Film Criticism=Critical Thinking in Action

In his book Movies are Prayers, Josh Larsen, a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association, writes, “Movies can be many things: escapist experiences, historical artifacts, business ventures, and artistic expressions, to name a few. I’d like to suggest that they can also be prayers… Prayer is a human instinct, an urge that lies deep within us” (p. 5). Aside from these things, Larsen argues that films “are also elemental expressions of the human experience, message bottles sent in search of someone who will respond” (p. 15-16). Critically analyzing films isn’t just a fun thing to do to rank films with grades from A to F or to say what movie out of a list of movies watched is the best, although those are, of course,  parts of criticizing films. Film criticism is important because movies have ideas in them, and ideas have consequences. They are shaped by somebody’s worldview, and even in the seemingly most nihilist movies, if you squint at them and turn your head to the side, you can make out a point that the filmmakers wanted you to get.

Film is art, and art is a form of self-expression; as a matter-of-fact, you can critically analyze other art in the same way to draw conclusions about what the creator believes or wants you to think. 

Sure, you might not always be looking at cinematography or how good the acting is, for instance, but storytelling and themes are necessary parts of other art as well.

For example, let’s take a look at the graffiti of the controversial street artist, Banksy. You might not be sitting in a theater for 1 ½ to 3 hours to watch a storyline play out, but just looking at his art, one can see satirical, dark humor that makes a point about society. His work is provocative, and normally has “anti-war, anti-capitalist or anti-establishment” themes.

Look at this piece. It depicts a cat on a house destroyed in an air strike. Banksy wrote, “I wanted to highlight the destruction in Gaza by posting photos on my website—but on the internet people only look at pictures of kittens.” 

Music and music videos can tell stories as well. “Look What You Made Me Do,” a Taylor Swift song, can be analyzed, for instance, and one can find a message about person’s wrongful action angering Swift and driving her to seek revenge. For people who know some context, it seems that the song is making some pointed remarks about specific feuds involving Swift and other celebrities.

That’s just the song though; if you add the music video and do another analysis, adding that new form of visual media changes the whole meaning. In the music video, Swift seems to be battling with the person who got her where she is today– herself. She also included Easter eggs from popular stories in the tabloids and news about her, from bathing in a bathtub of jewels with a symbolic one-dollar bill she won in a countersuit against a DJ who assaulted her, to snakes throughout the video after Kim Kardashian inspired the hashtag that trended worldwide, #TaylorSwiftisaSnake. The directing of the video by Joseph Kahn utilized the storytelling that is so great to see in films through cinematography and certain shots, and added a whole new meaning to “Look What You Made Me Do” than the song had when it stood alone.

Film criticism is important because our exposure to other perceptions will inevitably affect our own perceptions as well; for this reason, our criticism should not stop with films, but we should critically watch and listen to all forms of art and entertainment. 

 

Jenna Shackelford

Wanting to Watch a Family Friendly Movie? 101 Dalmatians Will Hit the Spot.

What’s black and white and was watched all over? No, not a riddle. The answer? A delightful film that people of all ages can enjoy about Dalmatian puppies.

101 Dalmatians is a Disney live-action remake of the 1961 animated film by the same name. Both are based on the book The 101 Dalmatians by Dodie Smith. The script is written by John Hughes, writer for Home Alone and The Breakfast Club. In the 1996 remake, directed by Stephen Herek, Anita, a fashion designer played by Joely Richardson and Roger, played by Jeff Daniels, meet and fall in love, thanks to the help of their shared interest: their pet dalmatians, Perdita and Pongo. The two dogs have puppies; meanwhile, Cruella de Vil, Anita’s evil boss, will stop at nothing to get dalmatian fur to bring Anita’s designs inspired by her dog to life.  This family-friendly adventure/comedy film is appropriate for kids and adults alike. The movie is rated G.

While the characters were not new, they were reinvented in great ways. In particular, Roger’s reinvention as a video game designer was a fresh new take to update the movie; in the animated film, he was a songwriter. Anita’s character as a fashion designer was nice, although it didn’t particularly stand out to me; I did find that the revision to her character helped the storyline move along more smoothly than it did in the animated film, when Cruella de Vil was a former schoolmate of Anita, instead of Anita’s employer.  Cruella de Vil stands out among villains because I wouldn’t normally think of an iconic movie villain as being someone who wants puppy fur, but her character is just evil enough for children to see her as evil without being terrified of the film, and also evil enough for adults to recognize her as a terrible person. 

