MYST Post #3

 

For my third MYST post, I watched the movie Memento, by Christopher Nolan. After watching it in class, I knew it was something I had to see, and ironically my Philosophy class was watching it at the same time so I decided to do my review on it. The movie is extremely unique and creative in that the plot works in a reverse manner. It shows what happens at the end of the story first, and then backs up to meet in the middle, with scenes going forward intertwined. This is very confusing, so refer to the graph below to understand the plot progression more clearly. The story is about a man named Lenny whose wife was raped and killed by a man named John G. This movie chronicles his quest to find and kill his wife’s murderer. However, Lenny’s head injury leaves him unable to form long term memories, so he has to keep notes to remember what he is doing. The scenes represent his point of view, as someone with no memory of what happened a day ago. I would classify the genre as a psychological thriller, in that it is as much an exploration of the function of the mind, as it is of his story.

 

One scene that stood out to me was when we find out that Natalie, someone who seemed to be Lenny’s friend, turned out to be using him the whole time. She says incredibly offense and completely evil things to him, and provokes him to punch her. He does, and she leaves the house crying. What makes it interesting is that she walks back into the house a moment after, and Lenny has no idea what happened because of his condition, so he tries to console her and find out who did that to her. At the beginning of the movie we see that Natalie has these bruises, but didn’t know who did it. During this scene we see it was actually Lenny. Moments of realization like this are what make this movie so interesting and cool to watch. It stood out not just because of the terrible things Natalie said, but because we finally realize she has been using him the whole time. The movie is packed with a ton of scenes that stand out, and there is a wide assortment to choose from.

The thing this movie did best was its defying of a traditional narrative structure. The black and white scenes provide a supplement that explains his background and condition, in addition to what leads up to the end of the film. It defies traditional narrative structure because the STORY goes from end to beginning, instead of the traditional beginning to end. However, it also follows traditional narrative structure because it has a start, rising action, and climax at the end, and that is its own story in itself. This movie was really two in one intertwined with each other, which was extremely interesting. In addition, the movie makes interesting points about the nature of truth versus reality, and moral responsibility. Is Lenny responsible for his actions even though he doesn’t have a memory? I think he is. At the end of the movie we become aware of his admittance that he lies to himself to stay happy, he takes advantage of his own condition to manipulate himself. This is where Lenny shows moral irresponsibility, and where I think he deserves to be punished. However, everything else is justified; I know if I woke up with all his tattoos and notes I would do the same thing. Regardless, vigilante revenge by murder is not acceptable, and his condition is irrelevant, he would be morally responsible either way. These philosophical and moral questions that the movie raises are what make it so unique and interesting.

Overall, I would give this movie a 10/10. The plot and story structure are enough to make me fall in love with it in the first place, and I think the acting and setting and characters were all really well done as well. The thriller aspect of the movie is really entertaining, and the twist ending is the best I have ever seen. I really, really liked this movie and would consider it one of, if not the, favorite movie of mine. I would recommend everyone to watch this, but beware you have to be mentally focused and emotionally invested in order to fully appreciate, understand, and enjoy it.

MYST Post #2

I watched the movie Wreck-It Ralph for my second Movies in Your Spare Time post. After seeing the commercials for this movie on T.V., I had always wanted to watch it, however I did not want to make a trip all the way to the movie theater to see it. Since it was playing on TNT Family one night, I decided I would sit down and take the time to see it. The plot revolves around Ralph, the "bad guy" of his video game, "Wreck-It Ralph". He decides that he was tired of being a bad guy, so he escapes his game and enters others in search of a Medal to prove to everyone else that he is actually good. In this journey, he meets a character named Vanellope, who is ostracized by her game for being a glitch. Ralph is determined to get Vanellope back into her game, defeat the evil King Candy, and save the video game universe.

One scene in particular that impacted me greatly was when Ralph destroys Vanellope's car. Ralph promises that he would help build Vanellope a racing car because she didn’t have one, and help her learn how to drive it. After all this progress we think that Vanellope is finally ready to race, however Ralph finds out that letting her race as a playable character would be disastrous because of her glitching. When he finds out this information, he tells Vanellope he can’t let her race, so he must destroy the brand new cart for her own good. As he is wrecking the cart, we see the innocent Vanellope's eyes welling with tears. Sad music plays, and the audience is forced to feel the betrayal that Vanellope feels. It was a surprisingly emotional scene for such a lighthearted movie like this, and that’s why it stood out to me.

The most unique part of this movie was the plot itself. I’ve never really heard of a successful movie with the setting in a video game world. I think it appealed to a lot more viewers because of this. Speaking from experience, if the movie made me, an 18 year old guy, want to see it, then they must be doing something right. In addition, the characters were really likeable, and the voice actors for were all perfect for each role, John C. Reilly as the large, good spirited Ralph, Sarah Silverman as the innocent yet devious Vanellope, Jack McBrayer (Kenneth from 30 rock) as the timid Fix it Felix, and Jane Lynch as the draconian Sergeant Calhoun. Actors don’t usually play a big part in animated movies, but it was a factor that definitely stood out in this one.

