The Coen Brothers Final Blog Post

Jim Emerson believes Miller's Crossing (Coen 1990) to be the greatest movie of the 90s, and after reading his review I've been persuaded to change my initial opinions of the film. Miller's Crossing represents some of the Coen Brothers' finest works through its views into the minds of powerful characters, its deliberately abrupt violence, and its intentionally stylized representation of a region.

In Miller's Crossing the viewer gets the opportunity to peek into the minds of the evil. Through Tommie's character in Miller's Crossing the viewer wants him to do the right thing but watches as he slowly and painfully turns bad. Through this first picture you can see how the Coen brothers have helped Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne) to look the part of a hard-boiled gangster. They created a film noir type lighting and mis-en-scene by having the gun the most focused part of the frame and having only half of Tom's face lit up. This shows that he's really thinking about the gun and how this moment changes who he is. Throughout the film the lighting gets more and more low-key showing Tom's turn to the darker side with the final showdown scene almost in complete darkness. At first we want to just agree that Tom is the protagonist, and that his moves are the right ones, but by the middle-end of the film we find ourselves seriously doubting our opinions. This kind of theme also shows up in Fargo and No Country for Old Men with the "good guys gone villains". In Fargo we don't know when to stop (or even start) trusting Jerry and his elaborate scheme, and in No Country for Old Men the Llewelyn Moss character we assume is just trying to get some dough but he takes it a bit too far putting his whole family in danger.

The deliberately abrupt violence in Miller's Crossing seems to be a common thread through the Coen brothers' works. A famous scene in Miller's Crossing shows the violence the Coen brothers were going for. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcDAPjRvjAE <---- Watch that, unless you have a weak stomach or big heart. For those of you who can't handle it, the scene has Oh Danny Boy playing quite loudly the whole time, and shows two gangsters break in to try to kill one of the main characters, and ends in crazy violent machine gunning and explosions. Instead of making the scene just crazy intense they decided to put Oh Danny Boy playing through it which brings in an element of sadness and awe at the horrendous lives of these characters. In other scenes the silence before someone gets beat up makes the tension build, as seen quite a bit in No Country for Old Men. Just when you think they won't show something, they do.

The 1930s are portrayed as just a little dreamlike as always in this Coen brothers film. The scenes at Miller's crossing with the gorgeous forest and beautiful trees are stark contrasts to the violence happening in the city. The Coen brothers use this technique in No Country for Old Men and Fargo as well. In No Country for Old Men you can see the expansive beauty of the desert and the way it sharply contrasts to the sudden violence that seems to happen around every corner. In Fargo you also see the wonderfully deserted Minnesota landscape in January immediately contrasted with the violence coming from the main plot. It almost seems as if the Coen brothers use these contrasts to bring you more into the movie world and out of the documentary feeling. When watching the films you know that after 90-120 minutes you won't be looking around your house for bad guys, because the directors have made it very clear that the film is meant to stay a film and not jump into reality. The beautiful landscapes paint pictures of hope, where after you realize you're watching a Coen brothers film you should realize there is none.

__

In conclusion, although I may have nodded off the Coen brothers as being very unnecessarily violent and intense, I think they deserve some credit for making some damn good movies.

Robert Altman

Robert Altman really knows how to make his audience uncomfortable enough to make them not want to watch, but just that intrigued to keep watching. Throughout The Long Goodbye and The Player, the camera is constantly moving. At the party in The Long Goodbye the camera sort of tracks along the outskirts of everyones' conversations and does little zoom-ins on faces of people who are talking. You get this eerie sort of feeling like you're totally being a creeper walking around in someone else's house. In The Player the same camera movements are used in some of the meetings Griffin has at restaurants. Those camera movements help the audience either turn the movie off, or feed the flames of them really wanting to participate in the film.
Altman also uses his script- or lack there of, to help the audience go the one of two ways. All the characters talk normally; overlapping, not listening, cutting people off, and mumbling. There aren't really any super scripted perfectly acted out conversations, which adds to the affect of the constant moving cameras. I personally really liked this because it made me feel like I was just watching some events take place, instead of watching a show being put on for me. His style is very refreshing.