The dialogue between the characters sometimes seemed a little too quippy and quick to be lifelike at times, but I liked that because the dialogue seemed to mirror the quip of cartoons. The movie was a perfect balance between everything I love about the quirkiness of cartoons and believability. No character seemed out of place, and all of the conflicts, from the sadness the characters faced when losing their dogs, to the struggle to get their dogs back, made sense within the story. I felt happy when Anita and Roger were in love, and upset with Cruella and her minions for wanting to steal the puppies for clothes, even when they seemed like caricatures of villains. Even the dogs made sounds that seemed to give them personalities of their own.

Jeff Daniels as Roger and Joely Richardson as Anita had wonderful chemistry together. Glenn Close was entertaining and eccentric, but really encapsulated the evil nature that Cruella de Vil was meant to have.

The film moved quickly from shot to shot, which is nice for younger audiences or viewers who get distracted in long, drawn-out scenes. The cinematography shifted from scenes with darker, cooler coloring when evil characters were present, to bright, warm colors in the absence of evil characters.

The most impressive scene in the film was when the puppies were trying to escape from the men who stole them, and they slid down a pipe. At that point, the puppies were created through CGI, but it took me a minute to even realize it. I thought the immediate shift from the animation to actual living puppies was almost unnoticeable and clever. 

The music, from the very of the beginning of the film, added to every scene. The score in the first scene made me feel like I was going on an adventure– and the movie really does take you on one. 

The movie was open and shut, with not a lot of lessons to be learned, but I enjoyed watching a film that I could be entertained by and follow without having to be in too much deep thought.  I watched this movie as a child, when I was probably four or five years old. I’ve rewatched a lot of movies over the years that I saw as a child, and I’ve been disappointed by how cheesy they are when I see them again, years down the line. 101 Dalmatians was one of the exceptions. I was enthralled from beginning to end, and wouldn’t mind sitting down and watching it with a friend.

The year 101 Dalmatians hit theaters, it earned $136 million dollars domestically, and $320 million dollars around the world. You’ll be hard-pressed to find the film on DVD in stores, since it was discontinued as a stand-alone DVD in 1996. You may still be able to track it down online, but it sells for a whopping $40.00 if you buy it used on Amazon, so iTunes might be your best bet. If you do get your hands on a DVD, the bonus features are a trailer of the film and an “Additional Titles” menu that recommends four preceding titles. 

I couldn’t spot a single thing I would want to change about this movie if I had the chance. It’s really held up over time,  and is aesthetically pleasing, and memorable– in the best possible way. A+! 

 

JFK Was Not One Brief Shining Moment– It Was Long, Boring, and Somewhat Historically Inaccurate

Are you one to question the facts that you’re told? Do you hypothesize conspiracies? Are you fascinated by major historical events?

You may enjoy the drama JFK, starring Kevin Costner, a New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison investigating John F. Kennedy’s assassination and questioning whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald worked alone. The movie uses inappropriate language and themes unsuitable and disturbing for younger audiences, making it appropriate for teens and adults. It is rated R.

The storyline and the fact that the movie is a drama sheds light on the historical context as the main character asks questions about what happened to JFK. Khrushchev and Fidel Castro’s historical relation to JFK were explored, and major events, like the Bay of Pigs, for instance, came into play, as well.

If you aren’t interested in conspiracy theories, this movie isn’t for you. The movie was plot-driven, and Garrison was used as a tool to explore the plot, which was based on Stone’s personal and unconventional beliefs. I wasn’t personally phased by the conspiracy concept.

The cast interacted well with each other and the acting was very believable. Kevin Costner in particular was a particular compelling character. I really felt like he was invested in the Kennedy assassination. He faced conflict with his family. They were struggling to understand how he would prioritize his investigation over them, and Garrison’s views presented him with pushback from his own staff as well.

The cinematography was average. I did appreciate, however, how the movie would incorporate video from the news in the 60s in the movie. It really helped to emphasize the time frame. There was one scene where I could see the boom mic in a mirror, though, and that bothered me.

