The Silence of the Lambs

Dir. By Jonathan Demme

USA, 1991

One of only three horror movies nominated for an Oscar, The Silence of the Lambs, is a classic for any thriller lover. The performances and the writing is superb as well as the cinematography and direction. 

While a large part of the success of this film is credited to Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins, another aspect of the film is left unnoticed: the thematic story elements reflected in the writing, especially the motif of sight. A very large portion of the story line, dialogue, etc. is focused on sight. Clarice is told that once she sees Dr. Hannibal Lecter she will see he is a monster. When Clarice talks to anyone though out the movie, she is filmed talking to a character off screen while her dialogue counterpart is always filmed talking into the camera as if it is her. Jonathan Demme sited this as a way to get the audience to feel like they were in Starling's shoes; however, the straight forward look of these male characters into the camera provide an aspect of the "male gaze" from Clarice's point of view. The most apparent example of that is when she first meets Lecter, and Hopkins stares at the camera from his viewpoint as it moves, implying that he is watching Clarice.

Another way in which the theme of sight is played out is Hannibal's drawings. He lives in a cell without an ability to see the world around him. He also describes Buffalo Bill's weakness as coveting, "and what do you covet? Something you see every day." This clue to Bill's surroundings leads to a break in the case. Clarice is also a victim of "seeing", her experience on her cousins farm with the lambs is due to that she can't unsee what she saw as a child and has no driven her to the FBI. The image haunts her as well as the sound. An interesting piece of this movie is that when Starling does finally tell Lecter the story of the lambs, she speaks to the camera finally, fully in plain sight.

Finally, and perhaps the most obvious use of the theme in the film, is the climactic scene where Clarice and Buffalo Bill standoff in the dark. Clarice is completely deprived of her sight, while Bill uses his night goggles to stalk her and ultimately try and kill her. The scene, shot from Bill's point of view, is the ultimate test of Clarice's ability to see what's beyond her and face it off bravely. 

Overall, the film is a classic and should be appreciated. The literary themes fused with cinematic techniques are a strong component of what makes this film great.

Pi

Dir. Darren Aronofsky

USA, 1998

Aronofsky's premiere film starts off his auteur tradition with a strong tour de force. "Pi", like most of his films, has the central theme of obsession at the core of the piece. Following a brilliant but paranoid mathematician driven mad by the search for the number at the soul of the universe. The chaotic and erratic cinematography is complemented by a storyline that's disruptive and thought-provoking. With hints of Lynch, Dali and even "Harrison Bergeron", Aronofsky creates a voice particular to his storytelling.

Filmed in black and white with contorted spliced editing and over the shoulder/in front of the character second person filming, the movie quickly becomes personal and uncomfortable. The over voiced thoughts and auditory themes (which can be seen online under Aronofsky sounds) create an atmosphere of being in the characters head. This is doubled by the chronic migraines he experiences, the panic/paranoid attacks and the moments of madness and genius. In all, the film is a brilliant depiction of a character study and that character's obsession with the tangentially intangible. 

With shades of the surrealistically familiar: Lynch's "Eraserhead" and Dali's "Un Chien Andalou" as well as the auteur driven fantasies of Aronofsky, "Pi", is a psychological surreal thriller that's worthy of any film fan.

Apocalypse Now

Dir. Francis Ford Coppola

USA, 1979

Considered to be one of the best war films created, Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" is perhaps one of the more interesting and thought provoking films focused on the Vietnam war. 

While most films about the Vietnam war portray it with criticism and an almost heavy handed opinion led bias, "Apocalypse Now" truly puts you in the war zone. Compared to Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" and other films that use the war experience to drive home their point: young men singing the Mickey Mouse theme song after an attack, or the training period where their identities are shaved from their bodies, "Apocalypse Now" gives you the first person immersion, story, and experience that the other films do not.

The story focuses on a young Martin Sheen reeled back into war for "one last assignment", to find Colonel Kurtz, Marlon Brando, who has gone AWOL and has started his own war with his own agenda. Based off of Jospeh Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", Sheen's character travels through Vietnam by river with a group of men from all different backgrounds. The battles and crumbling morale surrounding them affects them in different ways as they make their way to their destination. All the while, Sheen's character debates the true reason behind his orders and Kurtz's background.

The reason I suggest that this film immerses you more in the Vietnam war compared to other similar films is because of one particular attribute this film employs that the others don't, the use of sound. The Vietnam War was one of the first televised wars in American History. Rather than the public seeing the heroics and despair in snapshots like in previous wars, Vietnam brought the live action, fear, youth and danger into people's homes. It wasn't just an image you could out out of your mind but rather a series of actions miles away. While other films do portray this visual notion of Vietnam, they lack the forceful immersion that can only be found in sound. Experiencing a war zone is so much more than just the gruesome images, it's the deafening bombs and action as well as the nerve wracking silence that the soldiers experience. Even soldiers who suffer from PTSD have stated that it's the loud noises and lack of noises that gets them rather than the images themselves. "Apocalypse Now" makes brilliant use of the aurality of war. Scenes go from deafening loud to too quiet to hear. The moments of absolute silence are more frightening than the ones with bombs jogging off. The film is truly a visual and auditory experience. It can even be seen in the use of the only non-diegetic song in the whole film (a song that is played over the action and has no origin in the film itself) is This is the End by The Doors. That song is used as a bookend to the entire action of the film creating an ongoing and cyclical nature to the meaning of "the end".

