William Harris: Response to Munich; Oldboy; The Constant Gardner

“MUNICH”
Directed By Steven Spielberg
Tony Kusnar / Eric Roth
Based on the Book “Vengeance” written by George Jonas

The movie was inspired by a tragic historical event in Munich, Germany during 1972 Olympic games. During these games, 11 Israeli “Jewish” Athletes were taken hostage and murdered by Palestinian Arabs.

In this somewhat Comparative Political Study we find the Political Culture between these two countries have long been a serious issue between, race, ethnicity, and religion. This mostly entails the issue of property rights, or the rights and power in control of the “promise land”.

As with any nation, the primary concern is the Public Safety, or at least the sense of it. In any nation around the world we might entertain the notion that the “Household” is the most fundamental institution, next to marriage. Theoretically when we find safety at home, we might hope to start building strong individuals, who build strong families, who build strong nations, etc. With large functioning populations being the essential element in building nations, we can understand the importance of maintaining an equilibrium or balance in peace for the greater good of the nation.

The idea here with the movie MUNICH is when countries run up against each other with political conflict we find the media getting involved and possible exploitation of information that can be manipulated into a propaganda spin that could get out of control and hurt not your own country but possible some one else’s country. So these big responsibilities fall into the hands of a powerful minority class that are swift in eradicating such problems and with the least amount of attention. Only supplying the money, otherwise not affiliated with and such covert, or terrorist organization. The idea is to fulfill vengeance without affecting the primary functions of these nations safety and economic stability by unwanted publicity towards such acts.

It is here that can start to see and understand the function of these somewhat terrorist type of activities as an organic continuous cycle of death, power shifts, and payoffs that start to make one question; what a person or country is willing to sacrifice, to maintain the power and dignity of a country. The movie dives into one possible scenario of what happened during the period following this widely publicized political event. The group of assassins worked secretly outside of the laws of the land, or country. The countries plan was to denounce any involvement and keep it a complete covert operation that allows this previously mentioned balance to occur naturally. This balance starts beyond the boundaries of personal rights. It surpasses any restraints of bureaucracy. But does start to mirror things that might be considered branches of organized governments. This area located out in the perimeter of what we might consider the normal Government relations of Checks and balances.

With Limited Government power in many countries and their presence only wanting to mirror the idea of being there for the greater good of the people. These covert unsanctioned operations can easily be taken to have a Necessary and proper cause, justified by the Machiavellian ideology, or “the end justifies the means”. The character Ephram in the movie, played by Geoffrey Rush, is working for the Israeli intelligence organization “Mossad” who organizes a team of assassins that are relieved of their official duty and require them to sign away any involvement with their government and any future retirement benefits. In return for following orders put forth they would receive funds for functioning during the operation and unofficial retirement payment of a job well finished.

What the main character soon finds out is that through this system the world is a scary place and all that was important was to return home to his wife and newborn child. His identity started to disrupt because of starting to understand both sides of the struggle and realizing this form of management of conflict would never be settled through assassinations. He decides that his safe place was going to be New York and that his previous home was of no true help or safe place that he wanted to be a part of. I hope that these countries can some day create politics that will represent the true voice of the people and that terrorists organizations will be resolved with the voice they might create through some for of civil disobedience.


OLDBOY
Film Response

This groovy Asian Action / Thriller “Flick”, showing elements of “Film Noir”style in the avant-garde Genre form leaves me to understand why Quentin Tarentino gave his seal of approval for it. As with most cutting-edge, experimental type films you see the use of many new editing techniques, plot continuity irregularities, ambiguous moral characters, along with finding difficulty with drawing the line between dreams, reality, and overall meaning of the story.

Story duration actually ties all the way back to when Dae-Su was in high school where he started a rumor that led to a series of event unknown until the end of the movie. The plot duration was around 15 years and one week, including a couple of flash backs that allow him to piece together this puzzle that has caused him to be imprisoned for 15 years. The 15-year imprisonment relationship was summarized through many tricks, or conventions, of the editing and camera world, such as showing Major political events occurring on the television, his implied frequency of hair growth and hair cuts, a couple attempts on his life from different frustrations, and a journal he starts and ends with a complete volume before being released. The scene only took but a few minutes but it felt like we all were in there with him for those 15 years. Most of the screen duration occurred with a summary of the 5 day seek of vengeance, or possibly truth???

In the beginning, “real time” was thrown upon us with the “Cliff hanger” effect and left us with the question, what the hell? Somebody was getting ready to die fast! Time, this appears as a major frequent theme, from this point mentioned above through the opening credits of OLDBOY rotating like a clock, many clocks superimposed with-in dissolving cuts throughout the film. Through one of the early plot satellites we new early on that Dae-su likes playing games because of his friend saying, “are you playing games again” while looking for him when he exists the phone booth, and noticing his disappearance. Here the camera takes omniscience overhead position. From this position we achieve a major event hub by seeing that the game has begun and the symbolic “X” marks the spot and we have direction because of the symbolic “arrow” painted on the road, and we know by immediate montage of stop watches that there is a time limit. Another frequent element of juxtaposition is the fact of being in very high places or very low places. It moves him from opening scene of being in control, to be a beast eating food from the floor. Another pattern of comparative symbolism is with the use of ties representing dog leashes made very clear in the opening scene, because of a dog in the arm. All the ties represent dog leashes or the control on others, or the control needed on oneself. It’s a matter of maturity.

I want to back up bit and continue to focus on this beginning area of the film. The drunk tank or room in particular. Here we not only get to see this Dae-Su not only show us his immaturity, but his lack of respect for anyone but himself and his mental confusion in general. In this early sequence we can get a lot out of whom we are dealing with. The cinema photographer opens with a nice ridiculous close-up of Dae-su. Seeing him up-close and personal and then crosscutting wide-shots together, on the bench, showing this outer and inner differences that the movie will continue to work with. This montage of cross-cutting combined with many jump cuts allows you to feel the inner workings of his mind and inspires some anticipation that hopefully he gets some help, or just maybe that we think this character is going no where fast. With this juxtaposition we really wonder if he will actually keep up with this imposed “time limit” that we are frequently reminded of.

“Hello Sweet Girl, it’s daddy, daddy’s got you present and I’ll be there to GIVE IT TO YOU, baby!” An early plot foreshadowing of things to cum, literally! The way that the film is cut, I feel, that we are led to believe that Dae-Su is the man that was dropped from the building, when we later find out that that person was actually himself. This I feel is the theme or man against himself. And man not listening to him self but just continuously talking about himself. Once he told his story on the rooftop, he was finished with any other whining beast – or heart. I believe that Dae-su the businessman is being split into two parts in the beginning and even split more as the writing continues from what was originally a mythological “wild man” archetype character that has been broken down into smaller complex characters that interact around him. The “Wildman” and the characters in the film represent the parts of ones proper inner workings from going from immature to mature adult man. These complex individual characters working within the film represent the workings of viewers subconscious The characters are trying to help Dae-su but he is a man who has not reached maturity in the traditional sense and will not be mature until he embraces his true nature, which is both good and bad. Since he was not willing to put a leash on this proverbial “wild man” then someone else was going to do it for him. A character in his deep dark subconscious, something kept alive by the heart. Woo- Jinn mentions that he has a bad heart and that he had asked, Dr. Hopkins – (an English surname; meaning derived from the dim.) To install a remote control to stop his pass maker from functioning upon request. Matters of the heart, the proverbial heart, are usually a dark place, a place we might sometimes wish we could shut off. Woo-Jin is establishing his function of the conscious. He has locked Dae-Su up for 15 years and finally one day released him back on top. Not on the bottom where he had once found him. It’s the heart hoping and helping for the best.

This Avant-garde type movie dealing with all the postmodern twists, the movies form is defying continuity, and erasing the line between dream and reality. We have seen the inner workings of his mind and find it hard to determine whether it was dream or reality. We never really left that position the entire movie, this “pure stream of consciousness” literary style equivalent, continues through out. The entire movie is nothing more then this guys conscience being broken up into these “film noir” characters that continue to break him down. Or shrink him into nothing because he has not only created them but also has made thing up his whole life so he could “get along with everyone”, “getting through one day at a time.” but why can’t he get along today?” he asked! Today is the day that he will start from the bottom where the rainwater and darkness, Dae-Su refers to as home, is clouding his every thought. And finally be brought back to the top of the building, sunshine and green grass.

The story is about a man who has lived a life of a businessman, modern day thief, living his life getting along with others and then while drinking this underlying theme starts to come more apparent. This male had yet to mature into a full man. A man who is not only compassionate but also without fear, brave. The plot to me seems to be this battle or this fifteen-year reign of the wild man who had been locked up and is now deciding and exit strategy.

You laugh and the world laughs with you! You weep and you weep alone.

Dae-su asks the question, “if I had been in that prison for fifteen years, would Mi-do love me as much as she does.” The mature man has let the wild man go and know that he can call on his help whenever he needs it.

