Le Grande Illusion

Captain de Boeldieu proudly stands his ground, refusing to submit to the will of his captor to return to the clutches of the German Army. Forsaking privilege and class respect he condemns himself to death for the sake of his fellow French officers, Bourgeoise and Proletariot. The Grande illusion is a gripping tale of camaraderie and the fall of the Aristocracy.

Through the use of a series of German officer camps as the primary setting for

much of the movie Renoir insures that all of the characters stand on an equal ground of honor and respect. The ultimate goal of escape brings them together past even ranking lines, all of th

em command the mutual respect that comes from national pride and the desire for liberty. Renoir is asking the cutting question of the time, "whether the essence of social life is not but artifice and theatre." (Pendergast 244) His communist party affiliation and radical philosophy are clearly on display in the allegory of the film that professes the benefits of mutual aid and the dissolution of social divisions. (Bergstrom 457) The evil conservative Captain von Rauffenstein as played by the iconic Erich von Stronheim is an antagonist straight from early 20

th century leftist propaganda. His authoritarian traditionalist approach is being slowly undermined by the new opportunities afforded to the lower classes. As his grip on power and dominance over society's hierarchy he begins to lash out against those who are supp

orting the dissolution of the rigid class structure, though they lie within the confine

s of his own class. Tradition makes him a reluctant antagonist, yet at the end he still

shoots the valiant Boeldieu, in effect hastening the aristocracy's impending demise.

The final episode of the film centers around an exploration of the pastoral promise, a dream of paradise in the provinces held dear to the hearts of many in the transitional period to modernist society. The working-class officer Marechal falls in love with the lovely German farm wife, a symbol of simple living and romance. In her lives the temptation of forgetting the struggle for freedom embodied in French military combat in the Great War and

remain content with an agrarian life stye. In the end, however, the protagonists choose to relinquish this dream until their dream of an end to the oppression of the upper classes has been concluded.

Works Cited

Bergstrom, Janet. "Jean Renoir's Return to France."Poetics Today. 17.3 (1996): 457. Print.

Prendergast, Christopher. "Cinema Sociology: Cultivating the Sociological Imagination through Popular Film." Teaching Sociology. 14.4 (1986): 243-248. Print.

Images From

Kevin, Hagopian. "The Grand Illusion." New York State Writers Institute. State University of New York, n.d. Web. 27 Oct 2010. .

Nighthawk4486, . "The Year in FIlm: 1938." News from the Boston Becks. 02 oct 2009. Web. 27 Oct 2010. .

The Psyche Lurks: Subjectivity in Fritz Lang’s "M"

Duplicity abounds in Fritz Lang’s M (1931). While the plot of the story remains centered on the fate of a vicious child killer, the true insidiousness of the film comes from the elements of visual artifice Lang uses to depict the inner psyche of the killer.

From the beginning of the film, the viewer is inundated with camera angles and moves that directly provide the viewer with subjective observation that matches both the subject matter of the film and the inner workings of the killer’s mind. Lang enters the film with a series of shots visually reminiscent of a peeping Tom: the camera looks down upon a group of school children singing a song, children teem out of a school, a girl bouncing a ball is followed to a sign depicting the murderer, and, finally, the killer is revealed through his shadow. These perspectives bring the viewer all-too-close to the killer in these opening shots. The viewer is no longer observing the killer’s actions in these opening sequences, but becoming him.

As the killer’s perversions worsen, and all seems as though he may not be caught, the viewer is given an even greater look into his psyche. While looking at various weapons through a shop window, the killer notices a child in a mirror. His demeanor changes; he can’t seem to control himself. As the man becomes ever more demented, Lang shifts the view to one of dual subjectivity: the viewer sees the killer change in person, but also in a reflection behind him (one that he does not appear to notice). It is if the killer is two separate individuals which are now of one mind, and the viewer can see both. However, with this shift in perspective, the viewer is now less a part of the film. Perhaps, to allow the viewer to see both sides of the film and be able to judge appropriately its end sequences regarding proper societal behavior in extreme situations.

