Rating of Movies Watched This Semester

 1= Favorite, 12= Least Favorite

1.     Fruitvale Station: I like the story of this movie and the fact that the story didn't specifically point out racism. The acting in the movie was great and very realistic and I felt I could relate to the story.

2.     O, Brother Where Art Thou: This was the second time I saw this movie and the reading helped me appreciate the movie more. I enjoyed the soundtrack/score; it seemed to add more to the movie. The Odyssey is one of my favorite stories and I think the way that the Coens reinvented the story was unique.

3.     Killer of Sheep: The acting in this movie wasn't particularly good, but I liked the message of the movie and the way the movie was shot. The cinematography seemed to add more to the film and what it was about because it was imperfect. I thought it was a very realistic representation of the black ghetto. 

4.     Moonrise Kingdom: I really love the cinematography and choreography of the scenes in this movie. It was quirky and I feel that it captured the essence of the childhood in a weird quirky way.

5.     Awara: Even though this movie was black and white, when I play back scenes from this movie in my head I see the scenes in color. I think this movie sort of embodied Bollywood (for me). I felt the exaggeration of the acting combined with the dramatization of the music made this movie colorful.

6.     Freaks: The message in this movie was good and I like the way that the story took place in a circus even thought the setting could have been in a more traditional setting; the setting made the story more unique.

7.     Detour: I really liked this movie because it reminded me of Carmen Jones (one of my favorite movies). I like the story of the beaten down hero turned antihero and how Vera dies.

8.     The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: This was my third time seeing this movie and enjoyed it more than I did before, but the dubbing in the movie still prevented me from liking it 100%. I appreciated the aesthetics of the movie after watching it this time.

9.     Wendy and Lucy: I like the message of this movie and the fact that the message was delivered subtly. I found the movie very slow and felt the message/story could have been told differently.

10.  My Own Private Idaho: I feel like this would have been a great movie if I were a stoner. I wasn’t particularly fond of the acting, especially the scene when River Phoenix tells his brother that he knows who his father is.

11.  Sherlock, Jr.: I am not a big fan of slapstick comedy, and I felt that the parts that are supposed to be funny are ridiculous. I guess it is just that times have changed and what was funny then, is not funny now.

12.  Spoorloos: The sequencing of the story made it more interesting, but if it had not been for that I would have hated this movie completely. This was the only movie in the sequence I would say that I disliked, plus I felt it was kind of sappy.

Overall, I appreciated taking a look at different I wouldn't have thought to watch and the articles on the movies helped me appreciate certain aspects of the movies, even if I didn't enjoy the movie all the way.

Fruitvale Station Screen Shot Analysis

Fruitvale Station




The scene I chose to analyze is the scene in which the lost dog is hit by a car and the driver of the car just rides off like they don't care.

At first we see Oscar at the gas pump, pumping glass. It starts as a close up on his had then moves to a closes up on his face where we see something has caught his attention.

Then the camera goes to a medium close shot of a dog (a pitbull which is considered one of the most dangerous and misunderstood breed of  dogs).

At first we see that close up of Oscar interacting with the pitbull (who is very mild mannered)during which he checks the dog for a collar but doesn't find. This verifies that the dog is lost and does not necessarily have a owner.

After the screen shift back to Oscar leaving the dog to go pump his gas we hear the sound of what seems like a car and a dog whelp. This is followed by a shot of Oscar yelling at a car and chasing after it shouting epithets as the car drives away into the back ground.

Then the camera shifts to view of the dog lying in the street. The view is over the shoulder of Oscar so that neither Oscar or the dog are the main focus.

As Oscar walks over to the dog, the camera shift to a close up of the dog as we can clearly see that the dog is bleeding out. This mimics the ending where we see Oscar bleeding out after he has been shot. Also in the background we see that no one is around which could serve to be a metaphor for no one cares.

At the end of the scene we see a teary eyed Oscar and close the eyes of the nameless dog as the dog dies and lay him on the sidewalk out of the way of further cars.

