Don’t Look Back

Black Mirror is one of my favorite shows and this episode in particular is my favorite one for the scenario it describes. The episode is dramatic, suspenseful and ultimately quite depressing given how the story unfolds. The most pressing question this episode asks is whether or not you would want a device that lets you rewatch any past experience. Although privacy and cost are certainly important, my decision is independent of those two factors. Firstly, I feel it is better to stay focused on the present and not look back in the past or look too far ahead into the future. Thus, at first I was inclined to reject such a future with said devices. Moreover, as the story progresses, we find out that Liam’s wife had an affair and he is also most likely not the father. Though the grain helps him find the truth, he drives away his wife and child and is left by himself. At the end, he sees the grain as a tool that has caused more harm than good. Thus, I would most likely reject the grain as well. While the truth is important, having such a device could lead to one overthinking and creating suspicions that may or may not be true. One of Liam’s main gripes is that Fi looks at Jonas in a very affectionate way and she doesn’t look at him the same way. However, we see at the end that she did look at him in a loving way but in his state of anger and determination to find out the truth, he glossed over the fact that their relationship was more concrete than he thought it was.

The episode is extremely well made with many nuances and complexities and is one that will have anyone watching questioning what they would have done in that situation.

Fire and Desire

Although the movie debuted in 1997, a lot of the issues and topics that the movie explored are extremely prevalent in todays society, namely gender roles and equality. Right from the beginning, we are exposed to the stark differences between men and women in Indian society. Essentially, men are the dominant figures and women must be obedient and do the man’s bidding and finally, provide them with a child. Although there has been a lot of progress in the field of gender equality in India, it is still far from perfect. Women’s opinions are still often disregarded and they are still seen to be slightly inferior to men. Moreover, India is still far behind in establishing fair and equal rights for the LGBTQ community and this film had a very powerful message about two women exploring their sexualities in a far from ideal place. This idea of going against the grain and challenging societal norms reminded me a lot of Dead Poets Society as the protagonists in that story also express themselves in a way that their community didn’t see fit.

Beyond the Classroom

Right from the beginning of the movie we can see that the school the protagonists attend is an elite yet rigid prep school. Students have very little choice when determining classes and all follow similar career paths whether it be medicine, law, business, etc. There is little room for one to express themselves individually and it is only after taking the poetry class with Mr. Keating do they slowly but surely begin to come out of their shells. By organizing the “Dead Poet’s Society” and meeting in their secret cave at night, the protagonists are able to overcome the rigid shackles placed upon them. Moreover, while they think they are just discussing poetry, Keating’s unconventional lectures show that poetry is actually teaching them about life itself. Rather than learning about topics like meter and evaluating a poem solely based on its perfection and impact, the group learns how poetry can teach someone to fully express themselves.

I find this to be certainly true as after I took a literature course in high school and during my freshman year, I found that I learned a lot of values that could be applied to my life directly. Moreover, I believe that it is important to study poetry and the humanities as a means to provide balance and keep life in perspective. I certainly have grown as an individual as a result of my extra emphasis on the humanities.

Unlocking your genome

The documentary, “Cracking your Genetic Code”, gave a fairly comprehensive look into the world of DNA sequencing and issues related with this practice. Often times, when we think of genome sequencing, the movie GATTACA comes to mind which has led many to believe that we can tailor individuals to have certain characteristics. Yet, this is far from the truth as our understanding of how genes operate is still not complete and instead we can only give probabilistic estimates. However, the most important question this documentary provoked was one that I struggled with for a couple days, “Do you want you genomes sequenced?” The examples provided in the documentary showed both sides of the dilemma. On one hand, through genome sequencing, doctors and researchers are able to gather even more information. On the other hand, many individuals don’t want their genomes sequenced in the hopes of not finding they have a high risk of a life altering disease. Moreover, many are concerned about the confidentiality of the results of their personal genome and I think this the most pressing dilemma. If employers have access to these results and can make hiring decisions based off them, many will be deterred from getting their genome sequenced. Thus, as startups become more sophisticated and sequencing becomes more common, we have to work together to create safe laws and guidelines to ensure confidentiality.

Personally, I feel that genome sequencing should become common practice in the coming years as the benefits far outweigh the costs. Allowing doctors to gain more data will help further advance medicine and create a healthier future for all.

 

 

The Symbolism in the Blues Brothers

One aspect I noticed of the Blues brother was that its plot was symbolic of the impacts that blues had on society. First, Blues was becoming more popular than and was edging out country music, which is mirrored by how the Good Ole Boys were chasing after the Blues Brothers. In addition, the Blues Brothers were able to win over a southern crowd who were fans of country music. Similarly, the Blues Brothers were being pursued by the Nazis. Blues was developed and performed mainly by African American musicians. African American musicians were gaining fame and affluence due to the Blues they performed, and this of course incurred a racist backlash, with many calling Blues “the devil’s music”, which is embodied by the armed Nazis that try to kill the Blues Brothers. A scene that reinforces this was when the Blues Brothers tried to run over the Nazis, causing them to jump off the bridge. It showed how Blues was able to overcome to racist barriers in its way and become very popular.

The Value of Poetry

In Dead Poet’s Society, one theme that really struck me was the the purpose of poetry. In the movie, Mr. Keeting stated that humans write poetry because they need to do so, just as they need to eat breathe. The boys’ various individual journeys through the movie exemplify this. For example, when Neil began reading and composing poetry, he found his love for acting and decided to pursue it- he tried out for the play and got the leading role. Also, after Neil and his father fight over his decision to act in a play, when Neil sees his father enter the auditorium, he directs his final lines in the play to his father: “Give me your hands, if we be friends, And Robin shall restore amends.” In saying these lines to his father, Neil conveys how he wants to settle his differences with his father. Similarly, Knox wrote a love poem to Chris to explain to her how much he loved her. In both of these situations, poetry provided these boys with a way of navigating and properly expressing their emotions- in other words, they needed poetry to live their lives to the fullest.

On a personal note, I’m a very hard score science kind of guy. I never paid too much attention in English class and I never really appreciated the importance of literature and poetry. To me, literature was mainly just an easy A for my GPA or a freshman writing seminar that I needed to take. But this movie was a powerful reminder of why literature is so significant- we as humans need poetry to understand ourselves and the world around us. I began to recognize all the different ways in which poetry had impacted me. The nursery rhymes or the Dr. Seuss books I grew up with are all forms of poetry. The Ramayana, an ancient Hindu text that has profoundly impacted me, is poetry. The College Dropout by Kanye West is also a form of poetry.

The Fire of Love

Fire highlights a painful reality that many women in India must face. As Swamiji teaches in the movie, love is a desire that must be suppressed and that the only purpose of sexual desire is to procreate. Women are treated as objects, whose purpose is to have children and tend to the house. It is why Sita slaves away in the kitchen all day and why Radha feels guilty for not being able to bear kids. This idea is still prevalent in India to a great degree. Having spoken with my parents, both of whom grew up in India, many of their friends and relatives were often urged to get married and have kids as soon as possible and were not encouraged to pursue a career or a relationship out of love. The fact that my mom married when she was 28 irked a lot of her relatives in India, who believed she was too old to get married and should have started having kids earlier.

The film also had an uplifting message of empowerment. Radha and Sita, who were reduced by their husbands to objects, explored their sexualities and explored love. I thought this message of experiencing love however you see fit and not conforming to traditional or societal expectations was very inspiring.

Sexuality in India

After watching this film, I was kind of shocked that my parents never mentioned this film to me. This was the film that supposedly made headlines across India and the start of the gay rights movement there. I think this is simply a misconception. My parents were born and raised in south India and there, the gay rights movement is nonexistent. Any hint of homosexuality is frowned upon by society. I think the reason that’s true is because society in India revolves around family and community. Here, the individual is celebrated and people strive to differentiate themselves among the herd. There, family is given more importance. Marriage is between families rather than individuals for instance, hence the existence of the caste system and dowry. Since homosexuality is a very individual-based characteristic, the idea is simply nonexistent in India.

My best friend is gay. When he first started coming over my house, my mom was open to him, but I could definitely sense a sort of judgement coming from my dad. Not about his homosexuality, but rather, that I am hanging out with a boy. In doing so, he completely disregarded the existence of my friend’s sexuality. I am not sure if this can ever change within an individual. It seems to be an understanding that occurs as a movement through generations rather than individuals. Of course, that is not to say that an individual cannot change his/her perception, but I think it’s extremely difficult.

I remember once, my mom asked me if gay people have genes that make them gay. It’s really surprising how there is such a lack of awareness regarding different sexualities in India.

I remember once, in India, my family was on the train and a group of transgender beggars came over and asked for money and immediately, my grandpa handed her some cash. In the area where I am from, transgender people are shunned from their families at young ages so they clan together and beg for a living. People hand them cash without thinking twice because there is a belief that transgender people are cursed and they can easily curse you too.

The cultural perceptions of homosexuality in India are crazy and it’s amazing how even my parents don’t understand it fully even though my best friend is gay. I guess with time, things will change.

 

The Merge of Good and Bad

I enjoy watching movies that don’t take themselves too seriously, and I never say no to a good action movie. Described as a “musical crime comedy film,” the Blues Brothers seemingly hit everything I look for in a film. However, it fell extremely short of my hopeful expectations. I thought the movie was ludicrous throughout, completely random, and didn’t develop any redeeming characters. Though the overall plot made sense and was followed, the utter lack of normalcy in any of the scenes made me cringe. At many points, for example, during the scene at the restaurant of the band member, I found myself asking “why?” mentally. The whole movie seemed overdone and unnecessary. It reminded me of children’s movies, where the characters are often overly exaggerated.

The brothers were on a selfless, admirable quest, yet, to reach their goal they conducted themselves in thoughtless, criminal ways. The religious undertones of the film were apparent and well-done. The protagonists’ goal was portrayed as a mission from God. However, the protagonists were very flawed as past thieves. This juxtaposition between the goodness of their intention and the sinful nature of their behavior portrays the idea that we are all sinners but we can work towards redemption.

Despite my personal negative opinion of the movie, it seems to have a large cult of fans. I enjoyed the music in the film very much and thought it the only redeeming aspect of the movie. Though the Blue Brothers was not for me, I’m glad to have crossed it off my list.

 

A Mission From God

Prior to last Friday, I had never seen The Blues Brothers, and I didn’t generally know what it was about. A friend of mine mentioned that it was one of their favorites, and it’s been hanging out on my mental “to-watch” list, so I was excited to see it listed.

The Blues Brothers surpassed my expectations, nonexistent though they were. I think that one of my favorite parts of the film was the music. In general, I was especially surprised by the escalating over-the-top-ness. After every crash or explosion, I thought, okay, that’s it then, but a few scenes later, there would follow an even more dramatic incident.

In the end, the brothers succeed in saving the orphanage. However, the cost of their journey catches up to them, and they are immediately arrested. In the final scene, we see them playing for the other inmates with armed guards standing above the hall. As the prisoners start to get rowdy, even more guards are called in. Meanwhile, on the wall behind the stage is written in friendly bold letters, “It’s never too late to mend.” It’s interesting to see that contrast between a message about the importance of second chances and the firm oppression that has been applied.

 

 

Left me blue

When I first read the description for The Blues Brothers, I thought it would be the type of movie I enjoyed. It turns out, this “musical crime comedy” wasn’t what I expected. I had never heard of The Blues Brothers, and I was surprised that multiple people had voted for it to be shown. Unfortunately, this got my hopes up.

 

I thought this was going to be a bubbly, stage-musical-esque film, but it turns out that it wasn’t really. There were definitely parts of the film that resembled this – like the first church scene and when Aretha Franklin broke out in song, but other than that, I wasn’t a big fan of the story. Perhaps the main characters, I couldn’t call them protagonists, were too unsettling for me. Maybe it was their blatant disregard for the well-being of others and their own hygiene. Perhaps I just didn’t like seeing morally bad people getting away with all of their nonsense.

 

Really, the two main Blues brothers just got annoying. Their obnoxious behavior got old really quickly. There were surprise Nazis in the middle of the movie, there was a crazy ex who was creating military-grade weaponry, and they somehow were able to outrun whole police departments. I can deal with some suspension of disbelief, but overall it was just too much for me. The characters weren’t likeable enough for me to get the story. I did laugh at certain lines and generally enjoy dark humor and satire, but the Blues brothers didn’t have redeemable qualities. They didn’t care about strangers, but were also inconsiderate to their supposed friends. They misled them about their plans, they ruined one guy’s job, they ruined another’s relationship – all for $5000.

 

Were there definitely messages about religion, racial issues, and the militarization and brutality of American police, I personally didn’t find the film worth watching. HAD Hill mentioned that the cast consisted of a lot of big-name musicians, but I wasn’t that into the music either. Personally, I didn’t see the appeal of the movie, but there are clearly others who enjoy it, so to each their own.

Carrie Fisher with a Rocket Launcher

The Blues Brothers is one of the most absurd pieces of cinema I have ever seen, and yet I found myself enjoying its pure madness due to how the movie goes explicitly out of its way to not take itself too seriously. From a levitating nun, to over-the-top car chases through a mall, and (certainly my most favorite of all) Carrie Fisher randomly appearing with a rocket launcher, this movie is madness distilled into a film. Yet despite its absurdities, I believe this film overall was a celebration of jazz and the Blues and the culture (particularly Black culture) that is infused within such music.  The narrative centered around two brothers embarking on a wild journey to reassemble their Blues band in the face of adversity from violent police, country singers (an embodiment of traditional southern white music), and even Nazis. Although released in 1980, these antagonizing forces have become all too relevant in very recent history, making viewing this movie quite timely. The Blues Brothers does an excellent job of noting these poignant realities while also making sure to belittle them in the most amusing of ways. Overall, this film was quite enjoyable–meriting its rather long viewing time–and it places particular emphasis on key themes that are all too relatable 37 years later.

RIP Gas Station Guy

I did not enjoy The Blues Brothers. I think I just must have an unusually low tolerance for car chases (of which this movie has so many I lost count) and the general sort of humor in the film, which I’m going to very broadly define as “foolish men with very good luck”. That said, the film does have a fairly strong conclusion. The filmmakers upped the absurdity enough that it started to work for me.

Even if you don’t like the comedy, I do think the film is worth watching for the excellent musical performances. I watched this film knowing absolutely nothing about Blues music (to the extent that I’m not sure if it’s technically correct to describe this as Blues, bear with me). My favorite would have to be Aretha Franklin singing “Think”, though all are excellent.

“The Blues Brothers” is also a film that becomes considerably more interesting upon reflection. During the film, the Blues Brothers are consistently pursued by the police. The intent of the film seems to be satirizing the militarization of the police and the use of excessive force to pursue and capture two people who, for all their causing of mayhem, are essentially harmless and goodhearted. I, however, felt the film undermined itself on this one. In one of the earlier scenes, the Blues Brothers lead the police on a car chase through a mall. The Blues Brothers also accidentally blow up a gas station, which had somebody working in it, who probably died. I think this is the reason this film did not work for me, because I am the sort of person who thinks about the probable offscreen deaths of gas station attendants with one line. All this being said, the film is making an interesting point and topical point.

The running time of this film is 132 minutes. Personally, I think it would have been better had it been shorter. The high points of this movie were the musical numbers and the more cutting satire. If anything, the plot and some of the scenes with the central protagonists got in the way of my enjoyment of Blues Brothers. That said, there is something very interesting about a film which explores themes of police militarization and Neo-Nazism by following two white men who just sort of float above it all. I did not enjoy Blues Brothers, but I think it is a film worth watching for the messages it conveys.

Funny Blues Brothers

This movie was highly enjoyable. I had never seen it before, but later talking with older family members I realized that all of them had. It’s a classic and a very funny one. The movie was hilarious and I will always have the excuse that I am on a mission from God in my back pocket. I recommend The Blues Brothers to anyone who has never seen it, because it is a wild, hilarious, and worth it ride.

Get Right Church (and let’s go home)

I was initially taken aback by the movie.  Last Friday was the first time I had seen the classic film, “The Blues Brothers”.  It reminded me of popular discussions regarding the appropriation of black culture.  I wasn’t offended when I watched  the movie.  Many parts of the movie reflected my own culture and it’s history but in a comical way.  I even felt as if some parts were funny but for some reason I was still uncomfortable.

There was a hyperbolic scene imitating a black baptist, pentecostal, or AME church’s worship on any given Sunday morning.  There were deacons flipping like acrobats led by the very secular singer who I had recognized to be James Brown.  Were non POC Rose Scholars laughing because they knew it was all an over exaggeration or is this how they will go on imaging black christian culture?  Will they ever develop a serious appreciation for the history of blues and the credit due black people or will it always be a joke?

This comedic church scene frightened me because it had no context.  I grew up a deaconess and minister’s daughter in a black baptist church in northwest D.C..  The gospel music moved me and still moves me today.  No, clouds don’t part and sun beams don’t shine through the stain glass windows of the church when someone is introduced to my faith but I’ve seen the power of the music in more subtle ways.  I want people who don’t understand to see the power of the music.  I want them to understand before they laugh.

There are lots of other concerns I have that I won’t give the attention they deserve.  I’m worried that the worship of my culture is unfairly compared to historically white anglo saxon worship.  I went to a PWI boarding school for girls in high school.  My first 2 years there, on Sundays, they only took us to all white (except for me) episcopal and catholic churches.  The worship was quiet.  Very quiet.  I know some people like this better and connect better with God this way but it shouldn’t be viewed as the proper way to worship.  I’m scared this Blues Brother’s scene and others like it will lead people to subconsciously view traditional black gospel worship as exotic, unproductive, and maybe even improper.

P.S.

I sorta like James Brown.  We shouldn’t tell my parents because they made me skip his songs on old soul Christmas C.D.s.  They don’t like how James Brown’s Christmas songs distract from the true meaning of Christmas.  I wonder how they’d feel about him being depicted as a pastor.

What a Wonderful Surprise

I am not a big fan of what I consider to be “old movies” (please don’t judge me). I find it hard to relate or get entertained but the movie, Blues Brothers was the exception! I absolutely loved it for its timeless comedy as well as its good jazz music.

The movie begins with Jake Blues, half of the Blues Brothers coming out of prison. After reuniting with his brother Elwood they go visit the boarding school they grew up in. However, once they go inside they are told that the school is in financial trouble.  The only way to save the school is to pay $5000 in 11 days. The brothers decide to save their boarding school by putting their band back together.

My friends and I loved how many enemies the brothers seemed to get along the way. For example,  when the Nazis were on the bridge saying  “I hate Illinois Nazis” and Elwood uses the Bluesmobile to make the Nazis jump off the bridge. Yet, as my friends and I discuss it days after we watched it- we drew on the white supremacist rally, especially in Charlottesville. Although I laughed about how the police and Nazis were after the brothers one cannot help but think of how relatable this movie is. I really appreciated how this movie made me think about the things going on right now.

Those Bums Won Their Court Case

The Blues Brothers is one of my all time favorite movies. That’s why I voted to have it shown as the last film for this semester. However, I hadn’t seen it in a few years. I was curious how it would hold up – I knew the movie had a lot of content revolving around black culture, but I was wondering how scenes like the scene in the Church with James Brown would hold up against a more modern lens. I was beyond surprised with how much I noticed on this viewing about the themes of the movie.

The ostensible goal of the Blues Brothers is to celebrate Jazz and Blues music. The star studded cast, and director John Landis’ sensibility of “Another musical number? Why not!” all work towards this end. With that most prominent goal in mind, it’s worth reflecting on the total framework of the story, particularly the relationship the film has with music other than Blues.

There are multiple instances in the film where other genres of music come up. At Bob’s Country Bar, they have both kinds of music, Country and Western. And, finally, the Nazis are accompanied by Wagner’s Flight of the Valkyries. All three of these genres have one thing in common at some level – they are all associated with white culture by the time of 1980, certainly more so than Jazz or Blues. While the Blues Brothers are white themselves, it is evident that the film is placing them opposite of white culture.

