Double Indemnity is a pretty famous film, one I've heard the name of several times before, though I did not make an effort to see it or to determine what type of film it is. When I discovered it was film noir, I was pretty excited, I've always loved film noir, and was reminded of The Man Who Wasn't There, a Coen brothers film that was done strictly noir-style in 2001 (I've also come to the conclusion that this film was based on Camus's The Stranger). One of the most interesting things to me about film noir is how heavy-handed they can be; film noir, when done well, can really create a tangible atmosphere for the viewer, sometimes it's almost as if you can actually smell the cigarette smoke in the air. To me, film-making that elicits tactile responses have always been most interesting, and that's probably why I like film noir so much (well, that and the wonderful dialogue involved).
An interesting aside, Blade Runner was brought up in class- Blade Runner is one of my favorite films of all time, and I didn't realize EXACTLY why that was. Now I realize, after it having been mentioned in class, that that is because it combines two of my favorite genres, film noir and science fiction, and it does so impeccably. I can't think of anything that could have been added or taken away from Blade Runner that would perfect it any more. But, this isn't about Blade Runner- so on to Double Indemnity and my thoughts.
The most interesting part of the readings to me were with regards to the femme fatale character often included in film noir and her relationship to changing ideas involving the role of women in the American family. Admittedly, I've only seen a few true film noir films, but in those that I have see, the women always tend to be the cause of all the madness and problems in the film (this was most certainly the case in The Man Who Wasn't There). Furthermore, after reading No Place For A Woman: The Family In Film Noir, I've realized that the characteristics of film noir characters draw blatantly obvious comparisons to ideas of American family life. I was actually surprised I had taken these films at face value and not drawn appropriate conclusions while watching them.
Film Noir seems to me to have an almost consistently negative view of family life. The main male character is almost always a single male who has never been married and ends up in pursuit of a married or otherwise unachievable female character. Perhaps this can be said to be representative of the fragmented nature of American families in the 40s, the time when many of these films were made and set, due to World War II. While this is easy enough to comprehend, I'm not quite sure why the femme fatale characters are always so evil. The reading on this matter suggests that this is because they seek to manipulate others in order to escape the oppressive environments and marriages that they are subjected to, and while in the films this is most certainly true, I wonder how this relates to family life at the time these films were produced. Were women in the 40s feeling consistently abused and oppressed? Or were women starting to become more empowered, something that a partiarchal society could have seen as a threat, thus painting woman as evil in film?
Another this I found to be interesting about Double Indemnity is the bland, mechanical nature of the scenery and environments in which it takes place. Immediately at the start, the camera pans from above down to a series of desks in Walter's insurance office, all of which are arranged in a neat grid. I was reminded of pictures I had seen from the industrial revolution or from World War II of women (and men) working in large factories, systematically performing repititous tasks for their entire work day. I also noticed this in the grocery story, with the hyper-unrealistic organisation of the products and aisles in the store. Interesting that the grocery store, which is a place of seemingly non-compromising conformity and unrealistic organisation is where some of the most pivotal scenes take place.
In conclusion, Double Indemnity is most certainly my favorite film that we have watched thusfar in this class. The characters were believable, inspired a reasonable amount of sympathy and care on the part of the viewer, and the ridiculous dialogue and narration was too much for me not to watch.
Check out this trailer for The Man Who Wasn't There if you haven't seen it yet. It's a bit more artsy but you will see similarities with Double Indemnity. An interesting film for the Coen brothers, it shows a real versatility when compared with their other films.
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3169845529/
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
White Zombie (More Human Than Human...)
(An aside) White Zombie isn't bad metal, honestly, they're pretty interesting!
Zombie movies have been a serious passion of mine for quite some time, so I was pretty excited at the prospect of seeing the first zombie movie ever made- though I knew it would not have many of the characteristics of the zombie movies I enjoy watching (campiness, humor, unnecessary over the-top violence, etc). I was also interested in the film upon learning that Bela Lugosi was in it- I have never seen the original Dracula, and White Zombie was the first film I've ever seen starring him. It was fun to see what people defined as horror or scary at the time this film was made; the effects used seemed to me to be primarily atmospheric, more subtle in their eerieness than most modern films which are typically full of loud unexpected noises, scantily clad woman, and over-the top scenes of blood and gore. Filmmakers had significantly less resources with which to create films that carried a great deal of horrific intensity, and I was interested to see how exactly that this would be pulled off.
