Teen Choice Awards

So, I'm watching the TCA's alone in my apartment, mostly because there is nothing else better to do or watch, as I've pretty much seen all that Disney and TLC have to offer at this point, so why not? Also, it kind of fits in with the going back to my younger, teen/tween days as I'm preparing to start my senior year of college. So, on with the awards and commentary to go with it.

Katy Perry is hosting, along with the guys from Glee, the second half I'm excited about, the first, I don't really care. So right off the bat, I know that we won't go five minutes without hearing "Justin Bieber" something that will start annoying me very quickly.

What I've learned about teens so far is that teens love Gossip Girl and Secret Life of the American Teenager. I kind of like a show that awards those who are only so-so, but really popular, it's the prom for all the teen stars that never got to go to prom to be voted on for prom kings and queens.

One of the many wonderful things about this show is who they chose to sit on the couches, it never ceases to amuse me, and tonight I'm thinking I won't always recognize them. The count right now at people they have shown who I don't know is: 1, 1 more than is usual at an awards show or major pop culture event.

Selena Gomaz just won for favorite actress and a few other things, which I'm kind of happy about because I'm a Disney girl now, and I think Selena is actually a good roll model for the kids.

Okay, so just saw a preview for the movie "Vampires Suck," which I didn't know about until right now, and it's looking kind of funny, I don't want to see it, but I'm surprised it took them this long to do a parody of all the vampire stuff. Just as long as they stay away from Buffy, I'll be fine.

So one of the things I'm realizing by watching this is that I haven't watched an network TV all summer, so I haven't seen many of the show previews nor have I seen any actual commercials or movie trailers, which I have mixed feelings about. One of the reasons I love the Disney channel is that they don't have traditional commercials, it's all about Disney shows and products, and while they do get a little repetitive, it's less annoying, plus it keeps you in this wonderful Disney bubble, something I don't want to pop.

Okay, I should know who John Cena is, but I don't so now the count of people I don't know is up to 2. And it's kind of funny how much they just parodied the Archuleta and Cook American Idol finale.

Oh, the coveted choice hottie awards, let's see...

Taylor Lautner and Megan Fox, shocker. I'm not surprised at all. I do think that Taylor is cute and does have a nice body, but it's his laugh that is the hottest thing of it all.

Oh boy here comes Zac. With stubble. This means he's trying to grow up and out of the Disney mold he's been in. Also, he's trying to sound a little more gangsta' these days, which just makes me laugh.

Okay, Kristen Stewart, Miley Cyrus, Amanda Seyfried, Sandra Bullock, Dakota Fanning.

One of these is not like the other, and she just won. Props to the teens for going with Sandra, I thought for sure that Miley or Kristen would win, except that I already knew who won because they filmed this last night.

Hillary Duff is here. Really? I mean that's my teen choice awards from several years ago. Whatever.

Betty White shaking her stuff will never get old. I love that woman.

Step Up:3D? really? I knew this was going to happen and I'm still not ready for it. The first was minimally good, and I can't say I've seen the others.

Okay, there's two more people I don't recognize, the star and director of the movie, but I'm going to assume I shouldn't or don't want to know them, so I won't count them, so the count is still at 2.

This dancing is good, I see they found something for the people who litter all those random dance shows on TV to do.

Okay, it's time to start drinking so I don't feel so pervy for watching this.

Okay, Miranda Cosgrove and Jim Parsons. I love Jim Parsons and I'm adding 1/2 a point for Miranda, because, well I am. so: 2.5

Also, teens apparently really love the Vampire Diaries. I hear it's actually really, really good, and that's from TV critics, so I'll have to start watching.

Although the girl is kind of annoying, but I do love the two guys. Paul and Ian are great as guest stars and I'm sure they're great as leads. I don't know if I buy Paul as a nice guy, just because he usually plays villans.

What was Hillary Duff in that she stole the scene?? And won an award for it??

Okay, now I really feel like a teen because LL Cool J and Hillary Duff are presenting. Flashback.

Yeah Sonny with a Chance, I love that show. Also, Modern Family. And Glee. And Wizards of Waverly Place. and The Big Bang Theory. I don't know who I want to win, this is tough. I love them all, but I'm not surprised that Glee won. The entire cast is there, that's great. Okay, so I'm pretty sure that Lea Michele and Matthew Morrison are dating in real life. I'll tell you why right after I say that Jane Jynch is awesome! especially for being there. But yeah, Matthew and Lea have great chemistry and they are always together. okay, two girls I don't recognize now: 4.5.

Justin couldn't grace them with his presence? really? just by video screen at one of his concerts. And I have to laugh because Shaq just presented him live with his surf boards, which made Justin look just smaller and more child-like. Oh boy, it's time for a song, and judging by the screaming it's going to be a "classic" ie. one I've never heard.

I'm glad Bieber is around to keep the feeling of the Boy Band Era around, you know, marginally good singing, marginally good looks, relatively good hair that everyone copies and of course the dance moves. Goodness knows he's trying his hardest, but hasn't quite reached the levels of the Boy Bands of my era. I'm going to take this prime opportunity for a shout out to my favorite Jonas Brothers as an honorable mention in keeping the Boy Bands around, they are better at it than Bieber, but I think he's more popular in the real world (as opposed to the Disney one I've been living in) so I'm giving him the award. I guess this has turned into my own 20-something awards. I like that. Which reminds me, WHERE ARE THE JONAS BROTHERS??? I want.

