Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Inglourious Basterds Zachary Van buuren, Kevin Fisk and Sungjin IN


Film Name
Theme and director’s intention
 "The Inglourious Basterds, as they are known, are a kind of Jewish Dirty Dozen, led by a Gentile, Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), a blunt, jawjutting tough guy from Tennessee (which is where Tarantino is from). In brief, Tarantino has gone past his usual practice of decorating his movies with homages to others. This time, he has pulled the film-archive door shut behind him—there’s hardly a flash of light indicating that the world exists outside the cinema except as the basis of a nutbrain fable." -David Denby, The New Yorker

 "Quentin Tarantino is having what Martin Amis readers might call a "Yellow Dog" moment - something which happens when, following a worrying, mid-to-late period of creative uncertainty, a once dazzlingly exciting artist suddenly and catastrophically belly-flops, to the dismay of his admirers" -Peter Bradshaw, Guardian, UK

"The film is quintessential Quentin, with kick ass women, titles flashing across the screen, and multiple story lines that resolve into one." -Busch

Separate elements and their relationship to the whole
 "The director has also given prominence to a good actor new to American audiences: the Austrian-born Christoph Waltz, who, as Landa, exudes the kind of insinuating menace characteristic of Nazis in old Warner Bros. movies. The role may be a cliché, but Waltz is brilliant in it; he takes an intellectual pleasure in devilry." -David Denby

"There's no doubt that the 52-year-old Waltz - an Austrian-born actor who had been plying his trade on TV until Tarantino plucked him from the ranks - is a real find, and Mélanie Laurent also deserves this leg-up to stardom." -Peter Bradshaw

"Inglourious Basterds is presented in chapters. And each one takes you on a different emotional ride." -Busch

Objective evaluation of the film
"Whether the Basterds are Tarantino’s ideal of an all-American killing team or his parody of one is hard to know. Very little in “Basterds” is meant to be taken straight, but the movie isn’t quite farce, either. It’s lodged in an uneasy nowheresville between counterfactual pop wish fulfillment and trashy exploitation, between exuberant nonsense and cinema scholasticism. In the middle of this crazy narrative, Tarantino pauses to pay his respects, like an unctuous film professor, to the immortals of German cinema. The great G. W. Pabst! Emil Jannings! (They are brought to Paris for the première.) The cinema, it seems, is both innocent and heroic; it creates great art, and it will end the war. The fire is started by the burning of old nitrate-based movies behind the screen." -David Denby

"...carry out a plan to take down the entire Third Reich in one fell swoop...in a cinema." -Busch


Subjective evaluation of the film
 "The film is skillfully made, but it’s too silly to be enjoyed, even as a joke. Tarantino may think that he is doing Jews a favor by launching this revenge fantasy (in the burning theatre, working-class Jewish boys get to pump Hitler and Göring full of lead), but somehow I doubt that the gesture will be appreciated. Tarantino has become an embarrassment: his virtuosity as a maker of images has been overwhelmed by his inanity as an idiot de la cinémathèque." -David Denby

"When I saw Inglourious Basterds at Cannes, my traumatised complaint was that it fails as conventional war movie, as genre spoof, as trash and as pulp. Since then, its defenders have claimed that the point of the film is that it is "kosher porn": an over-the-top revenge fantasy for Jews." -Peter Bradshaw

"I found myself dragged into the story, wrapped up in the tragedy of it..." -Busch

The film’s level of ambition
 “Inglourious Basterds” is not boring, but it’s ridiculous and appallingly insensitive—a Louisville Slugger applied to the head of anyone who has ever taken the Nazis, the war, or the Resistance seriously. Not that Tarantino intends any malice toward such earnest people. The Nazis, for him, are merely available movie tropes—articulate monsters with a talent for sadism. By making the Americans cruel, too, he escapes the customary division of good and evil along national lines, but he escapes any sense of moral accountability as well." -David Denby

"I'm aware that Tarantino's style is not for everyone. And the violence is definitely intense. But I haven't been more entertained by an action flick this year. -Busch

