Reviews

This is a great masterpiece of short films. It tells about when a man passed through different times by engaging an experiment, he became a so-called time traveler and had an love affair with a woman. The ending of this story which makes an astounding effect to every viewer is that the man finally met the woman but killed by the enemies near the pier. This wonderful arrangement of an classical plot affects the 1995 film "Twelve Monkeys" and being praised by viewers all the time. Surprisingly, I find a interesting comparison between a simile and a metaphor in one scene that he and she walked through an array of zoological specimens at the Museum. The simile is the living human jumping cross the flow of time. It is a circulating space-time continuum. The metaphor is the silent specimens sitting and standing to put on display window. It is an uncirculated symbol as space-time fragments. It means that I compare Life with Death, also comparing changeableness with unchangeableness. The man's choice is to give up the chance to obtain a better future and choose what he did love. It's just like he chose a bad end and the appearance of specimens presaged his death. The man's death and the implication of specimens may not be relevant, but I think there's something inconceivable in this combination. At last, it's pleasant and fascinating for me to remember the plot of "La jetée" in several times. I will keep this great masterpiece in my mind once and for all.

While the film began, I was fascinated by the camera moving, the angle of camera, still pictures and freeze frame of its own. Just like enjoy the magical moment that every ordinary scene came into the ridiculous irony. It was a film about compensation, revenge and sacrifice. At first, Martin wanted the compensation from Steven, and what he wanted mostly was a substitute of a father. But it was in vain. Next, Martin cursed the Murphy family. It was his revenge. Lastly, the curse developed into the sacrifice. Steven had to kill one person to save the others' life. He had to do that. I wondered that the most sacred sacrifice was killing, because depriving one's life has always been the utmost punishment to human beings and the pleasant behavior for worshiping God. All the metaphors and the arrangements in this film made me think twice and felt interesting.

That's why I subjectively liked it.

So I gave it 10/10.

*Analysis of the characters in the film

The main point in the film is the conflict between Hearn and Cummings. Hearn is the representative of humanity and moral, and Cummings is the opposite against him. There are several events showing the conflict. Firstly, Cummings summons Hearn afterward and chastises him for the remark, then cautions him against treating the soldiers humanely and urges him to accept that war means killing and death. Cummings suggests that Hearn instills fear and hatred in his men, but the lieutenant rejects Cummings' notion as immoral. Secondly, Cummings tells Hearn that in this moment of great destiny for America the only morality is power.

There are also several branch lines about the platoon. Most of them are tragic. For example, Gallagher is devastated to learn that his pregnant wife has died in childbirth. Croft, who is painful because of the infidelity of his wife, turns out to be calloused and brutal, and does not hesitate to personally execute a Japanese prisoner during the initial landing. Wyman, who is bitten by a poisonous snake and dies quickly at a river crossing. When Hearn's group is fired upon from the grove, Wilson is wounded. Despite Croft's protest, Hearn orders him to be taken back to headquarters, but the corporal dies moments later. Roth sprains his ankle during the dangerous climb and then later freezes in fear on a narrow precipice. Intending to spur Roth on, Croft calls him a "lousy Jew," causing the soldier to bolt and fall to his death.

Fearing Croft will lead them to their deaths, Red challenges him but backs down when the sergeant threatens to kill him. At the peak, Croft investigates the other side of the hill alone only to be shot and killed by another Japanese patrol. What leads these people to the deathful disaster is not the cruelty of war, but the fear which is produced by people himself.

At the end of the film, Cummings visits the recovering Hearn in the infirmary a few days later. Hearn tells the general that Ridges and Goldstein's dedication saved his life and bolstered his belief that man's innate decency will survive the viciousness of war. Maybe this is an optimistic expectation to reveal the commitment about humanity.

*The theme of the novel

The story is not simply a narrative of a long war, but something deeper. It reflects a social and historical themes. The background of the story is a fictional and tropical island. There are two parallel clues: the war and the people in the war.

The story takes place on an island in the South Pacific, allowing readers to see the relationship between officers and soldiers in the American army, which is also a microcosm of American society. Therefore, "The Naked and the Dead" is over the scope of war literature. It is a symbolic to the contradiction between barbarity and humanity. The meaning of "Naked" in the title is "unshielded" and "non-protection". It can also be understood as "the explosion of human". The thought behind the novel is realism and social criticism. It also has a strong naturalistic color. By using the behaviour out of fear and horror to describe the people as "the Naked and the Dead", Mailer seems to warn the public that fascism may revive in this century. This is an innovation to those regular war theme novels.

