Movies205's Review and Discussion Thread: Vol. 3- Revenge of the Elitist Porcupines!

[Movies205]

Well then you have your Petrified Forest and I have my Key Largo.

by all means, watch it again. Edward G. Robinson (he is awesome, I want to see Double Indemnity) is really the blueprint of a classic gangster in it.

Don't forget Paul Muni who is like one of the most illest actors ever, go see "I'm a Fugitive From a Chaingang"

 

[Cyrusbales]

Did I hear people dissing Scanner Darkly on the last page?

 

[Movies205]

Did I hear people dissing Scanner Darkly on the last page?

It's pretenciously crappy movie like most of Richard Linkletter's work, go away I won't have it discussed in my thread

 

[Cyrusbales]

A SCANNER DARKLY

A Scanner Darkly, is the newest offering from arthouse director Richard Linklater, starring Keanu Reeves, Robert Downey Jr and Winona Ryder, it boasts a unique visual style of animation over the top of live footage, based on the P. K. Dick novel of the same name, it has a lot to offer.

Keanu Reeves plays Bob Arctor, a lowlife guy who's addicted to a new drug called 'Substance D'. However he is also an undercover narcotics agent, leading to the mind-bending drugs creating a huge amount of confusion for him as his life splits in two.

The style of performance here are crucial, as they mimic the nature of the drug which they take, warping them into strange twisted versions of normality and in fact very interesting and engaging characters. Well performed, the air of their paranoid natures is perfectly executed and is a great positive of the film.

The striking visual look of this movie is mesmeric to say the least, drawing the audience into this obscure version of reality and the unique members of society that the film follows. Vivid and captivating, it adds to the delirium and makes the viewer sometimes disorientated, trying to decipher where the reality ends and the animation begins.

The narrative itself is exactly what you'd expect from one of the great novelists of the 20th century, very surreal and full of social critique and fabulous plot twists. Whilst the story may seem slow, the pacing is very appropriate and once again, gives more to the overall feeling of the film.

This film does generate some very high expectations, and whilst not completely filling them all, it still remains a fantastic piece of cinema, showcasing some inventiveness and great acting, not to mention the dark humour and intriguing script. Well worth a watch, unmissable for any true cinema fan.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

A SCANNER DARKLY

A Scanner Darkly, is the newest offering from arthouse director Richard Linklater, starring Keanu Reeves, Robert Downey Jr and Winona Ryder, it boasts a unique visual style of animation over the top of live footage, based on the P. K. Dick novel of the same name, it has a lot to offer.

Keanu Reeves plays Bob Arctor, a lowlife guy who's addicted to a new drug called 'Substance D'. However he is also an undercover narcotics agent, leading to the mind-bending drugs creating a huge amount of confusion for him as his life splits in two.

The style of performance here are crucial, as they mimic the nature of the drug which they take, warping them into strange twisted versions of normality and in fact very interesting and engaging characters. Well performed, the air of their paranoid natures is perfectly executed and is a great positive of the film.

The striking visual look of this movie is mesmeric to say the least, drawing the audience into this obscure version of reality and the unique members of society that the film follows. Vivid and captivating, it adds to the delirium and makes the viewer sometimes disorientated, trying to decipher where the reality ends and the animation begins.

The narrative itself is exactly what you'd expect from one of the great novelists of the 20th century, very surreal and full of social critique and fabulous plot twists. Whilst the story may seem slow, the pacing is very appropriate and once again, gives more to the overall feeling of the film.

This film does generate some very high expectations, and whilst not completely filling them all, it still remains a fantastic piece of cinema, showcasing some inventiveness and great acting, not to mention the dark humour and intriguing script. Well worth a watch, unmissable for any true cinema fan.

I have this on my very shelf (my fifth DVD shelf of six ), haven't watched it yet...

 

[Movies205]

I have this on my very shelf (my fifth DVD shelf of six ), haven't watched it yet...

I don't particularly care for it... The film style screams "look at me, look how cool we are" yet the whole point of animation is that you can exagerate things and play around with reality, this film does not do that, it would really be the same exact thing had they not painted on top of it with animation. My second problem with it, is they advertise it as a sci-fi movie however it's really a self-indulgent movie about druggies, there's really no point to it taking place in the future, other than again being flashy and self-indulgent. The plot goes literally no where, the characterizations are flat, and worst of all it slow as hell. Needless to say I did not like this film.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I have this on my very shelf (my fifth DVD shelf of six ), haven't watched it yet...

You better watch it quick Kev so you can be a "true cinema fan"

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Not traditional review, it's more or less a thesis paper minus the research since I wrote it for my film studies class... However it raises a lot of points that can be discussed and which are debateable.
----
The Fly
Directed by David Cronenberg
Rating: 10/10

“The Fly” (1986) tells the story of Seth Brundle, a brilliant albeit eccentric scientist who has invented something that could change the world. He’s invented the telepod, a device which allows a person to transport an object from one place to another. At a convention for scientists showcasing their inventions, Seth meets Veronica Quaife, an ambitious reporter for a prominent science magazine. Veronica learns there’s one problem with his invention, it can’t transport living beings without disastrous results. Seth eventually overcomes the problem, however in a drunken rage steps into the telepod to be teleported. Tragically unbeknownst to him there was a fly in the telepod and he‘s been fused with it. This triggers the chain of events that lead to Seth’s ultimate fate as a giant fly. In the background of this tragic story, Veronica is pregnant with Seth’s baby, so she is faced with the decision of whether to keep the baby or not, as she sees Seth horrifying transformation. In the end Seth’s wonderful creation that’ll change the world ends up being the death of him.

