The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight surpassed my wildest hopes and expectations. I watched it with not expectations and I can't think of enough words to praise it. It was deep and dark, filled with action had some of the best writing, cinematography, directing, music and acting. Truly powerful music which gave strong feelings and emotion while watching the movie. This may be one of my favorite films. The Dark Knight is packed with action, violence, and the insane Joker. The technology that batman uses has a wow factor as it is so realistic. With amazing action scenes; a new bat-cycle, thrilling car chases, amazing stunts, and demolition of buildings kept the audience engaged throughout the movie. (Referenced in the text, Chapter 7-9) Remarks from Christopher Nolan: “Tim Burton's Batman Returns was typical of Burton's quirky, dark style of film making but with The Dark Knight Nolan outdoes Burton, taking the Batman franchise into even more disturbing territory. "You certainly can push it too far, but interestingly there are different ways to be disturbing," offered Nolan. " I mean, I don't talk a lot about the previous films because I didn’t make them and they're not mine to talk about, but certainly if you look at Batman Returns with Danny DeVito as The Penguin, eating the fish and everything, there are some extraordinarily disturbing images in that movie. But they're coming at it from a surreal point of view." "I think the ways in which this film is disturbing are different. We try to ground it a little more in reality and so I suppose there's a sense there that might get under your skin a little more, if it relates to the world that we live in. As I say though, there are different tones that can be taken with adapting this character to the movies. Indeed, in the comics, one of the things that Paul Levitz at DC Comics first talked about when I first came onboard for Batman Begins is that Batman is a character who traditionally is interpreted in very different ways by the different artists and writers who've worked on it over the years. So there's a freedom, and an expectation even, that you will actually put something new into it, that it'll be interpreted in some different way. I think of any of the superheroes Batman is the darkest. There is an expectation that you're going to be dealing with more disturbing elements of the psyche. That's the place that he comes from as a character, so it feels appropriate to this character." (http://movies.about.com/od/thedarkknight/a/darkknight70408.htm) Interview with Christopher Nolan: “GB: So I’m curious, tell me one of the surprises you’ve had during the journey of this film after its release on July 18. NOLAN: It’s funny, I’ve been asked a lot about the politics of the film. I dismiss all such analogies [laughs]. It really isn’t something we think about as we put the story together, myself, David Goyer and Jonathan [Nolan, brother of the director]. But I would point to the interrogation scene with Batman and the Joker — not that there is a specific political point, per se — but that I was interested in getting the actors to explore a paradox: How do you fight somebody who essentially thrives on aggression? GB: I winced when I read a lot of the political messaging that people said they detected in your film. I think a lot of that says more about my industry than it does yours. NOLAN: [Laughs] “Yes, you may be right.” GB: It seems to me that, more often than not in a genre such as the one you’re working in, most of the political messaging has more to do with the viewer than the filmmaker. It’s inferred, not implied. NOLAN: I agree completely. Especially if you do it right. If you’re working in a genre that is heightened reality. I like to talk about these films as having an operatic quality or being on a grand scale and a bit removed from the rhythms of real life, no matter how realistic we try to make the scenes themselves. In this scene, for instance, we went for the gritty realism in the textures of it, but it is a heightened reality. We’re trying to work on a more universal scale. If you get that right, people are going to be able to bring a wide variety of interpretations to it depending on who they are. It’s allowing the characters to be a conduit to the audience. Allowing an audience to sit there and relate to Batman and his dilemma, whether they are Republican or Democrat or whatever. … GB: Watching “The Dark Knight,” it’s very easy to imagine the Joker returning to Gotham, the way his fate remains unresolved. When you were writing the film, did you anticipate that the Joker would be back in the third film? NOLAN: No, really and in truth, I only deal with one film at a time. I find myself sort of protesting this issue a lot. We’ve never attempted to save anything for a sequel or set up anything for a sequel. That seems improbable to some people because, particularly with “Batman Begins,” the film ended with a particular hook [with Jim Gordon showing Batman a Joker playing card announcing the arrival of a new villain in town]. But for me that was just about the excitement of people leaving the theater with the sense that now we have the character up and running. I wanted people to walk away with that sense in their head. You know, that he’s become the Batman in the movie. That’s why we had the title come up at the end, because it was “Batman Begins,” and it was all very specific to that. Then I got excited about seeing where that character would go. It was planned in advance, but it followed in that way. But we tried our hardest to really do everything in this movie that we would want to see the Joker do and to get that in the fabric of the story as much as possible. We wanted the Joker’s final taunt to Batman to be that they are locked in an ongoing struggle because of Batman’s rules. There’s a paradox there. Batman won’t kill. And the Joker is not interested in completely defeating Batman because he’s fascinated by him and he enjoys sparring with him. It’s trapped both of them. That was really the meaning of it. Of course what happened is Heath created the most extraordinary character that you would love to see 10 movies about. That’s the bittersweet thing. It was incredible characterization. It is a bittersweet thing for all of us. GB: Could you see actually yourself not making the third Batman film? NOLAN: Well … let me think how to put this. There are two things to be said. One is the emphasis on story. What’s the story? Is there a story that’s going to keep me emotionally invested for the couple of years that it will take to make another one? That’s the overriding question. On a more superficial level, I have to ask the question: How many good third movies in a franchise can people name? [Laughs.] At the same time, in taking on the second one, we had the challenge of trying to make a great second movie, and there haven’t been too many of those either. It’s all about the story really. If the story is there, everything is possible. I hope that was a suitably slippery answer.” http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2008/10/27/christopher-nol/ The only question that I can think of is how will Batman regain a good name for himself again after he's taken the blame for all the tragic events that took place? Ledger's performance was amazing, as are most of the cast. I liked the Joker's character best. Of course his actions scream maniac, but some of his best acting is when he's not blowing things up. True to his crazy character form his goal is to get an emotional response from the normal individuals around him and that response is not warm or fuzzy. We see the Joker sitting in a holding cell, all hell breaking loose around him and he's as cool and collected as a cucumber. But when the Joker isn't trying to break down the morals of Harvey Dent or Lt. Gordon, he's fixated on the Batman and trying to break him down. (Referenced in the text, Chapter 10) Trying to maintain order and bring peace and safety to is Batman. He plays the tormented vigilante wonderfully, as he struggles between his desire for a normal life and the knowledge that the Joker will keep killing, keep destroying, keep wreaking havoc, all because it keeps Batman in the game with him. He's faced with tough choices and personal turmoil he still must carry on the crusade and do whats right. The rest of the cast is remarkable, too, and they all shine in their roles; Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon and Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. Morgan Freeman reprises his role as Mr. Fox, the brain behind Batman and does an outstanding job.

