This was definitely one of the strangest movie’s that I’ve seen. While we’ve watched some pretty strange movies in this class so far, I can actually say that I understood and enjoyed this film. I guess it helps that I’m a Dennis Hopper fan. I really enjoyed the look of this film. At first I thought it would be a very bright and vibrant 80’s film, but was happily surprised when it turned into a pretty dark commentary on the underbelly of society. This film was dark and quirky but not nearly as strange as Repo Man, which was a bit too off the wall for my taste. I love Lynch’s ability to come off as sarcastic with his camera angles and use of color. I was one of the first in class to say that I thought that he was being sarcastic by offering these picture perfect images that looked as if they could have been painted. I enjoyed the film’s return to the film-noir genre. The darker scenes, the damsel in distress and the strange villain really made me feel as if I were back in time watching an old crime film noir classic at times. The reading was finally direct and understandable. I agree that this film had a deeper commentary than just a crazy bad guy raining hell on this poor woman. In conclusion I would say that I am happy that this film was a part of our collection in this class and would happily watch it again. I would also love to see more Lynch films to see if his commentary comes of as strongly in other films as it did in this one.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Dr. Strangelove
This past week I looked up the schedule for the class to see what movie we would be watching, and thought that it said “All the president's Men”. I had seen this before, and was excited for class. Once I arrived I quickly found out that I must have read the schedule wrong, and that we were in fact watching Dr. Strangelove. I have seen this movie as well, and was definitely excited once I realized my mistake. My first experience with this movie was when I was a bit younger and I loved it. I’ve always been a big fan of Peter Sellers, and Kubrick is one my my favorite directors of all time. The overall feel to the film is one that have never forgotten, and is partially responsible for my fascination with Kubrick as a director.
One of the more interesting parts of the reading for this week was when the author said: “In Kubrick's world view, modern man has made scientific and technological advances inconceivable to previous generations but lacks the wisdom either to perceive how the new gadgetry might be used in constructive ways or, more fundamentally, to ask whether the "advance" might not cause more harm than good.” I’ve seen a lot of Kubrick’s films and I agree with Charles Maland’s statement. In “Dr. Strangelove” it is clear that man does not have a firm grasp of the future of the “doomsday device”. Mankind has created this weapon of power, and is unsure about the usefulness of it. We know that it can lead to death, and not much more beyond that. Throughout the entire film the characters are speeding through one giant race to stop what could be the most tragic event of all time, all because man has created something which he apparently cannot control.
One part of the reading which I really enjoyed was when Maland describes the evolution of the script. As a fan of Kurbrick, it was interesting to read about how fascinated he was with the possibilities of nuclear war, and to see how in depth his research was for the film. I didn’t know that the film was at first geared to be a serious one, but was then switched to a “black comedy” later when Kubrick realized that he was leaving out all of the truths about the subject.
Overall I loved watching the film again in this mindset. Before I had only payed attention to the style of the film, and the goofiness of the film. This time I had payed attention to the social commentary that Kubrick was making, and I feel that I now have a better grasp of the concepts. I now realize how scary it must have been to live during that period knowing that man had such a powerful weapon with such little knowledge on the subject. I do however understand why Kubrick would make a film in this era which somewhat pokes fun at the overall feeling during the period; a move which I consider to be a bold one.
One of the more interesting parts of the reading for this week was when the author said: “In Kubrick's world view, modern man has made scientific and technological advances inconceivable to previous generations but lacks the wisdom either to perceive how the new gadgetry might be used in constructive ways or, more fundamentally, to ask whether the "advance" might not cause more harm than good.” I’ve seen a lot of Kubrick’s films and I agree with Charles Maland’s statement. In “Dr. Strangelove” it is clear that man does not have a firm grasp of the future of the “doomsday device”. Mankind has created this weapon of power, and is unsure about the usefulness of it. We know that it can lead to death, and not much more beyond that. Throughout the entire film the characters are speeding through one giant race to stop what could be the most tragic event of all time, all because man has created something which he apparently cannot control.
