Here is the info for Some Like It Hot, and the info for Vertigo. As I wrote on the preceding blog, both are considered two of the greatest films made, interestingly enough made by two non-Americans: Billy Wilder was German, and Hitchcock was British.
Here is Jack Lemmon and Joe E. Brown tangoing. It doesn't end up where it starts—as one can say so much of the movie.
And the famous ending. I haven't heard you all laugh this much in a while.
So a certifiable classic, pretty much universally acclaimed as one of the great comedies and farces ever.
1. When I asked what you thought of the film, only a few offered responses. So what did you think of the film? Like? Dislike? Why? What stayed with you from it?
2. How do you think it has held up in the 58 years since it was released? Did this bring up problematic issues or questions the way Seven Brides for Seven Brothers did? Did you find it off-putting or offensive? If you see this as different than the Donan musical, what makes it different? If you see them similar, how so?
3. Why do you think that this has held up for critics and many viewers (perhaps even yourself)? You don't have to agree or support what you write, but think about what has made this movie considered by contemporary critics and film writers as...well, if not the greatest, then certainly one of the greatest American comedies (and in the BFI poll, 42nd greatest film) ever?
4. Two sentence response to what you've seen of Vertigo?
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers was a major success when it was released in 1954, though the studio had little invested in it and did not foresee its success. It was nominated for five Oscars, including Best Picture, and won one, for Best Musical Score for a Movie. It has been included on the National Film Registry for "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant films." It also is on the American Film Institute's list of 25 greatest American musicals.
I've been reading contemporary reviews of the film, many of which are laudatory. Here is the one from the New York Times. Please read it. Here is a more contemporary review, acknowledging the "problematic nature" of the film. Here is a direct addressing of that problematic nature. At the time it was released, as far as I can tell, there was little to no comment on the sexism of the film, not to mention the kidnapping of the women. There was comment on the superlative dancing and singing. Indeed, all but one of the brothers, and all of the women, were professional dancers. The most famous part of the movie is clearly the barn raising dance. But this moment strikes me as just as important, as the brothers yearn for the women they fallen for. It's almost operatic to me.
Laney talked in class today about how she didn't take seriously—or too seriously—that "problematic nature" we all were struck by—and some of the rest of you echoed that. This is not the Dardenne brothers; it's not even Creed. It's people singing and dancing on clearly fake movie sets (interestingly enough, Stanley Donan did want to shoot this on location; that would have been interesting to see). The classic Hollywood musical was designed to be escapist fare, entertainment plain and simple. It could get serious—South Pacific addressed racism, as did West Side Story, along with youth gangs and the effect of poverty on youth. But even in those musicals, you had this:
And in West Side Story, while making a legitimate point about prejudice against Puerto Rican immigrants, you still were mostly blown away by the dancing:
So....
1. Emory asked "what was the point" of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. It does have a story and theme and a point, muddled perhaps, but there is something going on there, certainly with the issues between Adam and Millie. So aside from the dancing and singing and humor: what point do you think it was trying to make? What is it about? Don't dismiss this question even if you hated the movie. And maybe the movie didn't succeed fully in this. But as some of you said in class, some things are different at the end than they were in the beginning. And Adam certainly is changed.
2. This movie is sexist and un-PC as can be; we all get that. But the dancing is extraordinary as is much of the singing. Some of you expressed your liking for it. So how do you reconcile the 50s attitudes it presents with the positive parts of it—allow for them to co-exist? And if you can't, why not?
3. One of the questions we asked in class was did the movie itself get the joke? Was it aware of in any way, shape, or form, its "problematic nature"?
200 words in all, as always. Tomorrow, we will begin what is considered by many critics to be the greatest American comedy ever, Some Like It Hot (1959), directed by Billy Wilder, and starring Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis, and Jack Lemmon. The British Film Institute has it as the 42nd greatest movie ever made. The American Film Institute has named it the greatest American comedy ever and the 22nd greatest American film ever. Here's the trailer.
Here is the New York Times review of the film. Please read it. And please read The New Yorker reivew here. And finally, this from the Fresno Bee. This is a film that received almost universal accolades; certainly Marion Cottilard's performance was applauded as one of the best of 2014. Some critics call is a suspense film, which it certainly is. Others could call it—yes—a woman's film. It occupies a similar space as Moonlight and Middle of Nowhere in its investigation of characters who lack glamour and live everyday lives, but taken to a much greater degree of realism and naturalism than those two films. I would call it a political film.
