Persepolis and Sugar Cane Alley

The past few weeks, I have viewed the films: Persepolis and Sugar Cane Alley. Persepolis was set in the mid to late-1900s in Iran. The Iranian revolution, fall of the Shaw, and Iran-Iraq war all took place during the main character’s lifetime. Marjie, the main character and narrator, explains the trivial times of her childhood and teenage years. The film, in my opinion, earns much of its credibility from the reality of the storyline. Although, the film is allowed some leeway from the animated style, much like Family Guy or South Park. The film ends with Marjie in an airport, not allowed to return to Iran.

The next film, Sugar Cane Alley (a.k.a. Black Shack Alley), is set on the Caribbean isle of Martinique, where in the early 1900s, slavery was bigger than the United States in the 1800s. A young boy, Jose, has lost his parents and is being raised by his grandmother. Ma ’Tine, as she is called, does not want him to share the same fate as her and the small village by beginning to work in the sugar cane fields. Instead, she sends him off to school. Throughout his journey, he is gifted with many different teachers, and then they were all take from him. His old friend and grandmother died, he moved schools, and one of his friends, who was quite keen on the topic of women, was avoided due to his poor tendencies. The movie ends with Jose going back to school, leaving the sugar cane fields in the past.

Personally, I like Persepolis much more. The fact the voice of the person who lived the experience is narrating the story adds an entirely different slant to the situation. Because Marjie lived through all of this, we can see how true citizens actually acted during those times, and see her humor.  Sugar Cane Alley was a recreation with some actors and some random people (the random people acted very well). In the end, Persepolis holds the advantage in my book.

What to think about An Inconvenient Hero On A Wire

Recently, I viewed the films: Hero, An Inconvenient Truth, and Man on Wire. Thinking back on all of the films, Hero and Man on Wire were by far the most entertaining. I felt as if I was being lectured on how terrible i am to the environment in An Inconvenient Truth. Nonetheless, each film brought its own special piece of film making to the table.

In Hero, I found the "Kung-Fu" to be quite over dramatized. Having Jet-Li starring should have been the first clue to expect fake fights. However, the color scheme played a huge role in the plot line of the film. Each time the story of the assassins was told, the color scheme was changed to match the mood of the person who was telling the story. When Jet-Li told it, the colors were reddish, invoking the inner anger of the audience. When the king told it, the colors were blue, letting us know that the mood was calm. In this sense, I appreciated the movie more than I would have if it were simply an action movie.

In all honesty, Man on Wire was nothing more than an informative entertainment piece to me. I feel as if the story was played up more than it would have been if it were simply a retelling. The recreations seem to be unrealistic, especially when the two men are sneaking in front of the cops. In this sense, I could not really stand to watch this film. It was okay from an entertainment perspective, but nothing more. (by the way, were police officers really this bad during that time? It seems way to dramatic when they go up the building.)

Finally, I will talk about the work of Al Gore's life, An Inconvenient Truth. Besides the guilt trip on Americans (he did have every right to), I found this documentary quite informative. His presentation was really good for a man who was known to put people to sleep. The graphs, pictures, and statistics paint a picture for Americans on how our ways are affecting the global climate. I can also appreciate the personal side of Gore tying into the plot of the film. Having a personal touch to a sensitive subject really helped his credibility when talking about how family members have died and so on and so forth. This documentary was actually pretty fascinating and I did enjoy this one the best out of all three.

How does the Night of the Living Dead compare to other Zombie films?

The Night of the Living Dead- the first zombocalypse movie. After watching the movie, all i can say is that it was definitely appropriate for the time period. Romero did not show the killing or mutilating of people or zombies. The version we watched had new music, so I assume that the original's was drawn back as well. The zombies in Night of the Living Dead were also different from many movies I have seen. The zombies were slow-moving, not strong, and could use simple tools. Another aspect of the film that was different was how the zombies came to be. They were simply dead people who then got radiation poisoning and became reanimated. The "zombie disease" was not spread through the bite, but a bite from a zombie could kill you. Finally, the only way to kill a zombie was to destroy its brain.

Zombieland, on the other hand, seems to differ from Night of the Living Dead quite a bit. First, there was an epidemic that caused the zombie outbreak, which spread to people if they were bitten by a zombie. On the bright side, you could kill a zombie just by murdering them like you would a human being (just don't forget the double-tap). Often times, the killing of zombies would appear to be like a game, and blood would spatter everywhere. Ruben Fleischer spared no decency in the killing of the zombies. His zombies also were rather stupid, and used no tools. However, the zombies could run and climb.

As you can also see, the zombies are definitely different in appearance. In the 60's, the cinemas were not as open as they are today.

In essence, Night of the Living Dead simply broke the zombie barrier in films. Although the quality of the zombocalypse may have dated, it opened the gates for our favorite zombie movies.

