So i'd like to start of saying I'm not a fantasy movie kind of girl- However, i thought this movie was pretty impressive. The story was a little hard to follow at first but it started to make sense a little bit into it. The director also had a way of ending the movie where you HAVE to see the sequels or you just feel completely lost!
I thought the characters in this movie were very interesting. The girl who was an owl just blew my mind. When she started changing i was like no way! I also liked how there was the oppostion with good and evil so ,as the audience, we always want the good to win. The way it ended good wasn't winning which only makes everyone want to see the sequel to see the good succeed. Furthermore, when we found of that the little boy was the son of Aton it was shocking since he wanted that baby dead. It was clear once he figured it out he really wanted to protect him and make sure he didn't get hurt or end up on the bad side. Finally, i was a little confused of the significance of the blonde woman. They were calling her 'the other' but also calling the blonde woman 'the other' so it was throwing me off. I also wasn't clear what the bald man (wearing the black wig) was suppose to do in the room with the blonde woman because he clearly didn't accomplish his goal. I'm assuming that maybe this will be a little more clear in the sequel and i can't wait to see it!
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The Return
So i would like to start off why saying that this is probably my second favorite movie that we've watched so far in this class. I have no idea why it just grabbed me because i was always wondering what was going to happen next. As for the filming i can tell the director was inspired by Tarkovsky simply by his love for natural scenery. It seemed he was always freezing the camera on water dripping, or trees that were just beautiful pieces of nature. Furthermore, i remember a similar scene from a Tarkovsky film with the crosses present in this film as well.
As for the movie itself, I felt as though at the dinner table it was an awkward way for a father to come home. A homecoming should be a celebration but the father was just like "hey" and moved on like he never left which didn't really leave any closure for Ivan. Furthermore, i felt as though the father was trying to do 12 years of fathering in a matter of a week which is just too much for someone Ivan's age to accept. Theres a difference between tough love and near torcher and i felt like he was going beyond tough love. Its hard for children to accept a man telling them what to do when they haven't had it in 12 years. Furthermore, i was upset that we never found out why the father disappeared, or what he was doing on this trip with the phone calls and the hidden box. I wish that would have been explained because that was the only thing that disappointed me about the film.
As for the movie itself, I felt as though at the dinner table it was an awkward way for a father to come home. A homecoming should be a celebration but the father was just like "hey" and moved on like he never left which didn't really leave any closure for Ivan. Furthermore, i felt as though the father was trying to do 12 years of fathering in a matter of a week which is just too much for someone Ivan's age to accept. Theres a difference between tough love and near torcher and i felt like he was going beyond tough love. Its hard for children to accept a man telling them what to do when they haven't had it in 12 years. Furthermore, i was upset that we never found out why the father disappeared, or what he was doing on this trip with the phone calls and the hidden box. I wish that would have been explained because that was the only thing that disappointed me about the film.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Brother
I enjoyed this movie a lot. It was a change of pace from the movies we have been watching, and it was more like something our generation would watch in the United States. I think on our triangle it was less artistic than the previous movies we watched. However, I am not saying that it was poorly filmed I just didn't see many things placed for artistic purposes.
As for the movie itself, i enjoyed many aspects of it. I thought it was interesting that the main character was obsessed with music. He was always commenting on peoples music, and always searching for CDs like it was a comforting thing for him or something. I also enjoyed how (although he was violent about it) he kind of helped people in need. He wanted to hurt the least amount of people while getting the task at hand completed. I felt as though the mob boss was much less intimidating than ones that we may see in American movies. The fact that he's always speaking in proverbs makes him more humorous than dangerous. Finally, i thought it was funny that the older brother (Viktor?) was the one in the end that was sent home to take care of his mother. Their mother said the older brother was someone the younger brother should look up to; however, he was the one in the end that tried to set his brother up and ended up weaping on the ground like a child. In the end it was like they switched roles and the younger brother took over the city and the older brother should look up to him. Overall, this movie was very good.
As for the movie itself, i enjoyed many aspects of it. I thought it was interesting that the main character was obsessed with music. He was always commenting on peoples music, and always searching for CDs like it was a comforting thing for him or something. I also enjoyed how (although he was violent about it) he kind of helped people in need. He wanted to hurt the least amount of people while getting the task at hand completed. I felt as though the mob boss was much less intimidating than ones that we may see in American movies. The fact that he's always speaking in proverbs makes him more humorous than dangerous. Finally, i thought it was funny that the older brother (Viktor?) was the one in the end that was sent home to take care of his mother. Their mother said the older brother was someone the younger brother should look up to; however, he was the one in the end that tried to set his brother up and ended up weaping on the ground like a child. In the end it was like they switched roles and the younger brother took over the city and the older brother should look up to him. Overall, this movie was very good.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Ivan's Childhood (1962)
Andrei Tarkovsky
I generally liked this movie. It was very different from the other movie we watched by Tarkovsky. This one was very easy to follow and was much more like a story-however, it seems as though Tarkovsky is a big fan of the flashback and dream sequences. He cuts out a lot of extra scenes by simply putting them in a dream so it's like a short version of a long story. This movie reminded me a lot of the Ballad of a Soldier because he followed a particular soldier through the war rather than all the soldiers and the war itself which leads one to believe it wasn't a film based on Socialist Realism.
There were a lot of things i liked about this movie. First, i liked Ivan's tough guy attitude. It as though he was literally fearless. I also liked how Ivan insisted on helping the war efforts and said "those who did nothing during war time were useless." I also loved how Kholin and Katasonov treated him like their son. It was nice to know they were thinking of adopting him after the war, which showed they really cared about him. Second, i thought the scene with Kholin and Masha in the birch forrest was beautiful. I know Tarkovsky appreciated nature- and this was one of the more striking natural environments that i've seen in a movie. However, the situation between Kholin, Masha, and Galtsev confused me. When in the woods, it seemed as though Masha was in no way interested in Kholin, but then they kissed and when he said come over here she did it. Then Galtsev wanted to transfer her so I couldn't figure out if he was mad at her or what the deal was exactly. Finally, i thought the movie gave a shocking account of the german massacres. Toward the end when they were going through the german HQ's they showed places where people were hanged, tortured etc. They also gave us the audio of when Ivan was hanged which was upsetting to hear.