One part of the reading which I really enjoyed was when Maland describes the evolution of the script. As a fan of Kurbrick, it was interesting to read about how fascinated he was with the possibilities of nuclear war, and to see how in depth his research was for the film. I didn’t know that the film was at first geared to be a serious one, but was then switched to a “black comedy” later when Kubrick realized that he was leaving out all of the truths about the subject.
Overall I loved watching the film again in this mindset. Before I had only payed attention to the style of the film, and the goofiness of the film. This time I had payed attention to the social commentary that Kubrick was making, and I feel that I now have a better grasp of the concepts. I now realize how scary it must have been to live during that period knowing that man had such a powerful weapon with such little knowledge on the subject. I do however understand why Kubrick would make a film in this era which somewhat pokes fun at the overall feeling during the period; a move which I consider to be a bold one.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Godzilla!
Godzilla! One of the most iconic films of all time. When I think of Godzilla I’m sent back to a time when I was a little guy who stayed up late to watch old black and white movies on public access channels. Godzilla was the old horror movie to turn to when looking for an old cheese-ball flick to fall asleep to.
I haven’t seen this movie in entirety before so it was interesting to see how the story folded out. I had never known that there was an original completely in Japanese, and was only familiar with the remake which we watched in class. When the word “Godzilla” is said I think of cheesy special effects, strange sound effects at inappropriate times (screaming noises when a car is blown up from Godzilla’s powers), and over the top acting. Not once had it ever occurred to me that there was actually some substance to this film at all.
Until now I hadn’t known of the Lucky Dragon incident. The Japanese had finally (to a point) moved on from what had happened in the past and was determined to go on with their lives. Boom. Sideswiped by the Lucky Dragon incident, and then further when Russia continued to test in Japanese waters. Knowledge of this incident alone gives an entirely different feel to the film. I realize now how strange this film really is. Godzilla manages to be a social commentary on the U.S, a social commentary on Japan, a kids movie, a horror movie, and a cinematic icon all at once. There are two groupings within the list previously mentioned that contradict each other in a very dynamic way.
First this film is both a horror movie and a kids movie at the same time. Have you ever seen another example of this? I’m pretty sure I’ve never considered leather face to be a heavily popular figure among children. Godzilla on the other hand was a coveted toy to many children, and what little boy can’t say that he hasn’t demolished/destroyed the lives of thousands of lego-people in the entire span of his childhood. It’s fun to watch Godzilla destroy the obviously model-created cities which lay before him, but it’s also scary stuff to think about. The horror aspect of Godzilla comes from the fear of nuclear power and the overall thought that any tragedy could happen at any given time with no notice. Children don’t think about incidents like that, so it’s understandable why kids love a figure which brings death to thousands. Secondly this monster movie contradicts itself in a symbolic fashion. Godzilla both represents the U.S, and Japan during the cold war. What? Needless to say “Godzilla and the Japanese Nightmare: When "Them!" Is U.S.” by Chon Noriega confused the hell out of me. I gave this article a good deal of my attention but in the end still found myself in a mess of confusion. The major roadblock for me here was the concept of “the other”, and how both countries could be identified as the monster in the film. Class discussion cleared this up for me a bit. I can see now that the monster represents the Japanese as a figure which is left to fix a problem after tragedy has occurred. The monster also represents the U.S as a symbol for the H-bomb dropped by the U.S. How the writers of this movie managed to have the monster represent two countries which were so different and at such different places is beyond me, but pretty interesting to see. I think that if I saw this movie when it came out I would be a bit frightened. Godzilla shares what all great figures in horror share. Trauma. Fear. All of the great horror figures in cinema represent a fear or trauma. We covered just about all of the examples in class, but realizing this made it easier for me to understand why people thought that this cheesy black and white movie was at one time pretty frightening. I didn’t find myself cringing in class while viewing this movie, nor did I have to turn my head away at any point. In fact I found myself laughing more than anything, but I understand now that Godzilla represented this fear of nuclear death, which is something I cannot fully relate to as part of a younger generation. A class member, Tim, said something that I found quite interesting. “People are afraid of what they don’t know”. He went on to state that people back then weren’t necessarily afraid of the bomb itself, but of the aftermath. We knew to a point what would happen if we set off the bomb, but there were still a lot of questions to be answered.
