I found an old review I wrote back in high school of Modern Times. I used to write an essay for every single movie I saw back in high school, just for the fun of it. I kind of miss doing it honestly. But I don't know if I would have the time (or will power) to do it now.
I just love Chaplin. He truly is one of my greatest inspirations. I'd even go as far to say he's my hero (corny, I know). Over the last couple weeks, I've watched Modern Times two times (once over the break and once in a class), and each time I found something new I wanted to write about. So here's a throwback, I wrote a new essay on the movie, as inspired by my old high school review. I'm only posting this for posterity...I don't expect anyone to read it.
In the wake of a sound revolution in Hollywood, Charlie Chaplin was hard-pressed to drop his traditional silent act of the “little tramp”. From the character’s debut in the 1914 Keystone short Kid Auto Races at Venice up to The Great Dictator in 1940, Chaplin made biting satire and physical comedy a benchmark of his silent cinema. With there being no language barrier, Chaplin was seen across the world. So when sound came around, it’s easy to see why he was so hesitant to completely give himself over to making a full “talkie”. In making Modern Times, he even went so far as to film an entire scene with dialogue between characters only to decide he only wanted to make a partial talkie. By the film’s 1936 release, sound had been used in films for nearly a decade. Chaplin took a great risk in testing the relevancy of his silent persona. Later on in his career, well after Chaplin’s “little tramp” years, he said, “I was wrong to kill him. There was room for the Little Man in the atomic age. Modern Times ended up becoming one of Chaplin’s most beloved films.
The reason why Modern Times works so well is because the character of the tramp is such a timeless character. He easily fits into just about any time period of culture you set him in. The Tramp represents the oblivious bewilderment of an ever-changing society as well as those left in its unforgiving wake. Chaplin fine tunes this character as he sets him against an industrial man vs. machine society, radical political revolution, urban poverty, and other issues of the day. All this can be found wrapped in a light-hearted comedy. Chaplin always jumped on the opportunity to push serious issues of the day into a light where they could be laughed at and made manageable – this is his greatest accomplishment as a comedian and filmmaker.
Modern Times explores many social and technological changes and their effects on mankind. Many times in the film, we see characters reactions and behaviors towards this new foreign industrial society. Man is slowly becoming machine, and those who refuse to let this happen are usually in between jobs and living in poverty (the gamin). These psychological issues are often explored in Chaplin films. Chaplin dealt with psychological issues from a young age. In his teenage years, Chaplin’s mother suffered from mental illness and was in and out of mental hospitals. Chaplin explores similar issues in Modern Times. He takes on the idea of "bucking up". I think it would be safe to say that Chaplin would be of the belief that you can find humor or entertainment in just about any experience, whether it be good or bad. It's a very admirable notion set in a time when many were still living Great Depression-era lifestyles.
I find it fascinating how often we witness characters breaking down. No matter their role in the film, they are effected by this unforgiving man vs. machine society. The antagonist, a big burly man the Tramp worked with in the factory makes another appearance in the film when he and few other men break in to the department store the Tramp is working in. He breaks down crying claiming he is hungry, only looking for some food. The Gamin has moments of despair living in poverty throughout the film but has her big break down at the end after she and the Tramp have fled from the police. All throughout, Chaplin’s Tramp gives reassurance to the characters, and the audience. He leans over to her and says, “Buck up – never say die. We’ll get along.” She glances over at a grinning Chaplin and manages to pull out a smile from beneath the tears.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
So you say you want a revolution?
Watching Steven Soderbergh's two part 4 hour 8 minute epic is a brilliant portrait of a very flawed man. Che is more a romantic interpretation, yet it holds true to facts and events over the extensive "revolution" brought on by Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.
I think it goes without saying that his philosophy is very flawed and was destined to have him assassinated by his enemies. But what is so attractive about telling Che's story is his passion and firmness in his belief. Replace communism with any other political ideology and it would not have changed our view of Che. It's impossible not to root for him all throughout the film (even if we know the context). I found his charisma and zealousness inspiring, it's no wonder he recruited so many to his cause.
But his philosophy is his demise.
