BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD by Bryan Tosh

Beasts of the Southern Wild is the Sundance Film Festival darling of the year. An emotional story told through the eyes of a little southern Louisiana girl named Hushpuppy, incredibly played by new comer Quvenzhane Wallis. She lives in a small gulf community outside the safeguard of the levees. She is a curious little thing, as most six year olds are, mostly about all living things, plants, animals.

Although there are other characters in the film, such as her father, Wink (Dwight Henry), the film’s POV is generally via our main character Hushpuppy. We are introduced to how she sees the world both in reality and in part through her imagination. She deals with her wild and unpredictable father as he battles a blood disease and slowly dies in front of her, even though he attempts to hide the disease from Hushpuppy. What Wink doesn’t grasp is how much his daughter already understands about life and death at this tender age.

 

 

As her father struggles with his disease, he also struggles to raise his little girl alone. All he knows is survival out there in the “southern wild”. He takes an approach of the masculine ideal as he teaches his daughter. “No tears” is a lesson she learns from Wink. You’ve got to be tough if you want to survive beyond the levees, which they refer to as “the bathtub”. Hushpuppy wants to be tough for her father and displays evidence thereof throughout the film. She IS a beast of the southern wild. As we see near the end of the film however, some battles can’t be fought or won by just being tough. Wink eventually succumbs to his disease in the climax of the film as father and daughter finally share tears together.

 

As I watched this film I was reminded of another film and book about a child with an active imagination and fantasy, Where The Wild Things Are. I think themes of freedom, fantasy, family, and belonging - among other themes - are shared between these two movies.

 

 

 

 

Benh Zeitlin's Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012) by Mark Zuiderveld

What a precious and uplifting film this is! Some themes the film explores are mysticism, family, culture and community. What's also important to note is how abrasive modern civilization treats a group of people who choose to live in a forested environment; there are boundaries broken along civil lines. The film incorporates metaphorical imagery (dare I say, poetic) of ancient aurochs (like ancient warthogs?) that come back to life; are they symbolic of the feelings and needs of our young protagonist, Hushpuppy? Zeitlin's film shows us the happiness and joy of a sequestered community faced with conflict from the civilized world, the issues of dealing with disease, and the strength and hope of caring for our loved ones. I can see this film being nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, and possibly winning.

Some important films I was reminded of were David Gordon Green's George Washington (2000), which explores the lifestyle and emotions of a Black community in rural North Carolina, as well as Green's Undertow (2004), with its rural Georgia imagery.

A film like Beasts of the Southern Wild seems so rare that once you watch it, you never forget it.

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012) By Andrew Barrick

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

I found Beasts of the Southern Wild to be a well crafted independent film. High praise to the cast and crew of the film, who came up with a story of finding love and bravery. Interesting, the film struck a chord with me in regards to the all volatile weather that we see in the Gulf of Mexico (ie. Hurricanes Katrina & Isaac). As we have discussed in the War & Cinema class, the film contains elements of memory, between a young Hushpuppy and Wink. Beasts of the Southern Wild also explores the identity of a band of neighbors who join together to survive after the melting of the polar ice caps.

