"Innocence of a Monster"

This was an essay I wrote in a Monsters in Film course I took in the Fall of 2014.  In the Essay I discuss how Frankenstein's Monster's monstrous actions in the classic novel Mary Shelley's Frankenstein are not his fault, but the fault of his creator, Dr. Victor Frankenstein.  Also briefly discussing the Humanity of The Monster.

In popular culture the Frankenstein monster is depicted as a hulking brood with childlike intelligence. The real Frankenstein monster from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein could not farther from this depiction. Although he does start out in a similar manner, he evolves into a being of great intelligence and contains an abundance of human characteristics.  Throughout he novel he commits various atrocities by his own doing, but I believe he is not responsible for these acts.  He is a victim of circumstance, beginning with his untimely and unnatural creation by Victor Frankenstein.

To make case for the Monster one needs to start at his genesis.  He was given life by an ambitiously overzealous person, Frankenstein, who took it upon himself to delve into the science of re-animation.  I would say it was irresponsible of him to go against the natural order of life and create life through materials gained from corpses.  Frankenstein was so blinded by his scientific pursuits that he did not see the error of his ways until it was too late.  Then in a most irresponsible way he abandons his creation.  Instead of even attempting rectify the wrong he has committed, he retreats within himself.  His abandonment of his creation is similar to that of a parent abandoning their newborn child.  I believe through this event that Frankenstein became the one who was chiefly responsible for the Monster’s subsequent actions.  Metaphorically, he drops the pebble in the water that creates the ripples of his own suffering.

The Monster educates himself through the observation of humans.  But what struck me as quite interesting is that even before he begins his earnest observations he has a natural benevolent behavior. When he is attacked by people in a village his reaction to run instead of lash out in anger.  His earliest emotional feelings towards the family is of compassion. When he sees that they need firewood he takes it upon himself to provide it to them. When he sees that one of their main causes of grief is lack of food, he feels regretful for stealing some. His consumption of fruits and vegetables instead of killing for nourishment seems to be indicative of his benevolent nature.  His benevolent nature develop over the time he observes them.  His vicarious bond becomes so strong with these people that he believes that his benevolent nature will be enough to overcome his physical ugliness.  He wants so badly to feel such human interaction like love, friendship, and general human warmth that he is emotional devastated by the rejection of this family. This event is important because now he knows that he does not fit in the human world despite how much he tries. Even when he tries to save a woman from drowning he is looked upon as a monster. 

As a result of this alienation, in desperate frustration and anger for vengeance, he murders Victor’s young brother, named William, and frames the boy’s nanny Justine. During the encounter the child reveals he is a Frankenstein, which triggers a blind anger within The Monster. I blame Dr. Frankenstein for his brother's murder mores than The Monster because it is he who has made the name a source of anger and hatred.  Later, when the Monster confronts Frankenstein he does so not in a confrontational way but to strike a deal with him. He desires a female companion because he knows that he will never be able to assimilate himself into human society. If such a request is granted he will never bother another human being in his life and live peacefully in South America. He does not want to kill anyone further, he just seeks basic human needs.  When Frankenstein abolishes the deal, he is now forced to carry out his revenge on Frankenstein. But, as come to find out that he regrets every negative act that he has done. He even weeps and begs forgiveness from Frankenstein’s corpse.  The regret has consumed him so much that he is resolute to destroy himself so that no one will ever create such a monster again. In a cyclical motion. The Monsters negative acts upon the world were a result of his negative act in creating him. 

Book to Screen: Of Mice and Men

This was the first paper I wrote in a Great Novels on Film course that I took in the Winter/Spring of 2015.  I had to read the John Steinbeck novella Of Mice and Men and watch the 1939 film adaptation buy director Lewis Milestone.  In the essay I had to make a determination on which type of translation from book to screen it is and if it successful or not. The three forms of translation I had to choose from were Literal, Traditional, and Radical according to Linda Costanzo Cahir's modes of translation from book to screen. 

