Super Smashin' Bros

I was really amazed with the Coen brothers. I loved all three movies we watched of theirs, and plus I have seen several others I liked. I decided to write about the fact that I noticed a running theme involved in the three movies we watched: getting involved in other peoples' business.

 

In the 1987 film Raising Arizona, H.I. (Nicolas Cage) is so caught up in making his wife happy that he does something wrong for the "right" reasons. His wife, Ed (Holly Hunter), just wants a baby. However, she can't have one. So, H.I. decides to kidnap a baby from a wealthy family thinking they had "more than they could handle". Obviously, it's not like the family would say "oh well" and forget about losing a baby; so a huge investigation overtakes, and swoops H.I. into it. It became a big disaster, lets just say.

In Fargo (1996) and No Country For Old Men (2007) the theme is a little darker, and the characters are a little more "domed". William Macy's character, Jerry (Fargo), gets wrapped up into a secret plan of his in hopes of money as a reward, but it goes too far, he gets involved in too many mix-ups, and well lets just say he is not satisfied at the end of the film. Similar case with Josh Brolin's character Llewelyn in No Country For Old Men; he came across a messy drug deal-gone-wrong, money was involved, he got too involved, and ended up definitely not satisfied at the end. Tragic, because he had good intentions, but he maybe should've tried to stay out of it..

Nashville! Finally.

Personally, I didn't understand why people hated the movie Nashville (Altman). What was to hate? I thought it was pretty cool that the actors and actresses had so much flexibility. Especially the fact that many of them wrote their own songs, shows that this is no poor operation! That is not an easy skill to have, even if you are Sueleen Gay (Gwen Welles) who has horrible songs. That's  not easy to be successful in writing one that just makes you laugh because of how ridiculous it is!

I loved the amount of characters in this 1975 Robert Altman film. Not only were there a lot of characters, they were all very different and unique. I admired Altman's work of creating each and every one of them, and then having them all tie into each other in some way or another. Any movie that shows that much creativity, you can't just say, "I hated that movie" without having valid reasons. Sure, it was a little slow in some parts, but I was thoroughly entertained just by watching the characters interact with each other. It was also enjoyable to watch the mockery of the south, specifically Nashville; the music capital of the south. I would definitely suggest this film to someone looking for a comedy, with some "oomph" at it's core (hint: the ending), that you may have to read into.

Akira KuroSawatdee is good

I definitely enjoyed watching Akira Kurosawa's films. They were something new for me that is for sure. Because of this, I had a harder time finding symbolism, (etc.) and relating to it in general. But I don't necessarily needs those things to like a film; it just makes it harder for me to write about them.

Growing up in Minnesota, we don't deal a whole lot with samurais. However, the film Yojimbo (1961) sort of opened my interest into that world; at least because I know nothing about it! I also thought it was pretty funny, which I wasn't expecting at all.

The 1985 film Ran definitely opened my interested, as well. But this interest was in Japanese history in general. I didn't really understand a lot of the film, I understood who everyone was and what their intentions were, but as far as who was fighting whom, I had some trouble. Kurosawa has taught me to not throw a movie back on the shelf at Blockbuster just because there isn't a cute actor or something. I mean, I wasn't actually that shallow with movies before, but I thought I would use that example to put it into perspective.

Alfredders

So far, I haven't seen an Alfred Hitchcock film I don't like. He brings to the screen an interesting combination of realistic theatrical elements and fictional literary elements. The two styles of elements create superb entertainment and enjoyment. In Rear Window (1954), Hitchcock uses mostly diegtic sounds throughout the film, to give the movie a more realistic feel. However, the plot isn't so realistic. Maybe if someone were actually dumb enough to commit a murder in plain sight and the neighbor happened to witness it, then became so obsessed with proving it, that he risked his girlfriend's life as well as his own, then yes it could be realistic!

But I'm not saying all this to be plausible. I'm only saying this because it takes a lot of talent to combine those two in a way that works well. I like watching a non-realistic story every once in a while, because it is unfamiliar and fresh (depending on the movie of course). Scary, suspenseful movies wouldn't be all that scary or suspenseful if the plot was totally realistic, would it?