The Graduate

Supposedly Ben is rebelling against conventional, and uniform world that his successful parents and friends live in. However, he has no problems still living at home, laying on a raft all day in their pool drinking beer and working on his tan. To me, that's not being a rebel, that's being a spoiled, rich kid! Ben is a lazy, spoiled, self-absorbed, unambitious, aloof, whiny loner with almost zero charisma. Ben doesn't seem to have any friends, that the audience saw? At his graduation party there was not one person there his own age. The guy seems to be completely anti-social to everyone he meets. Nichols employed a series of camera techniques that had been extensively used in television commercials. A shot of Ben driving across the Golden Gate Bridge suddenly sweeps us far into the air; the camera cuts at a rapid rate to convey a sense of Ben's subjectivity. Cinematographer Robert Surtees was given a chance to experiment with "arty" techniques and created moments that were both original and effective; the best remembered example comes when Ben, rushing madly to stop Elaine's marriage to a fraternity row type, is seen running toward a camera that photographs him in extreme depth through a telescopic lens; though Ben runs at a phenomenal speed, the technique makes him appear to be running in place, never getting anywhere. Thus, the film's essential theme is wordlessly conveyed. There was the equally important decision to change the notion of the musical score, and instead of just featuring music composed expressly for the picture, Nichols included currently popular songs by folksingers Simon and Garfunkel ("The Sound of Silence"; "Scarborough Fair") without necessarily correlating them directly to a scene. (Referenced in the text, Chapter 7-9) Ben's alienation from his culture throughout the film is symbolized by shots through glass, cutting him off from direct participation in others' experience. At the party, the guests are seen in wide-angle distortion through the eye-mask of Ben's new diving suit. Mrs Robinson's first approach to him is shown through a fish tank- she will be the predator in their relationship. Several times Ben's individual and nonconformist viewpoint is emphasized in subjective shots through the lenses of his sunglasses. When he finally runs off with Elaine, the audience sees the couple through the windows of the bus, creating a final barrier through which even their ultimate silence is unheard. The opening shot provides a close-up image of Ben's face, then zooms out to reveal he is in a plane, surrounded by people of varying ages; at the outset, the point is made visually that even when surrounded by others, he is still alone. At the film's end, the reverse procedure is employed: we see Ben and Elaine on a bus full of people, but after revealing the couple in a two- shot, the camera then closes in on Ben's face to isolate him once again, insisting even after winning away the woman he wants from another man he is still alone. In between these two framing shots, further evidence of Ben's "aloneness" abound. During the title sequence, for instance, Ben -- having departed from the airplane that's carried him from an Eastern college back to California -- rides the moving ramp into the lobby, and we view him as a singular figure again, as the camera slips in to isolate his image onscreen even though we know, from his context, he is surrounded by others. The music itself is important: one reason Ben was widely interpreted as a generational hero was the musical score by Simon and Garfunkel which, according to most critics, leant the film a sense of timeliness by employing then- currently popular songs instead of a more con- ventional soundtrack. Actually, the S and G songs were not current hits, but golden oldies from the recent past; soft folk ballads ("Sounds of Silence," "Scarborough Fair,") of the type that had been popular just before the folk-rock psy- chedelic sound eased such softer music off the air. The songs the hippies at the burger stand are listening to ("Big Green Pleasure Machine") and which is associated with them, not Ben, is strikingly different in style from all the other S and G songs in the picture, sounding as though it were devised as a satire on such songs. (Referenced in the text, Chapter 8-9) (http://www.unc.edu/~ablount/moviereview.html) Interview with Mike Nichols: SCHWARTZ: I’d like to hear a little bit about how you work with your production designer. You’ve generally worked with Richard Sylbert on most of your films; you’ve also worked with Tony Walton and Patrizia von Brandenstein. [I’d also like to hear about working with] your cinematographers. You’ve worked with just a roster of the greatest cinematographers—Nestor Almendros, Giuseppe Rotunno—so I’d like to know a little bit about your relationship with those people. NICHOLS: You’re really asking (and partially answering) the same questions that you do with the writers and the actors that I was talking about. ‘What happens?’ and ‘To whom does it happen?’ But also you—there are secrets—and you find physical secrets around which to organize the look. I mean, in The Graduate it’s no longer a secret because we went so far. You know, that we were concerned with glass, water, plastics, all the barriers between people—invisible in some cases; that we conceived Mrs. Robinson as the beast in the jungle, and she is indeed always in her jungle backyard. At one time I was almost going to send an ape through, and then I… (Laughter) They talked me out of it. And all her clothes are animals, they’re leopards, and zebras, and tigers. And I don’t even know if it was a good idea, but it gave us something to do. (Laughter) We organized the whole thing around these certain secrets that we had, and it does indeed give you something to do, and it hooks everything on in the story. SCHWARTZ: You seem to create an atmosphere where all the craftsmen can—the designer, the editor, the cameraman—can all chip in and the lines get kind of blurred. I was surprised to read—there’s a moment in The Graduate when Ben sees Mrs. Robinson naked for the first time. She walks in and there are flashes from his point of view of what he sees. That suggestion didn’t come from the editor or the cameraman, but from [production designer] Richard Sylbert—you described that that was his idea. NICHOLS: I didn’t even