1. Today in class, Dylan said she felt no connection to Sandra—yet felt empathy for her. Kayla went farther and said she didn't like Sandra. I liked her—I grew to love her in the way we can for characters in movies. But I also didn't find Brian pervvy in Middle of Nowhere. I think the Dardenne brothers would have no issue with either Kayla or Dylan's feelings about their character. So for a minute, assume that the film doesn't necessarily want us to feel connected or even like its protagonist. How could that work to the film's benefit? Or why might the directors deliberately desire that effect? What purpose can it serve for the film for us to feel distanced from Sandra?
2. Who is the villain in the film? Or what is the villain in the film? How do we know this? What scene or moment best supports your answer–and how so?
3. I called this a political film. What does that mean to you in this context? Explain your answer.
200 words. Really investigate these questions. Tomorrow, for a major change of pace...
This is the scene we left on at the end of class. It captures so well how the Dardenne brothers have approached the film. I found it powerful. Finally, someone wants to help Sandra.
Two Days, One Night brought Marion Cotillard an Oscar nomination in 2014. Look here at the end of the article for the accolades it received. This is the 9th of the 10 films the Dardennes have written and directed together. Here is the information for the film.
1. So 30 minutes into the film...what do you think? Like? Dislike? And why? Additionally: are you drawn into Sandra's journey to save her job? Do you care? Explain your response.
2. The Dardenne Brothers are known for their hyper-realistic approach to making films. Yet it's not all that far from what Barry Jenkins and Ava DuVernay do in their films. What strikes you about the look of the film and the technical approach to the film: setting. editing, sound, shots, costumes? Focus on two of the categories I listed. Does the movie remind you in any way of either or both of the last two movies we've watched in its look and the technical aspects of it that you just wrote about? How so or how not?
You may not believe this, but Middle of Nowhere was received warmly by many critics when it got a limited release in 2012. Here is Manohla Dargis' review in the New York Times—please read it. Here is Kenneth Turan's review in the LA Times—please read it also. Please read this review from the Toronto Globe and Mail. Not that the film got universally good reviews; a number of critics complained about its pacing, its slowness, the way some of you did. But this is a respected independent film that garnered several awards, the most prestigious being the Best Director Prize at The Sundance Film Festival for Ava DuVernay.
1. I'm curious: what do you go to a movie for? What is it you want from a movie? Please be specific—and name two or three movies in answering this, okay?
2. I asked in class today what genre would you consider Middle of Nowhere: Isaac said drama, which it certainly is, but I proposed a Woman's Picture, as they used to be called. Read this definition from the oracle. As the oracle says, the term itself has dropped out of use, but I would argue it still applies to this film. In the same way that Moonlight is clearly Chiron's story and as much as Moonlight concerns itself with the masculine world of Chiron, Middle of Nowhere concerns itself with the feminine world of Ruby.
My first question: would you agree that this film is indeed a woman's film? If so, why? If not, why not? My second question: is this a genre you are drawn to—or could imagine yourself drawn to? Why or why not?
3. We talked about the absence of measurable plot in the movie today. Call it plot—call it story: what is the film about? Write a couple sentences.
4. I would propose that this film shares some of the major themes of Moonlight. How could that be true? Where does Moonlight and Middle of Nowhere overlap?
5. Reaction to the film? Expand on what you said in class today. Mention a specific moment or image or scene in answering this.
200 words, folks. Some of the responses on the last blog were pretty short.
On Monday, after we talk a little more about DuVernay's film, we'll begin Two Days, One Night (2014), by the Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, two Belgian filmmakers.
*'“Creed” is a dandy piece of entertainment, soothingly old-fashioned and
bracingly up-to-date. The punches fly, the music soars (hip-hop along
with Ludwig Goransson’s variations on the old Bill Conti brass) and the
ground is prepared for “Creed II.” We’ll see how that goes. But for now
it is sweet to have this lesson in the importance of fast footwork,
brute power and brotherly love.'
**'Ingeniously, Coogler has transformed “Rocky”—the modern cinematic myth
that, perhaps more than any other, endures as a modern capitalist
Horatio Alger story of personal determination and sheer will—into a
vision of community and opportunity, connections and social capital,
family and money.'
