In the Mood for Love - James Clarke

Set in ultra-conservative 1960's Hong Kong, Wong Kar Wai's In the Mood for Love tells the storye of two people who land themselves in each other's company due to the absence of their spouses. The plot of the film is by no means anything original, but it is deeply accentuated by the style in which the film is shot. With unconventional camera angles, an inconsistent musical score, and deep, vivid colors, In the Mood for Love brings a seemingly real perspective to a very personal story.

The film is accentuated by unconventional, but highly innovative camera work throughout. Often times the camera remains stationary while the characters move about, and sometimes out of the frame. It's as if to remind the audience that we are looking through a peep hole rather than through a movie screen, and that there are things that we will not be able to see. Throughout various portions of the film, like the rice cooker scene, for example, you can hear the characters speaking, but you will actually have to visualize what they are doing. The position at which the camera lies throughout the movie is also noteworthy because of the strange angles it is put at, such as under a bed, over a person's shoulder, through metal grating, and in general, low to the ground.

The rich colors and costumes of the film play a very large part in how the story is told as well. In the first scene, at the appearance of Mrs. Chan and her very colorful dress, the audience is immediately drawn to her and continues to watch her throughout the rest of the film. From then on each dress, one right after the other, begins to astonish the viewer with its lush colors and interesting patterns. This immediately sets Mrs. Chan apart from any other character, especially Mr. Chow, who dresses in relatively the same attire every day, creating a very physical contrast between two characters who are emotionally similar. Not only does the costuming add emphasis to the film, but the lighting of most of the scenes adds another layer onto they already thick stylized coat of the film.

Extra Credit -- Beca G.

I really enjoy watching films and the escape that they give me for the hour or so that they run. I've never been one to be discriminatory against watching films (or reading novels for that matter). If something legitimately holds my interest, then I am willing to watch it all the way through. Entertainment value is typically what I look for in a film - whether that entertainment be a simply enjoyment of a comedy or a "feel-good" story, or the thought provoking conversation that follows a particularly intense film - all in all, I was entertained.

Yet I've found throughout my young existence, that I really prefer to watch films that follow my mood, and what I "need" at that particular time. For instance, when I am having a terrible day, I need a funny, lighthearted comedy like Music & Lyrics, to make me laugh and forget that I have been in a foul mood. If I am in a more dramatic mood, a nice round of Casablanca cure my ail. When I am willing to use my brain (i.e. when I'm not in school) I enjoy movies that mess with your head, such as Memento. So, really, I just appreciate a good movie when it comes to the right moment.

However, through this class, I have really learned to appreciate good cinematography, and the beauty that can lay in a movie. One of my favorites from this class was In the Mood for Love, just due to the sheer beauty and grace of the film and how it moved from scene to scene. Prior, I would probably not have been as interested, but once I realized just how much effort and time goes into the artistic balance that creates such a film, I was able to appreciate the artistic value and overall grace that the film had.

With all of this fabulous knowledge of films, and how to think about them in new and different ways, I look forward to continuing to watch the varied array of films that I do, and thinking about them in a completely different fashion than I used to. :)

In the Mood for Love - Jen

This was a crazy good movie. You don't see the cheating spouses, only the two who are falling in love, and they kept doing those "rehearsal" scenes, which really blew me away. I mean, who the hell rehearses asking your husband if he has a mistress? Who acts out how your husband/wife began an affair? It was such an odd element to add, and yet it seemed so realistic too.

Anyway. I can't pick just one scene that I thought was really powerful, but I can pick two scenes. The first was when they were rehearsing how the woman would ask her husband about the affair, at first I thought she was actually talking to the husband. But when I knew it was the other guy, and when I saw her start to cry, and he had to reassure her "He won't admit it that easily" - for some reason that really got me. I felt so bad for her. It was even worse when they rehearsed leaving each other and she started crying again. It's like she was so torn between her husband (duty) and her friend (love). She couldn't decide...and her nondecision led to a decision, of course. Despite how the majority of the film was presented, time does not stand still. Things do not repeat themselves. You do not get second chances. She didn't go with him. I wish she had.

Something else that stood out to me was when they were sort of trapped in his room because everyone else was in the living room and they couldn't know that she was over there. The whole "friendship" aspect of that scene felt very, very real to me. The way that she helped him write those serials, the way they conversed so easily, and even how they didn't need to talk. That whole thing was very companionable. It was something I found easy to relate to.

Extra Credit - Jen

Oohhh, this is surprisingly difficult for me to answer. I love films. I love all sorts of films, even ones that I'm really reluctant to see at first.

As a whole, I think I'm more into formalistic films than realistic. Which is weird, because sometimes I have a hard time doing the whole "suspension of belief" thing and I get kind of nitpicky about "this makes sense, this doesn't, this could never happen."

But I feel as though films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - one of my favorites - is the kind of film that really moves me the most. The strangely beautiful compositions in that film rendered me nostalgic and sad and happy and in love, all at the same time. I'm kind of attracted to films that are sort...whimsical. Pan's Labyrinth is another good example. That film was a great mix of realism and formalism, in my opinion. And I totally wanted to go live in that other world. Actually, both of those films make me feel like I'm living in a different world when I'm watching them, and it aches so bad when those movies are over. After watching moves like that, I just need some quiet time to reflect.

So yes, I did enjoy the movies I watched this semester - After the Wedding, The General, and 2001: A Space Odyssey were among my favorites (not that they were realistic *cough2001cough*). But they don't really "hit" me the same way as the other films I mentioned.

Also, I don't normally know much about directors. This class did kind of peak my interest, though, particularly in Kubrick. Generally if a director's name is familiar to me, then I'll see just about anything they make (like Peter Jackson). But normally I see a film either for the stars or for the plotline.

After the Wedding - Jen

Jorgen was such a complicated figure. I couldn't figure out, was he morally good or morally bad? In between, I guess...like most people. Jorgen was clearly manipulative as hell - he manipulated Jacob into showing up, then going to the wedding, then staying - but he was acting like that for noble reasons. And really, who better to look after your family than your daughter's biological father and your wife's former lover? It does kind of make sense.

But Jorgen just couldn't be wholly likable. At first I wanted to like him, because he was obviously a very charitable guy, but his lack of interest in Jacob's project set off alarm bells even before I knew what the real story was. His behavior at the restaurant was frustrating, too. It's like, "Dude, you're dying, and I'm sorry, but you can't treat people like crap just because you're not going to be around much longer." This is probably strange, but I felt that he was undermining his good works by acting like that.

Jacob, of course, was complex as well. I felt so bad for him. Continually he had to put others before himself. He didn't want to leave India and suck up to the money man. He didn't want to miss Pramod's birthday. He didn't want to stay in Denmark, not really, he wanted to go back to his home. But he did stay, not only to take care of his daughter, but also to take care of his surrogate children back in India. And while he did ask Pramod to go with him, he did not push Pramod against his will. It's hard to imagine that kind of selflessness. Not that Jacob was a saint, by the way. I found his actions frustrating as well, at first. But he was understandable. Maybe more so than Jorgen, at least in my eyes.

Extra Credit- Jeremy Brinson

After seeing all the films from this semester and having watched numerous films in my lifetime, I'd have to say that my favorite genre of film is classic. I don't really know why, maybe it's the fact that I've been raised on Disney and so the story structure of hero, adventure, low point, climax, victory, happy ending, has gotten engraved into my skull. It's the idea that someone goes through something to triumph and have a happy ending not only makes it easy to relate and the fact that it helps one cope with their own life is it. that and the fact that black and White was the first thing I saw on TV and I fell in love with it. Classic film style is a part of my childhood, you could say. To this day, My favorite film is a tie between Bill Ross's Jumbo and Kiss me Kate. The story pattern is the same, but the journey and detailing are different and stand out when put together. Though it isn't real life, its escapist qualities make it so appealing that I can't resist!

Do the Right Thing - Jen

I think that Spike Lee's character, Mookie, was the most interesting. He was sort of a mystery, because all throughout the film he's basically portrayed as a nice, regular guy. He has some prejudices, clearly, but he wasn't wholly judgmental of people from a different race: for instance, he got along fine with Pino's brother, Vito, and even seemed to rub along carefully with Sal. And while his distaste for Pino is beyond clear, it seems to stem more from how Pino treat those around him (even his own brother) than from a racial problem. This isn't to say that Mookie had no racial prejudices, as the scene where he and a variety of other characters spew racial insults demonstrate that he was somewhat racist, but overall Mookie did a good job of playing an "everyman" character.

