Sylvain Chomet

Sylvain Chomet represents the renewal of classic animation at it's highest level. His beautiful designs contradict strongly with the specific style of 3D animation. The beauty of watercolour counter acts with the clean and sharp look of 3D modelling, though this is not always the case. Chomet himself uses 3D, even though he does hid it beneath his style. Though Chomet is the mind and art behind his films, his production are truly international, with work being done in France, Canada, the UK and more. His career started in the bande-dessinee(BD) an art form so dear to the Belgians and French. This heritage can be seen throughout his work.

Chomet started his studies in Angouleme, in the newly opened art school, to study bande-dessinee. Their he met Nicolas de Crecy, a now extremely influential BD author. It his De Crecy's unique style that is seen throughout Chomet's backgrounds, the characters being mainly his. Their association resulted in “Leon la Came”, and darkly humorous tale of an old man finding his grand-son, victim of constant stomach issues, and helping him to succeed in life. The story doesn't stop their, being full of bizarre and interesting caricatured characters. Chomet wrote the script, and De Crecy drew everything. This first major work, which is now considered a genre-defining classic, already shows the direction Chomet would follow in his career. This is also the style he would choose for his backgrounds, as shown in his first 30 minutes animation, “La Vieille Dame et Les Pigeons”. Their again De Crecy and Chomet collaborated in what is a superb piece of animation. The nervous style of De Crecy married to perfection the characters of Chomet.

Chomet is now a clearly established on the 7th art scene. His unique style has seduced people around the world, giving a new life into 2D animation.

Chomet works with his time. Is style is unique, and while he does prefer the 2D illustrative medium, it does not mean that he only ever uses that. His use of 3D is always subtle, yet incredibly efficient. In an interview, he explains more about his process and the reason for it. He uses 3D mainly to represent vehicles, such as cars and bicycle. Drawing a bicycle is difficult, animating it even more, and the Triplettes de Belleville included a lot of them. He says that asking an animator to animate a bicycle was close to suicide. This when 3D comes in, as it allowed easier animation, and after receiving a clever texture, would completely melt into the style of the film.

Sylvain Chomet has a particular view of animation. He sees it as an art form, not simply as a commercial way of making money. He believes in the human adventure, and as Fiachra Gibbons, from the Guardian says, this “doesn't quite explain why Chomet, having had Hollywood studios falling over themselves to accommodate him after the huge and unexpected worldwide success of Belleville Rendez-Vous (or The Triplets of Belleville, everywhere but the UK), decided to set up shop in Edinburgh, which has little or no tradition of animation and only a tiny pool of artists to draw on. He is not quite sure why either. But he did.” (Gibbons:2010)

He greatly enjoys the non-speaking cinematographic technique. All of his animated films, from La Vieille Dame et Les Pigeons, Les Triplettes de Belleville to L'Illusioniste, don't include much dialogue. This stylistic decision is easily explained by the experienced animator himself. Chomet says in an interview given to Animation World Network: “I’m very involved with the whole “line test” thing. For me, when you’ve worked all day on an animation and that moment when you see the drawings move, that’s a really magic moment, and there is no sound to it. I also think that an animation without the constraints of spoken words is stronger. If you have to fit everything to the words, all the gestural movement revolves around the mouth. Without it, you are much freer to create true animation, to talk through animation itself. Animation modelled around the dialogue is like something, which has already been set in stone, there’s less scope for interpretation. I have always wanted the animators to bring something to it.” (Moins after Chomet:2003)

Animation is the art of movement and dynamics. By giving free reign to his instinctual drawing, One thing that really shows, is his heritage as a comic artist. He started his career wanting to be a humoristic newspaper illustrator. This shows in his extremely caricatured style. His style has matured over time, loosing its eccentricity, but gaining in assurance and class. His first animated film, La Vieille Dame et Les Pigeons, took the style to an extreme, the first design elements of the Triplettes present already. Yet the drawing was much sharper, its harsh lines exaggerating the form. In the Triplettes de Belleville, the line smoothes out but keeps the exaggeration of his beginnings. In L'Illusioniste, the exaggeration is almost lost, but a smooth and incredibly efficient line is found.

Chomet stays very critical of how animation is perceived in the world. Yet his view would not be called “passé”, but actually quit avant-garde. He is bringing an art form back to its original level. Animation had lost some of its magic and incredible results. Chomet is bringing it back. His lack of trust in Americans is interesting to point out. He sees the American industry, not the people, as being extremely preoccupied with money rather than the actual beauty of the film itself.

After the critical success of the Triplettes of Belleville, he agreed in an interview that: “At Cannes, I got the reception, which I would have expected from Annecy. And at Annecy, it was just absolutely crazy. The film has already notched up one of the highest foreign sales scores for a recent French production. Before Cannes, 25 countries had already acquired the film; it’s now 37, including the U.S., which was initially quite wary, as usual. I’m worried about the Americans. Will they cut some things out? I know that a lot of there appreciate my work. The problem is that the people in charge at the big companies are rather more censorious.” (Moins after Chomet:2003)

Sylvain Chomet has revived the art of 2D animation. Classical Animation is still being done around the world, but Chomet has given it an extra edge. He has succeeded in making it inimitable. His films would only work in 2D, and their success shows. His next project has everything of a masterpiece already written on it. Set in the Commune in Paris, in the late 1900’s, not much information has been leaked yet. The last hint Chomet gives us is a simple name. Baudelaire.

