If you are looking for a beautiful period movie, here it is. Milena is a headstrong woman who goes against her fathers wishes and marries a Jewish music critic. Costumes and scenery are fabulous, but one wonders why half the actors have thick accents and the other half don't.
Milena's accent is so strong at times you can hardly understand her, yet her father's is as American as apple pie. The intricities are hard to understand, who everyone is and what their relationships are to each other and when a new character is introduced it takes a while before you fully understand who they are and why they are here. If you are a fan of Peter Gallagher (as we all should be) you will find him as dashing as ever, wonderfully handsome and gallant and terribly wicked as well.
A very sexy scene in the first hour has him speaking French in the rain. You should not miss this one, as the movie is just too pretty not to, but don't expect to walk away fulfilled. Just try not to pay too much attention to it or your head will spin.
more about Milena here
Showing posts with label Classic Movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Classic Movie. Show all posts
Jun 14, 2010
Milena (1991): Beautiful picture, but not without flaws
Feb 2, 2010
The Metamorphosis Of Mr Samsa (1977)
The Metamorphosis of Mr. Samsa is an adaptation of Franz Kafka's story about a man who metamorphoses into a beetle. Because of his repellent appearance, the man, a dutiful and loving son and brother, is unable to communicate to his family his feelings of shame and guilt and his need for love. The film conveys the atmosphere of anxiety and alienation that Kafka creates in his story. The story is told with sand animation.
Selected Awards: IAF Annecy 1977: Critics’ Prize & 1st choice of the public; IFF Athens, Ohio, 1978: Merit Award, ISFF Krakow, 1978: Grand Prix; Cork Film Festival, 1978: Certificate of Merit, Animated Films Category; IAF Ottawa 1978: Special Jury Award; IFF San Francisco 1978: Certificate for Outstanding Achievement
more on IMDB
download:
http://rapidshare.com/files/196884462/Short.Animation.-.Caroline.Leaf.-.The.Metamorphosis.of.Mr..Samsa.avi
Sep 12, 2007
Movie Review:"The Sixth Sense" (1999)
Evil Rears Its Pretty Little Head, Again, in a Slick Remake of 'The Omen'
By Stephen Hunter
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 6, 2006; Page C01
Hell'z still a-poppin' in the remake -- well, it's more a tracing -- of the surprise hit of the 1976 movie season, "The Omen," which gets a rare Tuesday opening in salute to an even rarer day of three sixes.
The original was the first to put high-end stars (Gregory Peck, Lee Remick) in a blood-soaked, Devil-worshiping, supernatural, slick and -- did I say blood-soaked? -- horror movie, which had been theretofore the province of second- and third-tier faces (such as the one belonging to Vincent Price). It was such a hit, it got its director, Richard Donner, in line for a mainstream career (his next film was "Superman," and he later was founder and franchise owner of the "Lethal Weapon" series). One hopes it nicely feathered the nest of those sturdy yeomen of the American industry, Peck and Remick.
Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick as Damien, Boy Devil, in a new version of the 1976 supernatural thriller, released on a satanically significant date.
Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick as Damien, Boy Devil, in a new version of the 1976 supernatural thriller, released on a satanically significant date. (By Vince Valitutti -- 20Th Century Fox)
More Movie Details
* 'The Omen': National Showtimes
* Movie Trailers
* This Week's New Releases
* What's on DVD
* More on Movies in Arts & Living
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
* Icarus Fallen :: Main Page
* Icarus Fallen :: Main Page
Full List of Blogs (2 links) »
Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
Save & Share Article What's This?
Digg
Google
del.icio.us
Yahoo!
Reddit
Facebook
ad_icon
Click here!
The remake is directed by another slickster, the Irishman John Moore, who is no deep thinker (as his "Behind Enemy Lines" confirmed) but, like Donner, he's an able hack -- smooth, stylish, clever, soulless and a hoot. And so's his damned movie. And it is damned.
It's still the same old story, hardly updated, possibly because the same typist is behind the same keyboard, hitting the same keys. That writer would be David Seltzer, here as before earning a solo writing credit. He hits the same high notes as before: a horrifying moral paradox driving a taut, detective-like story ahead, well-lubricated by highly choreographed murders engineered from down under by His Satanic Majesty. Impalements, burnings, beheadings, hangings, all those nasty things done to witches in days of yore. Here they're done again, to the tune of malodorous choral music, only the victims are the chaste, the good and the pure. And on top of that: You get to see Mia Farrow get creamed.
Seltzer's plot is simple and serviceable. When the just-born son of an American diplomat dies in the postnatal care theater, the father (Liev Schreiber) knows it will break his fragile wife's heart, if not her brain. A priest points out that an unwed mother has just perished in giving birth; could we not switch the now parentless newborn for the now-dead newborn?
He doesn't bother to tell the young man that the baby's mommy was a hyena or maybe a jackal or some other slavering canine from beyond the Styx. That deed done, the son Damien grows into a beautiful boy but one with an odd sense of aloofness. He never speaks but projects a spooky sense of implacable serenity. At the same time, he can issue a laser-shot of contempt through his beady little eyes (the production must have looked for months before it came up with a tot with just such a willed coldness to his presence in newcomer Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) that would give a black cat a myocardial infarction.
When he's about 4, deaths begin happening around him, each calculated to advance his position; a nanny spectacularly hangs herself (shocking in 1976, still shocking 30 years later). Soon, lovable old Mrs. Baylock (Farrow) has shown up to take over as nanny, and she bonds with Damien and begins radiating nutcase heat waves. A priest (Pete Postlethwaite) who comes to warn the couple (Schreiber's Robert Thorn is, by dint of another weird accident, now full ambassador) seems nuts, but ends up skewered like a Vienna cocktail wienie on a really big toothpick for his trouble. A photographer (David Thewlis) notes suggestive light streaks in the photos he's taken of two early victims, implying their spectacular ends, and so he begins to investigate, first on his own, then with Thorn. Cue the beheading machine.
Anyway, soon enough Daddy begins to wonder if the boy is actually He Whom the Liturgical Chants on the Soundtrack Heavily Suggest to Be Old Scratch in Diapers; that is, the Devil himself, the Antichrist. What's a father to do?
