Here is a link to books acclaimed director Darren Aronofsky reccomends for aspiring filmmakers

http://thebrowser.com/interviews/darren-aronofsky-on-making-movies

Review of Welles' Citizen Kane

Called the greatest film ever for decades Citizen Kane tells the story of the American dream gone awry. It poses the question of whether money and fame are better than an unspoiled, simple, childhood? The final scene presents this in symbolic form, with the sleigh imprinted with the word “rosebud” symbolizing Kanes’s lost childhood.

            Made in 1941 this film is, perhaps, a reflection of the prevailing depression era ideology. That money and fame are not as important as family and childhood surely left depression era audiences sympathizing with the character of Charles Foster Kane.

            Citizen Kane was one of the first great productions to be a “talkie.” Orson Welles plays the lead as well as director. Throughout the rest of his career he was unable to live down the magnitude of Citizen Kane. He never made a film that, sadly, lived up to the success of Citizen Kane.

            The plot is told through a series of flashbacks that are told in chronological order. Starting from Kane’s placement into the custodianship of Mr. Thatcher to his lonely death at Xanadu. This is a clever plot device indeed. Using flashback could be tricky. Keeping an audience attentive while following Kane’s live could’ve been confusing or even worse boring. But Welles pulls it off with greatness. He uses a repeat shot of his second wife’s interview to reinforce the narrative structure. The story is a lively journey through the career of a man born to wealth; thought to be based on William Randolph Hearst.

            The film also uses authorial selection to tell the story of Charles Foster Kane. Each flashback is told from a different perspective. First from his guardian Mr. Thatcher, then Mr. Bernstein, then his best friend, then his second wife, and finally his butler who was there at his death. All of the interviews are initiated by a journalist assigned the story of finding out what Kane meant when he said “rosebud” just before he died. The journalist never finds out what “rosebud” means, but the audience is left to ponder one of cinema history’s greatest cliffhangers.

            What is the symbolic value of the sleigh with the word “rosebud’ on it? It has to symbolize Kane’s lost childhood. Perhaps after all the wealth and fame Kane had resided to the fact that it would have been better to live an undisturbed live in Colorado rather than the live of a wealthy man of the world. I think the question is whether a capitalist society at it’s extremes of wealth is satisfying. Clearly, Kane can buy anything except high office. At the beginning of the film Kane is living the dream life of capitalist society, his young, extremely wealthy, and can choose his own way of life. By the end of the film he is a lonely, heartbroken man who longs to be back in Colorado, back to innocence, to childhood because money cannot replace a childhood, a mother, a sleigh.

            The film uses light and shadow effectively. Perhaps not too subtley, but just enough to increase the emotional intensity of character’s reaction. Used beautifully over Orson Welles face it shows him in the dark when he is experience a tough time. The film also uses over the shoulder shots to show Kane’s point of view.

            It also begins with news reel footage of Kane. This is a unique device used by Welles to tell Kane’s story. I thought it was a very effective tool. It sets up the narrative, it informs the audience, and it reveals the characters little by little. It inflates the character of Kane. It makes him a larger than life personality.

            There isn’t a better film that exemplies classical Hollywood style than Citizen Kane. It’s all there, the 180 degree axis, the shot reverse shot, the over the top angles, language, and characterization. The documentary beginning only adds to the intrigue and creative plot. I don’t think Citizen Kane is the best film ever made. I think other films have surpassed it. But, as I have said, it may be the best example of classical Hollywood filmmaking of the “golden age.”

Review of Kubrick's Barry Lyndon

            This is the first of a series of reviews about classic films. The first film I have selected to review is Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon. Made in 1975 it just makes the cut of a classic film, in my opinion at least, for the 1970s were a time of dramatic change for the film industry. I will comment on Kubrick’s style directorial choices and the strengths and weaknesses of the film.

            First, I cannot say enough of the photography or cinematography of Barry Lyndon. Scene after scene is presented near to a painting from the 18^th century. Saying it is well done is an understatement. I was repeatedly made breathless by the scene composition of natural scenes like forests, etc and other scenes of soldiers marching in battle and the grand house of the Lyndons.

            I thought the acting was good, but no really strong performances. Perhaps Ryan O’neil as Barry Lyndon or Lord Bullingdon put forth the best efforts. The script was an adaptation of a novel and was well done. It used narration to explain most of the scenes, practically telling the  viewer what would happen. There was a transition between several sequences; one in Ireland, one on the continent, and one as a member of the English nobility.

            I thought the best scene of the film was when Lord Bullingdon makes a scene and ruins his stepfather’s plans to attain noble status. It is a rare example to see Aristocrats from the Age of Reason to lose all sense of rationality, composure, and restraint. The scene shows, perhaps foreshadows, Mr. Lyndon’s ultimate end.

            The film starts out with Lyndon trying to gain the hand of his cousin. It ends in a dual which he thinks he has shot an English Captain. Later on in the film he discovers that he was setup to think he won the duel to get him out of the way. Barry then joins the British army and travels to the continent. There he deserts to Prussia and is found to be an imposter by a Prussian officer. He is then forced to join the Prussian army and only escapes after gaining the favor of a fellow Irishman.

