MYST POST Double Feature: Before Sunrise and Before Sunset

I decided to watch these movies based on the article Mr. D posted on women in movies and I have always been interested in this trilogy because it was lower budget films that got a lot of attention, the second and third even being nominated for Oscars.

Before Sunrise was filmed in 1995 and it is very obvious by how the movie looked and how it was presented. However, I fell in love with it immediately. This didn't seem like the typical romantic comedy. The formulaic structure that seems to always be present was gone and in place was a story where both characters had their own flaws and insecurities, rather than just the vision of a perfect world. I think it is because of this that this movie has gained a lot of attention and was so well acclaimed to have obtained not one, but two succeeding movies.

What really stood out to me right away was the script. This movie was written in such a smart way with realistic dialogue and events that didn't seem like a fantasy or a made up romantic fairy tale. The chemistry between the two actors and their endless conversations is what made the movie so striking and endearing. After I looked it up, I saw that the director Richard Linklater teamed up with Kim Krizan to write the script in order to obtain an honest female voice in the movie. This obviously is what makes the movie so real and why the script doesn't seem forced.

Additionally, not much action happens. Since the movie is about their one night together, there are a lot of scenes, in fact most of the movie, where they are just talking. Talking about life, love, experiences, and dreams. So, interestingly, there were a lot scenes that were one long shot. They would last up to maybe even 6 minutes it felt like. This had to take a lot of skill on the actors parts to be able to film that without messing up. These shot choices also contributed to the overall feel of the film and what made it so unique.

Furthermore, the lighting is very dark, but not in a depressing or sad way. This may be because of when the movie was filmed or because it is late at night, but the whole movie has this dark silhouette to it that somewhat contrasts the love that we are seeing on screen. Interesting choice made by the director.

Obviously, I loved this movie. I give it a 5/5.

I then, of course, immediately wanted to watch Before Sunset. Filmed nine years later, it continues to tell the story of Celine and Jesse after they meet again, nine years later of course.

There were a lot of similarities in this sequel. The lighting and long shots were both present. In a way, some could argue that this is a lot like the first in the trilogy because they are just walking around talking. However, Linklater is able to create something completely different. Again, the script was phenomenal. In fact, like I mentioned, this film was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay. A huge feat for an independent film.

After watching both films, I looked up the score on Rotten Tomatoes. Before Sunrise received 100% from critics and 93% from audience while Before Sunset received 95% from critics and 92% from audience. Even though I loved both films, I was honestly surprised when I saw these ratings. What I think is amazing is that Linklater was able to maintain such a strong story and create such a beautiful sequel that fans and critics alike both loved, which is hard to do regardless of the genre. This shows his talents as both a director and a screenwriter.

I think what people love most about both these films is the ideas presented in them. Love and women and understanding women is a huge part of both films. It is clear that women can be independent and that men don't really understand them to a certain extent, and vice versa. These movies cause the audience to think about that and about their own lives. It seems like most romantic comedies are lying to you, while these are telling you the truth.

I also give Before Sunset a 5/5.

FFS #2: Oscar Winners for Best Picture and Best Director

I decided to watch films that received an Academy Award for both Best Director and Best Picture-arguably the two most prestigious awards. Although this has happened with quite a few films, I chose to watch these three because they were all so diverse and I wanted to find a commonality that the Academy may be looking for in award winners.

Annie Hall was directed by Woody Allen and released in 1977. One of his more famous films, this seemed to break all sort of rules in filmmaking. Allen's character repeatedly broke the fourth wall and talked to the camera-something that was rare before this film. Out of all of these films, I think this one had the best script and personality to it. Through Allen's directing and acting it was apparent that he put a lot of time and energy into the script which he co-wrote and the delivery of the lines. Rarely have I seen a romantic comedy that I found so original and engaging and not as cliche and boring. The Academy clearly noticed this because they also gave Annie Hall an award for Best Original Screenplay.

The next film I watched was American Beauty, a 1999 film directed by Sam Mendes. Among Best Picture and Best Director, the film also won Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, and Best Actor (Kevin Spacey). First off, if you have not seen this film, then I highly recommend it. Although the plot is hard to explain, this is probably one of the most real films I have seen. Spacey well deserved his award and the film was beautifully directed and presented. I could have probably watched this with the sound off and have been just as stunned as I was by the story because the shots were perfected done to every detail and adds to the mood of the entire movie. The editing was typical but it didn't need to be anything special because of everything else the movie had to offer. When put in the context of it being made in 1999, the fact that it won Best Picture is understandable because of the message the film gives out, which tends to be what the Academy loves.

