Reviews

Director Mulligan did a really good job of keeping true to the book of which this film is based, that was released only a short 2 years prior. Through brilliant framing, subjective pov, and long takes that often included monologues; this told and showed the story that has been a staple in America's history. It was highly culturally significant when it was penned, and it remains something that we look at today, because it dealt with more than just race, but also the stereotypes we place on people and how those are usually wrong (easily seen in Boo Radley's case). The film shows strength, cruelty, bravery in all of the everyday ways in which it as experienced, and that teaching doesn't end at with youth. That the student can just as easily learn, and then become the teacher. The best example is Atticus to his daughter Scout, who then speaks to Mr. Cunnighamn. She does so calmly and casually; she reminds him who he is when he isn't filled with hate and rage, and that her and her family are people just like him, reminding him that his son goes to school with her and of her father saying "thank you" after an act of surprise kindness he had done a while ago. She learns and grows throughout this experience, and is the vehicle through which the learning curve can be taught and seen to an audience that would have been conflicted during those times (the 1960s).

At the film's end, the counterculture and the societal mind-set turn is the most prominent. It's somewhat tense, packed (with different individuals and "groups" of people) and has the viewer watching with batted breath to see how this will all be handled, and if the couple we've come to love, Dr. Prentice and Joanna, will find acceptance and if that acceptance remains an important factor prior to marriage. The common themes of counterculture and prevalent throughout. The elements of race, how Joanna openly talks about sex with her mother (we see her mother go red in the face, yet Joanna behind her is totally unfazed. A great use of framing here). Also, there's an okay amount of swearing, conflicts between the older and younger generations (where the younger generation isn't immediately reprimand as they would have in earlier films).

In this timeless classic, we follow Ben Braddock on his path of self discovery. This came at the turn of the counterculture movement in 1967. The very early frame of Ben's head in a fishbowl is very symbolic, because that's how he feels in life. That everyone is on the outside, looking in on him, yet they've always controlled and dictated the way his lie was lived. When Mrs. Robinson came along in this Nichols film, she turns his fishbowl upside down. And the rest is past, present, and future-time history! The title song by Simon and Garfunkel is very important in the telling of this song, as it embodies a feeling. The stanza lyrics, "And in the naked light I saw- Ten thousand people, maybe more- People talking without speaking- People hearing without listening- People writing songs that voices never share- No one dare- Disturb the sound of silence" is the most telling. A generation felt silenced, and in desperate need of disturbing the defiantly curiousness time, to disturb the silence they were forced into. This film is so well made, and is, and will remain relatable for many decades to come.

The use of sound is greatly used in this film, off-screen sound is impactful, and all notable sound in this film is symbolic or significant, for either audience feeling or for meaning. These sounds include bells, sounds of metal clanking, belts, etc. And the use of close-ups are also masterfully used. These close-ups are indicative of character feeling at crucial moments, keeping the viewer emotionally connected. And the use of music, adding to the overall feeling of each frame. This film was powerful enough to prompt mass social outrage, from feelings of sadness, disgust, and true anger...the emotive impact on social views and action in 1932 was enough to push legislation, and it isn't hard to see why. LeRoy couldn't have done better in the direction of this film, nor could Paul Muni have done a better job of acting in it.

Even though it's a decade after the beginning of the "counterculture" movement we see in films, this one still is a representative of that, even if only a minor one. This film we have Travis, a taxi driver. And one never really thinks about it, but we've all done or said something of a private nature with a sense of security when in truth we weren't alone. So a taxi driver, for example, anyone can hail him, so he has exposure to virtually anyone from all different walks of life and belief systems. A quote from the film is, "People do anything in front of a taxi driver, I mean anything. People too cheap to rent a hotel room. People who want to embarrass you, it's like you're not even there. It's like, you know, a taxi driver doesn't even exist" , and "This city is like an open sewer. You know, it's full of filth and scum He's seen the worst of it. And he does this job everyday. He's had enough and sees a need for a change. When talking to Iris, a child prostitute he tries to save, when planning to assassinate a presidential candidate, where he says "no" to going with her somewhere, he says, "Doing something for the government". Because in hi eyes to create a better world, he is. This film's simple and thoughtful dialogue, reserve shots that interrupt speech, and close ups help tell it's story.

