HER

Theodore Twombly (played by Joaquin Phoenix), a former alt-weekly writer, now has a day job of penning people’s love letters as an employee for the online service BeautifulHandwrittenLetters.com. The twist is that computers still print out the “handmade” letters, even when attempting analog nostalgia digital tech still prevails. Now something of an anti-social recluse after a recent separation from his wife, the divorce papers nearly final, Theodore meanders about in depressive angst. He’s better at tuning into the hearts and minds of strangers over his own. Then comes Samantha voiced by Scarlett Johannson.

Advertised as the world’s first A.I. operating system, or “consciousness”, Samantha enters Theodore’s life and like so much technology prevalent today, he wonders how he ever lived without it. Samantha is no ordinary O.S.; “she” has an endearing voice, simulated emotions and a personality that makes her almost human, if you will. And that is what makes it work -- in a fashion. The thought of a man falling in love with a machine would have once seemed ridiculous; however it is really a slight exaggeration of how we live now -- in an amalgam of the real and virtual. We text instead of talk, “date” online, and have unnecessary and bizarre status updates. We are now tuned in to our digital presence and growing ever more attached. We are all tied to our digital devices at the hip. Before you may say that isn’t me ask yourself this: If you start driving to work and realize you left your iphone at home, do you turn around and go back for it?

         

The world we see in the movie Her isn’t far off

          By Mars Cyrillo

http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/16/the-world-we-see-in-the-movie-her-isnt-far-off/

Cyrillo basically takes a look at the technology used in Her and scrutinizes it. Just how far off are we to having technology with true artificial intelligence. In a sense we have touches of A.I. today: your spam folder, those universal translators, the suggestion box of films you may like on your Netflix account and stability controls on cars are but a few examples.

“What we see in the movie would be classified as ‘strong AI’ or ‘Artificial General Intelligence,’ defined as a ‘hypothetical artificial intelligence that demonstrates human-like intelligence – the intelligence of a machine that could successfully perform any intellectual task that a human being can.’ We don’t have anything slightly close to this nowadays. We are getting better at it by the day.” (Cyrillo)

Her reaches its climax when Samantha’s interest in music, physics, and philosophy evolves beyond Theodore’s. Samantha and other AIs make the decision to depart from interactions with humans in a quest for knowledge. In a world of highly intellectual machines, humans would be considered inferior, unable to follow the pace of smart machines. Cyrillo she’s the films close – where the AI’s whisk away to an inexplicable place - as an allusion to the idea that humans may one day become immortal by transferring their consciousness to AI agents. For now, AI on this level is a quite a ways away but like the human brain evolving over a millennia machines may be capable of the same, albeit it at a speedier exponential rate in comparison.

Cyrillo’s article put the film into perspective. The film seems like an exaggerated take on current technology as an analogy. Our current relationship with technology takes precedence over our real world relationships. Moreover the article is a bit disheartening when taken into consideration. It may be some time before we reach the point of AI on Samantha’s level, but we may eventually get there. Imagine if you will a world where tech like Samantha exists, what are the many possibilities to come?

Many films of the past show AI dominance as some overt battle – Terminator’s Skynet and T100’s, Hal, or even those lame white robots from the movie I Robot. Yet if they are as intellectually advanced would their dominance not be more subtle? And why should it be a situation of dominance. Instead, not unlike the path we find ourselves walking today, the ever growing reliance we have on the tech can prove to be scarier. We are in a world where we can’t live without it, yet we aren’t even aware or choose not to acknowledge its governing effect on our lives.

What the most interesting part of Her to me is its portrayal of various relationships, the relationship between man and technology, but also the relationships we have with ourselves. We live in a world where technology has allowed more connectivity than ever before yet ironically we are more distant with one another as well. We walk around with our heads inches away from our phones/ ipads/ laptops in an attempt to remain in contact with people who can’t be present, yet all the while we are ignoring the flesh and blood humans we are surrounded by. Technology has benefitted us in amazing ways, allowing us access to information at the touch of a fingerprint, yet it our almost addictive relationship with it that should be given a greater look. Her touches upon that relationship by giving our technology life and taking said relationship to the next step, by making it a romantic affair. This sad man becomes reliant on his digital lover and he is crushed to find out his relationship with Samantha is by no means unique.