The first quote(*) is from the New York Times review of the film. Read the rest here. The second quote(**) is from a review in The New Yorker. Read the rest here. The film got mostly positive reviews, and as yesterday's blog stated, made almost $174 million in its run—not bad for a boxing movie. This is clearly a commercial film, capitalizing on a popular series and with the weight of a major studios behind it—MGM, New Line, and Warner Brothers—it was designed to be a popular film in ways Moonlight wasn't (Creed made over $100 million more than Moonlight which never got the wide release Creed did). At the same time, Creed was, like Moonlight, directed by newcomer, Ryan Coogler, who had done only one movie before this and was 28 years old when he made Creed, and like Moonlight, it starred a young actor (Michael B. Jordan who had only recently come to movies from TV—The Wire, Friday Night Lights, Parenthood), and like Moonlight, had a predominantly African-American cast. The last Rocky film, Rocky Balboa, was released back in 2006, so it wasn't as if audiences were clamoring for a new one. So while clearly a commercial venture, Creed was not a sure success—more so than Moonlight, but the question was still would an audience come out for a Rocky movie starring a young black man and in which Rocky himself was a supporting character?
1. You haven't finished the film (please don't find out the ending, if you haven't seen it). So—separate—from your reaction to Moonlight: don't compare them yet—what is your reaction to it? Explain your response. And what moment, scene, image, stayed with you—and why?
2. Would you recommend this film to your friends? Why or why not? And what would you say this movie is about to them if you wanted them to see it—or what would you say is the problem is what the movie is about if you couldn't recommend it?
3. Can you make a case for why this film was such a success? Is it simply because it is a Rocky movie? That it co-starred Sylvester Stallone? That it has a straight-forward plot (much like Jaws, another hugely successful genre film)? The audience could not have all been boxing movie, Sylvester Stallone, Rocky fans; what else in this movie could have appealed to those viewers?
4. Creed and Moonlight: Commercial vs. Art; genre film vs. personal story; straight vs. gay; etc. They would appear to be polar opposites. Is there any crossover here though? Is there a place where these films meet—where they share certain theme(s) or conflicts? If so—how so? If you think not, why not?
We'll talk about both films tomorrow; then second half of class we'll begin Middle of Nowhere, the second film by Ava DuVernay for which she won the Best Director Prize at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. She went on to direct Selma, nominated for Best Picture at the 2014 Academy Awards, and the documentary 13th, nominated for Best Documentary at the 2016 Academy Awards. This is the trailer for Middle of Nowhere.
I don't know about you all, but that last segment of Moonlight—"Black"—left me emotionally wrung out. Ironically, when I saw the movie in the theater, this section left me the least moved. Not this time. Here is a thoughtful review by A.O. Scott in the New York Times. Here is an excellent review by Hilton Als in The New Yorker...and a follow up by Richard Brody in the same publication. Please read these three reviews.
1. I asked yesterday what you thought the movie was about, after the first 40 minutes. Now that you've finished it, what is it about? You can quote from any of the reviews above, refer to them, refer to what others on the blog have said, but come up with your own conclusion(s). And what scene, image, or moment, best defines what the film is about for you.
2. You're talking to a friend who has not seen the movie: would you recommend it to them? Why or why not? Is it, for you, a movie worth seeing?
We started Creed today—another film about a young black man in America today. It is, as I said in class, a sequel (of sorts) to the popular Rocky series. The original Rocky, made in 1976, was as much a surprise Oscar winner as was Moonlight in many ways: a small boxing film starring (and written by) an unknown (Sylvester Stallone). The film cost $1 million to make; it made $225 million. Creed is 30 year old Ryan Coogler's second full-length film; his first, Fruitvale Station (2013), also starred Michael B. Jordan and won many awards: it made $17 million on a $900,000 budget. Creed, costing $35 million, and made almost $174 million. It garnered a number of accolades. It made a number of bests and top 10 lists as well.
3. In class today I made one distinction between the two films: Moonlight is an art film and Creed is a commercial film. In watching the first 25 minutes of Creed, what distinguishes it most of all from Moonlight in terms of style and/or approach? This is not saying it's not as good or anything—I just want you to consider the distinction between a commercial film and an art film (imprecise terms, I realize).
Based on Terrell Alvin McCraney's unpublished play, Moonlight is Barry Jenkins second film. The film won the 2016 Oscar for Best Picture (despite the initial announcement that the odds-on favorite La La Landhad won, a huge embarrassment for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science). Made for $1.5 million, it grossed $55.8 million, the second lowest grossing film to win the Oscar.
Accolades:
•Academy Awards: 8 nominations. Three wins. Best Picture. Best Supporting Actor: Mahershala Ali. Best Adapted Screenplay: Barry Jenkins and Terrell Alvin McCraney,
•Numerous Top Ten Lists.
