Blackhawk Down (film analysis-outside of class)

Blackhawk down is a War movie that leaves the viewer with a greater realistic view of modern urban warfare.
Ridley Scott the director leads us down the road to what actually occured (hollywood version of course) that left 18 US soldiers dead 70 wounded and hundreds of Somalians dead. Ridley Scott answers the questions of "what went wrong" with the relief mission that was supposed to help the impoverished Somailians and outgunned soldiers helping them.
The movie has a good soundtrack and some key hits that play at strategic times.
"We're caught in a trap, I can't walk out......." bellows out as the Helicopter lifts off the ground and you're looking at the faces of clean shaved military cut young men between 19-35. Very innnocent looking this scene sets the stage and creates a dramatic marker to measure against when the shooting starts. Very powerful imagery.
Before "Irene" is about to be executed there's a scene where the leader of Chaulk4 is writing a letter in the hangar. It's very obvious he's nervous and serious. In the background one of the rangers dribbles around shooting baskets. This scene clearly shows me the director is telling the viewer, "Here are the kids that are going out to play today". "But, the game is much more dangerous than shooting hoops, some are not going to return, some will be killed as kids.
Another scene I want to comment on is the scene of preparation prior to the execution of "Irene". The Rangers are getting prepared, and one of them spot a Delta Force soldier getting ready, he's taping his bloodtype on a piece of tape around his boot. The man looks to be in his 30s and the younger Ranger maybe a mid 20. He comments to another Ranger what he's doing and the other Ranger replies it's bad luck. This contrast of age and movements is the directors choice of marking the differences in the 2 types of American soldiers that will be fighting. Though both are elite units, the Delta Force soldiers come across as being more experienced and wiser. This is important as the battle takes place after the move to take the warlord leaders hostage.
The special effects are good. Though gory in some aspects the viewer is plunged into the battle and given a front row seat to the men fighting and dying.
I think the movie is excellent though not one that I would call a typical John Wayner.
The realism is astounding and historically somewhat accurate though of course chewed up and spit out by "hollywood".

Fog of War

The Fog of War: 11 lesson's of Robert McNamara
Genre: Documentary
The movie takes us back in history and gives us historical and political perspective on the involvement of the US in WWII, The Cuban missle crisis and Vietnam. McNamara's 11 lessons derived from reviewing past events and afterwards working on an alternate solution to see if War could have been avoided. In other words playing armchair quaterback. He also admits that Commanders make mistakes but he never remarks upon which one's he's made. I found this interesting because in the end because it brings home Lesson #11 You can't change human nature. We all feel the need to "understand" and know why so many soldiers and civilians perished in War but McNamara knows by admitting his mistakes would lead to greater questioning by the public.
The movie's clips from the different Wars were powerful and interesting. The dominoes falling in different direction were symbolic of the political strife during vietnam. The numbers falling and disappearing were a represetation of the number of lives lost. The close-up shots of McNamara during his recalling of the fire bombing of Japan were very dramtic and you could tell he was almost grief stricken. To see the actual wreckage and carnage from the fire bombing was very moving to me. I had no idea that so many civilians were killed prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This movie gives us a greater vantage point and takes the viewer back in time sucessfully
During the Cuban missle crisis most people were no yet old enough to remember just how close the US came to an all out exchange of nuclear weapons. The movie and McNamara make a point of letting the viewer know that there is no "curve for learning" in a Nuclear exchange. In WWII there was an opportunity to change tactics but if the US had gone to war over the warheads placed in Cuba there would be no chance to learn anything. Our country would have faced annihilation.
Lesson #7: Belief and seeing are both often wrong. If I remember the part of the movie correctly this Lesson McNamara highlights the start of the Vietnam War in 1964. North Vietnamese patrol boats fire on a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin triggering start of US bombing raids on North Vietnam. This event occured well before any of us were born. What made it real for me was the taped phone calls to and from Washington to the actual ships. I think at this point in history though the US was already commited to supporting the South with military support. I think McNamara didn't point this out and failed to mention that the first attack was possibly in responce to US covert attacks in the North.
The movie is excellent in retelling historical events. I believe McNamara is sincere in his almost apologizing rhetoric. I don't believe his involvement in all the affairs he presented was truelly representative. I feel things were witheld that he deemed controversial. I went away with more questions, but maybe that was the intention of the movie.

Bad Education

Pedro Almodóvar's new film, Bad Education mixes genres in delighfully subversive ways, adopting the conventions of the traditional film noir, but replacing the femme fatale with a mysterious gay actor who re-enters the life of his first love, now a director. Or so that's how it seems. The film starts with Enrique (Fele Martínez), the film director, trying to find an idea for a new movie, when in walks Ignacio (Gael García Bernal), his first "love," who now wants to be called "Angel," with a screenplay about their youth. The film then recedes into a series of flashbacks about the boys' experiences in a Christian school, where Ignacio is molested by the head priest, the two boys find and explore each other, and Enrique gets sent away. The plot takes so many twists and turns, role-reversals, assumed identities and double-crosses as it spans the late 70s and early 80s, and their childhood early 60s that a plot synopsis would be utterly unhelpful and beside the point.

The film gets divided between childhood flashbacks, a chance meeting later, and, we come to find out later, the film of the experience, which culminates in a fantasy of revenge thwarted by instutitional power and ruthlessness. When the film-inside-the-film concludes, another phase opens when the priest comes back to confront Angel, who plays the main lead in the film. The genius of this is the self-reflective quality of the overly dramatic acting and clichéd plot of the interior film, contrasted against the dark background of the events to follow. Almodovar plays with the film noir genre in the tortuous plotline and the seemingly never-ending shifts in identity, but in case the viewer doesn't get it, the two antagonists, in flashback, go to a theater showing a "film noir week," complete with posters of Double Idemnity and other films noirs, after which they walk into a dark, rainy street.