At the end of the movie you here Dae-su narrative after the ….”This is what’s happened to me up till now. Thank you, for listening to a terrible story all the way through till the end. I hope that you can understand that the reason that I cant talk to you in person is because I have know tongue” His subconscious, or “wild man” talking deep within his mind.

The hypnotist makes a clear statement at the end that I believe to be an underplaying conclusion. She says, “to be HONEST, I have NO reason to help YOU!” “ But there was something that you wrote here that was touching. Even though I’m no better than a beast…don’t I have the right to live? My question is doesn’t the wild man have a right to live and doesn’t everyone have a right to live and to make mistakes. We should not let ourselves be shrunken and diluted through lies…. And like in this movie by chance he was able to reverse the damage through hypnosis. As she says, “the hypnosis can possibly distort your memories”. This would have the same effects of lies, rumors, etc…

He is now at the edge of the forest in the pure snow symbolic of innocence and cleansing…he is through talking too much. He still wants to go with the hypnosis that will send his anger and Wildman back to the forest. He could never handle that challenge to set it free and call upon him whenever needed but harbored him for ever-much like the Asian culture in general have an tradition of carrying grudge.

The hypnotist starts the transformation by saying look at the tree- the tree becomes the rock pillar in Woo-Jin penthouse. This shows the symbolism of Woo-Jins’ layer as the forest and he is the “Wild Man” This duality of characters I feel are constantly changing from being one person, to two people with the same problem, ambiguous in there moral standing. I’m not sure if it from the writer showing his talents and covering this old tale of manhood or just my own ignorance not allowing me to see something that is clear.

The frequency of flash backs start increasing as the film nears its end and as the answers come so fast we are overwhelmed not only with what the truth is, but also by how everyone is affected, or by sacrifice not affected, Mi-do. The last sequence upon a snow cap mountain leaves us unsure how much story duration has passed but with the knowledge that Dae-Su and Mi-do has traveled far, he is tired, not talking too much anymore, and ready for a spiritual transformation. A division of his inner self has occurred. He has climbed a great mountain, has great perspective, and has become a mature man. Both crying and laughing with joy of a rebirth after hearing Mi-do tell him that she loves him. This man is now complete, as with the viewer, all the other characters have vanished.

“The Constant Gardner”
Focusing on Cinematography

This non-linear story, duel-narrative, detective puzzle type genre film, takes place on location in the beautiful setting of Nairobi, Africa, with wonderful cinematography. Even though this non-linear style takes away from the verisimilitude of the movie, compared to a linear type, I believe that the overall use of cinematographic properties, Framing, combined with the speed and length of the shots by the Director of photography (DP) does help create the feeling of a dream, adding back the ability to “suspend my disbelief”, and allowing for a wonderful mise-en-scene.

The DP responsibilities are always demanding but were particularly demanding in this film because of the obvious reasons. The main reason, of course, expensive equipment, dry African desert, and dirt, sand, well this terrain leads to a difficult task. The DP I’m sure was relying on his entire photography unit to give 110% whether being the camera operator, clapper/loader, gaffer, best boy, or grip. This team had to be a highly responsive and efficient unit, because of the fact that once the clapperboard falls, and the director says, action! Money is burning fast and a grain of sand better not get in the way.

Cinematographic properties in this film, such as film stock, lighting, and lenses were very important to consider under such harsh conditions. For consideration on film stock, we have to be familiar with the chosen stocks film colorization, even though we might assume that digital colorization technology in post-production can manipulate the final product, and remember that the original shots will represent the final quality of the motion picture. Postproduction technology is essential but not fundamental, also as the old cliché goes during production, “Crap in equals Crap-out”. Other considerations of your film stock will be whether your shooting many day or night shots, and are the temperatures going to be cold or hot? This film being primarily shot during hot days in Africa, we can knowingly say that the film stock choice was zenith to many of the critical production responsibilities and setup. Of course if your using types of digital video cameras you will find these issues less sensitive, but none the less important.

The natural lighting sources in this film was used abundantly, with the help of reflector boards diffusing the light and reducing shadows on the face when it wasn’t necessary, along with filters controlling the quality of light. But this movie did contain many points of artificial lights, especially during the evening and night scenes when they used both focusable spots and floodlights. These spotlights were used wonderfully in one particular scene in the back yard, when the letter is given back. The light source direction produced harsh shadows across the characters face during the moment of him receiving the letter. This gives a great example of how the lighting and acting made of feel his sinister nature, and created one of the most notable mise-en-scenes’ in the film.

With many extreme long shots, pan shots, and aerial-view shots combined with maximum depth of field and widescreen aspect ratio, allowed us to see the enormous scale, vastness, and isolation of Africa as a country. This ratio allows more composition while framing shots during setup. As with almost all movies there was a continuous montage of editing cuts between long shots, medium shot, and close-ups. The many camera techniques used during moments to create a documentary style on the realistic outdoor open shot scenes were done with Steady-cams adjusted to simulated camera movement creating verisimilitude and mise-en-scene

The cinematography in this film was really one of its best qualities. The overall screen duration was to long, the scope came to slowly, and the overall suffering I experienced while the director using “disinformation” as an affect, and literally used the word in the dialogue, was painful. This disinformation of cinematic time became a part of the narrative form. I usually like a non-linear plot order, but this one caused too much pity and sympathy of the main character, and left me feeling deceived, ashamed of myself for judging, and fucking paranoid! But hey, the cinematography was excellent!

Clayton Brown: Response to Iron Jawed Angels

Iron Jawed Angels is a classic piece of over the top melodrama. Ever conflict is over drawn and exaggerated to get the point more across, just like in the film Crash. I don’t particularly enjoy these movies that go above and beyond in the emotions to try to get through their agenda. Films with a plan and a point they need to get out. One could argue that’s a movie though; that all films big or small comedy or drama are exaggerated and stepped up for effect. That’s fine and understandable but with Iron Jawed Angels I feel I wasn’t given a choice in my belief, while watching it I given one option, join us or be annihilated.

The dialogue tended to lend itself to be a at speech proportions. Every line was a speech. Every sentence could be a quote for the movement. I’m not so sure it was too accurate to the way these women spoke back in their time. We talked about all this in class, how these women are pretty, young and hip. Whether or not they were in real life this allows girls and women today relate to them more and understand them more. Which they do all women should know what it has taken them to get here and how much further they must go.

I don’t know Alice Paul. I’ve never heard of her until I saw this movie. I’d seen the movie before but still had not known who Alice Paul was. She obviously, if this movie is correct, was an enormous influence on the suffragette movement. Now her as a person, and her personal struggles with men and herself, I wouldn’t be able to say. But the writers and Hilary Swank put on a good performance to what they would want her to act like, how they’d WANT her to be.

The cinematography was lacking. I like my movies whether comedy or drama to have perfect camera work. This was a TV movie and I assume it’s a budget issue on getting better Directors of Photography or better equipment or set locations or time but Iron Jawed Angels was deficient. The ending credits where Alice Paul and her sidekick are out in front of their HQ after Tennessee passes the 20th Amendment, and they keep spinning around and around for 10 minutes it felt like. Maybe it doesn’t matter but that scene irked me.

Also the editing that we were talking about in class during the parade scene. How it was shot like a music video. The scene had the song “Everything is Everything” by Lauryn Hill. A very independent woman who put this song on her extremely successful 1998 album “The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill.” This song is very recognizable especially by the target audience of 20-something woman or teenage girls. Again young women need to know who led them out of the kitchen into the workplace and who led them from obscure citizens to active members in our societies processes.

The use of contemporary music in period pieces has always bothered me. Such as The Untouchables uses synthesizers and heavy electronic drumbeats. It was shot in the late 80’s, which coincides with that music taste. Iron Jawed Angels used slight music from their time period but not enough. Ragtime and early Jazz were the music of the day, along with gospel and hymns. Ragtime was used during the shoe-tying scene in the restaurant but the only jazz I can recall was Dizzy Gillespie style, fast paced and sporadic. I forget the name of the form, but that didn’t come about until after World War II. The music was used to reach a certain audience I know, but this goes back to the agenda and my displeasure with it.

The movie was a decent piece of TV production; classic style of a made-for-TV movie. Also, like many other period pieces following a certain person or group through their trials, there was too much info to cover in a two hour film. They could’ve made a two-hour movie just about the workhouse experience. But that’s why it just seems like the WPA funded the movie. I’m all about Women’s rights. I’m all about everyone’s rights, I’m a Libertarian but I also don’t sit well with one-sided views. Even if the other side is the Nazi party, I want to hear it.

Week 12: Films by Women About Women

Week 11: Films by Women About Women

Something to think about as we watch Iron Jawed Angels. From the website Feministing:

Prank Aims to Stop Women's Suffrage

IN CLASS FILM:

Iron Jawed Angels (Katja von Garnier) 2004: 125 minutes

Alice Paul

We discussed the Seneca Falls 1848 Convention as a landmark event in the women's movement.

