Naturalistic mise-en-scene in The American (2010)

vopfilm.blogspot.com

The setting of Anton Corijn’s The American (2010) is Castel Del Monte, Abruzzo in Italy. The mise-en-scene is a beautiful area filled with breathtaking sunsets that light the town, and plush green trees, bushes and bright, pretty flowers that, to me, looks like something of an Italian painting. These are all naturalistic traditions; the way the sun and trees reflect off of Jack’s windshield as he drives in one of the scenes; the way the shadows behind the community's people is so apparent in the bright and sunny afternoon is also natural. The way the sounds of the butterflies, bees and lake together fill the air at Jack and his prostitute’s oh so “special spot" is, too, naturalistic (Clooney, George).

sensesofcinema.com

In another scene, the rain on the street is clearly seen, as the street lights reflect off of the wet ground, and the sounds of the footsteps and/or car tires quietly splashing through is clearly heard, making the mise-en-scene very real. This scene takes place as Jack is being followed by the Swedish, and right before Jack breaks the guy’s neck, (Clooney, George). These are all naturalistic traditions, as this is what is really real, in real life, and the film conveys it nicely. To confirm this, Corrigan & White (2009) explains this Naturalist concept in the following quote: “If mise-en-scene is about the arrangement of space and the objects in it, as we have suggested, the naturalism in the mise-en-scene means that how a place looks is the way it is supposed to look” (86).

sensesofcinema.com

In other examples defining the text's quote: in the beginning of the film, Jack is sitting with his “lover” while slow, romantic piano music plays in the background. The light is dimmed and the woman is happy, but Jack looks cold, uncomfortable and in a world of his own. All of these objects count as naturalistic mise-en-scene. After "Mr. Butterfly" shoots the love of his life in the head, (and two others) he drives down a grayish road while in pursuit of Rome to hopefully get away from the madness he helped create. The mise-en-scene now is a “sapian” sky, and it most likely symbolizes Jack’s emotional and depressive state in that very moment. In no particular order, I've gathered a few more examples, and this also includes apart of the introduction. In the beginning of the film, Jack is driving through a tunnel with a shade of yellow flashing everywhere (Clooney, George).

huffingtonpost.com

Jack reaches the light at the end of the tunnel, and that’s where the scene ends, and transitions onto the next. Many people think that the scene represents the beginning of the end of his life, but was this tunnel scene before or after he had already shot his aloof lover in the head? Frankly, the "beginning of the end of his life" started back at the cabin, and the ending to “the end of his life”, and yet instead a new beginning and a new life, sparked at the end of the tunnel where he was given a second chance at life. The audience knew what they were about to experience in the main character before he did, and it is all because of the tunnel scene.

today.msnbc.msn.com

In The American (2010), why this transformation occurs has a lot to do with a special prostitute he meets while in the midst of going crazy. In the middle of being miserable and trusting no one, he meets the real love of his life, a woman whom he feels he can open up to, be himself with and let his guard down to finally (he asks her to run off with him in the end). This prostitute took his heart, and before he could embrace his second chance at life by running away with her by his side, he tragically dies in the end by a gunshot wound, leaving his potential lover-to-be behind to rot on a street corner.

In what ironically looks to be a joyous and mesmerizing place, sadness mostly  dominates the entire film, and torment slowly kills Jack’s (George Clooney) paranoid, over-active mind, right up until what seems like a fateful death; it is tragic and bittersweet, and yet beautiful at the same time; and I am not talking about the prostitute.

Works Cited:

Clooney, George, perf. The American. Dir. Anton Corbijn. 2010. Focus Features. CD-ROM.

Corrigan, Timothy, and Patricia White. Film Experience: an Introduction. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009. Print.

Surrealist & Lyrical aspects in Meshes of the Afternoon (1943)

Source: verdoux.wordpress.com

Meshes of the Afternoon (1943) use Surrealism in its way of presenting the story to its audience. Corrigan & White (2009) defines surrealism in film in the following quote. “Defying the realist tendencies and narrative logic of the medium but building on both the basis in photographic reproduction and the unfolding of images in time, surrealist styles use recognizable imagery in strange contexts” (318). In Maya Deren’s film, the audience may recognize several of the objects displayed, but not understand the context in which they are shown. Many viewing this movie may be left feeling dazed and confused, which explains my reaction perfectly.

