The Godfather- The Family Business

The Godfather

“Family Business”

In the first movie of The Godfather Trilogy, we are introduced to all of the characters and the way of their world, that they live in and the rules they live by. We are introduced to the family, the enemies and everyone else that plays a factor in this world. Throughout this process we are introduced to the “Family Business”. Through being introduced we realize how important it is to be in the Family Business and honor the Family.

We realize how important Vito “Don Corleone” is to the whole equation, the way things operate and the way things work out, all final decisions and their impacts trickle down from the top spot of “Don”. The interesting points to notify are the family tree and how they relate to Family Business and how they effect the positions that are held. Another thing to pay attention to is the top spot of “Don” and who falls in line to take over that spot. The importance of Michael to the Family Business as it is foreshadowed throughout the whole film, you get a glimpse of how much more he is important to the existence of this cycle, as opposed to how much Freddo or Santino is.

In the first point we talk about is the Family Business and the Family Tree; how do they relate? First, at the top, we see Vito “Don” Corleone and this he is the Father therefore he is the leader of the pact of the Business. He has three sons, four counting Tom. Two sons hold smaller positions under him and are technically in line to be the next “Don” starting from oldest to youngest. Then you have Tom Hagan who is not a biological son, but he has been a part of the family, so he also is given a position, which is counselor to the “Don”. The rest of the roles are given out to friends and people who are close to the Family, or a part of the Family in another way. So, as the Family Tree goes down these roles are given out. We see that when people use this term, like Michael did in the first scene, “Family Business”, it is literal in most part because it is kept in the Family.

Bringing me to my next point, the position and importance of the “Don”. If we had to compare the “Don to someone in our society it could be a number of people, because his role is so interesting. Obviously being a father, we can directly relate his position as a parent, but then having the business aspect going on we would thing of him as a boss or manager. In their world no word is bigger than the “Dons”, in this aspect he kind of reminds me more of a President, or even more so a dictator. More of a dictator because his word is final; in the Family Business when it comes down to it, it is not so much of a Democracy than a dictatorship. Which is interesting, for the people who live in this world this is their government, these are their laws. It’s more than just a Family Business it is their way of live. They live and die by it.

Finally, the point of Michael taking over and how it is foreshadowed since the beginning of the Film. At the start of the Film, we pretty much get a glimpse of everybody who is involved in the world. When the Family gets together to take a picture we are notified through Vito’s words that Michael is not around and no picture will be snapped without him. So, instantly we get the idea that Michael has some kind of importance, whether we know what it is or not yet. Then we see through the course of the movie that all of Michaels brothers are either made unable or are discredited to take over as the “Don” of the Family Business. So, gradually through this movie we are eased in to the thought or idea that Michael will take over as the new Don. Flashing back to the beginning of the movie where Michael says that is his Family, not him. We see a little irony and we see the transition of him becoming more like his Family, into the position that was once held by his father.

This whole idea of the Family Business is relatable in our society in many ways, there are plenty of Family owned businesses in our economy that are passed down from generation to generation, but we must explore the difference between these businesses. In our world, Family businesses are just that, they are means of making money and a means of survival. In the Corleone world this is also their means of money, but it is their way of live and it cannot be changed nor disputed without great consequences; it’s just the way it is.

-Kendrel Dickerson

Allison Emery: Silent Film Analytical Review

Allison Emery

November 15, 2012

Group Three

Silent Film Analytical Review

Camera perspectives within cinematography represent what the film wants viewers to recognize and notice. The way a camera moves through the scene, the perspective of the lens, and the camera angles of a scene are all aspects of making a movie transpire—they are all facets in the art of cinematography. The vision a camera depicts effects what is being communicated for the entire film; it shows audiences what is important in that scene, and what one should pay attention to. Group 4 presented, Oh God, No…, by telling a story of woman who gets killed by an evil cat while she is watching the cat for a friend. They use the element of cinematography in regards to how the camera captures a scene to communicate and foreshadow that the cat is not as friendly as it looks. My argument exclaims that the way they use close ups, camera angles, and camera movement —all aspects of cinematography, portray how the cat is manipulating the woman and ultimately plans to complete the fate of the movie. All of these different camera aspects are used in the film to communicate to spectators the importance the scene has on the overall film meaning.

            The beginning of the film starts with two friends greeting each other while one drops off her cat so the other friend can cat-sit. The camera placement eighteen seconds into the film puts the audience into the scene setting. The video clip below portrays the part of the film I am referring to. The lens predicts the “field of view” for the scene.. This film shot is important because it makes the audience feel a part of the action. The audience consistently has to decide what is taking place in the scene, especially since it is a silent film, and through the perspective of the lens we can see that we are emotionally involved in the film action because of the camera angle and the lens focusing on these two women. This camera aspect in this scene represents the decision the director made to emotionally involve the viewer in the storyline. This is important to the overall film because we consistently make assumptions of what is going to take place in the film based on what we can see as the audience.