So what blew me away was the end. As soon as he grabbed that trashcan, I knew trouble was coming, but it was still a shock when he instigated that riot. Of course he was frustrated, but rationally speaking, it wasn't Sal's fault that his friend got killed. I guess when you're feeling that trapped, you don't really consider your options.

But the next morning, he and Sal kind of work things out. It was sort of sweet. I mean, if I was Sal, no way would I have paid Mookie. But he did...he even gave him some extra money, money that Mookie tried to refuse. It was an odd way to end the film, but very thought-provoking as well. Did the riot lead to a better understanding between the men? Or just a sort of resignation?

Overall, the film passes judgment on all of the characters...but the film also promotes understanding of them. Mookie is no exception. I feel that Mookie was meant to be a generally likable character, but by no means a perfect one.

In The Mood For Love - Amber Merrell

One of the most powerful images I remember from this film is when Mrs. Chan and Mr. Chow are sitting in their respective kitchens, just a wall separating the two of them. I think that this image is very telling of the emotions that run rampant throughout the entire movie. The two married individual long for each other in response to their cheating partners. They are in the same position in their relationships, just as they are in the same position in this image. They each sit on a stool, leaning against the wall that separates their complexes’ kitchens. They tell with their body language how depressed they are in their situations and how trapped they feel. They know that happiness is next door and yet they do not feel that they can take action in order to attain that happiness. They are trapped by not only their marriages but also by their convictions about what is right. They also seem to feel that they are obligated to do or to not do certain things and that they refuse to break those obligations. Their spouses cheat, and yet they themselves will not cheat. This image seems to show that they each realize how easy it would be to have a loving relationship and yet how impossible it is because of the standards to which they hold themselves.

I definitely see a resemblance this film has to silent films in that the movie says so much without dialogue. The scenes where they pass each other without saying a word; or where they sit, sadness dripping from their faces; or they are shown at work, distracted by their home lives all illustrate meaning and further the themes of the film without using dialogue. However, I do think the dialogue is very important in this film. Their conversations show how intimate and yet still somehow professional they are towards one another. Thus, I would suggest that this film is something new that mixes silent, visual qualities with meaningful dialogue to create a complex, evocative piece that inspires many emotions and deep thought.

Extra Credit - J. Miley

Each medium of storytelling has its purpose; each has its strengths. Film has the unique opportunity over every other medium to make the audience “see” new, strange, and wonderful things. Books and theatre both require so much use of the imagination on the audiences’ side that there is no guarantee that the audience will imagine the same sweeping vistas, alien worlds, or emotional responses that the director or author intended. And isn’t that one of the pivotal points of making art, determining what to put in and take out in order to ensure that the audiences “gets it?” Is there any greater joy for an artist than to see that eureka moment? With film, in terms of visuals, the director is able to make sure the audience understands and sees what they envisioned because they literally show it to them. Now, this isn’t to discount written or stage preformed narratives, not in the slightest. Obviously there are things that films do not do as well as novels, such as hearing a character’s thoughts. This happened in older movies, specifically the film noir genre, but today it’s considered hokey. I simply want to point out the unique capability of film in representing visuals.

Now, it is because of all that I just mentioned that I prefer the formalistic take on film. Realism has no doubt done some great things for the industry and it is interesting as an exercise to see what can be accomplished with the limits of the genre. But, I would rather come out of a film theater having seen things I’ve never seen before or in ways I’ve never seen them before. For instance, a crane shot of the Himalayas. You simply can’t use crane shots in Realism, but they can produce moving moments and all you’re looking at is scenery. Conversely , I prefer the classically structured plot. The traditional structure of the inciting incident, rising action, climax, and resolution offers virtually limitless possibilities but is held within a form that is familiar to the audience. If there’s nothing I hate more in films it is leaving feeling confused.

In terms of actor vs. director, for me it’s a tie. I will not go spend ten dollars just to see Kate Beckinsale (my favorite actress) on the big screen or the latest Ridley Scott film, but their involvement is enough to get me interested in a film. But, if there were a movie directed by Ridley Scott staring Kate Beckinsale, that would be enough to get me to spend ten dollars. Also, I equally like personality stars and actor stars. Some personalities I enjoy seeing repeatedly, like John Cusack, he’s virtually the same character in every film. In Grosse Pointe Blank (1997), he’s an assassin. In Serendipity (2001), he’s a writer for ESPN, but he’s the same person in both. On the other hand, I like the breadth of roles someone like Russell Crowe can pull off, from gladiator (Gladiator, 2000) to schizophrenic (A Beautiful Mind, 2001).

Looking back at the movies I’ve watched, I think my love for this less realistic style of film stems from the first movie I can ever remember, Superman (1978). I remember watching that movie, sitting in my father’s lap as my mother cut my hair for the first time. I was two, maybe. I remember trying to push my mom out of the way when she would stand between me and the TV. I remember not being able to close my eyes even though hair was falling in them. Superman did things my two-year brain could not even comprehend, from the fantastic (for the time) special effects to the crazy story, I was enthralled. But I think that looking at the character himself, explains what I look for in films. In the same manner I look at Superman the character (and in the same manner I think all superheroes are meant to be viewed), I watch movies to escape life, to witness the improbable, the impossible, and the fantastic. I get enough real life as it is. Film for me, is about seeing things you’ve never seen before in ways that are impossible with our human limitation. And in that, we are set free to experience that which could previously only be imagined.

In the Mood for Love - J. Miley

I feel odd about writing about In the Mood for Love, because none of the shots struck me. I want to be analytic and say something profound here, but In the Mood for Love just didn’t seem that amazing to me. For one, the relationship between Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan seems to come out of nowhere. Thinking about it, I can’t find the point where the “affair” started. It’s just there one night when they’re standing in the street and Mr. Chow say something to the effect of it not mattering who said they had feelings first. Also, I don’t understand why the setting was so important. The story, however deeply rooted in the culture, is a universal one, one of the humanistic need for companionship. The situation that Mrs. Chan and Mr. Chow find themselves in is not unique to their time or culture. In addition to that, the movie is so claustrophobic in its environments that it could have taken place anywhere. We don’t see much of the outside world and thus it could have taken place in New York, England, Dubai or San Francisco. Also, I felt like the movie just dragged. I know that it was only 98 minutes, but there are so many long takes that it felt bloated. My greatest grievance with this picture, though, is that the bit about whispering your secrets into the knot of a tree is left until the very end. That’s so immeasurably great and interesting that it feels like a crime to have not mentioned it for so long. Finally, I just wasn’t satisfied with the ending. It’s not that I want the characters to get together (I mean, I did but I knew they wouldn’t). But I felt like the shot where Mr. Chow stops for a second in front of Mrs. Chan’s is so poignant that if the film ended there, it would have been far more satisfying form the shear disappointment you would feel for the character. Because, at this point, the audience has watch the two characters for an hour and a half gets so close to consummating this affair but never doing so that we don’t need to be shown that Mr. Chow doesn’t knock on the door. We already know that he won’t. Because that’s the nature of the film, the nature of the character, the nature of the human situation of needing others but never building up the guts to take that irreversible step and knock on the door.

Extra Credit - Amber Merrell

I usually tend to prefer more classical style films. Some of my favorite movies are from the black and white, classical era of American and British film. For instance, Arsenic and Old Lace, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, and The Lady Vanishes are some of my favorite films. I love the simple yet engaging storylines and the linear style of storytelling. There are no special effects or disorienting camera angles to distract me in these movies. I can simply concentrate on the actors and the story and enjoy the experience. With these films, I get absorbed in the story being told, whether it’s a mystery, comedy, or drama. I want to see what happens next, above all else. In addition, these movies always put me in a good mood. They are feel-good films and I take much enjoyment by merely experiencing this old-school style of film. Now, most films boast large amounts of special effects like The Lord of The Rings or documentary style filming like Paranormal Activity. I very much enjoy these movies as well, but they do not affect me in the same way or to the same degree as the old classical films.

