Citizen Kane

In the opening of Citizen Kane, Charles Foster Kane dies as a pathetic sad man babbling about things like “Rosebud.” However, Kane lived an extraordinary life in America’s spotlight. As a tribute to him, Thompson, a news reporter, attempts to find the story behind rosebud. Through the people close to Kane and their interviews, we witness Kane as a boy living a hard life. Coming from a poor family, his parents thought it was best for him to live under Mr. Thatcher’s guidance. Here, he was comforted with the materialistic finer things in life and given financial opportunities. Eventually as a young man, he aspired to open a newspaper and became well-known. He bought out the NY Daily Inquirer and transformed previous newspaper history. Here, he started an empire across the nation. Plus, he got married to his first wife, but things ended dreadfully between them because Kane was accused of being with another woman (eventually his second wife, Susan Alexander). As Thompson digs deeper to try to unearth the rosebud mystery, it is clear that Kane lived a life full of possessions and money, yet he was plagued because he missed the human necessities of life, like love and tenderness.



Citizen Kane, in my opinion, was not the best film ever made. In fact, I would put it only on my top 100 favorite list. For me, a favorite movie has to have a few aspects in it. One, it has to have a lot of character interaction and relationship development. Something I have noticed is that I understand the story better when I understand the characters and their relationships. Normally, I am not interested in the cool graphics and fancy technological features; rather, I am drawn towards the meanings the characters create. Since I am a potential Interpersonal graduate student, it is obvious that I like movies with strong emphasis on relationships. For Citizen Kane, I was not personally attached to him. Although the film is not first person narration, it does revolve around Kane. I mean, he is the title of the movie! However, the film unfolds through others’ perceptions of him. Through a news reporter’s investigation a mysterious keyword, Charles Foster Kane’s life story plays out. Indeed, this part of the film was creative and broke the rules of first person narration, yet, I had a difficult time relating to Kane. Just like any other audience member, I saw him as a distant celebrity in which I was just following his life. It is parallel to the opening of the film through newsmarch, where the audience has a reader’s digest preview, but just like the audience watches the news, it seems somehow fake. I am not sure of how to exactly describe it, but it is almost as if the person is less human when they are portrayed in the news, close to an out of body experience (this could also relate to how I have been trained to idolize people in the news). For whatever the exact reason, I like films in which I can perceive the world through the main character’s eyes and in Citizen Kane, it was somewhat difficult to have an instant connection and understanding. Again, a big reason this film is not under my top 10 list is for the very reason that makes it creative and probably more well-liked: lack of first person narration.


A second reason this film is not the greatest film, not even top 10, would be the fact that it is in black and white. I know, there could be a debate about this and I probably should not not like a movie just because the technology was not up to date. For me, my eyes sometimes go bonkers when I watch a movie in black and white. Yes, I do think it is somewhat romantically reminiscent of older times; still, I don’t enjoy them as much. (Goodness, I hope this secret does not fail me out of film class!)

Despite the reasons that I do not think this film is the greatest of all time, I can see how other people (probably ones that appreciate black and white) do think this. For one, this film has innovative filming techniques. Orson Welles, actor and director, created a film that was like none other. A few scenes that stick out in my memory as brilliant technique would be the scene with the front shot of Susan Alexander (second wife)’s opera debut and the same scene, but from behind following the back shot, the shot with the Chronicle editors in the front window and then the actual photo shoot, the continuing sled prop shot (it shows him playing in the snow by himself, then when he was “sold,” then how he hates a lonely Christmas and his new life), the shot with Kane celebrating with the dancing girls in the window because it shows how he is omnipresent with his company, and finally the shot with Kane and Susan in Xanadu when they are standing about 50 feet away from each other in an empty massive room. These shots not only establish high-quality techniques, but also help the plot along. It makes sense that Susan and Kane were unhappy and had intimacy issues when they stand what seems to be a football field away from each other.

