Boyhood

The life of Mason from the ages of 6-18 consisting of what the title is, Boyhood. Through the years we really get thrown into his life and what type of person he becomes. Mason has struggled with moving multiple times, seeing his mother make bad decisions with men, and be an outcast in his eyes. The fact that this movie is a 12 year epic it doesn't really have anything to else going for it. It's a typical story with a typical family. Unless you look deeper. Deeper into an element that most people pay attention to and think about after its done. Dialogue. Sit there and listen to what these characters say. Because yes this movie may seem too simple about Mason growing up to be a depressed hopeless boy, but his life makes us think about life as a whole with what these characters say. For instance when Mason is about to leave for college he is talking to his mother and she ends up breaking down and starting to cry. He then goes onto ask her why she is in this state, and his mother replied with, 

"Mom:You know what I'm realizing? My life is just going to go. Like that. This series of milestones. Getting married. Having kids. Getting divorced. The time that we thought you were dyslexic. When I taught you how to ride a bike. Getting divorced... again. Getting my masters degree. Finally getting the job I wanted. Sending Samantha off to college. Sending you off to college. You know what's next? Huh? It's my fucking funeral! Just go, and leave my picture! 

Mason: Aren't you jumping ahead by, like, 40 years or something? 

Mom: I just thought there would be more." This is one scene where we really see Mason's mother confess that her life is consumed by the idea of milestones and after sending Mason off her next milestone is dying. She then wonders why there wasn't more. More of life. And after seeing that one scene it really made me stop myself and ask the same thing. I may only be a senior in high school but it doesn't change the fact that I am about to hit a milestone of high school being over. You never realize you were living in the midst of a milestone until it's over and it's gone. There is another scene where Mason is developing his pictures in the dark room and one of his teachers walks in and questions what he makes of himself retaining to his career. 

"Mr. Turlington: I'm worried about you, Mason. 
Mason: [laughs] Why is that? 
Mr Turlington: I'll tell you why: The images you're turning in, they're cool. You're looking at things in a really unique way. Got a lot of natural talent. 
Mason: Thanks. 
Mr Turlington: Yeah, but that and 50 cents will just get you a cup of coffee in this old world. I've met a LOT of talented people over the years. How many of them made it professionally without discipline, commitment and really good work ethic? 

Mason: [Shrugs] 
Mr Turlington: I can tell ya. I can count it on two fingers: [Makes A-ok hand gesture] Zero. It's not gonna happen for you, Mason. The world is too competitive. There are too many talented people who are willing to work hard; and a buttload of morons who are untalented, who are more than willing to surpass you. As a matter of fact, a lot of them are sitting in that classroom out there right now. Hm? You know what they're doing? They're doing their assignments. Which is what you're supposed to be doing, but you're not. You're in here. Now, why is that? You're special, Mason?" Now this teacher seems to be very straightforward with Mason in this scene. We could take this scene in different ways, such as the fact that the teacher is right. It's true that the world is competitive and not a lot of talented people receive recognition for it. Or you could take this scene as if this teacher is just a stick in the mud and doesn't understand that people do receive chances to do what they love doing and are very good at it. All in all the teacher has a point, the world is competitive and it is unjust. So many paths, so many directions and chances of making it out with a life we always wanted. This scene really makes you think about how you should go about living your life and actually making a name for yourself. I found a scene where there wasn't a huge impact on the viewer but it stood out in some way. 

"Mason: I finally figured it out. It's like when they realized it was gonna be too expensive to actually build cyborgs and robots. I mean, the costs of that were impossible. They decided to just let humans turn themselves into robots. That's what's going on right now. I mean, why not? They're billions of us just laying around, not really doing anything. We don't cost anything. We're even pretty good at self-maintenance and reproducing constantly. And as it turns out, we're already biologically programmed for our little cyborg upgrades. I read this thing the other day about how When you hear that ding on your inbox, you get like a dopamine rush in your brain. It's like we're being chemically rewarded for allowing ourselves to be brainwashed. How evil is that? We're fucked." Now in this section of the movie Mason is really going deep into the whole idea that humans are slowly turning into robots and that we have our brains wired to technology and our life is already taken over. While the fact remains we are in the digital age, but we are not totally wired in, not just yet. But this scene is just going over it's limits with the whole idea of life being over. It honestly doesn't prove or influence anyone what life is really about. It could have been more developed to prove the fact that life isn't all about technology and being wired down. I honestly feel as though the director really knew what he was doing with this element since the only thing this movie was judged by was the 12 year lapse. The dialogue really lets the viewer understand the questions of life and it isn't just an exciting movie that doesn't relate to anyone's life. This one can be brought into perspective of everyone and make them uncover how they view life while viewing Mason's life. This movie doesn't appeal to some people because they believe Mason's life is bland and his character is this mope kid who does dopey things. But besides the fact that Mason is a bland kid, it doesn't change the idea that his life resembles the whole idea of life.

We all go through milestones and we all ask ourselves the question: "Is this it?" And most of the time the answer is yes. We can all sympathize with these characters and their life but we have to look at our lives and ask questions and hopefully find the answers. I have to say 
I didn't find a resemblance from this movie to another. This movie is one of a kind. This movie made cinematic history. We all can learn a thing or two from this film.