A lot of things stay the same. The movie still has the gloss of a Lincoln Continental commercial as it prowls through swanky European backdrops (Italy, then England; it was filmed mostly in Prague). It's handsome in the way it's fast-moving: sleek, well-engineered, full of gooses and honks.
Some of the casting seems a little off. For example, the heroic parents, David and Katherine Thorn, played in the original by the patrician Peck and Remick, are played by Schreiber and Julia Stiles. Whatever you think of their talent (Schreiber has lots, Stiles less), the truth is they are too young for their roles, which insist that he ends up the ambassador to the Court of St. James's. Schreiber, hardly a patrician, looks more like the ambassador to the Kensington Gardens Courtyard by Marriott. Stiles looks like a hatcheck girl in a '40s melodrama. You keep thinking: Where are the Pecks of yesteryear? What are these kids doing in grown-up clothes?
Still, it works. Moore keeps the thing humming, leaping from atrocity to atrocity. And he gets something weird: that is, the deep and abiding pleasure certain people feel in watching the elaborate extermination tricks assembled diabolically. For Moore, anything can be a killing machine. To cite one example, when a certain character gets that extremely deep crew cut (note to cultural scorekeepers: The ever-progressive American film industry has finally surpassed the Japanese film industry in depicting that magic moment when Mr. Head goes over here and Mr. Body goes over there) he has a laff riot of a time tracking the implausibilities that lead up to it. A roofer ticks a hammer with his foot, it lands squarely on a rusty bolt, shearing it, and thus a heavy steel sign is freed to rotate on a rusty rod, its lower edge picking up the speed and fury of Mme. Guillotine, and it loops down just as today's victim is standing in the arc of its rotation and --
And Moore reiterates the other unsettling, disturbing aspect of "The Omen," which is in itself a cautionary warning of the power of film to manipulate. That is, as the movie rushes toward its finish it subverts the audience into mobhood; it makes us no longer human. It makes us yearn to break our deepest moral code, and harm a child. The guy behind me summed it up: "Kill that little freak!" he implored. Now that's scary.
The Omen (110 minutes, at area theaters) is rated R for disturbing, extreme and graphic violence and some profanity.
::link source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501426.html
Movie Review: "Seven" (1995)
A Film Review by James Berardinelli 3 stars
United States, 1995
U.S. Release Date: 9/22/95 (wide)
Running Length: 2:03
MPAA Classification: R (Gory crime scenes, violence, profanity)
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Cast: Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Gwyneth Paltrow, John C. McGinley, Richard Roundtree, Kevin Spacey
Director: David Fincher
Producers: Arnold Kopelson and Phyllis Carlyle
Screenplay: Andrew Kevin Walker
Cinematography: Darius Khondji
Music: Howard Shore
U.S. Distributor: New Line Cinema
Frequently, mystery/thrillers present us with a cast of about six or seven characters, set up a sequence of grizzly murders, then "surprise" us by revealing which of those six or seven characters is the guilty party. It's a time-honored method that's repeated in at least several movies each year. At the outset, Seven has all the hallmarks of this kind of motion picture. Fortunately, it turns out somewhat smarter and less predictable. Though not without significant flaws, Seven isn't transparent or moronic, and it doesn't insult the average viewer's intelligence.
When all is said and done, the mystery of Seven is not who the killer is -- there's never any question about the identity -- but how he will outsmart the police next, and what he will do as a climax to his killing spree. It's refreshing to find an intelligent maniac who is not undone by a moment of sheer stupidity. From beginning to end, Seven's murderer has the situation under control. The police are his pawns, not the other way around. Shades of Silence of the Lambs.
The good guys are a pair of detectives at opposite ends of their careers. David Mills (Brad Pitt) is new on the job, full of energy and high ideals, and ready to "make a difference" by catching the crooks. William Somerset (Morgan Freeman) is in his last week on the job. His long years studying crime scenes and following up on clues have left him weary and jaded. To him, being a detective isn't about nabbing criminals -- it's about methodically collecting and cataloguing evidence in case a prosecutor ever needs it.
The serial killer pursued by Mills and Somerset is choosing each of his victims based on which of the seven deadly sins (gluttony, greed, sloth, lust, pride, envy, wrath) they have most clearly violated. The deaths form a portion of a decidedly warped sermon.. In their quest to end this bloody, sadistic spree, the two cops appear well-paired, as together they make the perfect detective. Mills is all brawn and little brain. Somerset, on the other hand, spends long hours in the library researching Dante and Chaucer, looking for clues that will enable him to prevent the next killing.
One of the problems with Seven is that Pitt's Mills is not an especially likable character. He's cocky and arrogant, with an inflated opinion of himself. Up until the end, he's convinced that his way is always the best. Pitt doesn't turn in one of his most impressive performances here, either. There's no subtlety whatsoever. In this film, the actor has a single mode: overdrive. Somerset, on the other hand, is a subdued and balanced personality perfectly essayed by Morgan Freeman. By emoting less than his co-star, Freeman frequently steals scenes from him. Gwyneth Paltrow (Flesh and Bone, Jefferson in Paris), one of today's better young actresses, is woefully underused in the role of Mills' wife, Tracy.
Seven is unnecessarily gory and runs for a little too long, but neither of these elements detracts much from the film's enjoyability (unless you have a weak stomach). The same is true of several logical flaws -- they're there, but not overly apparent while the film is on-screen (they can be ruminated about after the credits have rolled). While Seven lacks the cleverness of the superior Usual Suspects, it's strong enough to hold its own against most other thrillers. Seven may always be grim, dark, and rainy, but at least there's a little substance beneath the atmosphere.
::link source: www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1066164-seven/
Turtles Can Fly (2004)
Turtles Can Fly (Kurdish: Kûsiyan jî dikarin bifirin [1], Persian: لاک پشت ها هم پرواز می کنند) is a 2004 film written and directed by the kurdish Iranian filmmaker Bahman Ghobadi. It was the first film to be made in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
The film is set in a Kurdish refugee camp on the Iraqi-Turkish border on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq. Thirteen-year-old Kak (played by Soran Ebrahim) is known as "Satellite" for his installation of dishes and antennae for local villages looking for news of Saddam Hussein. He is the dynamic but also cowardly, bullying and manipulative leader of the children, organizing the dangerous but necessary sweeping and clearing of the minefields.
