For this post I was originally going to write about The Omen, however after watching Monsieur Lazhar in French class this week I felt it was much more worthy of a blog post. After my first Formal Film Study I have realized that there are dozens of quality French films that I have yet to see.
Monsieur Lazhar is an emotional story of an Algerian man (Mohammed Fellag) who becomes a grade school teacher at in Quebec after his predecessor hangs herself in her classroom. Directed by Philippe Falardeau and based on a one-man play written by Evelyne de la Cheneliere, Mr. Lazhar brings to light a variety of emotional struggles and questions about recovering from loss and communicating with children. One child in particular Alice, who is played by the canadian actress Sophie Nelisse is scheduled to star in the much anticipated film adaptation of Marcus Zusak's The Book Thief. Nelisse gives a powerful performance that won her the Canadian Genie Award for best supporting actress in 2011.
Trailer:
The cinematography, accompanying sound work and superb acting make this a piece that left me in a pensive state during the last five minutes of French class. Example: the opening scene, during which a timid student, Simon, discovers the corpse of Martine Lachance hanging in a classroom as he is retrieving les berlingots (milk cartons) for lunch. As Simon walks down the hall the camera follows him without a tripod, shaking slightly as the suspense builds. Meanwhile it is snowing outside and the light that fills the hallway is flat and depressing. We are suddenly alerted by Simon's discovery with the clash of the milk cartons hitting the floor. All of the elements of production, cinematography, sound, lighting, and mise en scene contribute to an experience that is as if we ourselves are a young child discovering the suspended body of our teacher.
These ambiguities and nuances of such a story are justly presented with careful attention to mood, lighting, and camerawork. For this reason I give Monsieur Lazhar 8.5/10
Cantilevered Lies and how it relates to 1930's film: Genre: Drama/Thriller Synopsis: Our two main characters live a high profile life in futuristic London, England, and the husband (Val) works as an architect. His new boss (one of Val’s old professor’s during his final year in design school) comes in after an unexpected death of the former boss. This is the quiet reserved Feodor Chaliapin. An otherwise low stress, successful work ethic of Val is disrupted by the new boss, Mr. Kafkes (Feodor) when he begins sabotaging his business and personal life. These evil sentiments are based on upon the fact that 20 years ago when he was brand new to the industry Val secretly stole one of Kafkes’s designs. It is sinister and uncalled for, but Kafkes seduces Val’s wife, and screws up his work as an architect, creating chaos...
Days later we find Kafkes dead on the ground floor of Val’s most famous building, the one he stole from Kafkes, after part of the building’s structure collapses onto him. This reveals to Val, but no one else, that it was Kafkes’s own design flaw that caused his own death. Since Val has taken credit for this building, the design flaw ruins his career as an architect. Val debates whether to tell the general public that the building was not, in fact, his, which would clear his name but also be admitting to stealing the plans. The movie ends with Kafkes’s funeral, with a monologue from Val describing the irony of the situation. By dying, Kafkes finally got what he wanted.
Style: Our movie has an avant-garde style throughout with innovative lighting, deep space composition and thoroughly planned cinematography from Mr. Gregg Toland. These elements along with a foreign cast help contribute to an out of the ordinary futuristic feel.
Message: This movie has a recurring themes of karma and deals with the consequences of holding grudges. We tried to stray from a happily ever after type ending.
Director: In this time period, British director James Whale is known for his work on Frankenstein and The Invisible Man which makes him a perfect fit for an avant-garde futuristic thriller.
Cast: The great British actor Laurence Olivier shines in his lead role as Val a successful architect living with his wife (Vivian Leigh) in future London. Our lurking antagonist Kafkes is played by the deep voiced Russian Feodor Chaliapin.
Hays Code: In some scenes (i.e. the technologically advanced shot of the building collapsing) there may be intense footage not suitable for some viewers, however the majority of the film abides by the Hays code. We hide any blood and violence and any seductive dialogue is completely implicit.
Focus: One of our goals in Cantilevered Lies is to show off the incredible cinematography skills of the young Gregg Toland.
Disagreements? Nahhh: Our group worked extremely well together and we were all open to each others ideas. Plot, director, and studio etc. decisions were all mutually agreed upon and we are very proud of our final product. Hope you enjoy it!
Trois films francais assez differentes, mais avec des similarites subtils et une disposition eternel.