The movie got famous quotes wrong and wasn’t chronological and correct in all of its aspects. In some scenes, people can be seen wearing clothes that weren’t popular until the 80s. In the Gettysburg address, Lincoln uses the phrase “of the people, by the people, for the people;” When Garrison referenced the phrase, he quoted it incorrectly, saying “of the people, for the people, by the people.” Also, a person commented on JFK’s assassination and said that Camelot was in “smithereens,” but the Camelot comparison wasn’t invented until a week after JFK’s assassination in an interview with Jackie Kennedy by Theodore White for Life Magazine. While I don’t take issue with people interpreting facts differently, I did have issues with historical inaccuracy.

Other movies where people have conducted investigations for answers, like Truth, Spotlight, and The Case for Christ have all accomplished their goals and made decent movies without dragging on for a whole 3 ½ hours. JFK was unnecessarily long, which made it boring.  

The movie wasn’t awful, but for me, it didn’t work. I’ve seen other movies done in a similar fashion that have been half as long and have been more historically accurate. I was ready for the film to be over halfway through. C+

Tweet: 

JFK Was Not One Brief Shining Moment– It Was Long, Boring, and Somewhat Historically Inaccurate. Read the full review here: http://bit.ly/2jcKzbc

Be Wary of Carrie– It’s Not Good, and It’s Not for the Kids.

 

High school is rough. There are cliques, bullies, and awkward moments. If you could have changed your high school experience and had more control, would you have? And at what cost?

A remake of the 1976 horror classic and adaptation of Stephen King’s book, “Carrie” follows the life of Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz), a socially-awkward girl raised and sheltered by her mother Margaret (Julianne Moore), a deranged religious fanatic. After discovering that she has telekinesis and enduring bullying in school, Carrie uses her power to gain control over her life– and to seek revenge. If you think this is a film for kids, it’s not. The film is riddled with violence, gore, language, and sexual themes and innuendo, and revenge is glorified.  The movie is rated R.

In the film, it’s Carrie against the world. Her peers bully her and her mother’s religious beliefs lead to abuse. When Carrie discovers her telekinesis, however, she faces a new internal struggle– how will she choose to use her powers?

The cinematography was decent. Whenever a scene had Carrie’s mother in it, it had a dull color to it, which contributed to the horror element of the film. When Carrie was at school, the colors were more vibrant.

 

Carrie’s house and clothes set her apart from everyone at her school. Other students wore stylish clothes and had modern houses. Carrie, however, wore outdated clothes and lived in an outdated home. Everything about the set seemed intentional, to make a point about Carrie.

The acting was great in scenes in the home with Moretz and Moore. The actresses made the dysfunctional characters come to life. In scenes without Moore, Moretz’s character seemed forced.

The story was unrealistic. “Nice girl gets mad and wants revenge” made sense. It’s the little things. Carrie’s mother sheltered her in such an extreme way, but she sent her to public school. The teacher at school doesn’t just befriend Carrie, but also eggs her on when she’s upset.

*spoiler alert*

Carrie wipes blood from menstruation on other girls.  In real life, they would definitely run to wash that off before filming, but they took out their phones to make videos of Carrie instead.

*end spoiler*

If the movie wasn’t unrealistic, it couldn’t have played out the way it was intended to, but it was still annoying.

*spoiler alerts*

I hated how the movie glorified revenge. Yes, Carrie had a right to be upset by the bullying she endured at school. But she eventually used her telekinesis to seek revenge and murdered countless people at her prom after being the victim of a cruel prank, and that kind of reaction wasn’t justifiable, like it was almost made out to be.

*end spoilers*

The movie was a flop. Details didn’t add up. It wasn’t scary– just gorey and revenge-glorifying. The partially good acting and cinematography didn’t redeem the movie. Word of advice: don’t stop at not letting the kids watch Carrie. Don’t bother watching it at all. C-. 

 

Twitter review: 

 

Families should be wary

Of watching the film “Carrie”

Mature themes, bad language, gore,

And the horror film was a snore. 

#Carrie

 

11/1/17

Jenna Shackelford

Big Fish: An Exciting Whopper of a Tale

If you’re looking for a storyline that will reel you in, you’ll be a fin– uh, I mean fan– of Big Fish, directed by Tim Burton.