Words you found interesting.
 "idiot de la cinémathèque"  -David Denby

"kosher porn" -Bradshaw

Quintessential, unapologetic,
Relationship to film movements/genres/ relation to other filmmakers’ work.
"Moral callousness has been part of Tarantino’s style in the past. In “Pulp Fiction,” his merry roundelay set among Los Angeles lowlifes, the aggressive acts that the characters commit against one another are so abrupt and extreme that they become funny. The movie’s outrageous panache gave the audience license to enjoy the violence as lawless entertainment. But, in “Basterds,” Tarantino is mucking about with a tragic moment of history. Chaplin and Lubitsch played with Nazis, too, but they worked as farceurs, using comedy to warn of catastrophe; they didn’t carve up Nazis using horror-film flourishes." -David Denby

"it is notionally inspired by a 1970s B-movie called Quel Maledetto Treno Blindato, otherwise The Damned Armoured Train, renamed Inglorious Bastards for its American release." -Peter Bradshaw

"Tarantino takes you from a foreign film style to Kill Bill gallows humor, from film noir to slasher flick" -Busch

Platoon by Kevin Fisk


Title/Year: Platoon, 1986
Director/Birth Country/Year Born: Oliver Stone, USA, 1946

Budget: $6 mil
Gross: $137,963,328 mil
Synopsis: Charlie sheen leads an all star cast in this film about friendship and brotherhood, and the way it evolves though dire circumstance.  When men who hate each other are forced to share a foxhole, relationships change, sometimes for the better or the worse.
Narrative/Visual keywords:Friendship,  Infantry, Questioning patriotism, Burning villages, rape, murder.
Main character/Arc: Charlie Sheen portrays Chris, who drops out of college to pursue a career in the Vietnam infantry.  His pursuit of the glory that comes with war, is unlike the glory that came for his grandfather in WWI and his father in WWII.  At the start of the conflict Chris,  is scared to pull the trigger, but by the end he is a stone cold killer.
Political/Social Commentary: The film was not a generalization of the Vietnam experience, but a rather an extremely personal view into one particular platoon.  If some people fail to see that, there would be a very dangerous generalization painted about all soldiers that served in that conflict.  The substance abuse to the literal raping and pillaging of poor Vietnamese villages,  were some things this platoon went through making this film more relate able to some than others.
Camera/Lighting Techniques: Different points in the film were shot very differently.  Getting to know the characters was an important part in this film, and they all had ample face time.  Especially Chris, who always had a very deep focus on his face.  When the soldiers were hiking through the jungle, lots of tracking shots were used with trees and brush dominating the foreground.  The action sequences were cut together appropriately, fast paced with a multitude of angles. 
Historical recognition/relevance: Won Oscars for best directing (Oliver Stone), editing, picture and sound.  Won golden globes for best director and best supporting actor (Tom Berringer)
Notable collaboration: Tom Berringer and Charlie Sheen also starred together in the comedy classic Major League

Kevin's review:  I found this film more "in your face" than any of the other war films I've screened this term.  Oliver Stone no doubt had his own personal experience in Vietnam, and he did an amazing job of showing the horrors of war on a truly personal level.  The characters were extremely well developed, and the range of personalities in the platoon were shown by there interactions with each other and their environment.  The characters in the film are the most important aspect because of the structure of the film.  The film is essentially plot less.  There is no real goal or objective for the protagonist.  The viewer doesn't really know which direction the platoon is headed and why they are headed in that direction.  The enemy is never really visible.  The film is a chilling reminder of the general confusion and disorientation of the average soldier in the war. 
Firefights would break out of nowhere, killing off characters in the blink of an eye.  Boredom and discomfort turns to terror, back to discomfort.   The unknown lurking in the jungle made the film as intense as a war film gets.

mash 1970 by sungjin in



Title/Year: MASH 1970
Director/Birth Country/Year Born: Robert Altman (1925)
Budget: $3,500,000 (estimated)
Gross: $73,200,000 (USA)
Synopsis: captain, Hawkeye Pierce is reprimanded by another captain, who is in charge of the motor pool," and is told to wait for a driver to take him to his camp. Several men drive up and get off a truck. One of them, Captain Duke Forrest, is going to the same camp, M*A*S*H 4077.

Narrative and Visual Keywords: Korean war, medic, forgotten war, army, surgeon,

Camera/lighting/editing technique: Dark lighting over all even the most of shots were placed outside.

