2 of FW Murnaugh's classics - Faust and The Last Laugh

In between World Cup matches I've managed to fit in a few classic films, notably two of FW Murnau's silent classics. The wacky schedule of the world cup and working the last few weeks have messed up my sleeping patterns, so with regret, I must admit there were a few times I almost dozed off while watching these and had to split them up over a few nights. That's not too awful, I also fell asleep during Metropolis, one of my favorite films of all time.
More than anything to take away from Murnau's films are the innovation of the camera and style. He invented the unchained camera technique and also the subjective camera (where the camera acts as a character's eyes.). He changed film in a number of ways, and in more ways than can be seen by watching his films; his impact was felt in both European cinema and American and ever since. But how good are his films individually when looked at as movies by themselves on the merits of their stories?

The Last Laugh - Style, tone, cinematography. For a silent film not dealing with war, this was a very visual film. Not as visual as Faust, but considering it centers around a lowly doorman, that's saying something. It follows the doorman of a luxury hotel in a bustling city, who works hard, going above and beyond the call of duty. He cherishes his job, feeling a huge sense of pride, when he arrives home, still wearing the big doorman outfit. He's respected through the whole neighborhood; by the kids, the gossipy women, everyone loves and respects the guy. That's probably due to the fact that it's a poor neighborhood and his suit gives him the respect; he doesn't work in a factory or doing something lowly, and the beautiful suit shows that. In fact, it seems the man's whole life is sustained and revolves around the suit; a symbol for his pride and achievement. Even though he isn't rich, at least he has a purpose and some kind of status.
So when the man loses his job, being relegated to a washroom attendant, his life falls apart. He steals the suit and wears it home, so no one knows the difference. His daughter is married, he has to work and can only attend the reception that night, but even though he has the suit it's not the same. He feels different, and that night he has weird dreams. Eventually, everyone finds out he is not the doorman any longer. Since it's a silent film it's hard for people to talk and explain things, so the man cannot explain that he was just demoted the day before. But everyone thinks he's been lieing to them the whole time and humiliate him as he comes home. Even his family doesn't accept him, his wife who found out because she brought lunch to him earlier and saw him working in the bathroom. She cries and won't see him, so he goes to the hotel bathroom and sits under the window. The film should end on that note, or something that could fit the tone of the film, or end with a believable redemption. Instead, there is a title card that says the author took pity on him, and the man wins a huge inheritance. He gets the "last laugh" while eating in the hotel restaurant and going around the hotel, again feeling pride and prestige. This ending I think may have been influenced by, rather than been an influence like so much else in the film, the plethora of other silent films ending with happy coincidences that put the hero back on top with no help of their own. Silent American films are notorious for it, from Chaplin and many of the silent comedy films.
So is the film a prophetic metaphor about uniform-loving Germany? After getting kicked in the face in the Great War, will they eventually have the last laugh? Probably not, Murnau left Germany two years later. But I think the film is about and for the German people. The 20's were a tough time for Germany, they were financially struggling, dealing with domestic disputes as well as being ridiculed and abused internationally. The German people needed something to lift them up, to give them a sense of purpose. The suit the man wears is a symbol of that. He wasn't making so much money that he could move his family to a nicer home, but with that suit he could feel more important and thus have a purpose. But the problem lies in placing too much emphasis on that. The people in his neighborhood turned him from a Grandfather figure to the laughing stock of the neighborhood in one quick turn. The man probably still made about the same amount of money, working in the wash room, he just didn't have a cool looking suit to wear, and rich people stopped smiling at him, like when he opened the front door and tipped his oversized cap at them.
The Last Laugh is great social commentary, especially for the German people at the time. But the story lags slightly, maybe because of the few title cards used, but mainly because the story just doesn't have much action. The ending almost ruins the film, but the overall tone and meaningfulness of the story make up for it, leaving a lasting film that's a classic on many levels.

Faust- And then there was Faust, similar but totally different. All the mood and glimpses of German expressionist stylings in The Last Laugh, are exemplified here. From the story to the sets and everything in between, this film typified the German expressionist film movement. The story is dark, following the legend of Faust, who sold his soul to the Devil. It opens on Mephisto betting with an angel that he can corrupt a righteous man's soul. If he can, the angel will give him the world. I don't know how the angel has power to do that, or why he has so much faith in men, but the deal is made, using Faust as the man. The story takes place probably around renaissance times in Europe, and Faust is an alchemist with a big heart. Mephisto's first step is to bring down a plague on the city, for which Faust is helpless to stop and save anyone. Then, he curses God and turns to the Devil. One thing leads to another and bam, Faust sells his soul after a mini trial run of unlimited power.
The one real problem with the story is that Faust so quickly turns to the Devil, when he's supposed to be so righteous. Why did the Angel offer him up as the example when he turns so quickly? Judging by his career choice, he was already trying to play God with chemicals. But that's the issue with most silent films, the camera just accepts whatever it sees, from over reacting to things to turning on a dime.
By now, I've figured out that Murnau is not the best storyteller, but that doesn't matter. His ability to infuse his style and tone in the mood is remarkable. Faust uses some great visual story techniques, from Mephisto towering over the village(a la Fantasia style) to when Faust and the devil are flying over the countryside. This film is worth it merely for the visuals, which is absolutely remarkable for the silent era, barely being surpassed by Metropolis.

