media_nerd

i write reviews for class, wanted to post em so enjoy.

[vmkmrowlbm]

La Jetee and 12 Monkeys (1995 Gilliam, 1963 Marker)

1/27/22

The 1995 film 12 Monkeys directed by Terry Gilliam was inspired by the more experimentalfrench short film from 1963, La Jetee, from the Mind of Chris Marker. Markers film was to be remaid at full length by Universal studios, however whn Gilliam was hired he created his own story while keeping the core concept of La Jetee. The 29.5 million dollar film starred Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt, and Madeline Stowe and made more than five times its production value.

12 Monkeys starts in 2035 when a convict James Cole, played by Willis is woken from a nightmare about childhood trauma, then gets the chance to shorten his sentence by working for scientists and going back in time to find the source of a virus, thus preventing humanity from a devistating war that forces humanity to move underground. Upon traveling back in time, he realizes he is in the wrong year, 1990. The scientist pull him back to 2035, then send him back in time agin to the correct year, 1996, where Cole gets the help of Dr. Railly, played by Madeline Stowe, in completing his mission. 

The core concept of the film that was taken from La Jetee is that time is not linear, what you do in the past can effect the present, the present effects the future, and the future can effect the past. When Cole is sent to the wrong year, he becomes the catalyst for his own mission. He meets a man, Jeffery Goines (Brad Pitt) and tells him about is goals to stop the virus and save humanity, which causes Goines to seek to destroy humanity. The film comes full circle when Cole is killed in an airport, after many vivid dreams he had from a disturbing incident in his childhood before the world became apocalyptic, where he saw a man (himself) die in an airport. 

Coles character stays fairly stagnent, hes a kind of anti hero trying to achive redemption, Dr. Railly however goes through many shifts. When first introduced shes skeptical and thinks cole is crazy, she has him sedated and tried to “cure” him. As the film goes on she notices more and more coincidences that make her question weather Cole is really a time traveler or not. The reality breaking realizations causes her to act erratic, like shes the insane one. Despite the insanity she fully belives/ supports Cole by the end of the film. 

Visually the film looks how youd exect any film from the 90s to look. However the scenery creates grandeur, by choose specific influential locations such as The Eastern State Pennitantiary and The Macys City Center it sophisticates the film. Because of the importance of architecture the film was shot in 1.85:1. Like any good film the set adds to the story, the passage of time is shown through the macys center by showing it in states of ruin and as an active department store. This film is also littered with “found” objects scavanged from flea markets, newspapers from the wrong year, posters for events that didnt happen, and of course callbacks to La Jetee by using the same shots from Vertigo.

Director Terry Gilliem tends to sneak his love of architecture into all his work, so the set always plays an important role. Gilliem often hires scouts to find the perfect location to fit his artistic vision. It seems that Gilliem was the only person who could bring this sci-fi blockbuster to life, as the film had gone through other directors who changed the plotline in order to “make it make sense”. Upon Gilliems arrival he returned to the original script.

What magic Gilliem coudln’t create through the set he finished off with CGI. The scene near the end of the film, where zoo animals are released in the city, was created with CGI. The film also relied heavily on dutch angles to create a disorienting experience. 

As for my thoughts on the movie, it wasnt bad. It was pretty funny so I found it an enjoyable watch, the plot feels kind of cheesy but then agin i dont like any sci-fi movies. It was very creative and I loved the modge podge of references and locations that I actually reconized. Being able to pinpoint specific thing and put the puzzle pieces of the plot together made it so engaging to watch. It had a very classic 90s feel and overall i'd watch it again. 

[vmkmrowlbm]

Memento (2000 Nolan)

2/3/22

The 2000 thriller/drama Memento directed by Christopher Nolan stars Guy Pearce, Carrie Anne Moss, Joe Pantoliano and Steven Tobolowsky. Based on a short story from Nolans brother the film was produced by Summit Entertainment with a budget of four and a half million dollars. Coupons its release the experimental film made four hundred million.

Moving backwards, Memento starts with the main character Leonard Shelby developing a polaroid after he murderd his wifes killer. The next shot takes place much earlier in the movies timeline , and we see Leonard explain his condition, an inability to form memories. The film continues to alternate between a forwards timeline and a backwards one, slowly revealing how Leonatd ended up cathing and killing his wifes assaliant.

The major twist the film gives us about ¾ of the way through the film when we see Natalie mess with Leonards memory, it becomes undeniable that Leonard is not a trustworthy source for his own story. We also learn that Teddy, the man we see dead in the first scene was trying to help Leonard. However this information becomes meaningless at the end of the film because Leonards memory and ability to keep track is so unreliable we learn he caught his wifes rapist a long time ago, but her murderer is an entirely different person. Leonard has no memory, notes or an indication of this information.

The interesting thing about leonards character development is that he is always developing. He forgets so often that his goals and morals get jumbled and he seems like a different person entirely in each scene of the movie. He “starts” as an antihero, a broken man turned vigilante, halfway through the hilm we see him as helpless and confused, when the film finally ends at the beginning we see leonard act irrationally and he comes off ignorant and petty. Of course this isnt his fault, its his conditions , Leonard can remember who he was 10 minutes ago so his story can take off in any direction.

The most interesting cinematic choice i find was the decision to use color to code the scenes. Scenes in black and white play forward from begining to end, scnes in color play backward from end to beging. When analyzing the timeline the linear telling of the film looks like a zipper, not a straight line, its very groundbreaking in its ability to coordinate the veiwers confusion. The film is the definition of “a method to the madness”.

Christopher Nolan crafted the screenplay for Memento after reading his brothers short story Memento Mori about  man with the same condition. The complex story was the perfect subject for Nolan to exercise his artistic abilities. The chosen format along with the story creates layers upon layers as if if your watching a puzzle rather than a film. The film is so engaikng with its storytelling techniques its almost agame to figure out what happens next, its truly a one of a kind experience only Nolan could create.