Is Time Burton not a fan of the "new" Christmas? (Sorry, Xmas)

What do Tim Burton's Edward Scissorhands and The Nightmare Before Christmas have in common? Christmas of course! Correction, that would be Xmas (or whatever Tim Burton wishes to call it). Is he just obsessed with getting presents? Maybe he enjoys cookies and milk... or maybe he just thinks Americans are missing the point of it.I have noticed the references to Christianity in Edward Scissorhands, such as the piercing of hands. Mr. Burton is definitely trying to tell us something.

In both movies, Time Burton shows the towns preparing for Christmas as if it is a commercial holiday, only meant for parties and getting presents. In The Nightmare Before Christmas the Halloween characters even change Christmas like it is nothing. Jack Skellington manages to recreate the holiday with a ghoulish twist, kidnaps Santa, gets the whole Halloween cast involved, and still fails miserably. Burton is trying to send a message to Americans with these films.

Nowadays, we see Christmas as a time in which the ground is white, we gather for parties and then receive presents on the 25th of December. Tim Burton points out how we have forgotten that the real meaning of Christmas is to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, our savior. Although the country may not share the same religion, the true meaning of Christmas has been tainted with media influence and has been lost as generations  age. Burton is telling audience that it is not too late to celebrate the true meaning of Christmas, we just need to change how we do celebrate now.

What's up with the town in Edward Scissorhands?

This past week, I viewed Tim Burton's Edward Scissorhands. Besides the fact that the main character possessed scissors for hands, the film also had many strange aspects. The many bright colors, which would not normally be bright, made the town seem even stranger than it was. The town was so stereotypical, that all the men even left for work at the same time, while the women remained as a housewife. One of the main characters, Peg, actually goes out and has a job. Although she simply makes house calls for Avon, she still is outside the norm because she has a job.

In addition to having a job, Peg also dares to remove herself from the gossiping, and also goes outside her limits to visit the mansion on the hill. The other housewives work around the house, make food, gossip, and plan parties. Peg seems to be the only bright spot in the wolf pack (housewife group) as many of the others display an opinionated, and two-faced personality.

This may be the old way of American suburban life, but i do not think that this was the way when this film was made. The housewife life existed primarily in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, with many women becoming progressive around the time of this movie. Why would Burton make the town act like this? In my opinion, introducing an awkward character like Edward to a normal society would be less entertaining. Without wives home to see the activities of Edward, many scenes, including the barber shop scene, could not happen. Tim Burton intentionally made the neighborhood stereotypical to make the story better for the audience.

Why is Christopher Nolan so special? (Warning: I may be biased)





 

What makes Christopher Johnathan James Nolan- director, writer, and producer- so special? Is it his thrilling, thought-stimulating writing? Maybe it could be the producing and directing of such masterful and downright incredible films? This may be my own opinion, but the Internet Movie Database has 6 of Nolan's films ranked in the top 250. The evidence is beginning to stack up; Christopher Nolan makes some good movies. No, he makes great ones. But what aspects make these so great?

One aspect Nolan's films is the fact that they are very cerebral. Most plots are multi-layered, meaning more than one at a time, the plot line is not chronological, and most of his movies end without us really knowing what happened during the film. His movies make the audience think, which means more can be gained from the film each time you watch them. Pair this deep thinking with the action, shots he very specifically uses, and audio to compliment visual aspects and you have got quite a film. The most important filmmaking technique incorporated in his films is cross-cutting. The changing of scenes very quickly builds much anticipation in the viewer.
 

In Inception and The Prestige, Nolan shows his unorthodox plot line. The Prestige begins with the end of the movie, and Inception also begins with a part of the end of the movie. Both scenes seem to be irrelevant when you first begin to watch, but as the movie progresses, the scene fits in perfectly and you then experience an awesome Deja Vu moment.
 

If we take a deeper look at Inception, we can see that there is much more to this movie than meets the eye. We are not even sure what the movie is about. Leonardo DiCaprio's character is supposed to be a dream thief, stealing ideas from individual's subconscious. But how do we know for sure the movie is not just one big dream? We never see the totem (tool for finding out if one is still dreaming) come to rest or continue to spin. Christopher Nolan does this purposely to invoke the mind of the viewers. To me, this aspect of filmmaking makes the viewing very enjoyable.
 

The viewing of these films may be enjoyable to me, but some people do not feel the same. Graeme McMillan of Time wrote a very convincing article about the pros and cons of Christopher Nolan. After reading, I can tell where the author is coming from. A viewer must take up a good portion of the day to watch one of Nolan's movies. But, I believe that is just part of the Christopher Nolan experience.