He then arranges trade-ins for the unexploded mines. The industrious Satellite falls for an unlikely orphan named Agrin (Avaz Latif), a sad-faced girl traveling with her disabled but smart brother Henkov, who appears to have the gift of clairvoyance. The siblings are care-taking a three-year-old, whose connection to the pair is discovered as harsh truths are revealed.
The question is, what happened to these children? There are so many, will the occupation make their lives better or worse? How could it get worse?
Awards
1. Glass Bear, Best Feature Film and Peace Film Award, Berlin International Film Festival, 2005.
2. Golden Seashell, Best Film, San Sebastián International Film Festival, 2004.
3. Special Jury Award, Chicago International Film Festival, 2004.
4. International Jury and Audience Awards, São Paulo International Film Festival, 2004.
5. La Pieza Award, Best Film, Mexico City International Contemporary Film Festival, 2005.
6. Audience Award, Rotterdam International Film Festival, 2005.
7. Golden Prometheus, Best Film, Tbilisi International Film Festival, 2005.
8. Aurora Award, Tromsø International Film Festival, 2005.
9. Golden Butterfly, Isfahan International Festival of Films for Children, 2004.
10. Gold Dolphin, Festróia - Tróia International Film Festival, 2005
External Links:
Aug 6, 2007
Review in Washington Post: "All the President's Men'"
By Matt Slovick
Robert Redford (left) and Dustin Hoffman played Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
Impartiality aside, no film blends the elements of journalism and Washington intrigue more compellingly than "All the President's Men," the story of two Washington Post reporters who helped take down the No. 1 resident on Pennsylvania Avenue, transforming both politics and journalism.
Not only did The Post win a Pulitzer for its Watergate coverage, but this film was also nominated for an Academy Award as Best Picture (it lost to "Rocky").
The story is as riveting today as it was 20 years ago. What's dated are the dial telephones, typewriters and haircuts. The movie opens with typewriter keys thunderously hammering on paper with the date of June 1, 1972, the day President Nixon returned from China. Sixteen days later the infamous break-in occurred. The Post newsroom now has computers (many with Internet access) and touch-tone phones with voice mail. Also, people smoked in the newsroom, which would be inconceivable in any office today.
On WashingtonPost.com:
# The Watergate break-in took place 25 years ago. This special feature includes a timeline, the key players and other information about the most famous political scandal in American history.
# Another special feature highlights Journalists in the Movies.
Post Stories: Before filming began, Redford, Hoffman and others visited The Post newsroom. Twenty years after the break-in (here's the original story), The Washington Post ran retrospectives about Watergate: a story about this movie, ""Journalism's Finest 2 Hours and 16 Minutes," speculation on the probable identity of Deep Throat and editor Ben Bradlee's reflections on those pivotal 26 months.
Washington Sites and Mentions: The Watergate; Hotel Washington; Lincoln Memorial; Jefferson Memorial; Library of Congress; Capitol; White House; The Washington Post parking lot; Department of Justice Building; Lafayette Square; Kennedy Center; Apt. 519 Webster House, 1718 P St. NW (Woodward's apartment in the film, but he actually lived in No. 617); 9702 Montauk Ave., Bethesda, Md. (former home of bookkeeper Judy Hoback); San Souci restaurant.
It Wasn't Washington: The scenes in The Washington Post newsroom were shot on a sound stage (you couldn't expect a news operation to shut down so a few movie scenes could be shot, could you?). The set builders actually took newspapers, trash and other objects from The Post to make the set more realistic. Those blue and orange filing cabinets in the film are no longer in the newsroom. In her book "Personal History," Katharine Graham, who was president and publisher of The Post at this time, wrote: "In the end, we didn't allow filming in the newsroom. ... Instead, an exact duplicate of The Post's newsroom, including the stickers on Ben's secretary's desk, was created in Hollywood (for a mere $450,000 it was reported), and in the interests of authenticity, several tons of assorted papers and trash from the desks throughout our newsroom were shipped to California for props. We did cooperate to the extent of allowing the filmmakers to shoot the entrance to the newspaper building, elevators and certain production facilities, as well as a scene in the parking lot."
Film Background: The movie was based on the book of the same name by Woodward and Bernstein. However, city editor Barry Sussman, who played a vital role in helping the two young reporters, was written out of the film. And in his memoirs published in 1995, Bradlee wrote that Howard Simons, the late Post managing editor, "never really got over his resentment" at feeling that his role in Watergate was "fatally shortchanged" in "All the President's Men." "Our relationship . . . was never the same after the film."
Who Is Deep Throat? Only a few people know the true identity of Deep Throat. Woodward promised that he would use the source only as deep background. The nickname comes from the controversial, X-rated movie "Deep Throat," which was in theaters at the time. "Deep Throat" was not filmed in Washington.
What Happened to . . .: We don't want to take up valuable cyberspace with a list of everyone who received a conviction. We all know that Nixon didn't live at the White House after Aug. 9, 1974. Woodward is still at The Post as assistant managing editor of investigations. He has written a number of books, most recently "The Choice" about Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Bradlee retired from The Post in 1991 but is listed as a vice president at large. Bernstein left the newspaper shortly after Watergate to become bureau chief of ABC News, where he stayed less than two years. He hasn't been permanently attached to any news organization since that time. He writes books and occasional freelance articles. He recently wrote a book about Pope John Paul II.
Plot: Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) are assigned to cover a routine burglary at the National Democratic Committee headquarters at the Watergate offices (read their story from June 19, 1972). Two of the burglars have the phone number of Howard Hunt, a White House aide and CIA consultant. Woodward and Bernstein start digging. Interviews with other aides and cabinet members uncover contradictory stories.
Their investigation is helped by a high-level source called Deep Throat (Hal Holbrook), who would meet Woodward in a dark parking garage.
The reporters are constantly challenged by Ben Bradlee (Jason Robards), The Post's executive editor. When some of the other editors question the newspaper's coverage, Bradlee stands by his young reporters and prints the articles.