Admittedly, I was a bit disappointed by this film. I found it at best to be only slightly disturbing, and I think that the reason I feel this way about it is because of the nature of the zombies. The zombies, to me, were not scary at all, they seemed just like mindless, purposeless drones, under the control of an extremely creepy, strangely-motivated, tall European man. Typically, when I watch zombie movies, the things I appreciate the most are the overt sense of humor involved, and the outlandishness of many of the scenes in films in this genre. I understand, of course, that this movie was made close to eighty years ago, and the methods with which to deliver such cinematography were not in existence.
The reading and class discussion for this film were based largely around the idea that White Zombie was metaphorical for US imperialism in Haiti. While I can most certainly understand where this comes from, I think the film derived largely from the desire to entertain an audience with something exotic and until that point, relatively little known. Furthermore, I think the fact that it takes place in Haiti is based primarily on stereotypes and ignorance of that area, rather than the director trying to create something allegorical and politically relevant. White Zombie is, after all, a zombie movie.
There were a few problems I had with this film- the first of which is the fact that all the characters, though achieving the goals they were intended to achieve with diligence, were like cookie cutter characters one would imagine in any horror film. The ignorant, woman-obsessed rich estate owner, the incredibly naive woman he pines for, her chivalrous fiance, the doctor who can solve all the problems, and the creepy man who lives in a giant gothic castle and controls zombies to do his bidding. Perhaps this can be said to be due to the fact that this film was made at such an early point in American horror film, and many subsequent releases have perpetuated these stereotypes which at the time did not exist, but never the less, I found it to be somewhat annoying.
There was however, one scene in the film that I (and many others, it would seem) found to be particularly powerful. This was the scene when Beaumont first arrives at the zombie mill owned by the (unnamed in the film...why?) Legendre. The sight of those zombies methodically and mechanically pushing that mill around, combined with the creaking and cracking noises made during this scene was genuinely disturbing. I found that the sounds in this scene were the main function of causing it's disturbing nature, and I know of very few films I've seen that have used sound in such a way to truly affect the audience (Eraserhead being a prime example).
Ultimately, White Zombie was a film I felt more or less neutral about. While I found the sound in particular to be interesting, I found the plot itself and the acting to be a bit boring (with the exception of Bela Lugosi). And though I understand where all the connections are seen with regards to the film being metaphorical for American imperialism, I think that sometimes it's okay to just make a good old fashioned zombie film.
Zombie movies have been a serious passion of mine for quite some time, so I was pretty excited at the prospect of seeing the first zombie movie ever made- though I knew it would not have many of the characteristics of the zombie movies I enjoy watching (campiness, humor, unnecessary over the-top violence, etc). I was also interested in the film upon learning that Bela Lugosi was in it- I have never seen the original Dracula, and White Zombie was the first film I've ever seen starring him. It was fun to see what people defined as horror or scary at the time this film was made; the effects used seemed to me to be primarily atmospheric, more subtle in their eerieness than most modern films which are typically full of loud unexpected noises, scantily clad woman, and over-the top scenes of blood and gore. Filmmakers had significantly less resources with which to create films that carried a great deal of horrific intensity, and I was interested to see how exactly that this would be pulled off.
Admittedly, I was a bit disappointed by this film. I found it at best to be only slightly disturbing, and I think that the reason I feel this way about it is because of the nature of the zombies. The zombies, to me, were not scary at all, they seemed just like mindless, purposeless drones, under the control of an extremely creepy, strangely-motivated, tall European man. Typically, when I watch zombie movies, the things I appreciate the most are the overt sense of humor involved, and the outlandishness of many of the scenes in films in this genre. I understand, of course, that this movie was made close to eighty years ago, and the methods with which to deliver such cinematography were not in existence.