I love Bones.

I'm really excited for Running Wilde, I think it's going to be great.

So, I like how they've worked this presenting thing with each guy separately with Katy.

I love any awards show that has an award for best smile. and of course Taylor Lautner wins, but that was inevitable because he has the best smile since Tom Cruise. That's just a fact because I don't really like them that much. Except that Taylor isn't taking the seriously at all, he's actually being funny, so he gets 5 more points in my book.

Joshua Jackson will always have my heart as Pacey and I will always find him hot because of it. Also, Lea Michele looks great and very tan.

I go back and forth on whether I like Seth MacFarlane or not, but that speech may have just cemented him a place in the "like" category. I have to drink to have a good time too, Seth. At least, it really helps.

Disney Channel is following me and I love it. There was just a commercial for Camp Rock 2, something that I hear about at least 10 times a day on Disney Channel, but something I wasn't expecting to see on Fox.

Chris Colfer is actually really funny, and probably deserved the shocking Emmy nom that he got, but it was still shocking.

okay so I have no idea who those two "sports" people are so: 6.5

Okay, so I didn't know his name, but I love his song, "billionaire," so 1/2 points. the count is now to 7

Man, he's young. Okay, I don't know who's rapping with him: 8. The guy who sings this is really short, too. I really think I'm going to make this my theme song, or sue him for taking my idea.

okay, no idea who Josh Hutcherson (sp?) is so, 9.

And Eminem winning a favorite, this really is the teen choice awards from 5 years ago.

Lets see who wins choice, Robert Pattinson is nominated, he'll win, or maybe Channing. I knew it would be Robert, that's so easy. He really is strangely hot, I don't know what it is. And the accent adds at least 1 hotness point. I should really see that movie. His new hair is better.

I give props to Katy for the head gear. Oh, William Mosley, I think you're hot, just not in life. only when wielding a sword in Narnia.

Gee, a category with Taylor Swift in it, I wonder who will win? She swept for country stuff and breakout actress (What?!) She was funny, and is kind of being funny. Okay and sweetie, "a lot of friends" at the awards? "Taylor and Selena" is not a lot. I love you, but not a lot.

YAY! Chuck. I love that show. I love Zachary, he's awesome and adorable, and geek-chic. I wonder who's going to win choice athlete considering Beckham is the only one there. I love and hate that Beckham brought his kids, they're a little young, but look adorable.

no idea who this Twitch guy is, so: 10. I do know who Cat is and I think she's sweet.

so the songs are going to up the count by a lot. 2, to start, okay, just 2, so: 12.

I have several bones to pick with this category. 1. Miley, really? I mean really? I used to like you, now not so much, find me again in a few years. 2. Katy (who just won) SOUTHERN girls are the ones with the Daisy Dukes. CALIFORNIA girls wear short shorts. seriously.

Who or what is Big Time Rush? there's 4 more plus the performer now, that makes 17.

Okay, so after a little googling, I see that Big Time Rush is a show/band from what I can gather. Nick's shot at bringing the Boy Bands Back. I have to say they're not doing such a good job.

I now have the urge to watch some old TCAs, from my era, because I don't think I appreciated them enough, so that's what I'll be doing for a little while.

Okay, didn't recognize one of the couch people: 18.

apparently, they are a troop, so 2 more: 20.

Can't wait for the stars of Twilight!! Sort of kidding, sort of not, I don't know, we have a love-hate relationship.

I love Ramen noodles.

Ed Helms, random, but great.

They certainly love cutting to the Twilight stars.

I also like how they really specify the categories, like "choice movie actor fantasy". For this one, I'll go out on a limb and say it's going to be one of the Twilight guys and of course it's Taylor Lautner. His voice gets a little nasaly and it's kinda annoying.

Who are they? I think that''s Katy Perry, but I can't see her face, and I have no idea who's standing with her, but I don't think I'm supposed to. Also, I love that the cast of the Twilight Saga minus Kristen Stewart who I'm assuming is too cool (and rightly so) to come, is the finale to the show. Niki Reed is really beautiful especially with her normal hair.

One last not, Ken Jong was just random and wonderful enough to make what they made him do work, only he could pop out of a coffin at random times and not be annoying.

With that I'm off to find highlights from previous TCAs, starting what I'm sure will be a YouTube night.