I think this scene serves two purposes. The first purposes is the scene aligns the fate the dog and Oscar together. Both the dog and Oscar are misunderstood "breeds" and both have certain stereotypes about them. Both are murdered for no reason and it would seem that both Oscar and the dog are left to die (of sorts). This scene foreshadows Oscars fate (even though we see in the beginning what happens) and in aligning his fate with the dog's, it seems to say that Oscar's life is worth as much a dog (or so it insinuates that those who committed the crime and those that punished Oscar's killers seemed to think so). The second purpose of this scene is to show the humanity of Oscar. We see that Oscar did look to see if the dog belonged to anyone, and we see that he clearly had sympathy for the dogs life and sought to show it kindness. This, therefore,was meant to counterbalance the wrongful acts that we had already saw/heard Oscar commit (the lying, infidelity, drug dealing) with the fact that he was still a good person, just a good person who had made mistakes. I think this scene is thus very crucial to the plot of the movie.

Screen Shot Anaylsis: Moonrise Kingdom

Canoe Shot

In this screen shot we see the front of the canoe as Shakusky canoes downstream. I think this scene is perfect in the fact that it sort of mirrors the introvertedness and solitude that Shakusky probably experienced his whole life (he is an orphan and without his parents or without anyone who really cares for him or looks after him). We see the river winding down in the distance. As it winds it starts to disappear in the background. This can signify Sam on his journey to what we think at this time is the unknown. We don't know at this time that he is going to meet Suzy. On either side of the river we see the woods and the rocks. We don't know what is in the woods which, can mean that we don't know what is in store for Shakusky. It can also signify the two opposing sides that Shakusky faces: the side of the those who do not care about him (social services and his foster parents) and those who do care for him (Suzy and scout leader Ward). Also in the foreground we see that Sam's rifle and bags are in focus. In the middle ground we the raccoon at the front of the boat. I think this scene seeks to emphasize that Shakusky is a loner but at the same time self sufficient (emphasized by the gun).

Wendy And Lucy: Antidote to the Traditional Chick Flick?

The film Wendy and Lucy is about a young woman named Lucy who is moving to Alaska to start a new life with her dog named Lucy. During a pit stop in Oregon, Wendy's car shuts down and she gets arrested for shoplifting. While Wendy is sitting in jail, Lucy goes missing and thus most of the film is about Wendy's search for Lucy. The story thus steers away from the stereotypical chick flick in that it focuses on the separation of the protagonist and her dog while also weaving in little tidbits about the social and economical issues taking place in the town Wendy is stranded in.

In traditional chick flicks, there seems to be common theme of people coming together, rather it be by two people falling in love or two friends rebuilding/strengthening their relationship or just the story of maturation of the protagonist. Traditional chick flicks are traditionally see as either whimsical or "lovey dovey" themed and are aimed toward women. There isn't really a deep thought put into the films and most follow a formula. In addition to this the protagonist is usually a very feminine female (one that wears a great deal of pink and flaunts her femininity) or if the protagonist is butch, a makeover of some kind is utilized. 

However, this is not the case for the film Wendy and Lucy. When we meet the protagonist Wendy, there is a definite air of "butchness" to her. Wendy has a boy's haircut and wears flannel and cutoff shorts just like any boy would. There is no makeover. In addition to this, there is an underlying theme of looking for the American Dream. The town where Wendy is stranded is without any flash or glamor and the people are just regular people. The town doesn't have many jobs. What little acts of charity expressed to Wendy (when the security guard gives Wendy $7 to help her) are rare, not, as it seems, from unwillingness, but inability. This is further emphasized but theme that in order for one to get something, you have to already have that something (if you want a ob you have to already have job). Although the recession is not explicitly addressed, there are many allusions to it (the rundown look of the setting, the conversation about work with the security guard, the grocery associate comments "If you can't afford to feed a dog you shouldn't have one", Wendy's sister being unable to aid Wendy when she gets stranded.) 

Another theme that sets Wendy and Lucy apart from other chick flicks is the theme of separation. Most of the film is about how Wendy deals with losing Lucy. Instead of growing stronger, she seems to get weaker the longer she is without her companion. Her loss permeates the whole story. It is not until the end when Wendy finds Lucy, but decides to leave her with someone who she thinks is better suited to take care of her that we see Wendy as strong. This ending is the only portion (in my opinion) in which the film examples a theme that could be shared by a  typical chick flick: the protagonist getting stronger or leaving with a new resolve. In the final scene, we see Wendy leave Lucy, but at the same time become a hero (unlike a typical chick flick) because she decided to put the needs of Lucy before her own need of companionship.