remember that—I would have said it was the editor! But I do know that Elaine and I used to have a rule: Right is might. And that is certainly my rule in a play or a picture. Wherever the idea comes from, you know the right one when you hear it, and that’s the one you do. I don’t care whose it is. It seems to me spiritually and otherwise that a very important aspect of that rule is not to keep track. If you keep track, you’re not doing it right. And in fact, I had a—I didn’t get along with Haskell Wexler on Virginia Woolf. And he did an interview afterward in which he said he had brought so much, he felt, to the film and that the idea of the taillight flashing, which people for some reason felt was so moving and evocative—that that had been his idea. And I thought, “What a strange thing to do.” It didn’t seem to me the way you play to say, “This was my idea, and that was his idea.” In fact, that particular one had been my idea because you have to build the whole thing. Taillights won’t flash unless the engine is running, and you can’t run an engine in a movie because it wrecks the sound. So you have to anticipate those things. Nobody has that idea in the moment. But it’s the keeping track that I find slightly nasty. And the idea is that everybody throws in whatever happens, and the director’s job is to say, “Thanks, that’s all great; this is the way we will go because this is what happens next.” And that’s our real master. We are obligated to tell what happens, and then have what happens after that, and then what happens… And whatever ideas will help you in telling that story, those are the right ones. SCHWARTZ: Okay, I’d like to bring up the house lights now, and we’ll take your questions. Right down in front. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Several of your earlier films were wide-screen or anamorphic productions. I’ve noticed that in more recent films, you decided to shoot your films flat instead. Is this basically a compromise [because of] the problems of home video? NICHOLS: No, although I am very happy to see everything I shot instead of half of what I shot, a random half [when the widescreen films are panned and scanned to fit television’s aspect ration]. I think for me, it’s part of this change in me, that I was very conscious of composition, and the “Golden Third” and all that stuff. And for that, the Panavision aspect ratio is a very interesting one, because it never says, “Just this face. Don’t worry about any of the rest of it, just look at this face.” And of course that’s what [the] 1.85:1 [aspect ratio] does. I like 1.85:1 because it seems to me that the ideal movie has no visible technique at all. It’s all gone. There are no shots, no cuts, and no montage. You’re just watching life. As in Jean Renoir. As in, now, in Louis Malle. I think that’s the highest form of movie. Louis Malle and Jean Renoir—you have no idea what they did. They didn’t do anything as far as you can see. There is no shot where you say, “Wow, look at that.” And you’re not aware of the cuts. You’re not aware of any technique at all. The idea of technique surely is—for the events and the feelings and the story—to burn it away. So there is no technique, and for that, I think 1.85:1 makes everything far less self-conscious and composed. That’s why I like it. It’s more half-assed! (Laughter) AUDIENCE MEMBER: When you decide to direct a movie and you’ve read the script, how closely, once you start to shoot the picture, do you work with the writer and screenwriter? NICHOLS: Oh, very closely for a very long time. It changes a lot. I sort of don’t believe in directors taking screenwriting credit, but I, to varying extents, have always been part of writing the screenplay. And in the case of Postcards, I would say it was about—well, as I told you, I don’t like to assign percentages or say this was mine and that was yours—but we did a lot of it together. And I always have the writer on the set, for several reasons: One is that things are always shifting and changing, and it’s necessary to be able to say to the writer, “This doesn’t work anymore because she’s now doing so-and-so. Let’s work on something where it stops here and you have a new line.” You’re doing that all the time that you’re shooting. AUDIENCE MEMBER: So there are always immediate changes? You might shoot something with certain dialogue, and then change it right on the spot? NICHOLS: Yes. I’ll say—you might rehearse it and change it in rehearsal. If you want to change it yourself or the actor is improvising it, it’s nice, it’s polite to say to the writer, “Is that okay with you?” That’s the most wonderful part of a movie. It’s constantly changing, as you rehearse it, as you shoot it, as you cut it. And it’s nice if the writer is there to make the adjustments just as the rest of you are.” (Referenced in the text, Chapter 11) (http://www.movingimagesource.us/files/dialogues/2/98603_programs_transcript_html_203.htm) Questions that remain: Will Ben and Elaine have a lasting future together?   If so, how will these dynamics work with their parents for years to come?  What will Ben end up doing with his career? I found this movie interesting and entertaining enough, but I didn't fall in love with it. It left me amused, but underwhelmed. Whenever "The Sounds of Silence" or "Scarborough Fair" is heard, the images on the screen become surreal: images of reality mixed with what is going on inside Ben's imagination. The effect takes hold of you and makes you feel what he's feeling. (Referenced in the text, Chapert 10.) Ben goes from a shy, not confident boy to a confident man. Throughout the movie Ben is reminded of how he feels trapped in a world he did not make. The monkeys in the zoo, pounding the glass in the window of the church, even at the very end, looking through the glass in the back of the bus, the entire movie is a constant reminder that Ben is trapped, even if the trap is in his head. Ben's character showed what almost everyone has felt at that point in their lives, the lack of direction, the loneliness, confusion,etc. I also like the fact that the end is not a happy-ever-after. Although he does get the girl, the expressions on their faces betray a bit of insecurity and uneasiness. I found that to be very realistic. The Graduate is a film about the search for true happiness and the stress that comes along with the experience.

