My views about this course

      Initially before I signed up for this subject I thought I was one of those few who would only see films that are very rare here in Malaysia. And true, I did. And they're not even rare, they're unheard of! I always spend my time on Wikipedia and search for films or I would go to Youtube and search for some trailers. And most of the films that I wanted to watch are never in Malaysia. Luckily, my dad bought me a book called "1001 Movies you must see before you die - Jason Solomons, Steven Jay Schneider", which I then went through to put films on my 'wish list'. But I only wished to see films that were quite well known. Films from Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick, Gus Van Sant, I practically ignored the earlier golden age of cinema. That's why when I first entered this course I was young boy waiting to be educated. And I did.

     I signed up for this course because of my love for films and hope to be part of it someday. I learned that even the slightest scene with amazing photography, camera angles, lighting and editing can make so much of a difference. I even learned that how every scene of a film is trying to tell us something. Often, latent. I learned that films are not just films, they are powerful imaginations of a group of people. What separates the good films from the bad films are details, perfection and time.

     Here are the list of my favorite films from this course.

1. Chinatown
2. Some Like It Hot
3. Dr. Strangelove
4. Singing in the Rain
5. Strangers on a Train
6. Paris is Burning
7. The General
8. M.
9. Night and Fog

     If I were to say something about this course that it does not have any cons. Every film is functional, and these films should be shown so that we know the directors from this era had learned from the filmmakers from earlier eras'. We should know that James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, and other notable filmmakers had learned from Fritz Lang, Stanley Kubrick, and Alfred Hitchcock. Without them, there won't be any film world today.

   If I were to suggest films for this course it would be from 'cult-films' and how it influenced people today. Such films like 'Rushmore - Wes Anderson' and 'Fight Club - David Fincher'. Or, i suggest the world of independent films like 'Little Miss Sunshine - Jonathan Davis, Valerie Faris'.

   I leave this blog with a final say, that I learned a lot from this course. I am lucky to have had this course before I leave to the states. So, thank you Mr. Rey, for teaching me this course. I enjoyed it very much.

Aestheticization of violence between Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs

           Violence in general is not a stranger to us; war, gang brawls and everyday fights are around us and in the media. Violence isn’t politically or religiously inept, and many people would find it disturbing of the fact that some people glorify violence. In my opinion, violence in films are not channeled to encourage anyone to act violent but to express oneself. I believe in expressing anger and violence in films and music rather than in real life. Violence in films have a terrible reputation, and that a large number of films that are controversial have to do something with violence, for example ‘Natural Born Killers’ by Oliver Stone, a film that was regarded as an influence for so many school shootings and violent crimes, and ‘Cannibal Holocaust’ by Ruggero Deodato, a film that was banned in a lot of countries. How violence is inserted in a film is interesting, some even use it as a mean of narrating a story. ‘Aestheticization of violence is putting violence in a significant and stylistic way, in a form of art or in media’ – Margaret Bruder (www.wikipedia.com); or in other words, means the beauty of violence in films. Quentin Tarantino is a director far succumbed to the mainstream convention. His films do excellent with the aesthetics with the plot of his films. He uses extensive use of violence and gore in his films, but not in a cartoony, inoperative way. His characters help him to shape the violence, and to mean something different. In his two films, ‘Reservoir Dogs’ and ‘Pulp Fiction’, both of the films are similar in terms of genre, which is the ‘crime film’ genre, but different in terms of personality of violence.