Toshiro Mifune probably doesn't know what a blog is.

Dear Mr. Kurosawa,

Once upon a time I enjoyed watching movies. They were a nice escape from the everyday life; a rather wonderful way to spend 90 minutes. After viewing three of your films, however, I have rethought my attitude towards movies. Not all movies are the same. Apparently not all movies are captivating and entertaining either. I find your movies to be a little disheartening. You once said, "Human beings share the same common problems. A film can only be understood if it depicts these properly." While that may have some truth to it, I don't really see myself having the exact same problems as some of your characters. No, I don't have a crazy father with a stone face. No, I don't find myself on an endless hunt for my pistol. And No, I don't own a samurai sword. But by saying that, I'm trying to relate myself to all the main characters and their literal dilemmas. Which brings on a dilemma of its own: I'm trying to relate myself to the hero; humans are full of themselves. You must have wanted the viewer to see that, through your earlier films with heroes you must have slowly come to realize that the heroes just aren't worth it anymore. If you wanted viewers to feel down and sort of bad/guilty about themselves after watching your more recent films, you succeeded. I think all movie goers probably need their popcorn to be spilled. (metaphorically speaking. Please don't ever actually spill my popcorn) So thanks for not letting me have too much fun watching a movie. And thank you for having me re-think my goals in life. And thanks for convincing me to take the exclamation off my name.

Your anti-hero,

Whitney.

Hitchcock

Between all three movies- The 39 Steps, Rear Window, and Vertigo- there was a scene in which no dialogue was said and yet the screaming with narration. Hitchcock used the editing in these scenes to bring out a dramatic story without using sound.
In the 39 Steps the "prayer scene" shows the story of how the 'wronged man' is trying to explain to the crofter's wife what is going on. There are a series of shots of the faces of the man, the wife, and the crofter in which we see the fear in the woman's face, the desperation in the man's, and the confusion in the crofter's. This helps to carry along the theme of the wronged man being completely blamed for everything.
In Rear Window the opening scene narrates the whole character of Jeff without saying a word. The camera moves through his apartment showing his broken leg, cast sarcastically signed, the heat of the day, the broken camera, and all his famous photographs (one of a possible extreme car accident). These shots all help the audience learn who Jeff is and how he got to be where he is without having to explain anything through dialogue.
In Vertigo, the whole "chase scene"/"stalker scene" shows who "Madeline" thinks she is. He followers her around the whole city, watching her every move, without ever saying anything.
Hitchcock could have simply had someone in the movie explain all of these things and just straight up tell the audience what was happening, but his use of editing really distinguishes the scenes and helps to bring the audience into the movie without just telling us what's happening. It gives us a chance to feel like we're detectives or part of the movie figuring out what's happening, instead of just lazy observers.

I'll Be Back

On imbd.com a user from dublin makes a very interesting statement - "For the gift of `Aliens' and `The Terminator' I am willing to forgive Cameron's `Titanic'." Clearly this man, or obsessive sci-fi Schwarzenegger fan, was a little mistaken about Titanic- but even so, he makes a point: these movies are distinctly different. What kind of director goes from writing a screenplay based off a nightmare and directing it as a crazy sci-fi back-to-the-future killing maniac, to creating one of-if not thee- most visually poetic historical epics of all time? James Cameron. What a stud.

There are, however, a few similarities in the Titanic and the Terminator. First of all, the titles both begin with the consanent "T". Second, they both have a passionate love affair between two people who have known each other less than a week- and then shortly afterwards, the male dies. Third, they involve a time period other than the present day. And finally, they both instigated a somewhat cult following legacy after the films were released.

James Cameron was able to carry through - however different the stories were - a directing style of elegance. The long clean shots were complemented by just enough close ups and basic back and forth dialogue shots. He kept his creativity with a few out-of-the-ordinary shot angles, but nothing too fancy or ridiculous.

So really, I'll admit it, it kept my attention, and I liked it. I am just one person to support that you can be a James Cameron fan and love him not only for Titanic but also for The Terminator.