In this fantasy/comedy/drama based on a book by the same, Will Bloom (Billy Crudup), a journalist, and his father, Edward (Albert Finney), have a strained relationship as a result of the tall tales that Edward has told his son over the years. Will realizes he knows nothing about the life his father has lived and wants to know the truth, rather than stories.

When Edward becomes gravely ill, Will travels with his wife to visit his dying father and learn the truth behind his father’s numerous tales. Will grapples with the answers he is given and struggles to reconcile his frustration with his father and his longing for a relationship with him. The PG-13 film contains minimal swearing and brief nudity, but it is otherwise appropriate and entertaining for teens and adults alike.

Firstly, I don’t think the casting for this movie could have been any more spot on.  Since Edward’s stories show him at different points in his life, Perry Walston plays 10-year-old Edward, Ewan McGregor plays Edward as an adult, and Albert Finney plays Edward when he’s much older. What’s so great about these three actors is that all three of them seem to capture the same kind of character, just at different stages of life. The movie seems consistent in that respect. Will is played by Billy Cruddup as an adult, but viewers also get to see him as a child, played by Grayson Stone, which helps the audience to understand how, gradually, the relationship between father and son became so strained. Other quirky characters that were fun to watch on screen for their strange mannerisms that you might only see in a Burton film are played by actors such as Helena Bonham Carter, Jessica Lange, Danny DeVito, and Steve Buscemi. Even Miley Cyrus had her first film role in Big Fish. 

Costuming and sets weren’t necessarily always realistic, but neither were the wild stories that Edward told his son, so the costuming and sets went really well with what was actually going on in the film. For example, one of the locations in the movie, the small town of Spectre (see what it looks like now!), has a seemingly perfect community. Everything in the town mirrors that perfection, from the lush, green grass to the fancy white and pastel-colored clothes.

The cinematography was pleasant and reflected the moods in each scene.

*spoiler alerts*

In the scene when Edward is dying, for instance, the lighting becomes duller and the coloring is cooler and bluer, adding to the sad and dismal tone. When Will is telling a story to his father on his deathbed about how Edward would die, his happier story has bright lighting and colors.

*end spoiler alerts*

The coloring and lighting changes were subtle enough that they weren’t distracting but noticeable enough that they added to the tones of each scene.

Any person who has grown up hearing stories from a parent, whether they’re bedtime stories, tales about Santa sneaking down the chimney, or even funny explanations for why things are the way they are will get a kick out of Big Fish. Anyone who has ever had a conflict with another person that they desperately wanted to resolve could enjoy this film. If you have a sense of humor, you’ll probably get a kick out of this movie. Big Fish is a movie about truth, family, love, and imagination that everyone should watch. I give this movie an A!

10/18/17

Jenna Shackelford

Sing Street Wasn’t Music to my Ears

You know what makes me sing the blues?

Sing Street, a 2016 comedy, coming-of-age, backstage musical, directed by John Carney. Carney pulled experiences from his childhood for the movie. The PG-13 film had innuendo and language, making it appropriate for teenagers and adults.

The story starts in Dublin in 1985, and focuses on teenager Conor Lawlor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo), an aspiring songwriter. Conor asks an aspiring teenage model, Raphina (Lucy Boynton), to be in his band’s music video; the problem was Conor didn’t have a band. Would the main character get the girl and would his thrown-together band find success?

The original music was written in the style of the 80s. The film captured difficulties of the songwriting process, which added realism. The music was catchy, and not in an influenza kind of way, with tunes like “Drive It Like You Stole It.” Conor drew inspiration from his life. For example, he was inspired by Raphina, and wrote a song called “The Riddle of the Model.” The film also featured music by popular 80s musicians, like Duran Duran and Hall & Oates, for instance.

Connor faced conflict against the school administration, a bully, and his parents who are divorcing. He also struggled with his identity, as is common for coming-of-age films. The same went for Raphina. Connor’s brother struggles with having to push his dreams aside for his family.

The predictable acting made characters seem like caricatures.

*Spoiler Alert*

Guy goes after girl. Girl dates creep. Guy and girl have chemistry. Girl chooses the creep, but ends up changing her mind and goes after the good guy who she actually likes. How romantic and unexpected. *rolls eyes*

*End Spoiler Alert*

The actors didn’t have on-screen chemistry. Raphina seemed aloof, and Conor seemed more caught up in music than he did in her, which was strange since the reason he started a band was because of her.