The Clothes Make the Man- take 2

Rob Reiner’s A Few Good Men is a film that is entertaining, political, funny and heartbreaking, much like the other works written by Aaron Sorkin. It is undeniably political, with a message that is at times vague and others so clear it’s practically hitting you over the head with the message. It is at its core a simple film, with a protagonist (Tom Cruise) who goes through a journey of personal growth and in turn makes his own mark in the world and comes out from behind his dead father’s shadow and a basic “villain” (Jack Nicholson) who is unwavering, unashamed and unapologetic for the deeds that led to a soldier’s death. There is a compelling cast of secondary characters, the best friend of the protagonist (Kevin Pollak) who is there for the occasional joke and/or reality check, the would-be love interest (Demi Moore) who pushes and is often the idealistic voice of the film and the conflicted villain (J.T. Walsh), who’s loyalties lie with the villain, but who helps out the protagonist due to his pesky conscience. It is this last character, Lt. Col. Markinson, who is the key to the political message of the film. It is through him that the audience finally can understand the larger message that is being conveyed. The character shows the struggle between the loyalties he has to his commanding officer and to the law that is put in direct contradiction to the orders coming from above. Markinson ultimately succumbs to the struggle in a way that is both poetic and terrible; he commits suicide after putting on his complete dress uniform. The nine shots composing the montage directly before his suicide exaggerate the details of the uniform in a way that highlights the uniform and forgets the man. Through the narration, the close-up of the details of the uniform and the diegetic and non-diegetic sound in this scene the larger political struggle of the film is delivered, namely, the internal fight between the honor and code of the military and the laws that can run contradictory to a direct order.

The message of the film is delivered in a way that the two French film critics, Comolli and Narboni would classify as a type “d” film. They define this category as “films… which have explicitly political content but which do not effectively criticize the ideological system in which they are embedded because they unquestioningly adopt its language and imagery” (691). This is clear from the very first scene of the film which features a military base, and reminders of the military are ubiquitous throughout, in fact, the entire trial is in a military courtroom. The film critiques from within, everyone in the film has a rank, and the language of “honor and code” is used constantly and according to imdb.com, the word “sir” was used 164 times in the movie. This is precisely what Comolli and Narboni are discussing when they are critical of a film that uses the “language” of the ideological system it is criticizing. The film is trying to criticize the military to a certain extent, however, the movie ends with the idea that it was just Colonel Jessup who was corrupt, and not the entire military machine, however, Jessup’s reach was wide stretching, and is directly responsible for the death of two men, and the dishonorable discharge of two more, and his own arrest. However, after it all, the protagonist, Lt. Kaffee, is more in tune with the military than before, and is saluted as he leaves the courtroom. While the movie does fit into this category, not all is lost, the message, while dulled a little from the interior critique, still remains strong, and in this case, critiquing from within may have been the strongest way to get the point across.

The specific scene where Markinson is preparing to kill himself is of interested for many reasons, and sound is one of them. There is non-diegetic score playing in the background of the montage, and it is a piece that is particularly haunting, as it was played at the beginning of the film, when the soldier is killed, and during other key moments regarding the soldier’s death and Markinson’s uneasiness with his part in the cover-up. Notably, there is a flashback that deals with the events leading up to the soldier’s death, and there is a moment when Markinson has just been given a dressing-down for disagreeing with his commanding officer and the score is heard in the background as Markinson takes all of this in. So, the repetition of the piece gives a very subtle nod back to the pervious scenes, in order to set a more ominous mood and to indicate to the audience that something important is happening at that moment. The diegetic sound in the scene comes from the thunderstorm that is happening outside the windows, which is mostly noticeable because of the shadows of the rain drops in most of the shots, but also through the beginning and end of the scene. The first shot of the scene opens with a flash of lightning and a thunderclap and the last shot ends the same way, the thunderclap serving both as the sound from the gun that Markinson kills himself with and as a sound bridge to the next scene. Thunderstorms are often used as the external indicators of an internal struggle, a practice seen in everything from Shakespeare’s King Lear to Disney’s The Princess Diaries. This case is no different. The scene would have been dramatically different had Markinson committed suicide in bright sunlight; that would have indicated a much more positive feeling towards the suicide and the sense of a struggle wouldn’t be there. These two sounds, one diegetic, one non-diegetic, add to the drama of the scene, but they also help to convey the struggle that Markinson is going through, the same struggle that is played out in the larger context of the film.

The narration over the scene is a letter that Markinson wrote to the parents of the dead Marine. This letter is important because it gives a certain amount of insight into Markinson’s mindset and the reasoning behind why he kills himself. The transcript of the letter is this:

“Dear Mr. and Mrs. Santiago, I was William’s executive officer. I knew your son vaguely, which is to say, I knew his name. In a matter of time, the trial of the two men charged with your son’s death will be concluded and seven men and two women whom you’ve never met will try to offer you an explanation as to why William is dead. For my part, I’ve done as much as I can to bring the truth to light. And the truth is this, your son is dead for only one reason: I wasn’t strong enough to stop it. Always, Lt. Colonel Matthew Andrew Markinson, United States Marine Corp.”

The letter shows Markinson’s feeling as to his own guilt, and his own weakness in life and it is the combination that drove him to commit suicide. Markinson’s weakness comes from his duty to the Marines, to his commanding officer and the morals he holds that run in direct contradiction to the orders he had been given at that particular juncture. This is made clear through the flashback we are shown earlier in the film, when he is basically told to “sit down and shut up” about it. As he says in the letter, he tries to make amends for what he failed to do by giving the prosecution the information they need to unearth the truth. He kills himself before he can testify, however, so as not to publicly denounce his superior and go against the orders he was given, the uniform has the upper-hand in his mind and he is unable to forget about it and go against it.