Source: verdoux.wordpress.com

For example, there are many familiar objects being thrown at the viewers: a key, a flower, shattered glass, the Grim Reaper, a telephone, ocean waves, etc, but the way they are depicted in the film leaves a lot unsaid and to be desired by the end of the picture. For example, the Grim Reaper's face is exchanged for a mirror for a face, and while this image is associated with Deren maybe seeing herself in the Grim Reaper, or her husband who is representing it, the image itself is still surreal, and may confuse viewers who do not think in such a deep and psychological way (Deren, Maya).

Source: verdoux.wordpress.com

The flower seen on the street in the film’s opening is familiar to the viewer, sure, as one can be sure many have witnessed flowers on their streets, but the flower is placed there by a woman’s (Maya Deren) hand that appears to be suspended and upside down in mid-air, which is surreal for obvious reasons. The flower is not the only reoccurring object in the film, as there is also a key that is constantly being presented to the audience. The key itself is realistic, but when Deren has it in her hand and it vanishes, that also counts as surrealism. The audience does not know what the constant disappearing acts in the picture represent, but they do know it is confusing. One cannot say it is symbolic, because after all, Deren has noted that there is no such thing in her films (Deren, Maya).

The next aspect used in the film is Lyricism, and Corrigan & White (2009) defines the term as, “Lyrical styles express emotions, beliefs, or some other personal position in film, much as does the voice of the lyric poet.” It goes on to say, “Lyrical films may emphasize a personal voice or vision through the singularity of the imagery or through such techniques as voice-overs or hand-held camera movements” (319). While Meshes of the Afternoon (1943) may not be a Lyrical film in general, it still uses Lyrical styles in the way that it presents events in the film. Seeing as how Lyrical style refers to an expression or a series of feelings and emotions, which, are represented through the imagery in a film, it is safe to say that Deren's film definitely relates to this style.

Source: verdoux.wordpress.com

In another example, we see that objects are being shattered, which represents anger to me; when Deren walks into the house it appears that there was a struggle, or a fight of some sort. Items are knocked around, they are misplaced and other items are broken on the ground. We see Deren chasing down the Grim Reaper, who to me, represents her husband who she is having a domestic squabble with. In another scene she is shown with a knife, and the husband is shown with his hand around her neck. Their relationship screams violence and unease to me. While some people may see insight, I see violence. Not everyone will see the same things as we all come from various backgrounds and experiences that shape our perceptions of what we see, and I see a domestic violence situation (Deren, Maya).

Source: verdoux.wordpress.com

Aside from anger, we see that Deren is confused while she sits in what looks like a kitchen. I say she is confused because she is confronted with many women that look like herself, and this usually represents confusion in many cases (Deren, Maya). I have seen this use of confusion representation many times in film, poems, music, etc when one is trying to figure something out within themselves, when one is in an ever conflicting battle within themselves. They will see themselves, and they will appear to have conversations with themselves.

They are confronting themselves and are trying to make sense of the situation(s) at hand. We all have been at a place where we have battled decisions in our lives, or where we have tried to come to terms with who we are, where we have tried to figure ourselves out in one way or another. Maybe Deren is trying to make sense of her situation with the man. By having conversations or confrontations with various women that is herself, it shows she is trying to figure something out and is confused. Confusion is an emotion, and Lyrical styles deals with emotions, as the text did in fact point out earlier.

Works Cited:

Deren, Maya, perf. Meshes of the Afternoon. Dir. Maya Deren and Alexander Hammid. 1943. Mystic Fire Video. Web. 14 Mar. 2011.

Corrigan, Timothy, and Patricia White. Film Experience: an Introduction. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009. Print.

