I think we are still asking the question: What did I just watch?

I really thought after watching the last part of Mulholland Drive, everything would finally click. That was not the case...at all. It may have had something to do with the fact that I couldn't see a good portion of the movie because every scene that took place in the dark/night time was too hard to see on the screen. What I really think was the main problem after watching this, for me personally was the fact that the movie was a story within a story.

Maybe if Iwatch the movie again for a 2nd or even a 3rd time I may enjoy it, but ultimately I was just frustrated. The first thing that bothered me was the lack of music. Not until the last part of the movie was there any background music happening. It created this feeling that I wasn't watching a movie at all and just watching real people going on with their lives. It also made everything take longer to actually to play out.

Another part that bothered me was how there was 3 or 4 story lines that didn't really connect to each throughout most of the film.

The scene where the nervous guy was sitting in the diner with another man explaining the fear of this man watchign him, wasn't even brought up again until the end of the film, which from what I got out of it had nothing to do with either of the main characters. We see this nervous guy for a split second at the end of the film walking by the diner.

let me just say that in order for me to give a decent blog on this film I really do have to watch this again. From Naomi Watts playing the parts of both Betty and Diane , I was confused how this could have happened if Betty saw Diane's dead body on a bed...unless that really was Betty dead looking into a dream? I'm not really sure on this one.

I think that director David Lynch was really playing with us as the audience to understand and connect the pieces of the film together. We as humans have our minds conditioned to understand certain things in a sequential pattern that has a certain structure to it. Lynch went and altered reality playing with our dreams and reality to see what we can understand from these multi plot narratives. The article points out that Lynch is trying to challenge us to see what we are conditioned to understand. Lynch is sucking us into this paradoxal world that changes events that may have happened that we only dream of.

I still am not quite sure if all I am saying is relevant at all to the movie, but this was the best I could interpret. I'm still not sure what the box was supposed to represent, whether it was like opening pandora's box or entering a alternate reality, but I will find out.

Mickey and Mallory know the difference between right and wrong; they just don't give a damn.

As anyone could tell from my facial expression on Wednesday, this movie left me speechless. Now, I'm not saying I have never seen films like this before, I have, but there was just something about Natural Born Killers that rubbed me the wrong way...but in that good way.
A few people touched on the fact that Serial Killers are so intriguing that we all seem to be drawn to the explanation of how people can murder for no apparent reason. I remember when the film Strangers came out, I heard from someone that it was based off of the Charles Manson case, and I decided that I was going to do as much research as I possibly could before seeing the movie in theatres. For some reason I was so intrigued by Manson's life story, I quickly began reading biographies written on his life. As we watched through Natural Born Killers curiosity on serial killers became more of an obsession to people. With the help of the media, it portrayed how even though society claims to be individualised, we all are shaped and molded by what the media tells us to be.
With all the quick shots to commericals and other T.V. shows throughout the film, I got that the film was sending subliminal messages that we are all just warped by what the media tells us, and that Micky and Mallory may not just be acting out out their "natural instincts", but more on how the media wants them to act.
The reading describes the scene where Micky is being interviewed in the jail and makes a comment about being a "natural born killer" and then the camera cuts to a commerical break. The commerical is a coca cola commerical where the polar bears are drinking cokes while watching the Aurora Borelias. Apparently, in the Native American tradition, both Bears and the Aurora Borelias are dangerous and if people aren't careful they can "mesmerize you and steal your soul". I feel as though this is the message throughout the entire film. Except, it isn't polar bears who are stealing our souls, it is the media.

Could the 80's have been any stranger?

From the moment there was a exchange of sex partners within the first 5 minutes of Repo Man, I knew I was going to be left really confused and put off by the rest of this movie.  Not only did the 80's 80's shine through out this entire film, but it even began to poke fun at the culture of this time period.  With the labels on the drinks and beer cans being the literal name "Beer" and "Drinks" , I found myself laughing at how absurd this frmovie was.  