In the end, I'm not sure I would consider Wendy and Lucy a chick flick at first glance, but I think that is because the movie draws on other genres to fortify its story. This movie could easily (in my opinion) be seen as a road movie or a social problem film. Either way, I do think this film is different in its approach of weaving different genres into this "chick flick".

O Brother, Where Art Thou?: Use of African American Motifs

The film O Brother, Where Art Thou? by the Coen brothers although set in the 1930s (a time in which racial unrest was prevalent) and set around the story of three Caucasian convicts named Ulysses Everett McGill played by George Clooney, Pete Hogwallop played by John Turturro, and Delmar O'Donnell played by John Blake Nelson who have escaped from prison to find gold that Everett has hidden, focuses on a great deal of African American motifs throughout the movie which habitually tend to be the saving grace of the three men.

In the opening of the film, we see an African-American chain gang singing while working in a rock quarry. As the African-American men sing while doing their work, Everett and his companions Pete and Delmar escape. The African-Americans provide the cover to distract the deputies from seeing the three men. Ironically, the song being sung is about the the fate of the Everett and his companions, they sing about the a sheriff telling the deputy to fetch Lazarus (Everett and his companions are being hunted by the sheriff and deputy, thus they are the Lazarus of which the chain gang sings). Later in the movie, as Everett and his companions attempt to hop a train, but fail, they are looking for a way to escape the deputies on their heels when an old, blind African-American man comes scooting along on the railroad on a wagon. The men's fates are once again save as the man gives them a ride while also predicting their fate.

Ironically, the next time their paths are intertwined with a black man is at a crossroads which could be meant to symbolize the intersection of the African American predicament and Caucasian predicament in the 1930s. Especially in the South, because during this time neither group of individuals had the upper hand. The Depression evened the playing field for the all Southerns whether they were African American or Caucasian. The crossroads could also signify the intersection of the past and present by using the myth of Tommy Johnson (or could signify myth of Robert Johnson; both Johnsons were influential American Delta blues musicians who were thought to have sold their souls to the devil for talent at the crossroads) of the past with the interpretation the his myth in the present (i.e. O Brother).
Which ever it may be, the crossroads seems to foreshadow the intermingling of African American Tommy Johnson and the three men's fates later in the film.

Another example of the refuge African American motifs offer Everett and his gang is when Tommy is kidnapped by the KKK and the three men go to rescue him. The three men put on black face so that they could not be seen in the dark by KKK members, after which the KKK members accuse Everett and his men of being mulattoes who have infiltrated the KKK. Black face has been a part of African American history and fact that it was used in the movie not as derogatory tool but as a instrument in subterfuge to save the three men once again examples the Coens use of using African American motifs as saving grace for Everett and his men. I think the usage of the motifs with in the film are spectacularly used and, whether intentional or not, still speak to the genius of the Coen brothers.

My Own Private Idaho Campfire Scene

 

In the film My Private Idaho, Gus Van Sant explores the genre of "New Queer Cinema". In the campfire scene at (starting at 50:50), the main character Mike, a narcoleptic, gay street hustler, tells his friend Scott that he loves him. His confession is something that the viewer expects, but I think the great thing about the scene is setting that was chosen and the way the scene was acted out.

Mike’s declaration of love is done during the campfire, which in a way makes the scene a little more sensual. Campfires are mostly seen as a place that secrets are told and that people open up to one another. This is what happens in the movie. However, what I like about this scene is the dialogue and the way that Mike tells Scott he is love with him. Mike throughout most of the movie is sort of scene as the person who need to be taken care of  (which is mostly done by Scott). His meekness makes him loveable. So in this seen when he tell Scott he love him, although he does it in his meek sort of way, he is actually forward. Up to this point in the movie, this is the most “masculine” quality shown by Mike, being that up until this point he was taking most of his cues from Scott. In this scene he shows a sort of forwardness and aggressiveness that wasn’t show before, he is reaching for what he wants. In this scene, I think Van Sant did a good thing by showing Mikey this way, because then Mike is no longer a one dimensional character. It shows that Mike although loving and meek, does have wants and desires whereas before we saw hi as someone who just goes with the flow. Not only this, the scene adds dimension to Mike, with out it being over dramatic and over the top.

Spoorloos: A Horror Film or Not?

