Dark City

This movie is some weird mix between a sci-fi and a film noir. The sci-fi element is contributed by the presence of the aliens and weird powers and the film noir by the extremely low lighting, which makes it feel like a black and white film, and the dark urban setting.
The scene with the ring showed the relationship between the couple. When the officer asks Emma if the ring is bothering her, she replies without a real answer, simply stating that she never takes it off. The ring is reflective of their relationship, which is painful in some ways, but will not cease to exist because their love is too strong.
A key motif in the movie is the maze. It seems as if the whole situation is a maze in which Murdoch is stuck. (By the way, Murdoch seems like a German name, which would agree with what Mr. Bennett said about this being a German expressionist film) It seems that the only way out is through Shell Beach, which may not even exist, except in his memories. We see this when he is told to go on the express and then when he asks why the train doesn't stop, the man says because its the express. The idea that the city can be manipulated, that its always dark, and that the people have an extremely limited memory suggests that the whole world is a maze that the aliens, or whatever the hell they are, have created and have continued control over. Even the people are controlled, which makes them more of an object than a human. Take the conversation between the alien leader and Emma, in which they talk about how an existence in which one had no memories to call their own would be tormenting. He gives the innuendo that such is her existence and everyone around her. In a sense, the aliens are like Gods except that now a human is presenting a dilemma. So, they might be better described as demi-gods.
One question I have is why they arr doing all of this. Are they studying the human brain or the psychology of human beings? That's what it looks like.

Asphalt Jungle

This movie creates characters, each with his own vice. Their vices all share a common root in the material world, whether it is money, alcohol, or sex. I started to pick up on the fact that this may also be an existentialist movie, with the existentialist being Doc Riedenschnieder. When the taxi insists they stop somewhere nearby, he says "lets wait till we get out of town." The taxi driver says, "I see your man who likes pleasures." Doc responds by saying, "What else is there in life?" Doc understands the simplicity in life. The manner he approaches every situation is so calm, it is almost confusing to the viewer. When he is being caught by the police, he shows little emotion. He understands the consequences that follow his actions, but at the same time he is not apprehensive to live and enjoy his life. This movie, much like many of the past few movies, uses criminals or morally ambiguous characters as the protagonists, and through the efforts of the creators, the viewer grows to sympathize with the characters, regardless of the inevitable fate of the characters. For example, Dix Handley is a criminal who seems excessively violent and perhaps abusive of his girlfriend. However, after he is shot, the reader hopes that he finally reaches his home. We know, however, that this won't happen. The asphalt jungle serves as a metaphor for the existence of crime in every urban city or setting. Crime almost seems synonymous with large cities.

Unforgiven

Ilya's take on the movie is that it is all about values in a monetary sense. My take on the movie is that it is all about values in an ethical sense. To me, the movie is questioning morality in every scene. Take the very first scene, for example, where the man cuts up a prostitute. Justice is not served because the sheriff only asks the criminals to pay a financial punishment. Murder or violence are not morally right. The fact that the women send assassins to kill the two men is not morally right. There is no justification in murdering them, especially when the victim isn't even that hurt. The morality behind Munny's acceptance of the assassination can be questioned. Munny is a confusing character because his character is blurred between a hero and a villain. Another scene that questions morality is the part when Ned asks Munny if he wants to go upstairs and join him in his enjoyment of the prostitutes. First of all, it was surprising for Ned to ask this because he seemed as if he was above those kinds of actions. Munny refuses, indicating the uncertainty of his character's rectitude. This movie seems to be stating that there are no heroes, because everyone possesses something malicious in their character. The movie also degrades violence. For example, Munny has seen this lifestyle and all of the consequences that follow. This is ironic because fun action-packed violence is expected in these western-type films. Rather than glamorizing violence, this movie has a rather pejorative take, much unlike most other westerns.

Oh yeah... and MSIT is in the championship. Surprising huh? Well, it's not.

Seventh Seal Cont.