Their investigation uncovers involvement all the way up to President Richard Nixon. And as the White House continues to deny any wrongdoing, The Post continues to print story after damaging story. The Watergate scandal eventually helps take down Nixon, who resigns in August 1974.
Memorable Scenes:
# Woodward's first meeting with Deep Throat, who lights a cigarette in a dark, dismal parking garage.
# Bernstein wheedles himself into house of Judy Hoback (the bookkeeper for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President) and ends up staying for hours drinking coffee and subtly interrogating her.
# The reporters need another confirmation before Bradlee will run the story implicating H.R. Haldeman, the president's chief of staff and the "second most powerful man in Washington." Bernstein calls a source and says he will count to 10. If he reaches 10 and the source is still on the line, that will verify the Haldeman is involved. The source stays on the line. He rushes across the newsroom to tell Woodward. The two then race to the elevator to tell Bradlee, who is leaving. Bradlee gives the okay to print the story.
# Woodward and Bernstein turn up the radio and type notes to each other after Deep Throat tells them their lives are in danger and that they are probably being bugged.
Memorable Lines:
# "Follow the money": Deep Throat to Woodward.
# "Print that baby": Bradlee to Woodward and Berstein about the story that will implicate John Mitchell, the former attorney general.
# "Nothing's riding on this except the first amendment of the Constitution, freedom of the press and maybe the future of this country": Bradlee to Woodward and Bernstein after they discovered the mass involvement in the cover-up.
Rating: PG for language.
Release Date: 1976 (by Warner Bros.).
Running Time: 2 hours, 16 minutes.
Director: Alan J. Pakula
Cast: Robert Redford (Bob Woodward); Dustin Hoffman (Carl Bernstein); Jason Robards (Ben Bradlee); Hal Holbrook (Deep Throat); Jack Warden (Harry Rosenfeld); Martin Balsam (Howard Simons); Jane Alexander (Judy Hoback, the bookkeeper for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President); Meredith Baxter (Debbie Sloan); Ned Beatty (Martin Dardis); Stephen Collins (Hugh Sloan Jr.); Lindsay Crouse (Kay Eddy); Polly Holliday (Dardis's secretary); F. Murray Abraham (first arresting officer); Frank Wills, the security guard at the Watergate who called the police, plays himself.
Total Oscar Nominations: 8.
Oscar Wins: Jason Robards, best supporting actor; William Goldman, best adapted screenplay; George Jenkins and George Gaines, best art direction; Arthur Piantadosi, Les Fresholtz, Dick Alexander and Jim Webb, best sound.
Other Nominations: Best picture; Jane Alexander, best supporting actress; Alan J. Pakula, best director; Robert L. Wolfe, best editing.
::source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/features/dcmovies/allthepresidentsmen.htm
Movie Review: All the President's Men (1976)
All the President's Men is a 1976 film based on the 1974 non-fiction book by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the two journalists investigating the Watergate scandal for the Washington Post. The film adaptation starred Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as Woodward and Bernstein, respectively; it was produced by Walter Coblenz and directed by Alan J. Pakula.
Plot
The book was adapted for the screen by William Goldman. The story chronicles the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporting of Woodward and Bernstein from the former's initial report on the Watergate break-in through the resignations of H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, and the revelation of the Nixon tapes by Alexander Butterfield in 1973. It relates the events behind the major stories the duo wrote for the Post, naming some sources who had previously refused to be identified for their initial articles, notably Hugh Sloan. It also gives detailed accounts of Woodward's secret meetings with his source Deep Throat whose identity was kept secret for over 30 years. Only in 2005 was Deep Throat revealed to be former FBI Associate Director W. Mark Felt.
Production
According to Redford, they tried to film in the actual Washington Post newsroom, but it proved impossible because many Post employees were too aware of the camera, and some even tried to "act." Some employees would disappear into restrooms and apply make up. The production team recreated the facility at a Burbank, California studio for a reported $450,000. However, Frank Wills, the Watergate security guard who first discovered the break-in, played himself in the film.
Some scenes in the film use dioptric lenses, which allow a "split screen" effect on a single take: each half of a shot can have its own focal length (that is, a man in the foreground can be in focus, yet on the other side of the frame, a man in the background can also be in focus--with objects between the two of them out of focus). Use of a dioptric lens requires a sharp dividing line to hide the effect; All the President's Men typically used pillars and desks for dividing lines.
The film also is an early film to make extensive use of different color temperatures in the same shot: for instance, at the beginning during the break-in, the light from inside is noticeably orange, whereas the light from outside is noticeably blue.
Difference from the book
Unlike the book, the film itself only covers the first seven months of the Watergate scandal, from the time of the break-in to Nixon's inauguration on January 20th, 1973. A series of teletype headlines then tell the rest of the story. Although the headlines cover a period through 1975, they are not shown in strict chronological order, so as to end with the dramatic announcement of Nixon's resignation in August, 1974.
Ethnical Dimension
Sometimes this film is assigned in journalism ethics classes for the heavily-disputed ethical dilemma of using anonymous sources when they are central to the reporting of a story. Revealing the Watergate scandal in its entirety would have been impossible without the help of Deep Throat. Furthermore, much of the information gained from government officials was put printed unattached to the name of its provider. To continue moving the investigation forward, the promise of anonymity had to be made, but outside of a case connected with high ups that rise all the way to the President, how can the use of anonymous sources be deemed necessary and ethical?
The use of unnamed sources usually occurs in light of extraordinary circumstances when no other way can be found disclose information to the public that is crucial to their well being. In addition, for most papers to quote or use anonymous sources, other requirements usually need to be met. In a letter sent out to all AP associated papers in 2005, Mike Silverman and Kathleen Carroll, AP Managing Editor and AP Executive Editor, respectively, reminded news staffs across the country that AP policies state anonymous sources are only to be used when the information provided is fact and not opinion; the information is not available unless anonymity can be provided; and the source is in a position to provide credible information. Furthermore, when anonymous sources are used, an explanation to the readers must be given to describe the reasoning behind using unnamed sources in order to prevent any damage to the reputation of journalism's credibility.