      
       Pulp Fiction is considered to be Quentin Tarantino’s finest work, with tantalizing script and odd storylines, it is regarded as a cult film. Every detail of its violence is functional, and each tells its own story. The characters in this film conveyed violence in a complex way; the characters are more charming and normal, in an odd, ironically funny way. We jump into the scene where Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent Vega (John Travolta) walking to an apartment, trying to hunt down the guys that they are after and retrieve a suitcase that belongs to Marcellus Wallace (Ving Rhames), a big gangster. They then went in to a room with three guys, Brett and his friends. The way this scene was constructed is amazing, when Jules calmly talks about burgers and asking permission to try the burger that Brett was eating. When Brett starts to talk, Jules shoots one of his friends, in a random unmerciful way. The next few lines are crucial, that Jules recites one quote from the bible, Ezekiel 25:17, “the path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee”, which he then shoots Brett in a dramatic fashion. We feel that now, Jules is the Lord, the gun is the judge and Brett is the avenged evil men that poisoned his brothers, and we question if Jules did the right thing. Normally we would feel that it’s wrong to recite a line from a Bible, and then kill someone in a manner of evil. It’s the same kind of feeling when we watched Adolf Hitler in ‘Triumph of the Will’, we feel drawn to his speech even though he has done cruel things to the Jews. But we don’t hate Jules in this scene, even though he was just acting by being a stone-hearted gangster, like before he entered the apartment, he asked Vincent to put his ‘game-face’ on. Instead, we ask the question, “Why did he recite a line from the Bible? And then shoots Brett?” The scene did not crystallize what really happened before that, we wouldn’t know if Brett had messed up his relationship with Marcellus by not paying him, or if that Jules is just another hit man sent by an evil gangster. Since the Bible is associated with love and forgiveness, and whoever is sinned will be plunged into damnation, one can ask if Jules translate the Bible correctly. If the Roman Catholic Church during the 5^th century was corrupted even though they used Bible as their main source to the path of God, then what difference does it make for Jules in this film? When they have the power to do so, anything can happen. And in this scene Jules was the powerful one. It comes to mind when we hear about violence and the path of God, like religious wars for example, ‘Jihads’ and so on. The beauty the way this scene was constructed was to show the correlation between violence and the work of God.      

       
         Another scene of aestheticization of violence is during the ‘Bonnie Situation’, which could be one of the best segments of aesthetics in this film. The scene goes back to the time when Vincent and Jules were in Brett’s apartment, after killing Brett, a random man comes out and fires his gun towards Jules and Vincent. He shot 5 bullets and nothing hit Vincent or Jules, they then killed the random man. Jules was then shocked and then said to Vincent that it was a miracle of God that God came down and turned the bullets away from them. Vincent did not believe what he said, and just said that they got lucky. The conversation goes on after that in the car, and Vincent brought Marvin, one of Brett’s friends. Jules then goes on about retiring of becoming a hitman, saying that God gave him a sign that enough is enough. Jules still keeps on going about how God saved their lives. When Vincent turns around and asked Marvin’s opinion on what just happened, the gun in his hand accidently went off and it shot Marvin’s head. The car was painted blood red. This scene was particularly humorous since they weren’t very shocked and that Jules were just worried about the condition of the car rather than Marvin. Our sense of humanity is turned when watching this scene; we don’t know whether to feel sorry for Marvin, or to laugh at Vincent’s mistake. This scene is a black comedy in my perspective, we laugh at death. Maybe, in Jules’s mind he thinks that God is pressurizing him to completely stop what he was doing or else something bad would happen. Just by that incident caused a lot of trouble for Jules and Vincent, they had to call an expert to clean the mess and then they had to crush the car with a whole segment dedicated just for the incident.

      
        On the other hand, in Reservoir dogs, the aesthetics of violence tells a completely different story. Violence in this film can be quite serious; unlike the comedic and ironic violence in ‘Pulp Fiction’. The characters in ‘Reservoir Dogs’ used a different approach in conveying violence, more cynical straightforward characters.  An obvious scene is when Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen) tortures the cop for his amusement. Mr. Blonde cuts the ear of the cop while dancing to a ‘Stealers Wheels’ song. We didn’t see directly that he cut the cop’s ear, but then we’re drawn to what is happening. This scene proved to be a disturbing moment rather than a humorous moment, even when he sadistically said ‘Hello’ to the ear that he cut off; it wasn’t particularly humorous. We feel pain for the cop’s character if we were in his shoe. Mr. Blonde is now, for a lay man, a hated character in this film. We deteriorate our relationship on-screen with Mr. Blonde, unlike in Pulp Fiction, we did not deteriorate our relationship on-screen with Jules when he shot Brett and his friends, more likely we absorbed to Jules’s character rather than Mr. Blonde’s character. The reason being, in my opinion, Mr. Blonde felt amused by torturing the cop. He looks calm, and we see him as an inhumane character, an unmerciful psychopath. We root for him sooner to die and our socially constructed minds think that people with psychopathic imaginations should be labeled, abnormal. We don’t want these people in our world, so we hope that somewhere in the film, someone would shoot Mr. Blonde. As for Jules Winnfield, he did not look like a hatred psychopath. He looks more like a guy who acts a certain way because of what he does. Even though Jules kills people he does have a feeling that God exist, and we feel that he is just a normal, friendly man. It showed during the part when he just talks casually to Vincent, and when he calmed down Hunny Bunny later in ‘Pulp Fiction’. It is just when he is doing his job; he is a different human being. If anything, Mr. Blonde is rather similar to Zed, a corrupted rapist cop in ‘Pulp Fiction’.  