Overall, "Apocalypse Now" is a classic that deserves to be recognized for its auditory techniques, story telling, and use of music in a diegetic and non-diegetic format. Definitely a must-see for any film buffs to be.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Dir. Wes Anderson

USA, 2014

As a fervent Wes Anderson fan, I was disappointed by his latest film, The Grand Budapest Hotel. While no one ever wants to read a review that begins with a sentiment like that, I do have my reasons as to why I felt the film lacked his usual quirky eccentricity and mystique which has lead me to watch certain films of his over and over again. From what I've gathered from also fervent fans of his work, their disappointment was palpable as well, but for those just coming into his cinematic universe, The Grand Budapest Hotel was the perfect segue way into his expansive library.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is at its best an introductory course into Wes Anderson filmography. There's quirky characters, a doomed romance, the quick witted and idiosyncratic characters that fill the screen with their eccentricities, but what I found to be missing was that layer of depth, of consequence that can be found in Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic. While these previous films do have the fantastical, absurdity of twee brilliance found in The Grand Budapest, they also have characters that are more than caricatures of themselves.

The cast, as always, is filled with Anderson's favorites, some newer than others: Tilda Swinton, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Adrien Brody as well as some new faces: Mathieu Amalric, Ralph Fiennes and Saoirse Ronan. The general plot is a series of flashbacks with a frame story. Jude Law, as a young writer, comes to the decrepit Grand Budapest and meets the aging owner of the establishment, played by F. Murray Abraham. Curious as to how he acquired his fortune, Abraham's character invites him to dinner and begins with his own meager start as a lobby boy under the guide of M. Gustave, the concierge at the time. The winding history follows the tragic murder of one of the hotel's most wealthy patrons and the accusation of M. Gustave's hand in her murder.

While at times the script is a farcical whodunit, the character development is weak at best and not representative of the era or plot at all. For example, Adrien Brody's character, a prodigal son set on getting his late mothers money, has dialogue that is neither period centric or character driven at all. It's anachronistic and unfounded. The relationships are also tenuous at best. Zero, the lobby boy, falls in love with Agatha, the bakers helper. The love between the two of them is supposed to be so strong that they get married in their preteenage years. However, the audience never learns how they meet or why they truly connect. There is just no build up to that.

The same can be said for the murder scenes. While the film is light and fluffy, the murder scenes are slapstick and silly. This might go along with the whole airy manner of the film, but does not make the audience think that any of the characters are in real danger. When the world war truly sets in on their hermetic town, things change but only slightly. You never see the full course of action driven by this change.

The only piece of this film that made me enjoy it was Ralph Fiennes' character and his acting. A mixture of good character development and good acting is what saved his character from the two dimensional fates of the others. 

The Grand Budapest Hotel is a caricature of a Wes Anderson film. It has all the tell tale signs without any of the true payoff of his earlier work. It's aerated and cloy at best and only serves to add to his collection. The relationships are reluctant and forced and the character development, sans Fiennes, is lackluster and flippant. The reason why I enjoy Wes Anderson films is for the polemic archetypes of quirky eccentricity and lightness played against the seriousness and reality of characters who have stakes in a matter. It's only with that duality that I'm driven to care about what happens in the film. Grand Budapest made me an apathetic viewer, which, sadly, is not what any director wants.

Inside Llewyn Davis

Dir. Joel and Ethan Coen

USA, 2013

The Coen brothers latest film, Inside Llewyn Davis, is evidence of an evolution in the Coen brothers' filmography. Having had early success with such films as Raising Arizona, Barton Fink, The Hudsucker Proxy, and Fargo, they're latest releases have been a different breed of film. While the earlier bunch focused on primarily the dark humor and idiosyncratic lives of charactes whose actions while deplorable had only the best at heart, their latest incarnations are at times far from humorous and focus on characters who are a mixture of unlikable and intriguing only in their failures to be redeemed.

Inside Llewyn Davis is no different from these recent changes in cinema signature. The titular main character, portrayed wonderfully by Oscar Issac, is a struggling folk singer who has recently lost his friend and partner in music to suicide. Llewyn, who is constantly struggling to land on his feet - having no apartment, no money, no source of income - is waiting for something to happen to his career. However, very much like Waiting for Godot, the actions he takes himself are all an illusion in order to make the waiting and the trying mean something. At the end, when the audience realizes its for not,  that this struggling character that we love/hate/feel ambivalent about returns to where he began with no change in character, we see that rather than evolving he just revolves around in the same purgatory and will continue to do so whether we choose to watch or not. 

The reason why I mention previous Coen brothers movies is that if you're expecting another Fargo or Big Lebowski, this is far from it. Not to say you won't enjoy it. Inside Llewyn Davis lacks the fantastical, biting, sarcastic, dark humor, bureaucratic insanity typical of their earlier stories and characters. Like Heller's Catch-22, the moment where humor is found in the absurdity makes the message even more poignant. Their new films are an extension of this. Rather than focusing on the fantastical, they delve into the reality of the situation. They grasp the character in all their struggle and don't pretty it up for anyone. They part from the absurdist, Heller-esque, Joseph K, sense of storytelling and delve into a more idiosyncratic modernism inspired from the classics. This can be seen in No Country for Old Men - the aging officer fighting off time and the killer trying to control time. 