[James Cameron] jump, I jump

James Cameron truley outdid himself. The epic movie TITANIC, the most expensive movie made at the time, shows how dedicated and non-willing to sacrifice quality Cameron is. The movie took a long time, over 200 million dollars, and much collaboration to get it done. This article explains some of the efforts Cameron put into the film.

One of the main challenges he faced was how to make a [almost] real-life Titanic ship, film it, controllably, and sink it. Since there wasn't a studio big enough to do all the filming in, Cameron had to actually have a 9/10 scale model of the Titanic built. Trying to limit the time it would take to make it, he only filmed from one side, having the other side raw- pipes/scaffolding and all. This shows that he was a very creative director, trying to make all ends meet and still have the final product be amazing. The facts that he hired Titanic historians to overview the interior of the model ship, actually took 12 dangerous dives to the actual Titanic shipwreck site, and spent so much time and money making it look acurate historically show the dedication he has as a filmmaker and how articulate he is in his ideals.

I also believe that Cameron stepped out of his box on this film. In the past, he had made mostly sci-fi thriller type of movies. Titanic seems to be drastically different, with a passionate love story at the heart of the movie. It shows that Cameron is able to produce an enormously sleek, beautiful film after all of his alien-type movies. I'm very curious to see if any of his techniques from Titanic will carry over into some of his other films!

Do The Right Thing?

In the film Do The Right Thing, the use of color was very effective. The whole film takes place in two of the hottest days of the year, which is shown very vividly through the brilliance of the overall colors of the film. The buildings are all red/orange and everyones' clothing is (are?) boldly red or neon blues. I think that the colors in the film really help the audience to relate to how hot it is, and how crazy tense everyone starts getting because of the heat. The colorful backgrounds seem to make everything happy looking, but could also be interpreted as just plain loud- which happens to affect how people act.

The Battle of Algiers

The Battle of Algiers was quite a film- a documentary style drama of the battle in Algiers. I read an article from the New York Times regarding this film and would like to say a few words about it.
First of all, the article goes into great depths explaining that the pentagon had a formal viewing of the movie a few years back. I think this is relatively interesting because I highly doubt many other political movies such as Legally Blonde or First Kid are shown very often. I don't really know why they would want to study the film- it seems very secretive and I don't like it. I think that the director of the film should probably be flattered that his film was so realistic and unbiased (to some degree) that official people wanted to study it.
Second of all, the debate of torture is brought up. I think the way some of the people explained their methods and reasons for torture were sneaky. However, I think that the current administration shouldn't be looking to past examples and movies to tell them that torture is bad. I really think that they should make their own choices, and preferably make GOOD choices. Enough said.

DO NOT READ if you plan on seeing "THE MIST"

Just another disclaimer, I will be talking about the ending of The Mist in this post, so don't bother reading it if you're a person to complain about endings getting ruined or whatever.

The movie Chinatown, when it was finished, gave me a feeling very similar to the feeling I got when the movie The Mist ended. Both were utter despair, lack of justice, completely horrifying endings. In Chinatown Jake (Jack Nicholson) leads the police and Noah Cross (John Huston) to Evelyn Mulray (Faye Dunaway) who is trying to escape with her daughter/sister. She ends up being shot, and the evil rapist/dirty father Noah takes the innocent daughter/granddaughter away. Everything is twisted and nothing turns out ok in the least. In The Mist the movie ends with a desperate act; in hearing the so-thought sounds of their own death coming upon them, David (Thomas Jane) with only four bullets lets his son, potential love interest, and two elderly members of their town have the 'priviledge' of being shot, thinking that he'll be killed soon by a monster/mist thing. However; the noises turn out to be a rescue crew of army people, leaving David to emotionally wither away in the regret of killing four people.

Yuck.

As Chinatown and The Mist both ended, I couldn't help but think... why? I would like to know why directors/writers/whoever think that having the most pessimistic ending EVER would make someone pleased with the movie. If it's to make the audience realize that dang they have it off pretty nice, it doesn't work. If anything it makes you get into the head of the person who is forced to live with lies and horrors for the rest of their lives.

