Category: Uncategorized

While watching Do the Right Thing, I could not stop thinking about 2020 because the film feels uncannily ahead of its time. So, for my search post, I knew I wanted to find articles from 2020 that referenced this film. While reading articles, I looked at a 2020 New York Times article about the film’s continued relevance. What makes this article so interesting for me is that it argues the film still feels urgent because the issues it depicts have not been resolved decades later. Rather than feeling outdated, the film reflects patterns that continue to repeat themselves. 

This idea connects directly to the film’s ending, which presents two conflicting quotes: one from MLK condemning violence as immoral and destructive, and one from Malcom X defending violence as a form of self-defense. Instead of giving the audience a clear answer, Spike Lee places these perspectives side by side, making us sit with the ambiguity of what the “right thing” actually is. Personally, I found myself aligning more with King’s perspective, especially when thinking about the destruction of Sal’s pizzeria. To me, it was a family business that served the neighborhood for years, and its destruction felt unjustified, even in the context of the anger that followed Radio Raheem’s death.

However, what the film and article pushed me to consider is how my attention shifted towards the destruction of property rather than the killing that caused it. This is where I think the film becomes especially powerful. I still do not agree with the riot in this context, because the destruction of Sal’s restaurant gives people a way to redirect their attention from Radio Raheem’s unjust killing to the violence of the crowd. Instead of focusing on why the anger erupted, the blame can be shifted onto the crowd. Spike Lee seems aware of this danger, which is why the ending feels so open-ended. 

This tension becomes even clearer in the final interaction between Mookie and Sal. Earlier in the film, Sal tells Mookie, “You’re like a son to me,” showing their relationship is beyond work. But the next morning, their interaction revolves almost entirely around money. Mookie returns to the pizzeria after the riot and asks Sal for the $250 he believes he is owed. Sal responds by giving him $500, and when Mookie tries to return part of it, the money falls to the ground, but Mookie eventually picks it up. What makes this moment so powerful is how it reduces a relationship that once established as personal to a financial exchange. After Radio Raheem’s death and the destruction of the store, there is no real emotional resolution, only a tense negotiation over what is owed. 

Their last exchange is what made me choose this article. It helped me see that this film is not just ahead of its time because it depicts racial violence, but because it understands how people respond to violence. Even after the tragic death, the conversation quickly turns to payment, property, and blame. The crumpled money on the ground symbolized that shift. What should be a moment centered around grief becomes one about economics. I think that is part of why this film is so moving. It does not give the viewers a “black and white” choice. I may disagree with the destruction of Sal’s Pizzaeria, but the article forced me to ask why I instinctively focused on the burned building instead of the man. With that perspective, Spike Lee is not only asking what the “right thing” is. He is also asking what our reactions and moral subconscious reveal about us. I typically like to end my blog with a question, and one seemed particularly prevalent while I was writing this. 

**If our first instinct is to focus on the destruction of property rather than the loss of life, does that reveal that society still values order and ownership more than justice?**

Resource Link: Q&A: Leos Carax Explains ‘Holy Motors’ and Why He Wants to Make a Superhero Movie

Not to sound omniscient, but I fullheartidly believe the first-hand account of “authorial expressivity” that Bordwell defines as a cornerstoen of the art cinema is a worthwhile reason as to why any student would find the inveriew with Leos Carax so fascinating.

Carax is unkind to the inverview process, and his reluctance to provide clear-cut answers makes the resource unusual; he explicitly states that he mostly doesnt submit to talking about his work. This resistance is not just a personality trait but acts as a formal extension of the film’s ambiguity, reinforcing Bordwell’s claim that art cinema encourages viewers to read for such “max ambiguity” rather than searching for a one true meaning.

Additionally in the interview, the film’s cinematography and technology is impossible to ignore. Carax discusses his use of digital cameras, a technology he claims to “despise” but uses as a tool to explore an “increasingly virtual world” where real experiences and actions are gradually disappearing. In terms of themes, it is worth it to mention the “extinction” of visible machines is reflected in the film’s mise-en-scene, specifically on the “showy and tacky” sketch that serves as the “motor” of the action.

Furthermore, I want to enrich this discussion by describing Carax and his protagonist of his story, Oscar, as a shadowy character who journeys from one life to the next, this all aligns with the psycholoigical realism of the film art, where characters are seen to often dirft or lack defined desires or goals.

By attempting to have a whole range of human experiences in a day without using flashbacks or classical structures as pointed out in the interview (“indiefilms.com”), Carax pushes the boundaries of the medium towards the “willfully nonconformist” nature of experimental film.

Ultimately it can be said that this resource is an essential look at how artists work within art cinema mode of practice to actively challenge viewer expectations and prioritize “the beauty of the act” over narrative closure!