Now that the camera angle and placement have let the audience have an emotional attachment to the film, the directors focus in on a certain contender in the film. Focusing to a different character implicates that our concentration throughout the film should be on the cat and what it does for the plot. The video snippet below shows that the camera has done a vertical pan downwards to focus on the cat at 26 seconds. This camera movement and focus tells the audience that the cat should be a major contestant to something that happens in the film. Further into the film, camera angles and close-ups of the lens are used to show that the cat took part in an action that just took place. The second video snippet below is just after the cat-sitter goes outside to water plants and she gets locked out of her house. We assume that no one else is in the house because we have only been introduced to three characters, and now only the cat-sitter and cat are in the scenes. The close-up on the cat looking outside where the cat-sitter is locked out gives the audience a clue that the cat could be the one that locked her out, which foreshadows future events. 

            An abundant use of camera movements, lens perspective (close-ups), and camera angles in the next scenes in the film allow us to note that the cat is trying to harm the cat-sitter. Focusing in on the cat, as indicated at one minute, 21 seconds, helps communicate something to the audience even though there are no words vocalized in the film. The decision to use lens perspective to make the audience feel an emotional attachment to the film helps a viewer become involved in the storyline. The camera movement from the girls to the cat gives us an indication that the cat is a major focus throughout the film. Also, the close-up of the cat after the girl is locked our gives us a perspective that the cat is the one involved in the evil action. We can see that the cat is planning the actions because of the camera angle, focus, and perspective, but the cat-sitter is clueless of the cat’s schemes. All of these camera aspects of cinematography are used to hint where are focus should be on in the film and help us plan the story out as it is happening. These elements of camera focus, perspective, and movement are a major importance to Oh God, No… because it lets the audience know where the focus should be, and allows us to understand something that people in the film may not be aware of.

Caroline Downer - Individual Analytical Movie Review

Caroline Downer

14 November 2012

ENG 281 – Group Three

Analytical Movie Review

            Group Four’s Film, titled “Oh God…No” was able to mislead the audience.  This group was able to use mise-en-scene and cinematography to develop suspense and intrigue within the viewers.  Since this was a silent film, how the elements of cinematography were used must have been carefully considered and used in order to help tell the story, without words.

            The group’s use of mis-en-scene allowed the viewer to be able to relate to the characters and the familiar situation.  The setting was a very realistic setting as just an apartment in a town; a very average interior.  The opening scene presents very bland, white walls which suggests nothing out of the ordinary and makes it seem as though this apartment will be just like all the others.  The interior has decorations in it like most apartments do that suggest a very warm and inviting environment, not grounds for a murder. The costumes as part of the mise-en-scene in this film also seem like clothes the ordinary person would wear.  The girls are dressed as average college students not hinting to the audience that anything strange will soon happen.  The lighting throughout this film is very prominent and they exploit the use of natural light towards the beginning, representing a bright average day with seemingly nothing to fear.  The cat seems like an innocent animal at the start of the film because it is the first character seen in the first few scenes, so the audience knows where it is and what it is doing at the beginning of each scene, leaving no room for suspicion.  For example when The Cat Sitter is about to water the plants, the cat is just sitting on the coffee table minding its own business when that scene opens, which makes the audience think that the cat is innocent.  However, as the scenes move on, the lighting is not as bright and the cat is not always the first thing seen on the screen, so that the audience does not know what the cat is doing and where it is.  In the use of mise-en-scene, this cat for example, was a key addition to the film because it is different from other films and creates another sense of suspense since humans cannot easily relate to cats and do not know what they’re thinking.  Since the cat is a darker cat, when the scenes begin to get darker, as when The Cat Sitter is sleeping, the cat seems to slowly appear out of the darkness, now creating an ominous feeling and therefore a sense of suspense.  The use of mise-en-scene develops the story as an ordinary day, but then slowly changes to something more foreboding. 

            Some elements of cinematography are used in this film to create suspense and intrigue to cause the audience to be anxious and unaware of what will happen next.  The most prominent example of the shot creating suspense for the viewers is in the scene when The Cat Sitter is sleeping and she wakes up to find the cat sitting very close and staring at her.  It is dark and she is sleeping.  The shot only includes The Cat Sitter in the frame which does not allow the audience to see what is beyond the camera or “behind the camera.”  The camera angle is above her, as if someone is watching her.  The combination of these elements instills a sense of the unknown.  This is used just as the scene in Psycho when Detective Arbogast is walking up the stairs inside the house before he is murdered.  The audience is looking at him, unaware of what’s in front of him/“behind the camera” or offscreen space.  This Psycho scene referred to is evident in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvPqSRLO5Ms.  In the scene where the door becomes locked after The Cat Sitter is gardening, the camera focuses on the cat with a close-up, allowing the audience to be suspicious of the cat and the locked door.  This creates another element of suspense, in wondering when the cat will strike again.  The very end of the movie uses a long shot on the characters of The Cat Sitter’s “friend” and the cat.  This long shot is able to incorporate the surrounding elements of the scene which are very normal.  This contrast between the normal setting and the suspicious characters creates more of a sense of intrigue in the audience wondering if those characters really did conspire against The Cat Sitter.