“The Fly” (1986) is terrifying since it underscores a deep seated fear in society which no one likes to talk about, when technology goes awry. “The Fly” is terrifying since it’s about the stripping of one’s humanity but not in mind, but in body. The body is the last place people look when distinguishing what makes a human a human. Humans classify themselves as human from their intellect, not of the body. Throughout the movie Seth keeps his intellect, all the way to the end when he has enough intellect to know he wants to die. “The Fly” is terrifying to the audience since it shows the oft-not talked about connection humans have with the flesh.

The flesh is a term that Cronenberg often toys with in his films. In this film, the rebirth of the flesh is symbolized in a metaphorical baptism for Seth. Seth refers to his going through the telepods as a “purifying” process. In a sense going through the telepods was almost baptismal. There is a contrast though from a traditional baptism and Seth‘s purification. Baptism as spoken about in the catholic church is spiritual and it’s rebirth is purifying to the spirit. In “The Fly” it’s completely physical and to boot he’s merged with a fly. Flies throughout western culture have been a symbol of Satan or some type of demonic figure. Metaphorically speaking Seth is reborn fused with Satan and no longer of the human flesh. Factoring out the religious connotations since I don’t believe Cronenberg is very religious, what does this say about “the flesh”. Often in society “the flesh” is forgotten, Seth himself forgets the “flesh” when programming his computer. When Seth is “purified” he is in a sense stripped of the flesh, he is the fly, however it raises an interesting question, is he less or more human?

When Veronica visits Seth for the last time, Seth explains “insect politics”. However if one were to insert “human” in for the word of insect, it sounds something like this. “Have you ever heard of human politics? Neither have I. Humans... don't have politics. They're very... brutal. No compassion, no compromise. We can't trust the humans. I'd like to become the first... human politician. Y'see, I'd like to, but... I'm afraid, uh... “ True, humans have politicians but how many are not corrupt? Taking a look at the world of capitalism which demands that humans be brutal and show no compromise which is summed up in the phrase, “It’s business, nothing personal”. There something terrifying in “The Fly” since the more Seth strips off the human flesh, the more human he becomes in a sense. “The Fly” shows us the ugliness inside humans brought out by technology that “will change the world as we know it.”

Use of the doppelgänger, very much in the vein of “Dressed to Kill” (1980) can be seen in this film. Wells states that the doppelgänger “is effectively a “double”, in which humankind confronts its nemesis either through the opposition of an individual and a monster.” The doppelgänger being between Seth and Brundle-fly, between what was and what now is. The terrifying question must be asked who is more human, at least in a capitalistic society, Seth or his doppelgänger, Brundle-fly. Cinematically it’s very much akin to “Dressed to Kill” in its use of mirrors. Through out the film Seth looks into the mirror to see who he is and every time he looks again he physically has changed some more. Most poignant is in the reaction-shot-triad, when you see his look of awe in the mirror, then he squeezes his finger, then it cuts back to the look of fear in his face through the mirror.

“The Fly” concludes in the death of Brundle-Fly as he desperately tries to regain what he has lost. “The Fly” is terrifying because it’s a slow and probing look at a human who loses his flesh, something innately human. Cronenberg gets even more specific by showing Seth losing very specific human organs one at a time. In the end, “The Fly” is terrifying in that it shows us how technology can ruin us and strip us of our humanity, or even show us the darkness of humanity.

Best review so far, and I mean that from a detatched point of view; not that I just agree with everything, but that it's well-written and an effective analysis.

The Fly is a great argument for remakes.

 

[Movies205]

Best review so far, and I mean that from a detatched point of view; not that I just agree with everything, but that it's well-written and an effective analysis.

The Fly is a great argument for remakes.

Read hte paper I posted on the General... I probably should repost the latest version of that where I fix a couple of things... However it's amazing to see how in 1927, the blue-print for the modern action movie had been made. As for the Fly, it is a great remake, now I haven't seen the original so I'm merely speculating(it's on my list along with original Thing), the reason is so good is that it took the concept and took it somewhere else. I mean in the case of Sci-Fi movies you really do have to "remake" a movie due to copy-right infringement however good remakes are abound, they just simply don't carry the name. For example "City of God" is a remake of Scarface, Little Ceasar, etc... Disturbia a remake of Rear Window... Born on the Fourth of July a remake of Best Years of Our Lives. Most remakes are poor since there simply either carbon copies of what came before or they've strayed too far off the path, in either case you eliminate this problem by simply remaking it with new characters... Which is all together far more noble since your not just cashing in on name-brand recognition.

However a very interesting remake was Werner Herzog's "Nosferatu" along the lines of Gus Van Saint's remake of Psycho however it's far more relevant. The remake of Nosferatu took a silent, black and white, full-screen film and turn it into a sound, colored, widescreen film to see if it made a huge difference. It's a masterful remake, I'll repost my review:

Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (1979)
Directed by Werner Herzog
Rating: 7/10

Nosferatu: Phatom der Nacht is a remake of the landmark silent film Nosferatu, a Symphony of Horror (1922). The original Nosferatu (1922) was part of a group of films during the 1920s made by German Filmmakers called expressionism. Expressionism is a highly symbolic and surreal genre, relying heavily on darkness, shadows, etc. Expressionism is the beginning for Classic Horror in Hollywood, considering many of Germany’s film-makers were literally imported to Hollywood to work on Universal Monster films. The original Nosferatu is a very important piece of cinematic history, so the remake in many ways is very academic in it’s intent. The remake asks the question of what would the film be like if it were in color, widescreen, and had sound. Understanding and recognizing this is crucial when watching Nosferatu (1979).

Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoule living of men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.

Cinematically Werner Herzog did an amazing job updating Nosferatu for modern cinema aesthetics while remaining faithful to the source material. I was most taken by is the stark contrast between the day and the night that is created. For example when Harker first comes to Dracula castle at night, there’s a very isolated feeling. Due to the fact that darkness enshrouds all around, there’s shots of Dracula’s face where all you see is his face due to the darkness, also Herzog use of extreme angles at night. Then during the day it’s as bright as can be and Herzog employs quite a few long shots, and there doesn’t seem to be an end to the castle. There is this feeling of no escape at night which is driven home when Dracula bites Harker and he’s locked in his room. The sequences of the city are great as well, especially with the rats. Constantly throughout the film there are visual reminders that there’s no escape. There’s a poignant scene where Lucy is walking through the city and she swarmed by pallbearers with coffins.

The way Dracula looks and acts is my favorite part of the movie. I love the idea of Dracula and vampires as creatures of the night instead of the suave talking gentlemen. The rest of the cast does fine in their roles. However, I was curious as to why the actors spoke in English instead of German since I believe it is a German film along with the fact that all the actors had German accents?

So where does the movie not exactly hit the mark? It’s way too close to the source material to the point where certain scenes just lack any energy especially for those who have seen the original film. The story has been done so many times that I barely watched the first fifteen minutes because I knew exactly what it was about. Which leads to my next point that certain things work in a silent film that don’t work in a “talkie”. The first being the way time moves in a silent film, silent films had the very subtle advantage of being able to manipulate time anyway the artist saw fit. Since essentially anything could be stuck on a title card and the audience would accept it. So instead of having a five-minute scene setting up love interests, you can have a less than minute scene between two lovers and a title card. This is very evident in Nosferatu (1979) in the beginning where it seems like nothing happens till he gets to Dracula castle. Also looking at the runtime of the original Nosferatu which is 90 minutes and the runtime of the remake is 120 minutes, you can see that more time was needed, especially since story-wise the two are almost exactly the same.

In conclusion the film is of academic interest due to it’s mastery of craft and it’s asking of some interesting questions about the timelessness of film while at the same time it’s unable to reach the heights of the original. I’d give it a rent if you’re a fan of the original since it definitely is lovely to watch in conjunction with the original.

 

[War Party]

Closer (2004)
Director: Mike Nichols
Rating: 8/10

Upon first viewing of this film, I wasn't a huge believer. I thought that Clive Owen deserved every accolade that was handed to him. His performance was breathtaking and so full of life that his character was the one to watch for when each scene began. He epitomized the level of good guy and bad guy all into one. So, I was happy with his performance. I was excited to see him playing well with others, but was this a great film? At first, as I said before, I didn't think so, but then I thought about it. This is one of those films that requires you to take a breath and think about the effects long after the final credits have finished rolling. It takes your current relationship and places it right before your eyes. This film will speak to anyone that has been in a relationship or is currently in one. After watching it, you will think about your relationship and the horror will settle in. This film will speak to you, it did me, and it really put into perspective the world of dating and relationships in this modern culture. Nichols has crafted a masterpiece, and while it may not be appreciated as much now, it will remain in our society for a very long time.

I have spoken briefly about the acting, but I would like to say that without a decent crew, this film could not have been as emotional as it was. Julia Roberts turns in a performance that is very unlike her and will disappoint those who are die-hard fans, Natalie Portman proves that she is more than just Star Wars material, and Clive Owen...there could be nobody greater for this role. He controls this film and really takes his career into a new level. I am not ashamed to say this, but I am a huge Clive Owen fan. He does not disappoint in this film. Then there is the snivelly Jude Law. I must say, his performance in this film was the least impressive. He somehow finds himself falling into very similar roles in each film that he picks up. If you have seen Alfie, then you have seen a bit of him in Closer and vise versa. He just isn't as great as he was when he first burst onto the cinematic scene. Perhaps it is because he is wearing thin and cannot create fresh characters ... I dunno ... but whatever it is, he did not provide anything worth-wile to this film.

So, with the acting strongly in place (sans Law), Nichols tips off the iceberg with some unprecedented cinematography that allows strong storytelling to take place. One of the biggest elements to this film that captured my attention was Nichols ability to allow time to pass with the greatest of ease. I thought at first that this film was going to happen within the course of a couple of days, but he builds a sense of a strong relationship by allowing it to pass over the course of several years. You really get this feeling that these characters are together for a certain period of time and that development is occurring. I never felt as if something suddenly happened, over the course of four years these acts of the heart take a form of their own through the watchful eye of Nichols. It impressed me. Also, Nichols' use of bold white coloring not only expressed the light of relationships, but also brought out the brilliance of each scene. You became focused on certain elements, the purity of the heart, and so forth. It was cinematic history in the making.

Finally, I would like to say that this film was nothing of what I expected. Natalie Portman's final scenes were riveting and really brought the rest of this film together. Scenes in this film happened for a reason instead of just a chance to impress the audiences. It was a delight to finally see a movie that came directly from the heart as well as shot to your heart. It will invoke fear and make you appreciate the relationship that you have. I have never experienced a film quite like this before and cannot wait to see what the brilliant mind of Mr. Mike Nichols will bring next to comment about our society and culture. He does have his hand on the pulse of our lives, and Closer proves it.

