Filmography 2010

I was just surfing the internet like a good little teenager when I stumbled upon this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4dEWOB6THE          Im not supporting this youtube account or anything i just thought it was a very cool video.  Its a "trailer" that is made up of every movie from the past year its pretty interesting. Thought you guys might like it. Enjoy =)

Merry Christmas =)

I know its Christmas and to do anything relating to school would be considered nerdy.  But I watched a great movie today so what better place to talk about it...
    So the movie I watched today was "The Prestige" by Christopher Nolan who seems to produce every thriller I enjoy.  And this one was certainly no exception.  But I wouldn't say the movie was just a thriller, it was really a combination of many things including sci-fi, romance, and some kind of magical theme.  I know that sounds like an odd combination but its a tough movie to classify under only one genre.  I know these sort of movies appeal to you Mr Bennett  Example A: The Dark City.
   Anyway back to the movie.  The cast in my opinion is an amazing one including the likes of Mr Hugh Jackman (A legend), Christian Bale (also one of my favorite actors), David Bowie, Michael Caine (have to love the British accent, he is also the butler in Batman for those of you unfamiliar with the name), Scarlett Johansson  ;)  , and many others.  I cant really do justice to the plot by describing it on a blog.  Even when you watch the movie several times its a very complex plot to follow because they dont always tell you exactly what happened.  Thats really the reason I think I liked it so much.  It makes you think.   Its one of those movies where its completely open to what you think happens (like the ending of Inception).  Basically, the plot follows the lives of two partner musicians who are starting off their young and promising careers together. Their show is quite successful, and they both happened to be engaged to two beautiful young ladies.  But tragedy strikes, and its unclear who is at fault.  They blame each other naturally.  The magicians turn on each other, and spend their lives trying to out due their rival's show no matter the consequences. Now that may not sound like the most captivating plot ever but its much more complex than I could possibly hope to describe here.  I didnt focus on the symbolism or camera work of the movie as I was simply trying to entertain myself on a late Christmas night and this movie certainly served that purpose.  Perhaps I shall do that the second time around as this movie certainly warrants another viewing.  So in conclusion, I would definitely recommend it if your willing to pay attention and enjoy the movie, I think it will be well worth your time.  Anyway Merry Christmas everyone hope you had a great day =)

A Mement In Time...

The suspense of Memento continues to grow as the movie moves forward (or backward).  The plot of the movie is quite complex, but the real beauty of the movie is the perspective from which the plot is told.  The camera is of course our portal into Leonard's world.  We see what Christopher Nolan intends for us to see and in the order he intends for us to see it .  It is really questionable thought as to whether this adds or takes away from the film.  The black and white shots that cut the "action" of the movie into pieces are a nice touch.  I also like how each scene "starts" with the "end" of the scene.  This keeps you interested because you are asking what events led Leonard to his current predicament.  For instance, when he is sitting on the bathroom toilet with a bottle of wine in his hands, the viewer is curious and thinks, "  Is he a drinker? He says he doesn't feel drunk.  But why else would he have a bottle of wine? And why in the bathroom of all places?  Who's house is this anyway?"  And that of course brings us to the other interesting observation that Lenny doesn't really care where he is when he wakes up.  He follows his instincts.  He wants to shower. He showers.  Doesn't seem to give it a second thought.  He doesn't even bother to look outside of the bathroom.  Both Lenny and the audience are kept in the dark most of the time.  Lenny doesn't seem to always be doing so much exploring of his own so we  have no choice but to go with it.  So in that respect I like the chronology of the film.
      But I am still not sure if I like the entire film being shown out of order.  It makes the viewer feel confused and ignorant like the main character and this may have been Nolan's goal.  But this confusion can become a bit much.  It really is very hard to remember what happened when.  Even in class yesterday we were having trouble reconstructing the order of events.  But perhaps that is exactly what Nolan was trying to accomplish.
     Apart from camera work, the plot of the movie continues to develop and give us some explanation.  There are still many questions left on answered though.  Why is there a pick up truck with bullets in it?  Was there really a second guy in the bathroom the night  that Lenny's wife was murdered?  Who is trying to use Lenny and who is trying to help him? Who is Lenny always talking to on the phone? etc etc....            Also Mr Bennett I dont think you gave the class enough credit for pinning Natalie as someone who is using Lenny.  We all thought she was rather suspicious and I personally stated that she was behind this whole mess. Now I understand I have not yet seen the ending and dont know many key things, but thus far it certainly appears that Natalie is really at the root of all of Lenny's problems.  But i guess that's the point.  You can't trust your senses.  And the suspense keeps building....