            The combination of mise-en-scene and cinematography used in this film allows the audience to at first relate with the realistic scene of an average, happy day, and then to gradually feel anxious and in suspense.  The mise-en-scene worked more to create the familiar setting of a normal apartment at the beginning, while the use of things such as lighting, camera angle, and camera distance began to change and caused the feeling of suspense and intrigue to set in.     

Psycho Blog - Caroline Downer

Norman Bates is quoted in the film, Psycho by Alfred Hitchcock, saying “I think I may have one of those faces you can’t help believing.”  This is very interesting because it is very true.  Norman Bates is not someone that people would normally think was psycho.  This statement also seems accurate when addressing Marion.  She does not seem like a person who would steal $40,000 from her boss’s client on a whim.  In Psycho situations and particularly people are disguised in order to create such an eerie atmosphere and twisted plot. 

This film is all about disguise.  There is a detective and murders involved, so there is obviously a sense of disguise.  However there is also a sense of disguise that is a little more subtle.  Norman Bates is a well dressed, attractive, young man.  When he first meets Marion, he is very peppy and enthusiastic.  There is absolutely no reason to suspect him of anything strange or out of the ordinary.  He even asks her to dinner at his house, and seems innocent when we hear a voice that sounds like a mother telling him that she can’t eat with them, and he then promptly tells Marion he cannot eat with her in the house.  We see a “momma’s boy” as innocent, loyal, and very trustworthy.  However in the end we find out that this seemingly innocent man’s situation with his mother is actually extremely creepy and psychologically unstable, to say the least.  When there is an extreme close-up on Norman Bates, the camera shows him sweating, stuttering and avoiding eye contact, which gives the detective further reason to question him, although their meeting begins with a calm and casual Norman.    

At the beginning of the movie, the audience sees Marion as a woman with a good job, who is comfortable with her boss and co-worker.  She is dressed nicely and seems to have a routine at work, from which we can infer that the people that work with her have reason to trust her.  However, Marion steals the $40,000 that her boss trusted her with.  Using another extreme close up view, the camera allows the audience to look straight at Marion as she is avoiding the police and looking in her rear-view mirror at the town and life she left behind her.  The audience now sees her as a criminal. 

Camera techniques cause the audience to be unsure of what will happen next in the scene.  The use of backlighting in the scenes where the murders take place combined with the ominous music, add to the suspense.  The backlighting allows the audience to be able to focus on the single character without distractions of many props.  For example when Detective Arbogast is on the stairs trying to find Norman Bates in the house, there is some backlighting and a severe camera angle from above to make it seem as though someone is watching him and he is walking into an extremely undesirable situation, like a trap.  The camera is looking at him and not what’s in front of him, so the audience is unaware of what he is seeing or what is going to occur. 

The main disguise of this film is Norman Bates’s split personality.  The audience does not discover the real truth until the end when the psychiatrist explains that Norman’s mom murdered Marion, although it was physically Norman.  The lighting from the house in the window and the voice that sounds like a woman coming from the house causes everyone to think that Norman’s mom also lives there.  When he carries “his mom” to the cellar to hide her, the audience thinks that she is alive.  However, when Al Chambers says she died a few years back, the audience is confused.

The disguise of Norman’s real life is what makes this plot so intriguing.  Hitchcock’s use of disguise, causes the audience to be in suspense and allows the main characters to be misleading in the initial vibe they give off to others. 

Director's commentary audio file

Silent Film

Silent Film Script

A Deadly Charade

Script

A Deadly Charade

By: Kendrel Dickerson, Caroline Downer, Will Edwards, Allison Emery, Luke Fegenbush, and Taylor Gilliam

As the scene opens, a hand appears in a kitchen, after having poured drinks for a group of people who are playing charades in the living room. Holding an ominous bottle of poison, the hand empties its contents into a cup containing a drink which will soon be served.

Next scene: The aforementioned group plays charades in the living room. The scene is light, happy, and friendly.

