This movie has some great quotes. We're only about half way through, but here are a few. Tomorrow, try to listen (or read, since I've put the sub-titles on). The Doc gets most of the good lines, like the ones that follow. He gets a bunch more, also. But, Emerich gets the line that sums up the theme of the entire film. Watch for it.
One way or the other, we all work for our vice.
Never trust a cop. Just when you think one's alright, he turns legit.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Asphalt Jungle
I've always been a huge fan of "film noir," the gritty crime dramas so popular during the 40's and 50's. And the modern updates on the genre always interest me also, though many of them are worse than pulp, instead they are bad remakes of pulp.
The problem for me in the class, however, has always been that students do not share my love of these early noirs. The Asphalt Jungle is one of my all time favorites, but students dislike it for some as yet undivined reason. So, this year I am going to solve the problem beforehand.
It's very simple: You either love "The Asphalt Jungle" or else. I am not threatening anyone, of course, but the last film should suffice as a "word to the wise." So, should you trash this film, either in class or on your blog, and should you subsequently find yourself standing across a saloon from me begging for mercy because you are unarmed, because you "ain't drunk," because you're "building a house," because you brought me a pony, because you "ain't given to wickedness in a regular way," because you "ain't like that anymore" because you "don't deserve this" then I will respond with two actions. First, I will say, "deserve ain't got nothing to do with it." And then I will... er, hmm ...
We'll leave the second action unmentioned, because, after all, "The Asphalt Jungle" will prove absolutely riveting and immensely entertaining to all.
The problem for me in the class, however, has always been that students do not share my love of these early noirs. The Asphalt Jungle is one of my all time favorites, but students dislike it for some as yet undivined reason. So, this year I am going to solve the problem beforehand.
It's very simple: You either love "The Asphalt Jungle" or else. I am not threatening anyone, of course, but the last film should suffice as a "word to the wise." So, should you trash this film, either in class or on your blog, and should you subsequently find yourself standing across a saloon from me begging for mercy because you are unarmed, because you "ain't drunk," because you're "building a house," because you brought me a pony, because you "ain't given to wickedness in a regular way," because you "ain't like that anymore" because you "don't deserve this" then I will respond with two actions. First, I will say, "deserve ain't got nothing to do with it." And then I will... er, hmm ...
We'll leave the second action unmentioned, because, after all, "The Asphalt Jungle" will prove absolutely riveting and immensely entertaining to all.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Student favorites
I can think of several films that are named every year as absolute "must see" films by students. Here they are:
1. Requieum for a Dream
2. American History X
3. Fight Club
4. Shawshank Redemption
I liked the last two very much. Both are very professional films made with great skill. The story, script, direction, acting etc. on Fight Club and Shawshank are first rate. I have given my reasons why I thought Shawshank ultimately was disappointing, but that does not mean I disliked it. My feeling is that it could have been more than it was. But, it was good. Fight Club also was very entertaining and thought-provoking.
Now, the first two are less slick. They are both either actual indie films, or at least have the low budget, down and dirty look of the Indie. Hence, they should be judged on a slightly different basis. After all, money should be able to buy a certain level of professionalism.
It's been years since I saw American History X, but I found it to be rather boring, and I did not watch to the end. I thought Ed Norton, or whatever his name is, had way too many long-winded speeches.
Now, on to Requieum for a Dream. I liked the first half hour very much. I thought the acting, pacing, quirky effects, overall theme, were all done very well. But I thought the film basically fell apart in the last half because it became a melodrama. Melodrama refers to overly sensational plot driven vehicles, where character development is sacrificed to plot. All sorts of horrible things occur because the director decrees that it be so. When Will Munny kills Little Bill in Unforgiven, it is becuase he must do so based upon our intimate understanding of his character. No other action is possible. But when the main character in RfoD injects himself directly into a disgusting festering abscess in his arm, we ask ourselves, "don't you have another arm?"
Thus, a good film descends into melodrama, and fails to convince.
However, I know how difficult it is to make a good movie, and I give it a lot of points for effort. An example is the special effect the director uses to show us the experience of getting high on heroin. A close-up of an eyeball with the iris contracting with psychedelic visions in the background is very clever and unique when we see it the first time. After it is shown the 23rd time, it becomes tiresome. One might argue that that is the point. Heroin addicts have to shoot up constantly. That must be awfully repetitive and tiresome also. My point here is that I thought the director tried something pretty cool, but failed in the end.