Inside Llewyn Davis can be recognized in the same way. The character is real, he's not a caricature like  H.I . McDonnough or Barton Fink. They don't rely on allegorical characters like Leonard Smalls or Bunny Lebowski. They focus on the real, the gruesome, the truth. Llewyn Davis is a selfish guy who strives to do better but falls back on old habits. The cyclical nature of the film contributes to this unending cycle and instead of changing or learning or living or dying he continues to wait in this purgatory of being. 

Overall, the performances and music were intriguing and made you want to see more and know more about this character who seems not worthy of our attention, who you root for against everything he does, not because he's redeemable or will be redeemed but because he wants to be redeemed and knows he never will be. Inside Llewyn Davis is not for the classic Coen brothers lover, but rather for someone who wants to see their evolution of telling a story and creating a character. 

American Hustle

Dir. David O. Russell

USA, 2013

Part of the Academy Awards nominees, Russell's "American Hustle" is an interesting study in character development through the lens of film. Russell reuses actors he's previously worked with to drive forward a loosely based plot of the Abscam scandal of the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Featuring actors such as Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence and Jeremy Renner, the film takes us back to permed hairdos and disco days. While both comedic and dramatic in various parts, and including cameos of famous comedians such as Louis C.K., the plot mainly focuses on the interactions of the characters and the illusions they create for each other. 

While some reviews have dug into Russell for not focusing the story more on the Abscam scandal itself, the plot is merely a means to an end to focus on the charactes created and imagined by Russell and his troupe. The focus of characterization can be seen evidently throughout the film from the first frame to the last, while the plot is more of a macguffin. 

The film begins with one of these in depth character studies. Christian Bale's character, having gotten dressed and ready to go for the "performance of a lifetime" goes for the final piece. He begins to comb his hair onto the blaring bald spot in the middle of his head. Greasy and elaborate, he works a mass of hair toupee into the bits of real hair surrounding it. He gloss it over with serum and continues to work at his masterpiece. Having gotten it into place he takes one final look at it. This action takes place on screen for about three minutes. After an altercation between his character and Cooper's in the fifth minute, Cooper destroys his hard work with one shove of his palm to Bale's head. The illusion is shattered and while the audience laughs at the interaction, we see for the first time the consequences of the truth. As Bale's character later says in the film, we con ourselves everyday to believe something about ourselves that isn't true, but because you want it to be true you let the illusion go on. This theme of illusion and the con of ones own self esteem can be seen throughout the film as a part of the development of each of these characters.

While Bale deludes himself into a comb over, Adams' character tricks herself into being able to be worthy of love. Having previously been a stripper, she changes her circumstances when she meets Bale's character. While she knows he has a family and a wife he'll never leave, she forces herself into believing that one day he will. When this illusion is threatened by Cooper's character arresting her, her world is turned upside down. 

Cooper's character as the FBI agent, cons himself the most. Trying to live as an important cog in the machine and aiming for the fame and glory of a whistle blower, he lives with his mother, his bland fiancée and curls his hair each night. Having such lofty dreams ultimately leads to his downfall.

Lawrence, while at first self absorbed, egotistical and spiteful, the audience soon realizes her self concern is out of self preservation and survival in the only way she knows how, to use men. 

The only character true to himself is Renner's corrupt mayor. While he does accept money from unsavory characters he only does so to revive his town. He never pockets it for himself and is ultimately devoted to his family and his job even if that means doing illegal things. This honesty with himself is what leads to Bale's characters hesitation toward betraying his trust.

While the characterization is based in the illusion of truth, there are also moments of truth in the illusion. Whenever Bale's character takes off his tinted glasses he ultimately becomes honest with the person he's interacting with. He puts aside the facade if only for a few minutes to be real, to not hide behind his lies. This can be seen at times with his interactions with Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner. 

Overall, Russell's "American Hustle" is a case study in character development. David O. Russell continues to delve into the characters he creates, and this film is no different. If you want to watch five every different characters come to realize truths about themselves as well as the consequences of their lies, this is the movie for you. If you're looking for a plot driven piece, I suggest you look elsewhere.

Blue Jasmine

Dir. Woody Allen

USA, 2013

Woody Allen's newest cinematic exploration of the human condition, Blue Jasmine, is a comedic, poignant, dark and disturbingly funny look into the female psyche. With Cate Blanchett and Sally Hawkins leading the film, Allen has taken in interesting turn with this film.

Based off of the Tennessee Williams play, "A Streetcar Named Desire", Blanchett plays a modern day Blanche DuBois with Hawkins as the spiritually beaten, Stella. While in the original play, Williams focuses on the breakdown of DuBois from her rape by Stanley Kowalski, her brother in law, Allen rewrites the classic tale to feature DuBois' breakdown to be caused by her own hand. While this loose adaptation may seem a disservice to the original play for some, I believe it's a brilliant evolution of the characters reinvented for the modern day that we live in.