I also greatly enjoy the actors in these older movies, though many of them are personality stars. I do prefer actor stars over personality stars, but I make exceptions for these classic movies. Most of my favorite actors are actually from recent films, so there is a disconnect between my favorite style of film and my favorite actors. The exception is James Stewart, who has always been one of my favorite actors, even though he is a personality actor. I love watching him play his roles. He has me convinced every time, though he does get a little over-dramatic at times. It does not matter; I think he’s fantastic regardless. The actors who can make me feel good and be absorbed in the story become my favorites.

In the Mood for Love - Beca G.

In the Mood for Love is easily one of my favorite films from the semester. Between the beautiful shots and the simple story line, it seemed an act of simplicity and grace; a story that unfolded quite wonderfully. The visual drama was stunning, as Wong played off of the grittiness of the streets, the softness of Mrs. Chan and her beautiful clothes, and the juxtaposition of the darkness where Mrs. Chan and Mr. Mo-Wan cloak their seeing of each other.

In the still of Mr. Mo-Wan looking in the mirror, there are tons of gorgeous elements in the shot that help to reflect a complexity in feeling that the story itself does not have. In the mirror, the viewer gets two versions of a similar feeling. Mr. Mo-Wan looks confused and a bit pained – his wife is having an affair, and he is finding himself falling for his wife’s lover’s wife. It’s all so complicated – especially since the two live next door to one another, an easy way to get caught by the respective apartment owners that they are renting from. Everything else in the shot is blurred except for the very clear view of his reflection, and it mirrors the theme that while everything seems very complicated and fuzzy regarding he and Mrs. Chan’s relationship.

One of the other shots that I thought was particularly beautiful was the one where Mrs. Chan is standing in the window. Clearly, the actress is a beautiful woman, yet the simplicity of her standing in the window, drinking a glass of water, while contemplating is also in focus against the contrast of all the fuzzy greenery. The same them is reiterated – the personal struggles of the two main characters, not only in coming to grips with the betrayal of their spouses, but also coming to terms with their strange relationship with each other.

*PS – Can I also say that the costuming in this film was beautiful? Mrs. Chan’s dresses were very emulative of her character – gorgeous, yet still uptight and formal all the time. She was always dressed and made up, and I thought this said a lot about her character – not only in a prissy way, but also in the fact that she seemed a little austere and cold. It wasn’t until the last fourth of the film that she cried, and in the next few scenes her hair was looser, and we see her take off her shoes – a gradual sense of letting go.

Extra Credit - Craig Walters

I feel that Realism and Formalism and it’s in betweens are all as effective as the next. I found Breathless to be the perfect portrayal of Realism in our class, while 2001: A Space Odyssey was a brilliant form of Formalism. The objectives of the two, however were quite different, therefore the means to the end must be subjectively different. Breathless was mean to be human and emotions and subjectively show the human condition, while 2001: A Space Odyssey was to be a journey, both objectively and subjective through it’s visual trip. The world of the two are quite different, one seemingly less tangible, but the life shown to the audience in Breathless takes us to a world amongst ourselves, which many people to not see. To me, I find any form a film must take on the subject matter to which it is most relatable that allows the audience to break the barrier of the film itself to make one truly invest in the film. As to my two examples from earlier, neither movie could take on the style of the other film without losing much of its reliability. You may ask, how could one relate to 2001? It’s formalism and obvious anesthetic distance involved in Formalism allows you to feel truly removed from reality as you are supposed to be.
For me I truly love thought provoking films that make statements about life, whether tangibly or intangibly, politically or personally. I find a movie that can make an audience think, if even for a moment, about themselves or the world they live in, or heading towards in the case of 2001, to hold the most ground in my eyes. Therefore, I am not more conscious of the cinematography, but rather the intent of such elements on the film itself.

In The Mood For Love - Craig Walters

The image of the hallway with the red curtains, first off, I find absolutely gorgeous. It is telling of the story, the love, which grows between the two main characters. The red curtains speak of the passion of the main characters primarily. This is filmic language as the scene is vacant yet obtrusive to the audience, it speaks of the contradictions, which inhibit on the love of our admirers in this film. They are obviously filled with love and admiration of one another and truly care deeply for one another, however they cannot accept it, or face it, for their current prospects in life refuse to allow for their action, whether it be socially or faithfully.
The first image of the two walking down a dark street also speaks volumes towards their hidden love, which will slowly diffuse into the shadows as their characters do in this image. It also speaks to the lingering of hidden emotions amongst their peers as they continually sneak about to avoid any social repercussions. The difficulty of their lives build a wall, which they broke want to break, but can’t for their obligations.

Extra Credit- Amanda Carman

Before I took this class, image and story were the only things I looked for in film, with story being the most important aspect.  I went to the theatre for the purpose of being drawn into a world peopled by characters with whom I could create some manner of emotional bond experiencing...something, whether it be an epic adventure or a more subtly important moment in life.  Visuals help; as an artist, I cannot help but be entrapped by beautiful imagery or made disinterested and annoyed by sloppy visual effects (I'm glad I never paid to see New Moon, for example, after seeing how the animators couldn't figure out that a wolf's spine has to move as it's running and that legs are generally attached to the body.  Also, failing to edit shadows on a green screen was an embarrassingly elementary mistake for a film of that budget.  I hope they feel ashamed), but at times the image can save an otherwise mediocre movie for me.  As hackneyed as the plot of Avatar might be, the beautiful world-building and attention to detail earned my respect and repeated viewing, particularly of the middle section where the "noble savage" plot is set aside for actual development of character and culture.  Visuals alone cannot save a terrible rendition of a story, however.  I will never forgive the creators of the film adaptation of The Golden Compass for destroying the plot of the book, no matter how pretty the film may have been (though lazy rendering did permeate this movie as well).

Now, with the added understanding of film I have gained with this class, I am better able to recognize the more complicated aspects of film composition.  I can question why a particular angle was chosen for a shot or how the use of sound contributes to the overall effect of the film.  However, story still remains paramount in my mind, and my appreciation of the other aspects of the film is given through the lens of how it contributes to the telling of the story.  I tend to prefer Formalist films for this reason, as their use of the freedom to manipulate the medium allows for a wide range of interesting means with which to tell stories.  I tend to prefer films that are either very fantastical or deeply psychological in nature, films which take you out of your comfortable world and into an entirely different realm, whether it be a fantasy realm or a realm of experience that is simply not yours.  My favorite films are the ones that force me to reflect, wonder, cry, mourn, or sit gibbering in a corner hoping that the world is not really that terrible, films like The Fountain, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Moulin Rouge, Pan's Labyrinth, and Requiem for a Dream, and these films are beautifully crafted to grab your interest and pull you into a carefully choreographed dance with the characters and concepts represented within them.

In the Mood for Love- Amanda Carman

The visual element that stood out to me most throughout the film was the frequent use of mirrors and windows to frame the shot, as illustrated in the second photograph.  As in Rear Window, this film draws attention to the voyeurism inherent in film watching through its framing, but unlike Rear Window there is no Jimmy Stewart for the viewer to embody; you are observing private moments from an unknown perspective.  This serves to increase the tension felt by the two not-quite-lovers, the fear of discovery; when you see them through a window, you assume that you are seeing them from -somebody's- perspective, either one of the nosy neighbors or a spouse, and that they are always on the verge of discovery.  This is how the couple feels as well, though the fear is largely unwarranted through the course of the film.

The use of mirrors is particularly interesting as a parallel to the plot and a subtle commentary on theme.  The unusual characteristic of the plot of this film is the relationship between the two main characters; it is not a relationship of blossoming love (at least not til the end), nor is it even a normal friendship.  Though they frequently encounter each other while passing each other in the noodle shop and being in proximity with each other as neighbors, their acquaintance is cultivated by the mutual discovery that their spouses are cheating with each other.  Their relationship develops as they attempt to recreate the development of their spouses' adulterous relations, so at several instances in the film it is unclear whether the event you're viewing is reality or a charade.  Shooting many of the shots through the perspective of the mirror highlights this strange ambiguity between what is real and what is facsimile.