Bibliography

– http://www.awn.com/articles/people/sylvain-chomet-s-ithe-triplets-bellevillei/page/3%2C1

Visited on the : 05/04/2011 Philippe Moins – Sylvain Chomet interview.

– http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jun/10/sylvain-chomet-belleville-rendezvous-illusionist Fiachra Gibbons

Visited on the : 05/04/2011

– http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=1149786&clef=ARC-TRK-G_01 Claudine Mulard

Visited on the : 05/04/2011

– CHOMET, S. – De CRECY, N. 2002. Leon la Came. Casterman

Image Reference

– Image 1: http://ebooblog.com/EN/cinema/short-films-sylvain-chomet-illusionist-eiffel-tower-the-lady-pigeons/ Sylvain Chomet: La Vieille Dame et Les Pigeons

– Image 2: http://williampedalson.blogspot.com/2010/01/my-top-ten-cycling-movies.html Sylvain Chomet: Les Triplettes de Bellevilles.

– Image 3: http://dvdtoile.com/CritiqueDvd.php?14485 Sylvain Chomet: Les Triplettes de Bellevilles. 

– Image 4: http://www.daemonsmovies.com/2010/03/27/lillusionniste-the-illusionist-russian-movie-trailer/ Sylvain Chomet L’Illusioniste.

Winsor McCay is a spark of genius in animation’s history. For many years his work was seen has irreproducible by other animators, who focused on much shorter and simpler “gags”. McCay’s work was so stunning that many wondered whether he had traced photographs. McCay had not, as he had done most of the thousands of frames on his own. The lack of know techniques means that he would reproduce even the backgrounds on every frames.

His work was so impressive that no one was able to reproduce is work, most wondering how it had been done. McCay was a successful newspaper cartoon artist in New York City. His beginnings where obscure, though he is said to be born in the late 1860’s. McCay was famous for his incredible drawing ability, an ability he had even as a child. His incredible talent allowed him to be noticed early on, which threw him on the high roads of art in America.

It is during his early jobs that he developed his main technique. John Grant, in his book Masters of Animation explains how “the execution of one technique he had developed – that of doing a figure’s outline as a single line rather than piecemeal – soon proved to be a crowd pleasure.” (Grant:2001) This technique promoted the drawing of quick cartoons, which paved the way to his work as a newspaper comic artist.

His success was incredible. His ability to draw incredibly well and fast had to push him towards animation. What seemed to start as a bet turned into some of the most beautiful films of all time. Though McCay is not the inventor of animation, as this seems to belong to J. Stuart Blackton with his Humorous Phases of Funny Faces, he is the first to create intricate and highly detailed animation. He is the first to have taken it to an art form, the first to add a character with character, Gertie.



His forerunner work has been ignored and lost after his death, yet it came back to the fore and shocked everyone with its quality. Winsor McCay is the first animation genius and his career was hampered by a lack of understanding at the time. His short Sinking of the Lusitania involved 25 000 frames, and was probably the first animated propaganda film of such quality.

He uses techniques which are still use, in part, today. “McCay’s “Split System” of producing key-drawings and then inbetweening is familiar practice today” (Allan:1988) His innovations where done personally, as he had no one to teach him the ways of animation. Though he is better renown for his comic work, his animation is so stunning that anyone remotely interesting in animation should really enjoy and credit the work of a master. As John Grant concludes in his section on McCay, “The tow most important people in [the history of] animation are Winsor McCay and Walt Disney, and I’m not sure which should go first.” (Grant:2001)

Reservoir Dogs

One could expect a lot of that opening shot in the dinner. A bunch of guys sitting around a table, debating around Madonna's “Like a Virgin”, and an incredible camera work that spins around each character, even sliding behind their back to shift the attention to each other, in a way reminiscent of Hitchcock's use of the the technique in Rope when he would run out of film. The scene takes its time to unfold as we start to notice some of the characteristic of each actor. We also get a look at the incredible cast used in the film. It is not often that you get the feeling  that every actor actually fits their characters. They do not push the characters unto themselves they simply happen to be their character. They leave “emerging from the restaurant like the Wild Bunch” (McCarthy:1991), the intensity of that shot serving as an establishing shot for the rest of the film, as it is one of the last times you get to see the whole crew together. Their will be more shots later on, but the rest of the film is mainly cut in different sections that explain the personal story of each character.