As a stylistic choice Christopher Nolan tends to veer away from special effects, only using computer generated aspects to enhance what can be shot with a camera. The majority og effects in the film were practical created through lighting, staging and camera work. 

As for what i felt, i absolutely adored this movie. I love very story heavy media where the entire world reflects whats going on. I love the egg hunt of seeing things in the background that allude to the films ending, i love the twists and turns that i both saw coming and never could have guessed. I love how angry the film made me. A general belief I have when I consume any new media is if it cant invoke a reaction out of me it wasnt worth it. And i believe that for all media, if it cant cause emotion, theres no point. And memento very much did that, it got me invested with the complex story, it played out like a game, and it left me reeling. Best movie so far.

[vmkmrowlbm]

Orlando (1992 Potter)

2/10/22

The 1992 British drama Orlando is a film adaptation of Virginia Woolfe’s novel. The film stars Tilda Swinton as the androgynis protagonist Orlando, with Charlotte Valandray and Billy Zane as her love interests. Theres are also musical performances from Jimmy Somerville. The film was the groundbreaking work from Sally Potter that thrust the new director into the limelight, although a huge success, Orlando had made just under one million in profit.

Starting off as a young page to the queen, Orlando quickly becomes a favorite of hers and is told to never change. He does exactly this and does not age throughout the film. After inheriting land and a mansion from the queen, he falls for a Russian princess Sasha, who ultimately breaks his heart. Orlando goes on to travel and somehow transforms into a woman.

The turning point of the movie follows the now Lady Orlando and her struggle in navigating her old life as a lord. The social response to a woman with the power of a man challenges Orlandos life, she loses the right to her land, her home, her social status all because she has changed into a woman.

This radical change in orlandos life allows him to reflect on who she was as a man. The film mirrors scenes where orlando had treated Sasha as property while a man, to Orlando being property while a woman. He essentially losses his rights and his freedom when the transformation happened.

The films cinematographer was Aleksei Rodionov, Orlando was the 4th film he worked on. There is very little on the internet about Rodionov, which is sad because i find his style extremely unique and hard to describe. His work has a whimsical and romantic quality, which fits Orlando perfectly. An interesting way to show the passes of time was through many match cuts, which can be dizzying at times because theyre very hard to notice. 

Orlando was Sally Potter’s second film, that she was encouraged not to make. Potter said in an interview that upon pitching the idea for Orlando she was told its “too hard, too confusing, and generlally uninteresting”. She went to raise the production budget on her own and made the film anyway. Potter had been making films since 14, she dropped out of school at 16, and was a legitamate filmmaker by 17. She comes from a strong femminist and in her own words, anarchist background where everything was questioned, so Orlando was an important film to make.

A fascinating aspect of Orlando is that its partially animated. A smear artist was hired to create inbetween frams so transitions could be more fluid and seamless. Orlando aslo feature pyrotechnics in the festival scenes and green screen work to create the fyling angel at the end of the film.

I already gave some of my opinion in class, but now i think i fully hate that angel. Maybe not hate, his singing was nice, and i think hed wor in a different movie. He lacks purpose and it really annoys me, its like shoving a corner piece into the center of a puzzle just because you want it to be done. What was his purpose? What was the symbolism? It just doesnt fit. 

The rest of the film was lovely, but I wish it was longer. It felt very fast and i know now that maybe Sally Potter felt pressured to keep it short to keep the audiences attention, but theres so much story the film could have broke 2 hours, hell if done right it couldve hit 3. People flocked to theaters to see a 3 hr film about Jimmy Hoffa, a queer, genderbent, immortal/un-aging brithish nobel trying to find love is JUST as interesting, if not more. Its a good film, I just wish there was more of it.

[vmkmrowlbm]

The Prestige (1995 Nolan)

2/17/22

Based on the 1995 Christopher Preist novel, The Prestige was adapted for the screen by Christopher Nolan in 2006. The film starred very big names such as Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Micheal Cain, and Scarlet Johannsen, with special appearances from David Bowie. The original budget of forty million more than doubled in profits, the film made one hundred and nine million worldwide.

The film begins, and Alfred Borden is on trial for the death of Robert Angier. Cut back to the death of Robert Angier’s wife from a magic trick gone wrong, the fault of Alfred Borden, Angier, and fellow magician Borden form a rivalry, where they ruin each other’s shows and steal their tricks. This quickly escalates to murder attempts and kidnappings. The film centers around Borden’s trick “the transported man” and Angiers attempt to recreate it. Angier spends a lot of money funding Nikola Tesla’s work, who eventually builds Angier a teleportation machine, however, this machine teleports a clone, not the actual object. 

Snapping back to the films beginning we get “the twist”.  Borden was framed for the death of one of Angiers clones. Borden is sentenced to death and angier becomes the adoptive guardian of Borden’s daughter. When he attempts to dispose of the machine Tesla had built, he’s met with a very alive Borden, who shoots Angier. It’s here that Borden reveals how he did his trick, Tesla never helped him, he simply had a twin brother who for years on and off stage they pretend to be the same person. He lived his illusion. His brother Fallon is the one hung for the “crime”.  Angier dies next to his machine and dozens of dead clones, Borden gets his daughter back. The end.

Angier’s character doesn’t develop so much as a spiral. He initially starts this feud hungry for revenge for his dead wife. Near the middle of the film he admits in a heated argument that he doesn’t care about his wife, this isn’t about her anymore, he has no reason to be doing this. His grief spiraled into revenge and it consumed him. Borden is harder to track as he’s literally two people. There isn’t linear development but subtle shifts in the character that indicate he is someone else. 

The Prestige uses close-ups and tight camera frames to amp up the drama. The framing gives the scenes a claustrophobic feel like the character is trapped and has no choice in what they’re doing. The use of close-ups is often paired with death, when a character is in danger or they are dying the camera will zoom in on their face to show the fear in their eyes. It forces the viewer to look and sympathize with the doomed character.

