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.
Where The Buffalo Roam is easily one of the weirdest movies I have ever seen. It's "the movie based on the twisted legend of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson," and with the executive consultant being Thompson himself (although Thompson states that he only "wandered around and fired machine guns on the set.") It was made in 1980, but set in the early '70s, and features a cast of Peter Boyle and a young Bill Murray as Hunter S. Thompson. Knowing Bill Murray from a few other films, I was expecting him to be funny and goofy as always, but he ended up being even better than I had expected. He really got into the role and perfectly captured the wild personality of Thompson (so much so that when Saturday Night Live's 5th season started, Murray was still in character!) To someone who is not familiar with Hunter S. Thompson, this movie may seem super wacky and weird, but it makes more sense, if that's possible, when the viewer understands Thompson's tendency to be crazy and unpredictable. You probably have to be a fan of Thompson's to like this movie, otherwise it would most likely seem like a jumbled mess of nonsense.
This movie recounts some of Hunter S. Thompson's experiences as a gonzo journalist traveling and writing stories. It doesn't have a strict storyline, which helps contribute to the movie's absurdity. Instead, it takes from Thompson's personal accounts of his experiences, which include a lot of drug use and spontaneity. The movie begins in 1968 in San Francisco, where he meets up with his attorney, Lazlo (Peter Boyle), and ends in 1972 when Thompson is writing about the presidential campaign. During his time spent on the campaign trail, Thompson encounters presidential candidate Richard Nixon in the bathroom and goes on a rant about "the doomed." I thought this scene was especially interesting because the whole time he is making his point, Murray is changing out of his old clothes, putting on new clothes, cleaning up his shoes, and freshening up. I found it interesting that this transformation (even if only on the outside) took place in such a short amount of time. It stood out to me because it was shot in a different location than the rest of the movie (in an enclosed space-a bathroom) with Murray looking completely different.
The camera work throughout the movie was nothing fancy, but I wasn't expecting it to be since the movie is more of a light-hearted comedy. Some of the editing was interesting though such as when people were shown moving in super fast motion in some scenes. The use of this technique contributed to the movie's goofy feel. I also noticed that there were a lot of panning shots and then zooming in on a character. These types of shots helped to keep the pace of the movie when the camera was focused on one person for a time. Being a fan of Hunter S. Thompson myself, I found the movie to be funny and overall an accurate portrayal of what Thompson was really like. But, like I said before, I think you would have to be a fan of Thompson to enjoy this movie, simply because it is so weird and wacky. Bill Murray did an amazing job as Thompson and I think the movie did a great job of creating a spot-on image of Hunter S. Thompson, which is why I give this movie 4/5 stars.
Not Fade Away is a movie that I would not have heard about if it were not for the Chicago Tribune. I had been meaning to check it out since I saw the good review it gave on the front page of A&E, so I was glad to see it show up on Netflix. This indie movie (and directorial debut of The Sopranos creator David Chase) was released in 2012 but is set in the 1960s and features a cast in which I didn't recognize anyone other than the late James Gandolfini. What interested me the most about this film was the mix of history into the movie-often times early video or sound clips of The Rolling Stones or The Beatles would play along with narration of what was going on with big bands at the time. The inclusion of these clips made the movie a lot of fun to watch and imagine what it must have been like to hear and see bands like The Rolling Stones and The Beatles for the first time. The movie tells the story of a group of friends who form a band and have dreams of making it big in the '60s. They are inspired by artists such as Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, and The Beatles. Throughout the movie the band members face struggles as they realize that it takes more than just a love of music to be successful as a band. While trying to balance (at some points unsuccessfully) his band, school, and girlfriend Grace (Bella Heathcote), Douglas, played by John Magaro, takes over as lead singer for the band, which causes some tension. The movie follows the band through several trials and errors, including auditions and studio time, until the band ultimately begins to crumble after one member gets into a serious motorcycle accident. Doug is left contemplating what his future will hold for him. The intro to the movie was awesome and got me hooked right away. After a black and white clip, a television announcement leads straight into The Rolling Stones' hit "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction." An important scene-and my favorite scene-came when the band was forming together while jamming to Bo Diddley. The camerawork in this scene featured many close-ups of the instruments while they were being played. I noticed that close-ups were also big throughout the rest of the movie. Something interesting that I noticed was that often times, including in this scene, there would be a close up of somebody's (usually Doug's) eye and then ear, which I didn't completely understand the point of. I liked how the camera worked in this scene because it created a kind of rhythm with the shots that went well with the music. I also noticed how vibrant colors were often used, which made me think maybe this was to try to emulate the color technology that was being used in the '60s-- like the vibrant colors in Rebel Without a Cause (1955). The look of the movie, including the coloring and the costumes, made Not Fade Away more believable as a movie set in the '60s.