What comes next might seem at first as a big mumbo jumbo of stories, linked only by the failed robbery, yet it is cleverly structured and implemented into the flow of the sequence. The sudden change in flow and rhythm occurs when we are suddenly sent into a bloodied car interior, young Mr. Orange, superbly played by Tim Roth, is panicking, his stomach pierced by a bullet. This extremely strong visual sets the tone for the rest of the film, the immaculate white of the car a perfect canvas for what might have influenced quit a few other artists. We understand that everything has gone wrong. The car is driven by a nervous and edgy Mr. White, played by Harvey Keitel. He tries to calm down the shocked Orange, who keeps shouting that he is going to die. We then arrive in the main set of the film, a warehouse. This warehouse could not be any simpler and yet is masterfully used as every bit of its space is used as space for the composition’s of the shots, it's highly geometric structure giving rise to some very interesting shots. Orange is laid down on a slight slope of triangle, giving his blood free rein over its descent towards the future puddle it is going to create.

They are soon joined by Mr. Pink, acted by Steve Buscemi. He is also highly nervous, and is convinced that the police had been tipped off by one of them. His self-induced professionalism completely cuts him out of the traitor position or so he says, constantly saying that it could not be him but that it was someone, adding to the edginess of the whole situation as White starts to loose control. The enters to recently out of jail psycho, Mr. Blonde, calmly played by Michael Madsen. He brings with him a young police officer, whom I found excessively boastful seeing the situation he was in. In a torture see of anthology the “young officer is brutally tortured,” by Mr. Blonde, “in a scene that drove numerous fest viewers from the unspooling here, and may make even the brave look away. The worst is left off-camera,” (McCarthy:1991), as most of it is implied though we still get to see the pugnacious wound of his ear later on. Some extraordinary camera work punctuates the performance as it glides effortlessly around the set, cutting when needed, giving it an edgy feel simply based on the camera and the quick editing present.

The warehouse, by its nature creates a very theatrical set. The few amazing shots when they are all pointing at each other with a gun is now a classic. The set is well designed, and as more actors enter the fray, it seems only to expand despite the increase in mass inside it. The well oiled machine of a script that Tarantino has created is full of energy and as WH from Time Out London concludes:

“Despite the clockwork theatrical dynamics - most of the action is restricted to the warehouse - the film packs a massive punch.”(Time Out London)






Bibliography:

 -Time Out London - http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/76614/reservoir_dogs.html

Blairwitch Project

Growing really does influence your perspective of the world. The first time I saw the Blairwitch Project, I was utterly terrified. Being 12 doesn't help, and watching in the dark late at time neither. Today, having thankfully grown up, I had the opportunity of watching it again. The dissapointment was to the height of my expectations. I remember when I started to re-watch the Disney classics, and being so thrilled at seeing them again with a different eye, one trained to see animation, story and plot. Even though some parts where different from what I remembered, new ones opened up for my own pleasure.

This did not happen with the Blairwitch Project. A constant strain on the eye, some annoying acting (even if it was meant to be that way) and the most disappointing story line has not helped this film really born out of an impressive ad campaign and the thrilling peer pressure found in the school yards. The incredible buzz is what helped this film more than anything. Though I was thoroughly disappointed, one must look at this film objectively. The film itself might not please anyone, but its design, added to the ad campaign was extremely effective. It was the perfect way for a film like this to succeed.

When you learn that some people actually thought this to be true, the shock is quit important. An hyper-realistic documentary justifying the whole thing truly set some minds on a weird path to witchcraft and more esoteric rituals. Turning a folk story into a real story required some important thinking, something masterfully hidden in the film. From the beginning you get the feeling that you are actually following something that really happened.

This impression is sadly lost in some moments when you really get the impression that the actors are reading a script. Their constant want to keep filming is also a bit odd, yet it is in the end essential to the success of the film.

Time Out London affirm that it stays with you: the film issues a kind of shadow horror that only comes into play later, at night, when you want to forget it.”(Time Out London: 2009). This might be true for some teenagers in search of interesting sensations, but one always reaches a point when you are simply not affected by it.

The use of a portable camera was a first. This is the main reason for the success of the film. Its indomitable will to keep to this format gets in the way of the story at some points, yet the whole illusion would be lost if we had had some aerials view, or simply some more classic cinema shots. In the end it is a successful film in the box office and in its originality. It is a pioneer and that's it. Had it been made after another of the same type, I can assure everyone it would have been a flop.

Bibliography:

- London Time Out: http://www.timeout.comPublish Post/film/reviews/67979/the_blair_witch_project.html  

Cloverfield

While the Blairwitch Project has had a definite influence on a large part of the population, its novel use of a personal camera for a feature film and supposedly real scenes, Cloverfield was the complete opposite. Again trying out the personal camera mode, it tries to trick the viewer into thinking that again it is real. Yet when Hollywood takes over an idea, you tend to notice it. Some have said that the more realistic you try to get with CG, the more obvious it is, and the more the audience feels tricked. Cloverfield, under its look of a cheap film is actually a multi-million dollars project, with incredible CG, a giant monster and a collapsing New York City.

How can one take a movie likes this seriously. It's lack of plausible story only adds to the pain of watching a film through a portable camera. Add in a pseudo romantic quest to save a princess lost in her high dungeon, here a New York skyscraper, and you get a “navet” as the French would say, which means a bad film. It tries to be original, doing the same intense marketing campaign as Blairwitch, yet failing to deliver in the end. It has had success, and many have gone saying that it is a metaphor for 9/11, except with a giant monster, which, I am sure is not called Godzilla simply for copyright reasons. Not to mention that obviously the main character is leaving for … ready for a big surprise? Japan! Too bad for him, Godzilla has left it's homeland, coming to New York City the day before he left. Could thing he didn't leave the day before.

