Singing and dancing is oh so much fun...

Singing in the Rain

This is another one of those movies I'd always heard about but never seen. I was a little skeptical at first, of course. I'm not real big on musicals. But I was very surprised to find that I liked it almost right away. It was an amazing movie and it really illustrated that change from silent movies to “talkies” and all the pros and cons that went along with it.

I think that the most important part of this movie, the symptomatically and implicit meanings, were that fame is not permanent and that one must adapt to the changing times. Lina was unable (and definitely unwilling) to adapt to the new voice driven movies. She barely tried to work at the change and refused to practice with the new necessities. This really brought down not only herself but everyone else who worked with her. And when a solution came about, she ego-tripped and nearly brought down the entire studio. Don Lockwood, however, was easily able to make the change and worked with the new sound equipment and technical problems. Cosmo adapted by being able to come up with a solution to many of the problems that arose with the change into sound movies.

One thing that I personally liked about the film was that one of the main characters, Kathy, really made a point about the difference between theatrical acting and silent movie acting. It really brings about that line between film and theatre and how there is sometimes a barrier between not only styles but also peoples' opinions on both. Since I am a Theatre and Film major I can appreciate that there are differences between the two and that it can sometimes be difficult for one to reconcile with the other. However, I also feel like most of the musical films really touch base with theatre because there is so much more of a wide open feel and it really pulls you out of the film because, well, people don't run around singing and dancing out of no where.

Which brings me to this point. The film was definitely formative. Since people don't sing and dance everywhere they go where everyone knows the lyrics and dance moves. It really gives a more musical and interesting aspect to life. Which I'm sure we'd all love more. 

The Graduate and all its Insanity

Journal Entry on The Graduate

Okay, so, I'm not going to be writing very properly here and fair warning—I absolutely, greatly. . . . dislike this movie, and I'll tell you why. But first, I'll talk about what it is in the movie that at least respect and understand.

The main theme of the entire movie seems to be “Now What?” I can completely relate to Ben's uneasy feelings about the future and how he really has no idea what he wants to do in life. I get that. I was there for a really long time and almost didn't go to college because of it. So that whole dynamic I understand. I also understand that it showed, though somewhat subtly, the generation gap. This is visible in examples such as Mrs. Robinson waiting for Ben to open the car door but Eileen never does. So it shows the small and subtle changes in society. Also, it demonstrates how everybody has those impulsive moments that they just want to act upon (but usually have the common sense not to,) but also shows the repercussions of such.

HOWEVER. . . . Just because I see a small amount of meaning in it, in fact, even if a movie has a lot of obvious meaning, or some great technological or artistic advances, does not make it a good movie! And for me, I can't for the life of me understand what everyone sees in this movie. Let's go through it one by one, in just a few of the key points I have decided upon:

1. Boring, 1 Dimensional Main Character

Ben is a one dimensional character with next to no emotion and no personality. He has a lot of awkward moments that make for interesting shots in the movie, but over all, his character is so utterly boring. He never actually does anything. And he smiles maybe once in the whole movie. I get being directionless and full of doubt, but people like that are still. . . well, people with personalities. He didn't even express those two emotions/situations. He was just, there, in ever scene. His character was so flat. It was frustrating.

2. Long, Nearly Mindless Shots

A lot of the scenes in this movie were comprised really long, nearly pointless shots. There was montage after montage that yes expressed a small storyline, but the way they were gone about made it seem rather dull. And again, it may have simply been that Ben was really doing nothing in life and it was just mostly scenes of him and Mrs. Robinson together or him just lounging around. . . doing nothing. And there was one montage where they play almost two full songs of Ben just either having sex or floating in the pool. Really?!

3. Horribly Unrealistic and Slightly Dislikable Character Reactions/Situations

Okay, so having an affair with an older woman can happen, but it's rarer. The fact that neither Mrs. Robinson nor Ben thought of the fact that they were so close relationship wise in life (Ben being the son of Mrs. Robinson's husband's business partner) is also rare, but yes, does happen. Then Ben falls for Mrs. Robinson's daughter; also realistic, but rare. But the part that really gets me is this: Mrs. Robinson told Eileen that Ben raped her. Yet when Eileen confronts Ben, she basically forgives and forgets in the span of five minutes! She forgives and forgets and in a small way confesses love to the man who her mother said raped her. No. That's not only unrealistic but somewhat despicable. And then, Eileen proceeds to run away with Ben after she's already said her vows to another man, and Ben practically beats up her father. From the discernible time span that the two were together, it's a wonder she sees anything in him at all.