“What?” That’s all I was able to say before, during, and after watching Holy Motors. I was lost the entire time, and in the moments when I thought I understood what was happening, the film went in a completely new direction. Rather than having a singular plot, I viewed the film as more of a compilation of different stories combined into one. Mr. Oscar takes on the roles of many individuals, such as a gangster, a band member, a homeless man, and many more. The film does a phenomenal job of going against mainstream aspects of cinema, providing a confusing but undeniably unique experience for both me and my classmates.

I viewed the film’s message as the loss of one’s identity and sense of reality. I came to this conclusion because, even while watching the film, I began to question my own life and reality (yes, I was that confused). I developed this interpretation due to the constant stream of “appointments” Oscar attended, each one requiring him to become a different character, never allowing the audience to truly understand who he really is. As the film progresses, you can see how Oscar has completely lost himself and become consumed by his work. This is especially evident in his conversation with the Man with the Birthmark, where he explains that he began all of this for the beauty of the act and admits that he misses the nostalgic feeling of the large cameras. He is also upset that this mysterious “audience” no longer believes in the authenticity of his work, despite the fact that it is all he is and everything he dedicates his life to through these ever-changing roles.

The part that particularly stood out to me was the spontaneous song sung by Jean as she sings about her and Oscar’s past. As she sings, she repeats the words “Who are we,” which again emphasizes the message that they have become so consumed in this fake reality of “appointments” that they have lost their sense of identity and the people who truly meant a lot to them. That is why, before she commits suicide, she takes off the wig and embraces her true identity before she ends it all to escape this distorted reality of appointments and trying to please this unknown audience. This can connect to the world because every day we play these roles, many times to please the ones around us, not embracing our full identity out of fear or judgment, or even feeling like we have to play a role we believe we need to play. I feel like that is also why the film opens with the audience, to show how we are constantly being watched in our day-to-day lives, and we all believe we have this reputation we must uphold, sometimes becoming our own distorted version of reality.

Overall, this film was extremely challenging for me to evaluate because of its non-mainstream approach to filmmaking. However, I believe all the decisions put into the film help portray the idea of identity and reality, expressing that life is one ongoing performance until one embraces their true self. As the audience, we still don’t know who Oscar is, despite the film being almost two hours long; however, this is just my interpretation. My final question is: do you think that we, as people, have become so consumed with trying to please those around us that we can never be our fully authentic selves, or that we are in the process of losing who we truly are?

In reading Chapter 10 of Film Art, I found myself reflecting on the most recent documentary and animated films I have watched. The reading gave me more appreciation for what goes into making these types of films. I wish I could provide a further commentary on experimental film, but I am unfortunately not well-versed enough (excited for next week’s screening, though). Over break, I watched one of the most recent Paul McCartney documentaries, Man on the Run. This documentary is interesting in the fact that it primarily focuses on the formation of McCartney’s second major band, Wings, instead of his time as one of the Fab Four. Of course, elements of his time with his sensational former band, The Beatles, leave a lasting mark on his later career, but it remains in the background.

This particular documentary utilizes the compilation genre, compiling never-before-seen archived media, one of which is videos of the McCartney family in their remote Scottish home. There is no usage of talking-heads; instead, the audio is from voiceover interviews. The audience never sees the physical speaker, but instead an arrangement of photos, videos, or other media. It also employs the use of rhetorical form, particularly viewer-centered arguments, because it heightens viewers’ emotions to form a certain perception of McCartney. One clear example is the film’s depiction of former bandmate John Lennon, contrasting with that of McCartney. Lennon is depicted as going off the deep end and being the one to blame in The Beatles’ breakup, notably from Paul’s perspective. However, McCartney is shown to take the more idyllic approach to coping with his fame. Instead, he starts a family and moves to a quaint and humble farm in the Scottish countryside. This argument style inclines viewers to side with McCartney, an important appeal to him personally, as he was the one the public blamed for many years.

Now, in terms of animated films, the one I most recently watched was one of my personal favorites, the 2010 classic Megamind. This film combines a perfect sense of the anithero and comedy. While marketed as a children’s movie like many animated films, it is nonetheless entertaining for adult audiences.

Megamind utilizes 3D computer imaging, or CGI, creating a 3D world with complex depth in the images. To create smooth movements, animators filmed themselves as the characters for reference when creating the film. I found this video to show a little bit of the references used. There are a few films included in this video, so for Megamind-specific clips, skip to 0:34 and 1:52.

In addition to my post, I recently watched the F1 movie as my close friend have I went on a cruise and it was one of the only thriller screenings on the big screen. I felt connecting my wanting to write better and how interesting the movie made me feel and think is why I’m writing this today.

