Avant-Garde Film Discussion

            The avant-garde film I chose to analyze is Experimental Movie (2010).  This film is of the compilation form, meaning that none of the footage was taken by the person who made the movie, it’s just a mash-up of a bunch of clips from other films and television programs.  This compilation is constructed from a large amount of clips from the 50’s and 60’s era, most of which are obviously out of date in their construction as well as in the ideas that they present.  Much of the film is made of commercial advertisements about meat and how large-scale industrialization of the product is good for the American way.  A lot of this film is comprised of aged ideals and I think that is what the film is trying to make its cinema relevant point about.  I believe the film is arguing that cinema needs to grow from its generic roots ideologically, much as we have separated ourselves from the politically correct “Leave it to Beaver“, sterilized household of the 50’s.  This is especially apparent in the scene with the flashing red light directly next to the stop sign; maybe lacking in a bit of subtlety, but nonetheless getting the point across.

                I believe the viral video can be either film or non-film.  I suppose it depends specifically on the intent of the author along with, and on the internet infinitely more important, its reception by the people at large.  It may all come down to the whole readerly v. writerly idea presented earlier in the class, that viral videos that are writerly could be considered film while those that are just readerly (which would be the vast, vast majority of videos online) would not be considered so.  I think it comes to a point where everyone sort of instinctively knows whether or not a given piece of internet footage is actually trying to be film.  As far as this redefining the genre I don’t think it really does.  While presenting a new medium, albeit a more open one, the viral video does nothing to the art of the film, or its original inception, it merely presents the video to a much larger audience than was once possible.   

Review of Criticism and A Single Man

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/feb/11/a-single-man-review            

                In Peter Bradshaw’s review of A Single Man, there is a certain sense that there is more to this review than with most that you come across.  Bradshaw does focus on content, there’s no doubting that, but he also does make a point to give an artistic depiction of the film and briefly discuss some elements of form.  The major artistic description that this review gives us of the movie is that it looks perfect, but almost too perfect sometimes, which I would have to agree with.  As the reviewer points out, everyone in this movie is attractive, which is hilarious considering that everyone always mentions to George how awful he looks.  This perfection also leads to many of the scenes looking a lot like advertisements in their gilded perfection.  All the colors are just right and accentuated perfectly, all the people are just right for every scene and even sometimes the dialogue can come off as something just a touch more perfect than reality.  While this review does take glimpses at Susan Sontag’s new vision of criticism, it ends up mostly discussing the acting and more plot structured elements of the movie.  This may be because the review was written in the Guardian and that Hollywood does not have as much of a chokehold on what people care about in a movie.  For this review to improve on Sontag’s vision I believe it would need to focus more on the form and take its ideas of the perfect image a little farther to how that effects our perception of the film.

                The most dramatic element of this movie, that also does a good job of contributing to the narrative of the film, is the saturation of color around George.  This is, for the most part, pointed out to us using extreme close-ups (when the girls lipsticks saturates in the beginning of the film), or when the entire scene saturates (when George smells the fox terrier) it is given in a medium close-ups.  This saturation for me had two meanings.  It would happen as George would in some sense link to his past, but for the most part I believe it happened as George came to appreciate his present.  The movie began with him appreciating the little things: the lipstick, an eye, the kids playing across the street with their mother, lips.  But then as the movie progressed entire scene would fill up with saturation as when he smells the dog’s hair, had the cigarette with the Spanish kid, or his trip to Charlotte’s.  Then after he met Kenny in the bar the movie was entirely saturated.  I believe this, in a highly artistic way, brought home the point that George did not begin as one who appreciated the present at all, but that a chance meeting and a new friend could change your whole outlook.       

Review of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho

                I would have to say the most prominent enigma in Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho would have to be the relationship between the antagonist Norman Bates, his mother, and the murders.  The reason that an enigma is even created is due to the subtle cues that Bates gives off before the murder is committed, most notably the scene where he looks through the peep-hole and spies on Marion.  Also the entire conversation between Marion and Bates, his taxidermy, and his reaction to her thoughts that he should leave don’t exactly paint him in a very non-murderous light.  But his reaction to the murder where he cries out to his mother, as well as the womanly looking assailant contrast our first impressions of this man, or at least makes us question them.  A delay comes in the scene where Norman takes his mother and brings her down to the basement while talking to her could be seen as a fraud.  In the scene Norman is seen carrying his mother down the stairs, which for the time being, allays questions of her existence and also places the blame for the murders on her. The way in which Norman discusses the murders so candidly with his mother leads us to believe that she is the one who caused them and possibly that Norman has just simply been trying to protect his mother who he had referred to as ill before.  This will obviously not prove to be the case, but for the time being it provides the answers that we are looking for to the enigma.

                This movie to me is pretty obviously a writerly text.   A lot of things contribute to the plurality of the movie, but none more so than the two narratives told that are conjoined by the murder.  Had the syuzhet ended with Marion doing whatever she wanted to with the money, or began with Norman’s first murder it would have been pretty readerly, but the fact that the two are together leaves a lot up to the viewer to flesh out for themselves.  Is that what Marion gets for stealing the money?  Is Norman some weird symbol of cosmic justice? Or just some incredibly disturbed individual?  I don’t think any real definitive answer could come to explain the connection between these two characters and their stories, which makes it writerly in my book.  Even though both stories separately did seem to resolve themselves rather simply, in that Marion was most likely going to return the money, and that the psychologist explained Norman’s behavior to the viewer, with little left up to the imagination, I think that there is still the heavy task of connecting the two that really makes this a writerly piece.   

Review of a Full Metal Jacket Review

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1515226/full_metal_jacket_movie_review.html?cat=40

                I found this to be a pretty decent review of Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket.  The author of this review definitely doesn’t focus too much on the plot of the movie and dives right into highlighting the aspects of the style of this film that are so legendary.   The author continues on to compliment Kubrick’s scrupulous attention to detail and his ability to balance all of the events on screen.  I would definitely agree that Kubrick did an excellent job of balancing this movie out, both on the micro and macro levels.  In almost every scene there was usually some incredibly morbid image juxtaposed with some awkwardly hilarious one, highlighting misanthropy and humanity in one frame.  But the two “sections” of the film also balance one another out beautifully, the strict, confined world of Parris Island and the more “anything goes” actual war.  The author of the article pointed out how this contrast ultimately points out the high level of futility that ever characters attempts to prepare for war are met with.  The author also emphasized two key scenes in his review.  He noted the scene where Pyle shoots himself and the one where the little girl is found to be the sniper.  The author of this article focuses primarily on the themes of the film and what we should take away from it starting the review with “Full Metal Jacket is an anti-war film. Full Metal Jacket is a war film,” noting the dualistic nature of a lot of the themes of the film. One does not need to be particularly literate of film lingo to get what this article is trying to say, only when the author discusses how the film ultimately came across does he delve deeper into the film vocabulary dictionary when he says the film has “a high sense of realism, but infused with a surrealistic hyper-quality.”  I would definitely say that this is a good review of the film and would make me want to watch it for sure, aside from the whole it spoiling the movie thing.  But these are the kind of reviews that I like, more so, at least, than the plot driven ones.