      
       Another scene in Reservoir Dogs was when Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) and Mr. Orange (Tim Roth) were trying to get a car after Mr. Brown (Quentin Tarantino) was shot. Mr. Orange is actually an undercover policeman and is just following the whole thing. When an undercover cop joins a lethal gang, they have to follow what they do, and act as if they are one of them. When Mr. Orange followed Mr. White to rob a car, Mr. Orange accidently shot the women in the car, even when he knew he was a cop, and their mission is trying to prevent innocent people from getting hurt or killed. But I think a mission like this can prove to be psychologically disturbing to an individual, a dilemma that if they would follow the footsteps of the gangs, you would jeopardize the innocent people, but if you don’t you would get killed by them. When we see Mr. Orange’s facial expression when he accidently shot the women in the car we can either say he felt guilty or we can hear his thoughts saying, “What have I done? Have I become one of them?” We never see this type of violence in ‘Pulp Fiction’.

    
       The similarities of the aesthetics of violence is that Quentin Tarantino put a ‘Mexican standoff’ scene at the end. Both of the scenes are similar, that is more than two people are pointing guns at each other, and there may be one person in each film who would panic in a way that would raise some tension. In ‘Pulp Fiction’, we go back to the scene where Hunny Bunny (Amanda Plummer) and Pumpkin (Tim Roth) were talking about robbing the restaurant. They pulled out their guns and then asked everyone to stay put. Everyone was shocked while Jules Winnfield stood there calmly when Pumpkin points the gun at him. Jules then points his gun at Pumpkin, while Hunny Bunny hysterically asked Jules to put his gun down. By that time, Vincent had just come out from the toilet and then points the gun at Hunny Bunny. In this scene there’s only two way out. Either everyone who is pointing the gun at each other dies, or settles down professionally until everyone calms down. The panic and hysterical emotional state of Hunny Bunny and also Vincent during this scene arouses tension.But after that, they came into an agreement, and they calmly left the place. Same goes to the final scene of ‘Reservoir Dogs’. When Nice Guy Eddie was raging because Mr. Blonde was shot, he suspected that Mr. Orange was lying to him. The when Joe Cabot came in, he also said the same thing, accusing Mr. Orange a rat working undercover for the police. Mr. White in his defense for Mr. Orange says that it’s not true. Despite that, Joe Cabot pointed his gun at Mr. Orange, Mr. White pointed the gun at Joe, and Nice Guy Eddie pointed the gun at Mr. White. All of them had a heated argument and Nice Guy Eddie, in a raging and hysterical tone, asked Mr. White to put the gun down, like Hunny Bunny, he wasn’t calm and cool and it does create a lot of tension. It ends with them shooting each other, but it doesn’t end there, it goes on when Mr. Orange told Mr. White the truth, which he is an undercover cop. Another scene of tension, Mr. White just looks blankly into space, thinking about either killing Mr. Orange or not. One can create tension even without the use of comedy, like during the cross-cutting scene between ‘Bruno’ and ‘Guy’ in ‘Strangers on a Train’, but these two scenes arouse tension in a ‘ticking bomb’ way, ‘a classic in so many screenwriting techniques’ – (www.lightsfilmschool.com). In a way, it does have a presence of a hostage taking scene, demanding for something, which in this case, to put each other’s guns down.

     
        Violence can tell a different message by how you look at it. Violence is always associated with evil and cruelty, but violence can also be a mean of comedy or irony. Quentin Tarantino is one of the many great film directors who actually use violence as a mean to tell a story. He artistically and skillfully inserted violence to make us feel in a certain way. Like, when we feel hatred for Mr. Blonde’s character, or when we felt sorry for the women in the car who was shot by Mr. Orange, or we laugh at the unfortunate fate of Marvin when he was shot by Vincent. In conclusion, violence can mean so many things, and make us feel a certain way. Some of us would be very disturbed while others could find beauty in it, artistically.