As we see in the movie, Bloch distracts Death from killing Jof and his wife by using the knocked over chess pieces as a distraction. Death is well aware of what he is doing. Block believes this is his good deed, allowing his friends to escape death, but rather, as made evident throughout the entire movie, his friends are only delaying their deaths. Not to disparage the heroism of Bloch, but he's only allowing them to live another day because death can strike randomly. We see this when the wagon is driving away and there is a skull or mask on the back as it drives away. Death always hovers over us, and we can only do so much to prevent it.

Seventh Seal

Two additional quotes that I liked were, "You have black." "It's most appropriate, isn't it?" and "We must make an idol of our God, and call it fear."

In this movie, I, unlike some other people, enjoy the utilization of the chess game. I can already tell that it's impossible for Antonius Block to win the game. The message is clear. You cannot escape death. Block can only delay, not escape the inevitable. My initial prediction was that Block would win the game, but it would be one of those , "Win, Lose, what's the difference?" (Runaway Train) where he would still die. But, considering the chess game must remain a symbol for the struggle for life and death throughout the whole movie, I think Block will only be able to hold off his death for so long. In this way, the film is questioning God's existance or at least the uncertainty of his existance much like Block's search for meaning in the world and God. Block says he will defeat death with a combination of knight and bishop. He himself is a knight and I see the bishop as religion or faith. Block is saying he will escape death through faith. But, he will lose the game because he must as we all must. In a sense, I like to see it as Block playing chess with himself. You cannot win. You can never be sure of God's existance. You can't escape death. You cannot know anything until you are dead. And at that point, you may not even exist.

Existenialism

Existentialism seems like a good mindset to maintain throughout life in order to lead a productive lifestyle. I like the ideas of uniqueness, independence, and living life fully. What I don't like is the concept that our Existence is essentially absurd and that there is no purpose to our presence. One reason I don't like this statement is that I feel this is made out of a lack of knowledge. Since we do not know or understand the universe, life, and death, there is no way of us knowing what has happened or what will happen. The second reason is because it goes again some of the other ideals. Instead of promoting a full participation in life, it promotes depression. I believe Mr. Bennett said that our senses are deceptive and if they are, then maybe they're deceiving us right now. Perhaps we're nonexistant or already dead. We don't know. God exists to explain these unknowns. God explains the cause of our universe. Everything has a cause(I'm not saying anything about purpose yet). Humans have a cause, which is some sort of scientific evolution process. But, the only possible cause for a beginning is God. Anyway, the purpose of our presence in the universe is determined by the individual. Perhaps there is a specific purpose, but we don't know it. To say that we don't know the reason for our purpose differs from saying that our purpose doesn't exist. The individual must set out to discover his or her own purpose in the universe.

Albert Camus wrote a book called The Stranger and when I read it I hated it and could not stop thinking about how stupid the main character was. Some of you guys should have read it already and now that I think about it, the main character was an existentialist. He ended up believing that there is no meaning to life and he dies peacefully knowing this and that the world is indifferent to us. Now, I still think it's really stupid. He died living a rather useless life and with a false happiness. Throughout the story, it's almost as if he doesn't have a conscience. Camus says that we cannot find rational explanations in an irrational world. That's fine with me, but does the man really feel justified with death? It seems to me that existentialism in this sense leads to a poor, disappointing mindset.

Puzzle

After rewatching the final scene in class today, I saw the jigsaw puzzle as a metaphor for interpreting Kane's life. Thompson, or whoever the guy is that's trying to figure out the meaning behind Rosebud, says something like "Rosebud is just a missing piece in a jigsaw puzzle." Before Kane dies, Susan keeps playing with jigsaw puzzles. This would be the equivalent of evaluating Kane's life and she understands that Kane lacks the ability to genuinely love, something he was deprived of when he was young after being taken away from his mother, and leaves him alone in his alienated castle. Love from a parent is primitive social need. Thompson's comment on Rosebud shows the difficulty or rather the impossibility of interpreting one's life. The missing piece is not the sled, it's Kane himself. Because Kane is the only one aware of Rosebud and he is the only one who can gather a simple interpretation of his life.

