Just Because They Can..

It couldn't be said any other way. Plain and simple, the Coen brothers have a distinct way of creating films, just because they can. They play with the views of reality vs tall tale, while twisting the minds of audiences in conceit and fabricated plots. They claim, 'based off a true story' in Fargo, but is it? Absolutely not. It's the genius of these two put together that create such a masterful manipulation in the eyes of the audience.

In 2000, the brothers released O Brother, Where Art Though?, a semi-mockery of Homer's The Odyssey (though the Coens established they were thinking of The Odyssey just as much as they were thinking of The Wizard of Oz). This film seems to be a Coen classic, and fits in with every aspect of their 'autuer theory'. To start off, the naming of the characters...George Clooney plays the main character, Everett McGill. Now as I read in a review by The Boston Phoenix, this name is a joke to those who watch Twin Peaks because Evertt McGill is the actor that played Big Ed. Now in No Country for Old Men, the villian is named, Anton Chigurh. Now Chigurh sounds like 'sugar' and I'd say he is anything but sweet. Same with Leonard Smalls (more like HUGE) in Raising Arizona. It seems the Coens like to throw in little jokes like these, just because they can.

Just like the ridiculous names, the Coens are also known for their meddling in reality vs. fantasy, or more of tall tales. In O Brother, Where Art Thou?, there are plenty of scenes that seem so realistic, but the idea of it actually happening, is quite absurd once you actually think about it. And I found that same feeling in Raising Arizona with the quintuplets, as well as the dumbness of the cops in Fargo. There is a particular scene I found in a clip from You Tube, and it's about 1:30 into it. It shows people dressed in all white coming through the forest and surrounding the three convicts. It is almost an eery feeling, and since it gives you that feel, it could seem realistic, but in all reality, we know its nothing more than a fable. Here is that clip:



All in all, I think it is very evident that the Coen brothers have a distinct style that lets them do what they want, and create ridiculously good movies, just because.

COEN BROTHERS

By far one, well two, of my favorite directors. The best part about watching the Coen Brothers' films has got to be noting how much enjoyment they must have gotten by putting everything together. You can just picture them directing each film in such a way that they want to pull the best reactions out of the audience, and just put scenes in for fun. Their use of dry humor is so prevalent as well in all three of the films we watched. I think it takes true talent to pull comedy out of the darkest of situations, and that is something seen especially in No Country for Old Men. They also have a remarkable talent for creating the most the devious, and pure-evil villains in movie history (in my opinion). I don't really know that you could create a scarier character than Anton Chigurh, and make it believable (aka not a make-believe ghostly villain).

Overall these are two movie-making geniuses, and it is with so much pride that we can say they come from a town not so far.

ALTMAN: a look at Nashville (1975)

Nashville--- 24 characters, 8 subplots, one movie.

and what did that ACTUALLY feel like?

500 characters, 50 subplots, and one big mess of a film.

But maybe that's just the beauty of it. While watching Nashville in class, I was confused and lost and didn't really want to continue watching. BUT, looking back on it now, the whole concept of having that many characters, and that many subplots, all somewhat intertwining, is something very different, something that hadn't really been done before in mainstream film making. The use of overlapping dialogue and improvisational acting are two aspects of the film that make it unique as well (especially the humorously horrible songs written by the actor and actresses themselves).

I think it is also very noteworthy to realize how extremely difficult it would be to take eight complex stories with 24 different characters and make them all come together to construct two 'extremist' statements about not only the country-music industry, but also one about american politics post-Nixon. You'd think we'd all realize how genius this director is, but just as you might expect, we passed this film off as a jumble of whacky country characters. Altman deserves great recognition for this film, and from reading reviews I think he has gotten that, but it will probably take time for the younger audience to grasp the magnitude of this masterpiece.

Director Blog 2: "What do you teach? Taxi Driver's Ed?"

Amy Heckerling's Look Who's Talking, produced in 1989, is a romantic comedy about an accountant, Mollie (played by Kirstie Alley), who has an unplanned pregnancy with a man who has, to say the least, more than a few women in his life. It is the entire plot line of the movie for Mollie to find a father for her son, Mikey. Mikey, the baby, whose voice is done by Bruce Willis, is what accounts for close to 3/4 of the humor in the film. His thoughts and ideas are voiced in a contemptuous manner and he constantly gives the audience some of his 'smartass-antics' from beginning to end of the film.

In terms of relating this movie back to Clueless, I find it kind of difficult because it is a much different stereotyping of characters being done, if any. This movie includes all adult actors/actresses, and there are no situations similar to that of ones in a Beverly hills high school. The one character connection I did make though was that Heckerling seems to always have a character looking to better themselves, but does it sort of blindsighted. In Clueless, Cher trying to make Tai fit in makes her realize that she should be the one trying to find herself and stand out instead of making other people fit in. In Look Who's Talking, Mollie tries to push away James, the cab driver, from being around her or her son, but in doing so finally realizes that he is what her and Mikey need to make the family complete.

Overall I thought the film was pretty good. It's a lot different than Clueless, although I did notice she used one of the same actresses in both movies (Twink Caplan). It's fun and I don't think people give it enough credit!

Here is a quote from a review of the film that I think gave it good credit, and says it right by saying:

"Like the dumb title, the story looks awful on paper: Unmarried accountant Alley gives birth to Mikey after an accidental pregnancy -- portrayed, by the way, in an elaborately, irresistably silly "Fantastic Voyage" title sequence -- and then struggles, with picturesque hysteria, to find a man. This could be the baby's real dad (George Segal as the married buccaneer businessman), or kind but goofy cabbie Travolta. Yecch.
But then, "Look Who's Talking" isn't on paper, silly. And Heckerling's central hokum is definitely silly, based on the notion that Mikey (and all babies, in fact) has somewhat adult, slightly cynical thoughts on everything that goes on around him, from conception to end credits -- and that these thoughts and embryonic wisecracks and creative interpretations are heard only by the audience via the aptly cast voice of overgrown kid Willis.
But via Heckerling's keen senses of visual comedy, musical humor (note Janis Joplin's "Cry Baby," in particular), rimshot-sharp editing and pace -- it works."