Blanchett's portrayal of Jasmine's fragility, vanity, self grandeur and the delusion therein, is marked by an unaware sense of comedy and depressing truth. The writing and order of the scenes, filled with flashbacks, recreates the memories in Jasmines mind and throws the audience into her one sided conversation with herself. While she mumbles her response to these memories, confusing anyone around her in these moments, she gives the audience an insight to her internal monologue. This creates many laughable yet sad moments for the character as we watch her descend into madness, not a long fall for someone so obsessed with their own false delusions.

Hawkins plays Jasmines sister, Ginger, perfectly. Wanting her to find her own footing and relinquish her ties to her boyfriend, Bobby Cannavale, her sister, and her ex-husband, Andrew Dice Clay, we root for her to find her independence. When she finds a lover in Louis C.K., who was made for Woody Allen films, we cheer her on and cry with her when he is found out. Hawkins quiet and people pleasing demeanor is found in her characters actions and dialogue. 

The minor characters are all well cast and provide a levity to the film that might otherwise have been lost. Andrew Dice Clay, Bobby Cannavale, Louis C.K. and Alec Baldwin are all superb in their roles, and at time I wish they were featured more. However, the story is of the relationship of the sisters, and Jasmines ultimate breakdown which can be seen as the main focus for all the interactions. One aspect of the film that didn't agree with me quite as well was the convenience of Peter Sarsgaard's character. Like a white knight, he swoops up the plot line and gives Jasmine her last chance at happiness which she botches by her own actions. While such a character is needed for the extra push of Jasmine into insanity, it seemed all a little too easy. What would have been even more interesting, at least in this viewers mind, would be if he was imagined by Jasmine as a last ditch attempt to save her sanity. 

While not in the typical Woody Allen vein of writing, Blue Jasmine is a perfect tangent to Allen's main film discourse. While funny and typically neurotic at points, the deeper motifs of sisters and sanity reminds us of the underbelly of all comedy, truth. Blue Jasmine is definitely a worth while watch for any and all Woody Allen lovers as well as those who want a character study with a funny and honest backbone.

Un Chien Andalou

Dir. Luis Buenel
France, 1929

Probably the best cinematic example of surrealism, Un Chien Andalou (The Andalusian Dog) is disturbing, non-linear, and odd, to say the least. The best example of its eccentricity can be seen within the first five minutes of the film. A man, who is looking at the moon while a cloud cuts across it, takes a razor blade to a woman's eye and cuts it lengthwise. Considered to be one of the most perturbing scenes in film history, it was accomplished by slicing the eye of a cow. This visceral mirroring of images: the cloud cutting the moon and the razor cutting the eye, sets the film up for visual symbolism, gut-wrenching action, and backwards logic.

Having been written by Luis Buenel and Salvador Dali, the tone of the film straddles two minds fighting over control. Many of the vignettes were Buenel's brain children and under his direction; however, Dali claimed the work as his own and left out Buenel's major contributions. This caused a rift between the two to form, since Dali was the more well-known of the two and was able to claim his coworkers contributions as his own.

While only sixteen minutes long, the surrealistic overtones are quite apparent. The storyline, which is pretty non-linear, consists of short scenes that use euphemisms as imagery. At one point in the film a woman looks to her palm and finds ants crawling out of the center. While an eerie and disturbing visual, the French saying, "sentir fourmis" (to feel ants) corresponds with this visual. Many of the other short vignettes include symbolic, literal translations of ideas and portray them throughout the film. However, not everything in the film has a meaning. It is the watchers responsibility to search for meaning when it is there and to perceive the spectacle when there is none.

While many of Dali and Buenel's scenes are surrealistic, many of the ideas originated from everyday occurrences. The two would get their inspiration from their dreams. Dali was even known to sit in front of a blank canvas with a bell in his hand. When he would drift off to sleep he would drop the bell, waking himself, and would paint whatever he dreamt.

Un Chien Andalou is an important piece of cinematic history. It was the first time that a non-linear storyline was used as well as surrealism in film. It continued to shock, awe, and confuse audiences throughout time. David Bowie would play the film before his performances on his "Station to Station" tour. Un Chien Andalou is still shown today in film classes all over the world. The eye cutting scene still carries the same visceral reaction it did eighty years ago. Definitely a vital piece of film evolution, Un Chien Andalou is something you will not want to miss.

Mulholland Drive

David Lynch
USA, 2001

Initially a television spin-off of Lynch's Twin Peaks, Mulholland Drive grew to have a life of its own after several re-writes over a series of years. Starring Naomi Watts, Laura Harring, Justin Theroux, and others, the initial script was supposed to rocket Sherilyn Fenn (Audrey Horne on Twin Peaks) into super stardom. However, after the abrupt cancellation of Twin Peaks (as evidenced by the quick and disappointing final episode) and several years of trying to write the pilot for this new series, Lynch bagged the episodic idea and focused on making the piece a full-length feature. Because of this swift change, the film has a characteristic splintered nature that defines the whole of it as "Lynchian".

The film begins with the attempted hit of a rising star (Laura Harring) on the title bearing, Mulholland Drive. The hit fails because of a car accident, and the actress awakes in the damaged vehicle with no memory of who she is. After wandering the streets of Los Angeles, she finds an older woman moving out of her apartment. Harring sneaks in and makes herself at home.