The way Nolan makes films has captivated many. Adam McKay, director of Anchorman, said, "The Dark Knight is the best superhero movie ever made. I've seen others that try to get all real, and they strip away the fun and the mythology. And then I've seen movies that go too far towards the cartoon aspect. But Nolan, with mathematical precision, blended the two. The way he shoots is such a throwback, and yet so modern. He's using old-fashioned techniques with modern ideas. Amazing." In reference to the batman movies, they truly are the best superhero movies. Nolan simply adds the cerebral aspect to movies that involve beating the pulp out of another man. Miraculously, this comes out to be excellent.

Fans and critics alike compliment Nolan on the batman movies, but what does he say about them? After sifting through interviews, I cannot truly find one that shows his talents as a filmmaker. I then looked a little deeper, and found this compilation.

Either being humble or just secretive, Nolan never seems to give away any of his secrets to his success. After seeing this video, you can almost delve into the mind of Christopher Nolan, and what he envisions as film excellence.

 

With Nolan's viewpoints on his films being so hard to find, we can now turn to what he says through his characters. In all of his movies, the characters seem to make the movie. The action and the cerebral aspects of his films do add an important dimension, but the characters really make it pop. Working with mostly the same cast in all of his films, Nolan can develop roles and be confident that his actors will fill them with no problem. In my opinion, the most notable characters in his films would be: The Joker, Bane, and Dom Cobb. In their respective films, the characters add a new twist to the movie. The Joker is an unstoppable force of chaos; Bane is a physical, malevolent character who adds a threat to batman; and Dom Cobb, who's relatively unknown past factors in frequently to the plot of Inception, adding something entirely new for the audience to think about. The movie posters following show the importance of each character to the plot of the films.



I believe his characters truly do speak what is on Nolan's mind. Not so much the chaos aspect, but how much he delves into each of his films, creating a deeper meaning. For example, in The Dark Knight, The Joker says, "Madness is a lot like gravity; all you need is a little push." To me, this shows how an action movie, like Batman, can be turned into much more than fighting scenes. This is a credit to Nolan's film making skills- an action film combined with a slant on society as a whole, saying chaos does live within every day life.

Inception's plot is all about dreams and ideas, just for entertainment right? Not exactly. It is hard to pinpoint the exact reasoning behind the film, but the plot definitely plays to one of our most vulnerable areas: sleep. One effect of seeing this film is wondering: could this happen to me? Nolan is playing to the audience's senses, and doing a pretty good job. Quotes by characters such as Dom Cobb saying: "What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea." Really gets the viewer thinking about what they are watching. I know for myself, Inception was about the first movie that blew my mind right after I watched it for the first time.

 

In a nutshell, Christopher Nolan appeals to audiences. His perfectly executed action scenes, his cerebral aspect to each film, and his incredible story lines and characters make for simply amazing movies. His films seem to go the extra mile, and add more to a movie than what audiences are expecting.  Nolan’s films are definitely much more than I ever expected, especially with a superhero movie. I can honestly say I will go see the new superman movie, just because Christopher Nolan is the director. So, what sets Nolan apart from others? Other directors want to be like him. His approach to filmmaking is so different than the normal. Adding twists and turns at any point (especially the endings), making the audience think about what they are watching, appealing to the senses of viewers, creating characters and stories that will be topics of discussion for many years after the movie debuts, and, of course, throwing in some action scenes that blow you away. Christopher Nolan truly sets the bar, in my opinion, for movie making.



#4: The Real Transported Man

The Great Danton, portrayed by Hugh Jackman, believes he has the greatest trick ever. Enhanced by the inventions of Nikola Tesla, Angiers (Danton's real name) was able to duplicate himself. Every time he duplicated himself, the Angiers that went into the machine was dumped into a water tank, and then drowned. But the question is: did this technology exist at the time?


During the late 1800s, Nikola Tesla was seperated from Thomas Edison, who was now his arch nemesis. Experimenting in New York City and Colorado Springs, Tesla was working Alternating Current. He also believed that electric current could travel through the air or ground to power electrical items. In The Prestige, we see this as the field of light bulbs placed in the ground that light up on command. The bulbs are not connected to a socket, and according to Tesla's assistant, the generator is several miles away.
Tesla, classically known as a mad scientist, was working on wireless transmissions and even a lighting machine while in Colorado Springs. These experiments required large amounts of electricity, which, when released, caused many strange things to happen around the city. What movie goers saw in the film was Tesla's "magnifying transmitter". This device created huge arcs of electricity, in hopes of transmitting it to other places without the use of wires.

Taking these facts into account, we can almost be certain that this machine that he supposedly made for Angiers did not truly exist. However, Tesla was a very sheltered man in his later years, and did a lot of strange things. Nikola Tesla could have created a duplicating device, just not likely in the time of Angiers.