But why does this film appeal to 17 year olds so strongly, while it left this 42 year old unmoved? The answer, of course, is that I see things clearly and you youngsters are blind, but you do outnumber me, thus I will entertain the (absurdly remote) possibility that I have missed something.
I'm rambling here a bit, but it's late and I'll go on. Years ago, I used to watch Siskel and Ebert, and I found that if they both raved about a film, it was a good bet. If only one of them went for it, I stayed away. The same may be true with us. I know we're all way up there in teh IQ department. But the age differnce is a big gulf. So, if we both really rave about a film, you can bet on it being great.
After class today, Nick stayed behind for a few minutes and commented on how much he liked Unforgiven. His comments echoed my own sentiments to a tee. The subtlety with which Will Munny starts sipping at the whisky bottle. Another director would have had him announce portentously, "Hand me that bottle, Kid." He would have taken an enormous draught as a dramatic musical cresscendo erupted in the background. The other day in class, I mentioned that film analysis is as much about seeing what is NOT present as it is in seeing what is. Nick saw what didn't happen. Anyway, the meeting of the minds between the 17 year old and the 38 year old was gratifying and satisfying. I hope the rest of you enjoyed Unforgiven as much. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it, if you get a chance to write this weekend.
Our next film is one that students almost universally hate.... and I absolutely love. Every year the class tells me that this film is their least favorite. And every year I tell them that they are a bunch of ignorant savages who should never have been allowed to leave the jungle. But this year will be different. You people are not savages. YOu will recognize the greatness of "The Asphalt Jungle."
Oh, apropos of nothing at all, today is my birthday. I was born on April 24th, 1975.
1. Requieum for a Dream
2. American History X
3. Fight Club
4. Shawshank Redemption
I liked the last two very much. Both are very professional films made with great skill. The story, script, direction, acting etc. on Fight Club and Shawshank are first rate. I have given my reasons why I thought Shawshank ultimately was disappointing, but that does not mean I disliked it. My feeling is that it could have been more than it was. But, it was good. Fight Club also was very entertaining and thought-provoking.
Now, the first two are less slick. They are both either actual indie films, or at least have the low budget, down and dirty look of the Indie. Hence, they should be judged on a slightly different basis. After all, money should be able to buy a certain level of professionalism.
It's been years since I saw American History X, but I found it to be rather boring, and I did not watch to the end. I thought Ed Norton, or whatever his name is, had way too many long-winded speeches.
Now, on to Requieum for a Dream. I liked the first half hour very much. I thought the acting, pacing, quirky effects, overall theme, were all done very well. But I thought the film basically fell apart in the last half because it became a melodrama. Melodrama refers to overly sensational plot driven vehicles, where character development is sacrificed to plot. All sorts of horrible things occur because the director decrees that it be so. When Will Munny kills Little Bill in Unforgiven, it is becuase he must do so based upon our intimate understanding of his character. No other action is possible. But when the main character in RfoD injects himself directly into a disgusting festering abscess in his arm, we ask ourselves, "don't you have another arm?"
Thus, a good film descends into melodrama, and fails to convince.
However, I know how difficult it is to make a good movie, and I give it a lot of points for effort. An example is the special effect the director uses to show us the experience of getting high on heroin. A close-up of an eyeball with the iris contracting with psychedelic visions in the background is very clever and unique when we see it the first time. After it is shown the 23rd time, it becomes tiresome. One might argue that that is the point. Heroin addicts have to shoot up constantly. That must be awfully repetitive and tiresome also. My point here is that I thought the director tried something pretty cool, but failed in the end.
But why does this film appeal to 17 year olds so strongly, while it left this 42 year old unmoved? The answer, of course, is that I see things clearly and you youngsters are blind, but you do outnumber me, thus I will entertain the (absurdly remote) possibility that I have missed something.
I'm rambling here a bit, but it's late and I'll go on. Years ago, I used to watch Siskel and Ebert, and I found that if they both raved about a film, it was a good bet. If only one of them went for it, I stayed away. The same may be true with us. I know we're all way up there in teh IQ department. But the age differnce is a big gulf. So, if we both really rave about a film, you can bet on it being great.