The film does this in another way as well with the nature of the Brothers’ antagonists. There are three: The police, the Nazi party, and the Good Ol’ Boys (traditional country folk). Note that all three of these can be interpreted as elements of the opposition faced by African Americans. What’s particularly of note, however, is how all three of these persist in the present day. The question of racially charged police brutality is as prominent as ever, after incidents like the death of Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, and Philando Castile. The Nazi party, while likely a farce in the context of the movie, has also made its return as of late, with White Power movements spreading across the nation. And the Good Ol’ Boys, if we interpret them to be a representation of a traditional white culture, particularly from the American South and Midwest, have also made their return with the election of President Trump.

The movie makes a farce of all three of these antagonists, and there’s two ways to interpret it. In making light of these three groups in the way the film does, it could be seen to undermine their power, by taking away any serious interpretation of the message these groups present. An increasingly militarized and violent police is made far less frightening and serious when that power can’t even apprehend two musicians. The Nazi party and the Good Ol’ Boys are also made into farces as their message is constantly undermined by their ridiculous and obsessive behavior. However, one could also argue that this comic presentation fails to take these issues, which were as serious then as they are now, seriously. By presenting them comically, the film allows the audience to dismiss these issues as mere silliness. Between these two interpretations, however, I think the film is going for the former. There is too much carefully chosen, like the dismissal of more white styles of music, the celebration of absolutely incredible Jazz and Blues musicians, and the three antagonists being three forces easily seen as opposition to African Americans, for me to think the film is trying to make these seem less important than they actually are. And I’m going to grant the film this.

The Blues Brothers, Forty Years Later

Prior to deciding to come to this past Friday’s showing of John Landis’ The Blues Brothers, I did a cursory skim of its Wikipedia page. I had remembered my parents mentioning it once or twice so I figured it was an older film somewhere between Die Hard and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. When, within the first two paragraphs of its wiki page, the plot was described as a “redemption story” for ex-convict Jake Blues, I had subconsciously judged a book (movie?) by its cover and labeled it a wholesome buddy comedy to watch right before finals, something that I very much needed.

While I don’t feel that this initial assessment was entirely incorrect, it certainly doesn’t capture the entire essence of the movie. What I didn’t expect going in was biting commentary—commentary that is still strikingly relevant today, some forty years later—in between the jokes and musical numbers.

Looking back, I find it funny that film billed flatly as a “redemption story” has the police as one of the primary antagonists. Throughout the movie, this stance is unmoving. Until the very end, the police are out to get the brothers, and the film even ends with the band in jail after finally having been caught. While on some level this does play a very comedic role in the story, I can’t help but see parallels to the way police are viewed in society today. There is an increasing divisiveness with how society perceives the police, especially after events like the shootings of Eric Garner, Dedric Colvin, and Michael Brown. It’s interesting to see how this has evolved since the early 80’s when this movie was first released—even moreso to see how relevant it still is today.

In a similar vein, the other major antagonist of the story is the Nazi Party. Similar to the role of the police in the film, this seems as first to be played comically. However, there are some interesting parallels to today’s society. With the startling resurgence of white supremacy in the past year (e.g. Charlottesville), this hits close to home. While the idea that there are people who still feel this way may seem ridiculous, the bigotry showcased in the movie is still alive and well today.

We have definitely progressed as a society in a lot of different ways since the year 1980 when The Blues Brothers was released. But sometimes films like this can’t help but make you wonder if we’ve truly come as far as we think we have in the last forty years.

Citizen Kane and Fake News

The award wining -film Citizen Kane directed, produced, screenplay and acted by Orson Welles, who played also the main character Charles Foster Kane, is considered one of the greatest films of all times. It addresses power, corruption, and vanity of a newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane, who became one of the richest and most popular men in America and then falls in disgrace.

Kane’s final words “Rosebud” and the snow globe refer to the traumatic childhood memory of when he as an eight-year old was torn away from his family in snowy day in Colorado to be sent to a boarding school, which marked him for the rest of his life. The scrip is the journey of how Kane becomes very powerful but is unable to reciprocate love. When Charles reached adulthood and inherited his fortune, he did not know at first what to do, but was full of idealism and recognized that if he had not been rich he would have been a better man. Although he could buy everything he wanted with his fortune, he chose a selfish path always imposing his own terms on others and manipulating public opinion, for which he paid a very high price losing his first and second wives, son, and friends.

“Rosebud” the name on the sled that he was playing with when he was separated from his parents represented critical times on his life when he confronted major loses: first the lost of his mother and father as a child, then when he lost his chance to become a governor and maybe President due to the scandal of his affair with Susan Alexander, who will become his second wife. Ironically, at first, he did not care for money, and had dropped out from many Ivy League Schools, including Cornell, and had no clear goals until he became a publisher for “The New York Daily Inquirer”. He made many changes so that the news could go out 24/7, hired the best reporters at the time, and included gossip and scandalous articles of corruption. He also published his own declaration of principles: “I will provide the people of the city with a daily paper that will focus on the truth,” without special interests, and “will tireless champion for the rights of the citizens.” Later on, however, he betrayed his own principles, and became corrupted and driven only by his obsession for power and fame, creating his own reality with false news. His paper manipulated mass opinion, when his ambition was exposed many people abandoned him while he continued with misinformation and fake news manipulating others. His friend Leland and his second wife Susan left him, as they could no longer accept how he was dishonest and manipulated the truth constantly for his own gain. Driven to lonesomeness by his own ambition, he did not trust or believe in anybody else. At the end, he grew disappointed of the world and built a world of his own in Xanadu, where he died in isolation.

The issue of fake news and how people can be manipulated by misinformation stroke me as it is still a major concern in our times with the advent of social media. Fake news spread fast through social media confounding the truth due to the lack of filtering of misinformation since anyone can post statements without validating the information at any given time to manipulate mass opinion even if the information posted is fake. To avoid falling on those scams, it is critical to be able to separate facts from fake news and be aware of the sources of information that can be reliable versus those that just manipulate others with misinformation to manipulate public opinion.

An Exciting Film

On the last day of class, my friends and I decided to take a break before finals and go to see ” The Blue Blood Brothers” movie. I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised. The only classic movies I had seen before were, “The Breakfast Club” and “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”. Compared to these other movies this was also a new genre, comedy. While I’ve seen some recent comedies or the classic “rom coms”, I hadn’t seen anything like this. The numerous stunts, car chases and the most amazing music to go along with it, made it a quite enjoyable experience. This movie kept me on my toes and I’m glad that I took a break from my studies to enjoy it. The Blue Blood Brothers set a standard for movies that I don’t believe could ever be topped. This was a great end to a great semester and I am looking forward to everything next semester might bring.

A response to a Washington Post review of Blues Brothers

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

The Blues Brothers and The White Brothers

I walked into The Blues Brothers with absolutely no preconceptions or notions of what it was. Judging by the name, I assumed it had to involve some kind of musical aspect (a correct assumption). However, I had no idea the film would touch on themes that would still be so relevant almost four decades after its initial release.

The scene that struck the largest chord in me – and, arguably, for most viewers today – was the image of the Illinois Nazis on the bridge, stoic even against the rage of protesters cursing at them from behind a police blockade. The variety of protesters in terms of race, age, and gender stood in stark contrast to the overall demographic of the Nazis, who at one point mockingly said – and I’ll probably never forget this – “The Jew is using the Black as muscle…Whities, what are you going to do?” Soon after, they performed a Nazi salute.

The Blues Brothers, from how I interpreted it, is a celebration of blues and soul music framed within a mildly ridiculous comedy. Perhaps in 1980, they believed that the Nazi party was a dying organization, and the provocative scene would turn into a mocking parody of backwards ideals by 2017. However, there is no denying that recent events – including the United States presidential election (White Nationalists Salute the President-Elect); controversy surrounding the largest Youtuber in the world (Pewdiepie apologizes for Nazi jokes but says the press is out to get him); a scene eerily reminiscent, albeit much more violent and frighteningly real, of the Nazi protest in the movie (2017 Charlottesville Protest Timeline); and even events on our own campus (Anti-Semitic Posters Appear on Ezra Cornell Statue, Campus Buildings) – have only reaffirmed the continued proliferation of white supremacy ideals in the world. For all the progress America has made in social rights since its foundation, the white supremacist movement (or white nationalist movement, or Nazi party, whatever you want to call it) is blight on our history that refuses to squashed out.

Racism (in this context, I’m discussing white supremacy, although racism between other groups is also very real and should in no way be minimized) isn’t an issue that developed out of the blue one morning, and therefore can’t be completely flushed out/addressed by a wacky 1980s musical. It’s systematic and systemic, an ideology that has its roots in the earliest human inter-group contact – there are still an abundance of steps to be made towards more progress.

In other words, The Blues Brothers isn’t a movie that appears to be attempting to wholeheartedly tackle the topic of racism – but if it aimed to at least open up the topic to a new audience, and spur discussion every time it is shared with new viewers, then I think it’s a valuable film experience (on top of its star-studded guest cast and feel-good soundtrack, of course).

Use of unnecessary violence in apprehension of the Blues Brothers…has been approved.

This movie was fantastic. Absolutely beautiful in just about every single way. I don’t know how the jokes or comedic timing or the stars could be any better. Rather than just summarizing the movie, I think there are a few points to make when considering applications to the world we live in today, as opposed to 1980.

At the end of the movie, the Blues Brothers are being chased by the police, a gang of Nazi’s and a country band. A radio operator says over the police channel “Use of unnecessary violence in apprehension of the Blues Brothers…has been approved”. What proceeds to unfold is the most over-the-top police chase I’ve ever seen on film, including helicopters, a tank, rappelling SWAT teams, 20-30 squad cars, etc. They proceed to hunt the Blue’s Brothers all over Chicago, finally cornering them at the courthouse.

These entire scene strongly reminded me about the issues going on today with the increasing militarization of domestic police forces. The comical overreaction of police violence to two runaway blues musicians is reminiscent of more recent overreactions of police violence in the last few years, both in Ferguson and elsewhere. The key part of the officers quote is *unnecessary* violence. One gets the impression that the officers are overjoyed to have a chance to test out some cool new toys: justice does not seem to be the motive. And I believe that this accurately reflects an attitude that we should have today: the more “cool” equipment and powerful weapons that we allow domestic police departments to have, the more inclined they will be to use them. This is exacerbated by the fact that the Blues Brothers aren’t even the most dangerous people in the movie: both the country band and the Nazi’s shoot at the brothers at points during the film, while the worst that the brothers do is (admittedly a lot of) property damage. Again, there is a parallel to the current day when it sometimes seems like the priorities of police departments aren’t to address the real sources of danger, but to stereotype and go after people that are assumed dangerous (particularly unarmed, black men) instead of actually dangerous people (Nazi’s).

Fire: A Film of Peril and Hope

I saw the film Fire this past Friday. Fire is a South Asian movie that explores and questions some of the archaic practices of South Asian society. The film choses to focus on sexuality and arranged marriage, and revolves around complex family dynamics. These were and still are out of the ordinary topics for a film of Indian origin to cover, and as a result created controversy in India upon its release.

The movie revolves around one extended family living together in their shop: Sita, her husband Jatin, Radha, her husband Ashok, Jatin and Radha’s mother Biji, and the family servant Mundu. Over the course of the movie it is made painfully clear that Jatin does not care for Sita, preferring his girlfriend Julie over Sita. Jatin Openly talks to Sita about his relationship with Julie and how he prefers Julie. With the other marriage Ashok’s following of a religious fanatic has ruined his marriage with Radha, with Radha being trapped in a dysfunctional relationship for most of her life. After Sita moves in, Sita and Radha comfort each other with words in the beginning, but as time goes on their relationship becomes more intimate. They begin to think of each other as lovers and support one another through the hardships of their marriage. After some time has passed since their relationship bloomed, they think about leaving their husbands who never showed even one bit of affection towards them. As Ashok found out about Radha and Sita’s relationship he was horrified, and resented Radha, even refusing to help her when her clothing caught fire. The movie ended with Radha and Sita going away together to start a new life.

I thought the film illustrated perfectly the negatives of arranged marriage. Here we see two broken marriages, with both Sita and Radha unable to do anything, Radha herself being in the marriage for decades, because the society they live in demands that they remain loyal to their husbands even if they are unaffectionate towards them. This causes them to waste so many years with someone they resent. Homosexuality is also explored in the film, in how it gave Radha and Sita the companionship and affection they had been wanting from their husbands for years. This is unacceptable in the society they lived in, and the film makes the viewer feel angry that it isn’t accepted because Sita and Radha are so happy together, happier than they had ever been in their marriages, and deserve to be together.

A Commentary on Human Desire

Last night I attended my first “Flora’s Friday film”. We watched the movie Fire, a film directed by Deepa Mehta about two women from loveless marriages who grow close and later fall in love in spite of the societal stigma against woman-on-woman love. I really enjoyed this film because it felt like a very candid look in the life of an LGBT individual on the other side of the globe. By nature of living here in the United States, it often feels like everything we learn and experience has a very americentric lens, and I genuinely enjoy learning about other cultures through powerful, emotionally evocative movies like this one. There is a very high chance that I would never have been exposed to this movie otherwise, so I’m very glad I was able to attend this event.

Beyond the multicultural perspective, however, I really enjoyed this movie because it provided an interesting commentary on the nature of human desire. Even the comparison of the two brothers– one very conservative with an intense need to be in control of his desires, the other who succumbs to his desires to the extent of visibly and shamelessly cheating on his wife–offers a very interesting juxtaposition of two different ideologies. I feel, this film spoke to the human necessity for communication. We all have desires, but if we simply suffer in silence then nothing will come of them. Working toward being more open and willing to speak with one another candidly is a necessity for humanity as we become increasingly globalized, and I believe this film speaks to this idea.

Duty and Happiness

In the opening scenes of Fire, Sita and her new husband, Jatin, are outside the Taj Mahal. A guide is explaining how the Taj Mahal was created as a symbol of love. Sita tries to make small talk to Jatin, but he seems dismissive. She asks him “don’t you like me?”

Sita and Jatin live with Jatin’s older brother, Ashok, Ashok’s wife, Radha, and Jatin and Ashok’s grandmother, who has suffered a stroke and lost the ability to speak. The family owns a combination take-out restaurant and video rental store, where Sita and Radha work.

Most of the scenes in Fire are filmed inside the family’s home and store. The film contrasts scenes of seeming domestic tranquility with indications of deep-rooted conflict and discontent. Jatin tells his brother that he married Sita only to stop his brother’s nagging. He is also still seeing his girlfriend, Julie, and makes no attempt to hide her identity from Sita when Sita finds a picture of Julie in Jatin’s wallet.

Radha and Ashok’s marriage is similarly strained. After learning that Radha was unable to have children, Ashok took a vow of chastity.

Fire is interesting in the way that it suggests that Sita and Rahda are both alone and not alone. Both are married, but neither feel loved. The two women live in a busy household, but many scenes feature Sita and Radha alone together. And yet, even when Sita and Radha have the house otherwise to themselves, Jatin and Ashok’s grandmother is there. She cannot speak, and thus cannot tell others what they do, but she is there to observe them nonetheless.

Fire

Fire, a movie set in India, is about the relationship that develops between two women that have married into a family. Each of them is married to a brother in the family, and the film starts with Sita, joining the family after recently being married to one of the brothers. Both of the women are unhappy in their relationships, with Sita’s husband openly having a Chinese lover, and Radha, being infertile, is with a celibate husband who does not want intimacy with her. The two women find solace in each other because of their marriages and become lovers themselves.

Being one of the first Bollywood films to incorporate and emphasize a story based on a homosexual relationship, the film has even more of an impact on the viewer. It explores themes that were not accepted by many at the time, and in doing so brings to light the different viewpoints on the subject.

Personally, I believed that the film was very impactful. I thought that the way that the film developed the relationship between Sita and Radha was particularly good. The small moments that passed between them before Sita kissed Radha showed the bond that was shared between the two women. Even after that moment, when Radha was doing Sita’s hair, the relationship could be felt by the viewer, and was established as an integral part of the film. The connections between the two was largely emotional, and by setting up their backstories and showing the way that their marriages functioned, one could see the way that the two came to each other.

Virginia in the 1960s

The main thoughts I got from the movie Loving within the first half an hour is how differing ideas can lead to what seem like unnecessary frustration and suffering.  Richard, a white man, and Mildred, a black woman, drive out of Virginia and get married, since their marriage would be illegal in their home state, and then return to live with their families and assume their new lives with a marriage certificate.  Though when they return, they are still jailed and their matrimony is viewed as illegitimate, as their local sheriff arrests and separates both of  them.  His explanation for the separation is that people of different races were placed in different locations of the Earth, which he viewed as God’s intent for them to not marry and produce offspring together.  And this was the written explanation for the court ruling their marriage illegal.  Despite the work both groom and bride put into starting a new life together and finding a legal loophole, they were still ultimately required to leave the state, which they did together.

The film then shows their life once they’ve moved in such a way that made me appreciate it more as a story about a real relationship and not just about legal injustice.  As the couple raises their children, it is especially clear that Mildred is not happy so far removed from her family back in Virginia.  The burden of loneliness seems to strike her everyday as her husband is constantly working.  While this problem does seem like it would be fixed were they still living in Virginia, and is partially fixed once they move back, seeing the characters deal with stress from their new lives in a new location made them appear even more human on screen.

Even closer to the end of the film, there is still friction between the two in how they deal with the publicity that comes along with their legal case making it to the Supreme Court.  Instead of focusing the entire movie on solely courts, judges, and decisions, the movie’s creators seemed to show multiple sources of conflict that portrayed the relationship and struggles between Richard and Mildred Loving as organic and definitely made for an emotional two hours.

Red

This past Friday we watched a movie called Fire.

It was eerie watching a movie that depicts reality so close up. I had to avert my gaze many times not because any scenes were explicit, but because they were so poignant and different in their form of loneliness. This wasn’t the western idea of loneliness, that I find often presented bounded by romantic, social, work etc lines, but a cohesive, consuming one.

The want to be desired isn’t just a romantic want, but an innate human need to feel valued. Not delegated to carnal desires, but the desire to be valued for anything: work, effort, or intention. Instead, if a person is constantly berated and treated like a second class citizen it can lead to a fire, one providing a slate for a new beginning.

Loving

I thoroughly enjoyed Loving. Although the last scenes that said the husband died in 1975 made me emotional, the movie was overall a happy ending and that satisfied me. I found a lot of similarities between Richard and Mildred’s love story and other struggles of the LGBT community. Of course, the Loving v. Virginia was used to justify gay marriage. I think it’s startling to think that interracial marriage was banned within our parents’ lifetimes, proving that only recently has legal racism been outlawed, meaning society has a long way to go.

It’s egregious to think that there was still such blatant discrimination so far after the civil rights movement. Even after the legalization of interracial marriage, a significant number of white Americans still view it as blasphemous. I think telling the story of the Loving family helps to show that the government has no right to interfere with our lives and that we should be able to love whoever we want to.

The Problem of Antiquated Laws

The film “Loving” tells the real life story of how interracial marriage was against the law in Virginia, and many other states, due to legislation which had not been updated since the era of slavery. The law was clearly worded in such a way that there was no separation of church and state. In addition, the law cited strange beliefs about how the continents where separate so therefore the inhabitants of different continents shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Luckily the Supreme court overturned this law, but it is important that we as a society be vigilant for other laws which contain old-fashioned prejudices. Although times change, laws which were written by those in power stay the same. We are thus left with archaic rules which do not represent society’s morals or beliefs. It takes brave individuals, such as the Loving family, to expose these unfair and prejudiced laws. The film showed that it can be difficult when so many people are against you. The Lovings had to contend with racist police officers and judges, betrayal by neighbors, and even lawyers from the ACLU who had the best intentions but were not experienced in Constitutional law. The family overcame all the odds, and their case repealed an old law which was racist, providing future generations a better world to live in.

