Cinema Papers
More
Shadow Magic
Shadow Magic was not an attractive movie to me. I�m sorry. It was valuable as a window into the world of early moving pictures, but the story was bland with overdone bits of drama. That�s my editorial piece. I�m done. There were, despite my own grudges, many things to like in this movie. I was amazed at the initial reactions of people to film as they saw it for the first time. They were baffled at the pictures that were �alive.� Nothing in their experience had ever come close to that. There were still pictures (which they were suspicious of) and opera, but this alien merging of the two was beyond anything they had ever seen. It was the most like real life. When the train pulled into the station, the audience jumped out of the way. After the show, one old man asked how �those foreigners� were brought in to do tricks and throw snowballs. What really makes this intriguing is the fact that it took place in China. China was (and is) a land steeped in tradition and ancient, timeless values and codes. It remained unchanged practically until the second World War, which was long after this movie was set. We got to see old China coming into absolute collision with the West, technology, and new ideas. Lui, the main character, embodied this spirit of change. He was intrigued by the new invention and helped to spread it. There were probably more people like him when the actual events took place, but he is left as the sole active supporter of the shadow magic in the story. That greater struggle looms behind a few smaller ones: theater vs. film, man vs. world, boy vs. father, and young vs. old, to name a few. These elements combined to make a mediocre movie, however, the parts I found most interesting were the reactions of people to film. -Levi
The General - Buster Keaton
The General is a black and white silent film set during the Civil War in the South. The main character is a locomotive engineer loyal to the confederacy. The story is simple and the plot is shallow, but with a few twists. He goes deep into federal territory to recapture his beloved engine The General, and the love of his life, who has been inadvertently taken captive. The scenes are set up to be a series of sketches for Buster Keaton to show off his athletic ability with amazing stunts, but the story still works. This is in contrast to Modern Times, which was clearly a series of skits strung together. The story in this film, although trite, was uninterrupted and flowed nicely. The stunts were a big part of this film. There were lots of explosions, moving trains, and flying objects. This still happens in modern movies, but the difference is that these stunts weren�t worked on by a special effects team. They actually took place. They rolled the camera and Keaton got out there and did it. Some of them made me wince, like the time there was a 6x6 across the tracks, putting Keaton and his engine in danger of derailment. He gets off, runs ahead of the train, and picks up the huge piece of lumber. The slowly moving train has reached him by this time, and he is forced to sit down on the cattle guard on the front of the train, still wrestling with the beam. At this time, he spots another 6x6 on the tracks ahead of him. He lifts the beam up and throws it on the end of the other beam, catapulting it off the tracks. The whole thing is kind of hard to describe, but I know you�ve seen the movie before; you know what I mean. It�s a daring display of athleticism. Keaton�s facial expressions are classic, but not as masterful as Charlie Chapman�s. He has some hilarious �huh?� looks that he gives (rapid batting of the eyes, etc.), but besides that, he relies on his stunts�at least in this movie. I haven�t seen any of his other films. The editing was done in a balanced way. There were establishing shots (trains going past, a street, a camp, etc.), close-ups (Keaton, mainly), and plenty of mid-range shots. The story was told mainly in the mid-range shots, even when dealing with the courtship of Keaton and his sweetheart. Nowadays, romantic scenes are done in extreme close-ups. I thoroughly enjoyed the story and the stunts that came with it. The only things that dragged on me a bit were due to the fact that it was a silent film: the pounding, out-of-tune piano trilling on and on over the same themes again and again, and the stop and start jerks of the dialogue interrupting the pictures. Other than those, it was most enjoyable. -Levi
The Mission
The Mission is a very sweeping, epic, artful-type movie about a horrific series of events that actually took place. Of course, it is only based on actual events, as with all movies of the sort, and takes some liberties, I=m sure. The quarreling of the Portuguese and Spanish over land in South America caught the natives there up in turmoil, because slavery was allowed in Portugal but not in Spain. The only refuge they had were the Jesuit missions that were sprinkled throughout the jungle. DeNiro plays a slave-trader/mercenary who converts to the Jesuit order (the mercenary thing is right up his ally, but the priest thing is not). Overall, the acting was first-class, with names like DeNiro, Irons, and Neeson. The editing was superb as well, although slow-paced and contemplative. There were a lot of extreme close-ups, giving us time to think about what the character was going through. The whole feel of the film was majestic and tragic, like a richly decorated and solemn elephant in a parade. We are forced to think about several themes. An obvious one is the life of faith vs. worldly life. We see Rodrigo=s (DeNiro=s) conversion from one lifestyle to the other, and we see how parts of the old live on in him; namely, that he chooses to fight in the end while his brother in the faith does not (Irons). The humble, servant-minded Jesuits are contrasted with the pompous, hypocritical bureaucrats from the two quarreling nations, and the high priest (bishop? knight?) who represents the Pope. Politics and Areal-world@ values clash with values of faith. Another theme present is mercy. The opening lines of narration say something like, Athe tribes were having the everlasting mercy of God revealed to them, as well as the short lived mercy of men.