Roger Erbert describes well the discrepancies found in the film.”The leaning high-rise contains Beth (Odette Yustman), who Rob feels duty-bound to rescue from her 49th-floor apartment near Central Park. The others all come along on this foolhardy mission (not explained: how after walking all the way to Columbus Circle they have the energy to climb 49 flights of stairs, Lily in her high heels). Part of their uptown journey is by subway, without the benefit of trains. They're informed by a helpful soldier that the last rescue helicopter leaving Central Park will have "wheels up at oh-six-hundred," begging the question of how many helicopters it would take to rescue the population of Manhattan. ” (Erbert:2008)

The film is successful in representing the new century. Most of the footage we see today isn't filmed by professional journalists, but by people with cell phones. Looking at the situation in the Arab world today, where most of what we see comes from these small devices, Cloverfield takes on that mantle. Is this how we would record a catastrophe of that size? Empire have their own reasoning.”Is this attack so terrifying because it has obvious shades of 9/11 or because the handheld camerawork leaves us disoriented, glimpsing the enormous creature only when Hud’s view quivers that way? It’s both. We live in a time when global violence is recorded not by professionals, but by shaky-handed bystanders with camera phones. We believe bad camerawork and suspect professional broadcast of hiding something from us. Stripped of the comfort of rhythmic editing and frenzied strings that tell us it’s time to be scared and instead served the sort of frantic footage we associate with unfathomable terror brings a new, more primal fear to the monster movie. It starts, bizarrely, to feel like something that could happen.  ” (Empire:Olly Richards)

Bibliography

Erbert, Robert: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/REVIEWS/801170302

Richards, Olly: http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=135091

Psycho is a film that defined a genre, and stupefied generations. Its ground breaking innovations in the field of horror at the time today look as if they where made in the modern day. The absolute success of its recipe lies in its essential simplicity. An eternal script leads to an eternal film. This film is successful through the role of its actors. For me this is a film that relies solely on the performance of the actors to achieve perfection. Though epitomized by Anthony Perkins stellar performance, the other characters play the roles that allow Perkin to come out.

Fig. 1 - The meeting between Norman and Marion

The story starts with the introduction of the first main character. Janet Leigh plays Marion Crane and for most of the first part of the film, we are convinced that she is the main character and I must admit being quit surprised by her death. As Roger Erbert confirms, “no moviegoer could have anticipated the surprises Hitchcock had in store--the murder of Marion (Janet Leigh), the apparent heroine, only a third of the way into the film, and the secret of Norman's mother.” (Erbert:1998) Today, one really gets used to the whole story of the main character being alive all along. She steals 40, 000 Dollars, a consequent sum in those days. Her lack of loyalty is quit appalling, her loathsome attitude not representative of her position. She leaves the town in a hurry, being stopped by a macho cliché of an American cop. He finds her suspicious, yet I found his role quit useless on the long term. While he could have played an interesting role, he is only useful in the beginning adding a touch of suspense. Yet he is a bit vague in his whereabouts as if he had simply been put there to give Marion an antagonist.

She arrives at the motel, and we get to meet the ace character of the film. Anthony Perkins turns an interesting first act into a legendary second act. He is a bit edgy, yet nothing implies his character at first. He acts a bit weird, has an argument with his mother, and comes down to have dinner. Here is first implied the use of mommies, where we get to see some stuffed birds, also a prelude to Birds. His attitude is misleading. Marion takes a shower, and in a seen of anthology is murdered by Norman. The victim’s sister then decides to hire a private detective, who finds his way to the Bates Motel. There he is also murdered after investigating the house behind the motel, a now classic and foreboding building, perched high on top of a hill, a chromatic inverse of what could have been a Hopper painting.

Fig. 2 - Norman Bates

The story then takes an interesting take as Marion’s boyfriend and sister, Sam Loomis and Lila Crane, head towards the motel to investigate. Here we get a closer look at Norman, who really starts to come out as an odd only half understood character. Something is wrong with him, yet, at first it is quit hard to understand what is. One scene almost ruins it for the film. When he brings his mom to the fruit cellar, as he carries her she is completely limp, while she had been shouting loudly to not touch her. The visual effect was not to successful, but nothing major that impeded the success of the film. As we reach the end, we find out in an amazing scene, where Lila goes into the cellar, and finds the mummified corpse of the real “mother”. Here Norman tries to kill her, dressed up as a woman, but Sam stops him. We are then taken to the prison, where we get a last shot of Norman, as he has completely shifted to his mother persona, giving probably the best and most unsettling looks ever seen on film.

