Rain Man

This movie isn’t an action packed movie by any means. Rather slow, but the value of lessons learned in the movie about brotherly love and treating people who are different from us right fills that void. I hadn’t watched it in a long time but remembered liking it so thought I’d watch it again after being in this class so that I could see it in a different light.

Dustin Hoffman does a skillful job of filling the part of Raymond or Rain Man through his facial expressions, or maybe I should say non-expressions and vague, empty looking eyes keeping him at a distance from establishing almost any relationship with the other characters in the movie. Also, the stiff body and shuffling feet help us to feel the character is truly autistic, and even though they describe several times the mental abilities of someone with autism or who is autistic savant, it is helpful for the viewer to know a little about the condition which affects more and more people each year. Prior to watching this movie we viewed a 60-Minutes broadcast about a deaf savant who was unable to add 1+2 or do much of anything else, but when he heard music he could play it perfectly by sound, so the timing for watching the movie couldn’t have been better.

Hoffman’s fits or tantrums also fulfill his ability to impersonate Raymond to the point where we believe he is not only Raymond but is autistic as well. He has a gift for becoming the character he’s portraying not only with his physical appearance but including such things as hand movements, head movements, body language and his voice intonations and tone. The costume designer did a great job in letting the viewer know just what kind of person Raymond was vs. Charlie by the way they were dressed.

Tom Cruise did a good job portraying the spoiled little rich kid Charlie, but his style and acting skills weren’t quite as developed in this movie as in some of his more recent movies. He did, although, play the part well by becoming Charlie Babbit, somewhat self-centered and only thinking about himself and his wants and needs most of the time and being downright mean and insensitive to his brother at the outset. In the scene where he and his girlfriend were supposed to be going to Palm Springs and he received the call from someone telling him his father had died, I could tell he didn’t have much of a connection with him with the exception of the fact that he thought there was money to be had, because there was no shock, no tears, no emotion. He did well portraying the cold, callous, jerk by calling his brother an idiot and retard and swearing every time he didn't get his way; quite immature. But, little by little you can see him come around and get closer to Ray even though you could tell that Ray irritated him.

It’s an interesting perspective to observe Ray (the one who had a reason) having tantrums or fits and then watching as the things he did actually made Charlie so upset that he had fits or outbursts as well, even though he was supposed to be the ‘normal’ one. I also thought the play on words telling us that Charlie needed the Rain Man whom he didn’t recall at one point come to life when he heard Ray say he was the Rain Man. And then fitting in the theme again when Ray tells him he can’t go out in the rain and so they are trapped into getting to know each other better by being stuck in the rain. So, really, Charlie changed character slowly from beginning to end and actually became more human and caring vs. the self-centered, fast-talking salesman character we’re introduced to at the beginning.

Considering the fact that there weren’t many actors in this movie, I think the director type-cast the correct people into the acting roles for the characters.

Also, the scenery and music made the movie enjoyable. I thought it was neat that they used the pictures Raymond had been taking throughout the movie during the credits.

The Dark Knight

After reading several articles on the death of Heath Ledger in Time magazine and on CNN.com I believe that his difficulty in becoming the characters he played was very disconcerting to him. Statements such as: "In a way I was spoon-fed a career," he told the Glasgow Herald in 2005. "It was fully manufactured by a studio that believed it could put me on their posters and turn me into a product. ... I hadn't figured out properly how to act, and all of a sudden I was being thrown into these lead roles," is very indicative that he basically got into acting by happenstance. And also: His death was particularly poignant to gay New Yorkers. "He is a gay icon," says John Lopez, 22, who works in a gourmet food store that Ledger frequented.(Time.com, January 23, 2008)


His biography indicates that he ended up in drama only because he had two electives to fill and he chose drama instead of cooking. After leaving school, going to Sydney to find acting jobs, and then trying many different roles so as not to be typecast in any particular one which didn’t work out for him, he came to the United States. It seems to me he was searching for his identity. Another quote he made was “I’m only doing this because I’m having fun. The day I stop having fun, I’ll just walk away….I don’t want to do this for the rest of my life.” (Vanity Fair, August 2000) And also “I start to get bored, not with the choices I was making, because I didn’t really have a choice. The choices were being made for me – I was being thrown into projects,” indicates that he wasn’t extremely happy with the path his life had taken, almost as if he wasn’t in control of his own fate. And yet, that he was extremely happy with his life with Michelle Williams and loved doing the simple chores around the house like cooking, doing dishes and playing with his daughter were what he truly loved. Ironic in that “cooking” is what he turned down as an elective.