Even with these requirements, about one in four editors around the country said, in response to a survey done by the AP and the APME, that they won't use anonymous sources under any conditions because it promotes the use of incredible information. To escape the dagger of incredibility, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein used secondary sources to backup the information given by anonymous sources. This practice has become the benchmark in contemporary journalism in getting the okay from editors to use unnamed sources. Another practice that gives credibility to an anonymous source based information is inserting an appropriate and honest representative title to replace the name of the unnamed source--such as "a Senior Official said..."
Award
It won Academy Awards for Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Jason Robards), Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Sound and Best Adapted Screenplay. It was nominated for Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Jane Alexander), Best Director, Best Film Editing and Best Picture.
According to Box Office Mojo.com, the film earned a "Domestic Total Gross" of $70,600,000.
Cast
* Dustin Hoffman - Carl Bernstein
* Robert Redford - Bob Woodward
* Jack Warden - Harry M. Rosenfeld
* Martin Balsam - Howard Simons
* Hal Holbrook - Deep Throat
* Jason Robards - Ben Bradlee
* Jane Alexander - Judy Hoback
* Meredith Baxter - Debbie Sloan
* Ned Beatty - Martin Dardis
* Stephen Collins - Hugh W. Sloan, Jr.
* Penny Fuller - Sally Aiken
* Robert Walden - Donald Segretti
Aparajito (1956)
Credits
Producer: Epic Films (Satyajit Ray)
Screenplay & Direction: Satyajit Ray; based on the novel "Aparajita" by Bibhutibhushan Banerjee.
Cinematography: Subrata Mitra
Editing: Dulal Dutta
Art Direction: Bansi Chandragupta
Sound: Durgadas Mitra
Music: Pandit Ravi Shankar
U.S. Distributor: Merchant-Ivory/Sony Pictures Classics
Cast
Harihar, the Father: Kanu Banerjee
Sarbajaya, the Mother: Karuna Banerjee
Boy Apu: Pinaki Sen Gupta
Adolescent Apu: Smaran Ghosal
Bhabataran, old uncle: Ramani Sen Gupta
Nanda Babu: Charaprakash Ghosh
Headmaster: Subodh Ganguly
Summary
1920. Harihar, Sarbajaya and their ten-year-old son Apu, live in the Temple City of Bananas (Varanasi) on the banks of the holy river Ganga (Ganges). Harihar earns a meager living by reciting religious scriptures. The film opens with Apu wandering and exploring the city. He also encounters their neighbor Nanda Babu, who would soon make a pass at Sarbajaya.
Harihar falls ill with fever and collapses at the riverbank. In the early hours of the next morning, Sarbajaya wakes Apu to fetch holy water from the river to put in his father's mouth as he is dying. Harihar's death leaves mother and son to fend for themselves.
The mother decides to return with Apu to live in a village where an old uncle works as a priest. Apu's mother works to support the family. Apu is initiated into priesthood and takes over the old man's work. He is unhappy because he wants to go to school. Apu persuades his mother to send him to school. She makes sacrifices so that he might pursue his studies.
Apu, now sixteen, wins a scholarship and departs for Calcutta, leaving her alone. It breaks Sarbajaya's heart, but she relents. Her health is failing, and the loneliness in the village takes its toll.
Engulfed in city life - studying during the day and working in a printing press at night to pay for his expenses - Apu grows away from his mother. His visits get shorter as the time passes. This emotional distance unnoticed by the growing Apu, hurts Sarbajaya deeply. She waits silently for her son's visit as her illness accelerates and falls into a depression.
On a night sparkling with dancing fireflies, Sarbajaya dies. Apu comes back to an empty house. He grieves for his mother, but soon finds strength to leaves the village for the last time, to carry on with his new life in the city...
Comments
Aparajito is the second film in "The Apu Trilogy", preceded by Pather Panchali and followed by Apur Sansar. The film is basically about Apu growing up and growing away from his mother. The highlight of the film is the mother-son relationship and conflict. The characterization of Apu and mother are a treat. Karuna Banerjee gives a brilliant performance as Sarbajaya.
As usual, the film is devoid of excesses both in form and content. The two deaths, of Harihar and Sarbajaya, are handled with great elegance.
At dawn Harihar lies ill with Sarbajaya sitting beside him though the night. He mumbles, "Ganga". He is asking for a sip of holy water from the river 'Ganga'. Sarbajaya wakes Apu to fetch water from the holy river. Apu brings the water. Sarbajaya lifts Harihar's head and pours the water in his mouth. Harihar's head drops back on the pillow. Cut to a shot of a flock of pigeons taking off and whirling in the sky. Harihar has been freed of his misery...
In the sequence of Sarbajaya's death - Evening, Sarbajaya is sitting leaning against a tree outside her house, awaiting Apu's return. A train passes but she does not react, as she knows Apu is not on this train. Next, we see her sitting in the verandah of the house, expressionless. Suddenly, she hears Apu calling her. She is hallucinating. Hoping that Apu has returned, she drags herself out. As she stands looking for Apu, she sees a group of fireflies swirling by the pond.
Filming of this scene posed a Teknical challenge, as even the fastest available film stock could not capture the light emitted by the fireflies. Ray and his crew overcame the problem with an indigenous solution. Ray recounts in his 'My Years with Apu', "... We chose the toughest members of our crew, had them dressed up in black shirt and trousers and let each of them carry a flashlight bulb and a length of wire and a battery. The bulbs were held aloft in their right hands while they illustrated the swirling movements of fireflies in a dance, alternately connecting and disconnecting the wire to the bulbs..."
Awards
* Golden Lion of St. Mark, Venice, 1957
* Cinema Nuovo Award, Venice, 1957
* Critics Award, Venice, 1957
* FIPRESCI Award, London, 1957
* Best Film and Best Direction, San Francisco, 1958
* International Critic' Award, San Francisco, 1958
* Golden Laurel for Best Foreign Film of 1958-59, USA
* Selznik Golden Laurel, Berlin, 1960
* Bodil Award: Best Non-European Film of the Year, Denmark, 1967
::source: http://www.satyajitray.org/films/aparaji.htm
Jul 28, 2007
Cinema Paradiso (1988)
Directed by : Giuseppe Tornatore
Produced by : Franco Cristaldi, Giovanna Romagnoli
Written by : Giuseppe Tornatore
Starring : Salvatore Cascio, Marco Leonardi, Philippe Noiret, Jacques Perrin
Music by : Ennio Morricone
Release date(s) : 1988
Running time : 155 Min Italy, 121 Min Cut USA, 174 Min
Language : Italian
Nuovo Cinema Paradiso (1988) is an Italian film written and directed by Giuseppe Tornatore. It was internationally released as Cinema Paradiso in France, Spain, the UK and the US.