Coming Attractions, Cold Cities, and Koreans

      Today's movie showing was certainly the oddest one we have seen so far.  Although The Dark City certainly contains all the aspects of Film Noir and is filled with symbolism, it goes a bit further in terms of violence, comedy, and sexual scenes.  This of course, is mostly because the movie was not produced under the Hayes Codes and is relatively new in comparison to The Asphalt Jungle.  The plot also seems to be a bit more complex and mysterious which  helps to build up suspense (something I felt the Asphalt Jungle was laking apart from the heist scene).
     Also, I had a question for you Mr. Bennett.  I was looking through some footage from old film noir movies and I noticed that many of the coming attractions for films during the 30's 40's and 50's are produced in a similar fashion.  The coming attractions often open with the producer describing the film's setting, main character, and sometimes a significant amount of the plot.  This particular one caught my attention : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE2e6FYjCQg      .  This technique doesn't just relate to film noir though, because if I recall Citizen Kane's coming attraction was the same.   So my question is why was this such a common technique.  Maybe its just because of the generation of films I grew up with, but I feel that there are certainly better ways to introduce your movie to the public.  I know its bad to give away to much of the plot in a coming attraction, but it certainly is more effective for building up interest in a movie.
     Lastly I wanted to challenge you on a comment you made in class not relating to film.  You were talking about the tensions in North and South Korea for a few minutes and you asked how the South Koreans responded to North Korean gunfire.  I believed that the South had responded with gunfire of their own on several occasions and said so, but you were sure this was not the case.  I wasn't ready to challenge you without any articles to back me up so I came home and did some research.  Many of the articles online confirm that the South did indeed fire back.  http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/10/29/korea.border.incident/index.html  < this article from CNN states that the south responded with three "warning" shots of their own.  Im not sure if this is the exact incident you were referring to though because there has been several recently. While I understand that these shots weren't the complete military retaliation you wanted to see, any open fire on another nation is always significant, and even more so when those countries have such extremely high tensions towards one another.

Better than the Noirm

   Three days ago, I couldn't have told you whether Noir was a film genre or a city in Sweden, but I'm already starting to appreciate this style of film.  Of course, it is not as flashy and "entertaining" as modern movies but the Asphalt Jungle has a certain level of sophistication because of its focus on plot and storytelling.  One could criticize that the plot is a little cliche and makes the movie fairly predictable but I don't think that this takes away from the film's entertainment.    
     At first, I spent alot of time simply paying attention to the visuals of the film because it was a new style for me, but once you shift your focus to the plot you realize it is not a hard one to follow.  We are quickly presented with numerous men who each have their own vice ( women, money, alcohol and the other usual suspects).  Because of the time era of the film, many of these flawed characters must have some sort of downfall before the end of the movie.  The Asphalt Jungle was considered rather racy for its time which is ironic considering it's one of the more tame films we have viewed this term.  The Hays Codes of 1930 were meant to keep racy movies like the Asphalt Jungle from hitting the big screen but somehow this one seemed to slip through.  And so far, I'm happy it did.

The Other Western Front

Our Western "Documentary" has turned out to be quite an exciting movie.  Of course, it continues with the theme of religious allusions, especially those of christ.  Two of the main characters are whipped and beaten and one also falls asleep for three days ( and also Brandon I have not forgotten about your question on my previous post about this topic Im currently formulating an answer).  Even without such symbolism though, this movie is very entertaining.  The actions scenes have been fairly accurate.  For instance when Munny is trying to kill the cowboy it takes him several attempts and in the end he only gets his liver, not some  unbelievable shot in the head or heart as you would expect from Hollywood.  We also learn that his partner doesn't have the nerves of steel you would expect from a former assassin.
      There has been some brutal beatings but not without a purpose.  Even the scene where the Schofield Kid ruthlessly murders a defenseless man, we see a lot of emotion between the two characters including the Kid's initial hesitation.  A moment he has been dreaming and bragging about all his life is presented to him and suddenly he has second thoughts.  This helps to portray him as both a coward and as a  sad excuse for an assassin.  It is because of the thought put into each individual scene, and the movies entertainment value in general, that Unforgiven has joined All quite On the Western Front as my two favorite movies in the class thus far.  Im looking forward to the final scene tomorrow which I have heard is great.