Overall, this movie can peak both film critics/students/buffs and also the average audience member. For myself, I have never seen this movie, nor did I know the ending of Rosebud or really have any expectations for it, and I would definitely watch it again. This movie deserves a second chance because there are minuscule details that I missed the first time around. It may not be the greatest movie ever made, but it is great and made well.

note: Is there some motiff with glass doors, windows, and mirrors in this movie? There seems to be a lot of them!

Film Noir?

What is film noir?

Unfortunately and much to my demise, there is a not a clear cut answer to this. This is a difficult question because there are debates on how to categorize it. Technically, Corrigan (2009) understands genre as coming “from its root, meaning ‘kind.’ It is a category of classification of a group of movies in which the individual films share similar subject matter and similar ways of organizing the subject through narrative and stylistic patterns” (Corrigan 2009 p.332). So, if film noir has to have similar subject matter, and organization of narrative and style to be a genre, it has to have some sort of guidelines to follow. To further complicate this complex query, film noir usually means that they do not follow the previously establish film rules, like lighting or clear moral characters. Instead, an aspect of film noir is to be slightly avant garde with the production. From my perspective, there is usually an unique aspect that sets it apart from previous made films. So, how can film noir be a genre if there has to be a ‘broken-rule’ in it along with a similar organization of subject matter and stylistic patterns?


Stumped? Me too! On one hand, how can these movies be in a similar category when they include an innovative feature and develop a new format? If it is always changing, it cannot be placed in the same genre. However, how can film noir movies not be in a similar category? To better comprehend what I am talking about, I am making a phrase, ‘old Hollywood era film noir’ which specifically targets movies from the 1940s-1960’s, usually black and white, based around a violent act and some sort of investigation of the criminal. It was easy for me to make somewhat of a list of film noir movies that other genres do not cover. Yet, I am stumped with anything past the 1960’s. From there, I have a difficult time differentiating between film noir and just a bizarre avant garde film.


After much thought and weighing of the two sides of the argument, I do not have an answer. I wish it was a simple answer, but it is not because it is not a simple question! I would like to say that film noir is a genre with the old Hollywood era, yet it morphs into a new face which does not seem to be film noir. My conclusion is disappointing because I do not have much of a conclusion, just that film noir could be subjective and puzzling.

In a Lonely Place

In a Lonely Place, featuring Humphrey Bogart and Gloria Grahame, takes place during the Hollywood era of the 1950s.  Dixon “Dix” Steele was a famous screenwriter, but is somewhat washed up.  As he tries to find another inspiration, he invites Mildred Atkinson, an innocent energetic coat-check girl at his favorite bar, to come to his house to tell him potential plots.  Dix becomes tired and sends Mildred home.  Shockingly, Mildred’s body was found discarded over an embankment that same night.  Unfortunately for Dix, there are no suspects besides him for this murder.  While there is a heightened suspicion and uneasiness, Dix’s alibi and neighbor, Laurel Gray, begins to spend more time with Dix.  Laurel is an aspiring actress herself and desires to be with Dix.  Laurel and Dix seem to complement each other.  Laurel trusts that Dix was not involved and eventually begins to care for him in a wife role.  Their friendship develops into romance and eventually they become engaged a couple of years later.  During their supposed happiest times, the detectives contact Laurel and inspire doubt regarding Dix’s innocence.  Laurel pushes them aside and devotes herself to Dix.  However, could Laurel be marrying a violent murderer and be the next victim of Dix’s aggressive rages or will she take everybody’s advice and leave Dix?

The reason this movie falls under "film noir" was not obvious to me until halfway through the middle.  Of course this movie has elements of "typical old Hollywood" (either people working in the film making industry or related to it), but more than that, this film possesses a somewhat disturbing eerie sense.  Not all film noir movies have this element, but the general creepy feeling comes from the shadows (mostly the dark contrast to the light), the moral ambiguity of the characters (who is innocent and who is guilty of the murder), and the regular surprises in the plot (somebody usually has a dirty little secret that is revealed).  This movie has these elements which allows it to fall into the "film noir" category; however, In a Lonely Place does not revolve around a detective nor does it have a typical femme fatale.... or does it?