He also said “I’m the worst auditioner, really, really bad. I mean, you’re being judged and I’m just so aware of it that it consumes me. I can’t relax; I’m tied in knots, so the voice is very taut and tense. (EW.com, May 2001) In both his first and last roles, he portrayed a clown. (http://www.imbd.com/) If you’ve ever dressed up as a clown you can understand how it frees you to be silly and do whatever you want, because you know nobody knows who you are so you can break out of any inhibitions you may hold. Maybe this is why he played the joker so successfully; because he could be somebody else, not the nervous actor who gets tense and uptight in auditions. I also believe that the final break-up with his fiancé in Sept. of 2007 must’ve had a big impact on his life. He no longer lived with them in New York and was no longer seeing his daughter every day like he could then. I think that the combination of all of these things probably contributed to his Valium and sleeping pill use so that he could rest and that truly the overdose was probably an accident.

The actors chosen for the movie “The Dark Knight” couldn’t have fit their characters much better. Just as the book points out, you have to have the right sort of person to play each character as they actually need to become that person and take on a different persona as that person they are playing. Caine as his butler pulls off ‘butler’ duties phenomenally as he not only assists the Batman with advice about his duties as Batman but he acts as Batman’s confidant. He totally fulfills his objective of making us believe completely in the reality of the character as the book points out is so important for an actor. The audience can believe he’s the butler.

Morgan Freeman’s portrayal of Lucius was also very convincing. He is very believable as the mastermind for the inventions that make the Batman who he is. His deep voice sounds so strong, confident and intellectual in his descriptions of the devices for the Batman. And even though he is not pleased with the fact that the Batman used his technology for sound waves to eavesdrop on the whole of Gotham he understood why he was doing it and allowed it even though he didn’t condone it which showed his loyalty to the Batman.

I thought the Batman character would have been the most difficult to accomplish in this movie, so Bale did an outstanding job of convincing us that not only was he Bruce Wayne, but an altogether different individual when he put on the black suit. I watched a clip of the filming of this movie and I think it would be difficult to keep all of your lines, your mannerisms, and your wits about you when you have cameras in your face, stage hands roaming around and lights, cords, and other production pieces around you. Bale did a great job of changing his voice when he became the Batman as well as the stiffness of jaw projecting a tough, crime-fighting hero. I got the feeling that he had some kind of mouthpiece in when he was Batman as he didn’t speak as clearly as when he was Bruce Wayne. But as Wayne, he portrayed the community supporting rich guy who was looking out for the best interests of Gotham, and even though he liked to flaunt the fact that he had money he didn’t do it in a way that was “in your face.” I think his role and the action scenes he needed to fulfill were done extremely well. The intertwining similarities of Batman and the Joker, each with nothing if they didn’t have each other to pursue, really draw you into the action of this film. Also, his dilemma with whether he should go on as the Batman or stop since so many had been killed because of him makes his character realistic in a real-life way.

Eckhart’s portrayal of D.A. Harvey Dent was also done masterfully in almost the same manner as the Batman. He had to perfect portrayal of two different characters; the good Harvey and the bad Harvey; although his roles weren’t intertwined throughout the movie since he was good at the beginning and bad at the end. Whoever did his makeup deserved an award in itself. Interesting in that it showed the good Harvey/bad Harvey sides with his face after it'd been burned. Somewhat hard to believe he would be up and running around with his face half burned off but then we remember, hey, this is a cartoon!

And finally, the portrayal of the Joker by Ledger definitely made him worthy of his award. What I found the most interesting were his movements and mannerisms. His hopping around or tiptoeing if you will made me think of the little joker in parades dressed in black and white. What better way to portray a Joker. Also the way he kept his lips pursed when he spoke and licking his lips all the time as if he was drooling and twisting his fingers in the air helped you to believe he was a rotten little bad guy, psycho, whack job, etc. His snickering and his out and out ability to just shoot someone, or cut someone up without giving it a second thought just re-affirms the crazy, haphazardly actions of a Joker. His makeup was also done masterfully and realistically; even the way it showed that the white had come off his forehead when Batman pounds his head into the table at the cop shop.