Shortly after the screenshot represented in the prompt, there is another shot of the reflection of his reflection in another mirror.  During this scene, the warning "never get caught between two mirrors" came to mind, the idea being that the infinite reflections that occur between two mirrors traps the soul.  In this scene, Mr. Chow is working on his martial arts serial, an important connection that arose between them in that it has nothing to do with reenacting the development of the relationship between their unfaithful spouses.  In this sense, the couple has allowed themselves to be caught between two metaphorical mirrors: the reenactment which allows them to better see their spouses' motivations and actions, and the mutual interest in the martial arts serial which allows them to better see each other.  It is here that they lose the soul of their original intent, their promise not to do to their spouses what was done to them.

In The Mood For Love - Parker Sealy

Two images that really struck me as being the most powerful out of the ones at the bottom were 1. The man’s reflection in the mirror image and 2. The women grabbing her shoes and the shot is from under the bed. I feel like in this movie, the visual storytelling was all from the outside’s perspective. All that was being narrated was being narrated from our perspective, as the audience. As she grabbed her shoes, we could see as if we were spying on her. The same with the reflection. We were looking at him from behind just like in scary movies when the guy looks in the mirror and sees the reflection of a murderer or someone in the mirror, you expect them to show someone looking in the mirror at him but then you realize that person is you, the viewer. They are the most powerful because it really helps to demonstrate the sense of voyeurism. As for the connections? Sure, there are connections. With or without sound, this sense of voyeurism would still be present. We feel as if we are peering into their lives just as they feel they have to peer into their spouses because they are cheating. We get a sense of what they are going through which can be delivered with or without sound. We can appreciate the cinematography in that aspect. We clearly feel the way we do throughout the film because of the camera angles and proxemics so sound is not super necessary. We still have the same feeling that we do.

Days of Heaven - James Clarke

The scope of Days of Heaven is so expansive it would seem a lot larger than the story actually is. Though far more complicated than many traditional love stories, the setting is what sets it aside. The tangled love story is set on a beautiful landscape that becomes a profound allegory for harmony and chaos, love and hate, and good and evil. Its emotional impact, and sometimes lack thereof, is caused by the narrator, Bill's sister, who actually has a really terrible accent and diction.The opening titles provides sepia-toned period photos of turn-of-the-century city and rural life. The titles sequence ends with a photo of the narrator that has been sepia-toned to look like the other pictures.

The rest of the film does well to fit in with the time as well, with the setting, costumes, colors and characters. The allegories of time between life and death tie in perfectly with that of the harvest and of the constant use of dusk. These shots frame the abundant use of silhouette shots beautifully and add a great deal to the tragedy of the story. There is no clear antagonist to this story, and no clear protagonist either. Everyone uses everyone else and treats everyone else just as we as an audience would imagine they would. The downfall of the relationships and of Bill are as predictable as any other doomed love story we have seen in Hollywood. To be frank, the story wouldn't be believable if it didn't end the way it did. There is obviously no happy ending at the end of any character's story, even that of Bill's sister, the narrator, as she walks away at the end of the film. She looks back, at the tragedy of her young life so far, but there's nothing back there but ghosts and memories.

Do The Right Thing - James Clarke

Rather than only identify one character from "Do The Right Thing", I feel like I can only fully analyze the story and their effect on it by looking at more than one. The reason for this would be that no character is fully the main navigator of the story. Each one is incomplete without the other. Not only is this also a reflection on their place in the community, but also their direct representation on society as a whole. Each class, race, gender, and age has a place within each other's roles in society.

To begin with, it would make sense that I start with the 'main' character. Mookie, played by director Spike Lee himself. Though he would seem at first to be one of the most level headed characters in the film, he is also one of the catalysts for the explosive climax of the film. Is this because he is a bad person? Absolutely not. His social and emotional unrest is clearly pushed to the limit and he acts rashly and (arguably) wrongly, but it is also understandable. He has a crappy job that he hates, he is undereducated, he isn't married, he has a small child, and he is going nowhere. The latter is enough to infuriate anyone my age. Not only is Mookie the sanity and glue that holds those around him together, but he is also a beacon of positivity to the rest of the community. This is all the more devastating when he snaps and throws the trash can through the store window.

The one character that I feel the worst for in this movie is definitely Sal. He and Mookie are caught in the middle of their seemingly separate places in society and life, trying to hold those around them together but going nowhere themselves. Sal's entire life is set on his business that he loves, and he hopes to turn that over to his sons one day. Not only is that touching, but it also shows that he is indeed invested in the community where the business is located. Once Sal breaks down it becomes clear that even though he doesn't feed on the stereotypes of races and class like his son and some of the other characters do, he definitely recognizes and retains them. It is really unfortunate though that he is pushed to that point. His downfall, as well as Mookie's downfall, is really heartbreaking because they seem the most level at the beginning of the film.

If there is one character in this film that bothers me more than any other, it is Buggin Out. If there was a foil to the ignorant and bigoted rednecks of the world, this would be it. The ignorant, poor, and under-informed oppressed guy. Not only do all of the other characters in the film (with the exception of Radio) tell him that he is full of it and needs to do something with his life besides complain, but his sole role in the film is that of the antagonist. Now the worst 'bad guy' in the film is clearly the cop that kills Radio, but I do not think that short part is the antagonist of the story itself. Society often feeds on the voices of those who are the loudest, and Buggin Out is definitely a voice to be heard in the community. He could be a voice for reason, but, like all of the other characters in this domino effect of a storyline, he does not do the right thing. His antagonizing Radio and Sal and the other characters is a key factor in the breakdown at the pizzeria.

While I don't think this movie might have had much effect on the election like Spike Lee might have hoped, I do think that his goal of raising questions is indeed accomplished. There is no clear solution in this film. The title, might be the only hint we have to one, but no one in the film lives up to it. The film and the characters within it, then, are merely reflections on society at the time. No one had done the right thing (yet). I'd like to think that enough people have now in present time, and I think Spike Lee might agree.

In the Mood for Love- Greg Weinstein

In the Mood for Love is a triumph for Wong Kar Wai not only its visual storytelling, but in using the audience and keeping us on our toes throughout the movie. He does this while utilizing a fairly simple storyline to set up the events as two sets of couples move in next door to each other and one of the husbands and one of the wives have an affair. Their respective spouses end up finding out, and are soon, seemingly, going to start an affair of their own, but it is one of the most perfect non-shots ever, as we are never actually shown whether or not they have sex with each other, and truly does the audience need to know? It is through Wong Kar Wai's storytelling that the sex at this point, is meaningless as they have basically done the ultimate act of love with their looks, walks, and actions with each other.

For instance, one of the greatest visceral images in the film is the red curtain, which is always swaying in the wind, an act of the heart just as the spouses may or may not be swaying themselves. Just like Pyramus and Thisbe, forbidden to meet except through a wall, as our two lovers are forbidden to act on their desires, even though their spouses have, yet the ecstasy and instensity, built up by the shooting appears to be too much for them. This is paralleled with the seclusion of the cheating spouses' faces and how the audience can never see them, perhaps an illusion to their shame and their secrecies. The same red curtain always swaying back and forth in the wind thus seems to allude to our character's loneliness throughout the film, right up until Chow speaks into the hollow tree and then muddles it up to stay there alone, never to be heard from by anyone else. This loneliness is also displayed in the beginning before Chow and So really meet, as they are both always eating alone, depressed thus leading to their inevitable hookup. This is the defining moment of the film, as the audience knows what should happen, we have seen it so many times in Hollywood movies, where the couple's passion finally erupts into the most sensual scene one can imagine, but this doesn't happen here. The audience never sees this and is thus, left alone at the end of the film without any conclusion or finality to our want of these two lovelorn characters to get together. It is this sympathy for the characters that Wong Kar Wai cleverly and expertly develops throughout the movie, always keeping us on the edge of our seats, just like good movies should.

Extra Credit- Greg Weinstein

Well the main difference between realism and formalism is that realism is when the movie is trying to show that their world is not tampered with, thus an objective shot of what the film is trying to show while formalism holds no such distinction. When shooting a realist film the filmmaker is more concerned with what is being shot as opposed to what is being manipulated unlike formalism where the directors, who are sometimes called expressionists are more concerned with showing their experience, as opposed to how others might see it.