Not only was the plot of this movie all over the place, but the connections of events were completely scattered.  I guess one could hint that it reflected how during this time, everyone was really just all over the place and no one really knew how to fit in with the rest of society.   I just took it as something that left me thinking too much about what just happened, when something else really extreme comes along.  It made me get the same feeling I get from watching the T.V. Show Tim and Eric (if anyone has ever seen this they will know what I mean).  

Although I would love to incorporate the reading into my blog, I honestly felt the same way while doing the reading as I did while watching this film: confused.  This idea of postfuturism is something that I could connect with though. Certain aspects of this film made me think of the film Brazil. In that film, it made the world that we live in , to be one big mess. Everyone and everything was always moving and there wasn't any time to stop. If you fell out of line, you were outcasting yourself from society.  Repo Man seemed to do the same thing, only it toyed with the whole 80's punk idea.  

Honestly, I don't think I would ever watch this film again. It left me very confused and asking myself the question : why did we watch this again?

Waiting for Shaft to make his entrance...

Now I remember why I don't watch that many 70's movies. I have to say even though this movie was not filmed all too well, and the story line wasn't all that great, I want to watch the rest of it and see the end. Petey Wheatstraw is a interesting character to say the least. I found it intriguing how the film begins almost as if it is going to be this serious portrayal of Petey's life, yet five minutes into it I realized how hystrical it really was.

I know this film was probably considered shocking, but honestly I have seen a lot worse. The watermelon, and regular size boy popping out of his mother was no big suprise here. The only real shocking thing to me was how karate fit into the film. I think for as much as I have seen of this, I liked the opening credits the most. It reminded me of a old Kung Fu movie, except with an African American boy who wants to beat the shit out of kids who picked on him.

Even though I am going to watch the rest of the film on my own, I can see why we didn't take up two class periods to finish this movie.

Clint Eastwood the devil? I think not!

Now I have seen all of the Spaghetti westerns, but I have to say this is by far my favorite Eastwood film.  The moment Eastwood rode in on his horse into the picture almost fading in like a mirage and left at the end of the film fading away into a mirage was beautifully done.  The artistic setup of this film was captivating and was part of the reason why I was drawn into the film.  I think I have a love for Westerns because of the beautiful scenery and sets.

To go back to our discussion in class on the rape scene was that it really wasn't as shocking to me as I thought it was going to be.  I was expecting this horrible shocking scene where the woman was raped.  I don't even know if I would consider what Eastwood's character did was "rape".  The woman walked up to Eastwood and completely instigated the situation.  Even though no one ever deserves to get raped, Honestly, myself being a feminist, i wanted her to at least get something for being such a bitch.  While she was actually getting raped, she started to actually enjoy it.  By that time I started to think that it was a cat and mouse chase, she wanted that to happen.  I just thought this whole scene was very confusing and frustrating.

While reading the article I found it interesting how Eastwood wanted to be a part of High Plains Drifter because he compared it to the main character in High Noon.  I thought it was cool how only 9 pages into the screenplay and he was hooked.  From the other films he got to be in, he finally got to have revenge for those characters.  Even though I have never seen the film Shane, from what we discussed in class, I can see how it is considered a "re carnation" of it.  Although High Plains Drifter was in essence one of the first of its kind, it has taken parts in other Westerns and mimicked it within this one.  Such as a scene in Fistful of Dollars, the drifter begins to take advantage of the town, milking it for everything its worth.

The compilations of Westerns helped to make High Plains Drifter into what it turned out to be.  

"Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire? "

I remember the first time I ever watched this film. Our local library holds movie nights over the summer every Tuesday and I would try to attend every single one. After the showing of this, I remember walking out that night thinking how much better older films are than anything now adays. This is a film that everyone who claims they are a movie lover should see. ( It also lets everyone see Frankie in a different kind of film : ) )

This film plays with so many different themes and ideas that it is hard to focus on all the different things that are happening at once. One of my favorite scenes from this film, is when the American soliders are haullecinating that the Communists who are brain washing them are middle old aged women. This scene at first confused me. I wasn't sure exactly what was happening, and which scene was real. I think this was the point of the scene at the beginning. I think that the audience wasn't supposed to understand which scene to believe, whether it was the old women or the Communists speaking to the American soliders, just as they aren't sure either. It shortly becomes clear what it was intended to be a little later in the film, but I thought it was creative how that scene was shot.