The reading and class discussion for this film were based largely around the idea that White Zombie was metaphorical for US imperialism in Haiti. While I can most certainly understand where this comes from, I think the film derived largely from the desire to entertain an audience with something exotic and until that point, relatively little known. Furthermore, I think the fact that it takes place in Haiti is based primarily on stereotypes and ignorance of that area, rather than the director trying to create something allegorical and politically relevant. White Zombie is, after all, a zombie movie.
There were a few problems I had with this film- the first of which is the fact that all the characters, though achieving the goals they were intended to achieve with diligence, were like cookie cutter characters one would imagine in any horror film. The ignorant, woman-obsessed rich estate owner, the incredibly naive woman he pines for, her chivalrous fiance, the doctor who can solve all the problems, and the creepy man who lives in a giant gothic castle and controls zombies to do his bidding. Perhaps this can be said to be due to the fact that this film was made at such an early point in American horror film, and many subsequent releases have perpetuated these stereotypes which at the time did not exist, but never the less, I found it to be somewhat annoying.
There was however, one scene in the film that I (and many others, it would seem) found to be particularly powerful. This was the scene when Beaumont first arrives at the zombie mill owned by the (unnamed in the film...why?) Legendre. The sight of those zombies methodically and mechanically pushing that mill around, combined with the creaking and cracking noises made during this scene was genuinely disturbing. I found that the sounds in this scene were the main function of causing it's disturbing nature, and I know of very few films I've seen that have used sound in such a way to truly affect the audience (Eraserhead being a prime example).
Ultimately, White Zombie was a film I felt more or less neutral about. While I found the sound in particular to be interesting, I found the plot itself and the acting to be a bit boring (with the exception of Bela Lugosi). And though I understand where all the connections are seen with regards to the film being metaphorical for American imperialism, I think that sometimes it's okay to just make a good old fashioned zombie film.
My Man Godfrey
Unfortunately I was quite ill for this class and subsequently had to download this film and watch it on my own time. What I found to be most interesting about this film is how similar it is to many popular, modern comedy/satire films and/or television series. As I watched this film I was constantly reminded of things like Arrested Development, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and even some written memoirs that have been receiving increased audiences and popularity in recent times, such as Augusten Burroughs' Dry and Running With Scissors. I found it particularly fascinating that a film that was made seventy-two years ago contains so much relevance and so many similarities to things being made in modern times. 2009 obviously is a radically different time, economically, socially, technologically, politically, etc., than 1936 was, and the fact that things being produced today bear likeness to things made in 1936 indicate that there are some ideas and methods of expression that remain universal to humans in a particular culture regardless of extraneous factors.
The only "screwball comedy" I had seen prior to My Man Godfrey was Bringing Up Baby. In fact, I had never even heard that there was such a genre as "screwball comedy", but now that I have been more properly acquainted with it, I realize that screwball comedy is indeed an apt name for such a genre. Both Bringing Up Baby and My Man Godfrey carry with them a great deal of absurdity, something I find to be very refreshing in most older films. Generally, and admittedly this is a stereotype I hold on erroneous grounds, I find many older films to be difficult to watch, though obviously, not all of them. It seems to me that the acting is usually extremely melodramatic and over the top, which I find hard to take, but, with My Man Godfrey, that melodrama and ridiculousness is intentional, and that fact is where I get the sense that the film is refreshing when compared to many other films of the time.
Something I found interesting in the reading accompanying My Man Godfrey is the fact that screwball comedies tend to be extremely fast paced- this is something that I had not thought of and at first thought to be perhaps a crude generalisation, but upon thinking of Bringing Up Baby in particular, I remembered how consistenly annoyed I was with Katharine Hepburn's incredibly fast-paced, annoying, and unceasing yapping (this is not meant to be pejorative, presumably the character was intended to be such a way). I realized that one element of the screwball comedy is indeed a speedy tempo, and upon further reading, noted the author's stating that My Man Godfrey does not rely so heavily on this device, instead focusing more on abruptness and non-sequiturs. While watching the film, I had not come to the conclusion that the film was riddled with non-sequiturs (I love using non-sequiturs, they are a signature part of my sense of humor) and thought that the lines the author mentioned were more like very sarcastic-abrupt jokes. Non-sequiturs, to me, are statements that tend to elicit awkward moments with little logical response, and many of the jokes in My Man Godfrey did not seem, to me, to fulfill those requirements, and consequently, I just took away from the film a sense of great satire.
