Best to Worst Films This Semester

This is very hard to do because I really liked most of these movies, so I love some of the ones really far down on the list.

1. The Devils Backbone - I am a little biased on this one because I really just love it because it is directed by Del Toro. I pretty much love anything directed by him and his style was very noticeable in this film. And although it wasn't scary it was a really cool story.

2. Zero Dark Thirty - I loved this film. It was suspenseful even though it seemed not much was going on. It told a good story in an awesome fashion and had an extremely strong female lead which we do not often see.

3. Do the Right Thing - This was my very first Spike Lee film, and at first I was nervous about it, but I ended up enjoying it a lot and even bought the movie (although it was only $1 at target). I love movies that take place only in one day or a short amount of time, and I enjoyed the topic of race throughout the movie.

4. Seconds - I loved how this movie was sort of scary in a way, with its cinematography and strange storyline. It kind of reminded me of Ingmar Bergman.

5. Double Indemnity - An awesome Film Noir about a man and a woman murdering the woman's husband. I loved the use of shadows, flashbacks, voice over, and the cinematography.

6. M - This film was strangely eerie with the whistling of the molester, and the emotion portrayed by him and other characters. Fritz Lang is just amazing.

7. Blancanieves - This film was just okay in my opinion. I loved how it was a retelling of Snow White in a weird way, and the cinematography and music was awesome, but the story itself really didn't catch my attention as much as some of the others

8. Sherlock Jr. - I have to appreciate this film for its place in the history of film. These kind of films were important to what we see today, and also it was hilarious to me, I love that kind of slap-stick humor.

9. The Hitch-Hiker - I actually really did like this film which is why I'm even surprised I put it so far down on my list. I think the only reason was because it was pretty boring to me. I feel that it could have been more exciting or something, I don't know.

10. El Topo - This is another film that I think that I really did like. The problem is that I didn't understand this film enough to put it near the top. It was by far the strangest western I have ever seen and is at the top of my list of movies I don't understand much.

11. The Piano - This was by far my least favorite film. I just really didn't enjoy it and it was the only one that I can say that about. I was bored the whole time, I thought the symbolism was a stretch, and the acting really wasn't all that great. I just didn't like it.

Blancanieves

Blancanieves is a silent, black and white film, directed by Pablo Berger in 2012. It is a spanish film although since the only words in the film are ones you have to read anyway, it was very simple to watch. The film starts off strong, only a few minutes into the film we are thrust into an action sequence with a man "fighting" a bull. When he seems to be winning and doing well, the bull gets the better of him and sends him to the hospital, and coincidentally, his wife is sent to the same hospital, going into labor. The wife dies, the matador gets paralyzed and decides to marry a horrible "witch". Eventually the matadors' little girl comes home to him, only to be basically tortured by the witch her father married.

When the little girl, Carmencita, finds her father, they instantly connect. They have some good times together, laughing and playing, until the witch finds out. She murders Carmencitas father and eventually sets out to have her murdered, but the man she sent to murder the girl, or woman I guess, fails when she is revived by a dwarf. This dwarf, we learn, is part of a dwarf bull fighting group that travels around and gives people a comedic show of dwarves fighting bulls. When Carmancita, now named Snow White, senses one of the group is in danger, she goes out to save him and the crowd goes wild as she outsmarts the bull. She becomes famous and word of her reaches the witch that tried to have her killed. She kills the man who failed to murder Snow White and sets out to do it on her own. When the bull she switched out with the calf fails to hurt Snow White, the witch gives her a poisoned apple, and when Snow White finally eats it, she dies. The witch is killed by the bull she put in place of the calf, and Snow White becomes a money maker for the circus, but when one of the dwarves kisses her in her coffin, a single tear falls from her eye.

This film was fantastic. It was refreshing to find a black and white silent film that wasn't a comedy and was actually bearable. I loved how it seemed to have been shot back in the 20's, but the camera shots were so modern and beautiful. The acting was flawless, the woman who played Snow White played it very well. Not only did she do a great job with the acting, but she did a great job doing the bullfighting. She really did look like a bull fighter, and you don't see that much from women. Other than the acting and the awesome cinematography, the music was wonderful as well. It was common silent film music, but with an added flair, something I can't really explain, but it was perfect.

