One of the more interesting things about The Graduate was that it had many wide shots. The director chose not to zoom in on the characters face but rather have it seem the viewer was a bystander in the room. I found this very interesting since it allowed the viewer to watch what both characters were doing. I feel a negative effect of this, however, was that it did not allow the viewer to see the emotions the characters had at specific times. You can only read how they were feeling by there body language. However, the director did capture how the character was feeling if they were alone, like at the beginning of the movie when Benjamin in sitting there quietly. You can tell something is bothering him and in a way looks hopeless.

In the beginning of the film right after Benjamin has graduated college, he is very stressed out for he does not know what to do in his life.  Not to mention, due to his prior accomplishments, he has a lot of pressure to try and outdo what he has already done.  However, in Benjamin’s life before he graduated, he had a clear cut path in front of him of what he needed to do; he basically followed what was typical and what his parents wanted to do.  After graduating, he did not have this path, and was unsure of what he wanted to do.

However, once Benjamin started seeing Mrs. Robinson, his character changed.  He was doing something he wanted to do, not something that was typical or what his parents wanted him to do.  Due to this relationship,  Benjamin did not only “change” from a boy to a man due to the sexual interaction between the two, but because he was doing something for himself, and people recognized it;  his parents kept on bugging him about what he was doing at night and everyone at the hotel he consistently stayed at recognized him.  Not to mention at the end of the movie, Benjamin realized that he wanted to marry Elaine because he loved her, not because his parents wanted him to and definitely not because the Robinsons wanted him too.  Based on this, while the ending is unclear about what happens to Benjamin and Elaine, Benjamin definitely developed as his own individual throughout the film.

I’m not sure how many of you have seen it, but if you haven’t, I think that Who Framed Roger Rabbit is an excellent film to watch, because it combines a variety of topics that we discussed in class. It merges elements from a  variety of film genres, from animation and musicals (it has two songs, one that I linked, and another one towards the end), to the hard-boiled cop crime film, and especially film noir (with its black and white flashbacks, cynical protagonist, and of course, its femme fatale). It is essentially a revisionist-hybrid of all of these genres and serves as a satire both for them and the animation industry as a whole.

I could probably write multiple posts on this one film, but I wanted to call attention to its use of the femme fatale character, Jessica Rabbit, because we spent a good portion of class today discussing the femme fatale archetype and its role in film. Jessica Rabbit has, in many ways, become almost a modern symbol for the femme fatale, as she is an incredibly mysterious, sexualized character who flirts with almost any male lead, while hiding her ulterior motives. I don’t want to give away too many details, because the film is definitely worth watching, but behind her overly sexualized look, she is an incredibly complex and manipulative character, a quality of the femme fatale character.

However, Jessica works best when viewed as a satire of the character trope, as her body proportions are extremely exaggerated, her dialogue is overly mysterious (she even pokes fun at herself), and her “dark side” seems almost forced upon her (noted through her line “I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way”). These suggest that the creators of the film were aware of the stereotypes associated with the femme fatale, in addition to how integral they are to a mystery plot, but wanted to put a new spin on the character.

Below is a link to Jessica’s famous scene in the film,  which pokes fun at, and references, a variety of other femme fatale scenes (it emphasizes how they are mostly viewed as sexualized characters, but also plays with their mysterious nature and relationship with the protagonist).

I apologize for the delayed post but today I would like to bring up a point mentioned in The Celluloid Closet (Epstein & Friedman, 1995) about the role of the “sissy” in cinematic history. The “sissy” was the role of a gay man that made “both men feel more manly and women feel more feminine by playing the role in-between,” and these stereotyped characters were mostly seen in films in the 1920s and 30s. Although we did not have the time to see the entire documentary in class, I think the idea of the “sissy” in film has definitely evolved from a male that was not overtly gay, but was seen as feminine simply through his actions, to male characters who flaunt their sexuality overtly on film.

Here’s what I mean… If you are to look at The Producers (Stroman, 2005) there is a scene where two Broadway producers are trying to create the worst play on Broadway, and in order for their plan to work they want to hire the most flamboyant director in New York. While Gary Beach’s character does not exactly follow the stereotype of the sissy because he is very confident in his sexuality and there is no restrictions towards conveying his confidence, I also think that Beach’s character is fulfilling the same purpose as the “sissy”,  to make the male characters in the room feel more masculine and the female characters in the room feel like females by placing an “in-between” character in the film.

