I love the names in the film. General Ripper is, appropriately, revealed to be Jack D. Ripper, and his obsession with bodily fluids reflects the manner in which the historical Ripper committed his crimes. Another that comes to mind is the British Mandrake. Perhaps the least hegemonically masculine men in the film, his name is the union of “Man” and an alternate word for Dragon, a highly masculine mythical creature with typical traits reflecting masculinity taken to the extreme. Meanwhile, Mandrake is averse to conflict, speaks in a higher tone and has a more “urban” vernacular and accent. Not to mention he is rather short and well-groomed. The juxtaposition of his name and his character is really amusing, opposed the appropriately-named and much more hegemonically masculine Ripper. Really a very interesting comparison and conflict between the two, and their ends! Ripper takes the “coward’s way” and kills himself, while Mandrake has to assert his authority and force the other man to allow him to do his duty.

When looking up Azner, I came across this trailer for an upcoming biopic about her. It gives a little insight into her momentous life– being the first woman director in the Hollywood studio system, and credited with inventing the boom mic.

I was reading up on Kubrick on IMDb, and came across a list of 30 of his “trademarks”, which could arguably distinguish him as an auteur. Here’s the list, as taken from IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000040/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm).

Though generally a film coupled with live action shots and animation tends to lean towards cheesy or a children’s TV show that attempts to teach a moral lesson, Run Lola Run (1998) directed and written by Tom Tykwer, did a hell of a job in telling a story fit for a much different audience. The film is full of puns, hidden messages, motifs, and more, making it an incredibly gripping tale that is made stronger in my opinion by the inserted animations. Because of a reoccurring animated scene where the camera appears to jump into a TV, it is clear where the three versions of Lola’s (Franka Potente) stories begin.

This scene replays three times, each a little different. And these differences are significant in the tale. The first time we are introduced to Lola running down a winding staircase with a boy and a dog waiting at the top of one leg of it has camera zoom in on the dogs teeth. Upon asking what this may mean in class, somebody brought up the cliché “time nipping at your heels.” I interpreted it as another reference to the clock ticking away in Lola’s twenty minute adventure. During Lola’s second try at getting things right, the camera zooms in on the teeth of the boy. Another reference to time nipping at her heels, but this time it’s more about dealing with people to get her way, which turns out even worse than the first try when her conversation with her father (Herbert Knaup). She ends up robbing the bank. The third time this animation is replayed, Lola jumps over the barking dog and barks back, signaling that she will overcome time in this final attempt.

Something else I noticed from the start of the film, whether it was the red hair that set it off or the red phone, was the repetitive color scheme of the film. Reds. Greens. Yellows. Over and over and right in your face. Tykwer didn’t mean for it to be subtle, he meant to send a clear and unmistakable message–another reference to time. Red clearly means stop, and green means freedom or go, so yellow must fit right in to mean a slowing down of time or perhaps a tough decision that must be made. Just to reiterate the repetition: the red mise-en-scene includes Lola’s red hair, the phone, the tint over the screen while Lola and Manni (Moritz Bleibtreu) share a conversation while one of them is dying, red doors and windows, car, biker’s shirt, the Apotheke sign, designs on flags, and more. The green mise-en-scene includes the polizei, the bag, money, and the green picture. The yellow mise-en-scene includes the phone booth, yellow stores, train, and car. The emphasis on the essence of time is literally everywhere in the film, strengthening the message and film as a whole.

In Kubrick’s, Dr. Strangelove, (1964) the mise-en-scene incorporated the phrase “Peace is Our Profession” to continue as a motif throughout the movie that revealed a lot about the movie’s genre as a satire. The words Peace and War are complete opposites to each other has they revealed different this about one of the other and being that they are used in the same context makes them even more interesting. The phrase appears about a total of nine times throughout the film as background props to the frames.

Other elements that emphasized the genre of Satire were done with the dialogues of the characters, the music played in relation to what is occurring in the frame, as well as the props of the playboy magazine, top secret files and so on. The romantic music that plays over the explosion and fires led from bombs that occur in the frame create a strong juxtaposition that is seen in the form of satire.

Overall, I thought this was a great film that played with the four different components of the mise-en-scene wrote about in the Auteur theory chapter in Understanding Film Theory: 1) Set Design, 2) Lighting, 3) Acting and 4) Costume and make up. The mise-en-scene was important to analyzing the film and understanding how it is relevant to the purpose of the film and its genre. It was also a great film about comedy, history and relevant technical designs chosen by the director/crew.

MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA

Unlike Truffaut’s La Nuit Americaine where we have an outsider’s view of the arduous effort required in the filmmaking Industry, this film provides a more abstract viewpoint of the process. Both films relay a similar message in different contexts and visual representations. For example, the danger of film production in Man With A Movie Camera can be seen when he goes to extreme measures to get the shot he wants i.e. climbing intimidating heights. Similarly in Truffaut’s film, this same aspect is represented by the use of stunt double for the dangerous scene involving the car and the cliff.