The film is shot through an interesting use of angles, with extreme close-ups of the character turning quit banal scenes into rather unsettling moments. As the BBC film reviewer David Wood precises, “the proceedings are of course shot through with Hitchcock¹s sly, mordant and slightly sadistic humour which revels in the consequences of the oedipally induced madness and the sardonic irony of much of the dialogue” (Wood:2000) The strange relationship between mother and son is accentuated by those shots, the mother always show in the dark or as an outline at the window. The last shot in the cell is both perfect in composition and in setting, and the slight superposition of his face with his mother’s corpse face is simply stunning, a slight moment of supernatural to finish a masterpiece.

Fig. 3 - The Eyes

Psycho is probably one of the most influential films of the last century, as it defined a genre and shocked generations before the coming as such failures as Saw or Final Destination. As David Jenkings from Time Out London, Psycho “offers perfect case studies of suspense, paranoia and montage for lazy film-studies tutors." (Jenkings:2010) I end this knowing that I will never forget the depth of Anthony Perkins eyes when he stairs back at the camera saying he wouldn’t hurt a fly.

Bibliography.

- http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19981206/REVIEWS08/401010353/1023

- http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2000/12/13/psycho_1960_review.shtml#

- http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/71535/psycho.html

Images.

- Poster: http://www.cardboardposters.com/psycho-movie-124-p-653.html

- Fig .1: http://criticafterdark.blogspot.com/2010/07/psycho-alfred-hitchcock-1960.html

- Fig. 2: http://mysteryshrink.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/psycho8.jpg

- Fig. 3: http://fascinationwithfear.blogspot.com/2010/10/31-days-31-faves-psycho-1960.html

The Rope Review

Whose role is it to decide on inferiority and superiority? Everyone creates a sphere of influence around them, choosing the different types they need to enhance their social status. Most think that their sphere is unique so as to believe all revolve around them. The quality of the people present around also influences the quality of the reflection one gives to society. How easy is it to consider yourself superior when around characters whom are not familiar in your way of seeing the world. Easy it becomes to advocate your own intelligence and superiority when others are not capable of displaying the same level of education and experience. Yet a unique sphere is only one in the myriad of spheres present in society. One must always challenge himself, throwing his intellect headlong into others and the result being always more intricate. The two primary characters in the film Rope, directed by Alfred Hitchcock in 1948, fail to grasp that concept.

The Three Important Actors

Set in upper class New York, the story takes a very direct direction concerning the set design. At the very beginning of the film we are shown the apartment where all will be played. Though we do not know the exact amount of time we as viewers will spend in this room, the constant suspense and balanced use of camera and light play eases the whole experience. The two characters are what you could call Aesthetes. This 19^th century movement, characterized by Oscar Wilde saw emotions and aesthetics as more important that moral and society values. They see murder as a thrilling adventure, even when David, the victim, is a close friend and former school mate. They want to prove their dominating intellect by committing the perfect crime. They bring up a whole theory of murder without motif, and a sordid view of inferiority. They consider themselves as superior beings thanks to their higher than average intellect. After considerable planning and shifting around the set, they are ready to introduce the first character, the maid, Mrs. Wilson. She enters and is surprised by all the shifting that occurred and is astonished as to why they decided to put the food on the chest. She serves as a down to earth “inferior” that still plays a major role in bringing down the masterpiece of the two “superiors”. They decide on who to invite based on the intellectual level of each and their relationship to the victim.

We find the father and aunt of the victim, his fiancé and her ex-lover. Added to that is Rupert, who acts as a highly intellectual. He also acts as a critic for the perfect crime or at least he should have. In the end he serves as a reminder of the strong complex of inferiority present in the two protagonists. The amount Intelligence is showed through the inverse amount of bragging one does. The constant affirmation of their superiority decreases their reliability, and Rupert serves as the object of comparison.

The infamous chest/table

The acting is excellent, and as Jason Pitt from Crucial-Fim.com says, “Everyone involved, from an acting standpoint, handle themselves quite well- The two friends responsible for the murder, John Dall as Brandon, the cockier of the two, and Farley Granger as Phillip, who loses composure as the film progresses, as he becomes more paranoid about being caught. The star however, is obviously James Stewart. His Rupert Cadell is perfectly restrained throughout the film, without losing an ounce of the charm you'd expect from him.” (Pitt:?)

The atmosphere created by the almost claustrophobic feel of the room, is a nice metaphor of the tense situation the actors find themselves in. Vincent Canby, from the New York Times implies this when he says that “the film is so chilly you could ice champagne in it or place it around a silver serving dish of fresh caviar.” (Canby: 1984)

The set of Rope, with Hitchcock in the middle.

Hitchcock wanted to demonstrate how a theatre piece could be transcribed to cinema while keeping the essence of theatre present. His use of little to no editing helps to create this. The massive cameras of the time, almost bigger than a man, required constant shifting of the props, which led the actors to fear sitting down, as they weren’t sure whether a seat would be present or not. Canby explains this, sying that “Hitchcock was interested in seeing whether he could find a cinematic equivalent to the play, which takes place in the actual length of time of the story. To do this, he decided to shoot it in what would appear to be one long, continuous "take," without cutaways or any other breaks in the action, though in fact there would have to be a disguised break every 10 minutes, which was as much film as the camera could contain.”(Canby: 1984). For the transitions, the camera would zoom in onto the back of characters, or on the back of the chest, in a dramatic zoom in of Rupert opening the chest and discovering the insides.