It only takes one

“Loving” is a powerful take on the famous Supreme Court case that ended the prohibition of interracial marriage. Richard, a white man, and Mildred, a black woman, leave Virginia to get married, and they come back to a racist justice system that does not support their harmless act of marriage. In fact, the justice system forbids it. From the local sheriff to Richard’s own mother, time and time again people shake their head at Richard and mutter that he “should have known better”. Should have known better? Is it a crime to love someone else for who they are? Sadly, in this case the predominately racist general public says it is. So Richard and Mildred roll with the punches, leave the state, and raise a family. But as the Civil Rights Movement progresses, Mildred begins to realize that rolling with the punches isn’t right, and it isn’t fair. She writes a letter to Robert Kennedy and explains her situation. Though he doesn’t directly get back to her, a young lawyer reaches out to her. He wants to relieve Richard, Mildred, and their family of the injustice they’ve suffered, and he believes that together they can manipulate the justice system. He formulates a plan: bring it to their hometown, lose, then bring it to the state, lose, then bring it to federal court, lose, and then the case reaches the Supreme Court. But again, he’s a young lawyer, and he doesn’t have much experience. So he finds a prominent civil rights lawyer who, once he learns about Richard and Mildred’s situation, believes that Richard and Mildred have the chance to gain freedom not only for themselves but for all interracial couples. Well, their plan works. They do reach the Supreme Court. But as if Richard and Mildred’s entire struggle weren’t enough, the state of Virginia plots a heartbreaking, truly evil defense: use Richard and Mildred’s own children as witnesses testifying against their own parents. That is nothing but cruel. Fortunately, the Supreme Court answers with justice not only for Richard and Mildred but for all interracial couples. Interestingly, it didn’t take a march. It didn’t take a protest. It didn’t take an army. It took one couple to make a change for everyone.

The Truth About Loving

The film was loving was a moving and emotional story about the sacrifices and sufferings of an interracial couple living in 1960 Virginia. The movie was especially touching because of the depth with which the actors portrayed the raw emotions holding the relationship together. It is unbelievable to think that not so long ago marrying someone of a different race was an action you could be jailed for. Movies like these are necessary because they remind us of this countries ugly history. They put things in perspective and help to elucidate current social and cultural phenomenons.

Despite being a wonderful movie to watch and great lesson on the history of this country there were some things that were changed about the true story to make the movie more “hollywood ready.”

The movie was correct about where and when the Loving’s first met. It is also true that they traveled to Washington to get the Marriage license and become a couple. What was untrue, however, was that Richard’s mom advised the couple not to get married. In reality she only ever told her son not to go to Washington to get married. She advised him to stay in Virginia. She was never outwardly opposed to the marriage and she never told him “you never should have married that girl.” This was likely added to make the film more dramatic.

All in all the film was enlightening and a pleasure to watch and I learned a lot.

Politics and Society: The Potent Effect of Laws and Court Cases on Everyday Life

Last Friday, I attended Rose’s screening of the historical, touching film Loving. It chronicled the incredible story of Richard & Mildred Loving, an interracial couple whose efforts culminated in the famous Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, during which race-based restrictions on marriage were found unconstitutional.

I have always loved passionately debating and respectfully arguing with others; TV shows and movies showcasing court cases and trials have consistently interested me. Therefore, throughout the film, I was getting geared up to watch the final battle – a debate amongst educated lawyers in a courtroom, finding loopholes, making counterarguments, and stringing together both logical and emotional appeals to facilitate real change in our country. However, the film did not portray this groundbreaking Supreme Court case and, initially, this choice by the directors left me feeling disappointed and confused.

Nonetheless, after ruminating over the film for a few days, I finally have recognized that the movie’s purpose was not to show how the legal system works and how court cases are won. Loving instead sought to showcase how lives are shaped by the decisions of other people – judges and legislators. I’m not a politician, and I don’t reside in Washington D.C. nor do I live near my home state’s capital. Because I am far in distance from the political system, I often neglect to remember how much it affects me and the level to which it impacts our society. However, watching this movie reminded me of the magnitude of the effect a written law can have on a person’s way of life. Richard and Mildred were arrested multiple times for being involved in an interracial marriage, just because a few politicians decided that it wasn’t acceptable. The decision by a couple of judges to make laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional vastly changed Richard and Mildred’s lives, for the better. They could live in peace because people in D.C. said so.

As a woman, I have the right to vote and exert a form of power over my government because of a single Amendment written into the Constitution. My female ancestors did not have this same right because of ridiculous sexist laws conjured up by a few misogynistic politicians. It’s honestly insane to think about the potency of written laws and the decisions of a few judges/legislators. The great effect of laws and court cases on the human race makes it all the more important that we continue to fight for liberal laws that will make our lives better, and to fight against oppressive, inhumane, and unjust laws.

In the end, although we may feel distant from politics, we must recognize the impact of laws and court cases on our society and on our ways of life. We can’t ignore the government; we must instead work to improve it.

Responsibility

After watching Loving, I thought a lot about how the lawyers failed to tell the Loving couple the full truth (such as the fact that both lawyers knew they could not save the couple if the couple were to be arrested again). Obviously, knowing all the risks that the Loving couple are putting themselves (and their children) through would deter them from continuing to pursue their case in court. The lawyers had more than just the Loving couple’s interest in mind – they were interested in the possibility of making a huge difference. Still, I felt like the lawyers needed to give the Loving couple full disclosure before proceeding with the case. In this example, everything went well and they were able to change the law. But things could have easily gone wrong at multiple points and I felt like it was unfair for Loving family to not know the details of what they were getting themselves into. What would the lawyers have done if things took a terrible turn for the worse? This was a regular couple trying to lead a happy and healthy life for their children. They had already been through a lot – having to move out of the home they cherished and having to adapt to a new lifestyle. It would be devastating to imagine what would happen if the couple was sent to jail again or even something worse.

Therefore, should the lawyers have been more responsible in how they handled the Loving couple’s case? I definitely think so.

The Case of Loving v Virgina

Last Friday we gathered to watch a movie covering the case of an interracial couple who had to take their case all the way to the Supreme Court. What I found interesting about the movie was that it was not framed like a traditional movie at all, but instead offered snapshots of the couple’s life together and their struggles. In fact, the movie focused so much on their difficulties that I sometimes forgot that the couple was in love. At one point, the husband even seems to consider his friend’s advice that he simply divorce his wife. However, the couple makes it through in the end and triumphs with a court ruling in their favor.

This movie relates pretty well to two ongoing issues that we struggle with today: marriage equality and racial inequality. Some of the same arguments used against interracial marriage back then are still used today. It’s disheartening to see that some things haven’t changed at all. Similarly, the court case that legalized marriage equality nationwide is still faced with opposition. Although this movie was set in the 60s, a lot of the themes are still relevant.

The fact that themes from this movie are still relevant today makes me wonder where we will be 50 years down the line from now. Will people still be faced with prejudice based on their race and sexuality? Sadly, it wouldn’t surprise me if that will be the case. We love to watch futuristic sci-fi movies where social inequality is antiquated and unthinkable, but more and more the ideal utopia of social equality seems to be out of reach.

Citizen Kane: Modern Film Ideals

Citizen Kane was the first black and white movie I had ever watched. In all honesty, I was most impressed by the film angles of the movie than the actual plot itself. One particular scene that really caught my eye was when the reporter was first visiting Kane’s ex-wife. The camera went through the roof of the club to the table that Kane’s ex-wife was sitting at. It was truly a revolutionary film angle idea – in fact, some recent movies I have seen, including Thor: Ragnarok, dabbled with this film angle approach, but it was not executed as smoothly as in Citizen Kane.

Another scene that caught my attention was the scene where Kane’s lips whispered “Rosebud”. I was taken aback that the film was released in 1941 with such modern film ideals.

What stays with you

The Friday Film was Citizen Kane, a discovery of Charles Foster Kane’s life by a reporter determined to find the meaning behind the rich newspaperman’s last word: “rosebud”. Following many leads, he uncovers elements of Kane’s private life, but nothing about the word, “rosebud”. Unfortunately, the reporter never discovers the meaning, the last link was destroyed eventually unnoticed. At the end, the viewers learn that the words implied that despite his success, he still thought about the moment he was taken away from his home as a young child.

This film was set up in an interesting way. It starts with his death, and the viewer is able to learn about Kane’s life as the reporter also learns about his life. This is interesting because the impression that we are left with is similar to the reporter’s, who asks the questions the audience is also wondering about.

Overall, I thought this was an interesting film that, while it built up slowly, went into Kane’s life so throughly. While in the beginning, we see some rosy exterior about some aspect of his life, as the reporters asks questions and follows recommendations to others who know more, he, and the audience, discover that Kane’s life is not at all perfect as it seems. Rather, it contains extra worries people not in Kane’s position would have to consider.

Different Types of Motivation

Mark Twain once said something along the lines of a classic being something people praise but don’t read.  I sort of had this idea about Citizen Kane going into the movie.  I thought it would be filled by a lot of dialogue that would slowly lull an audience desensitized by the more action-packed films of the 21st century.  While the movie consists of the dialogue between a reporter and the people he interviews who knew Mr. Kane, vivid flashbacks accompany each conversation.  The character of Charles Kane himself is filled with the ambition of finding approval that’s difficult to look away from.  The film is consistently regarded as one of the best of all time, due to its experimental shots, nonlinear storytelling, and other features less common in Hollywood at the time.

While Kane does have charisma and is able to convince people to do risky things, like having an affair with him, his energy and persuasive power seem to stem from the lack of compassion and care he faced as a child.  Early on, the movie shows him being removed from his family at a very young age.  The film did a good job of showing the audience Kane’s interactions with others and why he was liked, but I think it also did a good job of garnering the audience’s pity for the man.  Persistence is an honorable trait and the audience is able to see the dedication Charles Kane invests in his media endeavors, along with the fame those endeavors bring.  The camera also shows a behind the scenes look at how stubborn and controlling Kane is and the price he pays for his success.  Overall, I liked it.

Money and power does not imply happiness

“Citizen Kane” investigates an irony that has existed since the beginning of economy: to be happy is not necessarily to have a bunch of money and power. At heart, Charles Foster Kane is a small-town country boy whose world consists of Mom, Dad, and his sled Rosebud. But his parents send him off to the city with a rich man in order to live a different life. From education to business advisors, everything is provided for Kane in this new life. He runs a newspaper, runs for public office, and pretty much everyone across the globe knows and loves the man. Kane seems to draw a massive circle of happy-go-luckiness wherever he goes. However, Kane himself always seems out of place. It’s as if no matter how much attention he gets, it’s not enough. The rich man who gives him this new life tries to advise him, but Kane shoos him away every time. Instead, Kane begins a materialistic search for happiness. The man of the people who wanted his newspaper to tell the undivided truth for all becomes a confused dictator who lusts for control. Kane starts to collect statues, builds an opera house in which he forces his wife to sing, neglects his old friends and advisors, and where does he end up? A giant palace with a butler, an expensive suit, and a wife who spends her days building puzzles in front of the fireplace, longing for the old Kane and perhaps a different life. Here is where the irony is most interesting. With nothing but a sled, a small house, and two parents, Kane is a happy child. But with all the riches imaginable he is nothing but happy.

Hope?

After watching Loving last night the message of one person (or in this case on couple) can make a difference. We often think we need an entire movement to make a difference (and in many cases it is helpful) but the fact that this couples case in the supreme court changed the lives and laws of the United States is inspiring. Despite the odds they were able return to Virginia. Virginia has come a long way. Danica Roem was the first openly transgender person to be elected to Virginia Legislature. This is exciting on a national level because the only other openly transgender person to be elected to state legislature in the US was in 2012 when Stacie Laughton won a seat in the New Hampshire House. She did not take office however because she never disclosed her felony conviction and it cause a public uproar. Althea Garrison came out during her term in the Massachusetts house after being elected in 1992 but lost every election after coming out. (source: New York Times) The fact that a transgender democrat was able to win a seat in Virginia gives me hope that we will eventually be able to move forward as a country despite the current state of the executive branch.

The Enigma Machine

In a series of vignettes, the film Citizen Kane tells the story of a man’s life in the most perfect way possible. A person’s life is so much more than the big achievements that he or she accomplishes. Kane’s greatest successes are largely over-looked, quickly passed over in a brief newsreel or completely left out of the narrative entirely such as Kane’s reaction to his wife and son’s deaths. Instead the director Orson Welles focuses in on brief almost mundane episodes in the fictional Mr. Kane’s life. Each short view into Kane’s life reveals a different aspect of his personality, both in terms of what he believes and how his beliefs change over time. He starts off as an idealistic young man and becomes a middle aged miser dedicated to making people love him. We learn so little about him, and yet so much. At times we can read Kane like a book and others he is as incomprehensible as a pile of jigsaw puzzle pieces. The film was incredibly ahead of its time for this, most leading men of the 1930s and 1940s were, for lack of a better term, simple. Mr. Smith went to Washington to do good and succeeded, George Bailey became depressed until everyone told him he had a wonderful life, Dorothy was lost but then the Wizard brought her home. Movies from that time were cut and dry. The good guys win, the bad guys lose. Citizen Kane has no “bad guy”, rather we are watching a man trying to be the best he can be, reaching immense heights of power, but by the end of his life nothing is quite right. The audience feels pity for the elderly Kane who was so much and additionally so little. The film is a story which humanizes this fictional man into someone we care about. For decades we have wondered about Kane and his Rosebud.

I can’t help but wonder how much of Orson Welles inadvertently became a part of Charles Foster Kane (or perhaps how much of Kane became a part of Welles?). Reading about Welles’ life story there are unusual parallels, in particular a sense that Welles himself was never quite satisfied with his life. An interesting project could be a retelling of Citizen Kane but base the life story around Welles himself instead of Hearst. Films made by Welles are considered to the greatest ever made and yet he seems like such a mysterious figure, Citizen Kane really being his only well known work. In addition he achieved the status of a prodigy in the 1930s, but took on bit parts in movies later in his life to even stay relevant. Like Kane, Welles remains to an extent an enigma. He has multiple films which have never seen the light of day. Both Kane and Welles were the best in their fields of expertise but nevertheless seem incomplete, unfinished like Xanadu. And they will never be understood nor can we hope to make sense of their lives. The film Citizen Kane is so great because of what it leaves out, the incompleteness inherent to the story. It is impossible to put all the pieces together. That is the beauty of Citizen Kane, it is an insurmountable puzzle which we get to constantly put together.

The Power of Loving Persistence

I really loved this story. The Loving’s story really captures how sometimes change is brought about when people simply live their lives by what they know is right in their heart. Richard and Mildred persisted. Refusing to let other people steal their joy, they found a way to build the life they wanted to live surrounded by people they love. Richard and Mildred embodied this silent strength, and by continuing on and doing what they believed they should have the right to do, changed the course of American history and ensured that every couple that came after them would have the right they had the courage to secure for themselves. One of the most powerful lines of the movie, I think, is when Mildred explained that they may “lose the small battles, but win the big war.” This line is so powerful because when we are in the middle of striving for change or working towards some goal, sometimes it is difficult to see the small battles as part of a larger war. It is often all to easy to admit defeat the first time we are told “no” or the first time we fail. Starting to plan the next battle and believing that the war has yet to be won takes both incredible courage and wisdom. The Loving story is a testament to the that fact that even when the outcome of a battle seems most definitive, the war cannot end if its soldiers keep persisting. The Loving story serves as a reminder not to underestimate the power of our own human spirits and the change we can effect just by harnessing this power and standing firmly in our beliefs. Also, I think another point that the Loving story illuminates is that when we see people in our lives or even across the country or world entering into these battles, we should compassionately listen to their stories and join the battle. Mildred pointed out that she and her family had their “enemies” and their “friends.” The Loving story reminds us that we need to listen to people’s stories—not make judgments about what these stories are or should be based on the color of their skin, who they love, where they are from, or anything else—and share their stories when they need to be heard, being a friend and helping them to win the larger war they had the courage to put in motion.

Marketing the Revolution

One of the things that struck me most about Citizen Kane was its deep criticism of how marketing has influenced our ability to engage in sincere political protest. Kane bought the newspapers in order to speak for the voice of the working man, as he put it. However, in doing so, and having his angle for each take, he took the idea of genuinely promoting the lives of working class America and effectively commercialized it. He turned it into a product that could be bought and sold through his newspaper, and arguably in doing so actually took a lot of the bite out of any real progress for working class Americans. We see this all the time in our modern neoliberal society, wherein Companies control the language of protest through commercialization. An excellent example of this was during many of the protests following Trump’s election, particularly those in early 2017. Images of the late Carrie Fisher dressed as Princess Leia, and of the “Starbird” symbol used by the Rebel Alliance of the same franchise were used to protest Trump’s statements, particularly those against women, and used as a rallying cry for a similar sort of Rebellion against his policies. While I myself am a huge fan of Star Wars, there is something I find quietly disconcerting about the fact that the symbols of a workers revolution are being given by a massive employer, and something that I think is paralleled with Kane’s newspaper claiming to speak for the workers while also benefiting massively from their employment.

Give Them Back Their Rights: Kane the People’s Man

One of the most interesting moments of Citizen Kane is the scene where Kane’s old friend Leland remarks that when Kane spoke of advocating for the common man, he always spoke in terms of “giving” the people their rights, as if that was in his power. Raised amidst great wealth, his ideas of morality and honor were centered around what money could buy, and even though “big money” was often his enemy, he saw his own wealth as the solution to everything—or at least as the key to winning the people’s admiration, which appears to be what really drove him. As Leland and Susan both note, Kane always tried to buy people’s love through benevolence (e.g. by sending Leland a fat check alongside his pink slip or “fulfilling” Susan’s dream of becoming an opera singer), though he always seemed to miss the mark of granting what his friends actually wanted, since he was only every giving what satisfied his notion of what was right.

Citizen Kane

Citizen Kane was a very interesting film to watch. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was highly reflective of the times we live in today. The handling of the subject matter and topics brought up was also very effective and ahead of its time.  I was shocked that the film was so serious and did not fall into classical troupes despite its antiquity.

Perhaps the most important matter brought up in the film was the struggle between money,  and family/relationships. Putting equal amount of time and effort into both is very difficult as exemplified by Kane’s situation. Often priority is given to one or the other and the one not given priority falls behind and is forgotten. Kane is an ideal example for the necessity of a healthy balance. His neglect of his child and first wife combined with his insatiable thirst for admiration quickly become a destabilizing factor in his life. His lust for superiority is unstable and makes his behavior erratic and volatile.

As we witness his descent from power it becomes more and more apparent that he is the one most responsible for it. His actions and decisions are all cold but not too calculated. Despite having the outward appearance of a calculated person his decisions are all made based on passion and appearance. His haphazard second marriage and refusal to bow out of the race are exemplary evidence of his lack of judgement.

All in all, Kane is a good model for the citizen and person you should avoid becoming.

Longing for the Past and Resenting the Present: A Lesson from Charles Foster Kane

I watched Citizen Kane years ago as a child and didn’t appreciate its meaning. However, viewing it as a young adult last Friday gave me a greater respect and admiration for the movie’s potent messages, depth, and relatability. Citizen Kane has been ranked as the greatest movie of all time by various media outlets, and I finally understand the reasoning behind these honors.

The renowned film begins with the death of a wealthy newspaper magnate, the fictional Charles Foster Kane. His last word, uttered upon his deathbed, was “Rosebud,” and the movie centers around an investigation of this word’s meaning. We eventually discover that the word “Rosebud” was inscribed on the wooden sled Kane had as a child, an item with which he was playing moments before he was sold by his parents to a rich socialite named Robert Thatcher.

Therefore, Rosebud is symbolic of Kane’s childhood, the only time in his life in which he felt genuinely loved and nurtured, carefree, and happy. It is interesting to consider our own, individual Rosebuds. Sometimes I, like Kane, do wish to return to my days as a kid, when the world seemed so simple and so innocent, and stress was essentially nonexistent. Its hard to grow up and realize the evil, immorality, and corruption that exists on this planet. It is difficult to come to terms with the struggles and hard lives that many members of low-income communities, minorities, and third-world countries face on a daily basis. Life gets increasingly complicated and feelings of anxiety become commonplace. Thus, it is difficult not to sometimes want to return to the days of naivety and pure, uninhibited fun.