In conclusion, I thought that this movie was not only entertaining, but useful in getting to know how people thought during the Cold War. All of these fears and feelings were put into something which lasted years as a cinematic icon: Godzilla. Who knew that something so cheesy and old really had so much substance behind it.
Until now I hadn’t known of the Lucky Dragon incident. The Japanese had finally (to a point) moved on from what had happened in the past and was determined to go on with their lives. Boom. Sideswiped by the Lucky Dragon incident, and then further when Russia continued to test in Japanese waters. Knowledge of this incident alone gives an entirely different feel to the film. I realize now how strange this film really is. Godzilla manages to be a social commentary on the U.S, a social commentary on Japan, a kids movie, a horror movie, and a cinematic icon all at once. There are two groupings within the list previously mentioned that contradict each other in a very dynamic way.
First this film is both a horror movie and a kids movie at the same time. Have you ever seen another example of this? I’m pretty sure I’ve never considered leather face to be a heavily popular figure among children. Godzilla on the other hand was a coveted toy to many children, and what little boy can’t say that he hasn’t demolished/destroyed the lives of thousands of lego-people in the entire span of his childhood. It’s fun to watch Godzilla destroy the obviously model-created cities which lay before him, but it’s also scary stuff to think about. The horror aspect of Godzilla comes from the fear of nuclear power and the overall thought that any tragedy could happen at any given time with no notice. Children don’t think about incidents like that, so it’s understandable why kids love a figure which brings death to thousands. Secondly this monster movie contradicts itself in a symbolic fashion. Godzilla both represents the U.S, and Japan during the cold war. What? Needless to say “Godzilla and the Japanese Nightmare: When "Them!" Is U.S.” by Chon Noriega confused the hell out of me. I gave this article a good deal of my attention but in the end still found myself in a mess of confusion. The major roadblock for me here was the concept of “the other”, and how both countries could be identified as the monster in the film. Class discussion cleared this up for me a bit. I can see now that the monster represents the Japanese as a figure which is left to fix a problem after tragedy has occurred. The monster also represents the U.S as a symbol for the H-bomb dropped by the U.S. How the writers of this movie managed to have the monster represent two countries which were so different and at such different places is beyond me, but pretty interesting to see. I think that if I saw this movie when it came out I would be a bit frightened. Godzilla shares what all great figures in horror share. Trauma. Fear. All of the great horror figures in cinema represent a fear or trauma. We covered just about all of the examples in class, but realizing this made it easier for me to understand why people thought that this cheesy black and white movie was at one time pretty frightening. I didn’t find myself cringing in class while viewing this movie, nor did I have to turn my head away at any point. In fact I found myself laughing more than anything, but I understand now that Godzilla represented this fear of nuclear death, which is something I cannot fully relate to as part of a younger generation. A class member, Tim, said something that I found quite interesting. “People are afraid of what they don’t know”. He went on to state that people back then weren’t necessarily afraid of the bomb itself, but of the aftermath. We knew to a point what would happen if we set off the bomb, but there were still a lot of questions to be answered.
In conclusion, I thought that this movie was not only entertaining, but useful in getting to know how people thought during the Cold War. All of these fears and feelings were put into something which lasted years as a cinematic icon: Godzilla. Who knew that something so cheesy and old really had so much substance behind it.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Atomic Cafe
It being the first week of classes, I remained curious about what my experience this year would be like. This class (American Film: The Cold War) was the main focus of my curiosity. I haven't had too much experience with the topic, but knew that it seemed somewhat interesting to me. The only aspect of the class that I was concerned about was the films themselves. I've been in film classes before that were uncontrollably boring which resulted in a lot of catching on my lost sleep. My concerns with this class were relieved when I viewed "Atomic Cafe".
