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.