The 1939 film Of Mice and Men directed by Lewis Milestone and starring Burgess Meredith and Lon Chaney Jr. is an adaptation of John Steinbeck’s novella of the same name.  It is not the first time and most definitely not the last time that a literary work would make the transition to the movie screen.  Throughout the history of film there have been a large amount of films based on books or other such visual materials like comic books.  The way I judge film adaptations of books is by first analyzing the film as a film and then separately analyzing it compared to its original literary conception.  I believe that those are two separate discussions because a film can still be a great film and not a be a literal translation of the book. 

Cahir believes that there are three translations of book to screen, literal, traditional, and radical.  I believe that the “Of Mice and Men” film from 1939 is a traditional translation of the book to film.  It maintains the setting during the Great Depression, the characters both primary and secondary are still present, and major themes of the American Dream, companionship, and loneliness are still present.  As with all traditional translations there are a few additions to the film that are not in the book.  First off the beginning of the film and the beginning of the book differ from one another.  The film begins with Lennie and George running from pursuers, hopping on a train and then the opening credits give way to a scene with them on a bus. None of these sequences are actually in the book, but these events are mentioned by the George in the book. The Director and writer decided that instead of just talking about previous events it was best to show it in a brief pre-credits scene.  It visually establishes a backstory that essentially foreshadows events that will take place later in the plot.  A difference between film and books is you can show events not actually depicted in a book using very little time.  The scene on the bus is also mentioned in the book but not shown. To compensate for the additional dialogue, the writer has taken some of the dialogue that was used in the book by the stream and inserted it into this scene.  Although its a different introduction to the characters than in the book it provides some additional visual backstory.  It provides an introduction of the main characters to the viewers.

Another scene that I feel exhibits traits of the traditional translation is the scene in which Candy is convinced to have his old dog put down.  The dialogue is the similar and the end result is the same but it is just staged differently.  The movement of the characters is different than I imagined they were in the book.  When Carlson brings up the idea of Candy killing the dog, he protests while lovingly embracing his dog.  You can visually see how much Candy loved his dog.  You can also see how Carlson is pressuring him not only verbally but physically by following Candy as he walks across the bunk house.  In the book you do not get a sense of this physical pressure.that Carlson is applying to Candy.  You also see the look of pain, anguish, and helplessness on Candy’s face that heightens the emotion of the scene, specifically when he looks at Slim for guidance in his predicament. The moment when Carlson is leading the dog out of the bunk house and it stops and looks directly at Candy is a heartbreaking moment.  The sequence in the book does not have that level of emotional power. It is one thing to describe the scene through words and another to visually depict it.

I believe that the film is a successful rendering of the novel because despite certain changes it still depicts the same themes, uses the same characters, place, time, and borrows a lot of the same dialogue directly from the book.  The acting also captures the characters of Lennie and George perfectly.  Enough can not be said about how fantastic Lon Chaney Jr’s performance as Lennie is.  He and Burgess Meredith as George perfectly play off one another to the extent that you forget that they are actor’s playing a part.  That type of chemistry is necessary, specifically when you consider how emotional the last sequence of the film is. 

"Romance & Espionage"

This was the first paper I wrote in a course I took on Alfred Hitchcock in the Fall of 2013. It takes a look at Hitchcock's 1946 film Notorious, specifically the character of Alicia Huberman portrayed by the great Ingrid Bergman. It delves particularly into the role of Ingrid Bergman and the influence the male characters in the film have on her life.



