The Coen Bros.

The Coens movies seem to provide the most obvious auteur style of any director that we have studied to this point. Maybe it was just the three movies that we watched in class, but you certainly don't need to dig very deep into those to leave with a very clear idea of what makes a Coen movie. The first thing that comes to mind is the "petty" crimes that blow way out of proportion and send the characters on a crazy cinematic journey. In Raising Arizona, it was H.I. and Ed's decision to steal a baby that unleashed to lone rider of the apocalypse. In Fargo, it is Lundegaard's decision to pay men to kidnap his wife in order to get ransom money from his boss and father in law. No Country for Old Men is a little different in that it made me go back and put quotes around "petty" crime. Maybe for this one, they decided to skip the pettiness in the name of badassness, which, is a very favorable choice. Each of these films is also set in a distinct setting that is highly developed by the characters and the plot. Another thing that makes the Coen's who they are is their sense of humor. No matter what horrible actions are being carried out by the characters on screen, the Coens always leave room in the script for a little humor. I suppose i am referring to a juxtaposition between very heinous and serious crimes and some goofy little interjection of humor. I remember the first time i saw Fargo, i was so caught off guard by the 3 murders, not to mention the grand woodchipping finale. definately makes for a more interesting movie to laugh when youre not expecting it, or to cringe when you least expect it.

Robert Altman

Given that his name is associated with MASH, i figured that the Robert Altman unit would be as long and boring as the television show. However i later learned that he was not responsible for any of that garbage, and he is actuallya fellow hater of the show. That knowledge was the first step of many to my eventual affection towards Robert Altman. Step 2: Watch The Long Goodbye. Something about movies that are clearly set in a particular decade always appeals to me, and in this movie, Altman certainly had the intention to create that period film. He executed this with subjective stylism and wardrobe. The satirical aspect of his presentation of the 1970s also allows the viewer to enjoy the period, without necessarily having to like it. This was also the movie that intorduced me to Elliot Gould who does a stellar job of carrying us through the wacky world of 1970s LA. I think he is a good role model too.
Nashville offered a challenge to my movie watching abilities or tolerance of the south or something, but ultimately i ended up enjoying the movie fully. I see how some people can complain about showing the entire song that a character sings and how country music can make you want to rip your hair out, but i feel like the big ALT man is aware of the strings that he is pulling. If you like country music, you most likely think nothing of it. IF you hate it, then you have the pleasure of meeting an onslaught of characters, defined by that kind of music. I just thought it was a good examination of something that is purely American and the relationship between entertainment and politics. I feel like the moments that i was made most uncomfortable by the setting/music, were the most thought provoking, and dare i say i might have even learned something about my opinion of that music?
The Player was great because you can tell that Altman really had something to say about Hollywood, and it was just the sort of message that his movies are made to convey. It fits perfectly because Altman is a master of creating elaborate settings, complete with wardrobe, music and characters, a satirical menace, and a stylistic auteur. As i said the setting, characters and wardrobe seemed to be right on. His sarire and his experience with the movie making business made it especially interesting, because he was making fun of something that he knows so well, but viewers such as myself may have absolutely no idea. He is an expert on hollywood which makes his cracks at it seem so legitimized. I remember feeling like i suddenly hated hollywood for my entire life. I also felt like this movie tied together all of the Altman elements that i had picked up on during the last films. This includes his restless camera movement, satire, setting, loose acting instructions, indecipherable dialogue and what not. I got the impression that he wanted to make something that showed who he was as a director, in contrast to movies that are not unique or original in any sense.

John Cassevetes Final Battle

What in the world do i say about this one? Definitely a Cassevetes film. I think his purpose for this film is to analyze the relationship between actor and character and see how the main character, Myrtle Gordon, changes when an autograph seeking fan is killed by a car. The only real "plot" that i was able to distinguish dealt with the issues of self expression and how a person strives to make their own expression true and meaningful. I felt like her dead groupie snapped her out of her ego and caused her to really stop and think about what she wants this life to be for her. This is present in the other two cassevetes films that we watched but the theme is much more central in this particular installment. I was a little bit dissapointed by a lack of cinematography, which can be a saving grace when you are in the thick of a radically independent Cassevetes film. However i felt like the exclusion of such cinematic quality also played into the themes of self expression and maybe reflected a contemplative side of Cassevetes himself? I really dont know what to make of it but it broadened my understanding of John Cassevetes.

Call me a plausible, but you can’t just forget about practicallity for the sake of entertaining an audience.