Rope is a masterpiece, a stunning play-like film clearly depicted by wonderful actors. The suspense is clear, and its moralistic views on Nietzsche’s work can be taken with a pinch of salt. Yet what really comes out in the end is that through their high intellect, the two protagonists demonstrate that intelligence is not the required aspect to be superior. Modesty is surely the first step.

Bibliography,

-         http://www.critical-film.com/reviews/R/Rope/Rope.html

-         http://www.nytimes.com/library/film/060384hitch-rope-reflection.html

-         http://blogcritics.org/video/article/alfred-hitchcocks-rope-review/page-2/

Images,

-         http://we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2008/06/book-review-the-wrong-house-th.php

-         http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42051

-         http://fantasmocinema.blogspot.com/2010/12/fantasmo-episode-60-team-fantasmo-vs.html

-         http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2005/great-directors/hitchcock/

The Tenant Review

The Tenant

Would anyone choose to live in the apartment of someone who has just attempted suicide and is in a situation of life or death? I don’t think I would. Roman Polanski as Trelkovsky, a young student, would. The film has barely started and the viewer is already pushed into an awkward situation where he has to accept the moral disagreement of living in the house of someone who is dying. Can you even trust those living around? Can neighbours who have witnessed a suicide be trusted in their moralistic righteousness? Should they even be trusted when all of them speak perfect English, where even the French actors are doubled with a perfect accent? I would find that slightly disturbing if I arrived in such an apartment in Paris.

Trelkovsky is a quit type. I would even say a bit naïf, and fearful of disturbing his neighbour. In keeping with his apartment series, the neighbours are obviously of a weird type, though they are not as blatant in their attitude as in Rosemary’s Baby. Though odd, they do not strike as particularly atrocious or eerie. This time, we are led into the mind of the Tenant, constantly wondering whether or not they are truly his enemies. The use of a dark apartment creates an oppressive feel to the whole scene. As Variety Staff says, “There is an effective atmosphere and it does create a feeling of personal anguish.” (Variety Staff:1975)

The pitiful outside appearance of the protagonist doesn’t foreshadow the strength of his inner self. He creates his own bubble of resistance to what he is seeing outside. We are challenged in the way we must trust his vision. Though we are seeing through his eyes, we are confronted by the unnatural that surrounds his presence. Nothing proves the contrary, guiding us as the movie evolves more and more into his madness. We excuse his madness even to the point of understanding his transvestite attitude.  Nick Schager from Slant Magazine describes the experience as an egocentric homage to the protagonist. “The film's nihilist point is clear: It's the world against Trelkovsky and not the other way around. There's an overwhelming sense here that the world is a stage and the people in Trelkovsky's immediate realm are in constant performance mode. Because everyone in the film seems to exist solely for his benefit, it's sometimes easy to brush Trelkovsky off as an egomaniacal loser.” (Shager:2003)

What must be understood in the end is that everyone accepts the world to be a set solely designed for them. Polanski portrays the experience through his own failure. Yet the success is not completely assured as Film 4 comment on there own review, “Frustratingly, because so much of the film is so odd, little is ever explained. But the macabre tone and eerie appearance (thanks to Ingmar Bergman's cinematographer Sven Nykvist) mark it out as an intriguing depiction of mental breakdown built round a dark comic performance by the director himself.” (Film4)

Sites:

Bibliography

Variety Staff, 1975: http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117795519?refcatid=31

Shager, Nick, 2003: http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/the-tenant/641

Film4 : http://www.film4.com/reviews/1976/le-locataire

Images in order of apperance:

-http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.horreur-web.com/tenant.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.horreur-web.com/tenant.html&usg=__AGUtt_Kj32-

-http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.damascusfest.com/files/images/movies/roman-polanski/the-tenant/the-tenant-

-http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_P7mYEXfJ1lc/TQO0- 9

-http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cinemastrikesback.com/news/new%2520dailies/theTenant2-,r:2,s:0

The Shining Review

It is always hard to scare someone without any special effects. Stanley Kubrick in his film the Shining, brings out the sordid through the acting and the very minimal set. The cast is extremely limited, consisting of simply three main actors with other minor characters serving as a back drop to their madness. 


The main cast is introduced to us quit gently at first. Their is nothing special to note about them, as they just seem to be a normal trio of a family. The film properly starts when the snow storm cuts off the three from the rest of the world. This is when everything goes down into nothing. Their is an ambiguity to the film that seeps through every of its aspects. The unnatural is fused with the real, leaving us wondering who is actually right. We are lacking a real observer into what is happening in the hotel. Each character revolves around himself, and lets that influence his perception of the other two. The lack of trust is further accentuated by the desperate feeling of uselessness shown by the subsidiary characters such as Dick Hallorann, the cook who shares the same psychic gifts as Danny, the son of Jack and Wendy. He feels something is wrong and decides to come back to see. It takes him a long time to get there, as we see him regularly making his way to the hard to reach hotel. Yet his influence on the characters is minimal as all the wait comes to naught when he is brutally murdered by Jack. 