When asked if he believes in God, his responds that he "believes in mankind". His "faith in mankind" sounds inspiring but is a utopia that could never exist. He believes all mankind will adapt to his passion. And in most cases, they do. They are inspired, caught up in revolution, fighting against "injustices". But if the people are not with him, then he is basically nothing. After all, he believes the only way to bring about radical change in government policy is by force. This goes against everything Che preaches, this "faith in mankind". If his coup works, does he assume this new found power will never go to the head of another man in politics again? That is inevitable. Man will always find himself power hungry in that position. That's the way politics go. It's a vicious cycle.
The "peasants" who lived in the Bolivian countryside had no desire to stray from their meager lifestyles. They are so isolated from everything that they know not of the injustices Guevara speaks of. Che's message proves invalid and instead of creating a revolution in the heart of Latin America, he ran in circles away from Bolivia's prudent military forces.
Che realizes this as he speaks with a Bolivian soldier the night of his capture. The two converse very informally and it looks as if Che will be able to talk himself out of captivity. But the soldier eventually turns a back to his friendliness and follows orders to guard.
Faith in mankind can be fleeting at times.
I think our society vilifies him far too often. He was by no means a good person, but he had morals. He is known to have killed many men, most in battle and "traitors" to the cause. This is where most will point to when trying to defame him. But we have no room to talk. Our government kills innocent foreigners just about every day in Afghanistan. As a God-fearing democracy, we carry out just as many top secret assassinations as those "corrupt" political ideologies do. We must not also forget that Che's cause was very admirable at root. He surely went about it in all the wrong ways. But at heart he was a humanitarian. It's a shame he resorted to picking up a gun for his cause. That is where he went wrong.
I will say, I was very inspired by Che's message of helping the less fortunate. Sure he let the ideology go to his head. But the initial care he has for each new person he meets is stirring. He truly could have become a brilliant humanitarian if he had wanted to. You can see this side of Che in the 2004 film, The Motorcycle Diaries. Here is a young Che, uninfluenced by ideas of forceful revolution, a man of the people; believing that the road to change is through individuals. There is a peace that can be found once you accept this.
I want to do more for the individual.
Right here, right now, I am making a promise to myself:
I feel called to offer myself to others more often. I've never gotten too involved with local charities because I've had this view of helping less fortunate people worse off than those in the U.S. But there is still a lot of work, a lot of love to spread to the less fortunate locally. This semester I will set my sights more on "local".
I think it goes without saying that his philosophy is very flawed and was destined to have him assassinated by his enemies. But what is so attractive about telling Che's story is his passion and firmness in his belief. Replace communism with any other political ideology and it would not have changed our view of Che. It's impossible not to root for him all throughout the film (even if we know the context). I found his charisma and zealousness inspiring, it's no wonder he recruited so many to his cause.
But his philosophy is his demise.
When asked if he believes in God, his responds that he "believes in mankind". His "faith in mankind" sounds inspiring but is a utopia that could never exist. He believes all mankind will adapt to his passion. And in most cases, they do. They are inspired, caught up in revolution, fighting against "injustices". But if the people are not with him, then he is basically nothing. After all, he believes the only way to bring about radical change in government policy is by force. This goes against everything Che preaches, this "faith in mankind". If his coup works, does he assume this new found power will never go to the head of another man in politics again? That is inevitable. Man will always find himself power hungry in that position. That's the way politics go. It's a vicious cycle.
The "peasants" who lived in the Bolivian countryside had no desire to stray from their meager lifestyles. They are so isolated from everything that they know not of the injustices Guevara speaks of. Che's message proves invalid and instead of creating a revolution in the heart of Latin America, he ran in circles away from Bolivia's prudent military forces.
Che realizes this as he speaks with a Bolivian soldier the night of his capture. The two converse very informally and it looks as if Che will be able to talk himself out of captivity. But the soldier eventually turns a back to his friendliness and follows orders to guard.
Faith in mankind can be fleeting at times.
I think our society vilifies him far too often. He was by no means a good person, but he had morals. He is known to have killed many men, most in battle and "traitors" to the cause. This is where most will point to when trying to defame him. But we have no room to talk. Our government kills innocent foreigners just about every day in Afghanistan. As a God-fearing democracy, we carry out just as many top secret assassinations as those "corrupt" political ideologies do. We must not also forget that Che's cause was very admirable at root. He surely went about it in all the wrong ways. But at heart he was a humanitarian. It's a shame he resorted to picking up a gun for his cause. That is where he went wrong.
