Monday, December 14, 2015

To Kill a Mockingbird: Introducing Different Perspectives

Let's go back to the 1960's for a little while, and take a glimpse at a very popular film that was created from a very popular novel: To Kill a Mockingbird (1962, PG). Funny enough, this movie is about to celebrate its 53rd anniversary this Christmas. The movie earned a total domestic gross of $13.1 million, with a production budget of $2 million. Mockingbird was directed by Robert Mulligan (Summer of '42, The Other, The Man in the Moon) who was known for his humanistic films. In other words, his movies focused on human reactions, psychology, and realistic conversations rather than on any special effects. This directing style follows through in Mockingbird. Mulligan clearly took Harper Lee's intentions into account when creating the film, and the movie truly felt like an accurate adaptation rather than a hokey, watered-down chunk of Hollywood glamour. Due to the important topics presented in Mockingbird, there WILL BE SPOILERS.



http://ellacicala.weebly.com/uploads/5/1/9/3/51938077/9200228_orig.jpg

The film takes place in a small, humble, Southern town where Jean Louise "Scout" Finch (Mary Badham) and her brother Jem Finch (Phillip Alford) live. Scout and Jem enjoy spending playtime with their neighborhood friend Dill Harris (John Megna), but the innocence of childhood fun quickly comes to an end. Scout and Jem's father Atticus (Gregory Peck) decides to defend an African American man named Tom Robinson (Brock Peters) in a court case.



http://tinyurl.com/zp4m98f

Tom Robinson has been convicted of raping and beating a white woman named Mayella Violet Ewell. As the case proceeds, The Finch family is soon greeted by an angry, racist community. Meanwhile, Scout and Jem have suspicions over the Radley residence, a mysterious, eerie house in the neighborhood.

In terms of casting, the movie is very well-done. Gregory Peck captures the intelligent essence of Atticus almost perfectly. He speaks with a confident, sophisticated, authoritative voice which clearly stands apart from the other characters.

Peck also makes sure not to forget the gentle and humble side of Atticus. For instance, in the beginning of the movie, Jem is sitting in a tree house and refuses to climb down after his father insists he eat breakfast. Considering the film is based in the 1930's, the viewer probably expects Atticus to become flustered, and perhaps use physical force on the child. Instead, Atticus replies with two simple words: "Suit yourself". Eventually Jem comes down on his own, as it is clear that he respects Atticus, even if he is surprisingly but charmingly gentle. Peck consistently uses simple dialogue to illustrate how Atticus values logic, compromise, and empathy. He mentions, "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view." Besides Peck, Mary Badham plays a fine Scout, and John Megna provides the innocent, tiny-but-feisty element of Dill.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OABHfWyNRSk

The film-making style and camerawork in Mockingbird is very straightforward and less stylish, complementing Mulligan's taste for substance over style. Someone who appreciates good stories over everything else. The movie could generate some boredom in those who starve after edgy, abstract effects. Writer for the British Film Institute Richard Armstrong mentions, "If critics called these films ambiguous and fey, they remain the happy outcomes of unpretentious television camerawork and editing..." (Armstrong).



http://tinyurl.com/j3zfguw

While it is admirable that Mulligan wanted to entertain the audience mostly on the plot, a little more of an investment in camera effects wouldn't have hurt. Did the movie really need to be in black and white? Apparently, Mulligan wanted the movie in black and white to create a feeling of the past. The black and white would occasionally confuse me. Sometimes it would take me a few seconds to realize that a scene is taking place during the day rather than at night, or vice versa.


While the film style of the movie may not be the most astonishing, Mockingbird is very unique in that it shows the audience two perspectives on life: the child perspective, and the adult perspective.

The movie deals with sensitive, controversial topics such as race, social class, and abuse. The way the film introduces these topics, however, is done with such grace and originality. In the words of Richard Armstrong, many of the movie's scenes "are dependent upon alignment of the audience's perspective with that of a child. Through a child's eyes, adults often seem inscrutable" (Armstrong).




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaVuVu5KXuE&list=PLC2383F4CE69173C2&feature=iv&src_vid=guMVb47aD-k&annotation_id=annotation_433294


There is a scene in which a group of angry, racist men approach Atticus. Instead of hiding behind her father in fear, Scout decides to strike up a casual conversation with one of the men. This scene emphasizes the innocence and friendliness behind children, the kind that adults just don't seem to possess.

Scenes in the courtroom introduce the audience to the adult perceptive of racism in the past.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44TG_H_oY2E&index=4&list=PLC2383F4CE69173C2

The progression of the movie also adds to the unique double-perspective the audience gets to see. The movie opens with a joyful spirit of summer play. We see Scout, Jem, and Dill enjoying the outdoors and exploring different areas around town. As the film proceeds, we learn about the Tom Robinson case. The drama as well as the mature themes of the movie begin to accumulate as the movie goes on.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojydQ3_FDqI&index=2&list=PLC2383F4CE69173C2

Media education consultant Frank W. Baker writes, "we see a seemingly simple society unraveling to reveal its darker side; while other previously held fears are proven wrong" (Baker). The "previously held fears" that Baker mentions is Scout and Jem's suspicions over Boo Radley (Robert Duvall). Scout later discovers that Boo is actually named Arthur, and he helps save Jem's life.



http://basementrejects.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/to-kill-a-mockingbird-1962-movie-scout-meets-hey-boo-radley-robert-duvall-mary-badham-review.jpg

The movie was created with a true sense of care and talent coming from the director, the cast, and others behind-the-scenes. Harper Lee even mentioned how she enjoyed the film. Film adaptations are often criticized for not having enough similarity to the books. I think To Kill a Mockingbird is an exception to this criticism. With a running time of approximately 2 hours and 9 minutes, the movie manages to fully capture the charm and wit of childhood memories and adult reality which had been originally presented through 300 pages of American literature.