Another amazing film from Christopher Nolan, The Prestige was made using the success of Batman Begins to get such a high production value. The film was another collaboration between Nolan and his brother Jonathan. The Nolan’s broke the script up to form a three-act play that followed the film’s initial ideology of magic tricks, the pledge, the turn, and the prestige. The brothers also created a visual script of the film, consisting of scale models and miniatures to help pitch the idea.

While the film is about magic, the special effects were kept to a minimum. In line with Nolan’s style, he relied on lighting and other natural elements to amplify the tricks. The most noticeable is the use of blue light in scenes where Angier uses his machine. Harsh blue waves make the scene feel unnatural and scientific. In some split frames, the lighting warps the scene. 

Like the last Nolan movie we watched, I loved it. The ending was so dark, Angier repeatedly killing a clone of himself just for an act is insanity.  The production quality was amazing too, not that low-budget films are bad but it helps hold my attention when things visually look good. I am still very angry at Borden’s character, even tho he technically wasn’t a bad person. His brother was awful but when his double life started to self-destruct he did nothing. He let his wife die to keep the illusion going. He could have stopped at any moment, but for the sake of the trick, he kept going. So I don’t think the ending was very fair that he got to live while Angier died. Neither of them should have made it out, Angier let revenge consume him and by the end, he was just a sad little man, but throughout the film, Borden and his twin Fallon were ignorant to everyone else around them, Borden had no redemption arc that made him deserve to survive the prestige.

[vmkmrowlbm]

Adaptation (2002, Jones)

3/3/22

The 2002 film from Spike Jones and Sony Pictures is a metafilm that captures several genres ranging from drama, comedy, to self-exploration. The Film stars Nicholas cage as Charlie and Donald Kauffman and Maryl Streep as the journalist Susan Orlean, along with Chris Cooper, Cara Seymour, and Tilda Swinton. The film had a fairly modest budget of 19 million. It almost made double that upon its release, bringing in 32 million.

The film is a book adaptation about orchids, or it's a film about a writer trying to adapt a book about orchids for the big screen.  We start with charlie Kauffman who is given the project to write the screenplay for the film adaptation of the book “the orchid thief”, but how does one make flowers a blockbuster? Charlie runs into problems when he realizes the book has no conflict, if he wants to make a decent film hell have to take some liberties but then he's not being true to the book, written by a real person about real people and their experiences, and people he may have to meet in person one day.

The film takes a turn when charlie writes himself into his screenplay. Instead of writing out the book, he writes about his experience trying to write out the book and often writes in the script things we as the audience have already seen. He's writing the movie as we are watching it. This still doesn't feel like a film so he asks his younger brother Donald for help with writing. Once Donald is brought on, we see drastic changes to the script, the coming of age and self-exploration flavor charlie had dropped and the film switches to what you'd expect from a Hollywood film. Drama, drugs, sex, car chases, and snapping alligators. All stuff that has nothing to do with the book that's being adapted. 

Charlie Kauffman is very obviously the protagonist of the story and for most of the film, we see him struggle with self-loathing and perfectionism. His taste is so particular he can write anything that will make him happy. Later the film becomes exactly what charlie said he didn't want it to be, a film about growth. Charlie grows as a person when he lets go of control and asks his brother for help, he also has to suffer the loss of a sibling he only recently began to appreciate. Charlie lets go of control and create a film just to see how it would play out, and it works. 

The film's cinematographer was Lance Acord, a close friend of Spike Jonze. Acord was nominated for the best cinematography award for Adaptation, but I can't find any more information than that. What was so great about the camera work? It was barely noticeable. But then that is great camera work, the scenes had such a linear flow to them that you don't even question the shot choices. 

When Spike Jonze received the screenplay, he told Charlie Kauffman that this would end his career. The movie was so experimental and simply not what you'd expected, but production went forward. Adaptation was the second film from Jonze and is truly one of a kind.

The effects used were mostly practical. Camera work such as choosing a split-screen rather than a green screen to make it seem like Nicholas Cage was two people, or simply filing with a twin “off screen”, and a fat suit to change his body type. The film used a lot of motion-controlled cameras and rotoscoping to keep shots seamless.

I absolutely love the meta approach to the film, its like we're watching it as it's being written, which also gives this the feeling that there is no actual end. It's ambiguous and definite at the same time. Another aspect I enjoyed was I couldn't tell what was real. What parts did Charlie make up? What was true? Did he actually jerk off to this journalist then pitch it in a movie to her or was that comedic effect? The commitment to the film blows my mind, adding all the disgusting details and risking your image for the sake of art, it's gritty, but it wasn't preachy or pretentious. It felt very raw. I quite like how Donald Kauffman was credited as a writer, even tho he doesn't exist, it's like a little Easter egg at the end of the film. 

[vmkmrowlbm]

“Ghost Dog” (1999 Jarmush)

3/10/22

The 1999 film from Jim Jarmush and Artisan Entertainment was specifically made for its leading actor, Forest Whitaker. Starring alongside Whitaker was Cliff Gorman, Isaach De Bankole, Henry Silva, and Tricia Vessey. The film's reception was overwhelmingly positive, and it more than quadrupled its profit, making over nine million, with a budget of only two million.

The film follows a hitman “Ghost Dog” who sees himself as a samurai. After a small mistake with his last hit, the Italian mafia turns on him and sets out to kill him. We see Ghost Dog as he shoots his way to the head of the organization, he wipes out everyone except for Louis, the man who originally hired him.

Ghost Dog remains stoic as the film progresses, it's because of his lifestyle. Ghost dog follows a samurai code so he is in control of his emotions, nothing takes him by surprise, and he does not fear death, when it's his time to go, he welcomes it. 