MYST #4: Vanilla Sky

Vanilla Sky is a story about David Aames(Tom Cruise) who has inherited his fathers business at a publishing firm who lives his life as a bachelor but hasn't really inherited the one thing he truly needs;love. He then meets the love of his life at a party by the name of Sofia(Penelope Cruz). They spend the entire night talking and getting to know each other. They fall in love instantly without a single doubt about each other. Now here is where things become a bit hard to follow. David's former lover, Julie(Cameron Diaz), hears of Sofia and attempts to commit suicide with David in a car crash. Julie dies but David survives leaving his face disfigured. There is no chance to do plastic surgery for David so he has to wear a mask to cover his injuries. One night David, David's friend Brian(Jason Lee) and Sofia go out to a bar and David becomes hopelessly drunk, which results him to be left outside to rot by his friends. The next morning David is awoken by Sofia who apologizes for deserting him the night before. They pick up where the left off as new lovers and his life seems to become more content by receiving plastic surgery from which he thought was impossible and Sofia is in his life and happy as ever. 

But David is experiencing brief visions of his disfigured face, Julie still being alive, and meeting a man(Noah Taylor) at a bar who tells David he can control his life however he wishes. One day David comes home and Julie is there convincing David that she is Sofia. David then becomes angry and confused which results him to suffocate Julie while having intercourse. David is put into an insane asylum with a man who he talks to everyday for a few hours by the name of Curtis(Kurt Russell). David tells Curtis his story but of course he doesn't believe David. David then sees a commercial on TV with the man he met at the bar who works for a company by the name of "Life Extension." Curtis, David, and a bodyguard arrive at this company and speaks with a woman(Tilda Swinton) who David has had visions vaguely about. The woman goes onto explain that they freeze people just after their point of death, by placing them in a lucid dream state. David then calls tech support which results him to be talking to the man at the bar(Noah Taylor) on a impossibly tall building given two choices for what he can accept. Either he can be reinserted to the correct lucid dream state or to wake up by jumping off the building. David then chooses to jump off the building and is awoken by a voice saying "open your eyes", David then opens his eyes and the movie ends there. 

This movie is very complicated and I didn't need to tell you every little thing that has happened, but there is no simple plot for this movie. Anyway, as I watched this film I noticed a element that stood out in the matter of camera. Within this production, I noticed times where a steady cam came into place to expose David's life and dream state. In one of the scenes in the beginning, David is driving to work and notices that nobody is in times square(NYC). The steady cam then moves in on Davids car from a distance and then David steps out of the car and he proceeds to jog into the street. The camera is following David in front of him, behind him, and on the sides capturing the emptiness of this street. This shot was very good in terms of composition. It started off in a medium shot by revealing the location, and then brought into a closeup of the actor showing his confusion as to what is happening, then onto a extreme long shot of the city and it's vast emptiness. 

There was another scene where David and all the other characters in the movie were on top of the building when David was deciding his fate. The sky had an effect of how the painting did in David's apartment. It really gave us a symbolic meaning of this scene. I enjoyed it very much to see this scene come into play towards the ending, really wraps it up and explains Vanilla Sky. I noticed a scene that didn't stand out as well as it may have. It was right after Julie drove off the bridge. The camera got multiple angles of the crash into the wall and then they let the camera roll for about 10-20 seconds of just the car sitting there and then finally people in the background realize what just happened. I wish they showed what happened inside the car, but I guess they wished for the viewers get a deeper symbolic meaning of Sofia "being alive" still later in the movie. 

I feel as though the director truly needs composition and camera to show to the viewers what the movie means, the actors feel, and what we all see in life. It captures the essence of what makes a true movie. Nobody would enjoy a movie in which everything was point blank and didn't make you think. A true good movie, makes the viewer think a little because then you find out all the little secret meanings of the plot and characters lives. 

I found a distinct resemblance from this movie to Memento. These movies both make you believe that nothing is true, or reality is really real. They both also end with the beginning in some way. Memento is told backwards and ends with the beginning and in Vanilla Sky we are greeted and left with the dialogue line "Open your eyes" as if the whole movie was played backwards as well.

All in all, great thinker. 8/10

Short Term 12

With Short Term 12 being a serious and touchy movie I noticed an aspect that seems to have brought a lot of attention to. With this aspect many viewers ask the question why this component was added or what bigger purpose does it serve? And that is camera. Camera is what makes the movie, the story all depends how the movie was shot. If camera shots are very quick paced, then you know in the story that pressure is happening. It all pays a toll to how the viewer sees it and understands truly what kind of movie it is. Short Term 12 is a residential treatment facility where teens are brought in because of depression, anxiety, or any other psychological disorder. We receive this genuinely moving story of Grace(Brie Larson) who works at this facility with her boyfriend and co-worker Mason(John Gallagher Jr.) providing need to these kids. Eventually a teen girl arrives by the name of Jayden(Kaitlyn Dever) who has a history of self harm and distancing herself from others. Grace feels a bond with her because she has gone through the same troubles Jayden once did in the past. The camera work in a specific scene creates a sentimental and real feeling for the viewers to view instead of using other components.

