Blood and Guts

Violence, for me, is almost a necessity. I love violence in movies. And anytime I hear a big speech about how these types of films corrupt our youth, I can’t help but release a deep sigh. In my everyday life, I am not a violent person, when I see real life violence on T.V. or in person, I hate it. There is a difference between movie and real life violence, and I think I am able to make this distinction. Most people can make this distinction too, but it is the small percentage that can’t separate the two worlds and create problems. What I like about violence in film is that it contributes to the realism. The more realistic the violence, the more powerful the film can be. It is nice to watch these physical feats, like in Casino Royal, The Bourne series, and nearly every Asian movie. To watch a bad guy get beaten to a pulp, and not feel sorry for him, because you know it is fake. I hate saying it is cathartic, but that is pretty much what it is. And as great as violence in film is, nothing is worse than a gross misuse of this tool. There needs to be a compelling story line that makes the violence plausible and realistic, otherwise the violence holds no emotional weight. My earliest memories of film include, every Jackie Chan movie created. I would go to the video store in my little town every weekend and rent one, all in the order laid out on the shelf. So I do not completely hate films that use violence as the main vehicle to progress the plot, but most of his films have a decent story. I am saying we shouldn’t condemn violent films because they can often prove to be the most emotion moments of the movie. We have had violence throughout human history, we don’t need to ignore it but just know how to distinguish what is okay in a film, and what is okay in the real world.

Pussies with Guns

Bonnie and Clyde was pretty decent film, but I have stipulations when it comes to those who are considered outlaws. I want to see people who know what they’re doing, and who do it well on screen verses those who just decide out of the blue to start robbing banks. On the other hand it is nice to see how an outlaw got into the business of robbing, and how they manipulate the press to their advantage, or disadvantage. It was hard for me to believe these characters were capable of murder, they seemed more inclined to fire warning shots in the general direction of the cops than actually attempt a murder. Which brings something else to mind, the dehumanizing of cops in outlaw films. They are portrayed as ruthless, bloodthirsty, and ready to kill. I remember a line from Reservoir Dogs when they ask each other if they shot anyone during the heist. One says, “A few cops…”, and the other retorts “no real people?” If this isn’t the ideology of a criminal, I don’t know what is. I know Clyde didn’t want to hurt everyone, but when you are waving a gun around it is nearly impossible to not fear for your own life, and try to defend it, and your livelihood. This is something being brought into modern consciousness with the reason media frenzy around Colton Harris-Moore. And although I am a fan, I get the same Bonnie and Clyde feeling. It may be starting out innocent enough, trying to get by, but new evidence is showing Colton is ready to escalate the robberies and stolen cars, boats, and planes, into full scale war; according to a letter he sent to his mother and then given to the media. I believe outlaws are more American than apple pie, but it is all fun and games until someone dies.

Not an Animal

In a couple of weeks we hit one of my favorite directors, Martin Scorsese. He is one of the most iconic directors of modern America, and whenever his name is uttered ears perk, and attentions focus. It is a shame we only get a total of five hours to experience Scorsese when he has such an extensive list of films, and award nominations to match. He has been described as a being not a Hollywood director, and I don’t think he would disagree. He doesn’t make films for Hollywood, they are more works of art for him to enjoy, and those who worked alongside him. After looking at the films to be viewed concerning this gentleman I was disappointed that I didn’t see one of his best on the list. One considered to be the best film of the eighties, and earned two academy awards. This film was Raging Bull. Although Scorsese did an amazing job, it wasn’t always his first choice to make. It took some persuading by its star Robert DeNiro, and a personal crisis for Scorsese to get involved.
This film is beautifully shot. Boxing had never been seen like this, and has never since. Scorsese put the camera in the action, up close and personal, using various montages of cuts, demonstrating the power and emotion that goes on during a fight. He also showed how this can leak into a boxer’s everyday life, making violence a staple of their diet. This film follows Jake La Motta through his boxing career, two wives, and to his overweight future: owner and operator of Jake La Motta’s, a restaurant. It is violent throughout and I love it. The fight scenes are spectacular shot with one camera based off Scorsese’s storyboards. One of the best additions to the film was the decision to shoot in black and white. It is beautiful and wouldn’t be the same movie in color. Scorsese is the rare director who actually deserves the caption “A Martin Scorsese Picture”. He has his hands in every aspect of the film making process, and his perfectionism shows. This is a pretty crude description so if you haven’t seen it, do, and check out Who’s That Knocking at My Door?, and Mean Streets.