Cinematographer Robby Muller used smooth shots and transitions to maintain the tranquility of Ghost Dog throughout the film, everything is very fluid and low energy. The scenes where someone is murdered play out just as smoothly as when Ghost Dog is sat eating an ice cream with his friends. Overall the cinematography is most notable for its surreal continuity. 

Inspired by Don Quixote and his love for Forrest Whittaker, director Jon Jarmusch designed this film for Whittaker. He wanted a movie for Whittaker so he took the components he thought would best fit, this resulted in a cultural mashup that represents our melting pot country.  Jarmusch notes that this is how most of his films start, he picks an actor and builds from there. 

The film is very basic in its special effects but the scene that comes to mind is on a transition the clips overlap each other. A shot of Forrest Whittaker is overlayed a scenic view to show the introspective/thoughtful aspect of the character and to smoothly change the scene.

Personally, I didn't hate the movie, but I feel like it's viewed wrong. Ghost Dog gets a hero's ending, but what has he done? Who has he helped? He didn't deserve to die and he centrality didn't deserve to die like a hero. If anything ghost dog is delusional, he immersed himself in a book, he's no different than people who naruto run down hallways because they got way too into anime. After all Ghost Dog was a hitman, he killed people for work, and he worked for a mob, he was not a good person. By the end of the film, I felt bad for him. Not sad that he's dead, I didn't get to know him well enough for that reaction but felt bad that he went through all that. 

What was stopping him from living a normal life? What happened that he ended up a hitman? I cant sympathize with something I don't know. The film doesn't portray Ghost Dog for was he is, he's just a guy, not a bad one, definitely not a good one, not an anti-hero. He's just kind of there.

[vmkmrowlbm]

What We Do In The Shadows (2014 Waititi)

By absolutely destroying “the mold” for films, in 2014 Taika Waititi and Jemaine Clement gave us the horror-comedy mockumentary, What We Do In The Shadows. The film stars Jonathan Brugh, Cori Gonzalez-Macuer, and Stu Rutherford alongside the directors. The film runs just under an hour and a half and follows a found footage style with handheld cameras. The film was released from Madman Entertainment and made more than quadruple its budget, turning 1.6 million into 7.3.

Following a group of flatmate vampires influenced by various iconic vampire films, the story begins months before a significant vampire event, the unholy masquerade, and follows the flatmates in their preparations for the party as well as documenting their everyday life as they go about their business in the human world. 

Things twist when the oldest vampire Petyr turns their dinner into the newest vampire instead of eating the human. There is a rival between the angsty lost boy’s era vampire, Deacon, and the newest, just a guy Nick. While there’s a  mild rivalry, the original vampires take a liking to Nicks’s human friend Stu and tolerate Nick for that reason.

The biggest change we see on screen is that all vampires become more tolerant and soft towards the film ends. From an appreciation to each other, to liking the company of humans, and finally their favorite human being transformed into the vampire’s mortal enemy, a werewolf. The character development has an air of brotherly love as we watch the angst and pride dissipate into something you wouldn’t expect from a creature of the night, friendship.

The technical art of the film I mentioned in the introduction, it uses a found film standard, with shaky footage and handheld shots. The scenes compile in a very natural and raw way. This makes the film feel more real, like an actual documentary.

The directors Waititi and Clement based the film off a smaller work they created together, where they dressed as vampires and went about their business, and recorded the reaction they got. What we do in the Shadows is Waititis’s second feature-length film.

The effects in the film were gimmicky, but that adds to the absurdity of the mockumentary. Most notable ridiculous was the blood spray, a pump to continuously gush a stream of “blood” at an alarming and comical rate.  The film uses mostly practical effects, like wires to make the vampires fly, then CGI to animate the strings out. 

I’m sad to say it, but I did not enjoy this as much as I wanted to. I love vampire movies and I’ve seen all the movies that What we do in the Shadows referenced, but the documentary and found footage format didn’t do it for me. It was hard to watch, and a lot of the film I couldn’t keep up with so a good portion went over my head. The set and costume design was beautiful, I love when a film is detail-oriented and it really hit that mark. I feel like a lot of the gags in the film could have been pushed, it was funny, and it made me giggle, but I didn’t laugh. Overall I found it pretty underwhelming and it didn’t live up to the hype.

[vmkmrowlbm]

Boy (2010 Waititi)

3/24/22

The 2010 coming of age story from Tiaka Waititi and the New Zealand Film Commission features a young Maori boy, called boy, played by James Rolleston, who discovers the truth about his father, played by Waititi while taking care of his cousins and younger brother Rocky(Te Aho Aho Eketone Whitu). Boy started with a budget of 90,000 that was raised on Kickstarter, flipped into New Zealand’s highest-grossing film, making 8 million upon its release. The film brought in over 64 million worldwide.

The devout Michel Jackson fan Boy has a more than the perfect vision of his absent father, Alamein. When Alamein spontaneously reappears in the boy’s life after spending time in prison, Boys vision is shattered as he spends time with Alamein and gets to know the man his father truly is.

The shift in boys’ min happens when he pieces together that his father wasn’t there for his brother Rocky’s birth, and simultaneously his mothers death. After spedning day in day out by his fathers side, mimicing the elders existance, boys world is shattered when he realizes this man abandoned him, his brother, and his mother. 

The film starts when the boy’s grandmother leaves for a three-day funeral and he is left to care for his younger brother and cousins. Boy cooks for them and puts them to bed, but this routine is thrown off when Alamein returns. At his arrival boy is thrilled but rocky seems just as confused s Alamein when confronted with the stranger fresh from prison. Boy spends his days helping his father until he eventually piece his past together. The vivid emotions coming from his family’s abandonment lead the boy to strike his father. The point when Boy becomes a man. After the altercation, he continues to care for his family.

True to the genre, this film is about growing up. We watch the boy as he braves through the very horrifying reality that your parents are not the people you thought they were. Boy’s situation is bleaker as he wrestles with abandonment and responsibility. Through the uncomfortable events he experiences with his father, we see Boy grow into the role he was placed in when we first met him, the man of the house.