            At the beginning and end of the film conflict between Barry and his English oppresors becomes apparent. The English always hold the strings. In the beginning sequence he is obstructed by an English army captain from his cousin’s hand in marriage. At the end he is obstructed to noble title by his step-son, an Englishman.

            Barry is, like Ireland, obstructed from gaining independence and freedom from the English. He lives on the run, lives aimlessly, only to be foiled again by the English. Perhaps this is the overriding theme of the film. In both cases of conflict there is Barry, Irish, peasant, and unknown, and blocking his way to marriage and nobility is English, and noble. Both conflicts are resolved against Barry. In the first instance he is conned into thinking that he has killed the British officer only to learn later on that the officer is still alive and married to the woman Barry wanted to marry. In the second instance, and perhaps the more bitter, Barry is confronted by his step-son Lord Bullingdon, and loses in a duel.

            The film is well-crafted by Kubrick. It won several BAFTA awards (British Academy Awards) and was well-received by critics. It shows the range of Kubrick and what he was capable of producing. Only a very highly regarded director such as Kubrick could’ve pulled off Barry Lyndon. With Barry Lyndon Kubrick adds to his range of films and solidifies his reputation as director of legendary status. In other words, has Kubrick made a “bad” movie?

Review of Polanski's Chinatown

Polanski’s Chinatown is lauded as a film noir classic. I watched it in freshman literature class, watched again some years later, came across in a screenwriting book, and finally read the screenplay and watched the film. In the following review I will address the most memorable facets of the film and how the screenplay is different from the actual film.

            To begin with, the film is a memorable piece of cinematic art. Perhaps solidifying screen legend status for Jack Nicholson, Chinatown is studded with a memorable cast, a great screenplay, and, perhaps, the most memorable trumpet in film history.

            Following typical film noir themes Chinatown is set amidst a crumbling society where there is no justice, no one trustworthy. Greed, money, power dominate society from the top down. By the end of the film these themes become obvious. Cross, a slimy character played memorably by John Huston, has, apparently, gotten away with rape, incest, and murder. He is the villain in the story. He has killed the good person that Hollis Mulray was and has raped the innocent Faye Dunaway. The police, buffoons or corrupt, do not arrest him at the end of the film. He takes possession of the daughter born out of incest and gets away scot free.

            Gittes, played by Nicholson, is the flawed hero of Chinatown. He works to uncover the truth behind the water scandal only to be deeply disturbed by the end of the film He stares blankly in utter disbelieve at the sight of Dunaway’s bloodied face. How could this happen? How could injustice be so wretchedly perpetrated against the innocent, against the righteous? These are the lasting ideas which Chinatown impresses upon it’s viewers. In the last scene Dunnaway shouts out as she attempts to escape with her daughter from Huston, “he owns the police!”

            The production qualities of Chinatown are superb. The scenes are period pieces right out of the 1930s. Clothes, hair styles, and cars are all dutifully reconstructed to evoke a past era. The scenes evoke a deep, mysterious aura. As the tension rises the scenes get shorter, more intense, and that memorable trumpet plays away as the action rises to the final confrontation between Nicholson, Dunnaway, and Huston in the streets of Chinatown.

            I thought the best scene of Chinatown is when Gittes confronts Cross. Although, I wondered why didn’t Gittes come clean to the police in the first place? Perhaps he thought he could bribe Cross? Perhaps he doesn’t trust the police? Whatever the reason was, Gittes, for some reason, had to confront Cross. In the scene where he asks Cross how much he is worth and then asks those memorable lines, “how much better can you eat? What more can you buy that you don’t already have?” I think is one of the most memorable scenes of film history. It portrays a society dominated by money, unrestrained in greed, and rapaciousness.

            After reading the screenplay and watching the movie there are a few minor differences. One scene is left out and the end is portrayed differently. These are only minor changes. I thought the screenplay was very well written. It followed the conventions of the Film-noir tradition. It was about 120 pages and transitioned smoothly between scenes. A truly memorable piece of Cinematic literature.

Which is the better Scorsese film? Raging Bull or Taxi Driver?

Great interview with Oliver Stone about his latest film "Savages" from Filmcomment magazine.

http://www.filmcomment.com/article/oliver-stone-interview-savages#main

Books I've read about Film

Here are some books that I've read about Film:

A World History of Film by Robert Sklar- Great overview of Cinema History. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Packed with interesting information. Sparked much interest in Film.

Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting by Syd Field- Excellent introduction about screenwriting. Covered all the basics, great intro to screenwriting.

Short Guide to Writing about Film- Useful book about how to write about film

Film Art: An Introduction- Very good book covering all aspects of Film; from production to criticism and excellent introduction

Here is a link to a short documentary film I made for Cinema 111 class

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfWnsRPKdRA

Last Ten Films I've Watched

In no particular order or rank here are some of the films that I have watched recently at home or in the theater:

Taxi Driver
Cariolanus
The Searchers
Kagemusha
Blue Velvet
Ugetsu
Hunger
Prometheus
Chinatown
Black Rain