@ The natives experienced the mercy of the Jesuits, and the mercy of God, then the anti-mercy of ruthless men pitted against the church. Rodrigo gave no mercy to the natives, or to his lover, or his brother, yet he experienced it from the Jesuits, from the natives, and from God. A third theme, well, more of a conflict, was between peaceful resistance and forceful resistance. This is most obvious at the end, when Irons= character is martyred in cold blood while he is unarmed, and Rodrigo is martyred with a gun in his hand, and soldiers= blood on his clothes. However, it also happens at the assembly when Rodrigo insults the dignitary from Spain. He sees no reason to apologize, but is made to by the authority of the church. The movie makes a powerful impression, and provokes a lot of thought. -Levi
My Left Foot
A story like the one told in this film is always inspiring. Watching the ways that Christy overcame the barriers between himself and the world was powerful. Knowing that it was based on a true story made it even more so. However, it was the story that was powerful, not the movie. What I mean is that I appreciated the story of the life of Christy Brown, but I probably wouldn�t buy the movie. Granted, the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis was truly outstanding, and the other characters were played with skill to match. It just seemed like the whole �second girl� sub-story was a little forced�made in a Hollywood basement. Movie writers do that all the time: make up a cute dialogue, then try to validate it all with a statement like �Christy Brown married so-and-so on July 4th, 1776.� Some people are duped by this. They see the true statement and assume that the events that they just saw led up to that statement, when, in fact, the only true part of the whole sub-story was the statement at the end. Now, I don�t know how much of that sub-story was factual and how much was fiction, but it came off as fiction. It happened too fast, and it was obviously an �American classic� ending. Their were some interesting shots in the movie, but it tended to stay away from pushing those technical limits and focused on themes and dialogue. When Christy is younger, the shots are from above, looming over him, making him seem small and helpless. Some of the shots of the family are from his point of view on the floor. They seem like giants, and the floor is unnaturally close; it lets us know how it feels to be in his position, and makes us uncomfortable. As the movie progresses, and Christy is given a wheelchair, the camera comes up with him. We see his witty personality emerge as the other characters do, and this is paralleled with the camera�s new look on things. Christy Brown is both an artist and disabled, but, as the question hints at, each group would discuss different themes of the movie. A disabilities interest group would perhaps discuss themes like the victory of Christy over the barriers created by his disability. When he was a child, he had to convince everyone that he wasn�t stupid. This was done through sheer will�teaching himself to write with his left foot. Another barrier was spoken language�he overcame that with some help. He faced another barrier that is more common to the rest of us: that of a broken heart. This one was arguably the toughest�it was the only one that drove him towards suicide�but he overcame that as well. This theme may differ from what an artistic group might discuss. Artists would focus on his relationships, emotions, and feelings and how they were poured into his art. He was obviously close to his mother; he loved his father, but that relationship was altogether different. This was reflected in his art�the way he portrayed each. Feelings of all kinds were painted right into his work: about church, heaven and hell, and love. I was inspired by the movie, and by his story, and by the acting. It was interesting the way his family supported him, too. That bond was unbelievable�especially with his brothers. I enjoyed all but the bits that were written by �tidy ending� writers. -Levi
Modern Times - Charlie Chapman
I found this movie entirely and thoroughly enjoyable. It was long, you say? Yes. The story was a bunch of situations for Charlie to act goofy in strung together? Yes. It was long? Yes again. However, few movies make me laugh out loud for such long periods of time. Modern movies rely on crude jokes, bathroom noises, violence, cynicism, stereotypes, parody, and clich�s for laughs (of course, one should never underestimate the power of bathroom noises). I chuckle, giggle, or snort at those things. Modern Times had me shaking, unable to breath, with tears in my eyes. Charlie Chapman is so incredibly good at physical humor that he makes us laugh without us even knowing why. Everything he does on screen is humorous: his facial expressions, his walk, his antics�anything. He instantly connects with the audience�we�ve all (in some sense) been there, doing what he�s doing, experiencing what he�s experiencing. We