Political/ Social Commentary: Setting was supposed to be during Korean war. But background music is japanese. None of the place seems closed to Korean. No Korean character at all other than Korean local doctor. I dont see any relevece between the movie and historical fact

Historical Relevance/ Recognition: The M*A*S*H TV series lasted three times longer than the actual war it portrayed. The Korean War is often referred to as the 'Forgotten War' and even a hit TV series set in that war did little to lift the war from history's shadow. Many fans mistakenly assume the show was set during the Vietnam War. One day, all that may remain in popular memory is the TV show M*A*S*H. Possibly a mistaken rewrite of history for some veterans and for others, a plausible side-account of what truly happened by the 38th Parallel.

Notable Collaboration: After fall of Japan during WWII, US and Soviet devided Korea in half. North and South. North Korea started war againt South Korea 1950 june 25th. Battles lasted for 3 years. People often mistakes Korean war was over in 1953 but war was never over. They are under 'seize fire'

1. Is the soldier/veteran depicted as being in control of his destiny? Give examples.Not so much. No battle scenes were in it, but wounded soldiers. Wounded soldiers' fate was depended by surgeons so i would definately say, they are not in charge.

2. What political sub-text, or overt theme is the film exploring?i really dont get what they are saying to be honest. coversation goes on but more than one person speaks at same time most of the time. everything is disoriented and does not make any sense at all. specially the part where Hawkeye asking nurse to sleep with dying patient. Also, opening song had lyrics in it saying ' suicide is painless' is the worst.

3. How are masculinity and patriarchy displayed through the main character(s) -- broken and dissociated or reinstated and productive. Please give examples  Every male were acting like kids. pulling pranks like broadcasting intercourse or exposing someone in the shower, calling names. there is no masculiarity


Casualties of War: Bradley Davis
imgres.jpg


Casualties of War/1989
Brian De Palma/September 11, 1940/Newark, New Jersey, USA

Budget-$22,500,000

Gross-18,671,317 (USA)

Synopsis-During the Vietnam war, a girl is taken from her village by five American soldiers. Four of the soldiers rape her, but the fifth refuses. The young girl is killed. The fifth soldier is determined that justice will be done.The film is more about the realities of war, rather than this single event.

Narrative and Visual Keywords-Vietnam war, Vietnam, Village, Rape, Revenge, Flash back.

Characterization/ Dialogue-The troops that have been in country don’t care for the troops that have just come in.The new troops try to keep life the way it was back home, but come to find out that Vietnam is noting like home.

Camera/lighting/editing technique- Long takes to show important the scene is. No wide lens, or zooms. split screen 

 Political/ Social Commentary -The struggle depicted here is between going along with the group or maintaining one's own integrity. Are there rules of war? Are there rules of living? These are the profound questions which underlie the action in this disturbing film.

Historical Relevance/ Recognition- Based on actual events of an incident on hill 192, In 1966 during the Vietnam War. The kidnapped girl ordeal began on the 18th of November and ended the next day with her death on the 19th of November.

Notable Collaboration- Michael J Fox, Sean Penn, John C Reily, John Leguizamo. Ving Rhames

Random fact, Etc-The railroad trestle bridge utilized in the firefight near the end of the film (located in Kanchanaburi, Thailand) is part of the Japanese transportation system as portrayed in the film The Bridge over the river Kwai. This particular bridge was constructed by prisoners of war held captive by the Japanese when Thailand was under Japanese occupation during World War II. 














1. Is the soldier/veteran depicted as being in control of his destiny? 
The soldier is depicted as being in control of his destiny. Throughout the film Eriksson is the one who appears to be thinking with a level head, or have a continuous push of will power. Max Eriksson tried to stay in control even trough the toughest times. Even when everyone he turned to turned him down, and told him that it didn't matter he keep up the fight to bring out the truth.

2. What political sub-text, or overt theme is the film exploring? That no matter the conflict, that human dignity must prevail. War can be a terrible place to find yourself, even in times of hate or pain or both you must be true to man kind.


3. How are masculinity and patriarchy displayed through the main character(s) -- broken and dissociated or reinstated and productive.  
Max Eriksson displays that his masculinity and patriarchy is both reinstated and productive. Dieter displays his authority when Tony states that he will basically kill him if anything is said about the kidnap and rap. Max stating his point of view of how wrong the situation was and saying no to a solder that out ranked him.