The Blind Side: Controversial Yet Harmless

I suppose it's a pleasant coincidence that I happened to randomly select the most feel-good drama out of any of the other movies for my last review. What am I talking about? The Blind Side (2009, PG-13) of course. This film was one of the most popular dramas of 2009, and the box office numbers definitely reflect this. The Blind Side earned a staggering $255.9 million in domestic total gross with a production budget of only $29 million. The film was based on the teenage story of Michael Oher, now a National Football League player for the Carolina Panthers.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/18/17/29BF3A0700000578-3130028-image-a-17_1434645819905.jpg

Oddly enough I saw a trend between Lincoln and The Blind Side, two movies that I didn't think could any more different from each other. Both movies could be viewed as "family dramas" in which the main purpose of the movie seems to be to tell an inspiring story, and that's about it. Both movies contain little to no special effects, melodramatic romance, sexual content, and violent content. It's been quite refreshing to watch back to back movies that leave the "extra stuff" at the front door.


https://michaeloher.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/blindside.jpg

Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron) has a tough family background behind him. He has also struggled to perform well in his academics. When sports coach Burt Cotton (Ray McKinnon) witnesses Michael's impressive athletic skills, Michael is admitted into Wingate Christian School. Seeing that Michael has not where to stay, Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock) and the rest of her family invite Michael to stay in their home. This soon becomes a permanent arrangement, and Michael becomes part of the Tuohy family. After significantly improving his grades, Michael joins the school football team. Michael continues to blossom as he is offered several athletic scholarships from southern universities.


http://i.lv3.hbo.com/assets/images/movies/the-blind-side/the-blind-side-1024.jpg

As described before, The Blind Side really doesn't have much special effects to offer, which isn't surprising for a rather middle-of-the-road budget of $29 million. Besides, the movie is not centered around any big effects, concerned more with the story itself. The script even has a few jems, like the scene when Coach Cotton tells off one of the referees for his blatant racism towards Michael.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Xejt9O460

Sure, this scene, along with many others goes along with the "feel-good" essence of the movie. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. In a world with all kinds of cinematic genres, and multiple ways dramas can be made, sometimes "feel good" movies are the way to go. I don't think the story was meant to be dark or twisted, and director John Lee Hancock (The RookieSaving Mr. Banks) clearly wanted a movie with an uplifting and heartwarming core. Let me put it this way: if this movie were a song, it would have ended on the sweetest major chord you could imagine. It's a very pleasant drama, and a fitting film for the holiday season.

The film was nominated for two Academy Awards, and won one of them. Sandra Bullock won an Academy Award for best performance by an actress in a leading role.


http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/f6/94/f694a45f4ca4fe66eb976259f398e829.jpg?itok=BYzLGU-Z

 Ironically enough, a day after winning her Oscar, she received the Golden Raspberry award for worst actress in All About Steve. Well, at least she's not afraid to try a wide range of roles? Uh...yeah. Let's go with that. Nonetheless, Bullock captivates the determined, hardheaded spirit of Leigh Anne in a very charming and entertaining way.

Other stand out performances include Quinton Aaron who plays a very likable, good-natured, and protective Michael Oher. While Aaron plays a friendly character, he also makes sure that Michael does not come across as stupid or easily pushed around. In fact, there is a fight scene between Michael and an old neighbor of his named Alton (IronE Singleton). When Alton refuses to stop making insulting remarks about the Tuohy family, Michael shoves him into a cabinet and a fight breaks loose.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd24GXWLmJ0

Kathy Bates is featured in the movie as Michael tutor, Miss Sue. She probably delivers the funniest line in the movie. I even laughed out loud a little in the library.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DaWcHIGk7I

And S.J., played by Jae Head, is quite the little character as well. I feel like in a lot of movies, they push the little kid to be the "annoying one". Thankfully, the movie doesn't try to use this card, and S.J. is nothing but a sweet, energetic companion towards Michael.


http://3219a2.medialib.glogster.com/media/2d/2d2d5d9a6b4d27bb19252910221432b81d7b1c3dbd940981a58fc3d73caafc90/the-blind-side-20091119015602376-640w-jpg.jpg

On the surface, most people would probably say that the movie is not advocating for racial superiority. Some critics and viewers however, beg to differ when looking at the different dynamics that went into the story. Sociology professor from the University of Connecticut, Dr. Matthew Hughey mentions how some "saw the movie as another instance of a 'white savior film'- the genre in which a white character saves a lower-or working-class, usually urban or isolated, nonwhite character from a sad fate" (Hughey). The film has also been accused of being a product of "white guilt" or the idea that white people feel ashamed of themselves over how their ancestors may have mistreated ethnic minorities in the past.

Nevertheless, this belief in white superiority ringing throughout The Blind Side is not supported by other scholars. Another article written by Greg Burris, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Film and Media Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara presents a counterargument to Hughey's points. Burris dissects a specific scene from the film when Leigh Anne is eating lunch with her plainly patronizing and judgmental friends (it makes you wonder how Leigh Anne began a friendship with these women in the first place).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OCmZuUVZfA

Burris writes, "one of her [Leigh Anne's] dining partners feigns admiration and lets a supercilious compliment slip from her lips: 'Honey, you're changing that boy's life.' Detecting condescension, Leigh Anne responds curtly 'No, he's changing mine.'" The scholar later states, "The film is about change. It affirms not only that change is possible but that we are presently in the midst of it" (Burris).