(Spoiler Alert) Towards the middle ending of the film, Grace reveals to Mason that she cannot marry him and is having an abortion with the baby. In this shot, the two actors are outside at night time. It's dark and gloomy, a professional production company would shed some light on them somehow, but not here. This production company just has the handheld camera facing these two actors using natural light to emphasize that these types of situations are real and can happen at any moment. Also after this scene (Spoiler Alert) Grace goes to Jayden's home to injure her father and she stops her and decides to bash his car with a baseball bat instead. With this event happening, Grace is on top of the car, bashing the car's front windshield over and over again. With each swing the camera moves slightly back and forth from Grace hitting it. The camera follows the bat, with each and every swing to break the shield, with glass everywhere.

At the end of it all, the viewer really understands the feelings of each swing and what damage Jayden and Grace's father have done to them. It symbolizes that each bash to the car, was each bash to their life. Although this movie had it's moments with amazing camera work, there was still a few shots that could have been better, but was still passable. I'm sure the director wished to have this authentic look to the film. And I have to say that there is a fine line between being emotional to making it feel insincere. I believe that Cretton didn't trust the actors as much as he should have. Focus more on the actors and less on the camera work. Don't just say, "Let the shot speak for itself," because in the end, if you wish for a film to feel real and heartwarming, all you need to hear are the words from the actors. The main focus seems to be on Grace the entire film and it's as if it is all about her. If the camera is on her always then it will seem as though we should only care for her when in the end she goes back to her friends and boyfriend.

 If the viewers were to feel more sympathy for everyone then I believe the camera should have focused more on the side characters in this film. Give it more of a real feeling of everyone's view of the situation. I believe that this component really pays a toll to how the audience gathers information as to what the story is about. It makes us believe in certain people, it makes us understand things that we weren't able to. With this component as I have stated before was that specific shots capture not only what is happening, but how the viewer sees it and feels. That's the beauty with film work, you can have components that give off different purposes then the original purpose.

I find that I see this component in the film High Fidelity quite a bit since it is shot by breaking the fourth dimension. The film focuses on all around Rob Gordon(John Cusack) about his past girlfriends and it seems as though it can be a real event that happens in people lives but the film also does not focus too much on other characters.
All in all I give it a 9/10.

MYST #3: Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse

Scout's Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is about three scouts who are the towns best hope to fight off the horde of zombies. Now this premise is simple enough, and so are the characters. You have the average teen who reasons with everyone, and you have the innocent fat awkward one, then finally you have the trash talker who somehow became friends with the other guys. Now when you come across a zom-com you expect a lot of action and zombie fighting, oh no, not just yet. 

This movie tends to have a lot of dragging on until you finally get to see a montage of zombie fighting towards the very end. Now let me be straight here, there are times when the montage sequences are important for the theme message of the film, it isn't just all about gore and tit jokes. There is a time in the movie where towards the beginning the three sophomores are spending time together by building a camp site in order for Augie (Joey Morgan) to receive his condor patch. In these short shots of the three friends making the campsite perfect and enjoying each others time together makes you believe that being a scout can bring friends closer. But this montage becomes ruined because afterwards Carter (Logan Miller) wakes up Ben (Tye Sheridan) to go to the "Secret Senior Party" and leave Augie. This montage becomes the one thing that defines their friendship and makes the audience know that. Then later in the film, they come together as one after Bens speech about becoming the heroes with their scout abilities and go to a department store and gather supplies to help the students at the party by killing the zombies.

This montage sequence becomes a time for all of them to use their scout's abilities to save the day and be best friends once again. After this montage the scout's head to the party and there is a montage of them killing the zombies. I felt as though this montage didn't serve a bigger purpose then what the previous montages did but it was there for the audience to enjoy as a "Hell Yeah" scene. It doesn't serve as effectively as it did about being close with one another but it does serve another purpose of actually showing them helping others out. This cinematic component helped build the movie to what it is by seeing all the good times the friends have and what makes them special in short montages to make the audience feel good and for them too. It gives off that important message that you should stick by your friends and come out victorious in the end instead of giving up because you are doubted by people around you. For these montages to go into full effect, I'm sure the director wanted multiple montages of the teens working together to save the day from the horrific zombie apocalypse.

I have to say that after seeing this movie, it makes me think that this movie is the result of combining Zombieland and Superbad together. It has that vulgar humor from Superbad from the POV of teens, and it has the guide tips from Zombieland. It's just a story of teens that should stick together, getting the girl in the end, and being happy together. Zimple and Zweet. 

All in all I give this movie a rating of 6/10

MYST #2: Black Mass

Everybody loves a Johnny Depp film, especially if it based on a true story. My grandmother really wished to see this film so my family and I went to go see it on a Tuesday at 5pm. Yeah you read that right. With no one else in the theater we got to enjoy the film to i's fullest without distractions. I haven't done any real research about this film except seeing the trailer in film studies. Also I knew it was a mob movie, so that's always a plus. We are greeted to a setting of 1975 in Massachusetts with the Winter Hill Gang talking to an FBI investigator recalling what happened in the years of trying to control the crime in South Boston. All of the gang members who were being interviewed admitted to the horrific things they did to become powerful in their hometown they grew up in. 

