The Hudsucker Proxy

The Coen Brothers are a pair of filmmakers that truly make pieces of art. Even though The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) was a major studio film, I do not feel like the Coen Brothers compromised all that much creatively or artistically, compared to their other films. The film is a screwball comedy that seems to model after Frank Capra’s screwball films. Visually, the film looked brilliant, especially the production design. As said in the film review by Todd McCarthy, “the Coens' approach, in large measure, consists of the fabulous and ornate elaboration of small details and moments; they make entire jaw-dropping sequences out of incidents that other directors would slide right by.” Yes, the Coen Brothers’ films are unpredictable, strange, and radical, but that is their style.

The main difference in style that I noticed was the change in the casting for this film. In their films, such as The Big Lebowski (1998) and Barton Fink (1991), the Coen Brothers consistently cast actors like John Goodman, John Turturro, and Steve Buscemi in the main roles. But for this major studio film they casted all different actors for the main parts including iconic actor, Paul Newman. This is one way they might have compromised their art by making a studio film. But I do not think anyone can completely answer this question. The Coen Brothers’ films are so unique and eccentric from one another, it becomes hard to determine if they are compromising or not.

The Big Lebowski

     It is interesting that people did not look at this film more closely after the success the Coen Brothers just had with Fargo (1996). The Coen Brothers had established their talent in Barton Fink (1991) and Fargo so now they were able to make a gutsy film that might possibly fail at the box office. They definitely did that with The Big Lebowski. The film initially received mixed reviews and did fail at the box office. Some people might look at it as a bunch of ideas shoved into a bag and spilled out at random. The film possibly failed financially because people were not interested in the passive attitude of The Dude. Maybe people did not like hearing the “F” word filling in the gaps in the dialogue. Also, the dream sequence obviously filled up a gap in the plot so the story could keep moving. Or maybe, as put in the article “The Big Lebowski” by Jon Bastian, people just did not get it.

     But all of this made a complete turnaround. The Coen Brothers seemed to have created their own genre. I think the film has become so popular because the film is truly unique. There is no other set of characters that standout like they do in The Big Lebowski. The characters are so outrageous they are funny. The dialogue is easily quotable because it’s so amusing. Also, the soundtrack is entertaining because there is a unique song that represents every character.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

           First of all, the filmmakers were making a movie, not a play or a book. So, in order to make the film they needed not only to take information from the book and play, but research outside those sources so they could turn the project into their own. From the “Real Reels” article you can see that the old nurse was impressed with the way the film portrayed old state hospitals. This was probably done by going through all the trouble to research old state hospitals.

I do think the same commitment to the material is expected of all the actors. It provides authenticity to their performances, especially if all the actors have their own unique experiences with psychiatric wards. But, I can also understand the opposing argument because the actors could just get a feel for their character form the book or play. I thought Jack Nicholson was great as McMurphy, but he could have played that character without researching into psychiatric wards or patients. I am not saying he didn’t research outside sources, but the way he played the character it seems like he just made it up on his own. On the other hand Louise Fletcher’s character, Nurse Ratched, seems to have needed some research out of the book or play. To play her character it looked as though you would need to research the way psychiatric wards work and how the nurses play into the system.

Rio Bravo

     I think Howard Hawks’ Rio Bravo definitely fit into the most important parameters of the Western genre. First off, the film obviously took place on the frontier West in America, specifically Texas. The film also contained the commonly used revolvers and shotguns along with spurs, cowboy hats, and saloons. Rio Bravo’s main conflict was a struggle of civilization versus savagery which is the main conflict of most Westerns. John Wayne’s character, Sheriff Chance, along with his companions Dude, Stumpy, and eventually Colorado represent the civilized. Joe Burdette and his brother represent the savages in the film. The story is a constant conflict between these two groups. The Sheriff and his companions eventually arrest the criminals and save the day.

     The film also departs from some of the Western archetypes. Instead of taking place in the vast landscape of the west the film takes place in one town on the frontier. The setting of the film never leaves the town although; you can see the vast countryside in the background of the town sometimes. There was no rescue of the damsel in distress. The woman actually saves the hero at one point by distracting the enemy. The hero of the movie never wavered between good and bad. He was a sheriff who strongly believed in good conquering bad.