Those who find the movie to be a "white savior film" think that the white character providing help is grossly praised for being a good person. The dining scene between Leigh Anne and her friends can contradict this belief, however. When Leigh Anne's friend tries to applaud her for what she is doing, Leigh Anne simply tells her that it is Michael who's helping her. Those few simple words of dialogue show that this film should not be dismissed as merely some kind of "white guilt" or "racial superiority" public service announcement. From what I could see in the movie, Leigh Anne is not molded as some kind of amazing hero. Sure, she does a lot for Michael. But I don't see why it should matter if she is a white rich woman, and he is a black poor boy. So what if that's a common formula in movies? The fact is, the film was based on true events, and provides the audience with a classic feel-good story about the underdog working towards incredible achievement.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuYlHxijIho

If you want to criticize movies for painting the picture of a well-educated, wealthy white person helping out a poor minority for their own selfish benefits, pick on movies that aren't based on real-life occurrences. Pick on movies like Dancing With Wolves, where Kevin Costner, without blinking an eye, decides to join a Native American tribe, or Avatar, which basically has the same plot line only with blue people. I would definitely argue that the storyline of both of these movies can leave the audience with a bitter taste in their mouth.


http://www.gunaxin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Dances_Avatar.jpg

The Blind Side is a harmless movie that does convey real meaning. It's not sweet enough to be sugary crap, and it's not bitter enough to be a hard hitting soul-changer of a movie. The flick offers enough drama mixed with the occasional joke for the average American family to enjoy. This is definitely a sit-with-the-kids-and-share-a-bowl-of-popcorn kind of movie.








Sunday, December 13, 2015

Lincoln: A Surprisingly Accurate Drama

Today we're transitioning from exploring the journey of a Southern escape convict to the story of the revered 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. His biographical movie has the very fitting title, Lincoln (2012, PG-13). This is the most recent film I will be reviewing so far, as this is the first movie I have selected from the 2010s. What is ironic is that the movie is based in the earliest time period out of all the other movies I have reviewed. Lincoln performed exceptionally well in the box office, earning over $180 million in domestic total gross with a production budget of $65 million.


http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1198856!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/lincoln9f-1-web.jpg

Before I begin the review, it is important to recognize that while this film has plenty of components that are merely there to entertain the audience, this is also a historical drama. Obviously a person should not look at the movie with the same scrutiny as a textbook, because after all, it is a Hollywood product and not meant as an educational device. With that being said, Lincoln manages to capture the emotions, the conversations, and the spirit of all the characters that we may have not fully understood otherwise. What takes place in the film happened in the 1860s, and there are probably historical aspects that the movie was not very accurate on. Overall however, the movie is fascinating in the fact that it manages to recreate a world that we usually only read about in mundane high school textbooks. Here, we see actual visuals, we get to actually hear Lincoln's voice, and what once seemed like a boring story that you are required to hear or read about in school becomes a colorful, meaningful reality.


http://cinemaye-azad.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Lincoln-movie.jpg

The 13th amendment to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude was passed by U.S. Congress on January 31, 1865. This was one of the most famous events in American history. What director, what storyteller would be bold enough to take on and try to retell such a significant moment in history? None other than Steven Spielberg, of course. I have to hand it to Spielberg, because he must of known from the second he even considering making this movie that the film would be under high scrutiny. I'm not talking about so much scrutiny from the critics, but more coming from historical experts. And I mean A LOT more coming from these experts.


http://static2.hypable.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/best-steven-spielberg-movies-top-10.jpg
(Spielberg's movies)

We need to keep in mind however, that at the end of the day, this film is made to entertain just as much or maybe even more than to inform. Lincoln was released for movie theaters, not for art galleries, or swanky college lecture halls. Considering I would hope most people, especially those on the Western hemisphere, know the story of Abraham Lincoln, none of this should be SPOILERS. Now that I've made my little pre-game speech, let's get into the meat of the flick.

The film encompasses the story of main character and real-life U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis). With the bloody civil war about to continue for a forth year, Lincoln is looking to pass the 13th amendment in an effort to end the war and restore the Union.


http://www.notquitesusie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/lincoln-movie.jpg

As Lincoln proceeds in trying to satisfy his goal, many argue with him, including his wife Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Field), founder of the Republican Party Francis Preston Blair (Hal Holbrook) and Secretary of State William H. Seward (David Strathaim). Lincoln faces pressures from both the Democratic side, who call him a radical, and the Republican side, especially from member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones). Nonetheless, the 13th amendment is passed, and only about three months later on April 15, 1965 Lincoln is assassinated.


http://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/emancipation/files/2013/02/Scene-1.jpg

Lincoln is not an action movie, so the special effects aren't as prevalent as other dramas I've reviewed, like Top Gun or Air Force One. Nevertheless, Lincoln is still a handsome movie, and the scenes are enhanced with deep, rich colors that create a very crisp image. The American Flag has never looked better in a film with its dark red and blue colors waving in the sky in a perfect glow. The sound effects were good, but just good. This is not a movie that is going to blow anyone away with its amazing audio. Besides Spielberg, I think the biggest round of applause should go to the screenwriter, Tony Kushner. There are definitely some extremely powerful lines in this film, especially those coming from Lincoln. One example of the movie's great writing can be seen when Lincoln demands more votes for the amendment.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qjtugr2618

As far as the individual performances go, Lincoln has a few different actors who stand out. From what most experts and critics claim, Daniel-Day Lewis' portrayal of Abraham Lincoln is basically spot-on. I hope that's true, because if it is, then Abraham Lincoln was probably one of the most interesting men as an American president. Sure, I don't really know much about the personalities of George Washington, John Adams, or Zachary Taylor. The mysterious calmness and patience that Lincoln possesses in the movie however, is quite fascinating to watch. You often sit there and wonder, "What is he thinking about now? Is he upset, is he tired, or is he not affected at all?"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVXokflE7o