Are the woman in Hitchcock’s films portrayed in a misogynistic way or are they portrayed in a more complex way?  I agree that many of Hitchcock’s films have a male dominance quality to them. But, in the case of his 1946 film Notorious, Hitchcock attempts to have the viewer identify with the female victim in the film, specifically the character of Alicia Huberman, portrayed by Ingrid Bergman.  I find the character to differ in the way woman are usually depicted in his films, specifically his “wrong man” suspense films. What is particularly different is that although Cary Grant’s character, Devlin, has an important role, the film revolves around Alicia Huberman and what she goes through.  Throughout the film she is very much at the whim of men but also has the courage and strength to take whatever abuse they throw at her, she is very much a heroine.  Throughout the film there are several scenes that show how the different men treat her and how different yet similar he relationships are with them.

Although it is only touched on very briefly at the beginning of the film, there is a short scene where the viewer receives some information about Alicia’s relationship with her father. The scene occurs after the late night drunken car ride with Devlin. The scene opens with Alicia lying in bed, then it cuts to a oblique angled point of view shot of Devlin to demonstrate the affects of a hangover.  After an exchange in dialogue between the two, Devlin reveals that the organization he works for that wants Alicia to work for them because of her father. When she refuses, Devlin plays a surveillance recording of a conversation between her and her father. The recording reveals to the viewers how strained their relationship had become and how controlling her father was by attempting to persuade her to his side of traitorous thinking.  In the recording she stands up to her father by rejecting his control of her and professing her love for her country, the country she is referring to is the United States. In Haeffner's book, he points out that Hitchcock’s films have been criticized for how they treat women the female characters, specifically the control the male characters tend to have over them. That is also the case in Notorious, but through this control, a great strength emerges from the female character.

The male relationship that has the most impact on Alicia is the romantic relationship she has with Devlin.  At the heart of the narrative of the film is the romance between them, specifically the affects it has on their characters.  Their relationship is both that of love and malice. There is a great sequence where we see their turn suddenly from a loving one to a cold business-like one. The scene happens  shortly after Devlin has kissed Alicia for the first time and are now engaging in an affair. The sequence starts off with them entering the hotel room and then embracing passionately on the balcony playfully talking about their dinner plans.  It is interesting that Hitchcock decided to use no musical score in the scene, usually a score would play to signify their romance, it seems he wanted their passionate embrace to stand alone as a message of romance to the audience.  Amidst their embrace Devlin makes a phone call to check his messages, but while he does that Alicia remarks that he does not say he loves her, but he responds “actions speak louder than words.” I find that short exchange interesting because the one thing Alicia wants throughout the rest of the film is for Devlin to admit he loves her and he also fails to act in defending her honor to his organization. That sequence ends with Devlin being informed of Alicia’s assignment and having to tell her himself. Although he expresses his contempt for the assignment he knows that revealing his true feelings for Alicia would probably mean his removal as her handler, so he solemnly accepts his task and goes to inform Alicia.

Upon his return the viewer can tell that the mood in the room has completely changed simply by Devlin’s manner. He is no longer embracing Alicia or talking to her in any romantic or playful tone. He has now put up a cold, malicious, almost robotic facade to hide his true feelings for Alicia. She recognized this shift in behavior and is heartbreakingly dismayed by it. Just when she believes she has found some semblance of happiness with her affair with Devlin it is all gone instantly.  The desperate exchange she has with Devlin about him not speaking up for her is heartbreaking because she does not want to be conceived in the promiscuous way that his organization perceives she is.  By not coming to her defense, Alicia now believes the relationship was nothing but a sham.  In this moment she desperately wants some ounce of emotion from Devlin and all she gets is an emotionless response.  With these two scenes we can see the extent of emotional control that Devlin has over Alicia. Her emotional mood is dictated by his actions, or lack there of. He has the ability to provide her great happiness and great pain.