Films: For this formal film study I chose to look at three films from France. Two of the films A Bout de Souffle (Breathless), and Quatre Cent Coups (400 Blows) are iconic films from the French New Wave era of 1960. My third choice Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain (Amelie) is a more recent 2001 film starring Audrey Tautou that is full of quirky avant-garde imagery and romantic comedy scenes akin to Richard Curtis's Love Actually. Here are trailers for each of the films to give you an idea of what each film is about: A Bout de Souffle:
Quatre Cent Coups:
Amelie:
Now that we have a few snapshots:
How are these three films connected?
It would be easy just to say uh, well, they're all French films filmed near Paris, and they feature French directors, French actors and French sound and lighting and cinematography people...however, I didn't watch these three movies just to practice my french accent.
All three of these films are captivating works of art that break the boundaries of film-making in the times they were made to make all audiences, french speaking or not, ponder daily life, ambitions, and our relationships with one another.
How? Between Breathless, 400 blows, and Amelie I can pick out a number of striking similarities in over style and composition. All of these films tend to experiment a bit with atypical artsy shots and editing. In all of these films we see many "dutch" angle shots where the camera is set purposely off axis to emphasize some important aspect of the characters expression or reaction. In one particular scene from Amelie, director Jean-Pierre Jeunet uses a montage of close-ups, extreme close-ups, up and down angles, to build tension and emotion between Amelie and her lover. Then, when Amelie misses her chance to spark a conversation with Nino, she literally melts in a computer generated splash.
For Breathless and 400 Blows, Goddard and Truffaut didn't have access to the same type of contemporary special effects and editing capabilities that characterize Amelie, yet we still see similar back and forth angles and camerawork that complements the dialogue.
If it weren't for the difference in color and editing technology, it might not be hard to forget that these films were produced 40 years apart from each other. If I put a blindfold on and simply listened to the ways in which sound is used in each film I can count a number of similarities.
Upbeat, french bistro type music can be heard at some point in all of these films often at points where there is narration of philosophical commentary. The way the directors use sound separates the simple plot elements from the more thought provoking scenes and dialogue.
Take for example the way a suspenseful piano track creates tension in the hotel scene of Breathless:
Related Side Note-Acting and Expression: In all of these films I noticed a very definitive and distinct set of complex facial expressions that are essential to the overall mood and tone of each shot and scene. Take a look at each of these shots and try to imagine the thoughts and emotions of the characters. Dialogue isn't even necessary in these moments.
The passion in these three french films is one that we rarely see in typical Hollywood productions but rather in auteur projets. Here is a glimpse of what the Criterion Film Collection has to say about Francois Truffaut's 400 Blows:
"The400 Blows sensitively recreates the trials of Truffaut's own difficult childhood, unsentimentally portraying aloof parents, oppressive teachers, petty crime, and a friendship that would last a lifetime." -Criterion
Overall Conclusions: Ces trois films francais qui viennent de differents temps me montre que le mouvement, expression corporelle, le visage, et le son sont peut-etre plus important que la dialogue dans un film. On ne doit pas comprendre le francais pour comprendre les themes et les messages de ces films. Je suggere les voir sans subtitles et vous aurez une experience tres bien de film plus pure francais.
(Translation: These three French films that come from different times show me that the movement, body, face, and sound are perhaps more important than the dialogue in a movie. We need not understand French to understand the themes and messages of these films. I suggest seeing them without subtitles and you will have a very good experience of pure French film.)
To start off, I would like to say if it weren't for this Film Studies class I might have never even heard of the film THX 1138. After seeing a short scene from an instructional video in class, I really wanted to watch this film.
Expectations: 1) I am a self professed fan of dystopian science fiction. When I went on Amazon Prime to order the movie I already knew that George Lucas was the director but I didn't know that the film was released pre-Star Wars era in 1971. Many users said they were very impressed with the film effects and overall production. With this tidbit of information and my affinity for the sci-fi dilemma, it's safe to say that I had very high expectations for the film.
Opening Scene:
Analysis/Opinion: This film may not be for everyone; the opening scene (above) begins with an almost annoying montage that is purposely choppy, technology filled, and utilizes an assortment of pesky android voices. For a having created the film in 1970, Lucas builds an eerie, forewarning image of a futuristic, consumer focused society, reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. There are some plot elements that are uncannily similar to these novels, i.e. test tube babies and sedative drug use to increase efficiency and suppress emotion.
Having said this, there are two elements that separate THX 1138 from other dystopian sci-fi action thrillers. First, the dialogue and acting are superb. Robert Duvall's performance as THX sets this film apart from modern sci-fi thrillers like Michael Bay's organ-transplant thriller The Island. Many sci-fi films turn out to be lackluster adaptions of novels. On the other hand, I found THX to be a brilliantly presented collaboration between George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola. The set and special effects of THX blow away anything else of the time period and the plot, acting, dialogue and overall flow of the film were surprisingly satiating for a critical viewer. Some may shy away from the sterile costuming, setting and art-house cinematography used in parts of the film. I think this adds a new artistic and philosophical dimension to this genre.