Throughout this film, it is all based around James "Whitey" Bulger, who is the leader of this whole organization. This gang was eventually charged with murder, extortion, racketeering, narcotics, and many more. Since this is film is based off of a true story I am glad they really focused on one component more then any of the others. And that is the makeup department. To fit the roles of each and every character to the actors makes the story better visually. To make Johnny Depp come off as the famed Boston gangster, they added prosthetics to the upper half of his face, multiple different headpieces to correctly match Whitey. Not only did they spend 20 hours on make up with Johnny, but they also gave him blue eye contact lenses to match Mr. Bulger's actual eye color. Now Johnny wasn't the only one who had to go through extensive time with make up.

Jesse Plemons was also told to gain weight and add a "spongy" look to make it seem normal and not just the weight to resemble Kevin Weeks. I find that makeup doesn't seem to be looked at carefully in movies, but if it is a true story, I like to see resemblances from the actors to the actual people they are based on.
Since this is a mob film expect to see killings, blood, sexual inferences, glass shattered, and much more to make you sit on the edge of your seat or cover your face in horror. There is once scene in particular that caught my attention by surprise and made me gasp a bit. Every crew member of Whitey knows that when Whitey gets his hands dirty it isn't pretty at all. The scene  where Brian Halloran(Sarsgaard) goes against the gang and rats them out to the FBI. The gang soon finds out and Whitey shows up to where Brian is at the time and shoots up the car he was in with a buddy. Whitey appears with a AK-47 shooting and walking directly at the car killing Brian's friend. Brian then puts the car in reverse and slams the pedal all the way till he bashes into the cars in the parking lot. Brian has been shot with the AK-47 bullets but is still alive. He then tries to escape the car by crawling out. Bad move. Whitey is getting closer and pulls out a pistol and bluntly shoots Brian and walks away with no rush. I found it important to the story because Whitey marked his territory and his name to the gang that nobody messes with them. Obviously back then it is easier to get away with crime like that if you are gone before the police show up.  

I see a few resemblances from this film to Wolf of Wall Street. First of which is the fact that they are both based on true stories that are recent. Also, they both start and end the same way. They both start with the ending and then go on to explain the story and then end with the official ending.

Whitey and Jordan Belfort seemed to be the leader of a group of people giving them what they want without a worry in the world.

Memento

If you love movies that make you dive deep into thinking about whether or not you can trust yourself or others. Then Memento is right for you.  Leonard has short term memory loss and we know that this movie has a non linear narrative structure. And with the use of editing we can really understand how Lenny's mind works. It gives off a very good and interesting pov for the viewers. One of the examples editing plays a great role is how the movie is played in short increments and out of order, just how Lenny's investigation for another John G. has come out to be. The scenes that appear second in the film actually happened first, and by connecting the start and end of those two scenes, the timeline stays the same even if it is edited out of order. The beginning of the movie is actually the ending and the ending is the start of the movie, so the timeline of the film will tell you everything in backwards. In a way, this seems to be a great way to tell the story simply because of Leonard's condition. Nolan used relational editing to make the viewer confused by seeing each scene, but then it would make sense when the next scene appeared.

Since this movie contains a sub plot involving Sammy Jankis, there are numerous black and white scenes of Lenny on the phone with a mysterious unknown cop(possibly Teddy) telling him the story of how he met/dealt with Sammy's condition. These scenes tell us that the black and white portrays the film in a chronological order. Throughout the film we see that Lenny recalls her wife and how she died while talking to Natalie. Eventually the viewers are presented with flashbacks that are remotely close to Sammy's situation. The former memories are faded and the new ones are in color which is very contradicting to the previous flashbacks with Sammy being only black and white. We soon find out that Lenny is Sammy and Lenny was just using Sammy as a person to make him feel happy about his condition and the vengeance for his wife, who is actually dead because of Lenny's condition. Throughout the film I noticed a particular set of scenes that did not really connect well with the editing.

The story of Dodd seemed irrelevant to the story. If the editing worked it's way with the story of the character more critically then it would give less confusing parts of the story since their is a lot to keep track of. But all in all, the component of editing plays an enormous role in this film. Editing is basically the only component that draws the viewer to realize something funky with this film. It makes the viewer see how Lenny's life is drawn to be with the reverse timeline. It connects well with the idea about how the viewer sees the film is the same way how Lenny saw his life and what is has come to be. It definitely raised better awareness to the theme of lying to yourself to be happy. Lying to ourselves is connected with the editing and how it was jumped around to make it believe that Lenny was telling the truth, but in the end we figure out that we don't trust ourselves and accept our life as it is, even if it has gotten you sunk in a deep hole. I found an uncanny resemblance between this film and Fight Club.

Fight Club is played chronologically in order, but it does include a story of two people ending up to be the same person. And in the end the protagonist understands what's going on and accepts it and cannot believe anyone, not even himself.

Formal Film Study: (Martin Scorsese)

We all love and admire Marty with his big time movie hits where we see references from in all TV shows, magazines, and articles. But, how did Mr. Scorsese become who he is today? How did he progress through out his films starting from the late 60's all the way up to 2013. I grabbed his first film, Who's that knocking at my door?(1967). His middle film, Cape Fear(1991). And finally his most recent acclaimed film, Wolf of Wall Street(2013). Scorsese develops as a director from each of these films and I am about to share the components with you.

