeming gratuitous. It's like a movie with a fantastic score that you don't even remember. The story of "What Dreams May Come" is so powerful, that the imagery seems like it's just barely keeping up, it makes it very easy to get lost in Chris's imagination.

Good Will Hunting

We talked about stories this week, what makes a good story, what intrigues us as human beings. We talked about characters, plots, etc. What we didn't talk about is one of the elements of a story that intrigues me most, contrasts and compromises. And that, I think, is what Good Will Hunting is all about, the contrast between Will's amazingly vast genious, and his inability to participate in the most basic of human relations most of us take for granted. Will can recite, remember, extrapolate, and prove anything academic, things most would deem very difficult. But when it comes to loving someone, trusting someone, or believing in himself, he's crippled.

I think the characters in Will's life represent his future:

Professor Lambeau is Will's easy path. The academic future is obviously easy for Will, it requires no extra effort, provides a path to fame, financial security, and success. But more importantly, to boredom, to self-loathing. Professor Lambeau seems to have some of the same issues Will has. His relationships with women are at best short-lived, his relationships with his friends and colleagues are less than desireable, he seems to be just what Will hopes not to become.

Chuckie Sullivan is Will's current path. He's stuck in a dead end job where it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know. This is no advantage to Will. He lives where he's always been comfortable, welcome, safe both physically and emotionally. There is nowhere to go, but at least he won't be bored. He could stay in Boston the rest of his life and never want for anything emotionally.

Skylar is the emotionally capable path. She represents both what Will truly wants, and what Will truly wants to be. This path is the only path that makes Will grow, and thus, the path that is the hardest.

Sean is the path of a failed attempt. The articles talk about Sean as a flawed soul, a lost man who needs Will's help as much as Will truly needs his, but I disaggree slightly. In one scene, Sean scolds Will for being too scared to try, too afraid to let something besides his intelligence take over for a while, and Will fires back, saying Sean is afraid to try again, incapable of picking up the pieces and eventually finding peace. This is what really scares Will. This is why he doesn't want to ty in the first place. If he tries and fails he'll be just like Sean; incapable of trying again, of making something better when it fails. Will can't move on until he realizes that there is redemption after failure. Therefore I believe Sean is the ultimate hero of the movie. He must save Will, but in order to save Will, he must save himself. Will's "it's not your fault" breakthrough is visually and emotionally powerful; he's finally let go of the circumstances that put him where he is, but that only allows him to be ok with the easy path. It's not until Sean overcomes his own inabilities that Will has the courage to go after what he really wants.

In the Ziewacz article, Will's Coming of age is highlighted and I'm less than taken in. I think this is a bit of stretch, but perhaps that's due to my relative unfamiliarity with Catcher in the Rye and Portnoy's Complaint. There may be elements of social growth, and they may or may not relate to archetypal stories, but I think we need to keep in mind that this was written by college students. This kind of inherent "growing up" feeling seems natural in a story written by, and for a twenty something.

---

Jesse's Movie's of the Week



Lucky Number Slevin - This is a murder mystery-mystery-ish movie. Stylish and fun to watch, though maybe a little over-budgeted in the cast. I would've liked to have seen Hartnett be the big name. Freeman and Willis are just a little over-kill I thought.


The Usual Suspects - If you noticed, this was supposed to be in my list last week, but I must've forgotten the picture and thoughts. This is a thinking man's movie, don't blink, you'll miss the plot.


What Dreams May Come - Robin Williams is amazing in this visually stunning answer to the question "what is heaven like?" This could be dismissed as "panty remover," and it's definitely better when watched with a member of the feminine persuasion, but there's so much more. This is my feel-gooder for the week.

