25th Hour

Quiz answers:

1. Reflecting mood

2. Xenophobia and Racism

3. True

4. He wants Monty to atone for his crime

This shot is awesome. I feel like it encapsulates this character very well. We've got a very nice frame put in by the doors. The shot overall is very nicely framed, with Jacob in the bottom left of the frame, the door framing him pretty well. The right side of the frame doesn't have much in it, but it's nice anyway. I like this shot because it puts Jacob's character behind glass that kind of looks like bars, and we see him very defeated looking. He kind of seems to realize what this crush of his could do to him, how it could get him in trouble, how he could end up behind bars. And he just looks so defeated and unsure of himself, and the shot emphasizes that by making him small. 

Not a lot is going on in this shot, but I think it's really beautiful. It's Monty's left hand, with a ring on it. But it's not a wedding ring or anything like that. It's symbolizes that something has importance in his life, but it's not marriage or the relationship. The couch is important in this scene too because it's where the drugs and money were hidden. The hand is front and center, but I kind of like that for this shot, as it is a pretty extreme close up. This one shot has a lot of feel to it. The hand rubbing over the couch seems to symbolize regret. The lighting on the hand is very bright, trying to show maybe innocence, even though he's not so innocent.

This shot was very intriguing to me. The placement of everybody feels very deliberate. Monty is at the center, Jacob is immediately to his right, and there's Frank, to his left, but very far away. It does look like nice asymmetry just from a cinematography standpoint. But it's got an importance to it as well. Jacob is close to him, because he wants to be close to Monty relationally, and he really cares about him. Frank is on the outskirts. He does really care about Monty, but he's also really pissed at him and feels as though he deserves what he is getting. There is a divide growing between Frank and Monty, and it's shown her. Also, Frank is not paying attention to Monty, he's focused on girls and alcohol here. He does care for Monty, but he's also kind of ambivalent towards him.

I like this shot because it's so simple. Not a whole lot is going on, but it is very big. We see Monty Frank and Jacob leaning over the railing, watching a boat go by. Watching something normal go by, watching something leave, watching freedom float away sort of. The fog looms over the city far away, showing a definite uncertainty for Monty and his future, and for the city of New York as well and it's future. And I like that there are normal people running around in the background. It just shows that life goes on behind as they are reaching this serious point in life. 

Moonrise Kingdom

I picked this screenshot because, not only do I love the arrangement and what's going on in the shot, but I felt like it was a pretty great representation of this story and these two kids: both serious and silly.

I love this shot. Firstly, it's arranged very beautifully. We've got the boat lining basically the entire shot along the bottom. True to Anderson's style in this film, we see Sam centered in the frame. I really like the giant tree behind him, it creates a really interesting scale in the picture. He's a little guy, 12 years old. And yet he's doing this apparently really grown up thing (sort of) of running off with a woman. So he sailed across the water, he's hiding his boat, and it's just hilarious that we have this huge tree behind him putting him at such a small scale. And I love the flag off to the side. It's arranged at the edge of the frame, "framing" the shot as it were. And I think it works really well because the scouts kind of frame the film, and it's appropriate and cool to have the flag here framing this deed that' he's about to do. I also love the general set up of the shot as far as what's going on and what's used. I think the funnily painted boat is so appropriate and hilarious. Because this kid is doing such a serious thing hiding his tracks, covering his boat, and yet it's still wide open on the side, and it's so kiddy looking it's just hilarious. It's a genius design for the boat, because while this is supposed to be a serious thing, and the kid is taking it seriously, it's just so comedic. And yet rather than take away from what he is doing, it adds to it, because the whole thing is a bit of ridiculous seriousness. Brilliant.