What I found to be really creepy was the mother. Angela Lansbury did a brillant job being a sick and incestious mother. An Odepius conflict can be identified between the mother and her son. It becomes evident that her mother cares so much for her son that she doesn't want him to be with anyone else. When her son falls in love for the first time, his mother tries to destroy their relationship by telling him that his son's lovers father is a Communist. Even later on in the film when he marries his long lost love, his mother "programs" him to kill her. In the article it states that " Her incestious love for him,which repels Harvey but which he cannot ecsape." This helps to show how she has subconciously gained control over her own son. Creepy.

I think the ending of this film shocks me every time I watch it. It makes me feel good inside though to know that the main character finally realized he was brainwashed and the only way to save himself was to end the source of the problem. Even though he had to kill himself to release the hold that others had upon him, he ended up killing his mother in the process.

This film could be a great one to teach in classes while learning about Communism and how it impacted the United States, and I think I may use this when I teach my own class in the future.

A touch of evil or a touch of bordem.

This came as quite a shock to myself, but this was one of the first movies I have had to try to keep myself awake during. I was really excited to see this movie, because I enjoyed watching Citizen Kane and assumed this film would meet my expectations. I clearly was wrong. Don't get me wrong, I thought the actual filming of this movie was brilliant. Orson Welles knows how to capture images that not many directors can do through film. The different angles and shots he carried throughout the film helped to keep me awake, but overall I felt that there is a reason why this film isn't considered a classic.

I found Charlton Heston's character to be entertaining to watch, to say the least. Not only did wear brown makeup to look as though he was Mexican (which was funny seeing how he didn't change his voice and had the same presence that he has in every film), it could even be stated that he took the role of the "woman" in this film. His character had just gotten married to this beautiful woman, and he has given up plently of opportunities to have his fun with her to do work. Now I don't know what man would actually chose his job over some woman who is ready and willing, but Heston's character wanted nothing to do with it. In luz Calvo's article, it is mentioned that "Welles highlights questions of racial and cultural difference by putting these differences in tension with sexual difference and sexual transgression." Welle's played around with sexuality and the stereotypes of sexuality within the Mexican male characters. Janet Leigh's character in the story was a woman who focused on the stereotypes on how American's precieve Mexican men. In one of the opening scenes, her character is approached by a Mexican who begins to speak in Spanish to her. He is trying to help her out, but she assumes he is hitting on her speaks to him as if he is street trash. Later on in the film while she is in the hotel, her assumptions about Mexicans became true from what she made of it. It showed how this stereotypical predjudices come out, even when you believe you don't have any.

I really enjoyed the technical aspects of this film. One scene in particular that gave me chills was at the very end when Welle's character walks over to the cop who shot him and lifts his hand up to his. A drop of blood spills on his hand and he topples over into the water on his back. The way the camera captured this moment was erie and has stuck with me ever since the movie has ended. I will give credit to where credit is due in saying the Orson Welles is a creative genius.

I honestly don't think I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to watch a movie for the fun of it and I really don't think I will ever watch it again. I ultimatly have to say I was pretty disappointed when I had a better time watching a movie such as Tourist Trap, compared to this.

Teachers being racist? Noo that could never happen!

