Casablanca

Casablanca

For this journal assignment i chose to watch a film before 1950 as opposed to a foreign film. I made this decision because i thought to my self, "curt, you should really see some of those good 'ol classics that your peers are always raging about." And if my peers rage about anything, it is the dynamite duo of Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca. I kid you not.

In Casablanca Bogart plays the role of an exile from the United States who has planted his roots in Casablanca, Africa. Rick Blaine (Bogart) has the hottest joint in town, ergo some of the most interesting people and things end up in his presence...coincidence? I think not. Among these items and people are some letters putting him in a position of power and his former lover, Ilsa Lund (Bergman). Once creases are flattened, lets just say the fire is rekindled ;). Will they get back together? What are these letters of power? Is this movie really a top 100 film? To answer these, you'll have to watch the movie.

A. Casablanca was written by (stick with me...) Murray Burnett, Joan Alison, Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein, Howard Koch and Caset Robinson. I may be mistaken but i do not believe that the film is based on literature.

B. The chief cinematographer was Arthur Edeson who was a cinematographer for over 4 decades and cinematographer for over 130 films! (137 to be exact). Some of the big names include Robin Hood, The Three Musketeers, Good Women, Never say Goodbye and Nobody Lives Forever. Obviously the list goes on, but you get the picture, he's kind of a big deal in the world of cinematography.

C. George James Hopkins is the man with the plan for set design. The sets for the final film were pretty crucial in this movie because the movie took place mostly in one town so the sets were continuously used therefore requiring a very intricate amount of detail, accuracy and beauty.

D. Leo F. Forbstein was the musical director, Hugo Friedhofer was the music arranger and Elliot Carpenter was the main musician; primarily piano. The music in this film is crucial. From the lone piano to the non-diagetic sound to the opposing national anthems, much is said with the music score. The different melodies give the audience impressions before we even hear a word of a character, we already have assumptions about them. Especially with the Nazi involvement as characters in this film the music is so important.

E. Michael Curtiz was the director of this film and i believe it quite apparent that he had a large hand in this film. Every aspect of every scene is so intentional. From the lighting to the music to the actors and the sound, it is all fit together so well because of Curtiz. Curtiz is famous for other large films such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Breaking Point, Noah's Ark and many foreign films.

F. & G. The acting in this movie is almost unmatched. Honestly, with the cynical, stern, stone faced Humphrey Bogart to the gorgeous, moving, make-you-wanna-melt Ingrid Bergman it is an Academy Award winning cast that can sway you in any direction. Obviously with a cast like this the movie was a blockbuster when it first came out, as well as to this day.

I know I may seem a little over the top with this but honestly it was a really good movie and I recommend it to everyone.

Westerns......

As far as the article Too Tough to Die goes I find myself often contradicting it. I think i favor westerns more than the article does. Quotes such as "Americans don't like the past" and "you can't speed up horses" I flat out reject. If Americans didn't like the past, 75% of all movies we have would be failures. Take a look at any top 100 movies list and i guarantee at least 50 of them are set in a time past. All war movies, world and medieval, all stories about 'land uncharted' etc... would be disliked, and this is untrue. As far as speeding up horses, those interested in speeding up horses don't like westerns for westerns, they want them to be action movies when in reality that is an entirely different genre. The pace of the horse is the pace of the untamed nature is the pace of the western film. The long slow walks down the road, gun in holster, build suspense and embellish the ideology of the cowboy, unemotional, unwavering. Films like The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, wouldn't be the same if they were futuristic and high-speed. This is one viewer who can appreciate the canter of the horse and the brief window to imagine himself in a time past, the wild west.

