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.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
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.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)