Kiss Me Deadly

In 1999, Kiss Me Deadly was inducted into the National Film Registry which requires the film to be "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". Personally, I think it was for sure aesthetically significant, in the last scene especially. Who would have thought that in 1955 they had the technology to film a flaming screaming box?!

Robert Weston has a nice sum up of why it could possibly be a perfect film noir,
"Frankly, it's got everything. The predominance of darkness and nighttime? Check. Morally ambiguous protagonists? Check. Existential underpinnings? Check. Dramatic compositions influenced by German Expressionist artists and filmmakers? Check, check, check."

I think that if for nothing else, the film should be acknowledged because of the crazy low budget it had, with respect to how well known it has become. With a budget of only about $400,000 it's one of few, besides maybe Monty Python and the Holy Grail ($400,000) and Napoleon Dynamite ($400,000), that has become so successful and known to film people all over.

Film/Plum Noir

With such a beautiful flowing name (Film Noir) I expected the genre to be just as beautiful as my new nail color (Plum Noir). However, as the color Plum Noir is hypnotizingly gorgeous in its depth and richness, I felt that the Film Noir, Out of the Past, just couldn't surpass that standard.

I thought that the movie was 'good', but I think I wasn't expecting all the bluntness and hostility. I don't think it's a genre for me. Yes, the suspense and mood was fun to get into, but I did not like starting off my day in shock that all the characters died leaving me in a somewhat heavy mood. So really, the film was just lacking that plum richness- the color/mood of a little bit of hope and dreaminess- because it was a very brutal ending.

Eternal Sunshine

Stephanie Zacharek of Salon.com wrote this review of Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind which I found a little bit interesting. I'll highlight the main point she tried to get across, which was basically that she didn't like the movie, but I personally think that she loved it and she was just sad that it ended.

It's as if young filmmakers fear that their audiences will become bored with a
movie if they don't have a clever mind-boggler to wrestle with along the way. In grappling with these perplexing riddles, we're supposedly exercising our intellect. But isn't it also possible that we're using them as a handy diversion, a way of
distancing ourselves from emotions that might be too strong for us to deal with
easily? Labyrinthine plots are supposed to stimulate us. But are they really
just distracting us from the work at hand -- the work of feeling?

I think she's onto something there- in the way that this film could have moved away from the psychological aspects and literal mind erasing, and moved more towards the feelings and emotions Clementine and Joel. However, I think that the movie is very 'feeling' related, and I don't know how you could watch the movie without being very involved in the feelings between the Joel and Clem.

But just as there's a difference between knowing things and being informed,
there's a difference between going all the way with a movie and going only as
far as is convenient or comfortable.That said, I suspect that whether they recognize it or not, audiences yearn for movies that can make them think and feel.

Although she has a point with the whole 'going halfway' film-making , I think she pinned the wrong movie. I think that Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind has plenty of feeling and thinking and does it very well. You'd have to be a buckthorn tree to not be able to see the emotion behind all the 'thinking' scenes and the feelings that come along with them. I think maybe people are just too wrapped up in knowing exactly what is going on and when everything is happening, that they miss the underlying themes and moods of the film.

So in your opinion, do you think that movies these days are trying to nix out the 'feeling' parts, and that audiences need to be entertained in an intriguing mind-boggler way?

Chalk

Ok, so I watched this movie a few nights ago, and I would just like to applaud it for the following reasons:

1) It was funny, but not too funny. The humor level was at the point where I'd chuckle to myself a little bit and every once in awhile pull a Mr. Roddy and burst out with one laughter note.

2) The characters were easy to follow, with their problems/goals very reasonable and easy to understand. It wasn't a big 'figure it out' movie, it just happened, without questions.

3) The length was BEAUTIFUL. 84 minutes. Solid. I love a movie that starts, gets its point across, and ends. I don't need a trick ending, and I don't need anything to drag on. It was just enough of suspense to keep me enjoying it and it was just enough wrap up to not make me wonder too much.

All in all, well done.

His Girl Friday

While drawing a blank on what to write about for His Girl Friday, because I feel like my opinion is getting a little bit boring, I decided to explore why it fits so well as a screwball comedy instead of a romantic comedy (I know, really thrilling, right?).

