The 1999 release FIGHT CLUB is a film adapted from the 1996 novel written by Chuck Palahhniuk (great author, I recommend 'Survivor' as his 2nd best novel). This David Fincher directed movie tells the story of Jack a white-collar, insomniac protagonist who enters into a world of violence, dystopia and rejection of society after meeting the rebellious Tyler Durdan. As I watched this movie for the billionth time, I realized that the story is a keen example of two pertinent political philosophers of our time; Rousseau and Hobbes.
Hobbes, believing that the nature of humanity had no goodness, consented to a strict societal structure that controlled the dangerous urges of human beings. Rousseau on the other hand, attested to “uncorrupted morals” prevailing in an untouched state of nature, without societal constrictions. In other words, humanity’s natural state was moral. While the beginning of Fight Club seems to support Rousseau’s idea of the “state of nature”, it inevitably spirals into Hobbes’ philosophy. As Jack begins tranquil in a world supported and promoted by Hobbes, he is later unleashed into the laws of nature as Rousseau endorses. Perhaps it is the constraint of society that leads to Jack’s desire to return to the state of nature. However, we see the cataclysmic effect of this “state of nature” at the very end of the movie as we see total destruction. Hobbes would agree that the evil of Tyler Durdan is Jack at his most primitive state of nature.
CHECK OUT THE CLIPS AND COMPARE: How Jack Begins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYDLv8rK4z8
How Jack ends:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkUaV9GZDuk
We all know Mr. Rodriguez, or at least we've heard of his movies (Spy Kids, Grindhouse, Desperado) He gained a bunch of public appeal after his movie "El Mariachi", which he made in a solitary town in Mexico with a budget of only 4,000 dollars (which he raised by participating in medical experiments) . His book "Rebel Without a Crew" has inspired this generation's filmmakers into forgetting about the "almighty Hollywood business" and to just go out and make a movie with whatever you've got. With that in mind, I present you guys with "Bedhead", one of Rodriguez' student films he made at home, using his little siblings and his parents' old fashion video camera. It's amazing what he accomplished with such few resources.
The Royal Tenenbaums is almost a decade old. Usually, films get forgotten after they are removed from the Blockbuster aisles of "New Releases". But I believe this film is worth revisiting as it characterizes the work of a film maker that has greatly influenced the film-world over the past years; introducing us to a distinct style which is unmistakably characteristic. Everyone believes their family is crazy. It’s a fact of life. But The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) takes this to another level; presenting a charismatic dysfunctional family whose problems go beyond the expected. However absurd the story and the characters seem to be, the movie still remains grounded in real issues of love, resentment and sadness. The Royal Tenenbaums is a highly character driven tale with a meticulously saturated back-story which makes you feel you deeply know the characters after the first fifteen minutes of the movie. Tapping into the absurd idiosyncrasies and insecurities of each peculiar person while revealing a melancholic comedy from their depressing situation. This film successfully rides the thin line between comedy and sadness; big laughs are followed by quiet moments of contemplation. The movie follows a novel theme and is broken down into eight chapters beginning with a prologue which details the identity of the three Tenenbaum Child-prodigies; Chas, Margot and Richie. Chas (Ben Stiller), started buying real estate in his early teens and seemed to have an almost preternatural understanding of international finance. Margot (Gweneth Paltrow) was a playwright and received the Braverman Grant of $50,000 in the ninth grade. Richie (Luke Wilson) , was a junior champion tennis player and won the US Nationals three years in a row. However, virtually all memory of the brilliance of the young Tenenbaums was erased by twenty years of failure, betrayal and disaster. Royal Tenenbaum (Gene Hackman), the children’s father, remained an idly present father figure after he moved out of the house to the Lindhberg Palace Hotel when they were young. After his funds are abruptly cut off, Royal is kicked out of his luxurious hotel-apartment and left on the street with no where to go except back to his family. After seven years of zero contact with his children and estranged wife, Royal is well aware they will never take him back unless….he fakes his imminent death by pretending he has Stomach cancer. From here, the story takes on family issues that revolve around forgiveness, resentment and love. The film is less about plot and more about the characters and their relationships (or lack-there-of). Although the characters remain suspended in an altered absurd reality, their relationships remain true. The story unravels in a hilarious, touching and brilliantly stylized study of melancholy and redemption. The Cinematic choices Wes Anderson takes depart from the classical Hollywood-production. You are constantly being reminded through camera manipulation, exposition and visual exaggerations that you are watching a story that does not try to emulate reality; but rather, tries to depart from it. Successfully creating a visually appealing ethereal aesthetic that wisps you off to another world.