Will stands, selecting a folded paper on which is inscribed the act he is soon to perform as part of the game. The paper reads “BEING POISONED,” so he proceeds to act it out, not realizing that he really has been poisoned from drinking the cup offered by his host. His act provides a laugh for all his friends; he falls to the ground. Soon his comrades discover that it’s not an act and that he is dead. The game is over. Deducing that he has been poisoned by someone in the house, Taylor, the host, walks to the door and locks it, announcing,

“No one is allowed to leave until one of you admits to killing him.”

Taylor covers the body of Will with a blanket so as to not have to look at it henceforth. Everyone is frozen with fear until from outside, a thunder crash and lightning flash which causes the electricity in the house to go out and each person to scatter, hoping to find his/her own hiding place in the house.

Caroline runs down to the basement where she hides behind the washer and dryer. She doesn’t know that The Killer has followed. She pulls out her phone to dial 911. The Killer creeps up to Caroline and snatches her phone away. Caroline screams. The Killer draws a knife and attacks Caroline, adding her to the victimized.

Taylor, having heard Caroline’s screaming, runs down the stairs toward the basement to help, but as he reaches the top of the stairs to the dark and dismal basement, The Killer approaches from behind with knife in hand. Taylor is stabbed in his back from behind and falls, arriving to join the dead at the bottom of the stairs into the basement.

Luke emerges on the scene, finding Allison, with the knife, standing in the doorway leading to the deceased below. Luke’s surprise coincides with that of the audience as The Killer’s identity is revealed.

Allison backs away in horror at her now-thwarted plot to kill all present in the house.

Shocked, yet pleased with himself at solving the mystery, and escaping certain death, Luke addresses the murderer,

“I didn’t want to believe it was you. But I must ask:  why?”

Allison defends herself,

“You just don’t know what it’s like to live without love.”

Luke retorts, “Oh, but I do.”

The camera resumes on Luke and Allison in the hallway. Allison, having been enlightened and now hoping to offer penitence over the heartache of Luke, entreats,

“I’m sorry. I didn’t know you felt this way. Maybe it’s not too late.”

Luke, unmoved by her forged regret, firmly replies,

“You had your chance.”

Luke raises his arm, holding a revolver pointed at Allison. Thunder crashes, lightning flashes, and the scene ends.

Director's Commentary

A Deadly Charade

Director's Commentary

We’ll start our review of A Deadly Charade, We start out here with a close up on the bottle with the skulls on it, this insinuates that something bad is about to happen, the close up on the hands that provides a mysteriousness, though we see the hands we don’t know who it is yet. Then we have the titles. Then you kind of get a group shot here, you get a group shot of everybody. Then you get a medium long shot here of the guy acting out charades. You got the titles. Then you get that shot right there of him drinking that cup, then you automatically go back to the beginning and you think about that first shot. You get a close up on the paper right there, from his point of view. You see them acting out charades that’s pretty fun, they’re trying to guess it. This is the interesting part, what everybody thinks is good acting, good charades, this is the mysteriousness, you got to really look at everybody’s face there, and then you see a sense of discovery right here that’s about to occur; someone recognizing something’s wrong, something went wrong. It’s no longer a typical game of charades. Then after the discovery you get, you got the character deciding that they’re going to stay until somebody is decided to be the killer. This is where you really have to start paying attention to the facial expressions, because as a horror movie you want to know who the killer is, you know? You have to look for all the suspicious faces and actions, that’s a little funny right there. We have the titles in between to kind of show the transitions, that’s an editing tool and for certain silent films they’ll have title pages come between. What you saw in the first scene is a bunch of natural light coming in from the windows and now transitioning to the darkness, which provides more mystery. It’s still natural light honestly, it’s just darker. You get the overhead view from a different perspective; right there you kind of get the perspective from the killer. The camera is at the angle looking from the perspective of the killer, so you just see the victim, and this is from the victim’s perspective as the killer is going up the stairs. Right there was an editing tool, you see the guys at the top of the stairs and then it cuts to him at the bottom of the stairs laid out. That was an editing tool to insinuate that the guy was pushed down the stairs. Here at the end you get the discovery of who the killer is, then the titles again of course. So, you figure out who the killer is here and normally you would think, well, the killer comes in to contact with an innocent person so that person must die or join forces, then it kind of transitions into you know, somebody, to the innocent person taking over; becoming the killer himself. Taking matters into his own hand and then at the end you have the credits. That’s about it, that’s where it ends. That was A Deadly Charade.

Nights of Cabiria

            Cabiria, a film made in 1956, displays the struggles of a woman hoping to find happiness and love from a man. She makes a living by prostituting, and every man she comes in contact with takes advantage of her vulnerability. Giorgio, Alberto, and Oscar all hurt Cabiria in multiple ways, even though she gives them everything and tries to gain their acceptance. The pattern of her heartache and anger is a continuous reoccurrence in the film, and makes viewers believe that she will have a hard time finding happiness. In the last scene of the film, Cabiria has a tear running down her face and walks off alone, but is soon met by a band of musicians. At that moment she builds a smile upon her face, even after all of the anguish she faces throughout the film. I believe that at that moment, Cabiria realizes that she does not need a man to make her feel like she is not alone. Cabiria changes herself and does not rely on others to change her. Her smile is lifted from behind her tears because she feels the joy surrounding her, and I think she realizes that there is no use in crying over someone who did not deserve her happiness in the first place.