Mon Oncle

I think it is important to concentrate on detail. It shows that the director is completely entwined in his work. When a director cares that much about his work, like Tati did, their films become great. Tati’s film, Mon Oncle, was fantastic visually because he paid so much attention to detail. But, I would not say it is necessary to work a lot on detail to make a good film.

I found the theme of Mon Oncle to be the conflict between the modern world and the old world. The family in the film, the Arpels, sacrifices their comfort for their modernized home. Their house is a product of modern architecture. The Arpels have all kinds of gadgets, switches, and different types of technology within the house.  When Uncle Hulot, played by Tati, comes to visit he does not fit in at all. Hulot comes from an old neighborhood situated in a corner of the city. Hulot contrasts completely with Mr. Arpel: Hulot does not have many possessions while Arpel possesses many, Hulot travels by bicycle or by foot and Arpel uses a car, and Hulot is full of life and amusing while Mr. Arpel is dull and uptight.

Sherman's March

I do not really know what it is about McElwee that makes people want to see his films. He is very educated and is kind of charismatic, but that does not seem like enough for people to want to see his films. I thought the film became very repetitive, based on the fact that he just keeps becoming enamored with various women. One thing that may contribute to the interest of viewers, which I can only guess at, is that his life is a little more interesting than others. During the time he makes Sherman’s March, he follows all sorts of people and gets to learn about all different types of study. A few examples include following an actress and her journey to land a part in a movie, following an interior designer who also teaches him a little about Christianity, and he also learns about linguistics from a PhD student. I do not think that just anyone could make a personal documentary about their insights and exploits. Ross McElwee has a high level degree in filmmaking, so it is not like he is just a random person off the street, like Thierry was in Exit through the Gift Shop. I agree that there is something about McElwee, like his charisma or insight, that make his films interesting. McElwee is just very carefree in the film, but not so much that he is just sitting around doing nothing, which I think is what makes people like him. He takes the audience on a pretty interesting journey, even if he is just a “normal guy”.

Exit Through the Gift Shop

I think the film’s message was to expose how empty and easy street art has become. This regular guy, who is somewhat of a low life, comes from nowhere and becomes this big hit of a street artist in Los Angeles. Mr. Brainwash, also known as Thierry Guetta, becomes entwined in the world of street art through filming some of the best artists at work. By hanging out with all of these artists for so long, he picked up on how to do it. But Banksy actually says in the documentary that Thierry’s art is not really his own, looking as though he basically took ideas from the artists he hung around. If a person like Thierry was able to become this famous street artist, anyone can. Thierry makes it look like anyone can do street art.  I do feel a little skeptical by the way the film was pieced together, but I do think the film is true. I think if the film was another prank of Banksy’s that it would have been a little funnier, but I am not completely sure. Banksy has said himself that “the film’s power comes from the fact it’s all one hundred percent true”. I do think people are reading too much into the meaning. Some were even saying that Banksy created Mr. Brainwash, which I thought was a little ridiculous.

When Harry met Sally

When Harry met Sally follows many of the clichés that most romantic comedies follow. These clichés include the uptight career-focused woman and the care-free guy; in this case, Sally is the uptight woman who does not think she is uptight, and Harry is the care-free guy. The cynical best friend who gives advice is a cliché that can also be found in this film; this cynical best friend is Sally’s best friend who always hooks her up with new people. The fact that the film takes place in New York City is another cliché; the film starts out with Harry and Sally driving to New York City together. The biggest cliché that When Harry met Sally follows is the main characters’ relationship as “just friends” until the end of the movie. This happens to be the basis of the plot, because they are best friends throughout the majority of the film, until things get weird after they sleep with each other. The last cliché is the last run, which Harry exhibits towards the end of the movie, when he literally runs to the New Year’s Eve party to tell Sally he wants to be with her.

I do think this movie will stand the test of time; I actually think this film already has. Many lines from this film have already been incorporated into pop culture.  For example, in the scene in the restaurant where Sally fakes an orgasm, an older lady at another table speaks a line that has been quoted many times: “I’ll have what she’s having”. 