New & revealing realities in Restrepo (2010)

To start out with, there’s a quote in Corrigan & White (2009) that explains the relationships between documentary films and its viewers,

as well as the meanings behind them. “As with narrative movies, the relationship between documentary films and the cultural and historical

expectations of viewers plays a large part in how these movies are understood and what meanings we find in them(Corrigan&White289).” The book says that some people may watch a film for scientific, social, or some other kind of “conceptual” information.

The documentary film Restrepo (2010) revealed new and ignored realities to its audience. Coming into the film, some people may have never witnessed that of what the film showed us. Some never knew the details of the life of the everyday soldier until watching the film. These new realities could be us watching a close friend of another get shot and killed, or witnessing a bloody, dead body, and experiencing the

emotional ups and down the soldiers constantly had to face. These are new realities to some people in the audience, because when they came into the film, they may have had no idea.

He thought he was to blame for a fellow soldier's death.

Me personally, I’ve always known of the bloody, sad and unfortunate circumstances soldiers in the military have had to face every day, but of course it is different when you actually see it in a documentary. It’s different, not because it’s shocking, but because you get used to the characters in the film, and so when one dies and some of the others become upset, you feel like you, too, have lost a friend. I personally could not connect to any of the characters except for one soldier who was psychologically tormented by the thought that his friend and fellow soldier, their apparent “best one”, died on the battlefield supposedly because of him.

I felt for the man as you could see genuine pain and sorrow in his eyes and hear the depressing tone in his voice. Something about his personality and sorrow was just different from everyone else’s; I found

it easier to connect with, and to feel empathy for him, whereas with Restrepo, a man whom I didn’t even know, nor really ever saw or connected with, I looked at as just another death in the army. It is my belief, after all, that when they volunteer for the army, they are knowingly setting themselves up for pain, sorrow and death, a selfishly conscious decision. However, with that one man in particular, who I know not by name, I was still able to relate and connect. I looked at him, not as that man that knew what he was getting into when he voluntarily joined (like how I felt with the rest), but as a man who may have been misguided in his decision, and was forced to live with his consequences in the most psychologically tormenting way. I can only hope he gets better with time.

Getting back to Corrigan & White (2009), I feel it’s important to tie the political reality into the documentary. One political reality I think people should realize by viewing the film is that the government tells us all these lies about the wars our country dies in (not fight; what do we have to fight for?), but in reality what the soldiers go through is not what the government communicates to us. Here, we see that these soldiers have been brought in a war-zone just to make a road? Men die, families’ lives are disrupted, and soldiers kill, be killed, and run for their lives...just to make a road? I was not entirely sure

what these soldiers were doing there, as I wasn’t able to follow that in the documentary, and I don’t think that even they knew, but the whole thing was just pointless to me. There were men, women, and children who lost their lives for nothing (Corrigan&White290).

In conclusion, the political reality here is that the government pushes propaganda onto its people by preaching things like, “Fight for our country, protect our citizens, and God Bless America,” yet there is nothing to fight for in the first place, nor has there been in several, several years. Not only that, but we never actually know what is really going on in these soldiers’ lives until we see what happens through their perspectives, and not the governments’ teeth. I believe the government has brainwashed its people to be “patriotic,” and to believe that we have something to fight for, when it’s all just propaganda to get them to do what they want them, the socially weak, to do. Unfortunately, that is just the sad and political truth in this, regardless of who may like it or not, and we've seen the effects in the documentary film.

Corrigan, Timothy, and Patricia White. Film Experience: an Introduction. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009. 290. Print.

Corrigan, Timothy, and Patricia White. Film Experience: an Introduction. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009. 289. Print.

Race and Gender Representation theories in The Book of Eli (2010)

In Corrigan & White (2009), it gives a definition for “representation” as this: “[...]the aesthetic sense, whereby we may speak of representation of African-Americans in the films of Spike Lee versus those of Gone With the Wind[...]” The book notes that these types of movies explores stereotypes in their films, and The Book of Eli (2010) is no exception. For example, in the beginning of the film, Eli is seen sitting in an old, run-down shed after he survives a supposed nuclear war and an apocalypse.

