Final Reflection

Looking back, I can confidently say that this independent study has been a very educational experience. More educational than I expected, as a matter of fact. If nothing else, I feel that I have grown significantly as a film critic. In just the past few weeks, the time it took me to write a review went down by about half, though I was writing up to twice as much (although this could be partially due to Kubrick's and Tarantino's films being more interesting than Capra's). Not only do I feel more articulate in my film reviews, I have a more enhanced critical understanding of films. Also, the mise en scene analyses, which I had never done before, were a good challenge and opened me up to a new method of film interpretation. In addition to the educational aspect, the independent study was a great opportunity to watch so many movies that would have otherwise taken me a long time to see. It was exciting to watch them all in such a concentrated time period, and I think the blog was a much more effective medium for review-writing than simply writing in a journal. All in all, I had a very fun time in this intensive, and would most certainly consider doing something like it again. As a matter of fact, when I return from Africa, I plan on starting to watch all of Peter Weir's and Martin Scorsese's films, and if I feel up to some productivity I may publish reviews in this blog. However, it would likely be without answering the questions. I said some productivity.

Quentin Tarantino

Quentin Tarantino has quickly established himself as one of the best writers in the business, and one aspect of his writing that really shows his skill is the way that he introduces characters. He knows that more often than not our first impression of a character will stick with us, so most of the time he introduces them in ways that will be memorable while still allowing us to see the changes in the character throughout the film. In "Reservoir Dogs," we are introduced to all of the important characters on the day they meet. We don't see the moment they meet, but we arrive while they're eating breakfast, chatting like regular people because they are regular people. And then Tarantino shows us how they act under stress. In "Pulp Fiction," we meet Jules and Vincent in a similar way; just talking, about relatively trivial things. That impression remains, however, when they turn into cold-faced hitmen. We meet Butch at a moment where he appears to be at the end of his rope, wanting to put up a fight but finding himself too weak, which is exactly what Tarantino wants us to see in him. And Mia is kept a very mysterious character until even after Vincent meets her. In "Jackie Brown," we meet all of the characters one by one, just going about their daily business. Nothing exciting seems to happen for the first twenty minutes, because nothing exciting does happen in their lives until then. In "Inglourious Basterds," the opening scene slowly unveils Col. Landa's menace, which allows his haunting demeanor to grow exponentially throughout the movie. In addition to character introductions, Tarantino thinks carefully about each piece of background information, and decides (almost always correctly) which method to use to reveal it: through conversation, or flashback. For example, in "Pulp Fiction," we learn all about Vincent's time in Europe through conversation, because QT knows that it is not only easier, but more fun. In "Kill Bill," the only character with any sort of in-depth life story is O-Ren (shown in an animated flashback), because not only is it necessary, but it would be awkward to describe just in a conversation. Similarly, the only "Inglourious Basterds" character with a story is Shoshana, for the same reasons. More than most writers, Tarantino puts a large, yet crucial amount of time and effort into character development, and it has helped skyrocket him to fame.

Stanley Kubrick

After having watched his films in this independent study, Stanley Kubrick has become my favorite director and my third-favorite screenwriter. What he is most well-known for in his writing style is heavy use of cynicism and ironic pessimism, often with seemingly heartless characters. With the exception of "Killer's Kiss," this can be seen from very early on in his career. In "The Killing," none of the men get away. "Paths of Glory" is quite pessimistic, although it has a different and unexpected sort of happy ending. "Spartacus," which Kubrick did not even write, has a very bittersweet ending. The characters in "Lolita" are very irrational but seem terribly realistic in all other respects. "Dr. Strangelove," well, if you've seen it you know what I mean. In "2001: A Space Odyssey," humans are presumably replaced by computers as the foremost emotional beings. "A Clockwork Orange" ends fairly ironically, as does "Barry Lyndon." Nothing in "The Shining" even makes sense. His last films have nothing short of pessimistic climaxes and ironic endings. Often, especially since the 1960s, particularly cynical sequences are contrasted with pleasant classical music, another of Kubrick's ingenious trademarks. Especially in "2001," the statement he makes with all of the negativity is left very ambiguous in his films, which makes one wonder if he actually wanted his movies to be controversial and debated. One of the things I love so much about Kubrick is he dedicated himself to his work. Not just to individual films (although he did), but he spent the majority of his life working with the same theme, a statement about people, tweaking it and inserting it into as many different settings as he could, always with some of the most interesting characters to ever appear in films. All put together in the end, it's a life's work to be proud of.

Frank Capra

In a time before CGI, what made films entertaining was the acting. Perhaps more than any other director, Frank Capra worked tirelessly to get the very best out of his actors. His films brought Academy Award wins to Clark Gable ("It Happened One Night") and Claudette Colbert ("It Happened One Night"), and nominations to May Robson ("Lady for a Day"), Gary Cooper ("Mr. Deeds Goes to Town"), H.B. Warner ("Lost Horizon"), Spring Byington ("You Can't Take It With You"), James Stewart ("Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," "It's a Wonderful Life"), Harry Carey ("Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"), Claude Rains ("Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"), and Peter Falk ("Pocketful of Miracles"). To Capra, the most memorable aspects of films were the performances. His films were not bleak and cynical like some later filmmakers, but focused rather on the goodness in people, so he made sure that his central characters were loud and proud. But his perfectionist reach did not go only this far. Capra was one of the very few directors of his or any time to care so much about extras. Okay, so maybe he didn't go to the Tarantino extreme of naming them all, but any person that appears in a Capra movie contributes something. There is no extra that looks uncomfortable or out of character. This can be especially seen in Capra's use of mobs. The mob of broke farmers in "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town," the townspeople in the run on the bank scene in "It's a Wonderful Life," the John Doe followers in "Meet John Doe;" there is not a face among them that feels out of place. As a bit of a perfectionist myself (although also lazy) and an aspiring filmmaker, I hope and plan to get as much out of my actors.

Kill Bill

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Year: 2003, 2004
Genre: Action
My rating: 4 and three-quarters out of 5 (Vol. 1: 4 and a half; Vol. 2: 5)

This 4-hour revenge saga was split into two volumes for time interests, but play as one film. They follow a character known as The Bride (Uma Thurman), the deadliest woman in the world, as she seeks vengeance on her former colleagues in the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, led by an old flame, Bill (the late, great David Carradine). The Squad broke in on the pregnant Bride's wedding to a Texas record store owner, killed the other eight people present, beat the Bride within an inch of her life, and Bill put a bullet in her head. She wakes up four years later with a metal plate in the side of her head, a plan having been aborted to kill her in her sleep. After killing a couple of rapists in the hospital, she takes an orderly's truck and meditatively regains muscle control. She then sets out to take her revenge. Her targets are: Japanese gangleader O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu), Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox), Bill's brother Budd (Michael Madsen), and one-eyed martial arts master Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah). The beginning of Vol. 1 shows her confrontation with Green (codename: Copperhead), and the rest is told in flashback. While the Bride (codename: Black Mamba) is regaining muscle control in the truck, there is an animated sequence describing the rise of O-Ren (codename: Cottonmouth) to powerful Yakuza leader. The Bride travels to Okinawa, Japan, and meets a charismatic sushi chef and retired swordsmith named Hattori Hanzo (Sonny Chiba). Though he has sworn an oath to never make another sword, the Bride convinces him, and stays in his upstairs room for a month while he works. Then she travels to Tokyo to confront O-Ren, killing about 100 people in the process. Vol. 2 continues the story, adding more depth to the characters, as she hunts down Budd (codename: Sidewinder), Driver (codename: California Mountain Snake), and the mystical Bill (codename: Snake Charmer).

The idea for "Kill Bill" was probably born from the "Fox Force Five" discussion from "Pulp Fiction" crossed with Tarantino asking himself, "How much fun could I have with a million gallons of fake blood?" It blossomed into an expertly told saga that makes one feel as if they've seen all the old films that QT tries to emulate, which he does successfully. What makes the film so intriguing is how it works on many different levels. Images are so important to Tarantino here that each tells a story in and of itself. I have a theory that if there was no sound (save Bill's dialogue), the story would be just as easy to follow. And yet, Tarantino adds a whole new layer to the film in the way that sound and dialogue is used to complement the action. As opposed to most of his works, action forms the frame of this story, and sound is placed (either carefully or recklessly, I'm not sure which) to enhance it. So engaging is the action that we hardly notice when some changes are made. For example, the film often switches between color and black and white, but ten seconds after it has switched we have forgotten. The change is fleeting, it is the action we are concerned with. Or take the differences between the two volumes. The first introduces us to the deadliest people on the planet, showing us their skills at fighting and Tarantino's skills at directing action scenes. Then the second adds more dimension, showing us the heart and the rationality of the characters and pointing out which are evil and which are angry and which are confused. We see that Tarantino has mastered character development in his own way. We only remember what he wants us to remember from Vol. 1, and it meshes with Vol. 2 to create a truly unforgettable film.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
It pretty much sums up the point of the movie, and Tarantino probably liked the rhyme.