What I call speed mirage:

When watching, the visceral thrill of the track is relying heavily on the perceptual subjectivity to place the viewer directly in the driver’s seat. The use of mobile frame and POV shots made my deep desire to drive as a modern brainwashed male and sit inside the cockpit. As the cars approach a dangerous corner, the editing employs an accelerated editing pace, making the shots progressively shorter to whip up the spectator’s perception and building excitement. Furthermore I felt this week’s enphasis of technology is pivotol and a must for talking as long as it’s actually important; I felt the IMAX technology that allows films to be projected with no loss of detail, it felt as though the screen and projector in the cruise had no loss of detail, reminiscient of a new samsung or apple product but in a high paced thriller for 3 hours.

The sound mix also plays a crucial role in highlighting the deadly stakes of the sport I was previously unaware of. There was lots of sudden extreme shifts in volume, as what film art calls an sudden change in dynamics, startling the viewer, Joseph Kosinski is showing us the G-force physicality, whilst also using dropouts of diegetic sound often leaving melancholic nondiegetic musical tunes, reflecting and intensifying lethal consequences of the sport rather than just consuming it as mindless entertainment. I also noticed POV and the interplay of intense sound perspective often muffled the outside crowd and enphasized the rawring engines, it sets up the audience for a trap. This mentioned interplay also creates a severely restricted narrative, further limiting the audience’s knowledge of the race to exactly what the driver experiences in a fast tunnel visioned moments.

Ultimately in the context of the film as a whole, the film’s narrative shifts the definition of success from selfish, individualistic winning to a profound, shared accomplishement between the rookie Joshua and SOnny. To visually represent this teamwork, the film must break away from Sonny’s isolated perspective and utilize unrestricted narrative. The editor achieve this more effectively by also utilizing unrestricted narration and it’s interplay with rigerous crosscutting betweeen Sonny and Joshua’s maneuvering through the constantly panicked pit crew. This parallelism between rhythmic relations and accelerated editing proves that Sonny and Joshua’s ultimate victory is not just a matter of individual speed, but of (mostly) flawless collaboration.

I found a my recent watch Bird Box to be incredably fascinating. I watched it last saturday and now reflect on how the horror genre is defined primarily by the emotional effect it aims to arouse. The central convention of any forror film is the presence of a menacing monster that represents a dangerous breach of nature of something wholly unknown to science. In bird box, the monsters fit this exact description, being incomprehensible entities that drive people to madness. I thought the monsters very existence suggests the terrifying limits of human knowledge (what is it that we can’t know?”

I want to talk about aspects of bird box and how it UPDATES traditional horror iconography and conventions. Because the characters must navigate the world hearing blindfolds, the film cannot rely on heavy monster makeup or visuals. Instead it leads on a historical convention in the ‘implied horror’ of hollywood. Much like Val Lewton’s 1940’s film such as the cat people (suggested by my movie enthusiast dylan), bird box achieves it’s terrifying effects “by hints, keeping the monster offscreen and cloaking the sets in darkness”. By forcing offscreen sound and panicked characters to build intense suspense and confirm our revulsion which personally I found a great change of pace.

Finally, I just have to point out the reflectionist approach to genre, which assumes that repeated genre conventions actually reflect a society’s pervasive doubts or anxieties. Just as horror films of teh 1950’s reflected fears of nuclear technology and 1970’s concern how terrible it would be to breakup the ‘American family’ bird box resonates with modern reviewers by reflecting temporary anxieties. By blending the horror film with a family centered survival thriller, the aforementioned pervasive societal fears is channeled about parental resposibility, extreme isolation, and the terrifying prospect of navigating an unpredictable and dangerous world.

I went to the movies the other day to watch the new horror comedy called “Send Help,” and wow, was it a roller coaster of a movie. From the first glance at the trailer, I was expecting it to be more on the horror side, but it felt more like an action movie. I hadn’t seen Dylan O’Brien in a major role since his Maze Runner days, but I thought he was a good antagonist.

I wanted to give credit to the costume and makeup team for their performance on set. You could really tell that these two stranded coworkers had been on a deserted island for weeks. The close up shots of their sunburnt, blistering faces, dry mouths, it was spot on.

Our main character, Linda, is a workaholic, Vice President of the Planning and Strategy department in her firm. Dylan O’Brien is the snobby son of the firm’s CEO, who gets the entire company passed down to him after his father passes away. Linda was promised a raise for all her hard work by her father, but O’Brien has it out for her. He hates the way she looks in the office.

Linda dresses like an elderly woman, often showing up to work looking not put together at all. Her inability to be a “people person” is what denies her the promotion. But one thing the people in the office don’t know is that Linda is a freak for survival shows and anything having to do with nature. So when she and O’Brien crash land on a deserted island, she is in heaven.

I noticed that the longer Linda stayed in her so-called “natural habitat,” she became far more attractive than she did in the office. Her makeup looked like natural beauty, and her hair looked more natural, not oily and tangled. This was another great choice by the costume design people.

If you’re looking for a slightly gory, funny, entertaining movie to throw on, I would definitely give this one a shot.