Overall, I would give this Movie a 9/10. For its genre, a predominantly kids movie, it was spectacular in evoking emotion and investing the viewer. It was successful on many fronts; it supplied a good, original story, and maintained the plot's appeal throughout the movie with twists and subtle story lines. The human parts of this movie, the actors, were all extremely good as well, and I thought they fit their roles perfectly. Well I thought everything was done right, it didn’t have anything deeper to it; there was really no sub story or symbolism or anything like that, which I typically enjoy in a movie. However, I realize it’s still just a kid's movie so I will only take 1 point off my overall rating. If you want to watch a good family movie with anyone, and actually enjoy it, I would recommend Wreck-It Ralph. I can't wait until Wreck-It Ralph 2 comes out.

30's BLOG POST

The black and white movie our group made was about a small town man who is trying to become something great. Thomas Carlson, played by James Stewart, is a post office worker in a small town in Nebraska. He knows everyone and everyone knows him as a smart, all around good guy. Thomas wants to become something big, so he decides to run for Mayor in the town’s election. Betty Lou, his childhood friend, stands by his side and encourages him to run for this position. The conflict is that the mayors of the town have always been from the Lee family, and Charles Lee, played by Clark Gable, is adamant about winning this election. Lee uses his aristocratic wealth and greed in his campaign, and Carlson uses his good morals and sound judgment to win the people of their town over. The main theme of my movie is the American dream. The dream that someone small and insignificant can become whoever they want to. This interpretation of the story is a timeless message that Americans love to hear.

Our studio was Columbia Pictures. I chose this because they were famous for good writing and directing, which was exactly what we were looking for. In addition, Frank Capra was a great choice to develop a large, but wholesome movie such as ours. Capra also directed the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” which is somewhat similar in plot to ours. His connection with our lead actor James Stewart was important as well. Stewart’s forte is playing aspiring, wholesome, determined men, which is perfect for this role. Capra and Stewart’s history of working with each other is also invaluable when it comes to a big picture such as ours. Another reason this is a big picture is by using Clark Gable as the antagonist. Even though he’s a big money guy who almost exclusively works with MGM, we felt his role was important enough to shell out the money to get him. Sometimes people only go to movies to see big-ticket actors, and I feel Gable’s influence on the film is positive enough to warrant the exception from MGM for his acquisition. Ann Rutherford is a good supporting actress because she isn’t too famous, but is good enough to be recognized. In addition, it’s nice to have a pretty face to look at. Each cast and crewmember plays an important role in our movie and the combination of them will make it successful.

The unique thing about our movie that makes it stand out from the others is its use of cinematography and color in our poster. We chose to have Gregg Tolland as our cinematographer because we feel his unique style will bring an artistic feel and interesting spin to our story. In addition, the color scheme we used on the poster had red, white, and blue to invoke feelings of patriotism in the audience, which is very popular in the 30’s. These two things will get a better review from the critics and modern artistic supporters. I don’t think the Hays code affects our movie. All good morals and values are upheld, there is no drinking, gambling, sexuality, religiousness at all, it is simply a true American classic that is aimed at families everywhere.

If I made this movie on my own, the main thing I would change is using color instead of it being black and white. I think that people were interested in color, and would have accounted for more views in the long run. I also disagreed with our group’s decision to use Gregg Tolland’s cinematography. While it is certainly unique and interesting, I think it would scare away some viewers simply because of its modernity and progressiveness. While the “art house” vote is good, I think more people would enjoy a more traditional cinematographer. Other than these two things, I think our movie is great and it would be very popular in the 30’s.

Formal Film Study: Films about the Vietnam War

My formal film study consists of three films that depict the Vietnam War. The first movie I watched was Platoon (1986), directed by Oliver Stone. The second was Full Metal Jacket (1987), directed by Stanley Kubrick. The third was Apocalypse Now (1979), directed by Francis Ford Coppola.

I chose to do this study on these because I didn’t know a lot about the Vietnam War, and I thought it would be interesting to learn about it through three iconic movies. They all were different depictions of the war by different directors. While each had distinct differences, they all had clear overarching similarities.

Platoon follows the character Chris Taylor, played by Charlie Sheen. He drops out of college to volunteer as a soldier in Vietnam. He quickly finds out that his inexperience leaves him disrespected by the Staff Sergeant Barnes. He eventually makes friends with a few of the others, namely a soldier named Elias, and finds a way to escape from the pressures of war through drinking and drug use. As the war goes on, Vietnamese attacks threaten their safety and sanity. Many times in the movie friendly fire occurs and misjudged punishment leaves Taylor confused and unstable. During one of these attacks, Barnes kills Elias and comes back to the platoon drunk, taunting Taylor and the others. Taylor’s relationship with Barnes widens further. In another attack, a Vietnamese soldier runs into Taylor’s foxhole with a grenade and kills everyone inside, except for Taylor and Sergeant Barnes. In the chaos, Barnes threatens Taylor to shoot him, which Taylor does. The ending scene of the movie shows an injured Taylor returning home, crying while flying over the dead bodies of his friends and enemies.

