The Asphalt Jungle - Le changement de coeur du noir et du blanc?

I could have told you how I felt about The Asphalt Jungle before we even watched it. I loved it and we all loved it because "Il Duce" branded on our brains that we must. I'm just joking around as usual. Mr. Bennett, you just scared us enough to give it a fair chance, but I think most of us would have enjoyed it regardless. And now, because most of us just can't seem to get enough of T-Bone, I'm going to use a comment of his as the basis of my post. "What's not to be liked about The Asphalt Jungle? The plot? No. The characters? No. The lines? No. The deeply philosophical thematic undertones? No. The hooligans, hoodlums, ruffians, delinquents, goons, punks, and thugs? No. If there is nothing to be disliked then The Asphalt Jungle was perfect. Just perfect." I will disagree with one thing there. I don't think the film was perfect just because I don't think anything is perfect. Also, I might even make some quasi-pseudo-original imbroglios. Well, I would if I knew what that meant. 

Let's start with the plot. Really bad guy gets out of jail. He plans a heist. Gets funding from a bad guy with a good guy front. Hires other bad guys to help him pull off the robbery. Not everything goes according to the plan, and ALL of the bad guys get caught one by one. It's a great plot. The ending was most definitely ruined by the Hays Code. Sorry to say, but the bad guys don't always get caught or punished (In Bruges...) and everything isn't lollipops and daisies like the Hays Code would lead you to believe. Nonetheless, the plot grasps you from the start and has you in a choke hold until the credits start rolling.

Onto the characters. Well, the main ones anyway. (This paragraph will encompass the hooligans, hoodlums, ruffians, delinquents, goons, punks, and thugs. Not because you will be bored by too many of my words, but I don't think they deserve separate paragraphs) You have Doc Riedenschneider, who is a legendary burglar that has just been released from jail. Attaining pleasure through crime is his passion and his vice. He also seems to be a pervert. Doc is being financed by Alonzo Emmerich who is a crooked lawyer. His vice seems to be young women and greed.  Dix Handley is a hooligan from Kentucky who wants the money to buy back a horse farm. His vice is the ponies. Doll Conovan is a woman who is just absolutely obsessed with Dix. Her vice is... well... Dix. These characters, as well as the ones I did not mention, make up quite the motley crew. But, these characters are developed and acted out very well and each person's vice makes the movie tick.

The next question is about the lines. Some quotes from this film are very memorable, but two of them stand out to me more than the rest.

Doc: "One way or another, we all work for our vice."

Emmerich: "Crime is only... a left-handed form of human endeavor."

Doc is saying that even if you aren't a criminal and you have a career and don't break the law, some of that money that you legally earn, is going towards your vice. Whether it is gambling or smoking or anything, you will spend money on it because all we want in life to fulfill our pleasures. As for Emmerich's statement, I'm not entirely sure what it means. In the past, left-handedness has always been associated with being awkward or clumsy or unlucky or even evil. I think that Emmerich means that these criminals have talents just like everyone else, but they use them for evil rather than good. They are not delinquents, they are just bad, intelligent people.

And T-Bone's last category is the deeply philosophical thematic undertones. This isn't your everyday gangster flick or your everyday film noir. This movie takes a look at life's questions and attempts to answer them. One theme of the movie is the quote by Emmerich that I have already talked about, so no need to type about it again. Another important theme was voiced by Doc Reidenschneider when he was in the cab. Now, I don't remember the exact line and I can't seem to find it anywhere online, but he says something along the lines of what is there to life but it's pleasures. The existentialist view makes an appearance. In this random and meaningless world with nothing to look forward to, we must make the most of our time while we have it and try to find pleasure in everything. This is also shown when Doc is getting arrested and he asks the policeman if he can smoke a cigar. He just wanted to make the most out of his situation, good, bad, or otherwise.