connect because he masterfully portrays how we feel in the same situation; how we see ourselves. He is the incarnation of our own feelings, and that�s why he is so funny to us. For instance, when he sat down to eat lunch. The way he shuffles around, whipping out a napkin, buttering a roll, pouring soup, etc. These simple actions bring a smile or a chuckle out of the audience. Why? Why?! What is it about his portrayal? It�s us identifying with him. The only modern actor I can think of who has mastered this is Rowan Atkinson. His Mr. Bean sketches are similar in some ways to Chapman�s. Physical humor is becoming a lost art, and it was utterly refreshing to enjoy a movie from the man who does it best. My favorite part was when the couple had moved into the �dream house� and Charlie attempted to go for a swim. I could see it coming, but that didn�t diminish its effect at all. Also, the second time he walks in the door. He glares fearfully up at the board that cracked him on the head the last time, then walks in only to get cracked again. It�s so simple, yet when done by Chapman, hilarious. I was mildly surprised at the use of sound. This was �a talkie,� however, not in the way we think of them. The majority of the film was silent, with words popping up to tell us what had been said. Most of the sounds had been dubbed in: sound effects, single phrases, and music. The only time Charlie said anything was when he sang a song at the end, and it was in French. He was probably resistant to the use of sound in movies because he didn�t see the range of possibilities presented by it. In addition, he had become stinking rich from silent movies, and was hesitant to change his winning formula. The use of synchronous sound shows that he liked to be in control of what the audience was presented with. Using boom mikes would�ve introduced too much random, �background noise.� Today, movies strive to be realistic, so �background noise� is accepted (and technology allows directors to control what we hear and don�t hear to a pin drop anyway). Back then, it was more of a �moving picture;� a story. It wasn�t life. This is way before The Real World and Survivor. Aarg! What�s entertainment coming to? -Levi
Providence
I have absolutely mixed feelings about this movie. During the first part�that is, when Gilgud is largely still constructing his novel, we saw what goes on in a writer�s mind�parts were even funny and clever. For instance, the famous footballer: that kind of randomness is extremely funny to me. The voiced-over monologue was also a nice touch: �Wordford! No! What are you doing here? �Ah, that�s better.� It was easy to tell that this was no ordinary movie, right from the start. A lot of times, shots would seem utterly random: a telephone, a desk, a light switch, etc. However, they would later be tied in or make sense somehow. This characterizes the style Renais used for the whole movie. The shots made little aesthetic, chronological, or logistical sense, but they conveyed a feeling. It can sort of be compared to political cartoon or abstract art. That was the first part. Next, things started getting weirder as the characters in his novel took on traits of the people he pictured them as. For instance, the antagonist in his novel became his son Claude�but a warped picture of him. To top it all off, he began putting his own thoughts into the protagonist, who was pictured as his bastard son Wordford. His wife, who had committed suicide, began to say things through the antagonist�s mistress, and so what was a novel about a nasty lawyer and his marital complexities became a struggle between the novelist, his son, and his wife. Of course, it wasn�t that simple�I think once or twice, he spoke through other characters. Plus, there was the whole �fear of dying� theme that he was struggling with the whole time. He was in almost constant pain, and would envision things like a prison camp-like nursing home, or an autopsy. He was always defiant, always cursing death. He wasn�t afraid�as a matter of fact, he seemed to be in control. He wasn�t going to die until he darn well wanted to. He thought his son wanted him to die, and he enjoyed denying him the satisfaction. He enjoyed denying everyone the satisfaction�the satisfaction of anything. And so we move to the last section of the movie: the �real� part. The subconscious, dreamy feel is gone now, and we are left with more conventional cinema to tell the remainder of the story. Gilgud now shows what I think are feelings that are closer to what he really feels. The thoughts of the night before seem a little alcohol-induced and paranoid. We sense now that he is excited to see his sons and daughter-in-law, although he still acts a little boorish toward his son. We also see that Gilgud�s sons and daughter-in-law are nothing like their characters in the novel. The novel characters are more like forced impressions of the father�the son is amiable, and Wordford is a lot less beatnik and more NASA engineer. At this point we realize that we�ve been seeing only the father�s impressions/perceptions in the creation of his book. He still strives to maintain the same amount of control he has in writing in real life; this is evident at the end when he asks them to leave without saying anything or touching him. That was the strangest part of the whole film�I have no idea why he did that, or why he would want to. It fit his character, I guess, but it was still puzzling. The movie left me feeling violated at first�deeply psychologically violated�but the feeling passed, and I think I could watch it again to try to pick up more. -Levi