This confirms quit early in the film that we are left to believe one of the three protagonists. Two of them speak to themselves or to some imaginary character, while the third Wendy, seems lost in her own terrible imagination, that leads her to believe that Jack has always been insane, which may or may not be true, but once again we might not be sure. This constant unknown creates a dreadful feeling of unease, which is further accentuated by the incredible neutrality and minimality of the hotel. Its impressive size is countered by an interesting set of geometrical designs that seem to shrink the whole scene. The curious ambiguity is well shown when we are following Danny on his little tricycle, in a child's version of the opening sequence of "The Naked Gun". 


Danny's madness is an interesting case, as it is a fantastical part of the film that doesn't come out as weird, such is the success of the reality of the movie. His weird habit of talking to his imaginary friend in a lower octave voice is surprisingly normal. AS Ebert says in his own excellent review: "Danny: Is he reliable? He has an imaginary friend named Tony, who speaks in a lower register of Danny's voice. In a brief conversation before the family is left alone, Hallorann warns Danny to stay clear of Room 237, where the violence took place, and he tells Danny they share the "shining," the psychic gift of reading minds and seeing the past and future. Danny tells Dick that Tony doesn't want him to discuss such things. Who is Tony? "A little boy who lives in my mouth." (Ebert: 2006)


Stephen King did not approve of this cinema version of his book. Yet, as James Berardinelli explains in his review, Kubrick's version is more real and in that sense creates a greater sense of dread and paranoia. "King would have us believe that the hotel is haunted. Kubrick is less definitive in the interpretations he offers." (Berardinelli: 2009) 


Yet not everyone has seen the shining light in their eyes when they see this movie, as the Variety staff explains on their site, " With everything to work with, director Stanley Kubrick has teamed with jumpy Jack Nicholson to destroy all that was so terrifying about Stephen King's bestseller." (Variety Staff: 1979) This state of mind is representational of the general feel the public had for the film when it came out. Its legendary status nowadays shows the evolution.


Bibliography


Berardinelli, James, 2009: http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=1482

Variety Staff, 1979 : http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117794836?refcatid=31

Ebert, Roger, 2006 : http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060618/REVIEWS08/606180302

Imagery, In order of appearance:

- http://www.cinemovies.fr/images/data/affiches/Gaff1727145340.jpg

- http://www.horrorphile.net/images/the-shining-jack-nicholson12.jpg

- http://www.chickinkiev.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/shining4.jpg

King Kong Review

King Kong,

Fay Wray : Ann Darrow

Robert Armstrong : Carl Denham

Bruce Cabot : Jack Driscoll

Frank Reicher : Captain Englehorn

Sam Hardy : Charles Weston

Noble Johnson : le chef indigène

Steve Clemente : le sorcier guérisseur

James Flavin : Lieutenant Briggs

Victor Wong : Lumpy

A precursor to the whole monster horror genre, King Kong uses impressive, for the time, use of stop motion techniques to animate its giant creatures. By superposing the animated screen and the actors playing in front of it, the director is capable of playing with the scale. Directed by Merian Cooper and Ernest Shoedsack, it was an unprecedented feet of visual effects that is still considered today as a masterpiece of monster horror.

An interesting anecdote is that King Kong is a purely cinematographical story, with no prior myth or book related to the subject, though it is influenced by Sir Conan Doyle’s “Lost World”. This can be seen in particular in the scenes involving the dinosaurs. The film also makes interesting references to the Beauty and the Beast story, with Ann Darrow’s blond beauty prodding the lust of the large ape. This sordid metaphor of the white maiden attracting the large black male was one of the negative aspects of the film, along with its primitive portrayal of the African influenced savages. Kim Newman from Empire, says that with “a 30s' racist touch, it's taken as read he was unimpressed by the black girls sacrificed to him over the years and, in a scene censored for years but thankfully restored, peels off her clothes and sniffs his fingers” This dramatic and sexually induced scene where he then smells his fingers, show the savageness and naivety of whatever Kong is meant to depict.

The amazing matt paintings that serve as a background to the film are some noteworthy enough, as they create the atmosphere of Skull Island. The amount of visual superposition present in the film is quit impressive, with at least three montages if not more. The first would be the matt paintings, followed by the scaled stop-motion animations, and finishing with the actors on the foreground, creating an interesting use of fore-ground, mid-ground and background. The animation crew, led by Willis O’Brian, perfected the combat animations by studying human catchers, which gives the very theatrical fight sequences present in the film. The childish and naïve way Kong plays with the jaws of his dead opponents is quit comical, adding to the humanity and emotions of the film. 

