Citizen Kane

Citizen Kane is considered by many critics to be the best movie ever made. That title can be debated by anyone, but there's no denying that for it's time, Citizen Kane brought together cinematic elements that had never been done before. That is what makes the movie so timeless; seventy years later and many of these techniques are still in practice in movies today.

One of the techniques utilized really well was the lighting. Lighting played a very important role in conveying messages throughout the movie about characters or the plot. An example of this is the way that the journalist, Thompson, is lit the entire movie. His face is always shadowed so all we get is his silhouette. The director did this so that the audience doesn't register Thompson with too much importance in the film. The movie is supposed to be all about Kane, so to keep it from becoming about the journalist researching Kane, Wells has his face blacked out so we understand that he is not the main focus.


Another instance where the lighting is set to the mood of the scene is the one when Kane is finishing Leland's nasty review of Susan's performance. This is also the scene Leland gets fired. In it, Kane is shown sitting closer to the camera and off to the left, while Leland stands a little farther back and to the right. The way the lighting is set up, shadows half of Kane's face and body. This use of low key lighting is meant to make Kane appear more menacing and sinister, which fits the scene because he was writing a bad review of his own wife and about to fire his best friend. Then there's Leland who has a harsh frontal lighting on him during the scene. This makes him appear flat and helpless, as he is now not only an alcoholic, but an unemployed alcoholic.
A time where the lighting wasn't used as effectively is the first time that Thompson goes to interview Susan and she's wasted. In this scene, Susan is lit so that the shadows of her features cover her face a bit, giving her a slightly ominous look. I think that she should've been lit with a much harsher frontal light to make her appear more powerless, like how she actually is in the scene. We can tell by context that Susan is now/has been a drunk and as she's stumbling through her conversation with Thompson, the lighting would've been more effective if it did more to wash her out rather than make her appear mysterious.

The lighting in this movie did a lot to portray dominance in the film also. Often times, the shadow of one person was used to overcast a weaker character or the more dominant character would be shadowed to give him more mystic. Throughout the story, we could rely on the lighting to indicate what type of mood the scene was in. Any scene set in Xanadu was lit to be very shadowy, emphasizing the emptiness and lack of warmth/love in the home.
Another film that utilizes lighting to show dominance or importance is A Clockwork Orange. Take the famous tunnel scene for example. The back light gives the four crooks a tall shadow which stretches out, covering the old drunk they're about to beat up. Later in the cinema, when the doctors are treating Alex, the light of the projectors behind the doctors gives them a glowing outline. This, in addition to the low angle shot, makes them appear all-knowing and kind of God-like.

1935 Create a Movie Project: Fame's a Game

Plot: Lily Wong is a second-generation Chinese-American woman who has always dreamed of becoming an actress, but never could get a part out side the stereotypical "dragonlady" role that is given to all asian women in American films. Leaving a casting call one day, a nice handsome agent, Jonathan Ritz,  notices her and tells her she's be perfect for the next MGM blockbuster about a southern belle during the civil war. Lily is overcome with gratitude and her daydreams of being a big-time actress cloud her judgement. She agrees to a private reading with the agent at his apartment later that night. As the night progresses, the Jonathan's motives make it clear that he's not really interested in Lily as an actress, but just wants her for sex. After some repeated "No's" from Lily, Jonathan gets more forceful, and when he tries to cover her mouth, she grabs the nearest object and gives him a hard hit to the skull. Jonathan falls to the ground, completely still, a small pool of blood beginning to seep out of where she hit him. Panicked, Lily grabs her things and flees the apartment. A couple weeks pass and Lily gets a notice from the company she was at a casting call for when she met Jonathan. She receives the staring role in their film, which eventually propels her to stardom. Fast-forward a year or two, the murder of Jonathan Ritz was initially blamed on a neighbor who he had on-going beef with, but after viewing Lily's film, another neighbor recognizes her from that night and tells police. At this point, Lily is living out her dream of being a big-name star. The authorities are after her now and a wild goose-chase ensues across many states. When Lily is eventually caught, she works out a deal with the police men to get them into her next movie if they let her go. The film ends with a shot of Lily triumphantly riding on the top of the police car.

Genre: Crime Drama

Lily Wong: Jadin Wong                             Jonathan Ritz: James Cagney

Studio: Warner Brothers were known for making films that would challenge social issues, which at the time involved racism, especially in the film industries. Having a lead actress who wasn't white did this.

Director: Dorothy Arzner
Arzner was the only openly gay director in the film industry at this time which I think would make her more willing to take on a controversial film.
Cinematographer: Hal Mohr
Cinematography will be an important element in this film as it works around the Hay's Code to show the more explicit scenes.