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

I want to take a look at the scene where the boy safe walking down the road, sans car, to the tune of I'll Fly Away. This montage scene does an excellent job of setting up some really cool character development, revealing some important bits about the Soggy Bottom Boys and their future just in general, how popular they're growing, how much their life is not following the fame they are achieving, and how just in general, they're on a long weary road, just traveling further down the road of life, and taking what life gives them. The scene has several tilts and pans that just show them walking along different sections of scenery, with children walking by carrying ice, the boys trying to get picked up and then realizing it's a prison car, etc. Then we see a scene of the boys stealing a pie, all caught from one shot. This was one of my favorite shots of the film. It shows Everett snagging the pie from the pie window, then running away with Pete in tow. And then Delmar reaches up and places  some money on the windowsill where the pie had been, then follows a long behind them, hooping and hollering. I loved how this scene was shot, and what it represented. It was a beautiful single shot, from inside the window facing a giant hill. We saw the pie, it getting snagged, and then appeared Everett and Pete running away. Then Delmar's hand reaches up, places the dollar, and we see him run away. Beautifully shot. But I love what the scene represented too. It did a great job of establishing some of these characters, showing how Everett still really kind of a wild do it yourself guy, just out for his own and getting back to his wife. And we see Pete, who had the conversion of sorts, but is still kind of just following Everett around. And then we see Delmar, who seems to have had more of a conversion than Pete, and seems to be a genuinely pretty good guy, who is furthering this by trying to do the right thing and pay back what they stole. It was a beautiful part of the scene. The rest of the scene goes on to show the boys continuing on their journey, eating the pie, having a good time. It shows people searching for records of the Soggy Bottom Boys and not able to get any, among other things, all showing how much fame they were getting, and then being put parallel to the boys as they were now, just wandering along with no fame to their names. The scene created an excellent parallel, showing the fame they could be getting, and the life on the road that they had now.

I think this film in and of itself does an excellent job creating some really compelling characters who all want different things, but are thrust into this seemingly one minded journey together. They all have desires that are joined into this one "search for treasure". And they're able to get along pretty well for the most part because they all see their own lights at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately. most of the boys end up finding that the light they saw at the end of the tunnel disappears a bit, because the treasure isn't really real. And even for Everett, he finds that the treasure he's seeking maybe isn't quite what he was expecting. For Everett, he ends up happy of sorts, because he's with his wife again, and he's got his kids. But at the same time, he's still a little chained up like he was at the beginning. His wife seems to be holding some things over him, and he can't quite get what he wants out of the marriage. But he's still together with her, so he's happy. The boys find out that their treasure isn't actually real, and so they can't follow their own dreams of becoming businessmen, or of getting back the family farm. But they do seem to end up happy. More established in life, with a sense of potential joy in the future, as they've all been pardoned, and get to be involved in something that seems like it will be beneficial to their lives. But nobody really gets the treasure they seek, which is awesome because it fits so poignantly with one of the opening lines where the old blind man says they will get treasure, but they won't get the treasure they seek. The Coen brothers do an excellent job of making this film about so much, and having a lot of excitement to it, but also making it about one central theme: You can't always get what you want, but when you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.

My Own Private Idaho

This film definitely deals with issues of homosexuality, but I think it also strongly deals with issues of identity. I think this is seen most prominently in Keanu Reeves character. He is the son of a rich family that is very prim and proper, but seems to reject that for most of his life. He floats through his life being gay hustler to make money, even though he really doesn't need money. He hangs out with these people, he identifies strongly with Bob and calls him his true father. And yet he really feels to me that he is kind of dissatisfied with this life. He speaks about how he's excited when he turns 21 and gets his inheritance to prove that he can be a real adult, and how his parents will be proud of him because the change is so drastic. He almost feels like he is taking on this identity that he has right now solely so that he can change his identity and have a better more drastic identity later in life. It's confusing. But It's pretty compelling too. You can see his lack of wanting to identify with Bob and his people by the way he pulls the prank with Mike to steal the money from Bob and the guys after they rob somebody. It seems as though he's doing these things because it's all he can do in his life, but he really isn't satisfied with them, and really just wants to change his circumstances. But he has to wait for the right time, almost. And when he meets Carmilla, things change. He discovers the identity he wants to have. He wants to be a prim and proper adult, he wants this girl, he doesn't want to be gay anymore. And so he changes, for his father, and for himself too. He becomes what he thinks he wants to be. There's no telling if he'll be happy or not. But he's trying.

The Vanishing

Knowing that I would have to be comparing these films, I was a little unsure of which I should watch first. I decided to go with the original film first, because it felt right to see the source material and then see the adaptation. Overall, I think I liked the original better, but both had interesting parts that altered both of them for the better.