Chinatown

Jack Nicholson (J.J. Gittes) and Faye Dunaway (Evelyn Mulwray) star in Roman Polanski’s Chinatown. It opens with slow jazz music and subtle colored screen, yet the movie is definitely slow or serene. Gittes, a private detective, lives in Los Angeles during a major water drought. He is hired by Mrs. Mulwray, a rice wealthy woman, to investigate Hollis’, her husband who is the orchestrator of the city’s water supply, possible love affair. As he starts the case, Gittes tails him and realizes Hollis, although has a somewhat odd obsession with water, is a decent man. The case is more complex as he realizes because there is an illegal water conspiracy. Despite the desperate need for water during the drought, clean usable water was being flushed away at nighttime. Before he can ask Water and Power Department questions, Hollis’ body is found in the water reserve. This points the investigation toward Mrs. Mulwray and Hollis’ co-workers. As Gittes digs deeper into Hollis’ life, he discovers that “Mrs. Mulwray” was not even his wife, the impersonator was hired to hire Gittes. The real Mrs. Evelyn Mulwray, a younger and flightier woman, is reluctant to join investigative forces with Gittes. However, Gittes uses his wit to research Hollis’ previous co-business partner, Noah Cross. Throughout the complicated situations between the city’s expensive water scandal, Hollis’ death mystery, and the fishy Evelyn, Gittes continually gets himself into trouble. Like the rest of the story, life is not as it seems because the truth is buried. What lies beneath is shocking and outrageous.

Touch of Evil

SPOILER ALERT

Touch of Evil, by Orson Welles, focuses itself around a newlywed couple, Mike (Charlton Heston) and Susan (Janet Leigh, also in Psycho) spend their marriage between the border of US and Mexico. Here, Mike and Susan witness a car explosion. With his career as a Mexican narcotic policeman, Mike is recruited to help investigate the crime. Also put on the case is the massive figure (both physically and metaphorically) of Captain Quinlan (Orson Welles, himself) whom continues to barge into the investigation. Even though he has a good reputation for solving the cases, his belligerent drunk behavior ruins the integrity of the case. Yet, their lives are both in danger as they continue to involve themselves into the crime. Grande, the local leader of the organized crime, has ties with the car killing and is nothing but trouble throughout the story. At one point, Mike puts Susan in a motel for her safety, but Grande’s gang captures and drugs Susan like a pawn in his whole picture. Vargas, the moral protagonist, discovers that he cannot trust anybody because he found reason to suspect that Quinlan was planting evidence to frame innocent (or free guilty) people. Eventually, Grande’s corrupt deals with the sleazy Captain cost him his life. The suspense for Mike to identify the real criminal becomes the focus of the ending. Through his wits and cleverness (that all Film Noir protagonist should have), Mike is able to solve the case and return to his honeymoon with Susan.

Overall, I am glad I watched this movie, but I doubt I will ever watch it again. Nothing against Orson Welles, I happen to like War of the Worlds, but this movie was too complicated and too slow in parts for me. Typical of Film Noir, the suspense and the logic of the film is emphasized. Yet, I am not sure if I have patience to enjoy the slow moments. The long drawn out sections with mini-episodes (like Quinlan going to Tanya’s brothel a few times or some of the scenes with the weirdest motel clerk of all time) could have been edited a little more for better continuity of the film. Again, I am glad I watched to experience this classic film, but personally, it is not something I would choose to enjoy in the future.