Lastly, I watched The Departed which was directed by Martin Scorsese and released in 2006. I chose this film because I had known there was a lot of controversy surrounding the awards it won and I wanted to see for myself whether or not it actually deserved it. This film also won Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Film Editing. Out of all the awards it received, I have to say that the editing award was very well deserved. It was edited in such a fast pace way that keeps you interested that you almost forget the film is 2 and a half hours long. One specific sequence that really interested me (I watched it about six times) was when there were short scene cuts back and forth between Damon and DiCaprio's characters. There were many moments like that because their characters are so connected but only appear in about three scenes together. If the editing had not been done to connect them so fluidly and effectively, then it would have felt awkward when they finally meet in the climax of the movie.

Personally, I loved this film and would probably put it in my top 10, but I am kind of conflicted over whether or not it deserved Best Picture. I didn't quite get the feelings I got when I watched Annie Hall or American Beauty. So, I looked up what all the controversy was about and discovered that many put The Departed on lists of "Worst Best Picture Winners Ever." According to Peter Eramo, Jr. of Listverse, who ranked it #6 on his personal list, said "I love Martin Scorsese and am a huge fan of so many of his films, but this had no business winning the top two awards of the night, let alone the honor of being nominated. If any film actually stood out that year, Scorsese would have gone home empty-handed once again. But, alas, no film existed."

Seeing this article really made me wonder what the difference is between a great film and a "Best Picture." It seems that there is no clear cut answer and that it is different for everyone. Although I enjoyed The Departed probably the most, that was only because I love thriller movies and it was catered towards my taste. That doesn't mean that it is more deserving than Annie Hall, which I liked but could probably not watch again and again. So, who decides? It seemed that the connection between all three of these movies was that they were loved by many and they made an impact during that specific year. So, therefore, the winner can depend on that year and what other movies were out and what political/social issues we are facing at that time. The Academy Awards seem to be a tricky thing to try to figure out. Regardless, all of these movies and many other winners are, in my opinion, deserving for one reason or another. Whether or not everyone necessarily agrees.

Article: http://listverse.com/2010/05/12/top-10-worst-best-picture-winners/ 

MYST Post #4: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

This movie has been on my list for a while, for no particular reason other than I love Aubrey Plaza and Michael Cera. I was in for even more of a shock when randomly Chris Evans and Johnny Simmons appeared.

Of course, this movie is known for being based off of a comic book. So it has all the sound effects and cartoon-style throughout the whole movie. I, oddly enough, really loved that. Something about the way Edgar Wright directs this film gives it a charm unlike anything else and sets it up so that the audience actually feels like they are inside the comic book.

I don't have one particular scene that stood out for me because, honestly, the whole thing felt like one long scene. This was both positive and negative because it was face-paced and the days went by through the transitions and discontinuous editing. However, this made me feel a little jumbled and confused and times and I had to pause it in order to gather my thoughts.

As I predicted, all the actors did a tremendous job in their comedy styles with their one-liners and timing perfectly delivered. Although the script was sort of iffy in my opinion, they did the best with what they had and still made me laugh out loud numerous of times. This movie is definitely not for everyone because it is quirky and weird and eccentric. But if you like that, then you'll enjoy this. It's a nice typical escapist film that I would recommend when you don't want to think too hard.

I give this movie a 3.5/5.

MYST Post #3: Dallas Buyers Club

For my last MYST post, I decided to watch Dallas Buyers Club because of both Jared Leto and Matthew McConaughey. I'm a fan of both of them, both in Leto's music and acting career, and McConaughey's usually romantic acting. I knew this was a different role for him, as he has been cast out of his norm for a while now, so I was excited to see it. Knowing of both their Oscar wins for these roles, I had high expectations. Fortunately, I was not disappointed.

Say what you want about Jared Leto, but I think he is phenomenal. There are few that would have been comfortable playing Rayon, the gay cross-dresser who also has AIDS. You can barely recognize Leto because of the amazing make-up work done on his face to make him look more womanly and by the clothes that include tight dresses and tights. (See Left and Below) There is, of course, the tremendous weight loss he endured for the role which also has an impact on the overall look. I came across many who said they were uncomfortable watching Leto, whether it be because of the role or because of the appearance. I, however, had the opposite reaction. I thought he was beautifully crafted as Rayon and that the make-up Robin Matthews did was well deserving of the Oscar she received as well. Without the make-up or Leto's soul in the performance, it would not have made the same impact on the movie as a whole as it did.