Overall, i thought this movie gave a great account of a young boys interest in the war efforts while giving a background on why he was interested in doing so-I'm assuming to avenge his parents death since they were killed by germans. It was a sad movie; however, it was an enjoyable one.
I generally liked this movie. It was very different from the other movie we watched by Tarkovsky. This one was very easy to follow and was much more like a story-however, it seems as though Tarkovsky is a big fan of the flashback and dream sequences. He cuts out a lot of extra scenes by simply putting them in a dream so it's like a short version of a long story. This movie reminded me a lot of the Ballad of a Soldier because he followed a particular soldier through the war rather than all the soldiers and the war itself which leads one to believe it wasn't a film based on Socialist Realism.
There were a lot of things i liked about this movie. First, i liked Ivan's tough guy attitude. It as though he was literally fearless. I also liked how Ivan insisted on helping the war efforts and said "those who did nothing during war time were useless." I also loved how Kholin and Katasonov treated him like their son. It was nice to know they were thinking of adopting him after the war, which showed they really cared about him. Second, i thought the scene with Kholin and Masha in the birch forrest was beautiful. I know Tarkovsky appreciated nature- and this was one of the more striking natural environments that i've seen in a movie. However, the situation between Kholin, Masha, and Galtsev confused me. When in the woods, it seemed as though Masha was in no way interested in Kholin, but then they kissed and when he said come over here she did it. Then Galtsev wanted to transfer her so I couldn't figure out if he was mad at her or what the deal was exactly. Finally, i thought the movie gave a shocking account of the german massacres. Toward the end when they were going through the german HQ's they showed places where people were hanged, tortured etc. They also gave us the audio of when Ivan was hanged which was upsetting to hear.
Overall, i thought this movie gave a great account of a young boys interest in the war efforts while giving a background on why he was interested in doing so-I'm assuming to avenge his parents death since they were killed by germans. It was a sad movie; however, it was an enjoyable one.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Mirror
Andrei Tarkovsky
I'm not going to say whether i liked or disliked this movie because I'm not really sure what I think about it yet. From reading the book I can tell that Tarkovsky puts a lot of effort into his movies and has a lot of passion for art whether in the form of a painting or through the cinema. After watching this movie, one quote that sticks out from the book is, "my job is to speak in living images, not in arguments. I must exibit life full-face, not discuss life...Otherwise the artist is imposing his thoughts on his audience." I feel like Tarkovsky lived by this quote. I, in no way, felt as though this movie was imposing any thoughts or messages on me. For Russian directors, this is a change of pace because it seems as though almost every movie so far had some sort of hidden or blatant message we were suppose to pick up.
As for the movie, there were some things i feel like i may have picked up (or again i may have noticed something that wasn't really there). In the beginning, Professor Isham told us to take it for what it was worth and not try to analyze it. So from that.. this is how I understood it. In the beginning, Ignat was shown being hypnotized. I know most of us noticed the microphone shadow in the back as an error in filming but I feel like maybe it was suppose to show us it was being filmed for a show-like a healing show. Furthermore, i feel like the main idea i kept picking up from this movie was human suffering and abandonment. The idea of Ignat's father leaving was reiterated many times throughout the movie. I remember a time when the mother said, "you should come around more often-he needs you." This just reminded me how important a father can be in a child's life and without one it's difficult to grow up. Furthermore, I felt like the mother didn't pay much attention to Ignat so it was like he had no one to turn to and was kind of alienated. As for the flashing of scenes I'm going to venture to say maybe this was trying to give us a sense of time-what era he was trying to express- like when he showed war scenes etc. Moreover, i just want to say I think Tarkovsky would have been an amazing director for horror films because some of his scenes were just so creepy. For example, when the mother and the man were standing starring at the burning barn-they had their backs to the camera and were staggered in a way that just reminded me of a scary movie. Continuing from this idea, i can understand why Ignat had a stutter because if I saw some of the things we saw i'd have a stutter to- like reading a book to a woman who disappeared? weeiirdd.
As for the year the movie was made- i was surprised to see the paper saying it was made in the 70's. Watching it, i assumed maybe late 50's but i did not expect it to be even close to the 70's. As for the title of the movie, mirror's reflect- so maybe Tarkovsky is trying to portray that he came from a home where he was alienated and had no real support system since his father left and his mom was kind of all over the place. So maybe Ignat is suppose to represent Andrei?? I don't know just an idea. All in all- the movie was gnerally confusing and if nothing i said was correct- then it was very misleading!
I'm not going to say whether i liked or disliked this movie because I'm not really sure what I think about it yet. From reading the book I can tell that Tarkovsky puts a lot of effort into his movies and has a lot of passion for art whether in the form of a painting or through the cinema. After watching this movie, one quote that sticks out from the book is, "my job is to speak in living images, not in arguments. I must exibit life full-face, not discuss life...Otherwise the artist is imposing his thoughts on his audience." I feel like Tarkovsky lived by this quote. I, in no way, felt as though this movie was imposing any thoughts or messages on me. For Russian directors, this is a change of pace because it seems as though almost every movie so far had some sort of hidden or blatant message we were suppose to pick up.