After class today, Nick stayed behind for a few minutes and commented on how much he liked Unforgiven. His comments echoed my own sentiments to a tee. The subtlety with which Will Munny starts sipping at the whisky bottle. Another director would have had him announce portentously, "Hand me that bottle, Kid." He would have taken an enormous draught as a dramatic musical cresscendo erupted in the background. The other day in class, I mentioned that film analysis is as much about seeing what is NOT present as it is in seeing what is. Nick saw what didn't happen. Anyway, the meeting of the minds between the 17 year old and the 38 year old was gratifying and satisfying. I hope the rest of you enjoyed Unforgiven as much. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it, if you get a chance to write this weekend.
Our next film is one that students almost universally hate.... and I absolutely love. Every year the class tells me that this film is their least favorite. And every year I tell them that they are a bunch of ignorant savages who should never have been allowed to leave the jungle. But this year will be different. You people are not savages. YOu will recognize the greatness of "The Asphalt Jungle."
Oh, apropos of nothing at all, today is my birthday. I was born on April 24th, 1975.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
I got cable.
So, I finally subscribed to cable TV. It never made sense for me before since I watch so little TV. In fact, a few years ago my antenna wire was cut and I had no TV at all for about six months. I didn't really notice until football season rolled around again. I think the Jets were doing well that year, so I finally crawled out on the roof and spliced the wire. It wasn't worth it. You know the Jets.
But, the Verizon FIOS package is only about ten dollars more than my current phone and internet bill with no cable. So it didn't seem logical to say no to it. I look forward to having Turner Classic Movies.
But, the Verizon FIOS package is only about ten dollars more than my current phone and internet bill with no cable. So it didn't seem logical to say no to it. I look forward to having Turner Classic Movies.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Comments in the spirit of Janus
I was thinking about the “Top Hat Mutiny,” and the conclusion I have reached is that the fault – should we need to assign such – is mine. For me to switch gears from such highly symbolic and deeply philosophical films as The Seventh Seal and Runaway Train to one that has an entirely different set of ideals and goals, without any preliminary discussion or introduction, was unwise. This is not to say that my comments regarding the artistic merit of Top Hat were inaccurate. In a different context, I would have had half the class tap dancing through the halls. But, our minds were set to a very different frequency. The dissonance was too great.
The strange thing about it is that I felt exactly the same way many of you did. Here’s a film that I have watched many times, that has captivated me again and again. I love the corny humor and the dancing. Fred Astaire has such an easy grace and winning personality that it’s really hard not to like him. The last time I showed it in class, the response was very enthusiastic. But this time, blah. How does one explain it? My wife mentioned that she had a similar experience with Runaway Train one semester. It just bombed. As much as I resist the idea of a collective subconscious, or group-think, it’s hard to deny that the class, including me, was just not in the dancing mood.
No matter. I needed something to fill the ether for two days as we headed into the vacation. This film sufficed, and you got a small dose of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Perhaps in future you may wish to watch it on your own. For now, we’ll leave Top Hat, and move on.
One last word about Astaire. He came to film rather late in life, and in Top Hat, he’s already 36, while Ginger Rogers is only 22 or so. The story of his screen test is part of Hollywood lore. Supposedly the studio notes read, “Can’t act, can’t sing, bald, -- can dance a little.”
Our next film is a western, Unforgiven, 1992, directed by Clint Eastwood. For me, it is the absolute last word on the genre. And what a genre it is! Like them or not, the western is the most iconic of all the genres. By that I mean it is the genre in which the standard elements are best known and understood. I suspect that even those of you who have never seen a Western can describe most of the things that are required. The most familiar prop, of course, is the entrance to the saloon, the swinging double door. God forbid there should just be a simple door that opens and closes tightly. One might suspect that a swinging door could prove impractical on freezing cold winter days. But it’s always summer in Westerns.