The Thin Red Line

Yes, I definitely think a film has to have at least somewhat of a plot to be considered a good film. To make a film, the film usually needs a story plot to go off of, although a film can convey mood as well as challenge the audience without a plot. I think Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line was able to do this. I think even though the film did not have a particular plot, it conveyed a mood of destruction and rebirth through the destruction of war and the nature shots that symbolized rebirth. I definitely think the film challenged the audience by telling a story of war in a different way, which was more of a psychological approach.

I feel that every film made should be approached differently. Each film has its own unique qualities, even within the same genre. Malick’s The Thin Red Line, for example, should be approached differently than the conventional war film. The Thin Red Line follows a psychological approach to war, which is different than other war films that follow a mission or the main character’s journey.

Even though Malick shot about a million feet of film and cut a lot of performances out of the film, I think that Malick was able to pull off a vision in The Thin Red Line. Sure, the film did not have a definite plot, but the film obviously concentrates on the spiritual dynamic of war, which I think Malick was trying to portray.

Pan's Labyrinth

Pan’s Labyrinth takes place during the Spanish civil war; all the while, the main character is caught up in a fairytale. One of the important concerns in fairytales is choice. Mark Kermode’s review of the film Pan’s Labyrinth quoted Guillermo del Toro, writer/director, saying he wanted to “counterpoint an institutional lack of choice, which is fascism, with the chance to choose, which the girl takes in this movie.” I also think Guillermo del Toro decided to base the film during a real historical event so the main character would have a reason to become entwined in fantasy world. If there is something in reality that is scary or frightening, people will escape to a world where they do not feel that sense of terror or pain. Yes, the story might have been able to work with just the fantasy world, but it definitely would have not worked as effectively as it did. I think it needed both worlds, especially reality, where war or something terrible is happening. Again, the dark reality gave the main character in the film the need to escape. In the case of Pan’s Labyrinth, it was Ofelia escaping to her fairytales and the labyrinth to find a way out of the reality she was living in, with the horrible Captain and her sickly mother. Also, the themes of obedience/disobedience and sacrifice were incorporated many times throughout the story. For instance, Mercedes, throughout the film, obeyed the captain’s every command while she was actually disobeying him in helping the rebels. She kept a second key, lied to the captain about having it, and then would supply the rebels with food, drink and other supplies. There is also an example of disobedience when Ofelia disobeys the faun and eats something from the feast. As for sacrifice, there is an instance when Mercedes almost sacrifices her own life by cutting her throat before she gave up information about the rebels. Another example is when Ofelia says no to sacrificing the baby and ends up sacrificing her own blood instead. These themes are relevant to other stories such as Jack and the Beanstalk. Jack was supposed to sell the cow for money or food, but he sold them for "magical beans", much to his mother's dismay. Depending on the version of the story, Jack even sometimes ends up being killed (eaten) by the giant.

RoboCop and Violence

     In Paul Verhoeven’s RoboCop, there seems to be both types of violence we talked about in class: realistic and “fun”.  There are a few instances in this film where there is realistic violence. The first instance I thought to be realistic and kind of uncomfortable was in the beginning, when the first law enforcement robot appears and kills an innocent man in the office, during the demonstration. The second instance is when the main character, Murphy, is annihilated by Boddicker and his gang. In contrast, there are many instances of “fun” violence. I consider it “fun” violence, because RoboCop is defeating criminals and getting revenge on the people who killed him. There is a difference in the “fun” violence, because I find myself rooting for him to be violent towards criminals and the people who caused his death. An example of this “fun” violence is when RoboCop starts remembering his death at the gas station, before attempting to arrest one of the gang members that killed him. Robocop shoots his motorcycle, and the guy goes flying and crashing. I did not feel the least bit uncomfortable watching a bad guy go down. Another instance is when Robocop shoots the executive in charge, Dick Jones, at the very end of the film. Again I felt satisfaction seeing one of the antagonists die.  As for the question of whether RoboCop is an artistic and unique film, or just a crowd pleaser, I think it is a little of both. I think that some of the violence in this film could be considered artistic because most of it represents justice and Murphy’s revenge on his killers for an injustice that was dealt to him.