Hurt Locker (2008) by Zachary vanBuuren

Title/Year; The Hurt Locker, 2008


Director/Birth Country/Year Born; Kathryn Bigelow/U.S./1951


Budget; 15 million


Gross; 49 million

Synopsis;  The Hurt Locker is a story of a bomb disposal unit during the Iraq conflict in 2004. Jeremy Renner plays Sergeant First Class William James who replaces the previous team leader after an unfortunate death that occurs within the beginning of the film. James joins Anthony Mackie as Sergeant J. T. Sanborn and Brian Geraghty as Specialist Owen Eldridge. Stanborn and Eldridge are initially shocked at James's approach to bomb disposal, which could be seen as care-free and impulsive, a huge change from the methodical and routine methods that are established in the first few scenes. James asserts his leadership by continuing his reckless behavior and putting himself into dire situations, much to the complaints of his team, which struggles to support him. James drinks ans smokes heavily, and bonds with his unit by getting into a drunken punching brawl with them. James befriends an Iraqi boy who sells DVDs, and starts a recognizable pattern of decent into madness when he discovers an insurgents hideout and mistakes a corpse bomb for the DVD vendor. James sneaks out of the military base to try to track down the responsible party for the boy's death. He unveils he has a wife and son that he can not face or speak to even when he attempts to call them and has them on the line. His neuroses manifests into one of his unit partners being overcome when he orders than to split up while they are following a lead without proper support. This ends with James shooting one of his companions in the leg while shooting his captors. 
The film continues as James is sent home as his active tour is finished. James return to his wife and child, and is underwhelmed with the monotony of civilian life. James tells his wife that his specialty is desperately needed in Iraq so he can return to the combat zone that he has grown so accustomed to.  

Narrative and Visual Keywords;  Stark, realistic, unfiltered, 


Characterization/ Dialogue; The characters have brief moments of heartfelt dialogue with each other. Most of the conversation is crude and/or military dialogue.


Camera/lighting/editing technique; Handheld shakeycam, natural light, 


 Political/ Social Commentary The Hurt Locker is one of the few war films that does not show a pro/anti war bias. The aim of the film is to portray the brutality of the lives of the soldiers without a particular political spin. 


Historical Relevance/ Recognition; Veterans have critiqued The Hurt Locker as being an unrealistic portrayal of how the EOD unit would function. There has been praise for an accurate representation of battle weary soldiers being overwhelmed at returning to civilian life. 


Notable Collaboration 


Random fact, Etc. The Hurt Locker is one of the only war films with a female director. 

P.O.V. The Hurt Locker is first from the viewpoint of the entirety of the bomb disposal unit. As James becomes more reckless in his operations the P.O.V. switches to solely him. 

Identity, The film is very character driven, even though it makes a solid claim to be a hyper-realistic war film. Because it attempts to place the viewer alongside the soldiers, it rarely shows the soldiers complaining about the situation as well as a major plot point of the film is the addictive qualities of a military lifestyle. 

Morality.  The soldiers are never shown as evil. The enemy is mostly faceless except one scene where a camp psychiatrist decides to join the bomb squad in attempt to better know the trials of what they are faced with. As the doctor attempts to kindly reason with a group of Iraqis, it is soon revealed that they were "the enemy" and placed an improvised explosive device while maintaining a kind face. 

Memory. Because The Hurt Locker was released a short time after the war that it portrays, it has had a sizable impact on veterans from that battle. It film tries top be very realistic as went as far as to hire Iraqi extras to be on the set in Morocco to add to the sense of authenticity. Veterans and soldiers have have reportedly had a great deal of trouble watching the film because of it's hyper-realistic scenery and populace. The goal of Director _____ was to make the films setting as realistic as possible, and it appears she succeeded. 

Tears of the Sun(2003) by Kerry Kutzer

Title/Year:  Tears of the Sun/2003

Director/Birth Country/Year Born:  Antoine Fuqua/U.S.A./1966

Budget:  $70,000,000

Gross:  $86,468,162 (Worldwide)

Synopsis:  A U.S. Navy SEAL team is sent into the war-torn jungles of Nigeria to extract an American doctor who refuses to come with them unless they rescue 70 refugees as well.

Narrative and Visual Key Words:  jungle, war, religion, masculine, duty, honor, brotherhood, leadership, rebellion, exodus, tragedy, sacrifice, hero

Camera/Lighting/Editing Technique:  There are quite a few crane shots in the film, typically used to reveal an imminent threat or grotesque sight.  As this really a “road trip” kind of film, there are many wide open helicopter shots thrown in to truly show off the vast scenery.  Also, for a war film, there was a lack of slow motion.

Political/Social Commentary:  This film, released in 2003, was riding the wave of what we called in class “humanitarian war”.  A few years removed from Black Hawk Down, the war still somewhat new, Tears of the Sun presents us with a group of American military men aiding a defenseless group of Christian refugees as they flee from a marauding rebel force that are part of a radical “other” religion.