Why does the film start in the way that it does?
It sort of starts in the middle of the whole timeline and expands both ways.

Are there any repeated scenes, images, dialogue, etc.?
We are often reminded of events, through flashback or dialogue.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
Yes, most certainly. There's a very prominent soundtrack, and some overemphasized action sounds.

How does the film use color or light/dark to suggest tone and mood in different scenes?
It switches between color and b&w a lot, but I'm not sure if it is supposed to suggets tone and mood.

Are there any striking uses of perspective?
I noticed a few, but I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Many of the shots in the film could be considered striking.

Does the film leave any disunities at the end?
A few, but Tarantino's working on a Vol. 3, so these will probably be addressed.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
Well, it's a Tarantino film. He's the best of storytellers, but there's no message. This pays tribute to numerous film genres, particularly martial arts films.

Jackie Brown

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Year: 1997
Genre: Crime comedy-drama
My rating: 4 and a half out of 5

Like many a great crime film, "Jackie Brown" involves the characters all deceiving each other. However, not many great crime films have the capacity for both comedy and intelligent characters. Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson) is a smalltime gun dealer about to hit $1,000,000 and retire. When he learns that one of his workers, Beaumont Livingston (Chris Tucker), has been arrested and may agree to become an informant, he arranges for his bail with bail bondsman Max Cherry (Robert Forster). Ordell goes by Beaumont's place later and convinces him to help with a deal in Koreatown, but instead murders him. He confides in his old friend and cellmate who was recently released, Louis Gara (Robert De Niro). However, Ordell was too late. Beaumont had given information to the police, allowing A.T.F. agent Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) and L.A.P.D. Detective Mark Dargus (Michael Bowen) to catch flight stewardess Jackie Brown (Pam Grier), who smuggles Ordell's money into California from Mexico. She initially refuses to make a deal with them, and is sent to prison immediately when they discover a bag of cocaine that she didn't know of with the money. Ordell arranges for her bail and attempts to kill her as well, but she turns the tables on him and they make a deal to get him $500,000 of his money by pretending to help the authorities. With Nicolette and Dargus she arranges a sting, but will actually pass the money off to the woman Ordell lives with, Melanie Ralston (Bridget Fonda, performing a billion times better than she did in "Monkeybone"). Meanwhile, she plots to keep the money for herself with the help of Max Cherry, who struggles to mask his attraction to her.

Having not seen the old blaxploitation films that Tarantino had on his mind while working on "Jackie Brown," I may be missing another important aspect of the film, especially given the fact that in the novel, Jackie is white. However, what I did pick up on was definitely above average. I noticed that Tarantino ventured a bit away from his style in some ways. For example, the dialogue is often less indulgent than in his other films in favor of being more realistic. When the characters do open their mouths it's a long ways off from boring, but he implements more moments of silence and fewer monologues than usual. Speaking of which, Samuel L. Jackson does not find room for any Ezekiel-like speeches, yet still manages to show us a colder and greedier version of "Pulp Fiction"'s Jules. What Tarantino has really honed his skills at here is timing. Everything is perfectly choreographed and falls into place without us knowing where it will land until it does. Pam Grier's career-revitalizing performance helps with us, as we are sometimes completely unsure who she is really helping. Every scene is so consistently convincing that we want to believe whatever she does at any moment. Another example of the expert timing can be seen in how Tarantino saves Robert De Niro's lines for later in the film, knowing that for the first half he can get some smiles by just sitting there. Robert Forster's Oscar-nominated performance, also career-revitalizing, is one of those performances that is so subtly flawless that most people often overlook it. And they clearly did, as he was not nominated for a Golden Globe. However, the Academy, in one of its brave and shining moments, acknowledged him for the freshly original chemistry between Max and Jackie. It's a shame they did not acknowledge the film for its other accomplishments.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
Tarantino changed the title to "Jackie Brown" as a reference to "Foxy Brown," in which Pam Grier starred.

Why does the film start in the way that it does?
The opening sequence is similar to that of "The Graduate."

Are there any repeated scenes, images, dialogue, etc.?
The money exchange is seen from three different perspectives, so some moments and dialogue are repeated to help line it up chronologically.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
Soul music is played prominently.

Are there any striking uses of perspective?
Not as much as in other QT films.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax?
Max brings Ordell to his office, telling him the money is there.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?
I'm not quite sure, actually. It's not as unexpected as Tarantino's other endings. Even if it's how the novel ended, I don't think he was afraid to change it.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
The film is an homage to 1970s blaxploitation films. It's similar to Tarantino's other films in that it doesn't have a distinct message and is more about the experience of watching.


Mise en Scene:
Louis and Ordell argue while sitting in a parked van after the money exchange.

Dominant: Where is our eye attracted first?
Ordell, whose face we can see. We can only see the back of Louis' head.

Lighting key: High key? Low key? High contrast? Some combination of these?
Mostly low key, but it's pretty bright outside the van.

Shot and camera distance: What type of shot? How far away is the camera from the action?
The camera sits almost in the center of the back seat.

Angle: Are we (and the camera) looking up or down on the subject? Or is the camera eye level?
Eye level.

Color values: What is the dominant color?
Ordell's yellow jacket stands out.

Subsidiary contrasts: What are the main eye-stops after taking in the dominant?
We may look at Louis in case he turns his head.

Composition: How is the two-dimensional space segmented and organized?
Louis is in the driver's seat on the far left looking out the windshield, and Ordell in on the right in the passenger's seat looking across at Louis.

Framing: Tight or loose? Do the characters have no room to move around or can they move freely without impediments?
Tight.

Death Proof

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Year: 2007
Genre: Thriller
My rating: 4 and a half out of 5

Released as the second half of the double-feature "Grindhouse," Quentin Tarantino's action thriller pays tribute to 1970s slasher B-movies. It opens with three friends, Arlene (Vanessa Ferlito), Shanna (Jordan Ladd), and radio disc jockey "Jungle" Julia (Sydney Poitier), celebrating Jungle Julia's birthday at Guero's Taco Bar in Austin, Texas. They chat like any friends would, and the audience is neither bored nor left behind. Eventually, the group moves on to The Texas Chili Bar, where they are joined by at least six others. Sitting at the bar is aged Hollywood stunt double "Stuntman" Mike (Kurt Russell), a sadistic psychopath who stalks young women and kills them with his "death proof" stunt car. He offers a ride home to a woman at the bar, Pam (Rose McGowan), who eventually accepts. After he has a few particularly well-acted and well-written interactions with Arlene and Shanna and Julia, the three women and one of their friends head out to Shanna's father's cabin. Mike and Pam depart in his 1970 Chevy Nova, and he quickly turns from charming teetotaler into homicidal maniac, swerving the car at extreme speeds and slamming on the brakes so she is beaten to death on the dashboard. He then drives off to catch up with the other four women and slams into their car head-on. Mike wakes up in the hospital later, and we learn from a discussion between two rangers that all of the women died and Mike was cleared of criminal charges due to lack of evidence. The film jumps forward 14 months to Lebanon, Tennessee, as Mike tracks his next victims, Kim (Tracie Thoms), Abernathy (Rosario Dawson), Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and Zoe (Zoe Bell), who are enjoying their days off from working on a movie. Mike doesn't know how to respond, however, when they decide to turn the tables on him.

There are few movies with as much guts as this one, and I don't mean that in a gory sense. And in the hands of the visionary, B-movie fanboy Quentin Tarantino, there are few as entertaining. The film showcases all of his talents, and proves yet again that he's the go-to guy for blending humor and drama and rip-roaring action, with some expertly placed music, into an edge-of-your-seat thriller the likes of which the world has never seen, even in the old movies he adores so much. Here, he also shows that he can write and direct female lead roles as confidently and effectively as he can males. Some viewers don't enjoy being taken for a ride in movies (no pun intended), but it can be a very enjoyable experience if the filmmaker knows what they're doing. Tarantino here puts the characters into such an unbelievable situation that we are willing to go along with just about anything he might decide to throw at us. At times, we even forget who's the bad guy and who's the good guy. Speaking of which, the film also marks Kurt Russell's return to the role of badass that made him famous, in one of those comeback performances that take advantage of the actor's age. Russell proves himself a well-rounded actor, and shows us the different sides of Stuntman Mike that make him all the more menacing and interesting. By the time "Death Proof" is over, we are reminded just how fun watching movies can be, which is what I think Tarantino was going for. However, we may not feel like driving for a while.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
It refers to Mike's car, and how he views himself.