The film works, I think, as much as any of Almodóvar's films, due to an apt eye for style combined with a tragic tenderness on the part of the characters, especially Enrique, who seems to be the only one moving on in his life in anything approaching a healthy way. The self-reflexivity and genre bending work to complicate a story that is ultimately about passion, forbidden or otherwise, and the pain of remembering lost love. From Enrique's initially unrequited love, to the priest's seemingly uncontrollable passion, to Angel's manipulative sexual endeavors, passion becomes an unfulfillable desire, and, ultimately a tool of penance, rage and desperate grasping. That all of the main characters are men is important, but seems inconsequential in the end. This is not about homosexuality so much as loneliness, revenge, and remembering the past, true themes of film noir, no matter the sexuality.

Dark city

Kevan V was having trouble posting to the blog, so he posted this in comments. I have pasted it here, so it can be on the front page. -erik

Dark City (1998), under the direction of Alex Proyas, was a film that sought to question the legitimacy of memory and our relationship to the past. Progression is slow in the beginning, but speeds up later. This is because it takes a while to establish the setting. The plot begins with a monologue by Dr. Schreber, wherein all we learn is that he is a sort of slave, forced to betray his fellow man working for beings who have control over all matter.

The story begins with a man who wakes up in a bathtub with no memory of who he is or why he is there. He soon learns several things: His name is John Murdoch, he is married, Dr. Schreber wants to see him, detective Bumstead is chasing him down for several murders, and bald men in trenchcoats (strangers) are hunting him down. These elements create a dynamic mystery that the audience is invited to solve with John Murdoch, as he tries to find out what is going on. Eventually Murdoch pieces together a theory– that there is only night, no sunlight, and every twelve hours is a new day, wherein each new day brings new memories and identities for all. Everyone he meets is somewhat confused, and has no solid recollection if the distant past (Schreber later explains the city is a zoo the strangers are using to find the human soul). Murdoch eventually befriends Bumstead and the two enlist the help of Dr. Daniel Shreber to lead them out of the city. The three break down a wall, and learn there is nothing outside of the city but empty space. Strangers appear, Bumstead falls out into outer space, and Murdoch gives himself to the Strangers to save his purported wife, Emma. In a pivotal scene shortly thereafter, Murdoch is strapped to a table as a prisoner of the strangers, who instruct Dr. Schreber to inject a lethal coctail into John’s head. At the last moment Schreber switches syringes and gives Murdoch the tools he needs to defeat the strangers and bring order to Dark City.
Dark City can be said to mix two genres.

The first is film noir, keeping with such elements as the darkness that enveloped the world of the movie and the cynicism exhibited especially by detective Bumstead. This film also has a foot in the genre of science fiction for its inclusion of telepathy, aliens, memory injections, and the setting within a huge spacecraft made to look like a city.

The narrative leads us to certain expectations early in the film, and with each new revelation one is forced time and again to recalculate these expectations. Light and time were two elements for which manipulation was utilized the most. The entire film, minus the last 5 minutes, is shot entirely in the dark. This creates a dirty city atmosphere very common in film noir. Time is manipulated in a way that makes it a wholly arbitrary factor. Because it is always night, and midnight is the only time any true change takes place, the clock becomes a signaler that foreshadows the next change.
Over all elements of the film are well balanced, and culminate into a product that is both fun to watch and thought provoking.

Citizen Kane

Directed by Orson Welles,Citizen Kane is seen by many as a masterpiece. In many ways, the movie defies genre. It most closely resembles a biopic, but of a fictional character. While it is generally accepted that Charles Foster Kane is a satire of William Randolph Hearst the film itself is clearly presented as fiction. The beauty of the film lies both in its visual representation and its narrative structure. Orson Welles, along with cinematographer Gregg Toland, stretched many of the prevalent rules in Hollywood by using extreme low-angles, deep-focus photography and other cinematic elements for creative purposes. In some cases, they cut trenches into the floors to get the extreme low angles. The aesthetic quality of the film makes it a treat to watch, almost making the viewer forget about the mystery behind the term "Rosebud."

As Thompson, the newspaper reporter, travels around trying to find out the meaning "Rosebud," the last word of famous newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane, he gets several detailed accounts of various parts of Kane's life, but never finds out the meaning behind the term. This matters little to the viewer, in part because the story is so masterfully shown, and in part because the meaning is revealed in the end (I won't give it away if you still haven't seen this 63 year old film). The overlapping narration of various people in Kane's life, along with the newsreel at the beginning of the film, serve to show him from many points of view, trying to get at the depths of his personality. The fact that the film holds the viewer's attention for 2 hours even though Kane's entire life story is revealed in the first 15 minutes via the newsreel is a testament to the powerful visual style of Welles and Toland.

This film raises questions about the impossibility of ever really knowing anyone through outward appearances. Although Thompson asks many people close to Kane about what made him tick, none had a real answer, and each had his or her own spin on his life. Interestingly, the only parts of the film that are not mediated by a newsreel or interview are the beginning, where we hear him say "rosebud," and the end, where its meaning is revealed. This privelege gives the viewer some insight into Kane that the previous narrators didn't have, but it also underscores the futility of trying to round up someone's life by answering one question, relying on one word, or looking from one angle.

Welcome

Welcome to the blog for Erik Marshall's Introduction to Film class.