"They are always living in the wild and irrational ...... and I am lost in the kaleidoscope of death inside." Perhaps there are always only two characters in Norman Mailer's novel: "the Naked", who lose the conscience of humanity, and "the Dead", the shadow of death shrouded.

*Differences between the novel and the film

When Norman Mailer saw the movie one night with his second wife, Adele, he complained to her that Hollywood "had ruined his story." Raoul Walsh, the director, is quoted in the article as saying the film would not stick too closely to the novel, as many of the incidents that were considered shocking at the time of the book's release had already appeared in other films. He had the script rewritten--often as the film moved through production--and added vivid battle scenes including flamethrowers and tanks, that were nowhere in the novel.

The apparent differences between the novel and the film were the characters. In the film, Hearn was wounded, not killed as he was in the book. The flashbacks featuring Hearn also sharply contrasted his cavalier civilian playboy behavior with his serious consideration of moral issues.

The ill-fated Sergeant Croft, who it was explained, was driven by an overweening urge to command because of the memory of an unfaithful wife. From his actions in the film, however, one was led to think that he just liked killing.

Roth, the Jewish soldier who was accidentally killed on patrol. In the novel, Roth was drawn as an intellectual who is ambivalent about his Jewishness but is unable to escape anti-Semitism. The film portrayed the cruel anti-Semitism of Roth's fellow soldiers but ignored the complexities of his own personality.

Wilson, a hard-drinking country boy who died in the book (but made it through the movie). Among the major changes from the book to the film, the ending of the film was the most affirmative. In the book, the idealist "Hearn" was killed and the sadistic "Croft" survived. Norman Mailer showed a pessimistic view of humanity, but the film weakened it. The film caught neither the spirit nor the intent of the original yarn and became just another war picture.

Mailer was so disappointed that he filed suit against RKO Teleradio Pictures and Warner Bros in 1963, seeking reversion of all rights to "The Naked and the Dead". The suit was dismissed.

*The film review

"The Naked and the Dead" has resulted in a professionally but derivative action drama, which is no more memorable than similar sagas of strife that have preceded it. Director Raoul Walsh has filled the screen with striking vistas in beautiful color, the chilling sound and the fury of conflict, but the hearts, minds and motives of men exposed to sudden and often useless death, which gave the book its awesome power, serve merely as sketchy background to battle in this uneven picturization that was unveiled at the Capitol yesterday.

The film was come up with an aspect recounted by a platoon, doomed to decimation in securing a small island in the Pacific in 1943. The resentment, passions, brutalities and backgrounds of the men were stated and restated but were generally left with the impression of actors' speaking lines. Here we can see the platoon is in brief and personal outline. They are lonely in a terrible world they never made. They are afraid, they hate the jungle, their rugged assignments, themselves and each other. They recall their sweethearts and wives often. Some are lucky and do survive but others not. It was nearly always as simple as that.

Although the Sanders' dialog is plentiful but short of nuances, the platoon's stealthy trek, its skirmishes with Japanese patrols and the massive, climactic assault have been directed with the terrifying realism. It was a great war film. A viewer cannot help but recall scenes of the burning of enemy troops as the lush grass is ignited by the hidden G. I.'s; the deathly throes of a private bitten by a snake; the tension of the men as they try to scale a sheer cliff, the sounds and the look of the jungle, which have been beautifully captured in this color film. Director Walsh and his associates have carefully drawn an impressively stark face of war from "The Naked and the Dead" but only seldom do deeply dissect the people involved in it.

It is a lovely and sweet story which tells a beautiful ballerina mourning her lover's death at her youthful age. She was too sad to get away the great sorrow and opened her mind to a journalist who became into her lately lover. This film not only tells the wonderful memories and the praise of life but also faces the shadow of death. I like their performance and the narrative of intertwining the romantic moment and the tragic event. Ingmar Bergman truly did a great movie at the beginning in 1950s, preceding the following masterpieces in the film history.

Which part I like mostly is the narrative toward the transformation from a human live to an omnipresent soul. I consider this film as two parts. The first part is Boonmee's crime in his life, and the second part is Boonmee's dream about his past lives. And I also want to point out one feature in the ending scene. That is the interpretation of soul.