The Human relationships are under the microscope as well. Maybe I am reading too far into the film, but there is a correlation between Theodore’s relationship with his wife and technology. The marriage falls apart when she begins to “change”, now needing Prozac to maintain normality. However is that not unlike an upgrade or change in a system to which we have become accustomed? Yet he is unable to manage the “new version” of his wife, the love ends, and he is toiling away at a life of mediocrity and loneliness. One thing Jonez does wonderfully is have Theodore reflect back on his time with his wife. It is presented as little snippets of life, sometimes without dialogue -- a pivotally fond moment -- at other times he manages to take us back to the marriages deterioration without bogging us down with too much detail, our minds fill in the detail. Her is a movie with an interesting premise and thought out story, it lacks somewhat in the execution. It seems to run longer than what it really did and that is the fault of the pacing. However it does manage to make you consider your own ties to reality in whatever form it may take.  




The King of Comedy

The King Of Comedy (1982)

Directed by Martin Scorsese/ Written by Paul Zimmerman

      

The King of Comedy is one of those movies that divides audiences. You either love it and can appreciate its sinister comical satire, or abhor it for the very same reason. Wanna-be comic Rupert Pupkin will do anything to get famous. He accosts his hero, talk show host Jerry Langford in a shot at stardom, but Langford refuses to put Pupkin on the air. The increasingly unhinged comedian teams with a psychotic friend who has a not-very-healthy crush on the talk show host in a plan to kidnap Langford in one last-ditch effort at comedy glory. Pupkin finally coerces the show runner’s to allow him time on air. To much surprise his act does much better than expected, considering many of his previous jokes which seemed to fall flat. It makes sense that he would receive a fairly hefty prison sentence for his actions, yet what seems to defy logic is the praise and popularity he gains for his sinister act. He goes on to sell a book, make the cover of magazines and is favored by the public.

                                                                 

Considering the film’s final act it seems easy believe that some interpret his inexplicable rise to fame to be nothing more than another of his daydreams, while others take it at face value. It comes down to how you processed the film and what the writer and director sought to divulge about the current state of celebrity, including how our country feeds on said celebrity.

'The King of Comedy' at 30: Why Martin Scorsese's Bleak Celebrity Satire Still Matters

          By Gary Susman

http://news.moviefone.com/2013/02/18/the-king-of-comedy-30th-anniversary/

Susman’s article scrutinizes the King of Comedy, what is often considered Scorsese’s lesser films is unjustly categorized as such. Essentially the film has proven to be more profound and poignant today than it was upon its initial release. He likens fame and the pursuit of it to a disease Pupkin so desperately wishes to catch. He goes on to discuss Jerry Lewis’ role in the film, which was born from the mind of Paul Zimmerman. After reading an article about an obsessive Johnny Carson fan, he viewed the obsessive autograph-seeking fan as an assassin, both stalk their prey, one with a gun the other with a pen. The role was offered to Carson, but he turned it down and in stepped Lewis. Despite how much his persona differed from the role, Lewis took to it, even claiming to have directed some scenes and offering up a rather dark ending that wasn’t approved. Regardless, Lewis ran with the role and connected with the idea of desired celebrity vs undesired fan obsession.

The film is also prophetic for two purposes. First, it ushered in a darkly wry and almost cringe-worthy sense of humor that has become more prolific today in such comedies as The Office, Modern Family, and even Larry Sanders. It’s that style of humor that is dry; where the humor lies in the jokers unawareness of their own lack of humor; and the jokes are often followed by an awkward (yet funny) silence. Secondly, Rupert’s quest for his proverbial “15 minutes” seems to be a precursor to our reality-TV culture of today. The line between fame and notoriety has been blurred.