It was originally released in Italy at 155 minutes but poor box office performance in its native country led to it being shortened to 123 minutes for international release. It was an instant success. This international version won the Special Jury Prize at the 1989 Cannes Film Festival and the 1989 Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. In 2002, the director's cut 173-minute version was released (known in the U.S. as Cinema Paradiso: The New Version).
It stars Jacques Perrin, Philippe Noiret, Leopoldo Trieste, Marco Leonardi, Agnese Nano and Salvatore Cascio. It was produced by Franco Cristaldi and Giovanna Romagnoli, and the music was by Ennio Morricone along with his son Andrea Morricone.
Told in flashback, it tells the story of the return to his native Sicilian village of a successful film director "Salvatore" for the funeral of his old friend "Alfredo", who was the projectionist at the local "Cinema Paradiso". Ultimately, Alfredo serves as a wise father figure to his young friend who only wishes the best to see him succeed, even if it means breaking his heart in the process.
The film intertwines sentimentality with comedy, and nostalgia with pragmaticism. It explores issues of youth, coming of age, and reflections (in adulthood) about the past. The imagery in each scene can be said to reflect Salvatore's idealised memories about his childhood. Cinema Paradiso is also a celebration of films; as a projectionist, young Toto develops the passion for films that shapes his life path in adulthood.
A famous film director returns home to a Sicilian village for the first time after almost 30 years. He reminisces about his childhood at the Cinema Paradiso where Alfredo, the projectionist, first facilitated his love of films. He is also reminded of his lost teenage love, Elena, who was forced to leave Salvatore (Toto) because of her father. In the 123-minute release she remains only a lasting memory, but in the 154-minute version she and Toto meet again. Old and grayed they see the life that has passed before them. As their conversation unfolds, Salvatore discovers that Elena married an old friend, but even more importantly, discovers that Alfredo was the reason why their relationship ended, when Alfredo reluctantly manipulated her into leaving him, if only to see Salvatore follow his dreams. They see each other and make love in a car. Toto seems to want to relight their relationship, but Elena tells him that this is impossible.
The film ends with Salvatore inheriting a film reel that Alfredo left for him, made up out of film clips cut from the reels by the projectionist (to appease the censor, the local priest). The clips are romantic scenes from every film Alfredo has projected in the theater, causing tears to come to Salvatore's eyes.
Cinema Paradiso was a critical and box-office success and is regarded by some as a classic. It is particularly renowned for the famous 'kissing scenes' montage near the end of the film.
Cast
* Antonella Attili - Maria (Young)
* Enzo Cannavale - Spaccafico
* Isa Danieli - Anna
* Leo Gullotta - Usher
* Marco Leonardi - Salvatore (Adolescent)
* Pupella Maggio - Maria (Old)
* Agnese Nano - Elena (Adolescent)
* Leopoldo Trieste - Father Adelfio
* Salvatore Cascio - Salvatore (Child)
* Tano Cimarosa - Blacksmith
* Nicola Di Pinto - Village Idiot
* Roberta Lena - Lia
* Nino Terzo - Peppino's Father
* Jacques Perrin - Salvatore (Adult)
* Philippe Noiret - Alfredo
Jul 26, 2007
Hegemony and Counter Hegemony in The Godfather Trilogy
Part 1. Introduction
The Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci argues that mass media plays a significant role in the creation of values and beliefs that are to be followed by the general public. Political power is derived from the moral and intellectual leadership, authority, or consensus that arise from this 'false consciousness'. (Hainsworth,2000) Hegemony in mass media lies in the way it makes the ruling ideology seem natural, distracts the masses from their oppression, and enhances the social stability. It is the dominance and subordination that exists within people's practical and un-self-conscious awareness of the world, a lived system of meanings, a more or less unified moral order, which is confirmed and nuanced in experience to c onstruct a person's sense of reality and identity. ( Bell in Forbes 2000) . Hegemony is the "social basis of the proletarian dictatorship". (Gramsci, 1971: 443)
"I believe in America , America has made my fortune". These are the famous words Francis Ford Coppola chose to open his epic "Godfather" trilogy. This apparently ultra-hegemonic exclamation is soon rendered sardonic as the scene develops and the viewers are exposed to more details. The speaker, Amerigo Bonaserra, a middle-aged undertaker, has come to ask for help in avenging the abasement of his daughter. Having lost his faith in the dysfunctional police and judicial system, he now seeks justice in the hands of Vito Corleone, the head of America 's most powerful crime organization.
Even before hearing the full story, Bonaserra's opening line is implicitly cynical. " I believe in America ". Why? Because " America has made my fortune". It seems that, in this undertaker's opinion at least, even faith is driven by a financial imperative.
Unlike many other things, the popularity and acceptance of a text are not dictated by crime lords or politicians. As Andrew Hart states "…the meaning is not in the text, but in the reading" (in Hanes 2000). While critics might grasp and wrestle with an author's original meaning, or a text's initial ideological purpose there is no assurance that viewers, or readers, will respond in the same way. (Papke 2004) The Godfather 'case' is fascinating as it is a rare occasion when public, critical, and intellectual opinion almost unanimously agrees on the quality and significance of a film. (CultureVulture.com)
Ever since the beginning of the 20 th century, the American culture industry had established cultural hegemony in all branches. (Saraki 2004) In this essay I will examine the ability of a cultural product, a mainstream film in this case, to convey multiple, and opposing ideologies, and show how an author's subversive critique of existing society, may be read as a song of praise for the ruling ideology.
Part 2. Undertaking Capitalism
The trilogy tells the story of the Corleones, an Italian-American family of Sicilian origin, whose patriarch, Vito, and, later on, his son Michael, head one of the major crime organizations in New York .