Blackboard Jungle is the first movie we have watched that I have never seen before or heard of for that matter. I'm still not really sure of what I think of it, except that Sidney Poitier had yet another excellent performance. I think I would have enjoyed the film a whole lot more if I wasn't getting so damn distracted by the mere fact that Anne Francis looks identical to Juliette Lewis.
I think what bothered me about this movie was that at some points it tried to showcase Richard Dadier as a good teacher. I am a education major hoping to some day teach in inner city schools, and Dadier would be considered an example of how NOT to teach. The moment that Dadier stepped into the school not one kid, whether they were white or black, had any respect for him. When he approached Poitier's character and labeled him as the trouble maker in his mind, I distinctly found it racist. Although at certain parts in the film it tried to make Dadier appear as though race doesn't matter, he from the beginning assumes that Poitier is causing all the trouble, when in fact he isn't. Even the filming of this movie tried to make audiences assume that Poitier's character Miller was responsible for throwing the baseball at Dadier's head, but taking off from what someone said in class, it seems out of Miller's character to do something like that. The camera tries to focus on Miller right after the incident happens so we the audience label Miller the bad kid, just like Dadier did. When in fact , that type of behavior links directly to something that the student West would do. Even the reading points out that because of the way the filming jumps and cuts into scenes, it portrays Miller as both the "leader and the threat".
I found West character to be one of the most aggravating characters I have ever watched on screen. his attitude towards everything and everyone is pessimistic and filled with so much hatred. Not to mention every scene he appeared in he looked like he was high out of his mind. When the reading started to mention that West could be seen as homosexual, I didn't buy that for a second. There wasn't a instance where a psychologist could make a good argument that West desired Dadier. He represents himself well as filled with teen angst and nothing more than that. Maybe some father son issues at his homestead, but making the claim that West is gay, is stretching it. I'm still not sure if I liked this movie. I may have to watch it again to enjoy it. I honestly would just rather watch a different Poitier film like Guess Who's come to Dinner?

"I always fall for the tragic dead guys"

James Dean became the inspiration in my life in wanting to pursue a acting career.  Clearly that never ended up happening, but my love for this incredible star has never faded away along with that dream.  Rebel Without A Cause is my 2nd favorite movie (nothing can compare to Stand By Me) and each time I get to re-watch it, I remember why this movie is such a classic.  

Along with James Dean portraying a rebellious adolescent who is just trying to do something good for once, is working side by side by another star, Natalie Wood.  Another case of teen angst, in which Wood's case is that her father doesn't treat her like his little g

irl anymore.  The family dynamics showcased how it wasn't the teens who were creating the conflict, but the parents for ultimately not being there for their children.  If actor Sal Mineo's father or even mother had been around long enough , they would have realized the pain and suffering this child was enduring.  Instead, his nanny tried to play the parent and the house keeper, but of course nothing can truly make up for the lack of parents in his life.  

On a side note, all three stars of this film died tragic deaths.  First James Dean in a car accident after only starring in three movies, then Natalie Wood in a boating accident, and Sal Mineo was stabbed to death.  I forgot to mention that wasn't a happy side note.

Rebel Without a Cause will live on to be a legend in the Film Industry, not only for it's brilliant script and fliming, but for its phenomenal acting by three great American Film Stars.

Very few men capture my heart.

Honestly, I could dedicate this whole blog to one person: Gene Kelly. One of my goals I had when I was younger was to watch every film on AFI's 100 greatest movies of all time. I can say I have successfully done so. When it came to the top 10 movies, Singin' in the Rain

took number 10. I knew I had to see it, and of course I loved it. More importantly, I grew fond of Gene Kelly.

First off, Donald O'Connor is a wonderful dancer, but Gene Kelly can not only dance, but make it look easy. The scene where he is dancing in the puddles and rain is very hard to do, and Kelly made it look effortless. He makes other's wish they could dance, and almost think they can, just by watching how he well he does. Kelly is what we call today a triple threat, and I think he should be given more credit then what he has been given.

Getting into the Artificiality of the film, I feel like that was the whole point of the movie. The reason why it was so jumpy and scenes were switching quickly one into the next is because they were showcaseing how Hollywood really was back in the 1930's. The producer is a prime example of this. He would change his mind about what was right for the industry and what wasn't, just for the mere fact he want to get more money. He was willing to not give credit to Kathy for dubbing Lena becuase in the end it would ultimately cost him more money.

The scene where Kathy and Don have their first encounter show perfectly how still to this day Hollywood people are, well most. Don took on this arrogant attiude towards Kathy, acting as though it was so hard for him to find love in such a hectic life as his. While on the other hand you have Kathy trying to pretend she didn't care for the movies and was straight out lying that she was a actress of the stage. This showed how these people are always just putting on a show, no matter how big their audience may be.