Other actors that stand out include Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens. Even as a member of the House of Representatives, Jones still manages to be a bad-ass. Stevens is probably the most opinionated character in the movie and demonstrates no fear in expressing just how terrible he finds slavery to be. It almost seems like Stevens is from a different time, and at one point, even Lincoln tells him to take it easy. The movie manages to show us the personality of Stevens while also giving us a very fun character.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Brh9iWajc

To be honest, Sally Field's performance seemed...alright. While her impression of Mary Todd Lincoln could have very well been accurate, I don't think it added that much to the movie. Mary is just another voice out of a dozen, telling Lincoln that he shouldn't support the 13th amendment. Also, Mary appears to be quite whiny, and she seems to cry quite a lot (but isn't that Sally Field's specialty?).



While I previously mentioned the film was highly analyzed by historical scholars, most say that the majority of the film's content is actually quite accurate with only some mishaps in between. English professor from Saint Louis University Harold K. Bush writes, "much of the film rang true for historians. There are of course reservations...but there is clearly much for even the most veteran historians to admire in Lincoln" (Bush). While the film received a decent amount of praise from some of the toughest experts, some thought the movie had parts that felt lengthy, and dull.


http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/a5/cdc5900f0711e2b39122000a1d0930/file/daniel-day-lewis-abraham-lincoln-movie-spielberg-reading.jpg

In Bush's article, history professor from the University of Notre Dame states, "an early review in the South Bend Tribune tempered its mild praise by saying the movie 'meandered' and...a reviewer in Notre Dame's student newspaper similarly made a few favorable comments before dropping the b-bomb ('boring')" (Bush). I can understand how some could find the movie to be boring, because it is not your typical Hollywood drama usually containing some action scenes or a steamy romance. Instead, Spielberg gives us a movie that is driven on dry facts and character development.


http://therebelchick.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/abraham-lincoln-movie.jpg

Yes, the movie is pretty long, with a running time of 2 and a 1/2 hours. Within that generous amount of time however, the movie is filled with substance, rather than fluff. I think part of the reason the movie ran so long was because of the impressive use of character development. For instance, we see two different dimensions of Lincoln's personality: he is clearly painted as a quiet, likable storyteller who can also be an assertive and direct leader when he needs to be. The long running time is also due to the exciting build up to the January 31st vote in the House of Representatives for the 13th amendment. The House scenes were entertaining because the audience gets to see the different reactions coming from each representatives.


http://www.culturewest.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Lincoln2-800x335.jpg

There is also another build up which is followed by a rather immediate ending to the film: Lincoln's assassination. Not only do we get to see the theatre audience's response to the news, but also the reactions of Lincoln's closest family members such as his younger son Tad (Gulliver McGrath), his older son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and his wife. This highlights on just how tragic Lincoln's assassination really was.


http://madbetty.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/url-2.jpeg

Lincoln is exactly what it has been labeled as: a historical drama. There are plenty of historical moments as well as dramatic moments. Spielberg succeeds in providing the audience with real facts as well as molding the film into an example of classic dramatic entertainment. History professor from Rutgers University Louis P. Masur writes, "Lincoln is nothing if not a Shakespearean tragedy. We get not only a doomed, ambitious hero with whom we identify, but also domestic drama (Sally Field captures the often difficult but sympathetic Mary Todd Lincoln...) and well-timed comic interludes (James Spader plays the political operative W.N. Bilbo, a Falstaffian character)" (Masur). The film is not some kind of lifeless PowerPoint presentation filled with mind-numbing facts, rather it is a spirited, engaging story.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMbeRTjV8hE

I'm not kissing this movie's ass when I say that it is definitely one of the top dramas we've seen this decade. I say this because I find the film quite humble, showing us real historical substance rather than the standard melodrama in a lot of Hollywood movies (*cough cough* Titanic *cough cough*). I find it almost incredible that the film did not include a sex scene or any strongly violent scenes. I think this movie is too smart for that kind of crap. I'm not saying sex scenes, or violent scenes can't be effective (in fact, many times they are), but I don't think it would be necessary for this kind of film. This kind of film celebrates, but also unravels the character of one of the most well-known U.S. presidents of all time: Abraham Lincoln.





Monday, December 7, 2015

Cool Hand Luke: Celebrating the Nonconformist

Well what do you know? It looks like we're staying in the 1960's for two weeks in a row. This time, we are taking a step away from the cold holiday season, and instead experiencing sweltering Florida prison life in Cool Hand Luke (1967, PG). The drama earned a domestic box office gross of $16.2 million. Unfortunately, I could not find the production budget of the movie, but according to Turner Classic Movies, it was an enormous financial success. The film is based off of the novel written by Donn Pearce, who had been hired to co-write the screenplay. While the movie was highly praised as a quality drama, the author was very unsatisfied with the end product, even stating that Paul Newman should not have played the main character (TCM). Should we agree with the author, or does the movie have more to offer than what Pearce is giving it credit for? This review WILL HAVE SPOILERS.



The film stars Luke Jackson (Paul Newman), who is sent to work in the summer heat of a prison after being caught committing the frivolous crime of breaking parking meters. Luke refuses to submit to the strict and sometimes debilitating prison authority. Throughout the film, Luke challenges the prison system by making wise cracks towards those in charge. After he discovers the news of his mother's death, Luke attempts to escape the prison multiple times, and meanwhile, creates a friendship with fellow prisoner, Dragline (George Kennedy). 