The main focus of the scene is the uniform, which is highlighted by close-ups of different parts of the uniform. In fact, if it weren’t for the voice-over the audience wouldn’t know who was dressing in the uniform, as we don’t see his face until shot 9. This is an example of metonymy, which, according to Hayward, “can be applied to an object that is visibly present by which represents another object or subject to which it is related but which is absent” (250). In this case, the uniform is standing in for the whole of the military, a specific type of metonymy called synecdoche- “the use of a part standing in for the whole” (250). The close-ups exaggerate this by putting emphasis on the parts of the uniform, the parts of the uniform stand in for the whole uniform, and the uniform stands in for the whole of the military. According to Balasz, close-ups “can show us a quality in a gesture of the hand we never noticed before when we saw that hand stroke or strike something, a quality which is often more expressive than any play of features” (274). This quote is particularly apt, as the only parts of Markinson that we see in the first eight shots are of his hands, and when we do see his face, it is mostly emotionless. The close-ups give the audience a closer look at the details of the uniform, the pieces that form the whole that asks the wearer to become part of the uniform and remove their own personal feelings and opinions in order to better serve the whole. The very idea of “uniform” indicating same-ness, not individual indicates what is being asked of the people who wear them, put this on and remove your own personality and morals and replace them with what is best for the group and what your superiors order you to do. The irony is, Markinson’s superior, Jessup, was ignoring a direct order from his own superiors when he ordered the action that ended in the death of a Marine. Markinson ultimately isn’t strong enough to ignore orders and so he does the one thing he knows will stop the uniform from completely taking him over. In effect, when he puts on his uniform and then kills himself, he is killing the uniform and ending his pain, he sees no other way out. As if this weren’t enough to just show this in the film, Kaffee emphasizes it in a later scene by saying, “Markinson’s dead… [he] got into full dress uniform, stood in the middle of that room, drew a nickel-plated pistol from his holster and fired a bullet into his mouth.” The emphasis on his “full dress uniform” is important, as it is just a ceremonial uniform that isn’t used for anything but formal occasions. It is in essence, an empty uniform, full of pomp and circumstance, but lacking of any real meaning.

What intrigues me specifically about the scene are the items that the director choose to highlight. Shot two shows the buttons of the coat, shot three is his belt, shot four is his shoes, shots five and six are the sword, shot seven is his glove, and shot eight is his hat. These aren’t the big pieces of the uniform: shirt, jacket, pants, which we see laid out on the bed in shot one. The traditional pieces of clothing aren’t important here, they are shown in one long, medium, pan down of the bed. What is important are the things that are shown in close-up, the pieces that distinguish the uniform from mere clothing. Balasz says that close-ups are, “often dramatic revelations of what is really happening under the surface of appearances” (274). These pieces that are ornamental for the uniform, namely the sword and the gloves, are not just showing what is under the surface of appearance, they are creating the surface of the appearance. The pieces that make the uniform different from ordinary clothing are also the same things that are subjugating the personality of the wearer and creating the appearance. However, when we see them being put on, we are aware of the appearance they are projecting, so we are no longer taken in by the appearance, and are then able to see what is happening on the basic level underneath it. This is clear in shot nine, as we see Markinson’s face for the first time in a full-body shot of him looking in the mirror, completely dressed. The pieces no longer stand out, they have blended in to form the appearance of the uniform and the person in it no longer has any distinguishing factors that make him different from anyone else in uniform. That is how it comes across: it isn’t Markinson standing there, it is a man in uniform, it could be anyone.

The scene is a brilliant compilation that creates both the feeling of the uniform, through the visuals, and the feeling of the man, through the sound. The blending of the two creates the dichotomy that has previously been only hinted at through words in the film, the disjunction between the man and the uniform that can occur when a corrupt person takes advantage of their situation in life. That is the message of the film, not that the military is corrupt, however much Comolli and Narboni wish that was the case, but that one man can ruin so many lives with a few simple orders and the system of the military makes it pretty impossible to disobey. The critique the scene is making is on the uniformity of the system, through the literal uniform that Markinson puts on and then tries to kill. He cannot extract himself from the uniform and he doesn’t want to let himself get lost in it anymore, so he does the one thing he can do, and the scene highlights his frame of mind and the internal battle he has been waging.

Balasz, Bela. “The Close-up.” Braudy 273-275.

Braudy, Leo and Marshall Cohen, ed. Film Theory and Criticism. 7^th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Comolli, Jean-Luc and Jean Narboni. “Cinema/Ideology/Criticism.” Braudy 686-693.

Hayward, Susan. Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts 3^rd ed. “Metonymy/metaphor.” New York: Routledge, 2006.

The Clothes Make the Man

http://tinyurl.com/yzywglj

Watch the clip above from 6:56 to 7:26
The full movie is available at crackle.com or at netflix.com, full film times are listed in the text.


Rob Reiner’s A Few Good Men (1992) is a film that has many different ideas of what a “good man” is. Each does good in their own way, and some do bad things in an attempt to be “good men.” Lt. Colonel Markinson’s guilt over not being a good man and instead remaining true to the uniform he wore, leads him to commit suicide in a scene that is both poignant and telling of the man he had become. In a film full of duty and honor and following the “code” of the Marines and whether or not that was a “good” thing to do, Markinson chose to kill himself in his full dress uniform. The shots leading up to Markinson’s death highlight his place in the film as the character who wavers between the honor of the uniform and the moral standards of today’s society and they do this using montage and lighting.