As for the movie, there were some things i feel like i may have picked up (or again i may have noticed something that wasn't really there). In the beginning, Professor Isham told us to take it for what it was worth and not try to analyze it. So from that.. this is how I understood it. In the beginning, Ignat was shown being hypnotized. I know most of us noticed the microphone shadow in the back as an error in filming but I feel like maybe it was suppose to show us it was being filmed for a show-like a healing show. Furthermore, i feel like the main idea i kept picking up from this movie was human suffering and abandonment. The idea of Ignat's father leaving was reiterated many times throughout the movie. I remember a time when the mother said, "you should come around more often-he needs you." This just reminded me how important a father can be in a child's life and without one it's difficult to grow up. Furthermore, I felt like the mother didn't pay much attention to Ignat so it was like he had no one to turn to and was kind of alienated. As for the flashing of scenes I'm going to venture to say maybe this was trying to give us a sense of time-what era he was trying to express- like when he showed war scenes etc. Moreover, i just want to say I think Tarkovsky would have been an amazing director for horror films because some of his scenes were just so creepy. For example, when the mother and the man were standing starring at the burning barn-they had their backs to the camera and were staggered in a way that just reminded me of a scary movie. Continuing from this idea, i can understand why Ignat had a stutter because if I saw some of the things we saw i'd have a stutter to- like reading a book to a woman who disappeared? weeiirdd.
As for the year the movie was made- i was surprised to see the paper saying it was made in the 70's. Watching it, i assumed maybe late 50's but i did not expect it to be even close to the 70's. As for the title of the movie, mirror's reflect- so maybe Tarkovsky is trying to portray that he came from a home where he was alienated and had no real support system since his father left and his mom was kind of all over the place. So maybe Ignat is suppose to represent Andrei?? I don't know just an idea. All in all- the movie was gnerally confusing and if nothing i said was correct- then it was very misleading!
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Ballad of a Soldier (1959)
I thought The Ballad of a Soldier was a very good movie. I enjoyed how different it was from other war films because instead of focusing on the war/fighting, it focused on one individual soldier. This allows you to realize that soldiers aren't just mindless violent people, they acutally have homes, families, and feelings. I feel like the message that this movie is trying to explore is that wars are fought by individuals and that they are sacrificing things to fight for a cause which is something their families experience too. One thing that is prevalent in both this film and the realist films is the romantic relationship.
Moreover, there were many aspects of this film that i enjoyed. First, I loved how helpful and polite Alyosha was in this movie. It kind of showed how different things used to be, and how trusting people used to be. I know now not many people can say they would trust another person to carry their luggage around with them and not steal it. It was refreshing to see that Alyosha would give up things for himself to help others. This was even shown when he lied to the soldiers grandfather about how well his son was doing when he didn't know him at all. Second- although that was getting kind of irritating when he was wasting his time doing this for others when he had to get home to help his mother with the roof. He was taking WAY to much on his shoulders and it just wasn't possible to get it all done. Third, i love how the actor's faces look throughout the film. In particular, I remember one close-up of Shura sleeping while waiting for Alyosha and there was just the right amount of light on her face where it looked so perfect-almost airbrushed. Moreover, when Alyosha saved everyone from the train- the way it was filmed was pretty cool. The way the scene was filmed it was like all we could see was Alyosha shadow with the flames in the back round as he carried people out. This can allow me to believe that a hero is faceless- meaning Alyosha isn't doing it for fame he did it to help. Furthemore, it can show us that anyone can be a hero. Also, in this scene Alyosha is sitting on the ground after saving everyone and one man walks by and says that hes useless and to get out of the way. This kind of reminded me about how when men would come back from war they were temporary heroes and then everyone forgot about them. Finally, i thought it was interesting how the entire town was excited to see Alyosha come home and they all wanted to know how their family members were doing. It was like-for the most part- people gave up on those who went to war-and they simply gave up when they left. Alyosha mom even said she gave up on his father when he left. Thats disturbing to hear because these people were fighting for everyone and their girlfriends/wives were very selfish in giving up on them so easily.
I feel like Alyosha's story is more than just a single Russian soldier because every single one of them wanted to go home and see their family. What he experienced was something they all wanted to do except Alyosha is the only one who got the chance. I think it was significant that Alyosha saved people from the burning train because his heroism from the war was kind of a fluke but he pulled through when he needed to show he was brave and a real hero. The only thing i didn't like about this film was the lack of a proper ending. I would love to have known what happened with Alyosha and whether he was one of the few that made it home. All in all, this movie was very good and showed up a different aspect of war that a lot of us don't get to experience.
Moreover, there were many aspects of this film that i enjoyed. First, I loved how helpful and polite Alyosha was in this movie. It kind of showed how different things used to be, and how trusting people used to be. I know now not many people can say they would trust another person to carry their luggage around with them and not steal it. It was refreshing to see that Alyosha would give up things for himself to help others. This was even shown when he lied to the soldiers grandfather about how well his son was doing when he didn't know him at all. Second- although that was getting kind of irritating when he was wasting his time doing this for others when he had to get home to help his mother with the roof. He was taking WAY to much on his shoulders and it just wasn't possible to get it all done. Third, i love how the actor's faces look throughout the film. In particular, I remember one close-up of Shura sleeping while waiting for Alyosha and there was just the right amount of light on her face where it looked so perfect-almost airbrushed. Moreover, when Alyosha saved everyone from the train- the way it was filmed was pretty cool. The way the scene was filmed it was like all we could see was Alyosha shadow with the flames in the back round as he carried people out. This can allow me to believe that a hero is faceless- meaning Alyosha isn't doing it for fame he did it to help. Furthemore, it can show us that anyone can be a hero. Also, in this scene Alyosha is sitting on the ground after saving everyone and one man walks by and says that hes useless and to get out of the way. This kind of reminded me about how when men would come back from war they were temporary heroes and then everyone forgot about them. Finally, i thought it was interesting how the entire town was excited to see Alyosha come home and they all wanted to know how their family members were doing. It was like-for the most part- people gave up on those who went to war-and they simply gave up when they left. Alyosha mom even said she gave up on his father when he left. Thats disturbing to hear because these people were fighting for everyone and their girlfriends/wives were very selfish in giving up on them so easily.