Now, for the part of the part you have all been waiting for... THE QUESTION!!! I decided to translate this question into French because noir is the French word for black. So, I asked, "Le changement de coeur du noir et du blanc?" This means "Change of heart about black and white?" Earlier this year, I desisted black and white. I said everything would be better in color. I hated the look of black and white, the smell of black and white, the sound of black and white, the texture of black and white, but the taste was just fine. It was noxious to four of my five senses and I just couldn't take it. But since then, we have watched The Seventh Seal and The Asphalt Jungle. Both films would definitely not be the same in color. The Asphalt Jungle just exudes noir-iness. The rain slicked streets, the hats, the flashing neon signs, I can go on and on. It is definitely a great introduction into classic film noir. As for the Seventh Seal, the black and white is very symbolic. It shows the contrast between the blackness of death and the whiteness of life. When there was a scene of Antonius Block and Death (apparently me) playing chess, the white pieces were so bright that they were blinding and the black pieces were so dark that... well they were pretty damn dark. If that film had been in color, I don't think it would have been as powerful as in pure black and white. So, back to the question, I feel that some films are better in black and white, but others could be better in color and are only in black and white because of the technology available when they were made. Once again, I refuse to give a definitive answer to my own question. I have to start coming up with easier questions.

 

Mama always said my posts are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.

Unforgiven - Homage to Westerns?

I thoroughly enjoyed watching Unforgiven, even though after the first day I was somewhat confused. I think that was because most of that time was character development and after I established all of that, I could really immerse myself into the plot. I honestly can't believe I enjoyed it because I am not a huge fan of the western genre, but this one was different. I felt that these things could have really happened. Usually I expect huge shootouts or the swinging saloon doors, but the only real shootout in the movie was realistic as Will Munny used only five bullets, then reloaded his Spencer Rifle to shoot again. As for the saloon, it had a real door. Less dramatic effect, but also less corny. 

However, the aspect of the film that really stood out to me was the script. So much time must have been spent laboring over the script, deciding how every line of dialogue needed to be worded and delivered. One line that stuck with me is after Little Bill beat the crap out of Munny, he went upstairs to get Ned and The Schofield Kid, but all he saw was the back window open. 

Alice: "You just kicked the shit out of an innocent man, you big asshole." 

Little Bill: "Innocent of what?" 

Just think about that. Usually you ask "guilty of what?", but not when Little Bill is the law. In his town people seem to be guilty until proven innocent, and that may very well be the way it was in the west back then. And obviously the other great sequence of dialogue is between Will and The Kid. 

Munny: "It's a hell of a thing, ain't it, killin' a man. You take everythin' he's got... an' everythin' he's ever gonna have..."

The Kid: "Well, I gu-guess they had it... comin'."

Munny: "We all got it comin', kid."

Munny is saying that all of us will die, whether we are good, bad, or ugly (Yes, that is a Clint Eastwood related pun and yes, I crack myself up). But, if you are the reason for someone else dying, you have just closed their curtain. There is no way that person can ever live again and it's all your fault. I think this can also be interpreted as an existentialist point. Munny says "you take everythin' he's got... an' everythin' he's ever gonna have..." and it seems like he thinks there is no afterlife. That dead person will never have anything else in any other life. This is it, and you just ended it.

One other repetitive line of dialogue was when Munny was asked about killing someone, it seemed like he almost always responded with "I guess" or "I guess so". It appeared as though he never wanted to talk about killing, like he just wanted to do it and then forget about it. Even when after he had shot Davey in the gut, he just stared and tried to ignore it until he had to tell the other cowboys to give Davey water. It seemed like a side of him hated himself for doing it, but the other side saw it as a job that he was good at. He came out of retirement and took the job, but only because of the reward.

Throughout the movie, storytelling and the stories changing seemed to be a recurring thing. Everytime someone told the story of how the cowboys cut up Delilah, the incident got worse and worse. The first time we hear the story is by The Kid to Munny: "For cuttin' up a lady. they cut up her face an' cut her eyes out, cut her ears off an' tits too." That's definitely exaggerated, but eventually Munny tells the story to Ned: "Cut up a woman. Cut her eyes out, cut her tits off, cut her fingers off... done everythin' but cut up her cunny, I guess." Now her whole body is cut up except her... you know... "cunny". The only thing that really happened to her is that her face got cut. Not that that isn't bad, but it isn't what they are saying. So basically, stories passed by word of mouth almost always get changed.

Moving on to the whole deal with the title of the movie and the sympathy factor. I really didn't feel sympathic for any character that died. Either the character had done so many bad things in their life, that I felt they deserved it, or the character was not imporant/developed enough for me to be attached to. While Mr. Bennett brings up good points about Little Bill just wanting to keep order, he did not have to go to the extremes he did. There is a happy medium between chaos in the town and torturing anyone who sneezes. The title of the movie is perfect. Nothing changed from the beginning to the end except for a few extra dead bodies. Everyone that survived wound up right back where they started, as an unchanged person with the same feelings they began the film with. 