This affects one viewing of the material as some enthusiasts tend to care more about a story that is not tampered with or that they could see walking down the street as opposed to movies that are different or imaginative. I, on the otherhand hold no pretense when it comes to movies. No, what makes a great movie for me is how it resonates with me and whether I can sit through it for two hours or more and then come back to it later on if I so choosed to. My preferences don't fall more towards action or comedy or drama or classics or new or foreign or domestic or cheap or expensive or who is starring in it or making it. I care more about what is on the screen and if it is a good movie that makes me cry, laugh, think, feel, happy, mad, or pumped then I am going to put myself behind it and I will take two hours or more out of my day to watch it or spend the necessary dollars to see. For instance, a couple of weeks ago my girlfriend and I were in Savannah and the Savannah film festival was there and on that particular day 127 hours was showing, and I have been wanting to see that ever since I saw the trailer. Unfortunately, the festival has been sold out for weeks, but the theatre has a line where people can wait to see if there are empty seats. So we got there 2 and a half hours before it started and we were still the 4th couple in line, but we waited the entire time and we ended up seeing it and loving it. The same thing happened with a friend and I when we wanted to see the midnight showing for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkhaban but we weren't allowed to see a midnight showing due to our age, but we waited and we eventually found a couple who took pity on us. The point being it could be a huge movie that billions of people will see like Harry Potter or considerably less like 127 Hours, if the movie strikes a chord then that will be the movie I will go to any lengths to see. And probably the two films that have most influenced my film watching have been Bridge on the River Kwai and 12 Angry Men. Those movies were just it for me with their stories, directing, and acting that transcended anything else. Seeing movies like these that are just different and breathtaking make everything else seem better after you've seen the work that goes into movies like these and more and the result they can put on reels. I believe cinema is there to make everything else seem better, if its how much better our life is or look what this person did, or just how amazing something is, and its that amazing because people like us, members of the audience, grew up and did what they saw 20, 30, 40+ years prior. Cinema is that escape.

Extra Credit - Bradley Strickland

I really enjoy films that lean towards realism. I really enjoy first person narration, voyeurism, and “art that conceals art.” Jean Renior’s films are particularly great because he evokes realism to use film as a critique – a mirror of sorts. These films force deep questions on the audience because of how real the film and the characters appear to be. Often the subject hits close to home, leaving a lasting impact. Classical paradigm films are great escapes for me, but often they do not leave lasting impacts or force me to think about a particular question. Thus, I am not as likely to pay to see this on the big screen. I feel that I watch them and a few weeks later forget them (but I really enjoy older Walt Disney animation and Pixar films). I do enjoy films with particular political ideologies and intense emotional situations. The film, Sicko by Michael Moore, is one that exemplifies this. I also love nature documentaries. We can see real life things on the screen that we normally never would be able to. Often these are rare images that make me feel privileged and enlightened. However, I also enjoy more formalist movies as well. The film Hero directed by Yimou Zhang comes to mind. I marvel at the martial arts acrobatics that appear to be dances and the beautiful battles (hint of perversity) that are full of colors. This film emphasizes the visual rhetoric to tell the story (which has a very complex and convoluted plot line). Though you can see it in Realism, distortion, exaggeration, and blending of illusion and reality is much more common in Formalism. For some reason I really enjoy this. I value each type of film in different situations and I feel each is necessary for a particular subject.

In summary, Realism is useful to critique society and systems (though it can be very discrete and quite about it). Often Formalism can do the same critique but is more convoluted and confusing in its approach, which can lead to misinterpretation or an overlook. Classical films can provide us with sometimes needed escapes from the pressures of real world and reality.

However, there are certain types of films I cannot stand, particularly pure avant-garde films. They do not provide an escape for me and often lead me feeling like I have wasted time. I cannot stand watching Belson's films or swirling images and computer graphics. I also do not enjoy films that are overly gory horror films.

There are certain stars that I would go see a movie for like Anthony Hopkins (personality star) and Tom Hanks (actor star). I must admit that often I do not even know the director of a particular movie. However, I really enjoy Tarantino and Clint Eastwood as directors and would go see a film solely because they directed it. Often for me it is the subject that will convince me to go see a movie. I enjoy gangster movies particularly (American Gangster and Road to Perdition). I know it is weird, but I think, as a society, as individuals, we enjoy a hint of seeing things we would not do or people we could not become (1930s and 1980s gangsters). I also really enjoy musicals (Chicago and The Producers). I think this is because I enjoy music so much.

In The Mood For Love - Atlee

In the mood for love was very interesting in its story-telling. Wong's frequent distortions of image and sound help to explain to the audience of the films unnatural tone. It seems odd that two people who spouses were have an affair with the spouse of the others would in turn fall in love themselves. This is such an odd concept. Especially when the relationship of the two, who were in the beginning being cheated on, began their own relationship only in an effort to restore some idea of marriage to their own lives. You can see images in the beginning when they start to spend more time together that they both are trying to direct each other to how their spouse would normally act. They both are in the mood for love and want to get it even if it is not from their actual significant other. And more specifically, the love that they are each in the mood for is not physical love, but emotional connection with another person. Both of their spouses are gone because they are cheating, but also because they work long hours and often travel for their jobs. Because they are never around, their significant others often feel alone and neglected. So when their relationship begins to blossom with one another, they do not need physical love as much as they need to fill the emotional gap that has been created with the loss of their marital partner.

Their partners are never shown clearly in the film. The cheating husband is actually never in a frame of the film, but we do here his voice, and the cheating wife is also never clearly shown. This is obviously a comment on the view of both of their actions. Adultery is obvious a negative aspect throughout the film. Which I think Chow and Su are held in high regard because even though their partners are cheating they never take any action towards each other. It seems that whenever the audience expects them to have some type of physical action with each other, the simply end of have a cigarette to show the frustration that they are both feeling, not only because of they actions of each of their partners, but also because of the route that their own relationship with each other is taking. Neither I believe set out to fall in love with each other, and honestly when they did express their love for each other I was somewhat surprised because they hadn't each shown that they even liked each other very much, much less loved one another.

In the Mood for Love - Bradley Strickland

In the Mood for Love, is Wong Kar-wai’s movement into a new paradigm for film while taking from the visual awe of classic cinema. He moves away from the distractions of complex dialogue and intricate stories. Instead, the film evokes a mood, feelings of longing and a sense of restrained passion. We are enveloped into the characters’ lives by a visual rhetoric that becomes more important, perhaps, than the narrative.

Kar-wai uses the intensity of the film’s cinematography to emphasize the symbolism within the film, rather than relying on its narrative. The beautiful red curtain billowing in the wind is a powerful image, a symbol of perversity. It signifies the repressed love, restrained passion, by our two stars. It shows the separation of two destined lovers by the red curtain of their perverse marriages to someone else (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red, under Eastern and African traditions). The flowing curtain thus becomes the visual emphasis of a sense of romantic longing between our two characters. The film makes us constantly long for something to happen, some outburst of sexual passion that we are used to in romantic Hollywood films, but it never does.

The slow motion scenes that are scattered within the film are part of Kar-wai’s revisionist approach of “the romance film.” These scenes highlight Maggie’s beauty, while at the same time their slowness emphasizes a sense of longing. We become entranced every single time she walks down each step, getting closer and closer to… nothing. Perhaps the most powerful image in the entire film is when the two characters pass a glance to each other going opposite ways on this staircase. The entire film is embodied in this one shot, all the sense of longing, restraint, repression, and regret. The ultimate perversity of their association as neighbors and their marriages is that these conventions prevent them from stopping their lives to answer any questions to love, to take more than a glance.

In the Mood for Love -Jess S.

Collectively, I think those awkward scenes with the slow-motion and weird cuts made the most impact, because for the moment they allow you to slow down and really take in what’s going on with these characters emotionally, and what kind of toll it continues to take on their lives. If they know their spouses are cheating and they’re falling in love- why can’t they just go through with those rehearsals and get the hard part over with? I think the visual narrative of these slower takes also give time for the characters to communicate their frustration too, because for whatever reason they can’t leave their partners- they can’t bring themselves to act as badly as their partners have (in a way) because in one sense I think they believe they’re better than that, but they also can’t help the way they feel about each other and their situation.