MIDTERM ASSIGNMENT


DFV363
Midterm Assignment

“Fleshing out a Review”

For the past five weeks we have been honing observational skills by using the template and also, sharpening critical skills by assessing a film’s relevance to questions regarding its place in a movement. For the midterm assignment, you and a partner will be assigned one particular film, which you will write a professional review for.

Remember you are combining your research to create one article. If you and your partner have conflicting opinions, this is fine – think of a way to articulate them in a comparative non-judgmental way.

You will post your very well articulated review on the blog with image. You can read from the blog when you present your review to class (i.e. reading aloud) and are allowed to screen up to eight minutes of the film. The relevance of the clip you choose is one of the major aspects of this assignment: select a scene that shows us an important theme or character arc. You are required to bring a PHYSICAL copy of your film to class, no streaming clips or youtube. Also-- burned discs often do not play in the Blu-Ray


GRADING CRITERIA:
10 points: Strength and clarity of writing
10 points: Relevance of clip. Well prepared clip selection and format.
10 points: Oral presentation (articulate reading and appropriate response to questions)
10 points: Use of objective and subjective analysis
 
Three tips for success:
  • Each person should write their own review and act as editor for their partner. After you have finished this step, work together to formulate a cohesive piece.
  • Watch the film twice!
  • Take notes AS you watch.


Keep in mind:
*Read “Analysis of the Whole Film,” by Joseph Boggs – this will give you a roadmap (on ecompanion as PDF).
*No fragmentary sentences!
*“You should be able to defend each opinion that is objectively framed with a logical argument, based on or supported by your analysis as a whole.”
(essentially, “it looked dope,” or “she started acting all crazy” does not qualify.)
* Use as many descriptive words as you can.
* It’s ok to relate your film to other work you are familiar with, if you find there is a real connection. It is not necessary to force a connection to other work or historical context if you do not see it.

Here are some questions to use as jumping points:
  1. What is the director’s purpose or primary aim in making the film?
  2. What is the true subject of the film, and what kind of statement, if any does the film make about the subject?
  3. How do the separate elements of the film relate to and contribute to the theme, central purpose, or total effect? (separate elements= story, dramatic structure, symbolism, characterization, conflict, setting, title, irony, cinematography, editing, film type and size, sound effects, dialogue, the musical score, the acting, the film’s overall style)
  4. What is the films “level of ambition”
  5. In terms of the director’s intentions and the film’s level of ambition, how well does the film succeed in what it tries to do? Why does it succeed or fail?
  6. What elements or parts make the strongest contribution to the theme and why? What elements or parts fail to function effectively in carrying out the director’s intentions? Why do they fail?
  7. What were your personal reasons for liking or disliking it? 

Analyzing the Analyzer: in-class exercise Week 5


DFV 363
In-Class Exercise Week 5

“Analyzing the Analyzer”
With your partner, choose a favorite film; anything that you’ve seen recently or know well will work. Find three different reviews written by three different critics. This assignment is an exercise is breaking down the content and style of different reviewers to help prepare you to construct your own professional review. Please choose reviews that are published in major sources ( no ‘rotten tomatoes’) Read the three reviews very carefully, it helps to read it twice and find each critic’s take on the following:


CATEGORIES
Theme and director’s intention
Separate elements and their relationship to the whole
Objective evaluation of the film
Subjective evaluation of the film
The film’s level of ambition
Words you found interesting.
Relationship to film movements/genres/ relation to other filmmakers’ work.