It is near the film’s climax that Lang begins a seemingly deliberate shift from camera perspective to use more of the set decoration and lighting to show the killer’s emotions. As the killer has been cornered in the final act, images of bars begin to infiltrate the set. Gates and their shadows appear to lock the killer into a deserted building, as if it were a prison. Worse yet, the killer finds himself locked in a room, unable to escape while his probable executioners come for him. Lang even goes so far as to use wooded slats on the doors where the killer hides along with more prison-like shadows.

Once caught, the killer is forced down stairs into a dark, dank basement, filled with the people he has hurt. He is blocked both by his captors and by their larger-than-life shadows. As the killer’s trial proceeds, his mental state dwindles. He backs into a corner and drops to his knees. He pleads to the mob and to himself. Until this time, the viewer has only witnessed the menacing state of the killer’s mind. It is now that the viewer can truly understand how he suffers. The viewer can no longer relate, but merely be a part of the mob that judges the man.

Knife In the Water

Knife in Water is Roman Polanski's directorial debut. Aesthetically sparse, slowly paced, and beautifully shot, it is a definitively pensive film centered around (aggrivatingly) slow-building tensions and desires.

There are only three characters (you only know two of their names) on a boat, and a bleak, seemingly endless lake provides much of the film’s scenery. Polanski advances the plot through excruciatingly tense episodes, whose conflicts remain without fruition until the film’s very last moments. The result is a biting and cinematographically unique study of sexual tension and competitive masculinity. From an analytical perspective, this makes for much dense, cerebral meat to chew on, but as a movie watcher, things can get kind of slow and aimless.

The film begins when a married couple, on their way to a lake, nearly hit a young man who is hitchhiking, and decide to pick him up. He joins the couple on their sailboat where he is continually taunted by the husband, Andrjez, for his lack of sailing prowess. These early scenes immediately establish a rivalry between the student and Andrjez, who are both competing to ‘out-man’ one another, and impress Khrystyna, Andrjez’s wife. This conflict is reinforced by intense, close-up, point-of-view shots that place the camera over a shoulder, or directly on a single face. These shots keep the film claustrophobic and contained in a way that heightens the tension. Adding to the feeling of entrapment is the simple fact that the entire movie takes place on a tiny sail boat, where the characters have no where to excuse themselves when emotions run high.

These scenes also heighten their tension through silence. The dialogue is unbelievably sparse, and when the characters do speak, it is usually about something banal like the weather or orientation of the boat. Through this silence, the viewer becomes very aware of all of the things that are NOT being said- one assumes the characters are silent not because they don’t have anything to say, but because they are scared to find out what will happen if they do say what’s running through their minds.

All this makes for a brittle, beautiful, but ultimately, hard to love little film.

German Expression + Hollywood= Sunrise

I remember seeing a commercial about a car where the narrator says it was designed in Germany, and then made in America. That saying definitely applies to the film, "Sunrise."
“Sunrise” has all the qualities of a German expressionist style film but it was made in Hollywood. Its director was F.W. Murnau, was already famous for German-Expressionist films like “Nosferatu” and “The Last Laugh,” whose camera work was groundbreaking.
German Expressionism was an artistic movement to reflect mood and emotion stylistically in the work of German Films. They used set designs that had outrageously preposterous sets. In addition, they had designs painted on walls and floors to represent lights, shadows, and objects. The filmmakers’ artistic control over scenery, light and shadow to augment the mood of a film was very appealing to many filmmakers. All of these elements are evident in this film.
The film is about a love triangle between The Man, The Wife and The Woman from The City. The Man tries to kill his wife so he could live with The Woman from the City. He couldn’t bring himself to do it. The rest of the film shows The Wife forgiving The Man and also rekindling their romance. There was one scene where The Wife nearly drowns from the storm but is rescued at the last moment. In the end, The Woman from the City heads back home as The Man and The Wife live happily with their child.
Furthermore, there were groundbreaking technologies used in the film. There were these long dolly shots that were never really used in a Hollywood film before. Also, this was one of the first films to have sound. No wonder people are calling this the “Citizen Kane” of the Silent Era.