            All of the male characters in the film pursue something in Cabiria that she is not searching for herself. They all either want money or lust, while she wants love and happiness. Cabiria carries herself through the streets of Rome with high hopes, but always manages to get caught in an act of deceit and heartache. The first man who appears in the film is Giorgio, who pushes her into a pond for 40,000 lira. Her rage and anger is casted towards everyone, even those who save her life.  Soon thereafter she is dancing with her prostitute friends and having a good time. We never get to understand the real Cabiria because all of her emotions seem as though they are exaggerated. She cannot understand why someone who she loves would try to drown her, but likewise she allows people to do pretty much whatever they want with her. It is hard to understand as a viewer where her happiness comes from, and I also think Cabiria does not truly know. She knows she wants to find love and she wants something to change, but she is not sure how to put her hopes into action.

            Another man that causes Cabiria’s self-realization at the end of the film is the famous actor Alberto Lazzati. I believe she goes with this man because she hopes something good will come out of their night, but he ends up locking Cabiria up in a bathroom to hide her from his fiancé. She relies on him to make her happy, but he is too caught up in his own lifestyle and luxury to care about a woman like her. It seems like a repetitive scene where Cabiria puts trust into a man with many faults that Cabiria chooses to overlook. Her one hope in life is to be happy and to have someone love her, but she will never be able to reach these goals unless she can be happy and love herself.

            The last contender in Cabiria’s spiral downwards is a man named Oscar. They fall in love and are soon to be married. This could be because Cabiria prayed to the Madonna for something to change, but we soon find out that Oscar was only going to marry her for her money, and also intends to push her off of a cliff. She has been stepped on countless times by the people she surrounds herself with. It is as though none of the things in her life matter if she can’t be happy, but Cabiria has yet to realize that it is the way she is dependent on others for her happiness. Cabiria walks away in tears as the movie is coming to an end. As viewers we want the best for Cabiria, but it seems impossible at this point.

            Cabiria walks alone but suddenly comes across a lively orchestra of people who smile at her and show her friendliness. They dance and sing alongside her, I believe helping her forget all of her past distress. Something very unexpected happens within Cabiria; she looks towards the audience and a grin lightens up across her face. This confused me at first—how could Cabiria be happy after all of the hurt she experienced throughout the film? Nonetheless, her perseverance to find true happiness through scumbags and deceitful liars opened her eyes to what she could have been doing wrong the entire time. These men are not going to change her life around for the better. Even though Cabiria is now alone, she is now surrounded by warmth, delight, and a true love for herself. If Cabiria had never experienced the hurt she did throughout the film, she would not have been able to hope for something better and be optimistic about her life. By people hurting her, she comes to the conclusion that the only person she can rely on is herself.

-Allison Emery 

At the time of The Searchers release racism was a hot issue. The Brown v. Board of education decision was only two years old and to a generation who criticized Rock ‘n Roll music by calling it “too black”, treating Native Americans as equals was virtually unheard of. It was in this setting that John Ford released The Searchers, starring John Wayne as the wildly and unapologetically racist Ethan Edwards. Although a large number of western plots revolved around the conflict between western settlers and Native Americans, at that time few dealt with the issue the way Ford did in The Searchers.

            Ethan’s harsh attitude towards Native Americans was evident from the very start of the film. His dismay at Martin Pawley’s being 1/8 Cherokee was clear and even went to the extent of him refusing to let Martin call him “Uncle”. His ruthlessness is clear in one scene when we witness several clearly traumatized ex-Comanche prisoners. One man remarks “It’s hard to believe they’re white.” to which Ethan responds, “They’re not white anymore, they’re Comanche.” This racism even goes so far as to motivate him to attempt to kill Debbie after it is clear she has “gone Indian”. Furthermore he takes evident pleasure in the killing of Comanche, even shooting the coins off of a dead Indians eyes so that he forced to wander the spirit land.

            To this point, Ethan is clearly well-versed in Comanche culture, even knowing their language. This becomes extremely telling in his encounter with Scar. After years of tracking they come face to face and show evident displeasure at each of them knowing the others language. More surprising is the revelation that in addition to language, Scar and Ethan also share a similar motivation for killing. Scar reveals that his impetus for killing white men comes from the fact that they took three of his son’s lives.