However, there are many benefits of being an adult that I would not want to lose in returning to my childhood. Despite having to accept the presence of poverty and immorality on the planet, as adults, we gain the power to induce change in these societal issues. We are taken more seriously by others, and have the ability to speak up for ourselves and be heard. Additionally, as adults, we have more freedom and the independence to choose our individual paths. We get to decide our own priorities and how we want to live our lives. So, every period in our lives has its advantages and disadvantages, its happy and its sad moments. However, we always tend to look back on the past positively, when in reality there were many hardships we faced. Meanwhile, we are often unhappy and ungrateful in the present moment. This is an important point, as Kane’s childhood didn’t seem like the greatest experience – his dad implied that he had corporally punished Kane in the past. Kane’s home seemed isolated, in the middle of a snow-covered Colorado. Did Kane have neighbors with whom he could hang out? Because Kane’s family was so poor, it is unclear how high Kane’s quality of life was at his parents’ home. This is not to say that I agree with Kane’s mother’s decision to sell his child to a rich socialite with the intention of giving him a better life — that is a whole other discussion. My point is that the past is not always as great as we remember it to be, but we always long to return to it rather than enjoy what we have now. This was Kane’s problem – he resented being taken from his childhood home so much that it affected his capacity to live a happy, wholesome life full of love, enjoyment, and appreciation for his privilege.

In conclusion, Citizen Kane revealed that longing for the past isn’t necessarily the best endeavor. It is absolutely important to reflect on our past, but when these reflections inhibit our ability to thrive in the present moment, it becomes problematic.

Citizen Kane

I noticed many similarities between Citizen Kane and current events. Kane reminded me of a certain president that is also a billionaire and has used yellow journalism, or fake news, to his advantage and also has had multiple wives and ran for public office. I think Kane’s frequent utterances of “Rosebud” was a way to control his massive ego by trying to connect to much simpler times with this biological parents given that the sled he was using while at home had Rosebud engraved at the bottom. I have heard many people say this is one of the best movies of all time, but I honestly had a really hard time seeing why.

Does More Money Mean More Happiness?

The film Citizen Kane is a really good example to talk about money and happiness.

We see obviously Kane is a talented person in someway and of course rich. However, people might also feel the same way as I did that we don’t like this guy. While he is famous and rich, the way he talked to people and how he pursuit the interest is disrespectful and selfish. Probably, for an outsider we don’t care about how famous or rich the person we’re talking to is. We just care how he responds to me, how he treats me, and whether he is respectful to me. However, I may also doubt whether Kane himself is happy. It seems that he enjoys the power of being flattered but we see the deepest sadness he had in the end. From that we might guess the he is not always happy all the time especially when he gets richer and more popular.

Thus, the relationship between money and happiness might not be that straightforward -positive or negative. Of course we know the richer the happier in general cases but from this film we also learn that the significant amount of money can’t ensure happiness either. Therefore, it seems that the logic of the richer the happier may apply to an extent beyond which, they are not strongly positively related. In other words, we just need enough money to have an above average life. Once we satisfy the basic needs, the beyond happiness will not too much based on money.

Citizen Kane, A Man’s Life in Motion

I came into watching Citizen Kane with high expectations. Not only has the movie been praised by almost every film critic in existence, it has also been ranked consistently as one of the greatest movies of all time. A movie that redefined what movies could be, in their plots, cinematography, and themes. The movie was incredibly slow, slower than I would have expected even for an older movie. This can probably be attributed to the fact that a summary of Kane’s life is given at the beginning of the movie so when the rest of the movie is just telling the story of the major events in Kane’s life, I already knew how the situations were going to play out. It made the scenes incredibly slow, with each one devolving into me just waiting for the conclusion of each scene to match what was already said at the beginning.  This made the movie terribly hard to watch for me as it felt excruciatingly long.

After the movie ended I felt it did not live up to my expectations of what it would be, it was not what I expected. After a few hours had passed since the movie had ended, I had time to reflect on its themes, how a man transformed in front of my eyes, from someone who means well, a genuinely good human being, to someone that was despised by everyone around him. This is all culminated in his saying of “Rosebud” when his second wife left him and moments before his death. “Rosebud” which was the name of sled that was taken from him long ago when he was child living in rural Colorado. It reminded him of a simpler time, a time where he didn’t have wealth or responsibility, and was just a child. It reminded him of the life he lost by gaining everything most people want in their life at such a young age. It eventually turned him into a recluse in old age after he had lost everyone and everything he had loved.

This is exactly what a great movie does, it forces you to reflect and think about what happened in the movie long after the final credits have passed, and while great movies can also provide great viewing experiences, not all of them must. This movie forced me to consider its themes and examine this man’s life even after I had a negative viewing experience. It is a great movie for this fact, and one that I will keep in mind later when watching older movies.

Reviewing Citizen Kane

After watching North by Northwest last week, I kind of had a feeling of what Citizen Kane would be like as a film. Released in 1941, Citizen Kane details the rather broken life of a man Charles Foster Kane and the mysterious meaning of his final spoken word: “rosebud.” The film is told as a series of flashbacks and interviews. In the very beginning of the film, Kane’s mother strikes gold and suddenly becomes rich, causing her to hand over custody of her child to banker, Thatcher.

After becoming very rich, Kane became a newspaper typhoon, got married, and even decided to try getting into politics. However, as his wealth built up, we saw Kane become a frustrated and selfish person. He struggles with his relationships and treats people well to try to get love in return.

His final utterance of the word “rosebud” is revealed at the end of the movie, as it was the word written on his sled that he had when he was given to Thatcher. It was the only thing that he truly kept throughout his life. To me, it seems as if Kane could never get over the moment that he was given away and uses “rosebud” as a way to think about the potential happiness that he could have had if he had just been given the chance at a regular life.

While I am not always a huge fan of older films, I found the plot and direction of this film to be interesting, as it was told in a series of flashbacks. The film has some important messages as well, as it indicates that money does not always make people happy and can often destroy them. It also explains how much of an impact relationships can have on a person’s life.

Charles Kane: An Interesting Character

Citizen Kane begins with the death of its subject. Charles Foster Kane, a newspaper tycoon based in part on William Randolph Hearst, dies at his opulent estate, Xanadu. His last word, as reported in the papers, is “Rosebud”. A newspaper reporter is tasked by his editor with discovering who or what “Rosebud” is. Through the reporter’s interviews with colleagues and an ex-wife, Kane’s life is revealed.

Charles Kane’s mother owns a boarding house in a mining town. A tenant, unable to pay, gives her what he believes to be a worthless deed as payment. Gold is then found, and the family is suddenly quite wealthy. Mrs. Kane makes the extraordinary decision to give her son over to the custody of a banker so that he can be educated.

At the end of the film, it is revealed that “Rosebud” is the name of the sled Charles Kane was playing with as a boy on that day that his mother told him she would be sending him away. It would seem, then, that Charles Kane’s unhappiness – and I believe the film reveals him to be a fundamentally unhappy person – stems from his mother’s abandonment. While she believed she was acting in his best interest, Charles’ mother denied him a normal childhood and parental love. In his adult life, he goes on to have a string of broken relationships: two failed marriages, and a falling out with his best friend which results in the end of the relationship.

It seems then, that Charles Kane’s choice of last words – “Rosebud” – is expressing a desire for things to have gone differently. If only his mother had not sent him away, his life could have been very different. Yet, it was Charles Kane who was responsible for the misery in his life, and for misery in others’ lives.

Charles’ second wife, Susan Alexander, expresses to him most explicitly that he doesn’t really love her, or anyone. He gives to others to make himself feel better, or more in control, or to manipulate their opinions of him. He wants to be loved without loving in return. Charles Kane is selfish. He does not, and seemingly cannot, consider the needs of others, and place them before his own.

The crux of the film is thus a simple question: Could Charles Kane have been any different than he was? If his mother had not sent him away, would he have grown up to be a happier man? Or, could he have learned to respect the needs and desires of those around him, and held onto his friends and family? Was what happened to Charles Kane inevitable? Or could it have gone another way. The consideration of these questions makes “Citizen Kane” an interesting film, and an excellent one.

A Tragic Life

In the film Citizen Kane, Kane’s entire life was based on wanting to be accepted. Kane always seemed like he wanted to help people but helping people was just the means to get to his goal and was never his true goal. Overall, to me, Kane was a controlling and selfish man hiding behind a facade of success and benevolence. Who is Kane? I do not even think Kane knew who he was or what he really wanted. He seemed like a lost soul and I think that no amount of money is worth being in this state. Kane being rich therefore worked against him and he never got to explore who he truly was. Moreover, at many times in the film, I was angry at Kane, especially at the way he treated Susan. He treated Susan like a child, as if he knew what was best for her and what was not.

The ending in which Kane’s sled was burned was a reminder that he is a hurt individual and has always been due to his childhood. As much as I want to blame Kane for his actions, I also feel a lot of pity for him. This does not make his actions forgivable, but I think keeping in mind the childhood that he had is important in understanding the decisions Kane made in his life. This film taught me that there are so many things to take into account when assessing a person. Still, I think that because Kane is such a complicated character, at the end of the film, you’re not really sure if you know him better now. That’s what makes the film so special.

The Nuances of Perception

Citizen Kane follows the story of Charles Foster Kane through the eyes of a reporter, Jerry Thompson. Kane lives an empty life, never knowing true companionship. He is wrought with the inability to navigate personal relationships, and his childhood spent unwillingly away from his family certainly plays a role in his dysfunctional relationships. I thought the movie was thought-provoking and deserving of the high ratings given my critics.

Throughout the movie, I was most intrigued by the role perception played in developing Kane’s character. The film is set up as flashbacks from interviews Thompson conducts of people in Kane’s life, all to find the meaning of “rosebud,” the last word Kane uttered before his death. Thompson never finds the meaning of rosebud, which is revealed to the audience in the closing scene as the name of his Kane’s childhood sled. The fact that this remained unknown to researchers delving deep into Kane’s life shows how individual the human experience is, and how little we can read about the lives and minds of others. It’s very possible to gather information about a person’s life through events and encounters and piece together who that person is, but the accuracy of this completed puzzle is difficult to ascertain. Indeed, the very idea of “accuracy” implies that there is a truth to a person’s life, and I’d argue there is no such thing. Our individual experiences of life are shaped by how we perceive events in our lives, and this perception may be entirely different from how other perceive the same situations. This difference in perception is something Kane never comes to understand, and is one cause of the destruction of his relationships.

Ethical Manipulation?

Personally, I was confused by the film North by Northwest. I’m not exactly certain what the name of the movie has to do with the actual plot either.

However, what did catch my attention was how a clueless man was roped into running for his life, seemingly for reasons that he was not responsible for. Even law enforcement seemed to have their minds set against him, without cluing him into the situation. I know it is a very unrealistic scenario to find yourself in to begin with, but there is something to be said about the ethical decision behind using an innocent man for public security matters without his explicit consent.

As humorous as the movie was, I was a little frustrated at the resolution because he is essentially pressured into his involvement in the undercover operation, and still ends up losing the woman he hopes to win over. At no point in time was he given the option to not participate. To me that represents a movie whose plot was not thoroughly thought out, and opting for a similar ending to waking from  a dream, or simply a director with disregard for free-will.

A classic Suspense/Thriller

I expected North by Northwest to leave me a little more unsettled than it did.  I still liked it, and it was cool to see Hitchcock make his characteristic cameo, as he does in all his films, just a minute or so into the movie, but the film itself wouldn’t come to mind as something to watch on Halloween.

The scenery in different parts of the film include a lavish mansion, crop fields, and Mt. Rushmore, which is an interesting mixture of places if you ask me.  In some ways, the varied scenes contribute the confusing plot of a man who has been mistaken for someone else and is constantly on the run.  The same man is later mistakingly convicted of a murder at a United Nations meeting.  Though being placed in this situation would definitely be unfortunate, Roger Thornhill, the main character played by Cary Grant, is so suave and casual about everything that happens to him it felt more to me like I was watching something along the line of a James Bond movie, without the melodramatic villain.

The ending of the movie was interesting, as I have never seen anybody fight on top of the presidents’ heads at Mt. Rushmore.  Though I would have preferred to watch Psycho or The Birds, given the special occasion, I am glad that I can check another iconic film off my list.

Definitely the 50’s

Last week I attended the screening of North by Northwest, and while it wasn’t bad, I definitely left feeling underwhelmed. Part of this may be hindsight: since the movie industry has progressed so much since 1959 the things about NbNW that were brand spanking new are now standard fodder. Being 50 years old definitely put a damper on being able to enjoy it as well: the blatant sexism was so bad at times that it takes the viewer right out of the movie experience. In that same vein there were several pieces of dialogue that I personally thought were laughingly bad.

However, I will give credit where credit is due: the thriller portion of the movie was very good. The plot was unexpected, there were a suitable amount of surprises and mystery, and I never quite understood what was going on until the very end. There’s also the standard trope of the drab, regular person (the main character) that is thrown into extraordinary circumstances and must fight their way out, or die trying. In addition, the infamous innuendo at the end was fantastically executed: I almost didn’t catch it until a friend pointed it out.

Overall it wasn’t a terrible movie but I’m not sure if I would recommend it as a recreational viewing instead of part of a film class or something.

Finding your own voice

On October 20, I saw the film Dead Poet Society, from Director Peter Weir, featuring Robin Williams as John Keating, an English teacher with unorthodox methods that inspired his students to think for themselves and realize that words and ideas can change the world. Keating’s love for teaching brought him back to his own preparatory school, Welton Academy, an all-boys elite boarding school in Vermont, the “best preparatory school in the US”. Welton’s moto was: Tradition, Honor, Discipline and Excellence. The film starts when the new student Todd Anderson, meets his roommate senior Neil Perry, who introduced him to his friends Knox Overstreet, Charlie Dalton, Richard Cameron, Steven Meeks, and Gerard Pitts.

The group of students soon bonds with Mr. Keating’s unorthodox teaching that pushes them to trust their own believes as unique and to dare to take the less traveled road. The students found out that Mr. Keating had founded the Dead Poet Society when he was himself a student at Welton to promote the dangers of conformity and push to live deliberately.   Mr. Keating taught his students to read and write poetry because the human race is built on passion. Life identity is powerful if you contribute with a verse and learn to seize the day.

Neil and his fellow friends restart their own Dead Poet Society and Neil Perry defies his father that wants him to focus on school and go to Harvard’s medical school, by following his own interest on acting accepting the role of Puck in Midsummers Night Dream. Neil’s father urges him to drop the role, but advised by Mr. Keating Neil performs the play and is acclaimed by the audience. Enraged, his father decides to transfer him to a Military School to make sure he follows the path he set for him to go to Harvard, but Neil in desperation shots himself.

Welton’s Director, Mr. Nolan, presses Neil’s close friends to accuse Mr. Keating and fires him. The boys cannot help it but line with Mr. Keating as he leaves the classroom by standing on their desks and calling him as he taught them: ‘O Captain, My Captain’! They respected him for teaching them self-expression and to stand for their own believes to make their lives extraordinary. I was moved by the fact that the movie was inspired by the true story of Samuel Pickering, an English Professor at University of Connecticut.   Prior to obtaining his Master’s degree, Pickering taught at the Montgomery Bell Academy where one of his students, Tom Schulman, wrote the script for the film based on his eccentric teaching style. Professor Pickering is now Emeritus and his writing focus on the absurdities and pretensions of civilization. I found the movie’s theme enlightening for Keating’s teaching passion and unconventional ways to push the young students to find their own voice.

Old-Fashioned Humor

I found North by Northwest very enjoyable for its action scenes, romance, and humor. What stood out most to me was the humor used in the film. I thought it to be more subtle, yet at the same time bold. For example, when Eve tells Thornhill, the leading man, that she’s a big girl, he responds that she’s “big in all the right places.” A compliment with the same meaning would not be as delicately given today and likely seen as rather rude. Additionally, this humor went on continuously for lengthy scenes, while I feel like I’m used to comical one liners in modern movies. Humor was incorporated in scenes that weren’t meant to be comedic. For example, the scene where Thornhill is in the open field waiting more the bus is meant to be suspenseful, but humor is incorporated by the scenery chosen and the random character who gets out of the mysterious car, all without breaking the suspense. Even with all the humor, I wouldn’t at all classify the movie as a comedy and this demonstrates how subtly the humor is incorporated.

The strong prevalence of high-quality humor had me laughing throughout the movie. I’ll definitely be adding other Hitchcock movies to my watch list.

The Missing Rosebud

What does Rosebud mean? The whole movie unfold with this question. Because the life of Kane is so dramatic, people study his whole life, his success, his failure, his death, and even his last words. It is indeed a recognition for Mr. Kane, and he seems more successful than most people in the world, but he was lonely and unhappy when he died.

“I think it would be fun to run a newspaper.” The New York Inquirer cost him a $1 million dollar year, but he believes he was taking care of the underprivileged interests. He seems to always want to go the opposite direction of Mr. Thatcher told him. I think Mr. Thatcher could be representing the stringent authorities or old fashioned rules that do not adjust properly to the new, rapid changing American society. Kane was able to challenge the classic rules and principles, to do something philanthropic, but eventually made a lot of money from it.

“If the headline is big enough, it will make the news big enough” Kane is a pragmatic and smart businessman. He crushed Chronicle with his “Declaration of Principles” by appealing to the general public, especially the working class. His marriage to Emily, President’s niece, furthered his success. His popularity and public image of being the honest man caring about the underprivileged could have helped him sit on the governor’s position. If it wasn’t for his affair with Susan, he would be a shining star in American politics. However, his ego prevented him from admitting his defeat, and resulted in his failure to protect his son.

“You will be the riches man in the country someday.” “And you will not be lonely” Those were his parents’ expectations sending young Kane away to Mr. Thatcher. His childhood was not what it was supposed to be for a child of his age, and that resulted his controlling unconfident character. He constantly need to prove himself, and he desperately need love, because he was short of them when he was young. Everyone must love him. He is selfish in nature, and also pitiful. He didn’t learn how to love anyone. He is only willing to give others what he had plenty and never cared about: money. He forced Susan to sing because he wants to prove his judgement. Susan spoke about the truth when she left him: “Here’s money. You must love me.” “You can’t do this to me.” Everything is about him. And that’s the sad life he lived.

Rosebud is something he had lost. His childhood. The sledge. His parents’ love. His ability to love.

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

[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

North by Northwest mirrors many of themes echoed by art during the Cold War. Portraying Roger Thornhill as an innocent man running away from the government ostensibly represents the growing mistrust in government at the turn of the decade leading into the 1960s. The government’s scope and power was growing as the Cold War with the Soviet Union intensified. I think this film was a clever way for Alfred Hitchcock to get his opinion about government’s role as big brother across without being seen as a traitor to the U.S.–especially important at a time when Congress’s House Un-American Activities Committee was on the prowl, indicting film industry magnates like the Hollywood Ten. Although I don’t fully appreciate the hype around this movie, I did enjoy its hidden meaning.

Things you can do in 2 hours

Tonight I watched Citizen Kane and I was not a fan. The film was 2 hours long so instead of going and watching it here is a list of things you can do instead. [Please note that while I was not a fan you may enjoy the movie I just thought it was not a good fit for me.]

Here are 10 things you can do in 2 hours instead of watching Citizen Kane:

  1. Take a nap because we are all sleep deprived.
  2. Watch your favorite TV show
  3. Study for that prelim you have coming up
  4. Eat oreos in bed and watch netflix
  5. Go on a run/ workout
  6. Shower because your gonna be sweaty after your workout
  7. Go sit on the slope and stare at the stars
  8. Watch youtube videos of cats/dogs
  9. Do yoga/ meditate
  10. Go to dinner with friends

 

However if you would like to know things I learned from this movie in the interest of making this a learning experience here you go:

There is a theme of materialism in the film.  So lets talk about materialism. We are so attached to physical objects and we think we need all these things to make us happy. NEW FLASH we don’t. If living in a dorm hasn’t made you realize that I don’t know what will. You feel like you need all of your possessions when I reality think about what you had in your room freshman year that you really thought you needed to bring and thought you absolutely needed only to move out in May having never used it/ worn it/ thought about it. We as a society surround or selves with stuff to make us happy whereas in reality we don’t really need it.