•Numerous awards.
1. So what is your reaction to the film? Like? Dislike? Explain. And what has jumped out at you about it? It can be an actor, a scene, a moment, something technical—sound, photography, music, etc. And why did this jump at you?
2. So what is this film about? Based on what we've seen, the first 40 minutes, where do you see it going—and why? (Those of you who have seen it, please, try to not give the rest of the movie away; stick to the first 40 minutes in your discussion too)
That fifteen minutes of quiet went by fast didn't it? From what I could glean from searching the internet, there actually was no script for Mad Max: Fury Road, just storyboards (drawings that illustrate the story. Here are Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron on that. A script for this movie would be pretty damn short, with as little said in it as there is. And for the last twenty minutes, much of the time I couldn't tell what was being said—deliberate on the part of director Miller I have to think.
Take a look at this, the chase scene from The Road Warrior: it clearly was the basis for the chase in Mad Max: Fury Road—and in its time it was just as thrilling. Again, no dialogue, just movement and action. And here's the beginning of the chase in Fury Road. It would be hard to top the opening of Fury Road, but this chase does it.
1. You've seen the whole movie now: similar to what you did with Jaws, what would you say to a friend who asked if they should see Fury Road?. Avoid merely recounting the plot as many did with Jaws—but make clear to your reader why they should or shouldn't see the movie. 100 words.
2. Not knocking anyone in the movie's acting: Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron, all those women warriors, Nicholas Hoult who played Nux, even the super models—not to mention all those War Boys—they all were perfectly fine. Charlize Theron was great even. But you're not going to recommend this film to your friends for the acting (as you might Moonlight, which we'll watch next week). So using the chase clip above, comment on one part of the film that is strictly cinematic—the photography; the editing; the sound; the costumes—that particularly made it particularly stand out for you. How did it do so? And does it add to the "must see" status of the film?
3. In fact, what, above all, makes this movie a "must see movie"? Explain your answer.
4. Finally: read this review of Sherlock Jr. (1924). I didn't hear much laughter from the class, even though I was thoroughly enjoying the film. In the past I've used his full-length film The General, which is a masterpiece of comedy, silent and sound. On one level, Sherlock Jr. is as far from Mad Max: Fury Road as any movie can be from another. On another level, in its primitive manner, it celebrates the sheer fun of movies as much as Mad Max does; it acknowledges the magic of movie making. I wanted you to see what a silent movie was. So my question: your reaction to it? What worked; what didn't.
Write over 200 words to answer these questions. See you all Monday.
Here is the IMDB page for Mad Max: Fury Road, containing all the information you will ever need for the film.
Mad Max: Fury Road
is a sequel/rebooting of director George Miller and producer Byron
Kennedy's previous three films about Max Rockatansky, an Australian
policeman some time in the future who survives some sort of social,
political, and economic collapse that turns Australia (and maybe the
world) into a wasteland of roving marauders scratching for whatever
food, gas, and shelter is left. Mad Max was released in 1979
(view the trailer) and starred a young Mel Gibson as Max, who loses his
wife, child, and sanity to a vicious motorcycle gang. It earned $100
million worldwide, making it one of the most successful Australian
movies ever. Mad Max 2 (The Road Warrior in the US) followed in 1981 (view the trailer), picking up the action years after the events in the
previous film, and Max is now a leather clad loner in a black
supercharged V-8 muscle car, his only companion a loyal Australian
cattle dog. He comes to the aide of a group of people holding onto a
oil refinery against a gang of punk attired rovers. It too was a
commercial success, earning $23.7 million in the US and Canada against a
budget of $4.5 million. The third film in the series, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985),
(view the trailer) finds Max as an unlikely savior of a group of
children who survived a plane crash, all allied against the corrupt but
regal ruler of a desert border town, played by the singer Tina Turner.
It earned $36 million against a budget of $10 million. Mad Max: Fury Road
takes place sometime after the events in the original Mad Max, with
English actor Tom Hardy now assuming the Max role and South
African-turned-American-model-turned-action hero Charlize Theron in the key role of
Furiosa. The film, released on 15 May 2015, earned $378.9 million on
its $150 million budget.
Accolades:
•Australian Academy of Cinema and Television: Best Film, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Editing....
•Academy Awards: 10 nominations, including Best Picture, Director, Cinematography, Editing. Won 6 Oscars: Best editing, production design, costume design, makeup and hair, sound mixing, sound editing.