I feel like Alyosha's story is more than just a single Russian soldier because every single one of them wanted to go home and see their family. What he experienced was something they all wanted to do except Alyosha is the only one who got the chance. I think it was significant that Alyosha saved people from the burning train because his heroism from the war was kind of a fluke but he pulled through when he needed to show he was brave and a real hero. The only thing i didn't like about this film was the lack of a proper ending. I would love to have known what happened with Alyosha and whether he was one of the few that made it home. All in all, this movie was very good and showed up a different aspect of war that a lot of us don't get to experience.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Burnt By The Sun
I thought this movie was very good but depressing! However, it did a great job of showing you something you've heard about but never really saw or experienced. We've heard about families getting picked up in the middle of the night, but its not as bad as acutally seeing it. What i like was how the characters were built up in the beginning of the movie. That way we felt a connection with them and didn't want to see bad things happen to them. For example, Kotov had an amazing relationship with his daughter and once we realized what was happening to him it was painful to watch because you didn't want to see anything that would break her heart. Second, i really disliked Mitya from the beginning. I don't know why but i just had a bad feeling about him in general..Then when he told Nadya that a car was coming for Kotov i knew exactly what was going on. I felt he was definately the villian of the film.
As for the title, i felt like it was a perfect match to the movie. I think of the sun as a powerful source of life and death since if it went out that would pretty much annilhilate human life. Therefore, i felt it was easy to compare it to the revolution since it was the cause of people losing their lives and it was a source of power. I also felt the message from this movie was a very strong one since in the last scene it said "for those hurt by the Revolution." I guess it could be compared to the '9/11' movie that was made shortly after the incident because it was to make us angry at terrorist and to feel sorry for those who suffered. Therefore, i feel like this movie could be international since its views can affect anyone who has felt victimized.
I felt Kotov was a very strong willed character who would never go against his country since he always said he'd die for 'the motherland.' Therefore, i felt Mitya's theories were far fetched and motivated by his love for Marusia. I felt as though he was a much better leader than Chapaev as well because he had a way of talking to people that was friendly, but stern. Overall, this movie really made you feel what happened in the 30's instead of just hearing about it. It really made you feel for the families that were affected by the Revolution
I thought this movie was very good but depressing! However, it did a great job of showing you something you've heard about but never really saw or experienced. We've heard about families getting picked up in the middle of the night, but its not as bad as acutally seeing it. What i like was how the characters were built up in the beginning of the movie. That way we felt a connection with them and didn't want to see bad things happen to them. For example, Kotov had an amazing relationship with his daughter and once we realized what was happening to him it was painful to watch because you didn't want to see anything that would break her heart. Second, i really disliked Mitya from the beginning. I don't know why but i just had a bad feeling about him in general..Then when he told Nadya that a car was coming for Kotov i knew exactly what was going on. I felt he was definately the villian of the film.
As for the title, i felt like it was a perfect match to the movie. I think of the sun as a powerful source of life and death since if it went out that would pretty much annilhilate human life. Therefore, i felt it was easy to compare it to the revolution since it was the cause of people losing their lives and it was a source of power. I also felt the message from this movie was a very strong one since in the last scene it said "for those hurt by the Revolution." I guess it could be compared to the '9/11' movie that was made shortly after the incident because it was to make us angry at terrorist and to feel sorry for those who suffered. Therefore, i feel like this movie could be international since its views can affect anyone who has felt victimized.
I felt Kotov was a very strong willed character who would never go against his country since he always said he'd die for 'the motherland.' Therefore, i felt Mitya's theories were far fetched and motivated by his love for Marusia. I felt as though he was a much better leader than Chapaev as well because he had a way of talking to people that was friendly, but stern. Overall, this movie really made you feel what happened in the 30's instead of just hearing about it. It really made you feel for the families that were affected by the Revolution
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
I Dug It.
Circus (1936)
First are foremost, let me say i thought Circus was an incredible movie. It had a sense of humor that anyone could appreciate: Russian or American, young or old. I, personally, love that 1920/30ish glamour that we can find in Marliyn Monroe or Audrey Hepburn in America. I also love the chemistry between Rayka and Ladechkin. He loved the ladies, and she always had a way of dealing with him that was so entertaining. Finally, I loved the use of the animals in this comedy. Animals on their own are something that makes people happy, and having them doing humorous things is only a plus.
As for the movie, some things i noticed were the very blatant Soviet messages. It wasn't something you had to search for it was right there. I thought it was clever how the director had Marion Dixon always say "I no understand." At first you were like, 'ok clearly everyone needs to stop trying to talk to her in Russian because shes not getting it.' Then at the end, it was oh now do you understand Russia is the place to be, and she said "I understand now." Also, clearly the movie was pro- Soviet Union. It dreadful how she was treated in the US about her illigitmate mullato child. She was fearful that the Russians would feel the same way about it; however, they were all very accepting saying, "We love all children, black, white, red etc." It was very clear what the message was, and they did a great job portraying it.
Moreover, i thought the movie had some subtle messages too (or maybe i picked up on something that wasn't there). First, i recall a time when she was looking at two pictures; one of Martynov and one of Kneishitz and she took her wig off but only half way. This stuck out because the blonde side was with Martynov and the brunette hair was on Kneishitz side. This was only further supports my views because it seemed as the movie went on Marion lost more and more of the darkness. She stopped wearing her wig, and in the end scene she was wearing a very bright white outfit along with all the other Russian. I think this was significant.
