Unforgiven

Will I decided to write on the use of lighting throughout the film. There was a very clear intent to use the high key and low key lighting to show power and fear for character and I thought it was very well used. For instance The first time the Schofield Kid talks to Will Munny trying to convince him to do another job with him and kill the two cowboys for the whores one thousand dollars. The director decided to make the entire sense in low key, which I think really added to the seriousness of what was happening. I mean Will was a retired bounty hunter basically and was reformed by his late wife. But in the sense you could tell from the expression on his face and the way the light caught it that there was a true killer hidden inside. I also noticed how the Schofield Kid did not have that kind of lighting on him at the time. He was closer to the window and didn't exactly have high key lighting but there was more. Which was really a for shadow of the fact that the Kid had never killed anyone. Obviously at the time I had now idea that, that could be a reason for the different light but looking back it kind of makes sense.

Next major one that comes to mind is when Will is sick and at the whore house. Now in this case the low lighting wasn't used to make Will seem more dangerous, in fact it was the opposite it help to establish the crappy feeling and showed the severity of Will's illness. The Lil Bill shows up and starts to beat the crap out of Will having the lighting even lower and Will laid on the ground in darker shadow showing the pain he was receiving from the beating.

Last but not least was the final shoot off at the whore house. Now this time was a lot like the first example I talked about using low key lighting to show the killer inside of Will. But this time Will isn't just hiding deep inside, the killer comes out and everyone in the place is terrified of what is happening. It makes Will look like a bad ass shooting up the place killing all who he sees as guilty. This light almost makes Will look like the bad guy. And instead of riding off into the sunset he rides off into the dark, like an evil returning home.

So through the use of lighting the director of this film help to make the shots mush more meaningful and strong. Clint Eastwood clearly know what he was doing and turned out a great film.

The film that I viewed to meet the criteria for movie before 1960s was “The Bribe of Frankenstein” created in 1935. Well to start off with all the TVs in my house must have been broken cause no matter which one I tried the movie kept showing up in black and white. It was really weird cause after I was done watching and flipped to TV channels it worked again. Weird. And I don’t want to ruin the ending for anyone so if you don’t already know don’t read the last paragraph of this.

It was a very creative script and the main plot of the movie was very intriguing. The writer for this movie was the late William Hurlbut. There was a lot of this movie that I did not previously know, for instance the actual story of Frankenstein was created by a writer in the movie and she is merely explaining what happens next after her book left off with the windmill burning and everyone thinking the monster was dead. Now in the credits it says this movie was based on a novel by Mary Shelley but I couldn’t find out if that was just for the first Frankenstein of both so I don’t know who to credit with this creative way of telling the story.

The chief cinematographer of the film was the late John J. Mescall. He was cinematographer for ninety films and was most noted for his work on the Invisible Man in 1966. There was a lot of low lighting throughout the movie making it have more of a scary feel to it, but as for the camera work there were just a lot of common things such as tracking, close ups, etc. They were all just common things used right.

I was unable to find anything on the set designer or anything like that. But I was able to find out who was in charge of the music. His name was C. Bakaleinkoff who used an original score and was nominated for 4 Oscars for this movie. There were composers involved in the making of the sound track obviously to create the music and they were striving to create a sound that would add to the scariness of the situations.

The acting was nothing really special other then it was extremely dramatic. All of the actors and actresses spoke very loudly and freaked out over everything. The creepy old lady who was the servant scared me way more then the actual movie. The main actors were: Boris Karloff who played the monster, Colin Clive Dr. Frankenstein and Ernest Thesiger Dr. Pretorius. For the actresses there was only one main one, Valerie Hobson who played Elizabeth Frankenstein.

One thing that really bothered me for the end of the movie was the fact that there was one random lever in the lad that seemed to serve no good purpose. The lever was very large and stuck out, it was a lever that when pulled blew up the castle. I don’t know if that was just a design flaw from the contractors of the castle or what but I don’t think I would want one of those in my house, especially one that was huge. I mean what the hell?

Even though I was not there to see the end of the movie Stagecoach, I still feel like I got a good read on the movie. It was a very interesting movie, I had never seen a Western that was that old before and I was interesting to seen an old style movie featuring John Wayne in his break though movie.

The acting in the movie was a little dry for my liking. I never really felt pulled into the plot and really wasn't that interested in the story and the reason all of the characters were going. I felt like just a random bunch of people put together in a stagecoach and riding through dangerous Native American land.