First of all, the characters are ridiculous. Take Earl Williams for example. Looking back on the film, he killed someone after sitting in a park for awhile and losing a job and shot someone maybe to escape something? Whatever his true story is, it's very wacky and no one ever challenges the validity of what he says or does.

Also, the romantic aspect is not played up at all. There is one kiss (I think) in the whole film, which is literally just a goodbye peck. This adds to the screwball-ness of the film because the focus isn't on the lovey dovey relationships, it's on the fact that Walter and Hildy have a career together and nothing - not even Bruce - can keep her away from it.

Lastly, there is only one main time when the audience ever "agonizes" over whether Hildy and Walter will get together, and it only lasts for maybe a minute before they've made up their minds.

unfor-who cares.

I did not enjoy the movie unforgiven. I don't like movies with a lot of violence in them, and this movie was too painful to watch. However, I do not think that there would have been any other way to get the message of the movie across without the brutal killing scenes. To get into the head of Will Munny and to get into the emotions of the Schofield Kid would not have been possible without seeing them actually kill innocent people. I also think that Ned almost gave the audience an 'out' (before he was killed) to rest assured that at least someone was being a good honest person. The fact that the movie didn't just end with the two men dead made it a whole lot more of an emotional wreck for the audience. They couldn't just end it with getting money and meeting up with Ned; they had to bring a whole new aspect to the film, killing Ned unjustly and making Will need the revenge aspect. I think that there wasn't really another way to get the audience that involved in their lives, but personally I do not support it.

this has nothing to do with film; it is sweet, learn about it.

Finding out a lot more about Nemo

So initially when starting this film assignment, not going to lie, I was a bit of a downer thinking "oh shoot, I forgot to rent a really 'intriguing or thoughtful' movie of my choice so I'm stuck with my own movie collection which doesn't consist of many 'quality' movies." However, after watching Finding Nemo (one of three movies I own on the list of top 100) and viewing the special features I realized how crazy tough and really intense animation is!

Finding Nemo, written and directed by Andrew Stanton, is a Pixar/Disney film about a clown fish (Nemo) who gets taken away by a SCUBA diver from his overprotective father (Marlin). The story follows Marlin's journey to find Nemo and Nemo's attempts at escaping aquarium life.

The whole inspiration came from writer and director Andrew Stanton, who wrote the story based on his experiences living near the ocean and looking at the aquarium in his dentist's office. He completely wrote the story (which was eventually tweaked and whatnot by everyone working on it) with many challenges facing him and his team.

Their first struggle was getting the look of the ocean. I know, it seems general, but there was actually a LOT of trouble getting the water to look just right. The animation artists had to understand the physics behind water, and how that would play a role in the look they were going for. The light sources, the density of the water, the swells and currents of the water, and the visibility within the ocean all played huge roles in how the film would end up looking. With the ocean looking just right they then had another rather important task. Fish.

All members of the film making team were SCUBA certified and went on dives in the coral reefs around Australia to observe fish in their natural habitats. They also used dead fish from aquariums in the local area to observe exactly how their bodies look and how the appendages move and are shaped. There was a sculptor on the animation team that would literally sculpt every character that was developed by the artists; the sculptures were then used by the animators to get a full sense of how the character could be digitally produced. There were several scientists that helped the crew make sure all the fish in the movie were accurately (minus the talking and emotions) depicted and very realistic.

The lighting was one of the most difficult aspects of the film that they had to face. Dory, one of the main characters, is a blue fish... swimming in a blue ocean. Having Dory and contrastingly orange Marlin swimming in the same frame together for the majority of the movie was a struggle for the animators in regards to being able to see everything clear enough continuing to have a blue ocean as the setting. Also, the light reflections and refrations through and about the water were very difficult to show realistically, but amazingly, they did it!

Through a long (3.5 year) process, the team of writers, producers, art directors, animators, and computer specialists, all produced an awe-strikingly spectacular animated film.

Interesting Interview
Pixar Site w/ behind the scenes info
ocean website

Stage Coach

I am going to expand on the question we were asked in our packet about the role of the indians in the film- or how they are portrayed and why, yada yada yada.