The style of the film is slightly documentary, as we get 4th wall breaks where Boy will speak to the camera or narrate the scene. Most of the film is linear and plays out the way you’d expect a story to. Every once in a while scenes will be broken up by hand-drawn animations of what Rocky is thinking. The shots are plain but the is a strong unity in each scene as there is an emphasis on color and the natural landscape of New Zealand. The beautiful environment adds to the magic of childhood.

Although there are obvious connections between boy and Taika, Taika Waititi has denied this being a biopic but it was inspired by “true and imagined memories”.  The film was inspired by Taika’s short film Two Cars, One Night, which features two children being left alone, and becoming friends. Boy fits Waititi’s style of whimsy and humor perfectly combined with the added spice of growing up in a very real and vulnerable way.

The subtle but life-changing events boy has to overcome are amazing to me. The film beautifully captures subtly trauma. The pain that comes from someone’s absence. The boy never gets beat, no one dies, there’s no deep hatred for Alamein by the end, just disappointment, and satisfaction when a boy becomes the man Alamein should have been. Coming of age stories where a child has to confront their trauma walk a very thin line of hopeful tears to pure disgust. I remember puking while reading a child called it, while it was based on a true story, it was just too much. Boy achieves the same captivity over its audience without terrorizing them. 

Before the film began it was said that Taika Waititi believes in the real world, in real life, Boy would have died. I disagree. In real life, Boy would have never hit his father and spent every day of his life regretting it. The real unhappy, morbid ending is no one stands up to Alamein. The cycle isn’t broken, and maybe Boy grows up to be just like him.  The version that was published hits very close to home for many people, and i think it does that in a beautiful way.

[vmkmrowlbm]

Emma (2020 Wilde)

3/31/22

From Working Title Films and director Autumn de Wilde consumers were gifted Emma in 2020. Based on the Jane Austen novel by the same name, we see Anya Taylor Joy bring Emma to life alongside her co-stars, Johnny Flynn, Josh O’Connor, Callum Turner, and Mia Goth. Since its release, Emma has made over 26 million and won awards for best costume, best romance, and best voiceover. 

Focused on a young self-absorbed and upper-class girl, the romantic comedy follows the development of multiple couples. Emma longs for companionship but is vocally against marriage, she often meddles in the lives of others, however, Emma who has never had a bad day in her life now faces the consequences of her actions.

After ruining her friend's chance at true happiness when she manipulates her into declining a marriage proposal, Emma and her friend Harriet fall for the same man. In order to keep her friendship with Harriet, Emma must admit she was wrong and mend the relationship between Harriet and Mr. Martin, the man Harriet had declined. 

Overall the film is about Emma becoming more compassionate. Growing up rich, never having to struggle or fight for anything, and being extremely beautiful has given her a complex. She thinks she can do no wrong, but we get to watch as her actions actively do wrong in the lives of others and circle back to affect her. The change is still fairly shallow, as Emma only begins to care about her effect on others when it affects her. 

The average shot time for Emma was 6 seconds making it a very fast film while still being feature-length.  While short the cuts aren't disorienting and not noticeable unless you're looking for them. Cinematographer Christopher Blauvelt was more concerned with the camera than the actual shooting and editing. Emma was shot on an ARRI Alexa LF because of how the camera caught the light. It's not particularly crisp and leaves soft edges, which is fitting for a period piece. 

Emma was Autumn de Wilde's debut film, it switched her from a photographer to a director. It was groundbreaking success, Emma has won 3 awards,2 runner-ups, and was nominated for a total of 26, 3 of which were directed at Wilde for the best new filmmaker, best female filmmaker, and best breakout film. 

The film has no VFX and consists of all practical effects, however, the most notable scene where effects are expected was real. After Emma is proposed to, she gets a nosebleed from stress. Anya Taylor Joy and Autumn de Wilde both confirmed that Joy actually had a nosebleed on set. Joy states that she “is just happy none got on the dress”.

The entire film I was waiting for some cataclysmic thing to happen to Emma, for her life to get ruined, her to lose all her money, just some form of karma for being such a snobby brat, with that being said I still loved the film. Emma is a very shallow character and is still somewhat shallow at the end but sometimes that's just life. My favorite thing was how beautiful and vivid the set was. The pink and blue rooms were dreamy and I adore the cotton candy pastels. It's a very visually stunning film and doesn't drag on like other period pieces. Personally, I love drama and conflict so I feel like the struggles could have been amped up but that's neither here nor there, and the film is incredibly successful either way. 

[vmkmrowlbm]

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015, Miller)

4/7/21

The fourth film in the Mad Max universe was released from Village Roadshow Pictures in 2015 after many years of work and a spotty production schedule, originally starting in 1998. We see a new Max Rockatansky with Tom Hardy playing the lead. Charlize Theron co-stars as Imperator Furiosa, the driving force of the plot. The rest of the cast includes some notable faces such as Nicholas Hoult, Zoe Kravitz, and Hugh Keays-Byrne. Upon release the film “underperformed”, bringing in 374 million worldwide on a budget of 185 million. Somehow the film suffered roughly 20 million in losses, despite this, reviews were sparkling. 

Taking off in a desert wasteland, max is apprehended by the war boys and used as a “blood bag” for one of the sicker men. Furiosa prepares her war rig for a journey to retrieve supplies for the citadel as an excuse to carry out a rescue mission. She frees the cult leader Immortan Joe’s “breeders” and hides them in her truck, starting a lengthy road war between Furiosa, and the citadel's forces.  

Max reluctantly gets tangled up in the rescue operation and helps Furiosa get to the “green place”. Furisoa drives right through it without even knowing, all that's left of the green place is mud and swamp. Furiosa finds her clan but is devastated at the destruction of her home. The women decide to keep pushing forward, looking for a new home. Max has a different idea, since they are being chased by all of Immortan Joe's army, the citadel (the only habitable place for miles) is unattended. The group turns back, with plans to liberate the citadel and make it their home.