Strangers on a Train

"I like you Guy"            
            
            I've wanted to see an Alfred Hitchcock film ever since I got interested in films. That wish was replied when I got to see Strangers on a Train. This tremendously crafted film was so enjoyable I wanted to absorb every piece of detail of the film. The first time I watched this film proved to be more of a comedic-thriller rather than a psychological-thriller. If it was psychological the only thing I could think of was 'mental illness', similar to Peter Lorre as the child murderer in 'M'. When I saw this in a critical analytic way, the film drills our deepest minds. Sigmund Freud's theories of the human mind are perfect to describe the relationships between the characters, and the characteristics of the character itself.

          The film starts out with two guys walking towards a train, and as they sat down, their shoes accidently met. Bruno Anthony, (Robert Walker) asked Guy Haines (Farley Granger) whether he was THE Guy Haines, the tennis player. After some introduction until the lunch scene at Bruno's compartment, we can sense that Bruno is chatty and seductive, who knows no boundaries when talking to a stranger that he just met.  If I was Guy Haines, I would had asked him to leave or find another place to sit. We then establish Bruno as the 'Id', because after a few chat, he goes on about hating his father. He told Guy Haines that he felt like killing his father. And since before that, Guy told Bruno that he didn't like his wife, so, he had an idea, a cross-murder. Then we establish Guy as the 'super-ego' and the 'ego'. Guy is the 'super ego' because he acts like he doesn't want Bruno to go on with the murder plan, and 'ego' because he didn't want to hurt Bruno's feeling, so he mediates it by not aggressing against his murder plan, rather than just telling him sarcastically that it's a good plan. The way I see it though, maybe in Guy Haines's unconscious mind, he is telling Bruno that he don't want to go on with his plan, but he didn't directly tell him not to do so. Instead, he plays with Bruno's mind, saying "Sure Bruno, sure", after Bruno asked him if his plans were good. Even though it sounded like sarcasm to us audience, but to Bruno, his 'Id' is way stronger, and he looks at that line as a serious note that Guy wants to be a part of this murder plan.

        Besides that, in Freud's theory of development of sexuality in children, we can relate Bruno with the 'Oedipal Complex'. In other words, we call him the 'momma's boy'. In the Oedipal Conflict theory, Bruno wants more attention and affection from his mother. Just like Oedipus Rex, he wants to kill his father. Bruno knows that this is not possible. His 'ego' has kicked in. If he had killed his father some people would suspect that Bruno had done it. So, he kept disturbing Guy Haines into killing him. Bruno could not identify with his father, since he expressed hatred for him earlier in the film. So, his sense of  'super-ego' did not make him want less to kill his father, rather, his 'id' came on stronger, and that is why he blackmailed Guy Haines throughout the film until he kills Bruno's father.

       Another Freudian theory that can be applied in this film is the conscious and the unconscious mind. It is applied to us viewers, and Alfred Hitchcock does excellent with this film, that is 'voyeurism'. When we looked at Miriam, her character is not all that loving. We dislike her because she lied to Guy Haines, and she cheated on him and got pregnant by another man. Consciously, that is what we think of her. What the audience did not know was, during the scene where she went out with two guys, and Bruno strangled her. Miriam's glasses fell down, and we see Bruno strangling Miriam through her glasses. We have unconsciously killed her, because of our hatred for the character earlier in the film. We wanted her to die because she manipulated Guy Haines. So, our wish was fulfilled unconsciously. It may reflect in our everyday lives like if someone were to manipulate or lie to us, we unconsciously want to kill them, even though it is only for a short moment.

      In conclusion, Strangers on a Train proved to be a psychological-thriller, once we've analyzed it in a psychological way. If any psychologist could fit in this film, it has to be Sigmund Freud, and his theories about the human mind, the psychosexual stages and Oedipus Complex.

Animations

 
    The most obvious form of expressionism has to be 'animations'. I love animations. In this post I'm not going to talk about the Pixar or DreamWorks kinds of animations (although, my favorite Pixar films are Toy Story, Monster's inc., Ratatouille and Up). Big animation companies usually strive for family orientated comedies and stories that would touch our very souls. I have yet to see Quentin Tarantino or Martin Scorsese directing a gangster film using animations. I've dreamt about it sometimes. What I’m about to talk is the severe form of expressionism in animations. Animators whom I adore so much that when you look at their animations, some might think how oddly strange these people are. I look at it as a form of 'severe expressionism'. Their animations, in my opinion, are depicted solely like what they're really thinking about. David Firth, David Shrigley and Don Hertzfelt




I've recently came across David Firth when I was strolling trough YouTube and I instantly fell in love with his animations. He uses, bland, solid colors and his stories are often distorted with people with mental illnesses. His messages are deep, often to the point that you can't really point out what he's trying to convey sometimes. When I see his animations I've always thought I connected to his stories in one way or another. Dark, gloomy visuals always kept me happy, and even though Firth's animations are creepy they've always made me feel somehow. This is one of my favorite animations from him.Purely excellent.   