The plot of the movie takes its time to unravel as we get more than hour of a glimpse into everyday prison life. The film does not seem to drag however, and the events that take place before Luke decides to escape all contribute to his character development. In one scene, Luke and Dragline box each other in the courtyard. Dragline is obviously butchering Luke, but no matter how many times Luke falls from the powerful strikes from Dragline, he always stands right back up. Eventually, Dragline has to ask Luke to stop standing up, afraid that Luke may get killed. 



This scene shows the incredible determination of Luke's character. Another scene, filtered in a more comical light, features Luke attempting to eat 50 hard boiled eggs. He manages to succeed while the other prisoners gaze at his triumph in disbelief. Again, we see Luke's perseverance, which acts as foreshadowing for the escape journey that Luke will take later in the movie. 



It is clear that the screenwriters and directer, Stuart Rosenberg understood the importance of character development in a story. Even after Luke is shot in the head by a prison guard, he still manages to die with a grin on his face. His character development continued even after he was shot.

In terms of how the movie was shot, there were no really snazzy effects, or tacky bells and whistles. The movie was mostly filmed in a very straightforward manner, but the music added color to the dramatic moments of the film. Suspenseful music would play between scene transitions, using the method of foreshadowing to get the audience to wonder what's coming next. 

Yes, the movie has it's typical Hollywood characteristics. For example, it just so happens that the main character of the movie Luke, just so happens to be eye candy. Also, there is a scene which I'm not sure is supposed to be funny or serious, but it sure made me chuckle (It also made me wonder how this movie got away with a PG rating). 



A typical, "dumb blonde" kind of woman appears out of nowhere and starts washing a car in front of the prisoners who are working on a farm. She is basically not portrayed as a human in the movie but rather a shallow sex statue for all the prisoners to admire. What's funny is, what was she doing by the prison? Why would she want to show off to prisoners? Maybe the scene wasn't supposed to make sense, and I'm looking too much into this. Needless to say, the scene seemed very random and unfitting with the rest of the story.

While Cool Hand Luke has some unrealistic attributes, the ending is abrupt and very lifelike. Luke and Dragline are caught in a barn after trying to escape the prison. Dragline tells Luke that the police will let him live if he surrenders peacefully. Luke peers out of a window of the barn, and before he can even finish a sentence, he is shot in the head. 



While I had a feeling the police would kill Luke, I did not think they would take his life so quickly. In many movies, for example, it can take several seconds or even minutes for a gunman to shoot anyone. Just look at The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, which came out the same year as Cool Hand Luke. I think many filmmakers draw out gun scenes to build suspense, but in this case, the immediate shooting of Luke created a powerful mood for the scene.

The ending of Luke is unique and intriguing, because it can be seen as both a happy and a depressing ending. The audience is left with a very bittersweet flavor in their mouths, and some viewers may even feel confused. Why did the main character, the protagonist die? Does that mean the antagonists won? No. In fact, I feel as though Luke ended up getting what he wanted: freedom from authority. Law professor at the University of Oklahoma, Dr. Osborne M. Reynolds compares the story of Luke to another film. He writes, "An even more pessimistic view of the inability to overcome past conduct and change personality is presented in the 1971 film A Clockwork Orange, a futuristic epic depicting an unsuccessful attempt at altering violent human behavior" (Reynolds).

A scene from Clockwork:



 Luke is obviously not nearly as deviant or vicious as the infamous Malcolm from Clockwork, but both stories revolve around a character who refuses to be controlled until the very end. Even though Luke is killed, he can still be seen as a successful protagonist because he never gave up his mission to escape the prison. If Luke had quit after the first two times he tried to escape, the antagonists truly would have won. When an antagonist can only win by firing a cheap bullet at the protagonist, it is clear that the protagonist was indeed one hard-nosed son of a bitch. 

Professor of politics and government at the University of Puget Sound, William Haltom points out Luke's seemingly backwards view on criminals and law enforcement. 


Haltom explains, "The story rehearses an establishment-bashing recipe...First, induce sympathy for an anti-hero who challenges unimportant or unjust rules. Next, relate the rules to a social structure in which 'every cop is a criminal / And all your sinners saints" (Haltom). I disagree with Haltom when he claims that the movie is spreading a message in which the cops are always the "bad guys". I don't think the film is expressing an unjust hatred for policemen. Luke shows the audience that not every prison has the best intentions, and some are more focused on instilling fear in their prisoners rather than actually teaching them how to be better, more respectful citizens. 



Director Rosenberg smoothly combines the drab environment of American prison life with the glamour of Hollywood cinema. Luke by no means feels like some kind of boring, made-for-television documentary. While the film successfully captures the challenging schedule of those in the jail, we still get to experience the adventure of trying to escape the firm grasp of "the man". When Luke runs, we cheer him on, and when he is captured, we sigh. That is good, old-fashioned American drama.  



  


Monday, November 16, 2015

Top Gun: A Very Light Drama

We are welcomed by a whole new decade this time: the unforgettable, marvelous, and sometimes-very-cheesy 1980's! Today, let's take a look at Tom Cruise's first major movie hit: Top Gun (1986, PG). The movie earned a generous $176.7 million in domestic total gross, with a production budget of only about $15 million. While we are introduced to a different time in filming, we also see an odd, continued pattern: airplanes! That's right folks, once again, I randomly selected a movie about pilots. Of course, it is not the subject of planes that make movies worth watching, rather the plot, the characters, and the effects. We are also reintroduced to the hybrid genre of action drama. To be honest, I'm growing tired of these "plane actions", but the rules are the rules, and I must approach Top Gun with an unbiased, clear mind.  

 
http://www.nischwitzgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Top-Gun.jpg