As I said before, max starts off this adventure being captured so he is not very trusting. When he joins up with Furiosa, he's chained up, a metal cage on his face, and holding a gun to a very pregnant woman. Max is a very hard character, rough and tormented. It only makes sense for him to be so aggressive. After fighting alongside the women, near the end of the film Max tells Furiosa his name as he tries to save her life. This is as soft as we see max get, shortly after Furiosa is stable and the citadel is won, he leaves. He didn't open his heart to anyone, but it's a long way from waving a gun around. 

Mad Max is a dystopian action franchise, it makes sense for it to be fast, but Mad Max: Fury Road is INTENSE with its editing. The average shot time is 2 seconds, making the film go very fast. It's also color-coded, with most of the shots being a vibrant orange tone. The scenes in the swamp are blue, making it a bit eerie, letting the audience know something is off. Cinematographer Jon Seale came out of retirement to make this beautifully shot movie.

The original creator of Mad Max, George Miller, directed the revival movie. Miller created the concept for a fourth movie back in the 80s when the original three were released, but the film kept getting pushed back. Miller has stated in many interviews that he wanted this to be an art forward film, visuals first, story second.

With the insane explosions and full-out road war, you'd imagine the special effects were rampant, but most of the film was real. Cars were flipped and blown up, people were flung around. Special effects supervisor Dan Oliver has said “if it was physically possible to do, we’d do it”.  CGI was used to edit out wires and rigs, but not much more. 

My only issue with this movie is that Max feels like a secondary character. He isn't a catalyst for anything, and no one really knows who he is. The film could have been the same with any random dude. He's not embedded in the story and it's frustrating because the film still works with or without Max. Other than that I loved the rich worldbuilding. I feel like we only saw 2% of what was created. Very “tip of the iceberg”. I loved how fast it was, it never really dragged which is great, it made it enjoyable for people who don't care for action movies. 

[vmkmrowlbm]

1917 (2019 Mendes)

4/14/22

The 2019 film from Sam Mendes and Universal Pictures,  1917 stars George Mackay and Dean- Charles Chapman as two British lance corporals in the first world war. The film oddly filled its supporting roles with bigger names such as Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Andrew Scott. Regardless of the casting choices  1917 more than tripled its costs, taking 100 million to produce but bringing in 384 million.

The film follows two soldiers Blake and Schofield as their tasked with delivering orders to a different battalion. They must deliver an order to cease an upcoming attack that is supposed to happen the next day, the incentive being Blakes's brother is in that battalion and will surely die if the attack goes forward. 

The key development we see is Schofield, who at the start of the film begs blake to reconsider, to not make the journey as it's too dangerous and he's seen enough war. That stance doesn't change so much as Schofield has other moral commitments, upon Blakes's sudden death, Schofield knows the importance of family and makes the decision to carry out a mission that isn't his. An exceptional example of acting on George Mackays part is how Schofield's demeanor changes over the course of the film. We can see on screen the symptoms of PTSD in Schofield, but he still reaches his goal. Every step he takes looks more pained and it's a very subtle but captivating part of the character development.

The style of the film is very unique. The whole film is shot and edited to look like it's one continuous take, however, the director Sam Mendes blatantly states he intended it to be two shots. Either way, the continuity adds a stream of consciousness flow to the film. We get to see everything, every step of the journey and it makes it so much more personal. Obviously, it's a condensed version of events, stuffing a whole day in 119 minutes, but it never feels like we're missing out.  In the same vein, it never drags, there's always an urgency even in the more mundane parts because the film is flowing, like a river it cant be paused. 

Like Mendes's other films 1917  has a strong visual language that can be described as dark.  Shots are clean but so crisp it's almost gritty. However style is not a strong influence, Mendes states that he adapts and molds his directorial methods to the story being made, this is partly why he wanted to make the movie look like one take, to challenge his skill set, and keep from falling into a pattern. 

The bulk of visual effects in the film was used to stitch scenes together in order to get a seamless flow. The range of VFX was painting out modern architecture, matte painting, green screen work, and even CGI rats. A big part was keeping the camera continuous, lining up shots so they transition smoothly, and ensuring that the camera rigs were never seen in a shot. Though it's heavily edited the film holds a natural feel. 

I loved this movie. With most movies, I feel like the story drama could be stronger, darker, grander, and more horrific, and while I do feel this way about 1917, I don't mind as much because it's so visually stunning. The flow from the continuous shot lets the viewer immerse themself in the story and you easily lose track of the fact that you're looking through a camera lens. Its blends reality. My favorite sequence is at the end of the film when Schofield finds the second devons and searches for Mackenzie in the trenches. The white mineral dirt is mind-blowing. The subtle difference in the material adds a surreal layer, combining the meditative aspects of traversing a salt flat and the horror of war. It is such a clean setting and a beautiful contrast to what a trench would have looked like. It's so different and pretty that it's kind of spooky. 

[vmkmrowlbm]

Mishima: a life in four chapters (1985 Schrader)

4/21/22

The 1985 film by Paul Schrader Mishima: a life in four chapters combines the works of Mishima along with his childhood and his last day on earth to tell the story of Mishima’s life. Staring Ken Ogata as Mishima with a long list of co-stars that include Kanji Sawada, Toshiyuki Nagashima, and Yasosuke Bando. In comparison to its budget of 5 million, the film severely under performed making only 500 thousand.

Mishima opens with Mishima getting out of bed on his last day, then proceeds in a series of flashbacks and dramatizations of his books. The film is very non traditional but still linear, the flashbacks and books play out oldest to newest along side the present experience of mishmas attempted coup and suicide. 