Create a blog post and remember to put both group members' names in the post title.  Include an example (cut and paste is fine as long as you cite) from EACH REVIEW for the category at hand. So each category should have three different quotes. Remember to cite your three reviews in proper format:


My example below (only includes partial examples, yours will have three quotes, one from each critic for every category:

Scott, A.O. “Fasten Your Seatbelts, the Chevy is Taking Off” Rev. of Drive, dir. Nicolas   Winding Refn. The New York Times 15 Sept. 2011

Turan, Kenneth. “Drive” Rev. of Drive, dir. Nicolas Winding Refn. The Los Angeles Times 16 Sept. 2011

Mesh, Aaron. “Solitary Bagman” Rev. of Drive, dir. Nicolas Winding Refn. Willamette Week 14 Sept. 2011



Theme and director’s intention
The virtuosity on display is also the director’s, of course, and that, for better and for worse, is pretty much the point of “Drive,” the coolest movie around and therefore the latest proof that cool is never cool enough.” -Scott

Separate elements and their relationship to the whole
“Impeccably shot by Newton Thomas Sigel, "Drive" always looks dressed to kill.” –Turan

“Making fine use of Los Angeles locations, particularly the lonely downtown streets around the L.A. River, "Drive" has a slick, highly romanticized pastel look calculated to win friends and influence people.” -Turan

Objective evaluation of the film
“When boy meets boy in Drive, homicide is inevitable. But first boy meets girl. The boy is Ryan Gosling, a stunt-car driver with illegal sidelines and a stockpile of toothpicks. The girl is Carey Mulligan, a waitress with a young son (Kaden Leos) and a husband (Oscar Isaac) about to get out of jail. Their courtship is as much an act of protection as desire.”-Mesh

“Coolly played by Gosling, the driver is a monosyllabic loner with a monotone voice, a toothpick in his mouth, and a fondness for a silver racing jacket with a giant yellow scorpion on the back. By day he works in a garage on Reseda Boulevard run by hard luck Shannon ("Breaking Bad's" Bryan Cranston) and does stunt driving for the movies. Once the sun goes down, he drives getaway cars for criminal types.” –Turan

Subjective evaluation of the film

“It's a film in love with both traditional noir mythology and ultra-modern violence, a combination that is not ideal.” –Turan

The film’s level of ambition

“It raises the question, finally, of whether a great movie has to be a moral movie. Is it enough that it is true to its own code? What if that code is ultimately tribal and barbaric?” -Mesh

“For fans of director Refn, known among chaos aficionados for made-in-Europe violent fare like "The Pusher" trilogy and "Bronson," this is bloody business as usual. But the mayhem here so clashes with the high style and traditionalism of the rest of the film that when the bloodletting goes into overdrive, so to speak, it throws you out of the picture, diluting the mood rather than enhancing it.”- Turan

Words/Phrases you found interesting: self-pitying poppycock.

Relationship to film movements/genres/ relation to other filmmakers’ work.

“And I have a sliver of justification: The entire history of noir, stretching back to The Maltese Falcon through Drive’s obvious influences like Walter Hill’s The Driver and Michael Mann’s Thief, is a lot of macho, self-pitying poppycock. That does not diminish the power of those movies. If Drive, a deliberate throwback, belongs in their company, it is because it is unreservedly committed to the decadent masochism of its fantasy.” --Mesh

“His own love of movies can hardly be doubted, and there’s nothing wrong with his taste. He likes the stripped-down highway movies of the 1960s and ’70s — the kind that Quentin Tarantino celebrated in “Death Proof” — and also the atmospheric masculine melancholy associated with Michael Mann. You might also catch a hint of Paul Schrader’s “American Gigolo” and, with respect to the story rather than to the visual style, a whole bunch of Clint Eastwood and Sergio Leone westerns.” - Scott