Alicia's relationship with Alexander Sebastian, portrayed by Claude Rains, is interesting because it is a false relationship, at least from Alicia’s perspective.  I feel that this relationship is the more controlling than the one with Devlin because Alicia has to go along with nearly everything he says because she does not want her ruse to be found out.  It places both an obligatory emotional and physical burden on her. Sebastian has a penchant for being very possessive of Alicia. His possessiveness is revealed through his jealousy of the relationship she has with Devlin, who is posing as her acquaintance.  There is one scene in particular that I feel exhibits this feeing quite clearly. The scene is at a race track, after Alicia has has had a conversation with Devlin in which she is moved to tears by his treatment towards her, Alexander approaches her with inquiries into her and Devlin’s relationship.  He makes accusations that Alicia is in love with Devlin and that he was watching her the whole time they were talking, but he also asks her to prove that Devlin means nothing to her by asking her to marry him.  The smirk he has on his face when he says that she must prove she has no feelings for Devlin, I find to be a devious look. His marriage proposal does not come through as a sincere gesture but as a way for him to get more control of Alicia.

My favorite sequence in the film as an aspiring filmmaker is the party scene that happens at around the midway point in the film.  It is a wonderful sequence of suspense and is the turning point of the film concerning the mental and physical welfare of Alicia.  The sequence begins with a great wide angle crane shot of the entire room of party goers, then the camera slowly moves in towards a closeup of Alicia’s hand which contains a key. That key is significant to the plot because if she gets caught with it her cover could be blown and who knows what else would happen to her.  So as a viewer the character is in great peril and they are questioning whether she will be caught or not.  After she successfully gets the key into Devlin’s hands, they plan to meet at a back door that leads to a basement with a storage room.  But, what enhances the situation is the level of situational suspense that is created because they have to get in and out of the storage room before the bottles of champagne run out and more is needed to be retrieved by the help.  Similar to what Hitchcock did throughout his career, he uses editing as a way to create suspense.  He cuts from what Devlin and Alicia are doing in the store room to back at the dwindling amount of champagne bottles in the party.  The viewers know how many bottles are left but Alicia and Devlin do not, creating a sense of unease amongst the viewers

The legendary French director Francois Truffaut claimed that “Notorious” was the quintessential Hitchcock film and I agree with him.  It is a film that contains many characteristics of a Hitchcock film.  It has Cary Grant as the leading man and Ingrid Bergman as the leading lady, many of his films contain a conflicting romance between a leading man and woman.  It contains moments of suspense, something Hitchcock will be known to do throughout his career, he is most commonly remembered as the Master of Suspense.  It also contains Hitchcockian film making elements, like the crane shot at the beginning of the party scene and tilted camera angles that emphasize the characters point of view.  I believe that Truffaut said that he got the most effect out of this film but uses so little to achieve it. That is the beauty of the film is that it does so much but on a small scale. 

I find that the strongest portions of the films are the small things, like the look on an actors face, the tone in an actors voice, it says so much more than just the words conveyed. I specifically attribute that to excellent acting performance by Ingrid Bergman.  Throughout the film her character is pushed and pulled in different directions by men controlling her life, but she has the strength to take all of it and keep going. Granted it is ultimately the love Devlin has for Alicia that saves her life, but she endures so much throughout the film that I can not help but admire her

"A Case of Mistaken Identity"

This was a paper I wrote in an Alfred Hitchcock course I took in the fall of 2013.  In this paper I discuss one of Alfred Hitchcock's most interesting films, The Wrong Man, because it is rather different stylistically from the films he had made prior.  His style in the film is relatively stripped down compared to his work previously and afterward.  It was because of that particular style that it caught the eye of certain writers from the French Film magazine, Cahier du Cinema, specifically Francois Truffaut.  In the paper I cited several instances in Nicholas Haeffner's book, simply titles "Alfred Hitchcock", where he discusses the film.  There are also several references to other Hitchcock films, so spoiler alert if you have not seen most of his work.  