This film slightly reminds me of Casablanca, in that the male lead's former love interest comes back and things and people change for that instance (the "love" in this one is more complicated and intertwined, but the same feeling, for me, arose), going every which way from the predictability of life previous. This film hosts great acting and an amazing use of light. Both by the strong women of the film played by Rhonda Fleming and Jane Greer. And also, one can feel the tension between the actors Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas. The tension, and how well the mesh, must be more than their acting ability, but something about who they are as individuals, which just added to the roles (so awesome casting done there). And the light, there was heavy use of chiaroscuro, making the dark noir have light in a way that highlighted on-screen aspects, both for importance and aesthetics. I definitely liked this film, I see myself viewing more film noir over the coming summer months.

The violence in this film is explicit. There have been many other violent films, or films with striking violent acts, prior to it, such as Scarface (1932) and Psycho (1960 ; the shower scene, the scene when the detective enters the house, etc.). In Scarface, the gunshots were never "seen", they had only been heard. And in Scarface's closing scene, we see the shots hit their target, but we don't see excessive amounts of blood, similar to the two Psycho scenes I mentioned (the blood is minimal). But in Bonnie and Clyde, director Penn opened up the flood gates!! Also, notably in the film, we see sexual elements, including a sexually frustrated Bonnie (a woman having and showing desires!). At the time, in the 60s sexuality was still somewhat taboo. But in the counterculture movement, it became something that was latched onto. Either in explicit or implicit (discussion) terms, which was seen in other 1967 films The Graduate, and, Guess Who's Coming To Dinner. Bonnie and Clyde was also excessive in other areas as well, but they weren't painted as monsters. We see the laughs, a few tears, and love that Bonnie and Clyde had for each other as people. And the joy they had and those who associated with them had, such as Clyde's brother. They were people first, just people who happened to commit many crimes is all. O, and also kill people.

This film keeps the viewer paying attention as there is a lack of chronology in the telling of the narrative. However, this can be slightly troublesome during the first viewing of the film, but if one gives this movie the full attention it deserves, the characters (such as those played by Uma Thurman, John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, and the watch scene with Christopher Walken) and dialogue drive narrative carry this film from the on-screen start to the end credits. The acting in this film is great, the use of the soundtrack paired with the film editing is even better, both of these paired together create a well-thought out, story that will continue to be told for some time. It's one of those "cult classics" for a reason. Not to mention, the director, Quentin Tarantino, what a talent.

This film directed by Donen and Kelly is such a treat! And yes, Gene Kelly, who also stars in the film! The singing spans across many genres and styles, and the title song...there's no question as to why it's become common knowledge "Singing in the rain, and we're happy again!" and "Good Mornin' " (another song in the film). Because even if one hasn't heard or seen the film, they know the musical phrase. This film is beautifully shot, and with it's tracking shots, keeps us, the audience at just enough of a distance that we are engaged yet not dragged into the story. The goal of a musical wasn't to achieve realism, it is meant as a pleasantry to be enjoyed for it's artistic quality. While watching Singin In the Rain, I felt as though I was watching a Broadway show. The camera editing, keeping the audience at just the right angle at all points. Mainly, the music, all of the sound, the facial expressions, and the brilliant use of color. All of those factors contribute to make Singin In the Rain one of the great musicals of all time on film. At the time, the public had had enough after many terrible, poorly though out musicals had been released. Singin in the Rain helped save the genre from dying out entirely. In my opinion. Wonderful film!

A statement, just as plain as any. But when particular circumstances arise, or situations occur, are packed full of meaning. In the film, the title is actually said, and the decision is felt by all in the neighborhood. The way Spike Lee isn't afraid when it comes to dialogue, and his portrayal of the human situation is what made this film great. Because, instead of having this film being an ideal or a "portrayal", his film I can feel is the real deal. Many portrayals nowadays take artistic liberties or clean something up to make it more appropriate for viewing audiences, or more intense to shock them. Even though this film was made over 20 years ago, with the recent spike of public interest in the "Black lives matter" movement, we can all connect to this film in someway. Whether we are taking direction or passive action, standing up and observing, or simply just having a stereotype or certain ways of thinking and feeling expected of you due to the color of your skin. In this film, we have Mookie. He's African American, and everyone at his job, is Caucasian. The owner as well as the owner's sons/employees. There's a Korean mart across the street. And the neighborhood is predominantly occupied by African Americans. So in Lee's film, he explores the tension and day-to-day interactions by this close proximity of mixed skin colors and races in his 1989 film, Do The Right Thing.

