Family

I'm writing about Wes Anderson. In class we talked briefly about his work but not too much. However, after watching Bottle Rocket I knew I would be writing about Wes Anderson and thought of some ideas. After finishing Rushmore today, I came to the conclusion that there is a special connection between the characters and how they relate to each other. It seems that Anderson makes movies about family and how people relate to each other. Anderson basically says that family is important and that through one's family, they can get through the tough times.

So The Darjeeling Limited is what I watched. Right off the bat I noticed a strong tie between family in all three movies, Bottle Rocket, Rushmore and this one. Even Sean Axmaker noticed the connections of family. Owen Wilson is in Bottle Rocket and The Darjeeling Limited so let's start off with him. In both of these movies we see him as the authority figure. He is the older sibling and takes charge. We see him make itineraries to map their journey in both movies. He is seen as the leader and is the one with the plans. This does get him in trouble with his brothers and friends though. In this clip in Bottle Rocket, Owen Wilson's character just dumped "Bob" from the team. This splits the "family" or team up. Later he realizes that he needs bob and needs his family in order to succeed or even operate.

The Darjeeling Limited, like stated, is similar in respect to family to Bottle Rocket. Owen's character again "takes over." This movie is about three brothers that try to come together again and take a spiritual journey to see their mother living in the Himalayas. Since they haven't seen each other in so long, they fight in the beginning but then start to be a family again. However, like I said, things don't start so smooth. In this clip, the brothers fight. But Wes shows us that family is important and that families need to love in order to survive. This clip shows the family bonding after a long train ride that they got kicked off of because they fought and brought a snake on the train.

In Rushmore, Max the main character, isn't really tied together with family but is more friends with other characters. However we do meet his father once in a while. Max is a loner and cherishes his relationship with Dirk. Family in Rushmore is important because that's what Max needs. He is close with his father but longs for that special relationship with that special someone else. In Max's world freinds are important and he needs them to survive. We see this when Max asks Magnus if he can be in his play. They didn't get along well before but later seem to be enjoying each others presence.

In conclusion, we see family represented by Wes Anderson in Rushmore, Bottle Rocket, and The Darjeeling Limited. Owen's character is a good example of the way the characters relate and interact. Wes shows us that in his movies, families fight, they hate each other, and they brake up, but there's always room for making-up and love. Wes shows us examples of family "works" that the audience can relate to in real life...

The Coen Bros.

Raising Arizona, Fargo and No country for Old Men are by far the best movies we have watched in class including first semester. While watching these movies I loved the correlation between family and social class. Not only in the middle-poor range but also the upper class.

Like in Raising Arizona, Hi and Ed are quite poor not only money wise but there is something also missing, family. The Coen Bros illustrate the relationship between social class in each movie very clearly. In Fargo, Jerry is pretty comfortable in his mid-sized suburban home. He also has a family. Greed ties into all of the movies as well. Jerry wants more in his life (money that is), so he hires some people to kidnap his wife. We also see greed in Raising Arizona. The Arizona family has too many babies to count....

In conclusion, the Coen Bros tied greed, social class and family together throughout their movies very well.

Lots of Characters

One thing that stands out when I am writing about Robert Altman is the use of characters. We see this in Nashville and somewhat in The Player. In Nashville there are numerous characters that meet up in the end of the film, some know each other and some don't have the slightest clue. In The Player, Altman uses not only real stars to play roles but also has roughly 7 to 8 main characters that we see a lot.

I have seen A Prairie Home Companion and Altman uses many main characters in that movie too. In all his movies that have numerous characters, it seems that all of them have at least one important role to play out. For example, in Nashville Pfc. Glenn Kelly is seen a few times but has a key line about Barbra Jean. And is seen in the end trying to save her just like he said his mother did...

Weather and Kurosawa

One thing that really stands out is the use of weather. Kurosawa did a great job of relating and playing the weather into the scenes of his films and certain parts.

For example: The wind was vicious in Yojimbo. Especially when both of the groups were in the middle of the street facing each other.

In Ran the clouds were a big factor. We might not have covered this aspect in class but the clouds could represent how peaceful it was before the three different groups started fighting. Because, you know, everybody thinks clouds are peaceful, unless they're tornado clouds, because those things are really scary.

But in conclusion, the weather plays a major role in all of the Kurosawa movies we watched and probably the others he made that we didn't see...

Hitchcock

I would have to say that I guess that I'm a fan of Hitchcock. I like reading books (even though we're talking about movies) and watching movies about mysteries and weird stuff like that.

I especially liked the movie The 39 Steps. The black and white is a huge turn-off, but I liked the way Hitchcock set-up the movie and used the McGuffin at the end.

I also thought that Vertigo was way over-rated and didn't expect to see anything like it the way I pictured it would be in my head. The chasing of Lucy got really old within the first 30 minutes of the film. But Rear Window I thought was also outstanding. I like how Hitchcock set-up each character and I like the weird special effects too (when Jeff keeps flashing the flash of the camera to distract him).

Overall I was satisfied with the Hitchcock unit...not I can do anything about it now anyways...

The Godfather

This time my group watched The Godfather. Like the other two of Coppola's films that I have seen, I tend to like it. The acting is, like we noticed in The Art of Film 1, to Coppola's perfection. The quality of the film is very good for an early 1970's film and the story is superb.

I looked at a Roger Ebert review from Rotten Tomatoes. Ebert states that the film leads you into the Corleone family and "we tend to identify with Don Corleone's family not because we dig gang wars, but because we have been with them from the beginning..." Although, like the two other Coppola movies I have seen, The Godfather tends to start slow. It seems to build up to the climax. During this rising action we grow on the Corleone family. We feel like a part of their family, without the quick attitudes and guns.

But the real story, according to Ebert is not the guns fights or money, but the way the youngest Corleone son, Michael starts in on the family business "while revising his old-fashioned ways..."

So while I was watching The Godfather, I realized that one; I should watch more Coppola films and two; what such a great impact family has had on me and the people around me...I know I didn't really talk about that in the paragraphs above, but it seemed like a good way to end...

Apocalypse Now...worth watching

My group is studying the director Francis Ford Coppola. We watched the movie Apocalypse Now. I would have to say that I liked this movie a lot despite the lengh and the ending which seemed to carry on literly for hours. But over all the movie was well done and worth the 200 plus days of shooting. But like we talked about in The Art of Film 1 last semester, I can see how it got most of it's credit and fame long after it came out.

Now I haven't seen many '70s films but according to Allen Barra this decade could have been the most exciting one in American film. Now I haven't seen any other of Coppola' films (so maybe I should just shut up) but I guess they were pretty good. According to Barra, Apocalypse Now was supposed to "put a cap on the most exciting decade in American film, that it would sum up everything that had come before and influence everything that came after." But Barra thinks otherwise. He thinks it was a disappointment.

Like I've said, I haven't seen any other of Coppola' films but I can't imagin that it is that bad to him. In The Art of Film 1 we talked about how the film didn't get much attention when it came out but in todays time, it seems pretty famous. So although "top critic" (according to rottontomatoes) thinks it is not a film worth seeing, I do...so if you haven't seen it pick 2 hours and 35 minutes out of your evening and plop down and watch it.