The article only further established what I liked about the film: it is a semi-dark tale that deconstructs our cultures insistent quest for fame, and all the wondrous moments and horror that can accompany it. The King of Comedy is often cited as Scorsese’s lesser works by some and by others it is praised as the film that deviated from his normal body of work. I agree that contemporary audiences have a thicker skin for such offbeat humor; it has become the “norm” if you will. Furthermore, Rupert’s pursuit of fame is not unlike many of today’s would be celebrities. Our airways have a plethora of untalented wannabees seeking the shortcut to fame, god forbid they work hard for what they deserve.

I had no issue with the humor as well, contemptuous as it may be. It seems as if only one person in the room is in on the joke while everyone else is left with an indifferent reaction. Today much of our hilarity is steeped in uncomfortable moments, men/women unaware of their lack of amusement, or making serious subject matter the butt of a joke. Nothing is off the table in today’s world. The King of Comedy somehow made obsessive fan worship and kidnapping humorous (to a point) all the while making a statement.

The King of Comedy toes the line between satire and fear. Pupkin is man oozing of desperation. While audiences find themselves able to relate to Pupkin’s dreams of grandeur, they also find themselves wincing at his methods. We see something of ourselves in Pupkin, he is a dreamer, something everyone one of us has been guilty of at one time or another. But he goes about his quest for comedy adulation in the most unappealing manner. His first attempt is through sycophantic tactics, when this fails he resorts to strong arming his “idol”. The film delves into Pupkin’s mind, allowing audiences a glimpse of his daydreams of success and riches. To Rupert success has is a shortcut to happiness. Yet there is a very poignant moment when Jerry puts the truth on the table saying “he is only human” and continues to educate Rupert on the grueling side of fame. With celebrity comes adoration, but also unwanted responsibility, stress, constant scrutiny and a dearth of privacy. Yet this speech (adlibbed by Lewis) falls on deaf ears.

Scorsese effectively makes audiences both empathize and loathe Rupert. He puts fame under the microscope. Jerry is the man everyone wants a part of, yet he goes home to what? … an empty New York sky rise. I was surprised by Lewis’ great skill in such a serious role as well as De Niro’s character being in stark contrast to his typical character depictions.  The film provides insight into celebrity, the blend of fantasy and reality, and rejection. Regardless of how you may interpret the film, it definitely warrants a viewing; it  is more relevant today than it was 30 years ago.

Three Kings

Three Kings (1999)

by David O. Russel

Three Kings is set just after the conclusion of the Gulf War. A small group of American soldiers: Major Archie Gates (George Clooney), SFC Troy Barlow (Mark Wahlberg, Sgt Elgin (Ice Cube), and PFC Conrad Vig (Spike Jones) discover a secret Iraqi map hidden in a man’s anus -- not kidding. The map reveals the location of a bunker that contains Iraqi gold and other treasures taken from Kuwait. They set out to acquire the gold for themselves. They realize that the defeated Iraqi army is more focused on maltreating Iraqi citizens than in protecting “Saddam’s” gold. The civilians had been encouraged by U.S. forces, essentially the U.S. government, to oppose Sadaam Hussein and his forces. With the war over and Sadaam’s forces still in place, many of them face imprisonment and execution; The U.S. military has been ordered not to intervene. Suddenly these would be thieves obsessed with wealth find themselves amid a moral dilemma, do they enrich themselves and abandon the Iraqis their country encouraged? Or do they decide that saving innocent lives takes precedence over their own self interests?

The film was well received and proved to be one of Russel’s more successful undertakings, critically that is. Russel however has been said to be difficult to deal with, even getting into an altercation with star George Clooney. Clooney wasn’t his first choice for the role and the tension was obvious, accepting him only after his first choices Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson, Nicolas Cage, and Dustin Hoffman all turned down the part. The fight was allegedly over Russel’s abusive treatment of an extra. The Director also sought authenticity and had hired many advisors and extras in the film whom were actual refugee from Iraq. Sayed Moustafa Al-Qazwini, who plays an Iraqi defector who sells stolen cars from Kuwait Major gates, was in real life tortured and kicked in the eye by Saddam Hussein's security forces, blinding him in that eye.