The actual plot of the film gets buried in the expeirementl style, the film shows a progression of a troubled youth discovering himself, to a young writer fighting an internal conflict then finally a  grown man whos fallen down a nationalist pipeline.  With each story and flashback we can piece together how mishima felt about himself and see him inch further into the imperialist ideaology. Each story told foreshadows Mishimas imminent suicide while hinting at his beliefs, its very easy to miss this all together. 

The plot is Mishimas character development from youth to adulthood, like I previously stated. In  a way this is a coming of age story where nothing is overcome, but mishima submits to his fears. The dramatic shift in beliefs raises the question if Mishima’s far right beliefs are a reparation for his “leftist” lifestyle, like hes trying to make up for who his is, if he dedicates his life to the emperor it will stop all the internal turmoil and self hate. 

The difference between flashbacks, the present and book adaptations are stylistically coded, the present is in plain color and filmed like a normal scene, the flashbacks are black and white and also follow a normal set up. The books are in color, but are color coded, the temple of the golden pavilion is green and gold, Kyoko’s House is hot pink, and Runaway Horses is red and white. Each of these take place on a thater stage, and act as a play interjecting in the film. 

While conceptually stunning, this film calls morality into question. Director Paul Schrader stated that after his film Taxi Driver he wanted to continue making films about suicidal glory. Schrader had been activly looking for suicide cases that fit the discription in order to write his next script. Mishima is a product of a dark fascination, which fits, but is it right?

Overall i enjoyed the collage like style of the film, the layers make it interesting to watch because you have to piece it together to get the story. It makes the viewer work instead of hand feeding them the information. While this is my favorarite aspect of the film i feel like its also the films biggest weakness, it might be too experimental, and people who arent looking for the weird and wonderful would get bored, while i enjoyed this film i can understand why it performed so poorly. I feel like i say this about everything ive watch but i feel like it couldve done more,while interactive  it wasnt as immersive as other films and i felt very far away from the characters while watching. Lingering on some aspects, for example the flashbacks, could have made Mishima seem more human and given the viewer time to catch up and process what they were shown.

[vmkmrowlbm]

The Ascent (1977 Shepitko)

4/28/22

The 1977 anti-war film from Larisa Shepitko focuses on partisans played by Boris Plotnikov and Vladimir Gostyukhin, with minor characters like villagers played by Lyudmila Polyakova, Sergei Yakovlev, and Anatoli Solonitsyn. The Ascent was adapted from the novel Sotnikov and produces by the Russian production company Mosfilm. 

When two Russian partisans, Sotnikov and Ryubik leave their group to find food and supplies, things go awry as they are caught by German soldiers. The following events combine Russia's struggle in WWII with biblical iconography. 

The men are tortured and interrogated, Rybak trying to compromise and talk his way out while Sotnikov remains his integrity and stays silent. He receives the brunt of the torture for this but does not break. While locked in a cell, Sotnikov decides he will take the blame for everyone imprisoned, that he’ll agree to be executed if everyone else can go free. German soldiers then march the group uphill, carrying a stool that will be used in their execution. Before the hanging Rybak begs the germans to let him go and agrees to work for them if he can live, the others being hanged also beg and plead for their lives, but Sotnikov does not. When it's time, Sotnikov allows Rybak to hang him, not showing any emotion as he dies. 

At first, the film is centered on Rybak. He's the hero of the film, continually saving Sotnikov, who supposedly has no will to live because of his illness. When the men are being interrogated, it would be expected for Sotnikov to break as he's already established as weak, but he doesn't. He doesn't tell the germans anything and is branded as a result. Rybak is very cooperative, he talks to the german army like their borderline friends, and he tries to convince Sotnikov to do the same. Rybak’s drive to stay alive outweighs his morals, which makes Sotnikov the protagonist. This shift continues as we see Rybak join the germans and Sotnikov be executed by his former friend. After the execution, a woman calls Rybak “Judas”, and it revealed what we just watched was an allegory for the crucifixion. 

The entire film is shot in black and white which makes it feel older than it is. Because of the Russian snowscape the black and white choice makes the film feel ethereal, it has very dark content but visually is always blinding white. The camera work is shaky, maybe to add realism to it. 

The Ascent was Larisa Shepitko’s last film before she was killed in a car accident but is considered the high point of her career. Shepitko and her husband both lived through the German invasion of Belorussia, and Shepitko said in an interview that “every film is personal, but this was a physical need”. Shepitko wanted to make a film about morality and how people react in war rather than a film about war, which she accomplishes through biblical betrayal. 

As a whole, I enjoyed the film, it's a war that we don't really get to see. I wished it went a bit harder with the religious symbolism, if I didn't go to catholic school I never would have understood the comparison. Having the person to Sotnikovs left to beg for forgiveness while having someone on the right claim they did nothing wrong would've made a stronger connection or a head injury where blood could have dripped down Sotnikov’s face, emulating the crown of thorns. The last religious bit I wanted was Rybak to be forgiven. Sotnikov is stoic throughout his execution which leaves his feelings up for interpretation. Religious symbolism aside the story is still fantastic, the twist of Rybak joining the germans is the most gut-wrenching part because of how badly I was rooting for him in the start. The film isn't at all disappointing, but it makes you disappointed in the characters, I feel like that's the point.

[vmkmrowlbm]

The Pillow Book (1996 Greenaway)

4/29/22

The 1996 film by Peter Greenaway The Pillow Book stars Vivian Wu and Ewan Mcgregor, with Ken Ogata and Yoshi Oida playing minor roles. The Pillow Book was released from Alpha films and made just over two million upon its release. 

The film follows the life of a girl Nagiko and her pursuit to find a fit lover that shares her passion for calligraphy. We get to see are her family tradition forms into her fetish, and how this evolves into her career. 

Nagiko evolves from the paper to a writer, where she writes about other people and turns them into a publisher instead of a traditional book. 