The 1988 film Spoorloos  is considered a horror movie by some critics, but I would say that this movie is more of a thriller than a horror film due to the fact that horror films usually deal with a person's nightmares and the antagonist is usually of supernatural (but not always) origin. In this regard, I think horror films have the viewer asking "What is happening?" In Spoorloos the viewer is asking, "How did it happen?" and "What will happen next?", which in turn makes Spoorloos more of a crime thriller. The film is based around the main character named Rex who is searching for the kidnapper/murderer of an old girlfriend named Saskia who mysteriously went missing while he and she were on a biking trip three years prior. It showcases the various struggles that Rex deal with while trying to move on (unsuccessfully) from Saskia kidnapping as well as how the kidnapper/murderer named Raymond committed the deed.

I say the Spoorloos is a thriller because the movie starts out with the crime being done (the kidnapping of Saskia). We then see Rex looking around Saskia, but what we feel as viewers is more panic than fear, mainly because we have seen shots of Raymond watching Saskia. His watching elicits a suspicious and fear for Saskia, even tough we know what is going to happen. When Saskia goes missing our suspicions are thus confirmed. This is the only point in the movie in which the question of "What is going to happen?" could be asked by the viewer.

As we continue through the movie we see various scenes of Rex and Raymond crossing paths: Raymond and Rex passing missing posts of Saskia, Raymond watching Rex get interviewed on TV, Raymond observing Rex after he sends Rex a letter telling him he wants to meet, etc. During these encounters the viewer asks "When will they meet?" not "Are they going to meet?" simply because we have seen that both parties have an obsession with each other: Rex wants to find Saskia's kidnapper/murderer and Raymond wants to meet Rex out of curiosity. These questions are not questions one would ask in a horror film. There is no surprise because the viewer knows what is going to happen, its just a matter of when. The viewer (at least me) is not scared because they/I know they are going to meet.

When Rex and Raymond do meet, and Raymond tells Rex that the only way for him to know what happened to Saskia is to experience what she experienced, the viewer/I knows that Rex's curiosity will take over. Rex goes on this journey and throughout  we hope that Rex can curb his curiousity to survive. Otherwise Rex will share the same fate as Saskia. The fact that we know what will happen if Rex chooses one way or another is another element that makes this movie a thriller. In horror films there are not choices that the viewer can anticipate the what will happen to the characters. In this film we know know the outcome depending on Rex's choices. Ultimately this is what sets this film apart from a horror film. The audience knows the outcome, but the movie just illustrates how the outcome came to be. Thus making this film a thriller rather than a horror film.

Killer of Sheep: Analysis of Engine Carrying Scene

Killer of Sheep is a film neo-realism film by Charles Burnett. It centers around the Stan who is a man living in Watts, a ghetto of L.A. during the 1970s. Throughout the movie, a constant theme of seems to prevail: no matter how much one works, one will never get a head. Stan feels this way throughout this movie and spends a great deal of time battling with this concept. This, in turn, leads to his ever growing detachment from his family and friends.

However, despite this detachment, Stan does try to do things to better his family's life. This is exampled by an scene in which Stan and a friend go to purchase an engine. This, of course, is prefaced by a conversation that Stan has the day before with a neighbor in which the neighbor asks him, "What do you want with another raggity ass car?" His friend Gene replies,  "Tryna get ahead, man." Stan's neighbor replies "You niggas sick. You think you middle class!" Stan goes to defend himself saying he's not poor because he donates things to the Salvation Army. In this scene, we see the angst he has and how much he is desperately trying to get ahead, but constantly being reminded of how this will never be.

The engine carrying scene then serves to mirror the words Stan's neighbor said. In this scene, Stan and Gene go to buy an engine for a car from a man. As the Stan and Gene carry the engine down the steps from the man's apartment, the camera pans out, giving the audience the view of the steps from below. The audience sees how many stairs there are (there were many). This can represent the fact that the men have far to go, both metaphorically (because Stan is getting the engine to better the life of his family and he has far to go in order to accomplish this task) and physically (the men have to carry the engine a long way). After that the camera pans in on the engine and bodies of the men, not their faces. This is to emphasize the effort that the men are putting in. After the men get the engine down the stairs, they load the engine in the back of Gene's truck. The camera pans out again as the men get in the truck, giving a view of the engine in the back of the truck. As the men pull off, the engine falls out of the truck and breaks.  During this shot, the truck is also going up hill. The truck moving up hill and the engine falling down hill symbolizes that as Stan is trying to move forward and do better (going up hill),  he just gets knocked back down to the same place he was before (the engine was his mode for moving up and without he is in the same plight as before). The panning in on the engine after the men leave it broken just emphasizes the severity of the situation and symbolizes the brokenness of Stan's plight.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Creation of the Myth of Clint Eastwood

