For those of you not familiar with Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, it’s a 2010 film starring Michael Cera, based on a series of comics by the same title. The plot is boy meets girl plus the hero’s journey, with a healthy amount of comedy about music and nerd culture mixed in.

On to my point, though, Scott Pilgrim uses a lot of comic book-style animation and a lot of editing techniques that reflect those of Run Lola Run. More specifically, the use of an eye-level closeup on Lola’s face while she thinks about who can help her and the phone falls slowly to the receiver. I can see in my mind’s eye a very similar montage occurring in Scott Pilgrim, when Scott needs to think fast to get out of a bad situation, and punctuated by something like the phone hitting the receiver, or a piece of trash being tossed behind him to land in a garbage can perfectly.

The use of animation when Lola runs down the stairs and in the opening credits also seems to have inspired Scott Pilgrim. Every time Scott’s love interest Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) has a flashback or explains something about about a person from her past, the film shows textless comic book panels, with her narrating. They were stills, rather than animated, but that still seems to have pulled from Lola with the flashforward clips of people that Lola bumps into.

Scott Pilgrim also makes a lot of similar choices with editing and framing. Shots at weird angles, time dilation to increase suspense, time compression to get to the action, lots of fast cuts during more intense scenes with high-tempo music, etc.

It was not received nearly as well as Lola, but it certainly seems to run in the same vein. It was just a comparison that I couldn’t help making as I watched.

In Understanding Film Theory, the author writes about Run, Lola, Run (1998) in the context of placing all of the characters in an archetype/spheres of actions list. The list was composed of 7 characters who felt into the categories accordingly:

1. The Hero: (the character who seeks something)
   LOLA
2. The Villain: (opposes or actively blocks the hero’s quest)
   DRUG-DEALING BOSS
3. The Donor: (provides an object w/ magical properties)
   LOLA *has magical/supernatural powers-shattering glass, healing man from heart attack*
4. The Dispatcher: (ends the hero on their quest) MANNI
5. The False Hero: (Disrupts the Hero’s success by making false claims) Everyone who gets in her way?
6. The Helper: (Assists and rescues the hero) MANNI/Man in ambulance who gives her a ride to where she needs to go.
7. The princess/the father

These categories were helpful to see, although they don’t necessarily fit hand-in-hand with the film completely, but it was a nice skeleton to see on the relation of the characters in comparison to the hero, who in this case was Lola. The characters are far more complex than the traits they are given above, but they come to be complex with the help of plot and climax. For Lola, she is complicated by her connections to Manni, Her Dad and even the security guard at the bank. In addition to this, when the writer mentions that she has supernatural powers, I quite didn’t see it much as her powers, I saw it more as an editing technique used by the director in order to create a surprise or connection between the three chunks of footage.

The form of the film was done very well and it was nice to see how the changes impacted everyone’s life, not just lola’s. In addition to form,  Tykwer included many different visual effects (also mentioned in understanding film theory) that moved along the illusion of time and space. As well as the visual effects there was also the inclusion of music that created a fast paced atmosphere which we were fully engaged with because of its connection to the scenes.

Overall, the connections of form, sound and editing brought this film together to a place where the form made the film what it is. As said in Chapter 3, “Form is privileged over content”

When watching Run, Lola, Run (1998) in class on Wednesday I was very interested in the overlapping of the characters, the contrasts and the connections; especially by its construction and edits. While watching the film I took notes on the things that changed every time the scene began again. (I’m pretty sure it was obvious to all who watch this film, but I thought it was well done.)

The central character, Lola, is constantly on a run in order to save her boyfriend’s life from his Drug-dealing boss. But while she runs she interacts with many different characters, who at the time seem meaningless and trivial because we are all focused on the bigger picture: her getting the money in time to save her boyfriend. The whole concept of this made me think about the reality of life that Tykwer achieves because as we go on day by day we don’t realize those who surround us. We are all on a mission and its very easy to make it about us and forget about the world around us.

For instance, towards the first chunk of the film, Lola is just focused on one thing: running as fast as she can to save her boyfriend (Manni) and while she does so, her interactions with people seem careless and not important. But there is a big contrast from the first chunk and last two chunks, such that she is aware of the lady in her way, so she moves, aware that holding the gun while she escapes the bank she just robbed probably isn’t a good idea, so she chucks it. Overall, the additions and changes to the chunks, prove how life works. By this I mean, everything happens for a reason and this case its fate. Everything that is meant to happen, will happen.

Apart from this metaphor for life, the film was one of my favorites I have seen while studying film because it was a combination of things that we have read about like the concept of music in a film, editing, composing a frame, mise-en-scene, etc. All these aspects are what make a film relevant and purposeful because if they didn’t we wouldn’t watch them.

I found that Run Lola Run made great use of Maya Deren’s point about the reversion of time and how, if the technique is used within a film, it is most generally meant to undue time.  Run Lola Run took that concept and really ran with it.  As demonstrated by the multiple playthroughs of events, it felt as if Lola was a video character who was being reset until the best outcome occurred.  I felt that it was also a great film to demonstrate the idea of learning from your mistakes as seen by how Lola slowly corrects herself through trial and error, albeit supernaturally.