Kane

I thought the scene where Kane is releasing his anger out on the room and its furniture was a good example of the dualistic nature of being both powerful and powerless. He looks like King Kong. He is portrayed by the camera as a giant but looks weak and old in the way he walks. He looks like a dumb, drunk giant about to collapse at any moment. He is breaking everything because he just lost his wife, Singer. I think Singer resembles Kane's mother here in her departure from Kane. Kane loses love. He realizes the meaning, or lack there, of the material world and sees that he cannot buy his love just like he cannot buy his mother back or Rosebud.
Now that we know that Rosebud is the sled. I recall the scene where Mr. Bernstein is speaking about Kane's past and says, "A man remembers a lot of things you wouldn't think he'd remember." He then talks about how he remembers some random girl he saw once. This is a clear indication to how little Rosebud means to everyone besides Kane. I see what Mr. Bennett means by watching the film multiple times. There's definitely more connections you can make by rewatching it.

Citizen Kane

So far our themes are:
1.) Alienation- The "No Tresspassing" sign, the private aspect of his life, they say that many years of his life are covered.
2.) Loss of Innocence- I'm unsure on this as of now but Kane is accused to be a fascist.
3.) Materialism- The movie so far shows the vast wealth of Kane initially that eventually plunders and disappears with his death. You can't keep your money when your dead. The only thing that remains is his name.
4.) Power- I don't know yet, but Kane loses his power with his death.
5.) It's too early in the movie to say this but I think another theme could possibly be the power of media. The newspapers and media are a major control over the opinion of the people. When Kane is running for governor, a rival newspaper publishes something about one of his affairs.

Discursive Discussion

Ultra-humanization vs. De-humanization
There are many examples of de-humanization throughout the film. Well there should be considering both the novel and film have anti-war messages. For that very reason, I find it unlikely that the author or director intentionally included examples of ultra-humanization. I believe that when they are viewed upon in short-term, they may appear to be ultra-humanizing but they are actually longer extensions of de-humanization. For example and clarification, Paul serves in the army for many years and has feelings and experiences in the war that he never would have experienced back at home. But if you long at the long-term effects, Paul has been destroyed by the war, and eventually killed. So even if he returned home, he'd never have been able to live peacefully and endure the psychological traumas of war. The critic must remember that Paul is one of the many young men who were teenagers still in their adolescence, who had to join the war and were changed greatly. I'll argue with Mr.Bennett and say that anything resembling ultra-humanization in this movie is actually the illusion of pro-war. Recalling the intentions of both the author and director, I find it unlikely that ultra-humanization exists, and if there is, then it wasn't intended for that reason. Props to Mr. Bennett for trying to invent his own little concept though.

And about American actors playing German soldiers in World War II. I personally think that would be genius on the part of the director or whoever makes the decision. If the idea is that German soldiers were not all Nazis and were in fact normal soldiers like any other. What better way to convey this message to an American audience then to use American actors? Americans would be able to sympathize and relate much better to other Americans than to Germans, considering most of us think they're all Nazis. Plus, the movie would probably generate a much greater revenue if in English rather than German. Americans don't want to go read subtitles and listen to the strong German language.

Making Sense of the Doors and Windows

Ok, so I'm starting to put the pieces of the puzzle together. The camera angles, the windows, the doors closing, it's all making SOME sense to me. So far today, we've seen the man walk to the large window at the hospital and either pass out or die and we've seen the door close on Paul, although it did open up again later on. My interpretation of the man walking to the window is that the man is looking out onto the world that he is about to leave because he is now free and ready for the next life, if that makes sense. Then, Mr. Bennett pointed out the fact that the door closed on Paul and kind of gave it away, suggesting that Paul is doomed. Maybe this means that Paul will die physically or maybe it means that Paul will die inside. We've already seen the awkward behavior of Paul back in his hometown. At this point, even if the war ends, it seems as though Paul has given up on his hopes and dreams, and cannot revert back to civilian life. It's one of those psychological traumas of war. So even if Paul is to return home, he will never be able to live his life normally after being removed for so long. War is haunting.

