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.