An Indie Fair

The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus - Heath Ledger's last film. Not Terry Gilliam's best, but I could say it's his most imaginative. It revolves around a device bringing imaginations to life, so that's obvious. But what often happens when a story opens the door to no limits, the story looses control. Fiction thrives on rules, and sometimes when those are thrown out, you throw out some of the audience's connection and thus interest. That wasn't so much the problem here, though. The problem was that some of the details of the production were lacking, some out of the director's control, (i.e. the lead actor's death). Others, like casting Vern Troyer or Mini-Me fame, were in his control. We can see since Austin Powers why he was mute in those films. Whenever he opens his mouth he butchers even the best dialogue. Some of the best lines of the film are written for the character, but are either overshadowed by the superior actors or are just flat out spoken with no acting experience whatsoever. Terry Gilliam loves little people, but there just must have been a way around getting the tiniest actor around. Just go for a normal midget! (Is that an oxymoron?)
All in all, I actually liked the film. Gilliam's style showered through the trite story and bad acting to bring his imagination to full CG mode. Watch out world, Terry Gilliam has discovered computer graphics!

Metropolitan - This was on SDSU's recommended viewing list, which I will be journeying through for the rest of the summer. It's kind of a tiny touchstone independent film from 1990. It didn't make the same waves as Reservoir Dogs or Eraserhead did, but I can see some of it's influence in later 90's indie films. The film focuses on a group on young Manhattan socialites, home for Winter Break, during the Debutant Season. The group befriends an outsider named Tom, not a "urban haute bourgeoisie," as Charlie, one of the members of the group coins for their social status. For most of the film, the group gathers after the debutant dances at one of the groups parent's apartments. The parents are never shown, except Tom's mother. Through every scene there are only two topics usually: some philosophical debate about social status in America (where the "UHB" term comes from) or discussing group dynamics and bad mouthing other socialites not present. Usually the debates center around Charlie, who brings up some topic after another person uses a phrase or casually mentions something, then Tom is forced to counter. But sometimes the scenes start in the middle of Charlie's musing about the state of American elite, or the neglected notion that in America it's just as easy to be "downwardly mobile."
For some reason, the film is interesting. I couldn't put my finger on why, though the fact that I was conscious of that may tell something to the film's sustainability. Even though the dialogue and scene structures seemed off the mark, the things the characters said was fascinating enough to be able to overlook the slow pace and lack of plot. The plot of film, which basically follows Tom on a sort of quest of discovery, takes a backseat to the conversations and after party scenes. He keeps being paired up with Audrey, who is like the spitting image/personality of Molly Ringwold, only dark haired. Tom is middle class, and he's been "invited" by this group of upper-class young adults to join them. It's as if, he's getting the call to be "upwardly mobile." But he's reserved about it, and for good reason. The ties that bind the group fall apart, leaving to Tom to see if any of the friendships have stuck. Indeed, the best does, with Charlie. As the group is breaking apart, going back to normal routines, Charlie goes on a journey to get Audrey, who it seems Tom finally realizes they are a good match. They have to get to the Hamptons, where's she's staying with some people at a total douche's house. Neither Tom nor Charlie have licenses, and must take a taxi all the way out there. Through that, they muse about their inability to rent a car (a very basic and everyday sort of thing they point out) and that that may be a sign of sliding downward.
Comparing this to Noah Baumbach's films, especially Kicking and Screaming, about a group of college-aged young adults, this film is very comparable. However, the dialogue is so much smarter and interesting. Even if in Metropolitan the dialogue seems unrealistic at times, at least what they're saying is deeper and has some social commentary.

Eraserhead - This is the film that brought David Lynch to the world, and actually it's the first film of his I've ever seen. I've seen parts of Dune and episodes of Twin Peaks, but never have I seen something of his entirely. And let me say, even seeing it entirely, I felt like I was only catching half the movie. The different scenes and segments bounce around that's hard to tell what's a dream or how much time has passed at all. Most of what you see on screen could just be a part of a bad dream, from the mutant baby to the lady singing in the radiator.
I don't mind ethereal images and scenes, but this tilted a tad too much into the unintelligible. The film was a little too dreamlike to matter. It keeps your interest, but even when the tension rises from an ugly or dreadful image you are so detached from what's happening all that's keeping your interest is curiosity.
Like Dr Parnassus, Eraserhead is running wild with it's director's imagination, only here Lynch is using the images to make the audience uncomfortable and feel the dread that the main character is being pulled through. But it seems like it isn't working because Henry is never really frightened, only barely tense at times. He was like The Tramp lost in a surreal industrial world, hardly speaking and just wandering from place to place.
Maybe he was being controlled by the man on the planet pulling levers, or maybe just being taken over by weird flagella. Who knows, and David Lynch won't ever reveal the true meaning. The meaning aside, Lynch has managed to build a weird world littered with unexplainable symbolism that cuts to the heart of dread and turmoil without ever putting his main character or the audience in real danger. That takes true mastery of the art of cinema, and this film falls squarely in the art category.