The scene begins at 1:39:08 of screen time and shot one is a pan down of all the pieces of the uniform laid out on the bed. They are placed almost in the order of how they would be placed on a person, as the camera pans down we see in this order: the jacket, the gloves on the jacket, the shirt, the belt and the pants. There is no reason for him to have laid them out in this way, perfectly set out, so this shot is a set up of what is to come, the pieces that we don’t see him put on. The lighting in this shot is interesting in that it imitates the rain from the thunderstorm outside. We never see the actual rain, but we can see the shadows of the raindrops on the bed. There is a flash of lightning and then the camera starts panning down the bed. The thunderstorm carries on outside throughout the whole scene, adding to the soundtrack and the mood of the scene.

Shot two is a pan up of him buttoning his jacket; the camera is in very close so that only the button he is buttoning and his hands are visible as the camera pans up on the three buttons. The lighting is pretty unremarkable in that the shadow of the rain isn’t really visible as the shot is very short and close up to the jacket.

Shot three is of his belt being put into place, and again only the buckle and his hands are visible. This shot is essentially the same as the previous shot as far as lighting and distance to the object, as well as the lack of background visible.

Shot four is him tying his shoes, again, only the hands and his shoes are really visible and the background is blurry, so the focus is on the shoes. This is a wider shot than the previous two and the shadows of the raindrops are very visible on the white carpet his feet are on.

Shot five is a longer shot of Markinson pulling the sword out of its holder. The camera follows the hilt for a few seconds and then holds steady to get the image of the sword sliding past the camera. The rainstorm is visible on his hands and the sword.

Shot six is a quick shot of him hooking the sword onto his belt. Although this shot is close-up like shots two and three, the rain is very visible on his hands and around the sword; it becomes more and more noticeable as the shots go on.

Shot seven is of his hand as he snaps his glove on and then flexes his hand several times as though he is testing the fit of them, as if he is getting ready to go somewhere other than to his death. The rain is visible against the wall in the background, and it is becoming more distinct, not just soft shadows that are barely visible.

Shot eight is of his hat sitting on the table and his hand comes in to pick it up. The rain is very visible in this shot as the window is behind the table, and though it is covered, the rain is visibly falling behind the curtain.

Shot nine is finally a full-body shot of Markinson standing in front of a mirror placing his hat on his head. He takes a look at himself, now fully in uniform and then takes a breath, preparing himself for what is next. The rain at this point looks like it could be inside the room, it takes up a lot of the frame and it is falling in sheets that are very noticeable against the white walls. It is also reflected in the mirror so that Markinson is literally surrounded by rain in this shot. The mirror is very interesting in this shot, as we see Markinson for the first time in this sequence, we see him as he see himself in the mirror. The first and last time we gain insight into this mysterious man. The sequence ends at 1:39:40 of screen time.

Montage is a filmmaking tool that can convey a lot of meaning in a short period of time. In­­­­ his article, “Beyond the Shot,” Sergei Eisenstein says montage is, "juxtaposing representational shots that have, as far as possible, the same meaning, that are neutral in terms of their meaning, in meaningful contexts and series" (15). This is just what has occurred in the first eight shots, the shots have basically the same meaning, they are all just showing parts of the uniform, but when put together as they are they indicate something larger, the significance of the uniform, not just the uniform as clothing. It is telling that the montage of scenes that precede Markinson’s death focuses on the different parts of the uniform and not on his face. What we see is not the mundane view of watching a man get dressed in clothes, in fact that happens off camera in a moment we do not see. What is visible to us are the accessories of the uniform, the pieces that we see are not the basic parts of clothes, i.e. pants and shirt, but instead all the things that make the uniform unique, the gloves, the sword, the hat, etc.

The film is about finding out exactly what honor is, and whether the uniform brings honor. For his part, Markinson follows his orders to the letter, and it brings him a large amount of guilt, because it goes against the law, a theme the movie explores in many ways. This feeling of guilt comes across in the montage not as an image, but as the voiceover of a letter Markinson wrote to the parents of a dead Marine, apologizing for his part in the cover-up. It is not a suicide note, but it explains his feelings and reasons for committing suicide. This voiceover is the only indication of who is in the shots, as his face is never visible. Markinson’s identity is wrapped up in the uniform and once he admits that there are flaws and moral contradictions that occur when wearing the uniform, he does what he thinks is necessary to remove himself from that. However, because his identity is so wrapped up in the uniform and the formality of it, he essentially has to kill the uniform. The montage highlights this need, as it could just as easily be a montage of his face as he writes the letter; instead, it is all the pieces of the uniform that make up the dress of a Lieutenant Colonel of the Marine Corp.