Finally, i think what was prevalent in both Chapaev and this film was the romantic element. Both movies had that couple that you rooted for. I also thought that at first Martynov didn't think very highly of Marion because she wanted to get paid in US dollars. Then he started to fall for her, and in the end she agreed to work for rubles (sp?). I feel like this was a little socialist realism because it was her transformation to more of a working class. I also think how the movie was kind of racist was social realism. It was putting the problem out there without showing any mercy, or passion which allows people to see the real problem and not beat around the bush. Although, when Ladechkin tried to wipe the babies face off i felt like that was a comical way of dealing with a sensitive issue which was awesome.
All in all, this movie was very entertaining and I loved it!
First are foremost, let me say i thought Circus was an incredible movie. It had a sense of humor that anyone could appreciate: Russian or American, young or old. I, personally, love that 1920/30ish glamour that we can find in Marliyn Monroe or Audrey Hepburn in America. I also love the chemistry between Rayka and Ladechkin. He loved the ladies, and she always had a way of dealing with him that was so entertaining. Finally, I loved the use of the animals in this comedy. Animals on their own are something that makes people happy, and having them doing humorous things is only a plus.
As for the movie, some things i noticed were the very blatant Soviet messages. It wasn't something you had to search for it was right there. I thought it was clever how the director had Marion Dixon always say "I no understand." At first you were like, 'ok clearly everyone needs to stop trying to talk to her in Russian because shes not getting it.' Then at the end, it was oh now do you understand Russia is the place to be, and she said "I understand now." Also, clearly the movie was pro- Soviet Union. It dreadful how she was treated in the US about her illigitmate mullato child. She was fearful that the Russians would feel the same way about it; however, they were all very accepting saying, "We love all children, black, white, red etc." It was very clear what the message was, and they did a great job portraying it.
Moreover, i thought the movie had some subtle messages too (or maybe i picked up on something that wasn't there). First, i recall a time when she was looking at two pictures; one of Martynov and one of Kneishitz and she took her wig off but only half way. This stuck out because the blonde side was with Martynov and the brunette hair was on Kneishitz side. This was only further supports my views because it seemed as the movie went on Marion lost more and more of the darkness. She stopped wearing her wig, and in the end scene she was wearing a very bright white outfit along with all the other Russian. I think this was significant.
Finally, i think what was prevalent in both Chapaev and this film was the romantic element. Both movies had that couple that you rooted for. I also thought that at first Martynov didn't think very highly of Marion because she wanted to get paid in US dollars. Then he started to fall for her, and in the end she agreed to work for rubles (sp?). I feel like this was a little socialist realism because it was her transformation to more of a working class. I also think how the movie was kind of racist was social realism. It was putting the problem out there without showing any mercy, or passion which allows people to see the real problem and not beat around the bush. Although, when Ladechkin tried to wipe the babies face off i felt like that was a comical way of dealing with a sensitive issue which was awesome.
All in all, this movie was very entertaining and I loved it!
Monday, January 12, 2009
Chapaev (1934)
I believe what made this movie so popular at the time was the fact that it was based on a real war hero. Speaking for myself, I know it is much more interesting to watch a movie based on a true story than those that are not. It's easier to get into it because it really did happen. Furthermore, this was probably one of the first actual war movies for its time. It was probably nice to understand what had gone on, giving people a better understand of war times. I know that movies like "We Were Soldiers" are interesting because you can think we'll my dad, or grandpa went through that, that’s amazing. Plus i feel as though there was a certain 'light heartedness' that made the movie compelling.
Moreover, Chapaev was a very strong willed character in this film. He was stern, and people feared him. I recall at one point it being said that "him and his fame are dangerous," which I took to mean he was a little headstrong sometimes. Although, this did change as the movie went on. Chapaev changed from a stern character to almost a friend to his soldiers. As for Chapaev, I also believe that moviegoers admired him for simply his bravery, honesty, and ability to inspire a crowd. For a man who was completely illiterate two years ago, that says a lot. Furthermore, his relationship with his counterpart also had a propagandistic message. Furmanov challenged Chapaev but when it came down to it he got the peasants on their side, which was important. This showed us how a leader, especially a political one (that could be compared to the Bolsheviks), is very important.
As the movie went on, Chapaev and the character of Patka developed a trusting relationship. They talk as though they are friends, instead of a soldier and a captain. This showed Chapaev cared for his soldiers, which was not prevalent in the White Army. The leader of the White Army, Colonel Borozdin, was portrayed as a greedy, abusive tyrant who cared nothing for his men. They were simply pawns in a game of chess. I recall when Patka (who I believe was one of the two war heroes of this film) was suppose to captured a white soldier and the soldier said my brother is supposed to be killed Patka said “and you’re suppose to fight for them after that?” That was a very compelling statement, and also got the point across that the White Army (who was adorned in nice fighting attire) was the evil one. Finally, Anka was a very important character. She showed female moviegoers that women can be important in the war efforts as well. She was a strong woman who was very helpful in the war efforts.
As for a comparison to Battleship Potemkin, I believe sound did play a role in this blockbuster. Battleship Potemkin was such a compelling movie in my eyes that with sound, I believe it would have surpassed Chapaev. Chapaev had a more direct message that followed a real war hero through a real war. Battleship Potemkin was broader simply having a pro Soviet message, while Chapaev had all of that and more. Although as I stated earlier I believe Battleship Potemkin could have been appreciated with sound, I don’t think Chapaev would have been. We couldn’t have gotten the character change of Chapaev, and the movie would have been very hard to follow in my eyes. Chapaev would have looked almost bipolar without sound the way he would throw temper tantrums and then laughed and sing with Patka. In general, the film was very good and it’s easy to see why it did well.
I believe what made this movie so popular at the time was the fact that it was based on a real war hero. Speaking for myself, I know it is much more interesting to watch a movie based on a true story than those that are not. It's easier to get into it because it really did happen. Furthermore, this was probably one of the first actual war movies for its time. It was probably nice to understand what had gone on, giving people a better understand of war times. I know that movies like "We Were Soldiers" are interesting because you can think we'll my dad, or grandpa went through that, that’s amazing. Plus i feel as though there was a certain 'light heartedness' that made the movie compelling.