            Seldom in the film industry of the time were Native Americans even humanized enough to speak a commonly understood language. It was surprising that Ford drew such attention to the plight of the Indians when so many films treated them as heartless savages. He even took the care to include their children in the film when most other films choose to glaze over this detail.

            Through Ethan’s growth from hardened racist to someone who accepts Debbie after she allegedly was converted to Comanche after living with some long and finally to walking off into the sunset we question whether he is the real protagonist or if the Comanche are really the bad guys.

            Although The Searchers is a long way off from Dances With Wolves, it did send a strong message concerning racism in a time where this message was much needed. In this way it was revolutionary in addition to being entertaining and using pioneering panoramic camerawork that exposed the rugged beauty of America’s Midwest. 

Marshall Fegenbush

Sunset Boulevard -The way the story was told-

-The way the story was told-

In the 1950 film Sunset Boulevard, the black and white film presents a variety of methods that make it unique in its story telling. A few of the methods used are, the use of flashback, use of narration, and an actual character in the movie telling the story. These factors made for a lot of suspense, an easy way to follow the story through story telling, and it also provided a sense of discovery. I will explain why all of these things enhance the value of the story and adds something new to the way a movie is presented.

The use of narration in this story is key; you can tell that there is importance to the guy who is narrating but you are unaware until his role and true identity is revealed toward the end. Narration is a style in which a story can be presented I am for this style and in this case it sets the tone of each scene. Joe Gillis’s narration did certain things like revealing how he felt about a certain thing that happened; at times it even revealed what he was thinking in a specific scene. This adds information to a scene that we would not regularly get without narration, or in other words we would have to assume.

The other and maybe most interesting thing about the narration and story telling method is that the narrator was an actual character in the main storyline that becomes identifiable. Usually in a movie or story a narrator is a character that is not connected to the main plot maybe someone who is telling a story from a distant perspective or as a minor role in the main story. This case, Gillis was the main character and without us actually knowing it he was telling his side of the story the whole movie. This is not something that we are usually accustomed to with movies that have narrators.

One of the most interesting things that happen in this story is provided mainly because the narration being given by the main character. We discover that the initial image in the beginning of the movie is actually the narrator himself. At the beginning the narrator addresses this image but we don’t actually know, or have the idea that it may be him until more than half way through the film. I feel because discovery is one of the things we look forward to most as an audience it enhances the discovery when you discover something about someone you are more connected to, for example Mr. Gillis. He connects with you through telling you the story and then we find out that he is the dead image at the beginning.

Another tool used as a method of story telling is the flashback that we have at the start of the movie. This makes you more attentive of the story, because as the audience you want to discover why and how this came about.  So with the added anticipation you are on the edge until you can get back to the flashback point.

The method of story telling can enhance a story in so many ways, some of which I described. Sunset Boulevard used a method that enhanced the value of the story.

-Kendrel Dickerson

Rashomon

                                  The Double-edged Dagger:  The Two Faces of Humanity

                Can you trust another human being? Even if they passionately plead their case before you and fervently claim innocence, can they be believed? These are the questions posed by the 1950 film, Rashomon, directed by Akira Kurosawa. In this monumental piece of Japanese art, the people, props, and plot paint the picture of one of life’s most intriguing, yet perplexing mysteries. Viewers throughout the world have observed this brilliant story and by its end, drawn the conclusion that humans, by nature are victims of just that, their own nature. The story of Rashomon illustrates the vacancy in the human heart of the needs and interest of others. It becomes clear that when viewers reflect on the self, each person, no matter how moral or humanly, is most concerned with his or her own wants and needs. Perhaps most convicting is the truth as demonstrated here in the film that even the best people tend to be willing to, by any means necessary, protect the self, even if it means stabbing another in the back.

            Kurosawa knew exactly the kind of message he wanted to relay to his viewers when he designed this film’s direction. From the opening scene with the confounded woodcutter who has been contemplating all he has witnessed, to the end scene when the priest’s faith in humanity is wrecked, then apprehensively restored, each scene is purposeful, meaning to echo the theme that mankind is primarily interested in looking out for his own desires no matter how pure his intentions appear. Analysis of the film has convinced me that the presence of the dagger is deliberate and quite representative of the double-sided nature of humanity. Initially, the dagger is a means of weaponry, or defending the woman. Later it is revealed just how self-seeking the woman is, so it is appropriate that the dagger remains present in the story even after her exit. The dagger is a fierce aggressor, used for protection, but ultimately, used in the mix of carrying out a monstrous couple of crimes. Later, the dagger is the means by which the audience, along with the priest, learns the truth that the woodcutter fooled the priest and everyone involved by pleading his own innocence. In this scene, it is disclosed that he stole the dagger.