Two other images that struck me the most were among the last scenes where he is whispering his secret into the stones and she stares out of the window of their old apartment building with tears in her eyes. It almost seems like he is so torn with the grief of remembering her that he is willing to give up the secret of their affair to try and forget about it forever, but he realizes that when he goes back to the apartment building that he will always remember and that there is no trying to forget. When she’s staring out the window, remembering him, I think the colors of that shot are what intrigued me the most. There’s deep color throughout the film that helps to convey the meaning of their longing, but from what I remember of this scene it seems like she is surrounded by the most vibrant colors in the shot, while the outside world beyond the window-without him, it seems-is gray and dismal. There was no need for dialogue in these two shots, as well as most of the movie. I think we could’ve gotten the clear message if Wong had made In the Mood for Love a completely silent film. The characters’ sense of expression could have given us all we needed to understand, and in some way I think that it may have had more of an impact, though I think he did a fine job of smoothly integrating the dialogue with the unique and artistic visuals. Maybe less dialogue and more in-depth visuals in films would be a nice new direction to go in for cinema- I think it would motivate audiences to think more about their interpretations of a work and how it made them feel, rather than the film blatantly telling them what the film is about and how it should make them feel.

In the Mood for Love- Jess N

One of the most powerful images for me was towards the end of the movie when the man goes back to take a present to his former landlord and the new guy living there tells him there is a woman and a child living next now. The image is of the man pausing outside the door and staring at it. We're not sure if it is the woman behind the door, but there there's a feeling that it is, and as we later find out it is her. This image was powerful to me because it kind of represents the last hope of them being together. There's that sense of longing and urgency where you want him to just knock on the door and for them to be reunited and to see where things will go, even though you know in your heart, he's not going to. I was thinking that maybe they would finally be able to be together, as it seems they are both separated now, as the man has lived in Singapore for awhile without his wife it seemed, and the man next door said it was only a woman and a child living next door, which leads me to believe, or at least hope, that she has finally left her husband. I guess that is why this image is the most powerful to me because neither has any idea who is on the other side of the door and it is a major sign of fate, unfortunately that they shouldn't be together I guess since he moves on with neither of them ever knowing what could have been if he had knocked.

Another image, more a whole shot, that seemed powerful was that of them leaning against the wall on opposite sides. The camera pans back and forth showing both of them with the wall in between. This shot has power without any words because you can physically see the separation between them, the wall, and the anxiety, stress, and longing written all over their faces and in their body language which almost mirror each other. The audience can see the tear between the two, the longing and want, the desire to be together, yet the struggle and need to remain separated because they don't want to be like their spouses.

I do see the similarities between Wong's film and silent cinema, especially in the use of facial expressions and body language to convey how the characters are feeling and the struggle they are dealing with. Yet, there is something different about Wong's film that I can't quite put a finger on, maybe it's that his film has a more subtle way of conveying the feeling. The characters are not over-exaggerating the expressions, it's just the camera's close up and the scene around them that helps to convey the mood and what they are feeling.

I must say, watching this film reminded me a lot of a family reunion with my dad's side of the family with all the similar speaking, the way they gather together for everything and set the food out where everything is on the table and each person has their own small bowl of rice and just picks at the other plates as they go all sharing off of them, the fast loud talking and everyone talking over each other, and the dresses the women wear and their hairstyles are all similar to the way Vietnamese women do theirs and the traditional Vietnamese dress we wear. It was quite funny to me all the shots at the table where they are playing games and everyone's sitting around having a good time because that is exactly what happens at my relatives' houses, and also how nosy and in other people's business is quite characteristic of them too.

Extra Credit - Jess N

As I reflect on my favorite films, I would have to say that my favorite type falls within the Classical style and more towards realism. I like the unbelievable/would almost never happen in real life love stories like The Notebook because they usually have some witty lines and a little bit of comedy, but they're also very touching and make me wish we lived in such a world where such things as the little rich girl and the poor farm boy being together are actually possible. I like films that leave me with a happy feeling and glad I watched it, like I could make a difference in the world. Capra's works would probably perfectly describe what I like in films. Beyond these type films, I absolutely love musicals and dance movies. Growing up singing and dancing, I've always loved performance movies with unknown actors that are actually dancers or singers instead. Anything from broadway musicals to things like Take the Lead (yet again, one person making a difference in others lives) and the Step Up trilogy are sure to catch my interest and be some of my favorites.

If I'm going to shell out $10 to go see a movie in theaters, it must have a good story line, usually yet again within the Classical style, those that seem real on one level, but if you delve deeper, you realize such things don't actually happen very often, but I also like big name actors/actresses. I'm more likely to go see the film if I know who's in it and like their other works. I guess you could say I like the typical girly movie with a love story and a happy ending, but also those with a great musical/dance performance.

I think a movie should have some of emotional connection to the person watching it to make it a great film, no matter what style or genre it is. I want a film that leaves an impression, one that makes me think, yeah I'd watch that again, or I can't wait to see that again! There must be a good story line or plot and I appreciate good acting, unless of course, it's a documentary or something not involving actual actors. If it's a musical/dance film, I am more interested in the talent and abilities of those within the film, whether singer or actor, than I am in the story line, as most of them do not really have such great plots; they're more concerned with the performance than a great story line which does bother me a little as I like a good story line, something that has some thought put into it, but if the dancing or singing impresses me than I will like it anyway.

Honestly, I'm not much of a movie buff...sitting in class, I have heard of, even less seen, almost none of the films mentioned. I really don't know many directors or even think about who is the director of a film when I think about going to see a movie. I don't really think about the technicalities or what goes in to a film, the significance, the symbolism, the colors and their meanings all seem to escape me. I guess I am just one of those that watches the top layer of the film, grazing over the surface of it, what it before my eyes, and never bothers to delve deeper into what the director was thinking or trying to convey through the film. I must say though, this class has given me a greater appreciation for film and sparked my interest in other genres of film, things I would never think to see before taking this class. It has expanded my very narrow taste in film and made me look at films in a different way. I actually think about the meanings behind the film now which I've never thought about before.

Extra Credit! -Jess S.

For the most part, I think indie films are what I'll generally go for first before a big box office smash. This choice probably depends more on the genre than anything else. Indie films usually feel more raw and personal, and also seem to have a bit more morbidity because of their topic (sometimes), and that’s typically what catches my eye.  Saying that isn't to say that I will completely forgo big Hollywood productions, but it usually depends on what type of movie I find myself getting into before I hand over ten bucks to see it. I also try not to let the critics’ opinions sway me before going to see a film. If I’m interested in the topic of the narrative, I want to check it out for myself before I make any judgments based on what other people say. Generally, though, the more controversial “big” movies I want to see don’t make it to the theaters in this town, so I try and wait patiently for a DVD release.


I think the best films are the ones that latch on to some part of you and don’t let go-the ones that make you think about them obsessively for days until you can shake them off long enough to detach yourself from those thoughts. For me, though, it doesn’t have to be a really shocking indie or even a deep Hollywood production to have this effect. It all depends on the narrative and how it’s presented. Even if there’s no ‘flair’ at all- if it’s not a big budget film- if it’s based around something that intrigues me and it makes an impact, I’m there. I’m kind of torn between both the “life as it is” films and the made-up worlds of some films. The more I think about it, though, I’m more likely to gravitate toward the “life as it is” films. I’m also somewhat torn between the Classical Paradigm and the more mysterious convention, although I guess if I’m going with “life as it is”, I’m most often headed for the Classical Paradigm films. Of course I like the Hollywood Studio era, but more often than not it’s the grit and low-budget productions that grip me the most. Along with that, I typically marvel over the colors and the depth of the “real world” in film more than the computer-generated realism.  

I hate to be so neutral, but in those cases where I like the director AND the star, that will win me over. If it’s one or the other, I’ll most likely go with the star if I don’t know much about the director. I would most definitely pay more for the actor star than the personality star. I would absolutely pay more to go see a Tim Burton film with Johnny Depp as the star (because who else would the actor star be?) before I would head out to see a film with Will Ferrell, no matter the director. Also, anything literary wins me over- if it’s true to the original line. I also like films with some sort of psychological ties built in, whether it’s something with actor stars like Girl, Interrupted or something that’s more indie-esque, like Peter Mullan’s The Magdalene Sisters. Political films aren’t usually my thing, but I did really enjoy Do the Right Thing. Overall, I think that if a film is creative and original and intuitive, I’ll take a chance on it.