I will say, I was very inspired by Che's message of helping the less fortunate. Sure he let the ideology go to his head. But the initial care he has for each new person he meets is stirring. He truly could have become a brilliant humanitarian if he had wanted to. You can see this side of Che in the 2004 film, The Motorcycle Diaries. Here is a young Che, uninfluenced by ideas of forceful revolution, a man of the people; believing that the road to change is through individuals. There is a peace that can be found once you accept this.
I want to do more for the individual.
Right here, right now, I am making a promise to myself:
I feel called to offer myself to others more often. I've never gotten too involved with local charities because I've had this view of helping less fortunate people worse off than those in the U.S. But there is still a lot of work, a lot of love to spread to the less fortunate locally. This semester I will set my sights more on "local".
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Summer so Far...
Pulsing Bernard Hermann scores push the flow of words from my fingers. Writing a paper about Nietzschian trends in Alfred Hitchcock films has become much more vehement than I had anticipated.
I love this summer class. Waking up at 8am and sitting in a really uncomfortable chair for 3 hours is not my favorite aspect of the course. BUT I'm not complaining. The torrential downpour of Hitchcock I get during that class has been invigorating. Even outside of class I rewatch old favorites we don't have time to cover over the 3 weeks.
Uncle Charlie inches towards young Charlie, his secret about to burst from her naive lips. She knows too much. Uncle Charlie slowly turns around and walks back up the staircase, a threatening ferocity in his eyes as he turns around to see her still standing.
I slowly divert my eyes from the screen to notice a girl sitting on the opposite side of the room, her glance completely transfixed on this classic Hitchcock climax. As the music began to pulse she smiled with awe, utterly taken by the scene. My heart begins to beat faster and I let the scene take me as she has, the suspense pushing me towards the edge.
I notice these instances throughout the films we watch. The Hitchcock climax starts its slow descent. Grace Kelly breaks into the house of the suspect, Mr. Thorwald, to grab the evidence only to be met by the man himself. Jimmy Stewart, restricted to a wheelchair can only watch through the window as Thorwald violently grabs her and throws her across the room.
I see a man sitting in the front row, discontent tugging at the edges of his face. He winces when Thorwald begins to shake Kelly, there is nothing he can do either but watch helplessly.
I love this.
Never have I noticed more audience identification with whats transpiring on screen than I have in a room full of people watching a Hitchcock film.
Film is so beautiful. Everything about it. Its power to control emotions, persuade, among other human qualities is so sincere.
It helps when you have a master like Hitchcock at the reigns too.
I love this summer class. Waking up at 8am and sitting in a really uncomfortable chair for 3 hours is not my favorite aspect of the course. BUT I'm not complaining. The torrential downpour of Hitchcock I get during that class has been invigorating. Even outside of class I rewatch old favorites we don't have time to cover over the 3 weeks.
Uncle Charlie inches towards young Charlie, his secret about to burst from her naive lips. She knows too much. Uncle Charlie slowly turns around and walks back up the staircase, a threatening ferocity in his eyes as he turns around to see her still standing.
I slowly divert my eyes from the screen to notice a girl sitting on the opposite side of the room, her glance completely transfixed on this classic Hitchcock climax. As the music began to pulse she smiled with awe, utterly taken by the scene. My heart begins to beat faster and I let the scene take me as she has, the suspense pushing me towards the edge.
I notice these instances throughout the films we watch. The Hitchcock climax starts its slow descent. Grace Kelly breaks into the house of the suspect, Mr. Thorwald, to grab the evidence only to be met by the man himself. Jimmy Stewart, restricted to a wheelchair can only watch through the window as Thorwald violently grabs her and throws her across the room.
I see a man sitting in the front row, discontent tugging at the edges of his face. He winces when Thorwald begins to shake Kelly, there is nothing he can do either but watch helplessly.
I love this.
Never have I noticed more audience identification with whats transpiring on screen than I have in a room full of people watching a Hitchcock film.
Film is so beautiful. Everything about it. Its power to control emotions, persuade, among other human qualities is so sincere.