He is seen sitting and preparing his meal for the night, which was a cat he had killed previously. Before he eats he prays, and after he has his meal, he turns on some old school R&B music; Al Green’s “What Mends a Broken Heart?”. Even though it’s true that many African-Americans are religious in the sense that they are either Christian or just very spiritual, they also relate to, and love R&B music, as this was the type of music we had back in the day that we could relate to; it was “ours” in a sense. I noticed the music he played because I, myself, love old school R&B music, including that song, so it stuck out to me. To me, the musical aspect occurring early in the film is a valid point the book makes in its text below.

“Cultural studies models are flexible enough to address racialized images, such as stereotypes and their reception by diverse audiences, as well as how discourses of imperialism, colonialism, and nationalism, often related to racial representations, are embedded in film stories genres, and star images. (Corrigan,Timothy500)”

Eli (Denzel Washington) is an African-American man, and the star image of the movie. Being that most African-Americans listen to R&B music (“black” music), they also pray a lot; they are generally very religious people, even if the character Washington is playing is not of the Christian faith, my point is still clear. The whole movie is based on religion, and so is the black community’s many ways of living and getting through life, so we are basically dealing with a stereotype; a generalization. I know I just made a few generalizations, but so did the movie, and that was my point.

The movie also deals with a post-apocalyptic man who hears a voice telling him to return his book to the West Coast, and along the way, he is reciting bible-like verses, scriptures and prayers. At the end of the film when Carnegie gets the book, to his surprise, it is written in another language deeming it useless. Because the book is not written in English, it is unknown to us viewers if the book was a bible, or just a diary; a brief history of Eli and his past (The Book of Eli).

Besides race, we also have a gender representation issue occurring in the film. Before I end my blog, I wanted to point this out in the film; the point when Solara is asked by Carnegie to go into Eli’s room to try and seduce him, and where she then finds the book (The Book of Eli), I found myself becoming rather annoyed at her and the directors. This is also the same emotions I felt when the film showed women getting gang-raped by ugly, dirty old men. Anyway, I felt this way because in today’s movies, the woman is seen as simply a sex object and nothing else. All an actress today has to do is dress and behave in a disgusting manner and she has the part, because apparently, talent and respect is “so 1950s”. The woman today, like in music and TV, is merely an object of pleasure for the man, and these actresses, unlike the actresses from yesteryear’s classic films, don’t hold a more respectable, talented and meaningful role in film anymore. This disappoints me.

Back then, in the movies, the woman didn’t have to dress, behave or speak in an easy, loose way to be considered attractive, desirable and “sexy”. A few select films back then will show this, sure, but today it completely dominates film (e.g. Transformers). “Sexy” is not “slutty”, and many films today lack an understanding of that. The actress playing the female who is ordered to act like a slut does a bad job at coming off attractive at least, and if I didn’t know any better, I’d say it’s no wonder why the man turned the poor girl down.

In all seriousness though, this film, like many others in today’s time, lacks a main actress who can act well, look desirable to men as a woman should, naturally, yet at the same time still look classy and respectable. It’s sexist, and women and men alike today just don’t get it, and it frustrates me every time I watch a post 2000s film. To end with, since the book brought up gender and representation, I felt obligated to note this, for it is very relevant to this blog’s content, and likewise the film: word to Solara.

 Works cited:
Corrigan, Timothy, and Patricia White. The Film Experience. second ed. Boston: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, 2009. 499-500. Print.

The Book of Eli. Dir. Albert Hughes and Allen Hughes. 2009. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2010. DVD.

Cinematic Aspects of Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

The cinematic Aspects of Flags of Our Fathers (2006) include many factors regarding technology, setting, tone and dark lighting, a look as though it was set in the early days. The camera effects are very dramatic in the way that it moves in the scenes, and the way the angles are created sometimes, like the ratio of the screen. Like most movies these days, it looked like a widescreen ratio, as referenced in the “Film Experience” book. This screen concept was also used back in the day, too. The film had that old, warn, outdated look, too, and even though in 2006 movie producers had with them advanced technology that couldn’t compare to what movie producers from the 1940s possessed, they still did their best to imitate that old, darker lit look of its past time, considering the setting they were trying to imitate. The lighting is dimmed and the mens’ fashion is 40s-like: long coats, slicked-back hairstyles and stern, Patriotic attitudes.