A misconception can start a chain reaction that can have dire consequences for the innocent person.  That is the case in Hitchcock’s 1956 film “The Wrong Man”.  In the film Hitchcock creates a portrait of a man who is accused of a crime he has not committed and the effect it has on him and his family.  The film abandons Hitchcock’s usual use of the “wrong man” and in its place provides a film based in the concept of realism.  The usual exciting moments that can be found in several of Hitchcock’s films are gone and in there place is a bleak film that portrays one of Hitchcock’s greatest fears come true, the power of law enforcement.  He also portrays a different side of the 1950s America that we as modern viewers are not accustomed to seeing.

The begins much differently than any other Hitchcock film, instead of making his usual cameo Hitchcock appears before the camera addressing the audience about the film they are about to see.  What I find striking about his address is not so much the words he is saying but the manner in which he is doing it.  Hitchcock is addressing us from a long shot in which he is a hidden shadowed silhouette, something that reminds me of a shot from of a noir film.  Haeffner mentions the contract that Hitchcock had with his audience and you can tell that he is very aware of that, hence why he would make such a direct address.  I think the reason for the address is almost a way to convince his long time audience to not abandon the film because it is not the type of film that they are used to seeing from him.  In a way it acts as both a warning and a plea to keep the audience in the seats.  Also by saying that the events of the film is based on true events, perhaps he was trying to reach the audience on a more real level?  He wants to instill a sense of reality within the viewers mind.  The events in this film could indeed happen to them, in a way it places them in the perspective of the antagonist.  The idea that the events in the film are real as opposed to several of his other films that are based on books is another instance where Hitchcock is taking this film in a different direction.

The opening shot of the film is inside Stork Club where there is a slow pan camera shot of people dancing or sitting at tables, accompanied by opening credits in large white lettering.  Then there is a cut over to the protagonist Manny Balestrero, portrayed by Henry Fonda, playing in the club band.  As the song ends he packs away his instrument and then there is a cut to him leaving the club.  As he leaves the club there happens to be two police officers walking the street. They do not play any particular attention to him, but as he is heading towards the subway there is a shot of them walking behind him.  They are walking behind him in a similar position to a way police officers would walk someone they had just arrested, one on each side.  In my opinion Hitchcock did this on purpose to foreshadow what the future would have in store for Manny.  It is interesting that so early in the film we are already seeing the presence of the police.  Upon re-watching that sequence I also could not help but get an airy feeling by looking at their presence.  I also find it interesting that the first appearance of the police in the film is that in a non-threatening way, a contrasting way into which Hitchcock would show them in the future. Especially the menacing appearance a police officer would make in “Psycho”, creating an oppressive feeling for Marion as she awoke in her car.

The next appearance of the police, dealing with Manny directly, is when the detectives pick him up in front of his house.  I would not say they are particularly harsh in the way they treat Manny at first, although not allowing him to walk a few feet and inform his wife I found to be odd. They could have walked him to the door themselves if they had feared he would run.  After he is taken around to two stores in which the crimes he was accused of committing had taken place they return to the station and proceed with questioning him.  This is where I think Hitchcock really shows the power of law enforcement, specifically in how they have the ability to manipulate what you say into making you look guilty.  They try to manipulate Manny’s words into portraying him as a man who has problem with debts and therefore committing a crime to obtain money is something he would do.  Then there is the penmanship comparison test which I think they further shows their manipulative tactics, by trying to make the case that Manny is their man because of how he wrote “drawer” on his second attempt.  Now whether or not they think he is the man they are looking for or not they seem to be trying to pressure manny into admitting he is.  After he is positively identified by the women from the insurance agency and in the face of some pretty convincing evidence, he is arrested.  

Then the procedure plays out in a very real way, paperwork is filled out, items are placed are removed from his pockets, and he is escorted to a holding cell.  But, during his processing, his finger prints are taken, the dark ink represents a false stain on his character and his life.  It besmirches the essence of an honest man because of a mistake.  If this were one of Hitchcock’s typical thrillers, he would probably find a way to break away from the police and go on the run. But, that is not the case here. What is portrayed is the reality of a man being places in a holding cell.  The detectives portrayal are also different from Hitchcock’s other films because while they are indeed a force against the protagonist, in this case they are doing their jobs as opposed to previous films like “The 39 Steps” or “Saboteur”  where they seem to be connected to the antagonist.  But as an audience we are suppose to feel an animosity towards them.