Momento

Memento: You'll either hate or love Memento. This movie isn't for everybody... It demands concentration and attention to absorb the entire plot. This movie may be too fast paced for most, and not everyone will appreciate the backward story telling. If you talk during the movie or someone talks to you during the movie, you'll miss something. If you watch the whole movie with no or very few interruptions, you might be able to keep up to the storyline. You are completely wrapped up in the life of Lenny who suffers from short-term memory loss, and lives his life by following his own messages and photos he has made for himself. (Referenced in text, Chapter 6.) “QUESTION: Memento is such a unique story. What inspired it? NOLAN: It was based on a short story that Jonah was writing. He hadn’t finished yet, but he told me about it, and I immediately told him that I wanted to write a screenplay. The first thing that I had to do was figure out how to tell a story on film about a man who had lost his short term memory. That in itself presented some interesting challenges. QUESTION: What kind of research was involved? Did you reference older movies? NOLAN: It wasn’t research, but some of Nicholas Roeg’s films influenced my thinking from a visual point of view. I also remember talking to Wally Pfister (ASC), the cinematographer who shot Memento, about the simplicity and cinematic purity of the images in The Thin Red Line, a Terrence Malick movie that had just come out. They were very clear and clean images without filtration. QUESTION: Can you explain what you mean when you say, “a beautifully executed film?” NOLAN: To me, a beautifully executed film is a movie where the sum of all the images leaves a lasting impression on you, rather than the individual shots. It’s how you use cinematography to tell a story. Wally is not just wrapped up in the shot of the moment. He is thinking about the whole story during every shot we make.” (Referenced in text, Chapter 4 & 5.) (http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/On_Film_Interviews/nolan(2).htm) Questions that remain: What really did happen to his wife? Was she diabetic? Was it his life he was flashing back to? How many time did he think he killed his wife's killer? Did his full memory ever come back? Memento shocks you at the beginning of every section where you are again left to figure out where you are and whats going on, to the point where you may eventually lose track. By the time you reach the ending you will probably be frustrated having tried so hard to outsmart the film. This movie definitely needs to be watched multiple times. The style of editing in Memento contributes to the story and makes it better by showing us Lenny's bewildered world out of order. It forces us to experience the movie in the same disoriented way that Lenny experienced the world. So as Lenny tries to figure his way through his life, so do we. It puts you in the same mindset with the main character, you don't know whats going on, your just dropped into a situation like he is, reading messages off his body, trying to figure it out with him as you go. (Referenced in text, Chapter 6.) Nolan's storyline and the cast's acting were wonderful. The soundtrack and cinematography created the gloomy mood that continued throughout the film. The editing was perfect as the scene progression puts you exactly in the same mindset of Lenny. Memento is just one of the most creative, innovative brain teasers! The movie is brilliant in the sense that we are as clueless as the main character Lenny. We are trying to piece things together with him and in doing so we question our own memories and interpretations of the facts. Lenny is swift and glides perfectly from scene to the next with that look of fear on his face like anyone in a condition where they couldn't remember one thing from the next. We totally empathize with his character and we are totally right there with him with each lost and lingering gaze. Unfortunately he can't remember any details in the present and has developed a system of ways to keep track of his investigation through a complex series of notes, photos, and tattoos. There are some characters in this movie who take advantage of his weaknesses and exploit him. One example is the hotel worker who rents him out two rooms, even though he only uses one at a time. At the end of the movie, most people won't believe that the movie is over. The ending really seems to leave you hanging. Memento has an interesting concept, it is a look at self-identity and what drives us in our daily lives. Nolan takes a classic film concept, revenge, and twists it around making it less about a manhunt, and more about the search for one's own identity. Lenny's searching for revenge as if this would comfort and relieve him. His identity has been taken away and Lenny struggles to find it anyway he can and even through strangers. He has his photos, but other than people with a normal memory, if he doesn't like the truth he can simply burn a photo in order to clear his conscience. They say time can heal pain, but when time/memory fades, who do you trust, where do you begin to look.