Seneca Falls Declaration

I mentioned Ida B. Wells the African American activist in the movie who refuses to get in the back of the parade--for more on this important democratic civil rights activist:

Ida B. Wells

Wikipedia: Ida B. Wells

Think about Ida B. Wells argument in the film and then read this important statement from Black Feminists:

Excerpts from the Combahee River Collective Statement

Other women activists of the time that are not featured in the movie, but are very important to know (they are often ignored because they fought for the rights of workers--something a capitalist society rarely honors). These women were as courageous and passionate as Alice Paul and Lucy Burns (have you heard of them?):

Mother Jones: the Angel of the Mines

Wikipedia: Mother Jones

Emma Goldman

Wikipedia: Emma Goldman

Helen Keller is also mentioned many times during the movie. How many of you knew that Helen Keller was an civil rights activist who was pursued by the FBI?

Helen Keller and the FBI

Helen Keller

I mentioned stereotypes about "feminism" and just wanted to post other opinions on the issue:

North Carolina College Student: Stereotypes About Feminism Are Unfounded and Damaging (also click on the only comment at the end of the essay)

The Guerilla Girls a performative activist group has long been fighting stereotypes of women and for equal representation in the arts (if you have taken an art history class you will understand the disparity between the representation of male and female artists):



University of North Texas website on feminism:

What is Feminism?

Public displays, marches and protests are an effective non-violent method for bringing attention to political issues (that are being ignored by mainstream society):

NOW: History of Marches and Mass Actions

Wikipedia: Social Movements

Wikipedia: Protests

Also check out the imagistic critiques of the conceptual artist Barbara Krueger--who questions how stereotypes and behaviors are reproduced through visual media:

Barbara Krueger



A brief summary of the history of feminism...

First Wave Feminism-

This term refers to the first concerted movement working for the reform of women's social and legal inequalities in the nineteenth century. Although individual feminist such as Mary Wollstonecraft had already argued against the injustices suffered by women, it was not until the 1850's that something like an organized feminist movement evolved in Britain. Its headquarters was at Langham Place in London, where a group of middle-class women, led by Barbara Bodichon (1827-91) and Bessie Rayner Parkes (1829-1925), met to discuss topical issues and publish the English Woman's Journal (1858-64).

The key concerns of First Wave Feminists were education, employment, the marriage laws, and the plight of intelligent middle-class single women. They were not primarily concerned with the problems of working-class women, nor did they necessarily see themselves as feminists in the modern sense (the term was not coined until 1895). First Wave Feminists largely responded to specific injustices they had themselves experienced.

Their major achievements were the opening of higher education for women; reform of the girls' secondary-school system, including participation in formal national examinations: the widening of access to the professions, especially medicine; married women's property rights, recognized in the Married Women's Property Act of 1870; and some improvement in divorced and separated women's child custody rights.

Second Wave Feminism-

The term 'Second Wave' was coined by Marsha Lear, and refers to the increase in feminist activity which occurred in America, Britain, and Europe from the late sixties onwards. In America, second wave feminism rose out of the Civil Rights and anti-war movements in which women, disillusioned with their second-class status even in the activist environment of student politics, began to band together to contend against discrimination. The second wave was concerned with reproductive rights and the fight against sexual and domestic violence.

The tactics employed by Second Wave Feminists varied from highly-published activism, such as the protest against the Miss America beauty contest in 1968, to the establishment of small consciousness-raising groups. However, it was obvious early on that the movement was not a unified one, with differences emerging between black feminism, lesbian feminism, liberal feminism, and social feminism.

Second Wave Feminism in Britain was similarly multiple in focus, although it was based more strongly in working-class socialism, as demonstrated by the strike of women workers at the Ford car plant for equal pay in 1968. The slogan 'the personal is political' sums up the way in which Second Wave Feminism did not just strive to extend the range of social opportunities open to women, but also, through intervention within the spheres of reproduction, sexuality and cultural representation, to change their domestic and private lives. Second Wave Feminism did not just make an impact upon western societies, but has also continued to inspire the struggle for women's rights across the world.

Third Wave Feminism -

Loosely defined movement starting around late 1990’s with texts like Manifesta, Listen Up, To Be Real, and Body Outlaws. Third Wave Feminism, the movement of feminism beyond the sexual revolution of the 1960's, is focused on young women and men perpetuating and improving upon those rights gained in the past. It is hard to define because the Third Wave is characterized by individualism and a lack of desire to conform to a definition. Third Wavers have never lived in a world without the women's movement.

The front page of the Third Wave Foundation web site explains that the organization strives to combat inequalities that [women] face as a result of [their] age, gender, race, sexual orientation, economic status or level of education. By empowering young women, Third Wave is building a lasting foundation for social activism around the country.

Wikipedia: Feminism

Wikipedia: Suffrage Movement

Wikipedia: Alice Paul

Wikipedia: Lucy Burns

Women's History Resources

Homework Reading (The Greenberg and Huttner essays are required, the rest are optional):

Alice Paul Center for Research on Women and Gender

Alice Paul Institute

Greenberg, Robbie (The Cinematographer) The Making of Iron Jawed Angels International Cinematographer's Guild Magazine (2004)

Huttner, Jan Lisa. Women Filmmakers and Women Audiences: Working Together to Improve Options for Everyone Monmouth College (2004)

Links to Books About the Women's Suffrage Movement

SAWNET (Lists and reviews of South Asian women's films and filmmakers)

Sisters in Cinema (A resource guide for and about African American Women filmmakers)

Time Classroom: History Behind Iron Jawed Angels

Votes for Women Timeline Henry Ford Museum

Wikipedia: Iron Jawed Angels

WITASWAN

Women and Film in Europe

Women in Cinema

Women Make Movies (A leading distributor of women's media)

OUTSIDE VIEWING OPTIONS:

Antonia’s Line (Marleen Gorris) 1995: 102 minutes

The Ballad of Little Jo (Maggie Greenwald) 1993: 121 minutes

Bend It Like Beckham (Gurinder Chadha) 2002: 112 minutes

Blackboards (Samira Makhmalbaf) 2000: 85 minutes

Blue Steel (Kathryn Bigelow) 1990: 102 minutes

Charlotte Gray (Gillian Armstrong) 2001: 121 minutes

Eve’s Bayou (Kasi Lemmons) 1997: 109 minutes

Foxfire (Annette Haywood-Carter) 1996: 102 minutes

Girlfight (Karyn Kusama) 2000: 110 minutes

Go Fish (Rose Troche) 1994: 84 minutes

Holy Smoke (Jane Campion) 1999: 115 minutes

I Shot Andy Warhol (Mary Harron) 1996: 103 minutes

The Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls in Love (Maria Maggenti) 1994: 93 minutes

Mi Vida Loca (Allison Anders) 1993: 92 minutes

Monsoon Wedding (Mira Nair) 2001: 114 minutes

Monster (Patty Jenkins) 2003: 109 minutes

North Country (Niki Caro) 2005: 126 minutes

Orlando (Sally Potter) 1992: 93 minutes

Real Women Have Curves (Patricia Cardoso) 2002: 90 minutes

A Thousand Acres (Jocelyn Moorehouse) 1997: 105 minutes

Whale Rider (Niki Caro) 2002: 101 minutes

Yentl (Barbara Streisand) 1983: 132 minutes

William Harris: Response to Crash

Whatever their wishes, critics of Paul Haggis’s CRASH (2005) have been drawn into polemical dispute. Of course this will happen when you’re dealing with racial issues. This melodramatic film deals with the issues of racial conflict in America, and appropriately chooses the city of Los Angeles for its “melting pot” setting. Its elegantly woven montage of stories has inspired many different opinions in reference to its importance on social value. The film cleverly exposes many prejudices that are all true to each particular “point of view” presented. Writers favorable to the film have defended it against those who claim it fails to reflect a proper balance with racial issues. This critically acclaimed “ground breaking” movie on racial misunderstandings has surprisingly provoked many negative reviews from the African-American community. Since this film is still rather new I believe it deserves an opened ended exploration, which new and unstudied works invite. I assume, at any rate, that the film will be seen and studied for a long time to come.

The director/writer of this film came up with the idea soon after he and his wife had been car-jacked. This event is reenacted in the movie and is used as a main hub and through-line for the narrative foundation.

What is attempted here is a beginning analysis of Crash, or perhaps several beginnings. I take an obvious point of departure: The indictment of the audience due to flat or round characters in the film-indeed only dealing with a few characters. This is, emphatically, just one approach to the film and not a privileged one. A consideration of these flat and round characters opens up other topics and leads to other analyses, but any approach does this.

To treat these characters as I wish to do it is necessary to say something in advance about the film’s dramaturgy (Art of writing or producing plays) /mise-en-scene, acting style, and use of language. These important topics deserve, needless to say, fuller treatment than my prefatory remarks provide.

The story starts with an automobile accident, which creates the films metaphor, which also leads to the stories first argument, or conflict. And then quickly cuts to a flashback on “yesterday” within minutes of the story, demanding that we reflect, immediately after we were just forced to put our judgment on the other distraught woman in the accident whose yelling. The cross cutting between the lives of major characters creates a nicely woven montage of seemingly unrelated scenarios that once connected by edits create an unusual non-Diegetic third meaning that is felt more then being explicit.