A 50’s Classic? North By Northwest

When North by Northwest hit the theaters in 1959, it provided both critical and commercial acclaim. Many critics raved over the Hitchcock classic. As David Gurney exclaimed for Common Sense Media, “the film is a true cinematic pleasure with an impressive pedigree.” For me, however, the movie failed to live up to its “100%” on Rotten Tomatoes and “5/5” on Empire‘s review . By no means did I find the movie “bad’ per se, as I did enjoy watching various scenes of the film, but the movie didn’t seem as memorable as I thought it would be. It seemed that plot, dialogue, and acting performances were all sort of jaded. In particular, Cary Grant’s performance of Roger Thornhill didn’t really bring the character alive — especially for a character who goes through various conflicts throughout the film. The movie is filled with an array of suspenseful or enigmatic situations, yet he seems to react the same way in each situation. I realize however, in making this judgement, that my view is quite biased. I’ve watched very few movies from the early and mid 20th century, and the modern movies I watch today often overflow with special cinematographic effects and vivid backgrounds. It’s entirely possible that I’m simply not used to the feel of these older movies, which could have distracted me from the movie’s stronger aspects, resulting in my mundane review. I plan to watch more of Hitchcock’s films in the future, and hope to be able to appreciate Hitchock as the “master of suspense” he’s so commonly referred to as.

The Origin of Modern Action Movies

Recently, I attended a Flora’s Film Friday where we watched Alfred Hitchcock’s North by Northwest. This movie is considered one of the best action/thriller movies of all time and, while watching it, I noticed a lot of classic tropes of the genre that actually originated from the film. The general structure of the movie followed a template where the main character is thrust into an unusual situation, then he learns background info, then he confronts the antagonists and loses, then there’s a love affair, then there is the climax where the protagonist wins. This template has been used by countless action movies to this day, whether it be a James Bond movie or a Marvel superhero movie. Additionally, the use of a sidekick as a love interest is cliche in modern movies. However, it Hitchcock was one of the people who first made this trope commonplace. I am one who gets bored of these cliches, so watching the movie initially was a bit boring. However, the more I thought and reflected on the film, the more I appreciate how it shaped the cinematic world for the next 50 years.

Women in ’50s Pop Culture: Either A Sexual Object or an Obedient House Wife

Last Friday, I attended Rose’s screening of North by Northwest, a critically acclaimed, Hitchcock-directed film with a score of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. I of course had high expectations going in.

I was more amused than I was moved by the thriller. I was particularly shocked by the level of sexual innuendo in a movie made in the ’50s. The writers dedicated long scenes to sexually suggestive dialogue between Cary Grant’s and Eva Marie Saint’s characters. The final scene of the movie, in which a train enters into a tunnel, was quite obviously a phallic symbol. Hitchcock has admitted that this was no accident. He purposefully inserted that scene into the film to be sexually suggestive.

When I think of the ’50s, I imagine it as the era of I Love Lucy, a show in which the married main characters were shown to be, unrealistically, sleeping in separate beds. CBS, the channel on which I Love Lucy was shown, even banned the word “pregnant” from being said on the show, despite the fact that the main character was obviously expecting. However, in contrast to this rigidity and reserve of media, North by Northwest and Marilyn Monroe represented the more sexually liberal side of pop culture at the time.

In these two contrasting pop culture-spheres, we see that the role of women in film and television remained limited. Either the woman played an the obedient housewife or she played the sexual object. In sexually reserved media like I Love Lucy, female characters were portrayed mostly in domestic settings, working to please and dote upon the men in their lives, whilst being dependent and obedient upon them. More sexually liberal media like North by Northwest, instead, made women into one-dimensional characters purely present to serve as the object of the main man’s fantasies. Although the atmosphere has changed in the modern era, with more independent, complicated, three dimensional female characters taking over film and television, we must still be sensitive to presence of franchises remaining steadfast to painting women in sexist, unrealistic ways. For example, the James Bond movies continue putting a woman in every film to simply serve as an objectified sex object for Bond. These portrayals are unacceptable and we can no longer have such a primitive view of women in the media and in society. Media needs to recognize its influence on society and make its representations of women more realistic.

North by Northwest: A Classic Spy Thriller

North by Northwest, a classic, done by the master of suspense himself Alfred Hitchcock. The movie revolves around a man named Roger Thornhill, who always happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whether it be at the beginning, being mistaken for a fictional man named George Kaplan and subsequently being kidnapped, or being accused of a homicide he did not do, the story is driven by these mishaps. Thornhill stumbles into scene after scene until he finds himself in a government attempt to foil the man after him, Vandamm, while also meeting his future wife Kendall.

This film is very different from Hitchcock’s normal films. This film is much more comedic than his others, and relies much less on suspense and shock, although those elements are still present. The movie at its heart is a thriller, featuring a plot that becomes increasingly complex, adding characters and twists to the story over time. At some points, I feel the twists are over used to drag out the story and extend it for longer than it needs to be. I often find myself disliking the use of multiple twists as it embodies bad storytelling to me, but they were used effectively and not abhorrent like some more modern movies. Overall it was a solid movie, one that I could see having the social impact it did in the 50s and 60s, and one impact that cannot be understated is how it was a building block for the many spy thrillers to come (Dr. No I’m looking at you). Showing how cool spies can be on the big screen, being thrown into all these crazy situations, like the crop duster scene, and coming out unfazed. This movie demonstrated that the villain can be just as cool and collected as the hero, and how they can be someone you don’t really hate right away. North by Northwest has everything that’s great about spy films while being one of the first to do it, and luckily for us future filmmakers caught on to this awesome way of telling a story.

An Abrupt Ending

North by Northwest was an exciting film but I thought it could have been written better in certain areas. I definitely enjoyed the plot twists and the character development of Roger Thornhill. The film had a unique combination of action, comedy, and thrilling moments. However, I was a bit confused by the emphasis of the love story in the film and I was let down by the abrupt ending of the film (with the final moments of the film showing Thornhill and Eve Kendall ending up together). While I understand that Thornhill’s attraction to Kendall plays a major role in the storyline, I definitely wish that the director/writer spent less time on this relationship and more time on Thornhill’s struggle with being framed and with having to figure out what exactly is going on. For any person in his shoes, this would be an absolutely traumatic experience but Thornhill did not even seem to be truly fazed by it. To me, Thornhill and Kendall’s relationship was not very interesting and it did not add much value overall to the film.

In addition, it seems like the movie lacked continuity, moving quickly from one scene to the next just for the sake of adding another action scene. This might have been the director/writer’s intention but I felt like it hurt the film. While these scenes definitely do draw the audience in, too many all at once makes the film feel much too “fake.” Of course, I know that this film is not supposed to be very realistic. Still, I think that spy films often have the stereotype of being very superficial and unfortunately, I think this film supports this stereotype. I think it is worth creating a spy film that does not sacrifice excitement and action for greater meaning and purpose.

Ranking – Is it Good or Not?

I would not say too much about the film -North by Northwest- itself. Instead, by reading other students’ post, I kind of realize there’s a huge distinction among each individual’s focus and taste and therefore I want to talk about how people can actually tell a film to be great or not and how the film awards are awarded.

By reading the posts, some people find North by Northwest worth its fame while others might not be that thrilled since they originally expect highly of it. Well. First, the film is quite early, probably order then anyone watching it last Friday and therefore a lot of comments and awards had already been granted to it before we actually watch it. New York Times said it was the “year’s most scenic, intriguing and merriest chase” and it was ranked the 40th greatest American film by the American Film Institute.

Whether the film is good or not, it is a super popular film at least. And by this assumption, people in the latter generation all want to watch it and to see “one of the world’s best”. Some people may not be captured by the title e or plot at first but its fame, for example, me. Especially it was directed by Hitchcock. Then, the feeling toward the film might not be realistic and fair as it supposed to be. The feeling after the film is also just ‘oh, I watched it’, and now I am on the same page with most people who usually assume that people should watch it.

I think it is not a good way to watch a film. I mean, watching a film could be a way to catch up with the trend but to me, it’s also an entertainment or relaxing moment. People should have their own real feelings about this film, not depending on any other comments or effect. To this extent, I’m wondering what’s the role of ranking and awards.

Master of Suspense

I went into North by Northwest expecting to be thrilled. That’s what I understand a Hitchcock film to be, both from hearsay and personal experience with some of his other works. And while North by Northwest did entertain me for the duration of its run, I find that I am less enthralled with it as I mull it over. The immediate concerns are of course its dated depiction of women and their role within the plot of the film. The one major female, Eve Kendall, is introduced to us only as a potential romantic interest for the film’s protagonist, Roger Thornhill. And as she evolves over the course of the film, her actions and choices are entirely dictated by her relationship with Thornhill. Though I would argue the film makes a more subtle but nearly as egregious sin of storytelling in just being excessively dictated. By this, I mean that each event in the film follows the previous almost entirely because the plot demands that it be so, not because the characters would logically follow this course of action. This is particularly evident in the first half of the film, where Thornhill’s path precipitates from two events entirely outside of his control – being misidentified as George Kaplan, and then being framed for the murder of Lester Townshend. Because he is not making choices that dictate the path the story follows, while the story can be genuinely surprising and thrilling during its run, the film fails to remain memorable. The plot when viewed as a whole fails to congeal in any meaningful way, because Roger Thornhill is more akin to a leaf on the wind than an active protagonist in his story until the very end, when he chooses to rescue Eve. And for the two reasons I’ve described, I think that while Hitchcock certainly can keep his title has the master of suspense, in this film he may have sacrificed his characters and story solely for the end of maintaining that suspense.

North by Northwest

The film North by Northwest is a film which boldly asks the question, “What would a James Bond movie be like, if James Bond didn’t know what was going on around him?” And I ask this question in the most affectionate of ways. North by Northwest is a proto-spy thriller that was made before the age of Jason Bourne, Mission Impossible, and yes even James Bond (North by Northwest was released in 1959, a solid 4 years before the first Bond movie, Dr. No). North by Northwest is in no way the first spy film, it’s structure does hint at what the genre would become in the following decades of movie making.  The quick-witted actions of the main character, his flirtatious dialogue with a mysterious woman, the exotic locales (OK, South Dakota isn’t exactly an exotic location, but Hitchcock was on a budget give him a break), and the exciting stunts with cars or planes or trains. All these things are present in North by Northwest, its just that these elements seem boring to the modern eye. Many people who watch the movie don’t believe that it is a thriller since all the parts of the spy thriller are so cliche and slow. But what is important to remember is that this was really one of the first movies to use the classic spy elements. The filmmakers were trying out new ways of engaging the audience. To us, who have already experienced plane stunts much more exciting than the one in North by Northwest, the protagonist running away from a plane and hiding in corn is very anticlimactic. During the 1950s that scene was a lot more interesting. For me North by Northwest is a fun old movie, the plot and characters are simple in their motivations. Basically, the movie is an easy film to watch, and is a good piece of history to see where the modern spy movie got its start.

Greatest of All Time? Hmm..

I never considered myself much of a movie person, but thanks to Rose Scholars and my friends, I’ve started seeing (and enjoying) some classic films. When I told my parents that the film of the week was North by Northwest, they told me that I would be sure to love it, as it is one of the greatest films ever produced. I did some research and noted that Rotten Tomatoes, a movie database, gave the film a 100% rating. However, as I watched the movie, I never understood what was so great about it.

The film is about an innocent man, Roger Thornhill, who is mistaken for George Kaplan and consequently kidnapped and hunted by Vandamn. The first scene, which features Vandamn trying to get Thornhill to drink himself to death, concludes with Thornhill driving around steep mountain roads while severely intoxicated. I believe that this scene was supposed to be considered to be thrilling, but I found it simply comical. Later, in an exchange between Thornhill and Lester Townsend, a man throws a knife, killing Townsend, which Lester then pulls out of the man, setting himself up as the murderer. This seemed rather dumb to me and a cheesy way to set the plot.

The ending, which clearly is supposed to be the most thrill-inducing part of the film, shows Thornhill and Eve Kendall, a woman who was originally working against him but has since fallen in love with Thornhill, fleeing from Vandamn’s men by climbing Mount Rushmore. The Professor, a man now working to protect Thornhill, kills off the two men and Eve and Roger get away. The two presumably live a happy life in peace.

These “action” scenes just seemed so dry to me, so it left me wondering what made this movie so popular back in the 1950s. I have not seen a lot of movies from that time period, but solely from this movie, I can conclude that cinematography and technology were no way as advanced as they are today. It seems as if this movie was simply far ahead of its time when it was initially created, as to me, it is a rather dull thriller compared to newer movies.

Distrust of American Government

This film was a very interesting viewing experience. This is primarily because I avoid watching older films, and thus, had never before seen anything like it.  The poor film quality is often very hard for me to look past so old movies tend to be annoying for me to watch, but this was definitely not the case this time around. North by Northwest managed to be entertaining while still being tastefully suspenseful.

The movie discussed themes of mistaken identity and cold war survival in a time where the former was of great importance. When an innocent man played by Cary Grant is accused of the unspeakable, he has no choice but to run from the villainous spy trying to kill him. The film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and was a blockbuster hit at the time of its release. It has received many awards.

The film depicted a time of Cold War distress and earnestly represented many of the concerns of American civilians at the time. The film not only draws upon a fear of the Russians to entertain, but also draws upon a fear of the United States government. The characters in the government are portrayed as being just as cold, ruthless, and calculating and the true Russian enemy. This was an interesting way to draw on general american apprehension about what happens behind government closed doors.

Walking in unfamiliar shoes

Most Alfred Hitchcock films are nail-biters, full of tosses and turns that are all too unpredictable. And “North by Northwest” is no different. Roger, just an ordinary man, finds himself lost in a secret battle between government agents and a crime organization. He has nothing to do with it. A few thieves misinterpret him for someone else, and he soon becomes a pawn in their game. I could go on and on about the rest of the plot, but that’s not what makes this movie interesting. It’s that even though Roger is still ordinary Roger, he becomes the figure for which he is mistaken at the beginning of the film. He becomes this adventurous agent who roams around in no particular direction, him versus the bad guys, him trying to win the girl. Not only the audience but also Roger himself forgets who Roger even is. It’s as if he’s this unrealistic agent/spy/hero all along. At first he just wants to be Roger. He doesn’t want to meddle with these crooked people or be a pawn in their game. But then he settles into his new life. This is something that often happens to us on campus. We all go through something unfamiliar or uncomfortable, classes, experiences, decisions alike. We may not be happy with something required, but it’s required. We have to accept it, deal with it, and keep moving. Of course, Roger is wrongfully wanted all over the country, so his situation is much more dramatic. But like many of us he accepts the challenge and plays the game until the end.

North by Northwest: In Which Everyone is Bad at Stuff

The Wikipedia page for North by Northwest describes the film as a “thriller”. I’m not sure how they came to that conclusion. The film is about an advertising executive, Roger Thornhill, who is mistaken for a spy, George Kaplan, and kidnapped by a criminal, Vandamm, who thinks Kaplan is pursuing him. Thornhill then goes on a mission to find Kaplan, and along the way meets Eve Kendall, who is Vandamm’s girlfriend, and a government informant trying to take him down.  The film is full of decidedly non-thrilling scenarios: visiting an empty hotel room with your disapproving mother, walking around in public and having no one recognize you, even though you are a fugitive with your picture in all the newspapers, shaving your face with a tiny razor (even though, as above, you are a fugitive, and should probably be trying to look less like the picture in those papers…) For the most part, the moments of peril in the film are so ridiculous as to be comical. After the initial kidnapping, Vandamm tries to kill Thornhill by forcing him to drink an entire bottle of liquor and then putting him in a car and sending him rolling towards the edge of a cliff. Thornhill, of course, regains enough awareness to turn the wheel and avoid the cliff. The tense chase scene that should follow is instead a patently ridiculous sequence of a very drunk man driving (though he does cause real peril to others on the road).

In the second major action scene of the movie, Roger Thornhill is told by Eve Kendall, who he does not realize is working for Vandamm, to meet George Kaplan at a bus stop in the middle of nowhere. After waiting for several minutes, a crop duster plane flies after him, makes several attempts to run him over (fly him over?) and shoots at him. The plane then crashes into an oil tanker on the road and explodes. Again, not thrilling. Why a plane, of all things? If Vandamm is such a sophisticated criminal, why are all his murder plots so nonsensical and logistically complex?

I thought North by Northwest was intended to be a comedy about three people who are all incompetent. The main criminal, Vandamm, spends the entire film trying to kill George Kaplan (or Thornhill, really) but as above, he chooses the worst possible plans. He also fails to realize that his girlfriend is the real spy until an associate literally shoots him with a gun loaded with blanks. How does a man who seems very bad at vetting his associates and eliminating his enemies manage to acquire and sell government secrets?

As for Eve Kendall, she remains with Vandamm as a government informant, to try to find out how he smuggles his information out of the country. We don’t know how long she’s been with Vandamm, but it seems like it’s been a while, and she hasn’t figured it out yet. Thornhill, of course, learns that Vandamm is using art he buys at auctions to smuggle microfilm after just a couple of days of being involved in the whole affair. Kind of embarrassing for Ms. Kendall.

And finally, Thornhill himself. Having been kidnapped because you’ve been mistaken by some criminals for a George Kaplan, why do you go to George Kaplan’s hotel room, and otherwise do things that would convince the casual observer that you are George Kaplan? Thornhill bumbles from one situation to the next, but he’s so lucky you never worry about his safety.

North by Northwest really doesn’t work for me as a thriller. But it’s an enjoyable enough movie if you think about it as a comedy about some incompetent, lucky people.

Friday’s Film!

Dead Poets Society was one of the best films I have seen, and I have seen a lot. It was the perfect time to de-stress after a long day with my fellow Rose peers.  A couple of my friends and I went and the movie was so good, I recommend. I do not want to spoil the movie but I loved the English teacher, John Keating as he had reminded me of my senior English teacher, Ms. Marcus. They both used unusual ways of teaching that made you think outside the box and have fun while you learn. The boys John Keating taught were under a lot of pressure and expectations and it made me think of when I was in high school and all I wanted to be was successful in the eyes of my parents and Ms. Marcus helped me realize my potential. Although the ending was sad and many did not think it was a great movie I 10/10 recommend because it brought back good memories of high school.

Mistaken Identity

The film North by Northwest was directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Before Stan Lee was doing cameos in the Marvel Universe films, Alfred Hitchcock was making background appearances in his films. As someone who really enjoys films from this era, I was looking forward to watching this film. I had seen many Hitchcock films, such as Psycho and Dial M for Murder, and I also liked films with the actor Cary Grant, who has also acted in His Girl Friday and Charade(with Audrey Hepburn!!!). I enjoyed watching this film because it had numerous unexpected plot twists that made it super entertaining. Every time you thought the path had smoothened for the main character, another twist would occur. I would definitely recommend this film to other people.

North by Northwest is a Terrible Film

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 Scapegoat Concept

I was very upset by the film Dead Poet’s Society, mainly because I felt as though I could relate very much to the main character, Neil. I understood the pressure he felt to not disappoint his parents, though maybe not as extremely, and the hope he obtained from extracurricular activities. Yet, I found I disagreed with the way most characters handled one situation or another throughout the film. I was particularly bothered by the perpetuating of such pressure-inducing behaviors through the search of a scapegoat, rather than a search for a remedy to rectify all actions taken that may have contributed to such a tragic event as Neil’s suicide.

Two wrongs do not make a right, and despite the Neil’s father’s pain at losing his only son, I think he continues to influence the pressures other students, particularly other members of the newly restored Dead Poet’s Society, face in coping at such a strict institution with a very oppressive culture. By not owning up to his part in his son’s suicide, he is making the rest of Neil’s friends face the consequences of his death on their own. That pressure is particularly evident in Todd, who wants to speak out but feels he cannot for sake of ruining others’ lives, as well as facing the repercussions of speaking out on his own.

