MYST #2 Memento Directed By Christopher Nolan

Memento 
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Guy Pearce, Carrie-Anne Moss, and Joe Pantoliano
I give this movie 3 ½ stars out of 5

Overview:

Leonard Shelby has short-term memory loss and can only hold onto new memories for 5-6 minutes at a time. When the movie begins he is on the hunt for the man that raped and murdered his wife. Leonard has made a system for himself in order to "remember" the important things. His system consists of note writing, taking photos, and tattooing important facts on his body. The other characters in the story are Natalie, a woman who seems to be helping Leonard out of pity because she has also lost someone, and Teddy, a "sketchy" character that we don't really know what to think about.

I decided to watch the rest of the movie after we saw part of it in class. The whole going backwards in time with a guy who has no new memories was extremely intriguing to me. I think this movie intrigues a lot of people because you never can be sure of what the truth is, similar to the way that Leonard doesn't really know what is going on in his life. The twist comes at the end of the movie when we learn that Leonard set himself up to kill Teddy after Teddy and him have a bad confrontation. 

From a critical perspective, this movie utilizes some of the most interesting tactics. Not only are the cinema graphic choices, they are also uncommon, which in and of itself makes this movie stand out. Some of the moat obvious movie choices are that the movie is going in reverse order. This decision helps to make the movie more confusing in a intellectually intriguing way. In compliment to the backward order, the movie also contains black and white scenes that are played in the right order. The odd combination of backwards and forwards confuses us in the beginning, but as the movie goes on, we find that we are starting to understand what is being communicated and we are capable of piecing together some of the bits of the story. In addition to these two rather obvious cinematic choices, there are also the occasional flashbacks that Leonard has that make us question what we thought the story was about. These flashbacks have us starting to wonder if Sammy Jankis and him are really the same person and that Leonard was the one who accidentally killed his wife and went to the mental facility. The confusion in this movie is strange because, while one usually hates a movie that fails to clearly communicate what is going on, in the case of this movie, the confusion adds to the experience of watching the movie. Another obvious, but rather forgotten point is that this movie doesn't show everything, but rather tells. Instead of showing us how some things happen they are explained due to the difficulty of making it fit with the movie. The movie at first seems almost memoir style, but quickly changes to down right confusing. Despite all that though I enjoyed the movie. I didn't mind being confused, it was the hardest I ever had to think during a movie. I think that was what was cool about the movie, the movie makes you think hard to piece together the story and no matter how hard you try you will still be confused just like Leonard.

Something cool I researched quickly was the comparisons people were making between Inception, also by Christopher Nolan, and this movie. Both movies as a blogger stated, "play with your mind and your perception of time and reality". As I have seen Inception, I would definitely agree. I think the idea of comparing the two of these movies to be very interesting. If you like being challenged to think a lot during a movie and trying to solve puzzles is fun to you, you'll probably love this movie.

Undercover Money (1930s Movie)

Undercover MoneyAmy Spencer and Annie Cappetta

Plot Summary:This movie follows Howard F. Stowe, or “Stowie” as his old friends call him. Stowe grew up on the streets, and was heavily involved in gang activity. Somehow, unbeknownst to the audience, he breaks free from the gang life and become captain of his city’s police department. He has a great family, three kids, and goes to church every Sunday. On his way home from church one day, he sees a bank robbery take place, and a man fleeing the scene (bank robbery was the aim of most of this gang’s crime). He arrests this man, and upon the arrest realizes the man was his best friend from childhood Jimmy Smalls, presumably still involved in gang activity. Stowe gets back involved with his old gang going undercover pretending to be a dirty cop. Through this investigation, he uncovers evidence of the corporate heads at several of the banks the gang has robbed being involved with fraud costing the people of his city millions of dollars. Stowe arrests the bankers, and the evidence also exonerates Smalls, who Stowe then convinces to join the police force and leave the gang life. We also find out at the end that Smalls was the one who helped Stowe get out of the gang life when he was younger, and Smalls has avoided being involved ever since.
Relevance to 1935:
A 1935 audience would enjoy this movie because it's under their favorite category of gangster films, but the story has an original twist that they'll love. Given the Great Depression is going on during this time the audience will resonate with the idea that banks are the bad guys. Also, people will be able to relate themselves to "Stowie" because he's kind of your "average Joe". 