Real life experiences controls our opinions in a way much like the way narrative movie conventions controls our opinions. Of course, the art of movies is a reflection and interpretation on the human experience. Humans are quick to judge what’s laid out in front of them to be seen, or heard. It’s very normal behavior and primitive by nature. I believe the director uses the viewer’s primitive instincts that conjure up past memories of life experiences that demand that he/she, the viewer, connect to the voice of the film.

English novelist and literary theorist E.M. Forster said that there were two kinds of characters: round and flat. The films narrative forces of flat and round characters control the viewer by forcing quick impressions and early judgments on all the major characters. As the story progresses the characters make confessions (develop) about there lives while being led down an unforeseen path of redemption of some form. Afterwards, we find ourselves trying to figure out who were the antagonists and protagonists while feeling guilty for identify with any of the characters, and holding on to an overwhelming sense of confusion even after the resolve.

This feeling, or meaning, seems to be an overall dismissal of any indictment on anyone who might hold themselves or others responsible for racism. The film revolves around the idea that personal prejudices might stem as a communication accident more then something deliberate. Racism is dismissed by the fact that it happens by accident.

Apparently resolution in the film doesn’t seem justified by the black community and is what leads to the many negative reviews. Basically, once the argument is posed on who is the victim…and then a scenario is given that releases this mentioned “wrong doer” from being “indicted” on the charges. The movie leaves us with no one to blame except ourselves, and that’s only by accident…like most people in general, they want someone to blame for their perceived situation. This movie doesn’t give resolve by blaming.

The tagline used for this film is, “You think you know who you are. You have no idea.” And I believe this to be the number one factor in human beings racial conflict. You can’t expect two people to understand one another when they don’t even understand themselves. Individuals are generally full of self-interest, it’s a human characteristic, and it’s not going to change anytime soon.

I used to work in the music business and we had a rule of thumb about music listeners, “People like what they know; but don’t know what they like.” –It means that it’s hard for the average person to acquire any new idea, song, taste, etc… and actually form an opinion that is not completely subjected. I believe people naturally fear what they don’t know. Ironically, Spike Lee recently repeated something similar that Bradford Marsalis told him… “Black folks think they know what they like, but they only like what they know”. Also, the character Qui-Gon-Gin in Star Wars Episode-I said while teaching the young Anakin Skywalker, “Remember young padawan, your perception determines your reality”. What we think is true…usually isn’t the case, any of our perceptions, or truths, are based on misinterpretations.

Popular speaker/writer Stephen Covey says, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood” from his Principles of empathic communication. This movie starts out with a statement of possible understanding, then flashes back 24 hours (the need to reflect), from this point the characters are all trying to be understood, and finally by the end we notice that the balance comes because the characters finally start to try and understand first, then to be understood later. This enlightenment is at both the beginning and the end of the film.

Week 11: Confronting Stereotypes

Bamboozled (Spike Lee: 2000)

Homework Reading:

Bamboozled: The Official Website

Ebert, Roger. Bamboozled Chicago Sun-Times (October 6, 2000)

Fuchs, Cynthia. Interview with Spike Lee PopMatters (2000)

Harris, Erich Leon. The Demystification of Spike Lee MovieMaker Magazine (March 1997)

Harris, Robert. The Purpose and Method of Satire Virtual Salt (August 20, 1990; Last updated October 24, 2004)

Melodrama (The genre I placed Crash in, as opposed to the satire of Bamboozled)

O'Hehir, Andrew. B A M B O O Z L E D: Spike Lee's explosive, near-masterpiece media satire balances between brilliance and incoherence. Salon (October 6, 2000)

Patterson, Troy. Color Commentary: FX's Creepy New Race-Swap Show Slate (March 8, 2006)

Schoenherr, Steven. Bamboozled Film Notes (History Department of the University of San Diego: October 5, 2000)

Taubin, Amy. Fear of a Black Cinema Sight and Sound (August 2002)

Well, Ron. Bamboozled Film Threat (2000)

Austin Traut: Response to Event Horizon

Event Horizon

Independent film maker Paul Anderson has provided us with an entrance into true terror and violence with him film, Event Horizon. This futuristic science fiction movie incorporates many elements to give its frightful nature. Editing and cinematography are the main structures used to visualize the horror that’s seen in the movie; including some of the most disturbing sound ever heard in film. With these elements in tact, Anderson shows us what Hell truly is or could be and how it corrupts the human mind.

Throughout the entire film, editing is best seen through Anderson’s use of fade-ins, fade-outs, and flash images. What makes these shots horrific though, is the cinematography and sound incorporated into the scenes. Right from the beginning the viewer is placed inside the ghostly Event Horizon which is under a deep freeze. Slowly moving through the ship, one is able to notice all the debris floating around with no sign of life anywhere. With a gradual buildup of what can only be described as disturbed screaming and eerie music, the camera slowly focuses on a floating body, and then zooms in fast and close to an image of a mutilated face. The uses of flash images are also used early in the film when Weir (Sam Neill) has a dream of his deceased wife Claire. Flashing through different parts of the ship, the viewer becomes aware that Weir is alone in being awake during this time. Sound isn’t readily used until Claire startles him from behind and opens her eyes (which are missing). This intense buildup, along with flashes of Weir in his dream and in real life, is able to show what horror is already residing inside of his mind. These types of scenes continue through the movie, such as the scene with flashes of mutilated bodies spread across the walls of the main chamber, fade in towards the mutilated floating body, Justin having a seizure, Weir inside the circuit board room, Peters’ image of her own death right before it happens, and Miller getting a taste of what’s to come for himself from Weir, and his ship.

Another thing that Anderson did well was distinguishing what scenes were taking place in zero gravity, and ones that occurred in atmosphere. A scene in which the gravity drive sent out a shock wave, crippling the Leis and Clark was a good example. The camera shot would alternate from real-time to slow motion as the scene alternated from the Event Horizon (no gravity) to the Lewis and Clark (with gravity).

Probably the defining moments that gave this film an obvious horror depiction were the images of Hell, accompanied by the grotesque screaming and disturbing sounds; as well as the frightful recording of a previous crew member. Though this recording doesn’t necessarily aid the movie as far as editing goes, it still has a participation in expressing how horrible the idea of Hell really is before any images are shown in the film. Ultimately the scenes from Hell are done in with shaky camera motions and flash film photography. Accompanied by violent screams, these scenes are easily the scariest of the movie, and give its horrific quality.

Overall, this film is not one of the best in the editing column of film categories; though it does use certain techniques that make this film suspenseful, thriller-like, and of course horrific. Fade-ins, fade-outs, slow motion, and flash photography were all used dependently with cinematography and sound to create a horror story that stuck in my mind, if not in others. As one character put it, “Save yourself, from Hell.”

Ben Jacobs: Response to Fight Club

The cinematic thrill ride of Fight Club (David Fincher), from the newly popular psychological thriller aptly named “mind fucks” achieve most of their effectiveness through the editing process. James Haygood, the film editor for Fight Club, pulls out all the stops for maximum effect in this movie.

As the movie starts the camera moment is moving in reverse through a man’s head, and up the barrel of gun. The shot then comes into focus with Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) holding a pistol in the mouth of our narrator who remains nameless for most of the film, this tactic is use several times in the film as a diagnostic tool to explain certain things to the audience rather than just verbally expressing them through the narrator. For instance as the narrator tells us how the police think his apartment exploded by the camera following his voice to the stove as he says “the pilot light went out releasing gas that filled the apartment.” The camera then moves to the back of the refrigerator as he tells us “…then the refrigerator’s compressor clicked on,” we see the spark from the frig, then a long shot of the apartment is show as all the furniture goes up in flames and flies out his apartment window in a terrific slow motion explosion.

Another very interesting scene earlier in the movie is when the narrator is explaining to the audience all of his material possessions as they would appear in the magazine he ordered them from. The shot starts with a nearly empty room and as he describes each piece of furniture it appears in its specific place in the room with tiny white print of its description and price superimposed next to it. Actor Edward Norton (Narrator) was challenged here as his lines had to be read at just the right speed in order to synchronize the picture with sound.

A very spectacular scene in the film is the scene when the narrator is getting his chemical burn. Tyler puts lye on some saliva on the back of the narrator’s hand and it begins to burn him. He then tries to use meditation to take the pain away, then as he closes his eyes we see a clip no more than a second long of a peaceful green forest with birds chirping, but Tyler slaps him to bring him back. The Narrator then says that is trying not to think of the words searing or flesh. As he says the word searing, another very short clip is inserted of flames burning, and as he says the word flesh, a clip of a dictionary page turned to the word flesh is shown, and then we are taken back to the scene with the narrator. This rapid fire of short clips gives the impression of panic and the intensity of the pain the narrator is feeling.