This movie was very eye-opening in terms of realizing that what we do or do not do can have a great impact even on the individuals closest to us. Many people had the opportunity to speak out and to help, many people could have chosen to listen or act on Neil’s behalf for the pressure he was feeling, that he had not failed to communicate to those around him. Yet that inaction, and the closed-minded attitude his parents imparted all had a consequence they never foresaw and refused to own up to. They did not even attempt to speak up for Mr. Keating after they learned what would happen, which I think is very similar to their mistakes leading to Neil’s suicide to begin with.

If people don’t own up to their mistakes, then a vicious cycle of wrong is bound to continue.

Dead Poets Society: Tradition and Revolution

I had the chance to see the Dead Poets Society last week as part of the Friday Rose movies series. For me, this film dealt with the conflict of established tradition and the revolution of free thinking. We are presented with an elite all white male boarding school that prides itself in its ability to prime young men for elite higher education. Tradition and pride in the establishment are rampant and especially marked in all the professors save John Keating played by Robin Williams. Keating advocates for a novel way of looking at poetry that does not adhere to rules set by some academic but rather those that resonate more personally with the reader through individual interpretation. Excessive tradition and dogma hinder the growth of the mind by limiting the way it can branch, grow and develop. Keating advocates for Carpe Diem and for his students to move beyond the limits of the institution to explore the world by their own will and through this to develop an appreciation of literature as a medium for personal expression. While the movie does end in tragedy, the final scene shows the impact Keating has had on his students as they rise in defiance of the institution to give one final salute to their mentor that taught them more than any book ever could.

A Suspenseful Movie

Today, we saw a suspensefulm on Friday movie night. I think a little scary movie, like this, is very Holloween-ish. The film is about a man being kidnaped for being seen as captan which he is not.

This is a film about modern technology. In the early nintennth century, when cars, plane and telephone were new invention, they palyed huge roles in the movies, such as the part when the captan was being kidnaped, and people tried to faked that he was self-killed, they put him in a car. They also tried to killed him by airplane. We can see how much the social development in technology influence the art of movie making and setting, eventhough many times when we watch the temporary movies we don’t feel the frequent use of smart phone, or airplane, or social networks, but after seeing this film, I started to realize how prevalent they are in the movie that we see nowadays.

And of cource, no story could be without a love story, including this movie that we watched. In the movie, the main character falled in love with the FBI agency who was undercovered in the killer group. He saved her at last, which made this film a happy ending. Also, I find it very funny that the character in the film who was mistaken as the captain was pereived so handsome and charming that almost every ladies in the movie was attracted to him. For example, one very interesting scene was at the hospital, when he escaped and jumped in to the room next to the one he was locked, the lady in that room was first terrified and then seeing his face, her word “stop” turned into a very shy and tempting sound, and that’s a little fun sprinkle in the suspense movie, this little laughing point.

The setting of the film was very luxury, and included a lot of famous buildings, such as the united nation building, the luxury hotel at New York and Chicago.

This film has been nominated by three acadamy awards. The name of the film was very confusing and drew people’s attentions to it. As said by the main character of the film, Hitchcock “It’s a fantasy. The whole film is epitomized in the title—there is no such thing as north-by-northwest on the compass.” Even though as seeing from now there are may places in the film that don’t explain well, and seemingly too coincident and not realistic, but I can see that in the standard in 1959 when the film was first came out, the large crowd of audience amazed by its fatasy settings as well as superior acting skills of the actors would be a great support to the film. As described by the hollywood review, at the premier of the film  ‘A packed audience at the preview loved every cliff-hanging moment of this Alfred Hitchcock thriller.’

Greatest film of all time?

North by Northwest was certainly an interesting film. I’m a fan of Alfred Hitchcock’s television series and after watching this film, I have to say that I prefer his production of shorter episodes. I think this movie was more action-based than what I consider a psychological thriller, so I was left a little bit disappointed. I didn’t think the movie’s characters were that compelling and I found the plot to be a little bit dry and all over the place. It started off as a typical psychological thriller where you don’t know if they main character has lost his mind or if it is in fact true that the entire world is conspiring against him. Somewhere in the middle, it turned into more of a James Bond spy movie, and by the end it was borderline absurdist. I would definitely hesitate to call it ‘the greatest film of all time’ as others have listed it as.

One thing that I noticed was that a lot of the movie’s thematic and plot elements reminded me of more modern films. This speaks hugely about how influential this work is as an art form and I definitely appreciate that even if it isn’t my favourite movie.

Developing Character: Dead Poets Society

I honestly didn’t know what to expect from Dead Poets Society before watching it this past Friday. It was pretty evident what the movies focus would be based on the few opening scenes. The movie opens previewing a preparatory school showing bright students destined for an ivy league education and their parents looming over their heads. The students new English teacher challenges them to think differently, explore the world through poetry and escape from the traditionalism enforced by the school if only for the duration of that one class. The students escalate it to another level though, congregating outside of class, sneaking out of their dormitories and reading verse. After the parents caught wind of their actions things started to go south, and this is what I found most frustrating about the student’s actions.

This conflict between the children and their parents can be seen in every person in the Dead Poets Society in one form or another. Each one of them has not had an opportunity to even develop a personality as their parents loom over them with every waking breath. Only after these meeting were they finally able to mature and grow and be something other than carbon copies of each other. They were all force to go to the school, and knew nothing else other than academics. I kept thinking to myself constantly during the movie, why are they not telling their parents how they really feel? I was lucky enough to have parents who would have been supportive no matter what I decided to pursue. It was just so hard to process for me, being in a situation in which you cannot freely do what you want, with your parents exerting control over every aspect of your life. The parent’s perspective can also be rationalized, and it is depicted by Neil’s father, how he values the financial security of a more orthodox career path for Neil. His father made the decision for Neil that the happiness from money is more important than the happiness of fulfilling his career aspirations. The decision he made for Neil ultimately cost him Neil’s life as he committed suicide because he could not bear the fact of spending the next 10+ years of his life becoming a doctor, and not pursuing his acting aspirations. The blame was placed on Keating, but by then Keating’s job had already been done letting the students find themselves through reading poetry and unlocking its meaning.

North by Northwest wouldn’t make it to South by Southwest

I don’t understand how this movie is considered to be one of ‘the greatest films of all time’.

I don’t know exactly how true this statement is as I’m pulling it from Wikipedia, but that’s irrelevant because this still sums up the film’s integrity to logic: “Lehman would sometimes repeat this story himself, as in the documentary Destination Hitchcock that accompanied the 2001 DVD release of the film. In his 2000 book Which Lie Did I Tell?, screenwriter William Goldman, commenting on the film, insists that it was Lehman who created North by Northwest and that many of Hitchcock’s ideas were not used. Hitchcock had the idea of the hero being stranded in the middle of nowhere, but suggested the villains try to kill him with a tornado. Lehman responded, “but they’re trying to kill him. How are they going to work up a cyclone?” Then, as he told an interviewer; “I just can’t tell you who said what to whom, but somewhere during that afternoon, the cyclone in the sky became the crop-duster plane.”

To summarize this movie, it is a glamorous version of the  gif from the Telgu film where a man drifts underneath a train on a horse.

Why am I alive?

Dead Poets Society was one of the better films I’ve seen in quite awhile. There’s a lot to unpack from the movie so I’ll just focus on one specific aspect of the film. Neil Perry wants to follow his dreams of being an actor, but his father doesn’t approve and eventually ships him off to boarding school. Neil is so grief-stricken he commits suicide.

The scene when his father finds him dead is extremely powerful because I don’t believe most viewers expected something like that to happen. It was a deadly shock, just like in real life. Watching a scene like that really made me consider my own mortality. As we go about living our life, we rarely think of the fact that we will die, crumble to dirt, and be completely and utterly forgotten. We can usually stave off this realization with the trivialities of the day and other distractions. This begets people who live their whole life without having really lived at all.

I think the biggest lesson to take away from Dead Poets Society is that you are alive today, but not for long. Your life could end in a snap: there is but a fragile strand holding you here. Live like Robin Williams’ character in the movie: with vivacity and without fear. Obviously this is a tall order, and I don’t expect to be able to achieve such a goal in any real capacity. But I’ll be damned if I don’t try.

North by Northwest- a film for the rich white man

While viewing North by Northwest today, I was struck by how clearly the film catered to wealthy white men (understandably, since they would have been Hitchcock’s customers). Firstly, the “everyman” main character is a white business executive with enough money to go on tipping and bribing pretty much anyone he meets, just from his pocket money (since he wouldn’t have access to a bank as a federal fugitive). Not only that, he’s athletic enough to climb wherever he wants in full business attire, clever (enough to get out of the auction), and supposedly handsome enough to attract at least 4 women (the two instances we see being pretty blondes and apparently at first sight). This is pretty much the standard white male power fantasy.

Then there’s the dismissal of the entire public (composed entirely of white people) as a actual threat to him, with absolutely no one recognizing him and taking action at any point except the main cast and law enforcement (and even the police need prompting outside NYC). And then there’s the fact Roger (the MC) steals a presumably poorer man’s truck (and with it his livelihood) and we’re supposed to root for him anyways. Roger is just generally rude and demanding of everyone the film has marked unimportant, from the various hotel staff he questions to the two policemen who get him out of the auction.

Finally, Roger has ridiculous amounts of plot armor (because of course the ideal rich white man can’t fail). First is his luck avoiding all obstacles driving drunk in the dark. Then there’s the aforementioned failure of the entire public to recognize him. Neither train conductor checks the toilet to ask for tickets. The crop-dusting plane flies over his head in the second pass when the first pass showed it clearly could have flown lower, then crashes into the oil tanker (why does the pilot have no sense of self-preservation? There must have been a pilot because they didn’t have drones.) The oil tanker conveniently doesn’t explode in any direction except up, and there happens to be someone to stop and gape so Roger can steal his truck. Roger’s box of matches manages to survive all his ordeals immaculately enough not to look out of place in Vandamn’s Mt. Rushmore house. The knife-wielding villain (and isn’t it odd none of them have their own guns?) conveniently decides to throw himself at Roger (risking missing and falling) when we know he’s confident in his knife-throwing (since he killed the UN diplomat that way) and he was presented both Roger’s and Eve’s backs as targets. Finally, Roger manages to hold on to the monument after having his hand crushed long enough for rescue despite starting to slip even before getting stepped on. And, of course, the mysterious organization the FBI was so worried about is completely ignored in the end.

 

If one was willing to turn off one’s brain, I guess the film was enjoyable enough. As is, it was mostly just laughably unrealistic and cringe-worthy.

The Similarities of Welton and Cornell

Last week I had the opportunity to view Dead Poets Society in the Rose Dining Hall Room.  The captivating movie illustrates the internal conflict of the protagonist Neil Perry, torn between his true passion of acting and the desires of his father.  While his parents wanted him to pursue a stable and widely-respected career, Mr. Keating encouraged Neil to explore his burgeoning interest in theater.  It was disappointing to see how this internal conflict led to Neil taking his own life at the conclusion of the movie.

Even though this movie was released in 1989, the theme of external pressures influencing student decisions is still prevalent today.  At Cornell, students are expected to compete with their peers for selective internships in hopes of attaining a lucrative career.  However, it is sometimes difficult to discern between genuine passion and pressure placed by those close to you.  Similar to Neil, many students at Cornell fear the consequence of failing to meet high expectations.  While those close to you want what is best for you, they sometimes distract you from pursuing your true passions.

Another similarity I saw between the Welton boarding school and Cornell is the emphasis on tradition and customs.  When the students walked through the hallways, there were always pictures of alumni hanging on the walls.  Additionally, tradition was one of Welton’s “four pillars”, and I believe that Cornell has certain unique cultural elements as well.  From coined terms like “prelim” to symbols like the McGraw clock tower, most students have embraced the Cornell culture and its rich history.

Objectification of women in North by Northwest

So… can we just talk about how the only role of the female main character is to be objectified by the men in the movie and without her looks her character would be useless. Also the way Mr.Thornhill tried to seduce her was really creepy and if anyone every said that to me I would run away. All in all I don’t want to make this blog post longer than it needs to be Alfred Hitchcock needs to do better. Women are not objects or something you just have sex with, we are human beings. The movie also had the auction scene in which Mr.Thornhill said that she had no feelings to hurt. That is absurd. I think he thinks women who engage in one night stands lack emotions. Why is it frowned upon for women to have one night stands but for guys its ok. Like women are supposed to keep their legs closed in society and men are allowed to do whatever they want and have sex with as many people as possible. This movie and society in general needs to realize it is 2017 (yes I realize this movie is old) and that this is not ok.

O Captain! My Captain!

Although Dead Poets Society had some flaws, I thought it was a very good movie.  The best part of it to me was the acting of Robin Williams.  Even though he was probably best known for his comedy, Robin Williams was cast in a few serious roles: he played an inspiring English teacher in this movie and a psychologist to Matt Damon in the movie Good Will Hunting.  His acting was so believable that he moves the viewers to feel the emotion of the characters that he corresponds with in the movie.  As a result, we ourselves are inspired to defy convention and to follow our dreams just as Keating tells his students.

I was not expecting the events that happened at the end, which made it more emotionally moving.  Since the one student could not follow his dreams of becoming an actor (because his parents were forcing him to go down the path to become a doctor), he committed suicide.  As a result, Keating was blamed for the suicide and was fired from the school.  The movie ends with the students standing on their desks, yelling “O Captain!  My Captain!” to Keating: the students already knew that Keating was wrongly blamed for the suicide, but now they have fully realized the meaning of why he taught the way he did.

Dead Poet’s Society: An Inspiring Classic

Some films get into your skin — they’re stories that remain with you over the years for one reason or another. Dead Poet’s Society isn’t simply a melodrama. Despite some overly dramatic scenes, which critiques have often pointed out, the film is largely regarded as a cinematic masterpiece. For me, like with many, it’s the phenomenal acting of the late Robin Williams that leaves the everlasting impact on the viewer. William’s character of Mr. John Keating, a teacher at the preparatory Welton Academy, is depicted as both charismatic and unorthodox. A Rhodes scholar and former pupil of Welton, Keating makes a significant impression on his students by bringing poetry alive. The sheer passion Williams is able to portray upon Keating makes watching nearly every scene to be a joy. As someone who wasn’t particularly interested in poetry as a high school student, watching this movie definitely changed my perspective on not just poetry, but English literature as a whole. It may not have convinced me to peruse poetry daily, or to work on authentic poetry myself, but it instilled in me a respect and understanding of others’ appreciation for such literature. I’d highly advise for someone who hasn’t watched Dead Poet’s Society to give it a chance.

Perfection and Privilege

Last Friday, I rewatched the Dead Poets Society with other Rose scholars. The movie follows a group of high school seniors who attend an elite boarding school. The boys are inspired by a new English teacher who helps them pursue their dreams and break out from their parents’ expectations of themselves. As the movie takes place in a prestigious boarding school, some of the themes it explores resonate with some of the problems we face here at Cornell. The boys deal with high expectations from parents and their general social circles. This pressure and suppression of their true dreams reaches an ultimate high when the protagonist Neil commits suicide. This aspect of the movie shows the real ramifications of the high-stakes pressure of chasing perfection. I think this can help ground us as we struggle with the pressure of doing well on prelims and hoping to achieve our goals.

While I appreciate the gravity by which the movie reflects the pursuit of perfection, I do think that it is important to look at the movie in perspective. In a way, it romanticizes the idea of dying for your dreams and art. Neil’s death is not in vain as his friends’ learn to see beyond the mold that society has pressed upon them. However, the struggles that the boys face showcase their privilege. They face problems that straight, white males face and as such the movie neglects to show any characters of other races, sexual orientations and even really gender. The largest female role goes to a Kris, a girl, that one of boys Knox has a large crush on. Knox kisses her while she is intoxicated and Kris is portrayed to be fine with this lack of consent and even falls for him. As a whole, Dead Poets Society has many salient points about societal pressures but does overlook the narratives of more marginalized communities.

Carelessness in Dead Poets Society

The ending of the film we saw this Friday was clearly meant to be an inspiring triumph of free thinking. Students rebelling against the establishment to should a wrongfully persecuted teacher that they still believed in what he showed them. Yet, I was left feeling somewhat troubled with this ending, and with the entire film for that matter. Robin Williams’ character intended to teach his students that making your own decisions is an important skill to have. However, it seems like all he taught these boys is to do whatever you want regardless about the situation around them. They begin to break both societal and personal rules in the name of freedom. One student kisses a girl who has passed out at a party, hardly the epitome of freedom. And another student commits suicide simply because he can’t be an actor for 2 years. The writers of the film clearly tried to address this when Williams’ character reminds his students that taking unnecessary risks and being impatient are not exceptional things to do. I think that his point is that you shouldn’t simply break things or make rash decisions, rather that you should consider all your options in life. So the victorious ending with students flaunting all cares in the world to make a statement lacks any virtue to me. I constantly think of the scene from the Great Gatsby when an incomprehensibly drunk man continues to drive his car after a wheel has fallen off. The students and that drunk man are no different, they make rash decisions because they don’t care about the consequences. There are no consequences for their actions that they can even think of. Therefore, to me this movie completely missed its mark, it reads like a celebration of all the loathsomely spoiled characters from every book in the world.

Carpe Diem – Seize the Day!

Dead Poets Society, a film probably familiar to many students, teachers and parents, captures the stories happening in a private school where “successful” parents send their sons to the school to be he successor of their wealth and popularity and a series of changes happening because of the arrival of a new poetry teacher who uses unorthodox method to teach and tell the boys to break the rules.

I’ve watched this film two times before, once in the middle school and once in the high school. While I’ve watched it before, every time I saw it, I developed new understandings and thoughts depending on the situation where I was in and the emotion I had. I remembered at the beginning I really couldn’t get the charm of poetry and thought it might be a little too dramatic for the boys and the teachers to behave. Why there’s a boy so shy that he could barley say a world? Why the teacher is so different and what’s wrong with the other serious ones? Why Neil cannot just talk to his father what he thinks? A couple of questions on whether it is possible for these plots to be true prevents me from focusing on the beauty or attraction of this film.

However, when I watched it last Friday, some of these questions are not unanswerable to me.  I think it’s probably because college is a more diverse institution where we can meet more people or because we’re going to face the trade-off choosing what you like or choosing what can make you successful or because we have a lot of courses to choose from which means we can meet hundreds of professors.

It’s great to see the changes in myself when I’m experiencing through different periods of my life and seeing myself to be more mature and more tolerate of the difference and also braver to break the rules.

A Predictive Ending: North by Northwest

Who is Mr.Kaplan? Why is Roger abducted? Who are the people living in the UN official’s house? For a famous suspense movie from Hitchcock, this movie had a surprisingly not surprising ending. Honestly, it is  not difficult to predict the double spy nature of Ms Eve, the cliche love story between Roger and Eve, and how the bad guys are always doomed.

Many details in the movie did not make sense. I couldn’t figure out how Roger and Eve could possibly survive in the last scene on the Rushmore, where Vandamm stepped on the only hand Roger had holding onto the cliff. I also was confused why Eve and Roger was talking so loud in Leonard’s house without them suspecting. And how on earth could they be so stupid chasing after the wrong Mr. Kaplan all the time. Like many other superhero movies, American police officers seemed to be useless. Not to mention a UN official can just be approached by a random, armed person and killed by a knife. Don’t people have to go to security that detects metal? The ending scene was abrupt and sudden, left many people’s mouth still open.

After watching this movie, I couldn’t remember anything that was meaningful to my life, any inspirations I could take away, or even lessons I learned. I wasn’t emotionally touched, or intellectually challenged. I hate to compare it with the popcorn movies like Transformers, but this is how I felt. Maybe I lack the life experience to appreciate the hidden implications, but I was disappointed.

Conforming Nonconformists?

Dead Poets Society was everything I expected it to be: a generally upbeat film, with a few of tragic occasions, that ends on a vaguely pleasant note. The movie focuses on individualism, finding your voice and not conforming to the majority. However, the movie had a few issues, one of which was that not every aspect of the movie encapsulated this idea effectively.

The most memorable scenes in the movie were of the teacher, John Keating. The scene that stuck with me in particular was when he encouraged the students to stand on his table, to view the world differently. During this scene, the camera is focused on Keating from a high angle. He is centered in the frame, delivering a monologue about finding your identity and voice, while the students move past at the edges, forming the backdrop. The dialogue and direction indicate that this is a significant point in the movie.