Czech New Wave Cinema Daises (1966) directed by Věra Chytilová

Czech New Wave Cinema

Daises (1966) directed by Věra Chytilová

Czech New Wave Cinema (1960’s)

™Disgruntled with the communist regime that had taken over in Czechoslovakia in 1948, students of the Film and TV School of The Academy of Performing Arts in Prague (also known as FAMU) became the dissenters of their time.

™Their objective in making films was to make the Czech people collectively aware that they were participants in a system of oppression and incompetence which had brutalized them all.

Style of Czech New Wave Cinema

™Long unscripted dialogues, dark and absurd humor, and the casting of non-professional actors.

™The films touched on themes which for earlier film makers in the communist countries had rarely managed to avoid the objections of the censor.

™During the Communist era, "high art" was often perceived as a tool for avoiding the censor, as direct expression was prohibited.

Daises (1966) directed by Věra Chytilová

Summary

Summary: Two teenage girls, both named Marie, decide that since the world is spoiled they will be spoiled as well; accordingly they embark on a series of destructive pranks in which they consume and destroy the world about them.

RECEPTION

“Each of my films has met a certain resistance on the part of authority”

•Denounced for “having nothing in common with out Republic, socialism, and the ideals of communism”

.

•In 1972, six years after Daises was released, a government committee terminated Chytilova’s contract with the government run Czech film studio Barrandov

•They cited her films as “experimental by nature, uncommitted and pessimistic,” as well as “elitist”. Government banned the film, and Chytilova was banned from making any films between 1969 and 1975.

™ Chytilova herself suspected these allegations were largely due to misogyny, and speculated the real reason the government had a problem with her films was because she was a woman.

™She meant it to be a coded critique of its protagonists – critics shallowly saw the antics of the protagonists as meaningless and wasteful (especially for wasting so much food), and ignored the ending where the girls were punished. Chytilova felt the film was misunderstood.

™Collaboration between three key Czech New Wave luminaries (Vera Chytilova, - director/screenwriter, Ester Krumachova – screenwriter and set designer, Jaroslav Kucera - cinematographer)

™In interviews, Chytilova stated she wanted the film to be “a philosophical document in the form of farce”, and a “bizarre comedy with strands of satire and sarcasm.”

™“because the concept of the film was destruction, the form became destructive as well” – this accounts for the episodic nature of the film. It plays more like a series of adventures than a typical beginning/middle/end narrative. Note too the surrealist cinematography of Jaroslav Kucera. He experiments with many techniques that add to the film’s feeling of destruction and chaos.

™Stars two girls- Marie 1 and Marie 2 – nonactors- going on a rampage of gluttony, destruction, and excess.

™Chytilova stated she meant her protagonists to be “parasites”, calling the whole film “a parable on the destructive force of nihilism and senseless provocation”

™Meant to be a critique of bourgeois idea of women as “pretty accessories”, or fashion models, and Chytilova insisted she meant to critique and not condone their excesses and exploits.

™Godard thought that the film treated its subjects too lovingly to be a real critique.

™The film contains many references to marionettes and mannequins. This is meant to highlight how vacant and self indulgent they are, so she literally postures them as dolls.

™ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md-LwM0s9fY&feature=related

™Images of food and eating – in line with the parodies/critiques on consumption Chytilova mean to comment on.

™http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCb6TCiIG3s&feature=related

Comparing Knife in the Water (1962) and Frantic (1988); Dir. Roman Polanski.

Recently, I watched two of Roman Polanki’s films -- His debut feature, Knife in the Water (1962) and his later Hollywood production, Frantic (1988). Over two and half decades apart, the two films are markedly different in story, feel, and production value. However, I’ll note three (plus one as a bonus) consistencies between both films.

First is Polanski’s reoccurring use of the “dirty” frame. Either in the wide shots-- Harrison Ford’s suit-jacket covering the entire left side of the frame as he questions the concierge about his wife’s disappearance--or the close-ups--a piece of the hitchiker’s cheek as he gazes at Leon Niemczyk’s emotionally estranged wife--Polanski uses the dirty frame to create an intimacy with the character who is viewing.

Second is Polanski’s attention to ambiguous relationship tensions. In Frantic, Harrison Ford’s beloved wife is missing, yet he is constantly being eyed by his much sexier and much younger partner in crime, Michele. The obviously unhappy wife in Knife is constantly exchanging glances of compassion and interest with the hitchhiker, as her husband stands idly by.

