Author Archives: cak247

A response to a Washington Post review of Blues Brothers

Posted on by

I’ve never seen a movie that combined action, music, and comedy as masterfully as the Blues Brothers. It’s really hard to find anything wrong with the movie, and so rather than giving a list of accolades I want to focus on the Washington Post’s review of Blues Brothers. I’ll express my thoughts on the film as a response to this particular review.

Shortly after the film was released in 1980, Gary Arnold published a review titled “Oh, Brothers!” via the Washington Post. What makes this film review stand out is just how scathing it is. His main conclusion is that “‘The Blues Brothers’ offers the melancholy spectacle of [the stars] sinking deeper and deeper into a comic grave.” Surely something must be wrong here.

Now, a lot of the main points of the article are shrouded behind the imprecise and fluffy language that is all too common among movie reviews. But I’ll try to summarize some of the points as best I can and explain my response/thoughts on them.

1) The film is poorly shot

This is evidenced in the first sentence of the second paragraph when Arnold notes that the film is “wretchedly shot.” He never really expands on this point apart from saying that the musical pieces are “undermined technically by [cramped] camera angles, murky lighting, ragged cutting, and tinny sound.” I won’t say much on this point apart from that I disagree. I can see that the cinematography was less than spectacular. But it didn’t seem to detract at all from the film. The camera angles never seemed awkward or limiting and the sound quality didn’t prevent me from appreciating the great music.

2) There’s a lack of material

This is one of the bigger points. Arnold posits that “there is no more material sustaining ‘The Blues Brothers’ than one would find in a silent comedy short running 10 or 20 minutes.” Now, certainly the plot is simple. But for this movie, the plot doesn’t really need to be that complex. The substance of the film is in the action of its scenes (note not just the action scenes, but the action of the scenes, i.e. what actually happens). And to some extent Arnold recognizes this saying that “the format is meant to allow room for both comic set-pieces and musical interludes…” and that the “scanty material might be forgiven if the highlights were irresistible.” But according to him the highlights are confounded by the technical shortcomings some mentioned above (Arnold also throws in the poor “lighting scheme”). This point seems very much hinged on the readers technical expertise when it comes to filmmaking. And if that is what Arnold must do to criticize the film then it’s hard to lend any credibility to his conclusions. I mean the camera and lighting certainly captured the content of the scenes so that the viewer could completely observe and follow what was going on. This may have been captured in a suboptimal way but that doesn’t change the optimality of the content of the film itself (here I’m distinguishing the content of the film from the technical production of it — hopefully this is a fair distinction).

3) The main characters don’t develop into anything interesting?

I put a question mark on this point because I’m not sure if it really represents what Arnold is trying to say. He writes that the movies producers have “failed to transform Jake and Elwood into the comedy team moviegoers had a right to expect.” There’s (ironically) very little development of this point. I actually have no idea what Arnold is saying. Jake and Elwood are very funny in the film. Their actions are unpredictable and demeanor compliments the rest of the events. In fact, one could write an entire article on how great the two are as a comedy team

Questions about communal living

Posted on by

One of the questions Professor Schmidt posed at the beginning of the discussion on Wednesday involved the extent to which our living environment (the place in which we live) affects our behavior and lifestyle choices, e.g. our recreation, diet, etc. He motivated the question by having us think about the differences in our lifestyle living in Ithaca versus living back home. In an exercise with his students, Professor Schmidt sometimes also suggests calculating carbon footprint. Although he didn’t do this with us, Professor Schmidt said that in most cases with his students, their carbon footprint is much less here in Ithaca than back home. This was a bit surprising, but then again, most college students are able to walk to campus and classes and hence probably don’t use any kind of automotive transportation on a daily basis — which is probably in it and of itself enough to make a noticeable change in an individual’s footprint. I wonder if this is generally the case when individuals move from more urban areas to more rural areas. If so, can urban areas ever be made more efficient than rural areas? One of the things we mentioned was the efficiency of the north and west campus living centers with communal dining, laundry, etc. But it’s unclear whether this kind of living could ever extend beyond the university.