Pick and Pass of the Week: Gojira and Nine

World Cup Fever has swept in, taking control of my Netflix viewing time. These two films were viewed before that and I've been waiting to review Gojira, a hidden gem, and 9, a gem with poop all over it.

Gojira - Known in America as Godzilla, this, the Japanese original, has been so trounced through the muck by all the sequels that the original has been almost forgotten all together. Which is what surprised me the most about the film: it's really good. Besides that, it's a landmark film that has spawned countless rip-offs. It's basically the first disaster movie; the disaster being a giant reptile that comes from the sea and starts attacking Japan. There's the classic tropes of the two young lovers, the girl of which is the daughter of a scientist/professor, they have big meetings with government people, yadda yadda. But even with being the cliche before it was a cliche, the film still does it so well. The professor isn't over the top, and people actually have well written dialogue. The film meanders slightly from part to part, not focusing on any person for too long, but you still get a sense of the characters.
And then there is the monster itself. It's a guy in a suit. It's obvious. But unlike the sequels and rip offs, they don't ham it up. Godzilla just comes and does his deeds, then moves on.
In a way, this was the model for every franchise to come. A great first film, not too cheesy or over the top. Then they make tons of sequels that just exploit the one main idea. This is an interesting film, it's entertaining, and anyone curious about how it all got started should see it. Disaster and monster films ever since have been borrowing one thing or another from it.

9 - This film came out on 9/9/09. How clever, right? If only the writing had such cleverness. Honestly. This film was like a poop wrapped in the most beautiful wrapping. The animation was amazing, but the story made no sense, the dialogue was just barely purposeful, and the characters were one dimensional. The film is about nine little dolls (with numbers on their backs) that can talk and act like little people in a post apocalyptic world where humans have been killed by the robots they created. The main doll is named 9, since he has a 9 on his back. He wakes up from what looks like a dollmaker's shop, then ventures out into the ravaged city. Soon he stumbles upon another doll named 5 or 2 I forget, maybe both. The villains are weird mechanical things that I guess like to eat dolls, or throw their weight around. It's unclear. Then 5 takes 9 to the dolls hide out, where 1 leads them by fear. Maybe it was a good thing, but it seemed bad, that the story just jumps right in. 9 wakes up and already he has no problem interacting, and then he starts causing bad stuff to happen, like 2 getting taken by a mechanical thing. And people just kind of go along with it.
The whole movie just bumbles along, and I mean bumbles, but not in a comedic way. It takes a talented writer to make a story both absurdly simple and yet hard to understand at the same time. And that's how the movie is. They bumble into some building(which is huge to them because they're little dolls), then awaken some monster machine that you have no idea what is about. I thought for the rest of the time after they'd woken it up, that it was one of their doll friends controlling it, since the machine had "sucked up" the doll's soul or whatever. But no, it was just going about sucking up souls. Why? It's a bad guy, and these dolls are good guys?
And how does a horribly written sci-fi animated film reveal anything?....Through newsreel. Nine bumbles his way to figuring that out and they bumble their way to defeating the thing that took the souls. (Spolier Alert) Then, since it took the souls, and had them in the little device that was so important, you'd think that they could just put the souls back into the dolls....nope, the weird funeral set up that maybe you thought would be a "put the souls back" ceremony, actually was a funeral. A funeral for dolls.
Everything was stupid about this film from start to finish. That's why I'm putting it as my PASS of the YEAR. Do not waste your time, no even for curiosity's sake.

Magnolia: Art or imitation?

PT Anderson can tell a story. Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood are marvelous films. But setting those aside and focusing only on Magnolia paints a picture of an egocentric, imitating director who doesn't know how to tell a meaningful story.
In the wake of Pulp Fiction, cinema experienced a great change in filmmaking. Films began to tell stories through new eyes and different perspectives. Magnolia, like Pulp Fiction, is a movie with many interweaving storylines. While it isn't told out of order, the scenes act like vignettes, lasting for minutes with long shots and heavy monologues. Each scene feels like it is so important, and building piece by piece to something special. Magnolia uses all the great cinematic techniques to concoct beautiful shots and interesting scenes, however it is missing everything that made Pulp Fiction great. Imagine Pulp Fiction stripped of all the comedic moments, the interesting thrill and action and perfectly structured conversations and you're left with Magnolia; rambling dialogue, poorly crafted conversations, no action or drive to the story and lots and lots and lots of acting. Each scene felt like it wanted to be great, and have something interesting to do or even move the story forward. But all we find are voidless zooming into characters faces, and actors staring off far too many times, and far too early in the film before the audience has made a real connection with the character.