In the movie The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Clint Eastwood's creates the  character of the silent and ruthless action hero, which in turn became the symbol of masculinity. This character was/is a character in which Eastwood is known for playing throughout most of the movies he has done since. Eastwood's combination of slow and deliberate movements, glaring stare, and usage of an even speaking tone of voice all laced with a combination of arrogance and nonchalance are the components of Eastwood's signature in most of his movies.

In the first scene when we first meet Eastwood's character "the Man With No Name" (also referred to as "Blondie" by the character Tuco), Blondie confronts three men who are trying to capture Tuco for the $2000 reward. As he confronts the men, his movements are slow and deliberate, yet also carry an arrogance which is announced when he informs them men that they will not be collecting the bounty for Tuco. Even as he tells one of the men to step back and challenges the three men to a shootout (which he does silently, his challenge is simply inferred by his telling the man to step back), he does not change the pace of his movements, neither does he change the volume of his tone of speech or use inflections in his tone. He seems calm and collected.

Another example is when Tuco captures Blondie after Blondie double crosses him. As Blondie is taking aim to rescue another bandit by the name of Shorty (Blondie was running a scam with a Tuco but double crossed him and left in the desert and his new scam partner was Shorty), Tuco arrives and points a gun at Blondie's head. In this moment, Blondie does not flinch, but simply asks can he save Shorty. When Tuco says no, there is no protest by Blondie, just the acquiescence of his fate for the moment. Even when Tuco has Blondie walking through the desert with a gun aimed at his back, Blondie's stride suggest arrogance and nonchalance. This in turn makes one think that all will work out, and Blondie will prevail. Eastwood's personification of Blondie, thus, becomes this person in which nothing phases them. Blondie is  always calm and his movements are always deliberate and slow. He always has the upper hand on those whom he faces.

These attributes came to be the landmark of what is Clint Eastwood's myth. In the Gran Torino we see an older version of "Blondie" in the cantankerous character of Walt Kowalski. He is slow and deliberate with  his movements and delivers the same smoldering stare. In the scene in which he first confronts Spider's gang, he goes so far as to threaten then even when he is clearly out numbered and out gunned. This is the seems to be repeat of the introduction scene to Blondie in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Kowalski uses the same even tone and again is unphased in the face of his circumstances.

Eastwood took certain characteristics, such as slow and deliberate movements, glaring stare, and usage of an even speaking tone of voice, that he brought to the character of Blondie in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and made them his signature. These characteristics of Eastwood's characters also made him the epitome of masculinity and created the myth of Clint Eastwood.

Awara: A Musical or Not?

In the 1951 film Awara directed by Raj Kapoor, musical accompaniment is used to emphasize and often predict the events to come in the movie. In this way, the music in Awara seems to be more of modified score in which the music narrates the story as it is being told. Therefore, the music in Awara is a character in itself. It is because the music seems to be a character that I feel that Awara is not a musical, but a movie in which the score takes the form of the narrator.

In a musical films, songs are typically sung by the characters and most of the time they elucidate something about the characters and/or the plot. Sometimes the music just serves as breaks in the storyline. In the movie Mary Poppins, for instance, the character Mary Poppins employs the use of songs to add fun and make the movie whimsical. An example of this is when Mary sings about a spoonful of sugar when making the children take their medicine. This song does not have a "voice" of its own; it is simply Mary Poppins being whimsical so that the children will take their medicine.

In contrast to Mary Poppins' "A Spoonful of Sugar", the song in the beginning of Awara in which the sailor and dancers in the field are singing "Beware" seem to foreshadow that a bad event is coming. This bad event is the kidnapping of Leela by Jagga. However, because this song is not sung by the main characters, this leads one to think that a song foreshadows things about the plot. Thus, the music is the narrator of the story. This is again shown after Leela has been cast out by Judge Raghunath (who was a lawyer at this time). The song is sung by a group of men (who again are not the main characters). They start singing about how the Lord play tricks and how "In murky waters He makes a lotus blooms" after which we here the cry of Judge Rahunath's son (a son of "noble" birth= blooming of the lotus) being born in a gutter during a rain storm (gutter in rain storm= murky waters). By this second song viewers realize that music serves as the narrator of the story and that all the music does is elucidate the plot.