In the fight scene between the Narrator and Angelface (Jared Leto) an editing technique is used as the Narrator is brutally beating Angelface rather than show the actual beating, the surrounding crowd is shown. By showing the reaction shots of the crowd we can see the true horror and brutality they are watching. We also realize that they are in disbelief that the creator of the rules would break one of them. After all the shots of the crowd and the upward facing shot of the Narrator beating Angelface, only then do we see the carnage of the beating. Angelface no longer has the face of an angel an the narrator says a line that tops of this scene, “…I felt like destroying something beautiful.”

A very unique scene that I don’t think has ever done before is the “sport fucking” scene. It has Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) astride Tyler, and this is a freeze frame while the sound continues, but rather than staying in one position it begins to revolve around her while she stays is the same freeze position, so that it becomes a 3-Deminsional freeze frame. It is also out of focus so the audiences knows what is happening in the scene but aren’t quite sure about the surroundings of Marla.

Toward the end of the movie as the Narrator is chasing after Tyler, the editor uses several jump cuts from one city to the next or one airport to the next. This is designed to speed up the narration of the scene to show the character going the many cities in about two minutes time. We also can feel the Narrators chaotic desperation in his quest to find Tyler, who has vanished.

P.S. I was very careful not to spoil the main part of the movie because I don’t believe this should be done in any circumstance and I also what anyone who hasn’t see this movie to go see it because it is Terrifically Magnificent for its genre.

Patrick Camp: Response to The Passion

A celebrity thanks god for winning an Oscar and everyone applauds, why wouldn't they. I mean can't, in all honesty, god be anything you want.

God could be a giant over bearing force in the sky, a menagerie of 33 million beings, or even a small rock in your front yard. Most of society have no problem with mentioning "god".

However, mention an obscure carpenter's name who was born around 5 or 6 B.C. and you've just become narrow minded, pushy and religious. This man's name was Yeshua in the Hebrew tongue in our own, Jesus.

I remember the events surrounding The Passion of the Christ, a very controversial film by Mel Gibson centering on the last few hours of Jesus' life. I was working at a Regal Entertainment Group at the time.

One of my jobs the night before Passion was released was security for a couple of churches who rented out theaters for a special screening of the film.

The main reason I can remember this film so much is not the vast number of people who kept coming to see it, nor was it those who left the theater in tears, but the stir the movie caused from it's release onwards.

Something that the main stream American audience is not accustomed to is hearing a foreign dialogue in a movie and having the read subtitles.

Mr. Gibson was going to solve half of this issue by not putting the dialogue in English, but opting to not have any subtitles what so ever.

His plan was to let the actor's performance speak for itself. He changed his mind shortly after a pre-screening, but still kept the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic dialogue. This was an incredible move one Mr. Gibson's part. I personally have seen many movies on the life of Jesus, however, this one stood out hugely in it's dialogue.

Hearing the actors speak my own language was, I confess, easier and let me concentrate more on the visuals off the back. But it still lacked something and felt like a movie, not an experience. The Passion was an experience, hearing the actual words that would've been spoken at that time really brought me into the movie. I became a part of it's world.

The characters (though once living) came to life on screen. And, after many viewings I was able to concentrate more on the visuals.

A visual aspect that did cause even more controversy was the graphic nature of the Passion. The film begins with Jesus praying in the garden of Gethsemane, literally sweating blood. But the two scenes that drove this nation almost in half were the scourging and the crucifixion scenes. Gibson researched the art of Roman torture and execution as have I (though not as much as the former) and his portrayal of Christ's torture and death where, if anything, played down a little.

The Roman's perfected torture and means of execution, and it was well documented that many who were slated for the cross did not make it past the scourging (if they were to be scourged, for some weren?t). I say this because many people complained about how graphic Gibson's portrayal was. Remember, he wanted to make an accurate portrayal of Christ's last hours. This caused so much trouble that Gibson lost all financial contributors and had to finance the movie himself. Yet
despite perseverance he made it.

Reading about Roman torture techniques is one thing, but actually seeing it re-created in a film something else entirely. Many called Passion a "snuff" film for doing this, while many others had their faith deepened from witnessing what actually would've happened. From a personal perspective actually seeing those events portray really brought the film to life even more.

Speaking of deeper faith, though, many of the actors involved who were not Christian accepted the faith after witnessing many supernatural events on set.

The only thing I can say in closing is that I find it interesting that many would ban a movie like The Passion of the Christ and see no problem with allowing young children to be exposed to guns, sex, violence, and horribly foul language. I guess there was something worse in their minds about that film.

Writing About Film, Pt. 2

Film has been called "the most hybrid of art forms" at least in part because it is simultaneously a medium of time and space. Many of the terms and ways of thinking that you use in writing about literature, however, can apply as well to writing about film.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it is possible, try to see the film you will be analyzing more than once, preferably on a VCR that will allow you to freeze individual frames. If you can only view the film in a theater, prepare for the experience by thinking about some of the points listed below; immediately after watching the movie, take notes on as many details as you can remember.

As in writing about literature, generate a manageable topic (one that is not too broad), considering perhaps what is most striking, unusual or effective about the film. Analyze key sequences as they apply to your thesis, developing and supporting an argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some Questions to Consider When Writing About Film

What is the relationship between the film and its title? Is the title ironic? Does it provide a clue to the "meaning" of the film?

How is the plot constructed? Is it based on causality, or is it episodic? Can you detect a pattern of repetition or contrast? Is there a vividly marked turning point or climax?

What is the relation between story-time and discourse (film)-time? Are the events presented chronologically? What functions do any flashbacks or foreshadowings fulfill? How does the time sequence contribute to mood (suspenseful, satiric, etc.)?

Do the main characters develop during the course of the film? What are their traits and how are they conveyed? (You might look at names, speech, actions, costumes, makeup and narration.) Is behavior motivated, consistent? Are the characters "realistic" or caricatured?

What is the function of the setting and decor (location, sets, props, costumes)? How do they contribute to the mood of the film?

How do the point of view (omniscient, limited, reliable, consistent) and the cinematic/visual style complement each other?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cinematic Elements to "Read" in a Film

Camera movement (tracking, panning), camera angle, camera distance (far shot, medium shot, closeup).

"Photography" (lenses, deep focus, filters, film speed, intentional under- or over- exposure).

Lighting (artificial or natural, intensity, direction).

Framing/composition (shape of objects in the shot and their relation to each other and to the frame). Is emotional distance between characters expressed through composition?

Sound track (voice-over, noise, music).

Editing/montage (length of shots, rhythm, relationship of one shot to the next).

Transitions (dissolve, fade in/out, iris in/out, wipe).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just as a screenplay goes through several rewrites, the draft of your essay needs to go through several revisions. What editing is to film, revising is to writing. Remember that Charlie Chaplin's shooting ratio was 100:1; in other words, in the edited versions of his films, he used only one per cent of the footage he had shot.
(Much of the above information adapted from The Elements of Writing about Literature and Film by McMahan, Funk, and Day.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Useful Sources on Film and Writing
Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1978.

Corrigan, Timothy. A Short Guide to Writing about Film. Glenview: Scott, Foresman, 1989.

Jorgens, J. Jack. Shakespeare on Film. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1977.

Kawin, Bruce F. How Movies Work. New York: Macmillan, 1987.

McMahan, Elizabeth, Robert Funk and Susan Day. The Elements of Writing about Literature and Film. New York: Macmillan, 1988.

Mast, Gerald. Film Cinema Movie. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1977.

Mast, Gerald, and Marshall Cohen, eds. Film Theory and Criticism. New York: Oxford UP, 1985.

Mandy Margolen: Response to Crash

What is a racist? I thought I knew what the definition of a racist was before I watched this movie. I also thought I could recognize what racism was because I have always correlated racism with hate. After seeing Paul Haggis’s film Crash, I have had many conversation with friends, read many articles and reviews, and watched one eye-opening episode of Oprah and at the end of the day, there are two things that are constant when it comes to racism: ignorance and fear. Paul Haggis’s film brings to light many taboo topics that our country faces in a 24-hour snapshot of a group of strangers that all live in L.A. More often than not, when racism is discussed in schools or in casual conversations, it is a topic that people relate to in the "black" and "white". Haggis’s film recognizes that the United States is a melting pot of cultures and links together many scenarios that involve inter-racial and intra-racial issues.

There are several elements in this film that aided Haggis in creating a unique film that stretches beyond the 113 minutes seen on screen. The characterization of each role felt real because each character had faults, but they also had some redeeming qualities about them. Haggis also used minimal sound, which for me aided in the seriousness of the film’s subject matter. He also started the film almost at the end, which drew me into the film. I wanted to know what had evolved to bring the story to that particular point. But the most fascinating element of the film was the "crashes" that linked people (story lines) together and the profounding knowledge that we have a direct effect on the lives of people we may never even know.

In the movie Crash, Haggis takes us on a self-evaluating adventure through the lives of some very diverse characters. The characters "crash" into each other making an impact that alters them, some in a good way and some in a bad way. The close-ups Haggis uses in the film allow you to actually feel the wheels working in the minds of the characters. Though all the characters had their own "crash" moments, some moments had a greater impact on me than others. There were events that transpired that illustrated for me that racism is fostered by ignorance and fear.

