After the press Jared Leto has been getting recently for his role in Dallas Buyers Club, I realized that the only movie I have seen with Jared Leto is American Psycho, and Leto only has a smaller supporting role. Because I hadn't seen much of him in movies I was interested in seeing some of his work. The movie that I picked out was Mr. Nobody, an independent sci-fi/fantasy film that was released in 2009 and one that instantly became a new favorite for me. I normally am not that interested in sci-fi/fantasy movies, but this one was extremely interesting and one that made me think throughout the whole thing. The movie centers around Nemo Nobody, a 118 year old man who is the last living mortal in a world in which the secret to immortality has been discovered. He tells his life story to a journalist as he is on his deathbed and reviews the decisions he made in life. He tells his story from different ages using a nonlinear narrative and includes alternate paths that could have been taken based on a single decision that he made. This movie plays with the theme of illusion versus reality. The science and psychological aspects that were infused in the movie made it interesting to think about the ideas of time and other dimensions presented. Because of the major theme of illusion versus reality I believe that the majority of close-ups on eyes were used to emphasize how we perceive or see things. Something that made the movie intriguing to watch was the use of soft colors and crisp images. The camera went in and out of focus a lot, which also goes along with the idea of differing perceptions. One key scene that comes to mind when thinking about the cinematography of this movie is one in which Nemo is being carried to his grave after making a bad decision and dying. The shot is done rotated 90 degrees! The whole scene is shot this way (about a minute of footage) as Nemo is carried through a forest to his grave. I found this scene extremely disorienting because I had never seen something done that way in a movie before!
There are a few symbols that have a huge presence in Mr. Nobody. Trains are a representation of how time and life keep moving forward on one track. A train is used as a symbol for the passing of time and decision making literally when Nemo has to pick which parent he wants to live with after they separate. His mom gets on the train and his dad stands at the station. Nemo must make a choice between the two, and as the older Nemo reflects on his life, he thinks about each possible outcome and how the rest of his life would be affected because of it. In life, like a train, there will be different tracks to choose, but you can only pick one.
Another important symbol in this film is water, something that Nemo has a fear of. In many scenes where Nemo dies, he is surrounded by water--whether he is drowned in a pool, sitting in a bathtub, flooded while sitting in a room, or trapped in his car underwater--it seems like water is something that always seems to trap him. Water is something that destroys his life on multiple different paths. When he gets a girl's number, a drop of water caused by a chain of events causes the ink to run and he loses the number, and thus, the girl he had always loved. An important aspect of this film is the butterfly effect, or the idea that one event leads to another and another which eventually leads up to a bigger event. It's the idea that a small change in a situation can lead to an even bigger change later in someone's life. This movie explores that idea using the unreliability of memory and captivating story telling. I absolutely loved this movie when I watched it and I feel like I could watch it over and over again and discover new things about it each time I see it. It kept me thinking and guessing throughout the whole movie and made me think about life in a different way. I have always been interested in the idea that one little thing or change in events can make a huge difference later on, and this movie really explored that in the coolest way. For its masterful storytelling and complex plot and characters, I would give Mr. Nobody 5/5 stars.
I have been meaning to see Don Jon since it came out but never got a chance to see it in theaters so I was ecstatic when I saw it on Netflix. I'm a big fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, not only for his acting, producing, and writing skills, but also because of who he is as a person. He considers himself a feminist and seeks to use the art of movie making as a way to express his beliefs and educate others. Don Jon is an auteur project for Gordon-Levitt, who directed the movie, wrote it, and acted in it. Part of his inspiration for the movie comes from his childhood when his mother taught him and his brother about how the media affects our perception and can be objectifying. Scarlett Johansson and Julianne Moore star alongside Gordon-Levitt, all of who display great acting. I loved the movie and thought it was a perfect directorial debut for Joseph Gordon-Levitt.