One thing that was strikingly different about the two films was their linear nature. The original starts right before the incident, follows that to it's end with our two characters, and then goes back a bit to start over with our "monster". From there, it weaves in and out with Rex and the "monster". The new one, however, seems to determined more to make everything take place on one linear plane. It immediately starts weaving in and out of time with the "monster" and our couple, sometimes focusing more on the "monster" until we build up to the moment of the kidnapping. From there, it pans out again to both, traveling along the timeline until our inevitable end. But then, surprise! The remake changes up the ending. In the original, Rex has to go through exactly what Saskia went through to find out what happened to her, which ends up with him being drugged and ending up buried in a coffin underground. Very chilling. We see the "monster" and his family, and then the film ends. Not so in our remake. The makers must have deemed this ending too dark for a 90's American crowd. So they decided to change it up, going the more conventional horror route. Our main character, now Jeff, does get drugged and buried. But his new girlfriend finds out that he's been in contact with the "monster", and finds out where he lives. She's able to find out where he is at the cabin, and after a few scattered fighting and running scenes, she eventually is able to find Jeff, they kill the "monster", and essentially live what seems to be "happily ever after".

As far as the linear narrative goes, I really like what they did in the original better. Maybe it was the fact that I already knew how the story was going to pan out when I was watching the remake, but I really wanted to see things in the "right" order, kind of so they could be a reveal. I liked that we were peeling away the layers of this unknown character who would later turn out to be a monster, and revealing that yes he's bad, but oh maybe he's not so bad. In the remake, it seemed like it was ready to set him up more as a conventional villain.

I did enjoy the remake's ending though. While it was a bit of tying everything up nicely with a bow, I think it was satisfying for the viewer, for the most part. I wonder though if it may have been more satisfying if the original and remake had switched endings. In the remake, I really did not like Jeff's character as the film went on. He was kind of a scumbag to his girlfriend. Whereas with Rex, he still seemed to be a good guy, even though he was obsessing over Saskia. I almost wish Rex had survived and Jeff hadn't. But I don't think the "monster" of the remake would have been the kind of guy that Jeff Bridges was in the new film, as far as running around chasing the girlfriend through the house, etc. He seemed to much like a calmer version of what Jeff Bridges became. The "monster" from the original was an absolutely stunning and great actor.

The other thing that really set him apart from Jeff Bridges was the relationship with his daughter. In the original, the relationship seems very natural, and kind of touching, even though we kind of understand this guy to be a creep. In the remake though, it feels a little more forced. They don't seem to care about each other quite as much, and some of the things Bridges does come off a little creepy.

Take the scene where he picks her up from school. In the original, this scene is very short. He picks her up from school, tries out the drugging thing on her, makes up an explanation, she asks if he has a mistress, they smile, and it's over. In the remake, he picks her up from a train station, they talk awkwardly about Wuthering Heights and romance, then about a girlfriend, and then he tries the drug thing on her, but with a got your nose explanation instead. I really like how they did it in the original. Maybe it was also because she had been introduced in a previous scene with him so I'd already seen part of their relationship. But they seemed much more like a loving father and daughter, just having a normal conversation. They actually seemed to love each other, which made both of them more human, even though one of them was actually much less human! In the new one though, Jeff Bridges remains creepy throughout it all, and doesn't really feel like he connects with the daughter. What's supposed to make him seem more human, just makes him seem more like a monster. The got your nose jokes flies over his daughter without a laugh from her, and the secret romance stuff just comes across creepy.

Overall, I really enjoyed both films, but I think I would stick with the first one, just because the way it's done narratively is much more riveting and suspenseful!

Annie Hall

I find Woody Allen's comedic style to be incredibly successful, primarily because it is so off the wall and unexpected that it comes off incredibly genuine, and delivers a large punch in the laugh factor. Now, it's obviously in film, so it went through a lot of pre-production and preparation, which means most of his jokes were very well thought out, and thus, not really all that authentic/in the moment as they feel like they are. But yet, Allen still delivers them in such a fresh way as to almost bypass the "pre-production" effect and make them completely 100% genuine. When he breaks the fourth wall, and then the annoying guy behind him also breaks through, that's brilliant. So unexpected, because in a story where somebody breaks the fourth wall, it's usually to get away from the real world, so how can the real world follow him in there? And yet, it's hilarious. Or when we see subtitled words telling what the actors are really thinking underneath what they are actually saying. That's completely unexpected, because it shows the artificiality of the film, and yet it plays off perfectly because it feels so real. Everyone can identify with thinking one thing and saying another, and with awkward flirty conversations that are really just focused on analyzing a person. This genuine-ness that Woody Allen creates really helps his comedy to deliver on all cylinders. When somebody tells you a joke that's funny, it's a lot funnier when you know they came up with it themselves in the moment than if you find out it's somebody else's joke they were just borrowing. There's something about genuine in the moment comedy that just enhances the humor. And I think Allen displays this perfectly, even though it's not really in-the-moment. It just all feels natural. Even getting away from different jokes though, I think the comedy in Annie Hall really is delivered well simply by the brilliant actors. The way lines are delivered, the innocent hilarity in which dialogue is spoken, and even the awkwardness that each actor portrays really sells what it is he is trying to say, and emphasizes just how funny everything is. I found Annie Hall to be a truly hilarious film, and found myself laughing all the way through, because it was just overall brilliantly done, from every aspect. From acting, to writing, and even to camera movement. The cinematography knew how to focus on the exact right thing to deliver funny, and even sometimes the art of less is more. In the scene where they are waiting in line, the camera is one shot the entire time, because it knows it doesn't have to do much to deliver the humor, because it's already being delivered. That kind of restraint is great, and makes the humor hit home that much harder. Woody Allen's Annie Hall fires on all cylinders because Woody Allen's humor style is brilliant.