Extra Credit - James Clarke

On the topic of realist or formalist film, I find myself torn between the two. Admire so many aspects of both schools of thought. The formalist theory of the importance of all of the technical elements of film is of incredible influence on me as a movie fan and as a film maker. The score, the camera work, the editing, the timing, are all integral to how I view and make movies. On the other hand, if the elements all seem fabricated and don't fit the form of the movie, the reality of the film completely fades away. When I am in the theater or seeing a movie for the first time, it is key for me to become engulfed by the film or I am not interested.

I realize this might seem like trying to have my cake and eat it too, but in modern cinema I don't feel that is the case. Today all of the realistic elements of storytelling can be present complete with the additional formalist elements. In fact, many elements originating in realist film (such as the montage from The Battleship Potempkin) and the cinematography of probably the first realist film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. As a long time fan of film, I believe the reality of the world that the film creates. So long as the the rest of the film goes along with the same premise, I can still believe in the reality of the film, no matter how unrealistic that it is. This makes the placement and use of formalist elements very critical.

To me, I am somewhat of a purist. I will pay no matter how much money it is to go by myself (if necessary) to sit in the middle, center row of a theater and become engulfed in the story I am watching. The sound, the characters and my investment in them, the story and the spectacle are all my favorite parts. Sometimes I look for the message and the deeper meaning of the text, but sometimes I just take joy in the sense of wonder that motion pictures create. This is my passion, it is my hobby, and I hope to one day make it my career. Of the qualities in my favorite films, I would definitely have to point out that the majority of them contain an unfaltering hero in the purist form, foiled well by a villain so devious that you can't help but like them as well. The story usually spans more than one film, which also makes me a sucker for trilogies. Adventure stories that remind me of my own imagination and desires to explore the world and live on the edge of danger. These are the reasons we watch movies, to identify with characters that we wish we could be, and live vicariously through them.

After The Wedding - James Clarke

I want to start by saying that I LOVED this movie. It is definitely my favorite of the films we have watched so far. The relationships and the realism of emotion expressed in the film is second to none in my opinion. The elements of Dogma 95, though not completely followed in the story or the technique, are still very heavily drawn upon here and it only helps to amplify the storytelling in this film.

One thing that I love the most in this film is that none of the characters do the wrong thing. I think in the society we live in, where we are somewhat jaded by reality, we don't expect people to help one another. In the modern world those that have often do very little for those that have not. This translates to the global scale in countries that are still in a state of growth compared to what we are currently. Although the characters in this film are not American, we can definitely connect with the needs of the impoverished on the wealthy. The characters in the film though, all end up doing the right thing. In every situation, the main characters (not including the daughter's new husband) rise above our suspicions and our fears and genuinely help eachother and love eachother, despite their trials and hardships. To me, this is to be applauded. I feel like the audience can connect and appreciate the characters so much more when they admire their decisions and their capacity for good.

By far the most powerful moment in the film is Jorgen's break down at the end of the film when he is dying. It begs the question from all of us on how we would handle the same situation. I do think the Jorgen is a good man, and that he just wanted to take care of those people he loved, and did so in a way that some might find strange. He is a man, however, that believes in second chances, and he gave everyone else the chance that he will never get. I love that and I think that his 'sins' are not real sins, but rather the sins that others have projected on him and his success. He is a kind man and I'm sure his family will continue to live on with a positive effect on the world around them due to his memory and positive effect on their lives.

In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar Wai, 2000, Hong Kong, 98 minutes)

Maybe I've said this before, but one of the advantages of starting this course with a week or two of silent movies is that we're reminded that film is primarily a visual medium, and that often a work's most subtle, nuanced, and ambiguous meanings, its most interesting implications, are the products of its visual language, as opposed to the more literary business of its dialogue, the more musical business (broadly figured) of its diegetic and nondiegetic soundscapes, the more theatrical business of its acting, etc. Maybe not so much as we used to anymore, alas, but for a while there, we paid a sum of money—sometimes more, sometimes less—to sit in the dark for a couple of hours to watch a little gallery of photographs fly by at 24 frames per second, so fast that we forgot each image could be a little masterpiece of framing, depth, design, light, shadow, color. Maybe we remember for a moment, during that extra beat or two of a long take, just before we wonder why we're still looking at what we're looking at and why don't they cut to the next shot already. David Lynch famously disparaged the practice of watching films on smart phones, and didn't he have a point? Small screens are for stories. For chatter and types and clichés. The big screen, the silver screen, is about painting. It's the difference between the museum and the penny arcade, where film started, before it grew some big, strange wings. Wong Kar Wai's subtle, elliptical melodrama In the Mood for Love reminds us of this not-so-distant past, reminds us that we're looking at pictures, and that we should take some deep, almost illicit, pleasure in that, and that there's maybe nothing better. The film teeters on an edge between the sublime and the absurd, between an almost static visual ecstasy and tedium. It seduces us with the slow drag of its beautiful stars, the flip and powerful richness of Nat King Cole singing "Quizás, Quizás, Quizás." It teases us with the idea that something might actually happen, maybe the love we've been put in the mood for, and then we cut to a billowing red curtain or a rising cloud of cigarette smoke or some other viscerally felt signifier of longing and frustration. Whatever it is we're waiting for, it's never going to happen. And then it's starting all over again: the staircase, the rain, the soup. What I'd like you to do for this last post is reflect on In the Mood for Love's visual storytelling. What one or two images struck you as being the most powerful and why? What fragments of narrative did these images contain and what details indicated that narrative? Do you see any connections between Wong's style and the silent cinema, or is this something else, some new paradigm for filmic language? As always, looking forward to your comments. Too bad they're last ones!

Extra Credit - Atlee

So I will attempt to answer all of these questions to the best of my ability. The films that I find most compelling, is difficult because I have never really thought about it. I like all movies. If I see a preview or hear someone talking about a particular movie that may not be exactly main stream I may check them out, but the only movies I see in theaters are action/adventure/fantasy (i.e. comic book movies, Harry Potter type movies, and Inception type movies) and comedies. Everything else is just the same repetitive stuff like romantic comedies and the drama is pretty much dead at the movies. Dramas get Oscar nods, but they are not huge box office smashes. People have enough drama in their own life, why go get more of it? I go to the movies to escape my own life, for however brief a time I can, so why would I want a drama. It's safe to say that I quite enjoy the studio era. I do enjoy independent films but I have to be in an almost depressed mood to watch them because that's the feeling I get from them. I feel like when people make certain independent films, they do so because they want to make this work of art, which I think is total bs, because I just don't consider film to be art. But I also think that the things that qualify as "art" aren't actually art either. Anyway going back to my main point, studio films are much brighter and happier. Little Miss Sunshine is one of my favorite movies and it is an independent film, and while it is funny, it is also depressing. The studio era is for me.

I do go through periods where I may go see a movie based on the star or the director, but it has been a while since I have done that. And yes, I would go see a movie because of the personality of that star. But there are much bigger reasons to go see a movie other than just a star. These are so difficult to answer and somewhat frustrating because I don't feel like I think about anything when seeing a preview or hear about a movie. I just see the preview and think that's crap or that will be awesome. I don't look at colors or compositions of shots and what they might mean even when watching the movies themselves. I find very little hidden meaning stuff because I don't thing it contributes very much to the story. Like the use of color in Do the Right thing with the reds and yellows. I guess that there could have been some subconcious recognition that those colors focus on the hotness of the neighborhood, but I really doubt it. They complained that it was hot and were constantly sweating so I know its hot, and the colors just fit with an African American community, they have no comment on the climate. Symbolism, I think, is about 95% just crap that people make up. I read an interview with Christopher Nolan a few days ago, and they were asking him about certain questions that fans had about his movie Inception, and as the interviewer was asking him these questions, he seemed really confused about what he was being asked. *Spoiler Alert* He was asked if Dom was still trapped in inception at the end of the movie because his kids were the same age and the top didn't stop spinning. He said no because the kids were different because they were working with 2 different sets of kids and that they were in different clothes and that the top just seemed like the right place to end the movie. And the rest of the questions were him shooting down other theories that people had about the movie. I think people constantly try to over analyze films and their hidden meanings (although some films do have them).

If a films has a clear political intent, I am far less likely to go see it. I do not care what you think. Entertain me and leave me alone. I wouldn't have gone to see Do the Right Thing in theaters. Happy feet, along with several other animated movies are slipping in their messages at the ends of movies. Is nothing sacred? Can't I watch a penguin dance in peace? Although I actually do care about recycling and the environment to a degree that annoys my parents to no end.