Why does the film start in the way that it does?
To add to the "old double-feature" atmosphere.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
Yes, in that Taratino way of making the action more fun.

Are there any striking uses of perspective?
There are a few interesting shots, but I don't think they relate to a meaning.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax?
The last scene. Specifically, the moment when "The End" appears.

Does the film leave any disunities at the end?
Yes, but it ends at the perfect moment.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?
I think it's a further homage to old B-movies. Also because Tarantino's brilliant.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
The film is a tribute to muscle cars and 1970s slasher movies. I don't think it has much of a message, though.

Four Rooms

Director: Allison Anders, Alexandre Rockwell, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino
Written by: Allison Anders, Alexandre Rockwell, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino
Year: 1995
Genre: Comedy
My rating: 3 out of 5 (The Missing Ingredient: 2; The Wrong Man: 2; The Misbehavers: 4; The Man from Hollywood: 4)

As the film opens, we meet the central and unifying character, Ted the overzealous bellhop (Tim Roth), on his first day alone on the job at a hotel in Los Angeles. After a few words from his predecessor, the story moves on to the first of its four segments, Allison Anders' "Honeymoon Suite - The Missing Ingredient." In this bizarre short film, Ted assists a bevy of strange women (Valeria Golino, Madonna, Alicia Witt, Sammi Davis, Lili Taylor, Ione Skye, Amanda de Cadenet) moving into the honeymoon suite. He soon learns that they are a coven of witches that need his help to resurrect their goddess. After 20 minutes of confusing and unfunny developments, Ted leaves and continues on to the even worse second segment, Alexandre Rockwell's "Room 404 - The Wrong Man." Ted receives a request for ice from a party in Room 504, but they accidentally send him to 404, where he is caught up in some sort of inexplicable lovers' spat involving an apparently crazy man (David Proval) holding his wife (Jennifer Beals). Ted attempts to escape from this surreal experience that is as much of a nightmare for us as it is for him by outcrazying the man. I had just about given up on the film when it transitioned into Robert Rodriguez' delightfully humorous "Room 309 - The Misbehavers," in which a frighteningly macho man (Antonio Banderas) and his wife (Tamlyn Tomita) leave the hotel for a New Year's Eve party and pay Ted $500 to keep an eye on their young children (Lana McKissack, Danny Verduzco). Despite his pure terror at the man's threats should something go wrong, Ted has to manage the entire hotel and leaves the children on their own with only a strict warning and a promise of milk and cookies. Needless to say, they call him every five minutes for something and get into untold amounts of mischief, which Rodriguez daringly brings to a higher level when they get into the champagne and discover a dead body in the mattress. By the time the room has caught on fire, Ted has had enough. He marches downstairs to call his boss and resign immediately, but their conversation is interrupted by a call from the penthouse, which brings us to the final segment: Tarantino's "Penthouse - The Man from Hollywood." In this final adventure, movie hotshot Chester Rush (Quentin Tarantino, in possibly his best acting performance) and his friends Norman (Paul Calderon), Leo (Bruce Willis), and Angela (the same woman from Room 404), rope Ted into helping them reenact a story from an old episode of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents," which was actually adapted from a Roald Dahl short story. Ted brings them a block of wood, a doughnut, a ball of twine, three nails, a club sandwich, a bucket of ice, and a hatchet "as sharp as the Devil himself." Norman bets that he can light is Zippo lighter ten times in a row. If he is successful, he wins a prized car of Chester's. However, if he loses, his left pinky will be chopped off. $1000 convinces Ted to be the hatchet-wielder.

"Four Rooms" averages out to a fairly mediocre movie. Tim Roth plays Ted with an awkwardness and flamboyancy that is somewhat amusing, if not understood. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an unskilled performance, I just think it worked out as well as the directors (at the least the first two) envisioned. "The Missing Ingredient" certainly had potential, but threw it out the window in lieu of cheap laughs, or in this case, cheap "...what?"s. The acting in it made very little sense, and the only one of the witches who seemed to have any grasp on the material was the always-wonderful Lili Taylor. Although, I do think it was a bit extreme that it was deemed necessary to give Madonna a Razzie for Worst Supporting Actress. "The Wrong Man" was simply one of the most nonsensical pieces of crap I've ever seen. There were two instances where it implemented some clever physical comedy, but these were overshadowed by confusing absurdities. "The Misbehavers," however, was an ingenious mix of slapstick and dark comedy, with fresh material to fit the exponential chaos structure that made physical comedians famous. Antonio Banderas' parody of his own macho-ness, the best aspect of the whole film, could make anyone grin from ear to ear. "The Man from Hollywood" is, I suppose, only funny to people to are familiar with Tarantino's work and like seeing all the actors together. Being a QT fan, I found it quite entertaining. I also noticed that although he makes use of his excellent dialogue, he experiments with other forms of comedy here as well, and is largely successful in his endeavors. I guess that I should count myself lucky (so should the film) that the two better segments came last.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
The movie takes place in four different rooms.

How are the opening credits presented? Do they relate to the meaning?
With Pink Panther-esque cartoon escapades. I suppose they could relate to the meaning if the film had a meaning.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
There's a very absurd score, although I like the band's name: Combustible Edison.

How does the film use color or light/dark to suggest tone and mood in different scenes?
The first two aren't smart enough to know that color and light/dark can suggest tone and mood, and the second two are smart enough to know that it isn't needed.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax?
The end credits.

Does the film leave any disunities at the end?
Yes, but we're entertained by the last shot.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?
It's pretty funny, although slightly different than Tarantino's usual style.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
Don't work in a hotel?

Reservoir Dogs

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Year: 1992
Genre: Crime drama
My rating: 4 and a half out of 5

Famous for its nonlinear storyline, "Reservoir Dogs" opens with the beginning of the main plot. Eight men finish breakfast at a diner and partake in completely irrelevant but nevertheless engaging conversations. Six of them wear matching suits and use aliases, and have been brought together for a diamond heist by Los Angeles gangster Joe Cabot (Lawrence Tierney) and his son, "Nice Guy" Eddie (Chris Penn). The exit the diner in a memorable slow-motion fashion, and the opening credits are displayed over a black background. We are brought back into the story just after the heist. Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) is driving a car with one hand and frantically trying to comfort Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), who was shot in the stomach during the robbery. They arrive at an abandoned warehouse and are soon joined by the paranoid but nonetheless professionalism-obsessed Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi). We learn some details about the heist from the discussion between Mr. White and Mr. Pink, who thinks that one of the six of them tipped off the police, because they showed up very quickly after the alarm went off. Their conversation turns to accusations and the two are soon at gunpoint, but they are interrupted by the sly Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen), who apparently began shooting into a crowd of people the moment the alarm was set off. The three argue for a few minutes, until Mr. Blonde reveals that he kidnapped a cop to interrogate. While Eddie works to cover their tracks and the survivors try to figure out who set them up and learn the fates of Mr. Brown (Quentin Tarantino) and Mr. Blue (Eddie Bunker), we see through flashbacks how the men each got involved in the heist.

I've seen "Reservoir Dogs" before, but only recently heard that Tarantino has called it his version of Kubrick's "The Killing." Having just watched "The Killing," it's amazing to see how closely related they are. The nonlinear storyline, the irony, the separate characters' stories, the post-robbery complications; it's all there. However, although Kubrick is honestly the better director, Tarantino's rendition works much better. The most prominent reason is, of course, his sublime skills as a writer. Everyone knows that he writes the absolute best dialogue in cinema, but here he also shows his prowess at character development. Each of them has a distinct personality that isn't too one-sided yet isn't too complicated for us to learn in 90 minutes. They talk like real people would talk, but have their own ideas of how to compose themselves given the situation and their experiences. One wonders if Tarantino was ever perhaps part of a diamond heist, to be able to craft such characters. Take Mr. Pink for example (Buscemi's breakthrough performance is one of his best), who tries to keep everyone's professionalism in check yet has reasons to be suspicious of them all, and finds room for unrelated personal quirks like his no-tip policy, for which he puts up a more than adequate defense. The film is also made more effective by its notoriously unflinching use of violence, although I'm sure Kubrick would have implemented more violence if not for the harsh censorship of the time.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
It doesn't have any literal relation, I think Tarantino just liked the name.

How are the opening credits presented?
On a black background with radio music playing, similar to "Pulp Fiction."

Are there any repeated scenes, images, dialogue, etc.?
We see two parts of one scene at different times. Tarantino is able to make the nonlinear storyline understandable without overlapping sequences.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
I don't think the music used had too much of a higher purpose.