Unforgiven addresses all these aspects of the genre. It asks the questions you may have wondered about like the following:
1. How accurate are those guns, anyway?
2. Is the classic gun-fight with a “quick draw” historically accurate?
3. Did everyone own horses?
4. Where exactly is the “west” anyway?
Anyway, if you want to prepare yourself for Unforgiven, why not watch a few westerns over the vacation, just so you know what the genre is all about. I won’t suggest specific titles; you can go to a web site and get all the suggestions. Typically, the years before 1965 had the archetypal western, the kind where the good guys wore the white hats and the bad guys wore black, after that, the westerns became darker and you had the emergence of the “anti-hero,” the guy who was pretty bad, but maybe as good as one could be in a bad world. Check out “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” for an anti-western. Unforgiven tries to synthesize the two antithetical versions of the genre, hence it can be seen as the ultimate western, at least until a new thesis is expounded. For a discussion of this idea, look up Hegelian dialectics, or just Hegel. I think his first name was Friederich, but I forget
After Unforgiven, we will embark on a tour of Film Noir. I won’t describe it now. I’ll save that for a later post. But, here are the films we’ll see.
The Asphalt Jungle 1950 John Huston
Dark City 1998 Alex Proyas
Memento 2002 I forget who directed it
A Simple Plan 2000 or so. Ditto on the director.
After that, a Cold War retrospective, featuring my favorite documentary ever, The Atomic Café, and everyone’s favorite apocalyptic comedy, Dr. Strangelove.
At that point, I have come to the end of the road. Which means that there are only about 100,000 possible titles we can watch. Give it some thought.
The strange thing about it is that I felt exactly the same way many of you did. Here’s a film that I have watched many times, that has captivated me again and again. I love the corny humor and the dancing. Fred Astaire has such an easy grace and winning personality that it’s really hard not to like him. The last time I showed it in class, the response was very enthusiastic. But this time, blah. How does one explain it? My wife mentioned that she had a similar experience with Runaway Train one semester. It just bombed. As much as I resist the idea of a collective subconscious, or group-think, it’s hard to deny that the class, including me, was just not in the dancing mood.
No matter. I needed something to fill the ether for two days as we headed into the vacation. This film sufficed, and you got a small dose of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Perhaps in future you may wish to watch it on your own. For now, we’ll leave Top Hat, and move on.
One last word about Astaire. He came to film rather late in life, and in Top Hat, he’s already 36, while Ginger Rogers is only 22 or so. The story of his screen test is part of Hollywood lore. Supposedly the studio notes read, “Can’t act, can’t sing, bald, -- can dance a little.”
Our next film is a western, Unforgiven, 1992, directed by Clint Eastwood. For me, it is the absolute last word on the genre. And what a genre it is! Like them or not, the western is the most iconic of all the genres. By that I mean it is the genre in which the standard elements are best known and understood. I suspect that even those of you who have never seen a Western can describe most of the things that are required. The most familiar prop, of course, is the entrance to the saloon, the swinging double door. God forbid there should just be a simple door that opens and closes tightly. One might suspect that a swinging door could prove impractical on freezing cold winter days. But it’s always summer in Westerns.
Unforgiven addresses all these aspects of the genre. It asks the questions you may have wondered about like the following:
1. How accurate are those guns, anyway?
2. Is the classic gun-fight with a “quick draw” historically accurate?
3. Did everyone own horses?
4. Where exactly is the “west” anyway?
Anyway, if you want to prepare yourself for Unforgiven, why not watch a few westerns over the vacation, just so you know what the genre is all about. I won’t suggest specific titles; you can go to a web site and get all the suggestions. Typically, the years before 1965 had the archetypal western, the kind where the good guys wore the white hats and the bad guys wore black, after that, the westerns became darker and you had the emergence of the “anti-hero,” the guy who was pretty bad, but maybe as good as one could be in a bad world. Check out “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” for an anti-western. Unforgiven tries to synthesize the two antithetical versions of the genre, hence it can be seen as the ultimate western, at least until a new thesis is expounded. For a discussion of this idea, look up Hegelian dialectics, or just Hegel. I think his first name was Friederich, but I forget
After Unforgiven, we will embark on a tour of Film Noir. I won’t describe it now. I’ll save that for a later post. But, here are the films we’ll see.
The Asphalt Jungle 1950 John Huston
Dark City 1998 Alex Proyas
Memento 2002 I forget who directed it
A Simple Plan 2000 or so. Ditto on the director.