I think that politically and socially My Man Godfrey's plot was, whether intentional or not, intended to provide an escape for those watching the film during the greatest economic crisis of our country's history, The Great Depression. The fact that the rich people in the film are typically portrayed as so scatterbrained, inept, and ridiculous could be said to perhaps act as an assuaging agent for the widespread poverty and economic crises that many American families faced at the time the film was made. After all, films, books, video games, and many other forms of media are typically used as methods of "escapism". If the country were in the worst economic situation it had even been in, who would want to go watch a film about a group of extremely depressed, poverty-stricken, somber homeless folks?
Ultimately, My Man Godfrey was, for me, an enjoyable film to watch. I appreciated (at least in the version I downloaded) the better production value than that of Stagecoach or White Zombie, and was surprised to find out that the budget for the film was actually relatively high for the time, around $656,000. Furthermore, I found it to be strikingly similar to many satires of the current film/television industry, and this has changed my opinions on the datedness of many older American films.
The only "screwball comedy" I had seen prior to My Man Godfrey was Bringing Up Baby. In fact, I had never even heard that there was such a genre as "screwball comedy", but now that I have been more properly acquainted with it, I realize that screwball comedy is indeed an apt name for such a genre. Both Bringing Up Baby and My Man Godfrey carry with them a great deal of absurdity, something I find to be very refreshing in most older films. Generally, and admittedly this is a stereotype I hold on erroneous grounds, I find many older films to be difficult to watch, though obviously, not all of them. It seems to me that the acting is usually extremely melodramatic and over the top, which I find hard to take, but, with My Man Godfrey, that melodrama and ridiculousness is intentional, and that fact is where I get the sense that the film is refreshing when compared to many other films of the time.
Something I found interesting in the reading accompanying My Man Godfrey is the fact that screwball comedies tend to be extremely fast paced- this is something that I had not thought of and at first thought to be perhaps a crude generalisation, but upon thinking of Bringing Up Baby in particular, I remembered how consistenly annoyed I was with Katharine Hepburn's incredibly fast-paced, annoying, and unceasing yapping (this is not meant to be pejorative, presumably the character was intended to be such a way). I realized that one element of the screwball comedy is indeed a speedy tempo, and upon further reading, noted the author's stating that My Man Godfrey does not rely so heavily on this device, instead focusing more on abruptness and non-sequiturs. While watching the film, I had not come to the conclusion that the film was riddled with non-sequiturs (I love using non-sequiturs, they are a signature part of my sense of humor) and thought that the lines the author mentioned were more like very sarcastic-abrupt jokes. Non-sequiturs, to me, are statements that tend to elicit awkward moments with little logical response, and many of the jokes in My Man Godfrey did not seem, to me, to fulfill those requirements, and consequently, I just took away from the film a sense of great satire.
I think that politically and socially My Man Godfrey's plot was, whether intentional or not, intended to provide an escape for those watching the film during the greatest economic crisis of our country's history, The Great Depression. The fact that the rich people in the film are typically portrayed as so scatterbrained, inept, and ridiculous could be said to perhaps act as an assuaging agent for the widespread poverty and economic crises that many American families faced at the time the film was made. After all, films, books, video games, and many other forms of media are typically used as methods of "escapism". If the country were in the worst economic situation it had even been in, who would want to go watch a film about a group of extremely depressed, poverty-stricken, somber homeless folks?