It helps when you have a master like Hitchcock at the reigns too.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Film and Frost/Nixon
I have about 70+ pages of movie reviews that I have written over the past year and a half. I haven't sat down to write one in about 6 months. I guess I just kept putting it off as more and more movies piled up on the "to review" list. I also lost a lot of faith in myself as a writer. But I'd like to try again. I miss doing it. And I think it really made me a stronger writer in the long run.
I saw Frost/Nixon tonight. I had been wanting to see it since I'd heard about it but wasn't really expecting all that much. I thought it would be good. But what I wasn't ready for was the suspense-ridden character piece I ended up seeing. True, the film could be filed in with all of the other historic dramas about politics, but at the core, Frost/Nixon is a story of two unlikely people crossing paths and the impression they leave on one another. The two people are Richard M. Nixon and British TV personality, David Frost. Nixon and Frost are brought together by an interview; Frost hoping to expose Nixon's secrets while relaunching his TV career and Nixon trying to uphold whats left of his pubic image and ego. When in the same room, the two clash. Nixon has the upper hand in the beginning of the interviews, huffing out formulated sentence after formulated sentence, all Frost can do it sit back and anxiously try to throw in questions that will provoke Nixon into shedding light on Watergate.
Frank Langella is incredible as Nixon, completely inhabiting his character. He doesn't look much like Nixon but the caliber of his acting forces the audience to look past that. He turns the character of Nixon into a knifing, pathetic, yet human representation. It's a shame he's up for an Oscar the same year Sean Penn gave the performance of his career in "Milk", otherwise he would be locked in for Best Actor. Michael Sheen is just as impressive. His style of acting is the complete opposite of Langella's. It's a subtle realism that you don't appreciate until the credits role.
Ron Howard has always been ripped apart by critics for being too formulaic in his direction. I've always had a soft spot for him because of his directing credit on classics such as Cinderella Man and Apollo 13. But his films still leave you wanting more. He's not much of a risk taker. He appeases all of these claims with Frost/Nixon. The direction is actually one of the films greatest strengths. Fluid tracking shots and extreme depth of focus shots give scenes a crisp superficial feel. But then when it comes to scenes when Frost or Nixon are alone, static low lit shots effectively create a feeling of isolation. He handles the way the interview is shot masterfully, resorting to fast cuts and more DOF shots.
The film does have its weaknesses. The beginning is a bit slow, and more of Howards formulaic side kicks in. But once the interviews start, your stomach is in knots. It's incredible the amount of suspense the scenes carry.
The 2008 movie season has really been a year of historical dramas and stage plays. Films like Doubt and Frost/Nixon which were both originally on stage, have proven that many stage plays translate well to cinema-not the case for Mamma Mia which is bad both on stage and as a movie. Both Doubt and Frost/Nixon are also among the many historical dramas released this season; Milk, The Reader, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Valkyrie, Revolutionary Road, The Changeling, among many others.
It's a good year for movies.
I saw Frost/Nixon tonight. I had been wanting to see it since I'd heard about it but wasn't really expecting all that much. I thought it would be good. But what I wasn't ready for was the suspense-ridden character piece I ended up seeing. True, the film could be filed in with all of the other historic dramas about politics, but at the core, Frost/Nixon is a story of two unlikely people crossing paths and the impression they leave on one another. The two people are Richard M. Nixon and British TV personality, David Frost. Nixon and Frost are brought together by an interview; Frost hoping to expose Nixon's secrets while relaunching his TV career and Nixon trying to uphold whats left of his pubic image and ego. When in the same room, the two clash. Nixon has the upper hand in the beginning of the interviews, huffing out formulated sentence after formulated sentence, all Frost can do it sit back and anxiously try to throw in questions that will provoke Nixon into shedding light on Watergate.
Frank Langella is incredible as Nixon, completely inhabiting his character. He doesn't look much like Nixon but the caliber of his acting forces the audience to look past that. He turns the character of Nixon into a knifing, pathetic, yet human representation. It's a shame he's up for an Oscar the same year Sean Penn gave the performance of his career in "Milk", otherwise he would be locked in for Best Actor. Michael Sheen is just as impressive. His style of acting is the complete opposite of Langella's. It's a subtle realism that you don't appreciate until the credits role.