These vignettes also are built and maneuvered for two purposes; they should be telling their own story and doing that while intertwining with the other stories. The opening section and narration leads us to believe that all the stories that are to come(and then the narration at the end speaking of the stories we just saw) are supposed to be mysteriously connected, and not just by coincidence. Except what Anderson doesn't understand is that in pointing this out, and even without the pointing out, we know he has written this story by himself to try and make art that is supposed to magically connect. When you can see the strings all magic is lost. Movies that point themselves out is a gimmick, and one used usually in a comedy. But in a drama, when you are told that there will be connections, and make the audience assume those connections will be fantastic, they better be. They can't just be people randomly meeting each other on the streets of LA, or working together or related by blood. It isn't magical; we can see your writing, PT Anderson, all over the screen, from the opening with the cop and black kid to the frog scene. Are we supposed to think that this is smart writing, when you have everyone living in the same vicintiy and have a black kid that wanders the streets bumping into the cop and later Julianne Moore, and then everyone is tied somehow to a kid's gameshow?
And then the stories by themselves, none of them come even close to being fully flushed out stories. And yet even bunched together into one movie they go no where. Let's break down the stories to see if any of them have any meaning or are compelling.
Wait! I was going to write out the stories to show that they went no where, but it turned out too long. I even went so far as to write the cop's whole boring story. Basically, every single storyline goes no where. I'll skip to the endings.
The cop makes the girl laugh, I guess? But what about the bodies in the closet? And the black lady? Why did the black kid rap that he knew something, but he never met him again. The gun fell from the sky with the frogs?
The show host ends up not killing himself after revealing he may have molested his daughter. Alright, so a frog stopped him, then what?
The blond girl still does coke and the cop made her smile. Okay?
The male nurse - he kind of was just the motion for the other stories. So in the end he was sad...because the old man died? Or because Tom Cruise killed a dog by drop kicking it after it got too close? Or frogs just make him sad?
Julianne Moore is in the hospital and she's gonna be okay. Great, and Tom Cruise is going to start having feelings because of it? Who knows.
The whiz kid - what was his story again? There was no story, it was like a flashback part of a Lost episode, except even the flashbacks of Lost have a point. This story ends with him telling his dad to be nice to him. No hug, no "shut the F up," all the Dad said was for him to go to bed. Plus, the kid was out till all hours of the night, why isn't the Dad pissed about that?
And the old whiz kid. His story was the most pointless. He wanted braces to impress the bartender. Then he puts the money back and that's the end of it. Nothing happened!?

I could go on, but hopefully the point has been made. This film was three hours long and nothing happened. Except it's not a nothing happened like a beautiful European film. This was like nothing happened as in PT Anderson thinks he's an artist and can tell a story. Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood aside, PT Anderson cannot tell a story. He's a kid that grew up in the San Fernando Valley watching videos of great films and thinks he can do it himself. Except, like American cinema is apt to do, he makes imitation of art. We see it in the beautiful composition of the shots. He dollies in to great framing and uses a crane to show William H. Macy's emotion. It's like he knows from all those videos he saw, when you want to show that an actor is thinking hard, you zoom in real close.
The whole film is like one long build up. The music and the zooms all make the audience think that something important or interesting is happening. But what's really happening? Some coke head is having coffee with a cop in her house. That's it. They actually aren't saying anything interesting, the scene isn't going anywhere, and the story is only connected because they say it is. Oh but, the meaning. The meaning! Won't someone think of the meaning? I'm sick of meaningless meaning. Frogs falling from the sky are not subject to interpretation, they are meaningless, just like every other scene. Sorry to all the hipsters and artists that have been scammed by this film. It's not art. PT Anderson wrote it in a cabin when he was afraid of the snake outside.

Just like Up, the film is manipulating the audience into buying into the story with their emotions. Except, this film uses strong dramatic music and long slow takes and the actors stare off, then act their hearts out. It's as if Anderson was saying just before the take, "Okay, Tom, now act better than you've ever acted before." "Okay, Juliane, cry like you've never cried before, then yell like they do in Network."
I thought it was interesting that in the film diary it shows Anderson screening Network for his crew. Although Magnolia is evidence itself that it is trying to be art, and comes off as an imitation, this shows where Anderson got his style and tone from. It shows through in the film, it has a tone similar to Network. People are really emotional, there is even a relation to television, and there's some yelling. But the difference is that Network may be one of the smartest scripts of all times. And one of the best. Magnolia is not smart. In fact, it's worse than Crash, another interweaving episodic film that shoots for the moon, dramatically.
Magnolia definitely shot for the moon. Any film where the cast sings along with the music playing to only the audience and concludes with frogs falling from the sky is definitely shooting something...
1. Themselves in the foot?
2. And definetly missing?
3. The audience in the face?