Maltese Falcon

The movie revolves around of missing persons. Two private detectives, Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and Archer (Jerome Cowan) take on Brigid O'Shaughnessy (Mary Astor)’s case of her missing sister whom was suspiciously involved with Floyd Thursby. Yet, there is trouble when a shooting occurs. When Archer was tailing the possible suspect Thursby, Archer was shot and killed. The trouble does not stop there, there is a bigger story that Spade faces. The case turns out to be related to a highly prized stolen artifact, the Maltese Falcon. The history of the Maltese is that it was stolen and worth thousands of dollars. Kasper Gutman, the “fat man”, attempts to get it back from the owner. But as the story proceeds, there are lots of layers of theft which makes the real owner of the Falcon unknown. As Spade encounters Cairo and Wilmer (two of Gutman’s armed cronies), he interferes with Gutman’s plot to steal the Falcon back. As the police attempt to find Archer’s killer, Space is blamed for his partner’s murder. Spade, also continues to deal with the meddling police as he tries to find the solution to the story with the Maltese Falcon, remain alive, and identify the true killer. The twists and unexpected turns in this story intrigue the audience while the quick wit of the characters entertains.

Overall, I would say that I did not enjoy this film. Generally, women able to speak at lightening speaks while reaming helpless bothers me. Unforunately, this is very much the case for 50’s social norms. Also, the men (almost always) call the females pet names, like ‘doll, sugar, honey, angel,’ etc. This part alone did not ruin the movie for me, but it just points out the obvious gender differences of this time.

Unrelated to the movie’s genre of film noir, the power differences and social expectations bother me. Yet, I do understand that this movie was filmed during this period where interactions were expected to be lopsided.

However, I did like the main character’s cleverness and charisma. Like most other male main character in film noir, there I something clever and wily about him which allows him to get out of danger. This character is funny to me because he is fantasy and rare in real life.

Again, I did not like this movie as w hole as much as others, yet there were aspects in which I did enjoy, like relating to the characters, laughing at funny moments, and appreciating the quick sarcasm/wit.

Classical Hollywood Narration or American Narration?

Classical Hollywood Narration or American Narration?

                While watching Monsoon Wedding, Daughters of the Dust, and Casablanca, it seems clear to me that these three different movies represent a bigger cultural narration clash.  In order to further discuss this, I need to first define what “classical Hollywood narration” is.  Usually, it consists of a few things like the plot centered on a couple of main characters whom have certain goals, a linear time sequence, or the presentation (that the movie is meant to be realistic instead of abstract).  Opposite of this, the alternative film narration focuses around not a few characters, but rather groups, is less realistic, and defies the rules of directional narrative.

                Casablanca, made in 1942 during the Hollywood assembly line age, is about Rick Blaine’s story as he lives in a destitute town during WWII.  In this classic black and white romance, Rick’s story focuses mainly on his life. 

                Daughters of the Dust, produced by a woman in 1991, is a story about an African family living in North Carolina stuck between the decision either to honor the ancestors or live a better life off the island.  Here, the story takes place mainly through the women’s conversations and their viewpoints.

                Monsoon Wedding, a 2001 ‘westernized’ version of a classic Bollywood, is about a family planning a wedding and all of the traditions involved.  The family has many individual struggles; however, they are brought together for their common union for each other.

                These three movies are different for a couple reasons like, like they are made in very different time period or the basic plot of the films are different.  However, there is a main difference that I noticed that separates Casablanca and Daughters of the Dust / Monsoon Wedding.  According to the general guidelines for a classical Hollywood narration, the story is supposed to be focused on one or two main characters.  In Casablanca, Rick and his long-lost love Ilsa are arguably the main characters besides a few side plots (like the Nazi soldiers and Victor Laszlo).  The audience knows his past thanks to a flashback, his present, and some of his future actions. 

However, Monsoon Wedding and Daughters of the Dust are very different.  Again, the basic premise of the plot is one in which involves around a family.  Instead of a singular character, it is around the interpersonal relationships and family communication the family system has.  The Peazant family, of Daughters of the Dust, face new decisions between traditional ways and the pioneering ideas of moving.  The Verma family, of Monsoon Wedding, has to plan a wedding for their prized daughter, but are stuck in how the family dynamics will change.  Again, these plots are vastly different.  Yet, I have to ask what makes Casablanca classical Hollywood narration while Daughters of the Dust and Monsoon Wedding are not considered classical Hollywood narratives. 