After Manny awakes in his cell he is transported along with other men to a hearing that I am not really sure what the purpose is? It seems to be to establish the past crimes of those arrested.  After that he is transported for arraignment at felony court.  After that he is sent to Long Island City jail where he is placed in a cell.  At that time Hitchcock employs an interesting camera shot where the camera shot goes through the slot and we see Manny with his back towards us.  I mention all this plot because throughout it Manny has very few lines and Henry Fonda is able to tell us so much by the look in his face and the demeanor by the way he walks.  I see a confused, lost, sad, scared, fatigued, and disheveled individual who does not belong where he is.  I think that that is what Hitchcock was going for, we are supposed to feel sorry and angry for this person.  The justice system that we are supposed to trust has beaten has wronged an innocent man. Not because they have misinformation, because they do, but because they have the power to enforce the law based on that misinformation. I think that is what scares Hitchcock and what we should be scared of as an audience.

I must also make mention of what Haeffner said in his book about Truffaut criticism of the scene in the holding cell, specifically the camera moving around and around to show the audience how Manny’s world was literally spinning.  I personally like the effect that the camera motion has on the audience, in the sense that it makes their heads spin as much as Manny’s is. But, I understand the point Truffaut is trying to make, by having Henry Fonda just sitting in the cell, you keep the consistency of the realism in the film intact.  In the sense that up to that point in the film the camera had not been any of that type of camera movement, everything had been shot in a very consistently documentary style way, which maintained the films realism.  I love how Hitchcock’s reaction to that was that it would be dull and that he thought Truffaut wanted him to work in the arthouses.  As much I love Hitchcock as a film maker, I do not think he could have ever made a film in the same style as the Italian Neo-realists like Roberto Rossellini or Vittorio De Sica.  The way in which he moved the camera and his aesthetics were part of what made Hitchcock great.  Although I will say The Wrong Man was his attempt at that style of film.

In Haeffner’s book, he mentions the critique of the 1950s culture that is apparent within the film.  For example early on in the film Manny is reading a newspaper and sees ads for cars and banks. Haeffner mentions that in the 1950s American consumerism was on the rise, which would explain the ads for the car and the bank to be near each other in the newspaper.  One could get a loan from a bank to pay for the car.  Coincidentally, Manny wanting to borrow against his wife’s insurance policy is what starts his problems, with the women working their misidentifying him as the person who robbed them.  Money seems to play a big role in the film, specifically its importance to people.  Manny has a wife, two children, and a home, typically what is perceived as living the American dream in the 1950s. But they seem to just get by financially with having to take out a loan to go on a vacation, for Rose’s oral surgery, and general bills they have to pay. But contradictory to the ideal 1950s American dream, they do not live in a nice suburban, white picketed fence home, but a small seemingly cramped house for four people in the city.  They do not own a car because I assume they can not
afford it.

Also one of the pivotal moments of the film that ties directly to finances is the scene where Vera Miles mind reaches its breaking point and she blames herself for what happened to Manny.  It is not only about the need for $300 for the dentist but she also blames herself for all their financial woes.  Although specific amounts are not mentioned in the film we can assume that the financial debts are mounting up as Manny gets deeper and deeper involved in his case.  Things like Lawyer fees, court fees, and having to pay back the bail put up by his brother-in-law, adds up not only in money but in mental stress. Rose’s mental breakdown shows that the family unit can be broken down by money.  In a way Hitchcock is displaying the idea that becoming so dependent on financial solvency is the cause of so much hardship. Money seems to be both the key to happiness and also the key to sadness as well. 