Overall, I was extremely impressed with this film. I have always been impressed with the work of Mike Nichols' work ever since I first experienced The Graduate and this film was no different. He has this amazing ability of building tension and love together in the same bundle. I remember feeling similar emotions during Closer as I did while watching The Graduate. It is this ability to pull at your heartstrings while still maintaining that sense of realism. I could connect to some portion of this film, and I loved it. I strongly recommend this film, but do not take your gut reaction as the first response. Think about this film, think about yourselves, and then make your decision. It is what I did and somehow this film still remains in my mind weeks after viewing it. I am impressed.

 

[블라스]

I agree 1000000% with that 10/10 for The Fly.
Goddamn, I love that movie.

 

[Movies205]

I agree 1000000% with that 10/10 for The Fly.
Goddamn, I love that movie.

Read the review

Also warparty when I get some time I'll read your review for Closer and comment since it's one of my favorite films. Currently finishing a comparison paper between Alex Porayas' Dark City (1998) and Christopher Nolan's Memento (2000) and how they're both influenced by Film Noir.

 

[War Party]

Read the review

Also warparty when I get some time I'll read your review for Closer and comment since it's one of my favorite films. Currently finishing a comparison paper between Alex Porayas' Dark City (1998) and Christopher Nolan's Memento (2000) and how they're both influenced by Film Noir.

Sounds like a good paper. Hope you like the review.

 

[블라스]

Read the review

But I did

You should review L.A. Confidential
And where's my goddamned special edition?

 

[Movies205]

Sounds like a good paper. Hope you like the review.

Yeah I'll be posting it when I'm finished if you care to read it...

 

[Movies205]

But I did

You should review L.A. Confidential
And where's my goddamned special edition?

Haha I thought you just looked at the 10/10... I haven't seen L.A. confidential in so long... We just got the ****in Sergio Leone Anthology, and Sony finally releasing Midnite Movies again... specifically Witchhunter General... 2 amazing dvd annoucements seems to be the limit with Sony

 

[War Party]

Yeah I'll be posting it when I'm finished if you care to read it...

Definitely look forward into reading it.

 

[블라스]

Haha I thought you just looked at the 10/10... I haven't seen L.A. confidential in so long... We just got the ****in Sergio Leone Anthology, and Sony finally releasing Midnite Movies again... specifically Witchhunter General... 2 amazing dvd annoucements seems to be the limit with Sony

I already had the 2 disc set for TG,TB&TU, so I bought the SE's for FoD and FafDm a couple of weeks ago. Needless to say, they are the best things ever.
I still need Duck, you sucker

 

[Movies205]

Identity, Noir, and a dash of Sci-Fi​

Alex Proyas’ Dark City (1998) and Christopher Nolan’s Memento (2000) both deal with the theme of identity connected to memory. However, their connection goes deeper, both films share a number of nuances borrowed from film noir. These two films present the unique opportunity of seeing the advantage of genre. Genre more often than not gets a bad reputation from the ignorant and the pretentious as being in some way limiting. The irony being that to an experienced artist, genre is completely liberating. Genre allows for artists to pool their collective ideas by building off each other work in a specific genre, not to mention it also allows for a unique way to engage the post-modern audience. Memento and Dark City display an immense knowledge of craft since they’re built upon the tenants of an arguably dead genre, film noir, to create something new and fresh.

The definition for film noir taken from Richard Barsam‘s Looking at Movies, “Film Noir. French for “black film,” the term film noir refers to highly stylized crime films, indebted to or based on detective stories, and generally characterized by their somber tones and pessimistic moods. Film noir stories concentrate on crime and corruption; on characters (heroes and villains alike) who tend to be cynical, disillusioned, and often insecure or impotent loners. The mood of the stories is enhanced by characteristic visual elements, including sleazy nighttime settings lit to emphasize contrasts between black and white, create deep shadows, and enhance the fatalistic mood; the oblique composition of images; and the use of exaggerated camera setups and angles”

Memento tells the story of a man suffering from short term memory lost and his quest to find the man who ruined his life. The main character in Memento, Lenny, is a cynical and disillusioned loner. Lenny’s backdrop is in a sleazy underworld on the outskirts of society focusing on crime with a pessimistic tone. Barsam’s description of noir is somewhat jarring due to its omission of the “femme fatal” which is found in many noir films. The “femme fatale” is a female character usually introduced as someone who needs help from the protagonist of the story. Later on we usually find out that this female character was actually just using the main character for her own gains. The “femme fatal” in Memento is in the form of Carrie Ann-Moss’ character, Natalie. When she’s introduced, she’s the stereotypical damsel in distress, with the intent of stirring immediate empathy within the viewer. Later on we find out that it was all a guise so she could take advantage of Lenny’s handicap.

Dark City tells the story of a man who awakes in a sleazy hotel room with no memory of who he is or how he got there, to complicate matters there’s a dead hooker in the tub. Thus starts this man’s quest to figure out who he is, however, the “strangers” might have something to say about that. While Memento stringently follows Noir’s thematic roots, Dark City follows its cinematic roots. Film Noir was prominent between the 1940s-1960s so it’s interesting that the décor of Dark City mirrors that of the 50s. Many of the costumes seem to come right out of a classic noir film. Dark City also seems to be having a visual pun with Noir’s adherence with the sleazy nighttime setting by making the city constantly dark. The film also employs “deep shadows, to enhance the fatalistic mood; the oblique composition of images; and the use of exaggerated camera setups and angles” While Dark City employs quite a few of Noir’s thematic elements, overall thematically it owes more to the Science Fiction genre than Noir. However, it does feature a disillusioned main character on the outskirts of society. Even here though it plays with convention by giving a happy ending to what turns out to be a good character.