The Seventh Seal

          The Seventh Seal was the most visually impressive movie we have watched so far (Yea I said it!).  The camera work is flawless because, as Mr. Bennett mentioned, Bergman manages to make the camera "disappear" so that the audience is no longer focused on it.  The plot is also easy to follow yet full of symbolism and deeper meanings.  The entire chess game is not to be taken literally of course; it is showing the struggle of preventing ones inevitable death, which is quite hopeless in the end, as Bergman makes clear.  I think my only criticism of the film would be Bergman's view of not thinking to much about God and existence in general (as shown through the character of Jof).  I feel that it is only natural for everyone to be curious about their being.  I know that personally I ponder these things quite frequently so maybe I just personally can't see how someone could be able to keep it out of their mind regardless of their personal beliefs.
    I also wanted to mention a parallel between The Seventh Seal and All Quite On the Western Front (Mr. B had told us to watch for them early in the film and unfortunately I forgot to bring it up).  In one of the earlier scenes Block is shown growing more and more excited about his game with death.  He is depressed when that particular scene starts and he is confessing to death who he mistakes for a priest.  After his short encounter with death, he fells fully alive and with a smile on his face he  declares, "I, Antonius Block, am playing chess with death!"   A similar scene happens in A.Q.O.T.W.F. when Paul visits his dying friend in the hospital.  Paul runs from the hospital and is also filled with a sort of artificial joy and energy.  He can't seem to understand why he feels so full of life after his encounter with death.  Both of the characters share this same odd experience in two very different movies.    
          I also had just one question about the movie.  Block helps Jof and his wife escape while he distracts death by knocking the pieces over.  Death is only after Block's life right? So after Block helps these  people escape he then rejoins his other friends as they have dinner at their house.  So if Block knew death was following him why would he help people escape death only to lead death back to his other friends.  Maybe this is not meant to be questioned and is not really important but it just seems odd to me.  I also was absent Monday and missed a significant middle part of the movie so its possible I missed something that would answer my question. Ideas please...

Responses Part 2

No I have never had a Jesuit education Kamil, and yes I was raised by Christian parents Ilya.  But of course, this is not the reason I believe the Bible.  They certainly introduced me to Christianity, but if I did not genuinly believe it and find it to be true in my own life, I would have broken my Christian ties long ago.  And yes, I do agree that suffering tests faith. This is evident in the account of Job if you are familiar. C.S. Lewis once said, "God whispers to us in our pleasure, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts to us in our pains, it is his megaphone to a deaf world".
Now Mr Bennett...
         I agree that you can't prove the existence of God any more than you can disprove His existence.  Thats why there is such a thing as faith.  In the books of Hebrews and Romans faith is described as, "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see... For in hope we are saved.  But hope that is seen is not hope at all,  for who hopes for what he already has".   This means that no matter what your world view is , whether it be Christianity, Buddhism, or E, it still takes a certain amount of faith for you to believe it because you can't prove it.  So the fact that Christianity relies on a "leap of faith"doesn't discredit it as a legitimate world view because all world views require faith.
        You are also incorrect in stating that Evil is a problem with monotheistic belief systems.  This is a common misconception and often the first response I get when I defend Christianity.  But evil doesn't contradict the view of an all powerful, all loving,  and perfect God.  On the contrary, it actually enhances it.  Let me explain.
       As humans, we CAN NOT fully understand evil or God because the concepts are simply to much for us to wrap our minds around.  I think we can all agree on that.  So, knowing this, how can we expect to understand God's motives and the purpose he has for putting evil in the world.  God often uses evil for a greater good.  For example, Jesus was unfairly mocked, lashed, tortured, and killed for crimes he did not commit.  The disciples watched his painful death in horror and unbelief.  They wondered if God had abandoned them or even if there was a God at all.  But God used one of the evilest, most unfair, and excruciating deaths in history, to give the gift of salvation for those who believed (the ultimate greater good).  We are much like the disciples, as we watch the terrible evil in our world unfolding right in front of our eyes and even in our own lives.  But we must remember that we are nothing compared to God and can't always fully understand his motives.  Who are we to say what the God of the universe can and cannot create and do? When we ask God to end all evil and suffering in the world we are calling for him to put an end to us.  We all have evil in us, so in order for God to take away all evil he would have to destroy man kind. Because of this, God is actually showing us mercy by not putting an end to evil.  This is why the dilemma of evil is certainly much more of a dilemma for an atheist to grapple with than a  monotheist.
 