When Anthony (Ludacris) attempts to carjack Cameron’s (Terrence Howard) SUV, they are involved in an altercation with the police in which Cameron basically is taking the heat for what Anthony had done. When Cameron gets back in the SUV he looks at Anthony and says, "You embarrass me, you embarrass yourself." In that moment you see in Anthony’s face that Cameron is right. Anthony not only hears the words he feels the words. This was a prime illustration in that what we do can have a negative impact on others of our own race and cause people to judge a race by the actions of an individual in that race. In the events that involve Sgt. Ryan (Matt Dillon) and Christine (Thandie Newton), you are disgusted by Ryan’s behavior when he sexually assaults her in an anything but routine traffic stop. The assault really had nothing to do with her except that it was being done to her, his frustrations was with the HMO lady in regards to his father. He needed to feel like he had some power left. For some reason we think we have to push someone else down to raise ourselves to where we want to be. Later on in the film we see Sgt. Ryan almost redeem himself when he saves Christine from her overturned car that is about to be engulfed in flames. Without any hesitation at all he saves her almost at the expensive of his own life. Showing again that he had nothing against her personally except for what she represented to him at a particular moment in time. When she looks back at him as she is being walked to safety by other cops, you see some amount of forgiveness on her face. Maybe she saw to how she took her own aggression out on someone that had nothing to do with her except being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Another great example of the human race was placed in the character of Jean, played by Sandra Bullock. Here is a woman carjacked by members of one race and then having her locks replaced by a member of another race. Anger consumes this character. Should she be angry with Anthony and his friend for jacking her car? Hell yes. But her anger surpasses all that when she then stereotypes the locksmith for his Latino heritage and his tattoos and belittles her Latino caregiver for dishes in the washer. Jean is angry at everyone, at the world. And if the world were all white, it wouldn’t affect her at all. She would still harbor an incredible amount of anger. When Jean falls down the steps and her "friend of 10 years" can’t come help her she turns to the only person who can help her, her caregiver. Isn’t it ironic that within loneliness we see the raw truth about ourselves?

Paul Haggis’s Crash is one of the most thought provoking movies I have ever seen in that it has generated so much conversation and enlightenment on a subject that is usually avoided. You have to commend anyone who takes a sensitive subject like race and racism and makes it everyone’s problem. We all have racist tendencies when it comes to those who are different than us and if we can’t acknowledge that, we will never be able to embrace each other for our differences and our similarities. People generally fear what is different to them and our ignorance of other races and cultures make us vulnerable to those fears. Crash demands you to examine yourself, your beliefs, your actions, and most of all leads you to think about making some changes on how we treat each other. You do not have to know someone to have a negative impact on his or her life. You also do not have to know someone to have a positive impact on his or her life.

Elizabeth Givens: Response to Crash

The movie Crash was so overwhelmed with racial slurs and discrimination. It was almost too much to take, but then again so is the reality of the truth behind it. Even though this is just a movie, it is also a harsh truth of what really is today. The beginning credits are dark and blurred and the film begins the day before the beginning. It opens to the scene of a car accident where we see that the victims are attacking each other with stereotypical remarks. The Spanish detective is mocking the Asian woman’s speech and goes on to bash her ethnicity. It’s night time and the shots are dark, filled with rare lighting which creates a dark mood. This sets the mood for the entire film.

The film introduces many different characters of different cultures, but they are similar in the fact that they are all affected by racism. These characters are a Spanish detective and an African American detective, a Persian store owner and his family, two Caucasian cops, a Caucasian district attorney and his wife, two African American “thugs” that tend to steal everything, a Mexican locksmith, an Asian civilian, and an African American movie star and his vulnerable wife.

The dialogue in the film is of all kinds, considering that the characters are all of different cultures. The dialogue is direct. The characters are either talking about racism or they are partaking in racial slurring. The characters talk about themselves as being victims of racism and how they often lose their dignity because of it.

The film is about racism and all the affects that it holds on everyone. In one scene, a white cop discriminates two black civilians, while molesting the wife while he is “searching” her for weapons. In another scene, two African American males hold up a white couple, being the district attorney and his wife, because they seemed to be “scared” of them and they steal their car. Back at home, the police are searching for the car, and the wife demands to her husband that she wants the locks to be changed again because the locksmith appears to be a “Mexican gang member”.

In the film, people are often mistaken for being of a different ethnicity than what they really are. There is a consistency of racial misplacement, which only enrages some people take to on revenge. The Spanish detective is mistaken for being Mexican, and the Persian store owner is mistaken for being an “Arabian“. The racism is everywhere, on the streets, at home, at work, etc, and hate crimes are being committed everywhere.

The movie takes a turn, and there’s a sort of Karma happening. Bad things are happening to the racists individuals and they appear to start learning there lesson. The Caucasian police officer saves the African American that he had molested from a burning car. And then the movie star husband realizes that he can’t have his dignity taken away and he calls home to tell his wife that he loves her after the argument that they had previously had. The District attorney’s wife falls down the stairs and finds that only her Mexican housekeeper is the only one there for her. The Persian goes after the Spanish locksmith thinking that he is the reason for his store being broken into. He goes to the locksmith’s home with a gun and tries to shoot him, but his daughter runs out and jumps into her father’s arms right when the Persian man pulls the trigger. After thinking that he has killed a little girl, he panics, and then they both realize that the bullet never touched them. Back at the store, he confesses to his daughter that he was saved by an angel, and the daughter then realizes that the bullets that they had bought were blanks.

Then comes the other Caucasian cop, who knows that he is not a racist. He pursues the African American movie star that is on a chase from the police, and when he gets to him, he lets him go with a warning, because he feels guilty for what his partner had done a few nights before. On the way home from work that night, the cop picks up one of the “thugs” and offers him a ride home. The guy whom he had picked up was laughing because the same Saint that appeared on the officer’s dashboard is the same Saint that he carries in his pocket, and when he reaches into his pocket to show him, the officer thinks that he is pulling out his gun. The police officer then shoots the guy and then realizes that he was pulling out the Saint figurine, and that he had committed a hate crime.

The other “thug” is shown riding the city bus, in which he had previously looked down upon because he believed that the windows were so large so that everyone could see the less fortunate that are forced to ride it. He stops the bus to get out and steal the van of a Cambodian man whom he had run over while stealing the district attorney’s car the night before. He takes the van to his buddy at the body shop only to find that there were a few Cambodian families locked in the back of the van. The guy at the body shop offers him $500 for the families and the van, but he refuses and takes them to what appears to be some sort of Cambodian neighborhood and lets them out. He finally does something good. This is where the film ends and we see that these individuals are finally figuring out who they really are and what they are capable of.

The cinematography is amazingly accurate in portraying the acting as well as the underlined message of how racism should be stopped. There are a lot of jump cuts, but they are well put together and make it easy to follow the different storylines. All the shots are in clear focus, and contain that “shaky” feel that makes it seem so real. A lot of the shots are done during the nighttime, in which the lighting creates this dramatic sense. I noticed that the use of chiaroscuro was prominent in these shots where there is a lot of light and dark.

In some of the scenes, the creepy beats, soulful music, and cultural music also add to the dramatic feel of the film. Other sounds included the effects of people punching, guns firing, and cars colliding. Some of these scenes were so powerful and dramatic themselves, that I did not even notice any background noise; while in other scenes, the music seemed imperative to the film and the mood.

The film in itself is a racial crash.

Aimee Hayden Keller: Response to Crash

Paul Haggis’s 2005 film “Crash” bravely tackles a theme of race and bigotry in post 9/11 Los Angeles. As sensitive of an issue racial intolerance remains in the United States following the heated racial discrimination of Arabic peoples in the United States surrounding the terrorist attacks in the nation just four years earlier, Haggis’ film dares to confront ugly bigotry before an emotionally volatile audience. Haggis uses the motif of a “crash” seen literally in several vehicle collisions, as well as various social interactions between characters of opposing races to depict the often negative and hurtful social clashes among various races and ethnicities present in the United States.

Haggis offers a number of light weight examples of racial intolerance, such as a female that mocks an Asian woman who mispronounces “r” phonemes for “l” sounds in her speech, such as in her pronunciation of the word “brakes” for “blakes.” So too, in the last scene of the film, a black woman criticizes a Chinese man, yelling at him that he needs to speak “American”. Haggis also provides a great many examples of racial discrimination and hatred that greatly confronts the audience, forcing viewers to squirm in their seats and questions their own subconscious prejudices and discriminatory views. One such example is when two black characters acknowledge how they are looked upon by white people as dangerous or untrustworthy simply because of their skin color, identified through subtle interactions such as when a white woman intentionally clings to her husband’s arm in passing the two black men. Another instance of racial discrimination enacted by a character of white race upon a minority is when a white female pays to have her locks professionally changed, and then insists on having the same locks changed again the next morning because she judges the appearance of the Latino male locksmith to be dangerous and untrustworthy with a copy of her new house key.