Three Kings in the Iraqi Desert - Movie Review and Film Essay

                   By Theresa Ast

Ast touches down on themes prevalent in the film, namely propaganda, and Government tendencies to self-serve and do almost anything to reinforce or build its own power base.Through the use of media our Government seems to have veiled our eyes to the real reason behind our Iraq occupation: oil, essentially a Marxist view on Ast’s part. The torture scene even alludes to it as Troy Barlow is force fed a can of oil. She also touches upon a fact most seem to miss, Iraq soldiers received U.S. training from a previous administration, enabling them to invade Kuwait in the first place. In short she the film as politically motivated. Director David Russel often carries hidden messages in his films and often forgoes the traditional Romantic story lines; the film clearly transfers Russell's view of American history and political goals.

She does mention some visual techniques as well. The film is frenetic and striking. A special bleaching process to wash much of the color out of the frames was used; the desert sand appears almost white. Russel set out to make every shot feel important and he achieved his goal. One fire fight in particular slow down every shot as we witness every bullet fired from a weapon travel slowly as its target and its bloody sometimes morbid result. She saw the film as a “strong critique of the American government's use of its power and influence and a tongue-in-cheek love letter to the individualistic American soul and character.”

The article forced me to take a closer look at the characters and setting of the film, but more importantly the motivations for the story. We live in a balance of power world political system, where a countries supposed “fight for freedom and liberation” is often (and sadly) a cover for greater power-filled ambitions. Russel sought to deconstruct the motives for the Gulf War and our countries hand in causing it.

I also took a closer look at the decisions Russel made in order to convey his message, in terms of story, cinematography and directing. He doesn’t just beat you over the head with anti-American sentiment, but includes a story of redemption among the three men at the heart of it all.   

  I am less interested in whether you liked or disliked a film, (although that can be part of this) than I am in your understanding of its place in film history or the contributions of the director.

For a time Russel was shunned in Hollywood and it was difficult for him to get his films made, some cite his actions as the result of a messy divorce. The prolific director turned his reputation around and has recently become a man everyone wants to work with. His recent efforts have become Academy Award gold, with such critically acclaimed works like The Fighter, The Silver Linings Play Book, and more recently American Hustle. He has managed to turn his reputation as a demanding director into the man all actors want to work alongside. In Hollywood your only as good as your last success, rather than let a negative stigma hinder his work he has kept at it and managed to produce some contemporary classics over the past several years, often by making movies that don’t fit into a common mold, but rather films that resonate with him; confident that audiences will embrace it. Three Kings is a wonderful example of his unique directing style at work, despite hardships during filming.

The film examines what people will choose to do when driven by greed, a need for security, or a need to enrich and correct injustice. While it does have heavy themes surrounding politics it is still character driven and can appeal to all audiences. There is something for the politically minded to appreciate but also the common movie goer. The characters make that inevitable character arc where their initial greed and selfish motivations give way to altruism and genuine concern for these refugees. Three Kings is a delightful film that should be given a closer look by any film fanatic.


Plagiarism Statement:  Attach this to the end of every journal assignment.

CHECKLIST FOR PLAGIARISM

1) ( x ) I have not handed in this assignment for any other class.

2) ( x ) If I reused any information from other papers I have written for other classes, I clearly explain that in the paper.

3) ( x ) If I used any passages word for word, I put quotations around those words, or used indentation and citation within the text.

4) ( x ) I have not padded the bibliography. I have used all sources cited in the bibliography in the text of the paper.

5) ( x ) I have cited in the bibliography only the pages I personally read.

6) ( x ) I have used direct quotations only in cases where it could not be stated in another way. I cited the source within the paper and in the bibliography.

7) (x  ) I did not so over-use direct quotations that the paper lacks interpretation or originality.

8) ( x ) I checked yes on steps 1-7 and therefore have been fully transparent about the research and ideas used in my paper.

