Slumdog Millionaire

I watched Slumdog Millionaire during session 3 of my class. This film had many points in it that were defined by the text. Some of these are the location vs studio, setting and its effects, costume and makeup design, keeping the image in motion, and the use of lighting.

The starting point of the script was Mumbai 2006 and a young man was bing interrogated. The script then jumps back and forth between a game show stage during a live broadcast and the interrogation. In both circumstances the same young man was depicted. This sets the mood for the film and gives a peek to the viewers as to what the film may entail. The location being for the most part not in studio really gives the reality of the place to the viewers. I have been to India and I don't think that any studio could give the reality quite the way to real place does. The effect would be completely lost if the shooting of the film had not been on location.

Some extra visual effects that I noticed were some side ways angles of the camera in contrast to the setting. I think that this was to focus the audience on the subject rather than the background. Other ways in which the focus was kept on the subject was by keeping the focus on the subject in motion. When the main characters were children running through the slum the camera kept right along side the boys as they ran. This kept the focus on the children.

Having been to India I think that not to much really had to be done makeup wise. The country is so colorful on its own that having a boy painted as a God or having a beautiful henna design on the girls arms is not to far fetched nor difficult to come across in daily life in India. One time during the film that the makeup must have been somewhat difficult was when the main character as a child jumped into an open latrine in order to obtain an autograph from a famous Indian actor. The costuming throughout really stated who was who. The game show host was well dressed in a sparkling suit while in the slum people walked around with worn out torn clothing.

Some of the lighting used was when as children the kids were escaping their captures and running through the forest. The flashlights in the background heightened the excitement and nervousness of the situation. Also when the boys were pulled from the top of the train in New Delhi soft focus was used with a bright sunlight behind it to create a dust type image. This I felt was representing a new chapter in the boys lives. When the boys went back to look for the young girl they entered a sex trade part of the city. When they were in this part of town a yellow lens was used to intensify the feel of the place. The yellow helped to give a feel of dirtiness and filth.

Some slow motion was used toward the end of the film. When Jamal the and Latika found each other at the train station the slow motion was used to intensify the connection between the two. It also represented how nothing around them mattered to them only each other. During this time a flashback of the childhood experiences that brought the two to the train station played. This flashback was played in slow motion to give the audience the feel of the struggles that were overcome throughout their lives.

Overall I like this movie. This was not the first time I had watched it. This was probably my third time watching the film. I think that in itself shows how much I like the film.

Session 3 Raging Bull

I watched Raging Bull for my session 3 text book selection. This film was directed by Martin Scorsese in 1980. It is a period piece reflecting the boxing world and a prize fighter Jake LaMotta in the 1940's. I really loved this film. You can watch a movie and it is just a movie but, this was art. It was filled with artistry created by still shots, slow motion detail, hand held camera snippets, and black and white film to better represent the time.

It is very hard to sum up this movie and even to decide on which things to pick out and evaluate. I have written many things of which to comment but, I am left feeling as though I can't put into words what everything meant. Martin Scorsese is one of the best producers and arguably the best. This film is proof of that.

I didn't feel that the costuming in this film was so important but, it did reflect the time period of the film. The starting point of the script was 1964 in New York City. The main character Jake LaMotta was alone in a room preparing for something which was not specified. He wore a tux and was rehearsing a line from Shakespeare. Previous to showing this during the opening credits the focus was on a boxer warming up in a boxing ring. The scene was in slow motion and you couldn't identify the man nor the audience. I felt that this moment was a signature Scorsese moment. The setting set the mood for the film. Starting out with a trim boxer in the ring and then showing an out of shape man. It was a foreshadow of what was to become of the boxer.

Another indicator of the time period was a reference made to a film that would have been premiering around the late 1950's. This reference was made at the end of the film which was supposed to be 1960. The referenced film was On the Waterfront and the material was the main character and his brother. When this reference was made it was indicating LaMotta's point of view from a cinematic objective point of view. The movie was filmed in this cinematic objective point of view. I feel like the home video snippets really depict the objectiveness of the film.

Session 2 film Good Will Hunting

I watched Good Will Hunting during session 2 of the course. This movie was pretty good. It has a complex story line with many different things going on. With that said there are some very simple parts of the story line as well. The movie also had good use of handling emotional material with restraint. In some dramatic moments dealing with Will Hunting (Matt Damon) and his psychiatrist (Robin Williams) the story line was a bit cheesy but, I can see the importance of the moment. Symbolism was obvious throughout the film in various scenes. A touch of irony is also present.

The titles significance is hard to pin point. I thought that it could possibly be referring to the search the Will Hunting had to find good will in others. The title could also just be referring to the characters name Will Hunting. I know that there is something behind the title but it was hard to pin point.

The story was made complex by the multitude of things going on and the connectedness of all of those things. I am referring to Matt Damon's character not just being a genius but, his tormented past, his rough friends, his fear of intimacy, and his relationship with his new girlfriend. Other characters have somewhat equal amounts of complexity as well such as Will Huntings psychiatrist played by Robin Williams. Robin was a promising young student who took a different path than his old classmate the mathematician. As a result there is some hostility between the two. Robin's character also is grieving over a lost love. His wife had dies from cancer and he had yet to fully move on.