The main thought here comes from that Casablanca is not necessarily “Hollywood” narration as it is “WASP” narration.  Most likely, the producers of this movie are White-Anglo Saxon and have typical American values, like individualistic and reparation.  So, I am curious on what makes it classical Hollywood narration as it could be the white hegemony values. 

Compared to this, other cultures have different concentrations.  Here, I think of how Indians are much more collectivistic.  It totally makes sense that the movie would be dependent on a family’s interaction with each other instead of a single individual.  Indian families are normally very close.  Different behaviors and lifestyles make their interactions more frequent.  It makes sense that Indian marriages are arranged and family approval is necessary.  

Likewise, African families rely heavily in generational value.  It is important for families to appreciate their older members.  So, Nana Peazant, the matriarch, would have a strong voice in the family.  Their present actions are defined by the past actions, so time does not happen in a linear fashion.

The cultural differences brings me to the point that the classical Hollywood narration is characterized more inline with WASP culture instead of particular film qualities.  The alternative narration guidelines are focuses mostly on other international cultures.  (note: I know that Hollywood has a much more successful film business, but my point here would be to include more diverse culture narration guidelines so it does not seem as wasp centered as it does to me)

Monsoon Wedding

Monsoon Wedding is a story about an Indian family as they prepare for a wedding. Unlike many other Bollywood movies, this film was especially made for the Western audience because the length of time was shorter than average videos. Typical in Indian weddings, the celebrations last for many days and involve lots of family members and traditions. While Aditi prepares herself for an arranged marriage, she has to choose between her current tumultuous and shady love affair and the potential for true love with her fiancée, Hemant. Meanwhile, the parents grieve the loss of their daughter as they ‘lose her to marriage’ and the father becomes obsessed planning an extravagant wedding event. The sometimes absent-minded wedding planner, known as P.K., is hypnotized by Alice, the house servant, but the two are reserved with their instant passion for each other. Parallel to these love issues, there are also family secrets and frustrations that arise which can harm the very interdependent family and ruin the wedding events. The future for this family is unknown, but their path is full with love and support for each other (possibly some marigolds as well).

This has been a movie in which I really enjoyed. I am not sure if it is because I have not so much enjoyed the last bunch of movies or if I understand Indian cultures well. It was beautifully made with all the colors in their decorations, surroundings and even wardrobe. I loved the dancing and the aspects of the culture that were so blatantly present. Plus, weddings in general are already very exciting. I guess it was guaranteed that I was going to like this one. The only thing that I would change would be the amount of flowers PK ate!? I am not used to that!

Daughters of the Dust

Daughters of the Dust opens with the Unborn Child, narrator, who is found to be at the core of her family’s relationships because she represents new life. As a family is faced with the decision between the old times and new, the large close-knit family experiences trials and troubles. On one side, Nana (whom is the matriarchal head) feels like it would be neglecting their families’ generations of solid guidance if they moved off of the Gullah Island. Since she is a devout follower of voo-doo and other ‘natural’ family spirits, Nana takes it as an insult that some members would want to leave their African past / heritage, which she regards as her identity. Here, it is distinct that the family suffers through changes as the old traditional ways, which the Peazant family was based of off, and the new westernized “secular” ways of society. Although precious ancestors have started their family from nothing, some family members feel as if it is time for them to move off the island and into a place with more civilization. The younger generations of the family want something besides the hard life that Gullah offers them. Also, there are some interpersonal issues pieces of the family experience, like a rape and the consequential separation between husband and wife. As the women hash out their beliefs from the changing times, it is clear that family relationships and their family as a whole is important to them all.