Taxi Driver (1976) by Noelle Henderson




Title/Year: Taxi Driver, 1976
Director/Birth Country/Year Born: Martin Scorsese, United States (Queens, NY), b. 1942
Budget: $1,300,000 (estimated)
Gross: $28,262,574 (USA)
Synopsis: Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) is an isolated and lonely Vietnam War veteran working as a taxi driver in New York City.  He primarily works in the middle of the night because of his struggle with insomnia, and becomes increasingly enraged and disgusted with the night crawlers of the city.  Travis meets a young prostitute (Jodie Foster) in his cab who is in a rush to get away from her pimp, he fails to save her from him on multiple occasions and becomes increasingly infuriated.  He also becomes obsessed with a woman (Cybill Shepherd) who works for Senator Palantine’s campaign for president, and simultaneously becomes infatuated with the senator.  After Travis gives himself a drastic and rather psychopathic looking mohawk, he sets out to do what his far from sane mind believes are the right things to do.     
Political/Social Commentary: The movie shows the struggles with adjusting to society that soldiers experience, after enduring great trauma and terror overseas in the war.  It portrays soldiers as damaged victims rather than heroic men, and exposes the dark side of war and politics.   
Narrative and Visual Keywords: Vietnam veteran, cabbie, obsession, darkness, psychosis, delusional, guns, loneliness, isolation, insomnia, prostitution, drugs, violence, politics, infatuation, trauma, PTSD, fear, mohawk, blood, vigilante, New York, anger, rejection, anti-social, and troubled.  
Camera/Lighting/Editing Technique: Several dolly shots, extreme close ups especially on his eyes and the cab, very dark lighting with street lights as the primary source of lighting, long slow shots, POV shots of people and objects, OTS shots, voice-over narration.  
Main Character/Arc: Travis becomes increasingly psychotic as the movie progresses.  He transforms from being quiet and rather prudent, into violent and delusional.   
Notable Collaboration: Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese have worked together on several classic movies, such as Goodfellas, Casino, Raging Bull, and Mean Streets.  Writer Paul Schrader has also collaborated with Martin Scorsese on other films, such as Bringing Out the Dead, The Last Temptation of Christ, and Raging Bull.
Historical Relevance/Recognition: It was the 17th highest grossing film of 1976, and was nominated for four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Actor (De Niro).  The movie also received the Palme d’Or at the 1976 Cannes film Festival and the American Film Institute ranked him as the 30th out of 50 top villains of all time.   
Random Fact, Etc: In his card to his parents, he refers to Father’s Day being in July instead of June.  Robert De Niro worked driving a cab for twelve hours a day for a month to prepare for the movie.  Harvey Keitel rehearsed with real life pimps as preparation for the movie.  

Sources:


1. Is the soldier/veteran depicted as being in control of his destiny? Give examples.
No.  Throughout the entire movie Travis struggles with even just basic functioning, primarily with not being able to sleep and not knowing how to interact with people.  The absence of these basic daily activities only added to the psychosis that was developing in his head, and prevented him from having any control of his life, much less his destiny.  For example, when he was trying to explain to Wizard that he was having thoughts that were scaring him, he didn’t even know how to get the words out but it was obvious he was worried and not wanting to act on his urges.  This showed that he was at one point aware of the psychosis that was developing within him, but couldn’t control it on his own without help.  I don’t believe it was that he didn’t want to ask for help, but rather that he wasn’t even capable of doing so.  This hindered social and emotional capacity was most likely directly correlated with his trauma from the war.  


2. What political sub-text, or overt theme is the film exploring?
It’s exploring the mind of a Vietnam vet after the war, and the darkness that took place not only during the war but afterward as well.  There was no pretending anymore that going to war was courageous and the men were all strong and invincible.  The reality was that the war was extremely traumatizing and anyone who didn’t experience it first hand could not come close to fathoming the severity of it.  This finally was seen by the people of the U.S., and they began to protest the war once they understood.  Seeing images on TV and in newspapers of what was actually going on overseas introduced an anti-war wave in society.  The idea Travis got to assassinate the senator also touched on what had been going on in the 60s with the assassinations of MLK and JFK.  As well as showed some of the ignorance politicians have with what war actually means and what the effects are of forcing men into being killed.  I got the feeling that Senator Palantine was a typical politician unaware of the average citizen, and what the men had to go through because they weren’t in a high social class with ways out of being drafted.  


3. How are masculinity and patriarchy displayed through the main character(s) -- broken and dissociated or reinstated and productive. Please give examples
Masculinity is portrayed as broken and dysfunctional.  Travis is completely incapable of talking about his feelings or depression, and is encouraged not to by Wizard.  When Travis tries to confide in him, Wizard blows him off and shows that he is just as incapable of expression as Travis is.  This told me that the masculine feelingless persona that Travis has is not just because of the war, and that the men in society as a whole are not supposed to express vulnerability.  Another example that comes to mind is when Scorsese makes a cameo appearance as a husband, spying on and fantasizing about killing his wife.  This reinforced the idea of a man to be violent and aggressive, rather than emotional and communicative.  It would be interesting to know if that character was a Vietnam vet as well, which would reinforce how masculinity is portrayed with Travis being a vet.