To place the two films in conversation with each other, this paper shall be analyzing four different scenes. The first scene comes from Memento when Natalie reveals herself as a “femme fatale”. The second scene is from Dark City when the main character, John Murdoch, meets his wife, Emma Murdoch, for the first time. Thematically the scenes are similar in that both deal with the only female characters in the narrative, secondly they tell you a great deal about both Natalie and Emma, and lastly they both are romantically involved with the main characters of their respective narratives. Memento thematically is very much in vein with film noir, Natalie is a female character the audience has come to trust then the narrative exposes she’s got her own plans, however leaves it open to interpretation as to whether she’s completely bad or not.

Cinematically it doesn’t possess many traits of film noir outside of the narration. The camera set-up is very simple, it’s a simple shot/reverse shot over the shoulder sequence with a little shaky/handheld camera use thrown in. However what really flies in the face of film noir is that the scene is shot very bright and the colors are very saturated, at least in this particular scene. Film Noir naturally is associated with black and white, so the colors are very well defined stark contrasts. The color in Memento, at least for half of the film, is the exact opposite; one could describe it as “mellow”.

Dark City cinematically borrows heavily from film noir while thematically strays quite a bit from film noir. The scene, in question, is remarkably dark for a colored film; it’s almost completely lit up by diegetic light sources. It also employs many different camera set-ups, very consciously staying away from the typical shot/reverse shot, and it employs many extreme angles. These are traits lifted directly from film noir and adapted to color film.

Thematically Dark City is very different, starting with the female character, Emma. She represents something entirely different than the “femme fatale”. I’d argue that Emma is very much in keeping with the sci-fi tradition, in which the protagonist and female character love each other but are kept apart by the conflict of the plot, only to be reunited in the end when the plot is resolved. Emma is noble and altruistic which is demonstrated when she helps John escape by distracting the police officer. This not only reveals something about Emma but also about John. Film noir protagonists are usually described as antiheros since they’re neither good or bad and often cynical. This scene eludes to a deep love between the two characters something that’s not found in the film noir protagonist, and denotes a certain goodness to John.

The second pair of scenes to be analyzed are the final climaxes to each film. In both films, the structure of the plot could be described as convoluted which presents a need for an explanation in the climax, the “reveal”. Most noir films have highly convoluted plots and follow a similar plot structure. In Memento it comes when Lenny kills John G, only to find out that this is not the first John G. he has killed. Thematically the scene represents everything film noir is about, a convoluted plot which shows how deep corruption/evil goes, an even bleaker outlook, and an ambivalent ending. Memento is masterful in that up to that one scene, the audience is led to believe that Lenny is a good guy on a quest for justice, and then comes the earth-shattering revelation that he’s a killer. In one single scene the audience is provided with two characters, Lenny before the accident, this is the Lenny the audience is treated to in every scene due to his memory lost. Then there is the enlightened Lenny, the puppeteer controlling the Lenny previously mentioned. It’s confusing, convoluted, and ambiguous… everything noir tries to emphasize about life, and most of all its pessimistic.

Dark City’s climax scene is heavily influenced by noir in the sense that the entire plot structure builds toward it. The one issue with this statement is the beginning narration which reveals a great deal of the plot. However an interesting trivia fact about the film is that the beginning narration was never meant to be featured in the film, it was put in by studio pressure in fears the audience wouldn’t get the plot without an explanation. Having cleared that up, it further highlights the film-makers inspiration from noir, since the climax scene is use to completely clear up everything that going on as well as clue the audience in on the main protagonist’s purpose. However, the convention is infused with conventions from the Science Fiction genre. When all is cleared up it doesn’t take the film into a more ambivalent direction but turns the protagonist into a savior. The ending is far more optimistic instead of being pessimistic, something directly taken from the sci-fi genre. However the key difference between the two films is highlighted in the resolution of the common theme the films are discussing, memory connected to identity.

Dark City’s ending argues that human nature goes beyond science, it something spiritual almost. John even says the aliens looked in the wrong place to find what makes us human, instead of the mind they should have looked in the heart. Dark City’s prognosis is much more optimistic and even ends with him getting the girl on a beautiful sunny day. While Memento’s prognosis is far bleaker since in the end, it says that humans’ personalities are dictated by the superficiality of memories. This is compounded by the fact that earlier in the film Lenny has a scene where he explains to Teddy how shallow memories really are. Dark City and Memento truly are fascinating since they show the greatness of genre while illustrating how original genre truly can be.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I don't particularly care for it... The film style screams "look at me, look how cool we are" yet the whole point of animation is that you can exagerate things and play around with reality, this film does not do that, it would really be the same exact thing had they not painted on top of it with animation. My second problem with it, is they advertise it as a sci-fi movie however it's really a self-indulgent movie about druggies, there's really no point to it taking place in the future, other than again being flashy and self-indulgent. The plot goes literally no where, the characterizations are flat, and worst of all it slow as hell. Needless to say I did not like this film.

The whole point is that is doesn't really go anywhere, the ambiguity is kind of the nature, it's one of the better PK Dick adaptations there is.

And the animation does add a surreal feel and has a few extra elements that it brings to the table without making it too detached...