Don Jon is a movie about Jon Martello, a man whose expectations of real life relationships are skewed by his addiction to porn. He sees women as objects and doesn't get as much pleasure out of real relationships than he does while watching porn. Throughout most of the movie, he keeps up a strict daily routine which involves working out, going to church, eating dinner with his family (Tony Danza plays Jon's dad), partying with his friends, meeting and hooking up with girls, and watching porn. He is a very surface-oriented guy--evidenced by his desire to keep up his physical appearance by going to the gym daily. He goes to church often, confesses his sins, and then promptly goes back to his normal routine. He objectifies women and finds porn better than real women. When he meets a girl, Barbara (Scarlett Johansson), who makes him promise to stop watching porn, he seemingly begins to change his ways. But Barbara soon starts to control Jon's life. Jon goes to night school classes for her and meets Esther (Julianne Moore). Jon and Esther start hanging out and Jon realizes that he might be in love with her--something he never thought would happen to him. Esther breaks Jon out of his normal routine and introduces Jon to a more two-sided relationship, contrary to what Jon is used to. Jon begins to see his wrongs and even stops watching porn completely. By the end of the movie, a huge shift has happened in Jon. He begins to respect women and his relationship with Esther becomes meaningful and two-sided.
An interesting scene in the movie is when Jon goes to confession after changing his ways. Every other time when he confessed, he would have a long list of sins which he would then be absolved of. During this particular scene, Jon had been with Esther and had completely changed his ways. He was expecting more praise from the priest, so he is shocked when he doesn't receive it, and instead hears what he has heard every other time he had gone to confession. During this scene, a close-up is used on Jon's face throughout the whole shot, and Jon's face can be seen through the wire mesh that separates the priest from Jon. This close up is useful for showing Jon's surprised expressions, especially when the priest gives him an answer that Jon was not expecting or hopeful for. The camera remains in the same spot as the curtain is closed on Jon which heightens Jon's feeling of separation from the church at that moment. The confession scenes in this movie also offer criticism of the church and confession and how it can cause people to not feel bad for their actions.
This movie examines gender roles and the role the media has in influencing our perceptions. A lot of times the media can be the cause of much objectification, because that is what we see often on TV--people, especially women, being objectified. In the movie at Jon's house, an actual Carl's Jr. commercial was shown on the family's TV which uses a woman to sexualize food. The movies can also play a role in how we view the world. In Don Jon, Jon talks about how he doesn't watch movies much because they are fake. He is upset that people watch them like they're real. The irony in this is that the porn that Jon loves so much is very fake but he treats it like it is real. Jon and Barbara get into an argument about the difference between the two. The movies and porn represent the idea of fantasy versus reality which is so present in the movie. Jon is stuck in his fantasies and ideas of how relationships and sex should be at the beginning of the movie, while Esther introduces him to reality. Traditional family and gender roles are also challenged. While eating dinner, Jon states that he may not want a wife and kids. His dad quickly becomes angered and says that "having a family is the greatest joy in a man's life." He goes on to basically say that to be a man you need a family. At this point in the movie, Jon is realizing who he really wants to be and argues with his dad about traditional family roles. This movie also challenges the idea of women as objects, something that we are, sadly, used to seeing through the media. The movie, however, offers hope that these ideas can be reversed. I loved Don Jon for its outstanding acting, charming humor, and social commentary. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is so talented and intelligent, and I wouldn't expect anything less for his directorial debut. I hope his message reaches out to people and creates awareness of gender inequality and the powerful influence media can have on our perception and tendencies to objectify. Don Jon succeeded in presenting serious social issues in a way that was both funny and charming, and for that I would give Don Jon 4/5 stars. I have complete confidence in Joseph Gordon-Levitt and am super excited to see what else he will accomplish in his future.