Graphics Drown

I have had the unpleasant pleasure of witnessing a horrible movie. A type of movie seen more and more these days, and almost creating another genre of film. This genre’s title would be both fitting and descriptive. The title would be Disaster. Before watching it I avoided this film like an air-born infection, not wanting to be near it or any of my other movies near it, for fear of its disease spreading to my great collection. But when returning home for spring break, I found my mother had purchased this atrocity, this pathetic excuse for film, and admitted to its slow plot, but enjoyed the action. This film was 2012. Maybe I am biased, because at first, when this Mayan 2012 thing first took off on the Discovery channel next to Nostradamus predictions, I was incredibly interested. But after this channel had saturated its air space with nothing but disaster, and a new show about how the world will evolve after our race has been destroyed, I can’t handle it anymore. This film was long, and I fought to get through it every second. 2012 is weighed down by its own grandeur, and token action movie stereotypes. There is the father who chose work over family and is separated from his wife, was once a writer but now a limo driver, and has formed a bad relationship with his son who calls him by his first name, because of his decision, but there is still a connection between him and his ex. The film’s plot is so basic and average, that it can only be pushed forward by action, with near misses, and thought-you-were-dead-but-now-you’re-nots, token moves for any average action epic. It explores relationships between people, and shows people’s real colors when death is near or certain (there was potential here, but they lost it). Not only has all this been done, it has been overdone, and the director relied on the spectacle of computer graphics to tell the story (these graphics weren’t even that great, they were just okay). Not only does this do nothing for me, I can’t get over how they expect us to believe the scientific B.S. they spoon feed us about the core heating up, the solar flares, the shifting crust, and that they could survive the Yellowstone explosion, by out-racing it with a Winnebago, and a small plane. I appreciate the effort but this was a swing in a miss. Not only did they miss, they gave me a cold, and hit themselves in the back of the head, even though this movie made money. I think we should instigate a boycott of movies like this. I don’t go to the movies to see what they can do with a computer, I go to watch a story unfold, and presented well. Computer based movies focus on graphics and less on story. I don’t care if computers are used, just make sure there is a great story to support all the visual B.S. That is why I applaud Tarantino for sticking with reality, and showing us on screen, what they actually filmed. P.S. I haven’t seen Avatar, but I heard the story is pretty average too.

Cord Strike

Because we are getting into movies that are beginning to use music as an integral part of the whole film and less as filler, or a ruse to dampen solely visual stimuli, I feel the need to express my great appreciation of the appropriate and exact art of using and creating music for film. I have believed for a long time that music is the life blood, the ever beating heart of a movie. It can make or break a film. It makes a good film great, and an okay film good. I see music almost visually. The sound waves ripple off the screen, and fuse with our body’s chemistry, affecting our mood to the drama, action, or comedy. The music manipulates our senses. I believe all movies try for realism, the good ones, and mostly dramatic ones, aim for this achievement. A filmmaker strives to recreate a feeling in a scene by use of angles, lighting, color, sound, etc., but especially music. It twangs for everyone, and can help recreate the atmosphere of a scene it is trying evoke. Music tells us about a character as much or more than watching this person. It gets us into their head, their mood, their personality comes through. To use a few examples of effective use of music, music created for the film, original score, two obvious films come to mind, There Will Be Blood, and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. The first few minutes of There Will Be Blood, has no dialogue, we only see the main character working hard, and a few of his workers. The only real clue to this type of character is the music. It is orchestrated beautifully by Jonny Greenwood, and leaves an eerie unpredictable quality that rattles of Daniel Plainview, the main character portrayed by Daniel Day-Lewis. Musicians usually create themes for the main characters, something that is uniquely theirs, just like a personality. And Greenwood created this with a loud, constant, note, one that tells me of Plainview’s stubbornness, and unpredictable quirkiness. This note forces goose bumps, and hair to stand on end; all this from just a note. In the Assassination of Jesse James, Nick Cave and Warren Ellis use a similar technique for Jesse James. Another thing these composers do effectively to help transport us is the type of instruments, and the way they use them. How they arrange the music resembles the time. There Will Be Blood and The Assassination of Jesse James are both period films. And I feel like I am there because of the arrangement of music. But this doesn’t mean that a film’s music can only be good if it is original, and created for the film. Tarantino has only used one original song for his films, every other song has been created for some other reason, or for another film. He uses Ennio Morricone, who wrote the score for the dollars trilogy and several other westerns, for the Kill Bill volumes, and Inglourious Basterds. And his effect is great. But also, in all the films mentioned, is the importance, and underrated use of silence. Knowing when to not use music.