The characters along with the set and a fast moving pace with all the action in this movie made it interesting to watch and to believe that there really was a “Gotham” city. You are torn between believing it’s a real story or a cartoon. The Dark Knight title is also so appropriate; connotations of the Knight in shining armor, the fact that Batman is black, the Batman light only shows up at night.

The New World

The film definitely has the cinematic quality of continuous motion with the movement of the ships to the new world, the movement of the boats upstream, the movement of the Indians as well as the settlers in the tall grass and finally the movement of the Indian girl and her son running around the walls of bushes in England. Aural rhythms are presented in the sound of the flowing streams and the singing birds as the settlers explore and the Indians show their inquisitiveness. They make the viewer feel as if they are in the boat going down the stream and exploring all the new tributaries and life. Several portions of this movie rely on the freedom from the spoken word, especially in the sense that communication was limited among the two different worlds by a language barrier. The editor/director presents a vivid contrast between the lush green world of the natives and the dire, damp and downtrodden inner fort that the settlers had built.

In the scenes where the boat landed the movie viewer feels as if he could be one of the Indians watching the boats come closer and then watching the men come onto shore. Also, in the scenes where the Indians were in the grass the cinematographer gave you the feeling of actually being in the grass searching for the settlers as they were. The objective point of view was used by the cinematographer as he took you into the fort and panned the surroundings showing you how downtrodden it looked. He used subjective filming when he filmed the natives and settlers fight, giving the audience the feeling that they were right there in the fight along with the actors. And also when he used the low-angle shot looking up at Smith which made you feel as if you were the Indian girl looking up at him. Several times in the movie the director used this low-angle shot to give you a different perspective exaggerating the size and importance of Smith, the Indian Girl, and Rolfe.

The cinematographer really gives you the feeling of being in the year 1607 within the surroundings he’s captured in the film. The trees with the shadows of the sun, the Indian dwellings with the limited light and sun streaming in as well as smoke billowing around make the viewer feel as if they are in that time and place. The music the director uses in the film also take you to that time and place.

Even in the scenes where there is only nature to view, the director keeps from having large areas of dead screen by placing you on a moving body of water, or showing wind blowing through the grass and trees so that there is some movement on the screen. The director uses placement of characters in giving his film dimension as well as the zoom on the camera bringing the boats closer as they near the shore. When the scenes move to England at the end the cinematographer shows the perfectly trimmed trees, the well kept lawn and straight paved walking paths giving the audience the sense that they are in a more refined place.

The movie was somewhat slow moving although the scenery was captured very well, but I wasn’t as impressed with the sound. Throughout much of the movie I was straining to hear what the actors or the narrative was saying over the music. This made it quite difficult to get the feel of the movie and really quite difficult to follow the story even though the storyline is historical and most would know it. The movie didn’t follow the exact storyline we’ve all heard and therefore if the sound would have been better I think I would have gotten more out of it. The scenery and the visual effects the director used to bring out the scenery with color and movement and to bring out the believability of the characters with their dress and the close-ups and action were its saving graces.

Amelie

I think the setting is quite important in this movie’s overall effect. To begin with, the environment in which Amelie lived, at home without interaction with other children in a fairly well-to-do family as her father was a doctor, and the fact that her father was shown to be not very tenderhearted actually made her the way she was: introverted, shy, living in a fantasy world, learning how to play games by herself, and not having any friends. She actually grew up in a grown up world if you will.

The tiny streets of Paris with shop vendors selling their wares outside, the little café with the smoke shop inside, the tiny apartments with views from little terraces and views into each others apartments allows the director to develop all the interactions of the characters who live there which is quite important to the setting as well. Amelie and the audience as well, were transplanted into a community within a city and all the characters whose lives came together in that little community.

I think the scenes are shot in the café and the surrounding little community of the café, the marketplace and the apartments to make the audience feel as it they live there too. It provides a sense that Amelie is going to survive the sheltered life she had at home by finally interacting with other people and living independently in the little world around her apartment and the café and the café provides her the opportunity to meet many different types of people as well. Placing her at the carnival and in the photo booth purvey the soul of her character; whimsical, fun, playful and intriguing.