Brendan, Conor’s brother (Jack Reynor),  didn’t get enough screen time. He was outspoken, but cared about his family. He had dreams and was self-sacrificial. If he had more screen time, the film might have had more depth.  

The set was like stepping in a time machine. Conor’s family gathering around the TV watching music videos, which were innovative at the time, captured the era. The teenagers’ music videos looked like cheesy 80s music videos. The costuming wasn’t over-the-top 80s, as some movies seem to go for the most extreme examples from a decade as they can.

I wasn’t blown away by lighting, except for one scene.

*Spoiler alert*

The band was filming a music video at school, and Connor was imagining the ideal music video being filmed and how everyone loved his band. Then the scene switches back to reality. During the imagined part, the lights flash on Conor as though he’s a celebrity. When it switches back to reality, which was not at all what he pictured, the lighting is more dull and pale.

*End Spoiler alert*

The film didn’t seem to have a deep meaning and wasn’t particularly entertaining. The plot didn’t have enough rising action or a good climax. It was one-dimensional. The only character that I cared about was Conor’s brother. The plot was weak and overdone. Some scenes, like one of the mothers turning on a sex toy, seemed bizarre and out-of-place.

If Sing Street had more of a build-up-climax-resolution kind of setup, if the characters weren’t flat, or if the acting was better, I might’ve been impressed. All-in-all, though, Sing Street was an interesting idea, but for a musical, it wasn’t note-worthy. B-.

10/11/17

Jenna Shackelford

Truth: A Review

In a society where the media is constantly criticized, Truth, a drama and adaptation of true-story Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power, that depicts Mary Mapes, played by Cate Blanchett, and Dan Rather, played by Robert Redford, searching for answers for CBS’ 60 Minutes to learn more about Bush’s military service, is likely to ruffle a few feathers. As Mapes dives deeper into her quest for truth, she, too, is confronted with criticism, and people begin to question whether her research is solidly supported by fact. The story question stayed the same throughout the film: “What is truth?”. The intense film falls into the “drama” category of genre; foul language earned this film an “R” rating, but would be appropriate for adults, and teens, with discretion.  

Part of what made the movie so compelling was it was rooted in the story. The story was interesting enough to drive the film because the events happened only a few years ago. Even though the story alone could carry the film, the characters had depth when the screenwriters chose to let the audience see the characters’ conflicts inside and outside of the newsroom.

*spoiler alerts*

There was character-vs-character conflict as Mapes and Rather fought for people they knew to believe them; there was character-vs-society conflict when society turned against them and saw them as shoddy media; there was even character-vs-self when Mapes had her coping mechanism taken away from her when she could no longer use her career as a way to deal with her upbringing in an abusive home; Rather faced internal struggles as well when he was forced to find a way to balance the face he put on for the media and his personal relationships.

*end spoiler alerts*

Since the audience got to see a glimpse into the real lives of Mapes and Rather, the resolution of the story mattered more. The characters were relatable.

The acting was convincing, particularly from the main characters, and all of the characters were made to look the part of the real-life people they were playing through, hair, makeup, and clothes. The newsroom shots looked like what you would expect if you walked into CBS. Truly, all of the sets looked great. The cinematography wasn’t particularly special, but was well-done.

I generally wasn’t struck by the shots in the film; however, I was impressed by one medium shot when Rather is looking out of the airplane window and Mapes is watching him. Although there weren’t words being spoken, the emotion that Rather felt and the depth of Mapes caring for him was captured extremely well in that shot.

The film was not without its faults, however. For example, in one scene, when the team is searching for people to corroborate evidence, they put the abbreviation for lieutenant colonel up on their whiteboard– and they abbreviated it in a very obscure way. Considering the movie also notes that Mapes worked Abu Ghraib and a military person was working alongside her, the abbreviation didn’t make sense.

*Spoiler alert*

In another scene,  a person questioning Mapes argued that the abbreviation “OETR,” found in her papers showed a huge flaw in Mapes work because it was never used. In reality, while “OETR” was brought into question, the person who brought it up to Mapes argued that “OETR” would not be on any paper prior to 2004 because it didn’t exist yet.

