Self evaluation

Lets start by saying that I believe I’m not qualified to evaluate my performance. In the other hand I believe, my work is one of quality. I’ve done all my posting, not all were done on time but I tried to watch all the movies to be able to participate and understand what was going on in the classroom. About my comments, they were also made. In the first part of the semester, everything was made on time, while in this second part I left all the comments for the last minute. I believe is not the most responsible characteristic, but I’ll have to say that when made they were well thought-out. I will let my work speak for it self and hope is enough.

Quentin Tarantino as an Auteur

Quentin Tarantino is a misunderstood artist. Most people think of him as a “copycat”. I see him as a great mind who is able to take a general idea and reinvent it and make it a piece of art. Tarantino’s style is very different from Kubrick and Scorsese methods. If we compare Tarantino with Kubrick, well we would have to say disorganized and OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder). Tarantino lets things flow and is not so attentive to detail as Kubrick was, but in the other hand, who is? In addition, Kubrick walked the viewer through the drama and we always know what is happening. With Tarantino we do not now what time is running in the movie. One gets confuse by the time bridges used on his films. Like in Reservoir Dogs, I sometimes did not understand what was going on, because he was going back and forth with every scene. One moment we are looking at the past and the in another we were watching the present.

If looking at Scorsese’s work we see a very brutal crude violence, while Tarantino implies the violence but does not lets us see it first hand. If we look at Resservoir Dogs, we will see that Tarantino turns the camera around every time the police officer is being tortured, making the viewer imagine how is the action happening. We get to see the result but we most imagine the method. That is what makes Tarantino’s work so entertaining and attractive to the masses. We have to work with Tarantino to be entertained.

Violence in Reservoir Dogs

When looking at Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese we see two totally different approaches to the same ideal. To me they both present violence as a wrong, gross, harsh matter. The only thing is that with Martin Scorsese is more brutal and nasty. While Tarantino presents the violence in a more discreet way. When watching this movie, we do not get the usual beating and torture, as a matter of fact we never see it. We are led to think of what is going to happen and then the result of that thought is illustrated. With Quentin Tarantino, we never see the actual cutting and slicing, he lets us react to his inputs. He not only directs the movie, but he directs the viewer to create the scene in their minds. And this is really unique, it characterizes him.

If we are to compare Tarantino and Scorsese, we are to see two different worlds. With Scorsese the viewer knows what is the product going to look like. In the other hand, Tarantino is always reinventing himself and for such we are forced to watch and wait. In my opinion, when talking about the mob films genre, I’d say Martin Scorsese is my pick. I like new things, but there is nothing like tradition

Martin Scorsese's Ideology

When looking at Scorsese’s films we can distinguish his feelings towards the violence and the gangster life. When doing a movie Scorsese illustrates us a very crude, gross, brutal violence. He has brains blowing left and right, lots of blood and quite some beatings. Like in “Taxi Driver”, he has Travis go up to Iris’ room shooting everyone and blowing brains, hands and parts of the body every where. By doing this, he shows that violence is not pretty and it should not look like that on films. He lets us see, violence for what it is, a harmful, indecent and unaccepted action. In most Scorsese’s movies he has a character which loves the life but does not like the violence that implies being on this world. At least does not support the violence with out a reasonable reason. An example of this is Charlie from Mean Streets.

Which leads me to say and believe that Martin Scorsese tries his best to portray the life as it is, without showing his believes. I think he is fascinated by the mafia/gangster life, but does not which to become a part of it. He is constantly letting us see what he thinks is amazing an inviting about the life but at the same time reminds us that ones our in is not the priest world, nor the safest. When talking about the genre, I believe he stays true to what he thinks a mob film should look like. When you see a Scorsese’s film the first things that comes to mind is Mafia or gangster. So to my criteria he stays true to the genre while staying true to the life it self.

Genre in Goodfellas

“Goodfellas" is one of the greatest mafia-crime movies I have ever seen. I loved the plot, the music used, but even more the way he went about every single shot. This movie was just perfection to me. Starting with the opening shot, Scorsese drags you into the movie and makes you feel a part of the story. It is almost as if the viewer was part of the “gang”. If we point out every characteristic that points the movie as a mafia-gangster film, we would just be narrating the movie. When we talk about mafia, we are referring to an Italian criminal society and in the movie Scorsese makes that point very clear. In addition, he highlights the relationship they have with each other, which is more than just a business partner relationship they are family. The mafia does everything together. Everyone respects them, but even more, they are respectful to their elders and traditions. In this film, Martin Scorsese introduces a lot of the mafia’s rules. We can take Tommy’s action, of killing Billy Batts, which is a made member off the Gambino Family and its untouchable, as defiance to the rules, and for this, he is killed.