Are there any striking uses of perspective?
Tarantino uses a trademark shot of his: looking up at characters from inside a car trunk.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax? How does this scene resolve the central issue of the film?
Probably the last scene, but it could be argued that the climax is earlier, when we learn who set them up.

Does the film leave any disunities at the end?
Not really, no.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?
No further information is necessary. Also, Tarantino considered this to be his "The Killing," and the ending is somewhat similar.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
Like "The Killing," there could be a theme of ironic justice, but I sort of doubt it.

Killer's Kiss

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Written by: Stanley Kubrick and Howard Sackler
Year: 1955
Genre: Film noir
My rating: 4 out of 5


1950s New York City can make and break a boxer like 29-year-old Davey Gordon (Jamie Smith). He's washed up now, and making plans to move to Seattle and work on his uncle's horse ranch. If he can win his last fight against the up-and-coming Kid Rodriguez, he might be able to get back on top. He does not win. That night, he is woken from his sleep by screams coming from the apartment across the courtyard from his. It belongs to a dancer named Gloria Price (Irene Kane), who is being attacked by her boyfriend/boss, a gangster named Vincent Rapallo (Frank Silvera). Davey runs over as fast as he can, but Vincent is gone when he arrives. Gloria explains their relationship to Davey, and while she sleeps, he wanders around her apartment curiously. The next morning, they discuss their lives over breakfast, and she agrees to go to Seattle with him to get away from Vincent. However, she needs the money from her last paycheck. They go to the dance club and Davey waits outside while Gloria confronts Vincent. Angry, he keeps her in his office and sends two of his cronies to kill Davey. Not knowing what he looks like, they instead kill his manager, Albert (Jerry Jarrett), who arrived just after Davey went off chasing street performers who stole his scarf. Gloria and Davey get away with the money, and depart to their respective apartments to pack their things. Davey goes over to Gloria's place when he is finished and finds her missing. He then looks back at his apartment to see police searching it. He overhears them mention that Albert was murdered, and forms a personal vendetta against Vincent, leading up to one of the most entertaining fight scenes I've ever witnessed.

I found Kubrick's second full-length feature (though the running time is just over an hour) to be much more effective than his second noir, "The Killing." Despite its amateur status (26-years-old at the time, he borrowed $40,000 from his uncle to produce it), Kubrick holds it all together with an interesting story, more than adequate acting, and excellent cinematography. In particular, there is one very nicely shot chase scene through big, long alleyways towards the end of the film. Though this caught my eye most, he finds places in each scene for an interesting shot or two. If I was going to speculate, I would say Kubrick was implementing some fairly revolutionary techniques as a director of photography, and trying to establish a name for himself. He doesn't seem to have yet found his style as a writer, which leaves most characters flawed and insensitive. Here, surprisingly enough, he even lets the ending be happy. Despite not being trademark Kubrick, "Killer's Kiss" is a very enjoyable film, and it showcases some of his finest cinematography.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
By kissing Gloria, Davey is thrust into a world of violence.

Why does the film start in the way that it does?
It starts with Davey at the train station, at the chronological end of the movie and then it jumps back three days. This is a stylistic, noir-y choice.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
Similar to "The Killing," music is played almost constantly. However, I found it more effective here.

Are there any striking uses of perspective?
There's a moment where Davey looks at his fish, and we see his face through the fishtank.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax?
Davey and Vincent duel with an axe, a spear, and some mannequins.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?
Kubrick was never partial to happy endings, but here's one.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
I didn't pick up much of a theme. It seems more like just an entertainment movie.


Mise en Scene:
Vincent's two goons close in on Albert in the alley.

Dominant: Where is our eye attracted first?
Albert, who's becoming increasingly apprehensive.

Lighting key: High key? Low key? High contrast? Some combination of these?
Low key.

Shot and camera distance: What type of shot? How far away is the camera from the action?
The camera looks in at the opposite corner of the alley from the entrance.

Angle: Are we (and the camera) looking up or down on the subject? Or is the camera eye level?
A bit up.

Subsidiary contrasts: What are the main eye-stops after taking in the dominant?
The shadows of the gangsters on the wall make it look like there are four of them.

Composition: How is the two-dimensional space segmented and organized?
There's one gangster on either side of Albert as he pounds on windows on the wall to our left.

Framing: Tight or loose? Do the characters have no room to move around, or can they move freely without impediments?
Quite loose.

Spartacus

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Written by: Dalton Trumbo, based on the novel by Howard Fast
Year: 1960
Genre: Drama
My rating: 5 out of 5

This historical epic that brought Kubrick to the forefront of filmmakers of the time has since been separated into two other epics: "Braveheart" and "Gladiator." It begins with slaves working in the Roman province of Libya. One of the slaves, a young man named Spartacus (Kirk Douglas), is particularly rebellious, and he is chained to a rock to starve to death after he bites the ankle of one of the guards. Along comes slave trader Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov), who buys Spartacus and takes him, among other slaves, to his gladiatorial training camp. The recruits are taught rigorously by Marcellus (Charles McGraw), and Batiatus plans to sell them to wealthy Romans when their training is complete. However, they are visited one day by power-hungry political figure Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier) and three of his companions. He pays the reluctant Batiatus a large sum of money to see two fights to the death, and the two women accompanying him choose Crixus (John Ireland) versus Galino and Spartacus versus Draba (Woody Strode). Crixus wins his match against Galino, and Draba gets the upper hand over Spartacus but refuses to kill him and instead throws his trident into the balcony and attempts to kill Crassus, who stabs him in the back of the neck. The next day, Spartacus learns that the slave woman Varinia (Jean Simmons) to whom he has grown attached has been bought by Crassus and is leaving for Rome. Spartacus sparks a revolt by drowning Marcellus in a cauldron of soup, and the gladiators soon take over the camp while Batiatus runs away. Spartacus organizes the group and starts a movement that takes them all over Italy, freeing slaves everywhere and adding them to their soon-unstoppable army. Along the way, they run into Varinia, who managed to escape en route to Rome. Spartacus also forms a strong friendship with Antoninus (Tony Curtis), a former servant of Crassus who entertains the freed slaves with songs and magic tricks. Interspersed with Spartacus' march are intriguing scenes from the Senate in Rome, with debates between Crassus and his political enemy, Gracchus (Charles Laughton; the character is not quite historically accurate, but is a combination of two famous Gracchi from before the events in the film took place). Both are supposedly mutual allies of Batiatus and Julius Caesar (John Gavin), and although they both fight for Rome and the Republic, Gracchus believes in freedom while Crassus believes in personal power and wants to eliminate Spartacus and what he stands for.

There is nothing wrong with this film that it does not compensate for. One complaint I had after the first hour or so (running time: 3 hours and 16 minutes) was that the development of relationships between characters was not very clear. Specifically, the rivalry between Spartacus and Marcellus was not apparent enough for the murderous assault to seem justified, and the chemistry between Spartacus and Varinia felt too sporadic for the first third of the movie. However, relationships became more easy and enjoyable to follow later on, particularly that of Spartacus and Varinia. I also found the music to be too omnipresent at first. It worked well during fight scenes, but there were several times when the score budged in on sequences that would have been better with just dialogue. The film made up for this by showing more restraint in later scenes, and the music was very powerful during the end credits. Speaking of fight scenes, the battles are just as masterfully executed as one could ask from any movie of any era, particularly the forced match between Spartacus and Draba. "Spartacus" has the distinction of being the only Kubrick film to win an Oscar for acting. This did not go to the much-deserving Kirk Douglas or Laurence Olivier, but surprisingly to Peter Ustinov as Batiatus. I did not imagine him winning an award for his performance while I watched the film, but after learning that he did and reflecting on it, I can see how he earned it. He seems to truly transform into the shrewd slave trader more than most actors would do in most roles, and he also provides an unexpected but not underappreciated amount of comic relief. While it may not represent his trademark cynicism, "Spartacus" is a Kubrick classic and an example of filmmaking at its best.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
It represents the rebellious and freedom-seeking spirit of the slaves.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
There is a score for essentially every scene. It works in the more action-packed scenes, but not as well at more mellow times.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax?
Spartacus learns that his son is born free, which is what he wanted most.

Does the film leave any disunities at the end?
An epilogue would have been nice, but the ending was still good.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?
To emphasize the bittersweetness.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
It promotes freedom, and rebellion against injustice. I think if Kubrick had written the screenplay, he may have re-worked it to make it more pessimistic, but he came in after the script was finished to replace original director Anthony Mann.

How does this film relate to other films you have viewed or literary texts you have read?
It's like "Braveheart" mixed with "Gladiator."


Mise en Scene:
Refusing to kill Spartacus, Draba throws his trident into the balcony at Crassus.

Dominant: Where is our eye attracted first?
The trident flying towards the balcony.