Meanwhile, a young wannabe actress, Watts, arrives in LA with dreams of making it big in film. She moves into her Aunt's apartment, where Harring has made her home, and Watts discovers the strange, amnesiac woman. She decides to help Harring discover who she is, and why someone would try to kill her.

As they attempt to solve the mystery, the storyline then follows a young director, Theroux, being pressured by a higher ups who wants to manage his film. While attempting to subvert them, he finds that they have more power in the industry then previously realized. He meets Watts' character at an audition and seems to fall in love with her. Watts leaves to go help Harring with her identity search. This is where the film takes an even more bizarre turn to the realistic from the surrealistic storyline.

Like other Lynch films (see Blue Velvet in previous post), Lynch's main purpose is to foil the pristine, innocent, goodness of one world to the dark, menacing, murderous machinations of the other. This polarity highlights the differences between the two and serves to illustrate his ultimate objective to expose the real for what it truly is. Lynch accomplishes this matching of moralities abruptly. The entire first hour and a half follows the purity and goodness of Watts relationship with Harring. He shows the honesty, caring, and ultimate love between the two that is founded out of goodness. The other plot points: the man in the diner, the director trying to gain control of his film, the mysterious cowboy, the aging actress who is now a landlord, are all unnecessary comedic bits, until the realistic and harsh second half is revealed. These plot points than make sense within the context of the first half because they are deemed necessary in the second. By connecting the two different versions of each characters lives in the first world and then the other, the audience comes to understand and see the whole picture, and Lynch's objective is completed. While there are varying opinions as to the meaning of the ending of Mulholland Drive, one statement remains true. While Lynch's idealistic, surreal, and bizarre world is what we're lead to believe; the truth can be found in the rawness of reality.

While some criticize Mulholland Drive for its heavy handedness, schism driven plot, and confusing nature, it is a wonderful example of Lynch's constant attempts to draw the line between the polarity of good and evil. This film is definitely a worthy introduction to Lynch's filmmaking and storytelling. For those wishing to watch the absurd, the sometimes corny, and the sometimes horrifying, Mulholland Drive is your film.

8 1/2

Federico Fellini
Italy, 1963

A constant in the filmmaking canon, 8 1/2 is considered to be the most famous of Italian films. This is due in part to the director, Fellini, an auteur of Italian culture and purveyor of cinematic storytelling who captured the complexities of Italy post World War Two. The other factor is the films autobiographical nature (see Vertigo and Adaptation) which is even recognized in the title (8 1/2 is the number of films Fellini had made including this film and a short).

8 1/2 tends to be the cinematographic segue way for most film students. While it contains complex shots, splintered story telling, and action based subtext, unlike it's American counterparts at the time, it is still much more approachable and understandable when compared to a Godard or Bergman epic. To put it bluntly, 8 1/2 is the entry level version of Film as Art, which is why it makes the top of almost every cinephiles list.

The plot, as mentioned above, is quite biographical. Marcello Mastroianni's character, Anselmi, is in a deep creative rut since his last successful film. While he vacations to brainstorm his next film, he is plagued by producers, want to be actresses, his mistress, and his wife. He ultimately finds solace in his memories and his fantasies. The cast includes Mastroianni, Fellini's usual actor to portray himself as well as Anouk Aimee, Claudia Cardinale, and Sandra Milo. The actors are flawless in their portrayal of the real as well as the imaginary.

8 1/2 is most definitely worth a watch. Whether you are a veteran of cinematic study or a wanna be film learner, 8 1/2 is always entertaining and gives you something new.

Me and You and Everyone We Know

Dir. Miranda July
USA, 2005

Eccentric and endearing, Miranda July's feature film debut, Me and You and Everyone We Know, tugs at the emotional and artistic heart strings. July, a performance artist, musician, writer, and filmmaker puts her own autobiographical spin on the story of human connection.

The plot lines follows the different experiences of several people in a city trying to make a connection in the world. July's character, a struggling performance artist, takes in the experiences around her and searches for the meaningful aspects of life. Richard, played by the talented John Hawkes, is a shoe salesman going through a messy divorce and trying to reconnect with his sons. The film is filled with vignettes of different characters and their interaction with each other. While not the most exciting or climactic piece, July's writing provides for some intriguing and emotional character studies and idiosyncratic drama.

Definitely a worthwhile watch for those who like a quietly good indie film or the mumblecore genre. While the plot lines only slightly evolve, the true enjoyment is found in the character development and quirky, cock-eyed optimistic themes in the film. If you like her work, you should also try her series of short stories, "No One Belongs Here More Than You".

Vertigo

Dir. Alfred Hitchcock
USA, 1958

Considered to be Hitchcock's magnum opus, Vertigo was initially a dud at the box office. The storyline, a retired detective, Jimmy Stewart, is asked by a friend to spy on the possible paranormal happenings of said friend's wife, Kim Novak, which leads to Stewart's character becoming obsessed with her, was not well received by the audience or the critics. Because of such disdain for the film, Hitchcock refused to work with Stewart ever again, citing his age as the reason for the audiences dislike. However, as years passed, Vertigo received a second look and became the epitome of all of Hitchcock's work.