Historical Relevance/Recognition:  Despite having a name like Bruce Willis attached to the project, Tears of the Sun was not a very big success at the box office and was passed over by critics.  The film was nominated for only 2 awards. The Black Reel awards nominated Antoine Fuqua for best director and the Teen Choice Awards nominated Monica Bellucci for breakout star.  Neither won their nominations.

Notable Collaboration:  Tensions between director Antoine Fuqua and Bruce Willis emerged soon after principle photography began, ending with each vowing never to work with the other again.

Random Fact, Etc.:  The script for this film was originally considered to be turned into Die Hard 4.

POV:  This film follows a group of Navy SEALs but our focus, our lens, is that of LT. Waters who is played by Bruce Willis.  We stay with him throughout the entirety of the film and see how the events in the film change him fundamentally.  The rebel force barely speaks a word in the film and are never given a real motivation for what they are doing other than religious differences.  Every time we see the rebels, they are doing terrible, horrific acts.  On the other hand, LT. Waters sees the faces of the innocent, defenseless refugees he is protecting and forms somewhat of a bond with them, as do we the audience.

Identity:  The identity of LT. Waters is very much so flipped on its head in this film.  As the film opens, LT. Waters is a gruff, veteran leader with only one thing in mind and that is completing the mission and getting his men home safe.  His mission is to bring home an American doctor.  The problem is, is that she refuses to go unless all the people she is caring for come with her.  Knowing he has direct orders for only the doctor.  He lies to her and tells her that he will take the refugees as well.  At the last second he scoops her up in a helicopter and leaves the other 70 refugees stranded in the jungle.  At this point we identify him as cold, callous and calculated.  Just another mission.  It is when the helicopter flies over a mission that has been massacred by the rebels that we see a hint of emotion, of guilt in Waters.  He orders the choppers to turn around and vows that he will get the refugees out of the country safety.  We see what happens to these people if “we” don’t act.

Morality:  As you can probably assume by now, morality is a central theme in this film.  It is a classic good vs. evil tale with little to no grey area.  The SEAL team must walk a fine line between orders and what they know is right.  This film goes out of its way to tell us what the right choice is.  The SEAL team has to protect these people or no one else will.  It all comes back to the idea of war as a humanitarian act.  The moral statement this film makes is that those who have the ability to act, must act.

Memory:  While this film was based on a book about a Canadian operation in Colombia, all the names and locations have been changed.  The conflict is, although inspired by real world conflicts, a fictional one.  This film does not really memorialize an event rather it feels more like a promotion piece for SEALs, Christian morals, the United States, and Bruce Willis.

Sources:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314353/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0298807/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314353/trivia

Three Kings by Kevin Fisk

Title/Year: Three Kings/1999

Director/Birth Country/Year Born:  David O. Russell/US/1958

Budget:  $48 Million (USD)

Gross:  $60,652,036 (USD)

Synopsis:  Tipped by a map found hidden on an Iraqi soldier, four soldiers are determined to steal a huge deposit of gold hidden in an desert bunker.  On their way through the desert, they meet resistance from Saddam Hussein's army, and rise up as heroes to the refugees of the region.

Narrative and Visual Key Words:  Gulf War, Saddam Husein, 

gold, Iraqi, Anti war.

Camera/Lighting/Editing Technique:  The entire movie had a bleached out, dusty feel.  Many of the images were perfectly over exposed to portray a feeling of burning sunlight.  The internal close ups of bullet wounds was a nice touch.

Political/Social Commentary:  In regards to war, this film shows a fierce image of humanity.  Soldiers abandoning their primary objectives to aid the helpless refugees of Iraq.  The soldiers supplied enough anti war sentiment to have an ultra subjective feel in regards to the inability to help the citizens of Iraq after the war has ended.