Moreover, Chapaev was a very strong willed character in this film. He was stern, and people feared him. I recall at one point it being said that "him and his fame are dangerous," which I took to mean he was a little headstrong sometimes. Although, this did change as the movie went on. Chapaev changed from a stern character to almost a friend to his soldiers. As for Chapaev, I also believe that moviegoers admired him for simply his bravery, honesty, and ability to inspire a crowd. For a man who was completely illiterate two years ago, that says a lot. Furthermore, his relationship with his counterpart also had a propagandistic message. Furmanov challenged Chapaev but when it came down to it he got the peasants on their side, which was important. This showed us how a leader, especially a political one (that could be compared to the Bolsheviks), is very important.
As the movie went on, Chapaev and the character of Patka developed a trusting relationship. They talk as though they are friends, instead of a soldier and a captain. This showed Chapaev cared for his soldiers, which was not prevalent in the White Army. The leader of the White Army, Colonel Borozdin, was portrayed as a greedy, abusive tyrant who cared nothing for his men. They were simply pawns in a game of chess. I recall when Patka (who I believe was one of the two war heroes of this film) was suppose to captured a white soldier and the soldier said my brother is supposed to be killed Patka said “and you’re suppose to fight for them after that?” That was a very compelling statement, and also got the point across that the White Army (who was adorned in nice fighting attire) was the evil one. Finally, Anka was a very important character. She showed female moviegoers that women can be important in the war efforts as well. She was a strong woman who was very helpful in the war efforts.
As for a comparison to Battleship Potemkin, I believe sound did play a role in this blockbuster. Battleship Potemkin was such a compelling movie in my eyes that with sound, I believe it would have surpassed Chapaev. Chapaev had a more direct message that followed a real war hero through a real war. Battleship Potemkin was broader simply having a pro Soviet message, while Chapaev had all of that and more. Although as I stated earlier I believe Battleship Potemkin could have been appreciated with sound, I don’t think Chapaev would have been. We couldn’t have gotten the character change of Chapaev, and the movie would have been very hard to follow in my eyes. Chapaev would have looked almost bipolar without sound the way he would throw temper tantrums and then laughed and sing with Patka. In general, the film was very good and it’s easy to see why it did well.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Man with the Movie Camera (1929)
So i found out today that i am not into experimental films. Although, the film had its interesting elements it just wasn't for me. In a way, it reminded me of jazz. It was all over the place, impossible to follow, and had no lyrics to sing along with. It should be appreciated for what its worth, but it's not for everyone.
As for what i took from the movie, it was filmed very well for it's time period. The montage of scenes and the impressive way "special effects?" were presented was something that stood out. I remember specifically slow motion shots, the camera movie around as if no one were touching it, and scenes that were split in two, all very impressive. Furthermore, it was clear this was a documentary style film because I recall when a divorce was taking place a women had a purse over her face because she didn't want to be included in the shots. What i also found shocking was the lengths that the cameraman went to get his shots. I remember a camera being mounted on a moving car, him laying on a train track etc. All very dangerous, but makes a one of a kind shot. Furthermore, this movie had artistic value. I recall a shot where clouds were moving past a bridge like something you'd expect to see in a painting.
As far as the idea of the movie, i have no idea. The things that stick out in my mind is most of the scenes involved the working class. I don't recall ever really seeing people with high collars and fancy dresses sitting at a piano or anything bourgoise. It was mostly technology and phone operators etc. Furthermore, there was i think 3 mentions of Lenin (including a picture of him), and a mention of the 5 year plan which is probably significant. Before the film, we discussed how in the Soviet Union marriage wasn't really a huge part of relationships;however, in the film there were people signing marriage certificates which confused me. If it's not such a big part of their culture there then why did Vertov feel it was important enough to add into his film? Finally I'm going to take a leap of faith here and attempt to draw a conclusion from the movie. The beginning of the movie was very fast pace, with scenes changing constantly, and fast pace music. Then it suddenly froze and the music became more subtle. I (whether this be right or completely wrong) took it as maybe hinting at a change from the 1920's to the 1930's. I remember in class we discussed the 1930's representing a sort of freeze on movement, economic growth etc. so when the scenes froze and slowed down that was immediately what came to mind. Although, it could be wrong and it could have just been another special effect. All in all, the movie had a level of artistic value that should be appreciate; however, would i sit down and hunt out experimental films after seeing this one? Probably not.
So i found out today that i am not into experimental films. Although, the film had its interesting elements it just wasn't for me. In a way, it reminded me of jazz. It was all over the place, impossible to follow, and had no lyrics to sing along with. It should be appreciated for what its worth, but it's not for everyone.
As for what i took from the movie, it was filmed very well for it's time period. The montage of scenes and the impressive way "special effects?" were presented was something that stood out. I remember specifically slow motion shots, the camera movie around as if no one were touching it, and scenes that were split in two, all very impressive. Furthermore, it was clear this was a documentary style film because I recall when a divorce was taking place a women had a purse over her face because she didn't want to be included in the shots. What i also found shocking was the lengths that the cameraman went to get his shots. I remember a camera being mounted on a moving car, him laying on a train track etc. All very dangerous, but makes a one of a kind shot. Furthermore, this movie had artistic value. I recall a shot where clouds were moving past a bridge like something you'd expect to see in a painting.