 

[Cyrusbales]

Identity, Noir, and a dash of Sci-Fi​

Alex Proyas’ Dark City (1998) and Christopher Nolan’s Memento (2000) both deal with the theme of identity connected to memory. However, their connection goes deeper, both films share a number of nuances borrowed from film noir. These two films present the unique opportunity of seeing the advantage of genre. Genre more often than not gets a bad reputation from the ignorant and the pretentious as being in some way limiting. The irony being that to an experienced artist, genre is completely liberating. Genre allows for artists to pool their collective ideas by building off each other work in a specific genre, not to mention it also allows for a unique way to engage the post-modern audience. Memento and Dark City display an immense knowledge of craft since they’re built upon the tenants of an arguably dead genre, film noir, to create something new and fresh.

The definition for film noir taken from Richard Barsam‘s Looking at Movies, “Film Noir. French for “black film,” the term film noir refers to highly stylized crime films, indebted to or based on detective stories, and generally characterized by their somber tones and pessimistic moods. Film noir stories concentrate on crime and corruption; on characters (heroes and villains alike) who tend to be cynical, disillusioned, and often insecure or impotent loners. The mood of the stories is enhanced by characteristic visual elements, including sleazy nighttime settings lit to emphasize contrasts between black and white, create deep shadows, and enhance the fatalistic mood; the oblique composition of images; and the use of exaggerated camera setups and angles”

Memento tells the story of a man suffering from short term memory lost and his quest to find the man who ruined his life. The main character in Memento, Lenny, is a cynical and disillusioned loner. Lenny’s backdrop is in a sleazy underworld on the outskirts of society focusing on crime with a pessimistic tone. Barsam’s description of noir is somewhat jarring due to its omission of the “femme fatal” which is found in many noir films. The “femme fatale” is a female character usually introduced as someone who needs help from the protagonist of the story. Later on we usually find out that this female character was actually just using the main character for her own gains. The “femme fatal” in Memento is in the form of Carrie Ann-Moss’ character, Natalie. When she’s introduced, she’s the stereotypical damsel in distress, with the intent of stirring immediate empathy within the viewer. Later on we find out that it was all a guise so she could take advantage of Lenny’s handicap.

Dark City tells the story of a man who awakes in a sleazy hotel room with no memory of who he is or how he got there, to complicate matters there’s a dead hooker in the tub. Thus starts this man’s quest to figure out who he is, however, the “strangers” might have something to say about that. While Memento stringently follows Noir’s thematic roots, Dark City follows its cinematic roots. Film Noir was prominent between the 1940s-1960s so it’s interesting that the décor of Dark City mirrors that of the 50s. Many of the costumes seem to come right out of a classic noir film. Dark City also seems to be having a visual pun with Noir’s adherence with the sleazy nighttime setting by making the city constantly dark. The film also employs “deep shadows, to enhance the fatalistic mood; the oblique composition of images; and the use of exaggerated camera setups and angles” While Dark City employs quite a few of Noir’s thematic elements, overall thematically it owes more to the Science Fiction genre than Noir. However, it does feature a disillusioned main character on the outskirts of society. Even here though it plays with convention by giving a happy ending to what turns out to be a good character.

To place the two films in conversation with each other, this paper shall be analyzing four different scenes. The first scene comes from Memento when Natalie reveals herself as a “femme fatale”. The second scene is from Dark City when the main character, John Murdoch, meets his wife, Emma Murdoch, for the first time. Thematically the scenes are similar in that both deal with the only female characters in the narrative, secondly they tell you a great deal about both Natalie and Emma, and lastly they both are romantically involved with the main characters of their respective narratives. Memento thematically is very much in vein with film noir, Natalie is a female character the audience has come to trust then the narrative exposes she’s got her own plans, however leaves it open to interpretation as to whether she’s completely bad or not.

Cinematically it doesn’t possess many traits of film noir outside of the narration. The camera set-up is very simple, it’s a simple shot/reverse shot over the shoulder sequence with a little shaky/handheld camera use thrown in. However what really flies in the face of film noir is that the scene is shot very bright and the colors are very saturated, at least in this particular scene. Film Noir naturally is associated with black and white, so the colors are very well defined stark contrasts. The color in Memento, at least for half of the film, is the exact opposite; one could describe it as “mellow”.

Dark City cinematically borrows heavily from film noir while thematically strays quite a bit from film noir. The scene, in question, is remarkably dark for a colored film; it’s almost completely lit up by diegetic light sources. It also employs many different camera set-ups, very consciously staying away from the typical shot/reverse shot, and it employs many extreme angles. These are traits lifted directly from film noir and adapted to color film.

Thematically Dark City is very different, starting with the female character, Emma. She represents something entirely different than the “femme fatale”. I’d argue that Emma is very much in keeping with the sci-fi tradition, in which the protagonist and female character love each other but are kept apart by the conflict of the plot, only to be reunited in the end when the plot is resolved. Emma is noble and altruistic which is demonstrated when she helps John escape by distracting the police officer. This not only reveals something about Emma but also about John. Film noir protagonists are usually described as antiheros since they’re neither good or bad and often cynical. This scene eludes to a deep love between the two characters something that’s not found in the film noir protagonist, and denotes a certain goodness to John.

The second pair of scenes to be analyzed are the final climaxes to each film. In both films, the structure of the plot could be described as convoluted which presents a need for an explanation in the climax, the “reveal”. Most noir films have highly convoluted plots and follow a similar plot structure. In Memento it comes when Lenny kills John G, only to find out that this is not the first John G. he has killed. Thematically the scene represents everything film noir is about, a convoluted plot which shows how deep corruption/evil goes, an even bleaker outlook, and an ambivalent ending. Memento is masterful in that up to that one scene, the audience is led to believe that Lenny is a good guy on a quest for justice, and then comes the earth-shattering revelation that he’s a killer. In one single scene the audience is provided with two characters, Lenny before the accident, this is the Lenny the audience is treated to in every scene due to his memory lost. Then there is the enlightened Lenny, the puppeteer controlling the Lenny previously mentioned. It’s confusing, convoluted, and ambiguous… everything noir tries to emphasize about life, and most of all its pessimistic.