            The director, I believe, hinted at the idea of the perpetual guilt and evil inside humanity from fairly early on, with the prevalent maniacal laughter in many of the characters. This, along with the inconsistencies of each character’s story, amplifies the viewer’s already reluctance to know each character, while further solidifying the belief that each one is nearly crazy and not to be trusted. The dagger in this film represents humanity. Humans are, at the most foundational level, concerned only with the protection and preservation of self. Each man and woman is only interested in his or her own good; worrying about anyone or anything outside of self is of secondary importance, and quite unnatural. The first side of the dagger, or nature of a human, is evil and must be controlled, or it will dominate the man it inhabits. It is only with suppression of one’s selfishness that he or she will be able to vanquish the evil side of the dagger, beginning to see the needs of others and attempt to minister to them. If one thing is for sure, though, it is that it takes great work and effort to suppress one’s selfishness. The priest is right to question the intentions and morality of humanity. The truth is that every man, like the dagger, is two-sided. One side is not to be trusted, and the other, in need of great help.

-Taylor Gilliam

Caroline Downer - The Gold Rush

                                                                     

After watching and discussing The Gold Rush, our group has agreed that Charlie Chaplin mastered the art of silent film making.  Charlie Chaplin was not only the main character in this silent, black and white film produced in 1925, but it was written and produced by him as well.

While a silent film can include music and captions to help guide the plot, most of the audience’s interpretation comes from the actors and props.  Our group believes that Chaplin does a perfect job of keeping the viewers focused without the use of words spoken.  Instead of words, Chaplin uses dramatic facial expressions, body language, and hand gestures.  These physical aspects allow us to understand feelings, emotions, and relationships without hearing dialogue.  The Lone Prospector’s face tells us exactly how he is feeling about Georgia at the moment, just by the exaggerated way he looks at her.  Another example of Chaplin’s silent brilliance is the dinner scene when he entertains the women and the audience with his dance “Oceana Roll” dinner performance.  Our whole class was laughing and he didn’t speak a word. 

The slapstick and irony of the film is also enhanced by the silence, evident in the caption that reads “Speech, speech!”  However, the audience knows they would not be able to hear any sort of speech.  This silence allows our attention to be focused on the props.  Chaplin carefully selects props to be in each scene.  These various props potentially foreshadow future events.  For example, the paper compass allows us to infer that Chaplin is ill prepared for his gold search and he is lost from the very beginning of the film.

Although Chaplin’s priority in Alaska is striking gold, we are also able to follow an entire unexpected love story, on the side, between The Lone Prospector and Georgia without voices to lead us.  Chaplin is able to show us how true Georgia’s love for The Lone Prospector is, at the end, with Chaplin’s modest outfit change.  Love is easy to get across with words.  However, taking on more of a challenge, in this silent film Chaplin must present their love through their gestures and facial expression alone.

Chaplin’s use of cross-cutting also displays his brilliance in this film.  He is able to avoid resulting to captions such as “meanwhile.”  Although cross-cutting is not just used in silent films, it is more important it seems in this movie since there are few other hints to show the audience that those two events are happening at the same time.  For example, when the wind is violently blowing the snow around in a storm, the camera goes back and forth from The Lone Prospector to Big Jim McKay and back again showing us that these two events are happening simultaneously.

The music chosen for this movie also acts as a cue for the audience to realize plot movement in a different direction.  Since there are no words, even in the music, we are able to use Chaplin’s choice of music as guidance.   When the music gets loud and speeds up we know that something dramatic is occurring.  For example, the music used in the scene in the cabin with the gun speeds up, presenting almost a circus atmosphere because everywhere Chaplin seems to turn the gun is accidentally pointed at him, even under the table.  The music almost acts the characters’ voice inflections.  Chaplin allows the music to take the place of his words.  In films that aren’t silent, music is important as well, but in The Gold Rush and other silent films, it does not just accompany the action and words, it has a much bigger role. 

In The Gold Rush Charlie Chaplin is able to masterfully incorporate history, a complex plot, and pure entertainment.  A difficult aspect of directing and acting in this movie, we think, is that silence leaves room for interpretation.  Being able to get a point across to audiences as a whole and have them understand the same plot while getting the same message is difficult in a movie that doesn’t allow for dialogue. Overall, we think that Charlie Chaplin shows us that actions do indeed speak louder than words. 

The Maltese Falcon

              The Maltese Falcon is a complex narrative of crime, mystery, and consequence. Samuel Spade, a  detective, becomes involved in a case where he has to get into other people’s business and use human intuition to figure out the many intricate characters in the movie. Throughout the movie, I had a hard time keeping up with who were bad people, who were good people, and all of the different sub plots involved. While almost every story should involve a main plot and a subplot, sometimes a viewer can become confused on where to direct their attention when so many things are happening at once. Crime dramas usually contain different sub plots to help guide the viewer to figure out who the criminal is, but they also keep the viewer guessing and questioning. While watching The Maltese Falcon, the main plot and sub plots seemed to intertwine and there is a hard time trying following every detail that is going on.