Vertigo is by far my favorite film of Hitchcock's. Perhaps it is my adoration for James Stewart as an actor or perhaps it is due to all of the drama behind the film. Initially, Vera Miles was supposed to play the character of Madeline, however, due to her pregnancy, she had to drop out last minute, forcing Hitchcock to cast Kim Novak. Novak was not so understanding of Hitchcock's controlling nature and butted heads with him at each possible moment. She complained about her costume, her hair, every last detail, which drove Hitchcock crazy. Even Edith Head, head costume designer for many of Hitchcock's films, reeled at the absurdity and conflict within each scene between the director and the actress. No one is sure if it was Hitchcock or Novak who decided to not work with the other again, but it was probably for the best.

Although, there is all of this going on behind the scenes of Vertigo, the true reason for my mesmerization of the film is due to the autobiographical nature of the Stewart's character. Like many writer/director/auteurs, Hitchcock was obsessive in his control of what the audience saw, how the actors were portrayed, how the camera was tilted, everything from writing to post production. This is quite common for most filmmakers who fill so many different roles in order to gain control of the finished product. Yet, Hitchcock's control didn't stop there. He became infatuated, lustful, and obsessed with each and every one of his lead actresses. From sending look alike dolls of Tippi Hedren to her daughter, Melanie Griffith, or detailing head to toe how Grace Kelly should be dressed, he delved into their lives in the most personal of ways. Stewart's character becomes the same sort of obsessive man in Vertigo. He becomes intrigued by the mysteries of Madeline, to the point where he loses all sense of reason to try and bring her back. The portrayal of the character is haunting and mesmerizing. Perhaps, one of the best acting jobs by the stammering Stewart I've ever witnessed. Definitely, a worthwhile watch for a Stewart or Hitchcock fan. Vertigo is one of the lost masterpieces, and to think, what lurks behind the camera is the character in carnate himself, Mr. Hitchcock.

Tiny Furniture

Dir. Lena Dunham
USA, 2010

Lena Dunham's premiere work has been said to be the debut of her authorial style, and while I agree that her style is quirky, mumbling witticisms, the overall plot of "Tiny Furniture" leaves something to be desired.

The story focuses on a young, newly graduated girl returning from four years at college to a home full of rules and responsibilities. Getting over a recent heartbreak, Aura (Lena Dunham) tries to figure out her new, post grad life.

To call the piece autobiographical would be most likely a gross understatement since her family in real life plays her family in the film as well as her friends. While I agree that a modernized "The Graduate" is well needed to portray this new generation's struggle with a post-academia lifestyle, Dunham's film barely scratches the surface of the existential anxieties of a graduate.

"Tiny Furniture" is a great lesson in dialogue. It's honest, real and quietly funny. Dunham is a fantastic dialogist. The plot was lackluster. I understood that there was a brevity wanted In the actions of the film, but that prods the question of why should an audience watch it? Yes, post graduate life is not the end all, be all; yet, for someone in that situation, it is. So, ideally, Aura's stakes should have meant everything to her, the plot, and the audience. Instead, Dunham focuses on the arguments between mother and daughter and sister and sister, not on responsibility and a loss of belonging, but on material possessions like food and wine. Perhaps these material possessions were to represent these abstract issues, but the connection was not strong enough.

Since the plot dealt with such trivialities as the main focus, my sympathy for the characters was at a loss. Aura is self-centered, selfish, needy and entitled. This might be a comment on the upcoming generation; however, I found it made her less likable as a character. Her mother even acknowledges her entitlement when talking to her friend Charlotte. Yet, that's reeled in as a joke and never comes up again.

Aura's naïveté as a character made her seem grossly immature. When Jed gets angry at Aura for kicking him out after letting him spend the week, she blames it on her mother. She then apologizes instead of berating him for his ungratefulness. The same "door mat" quality appears when she has sex with the chef, and he then tries to hide her from his girlfriend. Perhaps, it is because of her previous, young relationship and that she hasn't experienced such relationships yet; however, with her attitude of entitlement and selfishness this other layer of a lack of self worth is unfounded.

Overall, "Tiny Furniture" is a nice study in dialogue and debut filmmaking, but the character development and plot line are chaotic and confusing.

Videodrome

Dir. David Cronenberg
USA, 1983

The 80s were an unusual time in cinematic history. Filled with everything from teen rom-coms to thriller dystopias and gory slasher flicks, it was an interesting time for the American audience. One film that personifies this weirdness in cinematic time is Videodrome. Not for the faint of heart, Videodrome explores the snuff and smut film world and a disturbing producer looking for the next horrific fad. The subject of the film gets even weirder when he ends up finding this unaired channel called Videodrome, which contains 24 hour live shows of people being killed in a sexual manner. It ends up (spoiler alert) that Videodrome gives, anyone who watches it, horrible hallucinations and tumors in their brain.

Filled with an unlikely cast: James Woods, Deborah Harry, Jack Cresley and Leslie Carlson, Videodrome explores the hyper intensity of violence in the media and the future of technology as we know it. A disturbingly erotic film, Videodrome goes above and beyond its message to heavily hand the audience graphic images not easily erased from the brain. Perhaps the film, Videodrome, is trying to imitate the graphic hallucinations of the said "Videodrome" in the movie; however, the fleshy and grotesque images pictured leave the audience with a disturbed and dirty feeling.