Cinematography: We know the camera work is always amazing. And we also know that Martin tends to have a pattern in his films of long slow motion tracking shots from right-left or straight-backwards. The speed of each scene tends to build up and work it's way back up to normal motion. In Wolf of Wall Street, there is a tracking shot of Jordan Belfort(DiCaprio) walking straight at the camera explaining what he is doing with the company. It is portrayed as a long tracking shot of this one target while there is only one direction in this motion. Some of these tracking shots may be perceived as a lazy editing act but Scorsese wanted the viewer to really pay attention to this one target in the motion because of deeper symbolic reasoning. Such as in the beginning scene of Cape Fear, where Max is walking out of prison and the tracking shot is in front of him walking away while the camera rises above and shows a view of the prison to explain that max came out of a place that grew on him just as though a king walking out of his castle. While Who's knocking at my door? was an older film, Martin knew what he was doing when he had the photographer film long panning shots of grey cityscape's and interiors with objects of religion to emphasize that this story revolves around a Christian protagonist.

Culture: Martin has a heritage of being Italian-American and we all know that he tends to go against the important values in each of these films towards the end. Italian values consist of having family always be there and helping them in a time of need. Watching Who's Knocking at My Door?, I noticed that the protagonist seemed to have lost his way without having the support of his friends when he gets rejected by his wife and then results going to church but hasn't found solace there either. Even though his friends aren't technically family, any close person to an Italian is considered family. They build that bond overtime no matter the events. Especially in the ending scene of Cape Fear when the family survive the terrorism of Max Caddy. While they did survive together they still all feel alone because Max terrorized each of them at some points of the film and we can see the damage on each of the characters. The damage is done on the family and they are separated mentally. Being mentally broken, you can definitely relate that to Wolf of Wall Street where Jordan ends up becoming sober and leading sales events because he has been labeled as a drug addict who has corrupted his life with money and sex. His friends, who seemed to be family, basically deserts him because Jordan goes overboard.

Visual Effects: What's a good movie without a little disorientation to our eye. We all love those effects that make us go gaga, especially if Scorsese is behind it all. Watching the profoundly Wolf of Wall Street, I noticed quite a lot of special effects from green screens to color fading . I am simply astounded by this component in this film. I especially enjoy the effect in the beginning where Jordan is describing his life before he tells the whole upbringing. And a scene of a Ferrari drives up in a tracking shot and it appears to have a color or red but then Jordan says in his dialogue "No No No, my Ferrari was white" as he is saying these lines the car changes color to a Snow White. This seemed to be as a hook to the audience to make them believe that the shots are very intriguing and will make you wait for more effects like this. Such as the CGI and green screens as it is mentioned on http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/14/wolf_of_wall_street_visual_effects_reel_you_won_t_believe_which_scenes_were.html. In this article it explains that there are multiple shots of these types of effects and along with that, they provide a visual effects reel. Another effect I see in these films is the eery inverted effect on characters eyes in Cape Fear while we see a sudden or darkening feel to whoever the effect is presented upon. This can be taken into a symbolic meaning of feeling a darkening even when we feel safe, especially at the end.

Scorsese's films all have something in common, I just happened to come across these components since it very known. If I went back and re-watched these films once more, I am sure I would have come across more key ideas of common elements. I do enjoy the editing of Marty's films such as Wolf of Wall Street(2013) and Goodfellas(1990). Mainly because the protagonist breaks the fourth wall by talking to the camera. Although Henry Hall narrates the movie, Goodfellas, it still does give off the effect of him talking to the audience. We all see patterns in certain directors but I do enjoy finding them in movies that are very popular by one of my favorite directors. It is also intriguing and interesting watching more of Scorsese's films since I see him as a good role model for my career. I never get old of Scorsese's films, hopefully Sinatra will be a hit in 2016.

Citizen Kane

Citizen Kane is arguably the best film ever produced and many people state this for the many cinematic components thrown into the mix. Orson Welles is a radio major and in that specific field you use many components such as sound effects, audio balancing, and sudden cuts in the dialogue. While Welles was a new filmmaker he made a big name for himself by adding more elements to his movies then any other director. Making an upbringing to these multiple elements makes filmmakers of today look deep into each element and puts a deep analysis of why it is important.

One of the elements I noticed that stood out then any other one Welles used was lighting. Lighting did symbolize the meaning and atmosphere of each scene. Sometime this component is overlooked and not recognized by many people, but Welles used this component and inspired other filmmakers with the absence of lighting and has become well know for the genre film noir. An example in the movie where lighting plays a role is whenever Thompson (the news reporter) is in a scene he always has the absence of light presenting on himself. This can be analyzed by stating that the use of having a silhouette of himself, he isn't important or has little meaning to the story so the main focus is on other characters in the story.

Another time this element is used effectively was in the first couple of scenes when Kane met Susan. Where Kane pursues Susan into her apartment and when he speaks to her and has a dark shadow presented on his face, it has a deeper meaning that I find to be notable. It seems as if the dark shadow on Kane foreshadows how he treats her later when they are married. I find that this element wasn't always presented as we would like it to be but since Welles used multiple elements, we can't blame him for not focusing 100% on one component.