Amelie

Amelie: I really enjoyed the film. Witty, clever and at times, surprising. Amelie actually meddles with damaged male subjects, not to mention the garden gnome. This was a sweet, charming, funny movie. You need to pay attention to the change of the colors and quirky humor. Her biggest challenge is to overcome her own shyness and apply what she is trying to do for others into her own life. Having discovered the joy of charity and creating miracles for all those around her, Amelie is at last ready for some miracles in her own life. The views are wonderful as director Jean-Pierre Jeunet moves his camera through the streets of a dream-like Paris. Everything seems perfect in Jeunet's world as the colors of clothing and the mood, the atmosphere, and the music to touch the emotional side in all of us. Interview with the Director: “iW: Compared to your earlier work, "Amélie" is much lighter and more positive. Why did you suddenly get the urge to make a romantic comedy? Jean-Pierre Jeunet: Maybe that's because I am in love (laughs). In fact I began to work on this film before I fell in love. When I worked with Marc Caro, it was impossible to put personal emotions into the films, because we are not brothers, we are not lovers, we are not very close. I kept my own ideas for myself, and after "The City of Lost Children," we wanted to make different films. For a long time I've had a kind of collection of memories, stories, anecdotes, and I wanted to make a film with this collection. I spent maybe four months [working on it], and then they called me to make "Alien." And when I came back, I worked on it again and it was very difficult. Then one day, I don't know why, I just thought, "Oh my God, this is the story: this woman helping other people." And before, that was just one small story in a collection of other stories. iW: So you didn't wake up one day and say, "I want to make a happy movie." Jeunet: That was the concept: to make a positive story. Amelie is pretty sad, pretty alone, pretty introverted, but she still has to stay positive all of the time. This was the first note. We wanted to get a smile from the audience, and this was the case, but we did not expect such success. It was just a very small film, and it was risky because I knew I was going to talk about generosity and it's a risk, because today it is more fashionable to speak about violence. iW: Why did you want to explore generosity? Jeunet: Why? Because this story is about a woman who helps people in secret. You know Paul Auster? He did a story, I think it's in "Leviathan," about a woman who sees a guy who has bad taste and she gives him a gift in secret. It's a very nice tie, and one week after, a very nice shirt, and the taste of the guy changes little by little. I love this story. And I saw another film in France, a very old film: a woman receives ten dollars each day and she doesn't know from who. And I love this kind of story. iW: In all of your films (besides "Alien"), there's this idea of people's secret lives and the crazy schemes they come up with to get what they want, like the elaborate ways Aurore tries to kill herself in "Delicatessen" and the kids in "The City of Lost Children" using a cat and a mouse to break into a safe. What's the fascination there? Jeunet: I don't know. I think this film is a little bit different. It's also talking about destiny, but not this kind of chain of events. I tried to avoid that. I remember one scene I cut a lot because I did not want to repeat myself, the scene where they make love and the objects are moving. I am not very proud about that, because it's too "Delicatessen." But I do the same thing in my own life. When I give a gift, for example, I put arrows on the floor: You have to open the refrigerator. Inside you have an artichoke. Inside you have a paper [saying] you have to turn on the TV. I am on TV. I explain that you have to open a book, etc. I love this. iW: Have you done that kind of thing since you were a child? Jeunet: I suppose. When I was a child, I was escaping from my family with imagination. And it continues, but now they pay me for it. A lot of people lose the spirit of childhood. Every child has a lot of imagination and you lose it little by little. I don't know why, but I kept it. iW: Maybe you just cultivate it in your work. I was astounded, for example, with the incredible details in the film, like the characters' likes and dislikes. You have this amazing ability to hone in on very personal and specific details. Jeunet: It's exactly the thing I do in my life. I do some lists every day: new things I hate, things I love. I know it by heart, this game. If you say, "I love peanuts," it is not interesting. You have to find the feeling. And I've wanted for a long time to use this game to present characters in a feature, and I did. But that's my own list. I distributed it [among] the characters. I chose the best one for each character, to define the characters, like I love to put my hands in the sacks of grains: Amelie. iW: How long did it take you to write the screenplay? Jeunet: It's always one year, but you don't do just a script. I did some commercials at the same time. You give the script to friends and receive their impressions, and when four or five people talk about a [particular] problem, then you know you have a problem. And at this time you begin a second draft with two or three big changes. For example, in the first draft the old man didn't exist. It was a kid. Can you believe it? I don't like in a movie when you have a sick kid. It's so easy. The old man in this film is okay, because it is not sad. It's just symbolic. iW: Why do you think it's been so successful? Jeunet: Because it's about generosity. It's a positive story, but I didn't expect a success like this. For me, after "Alien," it was just a small French film and very risky, because generosity could become tacky very quickly. But let me explain the success: It had four hundred and fifty good reviews and only six bad ones, and after awhile it became a social event. Everybody wanted to use the title, and the life of the neighborhood changed. The owner of the cafe Les Deux Moulins wanted to sell the cafe, and now he doesn't. He does interviews everyday. The train for tourists visits the café [and says]: "They shot 'Amelie'" Amazing. iW: You have turned your Amelie, Audrey Tautou, into a star. She was an interesting choice, because in your past films you have all these people with funny faces. Jeunet: She is funny. She has a funny face, but on the other hand, she's very nice. It's exactly the mix I love. I saw her in a poster and I saw the big eyes. Some people ask me if it is a special effect because she has such big pupils. They're huge. It's amazing. And she was perfect. I did some tests and she was immediately perfect. She will be a star, believe me. And I told her, "France will be too small for you very quickly. You have to learn English." And now she is hired by Stephen Frears.” (http://www.musicolog.com/jeunet_interview1.asp) Questions that remain: Will Amelie now feel like she fits into the world being she is in her new relationship? What happened to the relationship between the couple in the cafe? I found this movie very likable. I also found the whole movie visually appealing. Every scene was full of vivid color and detail, pictures that came to to life and talked, and all the characters have extremely interesting faces and personalities. The mood of the movie is very quirky and silly. It's very light-hearted, feel-good, change-your-perspective kind of movie. (Referenced in text, chapter 4.) This movie includes rich, antique-looking cinematography, as well as, its inclusion of several effects shots that help to provide the feeling of Paris as heaven on earth. Visual effects include Amelie herself collapsing to the ground as a puddle of water when she sees the man of her dreams and the garden gnome that travels the world. (Referenced in text, Chapter 5.) The film's exposure to Rufus, whose torn photos litter the floors of photo-booths, which are then taken by others in the movie to create a photo-album. This references how we can take others' personal treasures into our own hearts. Amelie takes us on a stroll down the path of lives little treasures and troubles. From the goldfish to the grocer, this film is an excellent look at an ordinary life that turns into something wonderful. The style and theme of this movie can change one's perspectives on life. The cinematography was wonderful in this movie; the angles of the camera, the colors of the costumes and the sets. The music was perfect, along with the great feel of the atmosphere, and the great storyline. Everything in this film was so inviting to watch. All the different aspects of the film came together to form a great story. Amazing use of color and lighting with the small touch of visual effects it truly completes the story. The emotional torture Amélie did to Collignon was more than entertaining! I even loved the travels of the garden gnome. These events were truly commical. We were entertained, we laughed, we smiled and by the end of the film. The movie taught us a lesson that making yourself happy in life is the next best thing when helping others appreciate the magic of life. Amelie speaks to the heart. In times of uncertainty in the world and where we are all in search of a uplifting message, this movie fits that category!

