Monday, August 24, 2009

The Brad Pitt Effect

Not too long ago I opened up the USA Today to the Life section to see an article about "Inglourious Basterds". Now, I hadn't seen the film at the time but it still managed to get me totally riled up- and gave me that much more motivation to go out and see it. It reported that more women have gone to see this particular film compared to previous works of Quentin Tarantino- 42% of the audience so far, actually. Obviously, that's not the part I had a problem with. I was pretty excited to hear that women are showing up in greater numbers to this than "Post Grad".

What really surprised me was the reason why. Or at least USA Today and Harvey Weinstein's reasons why. Two words: Brad Pitt. This actor, or his face rather, is attributed to the sole reason why women are seeing "Inglourious Basterds" more than other Tarantino movies. It literally states, "That tandem was all it took to lure female moviegoers". Okay, I'm no feminist but this is pretty insulting. As if placing a widely regarded attractive male actor in a lead role suddenly causes all us brainless females to finally leave the kitchen and buy a movie ticket. This is no surprise to the Weinstein Company, though, since recent trailers were cut to purposefully focus more on Brad Pitt and less on any violence. Right- because women would never be smart enough to attribute violence to a Tarantino flick.

And you know what? "Inglourius Basterds" has turned out to be one of my favorite movies of the year, so far.

The funny thing is, USA Today also grouped "Inglourious Basterds" into an article called, "Film Remakes Gone Wild". Really? That many people have seen the 1978 Italian work "Inglorious Bastards"? How many people who have seen or are planning to see Tarantino's movie even know it's a remake at all? I think it's ridiculous to lump this movie into the same category as "G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra" and "Land of the Lost". The article also asserts that this is a "familiar" movie since it's about war...What? Here's the quote:

"Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds is another time warp, a historically egregious nod to war flicks, film noir."

Here's the link to the whole article, if you're curious:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-08-17-film-remakes_N.htm

Taking their formula, I'm not sure a totally original film exists. (Sounds like a good topic for a future post...)

But more importantly, what really sets this movie apart from other summer blockbusters we've seen dominating the box office lately is not only Tarantino's unique style but the traditional pacing of the film. Anything with fast, erratic cuts anymore is attributed to this "MTV generation" idea since the style emulates music videos more than it does a movie. Tarantino pushes his audience to sit back and actually watch an entire scene unfold... for a very long time. By doing this he builds a form of suspense that I don't think bombarding us with images so fast we might have a seizure can ever come close to. It is one of the most original as well as entertaining films I've seen in the theater in a while and I only hope more people (especially women) will agree... after they get past the shock that Brad Pitt's glorious mug isn't even actually on the screen very much.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

No, I haven't seen "Casablanca"

That's my confession.  I've never seen that movie.  Now you say, "But I thought you were a film major!"  It doesn't really matter what movie it is, from time to time I have to figure out a decent response to this accusation.  Usually, it's classic Hollywood movies from what many consider the golden era of film; although, once or twice it's been about some random 90's action flick (which is also the reason I lose points in Scene It).  Whether I studied it in film class or not, I haven't seen every movie...nor do I want to.      

There's a big difference between movies I think I should see and movies I want to see.  Looking through my Netflix queue I can see this problem represented right in front of me as certain movies seem to just float in the middle for months and months, never actually reaching the top but never being deleted either.  For a while J was giving me trouble for never watching "The Pianist" and I told him I just hadn't been in the mood for it.  To which he responded, "Abby, you're never going to be in the mood for the Holocaust!"  Touche.

So while I finally did get myself to watch "The Pianist", which was totally worth it by the way, some nights I just want to watch an entertaining movie that I know and love.  While on the one hand I get incredibly frustrated when films like "Transformers 2" and "G.I. Joe" dominate the box office, the need to just escape with a film isn't a totally foreign idea to me.  I just don't happen to do it through ridiculous toy-based action flicks.  

My cup of tea?  "Anchorman".  I have no idea how many times I've seen it but no matter what, it always makes me laugh.  I think there's an unspoken rule among film majors that no matter what, you DON'T admit you like "Anchorman".  It's much more acceptable to make pretentious jabs at man-children like Will Ferrell in front of the entire class- a slam that is always well received with jaded snickers.  Instead, we're supposed to say we enjoy watching Buster Keaton on a Friday night which makes us just die from laughter.  I don't find Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin particularly funny.  I can watch it, write about it, and appreciate the significance but that doesn't mean I'm going to run out and rent "Modern Times" when I want to laugh.  I'd go as far as to say that anyone born after 1965 is a total liar if they tell you otherwise.  Or, they just have a really crappy sense of humor.

So in an effort to combat the dreaded "I thought you were a film major!" accusation, I've started lying.  Because even though I haven't "seen" "Casablanca", I've SEEN "Casablanca".  I know the entire plot, the famous line, and the mix-up of that famous line.  And I've found it's much easier to flat out lie and reaffirm someone's idea my film expertise than to explain everything I just wrote to them.

Now if I could only get "Schindler's List" to the top of my queue...



At least he thinks he's funny.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Paper I Wrote on Hitchcock

So in an effort to show some more serious and formal writing I've done on film, here's a short paper I wrote for my Films of Alfred Hitchcock class.