Lieutenant Pete "Maverick" Mitchell (Tom Cruise) and his best friend, Lieutenant Nick 'Goose' Bradshaw (Anthony Edwards) are sent to one of the most elite pilot academies in the world, the Navy Fighter Weapons School (or as the soldiers like to call it, Top Gun). There Maverick meets his antagonist and fellow wingman, Lieutenant Tom "Iceman" Kazansky (Van Kilmer) who constantly criticizes Maverick for flying recklessly.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_BEJmY911s

We also see Maverick meet his love interest, the beautiful Charlie Blackwood (Kelly McGillis) who is also an astrophysicist and instructor at Top Gun. After experiencing a series of challenges both in the air and on the ground, Maverick loses motivation to continue at the academy. Eventually, Maverick regains his confidence and decides to rejoin the school to complete the final and most important flight mission yet.


https://www.warhistoryonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/558f1cb98a9e4.jpg

The movie already feels dated within the first few moments of watching it. The entire score consists of crappy 80's hair metal rather than a legitimate orchestral arrangement. The beginning has it's shining moments however, as we are immersed into the exciting world of Navy flying. We first see the cool, eerie environment of the runway, in which the camera is temporarily tinted with a brownish filter. Along with the visuals, we hear some impressive take-off sound effects. For a movie made in the 80's, those jet engines sound like they are right next to my ear. The film then introduces us to Maverick in a thrilling and energetic flight scene. Nonetheless, what comes next is mediocre and sometimes just embarrassing to watch.
 

http://www.war-movies.info/warmovies/top-gun-4.jpg

Top Gun is by no means timeless, and I wouldn't be surprised if the movie's relevance will (if it hasn't already) completely fade away within the next couple of decades. One major problem with the film is that it is just too...80's. There is a bar scene which contains enough ridiculous hairstyles, neon clothing, and shoulder pads to last me a lifetime. I can only imagine what that bar probably smelled like: cigarettes and about a thousand gallons of aqua-net hairspray. And let me just say, Meg Ryan's hair looks terrifying:


https://meatgrinder.co/photos/meg-ryan/top-gun-c8113305c0428b74ed3f1b6051520039-large-37094.jpg

Even the soundtrack of the movie screams 80's from the rooftops, including the recurring song, "Take My Breath Away" by Berlin. There are even a couple of sing-along scenes. That's right. An action drama about Navy pilots actually has a scene where Maverick sings "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" by the Righteous Brothers with a chorus of fellow Navy pilots.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLzVbz2HHzo

A movie having a quote-unquote "80's feel" isn't necessarily always a bad thing, as we've seen with highly praised movies like Back to the Future. If Marty's red vest jacket or Doc's DeLorean time machine aren't the definition of the 80's, I don't know what is. The main issue with Top Gun is the lack of creativity, substance, and surprise in the plot. The romance between Maverick and Charlie is obviously a constructed, made-to-entertain relationship.

Tania Modleski, an English professor at the University of Southern California claimed that the film embraces misogyny. She believes Top Gun is guilty of "equating women with the enemy to be conquered, and silencing female voices that have attempted to speak authoritatively about the war."


http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Kelly-McGillis.jpg

I have to agree with Ms. Modleski in the fact that there seems to be a connection between war victory and "winning over the girl". At the very end of the movie after Maverick completes his final air mission, he is rewarded with another steamy, flirtatious encounter with Charlie. It almost seems like Charlie is Maverick's trophy.

Another flaw with the love story is just how unconvincing it really is. For a movie that according to IMDb claims to be an action drama, the romance is quite unsatisfying. Charlie falls for Maverick almost instantly, even though Maverick makes awkward, uncomfortably quick advances towards her. Modleski writes, "Before he (Maverick) knew Charlie as a teacher, he sees her in a bar and tries to make a sexual conquest of her practically on the spot." Even on their first date, Maverick arrives at Charlie's house and asks if he can use her shower. If this were a real-life scenario, I'd hope Charlie would be at least a little taken aback by Maverick's aggressiveness.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFDGITpL0cc

A major reason as to why I enjoy dramas so much is because they seem to capture more realistic situations than the big Hollywood comedies, horrors, or action films. That's another thing: for an action drama, this movie is definitely more action and romance than it is drama. That's not to say that there aren't some genuinely well-done drama scenes every now and again.

Around the midpoint of act II, the flick takes it's dramatic turn, and it's about damn time. There will be no spoilers ahead, so I'll just say that something major happens in the story, discouraging Maverick from continuing to fly. Maverick's emotional process is very relatable to real life, and I really feel sympathetic towards him. Maverick first goes through anger after one of his fellow wingmen yells at Maverick for not firing his weapon. He pulls the wingman by his collar and  responds, "I will fire when I am goddamn good and ready!"


http://www.topgunday.com/wp-content/gallery/top-gun/sundown-you-coulda-had-him.jpg

Maverick then experiences sadness, as he cries and embraces a character named Carole (Meg Ryan). Finally, Maverick is reenergized and ready to continue pursuing his life goals by rejoining the academy.

Another aspect of the movie worth mentioning is not necessarily a criticism of Top Gun, but more of an interesting observation. The film is rated PG, but I have a difficult time believing that the movie would pass for children younger than 13 nowadays. The characters can be quite mouthy, using a colorful array of profanity such as "dickhead", "bullshit", "asshole", and the list goes on. There's also a sex scene that lasts about a minute. The PG rating sparks some curiosity as to whether the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) had become temporarily more lenient on ratings in the 80's and 90's than in other time periods. An interesting documentary, This Film Is Not Yet Rated explores the decisions made by the MPAA. For your viewing pleasure, here is part of that documentary:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIncrMYRUJ0

Top Gun will forever exist strictly in 1986. Apparently Top Gun 2 is currently in development. The big question I have is, "Why make a sequel now? After all, it's been almost 30 years since the first movie was released." The answer that my brain keeps coming back to is "Money."

WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS A SPOILER
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhIVGshLBIo

While it's debatable on whether Top Gun should be considered a quality drama, it's certainly a significant film as it set off Tom Cruise's distinguished career as an A-list actor. As I previously mentioned, I think Top Gun's relevancy is weakening, so the second movie could have the potential of being a flop. Then again, Cruise is now well-known for his lead roles in well-liked productions such as Mission Impossible, Edge of Tomorrow, and Jerry Maguire. So maybe Top Gun 2  does have potential to be something better. But I'm not going to see it.





Monday, November 2, 2015

Air Force One: The Slightly Unpredictable Blockbuster

Strangely enough, after randomly picking my decade for this week, I landed on the 1990s once again. And what do you know? Another movie about planes! Well, there's a little more to the story than just that. Air Force One (1997. R), directed by Wolfgang Peterson (Troy, Outbreak) earned $172.9 million in the box office for domestic total gross. Harrison Ford, who stars as the lead character in the film, could be one of the main reasons as to why the movie was so successful.


http://www.etonline.com/photo/2014/07/24091668/640_harrison_ford_roles.jpg

After all, Ford has become used to the Hollywood spotlight earning big-time roles in celebrated movies like Star Wars, Blade Runner, The Fugitive, and of course, playing the revered archeologist himself in Indiana Jones. Air Force One was a major go-to movie in the summer of 1997, but has it held up over time? Let's find out.

The film begins with United States President James Marshall (Harrison Ford) making a speech in Moscow. He promises that the U.S. will never again, under any circumstances, negotiate with terrorists.


http://impdb.org/images/thumb/f/f7/AF1VC-25A.jpg/500px-AF1VC-25A.jpg

President Marshall later boards Air Force One with his wife, Grace (Wendy Crewson) and daughter Alice (Liesel Pritzker Simmons). Shortly after takeoff, a group of Russian terrorists hijack the plane. The terrorists want Russian terrorist leader, General Ivan Radek (Jürgen Prochnow) to be released from prison. Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President Kathryn Bennett (Glenn Close) is in the White House trying to compromise with the terrorists while also struggling to ensure the safety and well-being of the plane's passengers. Because of the importance of the plot in this movie analysis, spoilers will be ahead.


https://nxnwboise.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/afo-mp5a3-4.jpg?w=1024&h=427

Air Force One's beginning credits are exciting, with composer Jerry Goldsmith conducting a patriotic and grandiose score that fits the movie's subject very well. Along with the music, the many scenes filled with gunfire and explosions add to the glossy Hollywood quality of the film. Nonetheless, there are scenes here and there that seem completely outdated and rather ugly compared to today's standards. For example, there is a scene in which some of the passengers manage to escape the aircraft by deploying parachutes. The way the passengers fall into the sky with their parachutes looks unnatural and computerized. There is also a scene in which the plane looks more like the product of a video game than an actual object I can touch.


http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/56e2f2cf-6f29-489f-9291-b2ece6d84dba/8ddeb259-bf3a-4d77-8de5-1472fd3935f5.jpg

Also, for a movie made in the late nineties, the sound quality is kind of mediocre. Sure, I wasn't listening to the film in a theatre, but usually my around ear headphones pick up digital sound very well. Compared to Pearl Harbor, a movie that was made only four years after this film, Air Force One didn't bother taking advantage of digital surround sound. For a movie containing so much action and violence, it wasted a great deal of it's sound potential. In terms of camera style, the film isn't that edgy. Although there is a cool scene when the members of the White House are celebrating over the defeat of the terrorists on Air Force One. The camera spins around the room of the White House, almost uncontrollably.

President Marshall is probably the most likable politician that will ever be known to man, making him pretty unrealistic.


http://www.snakkle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/harrison-ford-air-force-one-1997-movie-photo-GC.jpg

Professor at the State University of New York in Buffalo, Ram Samudrala writes his thoughts in an article conveniently titled, "Air Force One". He mentions, "we're asked to believe that the President of the United States can, in a situation of conflict, fight like Han Solo from Star Wars." Scenes when President Marshall walks around with a machine gun, and when First Lady Grace Marshall constantly talks back to the terrorists make the movie seem more artificial. 

Harrison plays sort of a "rebel president" in the sense that he doesn't bother consulting anyone in the government before he makes his speech on refusing to negotiate with terrorists.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwQ-TCeM2mU

He seems like the kind of president you can have a beer with. In one scene the President even asks one of his assistants, "Could you get me a Heineken?" There's no doubt that this is obvious product placement, but this dialogue actually helps us better understand exactly what kind of guy President Marshall really is: the everyday kind of guy. The movie adds a little bit of plain-folks appeal.

While the movie follows some of Hollywood's classic and predictable rules, it also succeeds at breaking some. Marshall's deputy press secretary, Melanie Mitchel (Donna Bullock) is ruthlessly murdered by the terrorists after they count down from ten.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTndK3-iHvA

I would have thought she would have been saved at the last second, but surprisingly, she is shot and killed immediately. Also, there is a twist at the end when we find out that Secret Service Agent Gibbs has actually been working with the terrorists on the plane the entire time.

First Lady Grace Marshall begins to feel more and more like a quivering damsel in distress as the movie progresses. We are welcomed, however, with a refreshing surprise. In the final fight scene between President Marshall and terrorist Ivan Korshunov (Gary Oldman), Grace helps her husband defeat the enemy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdaeVone5qA

Grace strikes Ivan, giving President Marshall enough time to make a quick move, and hang the terrorist with a parachute. The movie does a decent job at throwing in some unexpected jabs throughout the running time.