Ahh, the feeling one gets while watching this Woody Allen Classic. He completely breaks the rules of "Hollywood Invisibility", and at pretty much every time he gets (Allen is also a main actor in this film) the chance to, he steps out of the film world to interact with us. It's almost as if we were standing in the room, and whenever something that would garner a reaction out of us, Allen reaches out and addresses it, directly with us. He also breaks the rules of a typical flashback very early on in the film, and personally, I think it's one of the best scenes I've seen in a long time, let alone this film. The way Allen handles the chronology, the realism (lack thereof), and acting is what makes this film so great. Which brings me to the next part, the acting. While viewing this film, I didn't feel as though I was watching actors perform roles on a screen. I couldn't say, "The way Diane Keaton played Annie was really great, I think if they cast actress X though it may have been a bit better". And I don't feel anyone could logically, thoughtfully make that assumption. Because the film focused on what was real, what was raw. None of the actors "fit" into any particular role, they all had their quirks, obsessions that in film, can either be a core focus of the film or play towards the film's underlying meaning. In Annie Hall, not so much. They were just people. And their person-hood wasn't to some greater goal. I feel like Allen couldn't have directed this film any better even if he tried.

This film by Alfred Hitchcock does a very good job of hiding the twist ending that comes. My summary line doesn't even begin to tell of what one can expect to see when viewing this film. Through use of close-ups, Hitchcock shows us the facial expression of how a particular character feels by minor changes in their face, even more so their eyes. He enjoys the use of reverse shots, but in his case, I feel they up the sense of suspense through primarily upping the tension one feels during this movie after the famous shower scene. Because if that happened within the first 20 minutes of the film, when will the next, over an hour, time left of this film?! So Hitchcock already has us invested and a bit uneasily inquisitive, to where we're itching to want to low what happens next. The magnetic film is also accentuated by the use of voice-overs not by the on- screen person. The 2 main ones are during the time Marion Crane rushed away into the night after she's committed her crime; the second was at the end, when inner voices, voices that may or may not be one's own, come out to play and act very "tell tale heart" with how easily the latter contributes. This film will shock, captivate, and engaging discussion, and a lack of realism that is beneficial to the telling of the film. If one has not seen it, buyer beware, the shower scene will forever be scorched into your memory.

This film, directed by Mackendrick, takes place in New York City. But not just your everyday New York City; he uses the streets, the alley ways, places outside that have very little witness to potential crime occurrences, offices where shady deals are made, back rooms where private discussion happen that eventually come to light. Love is shattered, deals to make sure it happens for good are agreed upon by none other than the sweet innocent Suzy's brother who doesn't want to ever part with her. He wants to keep her in his life and be close with her because she's all he's got in terms of family, and he's willing to destroy the true love her sister had been lucky enough to find while still under his wing. So in order to do that, he makes deals with Falco, a publicist. J.J, Suzy's brother, is an extremely powerful newspaper writer who could destroy you with the dial of a few numbers or with a few lines off of his typewriter. Just as he was powerful with his influence, he was intimidating in his demeanor. He ran the show. But to his sister, and only to her, he was a bit of a softie. Which was very sweet to see. But in this sweetness and the brotherly-sisterly love he has for her, he poisoned their relationship with deceit, strong-armed Falco and the corrupt police force and anyone else writing in New York City at the time, and to what end?

This film by Orson Welles shows the end of the film first, but without explanation. The ensuring story, is about that explanation. It fills in the pieces of it as it goes along from various angles and viewpoints from those who knew him in some way in some point and time, or the few that actually managed to have a close relationship with Mr. Kane, such as his best friend Leland. This film capitalized it's black and white color base, use of low and high camera angles to show the power dynamic, and lighting most heavily to relay this story (outside of the ever clear use of diction in this, and many other, films). The film plays in a staggered time-wave while remaining logically chronological. It progresses with giving flashback moments of a forward moving story that we as the audience know from the opening scene, him dying alone saying "Rosebud" with his final breaths. The film makes great use of being filmed in black and white, to have stark shadow contrast, and of light 3-point lighting. Low key lighting is made dominant, but high key is used as well. Just as in life, there are happy times and there are not so happy, dark, fearful, stressful, depressed times. It is an autobiographical representation of real world William Randolph Hearst. Hearst hated the film and fought to keep it out of theaters, away from eyes that would view it and stick to it as truth of the extremely powerful man, how always has an air of a low camera angle following his life. Kane, becomes just as powerful, but the dark side to all of his success, and all of his and those close to him, such as his wife. The Welles rendition both shows the extravagance and aired out the dirty laundry of it all. He kept the fact that Hearst was a hard working man with the drive and ambition, dedication to success and charm, that helped bring him to the top. But he added in the bad, which was distasteful and unacceptable to Hearst. Still this film remains in circulation, and the cinematic prowess with which this story is told remains one of the many great American film classics.