You make the call.

Cool Hand Luke and the Existentialism of Prison Films

Most films in their very nature offer a hint of existential thought, even without meaning to. The why's of the world are boiled down to a place, or a people, or a man's journey to find meaning in a seemingly meaningless world. Often films try to find the metaphor in life through their setting. Few come close to finding the crystal to show life through, but among them are high school films, island stories and of course, the prison film.
The prison setting amongst all others offers a place that breaks life down to it's simplest form, easy enough to digest life's meanings and problems. It's a place of complete reality, where man is set against himself and at total odds with the world that surrounds and traps him. I didn't put the prison film and existentialism together until recently seeing Cool Hand Luke. I'm not an expert on existentialism, nor on the history of prison films, but Cool Hand Luke was like an art house film trapped in an American studio picture set in the South, and it was like an existential journey hidden underneath it all.
The film follows a recent convict named Luke, who gets thrown into a work prison for petty theft. The film doesn't delve into his back story at first, but we gather from the one scene before he's in prison, that he's a rebellious individual with a sense of humor who has slightly lost his way. Every prison film at it's core is about conformity, and usually stars a main character struggling to maintain his individualism. The prison world is harsh, and punishment is handed out to those stepping out of line. How can a person find meaning in his life if the world is constantly forcing people into line? What is the purpose of living in that world? In the film, the prisoners are daily led out into the surrounding locale to work, either clearing fields or laying asphalt. Then nightly they are led back to camp, each calling out their respective numbers. While working they can do nothing without first asking for it. "Wiping the brow, boss?"
"Wipe the brow."
"Takin' it off, boss?"
"Take it off."
They're like kindergartners asking to go to the bathroom. In this world they are trapped in, where can they find any sense of purpose or meaning? The only place where they can make any difference; in the work. Luke and his buddy one day start racing to work faster and faster while laying asphalt. Soon, every other prisoner follows suit and they finish the entire length of road in a fraction of the time. Afterward, they sit and enjoy their accomplishment. (Much to the astonishment of the guards.)

They aren't content with that, and they find other ways to make their lives enjoyable. Luke embarks on a bet, saying that he can eat 50 eggs. When asked why he says, "Yeah, well it gives me something to do." And therein lies one major point of the film. Is existence just a time where we just do things to pass time? Or is there more meaning? The only glimpse we have into Luke's life outside comes from when his mother visits. She's dieing and it offers Luke some reflection. She goes into the hopes the family had resting on him. Outside of the prison Luke had some hope of a meaningful life. And that, coupled with his anxious and rebellious spirit, cause him the need to escape. Virtually every prison film involves escape. It's the metaphor that every film uses as an example of escaping a meaningless life. We only have scant evidence into Luke's mind, he remains aloof emotionally both to the audience as well as his prison mates. Nevertheless, we still have the window into his mind as he continues to attempt escape. He almost can't help himself, he has to escape. Every prison film escape is driven by the main character desiring above all else to escape.

Papillon is perhaps the most artistic prison film. The man known as Papillon plans escape from day one of being sent to French Guiana. Through his first two escapes he's at the mercy of others, who eventually cause his return. But his final escape comes entirely from his own doing.
The best part of the film is the relationship between Papillon and Dega (played by Dustin Hoffman) Papillon is a do or die, you can't trap me kind of guy. While Dega is a simple little man who is usually content with what he has. In the end, it's his own garden and some pigs that keep Dega on the island prison.
In this film, Papillon can never find meaning within the prison walls. He is never content or ever finds any satisfaction in relationships or work. His whole existence is getting free. Even during his second escape, when he is with the native tribe, he doesn't seem to be able to find any contentment. Even with a half naked girl as his...tribe liaison.