Gender In Zero Dark Thirty

War films have always been a part of the American culture. From the beginning of film history we have had a number of notable war films ranging from romantic to even horror. The vast majority of them are long, maybe even boring in parts, but they all have some sort of objective and all of them show shootouts and battles. Most of these films were directed by men. It seems right that men would direct films such as these since the nature of them are more "manly". The film Zero Dark Thirty, however, was perhaps just as brutal and "manly" and is directed by a woman, Kathryn Bigelow.

Kathryn Bigelow has been around for a while, but only recently hit the big leagues with her film The Hurt Locker (2008). This is another war film that stunned the world and won her an Oscar for the best film of the year, and for best director, which was the first time a woman had won that award. A few years later Bigelow decided to quickly film a movie on the killing of Osama Bin Laden. She got the film out quickly after the event occurred, leaving people baffled and curious as to where she got the information. It was put together fast and surprisingly accurate, and again Bigelow was up for an oscar for best film but was not chosen for the win this time.

Zero Dark Thirty follows a woman who is put on the case of finding Bin Laden in 2003. She is a rock solid person who only breaks a few times, even after viewing and initiating some of the torturing going on. She soon becomes obsessed with finding and killing Bin Laden and will let nothing get in the way of her mission. This begs the question, is this Bigelow's attempt to have feminism in the film? Even when she is being denied certain things the main character eventually gets what she wants, she doesn't let the men tell her she couldn't do something.

This makes me wonder, would this movie have been the same if it was directed by a man? Would the lead woman have had so much power, so much intensity, so much heart? I think no. I think a man would have focused more on the mission at hand, more on the attack of the home that Bin Laden was hiding in. The lead may have still been the woman, but I don't think the focus would have been on her.

The Devil's Backbone

The Devil's Backbone, by Guillermo Del Toro, is a fascinating film that could be categorized into many different genres. I have seen speculation that it is Horror, Gothic Horror, Drama, Fable, and even more. It is a film of many different feelings and styles, a film that could only have been made by Guillermo Del Toro. Del Toro is popular for his dark fantasy type movies such as his highly popular Pan's Labyrinth which follows a girl that is connecting the real world with a fantasy world. This is a dark movie, and like The Devil's Backbone, it could be thought of as many genres.

I do think that one could make a strong case for any of these genres for his film. I think that most people would argue that this film is a Horror film because of its dark attitude, bleak storyline, and jumpy scenes, but there are so many elements that make this movie seem like something more than just a horror film. It has an element of adventure, something of an epic tale of revenge. And although not made abundantly clear in the movie, I think this film is based on the very book that Carlos is reading, "The Count of Monte Cristo".

"The Count of Monte Cristo" is based on a man who is wrongfully imprisoned (Carlos?) and escapes the jail they put him in. He comes back to exact his revenge (Carlos and Santi?) and in doing so makes bad things happen, not only to the bad people, but to some good people as well (the blowing up of the kitchen?). So I actually believe this is a fable, a legend of sorts of the boy who got his revenge on the man who kept him imprisioned, and the boy who got his revenge on the man who killed him. And just as the bomb in the town is dead, but it's heart is still beating, the dead people in this town live as ghosts, haunting the town forever.

Baines in The Piano

The Piano written and directed by Jane Campion tackles many issues, among them, feminism. The main character is a woman who we first see with a daughter. Their belongings are scattered about the beach they were dropped off at and one of the items, a piano, seems most important to the woman as we see her play it through a crack in the wood. At first it is just the two of them, sleeping in a tent made by a hoop skirt, they look peaceful and at ease. Then, suddenly, she is thrust into the real world of men and civilization.

This woman, who's name we learn is Ada, is to be married to a man that she has never met before. When this man comes to get her he leaves the piano behind on the beach because it was too heavy to carry back and he didn't want to use his men for that when they could get other things. Ada is pissed. She never really shows any love to her husband and soon seeks out another man, a man that is intertwined in the world of the local natives. He takes her to the beach and she plays a beautiful, even sensual, song, and the man is awestruck. He buys the piano from her husband in exchange for some land and a promise of piano lessons. It is with these piano lessons that his infatuation with Ada forms into a carnal desire for sex.