Some of the simplicity of the film was the reasoning behind Will Huntings behaviors. He was tormented as a child and abused as a foster child. Once this is uncovered it doesn't even need to be explained by Will is the way he is. The problem and tough part is getting him to move past that. Which he is working on this Robin's character is helped as well in moving past his grief. During the sessions together emotional restraint was used very well. The characters where not sobbing messes they behaved in a manner that would be expected of a masculine man. He kept his emotions under check and didn't go overboard when expressing himself. Yes both men got emotional but, the moment was played well.

The irony I noticed in the film was that this blue collar worker with a rap sheet and disturbing past is more intelligent than the Harvard educated mathematicians. The professors were so aggravated that they couldn't figure out the math problems and it was so easy for Will. I really liked this idea. You don't need a P.h.D to be intelligent. You don't even have to be college educated.

I felt that the movie was credible because situations such as very young people or someone without a formal education are more intelligent than their opposites. I felt that the drama of Matt Damon's character made the film more interesting and also gave a reason for his hostility and unwillingness to commit.

Session 2 film Blood Type

    I watched a film called Blood Work which was directed and produced by Clint Eastwood. He also starred in the film. Currently in the Introduction to Film course we are covering chapter 3 in the required text book. Some of the things referred to in the text I picked out in this film. Some of those things are points of irony, various types of symbolism, the significance of the title, and unity in plot.

    My personal view of the film was mediocre. I had figured out who the killer was within the first 20 minutes of the film. The twist that was supposed to be an element of surprise in the film was fairly obvious to me. When you have one retired FBI profiler, an old serial killer that was never caught, and a new killing spree by a supposedly different killer until otherwise revealed it makes it obvious that the killers are either linked to each other or they are the same killer.

    Some of the acting was not great. The actors that were supposed to be somewhat funny were not very good at acting and their jokes weren't funny at all they were pretty lame. A point of irony was that the main character had become friends with who he thought was his neighbor and it was actually the killer. Another point was that the only reason Clint Eastwood's character was alive was because a woman with matching blood type was murdered. The ironic part was that he found and killer the woman's killer. So he killed the man that was responsible for the murder of the woman whose heart saved his life. Then he got together with that woman sister and the son of that woman and the film implies that he began a life them.

    Some symbolism used in the film was with the words mouthed by the killer in the surveillance cameras. The killer said, “ Happy Valentine's Day”. Right away Clint Eastwood's character didn't understand what that meant. Later it was revealed that it was because Clint Eastwood's character was going to get the heart of the person killed due to him needing a transplant and having a rare blood type. Another point of symbolism was when Clint Eastwood's character was searching the vehicle of the first man who had been killed. The camera made a quick shot of a blood donor flyer on the floor board of the vehicle. This obvious camera shot was symbolizing the connection between the victims. Symbolism was also used in the codes written by the code killer and the name written on a check to Clint Eastwood's character. Clint Eastwood could not figure out what the code meant until he say the name and the woman's son mentioned that the code had no ones. The last name of the neighbor is Noone. If the name is split is forms “no one”. This is the explanation for the codes.

    There were some good points in the movie such as attention to detail. When Clint Eastwood's character was asking his neighbor to drive him around he mentioned that he cannot sit in the front seat if there is an airbag due to the transplant. Another positive thing is that the plot did remain consistent throughout the entire film. Every point was connected and brought together. The title has meaning for the film because the reason the woman was chosen and the first man was chosen by the killer was because of their blood type.