Third, is the filmmaker’s unique use of the slow built tension. So slow is Polanski with his exposition (or letting us know what is actually exposition) that half-way through each film I asked myself “what has really happened up to this point?” However, one could argue that the final climactic pay-offs are that much more rewarding for the audience.

Finally (and as a bonus) is Polanski’s inclusion of seemingly swanky jazz soundtracks. Though each film had a different composer, they each seem to apply intense saxophone solos at odd times--while the characters are resting in a taxi cab, or relaxing on the deck of their sailboat. Perhaps Polanski hopes to allude to the intensity of the final climactic moments that will come an hour later, and five minutes before, the film ends? No matter, the use of unusual music is interesting, and makes you question the importance of every moment in each film.

Une Femme est Une Femme (1961) • Dir: Jean Luc Godard

"A Woman Is A Woman" is sometimes described as a tribute to the American Musical. While I agree that is an element within the film, I don't feel that statement is accurate. There are a few scenes that definitely fit into this general statement, however, the film as a whole sticks out as one of the more playful French New Wave films that I've seen. While I've seen the fast cuts, the illogical editing and the evidental self referentialism in other works. Particularly Godard's other classics, Breathless and Pierrot Le Fou, however, here it feels more childlike and for the sake of enjoyment on the part of the filmmakers and actors, than to be "experimental." Some of these approaches seem to be brought to new heights. The awareness of other films in particular sticks out as characters from Jules et Jim and Shoot the Piano Player show up in scenes essentially to comment on those films.

A large part of the charm comes from Anna Karina's engaging portrayal of Angela. The exotic dancer at the center of the plot. Well, what plot there is. The film isn't really held together by a plot so much as a series of vignettes connected by characters who's motivations remain the same. If there is an arc to mention, it's quite a shallow arc. But despite that, it kept me on board enjoying how the characters interacted and reacted to each other. Karina almost felt like the predicessor of the quirky pixie indie movie love interest that has been so played out in the last 10 - 15 years (I'm looking at you Zooey Deschanel and Natalie Portman), but with more natural character traits, even as she reacts unnaturally to the world around her. When asked what she wants and she replies that she wants to be in a musical, followed by fast cuts of Karina and Jean - Paul Belmondo striking poses between cuts. In these fast moments as they switch from pose to pose, the characters are essentially aware of the editing. We know that characters have been aware of the audience, or the camera, or that they're in a film, but in this case they're aware of the editing. That's where the genuis lied for me, in the awareness of the editing and the fun that everyone could be having if only they were in this film along with Karina.

Children of Paradise - Muhammad Ahmad

Marcel Carne’s “Children of Paradise,” is arguably one of the best French films of all time. The film, which was set in France in the early 1820’s, was filmed over a two-year period, between 1943-1945. Besides the great story, sound, and footage, one of the main reasons this movie is hailed to be such a classic is the time period it was shot in. The movie was made during World War II and it endured the hard times, and uplifted many people. The movie was filmed secretly, in spite of the Nazi invasion of France. The film, which wasn’t released until 1945, after the liberation of France, was the most expensive film shot in France up to that time. The final production costs totaled to be around fifty-eight million francs.

“Children of Paradise” was a story about woman named Garance, who had four different men that were in love with her. Each man had a completely different background. The men included an actor, an aristocrat, a criminal, and a mime. The movie is broken up in to two parts. Part one is called Boulevard du Crime or Boulevard of Crime and part two is called L'Homme Blanc or The Man in White.

In the beginning of the first part we see Garance get accused of stealing a man’s gold watch and then we are quickly introduced to the character of Baptiste the Mime. Baptiste stands up for her, gets her out of the problem, and then falls in love with her. This scene stands out to me because of the great camera movement in the shot before Baptiste appears. The shots were held fairly long. I also like the editing when Baptiste appears; it helped portray him as a jovial and dynamic character. We can also tell there is something under all the joy. The story picks up in part two, which is seven years later. It ends with Garance reuniting with Baptiste and running of with him. It also ends with Garance’s protector, Count Edouard being killed. Garance leaves with Baptiste without knowing of his death.