Besides the make-up, what really struck me was how they structured the movie: in numbering the days since Ron (McConaughey) had been diagnosed. You begin to view things in a different light by seeing how drastically he turned his life around from Day 1 to Day 2000 and so on. With the days, his personality and habits change as well. You see him go from an unhealthy homophobe to someone who is conscious about what he eats with a gay man who identifies as a woman as his best friend. Not going to lie, the first time they hugged I had tears in my eyes. The breakdown of the days make it easier to track his progress as a person and as someone with AIDS. We see the ups and downs up to his final days. This structure was unlike anything I had seen before, and I enjoyed it and thought it brought more to the movie than any other set up would have.

The hype for this movie is well-deserved and so were the Oscars. It is obvious through both actors acceptance speeches that this movie meant a lot to them and that they care about the issue. Leto even wore a red bow tie, the color for AIDS, to the Oscar's. Regardless of whether you not you have any connection to an AIDS patient or to the disease at all, Dallas Buyers Club is worth the watch, and you will not regret it at all.

I give this movie a 5/5.

Formal Film Study: Steven Soderbergh

 


One of the movies I have seen recently that really made me think was Side Effects, a movie about the pharmaceutical drug business. This movie, although I wasn't a huge fan, had a huge political message and was done in such an interesting way that I began to take interest in Steven Soderbergh, the director. So, I chose to watch three more films directed by him: Erin Brockovich (2000), Ocean's Eleven (2001), and Contagion (2011). All of these films, at first glance, are completely different and at first I would not have guessed they were done by the same director.

The first thing I noticed about all of these movies was the editing. There are plenty of scenes that have voiceovers in order to make it more fast paced or montages that will show more plot in a less amount of time. Usually I am not a fan of either of those things, but Soderbergh presents it in a way that makes you pay attention to every detail and follow the story rather than get lost. For example, taking the story of a woman like Erin Brockovich was no easy task, and it was a rather complicated storyline; but, through his editing he keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat rather than falling asleep before anything exciting happens. Then, you have a movie like Ocean's 11 which is, essentially, all action and momentum, but he is able to weave in a few backstories, nevertheless keeping up the continuation of his style.

I think what Soderbergh aims for the most is that we understand the messages behind all of his films. My initial confusion about his variation in stories, studios, and topics, was settled when, after watching all three films, it was obvious they had one thing in common: a message. They are all very political and contain controversies that are still relevant in our culture and that cause problems for anyone in America. Erin Brocovich shows you the struggle of being a single mom and how we can't always trust everything we are told. Contagion is related to that in the sense that our "perfect government" fails to help millions of Americans when they need it the most. Finally, Ocean's Eleven really spoke to me because I understood where he was going with the ex-convict taking on this casino robbery. It truly shows that you don't always know where people have been or why they make the actions they do. Nevertheless, Soderbergh is a director who chooses his movies based on what others will take out of them and in the hopes that they will shed some light on the reality we live in, no matter if the story is real or not.

In fact, Soderbergh states in an interview with Mary Kate Schilling of Vulture that "I can’t spend two years on a project without being totally excited about it. Any movie I’ve made has been because of the challenge it offered me as a director, because it provides a new canvas. Even the big-budget stuff like the Ocean’s films" ("Steven Soderbergh on Quitting Hollywood"). So, he doesn't take on anything that he isn't invested in emotionally. To me, that's what directing should be about. Not about the money or the studios it's affiliated to, but to what you're getting out of it and what you're giving to others.

When it comes to casting, it is clear that he likes to stick with the familiar. Julia Roberts starts as Erin Brockovich, and is George Clooney's wife in Ocean's Eleven. Similarly, Matt Damon, an accomplice to Clooney and Brad Pitt in that film, and is the star of Contagion. Upon making these decisions, Soderbergh is able to work with stars he knows and is comfortable with, and can create his vision based on the acting skills he knows they have. Roberts won an oscar for her performance as Brockovich, which she is completely deserving of. Soderbergh was also nominated as Best Director for that movie. It is because of his ability to bring Brockovich and her story to life that it was recognized by others and seen in a unique way. 

The same can be said for Contagion. With so many epidemic-type films that have been made, it is difficult to create one that is unique and original. But, Soderbergh takes on the more emotional side by portraying Damon's character as immune to the disease and highly protective of his daughter. He shows the lengths he will go to in order to protect her. And, even though we find out the cause of the disease at the end, that isn't what resonates with us. What the viewers are left with is the love a man can have and the will to survive this, rather than focusing on how it started. Soderbergh presents this by abruptly ending the movie after the cause is "revealed." He does this in order to show that it really isn't what is important, which is why it is kind of thrown in there as an after thought. 