Within the film, Woods and Harry's characters explore the masochistic side of sex as well as the sadistic side. This can be seen in the way Harry's character burns herself with a cigarette post coitally. This is then gruesomely amplified when Woods' character is taken over by the hallucinations of Videodrome and his stomach turns into a giant fleshy vagina. With this "new opening" he is tortured by those around him when they insert videos into him to "reprogram" him. The metaphor is superbly heavy handed, and in some way, I found it insulting to the female organ. Yes, I understand, that they are mentally and emotionally raping him, but the use of a "stomach vagina" seemed unthought out and crass.

Overall, the film is one of the weirdest I've seen, and that includes the international spectrum. Although the film has the potential to be an interesting social commentary, the heavy handedness of the message (which is particular to the 80s) is too much to bear. Because of the overbearing images and motifs, the film becomes crass, corny, and absurd (and not in the good way).

Argo

Dir. Ben Affleck

USA, 2012

Recently released this fall, Argo is the well tailored story of American fugitives trying to escape from a falling Iran. Having received spectacular reviews and well numbered audiences, Affleck's historical biopic encounters drama and history with a sense of fantastic storytelling and political grace.

The script is well written, and like many other historical stories, the truth is stranger than fiction. The film has A-list stars of Alan Arkin (Wait Until Dark and Little Miss Sunshine) and John Goodman (The Big Lebowski) to Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad). The script is humorous while still maintaining its integrity to the plot, and the entire execution of the film is believable while still entertaining a tension of suspense.

What really intrigued me is the history lesson at the beginning of the film. When explaining the background of the rise and fall of the republic in Iran, all the while using storyboards (fits with the plot), Affleck makes sure to include the US's role in the destruction of hope in Iran. Having put their political hand where it did not belong, the US obliterated Iran's potential for peace in the 1970s. Including this background in the film, Affleck gives the reason for the Iranians anger at the US. Rather than portray the country as a generalization, Affleck gives the Iranian people a character all their own. In this day and age of politics, this film could have been a straight forward example of American propaganda. However, with Affleck's direction, Argo is a film with a message of international peace and cooperation. It shows what can be accomplished when countries rally together.

I believe Argo is a well executed, entertaining film of fact. I truly enjoyed the characters, the story and the overall tone of the film. Yet, what I really found the most uplifting was the message of international cooperation embedded in the film. For those of you out there who enjoy a good story as well as a world worthy message, Argo is for you.

The Seventh Seal

Dir. Ingmar Bergman

Sweden, 1957

            The Seventh Seal is one of Bergman’s personal favorites. Perhaps because it draws from his own religious background, his father was a clergyman, or maybe because it in some way delves into his own internal search for God. Either way, the film is a masterpiece.

            The storyline follows a knight, played by Max Von Sydow, returning from the horrors of the crusades. He finds a plague has killed most of his countrymen, and he searches for the truth about what he was fighting for. While searching he begins to play a game of chess with death incarnate. Death wants to take the knight as his own, but only if he wins the game.

            Bergman confronts the existential motif with an incredible lightness. Where most directors might use a heavy-handed imagery based focus on this theme, Bergman is able to establish its presence without delving too much into the muck of the subject. He accomplishes this task by intertwining the story with the lives of others. Parts of the film are dedicated to the traveling band of actors trying to use their religious plays for good, while escaping the destruction of the plague. These actors, played by Bibi Andersson and Nils Poppe, provide a humor and a different look at the situation at hand compared to the heaviness of Von Sydow’s character.

            The Seventh Seal is considered to be a classic film by a masterful director. The performances are profound and spellbinding. However, in order to watch, one must be patient and in the mood for something a little heavy on the mind. If you’re not prepared to watch something of this magnitude; you will not enjoy it. Yet, if you are ready for something of this stature; it is a film to be enjoyed and thought over.

Blue Velvet

Dir. David Lynch

USA, 1986

            To state that Blue Velvet is one of my favorite films would be an understatement. Lynch’s authorial stamp, the polarization of the purely innocent and the grotesquely dark that resides beneath, is perfectly exampled in Blue Velvet. With an all-star cast including Kyle MacLachlan, Isabella Rosselini, Laura Dern and Dennis Hopper as well as a spectacularly written and executed script, this film covers all the bases.

            When someone tells me they don’t like a David Lynch film I usually come to one of two conclusions: they didn’t have the attention span to sit through it, or they don’t understand Lynch’s intentions. The whole concept of each and every Lynch film is the foiling of the good versus bad paradigm. The characters that represent innocence and purity are extra innocent and pure, almost to the point of corny 1950’s stature. On the other hand, the characters that represent the dark, deranged undertones of the storyline are superbly dark and deranged. By putting these two opposites next to each other, Lynch is able to amplify the effect of their polarization.

            In Blue Velvet, this motif is easily recognized. Good guy Jeffrey Beaumont, played by Kyle MacLachlan, gets roped into an abusive murder mystery when he finds a severed ear. He runs into several sketchy characters: Dorothy Vallens, beautifully portrayed by Isabella Rosselini, and her maniac captor Frank Booth, played by Dennis Hopper. Forced to deal with his newfound insecurity in his own backyard, Beaumont tries to protect the ones he loves but ends up feeling childish by his own heroic attempts.