*End spoiler alert*

Both of these faults are nitpicky, admittedly, but they did not go unnoticed and bothered me.

All-in-all, Truth was a well-done, well-researched movie. While it was a fair depiction of events that occurred back in 2004, it is relevant today in that the well-intentioned pursuit of truth in the media, and society’s reactions to the media’s efforts are examined critically– and if we can learn anything from Truth, maybe those efforts ought to be.

9/28/17

Jenna Shackelford

Song Analysis: “The Lucky One” by Taylor Swift

For this blog post, I’m analyzing “The Lucky One” by Taylor Swift, looking at the storyline, and finding the characters, inciting incident, setting, conflict, and resolution. I’ve put the lyrics below for your convenience.

Let’s take a look at the first verse:

New to town with a made up name
In the angel city, chasing fortune and fame
And the camera flashes, make it look like a dream
You had it figured out since you were in school
Everybody loves pretty, everybody loves cool
So overnight you look like a sixties’ queen

Setting and introduction to first character: A girl without a name, in the setting, “the angel city,” or Los Angeles. Some people speculate because of later parts in the song that the song is about Joni Mitchell. On to the bridge!

Another name goes up in lights, like diamonds in the sky

Inciting incident: The inciting incident is split between the first verse and the bridge; a girl wants to be liked, so she changes to be “like a sixties’ queen;” soon she becomes famous.

And they’ll tell you now, you’re the lucky one
Yeah, they’ll tell you now, you’re the lucky one
But can you tell me now, you’re the lucky one, oh, oh, oh

 Foreshadowing of the conflict comes here when Taylor Swift asks the girl she is singing about if she is sure she is lucky because of her situation, despite what everyone is telling her. Second character: Swift puts herself into the song here, rather than just narrating.

Now it’s big black cars, and Riviera views
And your lover in the foyer doesn’t even know you
And your secrets end up splashed on the news front page
And they tell you that you’re lucky
But you’re so confused
Cause you don’t feel pretty, you just feel used
And all the young things line up to take your place

Conflict and rising action: The conflict begins as problems start to arise that come with fame. Her life is broadcasted through the  media. People think she’s lucky for her fame but she feels used—maybe by the people she chooses to have in her life, or maybe by the people who are trying to use her life as entertainment. If something happens to her, she’ll just be replaced by the next young girl to come along.

Another name goes up in lights
You wonder if you’ll make it out alive

Climax: The girl wonders if she’ll live through her circumstances.

And they’ll tell you now, you’re the lucky one
Yeah, they’ll tell you now, you’re the lucky one
But can you tell me now, you’re the lucky one, oh, oh, oh

It was a few years later, I showed up here
And they still tell the legend of how you disappeared
How you took the money and your dignity, and got the hell out
They say you bought a bunch of land somewhere
Chose a rose garden over Madison Square
And it took some time, but I understand it now

Falling action and resolution: The girl that Taylor Swift is singing about slips away from the spotlight for peace. She also notes that she understands the girl’s decision and the problems she faced because she was going through the same thing while writing the song.

Clarification of characters: Many people speculate that this part of the song indicates that the girl in the story is Joni Mitchell because of how Mitchell would evade the spotlight for sometimes years at a time. Swift, when she released her album, said that the song was one that she wrote about someone she admired, and also noted her love of Joni Mitchell, although she did not say that “The Lucky One” was about Mitchell.

‘Cause now my name is up in lights, but I think you got it right
Let me tell you now, you’re the lucky one
Let me tell you now, you’re the lucky one
Let me tell you now, you’re the lucky one, oh, oh, oh
And they’ll tell you now, you’re the lucky one
Yeah, they’ll tell you now, you’re the lucky one
And they’ll tell you now, you’re the lucky one, oh, oh, oh
Oh, whoa, oh, oh

 Denouement: Swift clarifies her understanding of the girl in the song, saying that not only does she understand her, but that the girl in the song is luckier in the position she is in now.

Genre and Blake Snyder formula: Since Swift doesn’t explicitly say the song is about Joni Mitchell, although she hints at it, I’d say the genre of this song is a reality-based drama. The Blake Snyder formula that was used in this was “Out of the Bottle;” the girl wished to have fame and be liked, she got what she wanted and faced the consequences of that, and she found in the end that she would be happiest if she chose to remove herself from the situation.