Historical Relevance/Recognition:  It is really more of an alternate reality rather than a realistic portrayal of history.  However the time was well researched in regard to costuming, sets, and props.

Notable Collaboration:  According to Clooney,  he and Russell got into a physical altercation during the climax of the film.  Clooney claims that Russell threw an extra to the ground.

Random Fact, Etc.: Sayed Moustafa Al-Qazwini, who plays an Iraqi defector who sells Maj. Gates stolen cars from Kuwait, Was in real life tortured and kicked in the eye by Saddam Hussein's security forces, blinding him i that eye.  Like many advisers and extras, he was an actual refugee.

POV:  There are a few points of view presented in this film.  The main point of view is from Mark Wahlberg's character, Barlow's perspective.  Barlow generally agrees with George Bush's policies, but is frustrated by the army's inability to help those in need.  Another important point of view presented was the field reporter Adriana Cruz.  Her desire to capture award winning footage, and desensitized view of violence show the selfishness of the media during war time.

Identity:  The movie is clearly anti-war with it's every bullet counts attitude.  The camera takes us inside a bullet wound to show the stomach cavity filling up with bile.  George Clooney, the leader of the group, hammers home a point more than once.  "No shooting" is the common verbage used befor entering any hairy situation.

Morality:  The American soldiers all have a high sense of morality.  They are reservists from humble backgrounds back home, who are "looking for action" until the real firefights begin.  The soldiers had no intention of helping the Iraqi citizens with their revolt, until they see a mother get murdered in front of her family.

Memory:  This film seems to remember Operation Desert storm the same way many Americans viewed the war: with a lot of confusion about the US foreign policy regarding a "free Iraq".  The first dialogue in the film is Barlow asking a fellow soldier, "are we shooting"?  The Americans and Iraqis have signed a cease fire treaty, yet the Iraqi people are still under the assumption that the Americans are there to help them. 

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kings_%281999_film%29

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120188/

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19991004/REVIEWS/910040306/1023

M*A*S*H*(1970) by Kerry Kutzer

Title/Year: M*A*S*H*/1970
Director/Birth Country/Year Born: Robert Altman/U.S.A./1925
Budget: $3,500,000
Gross: $73,200,000  
Synopsis: Captain “Hawkeye” Pierce and the rest of the men and women of 4077 MASH unit try to keep things light in the midst of war and brutality during the conflict in Korea.

Narrative and Visual Keywords: war, satire, comedy, brutality, rebelliousness, anti-establishment, misogynist

Camera/lighting/editing technique:

Political/ Social Commentary: While the film clearly pokes fun at the military and the ones who run it, I feel that the film was truly a commentary about what was happening in Hollywood at the time.  In my opinion, this film is depicting the indie new wave filmmakers and their struggle with the Hollywood establishment.

Historical Relevance/ Recognition: The overall consensus with this film is that it was going to be beat out by another satirical war film coming out at the same time based on the book Catch 22.  MASH in the end prevailed over Catch 22 leading director Robert Altman to display a banner in his office that read, “Caught 22”.  The film won 1 out of the 5 Academy Awards it was nominated for, winning best original screenplay.  The film spawned one of the most successful and longest running television series in history.

Notable Collaboration: Robert Altman cast so many unknowns in the movie that after one or two known actors, the cast credits all say "Introducing"