I found one of the strongest qualities of this film to be the screenplay. All of the character had a complex individual story and eventually they became intertwined. In the end and it all came together into one conclusion. Marcel Carne collaboratored with Jacques Prevert to come up with the screenplay. The intelligent script was nominated for a screenplay Oscar.

Noz w Wodzie

“Knife in the Water” is an interesting and thoroughly enjoyable film for many reasons. This was Roman Polanski’s first feature, and despite a title with the promise of a thriller, it is really more of an intellectual and psychologically-tense art film. The story is about a snide, gruff husband and detached, drab wife who pick up an enigmatic hitchhiker after almost running him over. For reasons unknown the husband invites the young man to join them for an overnight trip on their sailboat. The man and the boy begin, for lack of better of term, a verbal then physical cockfight, that culminates in an unexpected way.

This is not a run-of-the-mill thriller like one would expect. I was expecting someone to murder someone else in this film, but the director was smarter than that. The film is really about the male ego, and the stupid if not downright dangerous things men will do to stoke theirs. This film review published in 1963 when the movie was released sums things nicely: “The odd sort of personal hostility that smolders in many men who have trouble asserting their egos in this complex modern world is casually, cryptically and even comically dissected by the probing camera of Roman Polanski in his Knife in the Water… he (Polanski) flashes the chemistry of sex – the natural bestowal by the woman of her token of sympathy upon the more pathetic of these rivals and then her ultimate display of contempt for both immature male creatures. It makes for a neat ironic twist.” (http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9C01E5D8113DE63BBC4151DFB6678388679EDE)

Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin

According to our textbook, the Sergei Eisenstein vision is that “the capitalistic, Czarist system is fundamentally inhuman and inhumane, an obstacle not only to physical survival but also to human fellowship, family, and brotherhood” (Mast 162). Thus, Eisenstein’s political films sought to demonstrate the corruption of the political system of Russia and the importance of brotherhood and unity of the masses. In Battleship Potemkin, Eisenstein uses several techniques that illustrate his vision. First, he focuses on the importance of the masses and the people as a whole suffering under the Czarist regime. Secondly, he characterizes the soldiers and officers as cold-hearted people. Lastly, his editing techniques try to evoke a certain emotion in his viewers and to try to sway them against the Czarist regime.

            Eisenstein liked to focus on the masses and the people as a whole. His central character in most of his films was the masses because at that time in Russia it was the masses that suffered under the regime and were treated horribly. It wasn’t just one person who suffered, but every single person who was not of high status was treated as if he or she was an animal by the Czarist regime. One example occurs in the first part of the film entitled “People and Worms.” In this example, the officers clearly don’t care about the sailors working on their ship. To them, the sailors are just a bunch of lowlife workers who don’t deserve good meat. This is also an example of Eisenstein’s characterization of higher class people as cold-hearted people and taking advantage of the lower class.

It wasn’t until the last ten minutes that Eisenstein’s editing techniques made me feel something. Before the squadron comes into view, there’s this waiting period of what’s going to happen. Everything is quiet and calm, like before a storm. Then all of a sudden, as the squadron nears in sight everything starts to happen and it happens fast. As the sailors on the Potemkin get ready for battle with the Admiral’s squadron, I felt anxious waiting for what was going to happen next. The fast intercutting of shots and the movement of the actors on the screen added to the tension and anticipation.

All in all, what Eisenstein does in his films fulfills his vision that the Czarist regime is a cruel and brutal system that gets in the way of the people to be united in brotherhood and family. In Battle of Potemkin, Eisenstein celebrates the importance of the masses, he dehumanizes those of higher status and members of the Czarist regime, and he tries to persuade his viewers to see how horrible the Czarist regime treats its people through his unique editing techniques.