While Ada plays the piano the man who bought it, Baines, watches with admiration. Eventually he becomes desperate for a connection with Ada and tells her that, in exchange for a lesson per black key, she could have the piano back. After a number of lessons Baines starts "selling" black keys for sexual things, and eventually gets her to have sex with him. When Ada gets the piano back she becomes sad because she can't see Baines anymore, so she goes to him, unaware that her husband is following her.

When watching this film, at first, I thought that Baines was raping Ada, that he was a creepy dude who just wanted his desires fulfilled. About halfway through the film though I decided that it was not this way. This man became infatuated with Ada through her music and passion she puts into it. Instead of taking what he wanted he decided to barter with her. He fell in love and had to have some form of affection from her, and sex was what he decided on. Ada was as much a part of this transaction as he was, she gave him her body, and eventually wanted him when she got her piano back. So no I don't think this was rape, prostitution maybe, but not rape. I am also not saying that what he did was right, however.

Do the Right Thing

How does one determine what the right thing is? Everyone has a different opinion of what the right and wrong things are, and everyone has their own opinion of how important it is to do the right thing. No one person will think the same thing about this. Some have religions or groups they are apart of that kind of shape their ideals, but even their opinions differ at least slightly.

Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing tackles this issue of doing the right thing in certain situations. We are introduced to this line by the "Mayor" who tells Spike Lee's character, "Mookie", to always do the right thing. In the end of the film Mookie decides to throw a trash can through his employers window because he was part of the reason of the murder of one of Mookie's friends. There is much speculation as to if this was the right thing or not, and each of these people pose a good argument.

To me his decision was not the right thing. Sal, the owner of the pizza shop that Mookie works at, was just trying to close up his shop when the three boycotters came in and gave him hell. One of the three, Radio, was playing his boom box that he loves so much way too loud. This aggravates Sal and pushes him to the point of smashing the boom box with a bat. In retaliation Radio tries to strangle Sal to death and in turn gets the police called on the both of them. The police try to subdue Radio and end up strangling him to death with a nightstick. The crowd is stunned and yelling at Sal, saying it was his fault, this is when Mookie goes across the street, gets a trash can, empties it, and throws it through the window of the pizza shop.

To me Sal did nothing wrong. He had pictures of Italians up on his "Wall of Fame" because he himself is Italian. We clearly see throughout the movie that he has no problem with blacks or any other race for that matter. When Radio comes in for the second time blasting his boom box he deserved nothing more than to have it smashed to pieces. The fact that Radio attacks Sal makes me think that it was not Sal at fault for the police being called, Radio could have just walked away. If Mookie wanted to take his anger out on anyone it should have been the police because it wasn't Sal's fault that Radio died. Mookie should have just left the pizza shop alone.

El Topo

El Topo, directed by Alejandro Jodorowsy, is a spaghetti western like no other. It is a cult film and widely discussed by film viewers everywhere. This is a screenshot from a little over halfway through the film. We see El Topo, different than before. Before, he had nice dark hair and a dark beard. he had darkish skin and a sort of angry look to him at all times. Now, after we think he is dead, we see him again.

This is the shot that told me that El Topo no longer really exists. Maybe the fat profit guy was right and he really was dead at that moment when he could have been shot, I don't know, all I know is the El Topo is no longer here. Sure, this guy has the face and body of El Topo, but he is completely different otherwise. The long, frizzy blonde hair, lit up by some lights, seems to be like the mane of a Lion, king of the jungle. His beard makes him look a little like Jesus, and the paint or dust on his face gives him a radiant whiteness, and his eyes are highlighted with some eyeliner.

I think the point of this shot was to show that El Topo is now like a God. He has defeated the 4 profit guys, and has now encapsulated all of them. The black background helps to put the viewers focus only on the man we see here. He is radiant and white and seems to be calm. He has just been "born" and is being treated as some sort of profit, as he tells the people that he is just a man, not a God.

All this is just my interpretation as this movie was so confusing that I don't think anyone can really know what in the world was supposed to be happening; although that kind of made me enjoy the movie more.

Seconds Surgery Sequence

The first surgery sequence is one of many amazing scenes in Frankenheimer's Seconds. In this blog post I will closely analyze this scene.