Style:
This film would take on a critical feel towards banks while still maintaining a gangster-esque quality. In addition, the movie would exude a feeling of slight confusion as to what side "Stowie" is playing for and a touch of humor and sarcasm.


Message:
The basic message is a few things.
1.) Banks are the bad guys
2.) Despite having a "stretchy" past you can make something of yourself it you're willing to try and work for it. ("Stowie" used to run with gangs as a kid and grew up to be a cop, and Smalls ends up joining the "good side".)
3.) Sometimes the lines between doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing are blurred. (Stowie seems to be doing some "sketchy" stuff with his old gang, but in the end he "saves the day".)

Genre:
As far as genre goes, this movie is obviously a gangster movie. This genre goes well not only with the studio we chose (Warner Bros. known for doing gangster movies), but it also goes well with much of our cast. (James Cagney and Paul Muni were common gangster film actors.) We liked the idea of doing a gangster film since in the 1935s everybody liked a good old gangster movie. (Violence sells, more about in the Hay's Code section)

Studio:
We decided that Warner Bros. would be the best fit for our movie for a few reasons.
1.) Warner Bros. was known as the gangster film "kings"
2.) They were known for doing movies that were bold and dealt with some of the contemporary societal issues going on. (Banks and Depression)
3.) They had contracts with the actors we wanted to star in the film.
4.) We wanted our movie to make sound a big part of the movie and they were one of the first ones "out of the gate" with sound technology. (Vita-phone, sound-on-disc.)
5.) They targeted a "blue collar" audience and we feel that our movie would do well with that particular audience. (We think our movie would do well with all audiences, but especially blue collar due to the Great Depression/Bank connection.)

Scale:
Given the studio we chose we knew we couldn't have an extreme budget, but since we decided to go with a sound focus, we would be able to save money on what would be expensive violent scenes. (Sound would replace some of the more "dicey" action in the movie as a way around the Hay's Code as well.) While some of our crew is a bit pricey (James Cagney) our supporting actors would make up for some of the losses there. Also, our director, though known and talented, is not someone really expensive, like Capra or Hawke.

Cast and Crew:
Lead Actors:
James Cagney: We chose Cagney for his background in gangster films, his relationship with Warner Brothers, and his relationships with the other actors that were chosen. He commonly worked with Joan Blondell as well as playing opposite role of Humphrey Bogart. He was is famous movies like Public Enemy, Little Caesar, and Smart Money. 
Paul Muni: We chose Muni for similar reasons as Cagney. Muni was also a well known gangster star and he has a familial background in acting. In addition, he had the lead role in Scarface (1932), a famous gangster movie.
Supporting Actors:
Humphrey Bogart: We chose Bogart for his partnership with Warner Brothers, his commonality for playing as a supporting actor, and his experience with gangster films. He was also commonly casted as Cagney's opposite as I mentioned before.
Joan Blondell: We chose Blondell for her acting relationship with Cagney, her pre-existing contract with Warner Brothers, and her skill as a supporting actress.
Director-Raoul Walsh: Walsh was our choice director for a number of reasons. We knew he was a great director because of his success previously. When he was younger, his first feature-length film was a gangster movie by the name Regeneration which came out in 1915. He also worked with the famous D.W. Griffith as his assistant and had a relationship with Warner Brothers as well as Bogart and Cagney. As a side note, he wore an eye patch because he got into a car accident.
Sound Engineer-Nathan Levinson: Levinson seemed to be a perfect fit for our movie given his extensive successful background. He has won 16 Academy Awards for best sound and he worked on the all famous first sound film The Jazz Singer. In addition to that, he worked with Warner Brothers.