Girls and War

I think I have a bad memory for little things like what I ate for breakfast or which part of the film we watched on Tuesday. but, I do remember the situation with the 3 French girls and the 4 German guys(Sucks for the fourth guy, whoever it'll be). I don't know about you guys, but if I were in war with no members of the opposite sex ever around, It would be more painful for me than being tortured in battle. Heck, I don't even think I'd survive an all boys school(although I have survived Tech), much less war. I went to football camp for only 5 days and I was suffering terribly. No wonder the Japanese military set up a system of comfort women in World War II. Now, I'm neither displaying support nor justifying the event, but just understanding one of the reasons for having comfort women. I'm glad that the men have an opportunity to get war off there minds, although it is really impossible. By the way, did anyone else notice that the scene, where the two men(perhaps one is Paul) are looking at the poster of the beautiful girl, is filmed through a mirror. At first, it annoyed me, but then I tried to understand why the director chose to film from that angle. Why not just show the scene directly through the lens at a normal angle? I can't tell yet if there is significance to the director's choice, which I truly hope for, or if it just has the illusion of a master plan. Maybe the mirror is reflecting upon their past. I really don't know.

Kantorek

The scene where Kantorek visits the trenches and is ridiculed and forced to fight on the battlefield by his former students might be one of my favorite scenes so far. I always wondered how it was that the soldiers always died so easily and generals and those of higher rank lived battle after battle. Kantorek's apprehension and cowardice on the battlefield reminded me of a quote I've heard before somewhere...Something like:

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.

Politicians put men on the field, with a remote, if any at all, care for soldier's lives. Maybe politicians should be the ones fighting each other.

I remember earlier in the movie the men were discussing the reason they were at war. None of them actually understood why they were killing the men across the field or suffering painful atrocities, whether mental or physical. I recall the conversation... take note the words are not anywhere near verbatim because this is just from memory...

Why are we at war?
Because our country hates France.
So you're trying to tell me that a mountain in Germany hates a field somewhere in France?
No, because our people hate the French.
No, I don't hate the French.
Neither do I.

OK, that was definitely not word for word. But the idea is there. Not a single one of the German soldiers has feelings of animosity towards the French.

On a personal note, I always thought about how I would never join the army because I am afraid to die or my life is too valuable and I have bigger aspirations in life. War honestly seems stupid though. Of course I could think of exceptions like the American Revolution. But even with that war, what made the colonists think that they deserved the rights to self-government or no taxation without representation. How about being a little grateful instead of saying, "NO taxes, it's not like you've given us economic opportunities we never would've had in England, or providing us with a haven of religious toleration." If I were the British, I'd easily be aggravated. And then look at current events. I don't see how we are protecting our country... from terrorists? It only takes 1 to kill many. Maybe war is just a natural part of human mentality. Maybe I'm anti-war or something, but the principles just seem messed up and the necessity seems to be absent. Maybe Remarque felt the same way and decided his book needed to be published so that people would see it from his perspective. If so, Milestone did a good job of carrying the original message and perspective over into motion picture.

Quick side note: What do you think the doors and windows thing is accomplishing? For me it's the director's alternative of panning because the people continue moving from one side of our view to the other. I don't think it's limiting our view but instead just a stylish director's tool.

All Along the Western Front

While I'd prefer to read the book to get the true meaning and feeling intended by d. Lewis Milestone, the movie seems to do a good job in portraying the different scenarios in war. Honestly, well... obviously, if I were just watching this movie alone, I wouldn't be able to interpret the movie the same way we do in class. Surprisingly, though, All Along the Western Front is a somewhat entertaining movie, which is so surprising because I didn't think that I, a twenty first century teenager, would be able to appreciate a black and white movie from the 1930s. Anyway, I actually found it humorous how each man was fascinated by their new pair of leather boots and ended up dying or stopping a bullet. I understand the whole idea of how the men get killed but the boots live on, but what happens when the boots tear? I believe there is a beginning and an end to everything besides, perhaps,the supernatural. THE BOOTS WILL DIE.