1. Is the soldier/veteran depicted as being in control of his destiny? Give examples.
  This one is a hard question to answer for me.  I believe that it is due to the fact that this film has a very strange narrative structure of the film.  The film is a collection of isolated “sketches” tied together by a very loose plot.  When looking at the film though, I guess I would have to say that the soldier in this film is not in control of their destiny.  There are many scenes where the main characters rebel against their superiors, such as in the opening when Hawkeye steals the jeep or when Hawkeye and Trapper take on the M.P.’s at the hospital in Japan.  In the grand scheme of things though, the film portrays the soldier as simply stuck in this nasty situation called a war.  The soldier simply has to find a way to get through it with his/her sanity.
2. What political sub-text, or overt theme is the film exploring?
  As I stated above, the overt theme of the film is obviously a satirical review of the ridiculousness of war and how the men and women fighting them manage to keep their sanity.  Underneath it all though, I see this film as a depiction of what was happening in the independent film wave that was immerging during the 60’s and 70’s.  For me at least, the parallels are very clear.  With the new wave of indie filmmakers in this era, we see new, fresh faces that are trying to tackle cinema in different ways.  They are still attempting to entertain & educate, but they are doing it their own way.  With that said, in order for these films to see the masses, these indie filmmakers still had to play ball with the distributors.  For them it was a careful balance between artistic vision and exposure.  Now when we look at M*A*S*H*, we see a very similar idea.  Very talented surgeons, trying to do their job but on their terms, in their own way, all the while having to butt heads and work around the system that they are confined to.
3. How are masculinity and patriarchy displayed through the main character(s) -- broken and dissociated or reinstated and productive. Please give examples 

M*A*S*H* walks a fine line when it comes to its depiction of masculinity and patriarchy.  On one hand we see talented young men and women doing what they do best, saving lives.  On the other though, we are presented with complete ineptitude.  A prime example of this would be the Colonel who commands the unit.  He is always three steps behind his assistant Radar.  The Colonel spends more time tying flies in his tent than actually running anything.  In fact, every encounter we have with a character that represents the classic masculine ideal in the film, that character ends up “losing” in some way.   Maj. Burns is the wise, god fearing, intellectual surgeon in the unit.  After his sex act with Maj. O’Houlihan is broadcast over the camp’s P.A. system, he attacks Hawkeye.  Instead of the perpetrators of the broadcast being punished, it is Burns that is taken away in a strait jacket.   Later in the film we see the strong General, being fooled in a game of football against the ragtag MASH unit.  It is depictions like these that have me leaning more towards the display of masculinity as more broken and dissociated.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066026/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066026/awards

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066026/trivia

Inglorious Basterds by Crystal Nehler

Title/Year:  Inglorious Basterds/2009

Director/Birth Country/Year Born:  Quentin Tarantinto/US/1963

Budget:  $70 Million (USD)

Gross:  $320,389,438 (USD)

Synopsis:  An alternate history of the WW2 era featuring a team of Jewish-American soldiers and a French-Jewish cinema owner, both planning to kill Hitler and other Nazi political leaders.

Narrative and Visual Key Words:  Ultra Violence, Nazi, Swastika, Cinema, Paris

Characterization/ Dialogue:  There are many nationalities portrayed and therefore almost as many accents.  French, German, Southern American, etc.

Camera/Lighting/Editing Technique:  POV shots, Muted Colors, Crane Shots, Shots that Move Between Rooms

Political/Social Commentary:  A fantastical fever dream using the WW2 setting as a base for an almost Jewsploitation Movie.

Historical Relevance/Recognition:  It is really more of an alternate reality rather than a realistic portrayal of history.  However the time was well researched in regard to costuming, sets, and props.

Notable Collaboration:  Sally Menke edited Inglorious Basterds.  She edited all of Tarantino's films until her untimely death.

Random Fact, Etc.:  Originally Tarantino wanted Leonardo DiCaprio to play villainous Hans Landa.  Luckily he decided he wanted to have an older German actor play the role and gave it to the amazing Cristoph Waltz instead.

POV:  There is no "main character" per se.  However the main thrusts of the movie are maintained by Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), who is accompanied by The Basterds, and Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) the French-Jewish cinema owner.

Identity:  This movie is all about the fantasy of being a powerful Jew in WW2 Europe and taking revenge on their Nazi oppressors.  

Morality:  The ultra violent Basterds can always be forgiven mainly because of their targets.  Nazi's are almost universally reviled so it makes the deaths they meet more fulfilling than appalling. 

Memory:  This film isn't true to history at all (The early assassination of Hitler anyone?), but it is a way of dealing with negative residual feelings surrounding the Nazi movement.  Who doesn't love seeing the Nazis get brutalized?