He also has an abrupt ending to Ocean's Eleven as Pitt and Clooney are being followed by an unknown vehicle. I was extremely upset when the credits started to roll, but then I thought about it more and realized that may have been Soderbergh's point. With a movie like that with those types of characters, they are never really safe and there is always someone out to get them. Their identity doesn't matter as much as the concept behind it does. 

With these endings, and the editing, and the message, Soderbergh has created a name for himself. And, even though, in the interview he says he has no idea what people think of when they hear "Soderbergh," he has created films that have touched people, entertained people, and made statements that spark curiosity. I thoroughly enjoyed all of these films and am looking forward to seeing the rest. 


Interview with Vulture: http://www.vulture.com/2013/01/steven-soderbergh-in-conversation.html 

1935 Film Project

My group and I came up with a black and white screwball comedy, titled Smooth Criminal. We wanted to create something that would appeal to audiences in 1935, so we settled on a comedy that would take their minds off of the Great Depression and any other problems going on in their lives. We aimed for escapist entertainment, which, whether you like it or not, makes you laugh and entertains you.

After deciding on our genre, we chose to go with Columbia Pictures because, at that time, they were known for their comedies and smaller-scale films. One of their most successful directors was Howard Hawks, known for Scarface. Because of the success of that film, we decided to have him direct our movie because it would bring in a large audience base. We also decided upon Shirley Temple, Carole Lombard, and Clark Gable. Gable was well affiliated with Columbia, so we knew that would be a nice match. Also, Shirley Temple was immensely popular at this time and thought we could attract some families in by having her in the movie. Lombard would be our protagonist, a criminal who fails at everything she tries to do. Gable is the policeman who tracks her down, eventually landing her in jail, with the help of his daughter. We did not want any love story in this film because, with the Hays Code, we thought it wouldn't make much sense and a movie without any romance would be more entertaining and less cliche, in my opinion.

The focus of the film that we chose would be the costume/makeup work in order to create an authentic look for both the criminal and the police officer. We settled on Maurice Seiderman because it would be a jump start for his later career, leading to eventual work in Citizen Kane. Since our film is pretty simple, we didn't feel the need to highlight editing or cinematography and wanted to put the money in on something that would benefit us more.

The Hays Code didn't affect our movie too much. We thought up the plot based on the code, so we didn't have to work around it too much. Since Lombard plays a criminal who is never successful, no acts of violence or crime are actually committed. Also, she is arrested at the end of the film by Gable, so the Hays Code is followed because she is punished for her intended illegal acts.

Finally, I don't think I would change anything about our choices. We were pretty unanimous in our decisions and heard each other out before making anything final.

MYST POST #2: Nonstop

I recently saw the film Nonstop starring Liam Neeson. I was excited to see this movie because it looked compelling: the idea of someone on a plane being able to toy with the air marshall and kill innocent people without getting caught. And Liam Neeson, of course, is going to be the one to save the day.

The confusion starts right away, with Liam's character, Bill, drinking away some sort of problem we have yet to understand, and won't until the movie is almost over. He is set up as this mysterious man who is clearly mourning something or someone, and the editing techniques follow suit. Despite all the action that was to follow, the most memorable scene to me was in the beginning when we view the passengers through Bill's eyes. There's slow motion and then the pace is picked up in a way that we are left feeling distressed, just as Bill most likely is. Also, it gives us a chance to view the passengers and notice anything strange about them in an attempt to guess who this "killer" may be.

Other than that one scene, the whole movie seems to run as if it is in one shot. This highlights the anxiety and distress Bill has while he is in this situation and trying to save this plane while he is set up to be the bad guy. We move through his thoughts just as he does and there is rarely a time to catch your breath, not only because of the suspense but also because of how the director set it up. We see the story from all angles, mostly Bill's, but we also get insight from the passengers and how they're handling the situation as well.

Although this movie was well-written, including amazing backstories, and was shot well, I couldn't help but be somewhat bored. Despite the twists at the end, it seems as if Liam Neeson movies are all blending together. Even the story-lines. His love for his daughter in this movie and the fact that he seemed to be "doing this for her" reminded me, of course, of his first notable film: Taken. Despite the writer's political message, the security, or lack of, that we have in the United States, and his choice of who the villains are, I left the film disappointed.

This movie did keep me on the edge of my seat and also made me think. However, you know how it is going to end about halfway through and the only real mystery left is who is behind this and how is Liam Neeson going to eventually take them down.

I give this movie a 3/5.