Singin' in the Rain may not be my favorite musical (nothing will ever compare to West Side Story for me), but it certainly is one that I can watch over and over again. Musicals are for a certain taste, but I can't see why everyone couldn't fall in love with this film, even if it was only for the mere fact that Gene Kelly got to dance.

I couldn't hear my own footsteps... it was the walk of a dead man.

Who doesn't love a good old film noir? Double indemnity became that film for me that topped The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca.  The first time I saw this film I was about six years old with my dad and all I really understood from actually watching it was the leading actress had a really ugly hairdo.  I saw it again later on in my high school years and have grown to love it.  

After watching this film for a third time, I realized what draws everyone in to this film is the quick raunchy dialogue that is played out through the course of the film.  Learning about the Hays code and how the government liked to control everything within the movie industry, it came across clear how films, such as this one fought back.  The whole content of the movie first off completely goes against the code.  In the article it states that "No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it." This meant that no one should ever feel sympathy for someone doing acts of crime or sin.  Honestly, I felt bad for the main character, even though he was a scumbag, he still was a human who realized he made a mistake and had to pay for it in the end.

Even within the dialogue they are making sexual suggestions without actually acting out on these ideas.  When Walter says " How could I have known that murder can sometimes smell like honeysuckle?" is a very loose metaphor which audience members DO understand.  

 I also found that when our class discussion went into certain scenes and why they are in that particular location it got me thinking more indepth about the grocery scenes. I agree that it is as if we the audience are looking in and listening to their conversation, but I also feel like it is foreshadowing to that not all secrets can be kept hidden. Towards the end of the film, the secret comes out of the murder.  

Everything about this movie kept me on my toes, and even at the end when Walter is asking for a cigarette, I felt a sigh of relief that finally all that weight was lifted off from his shoulders, and mine. 

She Was Not Alive Nor Dead, Just a WHITE ZOMBIE

Even after discussing this film in class to understand the significance that it may have had on U.S. imperialism, and how the U.S. forced Haitions into a forced labor system, I still just see it as a crappy 1930 horror film. It is very hard for me as a film buff to get past the horrible script and crappy casting, to see what this film ultimatly ended up doing.

I will say the filming technique that was used throughout the film reminded me of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Right at the beginning of the film when the couple was riding in a coach towards the castle in which they were to be wed, the use of shadows and darkness to set the scene, had a lot of the same essence that Dr. Caligari did. For some reason Bela Lugosi's character in some bizarre way reminded me of Dr. Caligari. The way that Legendre posed a threat over the leading woman in a more sexual manner, was a lot like how the character of Ceaser in Caligari wanted the female lead and both main characters ended up turning these women into "Zombies". I know that may be a big stretch in trying to correlate these two films, but the whole time I was viewing White Zombie, Dr. Caligari kept coming across my mind.

Even in the reading it states that "Legendre's threats towards the heroine seems exclusively sexual. But if the repressed returns in a distorted form containing elements of the forbidden, then Lugosi's representing Legendre functions similarly." This made me realize how Dr. Caligari and Legendre are similar in having complete control over humans, and creating them into their own type of zombies, but also how Legendre does link to U.S. imperalism over other countries and how we as Americans are filled with guilt from what we have done in the past, and essentially are still doing.

Overall, I found this movie only amusing for the mere fact I could draw connections to a wonderful silent film such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, but other then that, I wouldn't really waste my time on watching a horror film that ultimatly, had me laughing.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

Even though the viewing of the movie was quite hard to sit through ( with the blurring of the screen and all), I found myself laughing at this fast paced screwball comedy. With the relationship between the butler and the rich woman, I found myself comparing it to Bringing

Up Baby. Katherine Hepburn's character

was probably just as insanely in love as Carole Lombard's character Irene, if not more, and both character's did everything in their power to make the leading man fall in love with them.