Dark City’s climax scene is heavily influenced by noir in the sense that the entire plot structure builds toward it. The one issue with this statement is the beginning narration which reveals a great deal of the plot. However an interesting trivia fact about the film is that the beginning narration was never meant to be featured in the film, it was put in by studio pressure in fears the audience wouldn’t get the plot without an explanation. Having cleared that up, it further highlights the film-makers inspiration from noir, since the climax scene is use to completely clear up everything that going on as well as clue the audience in on the main protagonist’s purpose. However, the convention is infused with conventions from the Science Fiction genre. When all is cleared up it doesn’t take the film into a more ambivalent direction but turns the protagonist into a savior. The ending is far more optimistic instead of being pessimistic, something directly taken from the sci-fi genre. However the key difference between the two films is highlighted in the resolution of the common theme the films are discussing, memory connected to identity.

Dark City’s ending argues that human nature goes beyond science, it something spiritual almost. John even says the aliens looked in the wrong place to find what makes us human, instead of the mind they should have looked in the heart. Dark City’s prognosis is much more optimistic and even ends with him getting the girl on a beautiful sunny day. While Memento’s prognosis is far bleaker since in the end, it says that humans’ personalities are dictated by the superficiality of memories. This is compounded by the fact that earlier in the film Lenny has a scene where he explains to Teddy how shallow memories really are. Dark City and Memento truly are fascinating since they show the greatness of genre while illustrating how original genre truly can be.

Dark city is a great million echelons better than memento btwt:


I like the use of Emma in Dark City as the typical female role of the saviour and source of inspiration, causing the lead protagonist to act in certain ways, which is interesting given the sci-fi elements of the film downplayed by the neo-noiristic feel.

I love the simple yet effective symbolism conveyed in the ASL of Dark city, showing the rapid changes and the notion of identity and it's real implications which are so neatly surveyed. However the 'climax' is a disgrace.

 

[Movies205]

G-Men (1935)
Directed by William Keighley
Starring: James Cagney, Margaret Lindsay, Ann Dvorak, Robert Armstrong
Rating: 7.5/10

James Cagney had been made famous four years prior with the gangster classic, Public Enemy (1931), now returning to the gangster genre but on the other side of the law. Ann Dvorak as well was no stranger to the ganster genre, only two years prior she starred in the movie that was so violent it forced the production code into effect, Scarface (1933). Even Robert Armstrong was familiar to me, however I needed to IMDB.com his credits to find out why, he played the Carl Denhemesque character in Mighty Joe Young (1949). So with all that said, the movie had a very talented cast in place, however is marred by its propagandist agenda.

The word propaganda has become a dirty word in our culture for some reason, however that’s neither here nor there. The historical context of G-Men must be discussed so viewer can fully understand it. As I mentioned before two years prior Scarface had shocked the world with its violence and glorification of the gangster*, this forced movie studios to decrease the violence as well as depict law-enforcement in a favorable light. This explains the interesting turn the gangster picture took with classics known as Angels with Dirty Faces (1938) & The Petrified Forest(1936). G-Men is somewhat historical in the sense that it depicts the events leading up to the creation of the FBI. It wasn’t till the early 30s that the FBI were given many of the powers they have today and it was in response to the mafia crime wave. So in this sense this movie is out to glorify the FBI and demoralize the gangster.

I really enjoyed watching G-Men however some of the dialogue/actions are quite cheesy. The performances on the whole are all strong however Cagney seems to be phoning in his performance. It’s not a bad performance however it’s simply typical Cagney with nothing unique. Cagney has such a larger than life stage presence that often to get around this he’ll simply modify it so that it presents something new to the screen. For example Angels with Dirty Faces (1938) we meet Rocky Sullivan hard-nose gangster unsure of which way to go. However in this it simply just Cagney playing Cagney and it does the job, however it keeps it from going past good. I was pleasantly surprised by Ann Dvorak, she plays a completely character than she does in Scarface (1933) and shows a tremendous amount of range. Armstrong plays Cagney’s mentor on the force, that cliché hard-nose mentor we’ve seen a dozen times, he does a good job but sometimes a bit over-the-top. However interesting to note is that this came out less than 8 years after the first talkie, so I’m curious if Armstrong’s character was even a cliché at this point?

Story-wise it’s very sound albeit a little stale. The plot is filled with flat characters instead of the typical round characters that Cagney usually plays. This might be the reason I find Cagney’s performance a bit typical because he really isn’t given anything to chew on, he simply a good guy through and through. That’s not to say that hasn’t worked for Cagney before, City for Conquest (1940) features a similar character however they put the character through hell, and you get to see how tough his meddle is so it works beautifully, here Cagney doesn’t suffer much. Another problem I had with the film was it’s got a bit too much of that Hollywood shine. For example, Cagney’s education was pay for by a gangster who wanted to see Cagney go straight when the FBI finds out they just give him a stern lecture, there’s no real repercussions to this. Though don’t mistake me, it’s got a good story especially coupled with it’s fairly historical backdrop makes for an enjoyable experience, I just thought it could be taken further.