I recently became interested in 70s films, especially those of the neo-noir genre, so I wanted the focus of my formal film study to have something to do with that genre and decade. I was also interested in looking at what makes a movie award show material. Somehow I managed to find three films that had all of these elements. My topic for this formal film study is "Oscar best picture nominated neo-noir films over a decade--from 1971-1980. And the three films I chose were A Clockwork Orange (1971), Chinatown (1974), and Raging Bull (1980). I chose films ranging from the early 70s to early 80s because I was interested in looking at how the neo-noir genre changed (if at all) over the course of a decade. But I realized after watching the three movies that, in regards to the genre, they had more similarities than differences. I watched these movies in the order that they came out so I could better see how neo-noir movies might have changed over a decade. So the first movie I watched was A Clockwork Orange. This movie was one that definitely stood apart from the other two. It didn't exactly feel like a neo-noir film, and didn't feel, at least to me, like it was award show material. The movie is about a teenager named Alex who, for about the first half of the movie, commits violent acts against women with a group of his friends. He gets sent to jail and willingly tries a new type of therapy that is supposed to rid the world of criminals. The movie was pretty graphic and disturbing, and for this reason particularly, didn't seem like it fit in with other Oscar best-picture nominees. And although it can be considered a "neo-noir" film, it doesn't seem like one. It felt out of place also because of the colors and contrast used in the film. There were a lot of bright colors and crazy designs and patterns and high contrast between shots. This movie offers social critiques concerning youth and delinquency, among other things, which makes it a typical 70s film.
Chinatown, the second movie I watched, reminded me more of a neo-noir film. It had an old-fashioned feel to it and had specific elements of noir film, such as a femme fatale. The movie centers around J.J. Gittes (played by Jack Nicholson) and his career as a private investigator. He gets hired to uncover the truth behind a client's suspicious husband (Mr. Mulwray), but ends up exposing more corruption and scandals. Mulwray's wife serves as the femme fatale in this story. She seems honest enough when we first meet her, but she ends up using Gittes and causing problems for him. The smoking and costumes in this movie help make it a neo-noir film as well. Low-key lighting was most often used in this film and made it seem more mysterious and like a neo-noir.
The last film in this series was Raging Bull, a biographical movie about boxer Jake LaMotta set in 1941. Although this movie was released in 1980, it still contains more than a few elements of 70s films. It tells the story of champion middle-weight boxer Jake LaMotta, who is on the rise after a succession of wins. This film had many neo-noir elements. It was shot in black and white which, along with the old music, gave it an old-fashioned feel. It reminded me of a 70s film because of the hard-edged story it told. It was also pretty violent and gory. Through the course of the movie, Jake's personal life begins to influence his boxing career and the viewer becomes witness to his mounting disarray. The cinematography was interesting because the quality of the film was made to look like an old movie, which contributed to the neo-noir feel of it.
Overall, the biggest similarity between these three films was the type of story that each told and the style with which they did. Each movie told a relatively hard-edged and mature story that didn't necessarily have a happy ending. This is one elements that makes these movies "70s" movies. The reason I picked movies that spanned from 1971 to 1980 was because I thought the basis for the main stories would change a little bit, but each one of them was gritty and real like a 70s film. Violence and social critiques characterized these movies as 70s films. The styles of the movies had a lot in common. They can all be considered neo-noir films, and therefore have certain elements that fit in this style. Chinatown and Raging Bull at least felt a lot like neo-noir films, with old-fashioned costumes and music, and being shot in black and white, respectively. But not as many neo-noir elements stood out in A Clockwork Orange. But the dystopian setting and violence can still classify this film as neo-noir even if it doesn't contain as many elements as the other two. These three films were all nominated for an Oscar for best picture in the years in which they were released, although none of them won. It surprised me that A Clockwork Orange was nominated for best picture because, like I said before, it doesn't seem like the type of movie that would be nominated for that award. I also learned, through "The Playlist" website, that "Stanley Kubrick... never won Best Director or Best Picture, and only three of his feature films were nominated in the latter category." (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/15-edgier-best-picture-oscar-nominees-20140219?page=2#blogPostHeaderPanel)I have a hard time believing that a movie that graphic and disturbing would be nominated for Best Picture, but I think it was nominated for the skill with which it made its social critiques. It also did well at the box office and had critical support. I can see why Chinatown and Raging Bull were nominated though. Chinatown discusses and remarks on politics while having a powerful cast. And Raging Bull tells a dramatic story with an amazing cast and great acting. Overall, I loved each of these three movies and it's hard to see why none of these films actually won Best Picture.