The movie was really cool but left me feeling like some of the issues were unresolved. After the halfway point we find out that Doug's dad, Pat (James Gandolfini), has cancer. Other than it being mentioned a few times, it isn't brought up for the rest of the movie. Also there isn't much of a conclusion with Grace, Doug's girlfriend. She kind of just disappears from the movie after the band falls apart. It also felt like the movie took an unexpected turn when the band faced an early demise. I was surprised to see the band dissolve so quickly when I was expecting something more to come of it. But the more I thought about it, the more I think I understand why that happened. A big theme of the movie was not knowing what was going to happen next and living in the present. By taking a completely different direction than the viewer was probably intending, the movie exemplifies the theme of not knowing any further into the future than what is happening at the moment. Because of its compelling story and rock 'n roll history infusion, I would give Not Fade Away 4/5 stars.
I have always enjoyed Christopher Nolan's films, so when I came across Following on Netflix, I decided it would be a good pick for my next MYST. Also, it is considered "neo-noir" so it fits well with what we are discussing in class. It was released in 1998 and features a cast of Jeremy Theobald, Alex Haw, and Lucy Russell among others, none of whom I had heard of before. While looking at other Nolan films I saw that he had casted Theobald in Doodlebug, a movie Nolan directed a year before Following. The movie features only four main characters, three or four of whom don't actually have names. They are simply referred to in the credits as "The Young Man," "The Blonde," "The Bald Guy," and Cobb. This movie was made on a very low-budget. Nolan used mostly available light instead of spending money on expensive lighting equipment. He also used as much available space as he could-- he actually used actor Jeremy Theobald's flat as his character's living space in the movie. He made sure his actors and actresses were well-prepared so they only needed one or two takes to get a scene so as not to waste the film stock the movie was shot on. Nolan also paid for the 16mm film stock out of his own salary. An interesting fact about the movie: besides being the director, Nolan served as writer, producer, editor, and photographer. The film takes place in London where an aspiring writer (Jeremy Theobald) starts following people around on the streets. He sets rules for himself at first, but when he breaks one and begins to follow one man extensively, he gets involved in that is not so harmless. The man takes notice of his being followed and confronts the writer. The man, whose name is Cobb (Alex Haw), begins to tell the writer that he is a serial burglar and invites the writer to come with him on his criminal sprees. The writer tells Cobb his name is Bill and soon becomes enticed by Cobb's criminal lifestyle. He accompanies Cobb on various burglaries and starts dating a woman-referred to as "The Blonde", played by Lucy Russell- whose house he and Cobb broke into. The story gets pretty complex and confusing, but basically follows the young man's life while he becomes ever more deeply involved in burglary. It turns out that the whole thing was a set up created by Cobb and The Blonde in order to frame The Young Man for a crime he didn't commit. Then, it turns out that Cobb had been working for another man-known as The Bald Guy-and had set up both The Blonde and The Young Man. At a little more than halfway through, the movie became really hard to follow but it was still intensely interesting. While watching this movie, I was surprised to realize how many similarities it has with Memento, another Christopher Nolan directed film and one of my favorites. I had no idea that Following was released only 2 years before Memento, and it made me think that maybe Nolan was trying to expand on his idea from Following. Both movies use reverse chronological sequencing at times, have a gritty feeling to them, and contain film noir elements. Memento has scenes that are filmed in black and white, while the entirety of Following is black and white. Narration plays a big part in both movies. In Following, The Young Man narrates throughout his experience with Cobb in an interview with a policeman (played by Christopher Nolan's uncle, John Nolan) who we only see at the beginning and end of the movie. In Memento, Leonard narrates parts of the movie while he is talking on the phone throughout. The narration that is used helps to show the separation that the characters in both films are feeling. The theme of alienation is big in both movies as well, and also characteristic of the film noir genre. An interesting thing that I noticed was that there was hardly any music or background sound used in the film (once again similar to Memento) until the first time The Young Man accompanies Cobb when he is breaking into someone's house. The sounds that played in the background were very eerie and squeaky and made the scene more intense and suspenseful. Check it out in the clip below...