The story of Michael Corleone is an ultra-moralistic plot about a man who loses everything in the quest for ultimate power. Traditionally, power and control are needed in order to secure the family. In the pursuit of these, Michael sacrifices his family and ends up dying alone. Coppola contrasts Michael's moral disorientation with the life of his father, Vito.
Don Vito was no less ruthless or ferocious, but is depicted as a man who always forgives his kin. He has, in his own words, a "weakness for his kids".
Don Vito forgoes vengeance for crimes committed by, or against, his sons and values family, and loyalty, above all (Voytilla, 1999:168). Michael, on the other hand, uses these same values as an excuse to kill his older brother and brother in law, as well as dozens of other people, in order to secure his own supremacy, a supremacy that serves only itself.
Michael's hypocrisy is further emphasized in the final scenes of the 1 st and 2 nd movies, in which murder is juxtaposed with religious sermons. Michael's vendettas are presented not as self-defense, but as infamia , a sin. (Crowdus, 1994:87).
In line with other films of the Post-Vietnam-Pre-Watergate era, like A Clockwork Orange , Dirty Harry, and Straw Dogs , The Godfather depicted a society excessively violent and morally bankrupt. (Man, 1994) Francis Ford Coppola hoped to use the family business as a metaphor for American greed and Capitalism. (Papke, 2004). Michael's story is the story of America , a nation that, while fighting for the supremacy of its constituting values, compromises these same values and forsakes the end for the means. Coppola believes he depicted Michael Corleone as nothing short of a "Monster"(in Ibid.). And so, critics such as Glenn Man, Pauline Kael, and Leslie Fiedler (Papke, 2004) see "The Godfather" as a scathing critique of American Capitalist society. (Man, 1994).
It is thus possible to claim that the aversion the audience feel towards Michael Corleone, as the signifier of capitalism, serves as a subversive agent that works to disturb the existing status quo, and undermines some of the fundamental values of capitalism.
But, as every Mafioso knows, one should never accept a first offer. According to Paul Kooistra, author of Criminals as Heroes , the movie not only tells us that Michael Corleone robbed and killed but, more importantly, that he did it with style. The outlaw is endowed with "endearing qualities- loyalty to friends, compassion for downtrodden, courage… honesty (most of the time), and cleverness in abundance".(Kooistra, 1989:22)
Seeing the criminal portrayed as the hero and being rewarded for his actions makes the viewing public believe they can, and should, succeed in his way. Rebelling against authority, it seems, produces fame, and, often, good fortune. (Mills, 2004) As Noam Chomsky claims, by so depicting such individuals, the film industry may seem to sell to the public the idea that it is possible and, even necessary, to rebel against authority (in Ibid.).
Reading this, a person with no prior background might think "The Godfather" films are underground propaganda, known only to neo-Marxist scholars and distributed secretly. The truth is, the first two "Godfather" films were the largest grossing movies of their time (Denault, 2000), and the whole three are still considered as some of the most popular and profitable films ever made. The success of the movies was not a result of a grassroots counter-revolution flamed by scholars and social critics, but a production of one of Hollywood's biggest studios, Paramount Pictures, that was embraced by the establishment and swept 9 Oscar awards.
Part 3. Overtaking Socialism
As Blumler and Katz point out, audiences actively consume various texts, and popular texts are those which are able to satisfy one (or more) of four main needs (in Hanes,2000): Diversion, Personal Relationships, Personal Identity, and Surveillance.
By understanding the way in which The Godfather satisfies each of these four needs, it is possible to explain the trilogy's immense popularity, as well as potential hegemonic agency.
The movie helps viewers escape from the pressures of daily life.(Ibid) While concentrating on the problems and concerns of fictional characters, they are rendered oblivious, if momentarily, of their own problems.
This occupies the masses with fictive trivialities, and distracts them from facing real issues in the here and now.
While watching the movie, viewers also fulfill the need for personal relationships. The highly charismatic Michael and Vito Corleone are seen as mentors for many (mostly male) viewers worldwide. As the movie becomes more and more popular, it provides viewers a common interest around which they can interact and thus create new bonds. This, in turn, serves as a diversion, as virtual communities are established on the basis of fictive trivialities and the masses are distracted from issues of real concern.
The role "The Godfather" films play in satisfying those two needs is not different from that of a soccer game, a good meal, or any other form of entertainment. It is in the satisfaction of the latter two needs, for Personal Identity and Surveillance, where things become less obvious. Viewers look at the media for information about the world and often compare their own life with the lives of the characters on the screen in order to re-affirm, or question, their personal identity. (Ibid.) The media tells them what is acceptable and what is considered abnormal or perverse. By use of narrative, the media also shows them the possible consequences of various behaviors.
As mentioned earlier, the three movies depict an excessively violent and morally bankrupt society.(Man,1994) While describing crime may seem counter-hegemonic, or at least critical, it also plays an important part in defining the boundaries of good and bad. Simply put, the portrayal of crime in the movies defines what crime is, it outlines what is, and what is not, socially permissible.
By saying that corrupt politicians are bad, the movie implies that politicians who are not corrupt are good and accepts their sovereignty. The depiction of explicit violence supports the common view that oppression and subordination are necessarily affiliated with physical force.
The Corleone family's aspiration for respectability and social acceptance often seem conventionally American (Crowdus, 1994:86), and it is easy for contemporary audiences to identify with their motives, if not with the specific tactics. But even as far as the tactics are concerned, some would go as far as to claim that since the days of the puritan settlers and the Indians, Americans created a cultural myth of a communal Eden that must be redeemed through violence. (Grant, 1999:23-40)
This means that violence, physical as other, is an acceptable mean to the realization of the American Dream, and "The Godfather" reinforces this view.
It is possible to say, then, that the film is Hegemonic and its pervasiveness works to reinforce the ruling ideology. While this point is still argued by audiences, critics, and even the director himself, there is one thing on which almost everyone agree.
Part 4. "It's my family, Kay. Not me."
In the world of The Godfather , bending the rules is permissible, and usually profitable. But while many social and religious values are forsaken, one stands untouched- Family.