The role played by Ann Darrow, allows in the same way she is supposed to do in the film, an important touch of emotion and love to a film which would have been a simple special effect show. This is what makes it memorable to everyone and allowed it to become a monument of cinema history. Though the actors play an important role in the film, Kong is the lead star. As Kim Newman calls her, “scream queen Wray “, Ann Darrow only serves as a plot device for Kong’s story, giving it the emotion required to bring it to a different level than a simple monster horror film. The film is a gold mine of intense cinema scenes. King Kong on top of the Empire State Building is nothing short of mind bogging as it impregnates itself on our memory. One could even see the possible domination of nature over the feeble works of mankind. But not in that film, as Kong is shot down. The film ends on a beautiful epitaph from Carl Denham, who staring down at Kong’s body, responds to a police man who tells him that the planes killed Kong:

“No, it wasn't the airplanes... It was Beauty that killed the Beast.”

Alfred Abel - Joh Fredersen

Gustav Fröhlich – Freder

Brigitte Helm – Maria

Rudolf Klein-Rogge - C. A. Rotwang

Heinrich George - Grot, Foreman of the Heart Machine.

         How can one start talking about a film that has defined the Sci-Fi genre in so many different ways? A masterpiece of set design and miniatures it defined how a futuristic town would look. The design of the “machine-man” has also set a landmark of design. For example the Gynoids of Hajime Sorayama are clearly influenced by the smooth metal curves of the machine-man in its mechanic form. The sprawling metropolis, the main tower inspired by a painting of the Babel Tower, with its insane traffic and blocky buildings, is now a base for all other futuristic towns designed over the years.

Filmed in 1927, and with the highest budget ever used in any film to date, it was made during the Weimar Republic, in a moment of peace between the two wars. The main plot revolves around Freder, son of Joh Fredersen the leader of the party, who tries to create a link between the ruling class and the workers. He sees Maria, a teacher taking care of the children of the workers, and falls in love with her. He decides to follow her and finds himself in the machine room, filled with steam and workers working to a set rhythm in tune with the music and movement of the engines. There, we witness the incredible work of design and composition as he runs through the most impressive yet seen by the world. The striking difference between the two classes is evident as the soot stained and sweaty humans toil through the infernal heat of the factory, while the autocratic and sombre leader of the town, in his vast office, decides on the lives of thousands.

The social study done in this film is the representation of a time, from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to today. The world is divided into two parts. Those that rule and those that serve, and this is a concept the film really puts forward. The amazing scene where the workers enter the factory in unison, entering giant lifts that brings them down into the bowels of a man made hell, is a stark contrast to the freedom and monochromatic colours of the garden for the rich youth of the town. The group entering the factory walk in a slower manner than the one coming out, yet still on the same rhythm and following the music. As the movie continues we are shown more and more extravagant and bizarre contraception, until we are shown a panorama view of the whole city from the office of Her Fredersen. The splendid view is a stark contrast between the underground cave where Maria, played by Brigitte Helm, is idolized as a saint and as a portent of hope.

The film stands the test of time, and is more genuine today than any film that has come out in the last decade. Its satire of modern society shows how little our society has evolved in a positive way in a century of evolution. All the negative curves are on a positive slope while the positive are on a negative slope. The traders and capitalist dictators have not changed, except perhaps in denomination, and still pollute the march forward that society should be undertaking. Metropolis perfectly exemplifies how disconnected the different stratums of society are. It also shows the lack of control the ruling class has over what it creates. As shown by the mad scientist, Rotwang, who fails to control his strange yet enthralling Maschinenmensch. Today has not changed much, with the governments of the world’s modern and industrialized countries having completely lost control of the infernal creation that is the world’s modern economical system.  “The "Maschinenmensch" robot based on Maria is a brilliant eroticisation and fetishisation of modern technology and the current crisis in Dubai, whose economic boom was founded on a colossal import of globalised labour, makes Metropolis seem very contemporary.” Peter Bradshaw, from the Guardian, resumes well, giving a concrete example of a modern Metropolis through Dubai. I can give first hand accounts of Dubai, having been there, and the resemblance between the two is striking. It is hard to see anyone else but workers on the lower levels and streets of the vast and tall buildings, with the ruling class only known to live, one could put it metaphorically, above the clouds.

As Philip French, from the Observer points out, “Fritz Lang, one of those few directors to create equally significant bodies of work both in the silent era and after the coming of sound, is one of the greatest artists of the 20th century and arguably the single most innovative and influential figure in movie history.” The Expressionist-influenced concept, mixed with strong influences from Modernism and Art-Deco create a patchwork of styles which has defined some of the most famous architectural landmarks of today. New York is a good example, with buildings such as the Chrysler Building would have not looked out of place among the models of Metropolis.

 

The last point will be related to Josephat played by Theodor Loos. His role as a symbol of fallen grace is made further interesting by the knowledge that whole sections of the movie dedicated to him have been cut. He represents how rapidly one can fall from grace and as Sam Adams from the Philadelphia Citypaper says, “Josaphat the ruler's right-hand man, who is fired after a fatal accident with the city's monstrous Heart-Machine. (In a city defined entirely in terms of work, losing one's job is equivalent to a death sentence.)” In a sordid symmetry to some stories that I have read today of people loosing their life long job, a lot of time simply based on excess numbers and irrational logic, shows how human relations and friendship are lost in front of the all-devouring monster that is the world economy. Be part of the system or die and disappear.