Lighting key: High key? Low key? High contrast? Some combination of these?
High key on the ground but low key in the balcony.

Shot and camera distance: What type of shot? How far away is the camera from the action?
The camera looks down at Draba over the heads of Crassus and his companions.

Angle: Are we (and the camera) looking up or down on the subject? Or is the camera eye level?
Down.

Subsidiary contrasts: What are the main eye-stops after taking in the dominant?
Draba's stance, Crassus and his companions trying to dodge the trident, and perhaps Spartacus in the far back.

Density: How much visual information is packed into the image?
It's hard to get much out of faces, but we can infer Draba's rage and Spartacus' confusion and Crassus and company's fear.

Full Metal Jacket

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Written by: Stanley Kubrick and Michael Herr & Gustav Hasford, based on "The Short-Timers" by Gustav Hasford
Year: 1987
Genre: War drama
My rating: 4 and a half out of 5

Sometime during the middle of the Vietnam War, a group of Marine Corps recruits arrive at Parris Island for training. Their drill instructor is the cold, insensitive, and brutal Gunnery Sergeant Hartman (R. Lee Ermey). Hartman barely takes a breath inbetween hurling shocking insults at the recruits, considering it his most important mission to turn them into hardened killing machines, with nicknames based on the first thing that comes out of their mouths. Much of his abuse is directed at three recruits in particular: Pvt. James T. "Joker" Davis (Matthew Modine) who narrates the story, Pvt. "Cowboy" Evans (Arliss Howard), and especially the overweight and mentally slow Pvt. Leonard "Gomer Pyle" Lawrence (Vincent D'Onofrio). Pyle has a difficult time keeping up with the rest of the platoon, and he finds Hartman's insults very demoralizing and embarassing. He begins to improve with Joker's patience and help, but when Hartman discovers a contraband jelly doughnut in Pyle's foot locker, he starts to punish the whole platoon. Frustrated, they hold him down in his bunk one night and hit him repeatedly with bars of soap wrapped in towels. The experience transforms him into a socially distant but nonetheless model Marine. On the last day of training, Joker gets fire watch duty, and in the middle of the night he discovers Pyle in the head (that's bathroom to you) menacingly loading his rifle. Joker tries to calm him down, but Pyle, having clearly gone insane, stands up and starts loudly reciting the Rifleman's Creed and executing drills before taking two lives. The film then jumps forward to 1968. Now a Corporal, Joker is stationed in Vietnam as a combat correspondent for the Stars and Stripes publication. He and photographer PFC "Rafterman" are assigned to a Marine base near Hue. There they meet up with Cowboy, now a Sergeant, and his squad, which includes the nihilistic M-60 Machine gunner "Animal Mother" (Adam Baldwin). Joker and Rafterman accompany the squad into combat in and around Hue while their leaders a killed one by one.

Despite being an all-around classic of modern cinema, the most memorable aspect of the film is R. Lee Ermey's frightening portrayal of the desensitizing Sergeant Hartman. Ermey, who himself was a drill instructor during the Vietnam war, famously improvised many of his insults (and, for that matter, most of his dialogue) and is likely the only actor to have ever bested Kubrick and his controlling nature. For this, he deserves at least the Golden Globe for which he was nominated. Though it may not seem so while you're watching it, "Full Metal Jacket" can be a very thought-provoking film. It plays around with several different themes, all amidst an unblinking, action-packed glimpse of war. The one that caught my attention most is only really mentioned once. A Colonel in Vietnam asks Joker why he wears both a helmet that says "Born To Kill" and a peace sign, to which he responds, "I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man." The issue is dropped, but after the film one can look back and see that all of the characters seem neither good nor evil. Most of them are quite bloodthirsty, but at some point or another we see the humanity in them. Take Animal Mother for example, who fires his weapon as often as possible, but is very concerned for the lives of his squad. The film could also be interpreted as semi-satirical anti-war propaganda. There is a scene where reporters interview soldiers about their feelings on America's involvement in the war, and another scene where they stand around the body of a dead mate and when Rafterman says that he died for a good cause, Animal Mother points out that there is no good cause, it's a slaughter. The ending narrative, however, seems to suggest something more along the lines of the value of life. Many of the characters have conflicting views on death, and Pyle and Joker both reach breaking points concerning the decision to kill another person.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
It refers to the full metal jacket bullet used by rifle infantrymen. It is also a line spoken by Pyle the night he goes crazy.

Why does the film start in the way that it does?
It starts with a montage of the new recruits getting their heads shaved. This leads both the characters and the audience into the hells of Parris Island and war.


Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
There is some dramatic scoring, but there are more pre-existing songs used than in any other Kubrick movie.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax?
Joker gets his first kill by shooting a Vietnamese sniper, a young girl.


Does the film leave any disunities at the end?
Not any particularly bothersome ones.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?
It complements the ending narrative.



Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
See second paragraph.


Mise en Scene:
The night Pyle goes crazy, Hartman carefully approaches him and attempts to take the rifle.


Dominant: Where is our eye attracted first?
Most likely Hartman.

Lighting key: High key? Low key? High contrast? Some combination of these?
Low key, but there's some light coming in through a window.


Shot and camera distance: What type of shot? How far away is the camera from the action?
The camera sits behind Pyle and to his right, getting most of all three characters in view.

Angle: Are we (and the camera) looking up or down on the subject? Or is the camera eye level?
Eye level.


Subsidiary contrasts: What are the main eye-stops after taking in the dominant?
With all the tension, we aren't likely to be looking around much.

Composition: How is the two-dimensional space segmented and organized?
On the left we see the right half of Pyle, then Joker and Hartman in front of him.


Framing: Tight or loose? Do the characters have no room to move around, or can they move freely without impediments?
It's looser than I would expect for such a shot.

The Shining

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Written by: Stanley Kubrick and Diane Johnson, based on the novel by Stephen King
Year: 1980
Genre: Horror
My rating: 5 out of 5

This psychological horror classic comprises, arguably, of four main characters: Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson), his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall), their (approximately) 5-year-old son Danny (Danny Lloyd), and the Overlook Hotel. The film begins with Jack, a former schoolteacher and now a writer, driving the long road from Sidewinder, Colorado, to the hotel, where he is interviewing to become the caretaker when the hotel is closed from October to May. The hotel manager, Mr. Ullman (Barry Nelson), tells Jack that he has the job if he wants it, but informs him of the tragic story of the former caretaker Charles Grady who succumbed to cabin fever and killed his family and himself. A recovering alcoholic looking for good employment, Jack takes the job nevertheless. That same day, Danny, who has psychic abilities that are manifested in the form of his imaginary friend Tony, has a surreal vision of terrifying images in the hotel. On closing day, the Torrances drive back up to the hotel and are given a tour of the massive building. They meet the head chef, Dick Hallorann (Scatman Crothers), who has psychic abilities similar to Danny's. Dick, who calls their powers "shining," explains to Danny that some buildings (such as the Overlook) are sort of like people, and when things happen there it leaves a mark. In addition, he warns Danny to avoid Room 237. The story then skips ahead one month. Wendy and Danny spend their time watching TV and playing in the snow, while the irritable Jack clacks incessantly on his typewriter. As the weather slowly knocks out their communication systems and their isolation grows, Jack's mental state deteriorates and his anger increases, as does Danny's curiosity about Room 237. And when Danny shows up with bruises on his neck and they all start to see things, none of them are sure what's real.

What makes "The Shining" so menacing and fascinating is the way it grabs the viewer and slowly coils in on itself, causing the viewer to experience the same confusion as the characters. It dares us to make a logical conclusion about the events occuring in the hotel, but provides no sustainable evidence. All of the characters have visions of some sort, and we don't know who to trust, if anyone. The things they see do overlap at times, such as Danny and Wendy both seeing gallons of blood bursting out of the elevator, and Wendy and Jack both seeing party guests, but they all see things on their own as well. Danny runs into the murdered daughters of the former caretaker, and Jack talks to the bartender who supposedly serves him drinks even though all of the alcohol was removed on closing day, and to a waiter named Grady (veteran Kubrick actor Philip Stone). Danny is just a child who has an, according to his parents, imaginary friend, so we cannot for sure trust his judgment; perhaps he gave the bruises to himself. Jack could be having hallucinations brought on by rage and alcohol withdrawal, or maybe he's even schizophrenic. Wendy's visions could be caused by extreme stress due to her husband's impatience and mental decline. The film ends famously by zooming in on a picture of Jack at the hotel's July 4th, 1921, ball. This has sparked so many different interpretations that it would almost be foolish to speculate. In any case, the only one that knows the truth is the Overlook, and it's not telling.


Stucture/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
"Shining" is what Dick calls his and Danny's psychic abilities.