              

            The main plot in a film involves the main focus in a story. In The Maltese Falcon, the main plot is the quest to find a statuette of a falcoln that is said to be priceless with expensive jewels and diamonds. Three criminals and a conniving, dangerous woman all want to find this bird and bribe Sam Spade to do all he can to bring it to them. Sam Spade, the protagonist, complicates the main plot because many of his morals and actions do not depict what we believe to be a “good” detective. He is sly and acts as though he is working with the criminals to gain money and the multiple women introduced throughout the movie. I believe that Sam Spade’s motives throw off the main plot at times because he does not have a moral code and confuses viewers on whether or not he is actually working with these criminals to gain status and money, or if he actually wants these criminals prosecuted. Many would believe as a detective he should be working with the police and not befriending the criminals, but he has a different way of figuring out who the one to blame is.

                

              Along with the main plot, there are many different sub plots in the movie that keep us guessing and even throw off our attention and focus on what we believe to be true. The sub plots in a story are less significant events, but they help guide the viewer to the conclusion of the main story. There can be too many sub plots, which takes away the focus of the story and causes misunderstanding. While all of the characters in a story should not be static and never changing, it is sometimes hard to keep up with the many complexities behind who these characters are and what their point is in the sub plot story. The Maltese Falcon seems to provide many sub plots that confuse audiences on where the story is headed. An example of a complex sub plot in The Maltese Falcon is when we find out that Mrs. O’Shaughnessy lied to Sam about her identity, her sister, and Thursby. This confuses the entire plot because the motive behind Thursby’s death and behind Mrs. O’Shaughnessy’s (now Brigid) reason for wanting him dead is altered. Brigid confused me with her many sub plots because the density in her emotions and actions caused me to contradict whether or not she was behind the criminal actions as well. While many of the sub plots eventually lead to an overall conclusion, it is hard to keep up with different activities and reactions that challenge what we first believed.

              

              I believe that the writer of The Maltese Falcon added many intricate details in the story to keep the reader/viewer guessing. This causes mystery and engagement from the audience to see what happens next. While I think this is a good attribute to have in a detective narrative, having too many sub plots and complex characters cause confusion and sloppiness in the way the movie is depicted. Too many things happening at once is difficult to understand because an action could happen in the blink of an eye that was important to the overall main plot.

--Allison Emery

Citizen Kane

            One of the focuses of Citizen Kane is to question how fulfilling the American Dream (and the financial attainment that comes with it) actually is. Charles Foster Kane has achieved everything that can be hoped for in the American dream. He has enough money to build a palace and enough power to start a war. He hoards statues and paintings and builds Xanadu, “the costliest monument a man has ever built to himself.” In the end, however, he is alone inside Xanadu among his possessions and, on his deathbed, it is a childhood memory to which he turns.

            Orson Welles communicates the theme of the hollowness of the American dream through the camera shots he chooses, the design of the sets, and through intricacies of the plot. Many times the camera pans over the countless crates of the statues and paintings Kane has purchased. You see that many are still packed in crates and haven’t even been touched. Their sheer number and abandoned state show how much they really matter to Kane. This shows how Kane collects people. He doesn’t really have a mutual relationship with others, rather he wants to know that others love him.

Shots that show the distance between Kane and others show how he is withdrawing from the other characters. This happens several times throughout the movie. One scene shows shots of Kane and his new wife at the dinner table, switching from her face to his until finally, the camera pans back and you see that rather than sitting in close proximity they are now sitting at opposite ends of a large table. In a manner of seconds you the progression of their relationship from a seemingly healthy couple to distant almost strangers is shown. In the scenes near the end of the film the distance between Kane and his second wife is emphasized. In the huge space of Xanadu they have to almost shout at each other to be heard.

At this point Xanadu comes to symbolize how Kane has built a huge, empty shell around himself. The sets used are huge, with warehouse sized rooms and massive statues. All the walls are ornately decorated and carved giving the impression of grandeur. However, most of the space inside the rooms is empty, with the room itself dwarfing the people inside. Kane and Susan look miniscule compared to the rest of the house. When Susan leaves him Kane looks small and lonely wandering Xanadu. It becomes clear that the Kane which he built for the public eye, with grandiose speeches, opera houses, chains of newspapers and radio stations, and a magnificent palace, is a façade. The real Charles Foster Kane is lost somewhere inside the cold stone walls. This point was driven home by the shot of Kane walking through the parallel mirrors, revealing his likeness copied endlessly. Finally, on his deathbed it is not his wives or newspapers or vast amounts of wealth that he thinks of, but the memory of a childhood toy.

Luke Fegenbush