In Response

Sorry but my mac still isn't allowing me to comment so I have to answer in a new post.
          In response to what you said Mr Bennett, I understand that E would not accept the Bible as a source which is why it would not be the only thing I would use if I were trying to prove God's existence to anyone whether they were an E or not.  I agree with the basic principles of what Anselm says but I certainly wouldn't say it is the reason I believe there is a God.  I don't think he meant it to be that way either, he was just speaking his mind about the condition of people who don't believe.  And of course people always like to use the term "leap of faith".  Augustine can say whatever he likes, but no where in the Bible, whether it be inspired by God or not, are we asked to have "blind faith".  In fact the Bible demands the opposite.  Paul, in his letter to the church in Corinth?, asks the people to do away with childish thinking and reasoning and to defend the faith with sound reasoning and doctrine.  When Paul spread the gospel he did it through reasoning of the scriptures not a call to blind faith and this is the reason his message had such an appeal to the often sophisticated leaders of the Roman Empire.  I find that the only way to maintain a strong belief in God is to back up our humanly conviction of a God with facts and "sound reasoning and logic".  For me it would require much more faith to not believe in a God then to believe in Him.

Existentialism

Existentialism has had a profound impact on humanity considering the fact that it has gained a rather large following worldwide.  Unfortunately, I think it is complete nonsense.  E contradicts itself on many levels.  It claims that acts of extreme violence are okay because everyone has their own reality.  In class, we discussed that things such as theft, murder, rape, and suicide can all be justified in certain positions and that they are "right" to do sometimes.  But in order to claim that even these things can be right sometime of the time, you must accept that there is some way to judge between what is right and wrong; some form of higher power or moral standard. This man Ravi does a great job describing what Im saying, take a second to watch     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7yNwEDtqjA&feature=related 
        One of the main points of existentialism is that there is no God.  It then goes on to state that this puts you in charge. You make the calls, because your opinion is the only one that matters. This means essentially that you have made yourself your own god.  Everyone, even E, have their own gods whether it be money, power, sports, women, or themselves.
        E also states that "you are free".  Nothing about E really sets you free though.  You are a prisoner to doubt, sin, loneliness and a general sense of meaningless your entire life.  God is what sets me free from those things.  In Him I have hope in the promises he has made us in the Bible.  And don't get me wrong, I don't think that people should just accept the idea of a God just to make themselves feel good.  I believe in God because I know there is sufficient evidence for his existence that any intelligent person can accept, God doesn't ask us to have blind faith.  But thats a discussion for another time.
        I would  like to close this argument with a video that I believe once again deals with the core concept of E very well. Once again it is Ravi talking about the idea of meaningless in the world.  Its quite short and well worth your time    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4e_AOqlllc&feature=related

Another random symbol...

Citizen Kane is filled with symbols from start to finish.  Some are obvious, while others take careful viewing (noticing that a businessman looks like Vladimer Lenin and random things of this nature).  I think I noticed one such symbol in the "puzzle scene".  In one of the camera views you see Kane with Susan Alexander.  Susan is completing yet another jigsaw puzzle as Kane walks about admiring himself and generally basking in his power.  On the right side of the screen is a gigantic stone gargoul that appears to be a sort of hideous dragon-snake demon sort of monster.  This is just one of many statues that Kane keeps around Xanadu, but I think this one is of symbolic significance.  