Ultimately, My Man Godfrey was, for me, an enjoyable film to watch. I appreciated (at least in the version I downloaded) the better production value than that of Stagecoach or White Zombie, and was surprised to find out that the budget for the film was actually relatively high for the time, around $656,000. Furthermore, I found it to be strikingly similar to many satires of the current film/television industry, and this has changed my opinions on the datedness of many older American films.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Stagecoach
I've been a fan of film for many many years, probably dating back to my early high school years, and those films that have always intrigued me the most are films that go against the norm, break boundaries, and cause me to actually analytically think about what I have just spent an hour and a half or so watching. Directors like David Lynch, Wes Anderson, Ingmar Bergman, just to name a few, have sparked a genuine interest in me for atypical film-making, and have ultimately led to my having discovered some of my favorite films that I otherwise would never have heard of. Subsequently, and perhaps this is an ignorant and stereotypical notion, I have as a general rule had little to no interest in the American Western film, because they seemed to me to all follow a set of rules or standards. Admittedly, I have only seen a handful of them, but of the ones I have seen, they seem to all have the rugged, rough around the edges frontier fugitive, the dashing aristocratic people he becomes involved with, the Indians making appearances at random times to cause chaos, the drunk, and the girl who is for some reason receiving copious amounts of over-chivalrous protection from nearly everyone who is on her side in the film.
I wasn't surprised to learn that the first film we were to watch in this class was a western, because it is widely known that westerns as a genre are one of the most important parts of American film. Furthermore, when I learned that this movie was a movie with John Wayne in it, I was even less interested in watching it, as I had seen some of his other films (though these were made at a decidedly later portion of his career) and found him to be rather bland, bordering on annoying.
Even with all these negative preconceptions of what the film Stagecoach was going to bring to the table, I found it to be reasonably entertaining, and I believe the reason that I found this to be the case is because, unlike most of the other westerns I've seen, Stagecoach contained what seemed to me to be an unusually high frequency of comedic situations. It could be that this is just because the film is somewhat dated: as an example, when Henry Gatewood said "Our national debt is something shocking. Over one billion dollars a year!" I had to force myself not to chuckle. Gatewood also mentions that "We should have a businessman as president". Clearly these, at the time, were not meant to be humorous, but taken with regards to the current state of out government and economy, one can extract a decent amount of mirth from these statements.
Something I also found interesting, and also slightly humorous about the film is with regards to the character of Doc Boone. Boone in the film is rarely sober, he is almost always drunk, and I found this to be interesting because though the people he was travelling with were at times a bit annoyed with him, they seemed more or less accepting of this fact. Perhaps this is because in the film they had no other choice but to accept it, or perhaps this is indicative of the fact that either people at the time the movie was set were more accepting of drunks. Thinking about such a happening in today's society, the events of the film would have been drastically different. What sane and rational woman would allow a drunken, incoherent doctor who's reputation is less than honorable deliver her baby?
Another thing about this film I thought was interesting was the character of Dallas being a prostitute. This is something about the film that I somehow did not pick up on until the class discussion following the screening of the film. I don't recall what exactly it was that gave the audience the impression that she was a prostitute, perhaps I just missed out on something? Regardless, when thinking about it as a plot device, it makes complete sense for her to be a prostitute, as she falls in love with the rule-breaking hard-lined outlaw Ringo, played by John Wayne. To have a woman such as Ms. Mallory, and upstanding Virginian aristocrat fall in love with a rough-around-the-edges outlaw like Ringo would have been silly.
We talked a bit in class about the use of the actors' eyes in the film to convey emotion. I couldn't help but notice this constantly throughout the film, at times their stares at each other seemed so intense and so prolonged to have been almost a bit obtrusive, and maybe even a little bit comical in their intensity. Another thing I noticed about these eye scenes is that whenever there was one between Ringo and Dallas, the camera seemed to get ever so slightly out of focus, to add a bit of softness to the scene- this is something I have seen with a fair deal of regularity in older American films, particularly in films like Casablanca and many of the early romance films. I wonder, since this film was made so early (1939) if it more or less started around this time or if Stagecoach was one of the first films to use such a technique.