Hay's Code:
Due to the nature of gangster films, violence is a must, but since the code doesn't like violence or the demonstration of how to carry out a criminal act we are replacing scenes that would otherwise be screened by the code with intense detailed sound that would be able to portray what is going on. Another part of the movie that was molded around the code was the decision of Smalls to break his ties with his gang for the "good" life of a cop.

Technology:
Due to Warner Brothers being one of the top-runners when it comes to sound, sound is going to play a big role in our movie. Vita-phone technology used with the sound-on-disc idea will allow the audience to experience a great gangster film that will leave a memorable impact on the viewer whether they paid attention to the plot or not. Our only other important technological choice was that we want the movie to still be a black and white film. While color could have been made possible, for the particular movie we felt black and white sufficed for many reasons. Most importantly, color would have been too expensive for the lower end budget of our movie. Another valuable reason that black and white would be better for our film is that it's what the people were used to and black and white was seen to portray reality over what was at the time considered colorful surrealism. As was later seen in the Wizard of Oz, color was more used in movies to represent the unreal. A minor reason would also be that black and white films tend to make the idea of good vs evil more prominent, if only slightly.

Changes?
While I hadn't really had what our result was in mind when I thought about this project, now that it is completed, I wouldn't really change a thing. I felt that all out big decisions seemed to be good ones that made sense with the time period and what would have happened. My only change may have been in making the plot of little clearer since I myself still don't really know how everything would work out in the end. Since we didn't need to really know how our movie would work itself out though I don't really have much to say for change. Fortunately, Annie and I were on the same page about our project and we made our decisions unanimously.

Formal Film Study Project #1 War Movies Through the Years: Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan, The Hurt Locker

Introduction

After a few days of deciding what I wanted to do for this Film Study I decided to go with a focus of war films. I chose Apocalypse Now directed by Francis Ford Coppola in 1979, Saving Private Ryan directed by Steven Spielberg in 1998, and more recently, The Hurt Locker directed by Kathryn Bigelow in 2008. Each of these films deal with the realities of war, but despite being from the same genre they differ greatly. This film study will hopefully give you a better understanding of the changes of filming over time as well as a history lesson on 3 of the biggest wars in American history. Since you may not have seen all of these movies, let's start out with a quick synopsis of what each of these movies were about.

Movie Overviews
(For more information on any of these movies, just click their Overview title.)

Apocalypse Now Overview


Apocalypse Now is an intriguing film that has a very different feeling than many other war films. It takes viewers on a disorienting journey up the Nung River alongside US Army Captain Willard and his crew as the Vietnam War rages around them. Captain Willard's mission comes straight from the top dogs and the task is simple, "terminate with extreme prejudice".

Saving Private Ryan Overview
Saving Private Ryan is a patriotic movie centered on the mission of the 2nd Ranger Battalion headed under Captain Miller to find and rescue Private James Ryan after the confusing events of D-Day on the beach of Normandy. Viewers watch in sadness as the events of D-Day and its aftermath come alive in tear-jerking reality.

The Hurt Locker Overview
The Hurt Locker portrays the realities of the war in Afghanistan by following the actions of Bravo Company, a bomb squad working to disarm bombs left around civilian areas. While the film has few action scenes the intensity of the situations are very present and shocking.

Compare and Contrast

Style/Mood
The first thing one notices in watching the three of these movies is the immense differences in style. Apocalypse Now just seems disgusting and chaotic. The mission seems insane as does the entire war itself. As for Saving Private Ryan, the movie is very patriotic and moral. Despite the chaos of war, we see the bond of the battalion and the sense of duty these men feel. In the Hurt Locker, the style is of constant tension that mimics the emotions of soldiers as they get up close and personal with the threat of death by bomb explosion.