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Tarantino

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361748/

Lawrence of Arabia - Jake Lyon

Title/Year: Lawrence of Arabia, 1962
Director/DOB: David Lean, U.K., 1908
Budget: $15,000,000
Gross: $70,000,000
Synopsis: The story starts in 1935 when Lawrence is killed in a motorcycle accident. At his funeral, reporters try to solicit information about his life. Lawrence was stationed in Cairo as a British intelligence officer during World War One. On a mission to assess the progress of local tribes revolting against the Turks, Lawrence jumps rank, impressing a prince and convinces him to make a surprise attack on Aqaba. The attack is successful and Lawrence wins the respect of local tribes as a great warrior/leader. During the mission, in order to keep the peace between the tribes, Lawrence executes a tribesman for his role in a blood feud. During his return to Cairo, his commanding officer dies by getting trapped in quicksand. Lawrence is promoted to major and given money and weapons to help the Arabs. He becomes disturbed and admits he enjoys killing. Lawrence becomes world famous while launching a guerilla war on the Turks. On a re con mission, Lawrence is captured and tortured, then released. It is so traumatized by the incident that he abandons his military ambitions and insists he is just a man. The British general convinces him to take one more mission, an attack on Damascus. Lawrence recruits an army of mercenaries and proceeds with the attack. They ravage to city, taking no prisoners. Lawrence participates in massive bloodshed. Afterward, Lawrence is tormented by what he has seen and done. He receives a promotion and is sent back to England as a broken down, tortured sole.
Key Words: Arabia, desert warfare, arab tribes, civil war, execution, blood shed
Character Arc: Lawrence seems to be a very promising young officer. Smart, strong, and a keen sense of military strategy, Lawrence is believed to be a hero. Through out his exploits though, he experiences the worst side of humanity over and over. After participating in an execution, he feels his blood lust and it scares him. He is torn between his warrior instincts and compassion for his fellow man. The more blood he sheds the deeper his psychological stress goes. By the end, he is a beat up, tormented soldier who wants nothing more than a normal life.
Social/Political Commentary: The conquest for the middle east is the oldest war story in history and is still being written today. Lawrence of Arabia showed how intelligence tactics and bargaining with local tribes are used to advance the "civilized world's" agenda. Lawrence is a middle man, between the British military and the local tribes. This practice is still done today through out the world by intelligence agencies from many countries.

The Pianist (2002) by Noelle Henderson

Title/Year: The Pianist, 2002

Director/Birth Country/Year Born: Roman Polanski, France, b. 1933

Budget: $35,000,000 (estimated)

Gross: $120,072,577 (worldwide)

Synopsis: Wladyslaw Szpilman (Adrien Brody) is a famous Polish pianist, who is forced to fight for his survival after the Nazis overtook Warsaw during WWII.  After he is separated from his family, he escapes the labor camp and is left to his own devices to hide from the Germans, until the end of the war.     

Political/Social Commentary: The film portrays the Jews as victims to the Nazis, and tells the story from their point of view.  The Jews’ treatment by the Nazis is not minimized in any way, and the film is sure to expose the ruthless and barbaric nature of the Nazis during WWII.  However at one point during the movie, there is a German officer represented as humane when he helped Szpilman survive until the end of the war.  This to me was commentary that although Nazis did horrific things, there were ones that were still human and didn’t want to have to follow through with their orders.  

Narrative and Visual Keywords: WWII, Nazis, Jews, The Holocaust, poverty, filth, fear, desperation, Poland, Germany, snow, winter, violence, murder, genocide, ghettos, soldiers, death, destruction, separation, grief, hopelessness, labor camps, concentration camps, starvation, inhumane, piano, musician, impending doom, the Star of David, suffering, anxiety, hiding, guns, blood, ruthless, barbaric, panic, uncertainty, the wall, and pain. 