We see that these corrections also have positive affects for other people as well.  We see that her father ultimately decides that the best option is to put off talking about the baby with his mistress instead of completely abandoning his family altogether.  The woman with the carriage eventually turns from being a person who steals children to a woman who finds religion, becoming a child of a being that is greater than her; becoming one who steals to one who is found.  We see that the woman who works at the banks goes from ending her life to starting a new one with the bank clerk.  These are examples of how chaos theory is also weaved into the film via butterfly affect.  Despite Lola’s father being injured in the car crash with Ronnie, no one left the final run-through any worse than they did initially, highlighting the fact that Lola’s presence may have some magical control over how time mechanisms work.  I found that due to the short time frame of the runs, it was incredible how just small moments of interaction could send ripples through the timestream.

To note however, the music never quite changes from run to run.  It is the same techno beat used each time with slight variances in the soundtrack as she visits different places each run.  The three key places she visits that are different each run are the Grocery Store, the Bank, and then the Casino.  Each having their own symbolic variances as well.  The grocery store is the cheapest place to find the 100,000 marks, the Bank the most wealthy place, and the Casino the most probable place.  What sets the Casino above the Bank in terms of affluence is that at the Bank, one can only withdraw however much money that have there whereas at the Casino, the men and women there most likely each had enough to replace the 100,000 marks, and they were just gambling it away, thus making it the best choice Lola could have corrected.

What commentary Tykwer is making about the correction of time and the legal robbing of the rich via Gambling is amiss to me, but, there is something there, I just need to run it through my mind a few more times until I can find out what it is…

I know a few others have pointed out the Lola similarities to Vertigo, but I’ll jump on the bandwagon. Firstly, I loved the movie. It was clearly created by a team of artists who love film. The structure, screenplay, editing, direction, music and acting were all so unique and different that I think this film belongs in the category for timeless, culturally important foreign films – it was excellent.

The vertigo references were often times blatant (on purpose) which was great. The spiral spinning behind Manni in the phone booth. The never ending spiral staircase. The credits with Lola running into the spiraling dimension warp. The painting in the casino. Tykwer, the director, took so many different film practices and stuck them together with a twist. I thought it worked beautifully. One thing that I always ask myself when I watch a film is, “What the hell happened to that side character we met for a minute? ” I really liked the Tykwer did the camera motif and showed all these butterfly affect scenarios. Motifs are an excellent way to end a film – it leaves the audience smiling. I also though that the pacing of the film was excellent. Another film that practices the “What if” scenarios is Sliding Doors, but Lola was much quicker and to the point. It was like a cooler version of speed with all these different scenarios. Plus, the subtle hints that Lola was knowledgeable of her previous attempts was very intriguing. Almost God-like. There is a film called Source Code with Jake Gyllenhaal which goes through replays of scenarios or the recent Edge of Tomorrow which tackles the ground hog day approach and it works really well.

Philosophically, the film really addresses the theory of compatibilism  which offers that we can live with free will and determinism simultaneously without being illogical. The film starts with the security guard asking us to address these questions. Can we be liberated and make our own choices or are we stuck accepting a predetermined fate?

All in all, the movie is nothing short of brilliant. You can watch it and just have fun with it or you can watch it and dig into deep philosophical questions that will take you down a day long rabbit hole of questions. Not to mention the wild editing choices and directorial design. Awesome movie. Kuleshov would be very proud.

One scene that stood out to me was in the casino.  As Lola is cashing out, the camera view pans to the throng of people watching her, continues past them, landing on the roulette wheel, and moving up to the clock. In between the roulette wheel and the clock, there is a painting of the back of a woman and her spiral of hair.  Though the painting is on the screen for a minute or less, I totally noticed the comparison between this painting and Madeleine looking at a painting of Carlotta in vertigo in Vertigo. (I literally wrote in my notes: “painting in casino reminiscent of Vertigo)

After I noticed this direct reference to Vertigo, I began to think of other comparisons between the two films. Spirals and spinning are motifs that are directly represented in these two films. Important scenes in each film involve characters running up/down spiral stair cases, filled with fear/anxiety.

Each film also focuses on the idea that different realities might exist, and how things may have been different had we done something differently.  In both Run Lola Run and Vertigo, the main characters, Lola and Scottie, respectively, are given some sort of a chance to do things differently. Lola literally replays the same 20 minutes, and receives  more favorable outcomes, while Scottie has a chance to redo his relationship with Madeleine, now Judy, yet he attempts to turn her back into Madeleine.

I need a little bit more time to truly contemplate all that I watched (this movie was very dense) but overall, I found it to be an enjoyable movie to watch, and it seems like every detail (editing, mis-en-scene) had a purpose.

I have to say, it was a pleasure watching Run Lola Run in class today.  Tom Tykwer takes us through an incredibly offbeat, intense and interesting ride that follows a young woman and her boyfriend’s struggle to return 100,000 marks to his boss to avoid getting killed.