Even more than Papillon, I am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang exhibits themes of existentialism. This film exemplifies the despair and angst of the 30's. James Allen is a returning war veteran who wants to use the talents he learned during the war to be an engineer. From the get go his life is a struggle, from his family pleading for him to stay home and work the same job he had before, to the lack of real work he can find. He travels from town to town and becomes destitute. He's accidentally involved in a crime and sentenced to a chain gang.
Prison life is extremely harsh and demanding and men are routinely beaten. Allen eventually escapes and flees to Chicago where he moves up the ranks to become a prominent engineer. But this time, he's blackmailed into marriage by a girl who knows his secrets. She's a total hussy and spends all his money. When he wants out of the marriage to marry the girl he really loves, she goes to the police. This guy can't get a break. Or so it seems, it turns out Illinois loves the guy and won't extradite him to the unnamed corrupt Southern state. (Unnamed, but everyone knows it was Georgia, which had a sucktastic chain gang system.) Allen makes a deal to go back willingly, serve a 90 day sentence, then get pardoned. But these total jerks screw him over, denying him the pardon. He almost looses it, but manages to escape once more. But this time he's gotta stay on the loose, he becomes a fugitive from a chain gang.
The movie was pre-code, so they got away with a bunch of stuff. The film is remarkably dark throughout, and shows a tiny bit more violence than other contemporary films. The ending is slightly ambiguous; he's free, but it's not a happy ending, he'll always be on the run. A film made 2 years later would either have had him be completely pardoned and reunited with his love or sent back to finish his sentence.
The film is quick to show the unfairness of the world. He's a war hero, but when he returns it means nothing. He has talent with engineering, but yet can't find work. He's tried for a crime he didn't commit. And the whole time he is in prison, that whole world operates entirely by the whim of the guards and warden. Even the system that people should trust the most, the government, cannot be trusted and refuses to pardon him after saying they would. Despite the film depicting post WW I, it shows more about the feelings and emotions of the 30's, where the world which seemed so right and fair has turned upside down and hard working and honest people have found themselves in despair. Allen could very well represent the American man, that merely wants to work and use his talents, but has been crippled by the senseless and apparently meaningless world. All prison films to certain degree exhibit that lost feeling associated with being trapped. Some, like Papillon and Shawshank Redemption, show the hope that comes from breaking free. While others like Cool Hand Luke and I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, show that there is never an escape, even when you're are no longer trapped.

AFI Top 100: Stagecoach

Instead of writing a normal review of Stagecoach, I thought I'd post a old paper I wrote on it back in college. It's a little rough around the edges, but I think it captures how I feel about film metaphor. The best films can be adapted into literary metaphors that transcend the medium of film into art. Stagecoach is a great example of a film being art.



 Here is my college paper on Stagecoach:

John Ford’s “Stagecoach” is a classic on many levels. It jump-started the career of John Wayne. It re-invented the western genre. It put the western where it belonged, in a mythological context that America could use. “Stagecoach” relied more on characterization than on the good guy-bad guy theme that had been done before. In the movie, a strong cross-section of people are put together on a stagecoach ride through Indian country. By the end, each character shows his or her true self, through the trials that the coach goes through. Besides the character struggles, the movie itself has symbolic meaning that applies to America. One scene in particular, epitomizes this meaning; that scene being when Geronimo and his warriors attack the stagecoach.

            As a very brilliant professor has put it, historical films often portray more about the time in which they are made rather than the time they are about. This is true for “Stagecoach” as well. The movie appeared at the end of the depression era. America had been going through hard times for about a decade. This was also the period just before World War Two broke out. With the trials of the Depression, the country really saw what it was made of; good honest people sometimes broke under the pressure, while others that appeared too weak, triumphed. For instance, some people that were thought of as decent people were businessmen that lost lots of money and ended up taking their own lives. The characters in “Stagecoach” match this description of people. Some are outstanding citizens, while others are deemed not. One case is with the banker on board. He is thought of as being a superior man. Throughout the movie he makes comments putting himself above other passengers that are of less worth. He is discovered at the end of the movie to be a crook, and is arrested when the coach arrives at its destination. This man, who appeared to have much worth, provided no value when times got desperate. When the Indians attacked, he did nothing. The movie implies here that the backbone of America does not rely on businessmen.

            Three characters onboard are considered lesser citizens. Dallas is a former prostitute, the Ringo Kid is an escaped convict and there is a drunken doctor, Doc Boone, who was thrown out of town with Dallas. These three characters prove vital to the survival of the coach and also some of its passengers. One of the other passengers is a pregnant woman, who is onboard so she can get to her military husband. While the coach is at a stop she goes into labor. The formerly useless Doc Boone, now steps up and gains control of himself so he can deliver the baby. Dallas, who before was even unworthy to sit at dinner with Lucy Mallory, the pregnant woman, also steps up, to take care of the new baby and its mother. Both of these characters who were once considered of no value to the group, which is symbolic of society, have proven themselves through hard times. At the end of the movie, Mallory tells Dallas to visit her anytime.

            The other character is the Ringo Kid, played by Wayne. He escaped from prison and is seeking revenge for the murder of his brother and father. The Plummer boys are staying in Lordsburg, the final destination of the stagecoach. The Sheriff is riding shotgun for the coach since it is traveling through Geronimo’s warpath. When the times get rough for the group, Ringo steps up to meet the challenges. As the Indians attack the coach, Ringo proves to be the most valuable person. When the coach driver loses the reins after being shot, it is Ringo that jumps from horse to horse to catch them. When the coach arrives at Lordsburg, the Sheriff allows Ringo to depart, after exacting revenge for his family.