Rear Window: A Review

What does it mean to be a neighbor?

This question permeated Rear Window, a 1954 Alfred Hitchcock film about photographer L.B. Jeffries, played by James Stewart, is both a modern hero and an incomplete hero,  confined to a wheelchair, with nothing to do until his cast is removed except for looking out the rear window of his apartment building, observing the neighbors daily lives. He is worried that his girlfriend, Lisa Freemont, played by Grace Kelly, wouldn’t be a suitable wife, since she is accustomed to a high-society lifestyle she wouldn’t be able to maintain if she traveled with him for work. When Jeffries thinks a crime took place in a neighbor’s apartment, he tries to bring justice to the situation with his binoculars, photography equipment, and the help of whoever will listen. Rated PG, the film is suspenseful but not violent; it would be appropriate for pre-teens and up, but may be disturbing for younger viewers.

*spoiler alert*

The inciting incident in the film is when Jeffries is observing his neighbors, and sees Thornwall, a salesman who often quarreled with his bedridden, sick wife, leave and return to his apartment several times with his sample case at 3 A.M. When his wife is not in the apartment the next day, Jeffries believes that Thornwall murdered her.

*end spoiler alert*

This “monster-in-the-house” thriller finds Jeffries and Lisa thrusting themselves into inner turmoil and danger as they attempt to bring the crime they believe to have been committed to light; they are scared that their neighbor will figure out they are watching him, their search for answers will be ruined, or both. The film is primarily plot-driven, although the characters still play a large role in driving the story. The climax of the film is when Lisa becomes more invested in the mystery, as does Stella, played by Thelma Ritter, a woman who is helping care for Jeffries while he recovers; consequently, they put themselves in harm’s way to find incriminating evidence against the neighbor.

The voyeuristic storyline, which leads the audience to peer into the lives of the neighbors with Jeffries, is intriguing. The characters in each surrounding apartment were interesting, and they developed throughout the film. Unfortunately, after the climax, the film slowed down immensely. The resolution and denouement were mediocre because they felt rushed. There was so much build-up to get to the resolution that it fell flat.  The story question of whether or not the criminal would be caught was resolved, but the resolution seemed like a last-minute idea– like it was slapped on just to end the movie.

Part of what made the film interesting was the questions it made me ask. There were times when Jeffries and his girlfriend were so consumed by the crime that they wanted to prove that they seemed completely uninterested in other important things going on in their neighbor’s lives.

*spoiler alert*

Some of these things include seeing a neighbor nearly kill herself with a handful of pills and abusive behavior within apartments.

*end spoiler alert*

The movie made me ask what it meant to be a neighbor as well as when one should be a neighbor and at what cost, and whether or not a person should pick and choose when he acts like a neighbor.  

Jeffries and Lisa faced conflict against another character that they barely spoke to. The conflict between Jeffries and Lisa in their romantic relationship was fascinating because they cared for each other deeply, but were still facing challenges. These conflicts cause the characters to both develop into round characters.

The acting was decent in the film all the way around, but Grace Kelly, in particular, stood out. Her witty remarks in the film seemed entirely natural, and when she felt pain as a character, it seemed genuine. While all of the acting seemed good, Grace Kelly’s character seemed most authentic and dynamic.

The film seemed real. I could see myself in each of the main characters, and a little of people I know in each character. I could even see myself in some of the characters– the neighbors– that you don’t even hear speak. I appreciated that the story focused on characters behind closed doors, but with open windows. Never once did the cameras venture out of the apartments and courtyard and into workplaces or public settings.  The egregious slowness during part of the film and the so-so resolution and denouement affected how I viewed it overall, but the relatability and the humanity in the film set it apart from mediocre, run-of-the-mill thrillers.  B+.

Jenna Shackelford

9/20/17

Leaving Behind a Legacy: William Hedgepeth’s History with Movies

All my life I lived in Fayetteville, North Carolina, until last year, when I moved to college in the one-stoplight town of Boiling Springs, 4 hours away. Some of my fondest childhood memories from Fayetteville are of the times I hung out with my friend Hannah. We went to the pool together, made stupid bucket lists that we always promised to complete and never did, and baked Christmas cookies. I was there when we decided to smell the different spices in the spice cupboard and she got a dill seed stuck up her nose and her mom had to pick her up, and she was there when we made brownies and the glass mixing bowl fell on my foot and I split my foot open. We were just always around each other.