Interestingly, Haggis depicts each character at different points in his film as both a scornful bigot as well as a hero seeking to level the playing field of racial inequality. An Iranian man is depicted at the beginning of the film being harshly discriminated against and insulted by a salesmen for not speaking fluent English and is accused of being an Arabic terrorists. Such discrimination is also later exhibited toward this man when his own small shop is burglarized and spray-painted with racially insulting graffiti. After playing the victim of racial discrimination through much of the film, the Iranian man eventually elicits violence towards the Latino locksmith character in the film, believing possibly through his own prejudice of appearance that the Latino man broke into his store and stole his money. It may also be interpreted that through the discrimination the Iranian man faced in being disrespected and cheated by other businessmen, his adopted belief that everyone was out to cheat and disrespect him influenced him to suspect foul play from the Latino locksmith and lash out violently at him. Another character is depicted as experiencing a transformation in the film from being a racist cop to a selfless hero who puts his life on the line to save an African American woman. What makes his contrast of actions so interesting is that he initially demeans and then later acts as a hero to the same African American woman. As an antagonist, the cop was initially cast pulling over the vehicle of an African American couple without cause and proceeded to humiliate and browbeat the couple by patting them down for weapons. Through this condescending act, the cop added further torment by purposely slipping his hands inside the top of the woman’s dress to palm her breasts and up underneath her dress to touch and further violate her, all while the African American husband was forced to watch and not act out against such a terrorizing act for fear of being arrested. Throughout the movie the white cop displays additional prejudice and rude behavior towards black people, but it is not until near the end of the film does the man reencounter the black woman that he so horribly mistreated. In being called out on the job to aid victims of a car accident, he found this woman to the point of near suffocation strapped into her badly wrecked car. When he went to unbuckle her seatbelt to help her out of her vehicle that was in danger of exploding, the woman recognized who he was and out of her traumatic experience that he was responsible for, she screamed for her life for him to get away from her and to not touch her. There was a great look of shock in his eyes and for the first time he realized what a horrible prejudice he had acted upon. Because of his cruel act, he had lost the trust of the civilian he was trying to save and created for himself a very difficult situation in trying to rescue the woman before the eventual explosion of the car could take both of their lives. After convincing the woman that he wasn’t going to hurt her, did pull her out of the car in the nick of time. As the woman was helped towards a medic, the cop continued to stare out at her as she walked away, in shock at the unraveling of events, and understanding the full consequence of his prejudice towards black people and seemed to experience remorse for his cruel actions only a day earlier towards that woman.

Ultimately, through these crashes of social exchanges between people of different races, Haggis was attempting to point out the latent fears and prejudices between various races among the country, possibly to point out how such prejudices arise out of misunderstandings between races and a fear of that with which we are less familiar. Maybe Haggis sought to bring to the attention of his audience the possibility that like his characters, we too may find ourselves playing out the roles of bigot or activist of equality through the different “crashes” of races that we experience in our lives. This film should rouse the generation of the future to acknowledge the racism that separates out country and to stamp out the latent prejudices that lie within us all if we hope to flourish in one of the most racially and culturally diverse countries in the world.

Austin Traut: Response to Full Metal Jacket

Many consider this film to be the finest of the Stanley Kubrick collection. Split into two parts, the viewer is witnessed to the harshness of boot camp, and the brutal reality of war. Throughout the movie, Kubrick utilizes methods of “dark comedy” in the dialogue of many characters as way for the audience to sympathize with them more. Lee Ermey’s character provides some brilliant dual emotional effects on the audience by having both a strong sense of brutality to the recruits, as well as providing rather distasteful comedic lines. The comic relief of the first half from the drill sergeant and the marching songs fades away when the recruits are put into the war scene of Vietnam.

Private Pyle becomes the focal point in the first half of the movie. An overweight recruit who can’t seem to do anything right becomes very sympathetic to the audience. This half displays the use of Kubrick’s dark comedy with the drill instructors uncanny use of dialogue. "Are you quitting on me? Well, are you? Then quit, you slimy fucking walrus-looking piece of shit. Get the fuck off of my obstacle. Get the fuck down off of my obstacle. Now. Move it. I'm going to rip your balls off, so you cannot contaminate the rest of the world. I will motivate you, Private Pyle, if it short-dicks every cannibal on the Congo.” These types of phrases are used throughout the first half and are easily seen as providing harsh motivation and comedic inferences. Reality of the dehumanizing effect boot camp has on recruits can be seen when Private Pyle develops an “intimate” relationship with his rifle. Named Charlene, it becomes the only thing he can think about. Bitterness and human indecency inevitably lead to Pyle’s end. With a sinister smile of evil, which is only characteristic Kubrick style films, is shown on the private’s face as he’s loading his rifle with, “7.62 Full Metal Jacket.” After killing the drill sergeant and himself, any comedic moment in the film is dissolved away and the audience becomes very sympathetic to the brutal truth of warfare. This effect on the audience only increases in magnitude with the second half of the film staged in Vietnam.

The Vietnam War is unanimously considered the most brutal war in history. The only thing that seems to be on anyone’s mind at one time is how many Vietnamese can I kill? The brutality of the marines is best witnessed during the scene inside the helicopter with a marine shooting any Vietnamese person he sees, rather it be men, women, or children. The focus during this part of the movie is set on Joker, who is a field correspondent for Stars and Stripes. He makes attempts of retaining his humanity by keeping an optimistic viewpoint and a comedic mindset on the war as a whole. The dehumanizing effect of war inflicts him just as it has many other marines when his friends start to be killed off one by one. The sniper scene explicitly shows the harsh nature of war, as well as cultures. The marines see the Vietnamese as a type of ‘vermin’ that needs to be eradicated. Even from a standpoint on Vietnam’s side of the war, any type of sympathetic wartime values are disintegrated with the slow slaughter of two marines. Once the sniper has been taken out, the marines think of it as a prize kill (trophy-like), rather than viewing her as being a suffering human whom is also a woman. The thought of “mercy or murder” plays into Joker’s mind when he comes to the conclusion that this person shouldn’t be left to suffer. This scene culminates the overall theme of how dehumanizing war can really be. The comedic effect tries to be revived with the singing of the Mickey Mouse theme, but to no avail because the audience has already seen too much in the film.

Both satire and panegyric ideals can be readily identified in this film. The first half is seen as rather satirical in the character of Private Pyle. He was never able to conform to the boot camp situations because of his personal appearance and sympathetic mind. Being in a “world of shit”, Pyle did the only thing he could to free his mind from war… suicide. Animal Mother would be the best example of a panegyric character that is always covered head to toe in ammo and never fails to have a harsh mindset on warfare. “What do I think about the U.S. involvement in the war? We should win it.” His fearlessness and gung-ho persona gives him an appraisal for conforming to wartime. This film has been considered by many to be the greatest war movie ever made along side Apocalypse Now; and rightfully so with its dark comedy and brutal depictions of war on the mind and body.

Cheryl Rogers: Response to Capote

When I went to see Capote I had no clue what the film was about. It is embarrassing to admit, but I had no prior knowledge about the film or the central character Truman Capote. I had built up in my head that it was a mobster film; I had confused Capote with Al Capone. I thought I was going to see a fast paced shoot’em up type of film but was delightfully surprised to see that this film didn’t fit into that category. Instead the film was rather the opposite in that it was very subtle, very melodic yet extremely haunting. It’s one of those films you see and you think about for days afterwards. It’s a story about ambition, and the dark side of a man that was well known for being quite the opposite. Through Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s brilliant portrayal I was introduced to Truman Capote. I went in not knowing anything about Capote but throughout the film I wanted to know more. Not only did I want to know more about Capote but I also became interested in learning more about Perry Smith and the relationship that developed between the two of them. What was it that brought the two together?

I became infatuated by all the characters. There were so many different aspects of the story taking place; so many lives were affected by this one tragic event. There are several significant characters in the film but the relationship between Capote and Perry Smith; the two central characters are what drive the story. After watching the film I went home and researched Capote and Smith on the internet. I wasn’t and still am not completely clear on why Capote was so drawn to Smith. I found that Smith and Capote had similar backgrounds. Capote’s parents had divorced when he was four and he was sent to Alabama to live with his mother’s relatives. At age 9 he moved to New York to live with his mom and her second husband who eventually adopted Capote.

Smith lived through several forms of abuse. His father was never around and his mother was an alcoholic, he had a brother and a sister who both committed suicide. Smith lived most of his life in an orphanage. Smith’s first arrest took place when he was only 8 years old. I suppose that all the demons Smith had faced caused him to commit such a heinous crime. He was struggling throughout much of his life; he had no love, no emotional attachment to anyone. Capote too had demons that he was dealing with outside his public image. I think that through Smith he was forced to face these demons, forced to face himself. Capote tells Smith during one of the visits to the prison that they are really not that different, that he too was repeatedly abandoned as a child. He explained how his mom would lock him in a hotel room alone while she would leave and “take up with another man she had met.”