            Of course, underneath the basic plot of this stagecoach traveling from one town to another, there is a metaphorical meaning. Simply put, the stagecoach represents the United States. One could compare this adventure to the history of the nation, or the times in which it just passed. The coach takes off from a small town in which properness and strict ethics prevail. It arrives at a larger town, Lordsburg (fortress of God). The United States started with several different colonies, each with different ideals about ethics and values, just as the passengers of the coach have different lifestyles. The coach travels through the wilderness, having many hard times along the way. Stopping at a Mexican ranch, where they find untrustworthy characters that end up running off with horses. America can rely on no one else, but itself. Out in the wilderness, the coach comes upon forces that are acting to destroy it. Only the bravery and cleverness of its passengers can help it survive, as well as help from the cavalry. America will eventually survive and make it to the Fortress of God; heaven.

            Comparing it to the contemporary times that had just passed, America had just been in the depression; a dark wilderness that tried the hearts of all Americans, rich and poor. When the stagecoach is being attacked, it didn’t matter to either the rich banker or the poor doctor, they were all in the same amount of risk. In the depths of the depression, even when all that people could do, that was not enough. It was the help of the government that saw the people through. Even with the best efforts of the coach passengers, they were doomed, except with outside help. As they run out of ammunition, the cavalry runs in to help them.

            As the end of the depression came, on the horizon was a world wide war that threatened to change the American way of life. Threatening democracy was not only fascism from the Nazi’s, but even more threatening was communism. American ideals were being attacked by forces from the outside. And as the coach learned at the Mexican ranch, it couldn’t rely on others for help. America would be entering a time when it would be tried by changing forces overseas, as well as demoralizing effects within its borders. As long as it stuck together, as the passengers of the stagecoach did, it would make it. Stagecoach was both a metaphor for America's recent past, but also a portentous allegory for what could lay ahead.

Low Budget Time Travel Fims: Primer and TimeCrimes

Most time travel movies are about the spectacle of the event; driving 88 mph then flashing back in time, or getting whirled around like inside a tornado then reappearing in the new time period. In both of these films there are no such scenes. In fact, in Primer you barely get glimpses of what the machine is, and hardly an explanation for how it works. In Timecrimes, you see the big machine, but the movie keep moving on. For both films, it's fine, because they aren't about the spectacle as much about the ramifications of time travel. Both send people backwards a small time period and deal with disturbing the  past.

Primer - The film follows two engineer scientists who discover their device is actually a time machine that can send objects back in time. As they experiment with it, using themselves as the bait, their lives become more and more complicated with multiple selves crossing time paths. That's as good an explanation of the plot as I can give, because the last third of the film is so complicated and unexplained that it ventures beyond comprehension. That's the way it's supposed to be, as the movie becomes as complicated as their lives. The film starts jumping around, starting scenes too late and skipping over vital plot points, so you as the viewer are disoriented and always one step behind. Generally by the end, it kind of all makes sense, but only because the narration helps and you still just get a broad picture. The film requires further viewings to get a better idea of the details of their time tromping. They start out like normal guys, with no problems or moral dilemmas, but then with this device they are faced with bigger and bigger moral issues. If you had a machine that could help do a day over, how would you use it? Would you play the stock market, save a girl's life at a party to look like a hero? As the questions get bigger, they find themselves bending and then breaking their time traveling rules to help themselves. The film is a great moral tale, and the sketchy last third helps visualize the complexities of life after personal rules are bent and broken. It's a remarkable indie film that shows that with a great idea, anyone can make a film for $7,000.

Timecrimes - This movie is so bare and so deep at the same time, it's mind blowing. The mindblowingness of that is only overshadowed by the mind blowing quality of the paradoxical implications in the film. In my best effort I'll try to sum up the plot. A man gets into a time machine, seemingly by accident, and travels back to the beginning of the day. He doesn't realize at first when he is, even though the man running the machine tries to tell him, while keeping him close to not screw up things. But the man endeavors to not only screw things up, but lay the foundation for him getting into the time machine. The things he saw that day, from a naked woman in the woods, to a man wrapped in bandages, were all caused by his back in time self. The film is actually really easy to follow, unlike Primer, which makes it great. Even with the time traveling, the movie has a really easy through-line that even Marty McFly could understand.
I loved many things about the film. It felt like the Fargo of time travel films. This guy just bumbles along, at times not knowing what the hell is going on, and at other times trying to make right, but causing the demise of the situation. You laugh when he hurts himself, or falls over, but yet there aren't any outright jokes, you're just following this idiot ruin his own life. The film also reminded me of classic Greek tragedies, where men cannot escape fate. Especially, Oedipus, where no matter what Oedipus' father can't avoid his own murder by his son. It's as if this is a science fiction tragedy, this guy both can't avoid the tragedy and yet he's causing it himself.
This film, like Primer, is great because it doesn't need special effects or DeLoreans to make a tight, intriguing time travel movie. They both look beyond their means, and that comes from being smart and having a great story. I recommend both of these highly.

AFI Top 100: 64, 62 & 61

 Here are three remarkably made films, with great production value, with special effects or well-made comedy, but with either horrible stories or mediocrity built in.

