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.