Ron Howard has always been ripped apart by critics for being too formulaic in his direction. I've always had a soft spot for him because of his directing credit on classics such as Cinderella Man and Apollo 13. But his films still leave you wanting more. He's not much of a risk taker. He appeases all of these claims with Frost/Nixon. The direction is actually one of the films greatest strengths. Fluid tracking shots and extreme depth of focus shots give scenes a crisp superficial feel. But then when it comes to scenes when Frost or Nixon are alone, static low lit shots effectively create a feeling of isolation. He handles the way the interview is shot masterfully, resorting to fast cuts and more DOF shots.
The film does have its weaknesses. The beginning is a bit slow, and more of Howards formulaic side kicks in. But once the interviews start, your stomach is in knots. It's incredible the amount of suspense the scenes carry.
The 2008 movie season has really been a year of historical dramas and stage plays. Films like Doubt and Frost/Nixon which were both originally on stage, have proven that many stage plays translate well to cinema-not the case for Mamma Mia which is bad both on stage and as a movie. Both Doubt and Frost/Nixon are also among the many historical dramas released this season; Milk, The Reader, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Valkyrie, Revolutionary Road, The Changeling, among many others.
It's a good year for movies.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
First Blog
Day 3 of the consecutive snow days we've had here in Boone County (KY). It's been pretty nice...just doing nothing -watching movies, writing/reading scripts, etc. And the weather has even closed the library, and I still got paid.
I've been listening to a lot of surf music lately. I was drawn into it from hearing it on the Pulp Fiction soundtrack and since then I've been searching myspace for good surf rock. I found all these awesome bands from Europe...which sucks because most don't have anything on itunes and they're too small-time to be on any free download sites.
That brings me to my next subject...I want to write a script so bad. The surf music inspires me to do some kind of Tarantino-esque thing. I don't know what I'm doing yet, but I have to force myself to sit down and start something. Starting is the hardest part...once I get past that, it's all good. The thought of writing an entire script used to overwhelme me but now I'm almost to the point of writing one so I guess you could call that progress? Nah, I guess not. But I'm starting one tomorrow.
I've been thinking a lot about colleges too. Brooklyn or Full Sail, those are my two main prospects. Full Sail seems awesome -get it over with in 2 years (I still get a bachelors degree, its just more hours a week. e.g. typical 16-18 but full sail is 36-40). I could handle its though. It's spending all day studying something I love...film. The great thing about Full Sail is that you need nothing but money to get in (besides a high school diploma). They don't look at test scores or even transcript grades. And its nationally recognized for being a great film school.
Brooklyn is a typical 4-year college. The fact that its in NYC makes it a strong contender. I don't know too much about it...yet...
I'll be visiting both eventually (NYC for spring break, and Full Sail in Orlando during the summer break).
I guess that's it,
Austin
I've been listening to a lot of surf music lately. I was drawn into it from hearing it on the Pulp Fiction soundtrack and since then I've been searching myspace for good surf rock. I found all these awesome bands from Europe...which sucks because most don't have anything on itunes and they're too small-time to be on any free download sites.
That brings me to my next subject...I want to write a script so bad. The surf music inspires me to do some kind of Tarantino-esque thing. I don't know what I'm doing yet, but I have to force myself to sit down and start something. Starting is the hardest part...once I get past that, it's all good. The thought of writing an entire script used to overwhelme me but now I'm almost to the point of writing one so I guess you could call that progress? Nah, I guess not. But I'm starting one tomorrow.
I've been thinking a lot about colleges too. Brooklyn or Full Sail, those are my two main prospects. Full Sail seems awesome -get it over with in 2 years (I still get a bachelors degree, its just more hours a week. e.g. typical 16-18 but full sail is 36-40). I could handle its though. It's spending all day studying something I love...film. The great thing about Full Sail is that you need nothing but money to get in (besides a high school diploma). They don't look at test scores or even transcript grades. And its nationally recognized for being a great film school.
Brooklyn is a typical 4-year college. The fact that its in NYC makes it a strong contender. I don't know too much about it...yet...
I'll be visiting both eventually (NYC for spring break, and Full Sail in Orlando during the summer break).
I guess that's it,
Austin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