There is a scene where Susan is presented with Thompson when she is weak and drunk and has a frontal and backlight presented on her presence. This image tends to mix the symbolic meaning of her being powerless and yet has a distinct harsh light to persuade the audience to also tell you she is important and strong. Lighting definitely can bring different moods and tones to the film whether it be dark and powerful or bright and happy. I find there seems to be a film where they use the same meanings behind their lighting placement with the dark and powerful element.

This film is "Barton Fink" and with the isolation of the shadow on his presence tends to give off a ominous, looming madness type feel. It can be connected to Kane and how he is always the powerful and dark character in the story in total contradiction to the others.

1935 Movie: Tom's Loan

Studio: Columbia Pictures. They are known for the director Frank Capra and his romantic feel good movies that brought people to escape with the Great depression still on effect to the people. Columbia wasn't widely liked at the time so their production budgets were smaller then other film production companies.

Cast/Crew:
Director: Frank Capra
 He was a well deserved director who won 3 oscars as best director.

Because of Capras' engineering education he was more easily adapted to sound technology then most other directors. 

Cinematographer: Joseph Walker 

He collaborated with Capra in 20 films and was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Cinematography four times. 

Actors: James Stewart, Jean Arthur 

Stewart was a recurring actor in Capras films and he became a perfect fit for Capras

Frank Capra

american fables and was known for the innocent man who learns what life is truly about. 

And Jean was a role in numerous comedy dramas who costarred with Stewart and was also a recurring actress in Capras films. 

Genre: In this time, it will be very much appreciated by the poor families in the 30's because it will be a Drama. It includes depression, vulnerability, hope, and love.

Synopsis:
This film starts with a flashback of 6 years ago when husband and wife Tom and Jennifer(James and Jean) lose their savings from the Depression and are terribly upset in this situation. They lose their cars, house, and all hope for America. Jennifer also has a miscarriage with their first son. 6 years later of constant sadness Tom seeks hope and faith for the future and goes to church. He then realizes by the gods that he shouldn't be worrying about his future, instead he should be worrying about the present so the future will succeed on its own. Tom then has an epiphany about pooling all of his and Jennifer's remaining luxury and donating it to their neighbors with a sign in front of all their belongings. Saying "Take on item and tell us your story." With this event happening Jennifer is on the fence about this whole situation and is putting her faith into Tom.  They soon are questioned by their neighbors why they are doing this and why it all must go.

Tom then replies with a statement about how he wishes others to experience happiness with luxury in their items, while they he and Jennifer receive happiness by their emotions and heart felt moments. More and more people are stopping by and taking Tom and Jennifer's goods and sharing their stories of how the depression changed their lives. Soon after, all of Tom and Jennifer's luxury items are gone and they are only left with hundreds of stories about how the depression changed their lives. Tom then makes a single flyer for each story and posts them all around their neighborhood. People are reading these flyers and are noticing all of the awareness produced by Tom and Jennifer. Then soon after, Tom and Jennifer are woken by in the middle of the night by a couple that lives down the street from them and wishes to come in and talk. They are talking about how grateful they are for their goods Tom and Jen gave to this couple. This couple talks about how the baby crib they took gave their baby daughter a proper sleeping place and puts less stress on their shoulders. In thanks they give Tom and Jen $50. Tom and Jen are then shocked and surprised by how much money they had. And the couple goes on to explain that the whole neighborhood pooled money together and give back from the happiness they received from the gifts Tom and Jen gave. The couple then ask them to come outside and as they open the door, the whole neighborhood are standing there smiling and holding their gifts to show how it changed their lives. 

HAYS Code:
This film does not produce any violent, sex, drug, anti-political filled events within the whole screening. It does however talk about Jen having a miscarriage and how the HAYS Code prohibits the talk/showing of child birth/death. So in this specific scene in the beginning, It will have to be inferred that the child died. It will be set up in a hospital room and Jen and Tom are there holding hands and the doctor is talking to Jen but we cannot hear what he says but then Jen starts to cry deeply and Tom hugs her. Other then that, there aren't any other topics that go against the HAYS Code. It is a family friendly film so all eyes can view as well.

Technology:
Since Columbia Pictures has a smaller budget value the whole film is in black and white except for the church and final scene where all the hope shows and happiness is filled so the audience knows color is associated with a great moment/fantasy. 

Other Comments:
This film would work well for the year 1935 because it addresses rough situations that many people were facing at the time during the effects of the depression. So audience members can relate to this film which will give them hope by watching it all the way through and realizing what life is truly about.