When Haeffner writes that, "The view of the world  presented in ..The Wrong Man, as in so many Hitchcock dramas, is located at the crossroads between seeing, feeling, truth and illusion." I think he means that they encompass all these aspects.  Hitchcock’s films manipulate our perception so that we see the world within his films the way in which he wants us to see it.  It is through the way in which we see the world in his films also elicit an emotional response, like gasping in horror in “Psycho” during the shower scene.  His films also depict hints of truth to them, some say that his contain cathartic elements for him as an artist.  Throughout his career he delivers to an audience a sense of illusion, his Hitchcockian twists have become legendary to film fans.  I think the main point is that his films have many different aspects to them and operate on several different levels of meaning.

"To Live"

This is my final paper in the Great Novels on Film course that I took in the Winter/Spring of 2015.  I discuss that while Linda Costanzo Cahir applies Akira Kurosawa'a film Ikiru directly to one of her points in a rubric of what makes a successful book to film translation, she fails to identify that it also applies to another one of her points in her rubric. I have included a video that contains a portion of the film. The sequence that I look at begins around the 43 minute mark and ends about the 57th minute.

Ikiru (1952) pt. 1 by karimberdi

In Linda Costanzo Cahir’s book Literature Into Film: theory and Practical Approaches she outlines a four point rubric for the evaluation of a successful book to film translation.  The third point of the rubric states " The film must demonstrate an audacity to create a work that stands as a world apart, that exploits the literature in such a way that a self-reliant, but related, aesthetic offspring is born." In her explanation of this point in her rubric she specifically discusses Akira Kurosawa’s film Ikiru because of its radical translation of Leo Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilych.  Her main point is that even though Ikiru is so different from the novel it still maintains the core themes but in a much different way.  She discusses how the similarities and differences between the two and even how those differences connect with the novel while creating an independent piece of work. But what she fails to mention is what Kurosawa specifically does to bring about this collaboration of similarities and differences.  I believe that it is important to point out that the second point in her rubric, “The film must exhibit a collaboration of filmmaking skills”, is paramount in creating this new offspring from the novel.  Especially when you see how different Ivan Ilych and Kanji Watanabe search for their personal meaning in life. 

In the novel, Ivan Ilych pursues his search for personal meaning in life through a passive approach of internal thought and self reflection. His revelation of a wasted life is not achieved until the very end of the novel while he is very close to death. His revelation comes too late for him to do anything concretely significant to remedy it. In the end, his passive approach does lead to an ambiguous level of peace, but only as death overtakes him. In Ikiru, Kanji Watanabe initially takes a passive approach by wallowing in a depressive state in a bar drinking his sorrows away.  Similarly to Ilych, Watanabe comes to the realization that his life has been wasted.  Fortunately for him, he makes this discovery early on in his journey towards death and is able to pursue his personal meaning of life in a more actively aggressive way.  His first attempt is by spending a night on the town with a young Novelist who wants to help him discover a new life. 

Akira Kurosawa utilizes his masterful collaborative filmmaking skills to illustrate how this new way of life was not the right one for Watanabe. The scene begins with an extreme closeup of a gaming machine. The light exuberant sounds emanating from it contrasts with the depressive dark mood of Watanabe. The next shot is a tight medium close up of Watanabe and the Novelist, the tightness of the shot portraying Watanabe’s isolation in his new environment. The Novelist explains the meaning of the gaming machine to Watanabe’s situation in life by saying, “Listen, these silver balls, they’re you. They’re your life itself. This machine liberates people who strangle themselves in their daily lives.  A vending machine of dreams and infatuations.” These words are interesting because they describe Watanabe so well in that moment, he is searching for a way out of his rigid life that has been strangling him without him even knowing.  He craves a new life dream, an infatuation to give his life new meaning.  Also, it is no coincidence that the Novelist then pours money into his hands and gestures towards the machine.  It leads to a question, are money and games a new avenue of life that Watanabe wants to pursue?  The camera then dollys back and to the left as Watanabe and the Novelist move towards the machine.  The new camera angle makes the mise en scene more significant.  A viewer can now see that there are other people in the background at other machines. Also, a new man comes into frame, using the machine next to Watanabe; his machine is making the same happy noise as others. Watanabe looks over at this man and wants to experience what he is experiencing.  He proceeds to then insert money in his machine with a smile of hope that he is finding some new joy in his life. The next shot is the same as the opening shot of the scene except we now see the machine operating from an over the shoulder camera angle of Watanabe and the Novelist. The difference is that now it is not an extreme close up but a wider shot that shows Watanabe in the frame, signifying that he has now begun to immerse himself in this new life.

