The verdict is in...

1. Fruitvale Station- possibly one of the most important films ever made, not an over-dramatized version of a real family's life and loss, investigates racial stereotypes, power politics, and gender expectations
2. Moonrise Kingdom- genius, hilarious, organized and stylized cinematography with winks at Art History
3. Wendy and Lucy- beautiful performance by Michelle Williams (and of course Lucy), investigates wealth disparities which is especially relevant now
4. My Own Private Idaho- interesting cinematography, loved the frozen sex scenes, the relatable qualities of the characters, and the juxtaposition of "high" and "low" cultures
5. Killer of Sheep- realism at its best, important statement about gender and race
6. Frances Ha- chronicle of the millennial struggle, the role was made for Greta Gerwig, both uplifting and heartbreaking, I'm pretty sure I remember this movie in full color, even though it is definitely in black and white
7. Spoorloos- absolutely terrifying, probably still having nightmares, the close-ups were so powerful
8. Blancanieves- interesting take on an old story and the choice to make it a silent film
9. O Brother, Where Art Thou?- Great music, interesting mixture of "high" and "low" cultures
10. Sherlock Jr.- Classical comedy, amazing stunts
11. End of Watch- Good film about gender/masculinity and the politics of power, over dramatized for me, too many "action" scenes
12. Awara- Great music and melodramatic acting, but dude smacked her...
13. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly- kudos for unnecessary violence and great dialogue
14. Freaks- mostly indifferent towards this film, it didn't impress me or disappoint me
15. Detour- the femme fatale doesn't appeal to me, good example of film noir, which is an interested concept in the history of cinema

Fruitvale Station

The scenes where Oscar interacts with his daughter hit home the most for me, as my daughter is the same age as his daughter was when he was killed. These are the most heartbreaking because it is so clear that he was trying to turn his life around for her. In the first shot of this sequence there is a close up of Oscar and Tatiana talking after she got ready for bed. She is scared and doesn't want him to leave because she can hear gun shots outside. He tries to calm her down by telling her that they are just firecrackers and that they are going to go to Chuck-E-Cheese in the morning.

 We cut to a medium close shot of Sophina as she walks into the room. She is ready to leave for the city to celebrate the countdown to the new year with their friends. Oscar is still trying to ease Tatiana's mind off screen by distracting her with the plans for the next day.

The camera cuts back to a close up of Oscar from over Tatiana's shoulder and then to Tatiana from over Oscar's shoulder, following their conversation. Before Oscar leaves they both say I love you to each other. 

 As Oscar is leaving he crosses in front of the camera and the frame gets dark. When he is gone the camera returns to a close up of only Tatiana looking worriedly after him.

Moonrise Kingdom

Moonrise Kingdom is definitely one of my favorite movies. I pretty much love all the Wes Anderson films and can't wait to go see The Grand Budapest Hotel this week. Its always hard to decide which part in his films are my favorite because there is so much to talk about. One of my favorite things about Anderson's filmmaking is the way that he moves throughout interior spaces with tracking. I first noticed this in The Life Aquatic, but found it to be a pretty common technique. He does this in Moonrise Kingdom by connecting the rooms in the Bishop house as if they were all connected to each other like a maze, moving up and down throughout the house seamlessly. This gives their home the feeling of a dollhouse, much like the way that the Belafonte is cut open in The Life Aquatic. 

I find the comparison made between Norman Rockwell and scenes from Moonrise Kingdom interesting. Norman Rockwell illustrated many scenarios from American family life throughout the mid-20th century. He is known for his cover illustrations on The Saturday Evening Post and for Boy Scouts of American. Rockwell has made a legacy of mid-century Americana that is cheeky and nostalgic. Anderson framed many scenes as virtual parodies of Rockwell's paintings and illustrations. 

This one is my favorite:

We are viewing this scene as an "other" but in the point of view of the parents. In the foreground we see the back of the parent's heads and shoulders, Mrs. Bishop on the left and Mr. Bishop on the right. In the middle ground you see the dinner table and Suzy's three younger brothers. The two brothers on the outside have their heads cocked up looking at Suzy and the one in the center is eating a piece of corn on the cob (doesn't get more American than that, unless you're talking apple pie). Standing behind the seated children is Suzy. She is the only person in the scene that has an animation to her at all. She is pointing an accusatory finger at her parents and shouting with a concerned look on her face. This moment reminds me of Norman Rockwell's paintings Election Day and Freedom From Want:

 

I think this scene says a lot about each of the characters in the film. The parents seem to be very passively listening and maybe only halfway dealing with their daughter's concerns. The three boys are somewhat perplexed and indifferent to their sister who seems to be an entirely different species from their prepubescent selves. Suzy is animated and emotional and angry and the dialogue in the scene doesn't give the viewer a reason why, much like how Suzy is unsure why she is feeling this way. The dialogue is a voice over of Suzy and Sam reading letters that they were writing back and forth to each other and Suzy is writing about how Sam should think of his parents' faces everyday (as she is yelling at her own).  By referring to Rockwell's paintings, Anderson is creating a nostalgia about the passion of adolescence and the reality of family life.  