MYST #1: The Visit

I'm no fan of horror films, especially if the director and writer of this movie are known from horror filmmaking. The director, M. Night Shyamalan, directed and produced movies such as "Sixth Sense," and "Paranormal Activity," which are films that are intended to be scary, but this movie seemed to have a twist to it. When I watched the trailer, I didn't know if it was a gag horror film or an actual scary movie. I was asked to see this film with friends but I told them it looked terrible, but I ended up going just to see it fail and laugh about it. In my Intro Survey I mention that I don't like it when the movie has genre switching and that's what makes a bad film.  As I am watching the film it has parts where it is obviously supposed to be funny, and the theater laughs hysterically. My friends and I look at each other and agree that this is definitely a movie like "Haunted House" or "Scary Movie." Everybody is throwing out comments towards the film just to make it even more hilarious. This is where the twist happens. Towards the end, there was a scene where the kids are on a Skype call with their mom back at home. (Spoiler Alert) And the children tell her that they are urgent about being picked up because "something" is going on with their grandparents. The mother then asks where they are and what they are doing. The siblings then pick up the laptop and move it towards the window so the mother can see and realize they are standing in the backyard. Then the mother says "Kids, who are those people? Those people aren't your grandparents. Have you been staying with them the entire week?!" At this point everyone in the theater and myself included are saying "What in the hell!?" We all know something is about to go down and are actually freaking out. The movie continues to have it's funny moments but then it starts to become a killer/slaughter film.

I have never seen any director pull off a successful horror film that is funny as well. Comedy and Horror. Who would have thought? Horror films are always funny when it is viewed with friends because you feel safe and comfortable. But Shyamalan made it even better by genre switching/mixing. This movie is based around the kids not coming out of their rooms after 9:30 p.m. because that's when things start becoming "weird" to the grandparents. The children are of course curious and go out to see for themselves what is going on. The film has that stereotypical horror aspects such as going beyond your limits and going past a door you shouldn't. Everyone knew when a jump scare or a build up to a freaky moment would occur. I don't know whether it was because most of the people enjoyed vulgar humor, or today horror films are just too typical for the director to use this aspect. The children would actually make fun of the grandparents about the acts they have done. Shyamalan wanted the viewers to go from laughing to screaming in a matter of seconds and it was confusing but well developed.

In the beginning of the movie, it started with the mother talking into a camera as it was setup in a interview angle and she was setting up the situation as it would cut back and forth from the kids packing to go visit their grandparents that they never met. You are then introduced to the camera operator, Becca, and she tells the audience that she will be documenting the entire trip with their elders. What's a good horror movie without a shaking camera so you can throw up afterwards. It does capture a documentary style movie though and it does a well job with creating this happy kids meeting their grandchildren but now this camera is the one thing they hold on to to see what happens to their grandparents late at night. There were some patterns when it came to the kids using the cameras. Since Becca has two she gave one to her younger brother, Tyler. And the viewing from each of the kids point of view was very interesting. It makes it seem as though we are all getting different perspectives from how these kids are dealing with the situation they got themselves into. With the documentary style it adds times of when their father wasn't around and all the good times they had at the very end of the film to end off on a good note. Any other film would just have a montage of all the good times and then have the narrator speak about it afterwards. We actually got a deal of homemade films like the ones we love deeply.

Director: M. Night Shyamalan

This film touches on so many genres. Horror/Thriller/Comedy/Documentary. The director definitely wanted to mash all of them together and see what would it create since all of the other movies nowadays are have a very simple genre and it can't be broadened out to other genres. But now it has been shown that it can become a great film if it is thought out well so we don't have people judging it and thinking it is dumb (Yes I did call myself out). But really this film did phenomenal with making me believe that any movie can be well done if it is thought out no matter if people describe it as inconsistent. Inconsistency has brought people to label horror movies to be dumb and predictable. This director decided to change the movie industry up and change how we view horror movies as Tyler and Becca do.

All in all I rate this movie 7/10

Official Trailer

Review of the Reviews

Within Moira Macdonald's review of "Fantastic Mr. Fox" (http://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/movies/mr-fox-is-truly-fantastic/) I couldn't help but agree with every point she made with this film. Most of us know already that this movie is based off of Roald Dahl's children's book that was published in the 70's. But she reassures us of the plot based in the film to let others be aware of what she will soon to review with her particulate use of diction. What seemed to be a simple story for children to enjoy, she takes you into how she dissects this film to make it seem like a vast area waiting to be filled with enjoyment for all ages to enjoy to the fullest. The transitions are smooth to keep in order of how she viewed the film and let the reader know what she views most importantly to her liking of the film. She goes onto describe every character with specific characterization to help the reader visualize how they seem to be. From what I read the basic theme she delivers is assuring that Mr. Fox is in fact Fantastic.

Any film guru would look for themes/messages/ or references to real world events in any/every film they uncover. When I watched this film as many times as my hands could show me, I realized that Wes touches base on multiple messages for the viewer and references to other movies that adults and kids would enjoy. I'm glad Moira includes one of the messages to give anyone who has not seen the film something to look forward to. Towards the end, Moira reminds us of the scene where Mrs. Fox discusses to Ash that there is something "fantastic about being different"and how every animal in this cute remarkable film has qualities that make everyone unique in some way. From the scenery Wes Anderson brings to the audience to the witty dialogue between the wild but lovable animals in this 87 minute film Moira serves the best feedback on this film.

Everywhere I searched it took me about 2 hours to uncover a remotely negative review on this gorgeous film. A 2 star giving pretentious critic decided to crush this film into bits with terrible reasoning behind it. Dustin Putman (http://www.dustinputman.com/reviews/f/09_fantasticmrfox.htm) started off the same way that Moira did. A brief description but of course with different diction to show he is against this film in certain ways. What he does to critique this film is the professional way to do it, instead of deliberately bashing the director without evidence. He gives a intellectual reason of his disliking towards the film and then goes onto provide evidence from what he resulted to receiving from the film. The review goes onto repeat this style till the end paragraph and he describes that the film is only half decent just because it is a stop motion and the scenery is "fantastic." He leaves the reader with the reason of the movie being unenchanted towards the audience and that a defibrillator could have helped, inferring that it would help bring life into the film. Although this critics review on the film was negative towards an outstanding film, Dustin mentions valuable points and stays fairly neutral so no one will get too offended.