Although music can elucidate the plot in musicals, (a great example of this is the 1954 film Carmen Jones in which the main character Carmen Jones sings about her own death), the key is that the main characters are usually the ones producing the music. In Awara, the songs are sung by "extras" and sometimes unknown singers. In doing this, the view focuses more on what being sung rather than who is singing it. The music takes a life of its own and becomes the narrator rather than "prop" of the characters. For this reason I feel the music is a narrator and that Awara is not a musical.

Detour: A Twist on the Classic Femme Fatale

In the film Detour by Edgar G. Ulmer, the classic stereotype of the femme fatale is altered to become the damsel in distress. In Detour, the femme fatale is portrayed by the character Vera. When we first see Vera, the main character Al Roberts (who has assumed the identity of the deceased Charles Haskill, Jr.) has agreed to give her a ride to Los Angeles. After she gets in the car, Roberts initially assesses Vera as a woman "who looked like she had been thrown out of the crummiest freight train in the world. Yet despite this I got the impression of beauty... a natural beauty. A beauty that's almost homely because its so real." His view of her quickly changes as it is not long after she joins Roberts on his journey to Los Angeles, that Vera realizes that Roberts is not Haskill (who was her ex-acquaintance) and she proceeds to blackmail Roberts to get what she wants. Vera and her threats to report Roberts as Haskill's killer become the main obstacles preventing Roberts from reaching his beloved Sue Harvey (the love of his life and the impetus for his sojourn from New York to Los Angeles).

However, as the story unfolds we start to see Vera in a different light. She has made Roberts her prisoner, every time Roberts is on the verge of ending their morbid union she finds some way to keep them together longer. This is first apparent when Roberts tells her of his plans to ditch the car (Haskill's car) and she points out the obvious fact that that would just put the police on his trail. She then convinces him that he must sell the car and that until this task was completed they would be together.

After reaching Los Angeles, Vera insists that Roberts and her get a rent a room where she convinces him that they must  pretend to be Mr. and Mrs. Haskill. She uses the guise that on the off chance that the car dealership calls, their using the name Mr. and Mrs. would not alert the dealership to their ruse. While in the room,  Vera comes on to Roberts and there is a mood that alludes to the notion that Vera may indeed be a very lonely woman who is stalling to spend more time with Roberts. She attempts to get him to sleep with her, and when he ignores her advance she returns to her former hostile self. More episodes such as this continues through out the movie, Vera softening to pull Roberts closer to her and then upon Roberts' denial, we see her coil back as if wounded because she cannot get him to show her affection. This is further showed when Vera corners Roberts and asks him if he likes her. He replies,"I love ya!" with a sarcastic tone in which she reverts back to her acidic demeanor. In this constant reporte, we see the director paint her as a woman who is lonely and will do anything to keep the company of a man, even if it means blackmailing him. Through the constant back and forth of Vera and Roberts, the audience's allegiance slowly shifts and we come to feel sorry for Vera. This sympathy for Vera is culminates when Roberts accidentally murders Vera by strangling her with the phone cord she as wrapped aroung her own neck in a drunken stupor. Thus, she has become a damsel who is need of saving from her own loneliness, but because of the atrocities she has committed (blackmailing Roberts) due to her loneliness, she becomes the source of her own death.

Freaks: A Demonization of Those Who Are Different

 

Tod Browning's Freaks takes place in circus and centers around a man named Hans who falls in love with a woman named Cleopatra. It just so happens that Hans is a dwarf and leader of the side-show performers and Cleopatra is a "big" (normal-sized) woman and trapeze artist. Cleopatra fools Hans into believing that she has also fallen in live with him, and concedes to marry Hans after she finds that he has a fortune.  When Hans' side-show friends find out that Cleopatra has only married Hans for his fortune they punish her.

Some critics argue that the story is a demonization of difference and not a defense of equality. Personally, I agree. Throughout the entire movie, the"freaks" were constantly being displayed as different and I feel that Browning did a great deal of work to establish that they were not "normal". In doing so, I think that he did a great job of presenting the two very different extremes in which the"freaks" (in this case people with physical abnormalities) faced: 1) they were thought of as docile and child-like, unable to fend or defend themselves; 2) they were monsters capable of hurting and turning other "normal" people into "freaks" like themselves.