Fuzzy Wuzzy

I was impressed with a number of things Babyface had to offer. First, it empowers women. And as cliché as that sounds, I do not know how else to say it. It shows that women have power men do not. Especially in the time the film was made. Women were best seen as house wives, and care takers, there to take care of men, and somewhat frowned upon for wanting to pursue a career. Babyface breaks all norms. She is sarcastic, sassy, strong minded, and confident. She can also hold her drink, and is quite promiscuous. The American dream radiates from her core, to make life better for herself by any means necessary. An ideal that follows along with every gangster film we have seen. Her weapons of choice are her lady gifts: beauty, confidence, and the willingness to put-out. You could say she follows a code, a code laid out by Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a philosopher from the late eighteen hundreds. His work inspired two brothers to create The Matrix. Nietzsche wrote that “the strongest and highest Will to Life does not find expression in a miserable struggle for existence, but in a Will to War. A Will to Power, a Will to Overpower! (Fieser 364) ” Babyface takes this to heart, she lives life devoid of emotion, relying on her ability to overpower any man by her beauty and sheer will to succeed. I noticed that she only accomplishes the things she does because she wants to. She only does it because she wills herself to do it; to manipulate and use men to better her lifestyle. And she never sways from this idea. She does everything she does because she wants to, because she wants to do it that way. And throughout the movie she shows evidence of a mental wall. This wall is shown by her apparent inability to care, or be affect by the murder and suicide of two men she bamboozled. Only at the end of the movie does she decide to love. And she is only able to do this because she wills herself. It is important to note what kind of man does this for her. From the start, I thought to myself “Who will tickle her fancy?” And in the end I was given an answer. It was a man who accepted her as she was and knew without being told the number of unladylike things she has done. He was a man who saw through her act, and still loved her. Once she realized this she was able to love him, to release that wall that got her where she was. She also proved her love when she found him after a batched suicide attempt. An ambulance comes for him and she sits in the back with her man, not caring about the half a million that spilled all over the floor. But I have to say I wish they would have gone with a stronger end. I mean yah she doesn’t care that the diamonds and money spilled everywhere, but that is all it did. She didn’t give it away, she didn’t lose it and not care, she only spilled the contents, and remarks, “It doesn’t matter now”. She still has half a million, but that might go to the bank to help out her man. Who knows.

One Pint of Blood

The gangster is an iconic American symbol, especially in film. When a film’s story involves a crime, more often than not, gangsters are involved. This brings credibility to the story line, because without this figure, the audience would not believe a crime could be committed without veterans. We are progressively demanding more and more realism for our movies. In other words, we are waiting for credibility. Hands down, the best gangster film we have seen so far has been Scarface. And I can’t help but compare this classic gangster film with a more modern crime classic, Reservoir Dogs. I chose this comparison to show how gangster portrayals have not changed in sixty years. Their look may change, or the way they talk, but their overall motivation, suspicion, and moral code have swayed very little in over six decades. A gangster’s motivation is created by greed, the need to get ahead, roughly a skewed idea of the American dream. Tony, in Scarface, follows this pattern, so much so that he takes his boss’s job, and girl. In Reservoir Dogs greed is represented in numerous ways. One being the need to live. I remember one scene when they are discussing taking lives. They something along the lines of “I’m no maniac, but one way or the other, you’re getting out of my way. The choice between doing ten years, and taking out some stupid m*****f****r, ain’t no choice at all”. They are willing to kill whoever, cop, civilian, friend, in order to see their own survival through. As the quote says, there is no honor among thieves. What I also noticed in both films was how they spoke to each other. They talk about girls, stories they have heard, and joke around. It is possible to have comedy in a drama, it just has to be placed in at the right time, and flow organically. Now, because of 1930’s motion picture production code, in order for a film to be released it has to adhere to somewhat interpretable guidelines (does anybody remember the scene from Aviator?). Because of this code films could show deaths in limited ways. Because of this code Scarface had to be shot the way it was; with silhouette killing, shot on either killer or victim, never both. This reminded me greatly of Reservoir Dogs. To those who have seen it, when I say “The Ear Scene”, you know what I am talking about. You never see the ear cut off, the camera pans to the side as if not wanting to witness what is happening. I also remember when Mr. Orange, and Mr. White steal a car, the lady inside shoots Mr. Orange in the gut, but we don’t see gun and belly in the same shot. Overall the endings are similar also. The greed and suspicion that choked them led to their untimely deaths, showing little change in gangster demeanor, motivation, and morals that have been instilled in American society since the first gangster flick, way back when.