This film seemed pretty dry at first, with its black and white style and lack of narration. What seemed boring to me initially soon turned into a style which I found intriguing as I continued to watch. The film makers had a great style which came out through their editing. What I mean by this is that they had a great deal of contrasting images and clips set against one another which told a narration in itself. In one clip a scene of great fear and terror would be shown through the way which people acted and the intense music in the background. The army training films which were used in this film were a good example of this. Then directly after would be a scene of over the top explanations of how it would be like when the bomb went off set to eerily happy music. Scenes like these were paired against each other multiple times to show how seriously people took the scare at the time.
I was amazed to see how worked up people were back then about the affects of the bomb. As a child of an age well after the red scare and the fear of nuclear bombs it's hard to fully understand why these people would get so worked up. However, I do admit that if I had grown up in those times that I probably would have been horrified. In current times we know that if a bomb were to go off anywhere near you that you wouldn't stand a chance of survival. This is why no one goes through the trouble of planning too intensely for the bomb such as building bomb shelters. I can understand why everyone went through such intense planning when I think of how everyone felt during Y2K. As a kid I didn't quite grasp what was happening but I was scared to a point after hearing all the theories of what would happen.
Kristina Zarlengo's article "Civilian Threat, the Suburban Citadel, and Atomic Age American Women" did help clerify why everyone was so afraid of the bomb going off during the 50's and after. I hadn't realized that this was a time of change for war-tactics. I hadn't realized that the early 1900's was the key time for civilian attacks. I had also never realized that the move to suburban areas was inspired by fear of attack within the city. The racial tension linked to this also surprised me. Not that racial tension is anything new to American history, but it wasn't something that came to mind.
In conclusion, I thoroughly enjoyed the film and it's strange hypnotizing style. I wasn't surprised in the least when it was mentioned in class that this film inspired Michael Moore to do what he does for a living. I now feel a bit more familiarized with the ins-and-outs of the cold war era and I look forward to discovering more.
This film seemed pretty dry at first, with its black and white style and lack of narration. What seemed boring to me initially soon turned into a style which I found intriguing as I continued to watch. The film makers had a great style which came out through their editing. What I mean by this is that they had a great deal of contrasting images and clips set against one another which told a narration in itself. In one clip a scene of great fear and terror would be shown through the way which people acted and the intense music in the background. The army training films which were used in this film were a good example of this. Then directly after would be a scene of over the top explanations of how it would be like when the bomb went off set to eerily happy music. Scenes like these were paired against each other multiple times to show how seriously people took the scare at the time.
I was amazed to see how worked up people were back then about the affects of the bomb. As a child of an age well after the red scare and the fear of nuclear bombs it's hard to fully understand why these people would get so worked up. However, I do admit that if I had grown up in those times that I probably would have been horrified. In current times we know that if a bomb were to go off anywhere near you that you wouldn't stand a chance of survival. This is why no one goes through the trouble of planning too intensely for the bomb such as building bomb shelters. I can understand why everyone went through such intense planning when I think of how everyone felt during Y2K. As a kid I didn't quite grasp what was happening but I was scared to a point after hearing all the theories of what would happen.
Kristina Zarlengo's article "Civilian Threat, the Suburban Citadel, and Atomic Age American Women" did help clerify why everyone was so afraid of the bomb going off during the 50's and after. I hadn't realized that this was a time of change for war-tactics. I hadn't realized that the early 1900's was the key time for civilian attacks. I had also never realized that the move to suburban areas was inspired by fear of attack within the city. The racial tension linked to this also surprised me. Not that racial tension is anything new to American history, but it wasn't something that came to mind.
In conclusion, I thoroughly enjoyed the film and it's strange hypnotizing style. I wasn't surprised in the least when it was mentioned in class that this film inspired Michael Moore to do what he does for a living. I now feel a bit more familiarized with the ins-and-outs of the cold war era and I look forward to discovering more.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)