Reviews

"What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" is a chilling suspense thriller directed by Robert Aldrich in 1962 starring Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. Davis, who plays a forgotten child star, "Jane Hudson", jealously terrorizes her sister Blanch, played by Joan Crawford, who eventually enjoyed her own rise to fame while her sibling failed. The film builds a collection of memories and events between the two sisters that play out and resolve in the present time, and in some of the most unpleasant of ways as well. What stood out to me the most in this film is its particular style of mise-en-scene, the flow of time throughout separate scenes, and the depth of the characters' motives and intentions.

The two sisters live together in a house that, given both of their state of minds, is difficult for us to know for sure how they got there. This becomes just another one of the many piffy disputes that occur between the two sisters, and they only get worse from there. We get a feel for the setting with the particular placement of the camera in each room, particularly the front room with the stairs. From there we see that Blanch, who is now crippled in a wheelchair from a car accident a few years ago, is helplessly trapped in the upstairs half of the house, while Jane is mostly brooding around downstairs, creating a sharp divide that constantly keeps you on edge. Later in the film, Blanch tries to call for help from her doctor while Jane is away. After having the phone in her room disconnected by Jane in a psychotic frenzy, the only phone for Blanch to use is downstairs. This is where she's met with an insurmountable obstacle, the stairs. I thought this was a perfect use of mise-en-scene, as it uses the most crucial aspect of the set to create a highly suspenseful and dramatic scene.

The film does a lot of jumping around in some scenes. One thing that remains consistent during them is the flow of time. Two scenes will be happening simultaneously, and this creates a building suspense as time flows continuously, leading up to both separate scenes meeting in a climax. An example of this is when Blanch calls for her doctor. The whole time she makes her way to the phone, the film cuts to a scene of Jane making her way closer to home. It shifts back and forth, showing each event that brings Jane closer to coming in discovering Blanch making the call. This is one of the main aspects of the movie that creates the most suspense.

I thought the development of the characters was pretty unique as well, as throughout the movie it's apparent that Jane despises Blanch, and I started to feel sorry for Blanch over time, although the twist towards the end reveals that both sisters are just as evil as each other, making it hard to call either of them a protagonist.

Orson Welles' 'Citizen Kane' is a classic film about a successful American entrepreneur, Charles Foster Kane, and retraces the events of his life up until his mysterious last words, "rosebud". The film encompasses a unique style of cinematography for its time, some of which had never been tried in film before. Every small aspect of this film has a significant meaning that serves a purpose to each scene, and is sometimes hard for the average viewer to pick up. Things like the positioning of the props and the lighting cast on the characters' faces are purposefully conducted to express the filmmaker's capabilities. The film's cinematographer, Gregg Toland, incorporated a lot of new and unusual techniques for that age, and set a whole new standard for presentation in movies.

The most notable quality of 'Citizen Kane' is the use of mise en scène throughout the movie. Each character is placed in a specific place on the set, in order to allow the camera to free flow through the scene, capturing multiple angles of the same scene. Everything is in plain view without any obstruction, not to mention all in sharp focus due to Toland's use of deep focus. The setting is usually grand and sometimes seems somewhat deceptive at times. For example during an interview with one of Kane's old colleagues, we see him sitting at a table with a fireplace burning behind him, which looks like it's only a couple of feet behind him. As the camera pans back, he eventually gets up and walks to the back of the room, and then finally up to the fireplace. He is surprisingly dwarfed by the now obviously large fireplace. This kind of trickery with depth perception is one of this film's most captivating perks.

There's also a lot of symbolism within this movie, and actually tells a lot of the story than most of the dialog. As we're taken through the scattered scenes of Charles Foster Kane's life, we begin to get an idea of how huge this man's life has become. But it also becomes apparent of how empty it actually is. The setting of his incredible home Xanadu, enormous and grand, is also cold and empty. And as he begins to lose what little he has left to cherish, his final words start to make a little more sense. In the final scene the camera soars over a sea of boxes and crates, all of which were Kane's many belongings. In my eyes, all these boxes began to look like a massive city, which I think reflects the enormity of what Kane had accomplished in life. But none of the contents have the purity of his old sled, "Rosebud".