Shots:

This scene uses a series of close-ups to get the viewers right in the action of the sequence. We see all of the things that the surgeons are doing to Arthur. We have close ups on his face, showing where they are cutting and what they are doing to him. We have shots of the "blueprints" of his face and what they are supposed to do to change him into his new body. We then have a final close up of Tony's face with a bunch of bandages over it.

Cuts and Fades: 

Unlike some of the most recent films we have watched, this movie, or at least this scene in particular, went very fast. To do this, the editors had a series of quick cuts to show things the surgeons are doing, but since surgery takes a long time, it makes the scene more bearable. Fades are used to show short lapses of time, this also speeds up the amount of time we have to watch, and the viewer assumes that before and after the fade are completely different time periods, and it means they have been working on him for a while.

Music:

Last, but certainly not least, we have the background music. In this scene there is little sound coming from the surgery, so there was sound put in. This music is very eery, almost horror film like, and makes the audience (or at least me) sit on the edge of their seats in anticipation. It adds more suspense to the scene than it already had and makes people wary of what is going to happen.

Now I just want to make a comment that has nothing to do with this post. When I was watching this film I was reminded a lot of Ingmar Bergman's films The Seventh Seal  and Wild Strawberries. To be honest with you i'm not really sure why, but I got the same feel from this movie that I got from Bergman's films. Maybe it was the beach scenes in both Seconds and The Seventh Seal, maybe it was the black humor that was used in all three of the films, I don't know, it just gave me that feel. 

The Hitch-hiker vs. Double Indemnity

As far as film noir's go, there is a wide range of styles and ideas, although it may seem like they are all the same to non-movie people. As we learned last week, classic film noir has a set of specifications they usually have to meet, however some directors change up the formula and test out different ideas. Double Indemnity was a pretty normal film noir, it was an ordinary film noir that everyone knows and loves. The Hitch-hiker (1953), however, was different.

Similarities:
Like any film noir both films had a dark atmosphere. Things happened during the day, sure, but it always felt dark. Both of the films also made good use of shadows, in The Hitch-hiker the most prominent use of shadows was in the scene when the Hitch-hiker first enters Roy's car and leans forward into the light to expose his face. Also the lead character in each, and the murderer, are males. Finally, both films had a crime committed and have a group of people trying to figure it out. All of these things are aspects that most film-noir's have.

Differences:
One of the biggest differences between the Hitch-hiker and Double Indemnity, and most other film noir's for that matter, is the lack of any sort of female character. In most noir's, there is a female lead that makes the male do something crazy and/or gets them in trouble. In the Hitch-hiker, however, there are no females shown fully besides the little girl in the bar scene. Maybe this is because of there being a female director, but who really knows. Also, a big difference is that the Hitch-hiker doesn't have any voice overs or narration. Most film noir's, including Double Indemnity, have a character narrating what is happening, but this movie did not have that. Finally, the main characters don't die. In Double Indemnity we assume that the main character dies after making his confession, but in the Hitch-hiker, although I assumed the two "good guys" would die, they made it out alive. Of course, they also didn't kill anybody, but it's a notable difference nonetheless.

Women in "Double Indemnity"

"Double Indemnity," directed by Billy Wilder, was a film noir from the classic era of the noir genre. From the very beginning the audience is told that the main character, Walter, has murdered someone, and that the person he is confessing it to had very nearly figured him out. The story is told this way, with voice overs, scene cuts, and time lapses. The story starts off when Walter goes to a mans house to talk about his car insurance renewal, but little did Walter know, the man of the house wasn't there.

When we first see the woman lead, Phyllis, she is in a towel and appears to have just gotten out of the shower. She has a sexy voice and flaunts it very much when talking to Walter. She goes away to change and when she comes back down she is still buttoning her blouse and then the two get into a well written dialogue showing the attraction between the two. When their love affair grows and she gets Walter to agree to murder her husband for her, he agrees, because what man would pass up such a beautiful, deceitful woman? We finally see her conquered in the last 10 or so minutes as she is shot by Walter.