Extra Credit - Parker Sealy

I have absolutely no idea how to answer this. The reason for this is because I have no idea. As I am reading these questions about what I like more about film, there is no way for me to answer it on a black and white scale. I think that if you are a true moviegoer then you have to be open minded to all aspects of the cinema. When I go to see a film I have several rules (or something of that nature). One is that I never listen to critics. I respect critics and read their critiques like its my job but it is mostly to hear them out before going to see it regardless of what they said. If they say that it isn’t worth my time and put out good arguments then I will just wait for it to be on DVD so that I don’t have to pay as much. Another is that I won’t not go see a movie if I don’t like the actor. Now that one, of course, is iffy. I will refuse to see a movie if an actor that I don’t like is in it but that’s usually because I don’t particularly enjoy the plot of the films they do. For example, I am not a huge Will Ferrell fan. I loved Anchorman but some of his other films are awful. This makes me hate him and refuse to go see some of his films but if he were to try something new then maybe I would give it a go. Unfortunately he is type casted so I probably will avoid him for right now at least. There are others but they are irrelevant to answer your question. So let me answer some of the questions you asked to further elaborate on why I am having trouble producing a straightforward answer. First, do I like realistic films over those that create a world of make belief? That depends. I like documentaries if done well and are able to hold the audiences attention. I love Morgan Spurlock and really loved Super Size Me and his show, 30 Days. I still love, however, films such as Harry Potter and any movie that clearly is not real because I do love that imaginary life that is other than my own. Do I prefer Hollywood films over Indies? Um no, I like them both. It simply depends on the plot and if I can find the indie and hear about it in the first place. Would I rather be thinking about rich color and elegant compositions of award winning cinematography or the stunning realism of a computer generated landscape when I leave the theater? Well, that depends on what I went to see which wouldn’t be determined by that. I love the intriguing aspects of cinematography but I also love learning about new technology that comes about to perfect the film viewing experience. Would I go see a film for $10 because of its director or actor? Both. I love directors. Some of my favorite directors are Tim Burton, Edgar Wright, and Quentin Terantino. I also love actors and I look at both when choosing a film. I also go see actors for their attractiveness but also because of their personality or because of how good they are and able to take on a role. My favorite actors are Johnny Depp and Joseph Gordon- Levitt because of their versatility in acting but I would definitely go see a film just because Johnny Depp is in it. That is also how I find out about indie films. I IMDB actors and see what they have been in especially if they are know for their versatility. I guess I may have some similarities in all my favorite movies (which are too many to name…) but honestly I love watching every type of movie and consider myself very open minded when I go choose a film. I essentially want to watch every type. I do like to watch actors for their versatility and I do like to watch foreign films and maybe I do avoid political films but I probably watch some as well and like them. In order to decide to go see a movie, I look at actors, directors, and plot then go from there but they range from realism to avant-garde so I am very versatile when it comes to watching films. I hope that kind of sort of answers the question.

Days of Heaven - Jen

The most striking part of Days of Heaven to me was, unsurprisingly, the vividly beautiful colors. As we've discussed, the movie was filmed during the "golden hour" - also called the "magic hour," which I completely understand.

The first and last scenes, however, are a bit different. The first is more...dusty. It's sort of sepia at times, and it's really just not as beautiful as the scenes shot amidst the open fields and beautiful scenery. No, the first scene conveys an image of being "trapped."

But once the characters get to the farmer's place, things changed. The colors are different. The "golden hour" setting, filmed during the last hour of sunlight, seems to represent the idea of being in limbo. Linda, her brother, and her brother's girlfriend aren't really free, although they hope to get to that point. Time is hard to follow in the middle of the film, which shows that they were in the middle of a cycle that doesn't seem to end. I feel that this connects to the farmer's health. He is supposed to be getting worse, but we learn that his health does not fail - but it also doesn't improve. Like the rest of the characters, the farmer is also stuck in limbo.

And yet things do change. The farmer is murdered. Linda's brother gets killed. Linda is put into a school, but then she leaves and runs off with a friend. And this last scene, where Linda leaves, it set at a totally different time during the day (early morning - Linda first leaves her school before the sun rises).

Thus the film's use of the "golden hour," especially when compared to when the "golden hour" isn't present, shows the idea of time feeling stagnant and being caught in limbo.

Extra Credit!

For this extra credit opportunity, I'd like you to think back through the varied expectations and techniques of our two central theories of film, Realism and Formalism, as well as the blending of those two extremes in what is considered the Classical style. You can find good discussions of these throughout our textbook, though there are particularly good overviews in Chapters 1 and 11. In your post, reflect on your own expectations of film in the context of these theoretical approaches. What kind of films are most compelling to you and why? From your perspective, what do the best films do and how do they present their subjects? Do they tend toward the more "invisible" style of Realism, their stories developing seemingly at random, framing their film world as if the camera is merely recording "life as it is?" Or are you more interested in films that use the medium to create worlds that could exist nowhere else, or that highlight stylistic manipulations of their filmed material? Do you prefer stories that follow the Classical paradigm or those that operate more mysteriously, perhaps associatively, like the thematic montages of Griffith's Intolerance and Soviet cinema? Do you prefer the glamour of Hollywood's studio era, or the grit of emerging cinemas or low-budget independent works? When you leave the theater (or turn off the DVD player), would you rather be thinking about the rich color and elegant compositions of award-winning cinematography, or about the stunning realism of a computer-generated landscape? Are you more likely to shell out $10 to see a film because of its star or because of its director, and if it's the former, would you pay more for the personality star or the actor star? And what other intellectual considerations contribute to your appreciation of a film? Do you prefer work that has clear political intent, like Do the Right Thing? Do you have a passion for a particular genre, era, or foreign cinema? As you describe your expectations as a filmgoer, provide examples of a film or two that have helped to define your preferences. And, sure, we can all make a "favorite films" list that contains a broad range of stylistic approaches, but even if you start there, see if you can identify a few consistent qualities that might suggest the outlines of your own theory of cinema. Looking forward to your comments!

After the Wedding by Greg Weinstein

After the wedding creates a stirring dichotomy between 2 very different subsets of the world's cultures. On one hand you have the capitalist endeavor of becoming wealthy and powerful and on the other you have the legion of people who are barely able to get from one day to the next. This is showcased in the two different locations in the film of India and Denmark, of an orphanage and a mansion, of the industrialized developed area and the poor, downtrodden land. Now, one can look at Jorgen's actions and his death as a greedy capitalist pig trying to "atone for his sins" of acquiring said wealth and then reaping what he sows, but perhaps he was just an opportunistic individual who, when staring down the fearsome figure of death, decided to make his loved ones happy and make thousands of individuals he has never seen before happy as well. Now, does this arrangement come with provisions? Of course, all deals do, but unlike deals with the devil, this doesn't require the purging of one's soul and in the end, it is all by choice anyway. Jacob never actually has to say yes, but just in the same way Jorgen loves his family, so too does Jacob love his and he will do whatever it takes to keep his old and new family happy, protected, and able to grow. This isn't one of those deals of the past where the person with all the money and the power makes a fool out of the naive, penniless foreigner, but instead an image of understanding and growth, for which maybe we all could learn something from.

After the Wedding - Craig Walters

I believe as much as we can look at the ‘fat capitalist pig’s’ remission for his sins through monetary graciousness as insincere, we should be able to see that Jorgen is providing for his family outside of economics as sincere as one possibly can. I’m sure he could’ve brought Jacob around well before the present time of the film, however he is attempting to find stability for his family for which he knows no money can provide, which is a father, and possibly a husband, for his loved ones. As much as we have passed judgment on Jorgen, even as Jacob often does in the movie, I think we could also ask the same question of Jacob. I don’t think there can be much of a debate of who is the better person between Jorgen and Jacob, they are individuals of different circumstances. Jacob, not having a family (to his knowledge), did not have any obligations to anyone other than himself and could more purely choose what to do with his life, where as Jorgen has built himself a family with which he is responsible to. This basically boils down to ethnics, which are not absolute. I think what the East is to Jacob is what Anna and Helene are to Jorgen, both groups being dependant upon the later while in many senses dictating the obligations of the individual.