On the Waterfront

  I watched On the Waterfront which was setting in the period of the 1950's.  I feel that this movie is relevant today even with the time gap.  The main plot of this movie was about corruption within the union.  Today there is still much controversy regarding unionization.  In this particular film the result was the mob had taken control of the work force and wages.  As a result of many killings the main character Terry (Marlon Brando) reluctantly decided to fight back.  In today's world less killing and more picketing is seen and heard about. 
  Overall I did like the movie.  I felt that it had great acting and it was sincere.  Some times you can be watching a great movie that you are really enjoying until one actor or actress plays their role poorly and I just about ruins the entire experience of watching the movie.  I was glad to see that that was not the case in this movie.  Not one single actor or actress played their part poorly.  I believed that what was happening to them in the movie was real and not just someone acting as though it was.  It is a refreshing thing to watch.
  Another thing that I liked was the grit of the movie.  In my last blog I wrote about how enjoyed the glamour of Casablanca but, sometimes you really need to get down to the nitty gritty to feel the full effects of the story.  What I thought was interesting about the stark differences between the two films was how different they were and yet they were made so close together.  The difference between the movies is roughly 10 years.  They may have both been in black and white but the acting was so very different.
  I didn't notice as much intentional shadowing done with the lighting as I had in Casablanca.  I noticed the use of mist being that this was taking place at a harbor.  The movie focused on two classes of people.  It had the workers who had to struggle just to find a days work and it also had the wealthy mobsters that didn't trust anyone.  In many of the scenes I noticed how the workers would be below deck on a ship and the mobsters would be controlling things from on deck looking down upon the workers.  Though it doesn't really make sense to have the mobsters below deck it said something and symbolized the roles each class played.  The mobsters calling the shots from above and the workers doing as they were told and working in the dirt.
  When Terry told Eide what happened with her brother the words were blocked out by the sound of the ship horns blowing.  By the director choosing to do this it really emphasized the emotion of what was happening.  The audience didn't need to hear the words they knew what happened the Eide's brother.  The director wanted the focus of that moment not to be interfered by words.  The audience was waiting for Eide's reaction and that is what they got.  The horns blew loud as the director took close up shots of Eide and Terry's faces as the confrontation ensued.  It was a heart wrenching moment and the feelings could be seen on the actors faces.
  The moment toward the end of the film when Terry had been badly beaten up had to walk to the front of the dock declaring his victory and the imancipation of the workers.  I felt that this moment was one of the strongest of the film.  The workers had been terrified to stand up to the mob for their rights.  Terry had had enough and stood up to Johnny Friendly and won.  Terry would no longer be seen as a canarie for ratting out the mob and he would have the friendship of the workers once again. 
  Overall the movie did not have much in the way of cinematography but I think that it was intentional.  It was a dramatic movie that was focusing on a hot issue among the country.  Fancy lighting and various other decorative settings would have taken the focus away from the key issue.  In fact cinematography was used more to block out the actors in order for the issues in the main story to be even more dramatic such as with the ships horns.  I felt that this was a very cleverly filmed movie that got the point across without discuissing it with fancy things.

Casablanca

   I recently had the pleasure of watching Casablanca.  I have typically shied away from black and white films but in this particular film I was lost in the story, the cinematography, and setting.  I was surprised to find out just how many famous quotes and songs come from this movie.  Although, I could have done without hearing "here's looking at you kid" so many times.  I can see how by having it said a number of times sets the dynamic of the characters but after a certain point it takes away from the romance in the line.
   In this day and age a movie set in Morocco during WWII may lose its effect with an audience, but the passion and love in the writing keeps it fresh and a classic.  I don't know how many times I had heard something or another about this movie and never understood just because the age of the movie kept me from watching it.  I was gladly mistaken in finding the greatness of what this story means in the ultimate sacrifice a person can make for the one they love.  Letting them go in order to save them.  Another thing that stuck me was the glamour of the time.  You don't see the actors dressed casually and the casual moments are still so fancy.  For instance when the 2 main characters where in Paris Ilsa was wearing a robe and the setting was in their hotel room.  Even in a setting as relaxed as that her hair was perfect and the robe was a shiny silk like material.  In movies today I think that this glamour effect has been lost.  It was just so beautiful it makes the audience or at least me what to beautify myself and dress in better than just jeans and a t-shirt.
   One thing about black and white movies that I had never realized is how much it can add to the cinematography.  It creates such great shadowing and can increase the intensity of visual effects with very little effort.  I don't know if its just me but it seemed as though every shot in this film had deliberate and calculated lighting to create the wonderful shading that it has.  I did notice in some of the shots that it was obvious the shading was intentional but in others it left me guessing.  I wasn't sure if the effect of shading was just a benefit of the black and white or if it was intentional with lighting to create those effects.  A particular scene that had obviously intended to use lighting for the shading effect was in the night club and Ricky was getting money from his safe.  The director did not show Ricky himself in the shot just his enlarged shadow on the wall.  I am a bit confused by that scene.  What was the intention of using the shading?  It was not a dramatic scene.  Was it just to add to the moment due to it not being as interesting as others?
    Back to the plot.  I felt that this script and plot can and does relate to the audience today.  As long as the world has war and love this film will relate to many people.  What a great idea!  Ilsa thought her husband was dead and she being lonely and in the mist of an invasion by the Nazi's she sought comfort in the arms of a man she ended up falling in love with only to find out that her husband was not dead and needed her.  How could she tell Ricky it was painful enough to think that she had lost her husband but then to say goodbye and explain the situation to the man she fell in love with after she lost her husband.  WOW!  Such a dramatic story with music that so fits the story line it basically tells it. 
    The acting was wonderful and so dramatic without being overly dramatic.  I think that it really helped the actors feel the emotions of the time being that the film was created soon after WWII.  Emotions around the world were high at the time and just about everyone was feeling it.  So many had lost loved ones that to watch this film with the heart felt acting really hit home with the audience.
   Overall this film was widely accepted by the people of the time and by people still today.  With the combination of a great story line, plot, acting, cinematography, music, and glamour it made for one hell of a movie.

Beginning Introduction to Film

Hi I am a student at the University of Mary and this is my film blog.  Every session I will post a response to a film or films that were required of me to watch.