When the movie starts Scorsese gives us an opportunity to see the ugly side of the mafia life style but he also let us experience their luxurious and so envied life of the mobsters. And is here when we focus more on the technicality of the mob films (subgenre of the crime films). This films are thrillers, they get you hyped-up and most of the time they get us roaring for the strong-badass character. On the other hand this movie shows he importance of a woman in this world. They know about it, what goes on in their husbands’ life and most importantly how to handle it. What is beautiful about this movie and what makes it so traditional, is the fact that Scorsese brings the reality of this world and show it to us as cleaned as possible. Yes, this movie also looks at the drugs world but it is all part of the crime films genre. To me the movie not only stays true to the genre but most of all it stays pretty accurate to the mafia world and that is why is a great movie.

"Taxi Driver"and Meaning

Let me start by saying, UNEXPECTEDLY AMAZING. I would have never thought that Martin Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver” was going to become part of my favorite films. It was genius, he had us thinking so many endings and part of it was as expected, but then the ending made a 180º turn and took us by surprise. These are the types of movies, I love, the ones that deceive you.

If we see the movie, there are lots of different ideas running around and being presented without us, the viewer, actually grasping this ideas as something important. This movie presents a taxi driver that, by the way he acts, we assume he is a psychopathic maniac. We deduce that Travis is disturbed by knowing a little bit about his past, listening to his thoughts and watching how he acts on his daily life. This idea is implicit by the script and the actor’s performance. For example, if we take the seen in which Travis goes to Palantine’s headquarters and starts yelling and demanding an explanation from Betsy, we see a crazy man. If we witness that behavior in our work place or if we were in Betsy’s shoes we would think he is a psycho. Lets be real, they only went out in two dates, they were not friends before that and she turned him down, so they have nothing to talk about, but any character did not say this idea, we deduced it as the movie went on. In the other hand if we take Martin Scorsese’s scene, when he was going to kill his wife for being unfaithful with a black man, we can see that his character is racist by the way he expressed himself. When he was talking to Travis he said: “Do you know who lives there?”… “A nigger lives there”. At that moment, the character is telling us explicitly that he is racist. Yes, I know he is mad, his wife is being unfaithful but if it would have been a white man he probably would have said: “Do you know who lives there?”… “Her lover lives there.”, because this character feels that a black man is less of man than he is. That is why he is being offensive.

Now, if we analyze the ending of this movie, we would have many different opinions. The whole movie had been preparing the viewer for this moment. Prejudices were created and expectations rose. Ideologically speaking what Travis did was an act of violence and to believe that we can take justice with our own hands is just not practical. As long as I know to kill, someone because you think that he is not worth it to live is a crime. We are not allowed t go and beat someone just because we feel like it. Martin Scorsese is just mocking the system and society, because we see and believe what we want. Even though it might not be the right thing to do, we let the media decided for us.

Martin Scorsese's film "Mean Streets" vs Stanley Kubrick

Mean Streets is a great movie. If we see it as, it is, Martin Scorsese’s first movie and analyze it cinematographically we would categorize it as a very realistic movie. When comparing Stanley Kubrick’s and Scosese’s styles they are night and day. With Stanley Kubrick we saw perfection in every single detail. From the lights to the makeup, everything had a place, a moment, a way. With Martin Scorsese, we see and hear the world as it is through his eyes, but still reality. Even though Scorsese things through every shot, he does not “mess” around with it nor manipulates it as Kubrick did. To me Scorsese’s “eye” has no resemblance to Kubrick’s method of creation. Kubrick always expressed a group of ideas, represented each by a specific character. In the other hand, Martin Scorsese uses every character, special effect, setting and light to serve one idea, one purpose. It is very refreshing to see a different director at work, molding ideas, expressing through cinematographic tools or simply channeling his point of view.
To conclude I believe that when we looking at a certain director, we should not try to find someone else’s characteristics. Every artist produces at the bit of there own drum. We should just let them express themselves and enjoy it for what it is. Do not confuse my words, I don’t think there is anything wrong with speculation nor criticism, but as viewers we should give the artist some space to be true to their vision.