The King's Speech

The King's Speech was very interesting to watch. It is a very touching, and quite inspiring story about a man who is scarred and trapped in a situation from which he can't really escape and is facing it with great courage. The film showed a powerful opening scene which showed the enormity of what was required of him. The film was also very funny and the characters showed how caring and giving they were. I gained insight into a significant period of history. It was very fascinating and enjoyable look into the 20th century British Monarchy from behind-the-scenes. King George VI suffered from a severe speech impediment that initially kept him from being King but being his brother pursued a "scandalous" relationship with an American woman, George was forced to take over for his brother as King. As King, George was forced to give speeches both in person and over the radio in order to keep his country's citizens united and strengthened. George's lack of emotional confidence was the root of his speech impediment. George ultimately found the right guy to help him with the extreme assistance of his wife. The best scenes in the film were between Rush and Firth. Their onscreen chemistry was just perfect. I'm not sure that one could have done it without the other. “Smoke Screen - The movie is full of nuances that the viewer dare not ignore: Notice how Queen Mary can’t embrace her children; how David can taunt Bertie into stuttering; how Wallis can emasculate David (who likes it). The movie also makes several references to the king’s habit of smoking cigarettes. Smoking, he says at one point, was suggested to him by earlier, discredited advisers because it “relaxes the muscles in your throat”. Logue campaigns to get the king to stop smoking. It becomes a bit of a running gag. But the filmmakers were trying in a low-key way to touch upon a serious and sensitive topic: Smoking was ultimately what killed the king.” (http://jerrygarrett.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/ten-secrets-behind-the-making-of-the-kings-speech/) Interview with the Director: “A lot of period movies feel like you could be watching them on the Lifetime channel. They have no cinematic depth. But your movie has a lot of cinematic depth and it belongs on a movie screen. Can you talk about what you did as a director to prepare so that it would be cinematic and not something that you would want to watch on Lifetime? Hooper: That’s interesting. I think one of the things I worked on early was the close-up because of the amount of dialogue and the nature of the emotions that Helena was going to go through. The film’s language was going to be the close-up. There’s no point fighting that because the cinematic close-up was going to be key. So therefore, I thought a lot about how to make the close-up cinematic. Because it can be frustrating shot to frame because in composition terms, it’s the face. If you look at classic Hollywood films, they tend to shoot close-ups on quite long lenses and the background it out of focus. You know, it’s just a mush. So I decided early on that I would consider shooting the close-ups on wider lenses in all. What that does is that, even in the close-up, it draws the art direction and set location into the frame. And the face still remains in communication with the space, which I think is more cinematic. There was particularly a French film I saw years ago called Man Against the World where there were these wonderful simple frame close-ups against wallpaper in a room, which were incredibly powerful. I think of Wong-kar Wai in 2046, who does simple compositions of people. It’s a futuristic movie, but he can shoot someone in mid-shot in a hallway, and the texture of that always fascinates me. It feels very cinematic. More than that, I also began to think, “What is the visual analog? It’s stammering. How do I find a way to shoot Colin that will underline his predicament?” I began to think that if you’re a stutterer, it’s about inhabiting silence, emptiness, and nothingness. Therefore, is there a way visually of talking about that? So I wanted to put Colin’s face in these close shots in constant relation to negative space. So I used these big empty walls in the consulting room in Logue’s apartment and framed Colin against these big empty walls. Sometimes, he’s small against in the corner with the wall above and overpowering him. Sometimes, there’s just a lot of head room. I like that the idea of the conversation and communication behind nothingness is blasted all in the therapy room. Then, if you look at what I’m doing on Geoffrey’s side, Geoffrey is against in the therapy room…it’s sort of a room like a fireplace. It’s all of his pictures, wall, and papers. It’s domestic and it’s cozy. I watched them make that kind of division in the close-up language between these two men and the worlds they came from. Can you talk about the editing process? How long was it for you in the editing room and did you do test screenings or friends and family screenings? Hooper: We finished shooting the film in late January of this year. Tariq Anwar is a superb editor. I mean, he cut American Beauty and The Madness of King George. He’s hugely experienced. I think the rhythm of his editing is astonishingly good. We had a pretty good cut probably 7 or 8 weeks out from the shoot. We tested a cut in New York in April with Harvey Weinstein and we actually got a 93 percent on our New York test, which is very rare I’m told. So I then said to Harvey, “Maybe this is a New York sophisticated thing? I want to know if this plays in somewhere unlike New York” So he set up a test screening in Kansas City and extraordinarily the same result came back with 93 percent in terms of audience response. But I found that test very useful because there were definitely things about the history that people didn’t know. For example, the audience didn’t even know that Wallis Simpson was American unless if you pointed it out. So I definitely had to deal with the work to make sure that the history side was clear because I think I was assuming more knowledge that people had. So the testing process was both very encouraging because of our scores, but also helpful in terms of the clarity of the storytelling. I think we locked up our edit in early May. So it was a good rhythm. It was okay. (http://collider.com/tom-hooper-interview-the-kings-speech/62111/) The production design was perfect. It gave the movie a realistic feel to that time period. Their was great attention to detail from the view of set, location, costume, and prop design. I noticed the use of the wallpaper design, style of clothing and furniture, old radio microphones and technology. I found it ironic and interesting to find out that Lionel wasn't a doctor. Lionel then defending himself by claiming he never said he was a doctor as he kept insisting not to be called doctor, and his office had him listed solely as "Lionel Logue" and not doctor. (Referenced in the text, Irony of Character) The relationship between Lionel and Bertie is the core of this movie, and the best parts of it. We get to see into the personal lives of both men. We see Lionel having conversations with his family trying to obtain their approval and respect. Also, Bertie dealing with the awkwardness of his speech problem while being the heir to the throne. The best moments of the movie involve Bertie and Lionel, preparing and presenting the King's war-time speech, with Lionel in the booth with him directing him, which was so well performed! The King's Speech title symbolizes two meanings (referenced in the text). It references both the speech he gave launching England into war with Germany and his personal voice in dealing with his speech impediment. Firth was a unique character. He played an uptight Englishman with charm. He played opposite of Lionel, who has funny and charming. Lionel was a very caring man. He seemed confused to find out who 'The Johnsons' were, which was comical. He eventually brings Bertie back down to earth and seems to connect Royalty to the every day person. It was interesting to note how frightening it could be to face a microphone with the blinking red light and the instrument itself strung inside a metal frame with springs. The announcer, at the beginning of the film, preparing himself by gargling, spraying his throat and measuring his distance from the microphone makes it all seem like a chore just to say a few words. The director was able to obtain so much drama out of someone's speech impediment, and make such a brilliant movie.