Wendy and Lucy

Let me start out by saying that I loved this film. It was minimal and real. There was nothing of excess in the way that the film was shot and this created and environment that allowed for a lot of contemplation about the central themes in the movie. 

Most obviously, for me, this movie relates to Killer of Sheep. Although there are no issues of race that come up in Wendy and Lucy, the film is very much about gender and class. Wendy is vulnerable throughout the film in terms of safety and finances, but the economic hardship she is going through proves that she is strong. Having a strong female lead in a movie (THAT PASSED THE BECHDEL TEST) inverts the roles of women in films. This is the same role reversal as in Killer of Sheep when Stan is vulnerable and sometimes even weak. Wendy is portrayed as a human, instead of as a woman. 

As much as this movie is about gender, it is even more about class. This movie was made in 2008, right as the economic crisis in America hit it's peak when the housing bubble burst. Jobs went to shit, retirement funds disappeared, and Americans were desperate. The gas and oil industry came out of the collapse even stronger than ever and with the opportunity to create new jobs where ever there was fracking to be had. Out of work Americans flocked to different states in order to find work (and eventually that's all going to shit too because fracking ruins everything) and dropped their home lives for a chance to survive. Much like immigrants from other countries, specifically Mexico, men and women left their families behind and sent money home in order to pay their mortgage or simply put food on the table. The American Dream had disappeared long before the bubble burst, but this solidified it for many working class and middle class Americans. Wendy is looking for work, for economic prosperity, and her part of the dream (also known as: surviving). By hinting that Wendy budgeted her money and kept track of her spending, the viewer can assume that she is responsible and that her financial ills are due to forces outside of her control (society, capitalism, free-market). The institutional restrains (class, gender, race) are designed to control those that are most vulnerable in society (working-class, women, non-whites) and divide them, so that they have no power to reform. The same forces that are at play in Wendy and Lucy, are also in play in Killer of Sheep. 

Says society.

Wendy and Lucy also relates to My Own Private Idaho as a road movie. In both films the characters have left their homes in search of answers. They are looking for enlightenment of some kind. They are also both from a marginalized group Wendy being a poor woman and Mike was a poor gay man. This opens up questions about how these people have fallen through the cracks of society and they have become so helpless that they have to steal and sell their bodies to make money. Why is this allowed in a society so abundant? Why are we so hesitant to help the people at the bottom of the economic ladder? Why are we so hasty to pass judgement on them? Why do we insist that hard work pays off in a country where 42.6 MILLION people are living below the poverty level? 

Although these questions cannot be answered by a film, they are important to ask.  It is important to realize institutional structures that limit someone's financial success and why those structures exist. This film asks those questions, as did Killer of Sheep in the 70's and My Own Private Idaho in the 90s. Being aware of these issues can help bring our country to a more conscious, compassionate, and productive world where everyone can live a healthy and safe life. 

I'll step off my soapbox now. 

O Brother Where Art Thou

O Brother Where Art Thou is thick on religious critique throughout the film. The main character, Everett, prides himself on his sense higher consciousness over his companions. He constantly puts himself above Pete and Delmar because they are to some extent less intelligent and he blames their "faith," intermittent as it is, on their unintelligence.  

The Coens use the Odyssey as a comparison between the classical culture of "high art" and the Depression era Southern folk culture. Through the juxtaposition between villains in Greek mythology and religious figures in O Brother, they expose religion, in specific Christianity, as a corrupt institution used to benefit some and blissfully distract others.

The scenes that most obviously displays this sense of blissful distraction is the baptism scene. The three men are standing around in the woods arguing about Everett stealing from Pete's family when seemingly out of no where countless people dressed in pure white robes begin to appear in the background. The camera is focused on them panning around as the turn to gaze at the people singing a hymn. Their eyes get big and they speak slower than before. The camera goes from the main characters and begins panning on the crowd and the music grows louder. Everett, Pete, and Delmar stumble bewildered into the shot and begin to follow the crowd "down to the river to pray." Delmar runs into the water to be absolved of his sins and comes out blabbering about being forgiven. Everett quickly reminds him that he is still a fugitive from the law, but Delmar is in a state of bliss because of his baptism.

The bible salesman that lures them from the restaurant to rob them is another example of the Coen brother's critique of religion. They choose to make him a man that likes to hear himself speak, who is big and intimidating, and they also allude to the Cyclops in Homer's Odyssey. Everett, up until this point in the film, hasn't allowed religion to lure him away from his logic. The salesman uses the lure of money to pull him away from his meal, showing that Everett can be distracted as easily as his companion (and frog) with objects of man's creation (religion and money).