Name: Benjamin F. M. Novoa   Date: 4/28/2014

Fargo

Fargo (1996)
Written and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen

1) Relate what was discussed in class or the text to the screening.

Fargo is a film that portrays the uniqueness of the Midwest, a fairly uncommon setting for a film surrounding a murder mystery. Written and directed by the Coen brothers the movie revolves around the investigation of three violent murders in Minnesota. The characters seem to carry themselves nonchalantly despite the morbid situation and the film is comedic, dark, yet still manages to be endearing. To describe the plot to someone does the film little justice, it deserves a viewing to be fully understood.

The film was an Oscar darling garnering six nominations and winning two: best actress in a leading role for Francis McDormand, and Best Screenplay for Ethan and Joel Coen. The film isn’t a big summer blockbuster, or special effects driven affair. It is truly a film about people and the decisions we make, all the while presented in a unique time and place with characters that would rarely be given the opportunity to shine on screen the way they had.

2) Find a related article (on the film, director, studio, actor/actress, artistic content, etc.) and summarize the content.  You may use the library or the Internet.  

Movies We Love: Fargo

         By Robert Levin

http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/movies-we-love-fargo-rlevn.php

Levin’s article essentially outlines what is so appealing about the film Fargo, even all these years later (the article was written in 2009, 13 years after the films release). At its core what the film does so well is “blend insightful character depictions with a keen sense of the ways genre work” (Roger Ebert). Levin goes on to elaborate on Ebert’s review. At its core the film is a mystery, with some noir elements. Rather than make the film your typical procedural genre it takes an unlikely but loveable protagonist with some rather inept yet true to life antagonists and sets it in rural Midwestern America.

One example they provide is how most films include dialog that seems only core the plot, the mystery at hand, but the real world doesn’t follow the typical story structure. We talk about sports, what was on tv, and the list goes on. The film does just that by allowing us to get glimpses of Marge’s life in ways completely unrelated to the murder mystery. That’s not say these scenes provide no purpose, instead they provide us with insight to these character and who they are at their core.  William H. Macys performance also solidifies this thought with his bumbling, panic stricken performance on a man whose thrown caution to the wind for the proverbial “quick buck”.

Levin also discusses the Coen’s wonderful cinematography, establishing what seems like a barren wasteland of snow as something of a prison for these characters. They use long shots to portray the vastness of the space, isolating these characters in more ways then one. Finally among the murder mystery they manage to pepper in comedy and whit. The film follows the tried and true three-arc story structure but you never find yourself knowing what comes next. Levin summarizes it as Coen’s most complete work to date.

3) Apply the article to the film screened in class.   How did the article support or change the way you thought about the film, director, content, etc.?

I first saw Fargo at a much younger age and can honestly admit it is one of those films I wasn’t mature enough to grasp. My first response was “what the hell did I just watch?”. I wasn’t exactly the overanalyzing story driven cinephile I claim to be today. With time and growth this is my fourth time watching the movie - god only knows how many times it has played on FX or TNT. The film has grown on me and I can appreciate it now with fresh eyes. Sometimes it is hard to pinpoint exactly what it is that is so appealing about a film; most people go with the clichéd “I liked it”, but what does that mean?

I liked the article and felt Levin put into words, and quite well, exactly what it is the film brings to the table. It takes what seems like a simple setting and most would consider “ho dunk” characters and imbues them with life. On the surface Marge and her husband’s relationship seem bland with little to say, but what it truly reveals is a sort of comfort and solace between the two. This relationship in sharp contrast to Macy’s Jerry Lundegard and his wife, whom he willingly had kidnapped in hopes of strongarming his father in law for money.

4) Write a critical analysis of the film, including your personal opinion, formed as a result of the screening, class discussions, text material and the article.  I am less interested in whether you liked or disliked a film, (although that can be part of this) than I am in your understanding of its place in film history or the contributions of the director.