            What’s truly remarkable is the acting in the film. Laura Dern, who plays the innocent love interest of MacLachlan, has some dialogue that if played by any other actress would be considered insincere and corny. However, the way Dern plays the lines, she convinces the audience that her character fully believes in what she’s saying. There’s no hint of cynicism or an inch of doubt in her acting. This cements the illusion of the purity of her character. The same can be said for Rosselini, MacLachlan and Hopper’s dialogue. They commit to the lines without fear. They trust Lynch as a writer and a director to know the language of the film.

            Blue Velvet is definitely not for the faint of heart; however, it is worth a look into the work of one of the best American directors of the twentieth century. 

Arbitrage

Dir. Nicholas Jarecki

USA, 2012

            Arbitrage was recently released with an all-star cast of Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, and Tim Roth. The plot focuses on a hedge fund magnate who gets himself fiscally and physically in trouble after a car accident that kills his mistress. The storyline promises more than what can be found in the film.

            This is Jarecki’s larger film debut, compared to his penning of “The Informers” and his filming of his short, “The Weight”. Although the script lacks certain components, the performance by Gere, Sarandon, Roth and Brit Marling were fantastic. Where the dialogue lacks or is obtuse, the actors make up for it twofold. However, I wasn’t completely forgiving with the overall production of the film. The dialogue, of course, circulates around the economic terms of Miller’s (Gere’s character) fraud. However, I felt like the jargon of the piece, although necessary, automatically distanced the audience from the characters. At times the dialogue even seemed unreal, for example, the penultimate scene between Gere and Sarandon (which is shown in the trailer leaving the audience with no surprising element). The entirety of the plot rises and falls without the sympathy of the audience. The climax seems more mechanical than realized and is unforgiving to the actors work. I understand that one is not supposed to empathize with Miller; yet, the entire execution is very unsympathetic to the story itself.

            Overall, Jarecki seems to have a promising plotline, with actors who flesh out their characters through their actions and not the dialogue. The details of the script are what is lacking in this film, but perhaps, next time Jarecki will find a story that better suits his writing. 

Gattaca

Dir. Andrew Niccol

USA, 1997

            Gattaca is a sci-fi suspenseful love story set in the not so distant future. At this point in time, science is being used to genetically manufacture perfect babies. For those not scientifically designed, the possibilities of their future become more and more limited. A young man, with dreams of things larger than his DNA, decides to test the system by adopting one of these genetically perfect lifestyles, while his own his said to be plagued by disease and violence. He goes farther than he could have ever imagined, until, a single event throws everything to fate.

            Ethan Hawke plays the protagonist with his love interest, Uma Thurman. The cast also includes Jude Law, Tony Shalhoub, Ernest Borgnine, Alan Arkin and several other noteworthy names including a young Bob Odenkirk in one scene (always a cop). The concept of the film is definitely intriguing. The possibilities of science have outgrown mankind itself, and the results are a eugenically cleansed future. The performances are subtle, as they should be considering the scripts premise, but nothing stellar. The script itself is interesting but nothing to call home about. The suspense draws you in, while the love story, initially endearing, falls into corny, 90’s bad one-liners. The implications of the film are also somewhat befuddling. Jude Law’s character, who because of a past injury, is used for his genetic identity, is depressing; a well-done performance, but is ultimately overshadowed by the story itself. His character battles with his own inability to live to his potential and has suicidal tendencies because of this. This would’ve been a more interesting plotline, but, unfortunately, Niccol gets side tracked with the lackluster love story. Gattaca promises to be a story of identity, but falls into the cheese of a bad romance.

            Overall, an interesting concept with infinite possibilities; however, the story lines falls hopelessly into it’s own 90’s-ness. 

The Fugitive, Davis 1993

            Andrew Davis’ updated film version of the popular television show is what an action movie is meant to be. The combination of a fantastic storyline, constant twists and turns with the action, and believably likeable characters makes this piece enjoyable as well as thought-provoking.

            The story focuses on a young, upcoming doctor whose wife is murdered one night. After being charged wrongfully for the death of his wife, Dr. Richard Kimble, played by the impeccable Harrison Ford, escapes from his captors and tries to find his wife’s killer. Tommy Lee Jones plays the bounty hunter who is searching for Kimble while the story unfolds.

            Jones and Ford’s chemistry is spot-on. There is no animosity for Jones’s character as he hunts down Kimble because the audience understands his separation of emotion from profession. There are a couple of interesting character parts: Jane Lynch plays a lab assistant, one of her very first roles, and Julianne Moore as a surgeon. Jeroen Krabbe plays Dr. Nichols, Kimble’s work partner. Not to ruin a plot point, but Nichols looks eerily similar to Mitt Romney. They even have the same stance on healthcare.

            Overall, the story carries the action through the film and really adds to the viewing pleasure. Some action movies rely too heavily on the WHAMBAM of the explosions and shock value. “The Fugitive” amalgamates the perfect amounts of story and suspense which creates an intriguing film.