If you haven’t seen Citizen Kane yet, you’re doing yourself a disservice

Posted on by

[Spoiler Warning]

To say Citizen Kane is brilliant is an understatement. It’s something you have to experience for yourself to get an idea of the magnitude of the masterpiece. Rather than give the traditional blog/critique style post of the film (since doing so would just be a list of accolades which still wouldn’t do the film justice — plus you could probably read any review somewhere else to get a critique), I want to pose a few questions I had about the film. Perhaps these questions are misguided by my ignorance or have obvious answers but they are what initially came to mind.

Before the questions though I will mention that one of the most interesting points (to me) in the film was the remark Thompson made at the end of the film:

“Mr. Kane was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it. Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn’t get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn’t have explained anything… I don’t think any word can explain a man’s life. No, I guess Rosebud is just a… piece in a jigsaw puzzle… a missing piece.”

What’s so remarkable is that we, the viewers, get to actually experience this very notion right after this statement is made. We discover what rosebud is and yet we are still left with an incomplete explanation of who Kane was. Anyways, here are some questions.

  1. What was the significance of the rundown golf course in the opening scene of Xanadu? Is it just meant to depict Kane’s extraordinary wealth?
  2. Is Kane being genuine when he initially writes the statement of principles? Did he really intend to adhere to a literal interpretation of the standards? Or was his failure to live up to them a sign of the corruption of his character?
  3. How did Kane acquire rosebud if he initially left it in the snow? Or was the rosebud we saw at the end actually the sled he’d gotten as a gift for Christmas from Thatcher?
  4. When Susan Alexander Kane initially performs the opera, at the end, Kane hesitates to clap until everyone else’s clapping dies down, then he stands up and claps intently. Why does he behave this way? Is this reflective of his thought process — perhaps his shock, but did he really expect anything different?
  5. Why does the final scene focus on the no trespassing sign? Is this a metaphor for the way in which the viewer cannot really know Kane — i.e. his character is “blocked” off from trespassers?

North by Northwest is a Terrible Film

Posted on by

I should preface this by saying that the title is pretty much clickbait and although I don’t feel particularly fond of the film, I’m completely aware that my analysis may be misguided.

I also think part of my sentiment is that the film is heralded as one of the greatest films of all time, so I had really high expectations. Even against other great 50s films such as 12 Angry Men or Singing in the Rain, I feel North by Northwest is lacking in many areas. In short, it didn’t live up to my expectations, so I was immensely disappointed (and I don’t think it came close to the greatness of 12 Angry Men).

I’ll briefly highlight my main concerns.

1. The plot is uninspired.

Notice I didn’t say the plot is cliche. Certainly being cliche is part of being uninspired, but being uninspired is more than just cliche. Note that I also am not merely reflecting the fact that the film is meant to be “fun” and “light-hearted”, but rather that the content of the plot is so uninteresting that it reduces the “fun” component of the film. Perhaps another way to put it is that the plot is pretty thin and artificial.

2. The acting is uninspired.

By this I mean that the acting is largely unconvincing. Many lines seem platitudinous and forced. The viewer is often reminded that what they’re viewing is merely a portrayal rather than an occurrence. Just take the scene of Lester Townsend’s murder. As soon as the knife plunges into Lester’s back, Roger Thornhill’s hand is there to grab it. The scene couldn’t be made more unnatural or awkward. It was so poorly acted, and it was immediately obvious Roger “needed” to grab the knife for the continuation of the artificial plot.

3. The ending is uninspired.

This perhaps goes without explanation. It feels almost like the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the filmmakers just ran out of budget and had to suddenly terminate the film. Only in North by Northwest it’s less funny and more weird. I will grant that the last innuendo of the train going into the tunnel was amusing, but apart from that I believe the transition could have been made much better even if it was meant to occur so quickly.

4. Eve Kendall is uninspired.

I’m convinced that there doesn’t exist any semi-competent human being who’s as helpless as Eve. She’s the only major female character and she pretty much exists solely for the sake of seducing Roger. She cries when she’s separated from Roger, but doesn’t have the willpower to do anything about it (nor does she recognize, or at least do anything about, the fact that she’s being completely used by the FBI for what seems like nonexistent compensation). When a gun is fired in the room next to hers she doesn’t think twice about it. I could go on, but I think the point is clear.

