Dazed and Confused

Film related to class:  This movie is what every person who did not experience the 70’s, thinks the 70’s was like.  It painted the quintessential picture of teenage life during that time period.  There were geeks and jocks, bitches, kids in between, and those about to make the transition to high school.  It covered kids worried about the government, school, their future, and most importantly, partying.  When you think of the 70’s, Vietnam may come to mind.  Instead of making a War hero movie, this is a movie of the complete opposite nature.  There are fights and conflict of teenagers but they are comedic and light hearted.  Thinking about this movie the song “Glory Days” has come to my mind, as apposed to “Fortunate Son” by Creedance.  It put a more positive look on the 70’s that every teenage can either relate to, or wish they could.

Article Summary:  This article discusses many of Richard Linklater’s evolution in the films he makes, and his motivations.  He got more into film after a heart problem forced him to stop playing baseball in college.  He began watching more and more movies until he watched an average of almost 2 a day.  He eventually stopped going to school and set goals for what he wanted to do in film.  He made a film called “Slacker” and considered entering it into some film festivals.  After things were all said and done, it was distributed internationally and made 52 times the amount of money it cost to make the film.  It also spoke of “Dazed and Confused,” and his process of making it.  He tried not to use aspiring actors and tried to get people who enjoyed acting and did not necessarily want acting to be their future.  This helped create the characters more genuinely, such as Mathew Mcconaughey and his famous catch phrase “Alright, alright, alright.”  The article also spoke of his lack of plot but how he makes it work.  That is evident in in “Dazed and Confused,” as there is a beginning and end, but not exactly a cookie cutter plot, but it works.  Many of his films involve a coming of age, “Dazed and Confused” does, it’s just that it doesn’t focus on one age group or generation; it focuses on all of them.

Article Related to film:  The article definitely gave me a deeper understanding of the director, and his motivation behind making this film.  Reading the article basically explained his style.  I still like the film as much as I did before, but now I have a deeper and fuller understanding of the film.  It made me notice the fact there wasn’t really a plot with a climax and a hero and antagonist.  I think that Linklater would be pleased with that.  I understand now that many of his films are about transitions in someone’s life.  I like how he gave a snippet of multiple generations or transitions, and what they were going through.  There are probably multiple age groups looking back and thinking, “that was me when I was in high school.”   

Critical Analysis:  I liked the film, and I loved that it covered every different social status in high school.  There were freshman, seniors, dropouts, super-seniors, anti social people, jocks, and even sibling attending school at the same time.  The movie focused on every person or group, even if just for a little bit.  I feel that this gave the most true and complete representation of what high school is like...or at least was like in 1976.  Everyone has a different image of what high school was like to him or her, and this movie covered just about every one of those.  There were main characters, but some viewers may have different opinions on who the main character was.       

Unforgiven

Relate to Class: Unforgiven involved a hero, Clint Eastwood, that had to overcome obstacles in order to achieve what he needed to do;  he used his gun on many occasions in order to conquer those obstacles.  Clint Eastwood using a gun to get what he wanted was classically Western, along with the setting and the basic rough lifestyle he and the other characters lived.  Aspects that were not classically Western include how killing was seen in a more negative light.  Death was dealt with in a more real life way along with injuries resulting from fights.  Men did not want to kill because they knew the emotional and mental impact it had on them.  Of course there was the gutsy "Schofield Kid" who had "killed five men."  He eventually realized the toll that killing a man would put on his soul.  After fight scenes, people had injuries that were realistic and visible.  In other Westerns, men could be in full brawls and in the next scene have no visual scarring.  The plot may have been typically Western, but the characters and realism of this film were not typically Western.

Related Article:  ( http://www.clinteastwood.net/filmography/unforgiven/ )  The article fist explains Clint Eastwood's role in the film.  He was a former gunslinging murderer who was turned good by his young wife.  His wife dies and he is left with a failing farm and two young children.  The article then goes on to talk about the writing of the script and how Clint Eastwood got involved with the movie.  Clint Eastwood saw the script and bought it.  At the time he felt he was too young to play the role of Bill Munny so he held onto the script until the appropriate time.  Gene Hackman did not want to be in the film due to it's violent nature but he was convinced that it promotes non violence.  The article also goes into little things such as the fact that the pheasants that English Bob shoots were not introduced to the United States until the year after the movie was supposed to take place.  

Article applied to film screening:  The article stated that Clint Eastwood did not allow any modern vehicles on set.  This gave me a little more respect for the movie, I say a little because I already respected the movie and Clint Eastwood.  I have heard multiple good things about Clint Eastwood but this article gave me a little more insight no his process.  The movie grossed over $80 million and won multiple awards.  Clint Eastwood also dedicated the movie to two of his greatest influences.  This gave me more respect for the move and Clint Eastwood.

Critical Analysis:  I really enjoyed the film and I enjoyed the characters in the film as well.  I think that this movie covered every type of Western character.  The young gun, the old veterans, the outlaws, the good guys, the rich guy, the innocent townspeople, and the entourage members.  Of course they all met at the bar.  I liked the real representation of murder and killing and how it burdens people.  I think that Clint Eastwood's character was very deep and was my favorite.  His transformation throughout the movie was very interesting, especially seeing him return to his old self.  The final fight scene at the bar was a great scene and a great climax and ending to the film.      