The concept of family is most important to the Mafiosi, because it is the one that must come first, the one that provides justification and comfort. Don Corleone is first and foremost a family man.(Browne,1999) Many will not approve of the manner in which the Corleones conduct their business, but few will not sympathize with Vito's deep concern for his family.
Vito Corleone has built an empire on murder and abuse. Like any other man, he makes his sacrifices (loses his son and his health), but ultimately his life is depicted as a success. He is rich, powerful, has a family that loves him, and dies in old age while playing with his grandson in the family vineyard, after passing his business to his son and successor, Michael.
Michael dies alone, in Sicily , after being renounced by his wife and son. His daughter, brother, and friends are dead by, or because of, him. He has no apparent heir, and the only witness to his death is a little dog.
Both Vito and Micahel have been ruthless criminals. Both of them successfully conducted the same business in the same methods. How could it be, then, that Vito's life is an American dream, while Michael's is an Italian tragedy?
The answer lies in the difference between the two. On his quest for power and control, Michael betrayed one value too much- he compromised his family. He killed his brother, Fredo, and brother in law, Carlo. Both were rogues and deserved to be punished, but in killing them he betrayed the mere value that he was set out to defend - he compromised the means for the end, the power for the family. As Michael himself puts it, while trying to be strong for the family, he lost the family.
Michael is not punished for being a criminal or going against his fellow men. He is punished for going against his family. The trilogy establishes, on all levels, that Family is the ultimate excuse for all evils, not only the ones committed in the main narrative but also for such non-diegetic evils as the casting of the director's sister (Talia Shire), Daughter, Father, and Mother into the films.
Part 5. Conclusion.
The nuclear family (no pun intended) is the bedrock of domestic life under capitalism. The family provides emotional support for the labouring population, and a measure of social cohesion and stability. A wage earner, demeaned at work, could accept his lot more readily if he/she had his/her personal needs met at home where he/she was "boss". Domestic responsibilities also reinforced the power of the employer- a worker has to consider his dependant wife and children before slugging the foreman or voting to go on strike. (Capitalism & Homophobia, 2004) The family is the main instrument through which views and wealth are passed on to future generations,(Durkheim,1978) and thus plays a fundamental role in maintaning social stability and promoting the ruling ideology.
America was established on equality, freedom of speech, and human rights. While trying to protect and promote these virtues, the Americans have forsaken many of them. Positioning the Corleones as a metaphor, Coppola tries to warn America of the tragic outcome this may entail.
Still, this is not to say that the movie is a scathing critique of capitalism. "The Godfather" does not depict the dangers of capitalism, but the dangers to capitalism. It is an ultra-hegemonic praise song for the family institution and serves, for many, as a guide and model of capitalist success. While the criticism is there, most viewers choose to overlook the violence and take in only the Corleone's cunning business instincts and admirable family values. They leave the guns, but take the Canolli.
Dror Poleg, January 2004
More about The Godfather Trilogy Links:
- http://www.thegodfathertrilogy.com/godfather.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Godfather
Jul 25, 2007
The Alamo (2004 film)
Directed by : John Lee Hancock
Produced by : Ron Howard, Mark Johnson
Written by : Leslie Bohem, Stephen Gaghan, John Lee Hancock
Starring : Dennis Quaid, Billy Bob Thornton, Jason Patric, Patrick Wilson, Emilio Echevarría, Jordi Mollà, Leon Rippy, Tom Davidson, with Marc Blucas, and Robert Prentiss
Music by :Carter Burwell
Cinematography : John O'Connor, Dean Semler
Editing by : Eric L. Beason
Distributed by : Touchstone Pictures
Release date(s) : April 9, 2004
Running time : 137 min.
Language : English
Budget : $95 million
The Alamo is a 2004 movie, a second major studio film about the legendary Battle of the Alamo during the Texas Revolution, that was shot and scheduled for release initially in December 2003 and then rescheduled for release in April 2004. This remake was directed by native Texan John Lee Hancock, and produced by Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, and Mark Johnson. Its script is credited to Hancock, John Sayles, Stephen Gaghan and Leslie Bohem. Its production budget was $95,000,000. It was produced and distributed by Touchstone Pictures.
It was shot near Austin, Texas between January and June 2003, mostly on a local property named Reimers Ranch. The film's art direction devoted the greatest care to historical accuracy and verisimilitude; for instance, the mission's facade does not feature the well-known "hump" at the top, a detail that was actually added years after the battle during a restoration.
In contrast to the earlier 1960 film, the 2003 script makes an effort to depict the political points of view of both the Mexican and Texan sides. Santa Anna is featured as a much more prominent character.
The cast includes Billy Bob Thornton as a demythologized (but still eccentric and strong-willed) Davy Crockett, Jason Patric as James Bowie, stage actor Patrick Wilson as Travis, Dennis Quaid as Sam Houston, Emilio Echevarría as Santa Anna, and Jordi Molla as Seguin.
The film was highly unsuccessful at the box office, opening on Easter weekend to mostly middling reviews and a low box office turnout. In its first weekend, it was defeated in box office numbers by a resurgent The Passion of the Christ. It cost over $140 million USD to make and market the film but earned only $9.1 million USD in its first weekend. By its second month of release, the film had yet to muster $30 million USD in domestic earnings. It ended its theatrical run with a worldwide gross of slightly less than $26 million [1].
The film was originally set up with Imagine Entertainment with Ron Howard in the director's chair and producing partner Brian Grazer taking on producing duties. Russell Crowe was originally set as Sam Houston, Ethan Hawke as William Barret Travis and Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett. But there were financial and creative disagreements between Imagine and Disney, particularly with Howard wanting a $200 million budget. Disney rejected Imagine's proposal for the film which in turn, Howard, Grazer, Crowe and Hawke left the project. Disney opted to go with director John Lee Hancock and the budget was at $95 million. Thornton was the only one to remain throughout the project.
Yet again, William Travis and Jim Bowie are portrayed as constantly arguing, while, in actuality, they only argued twice.
No flag was seen flying from the Alamo in this film. Given the debate as to precisely what flag was flying (Travis' famous letter made reference to a flag, but not its description), it is possible that it was safer in the name of accuracy not to have one flying.
Many of the extras that took part in the film were actual descendants of the Alamo defenders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