4. Ridiculously Repetitive and Kind of Annoying Soundtrack

So I think by now it's obvious that I take a lot of stock in music. And I honestly have nothing against Simon and Garfunkel. But if they were going to insist on repeating a song every other scene, if that, you'd think they'd be able to find one a little more complex, maybe with more than one verse, you know, not “Scarborough Fair”.

Okay, so there's my rant on that movie. There was a lot I didn't like about it and that was just to summarize. I don't know what it is that I'm missing, but I'm pretty sure disliking this movie doesn't make me any less intelligent in anyway or less observant than anyone else. But that's the second time I've seen the movie and I didn't like it either time. And if I'm missing some huge point, by all means, I'd love to know, because everybody raves about it and I just can't figure out why. . . yeah. *takes bow* Thank-you.

The Father of Heist Movies

Journal Entry on The Sting

The Sting has so far been one of my favorite movies. Robert Redford and Paul Newman are an amazing pairing. Not only that, but there were so many actors that had that “hey, I've seen that person before!” reaction. For instance, the main antagonist, Lonnegan, played the “wise old man” in Jaws; Eileen Brennen, who played another con-artist, was in Murder by Death (one of my favorite movies); yet another of the con artists I had seen in the movie Johnny Dangerously. The cast was truly amazing and it made the movie all the better. You honestly believed that characters were real.

This movie, referentially, is about a sting operation, or con, of a large group of con-artists, against a bigwig crime boss, Lonnegan. Explicitly, the movie is about revenge. The con-artists are avenging the murder of a beloved friend. Implicitly, The Sting is about changing directions and getting a new start. Robert Redford's character has been working cons on the streets his entire life, but always “blows it” and never has anything left to show for his work. After the death of his mentor and friend he decides to change directions and try for a larger con, the payout for which he ends up declining anyway. If you look at the movie symptomaticly, though, one might look at the movie and see how the time period, the mid 1930's and all it's poverty, has affected people in the cities of the United States and what some resorted to in order to deal with day to day life.

Overall, I thought this was an amazing movie. The complexity was intense, and the audience was trying to figure out the twists and turns of the plot the entire time. This movie was kind of the start of the whole con movie genre. (The most popular of which might be the Ocean's movies). I think that the script and dialogue were perfect. You always knew what was going on (as much as the story wanted you to know, at least) and despite the enormous cast, it was easy to follow who was who. The sets and scenery were easy to follow and non-disruptive to the action. I really liked this movie, for so many reasons. It is easy to understand why The Sting is considered a classic.  

The Line Between Reality and Fantasy Blurs

Journal Entry on Stunt Man

Watching the Stunt Man was a bit of a head trip. The whole time we're on the edge of our seats trying to figure out this horrible thing that the main character, Cameron, did; the reason why he is running away from the cops. Meanwhile, there's this psychotic director, Eli, who ropes Cameron into working as a stunt man on the movie explaining that he had just “lost” his stunt man and would shelter Cameron from the police should he cooperate. Cameron comes to find out that Eli may have caused the original stunt man's death. This brings in another line of wonderment. Is Eli good or bad—is he a murderer or was it just a horrible accident?

The complexity of this movie is so intense yet not too much that it pushes the audience away. The multiple angles and storylines really pull the audience into the movie, yet the amazing shots occasionally pull the audience back out, reminding them the it's just a movie. Some of the shots, like the ones where we follow Cameron through his path shooting a scene and dodging soldiers and planes while jumping across a roof, really pull you in and make you feel like you're going through them yourself.

Thinking a little more in depth, the meaning of the movie might seem to be about several different things: maybe running gets you no where/once you start running you can never stop. Even more involved, the movie really explores the job of being a stunt man and how people who don't seek thrills like that do not understand how people are willing to risk their lives for jobs like this. Furthermore, the movie says a lot about the movie industry altogether. It really covers the questions of what is really real? and shows how that line can be easily blurred in the film industry. Eli also shows one of the biggest desires of any director, to get the most realistic shot you can get.