Nicholas Ray's 'Rebel Without a Cause' is a dramatic, teen movie from the 50's that can be interpreted in a number of different ways. There's no one clear message that's sent through this movie about these kid's lives or their families, which I think attributes to its ever-lasting value. This was a film that was made inbetween times of war, and really there was nothing about society to rebel against, hence the name "Rebel Without a Cause". Instead this movie focuses more on home matters and families, particularly through the eyes of the younger generation. These kids all seem to have something to prove to one another, and all want to be a part some group. Jim gets harassed by some punk kids, who manage get under his skin and drive him to do some dangerous things. Judy wants to be loved by her father, but her father doesn't feel inclined to show it. And Plato intends to find the family that he never had. If there was one message I could get out of this movie, it's finding your right place. Unfortunately not everybody ends up in the most perfect situation, but it is their own actions and intentions that lead them there. There was quite a bit of interesting symbolism I found in this movie as well. One scene Judy returns home after a fight with her father and is quickly greeted by her little brother, who hugs her and calls her all the names her father wouldn't call her, which to me shows the love between siblings the younger generation. Also, as mentioned before, the scene where Jim, Judy and Plato all hideaway in the abandoned mansion was one of the more heartwarming moments of the movie. This was one of my most favorite scenes in the movie, and I think told the most about the moral of the story. What these kids want is to be loved. And while it can't seem to work with their own dysfunctional families, they seek to find love in the form of starting their own.

There's one film from the 1960's that takes a peculiar stance on politics, and presents it in a way that some would not normally find humorous, but still remains a hysterical film. Stanley Kubrick's 'Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb' is a movie that screams "What if…" and puts us in a situation where nuclear war is starting to become an inevitable turnout. Dr. Strangelove shows all sides of the matter, and turns this cold war catastrophe into something of a sarcastic black comedy.

When a U.S. Air Force General becomes so delusional of a communist conspiracy theory that he impulsively orders an all out nuclear attack on Soviet Russia, things start to turn a little bit disturbing. With no prior knowledge from the president about the orders, the whole situation becomes one big fiasco between all the U.S. officials and a lone Russian Ambassador. The film continuously builds up to a dreadfully catastrophic circumstance, as they discover that the Russians have just finished constructing a defensive "Doomsday Machine" that will utterly wipe out all life on Earth at the sign of any hostility. But consistently retains a grim silliness, while all the different characters bicker at one another and impose extreme political views to assert effective action.

The theme of this movie takes after the whole "paranoia style", and pokes fun at the responsibilities of the figures of the government. It portrays a world of paranoia where at any moment now could blow itself to smithereens. And In this film, that finally has become the case. As we watch this preposterous dilemma unfold, the men in charge handle it like it's some sort of childish accident. It sends a message that we are fully capable of doing some dreadful things, and shows how absurd such actions can be. But when put under reasonable light, is only pure silliness.

Clint Eastwood's 'Gran Torino', his first movie in 4 years since 2004's 'Million Dollar Baby', delves into the tired life of retired Korean War veteran, Walt Kowalski, who has found himself living right next door to a family of Hmong Asians. The story explores the complications of racial boundaries, and is mainly driven by the development of relationships between the different characters more than anything else.

The film acts as a modern-age American ideology film, as Walt continuously fights to protect his own property against intruders. But his intentions quickly become misconceived as heroism by his neighbors, and he suddenly finds himself with more to care about than his own lawn. The plot of this movie relied primarily on the actions and reactions of the characters that are at odds. We see periodically through a series of harsh, embarrassing, and life-threatening events how two people who have no interest in establishing a relationship can come to caring enough to fight for each other's honor.

We start to learn a lot more about the intentions of each character in this movie through these events, and while Walt holds on to his racial grudges, he shows compassion and dignity towards the less fortunate people around him. Throughout the movie he persistently mispronounces the other characters' names, calling Thao "Toad" and his girl fancy "Yum Yum", even after they find themselves in a good standing relationship. His casual interactions with his barber reveal that it may not just be a racist grudge after all.

What I loved most about Eastwood's character in this film was that he turned a grumpy, hateful, racist old man, who would probably be viewed as an antagonist in any other movie, into a very likable and awesome main protagonist of the movie. His whole "bad ass" persona and old timer knowledge fortifies that likeabilty of his character, and really is one of the things that makes this movie so great.