The struggle between the logic coming from the main character and the religious undertones of the film are strong and set it up for a good critique of the institution of religion. The juxtaposition of Greek mythology and Christianity is the strongest indicator that the Coens are comparing the two and critiquing them in the same way.

My Own Private Idaho

My Own Private Idaho was a challenging movie for me. I don't know if I understand it. I don't feel like it was driven by plot, but instead was driven by raw human emotion. I don't feel like I needed to understand what was going on the entire time or motives behind some of the characters' actions. I understood how they felt. I felt their pain and their happiness.

There were so many breathtaking scenes in this film that were surprising (especially in the context of the other films we have watched). A few times I could feel the rug being pulled out from beneath me and my heart hurt badly for the characters, especially for Mike.

I thought that the way in which the sex scenes were shot was so interesting. Van Sant slowed down the speed of the action that we were viewing and this made me critique the act of sex in context to the film, the differences between the sex scenes, and how these changes in style changed the way that the moment felt.

The scene that rang truest for me was when Mike and Scott were sitting around the campfire talking. This scene not only made an important statement about both of the characters, but also made an important statement about the gay community in general: they are regular humans, capable of a range of emotions.

"I really want to kiss you, man."

It was easy for me to relate to both of the characters in this situation, as I have been in both of their shoes (only I'm a girl and not a prostitute). Mike longed to tell Scott his feelings and Scott, to some extent, was embarrassed by this and by his own feelings that he repressed. Scott always made excuses for his homosexuality and pretended to be gay only for the pay and that once he had inherited money he would change his lifestyle. Mike struggled with memories from his past and narcolepsy and Scott was always there for him as a friend to help him. When Mike decided to confess his romantic emotions to Scott he was shut down with open arms by a man that loved him but was too embarrassed or pressured to truly admit to being gay.

I have had friends confess the same things to me and for one reason or another, I did not reciprocate their feelings, but still tried to be a supportive friend. At the same time, I have been in Mike's position. It is so painful to have strong romantic feelings toward someone you love as a friend and at the same time have to worry about their reaction because it isn't something that is fully accepted. It was easier for me, being bisexual, because I had the opportunity to be in "normal" relationships as well. This scene was so incredibly real it was painful to watch. I felt for Mike and everyone that is ever in that situation and I was also angry at Scott because I saw a bit of myself in him and was ashamed.

This scene was something all together different and new from what was done in cinema regarding homosexuality. This scene made a strong statement in the realest way possible.

Spoorloos

I have seen a lot of “horror” films and I am the first to admit that they scare the crap out of me... Some are also really bad. Those, I think, should be technically considered comedy. Movies like Descent scare me without my eyes even being open.

When I was very young I saw almost the entire Halloween series and I was completely convinced that it was a regular occurrence for men in masks to chase people around with a ridiculous knife. I would have had nightmares for days if I had done any sleeping at all.

There are so many different kinds of horror films and I am scared by most of them. I would definitely consider The Vanishing a horror film. Raymond is made to seem like a totally normal guy that has a family and works really hard to interact with them and society. As the scenes go on, you begin to learn subtle things about Raymond that makes him seem completely mentally unstable. Although he does not seem like a supernatural creature or a monster, Raymond has the ability to disregard societal conventions and the value of human life and commit disgusting acts. The disparity between his public persona and his terrifying private one makes it seem like anyone could secretly be this big of a monster.

When Raymond is telling Rex about the abduction of Saskia and they flashback to the moment when he is talking to her, I felt desperate and hopeless as she was talking to him about his keychain. I knew what was going to happen. I wanted her to turn away, I wanted him to change his mind, and I wanted to know why he was choosing to commit such a heinous act. When he chloroformed her, there was real terror in her eyes. The close up shots of the two of them put me inside of the car. I felt just as helpless as Saskia was and was terrified. 

The extent of obsession presented by Rex is also completely horrifying. He is the “normal” character in the film. He represents the loving companion that has had his love ripped tragically away from him. He is helpless and hopeless. As the film goes on, he is compared to Raymond and his character becomes more and more obsessed with finding out about Saskia’s disappearance. By the end of the film he is willing to condemn himself to death in order to learn the truth. This is pretty extreme. The way in which he dies is intense and horrifying and imagining that the same was done to Saskia makes it even more intense.

Raymond and Rex’s characters are so similar and this is a factor that makes the movie horrific. Raymond is always in control, even when Rex is beating him up. Raymond is always rational, although insane and Rex is very irrational although his actions are always those of a sane individual. The fear of being controlled by someone that is a sociopath is a more realistic fear than the fear of a supernatural monster and gore.

This film was definitely highly psychological and conceptually horrific. I’m terrified of the night I have a dream about a golden egg.