As an avid fan of Neo-Noir films, and seeing as we just watched Chinatown(Polanski, 74), I thought it would make sense to make a post about the genre. Like film noir, Neo-Noir is frequently characterized by its dim lighting and overall dramatic visual style, which are both used to give the films their traditionally dramatic tones. However, unlike film noir, Neo-Noir is filmed in color rather than black and white. So how does a film actually get classified as Neo-Noir? It is kind of hazy, but basically the films almost always feature some type of mystery/detective type of story, while boding dark and distinctly somber lighting. For example, take this scene from Drive: (There is some Graphic Violence)

It uses low-key lighting to emphasize the shadows on each character’s face to not only highlight the intimacy of the moment between the two, but also add a solemn tone to it as well.

While this may not be characteristic of all Neo-Noir films, it truly does get to the essence of what the movies are all about, dramatization and intimacy.

After just watching Chinatown, I noticed many different camera shots the director decided to use and how unique they are compared to regular shots. The more interesting shots, however, were done when Mr. Gittes was spying. When he was using the binoculars, they made the screen give his perspective and how it looked to him. The director also use the mirror on the car as a different view for spying. Lastly, the lens on the camera was used as a reflection as a form of spying. I felt these were all very unique ways to portray was was occurring and made the spying more interesting and intriguing than normal. One thing I also found interesting was that in some of the car the scene that the person was in the back of the car. I found this interesting not focusing in on the drivings thoughts or viewing what the driver saw, but in a way created our own perspective.

I know this is a little outdated for our class currently, but I wanted to refer back to the Psycho shower scene we viewed in class, with the purpose of evaluating a particular instance of graphic matching. After the actress is murdered, and lies bleeding in the shower, the camera pans down to rest upon the empty drain whole, as the woman’s blood, her “life force” disappear into the dark abyss. Hitchcock’s cinematic genius ignites in this instance, as he implements a graphic match dissolve, creating a connection between the circular drain opening and the lifeless eyes of the actress. Furthermore, the drain is an inanimate, and therefore lifeless object, which can be said of the now inanimate, and recently lifeless corpse the murderer left behind. What is such a subtle moment in a film can have such a profound impact on its viewers.

The time period which fostered the emergence of homosexual imagery and themes within cinema in a way fueled the movement (of homosexuality in cinema, not so much the emergence of homosexuals within society), encouraging film produces and directors to incorporate homosexual characters, such as The Sissy character personality, or subtly homo-erotic suggestive themes within cinema circa 1920-1930. At this time in history it was not acceptable by society to openly announce one’s own homosexuality. But this very real, yet closeted demographic became a subtle contributor to movie revenue, on the basis that they would pay to see and view films containing homosexual personalities or themes. This increase in demand opened a previously closeted market which gave way to an increased presence of homosexual or lesbian personalities within (time relevant) “modern” films. This movement then created significant media presence which purported acceptance and tolerance for a culture which was previously only included within cinema to inhibit pity, fear, or comedic emotional response from the audience. It is interested to view the increased footprint of homosexual and lesbian media from a slight economics standpoint.

Throughout Chinatown the use of sound, like in what seems to be all 1970s movies, was exaggerated but yet appropriate. The first time I noticed this was when the police pulled Mulwray out of the river. As soon as they went to a close up on his face, the non-digetic soundtrack was overly evident and very daunting almost scaring the viewer and leaving an unsettling image in their heads. Afterwards, when Mr. Gitties is exploring the Peach Tree farm, once a shot is fired at his head, the music is then quickly paced making the entire scene way more dramatic than it would have been without the music up until they finally pull Gitties out of his car. Finally, the third very evident use of sound I felt was a little more dramatic than it needed to be (but still worked)  was when Mrs. Mulwray and Gitties kissed in the bathroom. The sound behind the scene made it way more intimate than it would have been without probably trying to portray to the viewers the moment when both characters caught feelings for each other.

Having just watched Chinatown, I felt the mise-en-scene and cinematography in Roman Polanski’s Chinatown (1974) somewhat contradicts the movie’s plot. The character’s costumes where rather dull and the only real pop of color was Evelyn Mulwray’s red lipstick. A majority of the shots were static and used a wide lens, with the exception of the occasional close up of a character’s face in a moment of realization. With this said, the story was thrilling and completely heart wrenching; not at all reflected by the stage, costumes, or frame.

*Spoiler*

On a separate note, one of the most emotional parts of the movie was Evelyn Mulwray’s death. What really surprised me and touched me was solemn and sad stare into Evelyn’s bloody face. Gittes’ is calm and very skeptical, even in the face of death and murder and Evelyn’s death is no exception.  The contrast between her death and Gittes’ calmness is heart breaking and powerful, because even though he does not verbally express his emotions, you can literally see in his eyes how truly hurt he is.