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

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

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

 

The Imitation Game: A Review

Have you ever seen the a trailer for a thriller/drama and gotten excited for it, only to encounter a slow, drawn-out and boring film with one-dimensional characters?

I sure have.

But The Imitation Game was not that movie. In fact, the combination of a riveting storyline and a heavier theme made for an intriguing and thought-provoking movie. Some sexual innuendo and mature themes make this movie appropriate for teens and adults, but not for children.

The Imitation Game, which was based on a true story,  takes place in England and follows the story of Alan Turing, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, an eccentric but brilliant mathematician and cryptanalyst. When MI6 recruits Turing along with several other cryptanalysts, they are set against the challenge of conquering a machine being utilized by the Nazis, the Enigma Machine.

*Spoiler Alert*

The Nazis intercepted a message at 6 A.M. every morning. The problem– or rather, the problems? The messages were in codes, the settings for the machine changed every 18 hours, and there were 159 million million million possibilities for the small team of cryptanalysts to try out in that short period of time. Turing determines that the only way the machine can be conquered is by using another machine, and he creates his own, which he dubs “Christopher.” Meanwhile, the potential discovery of Turing’s sexual orientation, which was considered gross indecency in England at the time, posed a risk not only to Turing’s career, but also the way he would live his life.

*End spoiler alert*

I have trouble watching movies where I can’t identify the purpose– how am I supposed to get emotionally invested in a movie when it seems pointless to me?– but The Imitation Game keeps viewers on the edge of their seats as they wonder if cracking the code of the Enigma Machine is even possible, and also as they wonder how the discovery of Turing’s personal life will affect him.

While, to a degree, any movie could be seen as entertainment, The Imitation Game didn’t stop there. It gave a realistic look at history: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Alan Turing was a hero treated like a criminal. Joan Clarke, played by Keira Knightley the only woman on the team of cryptanalysts, was treated by some people as less intelligent simply because she was a woman. They were two of the most impactful people in the film, but they were not treated as these heroes that should be put on pedestals. They got their jobs because their brilliance was abnormal, and quite frankly, they seemed like outsiders.

One of the things I appreciated about the film most was the consistency. I don’t particularly like movies that have one hilarious scene but fall flat elsewhere, or comedies that just get serious suddenly. This film was dramatic, thrilling, quirky, and witty throughout. The plot itself provided the drama and thrills, but the viewer got to know the characters gradually. Particularly, the viewers got to know Turing, as the film would feature flashbacks to Turing’s teenage years and education. We learned how Turing became the person he was. Viewers got to see Joan Clarke’s family, and see how her humdrum, quiet home life might have inspired her to apply herself in cracking code. The quirkiness shone through in the characters. The wittiness came from little remarks from the characters, but they were never overdone, or thrown in unnecessarily. Everything that was said and done in the movie was done intentionally and purposefully. The movie was well-balanced throughout.

The conflict in the story was multifaceted. Obviously, the cryptanalysts had a conflict with machines, but as Turing pointed out at one point in the movie, machines can’t think. The enemies were the Nazis. By having conflict come from characters that are spoken about, but never seen, the creators of the film were able to focus more on the lead characters and give them more depth. One could also see Turing struggling with his own secret and his struggle against the culture, which would punish him if they discovered the way he was living outside of the workplace.

All of these conflicts caused me to ask, “What would I do if I was in their shoes?”.

Even examining The Imitation Game critically, I don’t see weak points. The acting was great, the storyline was smooth and not choppy or confusing, and there was a perfect balance between drama and thought-provoking ideas.

What made the movie for me was the fact that my thoughts on it did not end when the movie ended. I found myself thinking about the way the characters were treated. I compared the culture in the movie to the culture around me today. It was historical and it was relevant, all at once. A! 

Jenna Shackelford

9/6/17

What Film Means to Me

“Although, for some people, cinema means something superficial and glamorous, it is something else. I think it is the mirror of the world.”– Jeanne Moreau.

One of the first movies I remember seeing, although I’m sure I saw others before it, was The Wizard of Oz. Although I wasn’t exactly that critical of movies when I was 6, I was fascinated by the conflict and the character development throughout the story. I so thoroughly enjoyed the film that I had a blue and white gingham dress that I dubbed my “Dorothy dress,” and my mom would put my hair into braids. I was even cast in the Wizard of Oz when it was at a local theater– although I was jealous to only get to be a ladybug when my brother got to be a flying monkey. The storyline fascinated me and my curiosity with movies was born.

I’ve always loved to write, and I’ve always had an active imagination. Although my writing is predominantly confined to research papers and articles, I’ve enjoyed both reading and writing fiction throughout the years. I particularly enjoy thought-provoking literature, and I love when an author can paint a picture of a scenario in my mind. I feel like I’m part of the story. It’s always odd to see something on screen that is different than what I pictured when reading a book or script, but I appreciate when a film can somehow make the audience feel included even in those instances.

Spurred on in part by binge-watching the Twilight Zone, and in part by my goal of being a journalist, I’ve developed an interest in ethics. Since this is the case,  I’ve been intrigued with movies where there is some sort of moral dilemma or ethical implication or statement that a viewer can relate to. The best example of that that I’ve seen recently is Circle.  The storyline is intriguing because *sort of a spoiler alert* the characters are put in a position where they feel they need to decide which characters’ lives are most valuable, due to actions, beliefs, race, and so on and so forth, and which characters deserve to die. The creativity combined with the ethical aspect of the film makes the film a must-see.  I appreciate stories with a purpose.

I’m a pretty quirky person. I collect View-Masters  and their reels and sock monkeys. I can sing with my mouth closed. I’m usually covered in hennas– you can see one of them in the photo of me above. Since I like unusual things, I’m fascinated with unusual films, like Tim Burton’s. Particularly, I love his animated movies, like The Nightmare Before Christmas, but I also appreciate his live-action films, like Edward Scissorhands and Big Eyes. I can’t think of many genres that I’m intrinsically opposed to, although I don’t enjoy movies that are sexually explicit.

My aspiring-journalist mind always wants to examine movies from an analytical perspective. Why is the movie important? What is the purpose? What will people think about it, or what have people thought about it? How is the movie potentially influential? How could changes in the script and story line benefit the story? What is good about the movie in the state that it is in? What isn’t so good?

As I’m writing this blog, I’m realizing that my favorite films are ones that I can see my interests reflected in. I guess that’s true for most people, but that’s what makes film so interesting to me. A film that resonates with people resonates for a reason. Film is truly a reflection of at least some parts of society, whether we like it or not.

8/30/2017