In this scene where Cobb and The Young Man break into someone's house, sound is first used significantly in the background. The sound, which is very squeaky and high-pitched, makes the scene disorienting and uncomfortable. It fits with The Young Man's mood in this scene. He is alarmed by Cobb's actions in the house, which include dumping the contents of a box onto the floor, to which Cobb explains by telling The Young Man that his purpose is to interrupt the lives of those who live there and to make them see what they had. When Cobb said this to the Young Man, it made me think of how The Young Man's purpose had always been to follow without interrupting. Cobb acts as a type of character foil for The Young Man, who seems more innocent after seeing what Cobb does.
The camera movements are shaky with most scenes being shot with a handheld camera throughout the movie, probably to serve Nolan's plan of reducing spending to a minimum. The look of this film fit that of a typical film noir. It was shot in black and white and had a certain grittiness to it. There were a lot of sharp cuts to black which reminded me again of Memento. I really enjoyed this movie although I will admit I got really confused a little after halfway into it. I would give this film 4/5 stars because it is creative and thought-provoking and has well-developed and interesting characters. The ideas that this film presented were also very interesting and got me thinking about how much you can actually find out about someone else's life before you are intruding on them-- and if you can ever really know everything about someone else's life. The themes of intrusion and the study of a person seem to fit in well with the neo-noir genre because they have dark and mysterious undertones, much like a neo-noir film itself. This movie will most likely be one that I will have to watch a few more times before I fully understand all of it (again, like Memento), but one that I would enjoy watching over again.
I'm happy to say that my days of never having seen a Martin Scorsese film are over. I wanted to focus this study on Scorsese, one, because I had never seen a full-length film directed by him, and two, because of how much I had heard about him. Since I wasn't familiar with the works of Scorsese at the start of this study, I wanted to pick movies that decently spanned his career. The three movies that I went with are Taxi Driver (1976), Goodfellas (1990), and Gangs of New York (2002). These movies are all set in New York and have some crime element to them. Scorsese himself was raised in the Little Italy neighborhood of New York City, by Italian-American parents. It seems as if Scorsese's childhood has influenced his movies in a significant way. A few major things I noted about these movies was the use of sound, distinctive camera-work and cinematography, and the heavy use of narration. But back to these later. First, I'll start off with a little background from each of the movies.... Goodfellas was the first of the three movies that I watched. I had high expectations since I had heard a lot about it and since it was nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars in 1991. Ray Liotta plays Henry Hill, who works with his gangster friends (including Robert De Niro as James
Conway and Joe Pesci as Tommy DeVito) to move up in the Mob hierarchy in New York. This film is an adaptation of Wiseguys, a non-fiction book written in 1986. The thing that I noticed first about this movie was the use of narration. The first fifteen minutes after the opening scene were narrated by Henry Hill as the viewer watched him grow up and live his dream of being a gangster. Music is used in a big way throughout the film. More than 35 different songs were used throughout! This made the film more exciting to watch and gave more information about the time period in which it was set. The camera work was very distinctive and unlike anything I had seen before. Often times during this movie at the peak of intense moments a freeze frame would be used while narration was going on over it. I noticed that the camera does a lot of panning and weaving throughout the movie, which I came to realize-after watching the other two movies-that this type of camera-work is typical of Scorsese films. Gangs of New York, the second movie I watched, surprised me a little because it was very different from the rawness of Goodfellas and wasn't what I was expecting at all. It was quirkier and altogether a pretty weird movie and I was surprised to read that it was one that Scorsese had been working on for a while-it was somewhat of a passion project for him. This movie