This film caught the nation's attention mid war, it showed Rick, the isolationist, and the woman that would come back into his life, Elsa, that would be the strong enough to prompt him to reconsider his decision and stance on the war. As an isolationist, he refused to get involved, even in the beginning when someone he was familiar with got arrested in his establishment, right in front of him. Even as the man was gripping Rick's shirt pleading for his assistance, Rick remained nonchalant about the whole matter. And when someone else he was familiar and friendly with saw his lack of involvement and said, "When they come to get me Rick I hope you'll be more of a help", to which Rick calmly and nonchalantly says, "I stick my neck out for nobody", walks away, and goes back to work. But when a blast from the past comes back into his life, Rick is flooded with emotion. First with a piano piece Elsa asks the piano player to play, has Rick storming out of a back room heatedly saying "I thought I told you to never play that song". At which point the player points to Elsa, and from then, a switch is flipped within Rick. The use of heavy shadow or lack of it tells the story almost as much as the words of this timely significant film does. The crime for which Rick was pleaded to aid in exempting the man from political consequence, the crime is to be committed by someone very, very close to Rick's heart. This film follows the change (or lack of) in Rick's mind through use of flashback and the course of action he takes in the film to get to the ultimate end of this film in which the ever changing analytical side of Rick becomes set, in which his motives are brought to light, and is 100% decisive in his ultimate decisions. This film was so extremely culturally significant as there were many Rick's in the world, many Americans in the USA and elsewhere making the decision to distance themselves and be thoroughly uninvolved in the events of war; not even wanting to hear about it and those who were very patriotic, fighting and aiding the war effort. This movie explores that in a very realistic way, and on the surface, a very straightforward way, but more in depth, had an all too common complexity that made it very relatable to its audience.

The fantastic images, and the use of a vast array of color create a spectacle that can take even the most depressed individual emotionally affected by the second world war, in my opinion, away from all of the negative factors and provide a temporary escape. The many directors each helping to deliver something visually stunning, which when brought together, creates the fantastic feature length film deserving of it's name, Fantasia. The film, debuting a year after the start of the war, but a year prior to the US involvement, still proved to be a very effective film in my opinion. As the war was a worldwide affair, it was very prevalent and the US citizens were probably fearing with baited breath that they would too soon be brought into it's crossfire. I believe that movies like Fantasia aided in brining much needed relief, and acted as a powerful distraction without being too "in your face" that it was a distraction. It's cinematography as a whole is captivating and the on-screen world full of magic and good triumphing over evil, was exactly what people needed to see at the time. People craved a reality that was similar, so despite the cartoonish and magically mesmerizing atmosphere, the values are still the same. Producer Walt Disney, brining joy when and wherever necessary from the beginning.

Stagecoach is a film that gets into the very core of human existence. We have a ship of fools who all get on board a stagecoach going to a specific location, but all inside of it are going for different reasons. And they are all of different social class. The use of photography, made all the more powerful by the use of light, frame this motion picture perfectly. Such as the chiaroscuro on the prostitute when they all stop for dinner. She sits by a window, and instead of being illuminated as one would expect from such a location, she is in the shadows. And due to her costume, which is also dark, she is cast further and further into the shadows. She sits alone near the window, and the rest of the ship is apart from here, which is meaningful photography in the beginning of this film. Then in the same scene, one individual sits by her and another pair are at the opposite end. Another great use of photography to frame the symbolism of the scene and nature of the characters placed in them, how the interact with one another. Towards the end, we get a reserve shots between 2 of the characters, which highlights their newfound connection as people rather than parts belonging to a particular social class. I believe this movie is full of meaning and progresses well, but that the Hayes Code hurt how impactive this movie could have been. Had they been allowed to say/show certain things more without the stringent limit placed on them by the Hayes Code, the impact could be felt a great deal more than it is. Regardless, it is an impactive film that well deserves it's praise.