At points, this movie was very difficult to follow for a few reasons. One, it was not always clear who the character was. It was nearly impossible to identify their place in the family if somebody was not there explaining it. In this movie, it is important to connect each character and their role in the family. I guess this also relates to how not all of the names were known. To change this movie, a family tree diagram would be helpful, but definitely is silly to include in the movie! Also, it was sometimes difficult to understand the content of the script because of thick accents. It was depicting the family as recent decedents from Africa, but I had a hard time understanding all of their words. These two minor aspects would have really assisted in my knowledge of the plot, but overall did not take away from the family’s message.

Casablanca

* Spoiler Alert *

Casablanca takes place during the war era. It is a place in which people stop by as they travel/escape out of Europe. As the WWII rages, desperation grows because people want to flee the dangerous situations. This city is an optimal spot for a restaurant, as Rick set up. Rick, the club owner (Humphrey Bogart), has various relationships with both the customers and also other townspeople. In general, it is a character that is respected by others, but not friendly and intimate. His stoic attitude changes as Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid) and Ilsa come into town. Victor is a fighter for Czech Resistance and stirs up trouble with the German Nazi officials. Ilsa, his beautiful date, was once involved with Rick in former years. As Rick and Ilsa reconcile their love affair in Pairs, Rick is reminded of his deep wound as Ilsa mysteriously left him. Although Ilsa and Rick do have a passionate deep burning love for each other, their ideal situation of being together is weight by Ilsa’s marriage (to Victor). As Ilsa, Rick, and Victor attempt to revolve their love triangle, the presence of the Nazi officials heat up the tension and restlessness of the soon-to-be refuges. What will be the result of the officials? Will Ilsa and Victor stay together because it is the moral thing to do? Or will Rick and Ilsa be able to truly love each other like it was meant to be all those years ago?

This movie is full of a wonderful cast. Although there is a romantic plot, there are also other interactions of supporting characters that focuses on life outside the romance. A life is happening outside the love triangle which is entertaining. Rick’s Restaurant is guaranteed to be full with entertainment, despite the gloomy and solemn times outside of Casablanca.

I personally enjoyed the decade (setting) and the culture appropriate props. If anybody else likes the 40’s, romance, and Humphrey Bogart, then you will definitely enjoy traveling to Casablandce.

Note: Again, I understood the French they spoke in Paris! Bonjour Paris!

Bonnie & Clyde

Bonnie and Clyde, 1967, is a move in which one can easily be swept up in. Bonnie and Clyde meet up only as change and went on a journey together. When Clyde attempts to steal Bonnie’s mother’s car, it is clear that he was her ticket out of the rundown hopeless town she was in. Clyde is a bank robber by career and Bonnie joins him to form an act. As they perform faulty but entertaining robs, like stealing from a bank that is already bankrupt, they seem to really want to live in a fantasy world with no rules. Their schemes continue as they travel across states and meet up with equally quirky (sometimes annoying) character, like a car mechanic, and Clyde’s brother and his wife. Soon, the whole gang bang tries to perfect their act while living on the run. As their antics continue, the stakes get higher and more dangerous. Quickly, their crimes are well known not only in their state, but also around the world. As Bonnie and Clyde (plus the other members of the gang) and their fame grow hungrier for more action, their relationship changes and they doubt morality of their career.

  Bonnie and Clyde have a carefree and somewhat reckless attitude. This charisma makes them likeable and amusing to watch. This Hollywood movie is different from previous ones in that the “bad villains” are rather comical and have some moral consciousness to them. Even though they do rob banks, they mean no harm to most people rather they just want a better life than what their bank accounts could afford.

Analysis of Run Lola Run

Since the majority of this movie is based upon the view of the story through cuts and shots, cuts and editing are very crucial to portray the events properly. As Lola runs through her situation, it is clear that her actions impact others. So, the shots of both Lola and supporting actors are used in a way to emphasize the plot. For example, Lola receives the phone call from Manni which sets off the snowball effect. Here, as she gets ready, there are quick flashes between the shot of her face and her realization about her situation. Earlier in the day, the moped was stolen which sparked the succession of events. Here, the changes of shots between Lola talking on the telephone narrating and the black and white shot of the earlier events. It is perfectly planned that the moped theft events were in black and white because it was easy to identify the picture as in the past. When I think of black and white, I think of older times when color was not available. Often, it is used as a reference to the past or dreams, etc. It works here because it shows the difference between the black and white (also, reference to silent pictures) to the color and voices of Manni/Lola’s conversation. So, the use of black and white makes the story easily identifiable to the past.