In the beginning of the movie, he portrayed the sideshow acts as docile and child-like, almost as if they were helpless and could not fend for themselves. This was established by the scene in which Madame Tetralini (the owner of the circus) takes some of the "freaks" out for exercise, during which  they run into a gentleman and his groundsperson. The gentleman proceeds to tell Madame Tetralini that she and her "freaks" must get off his property. She explains to the gentleman that the "freaks" are in fact "children from my circus...When I get the chance I like to take them out in the sunshine and let them play like children." While she is saying this, the pinheads (three of the "freaks") flock to her for protection like child would to their mother's skirt. This scene reinforces the docility and weakness of the "freaks", painting them as people who cannot fend for themselves like a "big person" can.

In contrast, the ending of the movie paints the "freaks" as dangerous and deadly things to be feared. After Cleopatra has married Hans, she (with the help of her lover the strongman Hercules) begin poisoning Hans in hopes of taking his fortune. When the other "freaks" find out they set out to make her pay. In final scene, there is a big storm and the freaks are seen walking on their hands through mud and rain, crawling and creeping toward Hercules and they set out to murder him. After murdering Hercules they chase the screaming Cleopatra as she runs through the woods. The movie ends with Cleopatra being turned into the very thing she loathed, a freak, by the very same "freaks" of whom she made fun. Thus, the "freaks" have turned from docile, weak children to horrible, vengeful monsters who must be feared. This part of the movie probably played on the real life fear that many people during that time had: "freakism" is contagious.

I think Browning's Freaks mirrors the social constructs of the lives of people who where thought of as different back then. The fact that the story takes place in a circus also probably speaks to the fact that for many people who were physically different, the only place for them was in a circus during the 1930s. Although there are parts in the movie in which Browning tries to paint the "freaks" as normal, the fact that the movie is named "Freaks" and that even the humane "big people" refer to the sideshow acts as freaks only further demonizes the physical differences of the sideshow acts. Therefore, I think Browning's Freaks is a just a demonization of physical differences; painting those with physical abnormalities as too weak to fend for themselves and thus dependent on "normal" people or as scary monstrosities that are to be feared due to their ability to turn you into a freak just like them.

From Gags and Stunts to Punchlines

In the movie Sherlock Jr., Keaton uses visual gags and stunts to amplify the comedic aspects of the movie. In my opinion I think he does it quite effectively. I think that because there was no audio associated with the movies in the 1920s, there had to be more expression the get a reaction out of the audience. This calls for the exaggeration of the facial expressions and movements. Also the continuous use of gags and stunts tells a story. This is quite the contrast in contemporary comedy because of the usage of audio in films now. Audio in films has made it possible so that less exaggeration is needed in contemporary films. This has led to the comedic evolution from gags and stunts to punchlines. In today’s modern world, I think many people would find the over exaggeration that Keaton uses in his movies over-the-top and not very funny. I think the only times that visual gags and stunts are used in contemporary movies are when there are words said before or after the gag or stunt is done. Thus, the gag or stunt is used to emphasize a specific point that is being made not to tell a story.

Introduction To Me

My name is Noelle Jones and I transferred from North Carolina A&T State University. I am a Biochemistry major who wants to work in hair R&D. I would say my taste in movies was largely impacted by my grandmother. I remember watching the Imitation of Life with her (the 1950s) version while also watching Legends of the Fall (she made me close my eyes when there was nudity). She was a crime/ thriller movie fan and so I became one. I also have my older brother and cousins to thank for my taste in movies. They introduced me to the  gangster movies like Scarface (remake with Al Pacino), Goodfellas, and the Godfathers. I think because of them I love any gangster movie and have to see anything with a great deal of violence. As I have gotten older, I have also learned to pay attention to the score of a movie. A great movie can be ruined with a horrible score, so a great movie for me has to also have a great score. I would say I will watch anything directed by Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorcese, or Clint Eastwood. There are probably more directors, but I can’t think of them now. The thing I am most interested in this class is exploring the different ways we will look at movies. Also these movies are probably ones in which I have not seen so I am excited to have my horizons broadened.