Good Will Hunting

Good Will Hunting is a wonderful moving that conveys a message that it is never to late to wish for good things for yourself and you don't need a lot of money to be successful, you just need to apply yourself. The casting of Robin Williams, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon was positively spot on. Their communication on-screen was fun to watch. Their reactions were so real. This movie was smartly-written, brilliantly directed and loaded with symbolism. Even though Will was a genius, it did not make his life easy. His troubled childhood has led to a troubled adulthood. The only reason he was not behind bars is due to his quick wit, and his ability to talk circles around the nearest judge or anyone else for that matter. His pent-up anger and abuse received as a child led him to a life of hardship and made him extremely defensive.(Referenced in the text, Metaphors) The therapy sessions shown are humorous as well as very touching. The most heartfelt session was when Will finally breaks down in front of Sean by repeatedly saying 'Don't mess with me Sean'. This scene will automatically have one's tears rolling down their cheeks, as Sean explains to Will; “It wasn't your fault!” Director's comments: “I remember one specific instance, when I interjected... It's the moment, I think, when Will (Matt Damon) lights the paper on fire in (Lambeau's (Stellan Skansgaard) office. Originally, he tossed it across the room. In one rehearsal, he wadded it off into a ball and tossed it. For some reason, probably because Matt was always smoking, I said, "Why don't you light it on fire?" And then Stellan had to deal with that as an actor. But Stellan is fantastic, he'll jump right in and attack that as opposed to resisting it. There's one feeling I always try to instill on the set, which is, "Don't worry about the words too much." Because you can get really tripped up with whether you said this line right, or which line comes after it, if you missed your cue, or what have you. To me, once you're on the set and once you're going, you could almost make it up. If you go by the script, that's okay. If you stray a bit, that's okay. If you forget something, the other actor will pick up from you or maybe something new will develop. I really welcome that. On NOT using a video monitor on the set. I was really fighting against it on this film. Our Director of Photography wanted to have a tiny one on the dolly so that the crew members could actually see what the camera was doing. As a director, unfortunately, I was drawn to that. I caught myself many a time staring right at the monitor. I'm not supposed to look, but whenever it's around - even a small little one - I tend to get sidetracked. In other words, it was a good thing for the crew, a bad thing for me. Generally, I find monitors slow things down. It's yet another thing to have to set up. Besides, you tend to start playing stuff back a lot. Which we wouldn't do on Good Will Hunting. Unless something went really wrong. But we wouldn't play back for, say, performance. People can get really swept up in that... On changing one's style and "going mainstream." I've actually heard some interesting comments. Some people who'd seen the film said, "It's really good. I'm surprised Gus made this." Did I change my style consciously, if at all? I don't think so. It was the screenplay, really, as was the case with my other films. They were screenplays that I really liked, they were stories that I liked ; I went in and made them without regard to anything other than my own reaction to it.” (http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/interview.cfm?File=gus-san) “Gus and Quentin are very much actors' directors. And you go to actors' directors because they never use a monitor. Which a lot of directors, good or bad, do. It's not about whether you're a good director or bad director. But I think real actors' directors don't. Gus, like Quentin, would be sitting right next to the camera. he'd yell "Action" and "Cut," the actors would look up and look right at Gus. It was like a bond that happened right then and there. It's really a great thing to watch because it's a trust that forms. And it looks like a parent and a child in that an actor, if they feel like they are being protected, they allow themselves to go deeper and find other things inside themselves that they've never found before. And that's really great to watch. Gus really gets people up to improvise on screen. It's almost like the script is a jumping-off point for him. Watching the dailies, I almost felt like I was watching a docudrama instead of feature-film acting. Didn't feel like performances, it really felt improvised, natural, organic. Why Gus Van Sant: If you look at his other movies, all right, this doesn't seem like the right movie for Gus. But then you look at several things: He's amazing with actors and this is an actors' piece. It's full of people that hang around and talk. Two, he's a visualist. He's always interesting, camera wise. Three, he has a sense of the blue collar, the underclass group. And the script has that element of it. It also has... I hate to use the word "edge" it's so overused, but it's the only one I can think of ; the emotional parts of it had an edge to them, and so had the comedy part. And I felt that Gus really could hold that edge, and that he'd really relate to these guys. Before Gus got involved, the script needed some work, and different characters needed different things here and there.” (http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/interview.cfm?File=law-ben) Questions I still have: What will Skyla's reaction be when Will arrives in California? Where is Sean really going? Will he now consider finding love again? Will the professor continue teaching? In the end of the movie, Will is given a car by his friends. This happens after his realization with the psychiatrist that the abuse of his childhood was not his fault. This car symbolizes his new found freedom from this burden. In the end we see a fuller version of this with him leaving everything behind to chase after a girl in California. (This refers to the text explaining dramatic Structure – climax.) The title, Good Will Hunting is symbolic itself. Obviously there is the name of the primary character, Will. The good part is misleading at first. We see a troubled kid who is violent but gifted. There are glimpses of the “Good” within him throughout the movie. In the end, we see a transformation to the good person that was in there all along. To me, the Hunting part is directed at the realization of two characters. Both Will and Seans’ characters find themselves looking into their own lives and finding something better. Each of them ends the movie by leaving and going on a new “Hunt” to define and explore their new found freedom.