 

One thing I remember about hanging out with Hannah and her family is that they went to the movies a lot. Actually, while I saw a fair amount of movies growing up, I think nearly every movie I saw in theaters I saw with her family. Who kick-started the love of film in the Hedgepeth household? It’s safe to say that Hannah’s dad, William Hedgepeth, can be credited with that. He sees about 18 movies in theaters every year, and at some points in his life, would see as many as 30 movies in theaters a year.  I interviewed Mr. Hedgepeth, who is 56,  on September 12th about his love of movies and his history with films to see what ignited his passion for a good movie. 

Q.What was one of the first films you remember watching in a theatre?

A. One of the first movies I watched was Billy Jack. I probably shouldn’t have been able to be in that movie because it was probably rated R. I was probably 10 or 11. It was a good movie, though. It was a kung fu movie about a veteran who saved a little town.

 

Q.What do you remember about those early film experiences (food, type of theatre, friends, family, how you felt, etc.)?

A.Whenever I went to the movies, it was always with my friends. My parents would tell me I could watch the movies from the 40s and 50s and 60s at home. I knew all about the old actors and actresses and I liked to see it on the big screen rather than the little TV screen.

Q.Did any of those actors actresses really stick with you? Who were your favorites?

A.Gregory Peck. He was famous in To Kill a Mockingbird. That’s when he became big. Spencer Tracy, too, and of course, John Wayne.

Q.Do you remember when the event films like “Jaws” and “Star Wars” were in theaters?

A. Oh, yeah, Jaws was really scary. That was a good one. I worked in a movie theater for several years, and I got to see countless movies for free all over town– the theaters had an agreement so I could go to the different theaters– so I’ve seen more movies than most people probably have. Nothing like Jaws and Star Wars had been done before that, which I think is why they were so popular. But then, a young man named Steven Spielberg and a guy named George Lucas turned the industry upside down by making a movie about a shark and a movie about space, and they made movies about something that didn’t seem like they could be really real to people.

Special effects were just beginning to catch up with the movie business. Today we have CGI computer graphics, but [Spielberg and Lucas] came along at the right time to do something in the theater that hadn’t been done before. It’s sad, I guess, from one perspective because movies relied on the acting to be good,  but today with the CGI, they rely more on the “wow factor.” Saving Private Ryan has a good combination of both. That was the difference though. The technology was beginning to catch up and they could put it in their movies and make it work and make it look real. You felt the shark was real. You felt Darth Vader was real.

Q.Did you watch many films growing up?

A. Yes, lots and lots of movies.  I liked war movies and science fiction and Westerns.  Twelve O’Clock High was a war movie and Saving Private Ryan was a war movie– and of course, Star Wars.  

Q. Did you ever go to Drive-In Movies when you were younger?

A. I did–just a few. Not a lot. That was fun because somebody would have a pickup truck and we would load everyone up, but I preferred the theater instead of drive-ins. It was always nice during the hot summer days, though, and we always went to horror movies at the drive-in.

Q.Did you ever go rent from a video store?

A. I did that a lot. I would rank movies, “A,” “B” and “C,” and I would wait for them to come out on video. I would see the “A” ones in theaters, and I’d usually wait for the “B” and “C” movies to come out on video. The best movies tend to come out in summer, so the rest of the time, in the fall, winter, and spring– I’d rent those movies.

Q. What kinds of films do you watch now?

A. Same thing. Western, war movies, and sci-fi. I’ll watch other things, too. [My wife] doesn’t go to see the same thing because she likes those love stories. I like a good suspenseful drama, too, but not a lot of them are made really well. I want to go see that Wind River movie, though.

Q. What do you think makes a movie good?

A. I just want it to be good entertainment. Good acting. A good story. If they make a movie on historical perspective, I want it to be accurate. Even if it’s fantasy, you don’t want it to be silly. I want to see a movie that I can believe is true. The actors can take a storyline and make a story more believable. But a good character can carry a movie.

Q. Do you think your love of movies has influenced the way your kids see movies?

A. They’re looking for a good movie. The love of movies– it’s rubbing off on them and it’s one of the legacies I can leave them.

Jenna Shackelford

9/15/17