The Code and Technology: Because a prominent point in this film is Ritz's attempted rape, working around the Hay's code will be tricky. It won't be illicitly shown, so the conversation between the two characters is what will tell the audience what is going on. Lily will be very clear that she is merely there to do a run-through of the script and Jonathan will be very clear that he wants more than just a run-through. When the conversation gets to the point of being physical (his move on her and her hitting him), the camera will pan to the wall behind them and their shadows will show the action instead. This film will be a talkie but still in black and white. It needs to be a talkie to be able to convey certain scenes, but the B&W goes better with the mood of the film and won't overwhelm audiences who are already trying to handle the talking and non-white lead actress.

MIST #1- The Skeleton Twins

 Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader are comedy kings and both had their hand at bringing audiences to tears every week on Saturday Night Live. With this in mind, I expected the film to be light-hearted and have a lot of silliness in it. When the opening scene depicted both twins separately attempting suicide, I was immediately enthralled. Over a black screen, you begin by hearing a much more serious Wiig talk about her dad. A man in a skeleton mask appears on screen and presents his two children with skeleton dolls. The symbolism is already making itself clear. One girl wears a Wednesday Addams costume and to her left, her brother is dressed as a pageant queen. The two kids look happily from the skeletons and up at their dad before we're cut to a view of the skeleton doll sinking to the bottom of a pool just as the voiceover asks, "What the hell happened to us?"
     Bill Hader's distressed face fills the screen. He's struggling to write a letter and can't figure out who to make it to, so he settles on "to whom it may concern." The upbeat Beach Boys-esque song playing in the background adds to the irony of the obviously depressed and slumming Hader. After a long hard stare into his fish tank and an equally as long swing of vodka, Hader looks longingly into a picture frame before tossing it into the tank. When it settles to the bottom, we see a photo of him with his arm wrapped around another man. This explains the depressed look and pageant queen costume.

     Cut to the suicide, a God's eye view looks down on Hader as he lies in tub, the red whisps of blood flowing out of his wrists and up his abdomen. Just as the music builds up, we cut to a frontal close up of Wiig's face and the scene is silent. A tear rolls down her cheek and another cut to her cupped hand over the sink reveals the handful of pills she appears ready to take. She takes a few final breathes and just in time, a

call comes in on her phone with the caller id, "Unknown." Holding out the phone next to her handful of pills, she looks back and forth between the two before finally answering the call. Wiig snaps at the lady on the phone about how she's on a national do not call registry and how did you get this number before the voice on the line informs her of her brother's failed suicide attempt. She assures her that he's ok and a stunned Wiig can only get out, "Good."
      There is barely any talking in this four minute scene, but that doesn't mean it wasn't able to get the point across. The heavy use of low-key lighting gave the scenes their darker feel, which fit with the weighty topic it was depicting. I liked the use of a God's eye shot during Hader's suicide because it made him look vulnerable in what was probably, the most vulnerable time in his life. Same with Wiig's shot. The use of a close-up put all the attention on her face, and you were really able to read what she was feeling moments before she thought she was going to end her life. Also, by having a shot of key objects, like the picture frame or the handful of pills, we are able to understand the plot by putting the objects into context.

     This scene sets up the plot for the rest of the movie. Hader and Wiig play Milo and Maggie, two twins who, after experiencing the same near-death experience, try to rebuild their relationship after not speaking for ten years. Milo is a gay wannabe actor who can't find an agent and Maggie is a suburban wife secretly taking birth control. Neither of their lives is going where they thought it would and as the movie progresses, they look to each other and their past for answers on what to do next. Even though this is a "serious" role for Wiig and Hader, there are some serious funny moments in which I found myself LOL-ing pretty hard, specifically a scene (which I've included in the post) where they're both hyped up on laughing gas. The movie often had burst of funny moments like this, often relying on a dry humor similar to that found in Wes Anderson movies.
      Overall, I loved the film. I thought that it did a great job mixing in scenes about the seriousness of adultery and cheating on your spouse with scenes of fart jokes. It kept me entertained and at times even a little surprised. The film does a good job of not overloading the viewer with too much background info at one time. A big plot point is why the twins stopped talking in the first place and the movie does a great job of revealing that slowly by first introducing other characters and building up the story so the audience can understand each side better. I'm giving this movie 5 flames out of 5, it's available on Netflix, go watch it.