Air Force One is not that groundbreaking, but it has enough unpredictability to keep the audience interested throughout the film. You pretty much know from the start that President Marshall is going to be fine, and so is his wife and daughter. You know that the Russian terrorists are going to lose and that the U.S. government will celebrate over their victory. But we still watch the movie anyway for the little moments that give us that tiny jolt of anxiety.

Sunday, October 25, 2015

The Sixth Sense: A Fusion of Fright and Thought

Isn't it strange how I wind up discussing The Sixth Sense (1999. PG-13) only a few days before Halloween? As usual, I randomly selected a decade and a top grossing drama, and it just so happened to land on this film. The movie is directed and written by a man who many critics label as infamous, M. Night Shyamalan. In current years, he's been the mastermind behind many flops such as Lady in the Water (24% rotten tomatoes), The Last Airbender (11%), and After Earth (11%). It's not so much the sales of his movies, but the unsatisfied audience that creates buzz. The man who was once perceived as a unique, "new-kind-of-artist", is now often criticized for his overuse of plot twists, inability to create raw or captivating dialogue, and the list goes on. Nonetheless, when The Sixth Sense was released, Shyamalan was still the new, fresh-faced guy that everyone seemed to like in Hollywood. So let's explore a film created pre-Shyamalan downfall.


http://media1.break.com/breakstudios/2011/11/8/The-Sixth-Sense-1-1.jpg

Earning an impressive domestic total gross of about 293.5 million dollars, The Sixth Sense became the summer smash hit of 1999. The film centers around Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis), a child psychiatrist from Philadelphia who meets a troubled little boy named Cole (Haley Joel Osment). Cole is able to communicate with the dead. Scared and confused, Cole wants the sprits to go away. Malcolm advises Cole that if he faces the ghosts and tries to help them, they will eventually disappear. The running plot leads to a surprising ending that I will not reveal. This is a spoil free blog!

The Sixth Sense is interesting in the fact that the movie is a blend of different genres. Sure, it can be argued that basically every movie is a mixture, but The Sixth Sense is more noticeable. While it can be considered a drama, it also has many elements of a thriller, or even a horror film. Other than the blending of genres, the movie has multiple purposes. What is the movie trying to say? While experiencing the entertaining suspense, we also learn about how people cope with death. When the ghosts first appear on the screen, they are frightening and graphic-looking.


http://wheresthejump.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sixth-sense-3.jpg

As we learn more about their intentions, however, we realize that there is no reason for Cole to be scared of these people. Philosophy professor Marguerite La Caze from the University of Queensland wrote a thought-provoking article on the movie titled, The Mourning of Loss in The Sixth Sense. She writes, "The ghosts of The Sixth Sense are victims of domestic violence, execution, and, in one case, Munchausen's syndrome by proxy. Others committed suicide or died by accident." In one scene, Cole encounters the ghost of a little girl foaming at the mouth. We later find out that her name is Kyra (Mischa Barton), and her mother killed her. Kyra wants Cole to show her father a video of her being poisoned by her mother, so he knows what really happened. The paranormal are startling at first, but we soon understand that they have feelings just like those who are living.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqW9iC0DAHM

The movie asks a simple yet somehow complex question: Why are we so afraid of the deceased? Why do we find them creepy? The film is bold and refreshing in the sense that it challenges us. It questions our common fear of the dead. La Caze mentions, "The psychological realism of The Sixth Sense makes it likely that we feel sorry for the dead people, and the overall effect is poignant rather than horrifying or terrifying." Rather than following the typical "they-are-evil-spirits" route, The Sixth Sense goes in the opposite direction. I guess you could say the film kind of laughs at us when we jump or feel scared. The movie already knows that the ghosts are not dangerous, and waits for us to catch up.

To aid the suspense element of Sense, a single shaky camera is often used. This effect gives the movie an uneasy, on-edge feeling. Also, the film feels more real, and less glamorized. After all, the last thing this movie aspires to be is glamorous. I also appreciate the dialogue Shyamalan writes. Can we really forget the famous line, "I see dead people"?


https://moviewriternyu.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/sixth-ghost.jpg

Besides that, the conversations between Malcolm and Cole sound like genuine man-to-boy talks. Malcolm asks Cole, "Wanna play a game? It's a mind-reading game." After Malcolm explains the rules of the game, he asks, "Wanna play?" The informal tone of the dialogue sounds very close to how an adult in real-life would talk to a child. Also, the conversation in the car between Cole and his mother, Lynn (Toni Collette) is a beautifully done scene. We see the sentimental relationship between Lynn and her deceased mother.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qqVQcZxpqA

One scene that mildly annoys me is the scene with the woman in the kitchen who has cuts running down her arms. The way she violently shakes her arms seems more like a melodramatic theatrical performance than a frightening image. Overall, however, the movie doesn't really have any cheesy parts. Another weakness is a lack of elaboration. Even though we get a few, very brief glimpses into the past lives of the ghosts, it is still not very satisfying. In fact, many of the ghosts are only in the movie for a few seconds, like the boy with the gash in the back of his head, or the woman who got into a bicycle accident. The only ghost we sort of get to know is Kyra.


http://images.myreviewer.co.uk/fullsize/0000222764.jpg

The twist at the end reinforces the audience that their time has been well spent. It also provides a story that is definitely not the run-of-the-mill, predictable, scary ghost tale that you hear around the campfire. Sense provides a little bit of scary fun with a remarkably deep message. It is a popcorn flick that will also make you think.