5. The film is uninspired.

The points 1-4 help lead me to this conclusion. I grant that they may not be sufficient, and it is completely fair to quip that my analysis is grossly inadequate, but I leave it as is. I also assume that an uninspired film is a terrible one. One can earnestly dispute this point, but for the sake of space I’ll omit a justification.This post is already too long.

The History of the Cascadilla Gorge Trail

Posted on by

On Saturday, I attended the Cascadilla Gorge Hike. The hike was led by Todd Bittner, director of natural areas. I’ve been on the trail before; however, this was the first time I got to learn about the trail’s history. It was interesting to learn about the state of the trail and how it had changed over time. One of the things Bittner mentioned early on was that Cascadilla Hall was the first building of Cornell. Accordingly, it was built as a hospital but then bought out to be used by the university. Another interesting point about the trail was that it had only reopened for public use in 2014. Before then it was being renovated as part of a $2.8 million project. He also talked about the gorge’s geology, foundation, and recreational use.

 

Next time I hike the trail I appreciate the greater context afforded by Bittner.

The Difficulty of Critiquing Experimental Films

Posted on by

Every year the Sundance Film Festival showcases a collection of short films that runs about the time of a feature length film. This year, the program had 7 short films. Each focused on a very different theme and most had experimental aspects to them. The one film that stands out to me was the first one, Come Swim. It’s hard to describe the film other than by saying it’s really surrealist.  There’s not a single, coherent meaning to it like most films or any explanation whatsoever for the events taking place. It’s hard to criticize beyond this, but then again that’s a more general characteristic I’ve noticed in experimental films.

The difficulty in criticizing such films is that most traditional types of criticisms are inapplicable. You can’t say, “oh the acting was terrible” because it may have very well been a critical point that that was the point (think Peter Watkins). Similarly, the complaint “but it’s inconsistent” is also inapplicable. This is perhaps one of the most interesting points where experimental films diverge from others. Even in a film like Star Wars, one can criticize “surely if this were real, Kit Fisto and the other Jedi Knights wouldn’t have been killed off so quickly by Darth Sidious…” However, with experimental films, their inconsistency is perhaps a defining characteristic. And maybe that’s why people don’t like watching them as much.

The King’s Speech, a good film, not a spectacular one

Posted on by

This past Friday, I went to view the film The King’s Speech. I suppose this blog post is meant to express my thoughts on the film; however, in thinking about it, I’ve come across very little to say. I mean, the film is, no doubt, well made. The acting is fantastic, the cinematography is spot on, and the music is great. But beyond that, it’s hard to characterize what makes this film stand out among other great films. Its cinematography is good but not revolutionary, etc. Nonetheless, it’s a good film to watch for the sake of watching a good historical drama, but it’s not one I’ll be rewatching anytime soon.

Perhaps my analysis is a bit insincere given my ignorance of proper film analysis. With more time, surely I could come up with something more interesting to say; however, that in itself, to me, is a shortcoming of the film. Maybe that’s a better criticism. The film simply doesn’t leave me with any major points to ponder. And because of that, the film is something I’ll likely forget in a few years.

Law, Morality, and Progressivism

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Judge Miller gave a conversation during the Rose Cafe hour. He made two statements that stuck out to me the most, both of which I wish he expanded on more. The first was that law and morality are distinct from each other. He specifically made this comment in the context of the lawyer’s obligation to defend the prosecuted regardless of the evidence in favor of a guilty charge. I wish he would have talked more about why it is  the case that law and morality are distinct. Certainly, some theories of law such as natural law theory reject this proposition. And, in his discussion he talked about a defense lawyer’s obligation to “zealously defend” the persecuted. If this is a legal obligation, then what makes it obligatory? Is it merely obligatory because pragmatically it should be? Or because there are legal consequences for failure to abide by it? It seems hard to enforce a notion of legal obligation without invoking some form of moral obligation.

 

The other comment he made that I was curious about was along the lines of history always favors the progressive. Again, this is a claim that I wish he expanded on more. It certainly seems easy to find moments in history where this perspective doesn’t make sense, e.g. before the first wave of democracy. Then again, I suppose the statement is contingent on what is meant by progressive.