Continuing with this opening phone conversation, the use of shock cuts and shot/reverse shots are used frequently throughout this film. For one, it is used during the phone conversation. Manni explains how he took the subway and how he left the bag with the money on it. They repeat “the bag” in a repetitive beat about ten times. The stability of it reminds me of a heart beat. Plus, the emphasis on the techno music is used as well. The loud bass beat increases as Manni and Lola say “the bag.” These in combination show the continuity of the editing style. Not only do the actions match (physically saying “the bag” ten times), but also the music (European bass blaring techno music) and the events that are happening (heart racing stress) run parallel to the experience of the film.

Another example of this heart racing experience of the film would be after Lola and Manni get off the phone. It was expected of her to think of a plan quick on her feet. Just like normal situations, the heavy burden of the stress eats her up. Lola, trapped against a wall, attempts to think of a plan. Here, the imposed shots of Lola looking at a clock and attempting to rapidly think of a plan. Again, the shock cuts are used and it expresses a jolting image. As she grabs her hair (almost pulls it out), she starts thinking of people who would give her the money. It is easy to see this because pictures of people are imposed in between shots of her, like she is thinking about them. As these shock flashes are used it is clear that they give a jarring effect. The quick and rapid succession between her face shot (circling around her) and the whispering narration make it clear that her heart is racing, she is stressed, and it adds to the direness of the situation. Obviously, the editing here is used to present the whole package. If one or a couple of these elements were not present, it would not send such a strong message as it does. Again, without this editing, the continuity would not have made as much of an impact as it does.

Run Lola Run

This German film is a series of domino effects. Manni, a man whom is involved with the wrong drug crowd, is in trouble because he could not follow through on his assigned drug deal. After selling drugs and making 100,000 marks, Lola would pick him up on their moped. Since their moped was stolen, Manni was forced to take the train. Then, he ran into a homeless man and police. After he realizes that the homeless man stole the cash, Manni calls Lola in a panic. Lola tries to think of a plan to Manni is not killed from the drug lords. They have exactly 20 minutes to make a plan to get the money back and stay alive. Through her scheming, a series of cause and effect events occur. They need to get 100,000marks back, but numerous occurrences could have changed the course of their plot. The events that happen in the 20 minutes are crucial. If their actions had been altered by just a few minutes, then their whole fate could have changed. Yet, the dilemma between the actual events that did happen and what could have happened is constant lingering mystery. As they explore the possibilities of choosing different actions, Lola and Manni are faced with small choices that change their life (or their possible lives) forever.

Personally, this movie is not one in which I enjoyed mainly because it made me very motion sick. Through the constant handheld filming perspective and the constant running, the actual movie quality was rough. The decision not to have track shots makes sense because the handhelds allows for the audience to feel the motion of Lola running. Another thing that made me physically nauseous was the techno music. Although it is meaningful to the movie and the misé-en scene, the loud bass is not for me. I guess, this movie is not for me because I do not like techno music nor do I like the shakiness of the filming. Without these things, I would like the plot and the characters.

Analysis of Do The Right Thing

Do The Right Thing, is clearly loaded with lots of cultural and racial stereotypes. Spike Lee uses these, usually negative, assumptions people have of other people to prove his point that this world is not as it is supposed to be. This movie is refreshing because it does not seem to hide nor skirt around some pretty intense controversial issues. I have heard different interpretations and analysis of this movie, but I would not want to taint your viewing of it if I shared mine. I did not see this movie before, so I came to it with an open (maybe clueless?) mind. If things would have been different and I heard interpretations of it before I saw it, I would most likely have a very different perception in my head about it.