As far as the idea of the movie, i have no idea. The things that stick out in my mind is most of the scenes involved the working class. I don't recall ever really seeing people with high collars and fancy dresses sitting at a piano or anything bourgoise. It was mostly technology and phone operators etc. Furthermore, there was i think 3 mentions of Lenin (including a picture of him), and a mention of the 5 year plan which is probably significant. Before the film, we discussed how in the Soviet Union marriage wasn't really a huge part of relationships;however, in the film there were people signing marriage certificates which confused me. If it's not such a big part of their culture there then why did Vertov feel it was important enough to add into his film? Finally I'm going to take a leap of faith here and attempt to draw a conclusion from the movie. The beginning of the movie was very fast pace, with scenes changing constantly, and fast pace music. Then it suddenly froze and the music became more subtle. I (whether this be right or completely wrong) took it as maybe hinting at a change from the 1920's to the 1930's. I remember in class we discussed the 1930's representing a sort of freeze on movement, economic growth etc. so when the scenes froze and slowed down that was immediately what came to mind. Although, it could be wrong and it could have just been another special effect. All in all, the movie had a level of artistic value that should be appreciate; however, would i sit down and hunt out experimental films after seeing this one? Probably not.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Sergei Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin (1925)
It is very clear why this movie is one of the most important silent films ever made. It was easy to take the side of the sailors with the way the movie was filmed. Eisenstein made it very clear that the audience was suppose to sympathize and support the sailors with the way the characters were dressed. In the Soviet Union they supported the working class and thats exactly how the sailors were portrayed. Furthermore, the captains looked well kept and snobby which automatically allowed the audience to dispise them. This idea was only supported by the fact that they were trying to force the sailors to eat meat that had maggots on it. After the sailors took over the ship, a militia came to break up the celebration. It was frightening how well Eisenstein portrayed these men as the enemy. They murdered innocent people, even children. It is so easy to have a strong hatred for those who kill children. Finally, there was a clear political point being reached in this movie. The red flag waving, and the rise of the proletariatan is clearly propagandistic message, as well as the disreguard for religion. These idea's are all very Soviet.
Furthermore, this movie was brilliantly filmed. The were many different camera angles which is something we haven't experienced in the other silent films. This made the movie more interesting instead of just having a standard shooting angle. Moreover, the scenes switch so often it was easy to get involved in the movie. Unlike Bauer's films, Eisenstein had a way of creating a montage of scenes that allowed the audience to get lost in the movie rather than lose interest. There was also way more movement in this movie which also again kept my interest more. The director played with light, well it was suppose to be a sad moment the lighting dimmed and allowed us to feel gloomy. All in all, this movie was filmed well, had a good entertainment level, and got its propogandistic message across.
It is very clear why this movie is one of the most important silent films ever made. It was easy to take the side of the sailors with the way the movie was filmed. Eisenstein made it very clear that the audience was suppose to sympathize and support the sailors with the way the characters were dressed. In the Soviet Union they supported the working class and thats exactly how the sailors were portrayed. Furthermore, the captains looked well kept and snobby which automatically allowed the audience to dispise them. This idea was only supported by the fact that they were trying to force the sailors to eat meat that had maggots on it. After the sailors took over the ship, a militia came to break up the celebration. It was frightening how well Eisenstein portrayed these men as the enemy. They murdered innocent people, even children. It is so easy to have a strong hatred for those who kill children. Finally, there was a clear political point being reached in this movie. The red flag waving, and the rise of the proletariatan is clearly propagandistic message, as well as the disreguard for religion. These idea's are all very Soviet.
Furthermore, this movie was brilliantly filmed. The were many different camera angles which is something we haven't experienced in the other silent films. This made the movie more interesting instead of just having a standard shooting angle. Moreover, the scenes switch so often it was easy to get involved in the movie. Unlike Bauer's films, Eisenstein had a way of creating a montage of scenes that allowed the audience to get lost in the movie rather than lose interest. There was also way more movement in this movie which also again kept my interest more. The director played with light, well it was suppose to be a sad moment the lighting dimmed and allowed us to feel gloomy. All in all, this movie was filmed well, had a good entertainment level, and got its propogandistic message across.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Films by Evgeni Bauer
Silent films are an acquired taste. Since most of us grew up having television and movies with sound, its hard to appreciate silent films for what they are worth. However, silent films force the actors to express themselves through means other than utilizing their voices. This could be a disadvantage depending how one looks at it. Sounds can convey more, but the silent films forced actors to work harder to express their feelings through the faces which can be difficult. In the movies we watched today, it was very clear that most of the actors in silent films had dark hair and dark eyebrows. This would allow actors to show more expression. Since the lighting isn't the best, a blonde haired person would have to work twice as hard to show the same expression as someone with darker facial details. Furthermore, in Child of the Big City and The 1002nd Ruse it seems as though Bauer had a firm belief that women only wanted money from men. This is extremely noticeable in Child of the Big City because the Mary took Viktor for everything he was worth and didn't care when he killed himself. She simply walked over the body, which is somewhat disturbing. As for the 1002nd Ruse the wife was cheating on her husband and also wanted jewelry to be happy. He has a similar view of women in both of these films.
Furthermore, silent films allow us to look through a window into an era we have never experienced. Things such as the sewing machine and iron from Child of the Big City and the newspaper from The Dying Swan shows us how things we use now used to be. Moreover, even things such as the horse drawn buggies and old-fashioned cars allow us to appreciate the things we have now. These films can show us how culture has changed from then, to now.
As for the challenges, it sometimes was hard to follow what was going on. We are not completely familar with the era the movie took place during so some things were hard to understand. I feel as though you have to pay closer attention to silent films to follow them then you do to understand a film with sound.