In conclusion, Stagecoach proved to me to be an interesting film, and though it is a western, and contains many of the norms and stereotypes of the genre, I did not find it to be boring, as I do most westerns. It was also very interesting to see John Wayne at such a young age. He is much older in most of the films I've seen him in, and I was never able to understand why people found him to be so attractive, but now having seen him as a strapping young lad, I can understand where that comes from.
Stagecoach has been remade twice, once as a television series, and once as another movie.
Link to the second film is here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061024/
Link to the television series is here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092003/
It would be interesting to watch both of these, particularly to see how the different eccentricities and aspects of each of the characters involved (particularly Dallas and Doc Boone) had been adapted to suit a new time period in American Film.
I wasn't surprised to learn that the first film we were to watch in this class was a western, because it is widely known that westerns as a genre are one of the most important parts of American film. Furthermore, when I learned that this movie was a movie with John Wayne in it, I was even less interested in watching it, as I had seen some of his other films (though these were made at a decidedly later portion of his career) and found him to be rather bland, bordering on annoying.
Even with all these negative preconceptions of what the film Stagecoach was going to bring to the table, I found it to be reasonably entertaining, and I believe the reason that I found this to be the case is because, unlike most of the other westerns I've seen, Stagecoach contained what seemed to me to be an unusually high frequency of comedic situations. It could be that this is just because the film is somewhat dated: as an example, when Henry Gatewood said "Our national debt is something shocking. Over one billion dollars a year!" I had to force myself not to chuckle. Gatewood also mentions that "We should have a businessman as president". Clearly these, at the time, were not meant to be humorous, but taken with regards to the current state of out government and economy, one can extract a decent amount of mirth from these statements.
Something I also found interesting, and also slightly humorous about the film is with regards to the character of Doc Boone. Boone in the film is rarely sober, he is almost always drunk, and I found this to be interesting because though the people he was travelling with were at times a bit annoyed with him, they seemed more or less accepting of this fact. Perhaps this is because in the film they had no other choice but to accept it, or perhaps this is indicative of the fact that either people at the time the movie was set were more accepting of drunks. Thinking about such a happening in today's society, the events of the film would have been drastically different. What sane and rational woman would allow a drunken, incoherent doctor who's reputation is less than honorable deliver her baby?
Another thing about this film I thought was interesting was the character of Dallas being a prostitute. This is something about the film that I somehow did not pick up on until the class discussion following the screening of the film. I don't recall what exactly it was that gave the audience the impression that she was a prostitute, perhaps I just missed out on something? Regardless, when thinking about it as a plot device, it makes complete sense for her to be a prostitute, as she falls in love with the rule-breaking hard-lined outlaw Ringo, played by John Wayne. To have a woman such as Ms. Mallory, and upstanding Virginian aristocrat fall in love with a rough-around-the-edges outlaw like Ringo would have been silly.
We talked a bit in class about the use of the actors' eyes in the film to convey emotion. I couldn't help but notice this constantly throughout the film, at times their stares at each other seemed so intense and so prolonged to have been almost a bit obtrusive, and maybe even a little bit comical in their intensity. Another thing I noticed about these eye scenes is that whenever there was one between Ringo and Dallas, the camera seemed to get ever so slightly out of focus, to add a bit of softness to the scene- this is something I have seen with a fair deal of regularity in older American films, particularly in films like Casablanca and many of the early romance films. I wonder, since this film was made so early (1939) if it more or less started around this time or if Stagecoach was one of the first films to use such a technique.
In conclusion, Stagecoach proved to me to be an interesting film, and though it is a western, and contains many of the norms and stereotypes of the genre, I did not find it to be boring, as I do most westerns. It was also very interesting to see John Wayne at such a young age. He is much older in most of the films I've seen him in, and I was never able to understand why people found him to be so attractive, but now having seen him as a strapping young lad, I can understand where that comes from.
Stagecoach has been remade twice, once as a television series, and once as another movie.
Link to the second film is here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061024/
Link to the television series is here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092003/
It would be interesting to watch both of these, particularly to see how the different eccentricities and aspects of each of the characters involved (particularly Dallas and Doc Boone) had been adapted to suit a new time period in American Film.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)