Full Metal Jacket...Acting

Full Metal Jacket is a great movie and most of the actors are amazing. Even more, this movie covers all the bases of acting. Why do I say this? Well, I’ll explain. When studying Chapter 5, we were introduced to the different types of actors that can appear in a movie: the chameleon actors, personality actors (that either take their personas from role to role or play against it) and non-professional actors. If we take Sergeant Hartman’s character, played by R. Lee Ermey a real life sergeant, we can see a non-professional actor at work. This character brings a feeling of realism, because we are in the presence of an actual army sergeant. The way he expresses himself and acts around the recruits, with such control, arrogance and strength gives total accuracy. It even gives this feeling of being there, being screamed at. And that is the purpose of using a professional from another field, to give realism and accuracy to the role.
In the other hand, we see a performance by Vincent D'Onofrio, Private Pyle, who is known as “the human chameleon”, for the wide variety of roles he has played and for the quality of his work. This is proven when watching the development of his role in Full Metal Jacket. Throughout the movie, we can see Private Pyle evolve from a dumb, slow, even retarded cadet to a mad, angry, crazy marine. The transformations and the intensity given to this character can be seeing as two different roles in the same performance. What do I mean by this? It’s easy, if we watch Private Pyle at the beginning of the film and then compare it to the Private Pyle in the middle of the film, they are totally different. They can be alienated. Vincent D’Onofrio gave us a taste of his capability. There is no need to see other performances by D’Onofrio since here we can see how he can transform, not even from role to role but from moment to moment.

Finally yet importantly, we can see Matthew Modine playing Private Joker. In this case, we know that M. Modine has played a few roles as a veteran, not exactly the same role but they are alike in certain ways. However, he is known for working against his persona, even though his personality can show a bit in all his roles. It has been said by his co-star actress Kelli Williams, “He's so good, you never actually see him acting, He can disappear into different roles, and you never know what to expect. He's a rarity.". In the other hand actor Eric Stoltz says, Modine’s acting comes from his personality. So by this, several other comments and his performance in Kubrick’s film we can assume he is a personality actor. But it most be distinguished that he fits in both styles of actors: the personality and the chameleon actor. In this case, it’s a matter of point of view and most be open to interpretation

A Clockwork Orange...Sound to the Tenth Degree

Let us start with the basics. First of all, “A Clockwork Orange” is a piece of art, just magnificent. From the camera angles to the light, followed by the amazing sounds that complement every shot perfectly, it was easy to tell that it was Kubrick behind every single detail. To be totally honest, it was hard for me to watch all the violent scenes, specially all the rape scenes. I couldn’t stop thinking that could be me or my sister, and worst of all my mom. It was a very straightforward movie. However, it was executed perfectly.
Now, let us focus on the sound itself. From the very start, with the credits, the music conveys a feeling of madness and terror. And right away we can perceive the dynamic of the movie with classical music. The scene that was taken to the next level by the sound was definitely the encounter between Alex and his “droogs” with another gang, conformed of five guys. Every hit, punch, kick and jump was emphasized by Beethoven’s composition. The intensity of the music changes with every movement and every cut. The piece used was very strong, powerful, passionate and profound. When something extreme took place, like crashing a chair into someone’s head, the music intensity grew. Then the grand finale, of the scene, was near and Alex’s gang stop and the music was turned down. Then we see the music used as a bridge to the next scene. But enough of this scene. Later on, Alex has a threesome with two young women on his room. The sound in this scene was very different from the fight scene. Here the music is classical but fast, just like the scene, which was presented in fast-forward. This gave an unusual feeling of having fun. The music was fast and corky.
Through out the movie there are patterns. Every time some thing malicious and violent was going to take place, the music would be dark and passionate. Unlike, let’s say, the threesome the music would still be classical but happier

Editing on 2001 Space Odyssey

It is fair to say that the movie has a quite interesting concept. I, in the other hand, will admit I was not fond of it. The movie is too slow and has almost no dialogue, which is a big turn-off for me. Although I will confess, that the combination of sounds and images in some parts of the movie are amazing. My analysis is going to be focus on one of these specific combinations.