The storm that is occurring during this scene indicates the mood behind the scene. The storm is portrayed mainly through lighting, which is minimal, but effective. The film usually takes place at night or during a sunny day, so this is the only time a storm occurs. This takes place during a part of the film where the main characters are losing the legal battle they are engaged in. The thunderstorm highlights the mood, and provides an excellent background for Markinson’s suicide. The rain is visible in almost all nine shots and the thunderstorm is heard under the voiceover, so it is impossible not to feel the depressing mood that is being imposed. The rain that is visible in the scene builds throughout the shots of the montage. It is visible in shot one, and attention is drawn to it because of the initial flash of lightning at the beginning of the shot, and then it is very faint in shots two and three, but it becomes progressively more and more obvious as the shots continue on until it is impossible to ignore in shot nine with Markinson in front of the mirror. The effect of the shadows of the moving rain is interesting in that different parts of the uniform are either lighter or darker, and this changes as the rain falls. The shadows in effect are moving and this interplay between dark and light is indicative of the struggle that is within Markinson and the entire film. The ambiguity of darkness and light in this scene is a perfect representation of Markinson’s life and part in the film. He is the only one who wavers between the uniform and the moral codes it often contradicts. The lighting of the rainstorm only serves to highlight this dilemma.

These nine shots of the uniform and the man who inhabits it show the struggle between the uniform and the man, a struggle that the man ultimately loses. The montage of shots show just how much the uniform has taken over, the only humanity visible is Markinson’s hands as he dresses and the lighting shows this struggle using the moving shadows of the rain to show the constant shifting between light and dark.

Quote from: Braudy, Leo and Marshall Cohen, ed. Film Theory and Criticism. “Beyond the Shot.” Sergei Eisenstein. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Benjamin and the Camera

Walter Benjamin would have a lot to say about Man with a Movie Camera (and I’m sure he did say a lot), but there are strains of this is his work, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” He discusses how the camera can affect the way we see things unconsciously in section XIII, “the act of reaching for a lighter or a spoon is familiar routine, yet we hardly know what really goes on between hand and metal, not to mention how this fluctuates with our moods. Here the camera intervenes with the resources of its lowerings and liftings, its interruptions and isolations, it extensions and accelerations, its enlargements and reductions. The camera introduces us to unconscious optics as does psychoanalysis to unconscious impulses” (680). This idea is brought to light as we watch people going about their day, doing the mundane tasks of everyday life. We watch both how the people perform these tasks and how the camera observes them.
The camera is picking up on the daily habits that we don’t always observe, and is making us focus on the daily acts that we do unconsciously. In Man with a Movie Camera we view people waking up in the morning, brushing their teeth, etc, all these ordinary moments that the camera finds and emphasizes, and brings a new meaning onto them. Benjamin says, “by close-ups of the things around us, by focusing on hidden details of familiar objects, by exploring common place milieus under the ingenious guidance of the camera, the film, on the other hand, extends our comprehension of the necessities which rule our lives; on the other hand, it manages to assure us of an immense and unexpected field of action… space expands; with slow motion, movement is extended” (680). He is right that there is a duality in this ability to observe things in ways that the human eye typically does not, and this film does an excellent job of portraying that duality. There are moments of extreme close-ups, and intimacy, and then shots of a vast city, of people un-distinguishable moving about, and the camera catches both of these extremes.
Man with a Movie Camera is both about the people it is observing and the camera that is occasionally in the frame. With this comes knowledge of what the camera is able to convey, both in its ability to be honest, and its ability to trick the audience. The stop-motion used to make the camera seemingly move on its own and dance across the screen illustrates this latter point well, there is a certain amount of “trickiness” that can go into making a film, even one that was made long before there were even computers to create the kind of special effects we have now. Along with this manipulation of the truth, there also comes an ability to “double-check” that what is on the film is actually what happened in front of the camera, as we are privy to both what the camera that is onscreen sees, and the filming of that. This film is an example of just what the camera can do, the scope of the ability of the apparatus, the detail and depth that can be captured, and both the honest portrayal and camera tricks that can be accomplished.

