Goodfellas

I really like Goodfellas. As a whole it shows off everything I like in movies: believable characters, interesting cinematic style, and a great premise. Besides that its about gangsters and who doesn't like gangster movies. Its grounded in reality (thanks to it being based on real events) and doesn't try to show the mob as some huge army of gun totting maniacs. Instead it shows them as a group of people who break the law to make a buck.The character Henry even describes the Organization as just a group that offers protection for people who can't turn to the law.

The characters, something I always try to pay attention to in movies, are all well developed and real. the main character of Henry is shown throughout to be a regular guy who just happens to have grown up with the mob. He wants what everyone wants and that's fortune and excitement. Henry, as with most of the cast, are all unique characters that feel they belong and aren't just some caricature of a gangster (except for maybe Joe Pesci). The characters are even original. De Niro's character of Jimmy is a good example. For one he isn't officially part of the mob since he isn't full Italian, but rather he is someone they hired out to for hits and the man who runs their hijacking jobs. Its an interesting take on a mob associated gangster. Every character is also developed. We see how Pesci's character of Tommy grows into a kill crazy gangster, how Paulie slowly begins to distrust Henry, and how Jimmy and Henry become more and more paranoid after the major heist they orchestrate.

What also intrigues me about this movie is how everything is explained. We get voice overs from Ray Liotta and Lorraine Bracco that details both the life of a gangster and the life of the gangster's wife. Its an interesting choice, describing how gangsters' wives live. Its also interesting how Lorraine's character of Karen finds the other wives as all ugly and disgusting, showing how she doesn't quite understand the gangster world. I also really liked how late in the movie, during the scene leading up to Henry's drug arrest, that the voice over speeds up more and more, conveying the distress that Henry was experiencing.

Bonnie and Clyde

I'm gonna start off and say that I didn't really enjoy Bonnie and Clyde as a gangster or crime film but more of a comedy. The movie really lacked any seriousness to it and depicted the gang as a bunch of idiots who could operate guns and rob banks. I still enjoyed parts of it but I did feel that the characters in it were poorly motivated and feel kind of flat. CW Moss seemed to be easily manipulated throughout the movie and felt really weak. I found how he was recruited into the gang to be a really strange scene, though why it just seems weird I don't know. Also I found Blanche Barrow to be incredibly annoying and really found it hard to enjoy scenes that had her in them.

Besides the characters the movie was really interesting. the cinematography was excellent, especially the scene with the bank teller climbing onto the getaway car only to get shot. The camera work overall was great, though the characters really didn't live up to the challenge of representing the gangsters and cops of the story.

A Place in the Sun

A Place in the Sun showcased a lot of interesting elements. While the major plot points were pretty well known before the movie was even shown, I did find some of the camera work interesting. The extreme close ups of two characters at once, such as when George and Angela confessed to each other that they loved one another, really worked well in my opinion. However something that bugged me was some of the dialogue in the first act of the movie. Some of the characters, George especially, had odd dialogue. Watching the early scenes it many of the lines by George felt clunky and didn't really sound like what someone would say. It may have been an attempt to show how introverted George by having his dialogue poorly worded.

Now on the case on whether or not George is guilty of murder. Now we never see what happens when the boat tips, just that they both go in and we see George stumble onto the beach later on. Its not really a case of guilty or innocent but rather what he did or didn't do. Right before the boat flips George is shown to be changing his mind on murdering Alice and he even tries to keep Alice from rocking the boat when she gets up. We never see if he tries to help her or not so really his sentence (which is probably 1st degree murder from what the DA accuses: that he had the intent of murder and the sentence of the death penalty) was a little excessive for the crime.

The whole trial scene showed a real lack of effort by the defense, such as when they just sit back as the prosecution accuses George and even when he slams down the oar (it even looks like some of the debris hits people in the audience). The prosecution's actions would have probably forced a mistrial (he really went out of his way to look like some kind of crusading lawyer and that George was evil incarnate) and the real lack of evidence such as witnesses as physical proof (nothing actually to show that George had struck Alice) would be lacking for a 1st degree murder sentence in my mind.