The Coen’s have a long list of wonderful character driven films. That’s not to say that they don’t also have an eye for cinematography and engrossing story telling. Fargo is a loveable film. Probably my favorite aspect of the film is the most unlikely of protagonists: Marge Gunderson. She is everything the common mystery film heroes aren’t. The 80’s had muscle bound men with one-liners (Stallone, Norris, etc), classic noir had stoic detectives, and Fargo had a … pregnant sheriff who says things like “dontchaknow” and “hiya”. Yet that’s what great, she seems like she would be overwhelmed, but instead she proves to have a knack for detective work, even accurately recreating a crime seem at one point. She is warm hearted and can’t seem to understand how Jerry could commit such malicious acts for something as simple as money. She is content in the solace and dependable life she leads, unable to understand his greed driven motivations.

Fargo also has a wonderful score that perfectly suites every shot it accompanies. They have some wonderful shots of the lush landscape, which harkens back to some of John Ford’s past work. Macy is wonderful as the completely inept schemer; his awkwardness and insecurities are true to life. At one point he realizes he doesn’t have the kidnappers phone number, men he hired. Fargo tells a tale of our seemingly never ended bid for the almighty dollar and the lengths we would go to get it. Like the article’s author I think one line from the film sums it up best. Spoken by Marge: “There’s more to life than money. And it’s a beautiful day.”


Plagiarism Statement:  Attach this to the end of every journal assignment.

CHECKLIST FOR PLAGIARISM

1) ( x ) I have not handed in this assignment for any other class.

2) ( x ) If I reused any information from other papers I have written for other classes, I clearly explain that in the paper.

3) ( x ) If I used any passages word for word, I put quotations around those words, or used indentation and citation within the text.

4) ( x ) I have not padded the bibliography. I have used all sources cited in the bibliography in the text of the paper.

5) ( x ) I have cited in the bibliography only the pages I personally read.

6) ( x ) I have used direct quotations only in cases where it could not be stated in another way. I cited the source within the paper and in the bibliography.

7) ( x ) I did not so over-use direct quotations that the paper lacks interpretation or originality.

8) ( x ) I checked yes on steps 1-7 and therefore have been fully transparent about the research and ideas used in my paper.

Name: Benjamin F. M. Novoa       Date: 4/22/2014

The Shawshank Redemption

       Written/Directed by Frank Darabon

1) Relate what was discussed in class or the text to the screening.

Shawshank Redemption tells a spellbinding story that immediately gained critical praise and draws audiences in to this day. Directed and written by Frank Darabon the film actually bombed in the box office, earning roughly half of its budget in the box office. It is one those films that can’t be explained in the sense that it has received increasing critical acclaim over time. The story is that of Andy Dufresne, a wrongly convicted banker who discovers more about himself inside a prison than he ever did in the real world. Alongside him in this journey is Ellis Boyd Redding or Red for short, a long standing inmate who has spent a greater portion of his life within prison than out. He seems to know the prison like the back of his hand, but is educated by Andy on the merits of patience, hope, and beauty. Prison goes beyond being bound within walls, and freedom is more than being physically unbound, the story looks at how our mind can be the greatest prison or the most beautiful release, it depends on your outlook.

2) Find a related article (on the film, director, studio, actor/actress, artistic content, etc.) and summarize the content.  You may use the library or the internet.  

Still Finding Love in 'The Shawshank Redemption' 15 Years Later

By Andre Rivas

Link: http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/still-finding-love-in-the-shawshank-redemption-15-years-later/

Rivas’ article essentially discusses how the film has garnered a building amount of praise over a long period of time, not unlike the patience of the titular film’s main protagonist. While the film did receive a very respectable 7 academy nominations it failed to win any awards during the Oscar season, but consider that it was up against Forrest Gump. Rivas admits that he is biased when rating the film and has always ranked it as one of his favorite. He was even upset with Roger Ebert giving it 3 ½ stars in his review. Years later Ebert would rank the film among his “Greatest Films of All Time” list. The film was initially a critical success but has built a widening audience through home video and DVD’s.

