A Man in the Water

To preface this entry, I have found myself perplexed and amazed for the past couple of hours. I sit down this little netbook, and the meaning of A Single Man (2010) I have taken away is still in my mind. “A happy death comes when you are content with life.” I sit here, and I think it over in my mind. It seems romanticized, and I admit that I find myself flattered by such notions of noble lives and deaths. For when it is when we live and pass on by such standards, I believe that we truly live what we have been given.

                As per the assignment, I have looked over a review of Tom Ford’s A Single Man. Maryann Johanson , a self claimed “Flick Filosopher”, writes to the exact contrary of what Susan Sontag writes in her paper, “Against Interpretation”. Johanson writes that even though the film is visually engaging, it lacks anything else. She states that it lacks story and character and that the film fails to utilize the “…more than capable star”. Essentially, Johanson immediately comes off having the modern notion of viewing films based on the actors that star in the films and leaves little to no room for broadening her biased interpretive views. Furthermore, Johanson goes on to elaborate the scene where the protagonist and his long time friend (and former sexual partner) spend New Year’s Eve together. She describes of the depravity that the scene has smoking and alcohol to be seen as encouraged of a “pure” decade. Clearly the mescaline reference rolled straight over her head. In addition, she limits the review to only the plot and pairings of actors and how well they mesh. In short, NO, it does not at all go with Sontag’s description of a proper review. Secondly it can be improved by maybe thinking for just a bit longer before going to the keyboard and limiting oneself to modern criticism of what comes off to be a visually engaging film. (The link to the review is below)

                With this being said, I shall take my best attempt to begin solving the 1000 piece puzzle that lies within the film’s structure. Ford really drove home the use of camera angles as a means to communicate emotion, and points of intrigue and desire to the audience. Ford primarialy uses medium close-up shots to limit our range of vision and distraction to see exactly the looks of the characters on screen. This is prevalent in all of the conversations in the film. Among what I noticed with the conversations, is that most of them were not shot for shot. These shots were also selectively focused, for most of the background items during long periods of conversation and when Ford wanted us to see the characters in the foreground, he would only focus on them, leaving all else blurred.

                In short, by using these forms of camera angles, Ford restricts us to what he wants us to see and interpret, no matter how uncomfortable we get.

Psycho Blog Assignment

(WARNING: I have no filter on my own personal opinions, if this seems cold, well, I’m sorry.)

Greetings everyone, and welcome to the blog! Today, I’m going to have a powwow over Psycho. Now, the cool part about this particular film is that more than just one enigma is introduced. I shall be discussing the clue game based one and ask myself, “Did the mother kill Miriam?” Now in the famous stabbing in the shower scene, as posted below to refresh our memories, we see Miriam enjoying a nice shower after a hard day’s work of being a grand larcenist. However, after a bunch of switchbacks to the showerhead and her, we see the door open to reveal that there is a figure walking into the room, with particular focus on being that their face is hidden. Miriam, whom is obviously oblivious to the fact there is a dark, ominous figure in her presence, just keeps on going with her shower. Cuing the infamous, “eek eek eek”, and the stab fest begins! With fast transitions and making REAL sure that the face of her killer is not seen, Miriam is sliced up more than the Thanksgiving Turkey. Hitchcock was enough of a gentleman not to show all of the nasty wounds on Janet Leigh’s body that evening. (And just as a side note, Gus Van Sant decided to include the nasties, and if he paid any attention to continuity, the stabs were generally in the neighborhood of a downward motion, and not trying to gut her like a fish) The scene ends with the momma killer leaving and poor Miriam clinging onto to her last hope, she reaches out her arm, and latches onto the curtain and plops over the side of the tub. (I dunno why Hitchcock decided to show her like that over the tub, but ok.)

Then we must discuss the use of a delay in the film as well. We shall be using the scene where Miriam’s sister, Lila, discovers the room where Norman Bates’s  mother was once in. Looking around, she finds a wardrobe, with night gowns that seem a little large for a little old lady to be wearing. (My, grandma, what big hands you have!) There is also a serious and I mean SERIOUS imprint of where someone has been sleeping for a very long time. (My, grandma, what big legs you have!) This is as the Hermeneutic Code would classify it, a partial answer. This takes out the idea that it seriously could be the mother who’s been going blood lustily happy with the knife. Then cue the disclosure. 

Now, as to whether or not this is a readerly or writerly text? The question lies within the context of the film versus the film itself. We must consider the fact that many restrictions were lifted right when Psycho came out, I mean common, and you can’t show the commode?  With that many restrictions lifted, Hitchcock was able to influence us using more liberal methods. By using suspense and leaving the messed up idea of the Oedipiean notion of life in our minds at the end of the film. It leaves us with a bit more of readerly text TODAY. In their day, (60’s) this thing was as writely text as loud as I can beat my drum. People were not accustomed to slasher flicks and probably ask after the film, what would compel a man to go around stabbing folks about.

Full Metal Jacket Blog Assignment

Please note: The Citation and link to the blog are below the assignment

A Critique of a Film Review: Full Metal Jacket- 16mm Shrine 1-16-11- Kevin Brown

                Upon my searching for various reviews for the assigned movie, I came across this independent blog about the assigned movie. The tagline of the site was, “An examination, exploration, and celebration of what drives society to create things like Rocky and expect us to watch them. God, I hate movies. And now you will too.” (16 mm Shrine). This tickled my fancy, and I decided to give this particular review a shot.

                Upon my first reading it gave the generalized short plot analysis, with specific interest in what made the film popular, the dialogue. Then, the review began insulting and praising Kubrick for being able to cater the movie to both “mentally capable individuals” and student athletes. The Author of the blog, Ash Karreau, then writes that the film could be understood by young adults whom like NASCAR.

                However, the film review lacked substance in the manner of having anything to do with the director’s style, the general themes of the movie, and the use of any kind of metaphor (which mind you, I am rather particular on). I also found the review quite bland as this reviewer also saw nothing more to the film than useless homosexual jokes and the constant references to young men.

                As a final note, the reviewer did point out a few key elements to the movie, otherwise left unnoticed, such as his comment on how both parts of the film mirror one another which gives the film some meaning. The reviewer also includes a photograph of a group of men standing with Wonder Woman behind a stock car, illustrating the fact that the film is best intended to young males whom are not able to comprehend anything that watch NASCAR. Mr. Karreau is mistaken in this again, and should have a double take of the movie.

http://16mmshrine.blogspot.com/2007/04/full-metal-handjob.html