The director costumes the individuals according to their character. For instance, Amelie is dressed in simple, tasteful, innocent style dresses and basic shoes, the artist in a beret and eccentric artist type clothing, the dance girls in the video shop in low cut, wild print dresses and high heeled shoes. What he has done is dressed them according to their role so that the viewer can tell who they are and what they do without even being introduced to them.

I think the lighting was mixed; during the outside scenes and in the carnival it was harsh and direct but inside the apartment and inside the artist’s apartment the lighting was more subtle and soft giving you the sense of being in a small not well-lit homey apartment. At other times like in the café where external light was shining in it didn’t seem to be either harsh or soft. So I think he used a mix of lighting depending on the time of day and place of the scene. The director therefore puts you in the mood of a certain place whether it’s in the apartments, the café, her parent’s home and other places by using all three lighting styles, direct or harsh, medium and balanced and soft and diffused such as the scene in her bedroom where she was dreaming about what was playing on the television.

I thought the film was quite strange at first, but after about 20 min. to a half hour I was finally getting the feel for it and where the director was going with it after all the short, choppy first scenes. It was rather hard to take in the scenes and the action because I was busy reading the captions at times. So although it was a little difficult to watch and I think I missed some of the details due to having to read the captions it was still enjoyable and not totally beyond comprehension or enjoyment. The use of French actually lent an air of realism to it and placed you in Paris, so that it made a believable storyline. Since the French language sounds so aesthetically pleasing I don’t think you’d have gotten the same feel for the characters and setting if it had been done in English. The narrator did a good job of putting you at ease as if you were listening to a story with his inflections of tone and smooth speaking style.

I was actually thinking when we were done with the movie that I need to watch it a second time in order to see all the details instead of having to read what was happening, although some scenes weren’t as difficult to follow when there was more action and less narration. I found it interesting as well that the notes they wrote were in English while most or all of the speaking was in French. It was helpful though, since you were reading two things and watching as well.

Good Will Hunting

The movie did have a good, believable story line – a kid who didn’t have opportunities and had a rough life but had one saving grace – the question was whether he was going to use the gift he had or become just another construction worker. The story line was also credible in that many kids who are talented get left behind just because they aren’t provided the opportunity. There were externally observable truths; some kids have the opportunity just because they are born into wealthy homes and others don’t or have to work very hard to afford the same opportunities. The story line also held the audience’s interest as the counselor delved into Will’s past and why he put a wall between himself and almost everyone else; he’d been hurt and didn’t want to get hurt again.

The story was actually pretty simple but lent an air of complexity as obviously we knew that Will had a tough life but didn’t know exactly what happened except that he had been abandoned and abused in some way and ended up in a foster home. The audience didn’t know which path he’d choose though; working construction or using the abilities he had until right toward the end, so it kept their interest until its conclusion. Also, just enough emotional content to keep your interest; in the scene when he left Skylar, when Chuckie finds out he’d actually left and when Sean kept telling him “it’s not your fault” and he finally broke down.

The title “Good Will Hunting” provides many connotations: Good Will as in he was good at mathematics and other complex studies, Will Hunting as in hunting for something but what, and I kept thinking of the phrase “where there’s a Will there’s a way” for some reason. This film seemed to have a chronological or linear order as you were introduced to the characters, got to know them and the events happened in sequence as Will grew up and turned 21. There was also obviously much conflict, between that of Will and Sean, Will and the professor, Will and Skylar, and Sean and Professor Lambeau, definitely enough to keep interest in the movie.

It was easy to become attached to Will, feel sorry for him, impressed at his abilities and knowledge and upset that he didn’t take the opportunities put in front of him. Also with Sean, who took a different route, and skillfully I might say, to get inside of Will. He knew the normal psychology wouldn’t work on him and challenged him in a different way. I appreciated the conversation where he said you might know everything you can read in a book, but what have you experienced; you haven’t experienced watching a sunset over the Rhine, you haven’t experienced the look on someone’s face when they truly love you, etc. As far as the 'hero' in this movie, I'd have to say it was Sean since he helped not only Will but himself to go on with life after brooding about the death of his wife so long.