This movie uses women strictly for sex appeal and to show man's weakness to their deceitful ways. She is used to spice up the dialogue, to get the audience interested in the love affair between the two leads. As explained near the end, Phillis cares only about herself, not about anyone else, not even her husband. This is how Billy Wilder wanted us to view women as either uncaring, as seen in Phillis, or as weak as seen in Phillis' step daughter (she is crying throughout most of the movie). Either way is not particularly good.

Fritz Lang's M - Horror film or Melodrama?

At first, my answer to this question would have been Horror film. It was suspenseful at times, it had a spooky feel, the whistling gave me chills; but horror films seem different than this movie. In a horror film there is usually little going on other than murder and suspense, this wasn't the case in M . This film had a plot that got crazy at times. We shoot between scenes of the police and then criminals, and then back to the police, and then to the murderer, and back and fourth and back and fourth. The plot is so dramatic, so over the top, as are some of the actions committed by the police and criminals, that I truly believe this is a melodrama. We have so much yelling and screaming, people becoming outraged, a murderer crying because he KILLS people. Even the whistling is a little melodramatic. What man goes around whistling the same song day after day? Sure maybe its the mans killer counterpart, but nonetheless it seems extremely dramatic and therefore makes me think of this movie as a melodrama.

Buster Keatons Sherlock Jr.

When I started this movie I thought that I was in for a boring 40 minutes. I was unenthused and figured I would dislike the movie and then have to write a post on how much I enjoyed it ... but it turned out differently. This movie was amazing. Not just for a movie made in the 20's, but even for movies made nowadays. Keaton possessed such a great talent for movie making that even most directors now cannot match. The movie was funny, entertaining, and even a little romantic.

One of the scenes I thought was the funniest was near the beginning when Keaton finds a dollar in a pile of trash he was supposed to be sweeping up. Before this scene Keaton was at the store and saw a beautiful box he wanted to buy, but it was $3 and he only had $2. He goes back to work and starts sweeping up his pile, that is when the comedy starts.

The scene starts out with a normal range shot. You can see all of Keatons body (including his feet) and you can see the background (the movie theater). The camera is shaking a little bit but not a ton. He sees a piece of paper stuck to his broom and tries to scrape it off with his foot. The piece of paper then gets stuck on his foot and he tries to get it off with his other foot. When it gets stuck on the other foot he tries to get if off with his hand, and, you guessed it, it gets stuck on his hand. He then sets the piece of paper on the ground in front of the door to the movie theater and a man comes out, steps on the paper, and it is sticking to his foot as he walks off.

The film cuts to a medium range shot of a man with a mustache. He sees the same item that Keaton saw in the window of the store but discovers he has no money and walks off.

Cut back to Keaton in the same shot as before. He has now gotten all of the trash into a neater pile, and then bends down and pulls out a dollar. He starts to put his coat on when a woman comes to the pile of trash and starts searching. She asks Keaton if he found the dollar and the shot switches to a medium range shot of the both of them. After a couple of stupid questions, he reluctantly gives her the dollar. He returns his coat (in same shot as the first) and sees an older woman come up and start searching. Shot switches to a medium range shot of the woman only, she is crying.

The scene goes on and eventually he only has one dollar left and buys a less expensive box, but I will spare you all of those details. Nonetheless I thought this scene was brilliant and hilarious, and deserved a shot by shot analysis.

About Me

My name is Chris Riffle and I am a Sophomore. I am currently majoring in Marketing at the college of business, but am also hoping to add Electronic Media as a minor next year. I love movies. I watch movies all the time and love to talk about them with my friends. I watch a lot of films that my friends have never even heard of and they consider me a "movie buff."

Although I watch and love all of these highly regarded films, I also really enjoy a bunch of stupid comedies. Comedies are what got me into movies and I will always love them. I usually regard Anchorman as one of my favorite movies but that list is so large that it's hard to pick and choose my real favorites.

Not only do I love movies, but I also like making them. Since I was a little kid I have been making videos with my friends and family. One of my friends and I had a YouTube channel that we found hilarious that had maybe the stupidest videos of all time on it, but we had such a blast making them I don't even care.

This is a video that same friend and I made just this summer to enter into a film contest. We were supposed to show how Coca-Cola makes people happier in a creative way showing some sort of holiday or birthday. We were shortlisted but did not end up placing, but hey, it was our first try.