The book uses several different words to discuss how our responses relate to how we interact when we view a film, and one of these factors are identification. I think men who are Patriotic, older, more Conservative and have been involved or touched by the war will relate more to the movie than others who are the opposite would. Men who have struggled with alcoholism, guilt and depression due to traumatic war experiences are the ones who would see themselves in those particular characters, and thus they can identify with them, Steven Spielberg in particular, as he had family who served in the marines anyway, so he easily identifies with what he has crafted in this movie. He doesn’t have to pretend because he has loved ones who have already lived it, and he takes their experiences and molds it into a movie. It isn’t fake, but real, rather.

My personal experiences have not particularly shaped my opinion of the movie, but just my general interest in World War II in the first place. I enjoy learning about the history of that war, and the very talented men behind the movie (Clint Eastwood and Steven Spielberg) does it justice. Clint Eastwood pulled off the depressed, post-trauma experienced war veteran role effectively, as it evokes emotions from those who have felt what he has felt, but only a select few good actors can play the part and make it look and feel real; Clint Eastwood did just that.

The book refers to cognition, and when going back to the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima, a feeling of great American pride will purge from those who were raised in a Patriotic family, or remind those who maybe had family who fought in the war of their lost loved one. These are some ways people can indirectly relate to film, particularly Flags of Our Fathers (2006), when watching, or experiencing the film. The movie takes a person inside the daily life and emotions of a soldier, the real victims of war and tragedy. During viewing of the film, one will see just how difficult and heart breaking it is to be apart of the Army experience. That is my take on cinematic aspects of the movie, and some references relating to the film, from the book.

My background in Film

My interest in film has dated all the way back from when I was a small child, coloring in Captain America coloring books, or watching early 1990s action cartoons in pajamas on a Saturday morning. I grew up on older media: older cartoons and older movies, basically, the classics. I grew up watching really old cartoons from the1960’s The Flintstones, to 1990’s Xmen, Batman: TAS and Spiderman. I grew up watching Alfred Hitchcock make brief appearances in his own movies, and watched twelve jurors discuss their various conflicting perspectives on a court case in 12 Angry Men(1957).

My memories consist of sitting at the edge of my seat to classic 1980s thrillers like Die Hard, The Terminator, and Predator(1986); or laughing with amusement to emotional classics like the Breakfast Club (1985).

I thought the narrative was easy to read. I enjoyed learning about the history and the psychological aspects of looking at film. I always knew I personally had a different way of looking at film and appreciating it, but I didn’t know there was a book all about it. Emotionally, I felt a sense of deja vu because the text referenced some older films, either by name or picture as well as cultural lifestyles. It made me think about how different, original and worth-while the film experience used to be in earlier times when I wasn’t around to experience first-hand, although I did several decades later as a kid watching and admiring them on TV.

Intellectual I felt I learned something new. Beforehand, I wasn’t aware that we take our background in film with us to the movies, and thus impacting our expectations, or lack there of. I guess that would explain my extreme disappointments in the new Transformer, Xmen and such movies, because growing up I appreciated and absolutely loved the classic and originals opposed to the fake versions of today.

 It helped me understand it more that some people aren’t just judgmental and cruel for no reason when criticizing movies, but some may just have a particular background in movies and because of that their expectations weren’t fulfilled. This is why I respect the text; instead of criticizing the critics, they try to understand where they are coming from, and that maybe they’re on to something.

The text helped me understand why fake remakes of today are so popular, and that it is because kids today who weren’t raised on the originals, are raised to think today’s movies are cool and unique because society says so. We can’t blame them, really, because they didn’t grow up in the same time or way that I did, so they wont have the same opinions or knowledge to take with them to the movies to make such observations.