Instead of focusing on the numerous culturally significant interpretations one can have about this movie, I will focus on the editing of the scene with the race ranting. **Spoiler alert- this may give some of the movie away*

In the scene before, Pino (one of Sal’s son who is particularly vocal about his belligerent racist views) and Mookie have a discussion. Mookie attempts to reason with him, attempts to show some logic about how Pino has idols like Magic Johnson and Bruce Willis, but hate other blacks. Pino denies such subtle accusations from Mookie (whom he does not have a high level of respect for) and the tension grows between the two. The scene is cut by having Mookie and Pino standing in between a cigarette dispenser and a picture of Rome’s Coliseum and Arch of Titus (two-shot) and then the scene unfolds as Mookie and Pino disagree about his idols. When Pino does not agree (does he defend his own thinking?) with Mookie’s point, the camera references back and forth to each other as they speak and present their issues almost as proving as they are on different sides (shot/reverse shots). So, they have different shots representing how the flow is happening. Once they disagree, it seems to be jarring and there is a lot more movement. This movement and rapid succession happens when people share their boiling points about other races. Mookie, once level headed and somewhat rational, now has a shot all to himself in which he is loud, angry and venting. The camera zooms right into his face and Mookie has his arms crossed. This is the part that Spike Lees allows the audience to really feel not only defensive (since the zoom is so close, it feels as if somebody is invading personal boundaries) but also very focused on what he saying. The camera editing is very intentional with putting the camera dead infront of the character and progressively zooming. As the shot moves to the next character, the motion is similar. This pace and movement of the camera as it focuses into the character seems to be equal as each person has their gripe about another race. The equality of time allows for some sort of rhythmic repetition to happen. Overall, this scene has purpose editing in terms of the first scene, where Pino and Mookie are purposefully split from the shot together and then placed in opposition to each other, and also when the zooms and rhythmic repetition are used for each character to spew their stereotypes at the other race. Although this scene is somewhat harsh on ears (because some of the stereotypes hit too close to home and are more honest than we may be willing to be), it is important to view for original editing abilities.

Publish Post

Do The Right Thing

Spike Lee’s, Do The Right Thing, premiered in 1989 and since then has been one of a kind in its portrayal of culturally relevant issues. This movie follows a hot summer day in the life of a street in which businesses, workers, customers, friends, family, and neighbors interact. The main business, Sal's Pizzeria, is owned by Sal, but his two sons, Pino and Vito, and Mookie assist him. Mookie is the delivery man and much of the movie follows his interactions on his ‘routes’ and his relations with his neighbors. The plot is focused around a situation in which Buggin’ Out claims that Sal’s pizza shop, although located on a ‘black neighborhood,’ should have black celebrities. Throughout the rest of the time, Buggin’ Out tries to start a boycott against Sal’s, yet nobody seems to join him except Radio Raheem. As the rest of the quirky characters, like Da Mayor, Mother Sister, Mister Senior Love Daddy, Jade, and the local gang, go about their day, there is a constant oppressive feeling from the heat and culture stigmas/rules. The day is full of examples in which culture is such an issue. Stigmas and assumptions are made, but it is barely held off by respect. A sense of hostility always seems to be very present, even though they do not physically display violent actions. Eventually, Buggin’ Out and Radio are so fired up they are faced against Sal and his sons. Mookie and the rest of the street are attempting to figure out what the “Right” thing to do is. Hate and love (passion) are both present, but which is the right one?

This movie is definitely loaded with heavy situations and does not seem to avoid much. The characters banter to each other about daily life routines but it carries a larger sense of how the ‘system’ functions. As they attempt to survive the heat, they also try to survive living close to other people that have very different opinions, practices, beliefs, ancestry, upbringings, and culture. The clashes from these different lifestyles cannot always be muffled, but they cannot always be expressed. What is the right balance between them? What is the right thing to do?