Daisies

Man, that movie was incredibly bizarre. I get what the movie is trying to say, and while I can respect that, I really did not like this film. I'm a big fan of narrative, and obviously, there really wash' touch sense of narrative at all. It was random, it was all over the place, and it was at many times just plain annoying. They played with sound in such a unique way, but really overemphasized it at times to a very annoying result. Specifically the scene where they're watching the dancers, the music is so repetitive I started to get a head ache. One thing I did like about the film was the usage of colors, the vividness of them, and the symbolism behind them. I found it very intriguing. But man, other than that I did not find much worthwhile in this film. It was a pain, and it felt like it lasted 2 hours longer than it really did. I get it, but man, I really just don't get it.

Chytilova uses humor in a lot of ways to try to convey her movie. One of the most prominent uses of humor I think is in juxtaposition. She uses juxtaposition very often in close up shots just to confused and amuse the viewer. I think specifically of the example with the scissors when they're near the toes, and yet they are cutting up sausages instead. She also uses humor in juxtaposition of scenes, like when she goes from scenes of a slap in black and white to scenes in color with the person falling down from the slap. There definitely was some humor to be had in those kind of scenes. A lot of the humor though honestly just came from the women themselves. They seemed to be these sexual weird risqué women, and yet all their actions were incredibly infantile. It was quite counter to what culture might expect, which made it pretty humorous. A lot of the humor honestly relied on being counter-intuitive to what the viewer would actually expect. Finally, a lot of the humor just came from the tight editing. The cuts were placed very well to lead into visual cues from the actors, and also to cue towards different things that they were relating to in the scenes. The cake scene I found especially tight as far as editing went. We got to see some prior reactions to the cake hitting them up close, and post reactions, and everything seemed timed pretty well for humor, if not as much for accurate timing. The editing was on point though which was fun.

Vertigo

Scottie's obsession with reconstructing Madeline out of Judy is all-together a very disturbing scenario, and I was very impressed with the film by how much it made me feel disturbed, and really, disgusted. From a very matter of fact point of view, the idea is really disturbing. The man is so obsessed with Madeline, he kind of fetishizes her and idolizes her, and really just can't let go. And so he forces this poor girl (who turns out to actually be Madeline, which I'll address shortly) to basically massacre her own self to become this fantasy he has. As we watch it happen in the film, they do a great job of emphasizing how it's exactly what he wants. The woman with the suit constantly is saying the man knows what he wants, and the hair stylist comments that she knows what it is he wants. It's all about his wants, not about what she wants, or maybe what's right. It's also messed up simply because of how "perfect" he wants it to be. She can't do anything right until she does it completely right, and he almost berates her when even one thing is off. Because he doesn't really care about her. He just cares about this ideal, and until she matches up to it, he won't quite be happy. At the same time all this going on, it's actually oddly fitting, and thus, kind of less wrong (but still disturbing). She is the one who put this "curse" on him, as it were, and so now she is cursed to have to fill this fetish of his that was really her, but wasn't the true her. So even though he really does love her, he'll never love the real her, and that's the dramatic irony that she's faced with.

Detour

In the film detour, we see a very interesting main character. While at the beginning, you might rush to call him a hero, even after the bar scene, simply because he seems like an honest person. However, as the movie goes on, it's played up to make him feel more and antihero, or maybe even a villain. The film does a good job making you believe this a lot by what it subtly does. As with most noir films, lighting is key. While it is black-and-white, they still managed to play a lot with the darks especially when filming our hero. The hat is almost key here as it creates a constant chatter on his face. Later he does take it off though, but the open shirt and disheveled look still lends to a confusing image. A lot of the confusion on moral standpoint comes from the actors face though. He doesn't excellent job of either emoting a lot, or not at all. When we see him sitting in the car, or just thinking, he has an excellent display of no emotion. But when we get nice and close, he does quite a good job of showing his anxieties. This causes a bit of a confusion as to what kind of a person he really is. But inevitably, we realize what we have here is an unreliable narrator that we're seeing this film through. As he begins to question himself, and we hear him going back and forth in his head, we understand that what we're really seeing is just somebody's version of what happened. And when we've got somebody who appears as unreliable as he is, we realize that what they're showing us is more than likely not what we're actually out to see.