Link to article

Director Blog 1: "I like totally paused!"

With the tagline : "Sex. Clothes. Popularity. Is there a problem here?" Amy Heckerling's Clueless (1995) is the epitomy of a high school parody. Each of the characters represent (and most of the time waaay exagerate) a certain stereotype. The main character, Cher, played by Alicia Silverstone, is the ever so rich, glamorous, blonde, social butterfly who rules her school. Cher and her sidekick, Dion, played by Stacey Dash, could be considered the "plastics"- (reference from Mean Girls) of their day. Tai, played by the young Brittany Murphy, is the new, very unfortunate looking (at least thats the way she is portrayed) young girl who represents uniqueness in the film. Travis, represents the stoner/skater kid which I found to be the most exaggerated of the bunch. I thought Heckerling took it a little too far with this character and sometimes it wasn't so much humor that she used to play the character but it was more of a cruel and mean 'making fun of' manner she went about. I have a lot of skateboarding friends and so her stereotype of Travis was at times offensive.

But nothing to look too in depth with because cmon, it's CLUELESS! And thats maybe just the problem, is that it was difficult to find anything besides high school social norms and stereotypes in this film. It's over all just a fun film and though it may not having much meaning besides the ever so cliche "Be yourself, because individuality is what makes you who you are", it's still entertaining to watch and I think for the most part Heckerling did a nice job over exaggerating a Beverly Hills High School.

Kuroawa: Ran

Akira Kurosawa's Ran is a perfect example of how a director portrays their strong personal views in a film. In Ran, it becomes very evident that Kurosawa is criticizing today's modern warfare. He uses Japan's history and past to comment on present day issues. Kurosawa even stated:

"If you look at the situation of the world around you, I think its impossible in this day and age to be optimistic"

His pessimistic outlook is portrayed throughout this entire movie and can even be seen in his other film as well, such as Yojimbo.

In Ran, this newage warfare is conveyed through Saburo's use of arquebusers (an early firearm that came out in the 1500s in Japan). His army uses these newage weapons to wipe out Jiro's military, whom use simple fighting weapons such as swords and horses. The violence is really emphasized in each battle scene by the excessive use of red blood (gross!!) and Kurosawa uses long shots a lot to portray the massive chaos.

Overall he makes it very clear that the way in which present day people fight is no better, and even far worse than how they used to. A leaving thought...

"all the technological progress of these last years has only taught human beings how to kill more of each other faster"
-Akira Kurosawa

I like that quote and find it pretty true, as well as exemplified in both Yojimbo and Ran.

Director Blog 2: "What are you people? On dope? "

"Fast Cars, Fast Girls, Fast Carrots ...Fast Carrots?"- The perfect tagline for Amy Heckerling's Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982). I suppose it would have been more practical to watch this film before Clueless, seeing that it was Clueless's predecessor, but either way, Amy Heckerling really did an outstanding job with this movie. I liked it so much because it was the perfect amount of stereotyping, mixed with more realistic situations, and much more funny humor. The difference between this film and Clueless is that this film was made for everyone. I think Clueless really cuts off half the audience when it comes to men. Fast Times at Ridgemont High is a movie that everyone can enjoy because there is a role reversal of who plays the main character, and for whatever reason it is more enjoyable for women to watch stoners than it is for men to watch bubblegum girls.

This sort of role reversal is what caught my attention, and made me think of the character connections between the two films we've watched so far. I found the most similarities between Spicoli, played by Sean Penn, the lead role in Fast Times, and Travis, the stoner (a more background character in Clueless). They both advocate the use of marijuana (discretely...kind of haha). They both are absolutely horrendous students in school, and just sort of play dumb most of the time, though I would say that they both have a smart-guy line here and there. Heckerling decided to try something new by moving the stoners to the background in Clueless and moving the girly girls up to front plate, and it didn't work so well. There are many many more similarities between characters in both films and overall I think that Fast Times at Ridgemont High did a much better job of reaching a wider audience, and is definitely considered a classic. Nice Work Heckerling =)

HITCHCOCK

Alfred Hitchcock is both my father and sister's all-time favorite director, and I never really understood why until now. Each of his three films we viewed in class brought out a different aspect of directing that I came to learn was unique to his style. He is known for his use of suspense, camera angles, and infatuation with lead blondes.

In 39 Steps, the combination of low key lighting and mysterious music made for a perfectly suspenseful film. One specific scene was when the man and woman were at the hotel and the spies came looking for them. During the entire scene, the audience is kept on the edge of their seats, anticipating the doom of the two in hiding, and this is all done with the scary lighting on the staircase, and the 'freaky' music.

In Rear Window, Hitchcock's interesting use of camera angles is really exemplified. In one scene he uses clever angles from John's perspective. This is when John is looking into the neighbors apartment watching Lisa (Grace Kelley) rummage through a purse and when she pulls out a ring the camera zooms in on to an extreme close-up, showing the importance of the ring. This is something I have seen in no other film. His camera angles help to determine the perspective and give an extra boost to the importance of some key scenes.

Lastly, in Vertigo, Hitchcock 100% unviels his love for female blondes. Most critics beleive that this is the movie that really went overboard in his fantasy, and gave the audience alot more information about his personal life than they needed to know. Here is a link to an article that talks about blondes in all of Hitchcock's Film. I found it fairly interesting.

All in all, I think I really enjoyed these movies and might continue to watch some of his other films.