Relating to valuable points, I found reasonable quotes throughout my reading of each of the reviews. In Moira's review in the very beginning she states "Wes Anderson's utterly charming "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is that rarity: a children's movie for all." Not only do I find this quote reasonable, I agree with it and happy she said mentions this. I understand that she is telling the readers that the movie is open to all ages, even if the book was intended for children. Wes Anderson made the movie open to everyone so it can be viewed with your children and enjoy it with them. It is rare to find positive quotes from a negative review, but since it is from Dustin Putman, I was able to find a neutral standing quote about what he thought of the film. He mentions in his final paragraph that As for what the late, great Roald Dahl would think? He probably would not be pleased with the liberties taken to his book, but he would appreciate that Wes Anderson has stuck to his guns and delivered a film with a singular vision and none of the smarmy bathroom humor and cheap pop-culture references that litter up many of today's family efforts." Finding new and unseen footage in a film based on a book can be disappointing for anyone who were looking forward to seeing the exact replica. Dustin does make a valuable point that Wes did add a lot of pop culture references to stay up to date within this film just to "milk money" from all ages. In order for a movie to do well, especially based on a book, there shouldn't be too many changes or style differences so that the viewer is disappointed with the director and cast members.

Some have not seen this film, which is understandable since it is a stop motion film that came out 6 years ago, but I will but my two sense in for those people. We all look at reviews of films before we see them, at least I do, and we tend to not waste money on a movie with terrible reviews. Some of us don't care what the critics say and see it anyway and heck that's how great indie movies have been discovered just because of one person giving it a whirl. Seeing these two reviews side by side and deciding which one grabs my attention and gives me all the critiques for the film makes me point out some deciding factors. To start off though, I would find the negative review more convincing. Simply because it's better to read a negative review to see what this author personally doesn't like about the film, and if I can agree with him/her. My decision on seeing a film is based on the review if the author has great diction, gives both sides to a stance, and provides references to other movies to relate it to the original. Dustin's review was more convincing because of these reasons. And Moira doesn't. She continues to just focus on how great the film is and how everyone should see it. She doesn't address the other side. If her review was a speech, it would fail miserably because it doesn't follow the certain critiques I see in a convincing review.

There are certain points to absolutely need to be stated in a review and these, that I am about to discuss, are what I would include about dissecting a film in one page. I am a big believer in a intellectual vocabulary and if that is incorporated into a analysis of the review, it would make the review that much better. Some points are small, but change the perspective of how you absorb it a lot. I tend to write short stories often and when I do I focus a lot about the theme/message from how the viewer will take it and have them think about it afterwards so I would of course bring that topic up in discussion of the review. I wouldn't focus on too many other qualities of the film besides cinematography and sound. Because these types of focus points can reform to how you see the movie. I would also give some context for the non-viewers of the film so everyone who stubbles upon this excerpt will understand it throughly.  Keeping the review in a technical structure to what needs to be said first would be included so the reader will continue reading and become sucked in. From what I notice in plenty of critic's views on movies are that they focus too much on trying to make you pick sides about either it being good or bad. I wouldn't include a argument in a review, because this isn't a debate, it is my analysis of the film. I will state what I enjoyed about it and how others can to, but I will not provide evidence for the readers why I am absolutely sure that the movie is terrible or extravagant.

Film Intro Survey

1. What is the first movie that really made a strong impression on you? Fantastic Mr. Fox, because it taught be that it's okay to be "different", find out that everyone has great qualities, and that we all have to make sacrifices for the ones we love.

2. What are 3-4 of your favorite genres? Mystery/Thriller, Classics, Comedies, Adventure.

3. What are 3-4 of your LEAST favorite genres? Foreign, Silent, Documentary.

4. What are your five favorite films? Fantastic Mr. Fox, Perks of Being a Wallflower, 500 days of Summer, The Shawshank Redemption, The Social Network.

5.List three characteristics of what you consider a good movie. In-depth Characters, Plot Twists, Cinematography

6. What are some(3-5) of your least favorite movies? Interstellar, Hancock, Horns.

7. List three characteristics of what you consider a bad movie. Genre switching, Bad actors, Simple story.

8. If you have any favorite directors, list them. Wes Anderson, Martin Scorsese, John Hughes.

9. If you have any favorite actors/actresses, list them. Emma Watson, Kaya Scodelario, NPH, John Krasinski, Robert Downey Jr.

10. List 3 films that you consider important films for people to see. Breakfast Club, Whiplash, Good Fellas.

11. What's your oldest favorite film? It's a Wonderful Life

12. What's the best movie you've seen that's been released in the past 2 years? The Lego Movie

13. What are the next five films on your "queue"? The Spectacular Now, Godfather 2, Nightcrawler, The Big Lebowski, Django Unchained.