Now on to the title of my post. Surprisingly, I asked myself a question. Is Unforgiven an homage (pronounced o-maj for sophisticated people or hah-midge to the common folk) to westerns? Now, I like to break things down by using definitions (as you may or may not know, but now you do), so what exactly is an homage? (another question, I love it!) According to dictionary.com, homage means respect or reverence paid or rendered. So, essentially, was Unforgiven made to give props to past westerns? I think you could say that (I give myself a question and I don't even answer it. I should be a politician). I see Unforgiven as superior to all other westerns that I've seen (which isn't many), but without the past westerns, it is nothing. The first westerns were the pioneers and Unforgiven followed in their footsteps, but walked even farther. It shows that most other westerns were unrealistic with their infinite ammo shootouts and their swinging saloon doors. If you were going to kill five people without reloading, you were going to have to be as legendary as Will Munny. 

I know this has probably been my most serious, and therefore least hysterical post, but I will leave you with some humor. www.youtube.com/watch?v=32mx_mZn_Ns That link will lead you to the "official" A Clockwork Orange book trailer. If you watch this, and still don't understand what it's about, well... well... that's expected. 

Stay Classy, Bennett's Film Class.

Hot Fuzz - Funny and Thrilling?

Hot Fuzz is an action comedy film directed by Edgar Wright, written by Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg, and starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. This film came out in 2007, but you may remember these blokes (chaps) from the great 2004 film, Shaun of the Dead. Now, Mr. Bennett, I know this movie might be too recent or too imbecilic for you, but I haven't posted in a while and feel like I need to come back with a bang. Now, for some background info about the movie. SPOILER ALERT!

PLOT SUMMARY (optional) (I found typing this as tedious as you may find reading it): Simon Pegg plays Nicholas Angel, a cop from London that is so good at what he does, that he makes his colleagues look bad. Because of this, he gets sent to Sandford (fictional), a quaint town in rural Gloucestershire (non-fictional(?) but fun to say) that has the lowest crime-rate in all of England. During his first night in the town, he arrested a citizen of Sandford, Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), for drunk driving. The next morning he finds that cell empty and Danny dressed as a police officer. This is because he is one. Danny becomes the only police officer who takes to Nicholas and is his only true friend. Throughout the film people get killed and the incidents keep getting written off as accidents, but Nicholas isn't convinced. He thinks that these incidents are all connected and someone is going around murdering people. His fellow officers write it off to his big city mentality and make fun of him for it. Soon enough, Nicholas is confirmed and sees that a special group (including the head inspector) is behind the murders just so they can win the best village award. Danny secretly saves Nicholas from getting killed, but Nicholas comes back determined the take down the whole town with the help of Danny. Epic gun fight ensues, and good guys win, as usual. 

It's what happens along the way that makes the movie great. It has witty (British) humor as well as blatant (American) humor that balance each other out and are equally hysterical. (honestly I give witty the edge but up for debate) It has a great gun fight sequence which can never hurt. And, I am absolutely convinced that a British accent can enhance anything. Some people may think it sounds stupid, but I honestly wish I had always talked like that. If I just started now people would stare at me thinking "what the f***?" Speaking of profanities, the movie is choc full of them, but they almost sound sophisticated with a British accent. Have I mentioned the wittyness? It's just great. At one point, Nicholas Angel is fighting a huge, but retarded, guy and he distracts him with a cuddly monkey. Then he says "Playtime's over" and bashes him over the head with a flower pot. I can only respond to that the way Danny Butterman would, "You're off the f***ing chain!"

Now, to get back to the title of my post "Hot Fuzz - Funny and Thrilling?" I think it hits both nails square on the f***ing head (I'm making profanities a written art as well). If you are looking for witty comedy, you got it. If you are looking for physical comedy, you got it. If you are looking for an action film, you got it. I feel like it gives you everything without imposing anything on you. One person can finish the movie and say that was a great action film and another can say that was a great comedy. Then, they can fight to the death to see who is truly right. Both of these people would die because this movie is both funny and thrilling. Stick a fork in it because this post is done!!

Citizen Kane - A Timeless Classic?