I think that the director was trying to make the native americans in the film seem like very stereotyped, not that big of a deal indians. The way that we never really see one of them close up, or know any of their names makes them seem very distant. The lack of attachment or recognition of any of them individually really makes it easier for us to be alright with them all being killed. I think that if we had followed the story of how the indians came to hate the stagecoach and who they were exactly, we might not have been ok with the brutal attacks and might have actually felt some sympathy- or any emotion at all - towards the indians.

I think at this time period in movie making, that was a typical view of the directors and general public, so it wasn't really thought of much. I think that the stereotyping and lump summing of the indians just adds to the 'western' style and shows the political time period the movie takes place in. I don't really have any personal anger towards it, I'm just throwing it out there.

....and here's a picture to clear the mind...

Citizen Kane

In Citizen Kane, I thought the most influential part of the movie was the use of cinematic elements by the director. There were several shots that were carried throughout the movie to retain continuity and there were also several stand out shots that made the movie unique.

One shot that was used a couple of times was the framing of Kane in the center of the frame with other people talking about him using the deep focus lens. The first time we see this is when he is sledding (you can see him out the window) and his parents are talking in the foreground to get rid of him. The second time we see this is when Kane is at his party and he's shown dancing in the reflection in the window while in the foreground his two friends are discussing him. These shots make Kane seem very uninvolved or almost careless as to what is happening in the world around him. It shows that the people closest to him have level heads while he is somewhat up in the clouds, unconcerned.

Another shot technique that was used several times was the crane shot. We see this when the narration goes to Susan in her night club, through the sign and down the sky window. We also see it at Xanadu a few times craning over all Kane's stuff and outside views of Xanadu. This crane technique really makes us seem like we're the investigators right along side Thompson. It helps us to creep into scenes and have a sort of "outsiders" perspective.

Journal #2

Top Hat

One of many Ginger Roger/Fred Astaire dancing movies proves to be what it should be hyped up as. Directed by Mark Sandrich in 1935, Top Hat is filled with constantly wonderful orchestral music, obnoxious plot details, goofy acting, and ridiculously inventive tap dancing.

The plot itself is very stereotypical of a dancing musical old movie. In essence, the plot is just a mere carrier for the singing and dancing. The story line is very unrealistic, with many twists that the characters don't realize until the end, but completely perfect for the mood the movie gives you. The fact that Jerry (Astaire) is a professional dancer makes the spontaneous dancing spurts seem a lot more believable than if he had just been a man in dressy clothes. Of course, Jerry falls madly in love with Dale (Ginger Rogers) and their affair includes tap dancing, ballroom dancing, cheesy love lines, and many amusing complications.

For the time period of the 1930s, the costumes are perfectly believable and essential to the feeling of elegance of the movie. Since filmed in black and white, the men wearing suits and bowties all the time seem very standard- just a normal outfit. In contrast, the outfits of Dale (Ginger Rogers) are extremely elaborate to fight the lack of color. They are definitely noticeable dresses, with feathers, shiny things, beads, or obnoxiously large skirts/sleeves. Her costumes can a bit detract from the dancing when she's with Astaire, but it's all forgivable. The sets are also rather fun; when there's a room that looks like half the furniture has been cleared away you know there might be a dance scene coming up.

The sound editing is key in this movie. The switches between diegetic and nondiegetic sounds are always keeping the audience alert. What one may think is just lovely background music may turn out to be a live orchestra positioned right near the main action. Also, the tap dancing is always heard very clearly above the music to show off the unique rhythms of Astaire.

The dialogues between the characters in this film are very scripted with trying-for-laughs one liners. There is something about the charm of the conversations that makes one want to forgive the cheesy-ness of the dialogue and focus on the brilliant dancing.

The filming itself is very basic but it definitely shows off what it was intended to show off. The dancing. Whenever Fred Astaire is dancing, the camera has him in full view, no flashy zoom ins or fade outs, it's all about Astaire's dancing. He fills the frame and does all the fancy footwork without the audience missing a beat.

One big confusing miscommunication after another, the characters finally are all straightened out in the end with a resolution lasting maybe two whole minutes.