I don’t think Hitchcock really needs another person to praise his work, so even though I like his movies, I’m going to put him in the hot seat and focus on the negative. Hitchcock is a very talented film maker and I enjoy watching his movie’s, but the way that he neglects plausability or reality all together makes it difficult to be a true fan. I realize that his neglect is to thank for a lot of the classic Hitchcock plots but at times I think it goes to far. For example, in Rear Window I like the voyeurism aspect of the movie and it is interesting to see what you learn about the characters in Jeff’s neighborhood just by being a peeping Tom. At first it is a fun way to learn about the characters but after a while the voyeurism aspect is lost to the unlikelihood of being able to have such unlimited access to their personal lives, just by looking in their window. What im trying to say is that Jeff’s virtually unobstructed view of everything from his room causes the voyeurism aspect to lose its touch because it hardly challenges Jeff at all. I feel like what makes the film unique is that you only know what you can learn from Jeff’s window, but it becomes rapidly apparent that you can know EVERYTHING from Jeff’s window so what is the point? But really I do like the idea, I just feel like the point is lost in how much you know from the window. And then the whole flash camera to save your life ending was kind of ridiculous. Thorwald is definitely not cut out for that sort of thing which totally ruins the whole suspense thing that everybody praises Hitchcock for.
Great movies nonetheless, just felt like challenging the film God.

How can such a tiny man execute such enormous cinematic ambitions?

I was not expecting that Akira Kurosawa’s big budget epic Ran would satisfy the majority of my expectations for any movie, all in one film. The film was already off to a great start when I learned that it was based off of a Shakespeare play. I thought this blended perfectly with the context of feudal Japan. More specifically, one of my favorite parts of the movie is the Noh theatre element because it makes it easier for Kurosawa to set up the characters motives quickly, and spend more time having fun with the stark character conflicts.Hand in hand with the element of noh theatre is Kurosawa’s typical overly animated acting style of the characters in his films. Watching the characters is entertaining in itself because you don’t need to strain yourself in figuring out what the character is about.
Another great part of the film was the big budget aspect. Watching all of those extra’s running around with sweet samurai costumes and neat feudal Japanese set was reminiscent of the joy that I experienced when I played with my action figures as a youngster. It is as if Kurosawa is playing the same way, only with way way more materials at his disposal.

Cassevetes round 1

Now that i've already completed the blog for the second installment of the AFII John Cassevetes director study, it may be about time to go back and blog for our first movie.

The first Cassevetes movie we watched is titled "Faces"(1968).The movie was a good showcase of Cassevetes' skill with camera movements and mise en scene. The behavior of the camera man reflected to events occurring on screen. When the dialogue between characters is light hearted and social, the camera will move with the characters as if it is a part of the social gathering. During the rare moments when the fast paced dialogue slows down, the camera hardly moves at all and gives the viewer a kind of solemn, potentially even awkward perspective. The mise en scene was effective in examining the character's motives and emotions. One scene in particular stands out when one guy offends his friend, the guy disses him and before the words are spoken it cuts to an extreme close up of the guys pissed off friend. No question how he felt about the comment. To illustrate the motives of the characters, Cassevetes pays enormous attention to, and relies on mise en scene several times. For example, if a given male character is trying to impress an attractive lady, focused and taking up the central majority of the screen will be the male saying whatever, and in the extreme foreground off to the side of corner of the screen will be unfocused image of part of the ladies head. At times i think this is used to give the viewer a subjective perspective on the conversation, and its also used in more abstract ways to explain why a character is doing what they're doing. So the films starts with such appealing aspects as interesting cinematography, somewhat real life relateable characters who engage in dialogue that is changing so constantly that the mood of the scene is never stable. All these aspects got the film off to a great start but after about 30 one thing seemed to be missing completely. Plot development. Its absence was so blatant that one is left to believe it was intentional. It makes sense because the movie is merely an examination behind the scenes social life in America during the 60s. The words and actions of these characters dictate where the plot goes (if you can call that a plot). Basically everything depends on the whim of the central characters. I felt like i got the picture within 30 minutes but the movie wanted to make sure so it went on for another hour.

John Cassevetes: Round 2

Our second installment of the AFII John Cassevetes movie extravaganza, "The killing of a chinese bookie" at times made me feel like i was missing something about the plot or particularly the main character,the proud owner of Crazy Horse West strip club, and the intentions the director had with him.

Although i was, for the most part, clear on and certainly intrigued by the characters and their roles in the development of the plot, I still felt like their was a broader understanding of what it all meant that i hadnt picked up on. I even began to feel a little discouraged about my movie watching capabities. After the movie I thought it over and decided that i wasn't missing anything, but instead, i am so used to having a clear good/bad impression of everything that happens in a given film spoon fed, that a lack of a kind of unanimous guiding conscience made the entire film seem foreign. I think Cassevetes was careful to let the audience develope their own opinion of events that take place in the film, which i thought made it more fun to watch and definitely unique. I even drew some parallels between that force at work in this movie and in the previous installment of AFII JCMExtavaganza, "Faces" (Blog coming soon!!!!) that may be the first signs of a strong Cassevetes auteur style.