The movie is verbally narrated almost like a fairy tale, with the beginning of every chapter being shown as a book. In fact, the very first shot of the movie is of a book titles “The Royal Tenenbaums” being check out of a library. This element adds to the enchanted, almost mythical tone to the movie. And like a fairytale, every character is revealed to be very caricaturist; yet lovable. Every small, tiny, seemingly insignificant detail in the movie creates this eccentric new world. Dalmatian mice, a wooden finger, a characteristic tombstone, a peculiar airplane crash; All weave together to create a special world you’ve never seen before, with characters you could never imagine, treating universal topics that concern the anyone and everyone. The Royal Tenenbaums presents the beautiful collaboration of a truly original script, with an innovative execution. Performances are top-notch as well-known actors step into these very particular roles with comedic grace. This movie is pure delight from start credits to end credits; a halllmark for Anderson and his peculiar world view. This is a film not to miss as it has and will, resonate for years to come.
Before editing was perfected, movies were a lot like plays. You had the camera stagnant in one location and the actors, (usually with ridiculous over-the-top acting) on the opposite side with a stage-like confined space. The camera was limited to the extended long shot and couldn’t guide the audience view to specific objects or people. However, G.W Griffith with his film ‘Way Down East’ started the concept of fragmentation. Meaning that there were close-ups, and medium shots that were later weaved together to create meaning. The most important result out of this experimentation was the concept of Montage editing.
What is montage editing? You see it all the time now in movies and you probably don’t even notice it. Here's the prime example; Its when you get a shot of someone’s face, and then a shot of the object they are looking at separately. These two shots weave together to make you understand that the person you saw in the first shot, is looking at what you saw in the second shot. After Griffith first began experimenting with shots and montage editing, the Russians took his innovated concept and created more complex theories; concentrating highly on fragmentation, stressing meaning through juxtaposition. Their motto? NO SINGLE SHOT TELLS A STORY.
The Kuleshov effect was one of those experiments that came out of the Russian film growth of the early 20th century. Kuleshov took footage of a person with a completely blank expression and interweaved it with shots of other things in between. The first object was a bowl of soup, the second was a dead body and finally, the third was of two children playing. With these three different objects meshed into the same shot of the blank face, the audience believed that the expression on the actor’s face was different each time he appeared, depending on what objects he was shown to be “looking at”. Although the Kuleshov film was lost, I have made a short movie which tries to mimic what he did.
Out of this concept, came one of the most famous and referenced scenes in cinematic history; the sequence at the Odessa steps out of the movie Battleship Potempkin. Take a look at the way no single shot gives any full story. It extended moments, making everything more dramatic.
A film student was given this photograph by Lucien Herve of three old women looking out to something unknown. His professor told him "make a movie out of this picture". What came out of this exercise? The winner of the best short film at the Cannes Film Festival in 1996. Made with only one shot, this six minute film directed by Marcell Iványi creates an amazing sense of suspense. Short, simple, but powerful.
We've all seen those deep ten-minute long movies that try too hard to to "get a message across". I'm here to talk about a different type of short film. "Asshole", written by Bryan Gaynor and directed by Chadd Harbold was on the list of Official Selections of the Sundance Festival in 2008. It's hard to believe that a short film with so much profanity-rich dialogue and so little action gets such recognition. However, this is probably on my personal list of favorite shorts. It relies solely on the witty, sarcastic dialogue and the detestable nature of its main character. Who is...(yes, you've guess it) a complete 'asshole'.
I know...very few people actually enjoy sitting through old silent movies. But "The Cabinet of Dr.Caligari", a German film produced in 1920, is one of those silent films that is worth watching. As I put the movie into my VHS (yes, you heard me, VHS) and saw the aged image shine through my Sony TV I said "Oh no...not again". I had recently seen the silent 3-hour long, 1915 G.W Griffith movie "Birth of a Nation" and wasn't very excited to go through similar torture. But I was pleasantly surprised. The eerie expressionist setting, and the creepy unease used throughout the movie made me really engage with the plot.
The movie is told as a flashback from the main character Frances. This, in and of itself, was a revolutionary mechanism of its time. The "framed narrative", or "the flash back" was a device unseen in the film world. Frances retells the 'terrifying' story of the mysterious murders that occurred in his hometown. We then accompany Frances through his investigation which is sparked by the murder of his best friend. The success of this horror film is that it creates fear out of unease rather than gore. It's not about the blood, or the violence; it's the mystery. Many subsequent directors, such as Alfred Hitchcock,were very much influenced by the way this movie created suspense through setting, camera angles and the overall mise-en-scene (definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise_en_scène). I didn't expect to get freaked out. I've seen movies by M.Night.Shyamalan and Stanley Kubrick...How could an old silent film scare me? Surprisingly enough, it really did.
I guess the most amazing part of this movie is the twist ending....I don't want to ruin it for you, so I'll stop there.