A Window into voyeurism

In reading Laura Mulvey’s article, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” several of the things she said in regards to Freudian ideas within classic Hollywood films struck me as slightly off the mark. She does a good job of analyzing films within that psychological discipline, however, in doing so she has completely ignored both the female spectator and the male protagonist as anything other than the active/looker.
With regards to Rear Window she argues, “Hitchcock’s skilful use of identification processes and liberal use of subjective camera from the point of view of the male protagonist draw the spectators deeply into his position, making them share his uneasy gaze. The audience is absorbed into a voyeuristic situation within the screen scene and diegesis which parodies his own in the cinema” (719). I don’t take issue with that reading of the film; the audience is drawn in to view the film mostly through Jefferies’ eyes, and his view out the window mimics the view the audience has of the screen (despite the fact that Jefferies can control what he is looking at), however, I would take issue with her argument in that the audience isn’t only male, nor do I think Hitchcock meant it to be (he did cast Jimmy Stewart, who despite what Mulvey might say, is attractive to women and not just men). Her use of the masculine pronoun in describing the audience is insulting to any woman who might have identified with Jefferies or even enjoyed the movie. Mulvey seems to think that no woman could enjoy the movie, we aren’t men, therefore couldn’t possibly identify with Jefferies, and why on earth would we want to identify with Lisa? After all, she is beautiful, has great clothes, and about as much power and prestige as any woman in her time could possibly have. Now, I won’t argue that the time-period wasn’t the best for women, however, Lisa has managed to be very successful within society’s constraints, which is admirable.
Mulvey spends quite a bit of time worried about the active/looking in other parts of her article, however, with Rear Window she doesn’t mention it, probably because there is nothing active about Jefferies, he is confined to a wheelchair with a cast completely covering one of his legs. He barely moves the entire film, confined with the ability to do nothing but look. This becomes a problem when Lisa is being attacked by Thorwold and Jefferies has to just watch. That seems to me the most emasculating part of the movie, he wants to help her, but is unable to physically, much like the audience in the theatre. Jefferies is a voyeur, both in his professional life as a photo-journalist, and in his private life, but Lisa also becomes one as well. She willingly steps up to the window to watch with Jefferies, not because she wants to be like him (a man), but because she is compelled by what he thinks he’s seeing. A good story will turn anyone into a voyeur; otherwise most movies would have no audience.
I think Rear Window is much more of a commentary on the audience’s relationship with film than a commentary on the male gaze as directed towards the female. We are all voyeurs, males and females alike, when we walk into the cinema. I can guarantee that when this movie first came out the audience wasn’t only men, and that women weren’t going only because the men were. I believe there is a much stronger argument that can be made criticize an audience for going to see a film to be voyeurs, after all, Hitchcock didn’t cast two unknown actors in the film; Grace Kelly and Jimmy Stewart were quite famous and able to bring in audiences, and not necessarily for their acting ability.

The Informant! Film Review Paper

It is typically a guarantee in movies that the protagonist won’t lie to the audience; other people may, but the main character (especially if he’s doing some of the narration) never does. In Steven Soderbergh’s (Ocean’s 13) earlier collaborations with Matt Damon in the Ocean’s trilogy the audience isn’t always let in on the secrets, but we aren’t lied to by the characters. In their newest project, The Informant!, this is not the case. Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon, the Bourne series) lies. A lot. He lies to the audience, every other character, and even at times to himself and the audience only finds out way after the fact. So, what starts as a fairly mundane movie about a corporate whistle-blower ends in a way no one (who doesn’t know the true story this is based on) could imagine.
The movie has a simple premise [SPOILER ALERT!]: a high-level employee of a company (ADM) becomes an informant for the FBI. He spends years making tapes and setting up meetings before the FBI has enough evidence to make their case against ADM. When the FBI makes its raid, however, everything starts to unravel. The allegations against the company are true, but it comes to light that Mark Whitacre has been hiding some secrets of his own from the FBI and the audience. The entire second part of the movie is the discovery of these lies and just how deep they go. Due to these lies, the FBI starts to investigate, causing Whitacre go on the defensive. He goes from lawyer to lawyer as he lies to each one and ignores their requests to stay away from the press; so, finally he ends up with some random personal injury lawyer, the only man willing to take his case anymore. I don’t want to give away too much more because it was fun to go into the movie with no previous knowledge and watch it all play out.
The movie is funny and moves along quickly, mostly due to the supporting characters who are constantly being lied to by Mark. Melanie Lynskey (Away We Go) plays Ginger Whitacre, Mark’s loving and faithful wife who sticks by him no matter what, in a manner that is both funny and touching. TV’s Scott Bakula (The New Adventures of Old Christine, Chuck) and Joel McHale (The Soup, Community) play the FBI agents who work closely with Whitacre and as such feel the most betrayed. The two agents are witty and fun to have on screen as they are basically yanked around by Mark in the first half. They do a great job of playing agents who can’t quite believe that someone this high up in a company would want to help them, but they are able to not look a gift horse in the mouth, which ends up costing them in the end. My personal favorite appearance was from Tony Hale (TV’s Chuck, Arrested Development), who played Mark’s first lawyer. His pained looks and more and more frustrated attitude really hit home how much of a mess Mark has created for himself.
What makes this movie really work is Matt Damon’s excellent portrayal of Mark Whitacre, a man who is, much like the title of the movie, unassuming at first, maybe even a little bit boring, however, when you dig a little deeper, there is so much more to discover. He has the ability to get people to trust him, which works to his favor for a while, but only ends up hurting everyone when the truth really comes out (if it in fact does). He is so wonderfully delusional (he thinks that bringing down the men in charge will get him the top job at the company) that you can’t help but feel bad for the man, even though it is all a problem of his own making. Matt Damon may have been hiding behind Whitacre’s large glasses and hair-piece, but his acting was top-notch once again, and his likeability really helps in getting the audience to trust Whitacre right away. In his capable hands, the character of Mark Whitacre is able to get with (almost) everything and make the audience root for him the whole way. He is heartbreaking as you watch him lose it all, and not really understand why. He is both a man who is a victim of corporate greed and of his own mind and the audience can't help but feel sorry for him when it all comes crashing down.
Technically, the film is well done. There are many great camera shots that just focus on Whitacre's face and the audience is able to see the slow unraveling of the man. The movie was filmed in a way that gave it the look of a 1970s or 80s crime drama, complete with the graphics. The whole thing was filmed with soft, yellow lighting, especially when Whitacre was in frame, which gave it the air of being a older and was actually taking place during the time when the story really happened. Another element I liked was that as this was mostly about the characters was that in most of the shots the faces were in focus, but the background was always a little blurry and undefined, which really made the audience focus on the faces, and really be able to have an appreciation for just how good of a liar Mark Whitacre really was, as we could “look” into his eyes and not be able to tell. There wasn’t a lot of soundtrack with the movie; it was mostly diagetic sound that really highlighted that this was a real man going about his “real” life. Once the truth started coming out, however, the background came into focus a little more and the lighting got a little more harsh and white, as if we were coming out of Whitacre’s fantasy world and into the real world.
In all, this was a very enjoyable movie, witty and well-paced and constantly keeping the audience on their toes. If you liked the Ocean’s movies, or just like Matt Damon, then this is a great movie for you. I do recommend seeing it with at least one other person, because there is a lot to talk about after the movie is over. My only complaint is that while the movie is funny and witty it isn’t “quotable,” which allows specific parts to fade from memory pretty quickly. However, I very much enjoyed the experience of watching a fine actor play a great character and trying to figure what actually happened in the end!