How are the opening credits presented?
They are shown in the foreground of Jack driving up the winding road to the Overlook Hotel.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
Sound is very important. A lot of highly dramatic and suspenseful music is played.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax?
The scene where Jack chases Danny through the hedge maze.

Does the film leave any disunities at the end? If so, what does it suggest?
Yes, but they add to the air of mystery and suspense.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?
To cause further confusion in the audience.


Theme:
How does the film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
It presents several distinct possible themes (such as alcoholism and cabin fever) but makes sure to not focus on one alone, and leaves them all pretty ambiguous in the end.

How does this film relate to other films you have viewed or literary texts you have read?
In some ways, it reminds me of a Poe story. The way the characters each descend into their own madness and the film confuses the audience is reminiscent of his work.


Mise en Scene:
The day the Torrances arrive at the Overlook, we see the hotel from outside and where it sits.

Dominant: Where is our eye attracted first? Why?
The hotel. It's the first good look we get of it from the outside.

Lighting key: High key? Low key? High contrast? Some combination of these?
High key.

Shot and camera distance: What type of shot? How far away is the camera from the action?
The camera is a couple hundred yards away, at least, and gets the hotel in the center of the screen.

Angle: Are we (and the camera) looking up or down on the subject? Or is the camera eye level?
Eye level.

Color values: What is the dominant color?
There's a lot of green on the mountain below the hotel, and a lot of blue above it.

Subsidiary contrasts: What are the main eye-stops after taking in the dominant?
All we're interested in is the hotel, really.

Density: How much visual information is packed into the image?
The image is as basic as it can be.

Composition: How is the two-dimensional space segmented and organized?
The hotel sits center-screen. Behind it, a mountain reaches mightily into a blue sky, and in front of it the ground slopes down.

Barry Lyndon

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Written by: Stanley Kubrick, based on "The Luck of Barry Lyndon" by William Makepeace Thackeray
Year: 1975
Genre: Drama
My rating: 3 out of 5

This slow-moving period drama is separated into two parts. The first, "Part I. By What Means Redmond Barry Acquired the Style and Title of Barry Lyndon," begins with a pistol duel in which the father of Irishman Redmond Barry (Ryan O'Neal) is killed. The narrator (Michael Hodern) tells us that his mother refuses to remarry and dedicates herself to raising Barry. As a young man, Barry falls in love with his cousin, Nora (Gay Hamilton). She leaves him for the rich English Captain John Quin (Leonard Rossiter), sparking a heated jealousy in Barry. He calls for a pistol duel in which he kills Quin, against the wishes of his family who would be better off with a rich relative like him. Barry then leaves town to go to Dublin and avoid imprisonment. Along the way, he is robbed by famous highwayman Captain Feeney (Arthur O'Sullivan) and his son Seamus (Billy Boyle). Without any money, Barry has no other choice than to join the British army. While serving, he is reunited with family friend Captain Grogan (Godfrey Quigley), who tells him that the pistol duel was staged and Quin is alive and well. Their regiment is sent to fight in the Seven Years' War, during which Grogan is shot and killed, and Barry takes the first opportunity that presents itself to run away. He runs into Prussian Captain Potzdorf (Hardy Kruger), who discovers that Barry is not, as he claims to be, a lieutenant, and forces him to enlist in the Prussian Army. After the war is over, Barry is employed to Potzdorf's uncle, the Prussian Minister of Police. He is arranged to become the servant of the Chevalier de Balibari (Patrick Magee), who they believe is an Irish spy. Barry confesses his identity to the Chevalier and the two become close friends. They are eventually exiled from Prussia for cheating at cards, and they travel around Europe cheating people from the highest levels of society. During this time, Barry meets the beautiful and wealthy Countess of Lyndon (Marisa Berenson). Soon after they fall in love, Lady Lyndon's diseased husband, Charles Lyndon (Frank Middlemass), dies. Thus begins "Part II. Containing an Account of the Misfortunes and Disasters Which Befell Barry Lyndon," in which a combination of his own neglect and the resentful feelings of his stepson, Lord Bullingdon (Leon Vitali), cause Barry's downfall.

I'm all for slow-paced films, but often the slow scenes here are unbearably and unnecessarily slow. The characters rarely seem real, especially early on in the movie. On top of that, a majority of the acting is dull and passionless. Leon Vitali is the only one with any believable emotion, and Patrick Magee and Marisa Berenson seem to at least put a little effort into their performances. In his one scene, Frank Middlemass as Charles Lyndon gives a spirited speech, but alas, it is his only appearance. Ryan O'Neal as the title character seems to only care about the role at times when he has to cry or throw something. Throughout the whole film, we feel nothing for Barry and are confused as to how we are supposed to feel. He changes so often that we have no time to get to know him. The film did excel in three areas: cinematography, art design, and particularly costume design. It won Oscars for all three. It also won an Oscar for Best Musical Score, but I personally found the score indulgent and largely ineffective. Kubrick received nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay, but lost to the much superior "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."


Structure/Form:
Why does the film start in the way that it does?
It starts on a low note to make his rise in society seem larger. Also, pistol duels play pivotal roles in his life.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
There's quite a bit of background music (particularly Irish traditional music), but it feels a bit overbearing at times.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax?
Barry and Lord Bullingdon have a pistol duel.

Does the film leave any disunities at the end?
Not really, there's a nice epilogue.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
It seems to shoot down all potential themes that arise. The only one I really noticed while watching was perhaps Barry was a bad father to Lord Bullingdon because his own father died, but he was a good father to Brian, so that idea doesn't really hold up.


Mise en Scene:
While traveling to Dublin, Barry is robbed by Captain Feeney and Seamus.

Dominant: Where is our eye attracted first? Why?
Barry, who fills the majority of the screen.

Lighting key: High key? Low key? High contrast? Some combination of these?
Mostly high key.

Shot and camera distance: What type of shot? How far away is the camera from the action?
The camera looks over the left shoulder of Captain Feeney at Barry, and Seamus behind him.

Angle: Are we (and the camera) looking up or down on the subject? Or is the camera eye level?
Eye level.

Color values: What is the dominant color?
They're in the forest, so there's lots of green and brown.

Subsidiary contrasts: What are the main eye-stops after taking in the dominant?
Seamus, and Captain Feeney's gun.

Composition: How is the two-dimensional space segmented and organized?
Captain Feeney's left arm and should are seen on the right, Barry is in the middle facing him with his hands up, and Seamus is behind Barry on the left.

Framing: Tight or loose? Do the characters have no room to move around, or can they move freely without impediments?
It's fairly tight, but the characters don't overlap at all.

A Clockwork Orange

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Written by: Stanley Kubrick, based on the novel by Anthony Burgess
Year: 1971
Genre: Satire/science fiction
My rating: 5 out of 5

The first third of Kubrick's dark, disturbing masterpiece can be described quite well by the film's tagline: "Being the adventures of a young man whose principal interests are rape, ultraviolence and Beethoven." We meet the protagonist, fifteen-year-old Alex (Malcolm MacDowell), at a bar with his three droogs (Russian for friends; this is part of the language that Burgess invented for the novel): Pete (Michael Tarn), Georgie (James Marcus), and Dim (Warren Clarke). We accompany them on a typical night of mischief. They assault an old druken vagrant, start up a fight with a rival gang, and terrorize a writer and his wife while Alex sings "Singin' in the Rain." Afterwards, they return home, and we learn of Alex's love for classical music, particularly that of Beethoven. The next day, he skips school and has an encounter with probation officer Mr. Deltoid (Aubrey Morris), who advises him to stay out of trouble. Alex replies with sly innocence, but Deltoid is the one person who can see through his lies. Later that day, Pete, Georgie, and Dim confront Alex about his manipulative leadership and stage a coup, making Georgie their new leader. While they are walking, Alex attacks them and reclaims his status. He then inquires about the idea Georgie had planned to carry out. That night, they break into the home of an aging cat lady (Miriam Karlin), who Alex accidentally beats to death. As he bursts out of the front door, Dim hits him across the face and Alex's three droogs leave him lying on the ground in pain while the police pull up. After a trial that we are not shown, Alex is sentenced to fourteen years in prison. We skip ahead to the beginning of his third year. He has become friends with the chaplain (Godfrey Quigley) and taken an interest in (the more violent aspects of) the Bible. He consults with the chaplain and volunteers for an experimental new aversion therapy called the Ludivico technique, in which he is drugged and forced to repeatedly watch horrific videos. These begin to sicken him to his very core when he notices the use of Beethoven's music in the background. When treatment is completed, he is rendered physically unable to commit any violent or sexual acts, and the sound of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is pure torture to him. Alex is released back into the world, where he encounters vengeful figures from his past.