Technology/Cinematography

Each movie has a very different feel which is created with stunning attention to detail. The three movies pull out all the stops to put together something so intense and brilliant. In Apocalypse Now Coppola's use of lighting and intense colors really adds to the crazed madness that was the Vietnam War. The effects as a whole give the movie a rather hallucinogenic feel, as if one were watching the movie from a clouded surreal lens.

On the opposite end, The Hurt Locker is move about the sounds of war. While all movies use sound effects, this movie over the other two really pulls at the audience through hearing. The sound makes the movie because there is way less action than some of the other movies. The sounds feed our tension. The heart beating, the bomb going off, that's the reality.

For me Saving Private Ryan's cinematography wasn't as apparent in comparison to the others but a noticeable editing technique was the way Spielberg at times cut the sound and slowed down the action. The use of taking away sound is surprisingly impactful. When these moments in the movie occur, we stop hearing war and start feeling it. The slowed down scenes allow of us to really notice what is going on and take it all in. Hearing the action is no longer that important.

Politics/History/Culture
As is obvious, these films are centered in American history. The way these movies are presented is strongly based in the feelings of people during that particular war. In Apocalypse Now, the hatred of the Vietnam war is obvious. Men are shooting anything that moves and missions seem pointless. The whole war seems pointless. The cha
racters have all gone crazy and the antagonist isn't that clear most of the time. The movie basically describes what the Vietnam war was to the American people. There wasn't that feeling of patriotism as there was in other wars. Soldiers didn't care what was happening, all they wanted was to get out of 'Nam.

In Saving Private Ryan people felt like they were fighting for something. The soldiers were dying in large numbers yet they did their duty because they knew that their efforts meant something. Historically, America had a very strong feeling about WWII. Morals were important and feeling like you were doing something meaningful was enough. The movie addresses the courage of a man and strong leadership as a catalyst for change. Saving Private Ryan gives the audience something to remember, to think about. The movie reminds us that we should live lives worthy of the sacrifices of our soldiers.

As for The Hurt Locker the focus isn't so much on war as a whole, but rather the men that serve in it. We see this from the beginning, the focus isn't a troop of soldiers, but a small team of three tasked with the sole purpose of disarming bomb after bomb. The movie outlines the different kinds of men that are still fighting for our country. Sanborn is a logical leader that deep down is like any other man with hopes and dreams as well as fears and sadness. Eldridge is a regular guy that is just scared of war and thats obvious. But he is capable when he is needed. James, the bomb specialist, is great at what he does and he knows it. But he too is human, when he's at home he doesn't know what he's doing. He isn't as sure of himself. He's good at defusing bomb threats. He knows exactly what's going on, and he knows the consequences of failure. For James, war is the drug that gives him control.

My Discovery
In these movies, I see a very common element in all of them. While the war going on holds the control on the events in the film, it's the characters that really stand out. In all three movies there is an importance in understanding who these men are. The films help the viewers to come to terms with the fact that these are ordinary men and that we aren't different them really. These movies try to make their audience realize that despite a hardened outer shell, these men are fathers, sons, brothers, friends, like all of us. Another point that is subtly seen in all the movies is that war changes a man, sometimes for the better, sometimes for worse.

In Apocalypse Now, the movie begins with the slightly dysfunctional Captain Willard, we journey with him as he struggles with the decision of having to take the life of an American. We also watch as his crew slowly goes mad the further they go up the Nung River. Most intriguing of all in the movie though is the strangeness of Kurtz and Kilgore. The funny thing is though, despite having "gone off the deep end" they still have those traits that make men of war just like any other man. Kilgore loves surfing and Kurtz has passions despite their craziness. Apocalypse Now is based in the humanity of its characters and how war changes them.
In Saving Private Ryan we see similar ideas. The characters range from religious, vulgar, honorable, brave, cowardly, and loyal. Miller at first seems like the unbreakable hero, but in reality, as we later find, he was an ordinary school teacher before the war. He has a wife he wants to get back to and his motives for completing his mission is no more than a desire to earn the right to go home. Upham on the other hand is a cowardly man that has never seen battle prior to this mission. He's a translator and he doesn't have the guts to put his life on the line for those that rely on him. But how can we not relate to him, could we do any better put in his position? Maybe, but that's not the point. We see that war is composed of ordinary men. We also see that men are changed by war. An obvious example Upham killing his enemy in cold blood despite their surrender.