Camera/Lighting/Editing Technique: Fade ins and outs to show time has passed, cool lighting making the picture have a blue/gray tint, POV shots, extreme wide shots showing him as a lone survivor, establishing shots showing destruction, close ups on facial expressions, close ups on piano playing, slow zooms and pans, and bird’s eye views looking down in the streets.

Main Character/Arc: Szpilman begins as optimistic and in complete denial about the war, until farther into the first act he sees Jews being ruthlessly murdered and caged like animals.  After he is separated from his family, he is hit by the harsh reality of the war and his very low chances of survival.  Throughout the film he becomes gradually more hopeless, and eventually turns into a hollow man operating solely in search of food and shelter.  By the end after coming full circle, he smiles for the first time and begins to cry with tears of both happiness and sorrow.  At this point he seems to begin to become a person again, but his emptiness is still very apparent.   

Notable Collaboration: The screenplay is an adaptation of Wladyslaw Szpilman’s memoir, Death of a City.  Polanski wanted the movie to be as realistic as possible, so each scene that Brody was shown playing the piano is voiced over by recordings performed by Polish classical pianist Janusz Olejniczak. 

Historical Relevance/Recognition: The film won over a dozen Academy Awards and Cesar Awards combined, including the Academy Awards for Best Actor (Adrien Brody) and Roman Polanski for Best Director.  Polanski has a deep connection with the film because he escaped from the Krakow Ghetto when he was a child after his mother was killed.  

Random Fact, Etc: Adrien Brody lost 31 pounds for his role, making him only 130 pounds.  He also got rid of his apartment, car, and didn’t watch TV, so he could better connect with his character through feeling loss.  

P.O.V.

The story is seen from Wladyslaw Szpilman’s point of view, which can be determined through the strong use of P.O.V. shots and because every scene is directly related to him.  The film portrays the Nazis as ruthless murders and the Jews as innocent victims, which naturally allows the audience to take the Jews’ side.  In this situation the Germans are “The Other”, and like in most films the audience sees them as the enemy.  With the exception of one instance, every time there were German soldiers and Jews in the same scene, the soldiers were seen torturing them in some way.  My experience during the movie, was that I felt instant disgust towards the soldiers after they were introduced.  I imagine I would also feel the same disgust if I hadn’t had any prior knowledge about The Holocaust, because the film evoked so much compassion from me through its sounds and images. 

Identity

Szpilman identifies with being Jewish and Polish, but perhaps most deeply with being a pianist.  There is a scene where a German soldier finds him hiding in an abandoned building and the soldier asks him several questions.  Szpilman stands there in silence until he finally says, “I am... I was a pianist.”  This scene is really moving not only because it is the first time a German soldier shows that he has a soul, but also because Szpilman is finally reunited with the piano.  It is apparent while he is playing, that he finally feels some sort of relief after years of pain and suffering.  The piano acts as an outlet for all of his suppressed emotions, and as something that is familiar to him, similar to an old friend from before the invasion.  The movie both begins and ends with him playing the piano, and in both instances he looks the most at peace than at any other point throughout the film.  

Morality

There is very little morality represented in the film, at least when involving the German soldiers.  As previously mentioned, one soldier helps Szpilman hide, which is nothing like what is shown earlier on throughout the film.  The soldier appears to have morals and humanity left within him, and shows that perhaps he doesn’t want to be in the position he is, but is left no choice just like the Jews.  Although he is on the side that is doing all of the evil, he may just be trying to survive like the other side, and do what he can to try to make up for what he has had to do.  This was a refreshing idea to me, because at first I thought that every soldier was evil and got pleasure out of killing innocent people. 

An example that shows morality on the Jewish side, is when Szpilman and his brother turn down the offer of being Jewish soldiers.  Although this would “save” them, they decide they would rather take their chances than participate in the extermination of their people.  This is a very unselfish choice on their part, and says a lot about their strength of character and morals.  