Fellini's Use of Humor Towards The Catholic Church, and A Review of 8 1/2's Criticism

Originally hailing from Rimini, a small town off the coast of the Adriatic sea of Italy, Fellini's upbringing and Catholic schooling made him detest the strict religion. The disturbing discipline shows up as an influence to much of his work, like in the beach narrative of 8 1/2. A young Guido, the main character of the film, goes to the beach after school, where he and his friends pay the sluggish harem dancer, Saraghina, Lira to dance for them. In front of the camera she becomes a humorous tease. Wearing a two-size-too-small dress, Saraghina flirts with the camera and the boys, making sexually suggestive winks and dancing like a prostitute after school. The scene is Fellini's humorous joust to the discipline of the church.
Much of the film's criticism comes because of its autobiographical nature. These critics thought the film was not of universal interest. Other critics found 8 1/2 to be deliberately inarticulate. They found Guido's different experiences not to be meaningful, but rather a result of a confused mind which hadn't reached to explain itself. Others found the film inconsiderable, as it had no significance to social issues of the the time. Of course, all this criticism comes cardinally from commentators at the time of the feature's release in 1963. Now in 2010, it is well-known by many filmmakers as one of the best feature films of the surrealistic genre of all time.

I Am Curious (Yellow) • Dir: Vilgot Sjöman • 1967

The film, I Am Curious (Yellow) is the story of a young girl named Lena's awakening to her society's ills and to the tumultuousness of sexual exploration. For all intents and purposes, the film is structured like a French New Wave piece. There is a very loosely structured plot, fast and loose editing techniques are employed, documentary footage is included and the characters are passionately politically motivated.

There is a film within a film as Lena works with a filmmaker to interview people on the street about their thoughts on money, religion, sex and politics. The filmmaker is played by Vilgot Sjöman himself, as a filmmaker striving to make a difference and push the boundaries of what he can do on film. I have to assume he is playing a parody of himself, as he doesn't really come off in the best light, appearing a bit pretentious and a little sleazy towards our young heroine.

One particularly interesting scene is made of actual documentary footage of an interview with Dr. Martin Luthor King, who Sjöman interviewed during the former's visit to Sweden in an attempt to gain Swedish support of the plight of African Americans (perhaps it was a European tour for support, as I have to wonder the significance of Sweden itself). Also of note is the film's frank and deliberate representation of nudity and staged intercourse, in fact, I found myself surprised by the casual inclusion of nudity and sexual situations without feeling gratuitous, artsy or pornographic. It just "was."

I was surprised that I had not heard of this film, nor the companion film I Am Curious (Blue) before this past year, as I have discovered numerous pop culture references to the film, due to it's controversial nature and an American court case to keep it out of our theaters. Episodes of Moonlighting, The Lucy Show, Get Smart, Melrose Place and The Simpons have all had titles referencing the film. Not to mention homage being paid by the british music group The Fall, a color by the Chrysler Corp, and a title of an issue of Superman's Girlfriend Lois Lane.

All in all I'm glad I saw the film and I am curious (HA!) about the companion piece. It made me think about how much a film can be both ahead of it's time and completely representative of the time it was made at, since it is grouped in with alot of New Wave work, though it was not part of that movement officially.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any clips online that had subtitles to post here.

I Vitelloni

Federico Fellini’s early masterpiece I Vitelloni earned the director praise as his first great work after the cold reception of his first film The White Sheik. I Vitelloni tells of a group of friends in Italy that aspire to greatness, and wish to go off and lead rich successful lives. However, their dreams are starkly contrasted by their current lifestyle and beliefs. Not one of them willing to actually do any work, and all in their 30’s, their dreams are but mere fantasies as we learn more about their moral ineptitude and general lack of motivation.

In line with his neo-realist style of filmmaking I Vitelloni takes place exclusively in Italy and follows this poor misguided group of friends as they try their hand at life, and seem to all but fail along the way. Fellini mocks them as they build up their actions to be self-righteous, but as the audience we see that they are nothing more but sad and unwise in their endeavors. Fellini was said to draw upon his own childhood memories in creating this story, along with fellow writers Tullio Pinelli and Ennio Flaiano. The only qualm I had with the film was that it was hard to believe at times that these characters were all 30-year-old men, but acted literally like little boys. A few scenes were outlandish and seemed unrealistic in that sense, but overall it was an interesting movie. This film is meant to be observational and humorous, and it does a good job at showing how life can be for a certain group of people during this time in Italy.