          At first, I wondered why the gargoul was taking up half the screen or why it was even in the picture at all.  Then I realized that just like almost every other image in the movie it probably has some sort of symbolic meaning otherwise it wouldn't  be getting so much attention from the director.  I see it as it is a symbol of love or rather a loss of love.  Recall that this scene is focusing on the strained relationship and marriage of Susan and Kane.  The snake like head of the gargoul curves into the shape of half a heart.  This is clearly trying to show the lack of true love between these two married people.  The hideous nature of the gargoul is also clearly intended.  For instance the director didn't choose the neck of a swan to form half the heart because this wouldn't properly show the many problems that are part of marriages and love in general.  In doing so, the film again tries to portray the failures of all marriages and a general lack of faith in humanity as a whole.

A Little bit of A Letdown

I must say, that for as entertaining as Citizen Kane was, I felt that the ending wasn't really that strong.  For a man so interesting i thought that "rosebud" was referring to something more significant that a sled.  Of course, I understand the symbolic meaning behind his childhood sled, but what about somebody who wasn't watching this film for analytical purposes. They would be entertained throughout as I was, but I don't think a lot of people would understand the ending.  They would be thinking, "Thats it? A sled? Huh?". And this of course was probably intended by the director to be an ironic ending.  He was one of the most powerful men in America, and all he can think of on his deathbed is a childhood toy.  All I know is that if I wouldn't have left the movie theater thinking WOW!         Its a great movie with a bad last impression, which is unfortunate considering how groundbreaking it was at the time.  

German Soldiers with Universal Ideas

The fact that the soldiers are German does add to the film.  Since this film was viewed mainly by an American audience it was an interesting choice for the director to use Germans in WWI instead of Americans in either  WWI or WWII.  This shows that the director clearly had a reason for picking these particular men to tell his story through.  The German's were viewed as "the enemy" in both WWI and WWII for the Americans.  Therefore, you would think it would be hard for an American audience to sympathize with these men but it is quite the opposite.  The men, though German, are still human and have the universal characteristics that all humans share.  They are humorous, loving, hard-working, caring, and only wish to continue living.  Many of the Germans did not want this war more than anyone else as shown in the scene where the men are eating and discusing who they think wanted this awful war in the first place.  Paul says something along the lines of "Well I have never wanted to kill an Englishman before.  In fact I had never seen one until I came to the front."  This kind of outlook towards the war shows that the Germans were not just ruthless killing machines; they were humans with the same kind of ideas and feelings as the film's audience.

Rough times on the Western Front

It appears that all hope has been lost for the main characters of the film.  They have all died one by one in battle and now only one remains... My final guess for the meaning behind the doors and windows is that they show a sort of passage from one life to another a kind of reflection of ones life.  For instance, when Paul is being taken to the death room the nurse closes the door on him as if to say it is over for him.  Also, when Paul returns to his former school he is shown peering into the class through a window.  Ironically, this is the same window at the start of the movie that we watch the German War parade march by.  It contrasts Paul's original beliefs about war to the harsh reality.
  Another short "gem" scene to me is the one in which Paul takes out an old picture of himself and his friend (Albert?).  He covers the face of the two smiling men in the picture as if to show their loss of identity through the war.  They are now just two German uniforms.  It is one final scene that builds on the theme of "de-huminization".

Blogging trouble

My blog isn't allowing me to comment on anything on the website.  I have been unable to comment on  Mr. Bennett's blog or even my own posts.  There is a post comment button below his articles but it isn't linked to anything and I cant click on it.  Any of you tech savy people know what might be wrong?

All Quiet On the Western Front Initial Reaction

So far I have enjoyed the movie and learning about the numerous techniques directors use to portray the meaning of the film.  The scene where they first come under fire reveals a lot about the characters and how the movie will progress.  We see how each of the men reacts to their new environment.  The directors provide a bit of foreshadowing in this scene and we also get our first view of the madness and chaos of war.  The topic of "dehumanization" is constant throughout the film as the director shows the men referred to using numbers instead of names and corpses referred to as "it" not "who".  Still wondering what the symbolism behind the doors and windows is.  I fell that it is showing how the men are passing from one stage of war to another as the conditions worsen. I'll be watching to see if other scenes continue this trend....  

Testing

Hello Mr Bennett!