centers around Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) who seeks revenge against the man who killed his father many years ago in a gang fight in the Five Points district of New York. Once again, music was a big part of this movie, however, the type of music differed from what was played in Goodfellas. In Gangs of New York most of the music that was used was instrumental, such as beating drums or bagpipes. One scene that was made even more weird by the music was the huge gang fight near the beginning of the movie in which Vallon's dad was killed. The music didn't sound like it should have been playing during a fight scene, which made for a weird juxtaposition. Another scene in which music is used in an interesting way is also near the beginning when a character in Vallon's gang kicks down a door revealing a snowy New York and the beating drums in the background abruptly stop. This created a disorienting scene that made it feel like something else unexpected was going to happen. Also like Goodfellas, narration plays a part in this movie. A lot of it is narrated by the main character, Amsterdam Vallon. The use of narration in this movie is interesting because most of the time Vallon is a pretty quiet character, so the narration lets the viewer get into his head a little more. Taxi Driver was the last in this series of movies that I watched, and probably my favorite of the three. It is about a former Marine, Travis Bickle, played by Robert De Niro, who works as a late-night taxi driver in the streets of New York City. His becomes more violent throughout the movie and becomes more fed up with the dirtiness of the streets and people who occupy them. Along the way he attempts to change the lifestyle of a young prostitute, played by Jodie Foster. Music in this movie served to highlight the isolation felt by Travis. (Interestingly there is a lot of beating drums in the music--like in Gangs of New York).The music used was mostly sad-sounding and instrumental. Travis often remains silent in the company of others and only expresses his main feelings through writing in a journal. Also serving to demonstrate Travis's feelings of loneliness was the heavy use of narration. Since Travis hardly talks when around others, his narration shows what he is thinking.
The main theme that I wanted to explore in depth for this study is Scorsese's camera work. The cinematography is very distinctive and makes these movies so much more interesting and exciting to watch. In each movie I noticed that Scorsese favors tracking shots in which he follows (usually from behind) his subject for a significant length of time. A great example of this shot is in Goodfellas, when Henry Hill and his date are being followed through a nightclub scene to a dining table (see video below for the infamous Copacabana nightclub tracking shot).
Another tracking shot scene in this movie is one in a bar where the viewer is introduced to a multitude of gangsters, who all look directly into the camera to introduce themselves. In Gangs of New York, the camera pans and weaves throughout underground caves as it keeps up with a young Amsterdam Vallon and his dad as they make their way outside to the big gang fight. I found these scenes with a tracking shot incredibly fun to watch because it felt like I was a part of the movie. Also, rarely does the viewer see actors looking directly into the camera (like in the bar scene in Goodfellas). Another interesting technique of Scorsese's was using slow camera movements, slow-motion, and freeze frames. In Taxi Driver, slow camera movements help to demonstrate Travis's loneliness. In Gangs of New York, slow motion is used in the beginning when Vallon and his gang are walking through the underground tunnels. Goodfellas makes use of the freeze-frame. I noted that many scenes would freeze at moments of peak intensity.
Another very important theme that connected these three movies was the use of music and sound. In all of these movies there was hardly a time where there was no music or sounds playing in the background. In Goodfellas, this music served to set the stage and make the movie more exciting to watch. As for Taxi Driver, the more instrumental music exemplified Travis's loneliness in the busy cities of New York. The music of Gangs of New York intensified battle scenes and created for interesting juxtapositions in some scenes. Narration was also an important aspect in each of these movies. It served to let the viewer into the character's head when there was no other way in. How else would we witness any better the descent into violent madness that De Niro's character experiences in Taxi Driver? Henry Hill narrating his own childhood made for an interesting introduction to Goodfellas. And in Gangs of New York, narration added yet another layer to the complexity of everything that was going on throughout the movie. According to Box Office Mojo, Taxi Driver, Gangs of New York, and Goodfellas are the seventh, eighth, and ninth top earners of (adjusted) gross income for Scorsese's films, respectively (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/ view=Director&id=martinscorsese.htm&sort=opengross&order=DESC&p=.htm). It's interesting that these three are all right next to each other in the chart, considering Scorsese has directed over twenty films. Seeing these movies has given me a good idea of what a Scorsese film is like, and left me wanting to see more of his work. This study has allowed me to see how much influence a director has on a movie. There are obvious parallels between the three movies I watched, such as cinematography and sound, which label them as Scorsese movies. I now better understand how a director's style can impact a movie. In terms of style, Martin Scorsese's distinct cinematography and use of sound have left me loving what I have seen from him and wanting to see more.
.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
.jpg){kind=link}