Art is one of the many motifs Alfred Hitchcock uses in several of his films to reveal deeper themes that are important, but an average viewer may not notice at first.  In his 1929 film Blackmail, Hitchcock’s villain is an artist and his paintings are an important part of the film in what they represent.  The use of art as a motif in Blackmail reveals more about the characters, advances the plotline, foreshadows events, and symbolizes covert themes of the film.

            The painting of the jester is a reoccurring image in Blackmail that conveys several different ideas as the film progresses.  The first time the jester painting appears on screen is when Alice has gone up to and is exploring Mr. Crewe’s apartment.  When Alice comes across the painting she mimics the gesture of the pointing finger and laughs whole-heartedly at what she sees as a silly portrait.  By imitating the jester Alice is therefore identifying with him, as up until this point she has lived a carefree and jovial life where she can date a dependable police detective but also have fun with a spontaneous artist on the side.  The next time the jester painting shows up is right after Alice has tried to fend off and eventually stabbed Mr. Crewe and is about to leave his apartment.  This time Alice’s reaction to the piece of art is to be horrified rather than to laugh, and the outstretched finger of the jester is now accusatory as it blames Alice for what she has just done.  Her response is to lash out and stab through the canvas; an act that mirrors what Alice has just done to the artist of the work. 

The idea that after this horrendous incident Alice now sees the painting of the jester in a different way represents how Alice now sees the rest of the world in a different way.  Before that particular night, Alice’s world was one full of innocence and ease.  After the attempted rape and self-defense that resulted in murder on Alice’s part, her world is then tainted with scandal and she will never view it the same way again.  This is further reiterated by the next scene were Alice stumbles aimlessly through the city and everything reminds her of the event she has just gone through. The jester also is the first instance of the common motif of an outstretched hand seen throughout the film Blackmail, especially after the murder where Alice continually associates any outstretched hand with that of Mr. Crewe’s limp hand hanging out of the curtain.  The image of the jester seemingly catching Alice in her incriminating act also foreshadows the blackmailer, Tracy, who discovers what she has done and tries to make her suffer the consequences.  The blackmailer, like the jester, appears to take great joy in getting Alice in this position as he takes his time tormenting her at her parent’s breakfast table.

            The jester painting also plays into Frank’s storyline as well as the resolution, or lack there of, of the film.  The day after Alice has been at Mr. Crewe’s, Frank is in the same apartment investigating the murder of the artist with his coworkers.  While examining the crime scene, Frank finds one of Alice’s gloves and realizes that she had been in the apartment the night before and may have something to do with the murder.  Frank turns and sees the painting of the jester that is now laughing at him, as he is realizing his suspicions were right in that his girlfriend has not been faithful to him.  The jester laughing at him also means that Frank should have known and stopped the infidelity earlier, especially after he saw Alice and the artist together after Frank had dinner with Alice the night before.  The jester is lastly seen at the end of the film after Alice has tried to confess to the murder but Frank has made sure that all the blame is placed on the now deceased blackmailer, Tracy.  The painting of the jester is shown being taken into evidence and is now laughing once again at Alice, who is left to live with her guilt in an unhappy and controlling relationship with Frank.  This is particularly clear in the final scene of the film where Alice and Frank walk stoically out of the police station without holding hands. 

            The artist, Mr. Crewe, and the portrait of a nude figure he and Alice paint are both important symbols in Blackmail as well.  Alice’s life, as played out through the beginning of the film, is one of relative comfort and ease where she is used to getting what she wants.  This is best shown by her reaction when she meets Frank at the police station and immediately reprimands him for being late.  Because of her easy and predictable life, Alice sees Mr. Crewe, the artist, as an exciting form of escape especially compared to her boredom in her relationship with Frank.  She is clearly interested in Mr. Crewe’s profession, as she looks over his paintings at his apartment and asks him to help her hold a paint palette correctly.  Mr. Crewe, on the other hand, uses art and being an artist to his advantage in order to lure Alice to his apartment where he plans to take advantage of her.  He understands Alice’s desire for spontaneity and practically dares her to come up to his apartment with him. 

While looking through Mr. Crewe’s art supplies, Alice inadvertently makes a mark on his blank canvas that she then turns into a smiley face.  Mr. Crewe then guides her hand to finish the person and draws an outline of a naked woman, which represents the artist taking control over Alice in a sexual way.  After undressing Alice with his paintbrush, the artist will literally get her undressed and try to take advantage of her only moments later in the film.  When the painting is complete, Alice giggles and jokingly reprimands the artist for his work, but she is clearly still comfortable and thinking of it as a game.  Alice then signs her name at the bottom of the painting in bold, capital letters that further suggests she is the subject of the painting rather than the artist.  After Alice has defended herself from Mr. Crewe and killed him, she sees the nude painting again as she prepares to leave and is now disgusted to realize the true intentions of the artist from the beginning.  She quickly takes a paintbrush and crosses out the title, which also represents a blackening of her name as she has been robbed of her innocence.

In Blackmail, Hitchcock uses this theme to his advantage in several different ways, though especially in the central plotline of Alice turning from an innocent girl to a tarnished victim that defines the second half of the film.  Just as art is not only visually appealing, Hitchcock uses this motif in order to serve a deeper purpose with a clear point of view as well.