Casablanca

Casablanca - Casablanca is a great film. With ease it combined action, comedy, romance, and unforgettable dialogue. A great movie must have certain components which consist of great acting, action, humor, a compelling plot, and a memorable song. This move fits all of them, in my opinion.

I noticed all the smoking in the film which you don't see too often in current movies. There were no obscenities or profanities, that I heard. At the beginning they touched on the pickpocketers along the cafes. It was hard to catch that the plot had something to do with transit letters from two German couriers which Rick somehow obtained.

“The difference in height between Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman changes throughout the film. This is because Bergman was actually a few inches taller than Bogart, though to create the illusion that it was vice versa, Michael Curtiz had Bogart stand on boxes and sit on pillows in some shots, or had Bergman slouch down (as evident when she sits on the couch in the "franc for your thoughts" scene).”

“No one knew right up until the filming of the last scene whether Ilsa would end up with Rick or Laszlo. During the course of the picture, when Ingrid Bergman asked director Michael Curtiz with which man her character was in love, she was told to "play it in between". Since the ending was not the final scene shot, there are some scenes where she *was* aware of how everything would turn out, and these include the scene in the black market with Rick and the scene in the Blue Parrot where Ferrari offers the Laszlos one exit visa.” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/trivia)

“Curtiz was certainly responsible for the breathless pace of the movie. That was his trademark. He lingers over conversations and activities only when they're essential.”

“It was Curtiz who had Ilsa pound the table with her fist, knocking over the wine glass, in the climactic scene between her and Rick in Paris.” (http://users.datarealm.com/Lucius/Casablanca.index.html)

Will Ilsa and Rick ever cross paths again? If so, will it end up differently? Will the relationship between Rick and Renault change as time passes, or how will it end?

The relationship between Rick and Renault was both funny and conflicted. They're friends but yet they are not. They should be enemies, but are they or will they be? Rick's bar is the place to be. I

Rick ends up being heartbroken when Ilsa realizes Laszlo had not been killed, as she believed. She then doesn't show up to leave with Rick but later does at his place. Ilsa comes across as irresistible, compelling, a woman worthy of Rick's love. A woman that Rick would protect. It was presented in the movie that Rick would not protect anyone! In the end, Rick shows his protective side which makes an intense story-line.

Now I know all of the following unforgettable lines were from this movie:

"Here's lookin' at you, kid"

"I stick my neck out for nobody"

"Louie, this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship"

"you'll regret it; maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life."

"As Time Goes By," (Rick and Ilsa's love song.)

"Play it, Sam!"

"This is a beginning of a beautiful friendship."

This movie told a story that is relevant today and how we still make the same types of decisions in our lives. Perhaps some of them are not the best results we wanted but maybe we can have a second chance to change the outcome. This movie is for all ages. I don't believe it will ever get old.

On the Waterfront

On the Waterfront - This was the first time I've watched this movie and really enjoyed it! It was a great story, with conflict everywhere. It's one of those movies that included wonderful dialogue, performances, drama, action and a fantastic story. The drama goes beyond the violent events that unfold to the inner struggle of a man who must make a moral decision; union vs the workers. The symbolism and hidden meanings throughout the movie unforgettable.

“The film is widely considered to be Kazan's answer to those that criticized him for his identifying eight (former) Communists in the film industry before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) in 1952.”

“In 1989, this film was deemed "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" by the Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Waterfront)

What will happen with the relationship between Terry and Eva? What will happen to the crooked union worker? How long will it really take for all the corruption to removed, or has it been?

I found it interesting how the story-line really focused on the issues of morality and our conscience. I felt it came across very naturally. Terry struggled with a choice of bringing them to justice or keeping quiet, and let the crimes continue even though it is against his conscience.

Terry perhaps represented those who stand true to their integrity even though it might take time to realize. I truly respect a person who stands up for whats right despite the price and in doing so inspires others to do the right thing rather than be afraid.

The film had very few flaws. The scene as Terry breaks in the woman's door for the kiss is a little funny. It also had a slow start to it. I had to watch is for awhile until I got hooked.

The story is suspenseful. I was so caught up in the lives of the characters and their struggles. The scene with him and his brother in the car, is one of the best scene's in movie history. "I could have been a contender. I could have been somebody, instead of a bum. Which is what I am, let's face it." It broke my heart when Terry's brother got killed and he had to take him down. Very sad...

Eva, I think she was my favorite. She gave a brilliant, heartfelt portrayal in her scenes with Terry. She helped him examine his conscience in an amazing performance.