The second film I watch was Full Metal Jacket. It follows the story of Private Joker, a naïve, yet smart soldier new to the aspect of war. The movie begins on Paris Island, where the recruits shave their heads and begin their training under the extremely strict Drill Instructor Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, played by R. Lee Ermey. The recruits all progress in their training except for one, Private Pyle. Pyle does not understand how to be a proper soldier and is thus not respected by the others. As his mistakes pile up, the other privates take it upon themselves to punish him. After their punishment of Pyle, he begins to become a well-rounded, ruthless soldier, much to the delight of Sergeant Hartman. However, his mental state deteriorates and he begins talking to his rifle and showing signs of a breakdown. The first part of the movie ends when Pyle shoots Hartman, and then shoots himself. The second part of the movie follows Joker’s role as a military journalist correspondent for the Stars and Stripes magazine. The others in his squad doubt his experience, as they mock his lack of a “Thousand yard stare”. Joker is sent to a different part of Vietnam, where their platoon is attacked. As they scout the area, they find there is only one sniper, who is wounded by one of the men. The men tell private Joker to kill the sniper, who is a young girl. After hesitating, he shoots her and the movie ends with his statement that he is glad to be alive and no longer afraid.

The last film I watched was Apocalypse Now. It follows the story of Capitan Willard, played by Martin Sheen, a retired Special Operative. He is summoned to perform a final mission, to go into Cambodia and kill Colonel Kurtz, who has apparently gone insane and taken command into his own, dehumanizing hands. Willard’s journey up the Nung River starts with his encounter with Lieutenant Kilgore, who demands a deadly napalm airstrike on innocent civilians, just so that he can surf on the beach nearby. As the travel up river, their boat is attacked by Viet Cong fighters and leaves only Willard and Two others alive. Their journey eventually leads to the domain of Kurtz, where an entire army of brainwashed men is waiting for Willard’s arrival. The omnipotent Kurtz knows of Willard’s arrival and leaves him caged, waiting for death. As the mental state of Willard deteriorates, he is still motivated to complete his mission and kills Kurtz with a machete, leaving Kurtz’s last words, “the Horror” resounding in his head as he slowly walks back to the boat.

Differences:

Of the Three, Platoon was the most accurate at depicting what the war was actually like. The Director, Oliver Stone, was a soldier himself and used his experience to make a truly realistic representation. The theme of unjustified punishment paralleled between the copious amounts of friendly fire shown through the movie, and through the soldier’s mistreatment and cruelty towards the native Vietnamese civilians. The whole movie echoes as a tragic drama about how the soldiers themselves faced the issues of Vietnam. It was extremely effective at summarizing the confusion and hopelessness that America felt regarding this unwinnable, endless war.

Kubrick’s representation of Vietnam used its big budget (IMDb box office/ budget) to publicly portray the war in an entertaining way. From what I saw, this is really two movies in one. The first being the recruit’s training on Paris Island, and the second being Private Joker’s actual combat in Vietnam. The first half of the movie was intense, using plenty of cinematographic elements such as perspective, to highlight importance. In addition, the first half of the movie developed characters beautifully, which was helpful in the transition to the entirely different second half of the movie. Full Metal Jacket did not try to be realistic; rather it was Kubrick’s own unique depiction of how innocent soldiers are turned into ruthless killers. It also served as a satire of our poorly designed strategy and politics during the war.

Apocalypse Now was the most thought provoking of the three. Because it was made in 1979, it serves as a portrayal of the nation’s attitude towards the war as it was happening. Coppola’s depiction highlighted madness, using Colonel Kurtz as the ideal example of what Vietnam turns normal men into. The random, disgusting violence that is so apparent becomes almost casual by the end of the movie, which is a testament to what the soldiers felt being in Vietnam. The whole movie was extremely chaotic, and its biggest theme was the psychological horror that plagued the minds of each soldier. One thing that stood out to me was the music, when I expected music there was no music at all, and when I expected dramatic music they played almost comical songs. This juxtaposition was a clever device that Coppola used to convey the message of confusion and unexpectedness. Of the three, Apocalypse now was my favorite film.

Similarities:

Although each of these films had distinct differences that set them apart from each other, there were some similarities that allowed me to form a comprehensive account of the Vietnam War. One thing I thought was interesting was that Apocalypse Now and Platoon used Martin and Charlie Sheen as their main actors. The two brothers played extremely important roles in these iconic movies. Another interesting thing was that all three movies didn’t have any love interests or women involved in a main way. I thought that this was really surprising; almost no movies completely ignore a love story. I also think that this is telling of the war itself, it shows the brotherly bond that the soldiers shared; in the army there really was no womanly influence. 

The main, overarching discovery I found was the central theme of moral ambiguity. These three movies all drive the point home that in Vietnam, you cant tell what’s right from what’s wrong, and these directors made it clear that the line between good and evil was extremely ambiguous. The efforts of the soldiers to retain their morals were fruitless in a war where killing is essential. This moral ambiguity was a problem that was hard for U.S. citizens to understand about the war, and I think that the purpose of these movies was to portray this theme back home.