Especially during the time of its release, "A Clockwork Orange" was the subject of much controversy. The extensive use of violent content originally earned it an X rating. Kubrick edited out about 30 seconds of footage to bring this down to an R, but many viewers (particularly Christian groups) were still heavily offended by it. This caused a dispute between Kubrick and the writer of the novel, Anthony Burgess. Burgess enjoyed the film when he first saw it, only opposing to the omission of the last chapter (which was only not included because Burgess' American publisher convinced him to take it out of the American printing). However, Kubrick reportedly left him to defend himself and the movie. I have read the original British printing of the book, and must admit that it is better than the movie. The final chapter adds a new meaning to the story, and makes it possibly my favorite book. Nevertheless, the film is spectacular in its own way. The aesthetics make it an irresistibly fun, yet horrifying, adventure. The dark, futuristic score composed by Wendy Carlos adds a sinister touch to each scene, and the classical music has never had better accompanying visuals. Kubrick employs a technique that he seems to usually avoid: using quick cuts and flashing between different images to show Alex's chaotic ecstasy when listening to classical music. Speaking of which, Malcolm MacDowell gives an extremely powerful and haunting performance as perhaps the only villain that one could feel sorry for, and is particularly comedic in his encounters with the Chief Guard (Michael Bates). Despite the extreme controversy over its haunting elements, "A Clockwork Orange" was nominated for Academy Awards for Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, and Film Editing, and remains a very famous (borderline infamous) cinematic landmark.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation the film as a whole?
It refers to Alex's lack of free will after undergoing the Ludovico technique, as something that may seem pleasant (such as an orange) but is actually a piece of machinery.

How are the opening credits presented?
On alternating brightly colored backgrounds.

Are there any repeated scenes, images, dialogue, etc.?
When people tell Alex to be good, they ask if they've made themselves clear, to which he responds, "As an unmuddied lake. As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer."

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
Absolutely. Similar to "2001," classical music and dramatic futuristic sounds (here conducted on Moog synthesizers) are used often.

Are there any striking uses of perspective?
The aesthetics make quite a few scenes striking.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax?
That depends on the definition of climax. If it means the peak of the action, the climax occurs when Alex jumps out of a window to kill himself. If it means the point where the central issue is resolved, then it occurs in the next scene.

Does the film leave any disunities at the end?
When compared to the book, yes.


Theme:
How does the film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
As a satire, the film concerns the definition of "goodness" and whether or not aversion therapy creates truly moral people. Those who have read the original novel with the 21st chapter know that it adds a further meaning to the story, but it does not appear in the film because Kubrick read the American printing of the book without the last chapter.


Mise en Scene:
Alex and his droogs walk along the marina after Georgie proclaims himself leader.

Dominant: Where is our eye attracted first? Why?
Alex, because it is a moment where is narrating.

Lighting key: High key? Low key? High contrast? Some combination of these?
Very high key, the most high key moment in the whole film.

Angle: Are we (and the camera) looking up or down on the subject? Or is the camera eye level?
Eye level.

Color values: What is the dominant color?
There is a lot of white. More white than in any other shot in the movie.

Subsidiary contrasts: What are the main eye-stops after taking in the dominant?
Pete and Georgie and Dim and the water beside them.

Density: How much visual information is packed into the image?
All we can really discern is Alex's anger.

2001: A Space Odyssey

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Written by: Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke
Year: 1968
Genre: Science fiction
My rating: 5 out of 5

The epic journey that is "2001: A Space Odyssey" begins with several minutes of a blank screen and theme music called "Atmospheres." Then there is a sequence showing the Earth rising above the moon and the sun rising above the Earth while we hear Richard Strauss' "Thus Spake Zarathustra." The film then moves into part one, titled "The Dawn of Man," which follows a group of pre-human apes who discover an ominous black monolith in front of their shelter. Soon after, one of the apes picks up a bone and uses it as a weapon; history's first tool, representing the birth of abstract thought and the beginning of man. Part two begins, in the year 2000. Dr. Heywood R. Floyd (William Sylvester) arrives at a space station on the moon. He makes a quick speech at a meeting, apologizing for the "poor cover story" for the discovery that has been made. We follow him as he travels to a lunar digsite, where a mysterious, highly magnetic artifact has been dug up. Confirmed to have been deliberately buried, it is a monolith identical to the one found by the apes, and as the astronauts pose for a photo, it emits an unbearable screech. Forward again, 18 months, to part three. We join the crew of the Discovery One, en route to Jupiter. Three members have been in cryogenic hibernation since the beginning of the voyage. The two disgruntled scientists that remain awake are Dr. Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Dr. Frank Poole (Gary Lockman). Also in their company is the ship's computer, HAL 9000. HAL proclaims that the 9000 series is the most flawless artificial intelligence design ever created. However, he begins to act strangely, causing concern in Dr. Bowman and Dr. Poole. They find that HAL cannot hear them when they are in one of the ship's pods, and they discuss their concerns and plan to disrupt HAL's higher brain functions. Little do they know, HAL can read lips, and after an intermission with more blank screen and "Atmospheres," we return to the Discovery One to find that HAL has turned against Bowman and Poole, and attempts to kill them.

The quintessential part four, aptly called "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite," is a spectacle of color and horror and awe-inspiring sights unlike anything that has ever been seen. It casts a spell on the viewer and leaves them in a state of shock. Kubrick must have known all along that he was making either the best or the worst film ever. When it was originally shown in theaters, audiences were split. I personally came out of the shock several minutes after the film's end knowing that it was the best film ever. Second-best to "Pulp Fiction," anyway. The movie is perfect, not to mention revolutionary, on so many levels. Stanley Kubrick has made the ultimate directorial achievement. By sustaining each image and each sound for the perfect amount of time, he gains complete control over the viewer, and yet he doesn't take advantage of it. He takes us on a disorienting and mindblowing adventure, yes, but he leaves so much up to our imagination. Whether he understands the philosophical message or not, he's aware of it, and aware of its importance. He doesn't explain things that need to be left ambiguous, like the origin of the monolith. The film is meant to inspire our imaginations, and help us grow as human beings. Furthermore, Kubrick's special effects are beyond marvelous. To quote an unrelated "Saturday Night Live" sketch, "There is no word to describe its perfection, so I am forced to make one up. And I'm going to do so right now. Scrumtrilescent." Indeed, they are so scrumtrilescent that he deserves not only the Academy Award that he did win for Best Special Effects (his only personal win ever), but also residual Oscars. There are those who would say that the acting is on the bland side, but this is just another of Kubrick's ingenious ideas. At one point, we see a BBC interview with Dr. Bowman and Dr. Poole, in which Bowman states that no one can truthfully say whether or not HAL has real human feelings or just programmed ones. Yet throughout the whole film, HAL is the only character who shows emotion in his speech. This works brilliantly in support of the movie's theme of providing a philosophical perspective on the evolution and future of man.

Today, most critics believe that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is not only the greatest sci-fi movie ever made, but one of the top ten films of any genre. I agree wholeheartedly, and feel confident in calling it my second favorite movie of all time.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
The working title was "Journey Beyond the Stars," but Kubrick thought that it didn't capture the magnitude of the film, so he drew inspiration from Homer's "The Odyssey," and added 2001.

How are the opening credits presented?
They are very minimal.

Why does the film start in the way that it does?
To set the tone of the film, and establish it as a largely non-verbal movie.

Are there any repeated scenes, images, dialogue, etc.?
At a couple points, the screen is blank several minutes and music and/or ambient space-related sounds are played.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
Oh my, yes. The movie has possibly the most famous soundtrack of all time, and sound is of major importance.

How does the film use color or light/dark to suggest tone and mood in different scenes?
Color is used extremely vividly to disorient the viewer and cause tension and inspiration and even terror.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax?
A climax can't really be defined because the plot isn't very stable.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
The film is a philosophical perspective on the evolution of man and our place in the universe.

How does this film relate to other films you have viewed or literary texts you have read?
Thematically, it is very unique. The special effects, however, have been very influential and most sci-fi films seem to take at least some inspiration from it.


Editing:
How much cutting is there and why?
Almost none. Cutting would disrupt the viewer's chain of thought and analysis.

What is the point of the cutting in each scene?
Usually, by the time a cut comes along, we are wrapped up in the last shot, and it catches us off-guard. This allows Kubrick to further shock us, or unexpectedly introduce something new.

Is editing a major language system of the movie or does the editor relegate cutting to a relatively minor fraction?
Everything is a major language system in this movie.


Mise en Scene:
Dr. Bowman and Dr. Poole discuss their concerns about HAL inside the pod.

Dominant: Where is our eye attracted first? Why?
Whoever is speaking at the time. We still haven't figured out which is the "main" character.