Planes, Trains and Automobiles

Planes, Trains and Automobiles is a comedy written produced and directed by John Hughes, photography by Don Peterman and music by Ira Newborn. Steve Martin and John Candy perfectly fit the starring roles of and irritable businessman trying to get home for thanksgiving dinner (Steve Martin) and a chatty, boisterous, loud shower-ring salesman (John Candy). They both play the part so well and the acting is appropriate. Of course their two paths cross and Neal (Steve Martin) is unhappy to say the least, to find himself in a common struggle with Del (John Candy) to get to Chicago. Somehow there’s only one room at a hotel, and so begins their epic journey home together, actually painful to watch the two converge endlessly on the way in to worse situation after worse, seemingly a combination of the Christmas Vacation and Tommy Boy.
While the storyline is entertaining, it is by no means practical or believable; two strangers share a bed, a plane, a car etc…not likely. However this seems to add to the humor as the situations become so appallingly awkward they’re hilarious. As the situations are a bit exaggerated, the dialogue is as well, yet it’s a little more believable. Neal explodes from the oddness of Del and the situations they’re put together in which is reasonable, however the resolution isn’t…watch to see… A possible them could be some cliché such as make the most of the situation, however Neal and Del certainly do not.
Putting aside the outlandish plot, the set and costumes are well done, the costumes especially and they show the main characters true colors. Also the actor’s body language and the filming techniques used on them helps to emphasize this. A lot of close-ups are used to express the drama in facial expressions as well as show how close the two characters really are for most of the film. As the film cut to different shots, it was apparent how much effort was put into the sound editing to emphasize certain diagetic sounds and amplify these with non-diagetics.
Admittedly the film was put together rather well, however getting into my personal opinion I doubt I would recommend it because of firstly the predictability of the plot, and secondly its somewhat lacking in plot on the whole as so many turns for the worst are taken, it’s a little painful and after a point, less and less enjoyable. As this may not be the best note to end on I have a joke…

"I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later."

Cinematography

This scene is so dramatic its crazy. With all this drama comes alot of cinematography. Tom Hanks' character is pleading with Denzel Washington's for him to take his case. When Denzel learns that Tom has aids he feels vulnerable and the director shows this with a high angle shot to make him seem doomed. Also we follow his eye movements to all the things that Tom Hanks touches then cutting back to Denzel's worried face. Also the 180 degree rule is strictly followed with the listener's shoulder and back of head constantly in the shot. The director ends the scene with the close up heart wrenching shot of Tom Hanks crying...pure gold...

Waking Life

Waking Life is a film directed by Richard Linklater starring Ethan Hawke. It is a journey of film through a semi-dream world of this character who inexplicably cuts between scenarios and difference conversations. As the main character encounters these different personalities it tests his own beliefs and thoughts and forces him to make his own realizations. On the Apollo Movie Guide Review, Brian Webster gives a beaming review of the film.

He very appropriately begins his review by covering some of the topics that the main character talks about, such as philosophy, dreams, and humans place in humanity. These are some of the topic that the main character delves into with the other characters that he encounters. I strongly agree with Brian Webster's take the film that well some of the topics visited may be a bit cliche, the film takes them to a point of intelligence and comprehension that makes them into new ideas.

Bringing the title into the dissection of the film as well as the review, Webster very eloquently acknowledges one of the key points in the film, the discussion of dreaming vs. reality and what really separates the two, if anything...

“As one realizes that one is a dream figure in someone else’s dream – that is self awareness.”

This is a really important part of the movie, so important in fact that it is the title. I like Webster's critique because he realizes how vital this question is to the film. It is supposed to make you question your beliefs on different topics and make sure you can support what you believe and why. All this in only the dialogue, the actual filming is where this movie differentiates itself from the rest...

"Made using ‘rotoscoping,’ the film is both highly realistic and stylized at the same time. Rotoscoping takes live action film as its starting point, and then builds animation on top of it. The result is a perplexing mix of realism – especially facial expressions that you just don’t see in other forms of animation – and symbolism, and an equally interesting mix of computer animation and hand painting. Since the live action film was shot using handheld digital cameras, there’s a heightened sense of being right there with the characters as they discuss evolution, collective memory, revolutionary dogma and other fascinating subjects"

This quote really shows why i like Webster's analysis style as i completely agree with this. The semi-animated realistic camera style makes the movie all the more intimate as well as puts enormous dramatic emphasis on the ideas being raised. This effect makes the viewer feel as if they are experiencing this in person.

After reading this review i think that i will look to Brian Webster for reviews as i believe that this was a fair, intelligent well written review.

Video from YouTube

This bomb scene from the movie 300 uses a variety of filming techniques. Among these are a combination of slow-real-and fast time filming to emphasize the drama and power of the individual. Also the technique of the foreground as well as the background in focus to show other battles going on... enjoy...

One of my favorites...

I've decided to go with 300. This movie was sweet. It is an epic tale of the battle of Thermopoly with 300 spartans against over 1,000,000 persians... and the spartans own. Also the movie was filmed on only 3 sets with only 1 set prop, some big rock that is used over and over in the movie, the rest is green screen.

Photo courtesy of google images