However, the message of this scene and the events leading up to it are somewhat contradictory. At the beginning of this event, Keating stands on his desk and tells the class about how he sees the world differently from up here. To convey his point, he asks the class to do the exact same thing. The form a line, and one by one, walk up onto the desk and walk right off. It was odd to watch characters mechanically perform this task while Keating spoke about individualism.

During the scene, he asked the students not to be walk off the edge like lemmings. When discussing this scene, I later found out that the idea that lemmings ‘mindlessly’ jump off cliffs was a myth (Propagated by a Disney documentary called ‘True-Life Adventure’). The use of a phrase of a popular, yet incorrect, phrase added to the irony of the situation.

Overall, it was a feel-good movie because of the relatable nature of the themes. However, the presence of contradictory instances throughout the movie made it appear like Keating was almost imposing his idea of individualism upon the class.

Carpe Diem: A Lesson in Aiming High Without Selling Yourself Short

I attended Rose’s screening of the ’80s classic, Dead Poets Society, last Friday night. I had been shown a scene from the film years ago, in a high school English class. However, without any context, the scene had very little impact on me. But now having viewed it full-length, I can say that Dead Poets Society is an absolute masterpiece, and, although flawed in some ways, it affected me very deeply. The last time I felt so moved by a film was when I watched Avatar, maybe 7 years ago.

The movie tells the story of an all-boys boarding school that demands intense discipline and exacts corporal punishment against those who don’t comply. The students face pressure from their parents to get into Ivy League schools and pursue typically high-earning careers in business, engineering, and the sciences. In comes Robin Williams’ lovable character, Mr. Keating, the new English teacher who shares his romantic view of life with the students and encourages non-conformity, individualism, and dream-following. Obviously, drama thus ensues.

The film affected me because as a science major aiming for pre-professional school after my undergraduate education, essentially the only courses I take now are science prerequisites and major requirements. I truly do love and am passionate about science, and am happy to be taking these courses. However, the film made me recognize that the arts are also important to study and appreciate — just because you aren’t going to be a writer or an artist does not mean you should not experiment with courses in literature and art history. Therefore, the film has motivated me to add an arts course into my science-heavy schedule. I want to keep the arts in my life, even if they are not my future career.

The movie also encouraged me to get outside more and enjoy the Earth. Often, I think we college students get so conjoined to our schoolwork that we spend all our time sitting at a desk, hunched over whilst reading textbooks and typing on our laptops. Work is important, but the benefits of the outdoors should not be ignored.

Overall, the film teaches us to seize the day, which is continuously repeated in its Latin translation, “carpe diem,” throughout the film. Yes, we should work hard and aim high; but that doesn’t mean we need to eliminate from our lives everything that is not directly synonymous with reaching our career goals.

 

Dead Poets Society: Don’t rip out the intro!

I abhorred Dead Poet’s Society. There are many things to hate about the film: the disgusting mishandling of one of the film’s only female characters, the maudlin tone and the romanticizing of violence, and the complete lack of diversity in a film which intends to celebrate resistance to conformity, and presumably the diversity of viewpoints which would accompany it.

However, I’d like to speak about what I found most infuriating about the film: it’s celebration of Mr. Keating’s “unconventional” teaching methods. The film presents Mr. Keating as a uniquely inspirational teacher, beloved by his students. I imagine I am not alone, however, in feeling that I would have hated having Mr. Keating as a teacher. Watching the film gave me flashbacks to every high school humanities class I hated with every fiber of my being, every class which made me want to become an engineer. When Keating has the students rip out the introduction of their poetry books, he seems to be suggesting that real literary criticism isn’t important. The class is not going to analyze poetry for its meter, rhyme scheme, and symbolism– they’re going to figure out what poems make them feel. What comes out here is a weirdly anti-intellectual theme for a film which seems to think it is celebrating literature.

One of my high school English teachers, in introducing our unit of poetry, told us that there are wrong answers. There is a correct way to interpret poetry, and there is an incorrect way. That seems like exactly the kind of sentiment Mr. Keating would hate. His general message seems to be that you should find what poetry means to you personally. While that thought seems seductive at first, upon closer inspection, it seems preclude any possibility of real dialogue about what poetry means, or real criticism of an author’s technique or intent. Mr. Keating has essentially taught his students how to feel, at the expense of teaching them how to think. He is exactly the sort of teacher I would have loathed. I attend school to learn how to think, not to be taught how to feel. I can manage the latter on my own.

I should also mention that, given our current political climate, it’s not super fun to watch a high school teacher essentially tell his students that the truth is whatever you feel is true. Also that you should  “carpe diem”, which the boys in Dead Poets Society seem to interpret as “Do whatever you want, irrespective of the rights of others.”

Dead Poets Society

Dead Poets Society was a heartbreaking yet inspiring film. There are so many points in the movie when I thought “these are just teenagers, why do they have so much pressure on them?!” One scene that particularly strikes me was when Neil could not talk back to his father about having to drop a club and when he referred to his friends as “future lawyer” and “future banker.” The lack of choice these boys had in their lives is what made Mr. Keating’s emphasis on “carpe diem” really speak out to them. What happened to Neil was devastating and it could have absolutely been prevented. I think it is too easy to just put all the blame on Neil’s parents – yes, their pressure on Neil did cause Neil to believe that he was trapped with nowhere to go. However, they only wanted to best for Neil and they would have never thought that Neil would kill himself. Neil’s parents clearly loved him but they couldn’t let go of their own expectations for their son. I think this film emphasizes the importance of being able to listen.

When I reflect on the film, I think of all the opportunities I have now that these boys would only dream of having – all of which allow me to further explore who I am and who I want to be. My parents have wholeheartedly supported all of my endeavors and I am so thankful for their continuous encouragement. This film definitely reminded me how lucky I am. Moreover, it really made me think about how I want to spend my time at Cornell and what kind of impact I want to have on the people around me.

Dead Poets Society and Romanticism

I first watched Schulman’s “Dead Poet Society” when I was 12 years old, so naturally there was a lot I didn’t remember about the movie walking into the viewing on Friday. But watching the movie again, at this age, was like seeing an entire different film. At that age I didn’t quite understand why professors Keating’s words and actions had such a profound impact on the boys’ outlook on life. The entire concept of the film seemed silly. I had attended very high pressure schools since I was a child and had never been suicidal. Why would anyone kill themselves because they didn’t like the career they were being forced into?

The entire premise of the movie seems much more understandable now. Being better able to empathize with Neil’s death I found the heart wrenching. There is, however, still a lot that the movie gets wrong. Mostly about depression, and just exactly how one gets to the point of suicide. The film also romanticizes the effects of both societal and familial pressure.

For one, we never actually see Neil feeling hopeless. His reaction to his father’s demands are more representative a quiet submission and genuine belief that his father does know what is best for him. The fact that he killed himself so suddenly, without much coming before that scene that would indicate he was suicidal is odd. His death came out of nowhere, and suicides rarely ever do.

There is also something of a glamour about the school they attend. The idea of a select group of elite boys who will become the leaders of the future seems fabulous. We never see them struggle over homework, or feel distress or despair. I know first hand that attending that type of school is not all fun and games. This, also ties into the randomness of Neil’s death.

Romanticized Violence in Dead Poets Society

Dead Poets Society serves as a parcel of a larger movement of the arts romanticizing violence–in this case, suicide. Realistically, a normal boy like Neil would not have undertaken such a permanent solution to a sudden breeze of anger if it were not bolstered by other aspects such as a mental illness. However, I think Neil’s blossoming involvement with the arts, either in poetry or stage acting, was meant to show the audience the correlation between romanticized suffering that many artists pride themselves in. This glorification is deep rooted in artistic culture with many examples, whether it be Van Gogh, Dead Poets Society, or more recently, 13 Reasons Why. I think artistic endeavors such as this movie should be more cautious in portraying violence as something virtuous in order to prevent copycats, as have already been reported in 13 Reasons Why.

Song of the Little Road

Pather Panchali (1955), Bengali for “Song of the Little Road,” is an innovative and striking film by Indian director Satyajit Ray. Based on a book by Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhyay, the story of a desperately poor Indian family is reminiscent of The Grapes of Wrath in its stark depiction of poverty. It differs from Steinbeck’s classic in that it centers on a child, Apu, and his older sister Durga; their lives are difficult, but they have the small joys of children: a kitten, a foil crown, sugar cane to chew. They still find ways to play and find interest in their surroundings, even when they wear rags for clothes.

The cinematography is exquisite: remarkably the work of just one amateur cinematographer, Subrata Mitra, the film features beautiful lighting and angles that bring home the deeply personal nature of the film. It seems that only half of the film consists of dialogue, its genius resting instead in the visuals. Perhaps it was precisely Mitra’s lack of experience that make this film so unique, freeing it from conventions of cinematography. In any case, the film’s portrayal of India’s strange mix of poverty and rapid modernization during the first half of the twentieth century is art at its finest.

Freedom to Choose

“Dead Poets Society” is not a film without problems. Depicted in it is an unpunished or questioned instance of sexual misconduct, and the film focuses fairly starkly on a straight white male perspective. These things aside, however, “Dead Poets Society” is one of my favorite films. What I love about the movie is the picture it paints about freedom, and how art, particularly romantic art, can serve as a key to this freedom.

The setting of the film is typically claustrophobic – tight dorms, tight classrooms, hallways houses, and even a small cave create a feeling of constriction. However, in the cave, the boys push outwards. On multiple occasions they come flooding out of the cave into the wide expanse of the outdoors – Here, things are bright, and notably movement is freer. Perhaps this reflects Plato’s allegory of the cave. Most certainly I am reading into this too much, but nevertheless we see Professor Keating’s desire to move his students outdoors is demonstrated in the filmography to give a sense of freedom to the students as the grow. And, notably, Neil opens the window before his suicide, furthering what I see as the films connection between the outdoors and this freedom.

And it is this freedom to choose that the film holds as its loftiest ideal. Neil wishes above all else to have the freedom to choose to become an actor. Charlie Dalton is constantly fighting for the freedom to choose to live his life how he sees fit, and Knox Overstreet is fighting for the freedom to choose his ideal romantic relationship. For all of them, though, their desire for this freedom, and their realization of it, comes from art. It is art that inspires Neil to pursue acting, art that inspires Dalton’s rebellious acts, and art that inspires Knox to pursue a relationship with Chris. Importantly, in each case it is art, fundamentally linked with the freedom of the wide exterior shots that gives each character the freedom to make choices.

Seize the Day to an Extreme

The Dead Poet’s Society is a perplexing movie that brings up many questions about parents and teenagers. Who has the right to tell you how to live your life? Should we “seize the day?” or pace ourselves and enjoy small victories? I think the movie was shocking and emotionally riveting, but not something I can say I enjoyed.

I think that the main character, Neil, had extremely controlling and brutal parents. This is not to say I did not understand their point of view. Although they were fortunate enough to get Neil into the exclusive boarding school, they seemed to have worked hard and endured much to get to this point. However, they could have let Neil blow off some steam and done at least one thing he wanted. Participating in the play would not have ruined his chances at Harvard and medical school, it would have probably made him more well-rounded and might even have helped his application. These days, even theatre majors can end up going to top medical schools. I feel that the film is unrealistic to this extent.

In addition, I thought the characters took “carpe diem” to an extreme in that they took it to mean doing reckless things such as going to rowdy parties, heavily drinking, and smoking cigarettes. These events were passed off in the film as “normal teenage behavior.” However, I saw it as an unraveling of the characters’ carefully curated lives. Not only are these health risks, but also give them a distorted view of what happiness means and how happy people behave.

Overall, the movie was gripping and I couldn’t look away. The conclusion felt unresolved, though. I felt as if Neil’s death wasn’t fully explained. It left me wondering whether the characters fully understood and processed what he was going through.

Opinions on Parenting in The Dead Poets Society

*Warning Spoiler Alerts for Dead Poets Society*

So with the suicide of Neil it poses the question of why? His parents clearly had planned out his life for him and it seems like he felt trapped. Acting allowed him to be free but being forced into the mold his parents made was too much. I think your parents shape who you are. Having such rigid boundaries I think can be detrimental to a child. Too much structure isn’t a good thing but too little structure is also bad. I think once a child is old enough to make their own decisions you can’t dictate their life. I think you need to have a conversation and try to understand their point of view rather than bark orders. From personal experience my parents have been divorced since I was a little kid so I got to experience two very different parenting styles.  I had one parent who didn’t listen or even try to understand my point of view (and doesn’t to this day) and my other parent took the time to have a conversation about things. Having a conversation about things and keeping the lines of communication open is very important in my opinion. It is very beneficial to have a parents point of view explained. If a kid doesn’t understand why they won’t feel inclined to do something. Neil was older and in the case of high school students I think they need guidance but I don’t think they need someone breathing down their neck. If someone is constantly watching you it can be kind of suffocating.

Commonalities in Different Culture

 

Pather Panchali is a great Indian Bengali-language drama film.

Although I realized there’s some cultural difference in the film such as dressing, hair style and eating habits, I found the common things between family members and human regardless of culture. I think the director did in a good way to depict each character’s personality and the struggles and sacrifices they made due to the constraint of their economics and the relationship with other people. Therefore, he communicates the emotion and  human personalities well through this film.

One of the scenery I was impressed the most is that the mother defended her daughter while she was accused of stealing the necklace form her friend. That is just what any mother will do for her children – the trust and protection. And when she was criticized by the neighbor that her daughter had the ‘experience’ of stealing things, she was mad at the shame her daughter brought and therefore beat her but she regretted doing so in the next minute and asked the son to find his sister. That’s also a normal mother’s behavior – no matter what children does, she will forgive them.  Also, it might be possible that the Indians have big beautiful eyes that they could communicate their emotions and thoughts through the eyes. I felt that when Durga starred at me, I almost cried.

I was impressed by the commonalities between human beings and in Cornell where we value the diversity a lot, it is a good start to emphasize the similarities and respect and accept the difference.

O Captain. My Captain.

Captain! My Captain.

On the evening of homecoming and firework laser night show, we watched Dead Poets Society together in the warm, cozy Rose House dining room. I left with tears in my eyes and on my face. I felt sorry for the boys in the class, who had to challenge their own integrity by not telling the truth to protect themselves. They were forced to make the ethical decision to save their future and Mr Keating’s future. I don’t think anyone of their age should be forced to make that choice. When they were deeply devastated by their best friend’s suicide, and had to post untruthful blame on their favorite teacher, I couldn’t image what that would do to a teenager after they grow up. For those with moral values, they will be regretting this for the rest of their lives. And for those unethical students like Richard, they will get away with no influence on their lives. That is the truly sad part of this story: Students with high moral standards get punished harder. Mr. Keating knows. He understands. He had tears in his eyes, less for being betrayed and blamed for Neil’s death, but for what his best students were forced to do.

His soul is free. And he tries to give freedom to more students. He encouraged Neil to pursue what he loved. He encouraged all the students to stand on the desk to observe from a different perspective. He is truly a mentor, for discovering each of them’s talents. It reminds me of Professor Dumbledore in Harry Potter. Dumbledore’s Army and the Order of Phoenix are in such resemblance with dead poets society. They all represent a positive, free spirit that fought against the dark, suppressing forces. Unfortunately, many parents, teachers, authorities were not able to see the bigger picture as Mr. Keating does. They do not see that they cannot force every student’s dream to be getting into a Ivy League school, or becoming a lawyer or doctor. Some people already died, but they didn’t get buried until 85. It is speaking about people without a freed soul.

Carpe Diem. Living in your own way.

Pather Panchali: The Rocky Road

Watching Pather Panchali, the audience gets a feel for a family which never seems to catch a break. The film follows the lives of a poor family who are scrapping by in rural India. This is the first of a trilogy focusing on Apu, the young boy of the family. The film does not have a particularly happy look on life, as each of Apu’s family members eventually find their hope for a better life crushed in some way. Apu’s mother wanted to simple life without worry, but is stuck raising her children alone while he husband wanders the countryside as a priest. She must also deal with her frustratingly selfish elderly cousin, her judgmental neighbors, and she must deal with all of this while barely having enough money to feed her family. Apu’s sister dreams of various things all children dream of, such as seeing a train for the first time (which she succeeds in doing) and getting married. However, she dies from a lack of medical care, and is thus unable to fulfill her potential. And Apu’s father, the head of the house who is always full of optimism, finds work as a travelling priest. His true passion is to be become a writer of plays, but discovers that putting all his faith in fate has left him without a house, and without a daughter. Apu witnesses the crushing ambivalence of the universe to his family’s problems, and I believe that the message of the film is that trusting only in fate will leave you in an unfortunate place. Apu’s father embodies this the most, as at the end of the film he gives up hope to try and become a great writer and tells his friends that he has tried to live the way he wanted but it has only brought him misery. The only option is to try something new, to move away from the rural area that they are from, and find a better life. Perhaps it is not the life he had always wanted, but at least his family will not be faced with anymore pain and suffering. Sometimes it is necessary to know when to accept defeat. It is better to fail with dignity as a whole, than to be slowly broken down while desperately fighting back without hope. Dreams are good, and it is important to follow those dreams. But you must also be responsible, face facts and do not try to hold back a flood with one bucket.

Simplicity is a Strength

I appreciated Pather Panchali for its simple style and for its tone. The film depicts the day to day life of Apu, his older sister Durga, and his parents. While the film contains tragic elements, including the death of Durga from an illness, it also depicts day to day life and simple pleasures. The characterization in the film is impressive, as is the realism achieved.

I particularly appreciated the film’s depiction of family life, and especially the way conflicts and family disagreements were handled. In one scene, Durga is accused by a neighbor of stealing a bead necklace. Durga denies this; however, she has a reputation for stealing fruit from a neighbor’s orchard. The neighbor accuses Durga’s mother, Sarbajaya, of encouraging her tendency to steal. Embarrassed by the neighbor’s accusation, Sarbajaya throws Durga out of the house. The next scene shows Sarbajaya telling Apu to find Durga and tell her that her dinner is ready. There is no depiction of Durga and Sarbajaya making amends. I felt this was an accurate depiction of the way family members, though they may become angry with each other, and may harbor significant disagreements or feelings of disapproval towards each other, put aside negative feelings. While there may never be an explicit reconciliation, over time hostilities fade, and life goes on. Your family is your family, even when they anger or disappoint you. I liked that the film’s treatment of the event was not overly emotional. The film’s treatment of family relationships, and of the strain that exists in these relationships, is impressive.

I also enjoyed the depiction of the relationship between Durga and Apu. The film captured the affection and irritation that exists between siblings well.

Pather Panchali was filmed by an amateur cameraman, and features mostly amateur actors. However, the film does not seem “amateurish” or poorly made. The style of the film is simple, but the simplicity of the film only enhances its realism. I was quite impressed by what the cast, crew, and director could accomplish. Had I not been told beforehand that the film had been made by an inexperienced crew, I would not have assumed so.

Pather Panchali is an excellent film, with strong characterization. I would highly recommend watching it.

Pather Panchali: A Pleasant Surprise

When we first started watching the film, I wasn’t sure if I would like it. The plot did not seem very exciting, especially in the beginning, so I did not understand the script’s purpose. However, as I continued watching, I noticed aspects of the film that I really enjoyed. For instance, I could definitely relate to moments in the film such as Apu getting punished for not paying attention during the lesson and the genuine sibling relationship between Durga and Apu. I do not usually watch foreign films so it was interesting looking into what another culture was like at a earlier time. While the conditions of living and the lifestyle were very different from what I am personally used to and how I grew up, there were, again, many moments where I really connected to the film. For instance, the bonding between the village children (like the picnic scene) reminded me of my neighbors. After coming home from elementary school, I would often play with the other children on my neighborhood street. Looking back, there are so many positive memories that I made during this time. Durga and Apu likely feel the same way about the friends they made in their village. Thus, this film showed me that there are so many ways in which Durga and Apu and I are alike, despite the clear differences.