The symbols included baseball; something very American and that brings friends together – everyone loves baseball, symbolizing the friendship he had with his buddies and that he developed with Sean. The boats and water in different parts of the movie soothe the soul, provide a mirror effect as a way to a person’s soul; what Sean was trying to do – get inside Will’s soul and help him deal with the past. When your slide listed the five symbols: Sean’s painting, Will’s new car, the fight, Tom, and the term’s Chief/Sport I noticed the different forms symbols can take on: emotion, objects, actions, people, or words. I also noticed that Will wore a cross around his neck throughout the movie; maybe the ‘hope or faith’ he had that he could get over his pain and move on with his life. Also, the Irish Pubs and Irish music to me symbolize being part of a clan. A perfect setting to choose for a psychologist named “McGuire” and a bunch of South Boston young adults.

Ironies in this film include irony of the character Will himself; he plays the supposedly dumb Boston kid who works as a janitor and gets in trouble with the law but is truly a genius.

This was a pretty good flick, not outstanding, but I liked it.

TRAFFIC

The first thing that made an impression on me in this movie is the way they changed the lighting to let the audience know when they had switched countries from America to Mexico as well as the contrast of color they used when they were in the ghetto vs. in Washington, DC or at the home of Wakefield in Ohio. The tones were bright and cheerful, often with the sunshine glistening in the scenes from the cities but when Caroline and her boyfriend were in the black neighborhood where the drugs were purchased the scene became dark and dreary; lending a hidden dismal message that drugs are bad. Not only there, but when they placed the antique tone, not necessarily black and white, on the Mexican scenes it made it look like the time of old or as if you were stranded in a more destitute time period. They accomplished much of the feeling of the movie by changing the lighting this way in several scenes in the movie.

This story was also very credible. We have had a drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere for decades that has challenged each Administration. The drug problem in the United States is not going away anytime soon and the movie helped the audience understand just how complex it is and how difficult it is for law enforcement and/or the government to control the influx and use of drugs in the U.S. and other countries. The viewer is oblivious to the fact that one of the teenagers at the up-scale house using the drugs and alcohol in one of the first scenes was Carolyn, Wakefield’s daughter, and this brought home the message that drugs affect everyone, rich and poor alike.

This movie was somewhat complex; it was a little difficult to figure out where the scenes were taking place as it jumped around so many times to begin with, but once you figured out the characters, their roles, their objectives, and the places it became clearer and clearer as the movie progressed and the inter-relationships of each character became clearer and it developed into a fairly good story. The movie incorporated simple stories of individuals and places within a complex larger story making the audience become very involved.

The title “Traffic” is intertwined into every aspect of this movie, not just the fact that they were trafficking drugs. From the first scene in Mexico on the dirt road where you realize it refers to trafficking drugs, the director uses traffic in many of the scenes: Wakefield cruising the streets in an expensive car in a low-life part of town, the kids dropping off the body at the emergency entrance, Wakefield driving with his wife and daughter, the vehicles waiting at the Mexican border, Helena going to Mexico and back, the airplane scene where they tried to figure out a new way to fight drug trafficking; it is an underlying theme throughout the whole movie.

I thought the men in the black suburbans were going to shoot the two who confiscated the truck as it wasn’t apparent that they were police officers by the shoddy looking white car and their attire. The director used attire to distinguish the poverty in Mexico and in the ghetto vs. the wealth in the cities of America. Blue jeans and basic shirts were the norm in Mexico and the ghetto vs. 3-piece suits, fancy dresses and gold and silver in Washington, DC. I also appreciated the fact that they made it more realistic for the audience to believe they were in DC by adding true characters in those of Senators Boxer, Reid, and Pelosi and other politicians.

The movie also had conflict in the case of Caroline and her drug problem vs. her father who was trying to fight drugs and her mother who obviously had experimented with them in college. I think her mother could relate to her and what she was doing even though she may have not condoned it and that was the reason she hadn’t told her husband and I think ultimately her father realized that part of the reason she did them was because of the attention she never fully got from him due to his job. They both came to the realization that no one is immune to drug use. Wakefield’s realization that the “war on drugs, can sometimes be a war on families” wakes him up to the fact that his daughter needs him to help her get through the ordeal or she may not make it, so he refuses the DC job. As you watch him trying to make the 10-point speech you can see him struggling with this fact.