Freaks

I have to say, when watching the film Freaks, I really enjoyed it, and thought it was a really great film and a great representation of equality, and the deeper message of inner beauty vs outer beauty. After reading the articles about it though and watching the introduction, it was a bit of a bummer to find out how many critics found it to be more demonizing and creating of difference. I do understand the thought behind that all, but I feel like Browning did an excellent job in portraying these people in a good and true light. From Browning's point, he really made you like and care for these people, and flipped our views of human beauty on our head, by showing us how much more powerful inner beauty is, and how deceiving outer beauty can be. I felt like it made this point strongly, and therefore was a good representation of "freaks". Even from a cultural and simply an employee standpoint from the time, these people were all consenting adults. Now granted, our culture may have forced them in a way to not be able to find many jobs aside from this, or "freak shows". And that's another sad issue in and of itself. But this was a venue for them, and it was something willingly entered into, and it seems wrong for people to be so prejudiced against something like that simply because they believe these people were slighted. Just because they may have physical deformities does not mean they're not just as smart of an adult as we all are, but I think too often people overlook that because they look so different, and maybe so "wrong". It's sad really, that they had to be treated this way. I love that Browning put in the character of Phroso, a man who tries to emphasize that these people aren't really any different than us other than the way they look. I think that was the point of his movie. And doubly too, that maybe sometimes they are even better than people who look "normal", because their hearts are in a better place.

Sherlock, Jr.

I was very impressed at the humor I found upon watching Keaton's Sherlock, Jr. It was very much a slapstick comedy, relying heavily on Keaton making a fool of himself physically, using funny physical theatrics to get out of tough situations, or simply his funny looks. But it also drew on a lot more than that. Keaton created genuinely hilarious moments, whether it be him watching the screen of a couple to know what to do with the girl, or awkwardly giving away the dollars that he owns because he felt like he gave away somebody else's dollar. It's all real comedy gold that isn't necessarily too physical (as far as slapstick goes. It's definitely still physically happening). Keaton did a great job combining these hilarious moments with slapstick hilarity, all with relatively small amounts of dialogue. Quite hilarious. Some of his awkward moments make me feel similar to how I do when watching something like Guardians of the Galaxy, or Parks and Recreation, or really anything with Chris Pratt. He's got a subtlety to his comedy in the physicals, but something that really drives home. He says or does something small, but in the context and with how he's acting, it's made to be quite hilarious. Keaton and Pratt seem to be similar in this area, and I know there are others. Keaton definitely was a comedian that could spread across time, and still be funny and relevant today.

Introduction and Top 10 Movies/Shows

1. Garden State. First discovered this movie at a time in my life where it felt really applicable; since, I've just been able to really appreciate the beautiful story and love everything about it.
2. Pulp Fiction. Quentin Tarantino is a mastermind, and it is very evident through how masterfully he weaves this tale together.
3. Serenity. This is the non-epic epic that deserves so much praise, from great characters, to great fun, and everything in between.
4. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. This is the kind of movie I want to make.
5. The Matrix Trilogy. These films tell and excellent story, all while inspiring you to believe.
6. The Dark Knight Trilogy. Batman is amazing, and this was the most fantastically told Batman story; so powerful.
7. Breaking Bad. One of the most well crafted, genius, intriguing, dark, and awesome shows I have ever seen.
8. True Detective. Brilliant from start to finish, I never wanted to stop watching.
9. Community. One of the most unique shows I know because rather than giving you characters you identify wanting to be like, they give you characters you identify not wanting to be like; It's hilarious and so well done.
10. The Wedding Singer. My go to get happy movie, this is just delightful.



1. Mise en scene is basically the visual telling of a story in film. Every aspect of it goes into creating kind of a visual theme if you will, from staging to direction to acting to props, etc. It's hard to define.
2. A pan is a stationary camera following some action from left to right or right to left, while a tracking shot is a moving camera (on a dolly perhaps, though not exclusively) following action and moving with the action.