Sex Lies and Video Tape

Relate to Class:  During our class period we discussed that the movie was edgy.  For its time it was very edgy but today it may not be considered so.  I don’t watch a lot of sexy movies but a I think that they are based on visual explicity.  Such as nudity and.  This movie had very little sex scenes and the scenes that did contain sex did not have any nudity.  At the same time I felt almost violated by the intimacy of the movie in one particular scene.  Some scenes with Graham were particularly awkward, but the most sexually explicit scene in my opinion is his scene where he films Cynthia.  The scene between them was so personal its like you were listening in on a very private conversation you didn’t want to hear.  I think that is what made this movie so edgy, yet it had zero nudity.

Article Summary:  ( http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sex-lies-and-videotape-opens ) This article talks about Steven Soderbergh, and how he started the independent lens revolution.  It mentions the movies that he has directed and the numerous awards he has won.  He paved the way for movies like Reservoir Dogs, Clerks, and Cigarettes & Coffee.  It also mentioned his success with George Clooney and The Ocean’s series.

This article really solidifies the part in history that this movie holds.  It started the independent film movement. The article did not really change my opinion on the film though.  I understand its part as far as the independent lens movement goes but it did not make me like the movie any more.  The movie was very original and spark the start of something new in film and the article mentions that.  

Critical Analysis:  I was not a huge fan of the movie but I am not going to say that it is a bad movie.  I think everything about it from the cinematography to the plot, as strange as it was, all worked.  I noticed that Ann was filmed from above a lo to imply that she was less powerful.  She was very timid and trusted her lying husband.  Once she finally knew for a fact that he was cheating and she was more assertive, she was filmed from below.  She finally had the upper hand and was finally sticking up for herself.  She had the power and it reflected in the way she was shot.  The movie was just too personal for me.  The information the characters revealed I did not care to know.  I walked away from the movie asking myself what I had just seen.  I felt like I was taken to a weird dark personal space I was not supposed to be in. 

Do the Right Thing

1.) Relate to Class:  In class we discussed how in the movie the colors used rejected what was going on in the movie.  In the film it was very hot out and there were a lot of very saturated reds used.  The three men that sat under an umbrella across form a convenience store sat in from of a bright red wall.  Many of the colors used were reflective of the heat.  At night when the mob destroyed the pizza place, there were less red filters used.  The red filters were then replaced by the red of the fire of the restaurant being burned down.  We also spoke of the fact that none of the characters were heroes in the end.  By the end of the movie every character had showed their bad side.  Mookie only cared about money and despite him claiming that all hi did was work, he really did not work very hard at all.  Radio blasted music everywhere, and Mookie's friends walked around all day harassing people and talking down to people.  Mother Sister even belittled to the drunk they called Mayor.  Mayor was looked down on the most as a drunk and he was the only character who did not hurt anyone in the film.  He saved the boy and the owners from the riot and tried to always teach people to do the right thing.  Mookie seemed to be a good character up until he was constantly slacking off and then threw the trash can at the window.  Even after all that he still demanded he get paid for his “work.”

 

2.) Related Article:  ( http://beck.library.emory.edu/southernchanges/article.php?id=sc11-4_018 )  In the article it discusses how some white people are made to pay for things they had nothing to do with.  It spoke of a fire fighter fighting a law that would give white firefighters a belated opportunity to challenge the city’s affirmative action plan.  He said “i feel like I’m paying the price for something I had nothing to do with.”  This sums up the movie in the writers eyes.  Sal had nothing to do with the killing and was punished for the crime by having his store destroyed.  The author believes that this applies to modern times.  Some people are being held accountable for something they had nothing to do with.  The author summarizes by saying that white people do most voting, participate in police forces, are fire fighters, and did not create the ghettos or the underclass that many blacks are apart of and don’t deserve to be victims.  He finishes the article by absolutely agreeing with the character Mookie that we all must pay a price one way or another.

3.) Apply Article to Film:  I think the article is correct about the film and somewhat to society today.  Many people pay the price for something they had no part of.  Men and women willingly join the army and know that they may have to go to war and face combat, but when they die it is always the fault of the person who sent them there.  When there are riots the stores being looted have nothing to do with what people are rioting about.  Teachers and students are shot in schools who may have never failed a student or bullied him or her.  Charles Manson killed innocent people that had to do with the entertainment industry, but never met him or affected his life at all, and for what?  At the end of the film you see yourself saying why? Why did they destroy this man’s business?  Has it changed anything about the “racism” they were fighting, or the murder of Radio Rahim?  The author basically says that the people who pay usually aren’t at fault for what they are being punished for and Do the Right Thing exposes that.  

 4.) Analysis:  I liked the film and I did not mind that there were no heroes in the movie.  I think that the film would not be the same, and would not have the same message if there was a hero.  The entire point of the film was that there was no hero, nobody was helping each other, nobody saw the big picture.  I think it exposed a problem in society that still exist  today.  People fight for causes that won’t make a difference (having a black American on the wall of Italian American heroes), then they sucker people into following them and hurt innocent people that didn’t need to be hurt.  Everyone thinks they did the right thing and that, at least in this case, the police are the enemies.  At the end of everything everyone still hates each other and nothing has changed.  This cycle has probably happened since the beginning of time. It happens because people either don’t exercise their mind enough and think of “meaningful” things to do, or they don’t think deeply about things enough.  In the movie the man that wanted the picture on the wall didn’t think that having a black man on the wall does not really make any sense.  All he saw was a lot of white people, no black people, considered it racism in his mid and then started to fight.  The end product was injury, death, and more hate, stemming from a cause that probably would have made no difference to anything.  This type of peripheral thinking bothers me and I think this film completely exposes it but in a slightly subtle way. I could see people watching this movie and finding a hero or thinking the riot was totally justified.  I did not really think the acting was too great, and I don’t think Spike Lee even raised his eyebrows once in order to portray any emotion, but the film was very good.