I had a lot of different impressions of the movies My Darling Clementine and Once Upon a Time in the West.. one was that they are really well-done films obviously, that's how people still remember them after all this time. Clearly the camera work, lighting, costume, etc. are all really nicely done - but i'm not so convinced that the plots are all that interesting. All of the westerns portray Old Western America - basically our country's history, so it's probably a good thing for students to watch because it's educational. However - this is just my opinion - i feel like the plot lines are so dull. They're vague and it's hard to grasp the overal conflicts/concepts of the movie.
In My Darling Clementine and Once Upon a Time in the West, both, the theme is civiliztion vs. the old west. Both times i think civilization wins - and i think the directors are just trying to convey this theme with out making an intersting story line. Again, my opinion, but how many movies can you make with the exact same theme - civilization vs. wilderness? Sure, other genres have common themes - for example, romantic comedies generally try and reflect on the message that anyone can find love. The difference for me is that those movies usually have really interesting story lines, they're funny, and they keep a viewer laughing and interested throughout the whole thing. Westerns, on the other hand, can leave you very bored because there is not that much going on. So, in conclusion, i realize that westerns are important for our country's history and they are considered classics - but there is a reason why not so many of them are being made any more.
I would also just like to touch on the idea that contemporary (or revisionary) western films can be much more exciting. I wanted to point this out so you don't think i'm hating on all westerns - like for my western essay i watch The Outlaw Josey Wales, made in the '70's, and directed by Clint Eastwood. It had to be one of the most touching and exciting movies i had ever seen, and it was a real eye-opener because it was based during the civil war, and it really made me realize how awful and tragic war can be. So i guess i am a fan of the more contemporary westerns - but i didn't know until i watched this movie, so i'm glad that i did!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Citizen Kane
After watching Citizen Kane, it was clear why when it first came out in the box office in 1941 - it failed miserbaly, and then why today it is considered one of the greatest American films ever made. By just reading how different those two reviews are, it's hard to see that one movie can accomodate for both. I could tell that Citizen Kane coming out in theaters would not be that popular because if audiences watched it and just glazed over the surface of the film - wanting it to be entertaining but not appreciating little details - they would definately be dissapointed. However movie critics and filmmakers looking back on the film - by looking closely could notice the good use of symbols, themes, camera movements, lighting and characterization.
One thing i noticed after discussing the film was how Orson Welles used make-up, costume, and setting to personify certain ideas. For example the opera house and everything associated with it was so vibrant, intense, and unrealistically glamorous. The same was with the palace that Kane bought at the end of the movie - unrealistcally thrilling. The look of those two examples in the film can be correlated with the unrealistic aspect in the plot of the movie at those two parts - which i found interesting. Kane wanted the opera house and his wife to be a great success but in reality that would never happen. The palace is just an example of Kane and Susan living a lie because Susan wanted a divorce/wanted to move out of the house, and Kane was unhappy - life was weighing down on him. It's almost like Kane wanted so much for his life to be happy that he had to put on the act with the gigantic palace and everything. I just thought it was interesting how mise-en-scene (if you look closely) correlates with aspects of the plot. That, to me, is a sign of great filmmaking if looking closely like that at a film draws attention to new things. Movies where everything just lies out on the surface may be entertaining - but may not pass the test of time.
One thing i noticed after discussing the film was how Orson Welles used make-up, costume, and setting to personify certain ideas. For example the opera house and everything associated with it was so vibrant, intense, and unrealistically glamorous. The same was with the palace that Kane bought at the end of the movie - unrealistcally thrilling. The look of those two examples in the film can be correlated with the unrealistic aspect in the plot of the movie at those two parts - which i found interesting. Kane wanted the opera house and his wife to be a great success but in reality that would never happen. The palace is just an example of Kane and Susan living a lie because Susan wanted a divorce/wanted to move out of the house, and Kane was unhappy - life was weighing down on him. It's almost like Kane wanted so much for his life to be happy that he had to put on the act with the gigantic palace and everything. I just thought it was interesting how mise-en-scene (if you look closely) correlates with aspects of the plot. That, to me, is a sign of great filmmaking if looking closely like that at a film draws attention to new things. Movies where everything just lies out on the surface may be entertaining - but may not pass the test of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)