Charlie Chaplin is a cinematic gem. Not only did he direct this film, but he physically put himself into it. Chaplin's character is always highly expressive throughout, as are his costars. We really do not need sound to appreciate this movie. I actually would argue that it would take away from this film's true inner meaning. The music aids in engaging the viewer, amplifying the emotive acting by all. The camera direction is also a key player in this with it's many, many jump cuts. The first 5 minutes of the film sets up the audience perfectly for the rhythm of the rest of the film. Even if Chaplin isn't moving very much (such as the scene where he pretends to be robotic for a minute within the first 3 minutes. So not a spoiler! Haha), even if the overall mood is depressive, the world of The Circus never loses it's overflowing emotion that seamlessly flows into the audience nor does it ever lose our eager eyes. We're hungry for more and more of this world, the verisimilitude striking as the implicit and explicit meaning correlate to life so very frequently. The choice between what is right and what we want/what would directly benefit us or bring us immediate joy. Which are not always the same thing. At least initially. This is well communicated without the use of words, the film speaks volumes on it's own. A+ Charlie Chaplin!!

This film by Buster Keaton does a very great job of communicating to the audience a okay-by- play of what is going on through it's use of captions. What is done, is whenever there is a line of dialogue or a course of action taken that may be a bit unclear, the screen stops the motion, cuts to a black screen, with those necessary words displayed in a white large print. This makes for an easy viewing, therefore making it much more enjoyable to viewers of today. I am sure it aided viewers back in the 1920s when it was released, but the viewers of today that are used to having both diegetic and non-diegetic sound in films can breathe a sigh of relief when attempting to appreciate this silent. It brings the best of the two worlds together. Expressive and emotive acting that is common with silent films and, the direct "here's what's happening" format that is common today by providing a pause in the film to read and comprehend the motives and expressions portrayed throughout. Very well done!

Dracula is a dark dramatic classic, it is the film that birthed "The Vampire", which it introduced to the world in 1931. "The Vampire" has kept his place in society as a large phenomena that has remained omnipresent in media outlets. In recent years, we've had Twlight split a nation between Team Jacob and Team Edward (the vampire), tweens and their mothers alike. We have the Vampire Diaries keeping a steady following over the past 7 years, spawning a spin off, the Originals, that has also retained outstanding ratings over the past 3 years. Along with countless remakes and direct references to the man, the myth, the legend, the Vampire himself, Dracula; and his scientific adversary Van Helsing 85 years later. Tod Browning's black and white film left room for powerful use of light, photography, and sound helped the film be taken in the way that it was, causing it's overwhelming success. At some parts, the light is so low key that the shot is nearly black, only having a pair of eye's illuminated, This added to Dracula's looming presence, being more impactive on the viewer, they feel they are being watched themselves. The photography is key, frequently; it shows reaction of the characters to what is occurring or in front of them in a quick jump cut or reverse shot. And because of the mis-en-scene that is created, the diegetic sounds that are heard are all the more jarring and can be felt in one's core.

Everyone today knows about the monster known as Frankenstein. But even without prior knowledge, the director, James Whale, does a magnificent job of expressing the plot line. Through use of beautiful photography, and framing shots and scenes in just the right lighting, makes this a very powerful film. The audience can understand how the people of the town feel like, and how they themselves feel. If they think the Monter's existence was a mistake or if they empathize with him. Because in a way, Frankenstein/The Monster and/or the townspeople have all been us at some point and time in our lives. There was a time for each of us where we had thoughts or did something we felt was the right thing to do or that our idea or action would be accepted in it's context, only to be met with backlash because our theories were misled due to a lack of information. Because we didn't know any better. Or simply those around us were unable to see the world from our perspective. And we have all been the townspeople, by saying that something was dead wrong and standing by that at least once in our lives. Whale catches that aspect and allows us to feel both perspectives through the use of an omniscient camera narrator. There is a scene in the film, without giving a spoiler, where the Monster does an action out of self defense. And through the framing of this shot, the Monster is clearly the victim. But when he acts, only a scream is heard and the result of his self defensive action is seen. And due to his inability to communicate, it is seen as gross and that he is a "monster". The way this film is shot does a very good job of allowing the viewer to easily take both sides and both sets of facts (omniscient fact vs. observed fact) , and comprehend both the explicit and implicit meanings with ease.