The editing used in the film is also extremely noteworthy and especially groundbreaking considering the time period in which the film was released. Through various techniques that manipulate our perspective of time (done through series, montage and collision editing) Initially, it was difficult to derive a story line from the film due to the lack of prior information, establishment scenes or title cards. However, by the end of the film it was clearly a documentation of the process of filmmaking and all the potential possibilities enabled through the apparatus of the camera.

While there is little dispute regarding the fact that filmmaking is a collaborative effort, when it comes to labeling one director as the sole author of a production many eyebrows are raised and controversies arise.

On page ten of Understanding Film Theory, a quote from British director Richard Curtis states “A film is made at least four times. Once in the writing. Then in shooting, which is the second film. Then in the editing, which is the third film. Then there might be a fourth film” In order for a director to be considered the single author of film, I believe they must impose a heavy presence in each of the different aspects of the filmmaking procedure. The lines that clarify the requisites for an auteur feel blurred and strictly based on a case-by-case scenario. Regardless, it is obvious that most directors don’t enter the film industry with the mindset that they are striving for the label of authorship. In the fame obsessive culture we live in, it is arguable that the title of auteur generates a feeling of accomplishment and praise however from an analytical perspective there is a greater meaning behind this title.

One existing benefit derived from the Auteur theory is the ability to draw common characteristics and style used by the director in a variety of their films. Big name directors have specific qualities they are known for in their works, which provides a unifying aspect to their films; however, this is not to say that a director can only produce one style or genre of film. Contrastingly, one downside from believing that directors have a single style that they incorporate in every film is that it might persuade the audience to stretch the meaning of certain aspects to fit the mold of the style used in previous films.

Auteur theory presents an interesting question and a new influence to think about when watching films.

Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 political satire addresses controversial historic events in a comedic manner. The disastrous nuclear bombing and the events leading up to it represented an altered reflection of the heated arms race between the U.S and Soviets in the 1960’s in addition to the Cold War, the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Although the film was obviously not a visual replica of history, many of the themes, ideas, and messages of it were heavily based off realistic issues and sentiments during this chaotic time period.

One of obvious themes mirrored in the film was the widespread Cold War and nuclear war paranoia. Historically, Americans were crippled with fear knowing that a nuclear war that could wipe out all human existence was a possible threat. Children in schools even practiced responding to nuclear attacks by hiding under their desks. Furthermore, any displays of Anti-Americanism were handled with the upmost severity, some leading to unjust legal punishment. Similarly in the film, this same distress and concern can be seen in many characters including Turgidson and the rest of his defense team. While this comedic film does induce laughter from the perspective of knowing that this never occurred, during the high intensity of the 60’s, laughter regarding this particular situation was practically a forbidden act.

Despite the extreme tension surrounding the events portrayed in the film, the brilliance and intricate detail in the film proved to be groundbreaking and positive for the film industry. The courage and bravery required of an individual to direct and produce a film of such extreme political resonance also gives Kubrick another layer of credibility and respectability.

The first noteworthy takeaway I had after watching Dr. Strangelove was the phenomenal cinematography and mise-en-scène in the film. The choice to produce the film in black and white is an interesting one, and it adds a few elements to Kubrick’s work. Given the subject matter, moments of narration, and overall style of the film, the black and white shooting is reminiscent of an old newsreel. Additionally, the black and white contributes to the film from an aesthetic point of view. This style of filmmaking allowed Kubrick to creatively use shadows, and create a film noir tone for the viewers, particularly during the shots of General Ripper and others smoking cigars. The low angle close ups on General Ripper while he is smoking (which occurred several times during the film) parallels with his power position throughout the film.  The subtlety of Kubrick’s mise-en-scène can be seen during many moments of the film, most of which play on its satirical nature. For example, during the battle at the military base, there is a sign that reads, “Peace is our Profession.” On a similar note, the bombs in the aircraft toward the conclusion of the film read “Hi there” and “Dear John,” making light of a serious situation. These subtleties of the mise-en-scène contribute to the satirical humor seen throughout the film, and combined the other elements form one of Stanley Kubrick’s most impressive cinematographic films.

The Oscar’s approach meaning we’ve got to make some picks people. So what are people thinking? Here are my picks….

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

Who I want – Damien Chazelle (Whiplash)

Who Will – Graham Moore (The Imitation Game)

Writing (Original Screenplay)

Who I want – Wes Anderson (Grand Budapest)

Who will – Wes Anderson (Grand Budapest)

Visual Effects

No effing idea with this category.

Who Will – Dawn of the Planet of the Apes or Interstellar

Foreign Language

Who will – Leviathan

Directing

Who Will – Richard Linklater (Boyhood)

Actress Supporting 

Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)

Actor Supporting

J.K. Simmons (Whiplash)

Actress Leading

Julianne Moore (Still Alice)

Actor Leading

Michael Keaton (Birdman)

Speaking of Michael Keaton, George S. Scott in Dr. Strangelove reminded me of Keaton back in them ol’ Beetlejuice days

Best Picture

Boyhood

Birdman is the close contender though Selma or Grand Budapest could surprise everyone