The combination I choose starts with the scene where the monkey picks up a bone from a pile of bones from a dead animal. Then he starts banging it and a triumphant music starts playing on the background. Then other images start to appear: the monkey hitting the bones, the black rectangle with the sun and the moon, the monkeys arm in the air, again the monkey hitting the bones, a mandrel falls, everything is repeated one more time and finally a monkey appears on a mountain eating a piece of meet. All these images cut and assembled for the only purpose of letting the viewer understand that the monkey is evolving, becoming more humanlike.

If we watch this segment of the movie, it is only fair to say that is amazing. The combination helps you understand the director’s idea without any guide; here the dialogue is not necessary. By cutting and repeating images, the editor and director stimulated us, the viewers, to understand everything it happened even off-screen.

Dr. Strangelove, All About Its Cinematography

I'll start by saying GENIUS. This movie combines tragedy,action and even a little comedy. Watching Seller's work was an actual treat. I loved that the three characters were amazing in totally different ways. Captain Mandrake, a peaceful military man who is trying to save the day, President Muffley, a naive-non military man who is trying to do the best he can to stop the attacks, finally and most importantly Dr. Strangelove who is a crazy-bomb loving-strategy making-Adolf Hitler's fan. Unlike Lolita, Dr. Strangelove didn't need color, for me at least, it was executed brilliantly. The way cinematography techniques, such as lights and camera shots, were used made a great difference.

Instead of choosing a group of similar scene, I'll talk about a few scenes that are helped by lighting and camera angles. Starting with the scene where Captain Mandrake enters General Ripper's office with a hand radio. In this scene we can observe that Gnrl. Ripper has a full front light and since we are only seeing his back and Cpt. Mandrake standing right before him, the feeling of darkness and power is conveyed by the smoke and the light. When the camera shots the general from bellow with half his face in darkness this produces a sinister and important look. Also, when the base is under attack and the General starts setting up the machine-gun, and the captain is lying on the sofa and is illuminated with a bit of light from above it shows hoplesness and intimidation. Another scene where the light embraces the essence is The War Room. When the ambassador is talking about the Doomsday machine he is given a backlight which makes him a pop-out look that really accentuates the importance of his words. Later on, when Dr. Strangelove appears in total darkness while Captain "Buck" Turgidson is under light and praying it gives the look of good and evil. Later on when the attack is achieved, and Dr. Strangelove starts to expose his strategy, we perceive that he is the center of attention since he has a straight on light. While everybody else in the scene is forming a circle arround him and have absolutely no light.

Overall it was a great movie, with an amazing use of mise-en-scene and cinematography techniques. I'll say that the cinematography did all the difference in the world. To me it was better than Lolita.

Lolita (1962) Mise-en-scéne

Before exposing my analysis I think is important to point out that the movie is an eye opener. I would have never expect such a great work in black & white. Now starting with my analysis...

While watching the movie Lolita there were various scenes, in which the Mise-en-scène were very effective. One of the scenes, that was most influenced by this technique, from my point of view, was the “Summer Dance” scene. Starting with the characters, exquisite costumes and hairstyles so representatives of the times. In addition, the gyms decorations, the details such as the punch and the food, people laughing and toasting helps set the atmosphere and the feeling of being in an actual dance. Also, the band playing and all the kids dancing and having a great time, give the viewer the impression of being a part of the set. The adults can identify with the parents that have the responsibility of chaperoning. When in the other hand it gives the impression to the young viewers of attending the party. As well as eavesdropping in the adults conversations’ scenes. These are a great touch because they only make the movie seem more realistic. I believe that the director's wish to convey the look of happiness, familiarity and in a certain way of “perfection”, was flawless. Also, in the part where Charlotte Haze insists that Humbert goes back home with her instead of chaperoning in the Farlow's sleepover we can see how Humbert dislikes her and how desperate he is to be with Lolita. Which is what we will see through out the whole movie. Mrs.Haze persuing Humbert, while Humbert is after Lolita and so on the circle continues.

Alluding to the special effects that help us recognize mise-en-scène, like color, I'd say that the absence of color is a great downer for me, because I believe it would have made a great difference in the movie, in sense of giving a feeling of complete reality, is important to recognize the amazing execution of the actors as well as the production. Color was certainly not a obstacle for the director to make us a part of his project. Overall, I really loved the plot.