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.