It was a little hard to believe that Helena had no knowledge of her husband’s deals and drug involvement. Then, once she does know, it’s amazing how fast she picks up on what to do, who to talk to and where to meet the drug czars. And finally, (maybe I watch too much CSI) you’d have thought they’d have tracked her to the hit man by tracing the call to her phone. It seems like she turns from sweet stay-at-home mom into the hit lady way too fast.

I think this movie had a linear or chronological construction; you were introduced to several of the characters, places, and interrelationships; then were drawn into the several complexities in each situation; and then brought to the climax where Wakefield rescues his daughter and the fight against drug use goes on, the general is killed and hopefully some of the drug dealing will cease, and Javier receives his lighted baseball field for the kids where baseball symbolizes freedom and safety for these kids hopefully without drug involvement or to give them something to aspire to instead of dealing drugs. And even though Ayala, ultimately one of the bad guys for trafficking drugs is released, Montel manages to slip a bug under his table so the audience is aware that the fight against illegal drug trafficking will go on.

Gladiator

The realistic opening scene really places the audience in the time period of the movie, 180 AD. From the costuming to the barbaric weapons and battle scenes it gives the viewer a good sense of how basic the amenities were at that time. The Director did a good job of placing the viewer on the enormous battlefield and then later in the gigantic coliseum helping viewers feel as if they are right there in the action. If you get a queasy stomach at the sight of blood, it might not be the movie for you.

The opening battle scene helps us identify with Maximus, the proud warrior whom the army and Caesar respect. Crowe plays the character well and viewers like him because he’s a leader and hero. He proves himself by going into battle at the front of the line showing his soldiers he is not above them and they fully support him because of this. His statement while he is with the king reinforces that he identifies with his troops as he replies to Caesar’s question of how are you doing “I’m sitting in here while all my men are out in the cold and mud.” He supports the Roman Empire and is a true patriot but still, his family comes first, as he indicates when he is faced with the dilemma of leading Rome or going home to be with his wife and son.

You know that he places his family on a pedestal and loves and misses them by the fact that he worships the two little statues, symbols of his wife and son, throughout the whole movie and is happy beyond words when his friend sneaks them to him as he’s being paraded through the streets of Rome as a Gladiator. He’s also a man of faith as proven by the fact that he indicates to the black slave that he will see them in the hereafter and he prays several times during the film.

Caesar’s comment to Commodus when he comes upon the battlefield “now you show up when the fighting is done” reaffirms his view that Commodus can’t be counted on to lead and reinforce that his son is not fit to lead in battle nor defend the Roman Empire and that he can’t be trusted.

Commodus knows he will not succeed his father unless he kills him soon before an announcement is made, especially after being told he will not take his place once he dies. By the look on Commodus’ face when he’s rejected by Maximus afterward, the audience is aware that Maximus will be killed. He overcomes the soldiers carrying out the order because of his desire to be with and protect his family.

Commodus is easy to dislike in this movie, therefore the Director has also accomplished the task of making him the ‘bad guy’ that everyone despises and hates. A sniveling weasel he is. His main objective once he comes back to reality after the king has been killed, his wife and son are killed, and he’s been sold into the slave trade, is to get revenge for all three of them.

I believe the theme of this movie is good vs. evil or right vs. wrong with emphasis on doing what’s right for everyone instead of for personal well-being.

The dishonesty the king talks about within the senate and in Rome reminded me that behaviors such as that are timeless as we have the same corruption and dishonesty in our Congress of today, almost 2000 years later, so we can all relate to the behavior.

I don’t usually find satisfaction when someone is killed in a movie, but I actually have to say I took pleasure in watching Commodus be killed; his behavior truly was disgusting. Phoenix did a good job portraying the character. And to reinforce the feeling, which I’m sure many viewers had at the end, they carry Maximus out as the true statesman while leaving Commodus lay in the dirt of the coliseum. In one last act of respect the black man who befriended Maximus gave the statues of the woman and child a proper burial in the coliseum and confirmed that he would see Maximus again but “not just yet”.