Nagiko initially falls for a man Jerome, who becomes her human book. However, Jerome enjoys the exhibitionist side of being her paper too much and ends up cheating on Nagiko with the publisher. This devastating heartbreak somehow leads to Jerome's suicide. After his death, the publisher turns Jerome's body into a book by skinning him, and the film ends with Nagiko calling out the publisher for his crimes, and retrieving Jerome's book. 

There's no set development, as the film is more about exploration. Nagiko learns and finds new ways to enjoy her calligraphy obsession. Eventually, she becomes a writer, so the most notable development would be that Nagiko transforms from the objectified (the book) to the objectifier (a writer). This transformation can be analyzed with a feminist lens, as it's interesting to see a movie about female sexuality where the woman is in charge but it's not some BDSM fantasy. 

The way the shots a sewn together is very mishmash, with flashbacks, present-day scenes, and overlays of media such as poetry and Japanese paintings. Like Mishima, this film is a collage. The film also overlays a lot of footage, scenes will overlap each other. The shots are also framed in a way that they look like a screen within a screen, this typically happens with the flashbacks, to make them feel like your watching Nagikos memories like a movie. 

Peter Greenway created the pillow book in his signature style, nonlinear and very layered. He often composes his films like renaissance paintings, taking inspiration from Flemish art and the allergies about sex and death. 

I feel as if all special effects are tied to the cinematography, and are really just the editing style. It's mostly overlays and composited scenes.  Personally, my favorite effect in the film was when Nagiko was describing the list of beautiful things and the images/footage of said things appear above the screen in a cloud. It somehow uses stereotypical techniques but doesn't feel cheesy, like the record scratch used throughout the film. 

In all honesty, I was thrown too far through a loop by Ewan Mcgregor’s nude scenes to pay attention. You never realize how normal female nudity is in a film until you see a nude man. As freaked out by that as I was, it was still a great film. Definitely erotic but not porn, I'm not sure if  NC-17 was appropriate though, it was weird but no more insane than an R. it feels unfair to label something artistic as 18+ because it shows non-graphic (and non-straight) sex. 

[vmkmrowlbm]

Rashomon (1950, Kurosawa)

1/20/22

Released in 1950 by Daiei, Rashomon is a psychological thriller/ mystery directed by Akira Kurosawa based on the short story In the Grove by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa. The limited cast of characters includes Toshiro Mifune as Tajomaru/The Bandit, Machiko Kyo as The Wife, Masayuki Mori as The Samurai, and Takashi Shimura as The Woodcutter.  While the film wasnt a major hit upon release, making only 96k of the 250k production cost, it’s become so influential that a psychological effect has been named after it.

Set in 8th century Kyoto, three men, the woodcutter, a priest, and a beggar, wait out a storm at the city gate. The Woodcutter recounts the various versions of a rape and a murder, each version being entirely plausible yet contradicting with the next. It toys with the idea of subjective truth and leaves the audience questioning reality.

The first version of events comes from the bandit, he claims the woman was just so beautiful he had to have her, but he never had any intention of killing her husband, that came after she begged him to do so. The second account is from the woman, she tells of how after her assult she was so ashamed,  she begged her husband to kill her, instead he stares at her full of distain. Out of grief the woman faints while holding her knife,  when she awoke her husband was dead. After the wife, the husband gives an account of his murder through a medium, in his words his wife had no love for him, after she begs the bandit to kill her husband, he kills himself. Lastly we hear from the woodcutter, who admits he saw the whole thing, not just the samurai’s body. He recounts the the woman was raped, the bandit begs her to marry him, and offers to fight her husband for her, her husband delines to fight as his wife is now “spoiled”, this changes the bandits mind, now he too doesnt want the woman. This causes the woman to act out cursing both men, stating that they arent men at all, the humiliation gives them the will to fight a very half-hearted battle and the bandit wins. 

There is no linear character arc however it can be argued the woodcutter shows growth. At the beginning of the film, he lies, and states he only found the samurai’s body. By the end he admits he witnessed the whole ordeal, giving him the status of the liar. Almost instantly after we learn this, the woodcutter finds an abandoned baby and decides to take the child home to raise them with his other children. This act isnt directly connected to lying but its a very selfless act of redemption.

The filming of Rashomon is just as artful as the story. Multiple cameras were used in one shot so film could be cut together in editing. The legnth of some clips were ment to symbolize intensity, such as the wife acting hyserycal. A uniquely beautiful technique used was the use of mirrors for lighting. In order to amplify the natural light of the sun, mirrors were hidden around the scene. When the cinematographer Kazou Miyagawa wanted to counteract the light, he would darken scenes by painting the film with black ink.

Due to the small budget, director Akira Kurosawa wanted to simplyfy the film, therefore he limited the set to three locations. Kurosawa wasn,t afraid of western influence, his films often resembled what we see in hollywood, this includes Rashomon, he used many of the same techniques we’ve seen in blockbusters such as jumpcuts and wipes, putting his films on the same level as hollywood cinema.

All Effects created by Kurosawa and Miyagawa were physical alterations. Physically cutting and dying film, placeing mirrors around set for better lighting , and dragging a line over film along with another scene to create Kurosawa’s iconic wipe transition. These effects are amazing examples of what could be achieved without a computer and attest to Kurosawa and Miyagawa’s cinematography skills.

To finish up, I firmly believe the woodcutter was telling the truth, after all he only lied because he didnt want to be involved, he was just a bystander who had nothing to gain from the situation. I believe the bandit killed the samuri but did not want to, I belive the wife was incredibly ashamed, and im going to go ahead and say the samurai had it coming, he had one rope around him while his wife was being assulted, your telling me one rope held a trained warrior completely immoblie? As for the film as a whole, it wasnt bad. I really like the story and I feel like if it was ever remaid I would be more invested but there really isnt anything wrong with the film. I loved the use of sound to show intensity and drama, the end scene with the crescendo of music was bone chillingly beautiful.