After that, a Cold War retrospective, featuring my favorite documentary ever, The Atomic Café, and everyone’s favorite apocalyptic comedy, Dr. Strangelove.
At that point, I have come to the end of the road. Which means that there are only about 100,000 possible titles we can watch. Give it some thought.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Note to class.
There are two students who joined the class recently, Irina and Steve. I notice that only 9 of us are following Irina's blog and none of us (except me) are following Steve. Please look them up at the addresses below and "follow" them.
In addition, we should all be following 34 people and 34 people should be following us. If both of these are not true, please correct that situation, at least to the extent possible. Let's say a minimum of 30 for everyone.
Steve: Stevemiester.blogspot.com
Irina: Irinadenisenko.blogspot.com
In addition, we should all be following 34 people and 34 people should be following us. If both of these are not true, please correct that situation, at least to the extent possible. Let's say a minimum of 30 for everyone.
Steve: Stevemiester.blogspot.com
Irina: Irinadenisenko.blogspot.com
Monday, April 6, 2009
Some thoughts on our blog-ring.
Today, I chided (gently, I hope) those of you who have not posted much on your blogs. I suggested that I was annoyed that you were somehow not pulling your weight in the class. Actually, that is not really the case. Everyone is doing fine. I'm very pleased with the input and effort of everyone. After all, the class is a senior elective. You are nearing the end of your scholastic careers, and I feel as if I am near the end of mine, as well, (though many years probably stretch out before me. . None of us has anything to prove to the other. We know one another's strengths and weaknesses very well. And none knows his own as well as I know mine.
So, why do I chide you at all? I think it is because I want you to join in the fun. The way I visualize our blog-ring is that there are about 5 or so people who are living in the inner city. They post constantly, and comment often. Residing in the outer boroughs are those who post less often, but with equal brilliance. Then we have those in the suburbs. And then, silently stalking polar bear in the arctic regions, we have the Eskimoes. Haven't you people heard the news? You don't have to hunt for food. Just drive to Waldbaums.
Although blogs are nothing new, my sense is that we are engaged in something rather new, and somewhat important. My hope is that after the class ends, our blog-ring will remain online as a lasting, and public record, an archaeolgogical artifact, if you will, of our semester together.
I would like all of you to be part of that record.
So, why do I chide you at all? I think it is because I want you to join in the fun. The way I visualize our blog-ring is that there are about 5 or so people who are living in the inner city. They post constantly, and comment often. Residing in the outer boroughs are those who post less often, but with equal brilliance. Then we have those in the suburbs. And then, silently stalking polar bear in the arctic regions, we have the Eskimoes. Haven't you people heard the news? You don't have to hunt for food. Just drive to Waldbaums.
Although blogs are nothing new, my sense is that we are engaged in something rather new, and somewhat important. My hope is that after the class ends, our blog-ring will remain online as a lasting, and public record, an archaeolgogical artifact, if you will, of our semester together.
I would like all of you to be part of that record.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Signs: A Quiz.
I trust you people were unable to concentrate on our new film because you were so bereft over my absence. Please dry your bitter tears since I will be back tomorrrow, God willing.
Here's a question on our new films, "Signs." In "The Seventh Seal" the thematic climax of the film occurs before the plot climax. The former is when the knight distracts death so Jof and Mia can escape with the baby. The latter is when death appears to the travellers and Jof sees them in his vision.
In "Signs," you have a similar thematic climax that occurs before the plot climax. Please identify and explain how this scene is a very effective refutation (argument against) Existentialism.
Here's a question on our new films, "Signs." In "The Seventh Seal" the thematic climax of the film occurs before the plot climax. The former is when the knight distracts death so Jof and Mia can escape with the baby. The latter is when death appears to the travellers and Jof sees them in his vision.
In "Signs," you have a similar thematic climax that occurs before the plot climax. Please identify and explain how this scene is a very effective refutation (argument against) Existentialism.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
April Fool
I had posted an April Fool's joke of sorts in this spot, and it was "up" for a few minutes so a few of you might have seen it. But, on further reflection, I decided to take it down as it might have caused anxiety among the more gullible among you. It said that we were going to change the focus of the class. But, we aren't. I'm too old to change much of anything.
See you on Monday.
See you on Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