Sleepless in Seattle according to Bordwell

There is much debate as to whether or not Cinema Paradiso is an example of classical Hollywood narrative as described by David Bordwell in his article “Classical Hollywood Cinema.” There may not be a correct answer to that debate; however, Sleepless in Seattle is a prime example of classical Hollywood narrative.

Bordwell lays out the basic structure of the narrative with regards to character saying, “[t]he classical Hollywood film presents psychologically defined individuals who struggle to solve a clear-cut problem or to attain specific goals. In the course of this struggle, the characters enter into conflict with others or with external circumstances. The story ends with a decisive victory or defeat, a resolution of the problem and a clear achievement or nonachievement of the goals” (18). This is seen in both of the main characters, Sam and Annie (portrayed by Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, respectively), as the movie progresses. The movie’s plot is pretty straight-forward, but what makes the film unique are the struggles of the main characters. Sam spends the movie struggling with raising his son and trying to date a woman his son doesn’t like, and he himself doesn’t feel the magic with. These are fairly minor struggles, but they work to add to the tension that builds to the ending at the Empire State Building. Annie’s struggles really drive the plot, as she internally fights with the decision to stay with the man who is comfortable, but whom she doesn’t have any magic with, and the mysterious connection she has with the man who she has never met, but somehow knows that she should be with him. The movie ends as Bordwell says it should, with a resolution and achievement of the goals set out in the beginning.

There is one way in which the film deviates slightly from the classical structure that Bordwell presents, only in that Annie and Sam are never in the same place, so they have their separate lives and also their joint love story. Bordwell describes the traditional classical syuzhet in this way, “[it is] usually… a double causal structure, two plot lines: one involving heterosexual romance (boy/girl, husband/wife), the other line involving another sphere-work, war, a mission or quest, other personal relationships” (19). The heterosexual romance is there between Annie and Sam, even if they don’t really realize it, but they each have their own other plot line, involving friends and another romantic relationship. In a sense, there are two movies in one, as each character has a separate plot that affects the main romantic story line. I don’t think this deviation means that this movie shouldn’t count as a classical Hollywood film, however, as it is simply a twist on the structure and both plots work to create a connection between the two main characters, even from across the country.

What really interests me is the parallel that the movie itself makes to a classic Hollywood film within the narrative of the film. On more than one occasion, characters on both “sides” of the plot make reference to An Affair To Remember (1957), which has many parallels to Sleepless and in fact, Annie is motivated by the movie during several key points in the plot. This, combined with the amazing soundtrack that is comprised of many wonderful songs that are pulled from Hollywood classics, and some songs that evoke that feel, adds to the feeling of the film being a classic Hollywood film.

The ending of the film is both conventional and unconventional at the same time. Bordwell says, “the classical ending is not all that structurally decisive, being a more or less arbitrary readjustment of that world knock awry in the previous eighty minutes” (21). He then goes on to say that roughly 60% of films end “with a display of the united romantic couple-the cliché happy ending, often with a ‘clinch’-and many more could be said to end happily” (21). While Sleepless doesn’t end with a “clinch,” the ending is a happy one, however, there is a certain amount of ambiguity to it. The film ends happily, with Annie and Sam meeting on the Empire State Building and connecting hands to feel the “magic” between them; anything more or less would seem like too much or too little, and the purity of the moment is a wonderful ending to the film. The ambiguity comes from the desire to know what happens after they connect; after all, they live on two different sides of the country, something that no amount of “magic” can instantly fix. We see them get on the elevator together and hope that they have a happy ending, however, there is no guarantee. We want to believe that their struggles are over, but we can’t know that for sure. That being said, there are many classic films that end that way, and the audience just has to trust that it’s going to be happy.

All in all, I do believe that the film is an example of classical Hollywood film as Bordwell describes it. The main characteristics are there, and the film itself takes pains to equate itself to other Hollywood films, clearly wanting to evoke the memories and feelings of those other, older films. There is a sense of nostalgia that permeates the film, and adds to the mysterious and wholesome feeling that only adds to the call-back of classic Hollywood films.