While he did plan the whole act, we really don't know what happened after the boat capsized so I would have to say George was innocent, at least at the level of murder the prosecution called for (he was most likely guilty of man slaughter or a lesser degree of murder). I think the whole idea of not showing what happens in the water, what George did or didn't do, and how Alice was knocked out was a great choice in the movie. It allows the audience to draw their own opinions on whether or not George was guilty.

Pulp Fiction Films and Double Indemnity

Double Indemnity proved to be an interesting movie to me for several reasons. For one it crafted very interesting characters. Keyes to me was a very interesting character to watch with his quirks and his dialogue with the Insurance company head and Walter was excellent. Also the film took a very interesting approach to the Pulp Fiction genre by having it not about detectives but about insurance agents. Finally, and probably the most important aspect that made the film appeal to me was the fact it represented a genre not often seen in recent years.

Pulp Fiction as a genre is a quintessential American genre in my opinion. the idea of a single character, a detective, doing what needs to be done in order to right a wrong embodies the whole American mindset. The characters in these types of stories, though usually fitting a distinct role, are varied and fascinating to watch on screen. What is odd to me is that a genre that is so ripe for interesting characters and stories isn't shown much in cinemas. To my recollection there hasn't been a Pulp Fiction movie in quite time. Probably the last one I've personally seen was Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Admittedly not a true crime movie, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was a dark comedy that used the Pulp Fiction Genre as a setting. It had all the trappings of a Pulp Fiction film but was a dark comedy more than anything. It was set in LA, featured a detective (though not as the central character) trying to solve a murder, there was crime as well as the good guys doing wrongs to set things right. It was an interesting movie and though saying it is "interesting" is more of a subjective take on a movie that did rather poorly in theaters, it showed how the Pulp Fiction genre can be used to create a differing an unique take on a crime movie.

Portrayals in Grapes of Wrath and Sullivan's Travels

Both Sullivan's Travels and Grapes of Wrath portrayed basically the same time period. While watching, I was interested in the portrayals of people of differing status at the time between the two. The two movies took different approaches in the portrayal of certain people throughout, though there were some commonalities.

Grapes of Wrath first off had the poor, the people most affected by the Depression and lack of employment, displayed a tragic figures. Through the intersection of between characters of this type we see how the poor were merely trying to survive, with what seemed at times like the whole world against them. Sullivan's Travels portrayed a similar view of the poor but with a few differences. The poor are at times shown to be out for themselves, not the loosely joined groups in Grapes of Wrath. This is best illustrated by how the two train hoppers react to Sullivan when he and the girl hitch onto a freight train. Additionally it was interesting to see how Sullivan's Travels showed how some of the poor were out for themselves, such as when Sullivan was mugged and dumped on a train. The two films painted similar overall pictures of the unemployed, though Sullivan's Travels showed them in more of a darker light at times.

Another portrayal I found interesting was how both films showed the law as cruel in most cases. From Grapes of Wrath we have the police at the plantation beating and brutalizing workers and later we see how the police at another camp tried to incite a riot in order to dissolve the camp. In Sullivan's Travels we get a similar display when a train yard guard assaults Sullivan and when Sullivan stirkes back he is arrested and sent to a labor camp where he is mistreated by the guards. It is an interesting portrayal that both films seemed to share and demonstrates a view of the cops not actually being righteous characters.

Banter, Characters, and Story in Golddiggers

Gold Diggers of 1933 was a pretty interesting movie to see. I'm not a fan of musicals really (though I do like a few choice ones), but I really enjoyed some aspects of the film. For one the banter between the characters was great. the opening scene in the apartment following the first musical scene reminded me a lot of the Three Stooges for some reason, maybe due to the off handed jokes and the banter between the characters. Some of the characters however seemed to have some questionable thinking near the end, especially with all the heel turns made by Peabody and Lawrence. They go from hating them one day to falling in love with them. It just seemed a little weird, even for a comedy musical. Even with these complaints the movie was enjoyable and had a few pretty decent jokes in it as well.