Visually speaking, it uses the same aesthetic found in most gangster pictures, that sort of Pre-Noir but borrowed a little from German Expressionism lighting. Typical camera-set ups, long shot, medium shot, and close-up. Visually speaking it almost completely steals from Howard Hawk’s Scarface (1933) that came out two years prior, right down to the abundance of car crashes. Another surprising aspect of this film was that it’s Post-Production code yet there’s a remarkable amount of violence in this film, it’d almost give Scarface (1933) a run for it’s money. To be perfectly honest this film seems to be in direct response to Scarface, as if showing the other side of the coin.

In the end, should you see this film? If it’s on TV or if you pass it in a rental story, most definitely. Perhaps you love Cagney and need to see all his films or you’re a FBI buff. In the end, if you want see a classic gangster film told through the point of view of the cops, I’d suggest renting Bullets or Ballots (1936) with Edward G. Robinson and one can tell was the inspiration for The Departed (2006).

Footnotes
*Interestingly the same arguments we have today about the bombastic Depalma remake.

Trivia From IMDB.com
J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, personally approved the script for this movie. He even assigned actual FBI agents to monitor its production and ensure that it was accurate in every detail. When it grossed over $1,000,000 (an astronomical sum for a film in 1935), he was extremely pleased. There were two famous federal law enforcement agencies in the early part of the 20th century. They were the "G-Men" of the FBI, who worked for the Justice Department, and the "T-Men" who worked for the Treasury Department. Hoover was intensely interested in his "G-Men" winning the publicity and popularity rivalry. This movie certainly helped!


Two of the prominent action scenes in the film were based on real events. The rail station shoot-out in which gangsters free Danny Leggett, was based upon the famous "Kansas City Massacre" in which gunmen attacked FBI agents and policemen as they were transporting federal prisoner Frank "Jelly" Nash on June 17th, 1933. In real life, one agent, three policemen and Nash himself were killed. As shown in the film, this was incident that increased the power of the FBI and turned into the agency it is today. The other incident was the shoot-out at the lodge. That was based on a battle between FBI agents and the John Dillinger Gang (which included "Baby Face" Nelson) on April 22, 1934.

 

[Movies205]

Then there is the snivelly Jude Law. I must say, his performance in this film was the least impressive. He somehow finds himself falling into very similar roles in each film that he picks up. If you have seen Alfie, then you have seen a bit of him in Closer and vise versa.

I agree and I disagree... I agree that Jude Law doesn't seem to display that much range, I swear every movie I see he plays the same exact character. However he was absolutely perfect for this movie and he works so well against the noble yet sinister Clive Owen.

So, with the acting strongly in place (sans Law), Nichols tips off the iceberg with some unprecedented cinematography that allows strong storytelling to take place. One of the biggest elements to this film that captured my attention was Nichols ability to allow time to pass with the greatest of ease. I thought at first that this film was going to happen within the course of a couple of days, but he builds a sense of a strong relationship by allowing it to pass over the course of several years. You really get this feeling that these characters are together for a certain period of time and that development is occurring. I never felt as if something suddenly happened, over the course of four years these acts of the heart take a form of their own through the watchful eye of Nichols. It impressed me. Also, Nichols' use of bold white coloring not only expressed the light of relationships, but also brought out the brilliance of each scene. You became focused on certain elements, the purity of the heart, and so forth. It was cinematic history in the making.

I also was taken by his use of time, however more so in his use of real time vs. extended periods of time. Because essentially what he's doing is creating a portrait of relationships. The word portrait is key due to this literary/film cannotations, this idea of selecting out key moments in a character life to show us meaning. I mean he'll show us one moment between two characters and then flash forward 6 months, and we have to fill things in, and he does it so masterfully, that we fully understand everything, it keeps a lightening sharp pace, and it covers so much ground. Truely you are correct... Nichols is awesome, I'm in love with all his films...

---

I agree with the rest of your points about the film, however about Julia Roberts. I always read Julia Roberts casting as a sort of a metatexual joke, as if it saying look this is the typical Julia Roberts character but 6 months into the relationship or after her romantic comedies end. Also I recommend Wolf if you like Nichols, it's uber cool Werewolf movie, not really scary but I love it's philosophical ramblings.

 

[Movies205]

I like the use of Emma in Dark City as the typical female role of the saviour and source of inspiration, causing the lead protagonist to act in certain ways, which is interesting given the sci-fi elements of the film downplayed by the neo-noiristic feel.

It's not really that interesting, it's a typical sci-fi convention, like I wrote, Dark City is more noir cinematically than thematically, it's really just a Sci-Movie in Noir clothes.

I love the simple yet effective symbolism conveyed in the ASL of Dark city, showing the rapid changes and the notion of identity and it's real implications which are so neatly surveyed. However the 'climax' is a disgrace.

Would you mind elaborating onyour point of the 'climax' being a disgrace? However I like Memento ending, it was far less hollywood and deeper to me. I mean in Dark City, the entire movie is this brooding murder mystery and then he becomes a superhero in the end. Memento answers your questions but then leaves you more confused, which is what noir is all about, it's about the darkness in humanity hence the term when tranlated from French, Black film.

 

[Movies205]

I already had the 2 disc set for TG,TB&TU, so I bought the SE's for FoD and FafDm a couple of weeks ago. Needless to say, they are the best things ever.
I still need Duck, you sucker

I haven't bought it yet... I've only seen Good, the Bad, and the Ugly but I like "Once Upon a Time in the West" better What are your thoughts on "Once Upon a Time in America"?