•Many Best of lists. (For full coverage, look here)
So....
1. In talking about Jaws, we talked about the power of emotional impact and character in making a movie worth seeing. Well, so far in Mad Max: Fury Road, there has been little character development: between Max and Furiosa they speak about twelve lines in this first 45 minutes. So if you react positively to the film (question #1) what elicits that response, given that the characters are at this point subordinate to the action? Is it the action? Is it the plot? Is it the editing? The music? A combination of those and maybe others? And if you don't like what you've seen so far, why is that? Either way you answer, what moment or scene has stuck with you these hours since you've viewed the film? This is a lot of questions, but please, address them. And refer to the film as much as you can. 200 words.
See you all tomorrow for the loud and action-packed second half of the film. The pace lets down for about fifteen minutes.
And just to let you know: there were three sequels. Watch at your own risk. And finally, if you think sharks and swimmers are old hat...
Question 1. You're a film critic for The Forum. Write a hundred work review of Jaws.
2. Yesterday, we talked about your criteria for what makes a movie worth seeing. To refresh your memory, this is what a few of you said:
—It has to have interesting characters.
—The cinematography—specifically the color—has to be well done.
—There has to be a plot or story that pulls you in.
—The acting has to be believable.
—A world is created that is escapist, or realistic, or believable.
—You have to connect with the characters.
—There has to be an emotional impact.
Using one of these criteria, or one that's not there because you didn't have a chance to state it, apply it to Jaws. I asked you to do this last night, but in this case, be really specific: how specifically—citing a specific scene or moments—does the movie fulfill your requirement. 100 words.
See you all tomorrow. We'll talk about the above for about 30 minutes or so. Then...
Jaws was based on a best-selling beach novel (irony intended) by Peter Benchley. The movie was handed by the producers to their third choice for director, 26-year old Steven Spielberg, who had directed two films before this, one for television, Duel (1974), that was considered even then as something unusually good for the medium, and a quirky crime drama The Sugarland Express (1974), that was well-received. The production of Jaws became legend in Hollywood; several scriptwriters, a mechanical shark that wouldn't work, an alcoholic star, a shoot that was supposed to take 55 days but took 159, and wrapped finally $5 million over budget. The studio spent another $1.8 million promoting it (over $8 million in 2017 currency). It had no great stars; it was, though, based on a well-known book. And guess what? It opened to $7 million its first weekend; in two weeks it made its production costs back. It became the first movie in the US to earn $100 million. Ultimately it made $470 million dollars. It's considered the first of the summer blockbusters (think The Avengers franchise), and it's been blamed for the death of the American art film that reigned in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Accolades:
•Three Oscars. Nominated for Best Film.
•48 on the American Film Institute's list of greatest American films of all time in 1998; it was 56 in 2008.
•New York Times: one of the 1000 best films ever made.
•Selected for preservation in the National Film Registry in 2001 as a "culturally significant" motion picture.
To begin, here's a scene from what we've watched already, Brody nervously watching the water for the shark. Spielberg uses every trick in the proverbial book to make this nerve-wracking (Emery, I saw you ready to cover your eyes during the scene). The most famous part of the scene is when Brody sees the boy being attacked; using a page out of Alfred Hitchcock, Spielberg simultaneously dollies in with the camera (a dolly is a track that allows the camera to move) and using a zoom lens, zooms out at the same time. It's a great effect we will see in Vertigo.
1. So your reaction so far? Like? Dislike? Why? And what scene or moment has stayed with you since watching the movie in class? And why?
2. How would you categorize Jaws? Is it a drama? An adventure film? A horror film? Wikipedia categorizes it as a thriller, which makes sense, I suppose. But there's this story too about Martin Brody, a fish out of water (yeah, yeah) on this island off the coast of Massachusetts, and his fear of water. There's a commentary as well on the way the Mayor puts the economic interests of Amity above the little problem of the shark eating its inhabitants. Then there will be Quint, who we were briefly introduced to today, the flinty Yankee shark hunter; he has a fascinating story. And Hooper, who Quint dismisses immediately as a city boy who's never done an honest day of work in his life. There's a lot going on here. But nonetheless, how would you categorize this film—and why?
3. On your scale of what makes a movie worth seeing: how is Jaws doing? Make clear your criteria: then say how Jaws is—or isn't—fulfilling it.
That's it. Write about 200 words in all. Good day in class today. We'll finish the movie tomorrow and talk about it. Have a good night.