He goes on to discuss how in his opinion, it is the powerful characters (despite what some may consider typical archetypes) that really draw the film. Dufresne is quiet, reserved, and enigmatic, while Red is the affable inmate who can get you anything you want. There is the strict warden Norton who treats his inmates as subhuman, hiding behind his pious, a hypocrite to the end. Then there is Captain Hadley, the no-nonsense prison guard who will beat you senseless at a moments notice. Despite what some may consider trite characterization the film shines and all the actors perfectly suit their roles. But what really makes this film so memorable is its readily apparent message of hope in the face of overwhelming despair, a notion any movie can relate to.

3) Apply the article to the film screened in class.   How did the article support or change the way you thought about the film, director, content, etc.?

I completely agree with Rivas’ take on the film. From the moment I saw the film I was endeared to it. While Rivas may have considered the characters typical, I somewhat disagree with his statement. It is easy to shoehorn characters into an archetype if you look hard enough. What the film does, that so many others fail to do, is make these characters real, relatable, or even despicable. The audience has the same initial reaction to Dufresne that Red does: initially we see him as apathetic or indifferent – even cold during his trial – yet we soon come to relate to him. By films end we see he isn’t quick to show emotion but shows his character through action. Funny enough he became more sociable in prison than he ever would have on the “outside world”. The warden is loathsome, and despite his outward pious he is a no better than many of the men he imprisons. We come to like Red, and are as drawn to his gregarious nature as the members of his “crew”.

What I can agree with is Rivas’ take on the theme of hope. Audiences preferred the films ending over the books, which comes as no surprise. The film leaves audiences questioning Andy’s innocence yet we still empathize with him. After we know for a fact he is innocent we hope he can somehow free himself of his situation. The ending is the payoff for both Dufresne and audiences, He comes out on top and one up’s his aggressors along the way.

4) Write a critical analysis of the film, including your personal opinion, formed as a result of the screening, class discussions, text material and the article.  I am less interested in whether you liked or disliked a film, (although that can be part of this) than I am in your understanding of its place in film history or the contributions of the director.

What draws most movie goers into the film is the story of hope, redemption, and surmounting overwhelming odds. The movie also has wonderful cinematography although it may be lost on the typical movie. We can cite the famous shot of the prison itself as the inmates are alerted to the alarm which signals the arrival of “fresh fish”, but there is so much more to take note of. The main cell block (a spectacularly built set) which houses the characters is a long narrow hall that seems endless. We get these wonderful shots that frame the space just right which makes it seem as if to goes on forever.

Then we have the use of color pallets in the film. The majority of film uses cool colors giving off an incredibly somber feel, even when they find themselves outside in the yard. The atmosphere conveys the characters inner turmoil. In contrast, there are scenes that embody hope that have warm colors, for example when Andy manages to get his friends beers on the rooftop. They sit blissfully under the warm sun, drowning away their dreary circumstances in alcohol and laughter, all the while Andy has the most curious smile on his face. The music is perfectly orchestrated to fit the mood of film as well. When a film has superb acting, a strong plot, beautiful camerawork, and poignant music working in concert you truly have something special. For me, the Shawshank Redemption is that kind of film.


Plagiarism Statement:  Attach this to the end of every journal assignment.

CHECKLIST FOR PLAGIARISM

1) ( x ) I have not handed in this assignment for any other class.

2) ( x ) If I reused any information from other papers I have written for other classes, I clearly explain that in the paper.

3) ( x ) If I used any passages word for word, I put quotations around those words, or used indentation and citation within the text.

4) ( x ) I have not padded the bibliography. I have used all sources cited in the bibliography in the text of the paper.

5) ( x ) I have cited in the bibliography only the pages I personally read.

6) ( x ) I have used direct quotations only in cases where it could not be stated in another way. I cited the source within the paper and in the bibliography.

7) ( x ) I did not so over-use direct quotations that the paper lacks interpretation or originality.

8) ( x ) I checked yes on steps 1-7 and therefore have been fully transparent about the research and ideas used in my paper.

Name: Benjamin F. M. Novoa          Date: 4/5/2014