Overall Rating: 9/10 for quality production, unexpected plot, and an eerie immersion that left me fearing for the future.
First off, let me start by putting it out there that, on the whole, I enjoyed Django Unchained. Though I am not a fan of Tarantino's shock value blood-spatter, I could stand to sit through the gore out of interest for the meat and potatoes of the movie.
Waltz and Foxx in Django Unchained
The first review I've come across is from Rotten Tomatoes written by a "Top Critic" named Roger Moore. Moore structures his review by starting with a brief synopsis and plot walk through. This happened, setting, characters, conflict set up, etc. It seems he is at least attempting not to spoil the plot, but that said, his overbearing negative tone towards Django would make me not as excited to go watch it if I hadn't already. Coming from a critic who gave "Cosmopolis" with Robert Pattinson a higher rating than Django I already have to restrain myself from lashing out at said negative critique of Tarantino's work. While giving a decently sufficient summary of the plot, characters, actors (Moore does include a reference to Samuel Jackson's affinity for profanity), costumes, setting etc. Moore consistently adds in little jibes and comments that would deter most potential audiences. For example: "Geographically incompetent, with plantations overfilled with all manner of shootably venal white overseers, this isn’t Ken Burns history."
In describing the lack of attention to setting and geography in the film, Moore portrays the overall film as a piece that is disorganized and haphazard. I tend to agree that the blood spatter detracts from the quality acting and witty dialogue of the film. Joe writes his critique of Django in a structure much more like a creative essay. Instead of muddling through the plot only to then shut down Tarantino further like Moore, Morganstern includes a somewhat chronological summary for the reader to get a feel for the film but focuses more on details of acting, dialogue, setting, organization, and thematic messages more so than the bare bones plot. While most of the review sheds a positive light on the film, it is worth mentioning that Morganstern commented on the similarities of Christoph Waltz's character to his character in Inglorious Basterds. "It should be acknowledged that Mr. Waltz is doing a tone-for-tone reprise of Col. Hans Landa, the monstrous Nazi he played in Mr. Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds." Having not seen Inglorious Basterds or Waltz before I'm glad Morganstern notes this for the audience. All in all had I not seen Tarantino's shocking masterpiece western not so typical slavery tale, I think I would still find Mr. Morganstern's review more convincing. Why? Simply because Morganstern's review has fun and passion leaden within his writing whereas Moore's tone is simply cutting and annoying. I think there is a difference between being blunt and just sounding annoyed constantly, that is why I think Morganstern's review would win over most moviegoers. -Mark Though Moore also has another quote about the unnecessary spaghetti western type violence on steroids that I was not entirely thrilled with. "The players are in fine form. But the movie he’s embroiled them all in is a hit and miss affair, at times an amusing re-imagining of history, more often a blood-spattered bore."
The next critique of Django Unchained takes on a much different overarching tone of praise still mentioning some flaws of the film, yet again had I not seen Django, this next critic Joe Morganstern would draw me to the theater immediately.
1) First movie that made a really strong impression on me was Man On Fire with Denzel Washington.
2) My top 4 genres are action/adventure*, Sci-Fi, Drama, and comedy. I really enjoy more philosophical films as opposed to cheesy action blockbusters*.
3) My least favorite genres are Rom-Com, Horror, Western, and Fantasy though I do enjoy some films within these genres.
4) Top 5 films: Crimes and Misdemeanors, Schindler's List, Minority Report, The King's Speech, and Memento.
5) Characteristics of a good movie: Surprising or contrary to what one might predict. Quality believable dialogue. Purposeful cinematography.
6) Least favorite movies: Troll 2, Legally Blonde (1, 2 whatever), Madea...
7) Characteristics of a bad movie: Makes me laugh at how unrealistic the acting or plot etc. is. Choppy editing/ lack of continuity and overall unity. Lack of attention to details.
8) Right now I do not have any favorite directors.
9) Favorite actors and actresses: Christian Bale, Ellen Page, Helena Bonham Carter, Denzel Washington, Tommy Lee Jones.
10) Important films for people to see: Schindler's List, Crimes and Misdemeanors, The Island.
11) Oldest favorite movie: The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
12) It is extremely hard to say but the best movie I have seen recently is Lincoln.
13) The next five films on my queue are Django Unchained, Argo, Zero Dark Thirty, Annie Hall, and The Impossible
.jpg)