As far as the camera angles go, that is where I felt the movie made up for the lack of plot. Even though it was somewhat ovious that the director was shooting from the same place in different directions the long shots of the desert and the terrain were amazing. And the camera angles for the narrative were impressive too.

Overall Stagecoach is not my favorite movie but I still can appreciate the art behind it. Westerns seem pretty cool to me and I am looking very forward to seeing all of Client Eastwood in Unforgiven.

Citizen Kane is viewed as one of the most innovated and artistically original that it was a mile stone in all of film making. And I have many things to write about for Citizen Kane being so creative in my viewing guide, and Mr. K. also said to refer to it to help find some guidance. Well unfortunately Mr. K. also had us turn in those viewing guides with my notes in today. So I will do my best to remember.

The narrative in Citizen Kane is very creative. It is the story of this man’s life without any one person telling it. Instead it is a reporter talking to people that were in Charles Foster Kane’s life recapping their memoirs of Kane. But since it is the story of one man’s life you would think there would be someone telling to overall story. Instead there is no main narrator, just flashbacks of Kane’s life some of the same moments just from different perspectives. Like Susan’s first opera show, when it was Jed’s view it was just Susan’s open and two stagehands making fun of her. Where as Susan’s view was much more detailed showing the audience and more of her performance.

Also the movie really started from the end. Kane dies in the opening scene of the movie then Thompson the reporter is instructed to find out what rosebud is, Kane’s dying word. So from there Thompson digs into Kane’s past finding out what his life installed, interviewing Kane’s friends, wives, and coworkers. He even reads Thacher’s (the man who raised Kane) memoirs showing what his childhood was like. So it’s like you already know what is going to happen; now you just have to find out how he got there. With this style it gives a new way to tell a story, bringing the audience in more to find out why this happened the way it did. And it was Orson Welles who played Kane in throughout the years, so he knows what he wanted and he could put it to action with the way he played Kane. It made the narrative easier to understand and get a feel for what is happening.

Picture from www.laurahird.com/showcase/alanbissett.html

The movie that I will be writing about is already acknowledged as an America classic and is viewed by many as one of the greatest movies made, I’m talking of course Mario Puzo’s The Godfather. Now I’m sure this isn’t the first time you have heard this name before and for many of you, you most likely have seen this film. Well if you haven’t then in this writers opinion you have either been living in a hole or are crazy cause at one point in your life you must fall in love, get you heart broken, and watch The Godfather.

If you fall into one of the two categories above The Godfather is a drama based in 1946 following the Corleone family, a Sicilian crime family that is one of five that run New York. The leader of the familia Corleone is Don Corleone played by Marlon Brando refuses to support this new hot shot narcotics dealer Sollozzo (Al Lettieri). Now after this refusal Sollozzo and the Tessios, another family, attempt to kill the Don shooting him five times. The Don survives but in his weakened condition Sunny (James Caan) runs the family until his father is healthy. Sunny being the hot head he is wants to go to the mattresses (gang war) with the other families but winds up getting killed leaving Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) to run the family and deal with the huge problems facing him. Having never been a big part of the family’s business running a crime family is no easy job.

I personal think that this is a work of art. Now my opinion may be a little unfair growing up in a family that thinks this movie is almost and significant and maybe even the bible. Be there is a lot to this movie. You get so sucked into the complex plot you will think you are there with Michael through his struggles. Being based off of the Mario Pazo book the writing for this movie is unbelievable; there is an amazingly large amount of quotes produced from this film from the powerful text.

One thing I couldn’t stop noticing is the fact that the entire movie seems to be shot in low lighting. This adds to the felling, making it seem like the movie is really a documentary, showing the power and passion spewing from the Don and the angry and unstoppable rage of Sunny. It isn’t uncommon for a director to use low lighting in movies, but the director Francis Ford Coppola seemed to be really initiative using it during the entire movie.

Next it is the small symbols that really stuck out to me pulling me into the movie just that much more. Like for instance the red rose worn by the Don symbolizing how elite and powerful he is setting him above everyone else. And there is a fish put in someone’s body armor saying he is sleeping with the fishes. It is the small things like this that really make to movie for me, if there isn’t an effort on this level the there wasn’t enough effort put into it.

I would recommend The Godfather to anyone who can see and many of the blind too cause they can still listen to the plot. This is and will always remain one of my favorite movies and I recommend that everyone give it a shoot at least once. You’d be surprised how much you might like it.