 David Shrigley is more of a comical lad. Sometimes I wonder if he randomly used some element in his animations or if he thought about it beforehand. He's also uses dark visuals that are almost comical in a sense. Amazingly,he doesn't use any colors and still it feels dark. He's like David Firth in a way. Using very deep messages, but they aren't as emotional as firth's animations. This is one of the many favorite short films from Shrigley.




 

Finally, Don Herzfelt. For your information his short animation film 'Rejected' was nominated for an Academy Award, and it's my favorite. Satirical, dark and bold. Animations that make me feel like I'm part of something. Oh, and the background I'm using for this blog is one of the many cute characters from this short film. Enjoy responsibly :)

M.

  M is by far one of the best classic films I've seen so far. It's probably not my favorite, but I did enjoy the film as much as I've enjoyed 'The General'. This movie, directed by Fritz Lang, is almost unlike any other films I’ve seen with a police procedural theme. I like how the film is different than any other police-style films there are today, and amazingly, it was made in 1931.

   If I were to write something about the first 10 minutes of the film is that the director, or the cinematographer, knew where to put the camera. This is true for any of a good film; it is that of where the camera is placed. It would have been a completely different feeling if it didn't track movements of the actors, or if it were to stay stationary most of the parts. I like the part when the camera moved towards Elsie Beckmann's mother when she opened the door. I might add that the part where Elsie Beckmann was abducted there were long still shots. I felt that it was trying to propose the idea of 'emptiness'. It's more of an expression rather than reality. If it were to incorporate realism, Elsie Beckmann would have been seen murdered by the murderer. Instead, while Elsie Beckmann's mother was echoing her name, the balloon that she was holding before that was stuck on an electric pole, and then there were shots of the empty staircase and the empty park when the ball was rolling. This scene was 'the scene' of the whole ten minutes; it made us wonder what really happened to Elsie Beckmann. To my demise, I really wondered how Elsie Beckmann was murdered.

   Secondly, notice how silent the first 10 minutes were. It was a cool, tension-laden scene. It's amazing how silence can say so much. Even the non-diagetic, credit roles contributed to some extend to the silence in the film. The sounds in the first 10 minutes of the film were actually silent in my opinion, even with sound. From the part where Elsie Beckmann sang a song about a murderer, to the part when the child murderer approached Elsie Beckmann with only a shadow was seen, to the part where the cuckoo clock made an alarm sound. It may have been the loud sound of silence. The climax to this first 10 minutes of the film was probably when she looked at the clock before the doorbell was heard. It wasn't very obvious but to me, it was the part when it confirmed that something happened to Elsie Beckmann. It was the part before she talked to the postman and knew that Elsie Beckmann wouldn't come home. Then it leads to her calling her daughter's name.

  Besides that, we knew the moment when Elsie Beckmann was talking to the man in the shadows that something would go wrong. In most films similar to this, we remember specific moments and utilize it during later scenes. For example, the part when the murderer whistled when he was buying Elsie Beckmann a balloon, we unconsciously remembered the whistle. In later part of the film, the 'motif' on capturing the murderer would be this whistle. Little things can be remembered, particularly if something was as insignificant as the sound of the whistle. It reminded me of a film called 'Departures', an Oscar-winning Japanese film. In that film, the littlest thing can mean the biggest meaning. The movie was about death but then there were a lot of cactuses in most parts of the film. I found out that cactuses are the only plants that do not die. It was ironic really.  Same goes to this movie in a way, we focus unconsciously on the smallest things that can make a difference in the whole film, and that was only the first 10 minutes of the film.

    In conclusion, the first 10 minutes of 'M' was a terrific form of expressionism as a meaning. The usage of still shots says a lot of things in relation to the sounds, the whistle and the lack use of music. It created a whole lot of tension just by seeing the first 10 minutes of the film.