Many people consider Citizen Kane one of the best movies ever made, if not the best. Right now, I don't agree. It is quite possible that I am not old, mature, and wise enough to understand why this movie is so great, but I really doubt that. It is true that you can stop the movie at any moment and everything on the screen is significant in the film. It is also true that every line of dialogue is of significance in the film. The movie teaches a very valuable lesson that shows that someone can appear powerful, but actually be quite powerless. But, why am I really watching the movie?

For me, a movie does not need ambiguity throughout or hidden meanings or to teach me something to be good. I just want to be amused and enjoy myself. I can't say I felt this way while watching Citizen Kane. I just wasn't immersed in the experience. Maybe it had to do with the black and white film (definitely an acquired taste) as a constant reminder that it was only a movie. It could have been the fact that I wasn't emotionally (love or hate) attached  to any of the characters. During the whole movie, I found myself just waiting for it to end, so I could finally find out what Rosebud was, only to see it was a simple sled. This revelation can be interpreted in a infinite number of ways, which does make the film a finely made piece of cinema, but it does not really appeal to me. I don't want to finish a movie and immediately be in deep thought. I believe books far better serve that purpose. I want to recall all of the funny and entertaining scenes from a film, not try to figure out what message the film was trying to get across. 

Does this opinion make me less sophisticated than the next guy? I don't know and I also don't care because I know what I like to see in a film (I do like some serious films). I do agree that this is a fantastic (not amusing, just fantastic) piece of cinema (not experience, just piece of cinema) and is a great film to dissect in a film class because there is so much going on from the transitions (someone face appearing on top of another face), to the background, to the subtle yet all important dialogue, to the position of the characters, to the camera placement, and the list goes on. It is quite amazing how much work must have gone into the creation of this film. It's just that too much ambiguity can confuse me, which is not what I want from a film. While I am quite sure this film stimulates my mind far more than any comedy or action film there is, I would still rather view the latter for pure entertainment any day of the week. Perhaps with age, this preference will begin to change. Who knows what the future has in store? Well, I do, but I ain't saying.

      Once again, my title is a question, which means I have forced myself to answer a question (Damn me!). I asked if this film is a timeless classic. At this stage in my life, I am tending to lean towards no solely because I am not interested in the plot. If a different film used similar filming techniques, with a better plot, I would most likely love that film. If people want to know about the strange life of Charles Foster Kane, then I can definitely see how this film can receive the acclaim that it does.

300 - A Great Film?

I love this film for it's historical accuracy. Just kidding. I'm sure there weren't mutants with gigantic humps walking around or the Spartan warriors weren't so scantily clad or there weren't inbred, swine consults who would rape the oracle. Well, maybe the rape part, but I digress. This movie just gets my adrenaline flowing every time. These Spartans had no fear and would never back down from any challenge they were up against. It's just inspiring. The fight scenes were well done and the gore looked very real. And it always helps that witty lines were always a response to Persian threats. For example: Persian Dude: Our arrows will blot out the sun. Spartan Dude: Then, we will fight in the shade! I mean, if someone actually said that during a war, that would be very demeaning. And, not to mention the best line in any movie ever. Leonidas: "Ready your breakfast and eat hearty. For tonight we dine in hell!!!" Leonidas says this after Ephialtes (Mutant with gigantic hump) betrays Sparta and informs Xerxes of the goat path behind the hot gates. He knew they were all going to die, but he had to keep his word because earlier in the film he said that he show everyone that even a God-King can bleed. (All of the dialogue is important, therefore it is a good film. Finally, I have proof!).  Even though they were surrounded, they were going to cause as much chaos as possible and never surrender. 

I have heard many different responses about this film. Some say it is a fantastic piece of cinema (Three thumbs up), others say that it's grossly inaccurate depiction of the time takes away from the film. I know you won't believe me, but I have even heard it referred to as "cinematic poopyjuice". Just kind of rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? Now you know why the title of this post has a question mark after it. Even though I could watch this film one hundred times and still be willing to watch it one hundred more, other people wouldn't be able to sit through one showing. Even though I can find so many things in this film that I feel make it great, other people can find things that they think made it awful. There would be one difference though. They would be wrong. FLORENTINO, OUT! (Pass out and fall over backwards) (Yes, that is a Meet the Fockers reference)

Film Class - Easy Enough

Going to class to watch a movie everyday is just fine by me. Whoever it was that begged for this class to come back should be greatly rewarded. Well, at least thanked. Watching classic and great films and analyzing them will certainly expand my knowledge of movies and help me better understand future movies.