Despite being made 17 years ago, the film is still refreshingly un-linear in its story telling, and involves a big of magical realism.  How many movies do you ever get to see where the main character is shot dead in the first 30 minutes? Surprising the viewer like this speaks greatly to a generational shift away from beginning-middle-end story telling and towards a style that defies rhetorical laws.  But laws are meant to be broken in the art world, and Tykwer couldn’t have accomplished this any better.  He plays with time through his exhaustingly intense montages of Lola running through streets in the city over and over and over again throughout the film, and leaves us with a constant sense of doubt about the re-vitalized future.

What I thought was the most interesting thing that Tykwer did, though, was his inclusion of conversations between Manni and Lola in bed after each one of them takes a turn dying as a result of miscues in their mission to reclaim 100,000 marks.  As each seem to be on the verge of dying, a slow zooming close up on the faces of the near-deceased results in a transition to the two of them lying next to eachother in bed, questioning each other’s dedication to each other.  Lola is interested in knowing if Manni really loves her, and Manni later wants to know if Lola would really care if he died.  The characters themselves are refreshingly realistic in their approach of their answers, and the dialogue is captivating as it does not glorify concepts of love and death, but rather demonstrates the deep fear associated with both topics.  The scene is lit with a deep, disturbing red color, and serves to heat up the angst that both feel as they converse.  Tykwer accomplishes an odd cinematic Purgatory here, which results in a final gasp for life that sends a bag of money falling to the earth, a phone falling onto its jack and a red-haired Lola once more sprinting from her home to try to save the day.

Further, Tykwer accomplishes an amazing affect in the way that he includes a lightening quick photo-montage of the seemingly uninteresting people that Lola runs into as she runs to Manni.  These people are characterized multiple times in multiple different ways through only a couple snapshots of their future or previous lives, leaving us with an odd connection to all of them, maybe even a certain sadness.  Tykwer show us his power as a film maker – he controls what we think of, what we see, what we care about.  We are in the midst of thinking solely of the lives of Lola and Manni as they face imminent death up until these points, and we are forced instead to give weight to the lives of trivial characters and their stories.  In under an hour and a half we see two main characters die twice, and in about 5 seconds we see the condensed story of a passing character’s death.  The power to create an emotional connection in only a couple of seconds is one that only film makers possess to this extent, as the assumption is that the viewer as bought into the entire experience from the very beginning.

Watching At Land (1944) by Maya Deren made me feel disoriented. One minute this woman is climbing up tree branches on the beach, and the next she is climbing across a table in a smoke filled room with people on both sides of her. There are many more examples of jumping from one place of scenery to the next which confuses the audience. This film plays with the idea of reality. The shots put together in the montage make it seem like two completely different objects are meant to go together. So after the disorientation, I suddenly understood. Deren put these images together, one after the other, to distort reality. And somehow the cuts made sense. The shots mirrored each other and made a nice story that actually included continuous themes and objects.

I realized the same thing during Run Lola Run (1989). The film was very disorienting. The blurry shots of people walking around in the beginning, not being able to see actual faces or scenery. Later on it would change from Lola in human form to Lola in cartoon form. I was just really confused during the whole film on what was real and what was a distortion of reality. Which scenario was the real outcome?

I guess both of these films were created to confuse the audience. To make them think in an artistic way and to think outside of the box. To think outside the realm of reality.

In At land (1994), encompasses the image of woman washed up on the sand by the waves of the ocean, though the film is silent, the action isn’t. There are different movements whether it’s the motion of the waves, the flying of birds. She holds onto a branch of wood which brings her to life (waken by nature). Then the Illusion of a climbing a branch, then leads to the climb of a table surrounded by men and women in conversation and smoking cigarettes. The fading of both scenes, climbing through nature and reality (a table surrounded by people who don’t even notice her) Leads to a man playing chess. The actress is always disappearing through holes and appears in different settings. Lots of going through, climbing up, climbing down, falling through, going up and moving through the scene from wide-shots and close-ups.

In Meshes of The Afternoon (1943), the protagonist who is played by Deren is the central focus through her silhouette casted on the wall as she picks up the flower from the floor. At the beginning of this short experimental film there is some secrecy to  it because we have no idea who the lady in the shadow is. The interaction between the shadows and life were great towards the beginning of the film. As the film continues we don’t know its dreamlike quality until the scenes, mise-en-scene and sounds are familiar to things we recognize in the film earlier on. (i.e., The knife, the telephone, the flower, the protagonist chasing a black figure in the distance, the record player, the bed, the key, the door, the couch of the woman sleeping and the stairs) The play on these aspects of the film are what reveal its overall focus is to reveal a dream, which are confusing, nonrealistic and repetitive in this case. Overall, her film plays on the subconscious level of self and discusses even further the capturing of reality with a tie on exposure to the non-realistic parts of life our dreams onscreen.

Both short films seem dreamlike and as if Maya Deren is going through the different types of herself? Through her effects and edits  in her short films.