Lighting key: High key? Low key? High contrast? Some combination of these?
There's a pretty good contrast.

Shot and camera distance: What type of shot? How far away is the camera from the action?
The camera sits in the doorway and is able to see both Bowman and Poole speaking.

Angle: Are we (and the camera) looking up or down on the subject? Or is the camera eye level?
Eye level.

Color values: What is the dominant color? Are there contrasting foils? Is there color symbolism?
There seems to be a lot of red and black. I don't think it's symbolic at this point in the film, though.

Subsidiary contrasts: What are the main eye-stops after taking in the dominant?
We see HAL outside the pod window and wonder if he can actually hear them or not.

Composition: How is the two-dimensional space segmented and organized?
Poole is on the left and Bowman on the right, and they are both sort of leaning in towards the center of the pod. In the middle, we can see HAL outside of the window.

Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Written by: Stanley Kubrick and Peter George & Terry Southern, loosely based on "Red Alert" by Peter George
Year: 1964
Genre: Black comedy/satire
My rating: 5 out of 5


An international disaster begins when psychotic USAF Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden), commander of Burpelson Air Force Base, orders the 34 nuclear-armed B-52 planes stationed around the Soviet Union initiate Plan R, in an effort to protect Americans' "precious bodily fluids" from communist attacks, such as the diabolical water fluoridation. Plan R indicates that the U.S. has been fired upon by the USSR, and calls for the planes to cut off incoming signals unless they are preceded by the recall code, and bomb their targets in Soviet Russia. The movie follows three groups of characters during the crisis. In the first, Royal Air Force Group Captain Lionel Mandrake (Peter Sellers) tries desperately to get the recall code from the crazed General Ripper, who has put Burpelson on lockdown. In the second, the gloves are off (and the cowboy hat on) for the crew of one of the B-52s as they prepare for Plan R, piloted by Major T. J. "King" Kong (Slim Pickens). The third, and funniest, follows a discussion in the War Room, with arguments from U.S. President Merkin Muffley (Peter Sellers), General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott), Soviet Ambassador Alexei DeSadeski (Peter Bull), and handicapped ex-Nazi scientist Dr. Strangelove (Peter Sellers, again). President Muffley puts in a call to Soviet Premier Dmitri Kisov to give him the information needed to shoot down the B-52s, and learns shockingly that the Soviets have designed a Doomsday Device that will detonate if Russia is bombed, and send the earth into 93 years of nuclear fallout.

At the Academy Awards, "Dr. Strangelove" was nominated for all the right things: Best Actor (Peter Sellers, all three roles in one nomination), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director, and Best Picture. The latter three are all spectacular of course, particularly the screenplay, which Kubrick brilliantly turned into a satire from the original thriller novel. What really holds the movie together, though, is clearly the great Peter Sellers. In his most popular performance(s) (excluding, I suppose, the "Pink Panther" series), he masterfully portrays three wildly different characters and gets huge laughs from all three. Captain Mandrake represents his wonderfully dry humor. President Muffley provides possibly the film's most memorable line ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"), and his phone calls to Premier Kisov, of which we only hear Muffley's end (an excellent decision on the filmmakers' part), are among the funniest scenes in any movie. As Dr. Strangelove, who wasn't in the book but was added to the movie, Sellers improvised many of the film's best moments (such as his apparent apraxia, which causes his gloved right hand to act uncontrollably). With apologies for all the parentheses, I will end by saying that "Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb" is one of the most hilarious, both topically and otherwise, and overall well-made satires of all time.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation the film as a whole?
"Dr. Strangelove" has since become a term for someone who advocates initiating nuclear warfare.

How are the opening credits presented?
In the funniest way opening credits have ever been presented.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax? How does this scene resolve the central issue of the film?
That's hard to say, because the central issue isn't really resolved the way we would expect.

Does the film leave any disunities at the end? If so, what does it suggest?
Yes, but it's necessary.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?
For comedic purposes.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
The film consistently satirizes the Cold War.


Mise en Scene:
Ripper sits in his office while Mandrake tries to get out through the locked door.

Dominant: Where is our eye attracted first? Why?
Mandrake, where the action is.

Lighting key: High key? Low key? High contrast? Some combination of these?
There's a contrast of dark in most of the room and a bright light above Ripper's desk.

Shot and camera distance: What type of shot? How far away is the camera from the action?
The camera sits in the corner opposite Mandrake and watches him over Ripper's shoulder.

Angle: Are we (and the camera) looking up or down on the subject? Or is the camera eye level?
Eye level.

Subsidiary contrasts: What are the main eye-stops after taking in the dominant?
Mainly, Ripper's cigar smoke.

Density: How much visual information is packed into the image?
Not a whole lot.

Framing: Tight or loose? Do the characters have no room to move around, or can they move freely without impediments?
There's a lot of space between them, but their individual areas look a bit tight.

Lolita

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Written by: Vladimir Nabokov, based on his novel

Year: 1962

Genre: Comedy-drama

My rating: 5 out of 5

"Lolita" begins with the main character, Humbert Humbert (James Mason), a 40-something British professor of French literature, in the home of Clare Quilty (Peter Sellers), a drunken playwright with a slight lisp. After a short game of "Roman ping-pong" that had me on the floor with laughter, Humbert pulls a gun on Quilty and shoots him. The movie then jumps back four years. Humbert arrives in Ramsdale, New Hampshire, looking for a place to stay. He finds a room for rent at the home of a widow named Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters), but initially declines her offer. He changes his mind, however, when he meets Charlotte's daughter, 14-year-old Dolores, better known as Lolita (Sue Lyon). He spends his time at the house trying to get closer to Lolita while avoiding Charlotte's advances, all of which he writes down in his diary. Throughout the film, he learns that he is not the only person with an interest in her. After a school dance one night, Charlotte tries desperately to seduce Humbert, but he again turns her down. The next day, Charlotte announces that she will be sending Lolita to a summer camp for girls. On the day of Lolita's departure, Charlotte gives Humbert a written ultimatum: if he's still in the house at the end of the day, it means he wishes to marry Charlotte and spend the rest of their lives together. Knowing that he would never get to see Lolita again, Humbert accepts. Soon after the wedding, Charlotte discovers Humbert's diary, and she runs out into the road and is hit fatally by a car. Humbert then retrieves Lolita from the camp and goes on the road with her, growing increasingly overprotective and neurotic.

In so many ways, "Lolita" is one of the best films I have ever seen. Sue Lyon, in her first screen appearance, performs expertly with humorous provocativeness and juvenile tenacity, deservedly earning a Golden Globe for Most Promising Newcomer. James Mason manages to mesh together all of Humbert's longing and frustration and tender feelings without any holes in his performances. Peter Sellers proves once again that he is among the funniest actors ever. One of the film's most impressive features is its incredible cinematography. Filmed in black-and-white, the visual direction is more phenomenal than even some films today. What I find absolutely amazing about the movie is the fact that it can deal with such touchy and controversial subject material without crossing any lines. Kubrick stated that he wouldn't have made the film if he had known it would be so heavily censored, but it is a true testament to his infinite skills that he could still make such a fantastic movie, even without the perverse details that originally interested him.

Structure/Form:

How are the opening credits presented? Do they relate to the meaning?

They are in the foreground of a close-up of a pedicure, showing Lolita's pampered lifestyle.

Are there any repeated scenes, images, dialogue, etc.?

The first and last scenes are the same.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?

Music is often played that somewhat skewers the mood but simultaneously improves it.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax? How does this scene resolve the central issue of the film?

The central issue is never really solved, but the first scene comes closest.

Theme:

How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?

It's hard to pick out and articulate a theme, but it seems like neither Lolita nor Humbert make very good decisions.

Editing:

Similar to "Paths of Glory." Kubrick likes to use long shots.

Mise en Scene:

After blowing out a tire, Humbert and Lolita pull to the side of the highway and look back at the car that has been following them.

Dominant: Where is our eye attracted first?

At first, the car in the background.

Lighting key: High key? Low key? High contrast? Some combination of these?

Mostly high key.

Shot and camera distance: What type of shot? How far away is the camera from the action?

The camera looks through the windshield to capture all of the action.

Angle: Are we (and the camera) looking up or down on the subject? Or is the camera eye level?

Eye level.

Subsidiary contrasts: What are the main eye-stops after taking in the dominant?

Lolita and Humbert's faces.

Density: How much visual information is packed into the image?

As much as Kubrick can get into it, but all that's really there to see is Humbert's expression.

Composition: How is the two-dimensional space segmented and organized?

Lolita is sitting in the back seat closer to the left side of the screen, Humbert is on the right side looking in the rearview mirror, and we can see the other car between their heads out the back window.