In The Hurt Locker we see the same kind of characterization idea. Sanborn is a logical leader that deep down is like any other man with hopes and dreams as well as fears and sadness. Eldridge is a regular young guy that is just scared of war as well as failing his team. But he is capable when he is needed. James, the bomb specialist, is great at what he does and he knows it. But he too is human, when he's at home he doesn't know what he's doing, he isn't as sure of himself. He's good at defusing bomb threats, he knows exactly what's going on, and he knows the consequences of failure. For James, war is the drug that gives him control of his life. Here too we see a change in character. By the end of the movie Sanborn has come to the realization that he wants a child. He wants someone that will love him come the end of his life besides his regular family. War has made him realize that he wants more out of his life than a tragic death alone.

If you want some outside proof of the importance of characters in these war movies, click this link. It'll show you why characterization is so important in movies and how to do it.

Browne, Robert G. "Creating Movie Characters That Jump Off The Page." Web log post. Movie Outline. Nuvotech Company, n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2013. 

A Closer Look
Let's take a closer look at some of these movies, shall we? It's hard to believe, but when it comes to movies, every little detail is thought out and adds to the movie, usually... Point being, even the less noticeable details of movies can be important, sometimes they even give hints or add to the story. In these three movies, apart from the importance of the characters, we notice that Saving Private Ryan uses a lot of hand-held camera work, Apocalypse Now has a thing for long slow dissolves that juxtapose the changing scenes, and The Hurt Locker utilizes the long shot for bomb explosions to show the ultimate doom of failure. There are many other nuances in these movies, each one hand picked to further improve the movie. 


Some important quotes from these movies that stuck with me....

The Hurt Locker:

1.) William James:  [Speaking to his son] You love playing with that. You love playing with all your stuffed animals. You love your Mommy, your Daddy. You love your pajamas. You love everything, don't ya? Yea. But you know what, buddy? As you get older... some of the things you love might not seem so special anymore. Like your Jack-in-a-Box. Maybe you'll realize it's just a piece of tin and a stuffed animal. And the older you get, the fewer things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things. With me, I think it's one.
2.) William James: Everyone's a coward about something.
3.) Opening Quote by Chris Hedges: The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.

Saving Private Ryan:

1.) Captain Miller:  You see, when... when you end up killing one your men, you see, you tell yourself it happened so you could save the lives of two or three or ten others. Maybe a hundred others. Do you know how many men I've lost under my command?

Sergeant Horvath : How many?

Captain Miller: Ninety-four. But that means I've saved the lives of ten times that many, doesn't it? Maybe even 20, right? Twenty times as many? And that's how simple it is. That's how you... that's how you rationalize making the choice between the mission and the man.

2.) Corporal Upham: "War educates the senses, calls into action the will, perfects the physical constitution, brings men into such swift and close collision in critical moments that man measures man."

Captain Miller: I guess that's Emerson's way of finding the bright side.The Hurt Locker

3.) Old James Ryan: [addressing Capt. Miller's grave] My family is with me today. They wanted to come with me. To be honest with you, I wasn't sure how I'd feel coming back here. Every day I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. I tried to live my life the best that I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that, at least in your eyes, I've earned what all of you have done for me.

Ryan's Wife: James?...

Old James Ryan: Tell me I have led a good life. Tell me I'm a good man.