Psycho (1960) is another example of Hitchcock combining these two elements. Once again, the plot isn't all that realistic. But I really like his combination of fiction with realistic theatrical elements, it makes the unrealistic feel more... realistic! (Have I used that word enough?) It helps me stay at the "edge of my seat" if it feels like I'm there in the movie experiencing what the characters are experiencing. Hitchcock does just that! Thank you Alfred!

Opening Night, Cassavetepoopies.

Opening Night (1977) actually had a little more "oomph" to the story line, but still very stylistic of Cassavetes. Gena Rowlands plays an actress named Myrtle Gordon, who is experiencing a confidence breakdown from the pressures of the acting world in New York City. I read a review by Dan Schneider and found this interesting:

"John Cassavetes’ 1977 film ‘Opening Night’ is what critics usually call the work of such a significant artist ‘overlooked’. It is an excellent film, in its own right, and one of the best portraits of a midlife crisis ever put to film. It’s not a perfect film, in that, at two hours and twenty four minutes it’s about a half hour too long, ... long after we’ve gotten the point."

First off, it is interesting that he called Cassavetes "overlooked". In a sense I'm sure that is true of Cassavetes, for his time he was a very talented man. However, I'm not surprised he is sort of overlooked now-a-days.

Second, I'm glad Schneider commented on the movie length and it being a half hour too long. My group has said that about all three Cassavetes films we watched. It makes me glad to hear that we aren't just naive, critical teens being harsh on a unique film director.

Thirdly, I agreed with Schneider in saying that it was a good portrait of a midlife crisis, however personally I definitely wouldn't say the best. By different techniques, especially magnifying Myrtle's alcoholism, Cassavetes was successful in portraying the downfall of an actress.

The Killing of a Chinese Bookie

The 1976 film The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, directed by John Cassavetes, was definitely another unique one. Mr. Klobuchar was right in saying that Cassavetes takes some getting used to. Overall, I enjoyed this film better than Faces. It had a little more sustenance. I liked the bright lighting and colors used in the film, it made it more appealing to the eye and caught my attention.

When I watch a film, often times there is one scene in particular that sticks out to me and catches my attention (once again). Whether its a cinematic element or a literary element.

In this film a specific scene that I keep thinking about focused on a literary element. Ben Gazzara plays the character of a strip club owner named Cosmo Vitelli. When Cosmo is sitting around with some of the dancers talking; he says, "People are happy when they are comfortable". This quote immediately popped into my head and got me thinking: "that is so true!" Coming from a gambler, that is somewhat insightful. To me it sort of bounces off of the whole: money doesn't buy you happiness. However, Cosmo could have very well meant that money buys comfort, which would resolve in money "buying" happiness. I like to take the quote and relate it to more internal comfort, not material comfort. For most of us humans; if we are comfortable with ourselves, we are happy. I mean obviously not everyone is happy 24/7 like in Pleasantville (Gary Ross 1998), but a more general happiness.

For the most part I enjoyed watching The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, and I really like when films have something I can connect to outside of the box of images and sounds.

FACES

John Cassavetes' 1968 film Faces is a very different and new kind of film for that time period. It has a very minimal plot line, but that doesn't even matter because Cassavetes was trying to focus mostly on the interaction between genders. John Marley plays Richard Frost, an old man who leaves his wife for another woman. I sat there wondering when the movie was going to start taking off into the plot...and it never did, I soon realized this was the plot, them sitting around talking, having a good time, thrown in with some not so good times; all of this pretty much took place in one single room. However there was some more plot thrown in later on, Richard Frost's wife (now ex-wife) meets a younger fellow and starts a relationship with him. The story basically follows all of these love toils back and forth. I thought it was interesting that Cassavetes decided to steer clear from the plot almost as best he could, normally I like having a story to follow, but it was good for me to step outside the "norm" and watch something I might not on my own account.