Review of the Reviews

For my Review of the Reviews, I chose one of Wes Anderson's more noted films, Moonrise Kingdom. Picked off of Rotten Tomatoes, this first review by Rex Reed was less than impressed with Anderson's playful love story (http://observer.com/2012/05/moonrise-kingdom-rex-reed-wes-anderson/). Before even getting into the review, Reed makes his opinions on Anderson's past movies clear, calling out The Darjeeling Limited and The Royal Tenembaums as moronic and boring. Reed continues his review with a quick overview of the movie and characters, mixing in his opinions with each description. In Reed's opinion, everyone in the movie is idiotic, childish, or both. The characters didn't act "adult" enough for him to take the film seriously.That also seemed to be the overall impression he was making of the film: that it was undeveloped and unstructured. To him, the film is too mature for the age group portrayed and too tween for older audiences. Although the film's quirkiness gave a sense of nostalgia for many, it did nothing for Rex Reed.
Another review taken from Rotten Tomatoes gives Anderson's film a similar description, but with an entirely different tone (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/film/103880/thomson-moonrise-kingdom). Instead of seeing Anderson's movie as being childish, David Thomson looks at it more as being from the children's point of view. Thomson sets up the review with references to other directors and the world they create for many of their movies. For Wes, it's an "isolated world inhabited by adults who are lost children," which is exactly what you could describe Moonrise Kingdom as. While the adults in the film make a mess of everything, the kids just want to be in love and left alone. This child-like view is carried throughout the entire movie through the whimsical humor and set designs. He also brings up the trusty clan of writers and actors who Anderson regularly uses and who appear in the film. Thomson rounds out the review by referring back to his earlier analogy of directors, and points out that Anderson is not afraid to make movies from his own little world and continues to use a style that distinguishes him from others.
Comparing the two reviews, I find it most interesting that they described Wes Anderson's film in a  similar way but one critic really liked the film and one did not. The two critics would agree that Moonrise Kingdom had a very whimsical, child-like view to it but they would disagree on how well that view worked with the movie. For Rex Reed, it slowed the movie down, making the adults look idiotic and the humor too dry. On the other hand, for David Thomson, this childish view added to the sense of nostalgia and the innocence of the love story being portrayed.
There wasn't much I agreed with in Rex Reed's review but when he mentions the sound and art design, comparing it to "colorful illustrations from children's books and Crayola drawings from a kindergarten art class," I'd say he gave a pretty accurate description. Wes Anderson is meticulous about the details and view of each scene and how they relate to the story. For a story like Moonrise Kingdom about childhood love from the view of children, Anderson's use of color and props fit perfectly. For David Thomson, "Moonrise Kingdom is a damp, soggy terrain where moisture and sentimentality ooze under every step." The film provokes this feeling of nostalgia because it reminds you of your first crush. For a kid, having a crush on someone becomes their entire world and this film does the best in demonstrating just how far that feeling could push a couple of kids in the 60s. It's a little ridiculous and somewhat unbelievable, but so is being in love at age 12.
Perhaps it's my biased love of all things Wes Anderson, but if I had never seen this movie, I'd be more convinced by Thomson's review. It's the language Reed uses in his review that turns me off. He interchanged moronic/idiotic/hag to describe the characters without giving any reason and it didn't seem professional to me. On the other hand, Thomson not only has a much better vocabulary, but he covers more in his review. Whereas Reed only discusses the basics: plot, characters, and score, Thompson mentions all of the above plus more like the actors's impact on the roles and how other directors compare to Anderson.
If I were to write a review on Moonrise Kingdom, I'd spend a good portion of it discussing the camerawork and set design because that's where Anderson's distinctive style shines through the best. In a Wes Anderson film, nothing is done or placed without reason behind it and I appreciate that kind of thought and care going into the movie. I'd also talk about the humor used in the film because Moonrise Kingdom has the funniest, unlikeliest dry humor which, if taken too seriously, is easily missed. This humor is carried throughout many of his films, another aspect of what makes Wes Anderson so great.

Film Intro Survey

1. What is the first movie that made a strong impression on you? 
   Titanic
 2. What are 3-4 of your favorite genres?
   Comedy, Animation, Arthouse
3. What are 3-4 of your least favorite genres?
   Romance, War, Romantic Comedy
4. What are your 5 favorite films?
   The Royal Tenenbaums, The Devil Wears Prada, Coraline, Almost Famous, Black                 Swan
5. List three characteristics you consider to be a good movie
   Equally plot and character driven, thought to detail, use of foreshadowing 
6. What are 3-5 of your least favorite movies?
   A Walk to Remember, Fantastic Four, Free Willy
7. List three characteristics you consider to be a bad movie.
      Unrealistic conversation, cheesy plot, sloppy editing
8. If you have any favorite directors, list them.
      Wes Anderson, Hayao Miyazaki, Quentin Tarantino, Sofia Coppola
9. If you have any favorite actors/actresses, list them.
      Bill Murray, Eddie Redmayne, James Franco, Seth Rogen, Kate Hudson
10. List three films you consider important films for people to see.
        American Beauty, Pulp Fiction, It's Such a Beautiful Day
11. What's your oldest favorite film?
       Spirited Away
12. What's the best film you've seen in the past two years?
       The Grand Budapest Hotel
13. What are the next five films on your "queue"?
       Dallas Buyers Club, Bottle Rocket, Trainspotting, A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night,          Girl, Interrupted