On the Waterfront

This week we saw the classic American film "On the Waterfront." Brando stars as ex-boxer/longshoreman Terry Malloy. The story is ripe with symbollism, cultural reference and controversy.
The articles directly point out the connection between Kazan and his associates, and the House Un-American Activies Committee hearings. It could be said that the story of Terry Malloy is a direct representation, and in fact an illustration of defense for "ratting" on people with whom he'd been affilliated, and shared Stalinist views and sympathies. This reflects other accusations that the story was stolen from Arthur Miller, who vehemently withheld names from the HUAC.
Cultural turmoil aside, "On the Waterfront" was released in 1954 and has since been revered as one of the greatest American films ever made.
The plot revolves around Terry Malloy and his personal struggle between his loyalty to the corrupt power machine he has long been associated with, and his responsibility to do what he knows is right. His trouble starts when he is unwittingly involved in the murder of a neighborhood kid. His sense of right over popular is further humanized by his romantic entanglement with a "good girl" from the neighborhood, who happens to be the sister of the boy he helped murder. Terry's better side eventually shines through when he aggrees to testify against the corruption to which he was once loyal.
The movie's rich symbolism is best represented by Joey's jacket. To me, the jacket represents the burden of righteousness. It's said that no good deed goes un-punished, this seems to be literally the case here, and the jacket is the scarlet letter that represents it. The pigeons are a less revealing metaphor. It could be said that they represent their caretaker, the "stoolpigeon" but I believe they're deeper than that. I think they represent Terry more personally as a caged bird. I don't see the point of this, but it seems evident that he identifies more with the birds than he does with most people. The birds never judge him, take moral sides, or kill anybody to get what they want. I don't think this helps the story, or improves the message, but maybe I'm just missing something.


This week's Movie suggestions:

I said throw down boy, you gonna do somethin or just stand there and bleed?

Cap'n Ron gets gritty in this new classic western focusing on the Earp Brothers, Doc Holiday, and the incident at the OK Corrall in Tombstone, AZ. Movie kicks ass.

Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman are illuminating as prisoners at Shawshank prison with nothing but time to contemplate the really important things. One of my top 5 movies ever.

The essential "story about a story." Crime mystery awesomeness. For the record, I am Kaiser Sosei.

Get ready to root for the bad guy is right. What's not to love about a hooker, a great Dane and a crook who just don't give a hoot what you think. Believe it or not, this is my feelgood movie for the week.

Casablanca

This week, we saw the classic WWII period love story Casablanca.

I hadn't seen this film since I was very young and didn't remember much, but loved every minute of it.

I really enjoyed how much humor I found that would have eluded my grasp even a few years ago. I find that to be the case even in movies I've seen time and time again. Captain Renault's dialogue was hilarious. It is often said that parody is the most sincere form of flattery; I believe this is why so many aspects of Casablanca have become such recognizable iconography in American entertainment. How many movies, television shows, songs etc. have invoked Bogart with "here's looking at you kid," or versions "all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine"? Even the archetypal love story is rich for parody, i.e. Out Cold, a story of a young man in Alaska who was left by his love at first sight in Cancun, only to discover she was engaged to a crippled ex-pro snowboarding pilot/doctor all along... cheesy? yes. Funny? Absolutely. Consider this; if Casablanca had been made in 2009 just as it was in 1942, it would be a terrible movie. It would be a corny ("are those bombs, or is that my heart beating?") un-creatively cast, hack movie. But in 1942 it's a box-office smash. In all honesty, I found some of the dramatic elements a little overused, especially Rick's bitterness about Ilsa, the "As time goes by" motif, even how many characters seemed a little too femme for their role, or maybe that was just military submissivism, I don't know. All in all Casablanca is one of those movies you want to watch over and over again for reasons you can't really explain.

Speaking of musical motifs, I found the combination and flow of the North African music, with French patriotic tunes, and American jazz and bar-tunes, all of which you hear within the first few moments of the movie. I think this subconciously sets the tone for the connection between the setting of the story, the patriotism that that eventually shined to protect the protagonists, and the freedom that was everyone's ultimat goal. That freedom could be seen as America, the "Cause" of Victor Laszlo, or just the freedom to love the one you want.

Jesse's movie suggestions this week:

Out Cold - Just for kicks, mostly just wanted to recommend you watch. I probably watch it at least 3 times a month.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit - A film Noir/Cartoon Escapade and in many ways the great last hurrah of cell animation. Cameos from many of the great cartoon characters of the last fifty plus years, and an excellent "solo" performance by Bob Hoskins.

The Incredibles - In my opinion the pinnacle of Computer Animation from Pixar Studios. The constant clash between extraordinary and mundaine stirs something incredible in anyone who sees it. I frickin love this movie.

Box of Moonlight - For something you probably haven't seen, but will definitley enjoy, try this movie. Turturro's journey to happiness is the ultimate in feel good stories. This is a diamond in the rough.

Welcome everyone..... well.... just Mike I guess

Welcome one (Mike) and all (maybe my mom).
This is where I'll be posting my reflections for Intro to Film (ART 116)
make yourself at home.