William Powell's performance was what helped made this film Oscar worthy. His comedic timing and pace helped to bring out my laughter. How he showed the many different sides to his character made him so interesting to watch, and want more of. His and Carole Lombard's witty banter back and forth helped to create that screwball comedy feeling and the audience wanting them to fall in love at the end. At least, I'm always the type to want those kinds of endings. Truly this movie would not have captured my interest if it wasn't for Powell's performance.

Although I am not really fond of the film a

s a whole, I did find certain aspects to be quite amusing. It did hold up to the title of being a true screwball comedy by having the wacky characters and even the quick witty dialogue that walked the line of the Hays Code turned it into a classic. Robert Sklar notes that "tight fast plots that leaped from improbability to incongruity to reassuring resolution" helped mold My Man Godfrey into a screwball comedy. This quick scenes really make a audiences not even manage to find the time to question the craziness of what just happened and is quickly lead into another scene that may be more outrageous then the last. Although this film dealt with more deep social issues, it ultimately succeeded in being a screwball comedy. Although I do recommend to anyone who would like to see a similar yet more enjoyable screwball to watch would be Arsenic and Old Lace. (Cary Grant makes me weak in the knees.) (Pictures both from Wikipedia)

Scene that captured my interest

I keep thinking about one Scene in Stagecoach that was beautifully executed, that it helps me understand why Orson Welles watched the film 40 times.

To set up the scene for you, Ringo Kid (John Wayne) sees Dallas speaking to one of the mexicans in a hallway which leads to the outdoors of the place the were staying at. The lighting of the background was dark and as Dallas walked off towards the outdoors she began to become a blur in the distance. When Ringo Kid approached the Mexican shortly after, John Waynes' character began to illuminate amongst the dark background. His height and way his body shaped with the light hitting him, made him stand out from all the rest of the characters at that moment for me. It made him the hero of the film. It was as if he was a beacon of light , and as he walked through that door towards Dallas, it was as if he was bringing the light to her and rescued her from what her life could only be.

Fun Fact : After listening to the character Buck's voice, I thought I recognized it from another film that I have watched many times before. I IMDB'd him and found that he was Friar Tuck in Disney's Robin Hood.

Stagecoach : Visual Aspect

I remember the first time I ever watched Stagecoach I didn't quite grasp any real concepts or themes that director John Ford wanted audience members to get from the film.  Getting the chance to watch the film for a second time I started to pick up on some of the elements that really made Stagecoach the classic western that it is today.

I really liked how John Ford used visual style throughout the course of the film to emphasize the the main themes such as the social prejudices that were made between the main characters.  In the reading, it talked about how Ford would use deep space and deep focus to put certain emphasis on characters.  The reading gave the one example with Lucy, her friends, and Hatfield , in which it showed how Hatfield's character  was being judged by others and only in the end of the film perceivers  to become a noble character. A lot of the way Ford did the lighting for this film really changed general assumptions about characters that were made from the beginning , and slowly changed throughout the course of the film. The character named Dallas was a prostitute who was  getting kicked out of the town she lived in and to everyone else she seemed like a horrible person, but slowly she became a more likable character and by the end of the film not only do audiences pity her, but the others around her start to treat her more like a lady and less like a prostitute.  Ford accomplished this by having the lighting soften when ever it is a close-up shot on Dalla's face.  It makes her into more of a  lovable character.  

This was really shown during the scene where Mrs. Mallory conceived her baby.  As Dallas walked out of the bedroom holding the baby within her arms, all of the men in the room stood up to see it.  As each of their eyes met the baby's face, the noticed how Dallas was caring for it.  The focused shot of Dallas face to John Wayne's character's face, almost made her more innocent in the way the lighting softened her and caring for something that was at that point in time still innocent.  Without the different lighting and visual appeal in the film, I feel like the characters wouldn't have been given a chance to allow viewers to attach themselves to any of the characters.  After watching that scene with Dallas's character,  I honestly began to pity her because knowing that she was a prostitute she may never get any respect from anyone and may never have gotten the chance to have a baby.  

The Beginning of this Youtube clip shows the scene in which started to change feelings towards Dallas's character.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfnsKAdr0t4