Memory

The movie is definitely memorializing the victims of the Holocaust, and specifically the life of Wladyslaw Szpilman surviving all that he did and being such a talented musician.  Based off of my historical knowledge about WWII, the movie appeared very accurate as far as details such as historical dates, clothing, uniforms, living conditions, practical scenarios, etc. I’m sure not everything was completely accurate, but I know Polanski talked about wanting the movie to be as realistic as possible, and I think he did a great job.  

I don’t feel that there was anything nostalgic about the film, unless of course the viewer is a Nazi and/or was a Nazi soldier who sickly takes pride in the Germans’ part of WWII.  I imagine that for Jewish people and those that are survivors, this movie stirs up a lot of difficult emotions.  However if I were Jewish, I would also be happy to see how strong my people are represented in the film.  

Sources: 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253474/ 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pianist_(2002_film)#Awards_and_nominations 

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9E0DE1DA113CF934A15751C1A9649C8B63 

Inglorious Basterds 2009 by Sungjin In

Title/Year; Inglorious Basterds 2009
Director/Birth Country/Year Born; Quentine Tarantino. 1963
Budget; 70 million

Gross; 321 million (Dec, 2009)

Synopsis; During WWII French is occupied by German Nazis and U.S sends group of Jewish troops to assassinate Hitler. Meanwhile owner of theater Shosanna Dreyfus, with personal motif also caries out plan to assassinate Hitler and other Nazis who came to her theater.

Narrative and Visual Keywords; Dark, violent, revenge, hollocost.

Characterization/ Dialogue; Every character has very strong personality with one common enemy to hate, gathered under Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) with strong Southern accented hillbilly.

Camera/lighting/editing technique; A bit of faded color to give the historical feel to it.
Political/ Social Commentary; Portraits alternative history. Kosher porn.


Historical Relevance/ Recognition; military costumes and weapons were well researched. Plot-wise, it is portrait of alternative history came from question ‘what if?’

Notable Collaboration; Brad Pitt


Random fact, Etc;

            It is spelled Inglorious bast’E’ds

People thinks this is remake of 1978 ‘inglorious bastards’. Although the title of the film was inspired by The Inglorious Bastards (Quel maledetto treno blindato) (1978). While Tarantino is a huge fan of this macaroni combat classic, his Inglourious Basterds has evolved from being a similar men-on-a-mission war film to something very different.

In the scene where the Basterds are in the forest interrogating their Nazi prisoners, one prisoner refuses to give up the Nazi position and basically asks for death. When Raine calls for Sgt Donowitz (Eli Roth) to "execute" the prisoner, Donowitz exits a cave and walks into plain view. When Donowitz is standing at the cave entrance, you can see Raine's shotgun and the words "INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS" carved into it.

Everybody knows what have happened during WWII, and what Nazi did. This is very fancy noir movie with humor. Even the violence in the movie was very intense, still seems to be somewhat acceptable to the audiences, considering the fact that Basterds are a bit hypocritical at saying Nazis are evil, cold blooded killers when they themselves are doing the same things to Nazis. Catharsis is the best part of the movie.

Inglourious Basterds by Christiane Butler

Title/Year: Inglourious Basterds/2009
Director/Birth Country/Year Born: Quentin Terantino/US/1963
Budget: $70 Million
Gross: $320,389,438
Synopsis: A group of Jewish soldiers from the US team up to frighten & kill as many Nazi soldiers as they can, and plot to kill Adolf Hitler among other high ranking Nazi’s. Meanwhile a Jewish girl in hiding as a French owns a cinema & also plots to kill Hitler.
Narrative and Visual Keywords: Scalping, incognito, French cinema
Notable Collaboration:
Random fact, Etc.: The movie doesn’t follow truth, in the end Hitler is killed by one of the Jewish soldiers. Quentin’s highest grossing film yet.

P.O.V.: We see many points of view, most commonly we follow either the Jewish soldiers or the Jewish cinema owner. Occasionally we are shown a glimpse of Hitler in his office.

Morality & Memory: The film is very brutal in it’s treatment of Nazi’s, the Jewish soldiers literally scalp most of them.