Ganster films - then and now

I'm going to come out and say it. I really like gangster flicks. I've always loved the whole law and lawlessness of them and how the bad guy can end up being a hero in comparison to what are supposed to be the good guys. That said, seeing the older gangster movies from a time period of mob warfare and rum running I noticed the relationship movies had with gangsters.

Back then movies had the code which held that most actions a criminal makes on film shouldn't be shown, that they should be an unsympathetic character that ends up show casing the evils of crime and how the police (or good) will always win. But you never get the sense of the police's involvement in these criminal acts. The Prohibition era saw police corruption on wide scales and some criminals were subjects of admiration (or at least urban legend and story). The movies at the time seemed to ignore these facts in hopes of removing possible influences for crime.

By comparison today we have movies and entertainment that show criminals in lighter, more sympathetic tones, sometimes making them out to be better than the police. Gangster movies of the last few decades show the criminals as heroes (or anti heroes by action) and some movies spur on hero worship of criminal characters (Scarface for an easy reference). You also have the police, who are protrayed as pure good in older films, who are shown at times to be corrupt or evildoers themselves (Training Day, Street Kings, American Gangster). In real life however criminals are more vilified than ever. It is interesting to see how the relationship with the portrayal of crime compared to real life has shifted in film.

Blog Entry 2 - On Redskin

I'm going to say it right off the bat that I didn't find Redskin all that great. Its a good movie with interesting themes and good writing but it just didn't grasp me. The main issue with this movie, and what annoys me sometimes with movies is the Hollywood ending they throw in at the end. Wing Foot gets the girl, the bad guys get arrested/shot, the Indians get rich off oil and Wing Foot gets accepted. Mostly just personal preference but the ending all the same felt too...perfect for lack of a better term.

The subplot (or overarching plot if you like it that way) of advancing a culture by losing some customs or to stay with the old ways was well thought out and was presented probably the best way it could have been. It connected well with Wing Foot's struggle of acceptance and acted as a good backdrop for most of the action. Speaking of action the scene with Wing Foot escaping from the Pueblo people was excellent. It was almost like watching a free running video at times. Also how the writers teased at a Romeo and Juliet plot with the Navajo and the Pueblo people, then deconstructed it with Corn Blossom drinking a bottle of "poison" (hilariously labeled just poison) but then jumping up and running off before anyone could think to check a pulse.

On the mention of subplots, compared to Within Our Gates Redskin manages to keep the subplots clean, easy to understand and even manages to pull them all together in the end.

First Actual Post - Within Our Gates

Following the viewing of Within our Gates I tried to figure out how exactly I received the movie. Knowing the backstory and with only one screening of the film I'm still struggling to find out how it came out in my mind's eye.

The over arcing plot was interesting, presenting a realistic human drama rather than the fantastic tale Birth of a Nation conveys. Within our Gates shows the troubles of Sylvia, who faces struggles to both her race and her identity within the nation, though this is downplayed until the ending act. The main issue I faced when watching the movie was the abundance of plot lines, some resolved and some unresolved. As someone who wishes to enter screenwriting, it does annoy me when plots become too busy or aren't resolved well. Some of the plots, such as the Larry subplot, did seem unnecessary to me and the unresolved cases of the Landry's son's fate drew attention to this problem. However this is all nitpicking and when compared to modern films Within our Gates still presents a very clear plot line and does well to maintain all the subplots. Also much could be attributed to the missing scenes in the film.

Now when compared to the movie it is directly countering, Birth of a Nation, I saw many elements that made it superior. Within our Gates developed believable characters, all of whom had their faults and vices, and didn't create a clear villain character, besides the short lived Philip Gridlestone. While BOAN made their characters around clear archetypes (ex: the Clan Members as the heroic knight figures) Within our Gates made all the characters presented balanced, with none clearly fitting a clear archetype character, which is extremely rare in cinema to see.

Overall Within our Gates was a interesting film that displayed story telling qualities that in my opinion is hard to see in even contemporary films.

First Post on Poorly Named Blog

First!