And it all begins with some basic questions: Though Boonmee said he was a little afraid of his kidney disease at the beginning, he soon acted naturally when he saw his wife's ghost appearing in front of him, including seeing Jen's furry son. At first I felt odd because they didn't show any fear to these super-natural beings except a very few surprise. Why weren't they scared or terrified? Why was it so acceptable to Boonmee and Jen? Was that because the female ghost and the monkey ghost were their close lovers? Those questions point out that there is one religious perspective formed by these villagers, and that is their worshiping to souls. They believe in the truth that souls actually exist and affect themselves, so they don't feel fearful when they see their invisible lover gradually appearing or a zoomorphic son suddenly coming back.

(1) Boonmee's crime in his life

I think the subjective viewpoint toward life from Boonmee is one soul can be circulated in everywhere so they own their past lives and afterlife. Quite like Buddhism. And Buddhism emphasizes the power of "Karma". That idea may explain why Jen's son warned Boonmee that every soul/spirit came to take him when he passed away. Because Boonmee had killed many communists and pests in the field, the lives killed by him became the ghosts and came to him for revenge. It means Boonmee has to take the fault he had made in his current life, even though he may stand at the right side to declare somewhat of justice in a historically perspective.

(2) Boonmee's dream about his past lives

And the another part is Bonnmee had a dream that the sad Princess who came into the water gave herself to the God. In my understanding, she might be one of Boonmee's past lives. This scene precedes Boonmee and his companies went to the wild jungle and the ghastly cave for purpose of searching the place he had lived. It means Boonmee may feel nostalgia and want to build the relationship with his past memories before his life ends.

(Feature) The interpretation of soul

Most importantly, in the last scene, Jen and her companies look at their another sitting figure with a stunned face. It is true to say that they're looking at themselves who were sitting to watch television in the last moment. It is a perfect interpretation which means the power of the soul is widespread and simultaneous. It's beyond time and space, reaching an unimaginable dimention.

To me, this film can be viewed in such a simple way, combining with the local faith and the locals' awe to the deity which they worshiped. Just think twice and make sure it's not so obscure at all.

I think this film can stand for the situation of the LGBTs in the campus in 2017-2018. It also contains the multi-ethnic imagination to the students, including the white, the black and the Jewish etc. Though these political-correct elements act usually in our sight, they still convey one core value: Love. We can see Simon is born in a happy family and grows up ordinarily into a simple boy as we can encounter in the street. When he comes out, his family gives him the full LOVE to let him to be self-confident to face with everything. His teacher also gives him a hand. And his friends and classmates comes back to support him. Such a cute and youthful story. The whole film-making is not showy but plain. Some jokes lie in the common conversations and make people laugh out. The rhythm of this film is also just the right amount. That brings me so much laughter and pleasure while watching this film.

I think Call Me By Your Name is a heartwarming film. It describes a youthful boy learns how to explore his sexual feeling to an elder guy. It all happens in the countryside in 1983 summer in Italy. In this process, he also dates with a girl and has a romantic relationship with her, soon they break up and become friends. It seems that the whole film is such a story of a try of a young bi.

I call this film "countryside graffiti", not a negative prank, but to show the atmosphere of the whole 2 hours. Every scene goes slowly but clearly. That clearness is what I praise for. When they call each other by their names on the bed, I think my sense comes to the climax as them.

Around a open-minded family and a lot of Archaeological knowledge, I like this simple story. Those background settings makes this film more interesting. Although it is not the 1st boy-love movie in my mind, it can still be added to my top 10 list.

In the end, Oliver calls back to Elio, telling him he's married. In that moment, the acting of the young Chalamet is very awesome. His sorrowful stare just like a spear piercing into my heart. So touched.

The Evil Dead (1981) tells of a story that a crowd of young people come to a cabin and accidentally evoke the demons in the wood through 'Book of the Dead'. Actually to say, I love its tempo! The tight plot moves the tempo of this film forward so quickly, as if there are so many monstrous scenes bumping into my sight form every corner. Even every step the film characters take brings me the feeling that something evil is always watching every breath and every second. However, the tempo of the re-make Evil Dead (2013) is apparently slower than the original. But I think it is a great re-make version! Because the atmosphere of terror in the re-make is better than the original through the delicate camera movements and exquisite film set. In the plot, the cliché is not as simple as the original one. It has the new idea of some gore-spreading and slaughtering scenes. It is very creative. Only one thing I have to say is the impression of the faces in the film at different times. It seems that the makeup techniques and computer-generated images in 1981 are old-fashioned, but I think the possessed faces in the original is more horrible than the faces in the re-make. These faces in the original and the symptoms of the possessed people make me think of The Exorcist (1973). Maybe the horror films about the possessed at that time all do that alike makeup technique so that the faces are similar.