One of the biggest questions I came away from the JFK movie with was why Oliver Stone chose to make some of the conspiracy theories seem so explicitly clear.  By the end of the movie, it seemed that the main character and the film were arguing for the government to reveal of the truth as to the details of the JFK assassination, as well as any other secrets that may be held from the American public.  He does not seem to claim to know exactly how any of it happened or who did what, nor does he seem to make that the central focus of his closing monologue.  However, he IS sure of the fact that a conspiracy took place, and he demands the truth.  So, if the main theme of the film is the quest for the truth, which cannot be abandoned, why did the director feed us such an explicit idea of what really happened, with the inter-government coop?   With the government “Agent X” who details the corruption and secrecy of the different military agencies?  This seems to give his audience another speculatory take on the situation, and yet portrays this take as the truth, which we should believe as viewers.  This seems to go against Stone’s final argument and parting declaration, that we should settle for nothing less than the truth and the documents to prove it from the mouth of the government itself.  Perhaps Stone desired for this speculatory conspiracy theory to seem real enough to spark action in his viewers?

Yes, I know what you’re thinking: “What kind of kid writes about the clothing and hairstyles within a movie?” Well, I’m about to. I thought the movie, in its whole, was a fantastic movie. It was slow at times but remained captivating and mysterious. After every turn, things got either clearer or more confusing. There was one thing throughout the film that really caught my attention: the way the actors presented themselves. I thought the articles of clothing were specifically picked to match the styles of clothing worn in 1963. The styles are so old fashioned and are extremely different than the clothing worn in 1991, the year of the film’s release. In addition to the clothing, the hairstyles used were very intricate in order to match those from 1963. The mixture of the clothing and hairstyles almost gave the film a realistic edge. The production crew could have easily slacked off and lazily put together a poor wardrobe and a provided a nonchalant attitude towards the hairstyles. Instead, they made the movie, to me, significantly more realistic and really inserted it into the actual time period of the assassinations.

The Battle of Algiers was a very informative movie that used many techniques to convey the seriousness of the story.  Some of the different kinds of techniques that were used were diegetic sounds, close ups and extreme close ups, and the use of hand-held shots.  The diegetic sounds in the movie, like the ticking of the bombs when the three women were having them armed, showed the tension in the air around the women and the plan they were soon to go through with.  The most useful technique they used was hand-held shots.  Hand-held shots make the camera holder look like they are right there.  They used this to put the viewer into the scene as one of the people on the streets watching everything unfold as if they were right there.

The use of the long camera shots is very impressive and I have never seen it before in a movie.  The long camera shots shows the viewer the skill of the actors and actresses.  It shows their ability to stay in character for long periods of time and the extensive training they would have had to go through in order to have memorized the entire scene.  It is a very unique style that you do not see very often in movies nowadays.  It brings a different feel to the movie that movies with many cuts and short takes don’t.  It gives a sense of fluidity and ease to the story, connecting everything together very smoothly.

The Battle of Algiers is a film that reflects the battles between the FLN and the French. Highly praised for its accurate account of the Battle of Algiers (the battle in the Algerian war of Independence), the movie can arguably be considered a historical documentation of the Algerians struggle for Independence. Pontecorvo’s hyper realistic depiction of Algiers during the late 1950s and early 1960s gives the viewer a look into french colonialism. We are given a lens into how Colonialism affects lives at a microscopic scale in contrast to the typical macroscopic view. We understand there is a war between the French soldiers and Algerians but the depiction of the battle makes it difficult for the viewer to immediately pick aside. Whether it be Colonial Mathieu, Ali la Pointe, or the French settlers, there is a humanistic portrayal of all characters. Rather what is prevalent is colonialism. Colonialism in the movie is a invisible repressive force that affects everyone in the movie. The audience never hears the word or see it we just know that it is the root of most actions in the movie.

The press conference scene provides and demonstrates the constant change in public opinion about the War. Colonel Mathieu was just brought in to win the war in Algiers and has successful history. After a couple months of leading the French, Mathieu is being criticized and harped on about his use of torture. Colonel Mathieu is a little taken back by this because his strategies were asked for. When applying them and helping thwart the terrorism, he is now being questioned. This is a classic example of the desire for both War and Peace. It is not possible to have both. The French want to win the war but when they hear about the torture, they believe this is mistreatment of the Algiers in Casbah. Public opinions about wars are always different, but many times people believe war is necessary but then do not agree with the way a country goes about it. Without experience fighting in wars, it is almost impossible to understand it. War is War. It is not a video game. You can not physically win a war by being peaceful. Asking to show peace during war is pretty much waving the white flag. I am not saying I am pro war or pro torture, I am just stating that War and Peace is not a viable combination. The public opinion in the film is very realistic and enhances the film’s realism as this issue still comes up in today’s wars.

One of the aspects of Pontecorvo’s film, Battle of Algiers (Pontecorvo, 1966), that I found fascinating was how the role of Islam played in the film through the use of diegetic sound.

For instance, there were two scenes in the film where the call to prayer was being recited some sort of loudspeaker in the background. While normally the call to prayer is a reminder that one of the 5 prayers of the day is about to occur and there is a need to take precedence in preparing oneself for this particular prayer, Ali and the members of FLN did not in both scenes.

I found this very interesting because Islam is so highly valued in the FLN for this film, and even when one particular character expresses his desire for Algeria to become free he states that it should be free but under Islamic rule. If religion has such a high value in the film then why didn’t Ali and his companions stop to pray in these two scenes? What is Pontecorvo trying to convey through this action?

In my personal opinion, I believe that Pontecorvo is trying to convey through the use of the call to prayer as diegetic sound that Islam plays a very significant role in the film, and is in fact always in the back of the people of Algeria’s mind, but perhaps freedom from the French was taking precedence at the time.

I’ve been thinking about Moth Light, the experimental film we watched in class on Thursday, and I realized how much it reminded me of Don Hertzfeldt’s IT’S SUCH A BEAUTIFUL DAY. (The capital letters are a stylistic choice.) I wouldn’t say that it’s like Moth Light – for starters, BEAUTIFUL DAY has a cohesive story, is animated, and is around an hour long. But many of the shots in the film are reminiscent of Moth Light. There are countless lingering shots of nature, manipulation of the physical film, and a sense of other-worldliness throughout. I highly recommend watching it if you were intrigued by Moth Light – BEAUTIFUL DAY is a gorgeously made film and has a surprisingly emotional story for a hand drawn animated movie starring a stick figure. It’s currently available on Netflix for those who are interested in watching it.

http://www.imdb.com/video/withoutabox/vi1365680665/?ref_=tt_ov_vi

I looked up the trailer to this movie to see the movie was portrayed and how it would possibly affect the viewers idea of the movie and what they are about to see. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the trailer did a good job in showing the real message and point of the movie and definitely made it look like a movie I’d like to see. I wasn’t to happy about how much was showed just because I feel like it was giving away a little too much to the viewer. Other than that I have no criticism. The trailer uses the intense build up music we hear in the movie making us feel that sense of foreboding and anticipation. Almost all of the clips show the action and the explosions to show that it is an action packed movie and even showed clips of the women highlighting their importance in the film. It was also nice to see that every 30 seconds or so it would cut and state the awards and nominations the film earned. It even stated how it was banned in France and was played in the pentagon, which is definitely something that allures the viewer.  It was great to see the last thing played was a quote talking about the relevance of the film and how neither side is painted as the bad guy they are just painted as human. These are two of the biggest points that I noticed from the film which makes it a great thing to see it stated in the trailer. Viewers will definitely go in watching this movie with the right attitude and mindset.