The film felt like I was actually watching someone’s everyday life, which is a somewhat unique idea for a movie given that movies I watch usually try to fit in as much action scenes or plot twists as they can within one or two hours. While this film is very different from all the other ones I have seen, I can definitely see its appeal though its realistic portrayal of life.

 

Different lifestyles, same neighborhood

The Bengali film juxtaposed a debilitating, poor family with a fairly well-off family. One family struggled to properly feed and clothe the children. The other family decorated the children with necklaces and fed them candy. One family relied on the dreams of an aspiring priest and scholar. The other owned an orchard full of guavas and mangos. And yet they coexisted. The film captured the true struggle of living in the shadow of something desired but unattainable. For the scholar’s family that something was not worrying about the next meal. The other family didn’t have to do that. Or a steady income to be able to occasionally get the kids candy, to send them to school wearing something other than rags, to live in the present without constantly worrying about what the future holds. The other family had all of that too. This gap between the two families was brutally clear when Durga and Abu watched the candyman walk over to the other family’s house after telling him that they couldn’t afford the sweets. It was clear every time Durga’s mother told her to return the guavas or mangos she had stolen from the other family. It was clear when the father left for almost half of a year to pursue scholastic dreams that never even came true. It was clear in every interaction the scholar’s family had with the other family. And yet they were only a street apart.

Pather Panchali- a character study

While this film lacks the kind of action favored in Hollywood movies, I can definitely see why Pather Panchali is so celebrated. You really get to understand each character’s motivations. Durga steals because she sees her family struggling and wants to help (and maybe also because she’s a little jealous of the other girls). Apu is an innocent and playful child, though we see him become more serious at the end. He’s fascinated with things like trains and bows and arrows, and when Durga dies he asks if she’s just sleeping. Harihar, their father, is a scholar who dreams of supporting his family off of his own original writings and always believes (a little naively) that everything will work itself out. He is ultimately proven wrong, but largely by chance (the consecutive storms and the delays in his finding work). Sarbajaya, the mother, has given up her own dreams to take up the responsibility of raising her children. She “nags” the others because of the pressure of seemingly failing in that responsibility, as she sees her children dressed in rags and Durga resorting to thievery. The old “Auntie” just wants to live her last days freely and die on her own terms. Her end is particularly sad because she dies alone and outside instead of in her ancestral home with her family, as she wished.

There are no truly dis-likable characters in this story. There’s no villain. Instead, the conflict arises because each character is struggling to do more than just survive (which is already difficult considering their poverty and isolation). Each person just wants to live how they want to live, and circumstances unfortunately get in the way.

Overall, I would definitely say this is the best film I’ve seen in the last two years. To anyone who likes to focus on characters as complex people, with their struggles and aspirations, I would recommend this film. When I find the time, I look forward to viewing the later two films of the trilogy.

 

Note: placed in the “Film” section in the absence of a more specific category

Looking Under the Surface

The film this week was a NOVA documentary about the ethics and future of DNA testing. This documentary pairs nicely with a class I’m currently taking, Ethical Issues in Medicine and Science. As my professor in that class has said, technology isn’t automatically ethical. People are required to decide the morally acceptable ways in which to use technology. And often scientists are not the ones best qualified to make those ethical decisions. Lawyers, politicians, representatives of science, and common people must come together to search for the answers. Specifically for genetics the stakes are higher than any other science. As we learn more about how genes control our bodies, it becomes tempting to want to make small modifications to fix genetic diseases before they start. However, once that becomes a reality parents will want to use the power of genetics to modify their babies to have blue eyes or to be tall or to be incredibly intelligent. Genetic engineering is  dangerous tool for which the ethics need to be dealt with quickly. Curing diseases is obviously a good thing, and I think genetic engineering is a good way to provide treatment. But that is where genetic modifications must stop. Using genetics to “treat” unfavorable traits like bad eyesight will probably be possible but can lead to unintended consequences. The elephant in the room when talking about this subject is eugenics and the scary things people will do to make a “perfect” human. Therefore, genetic modifications should be used to treat life threatening diseases, and stop there. Trying to mess with traits people consider unfavorable is far too dangerous to be unregulated.

Attempts to Interpret Sundance Shorts

Last Saturday, I had the opportunity to go see a stunning collection of short films from the last Sundance festival.  I enjoyed every one of the films, though I can’t definitively say that I understood some of them.

“5 Films About Technology” is a collection of comedic scenarios focused on modern peoples’ occasionally ridiculous relationships with technology and an interconnected world.  For instance, the ritual taking of food photos in a restaurant.

“Ten Meter Tower” consists of footage of people challenged to jump off of a 10m high dive.  The film is an exercise in constant suspense — person after person goes back and forth between the edge and the ladder, talking themselves into and out of jumping.  It demonstrates how perhaps irrational fears are a common human experience, and the how bravery does not always come from the people one might expect it from.

“Lucia, Before and After” features a young woman trying to get an abortion, and shows how she spends the Texas-mandated 24 hour waiting period after her sonogram.  She tries to beg for a room and food at a hotel, but is turned away.  She dines sand dashes, and sleeps in her car.  She  has no money and no support.  The film highlights how abortion really is the only option for many women.

“Pussy” is a surreal, animated depiction of a woman exploring her own sexual pleasure.  She’s having an unsuccessful evening attempting to masturbate, when her vagina literally peels itself off of her body, grows legs, and walks around like a little animal.  It walks around rubbing itself on all kinds of things to represent her exploring different methods of pleasure and it even scares away a voyeur.  A slightly unnerving, but hilarious and endearing film.

“And the Whole Sky Fit in the Dead Cow’s Eye” completely confused me.  A Mexican man’s cattle die mysteriously due to what is later determined to be a lightning strike.  His mother, is visited by a dead man who tells her that he has come to take her son, so she begs to be allowed to die instead.  Her son tries to kill himself, but  the dead man leads the mother into the woods.  Presumably she has traded her life for his successfully, but I have no clue what it means or what it says about society.

“Night Shift” was one of my favorite films of the collection.  It’s a touching snapshot of a night in the life of a black man who works a degrading and unsatisfying job as a bathroom attendant in a club, while also dealing with a crumbling marriage.  He suffers ridiculous demands and cruel treatment at the hands of his largely white patrons in return for tips.  One man bribes the main character to let him have sex with a girl in one of the stalls.  Another urinates on the ground, and then throws the tip in the puddle while hurling verbal abuse.  Eventually, the man gathers the courage to pull in his wife (who also works in the club) and convince her to dance with him for just one song.  They share a fun and intimate dance, and when she leaves, she says that she “might” have dinner with him sometime.

The setting is particularly interesting in how it contrasts humiliation and joy, the worst and best of humanity, all in one room.  Additionally, the bathroom is empty and claustrophobic, but the music of the bustling club can constantly be heard, which seems to highlight the underlying feeling of being isolated at the edge of the excitement of life.  I think the film’s depictions of uncertainty and lack of fulfillment are universal, but the racial themes are also clear.  I particularly loved how the film made no effort to adhere to a traditional story arc.  As soon as it opened to a man examining divorce papers, I thought for sure it was going to be the story of how he came to terms with the divorce or how he won his wife back for good.  Neither happened.  The film had no conclusion, no closure.  Instead, he simply finishes work and drives home.  That’s it.  That’s the night, so that’s the film.

The film “Come Swim”, was a surreal depiction of…well, something.  A man wakes up in a dilapidated house, and goes about an eerie and lonely workday in a rundown world.  Meanwhile, he is constantly haunted by a voice asking him to “Come swim with me”, to which he responds, “But I don’t want to”.  He compulsively seeks out water and is constantly thirsty.  He feverishly drinks and pours water over himself, but it’s never enough.  At the end of the day he begins driving to the ocean, and in each shot his body begins to decay.  He passes out before reaching the waves, and children appear to drag him into the water.

To me this seemed to clearly be a metaphor for addiction.  A voice in his head tempts him constantly, though he doesn’t want to obey.  The more he drinks, the more thirsty he becomes.  His body begins to fall apart.  He becomes driven by compulsion and seems to die trying to reach a source of ultimate satiation.  (Also, the ocean is saltwater — it would never actually satisfy thirst.)  Other ghostly voices that are heard throughout the film and say things like, “It couldn’t happen to me”.

The second half of the film seems to support this idea.  This time, he wakes up in a normal bedroom and goes to work at an average looking office.  At many of the points where he drank water the first time around, he smokes a cigarette the second.   I actually liked the film better before seeing the second half, when the water could represent any kind of addiction, and the symbolism was less clear.  I even thought the film was somewhat heavy handed at times.

After a brief survey of synopses and reviews, however, apparently nobody agrees with me.  The director herself says the film is about “heartbreak”.  I suppose, just like poetry, everyone can get something different out of a film.  Perhaps the intent of the creators of a film doesn’t matter as much as the interpretation of the viewer.

A lack of understanding

I’ve always heard about Sundance, but I was never really interested in the idea of eclectic films. I don’t know if my mind has changed after viewing a compilation of shorts from Sundance. That’s not to say I don’t have eclectic tastes; mine just don’t seem to match up with what Sundance tends to tout. To be honest, it seemed like a collection of videos you might find on the weird part of the internet. Perhaps my perception of a short film is skewed because I grew up with access to online video sharing, but I don’t understand trying to hold film to a more expensive standard.

The shorts were definitely eclectic. The first one dealt with water and obsessive thoughts, and honestly, I didn’t want to watch it. It made me uncomfortable, which I guess was part of its intent, but I didn’t understand its purpose. This was sort of a running theme throughout the shorts – I guess I’m just not the target audience for these pieces. The shortest short was one on technology, and to be honest, I don’t really know why it was part of this collection. It’s a concept that is overplayed and unoriginal and besides the quality of the equipment used, I don’t think the writing or acting were superior to something you would find in a quick youtube video.

Perhaps my problem in not understanding these shorts is online content. Since there was so little plot happening in the first short with the water and in a short about a bathroom attendant, I just felt like they were a little too long. I get that setting up a character is important, but I felt like I didn’t need to see that much. Since I’m regularly busy with other things to do, I often watch sped-up videos or just stop watching if I feel like there’s a lot of nothing going on.

Another short that seemed very internet to me was the one with the diving board. It seemed very strange to me how this experiment was set up. It’s not like these were completely random people that went to the pool that day and walked up 10 meters to the platform. There was clearly some incentive to them jumping. Also, the participants clearly knew about each other, because one of them even mentioned an older woman taking the leap. This one too felt like it was longer than it needed to be.

The weirdest short was the animated short about a vagina. It’s a piece about a woman exploring her body but suddenly the vulva comes off and turns into its own creature and rubs itself against different things in her apartment, but the woman is still connected to what the pussy experiences. This, to me, was the epitome of weird internet video.

Unless there was a message I just wasn’t getting, these shorts just did no resonate with me. I don’t think I would watch anything else made by the same people if their work tends to be similar. Call me a millennial, but I would rather stay at home and curate my own viewing experience of online videos, or shorts (whatever that terms actually means).

Space Exploration: Mars?

The science fiction movie The Martian, with actor Matt Damon, is quite entertaining and gives us an insight of what could be the era of planet exploration for mankind. Our passion for space travel was fueled by former US President Jack F. Kennedy with the race to the moon announced in 1961, shortly after the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA is now focusing on how to explore new planets sending robotic probes to determine if they are habitable since unexpected circumstances like a meteorite or extreme climate change may render planet Earth inhabitable. In the movie, the inhospitable Mars surface becomes even more challenging when a sand storm forces the evacuation of the Ares III mission crew. Astronaut Mark Watney (a botanist, played by Matt Damon) was accidentally left behind as the crew presumed him dead when his suit was pierced during the storm. Although humans cannot stand decompression in outer space for more than a minute, Mark survived miraculously when his blood clogged the hole in his suit. Driven by his mental strength, scientific knowledge, and survival instincts, Mark overcomes incredible challenges: including stitching himself to close a piercing bound to his abdomen, and creatively overcoming major food shortages. Aware that the next man mission to Mars will not arrive until 4 years later, Mark finds a way to cultivate potatoes to increase his food supply. Remarkably, while facing overwhelming odds, he remains physically and mentally strong and “sciences out” of every problem he encounters. Four months after the crew has departed, NASA finds out by comparing satellite pictures of the Mars surface that the astronaut is alive, and regular communications restart. NASA refuses initially to tell the Ares III crew that Mark is alive, but they finally give up and share the news with them. Without NASA’s consent, the crew unanimously decides to return to Mars and rescue Mark and bring him back to earth.

Mark is finally intercepted 561 days (1 year and a half) after he was left behind, by Commander Lewis and his fellow crew members. Once back in earth, Mark reflects how despite suffering tragic setbacks, an astronaut has to be ready to solve problems using his intuition and scientific knowledge. Mark makes this remark while addressing new astronauts and also reflects that he was well aware that he was struggling for “something greater than himself”. As astronaut Neil Armstrong expressed during the first human walk in the moon: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”. Many challenges still remain for us to travel to Mars, not only distance ways but also how to avoid the radiation you will be exposed to given the very thin atmosphere which does not shield from cosmic radiation. Protective habitats and protective suits like the ones described in the movie have to be designed to minimize radiation exposure. NASA currently has a bid for origami designers that can come up with a shield that can be folded to reduce space during storage but can be expanded to be used in outside walks to reduce radiation. Ingenious designers also are looking into how to reduce the weight of the space suits while maintaining functionality.  Important challenges to overcome, as we move forward to explore our closest planetary neighbor: The Red Planet.

Overcoming the Odds

The historical film ‘The King’s Speech’ highlights the very private struggle endured by King George the VI of England. In 1934, Prince Albert, Duque of York, (nicknamed by his family Bertie, played by actor Colin Firth) underwent very unorthodox methods to overcome a stammer. After the death of his father King George V in 1936, his brother King Edward VIII abdicated the British throne to marry Wallace Simpson, a twice-divorced woman from Baltimore, forcing Prince Albert reluctantly to accept the throne becoming King George the VI. Although the last words of King George V were: “Bertie has more guts than all his brothers put together,” he was unable to ever compliment directly his son Bertie or show him his love and acceptance.

Prince Albert had struggled since childhood with low self-esteem and could not recall a time when he did not struggle with a strong stammer. Moreover, being the Duque of York his official engagements required often public speaking, which was emotionally draining given his stuttering condition. To help his troubled husband deal with the condition, his wife Elizabeth contacted an Australian speech language therapist Lionel Logue (played by actor Geoffrey Rush). The film brilliantly focuses on the unique relationship between Prince Albert, later on King George the VI, with his speech therapist Lionel Logue. Lionel insisted with his peculiar methods to help the Prince find the psychological roots of his speech impediment to help him regain self-confidence.

During the therapy sessions which methods were so unorthodox that border into hilarious, we learned about the psychological traumas that Prince Albert endured as a child. Like many stammers, he was naturally left-handed but was forced to become right handed. His youngest brother Johnny had died at age 13 from epilepsy, and during his childhood the Prince remembers being raised by nannies that threatened to punish him for no reason. The relationship with both his father and mother was very distant and cold because of royal protocol. His father was authoritarian and screamed at him un-patiently when he struggled with his speech: “Get it out boy”! His older brother David verbally abused him and mocked him when he stammered. After many private speech therapy sessions, in which Lionel insisted to call him Bertie and make him relive his traumatic childhood, the Prince started to face his fears, and learned to breath, and pause to overcome his speech impediment. Overall, Prince Albert learned not only how to improve his speech but most importantly how to let go from the fears that scared him as a child. Lionel’s therapy also helped the Prince accept that he was as deserving and perhaps more capable to become the new King of England than his brother who chose to abdicate the throne.

Interestingly, despite the psychological traumas that Prince Albert endured during his childhood, his relationship with his daughters was remarkably just the opposite of the one he endured as a child with his father and mother. The caring and close relationship with his daughters Princes Elizabeth (now the Queen of England) and his sister Princes Margaret was highlighted when he asked them for their opinion about how well he delivered the speech to declare war against Germany in 1939. Remarkably, Lionel’s speech therapy skills were not gained from a medical degree, but from experience after being exposed to soldiers that returned traumatized from WWI.

Do you really know yourself

This movie, NOVA, introduces the decoding of human genes and the impact of this technology.

Even a 5-year-old child, who never took any biology class, would probably be able to tell that DNA includes all the information that makes a human. Meanwhile we know very little about the information encoded. After decades of research, the scientists can now indentify the protean types of the numerous pairs on the DNA chain. Yet, we still have limited understanding on how these protean relate to our biological features. Luckily we are now already able to utilize the limited knowledge to improve human welfare, especially in medicine. Reearchers in the area believe that human will be able to completely manipulate these genetic information, i.e. modify what makes up us.

Thrilled by the wonder of science, we still need to consider the ethical side of this development. Should each indiviual have access to his/her own DNA info, and how can we protect the privacy of such info? If we can just genetically modify our descedents, what are the moral issues that come with it?

I personally think that we should consider this problems without stopping our studies becuase the benefits are irresistable. Would not it be great to not having illness or birth-defects anymore?

 

“Ten Meter Tower”: Taking the Leap

“Ten Meter Tower” is the epitome of Swedish film: quiet, slow-paced, and raw. One of the Sundance Shorts selected for the 2017 Sundance Film Tour, “Ten Meter Tower” places it’s “actors” – ordinary people who had never jumped off of a ten meter diving board – on a sparse set, consisting of just the diving board with unconcealed microphones recording them as they made the decision to jump, or not. The directors, Maximilien Van Aertryck and Axel Danielson, kept the focus on the diving board itself, sometimes juxtaposing two divers making the decision at different times and occasionally switching the frame to show them fall or emerge from the water.

We are used to presentations of courage in unusual situations with lots of drama, danger, and often ideals and/or lives at stake. But here was a very ordinary situation with everyday people, no dramatic lighting or music to distract from a decision that ultimately had no consequences. Here was a battle between instinct (it’s no wonder your body tells you not to drop into a ten meter free-fall) and intellect (you know it won’t hurt you, you’d be embarrassed to climb down), and even though it’s on a small scale, it’s deeply poignant. The film authentically captures what it is to be crippled by doubt and the effort it takes to overcome your fears and take the leap. Director Van Aertryck writes in a New York Times Op-Ed, “‘Ten Meter Tower’ may take place in Sweden, but we think it elucidates something essentially human, that transcends culture and origins. Overcoming our most cautious impulses with bravery unites all humankind. It’s something that has shaped us through the ages.” The film is a surprising revelation of this basic human struggle, and its quiet drama is captivating.

In the last scene, as if to say that our own private struggles are great drama in their own way, the unembellished style of the body of the film makes way for the classic drama of film: the camera follows the last diver in slow motion as she plummets to the water below, body turning over and over in her star-spangled swimsuit. “Ode to Joy” blasts triumphantly, and her feet slide smoothly into the water:

Gladly, as His heavenly bodies fly
On their courses through the heavens,
Thus, brothers, you should run your race,
As a hero going to conquest.

 

You can watch “Ten Meter Tower” and read more about it here.

Where Does Our Fear of Disease Come From?

The scientific film-Cracking Your Genetic Code inspired me to reconsider the meaning of fear. If someone got a disease, does his fear come from the suffering from guessing, planning or imaging his unpredictable future or the real disease causes him to suffer. In other words, people may tend to think those who got diseases are poor because they have to suffer from the pain caused by the disease and they might have a shorter or more restricted life compared with normal people. However, the suffer of someone’s guessing before he or she was ‘officially’ informed to have a disease is also painful, or even more painful sometimes. Some people choose to suicide not because they have the disease but probably because they are tired of the mental breakdown or nervous tension. They just want to get rid of the ‘mental disease’.

Then, as the film introduced, our society is going to develop a technique by which people can foresee their disease by checking their genetic code. Of course, it is a powerful method and one of the most significant scientific movements which is great to our society. However, if we reconsider the information the technique provide, are we actually willing to take it? Are you feeling better if you were told that your genes said that you would have a disease? It is good for the genes to be ‘transparent’ to me but sometimes I would rather choose to stay unknown and foolish since sometimes, the fear from disease is from the fear of having the disease.