Silent films are an acquired taste. Since most of us grew up having television and movies with sound, its hard to appreciate silent films for what they are worth. However, silent films force the actors to express themselves through means other than utilizing their voices. This could be a disadvantage depending how one looks at it. Sounds can convey more, but the silent films forced actors to work harder to express their feelings through the faces which can be difficult. In the movies we watched today, it was very clear that most of the actors in silent films had dark hair and dark eyebrows. This would allow actors to show more expression. Since the lighting isn't the best, a blonde haired person would have to work twice as hard to show the same expression as someone with darker facial details. Furthermore, in Child of the Big City and The 1002nd Ruse it seems as though Bauer had a firm belief that women only wanted money from men. This is extremely noticeable in Child of the Big City because the Mary took Viktor for everything he was worth and didn't care when he killed himself. She simply walked over the body, which is somewhat disturbing. As for the 1002nd Ruse the wife was cheating on her husband and also wanted jewelry to be happy. He has a similar view of women in both of these films.
Furthermore, silent films allow us to look through a window into an era we have never experienced. Things such as the sewing machine and iron from Child of the Big City and the newspaper from The Dying Swan shows us how things we use now used to be. Moreover, even things such as the horse drawn buggies and old-fashioned cars allow us to appreciate the things we have now. These films can show us how culture has changed from then, to now.
As for the challenges, it sometimes was hard to follow what was going on. We are not completely familar with the era the movie took place during so some things were hard to understand. I feel as though you have to pay closer attention to silent films to follow them then you do to understand a film with sound.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The end of The Irony of Fate or Enjoy Your Bath!
Part 2 seemed a little more dull in my eyes, because it turned more into a drama than a comedy. With Ippolit continually coming back for no reason and leaving- i don't know i just think most of the second have good have been cut out. Furthermore, the three friends of Zhenya were histerical. They made the movie in my eyes- it would have not been a comedy without them. I feel some similarities i've noticed in the second half and with American comedies is the fact that sometimes comedies turn into love stories. This is prevalent in many American comedies which can sometimes be disappointing. This can be a good or bad thing depending on what kind of movie you want to see. All in all, this movie was very good; however, i wish there were more laughs then lighthearted dramatic scenes.
As for the readings in the book:
I think the cinema is very important to cultures all over the world. As mentioned on page 10 "audiences were attracted to seeing pictures from all over the world." I think this allowed people from all over the world to experience a little taste of what is happening on the other side of the world. I mean look at how many things we picked up from watching one Russian film. So much more culture can be expressed through movies than in television shows. One point also mentioned in the reading was how people would escape their lives through movies. I find this to be very true because its so easy to get lost in a good movie- whether they make you laugh or cry - it can be easy to put yourself in the actors' shoes.
Part 2 seemed a little more dull in my eyes, because it turned more into a drama than a comedy. With Ippolit continually coming back for no reason and leaving- i don't know i just think most of the second have good have been cut out. Furthermore, the three friends of Zhenya were histerical. They made the movie in my eyes- it would have not been a comedy without them. I feel some similarities i've noticed in the second half and with American comedies is the fact that sometimes comedies turn into love stories. This is prevalent in many American comedies which can sometimes be disappointing. This can be a good or bad thing depending on what kind of movie you want to see. All in all, this movie was very good; however, i wish there were more laughs then lighthearted dramatic scenes.
As for the readings in the book:
I think the cinema is very important to cultures all over the world. As mentioned on page 10 "audiences were attracted to seeing pictures from all over the world." I think this allowed people from all over the world to experience a little taste of what is happening on the other side of the world. I mean look at how many things we picked up from watching one Russian film. So much more culture can be expressed through movies than in television shows. One point also mentioned in the reading was how people would escape their lives through movies. I find this to be very true because its so easy to get lost in a good movie- whether they make you laugh or cry - it can be easy to put yourself in the actors' shoes.
Irony of Fate or Enjoy your Bath!
It is clear why “Irony of fate, or Enjoy your Bath” is a popular New Years Eve movie in Russia. It can keep the attention of those who are young and old, which is a hard task for movies nowadays. Some movies I believe it is similar to in the United States are “National Lampoons Christmas Vacation”, and “A Christmas Story.” One difference I have noticed between those movies we find comedic in America and those that are comedic in Russia is the level of appropriateness. It seems as though Americans are more excepting of inappropriate behavior than the Russians. This movie seems to have a very clean sense of humor even with the high level of alcohol use. Even though most of us in America have grown up in a society accepting of crude behavior as humor, it is refreshing to see a movie that can be funny without it. One thing I found to be occurring in both this Russian film and American films is alcohol use causing some sort of misfortune for the characters.
What makes this movie a little hard to believe is the familiarity between two towns five-hundred miles apart. The story was set up nicely in the beginning when it explained that the buildings were built and painted the same and the locks were standard; however, I just find it hard to believe that one key can open up a thousand doors. I understand the film would be nothing without this concept, but I just find it hard to grasp. Other than that, so far the movie is very good and I’m excited to finish it to find out what is going to happen to Zhenya.
It is clear why “Irony of fate, or Enjoy your Bath” is a popular New Years Eve movie in Russia. It can keep the attention of those who are young and old, which is a hard task for movies nowadays. Some movies I believe it is similar to in the United States are “National Lampoons Christmas Vacation”, and “A Christmas Story.” One difference I have noticed between those movies we find comedic in America and those that are comedic in Russia is the level of appropriateness. It seems as though Americans are more excepting of inappropriate behavior than the Russians. This movie seems to have a very clean sense of humor even with the high level of alcohol use. Even though most of us in America have grown up in a society accepting of crude behavior as humor, it is refreshing to see a movie that can be funny without it. One thing I found to be occurring in both this Russian film and American films is alcohol use causing some sort of misfortune for the characters.
What makes this movie a little hard to believe is the familiarity between two towns five-hundred miles apart. The story was set up nicely in the beginning when it explained that the buildings were built and painted the same and the locks were standard; however, I just find it hard to believe that one key can open up a thousand doors. I understand the film would be nothing without this concept, but I just find it hard to grasp. Other than that, so far the movie is very good and I’m excited to finish it to find out what is going to happen to Zhenya.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