64. Close Encounters of the Third Kind - This film is not a classic. It's just a pretty good science fiction film. And after seeing the Lost finale, I have to draw some comparisons, none of them good. Lost was built as a mystery that revealed just a little bit at a time, building season long, and sometimes series long mysteries revolving around interesting characters. A lot of these mysteries were cool when revealed, but then at time when the original mystery is re-thought out, it doesn't make much sense. Lost is full of them, the "why did he do that, then" type of stuff. Close Encounters doesn't have so many of those exactly, but it does follow the same, reveal a little bit at a time until you've exposed the whole thing. Except, when you think back, who ends up caring? Where did these people get the vision of the mountain? The aliens beamed it to them? If the gas thing the government was warning about just a ruse, why did their birds die when they were getting arrested?
The ending was interesting, but mainly only because you've had this mystery built up for 2 hours and this is what you end up with. Maybe because we've seen so much alien encounters after this film that it doesn't seem so dramatic. But I still feel like this was just a well done piece of B movie, and that's what Spielberg does best.

62. Tootsie - How is this film such a classic? It's not any kind of new comedy. There's no breakthrough in special effects or cinematagraphy. The acting was pretty good, but not earth shattering. Even the story is at times trite. But somehow this is one of America's best films. It's because of the way it handles social commentary. The film follows an actor that can't get work anywhere because he's difficult to work with, so he becomes a woman and lands a spot on a soap opera. He struggles to maintain his normal life, while balancing his new job and new obligations and love interest. The film is remarkable for never being on the nose and yet the whole film is on the nose. There are a few lines and speeches referring to gender issues and woman's problems, but for the most part the film lets the story and situations do the social commentary. For instance, the idea that Hoffman is now struggling to balance his whole new life is indicative of the working woman. As well, Hoffman faces troubles while trying to merely work without bother, but yet men bother him on all sides.
The film isn't the best comedy ever. But it handles social commentary on par with the best comedies, and seeing Bill Murray in an uncredited supporting role is a delight.

61. Vertigo - Aesthetically and production-wise, this is a perfect film. As usual, Hitchcock turns in his usual best, and this could even be his best effort. But just like with many Hitchcock films, the story is utterly retarded. A lot of critics and directors have argued what this film is about and the themes, but it doesn't matter what the movie is "about" or "what the movie is saying." The story is so dumb and unfulfilling that it makes the whole thing a waste.
The movie follows Scottie, a recently retired detective with vertigo, as he tails an old friend's wife who is up to strange behavior. Then in a matter of a few hours together, after she's tried to kill herself, he falls in love with her. Or rather, becomes obsessed. Then she kills herself, or so he thinks, and then goes to an institution. Then later, he sees some lady on the street who looks kind of like her and starts dating her, while forcing her to dress up like the wife. Turns out, she was the wife, or at least playing her so Scottie would testify that it was the wife who died because she went nutso. Then this chick dies, too. This is like Close Encounters or Lost, it kind of makes sense until you go back and really think about it...
So...the husband wants his wife dead. He hires some girl (Kim Novak) who works at a department store to pretend to be her so his retired friend with Vertigo can follow her. Then he gets Novak to act all funky, pretending she's being possessed by a dead woman, even going so far as to jump into the Bay. Then Novak, throughout all that goes into creepy speeches, acting possessed and generally weird. This girl must be the best actress ever. If that's the case, I think she could have kept on fooling Scottie, even when he found her later.
Then, acting crazy, Novak climbs the bell tower, knowing Scottie has the vertigo. (That darn vertigo.) Waiting at the top is the husband with the real wife, who gets tossed off the side.
Question. How did the husband get the wife up to the top without getting noticed?
Question. How did the husband and a woman who now looks exactly like his wife get away unnoticed?
Question. The husband must have paid Novak pretty well, why the F is she living in a crap hole and working at a suck job still?
It seems like an awfully long con to kill your wife. You had to find a girl who looked like your wife. Train her to act like her, while telling her all about the dead woman. And this girl has to be a fabulous actress or con artist. Then you have to convince Scottie to take the job, and if he doesn't all the work you did with the girl is useless, unless you find another old friend retired detective with Vertigo. Or maybe if you find an old friend retired detective with another malady, you re-work the plan. Like find an old friend retired detective with a fear of clowns, and you have the girl kill herself at the circus.
Then you have to get the girl lead Scottie down to the mission, at the right time, and hope no one sees you carrying your wife up the 6 flights of stairs, then hope that Scottie doesn't just finish the trip and get all the way to the top(where he'd see you and Kim Novak.) Then hope that no one around sees you or the girl leaving the bell tower.
It makes no sense. The whole film centers around a long con that has so many parts, and so many things that could either go wrong or take too much work, that the film is just utterly pointless. I guess it's about Scottie getting screwed over by the old friend, who messed his head up royally? For emphasis I'll repeat, it doesn't matter what the story is "about" or "what the movie is saying," if the story is stupid the film's meaning becomes meaningless. It's a shame, because this film really was beautiful, and the camera work is groundbreaking. It's a damn shame.