I was a little disappointed with certain parts of this film in particular when Capote went to visit Perry in jail and he started to talk about that night and what happened. He still never answered why. In Cold Blood was the title given to the book, which given Perry’s account of that night it appears to be exactly what it was, but I become confused when I think back to the part when Perry threw a fit when he found out the title of the book. It seemed at that point that there was a “reason,” some sort of motive behind their actions. And when he finally tells Capote about that night we see that the two men were in search of money. They had been told that the Clutter’s had $10,000 dollars, which they never found. They only ended up finding between $40-$50 dollars. When Smith gives his account of that night we see that he truly is a messed up individual who had searched for acceptance and fulfillment throughout his life but shamefully came face to face with his demons. He realized that he really was the kind of person that would kill a nice, gentle man and his family.

The film Capote is not about the two guys who committed these brutal murders, but about Truman, his life, the choices he made, and his involvement with these men, one of them in particular, Perry Smith, whom he became emotionally attached to. During the film Capote’s friend Harper Lee asked him if he had fallen in love with Smith, he says he doesn’t know how to answer that. Then he explains, what I feel is the whole point of the movie, “It’s as if Perry and I grew up in the same house, one day he stood up and went out the back door while I went out the front door.” He felt that he and Perry had come from the same background but Perry instead of making the right choices, chose to let his past get the better of him and eventually released the demons that plagued him for so long. While Capote chose to bury the demons deep down and chose to live his life vicariously through his facades.

Cheryl Rogers: Response to Crash

I saw Crash the week before it was released for rental. I work at a video rental store; the owner likes for us to view the films so we can answer any questions the customer may have about them. The repetitive question that they always want to know is, “have you seen this movie, is it any good?” I wasn’t sure how to answer that question when they asked about Crash. I was afraid to comment; race is a serious subject that many people don’t take lightly. But that is exactly what I told them; although very controversial and disturbing, I found Crash to be a remarkable film. I really enjoyed every aspect of the film. I almost feel guilty for taking such satisfaction in a film that is so dark, and so terribly sad. It’s one of those films that will haunt you for days after; one that urges you to really think. I started to pay more attention to things happening around me. Things that I chose to ignore before. I believe that was the intent of the director. He wanted people to take a step back and examine their own lives, how they deal with race.

To my astonishment it was nominated for a best picture Oscar. I was much more taken a back when it won. Although it was well deserved, it broke the traditional pattern that seemed to take place in the Oscars. I think much of America thought the obvious winner was Brokeback Mountain, given all the attention that the film was getting from the critics. For once it seems that the Academy got it right.

I felt ashamed after watching it because unfortunately the world is full of racism. Whether we realize it or not we all encounter some form of racial discrimination during our everyday lives. It really made me think. It caused me to evaluate myself, and the stereotypes that I have had against people that aren’t like me. I started to think about things that I myself have done that could be construed as a form of racism. When you commit an act, or throw a racial slur, you don’t think about the affect that it may have on the individual. Crash gives you a glimpse into several different people with various racial, ethnic and economic backgrounds and shows you how they interact with one another. We see the ramifications of racism on these eight individuals.

The film did a superb job portraying the stereotypes that have been placed on people from different races. Society has conditioned us on how we are to think about people of a different race. I have actually known a few people who resemble Anthony’s character; who walk around talking about how wrong the world has done him as a black man in a white society. I have to admit that some of the stories seemed a little over the top, but unfortunately these things do occur. Everyday someone gets killed due to the color of their skin or ethnic group that they belong to.

Race is a disturbing, poignant topic that many choose to ignore. L.A. is not the only place that it occurs. Racism takes place on every continent on Earth. We can pretend that we don’t see it, that it doesn’t happen but that doesn’t make it go away. Crash forces us to deal with the reality of race and its implications on society. Are we really so simple minded that we only see people for their outer appearance? Can our society ever learn to not pass judgment on others due to race, ethnicity, economic class or gender?

Kathy Archer: Response to Crash

Set in Los Angeles, California, winter and Christmas during the next twenty-four hours a couple of people will have their lives changed. Crash by Paul Haggis is a film that is challenging to the racial conflicts in America. This movie challenges everyone in the audience to question their own true prejudices. I can say with ease that this movie, I did not like. Any movie that is set around race and or racism really irritates me. The film is honest about racism, but it was not my cup of tea.

Paul directs this movie very well, and his characters are very well thought out. I wish that I could have connected more with these characters, but at times, the characters seemed forced. Case in point, when Terrence Howard (who played Cameron), told another black person to "act more black," seriously. In any black community and for that matter any black person talking to another black person would have used the “N” word to let that person know where he was coming from and to “check” the other black person. If Paul would have made Terrance more ethic, I might have gotten into his character. I understand that Terrance was playing a director, but being a high-class director, did not take away his blackness. Sandra Bullock (who plays Jean) to me was just a crazy rich white woman, who was in the closet about her racism, and that differs how from the real world? For me the best characters were Luda (who played Anthony), Larnez Tate (who played Peter), and Matt Dillion (who played Officer Ryan). They were the only true characters in the movie. Two car-jackers and a LAPD racist police officer, again how is that different from real life. The acting itself was very good by all of the actors. The movie lets all of its characters (which there are a lot-I did not even mention half of them) meet within the twenty-four hours for some intense but to me long scenes. Paul expands on each of the characters and gives each one a chance to change. Not every character takes the bait, but by the end of the film, they have had a life-changing event that has changed them. Paul has thought these characters out so well, that each of them have a “soul.” He gives them a human existence that shows emotions that of crying, laughing, fear, smiles, hugging, and kissing. This gave the film life. I did like the way that Paul shot the movie. With the close-ups on each of the characters, a person could feel that human existence and the intenseness that the character was going though.& nbsp;

Crash was a decent movie (I still do not like it). I have to say that to me anyone could have made this movie. A movie about a bunch of characters that are stubborn and ignorant. In today’s society, this movie shows the honest of racism. Everyone has some racial bone in their body, and if they say they do not, they are lying. Paul‘s film was a good effort to bring to the for front of racism. I am so tried of the stereotypes in America today, and Paul made sure that we saw most of them. The car-jackers being blac k, why did he not make one white and one black? “Why they got to be black folks?” Like white people never car-jack. This is a reason that racial films frustrate me so. I have yet to see a film on reverse racism or on racism period, that depicts what “really” is going on in America. Yes, blacks steal, but so does every race. When one is hit with hard times or just bad luck, one will do a lot to protect what is his. I do not know who said, “Never judge a book by its cover,” but it makes sense. Paul did a good job with that thought. Moreover, that thought I have to say made me think about my prejudices.

Director David Lynch's New Transcendental Meditation Schools

To those of you who signed up for enlightenment and peace,

Here are excerpts from some of the letters I’ve received from students we met on our college campus tours:

“I want peace in my life. I want control. I want to learn from my mistakes. I want to calm my life down. I am so ready to become myself. I want to rid myself of fear, and do the things that make me happy. I want to grow and live life. I am interested in Transcendental Meditation; I want to learn the correct method. My soul and creativity are in need. I appreciate what you are doing.”

“You say that you have a way to world peace. Whether or not I truly believe that, I want it too badly to pass up the opportunity.”

“Two of my friends practice Transcendental Meditation, and I see how positively it affects their lives. I can't help but want the same effects for myself: calm, a sense of peace with oneself, joy.”

“I do think that surface differences are a manifestation of a single underlying reality, and I feel a profound need to experience that reality—to tap into the source: my own, and that of all things. Transcendental Meditation, I believe, is the means to do so.”

“For a long time, I've sensed a deeper reality that I have yet to access. My gut tells me that TM holds many answers for me.”

“When you talked about your experience with meditation and how it has changed your life, I heard something that really interested me and seemed like it could help. I want to learn how to do Transcendental Meditation to improve my brain function, energy levels, anxiety levels, clarity, and overall outlook on life.”

“I have never questioned the benefits of meditation, and now, I want to unlock them for myself.”

It’s encouraging to see how many sincere seekers of wisdom and peace are out there. It’s my desire to bring the benefits of meditation to as many students as we can.

We are working to raise the money for more scholarships for students who visited us on our tour of campuses on the West Coast and who want to learn the Transcendental Meditation technique.

Who will be the first students to learn in each university? I think it should be decided on strong desire to start. If you would email me a letter telling me of your desire to begin diving within and experiencing that ocean of bliss consciousness, it would be very helpful. Please state what city and school you are writing from.

If you are able to start the Transcendental Meditation technique now without a scholarship I would encourage it — perhaps you are financially able to do so. Or if you’re not a student and not eligible for a scholarship but you want to learn Transcendental Meditation, you can take advantage of a new long-term, low-interest loan option that any TM teacher can tell you about.

Whether you require a scholarship or not, I would encourage you to contact a qualified teacher of Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation and attend a free introductory lecture to learn more about this powerful technique and to have your questions answered. If you haven’t already done so, you may also enjoy the online videocast of “Consciousness, Creativity and the Brain” on our Foundation website.

Meanwhile, we all at the David Lynch Foundation are still highly motivated to raise enough money to bring Transcendental Meditation to all of you.

I’ll write again soon.

All the best to all of you,

David