The next two scenes in the sequence are connected because they both show that Watanabe has entered a different world than he is used to. The first scene is very short but shows a lot visually. It is a wide angle camera shot of Watanabe and the Novelist sitting at a table drinking, but they are along a large mirror that reflects the room. The mise en scene shows the room is filled with people talking, drinking, and yelling. Then, unbeknownst to Watanabe a couple of trombones enter the frame and the sound they make frightens him so that he gets up from his seat and looks in surprise terror offscreen in the direction of musicians.  Despite the noisy and crowded room, Watanabe is still able to sit alone with his new friend and have a drink and share a conversation.  He seems to be having a nice time, but Kurosawa uses the loud protruding noise of the band to eviscerate any comfort.  The look on his face is that of a frightened man who is not prepared for the unpredictability that this nightlife has.  The next scene begins with a tracking shot panning from left to right of Watanabe and the Novelist as they are making their way through crowds of people. As they are walking, they are being constantly bumped by people into fences and store fronts creating a hostile environment that culminates in a woman stealing Watanabe’s hate.  Upon the theft of his hat, Watanabe wants to chase the woman and retrieve it, but is stopped by the Novelist and then pushed by a woman in to what looks like a fence made of chicken wire. The shot is a close up of the two men who are now pressed up against the fence which takes up the whole frame, signifying that even in this new life Watanabe is trapped, That point is further emphasized in the next shot when they move from their previous location to stand in front of a store window that gives the appearance of them being trapped behind bars.  The shot is an even tighter close up than the previous one, perhaps signifying an even further confinement.

The next four moments within the sequence are all connected because this is when Watanabe gets his new hat that is supposed to symbolize his beginning a new life.  After the wipe scene transition, there is a camera pan from right to left as Watanabe and the Novelist leave a store, cross a street, stop while the Novelist inspects the new hat, and then continues to pan as they enter a bar.  The camera is perfectly situated where Kurosawa can get all the shots he needs without having to movie the camera or edit. They sit down and order a drink from the woman behind the bar and everything is fine until Watanabe removes his hat and the woman goes to put it away.  After having his previous hat stolen he forcefully grabs it from the woman and holds it close. The awkwardness of the situation leads he novelist to laugh because he understands Watanabe’s actions.  In context the situation is ironically funny, but it also shows that Watanabe is trying to adapt to his new life. He has already seen his hat stolen once and does not want that to see that happen again. But, what he does not understand is being able to recognize the difference in the situations.  The new life he is trying to live is very confusing for him because nothing is black and white, it is s mixture of good and bad. One moment someone is smiling and pouring you a drink and then another person smiles and steals your hat.

The next scene within the montage that depicts a collaboration of filmmaking skills is when they venture into a piano bar.  The scene begins with a close up of a piano playing fast paced exuberant music. Then the camera pulls back to show a woman pouring alcohol into the musicians mouth as he plays.  The camera then tilts upward to reveal a mirror on the ceiling that reflects what is happening below. Then there is a cut to Watanabe as he is following a dancing woman throughout the dance floor. The camera follows him as he pursues this woman, but she is always slightly out of reach. These shots of a fatigued Watanabe, accompanied with the loud festive music and camera movement show that this life is not for him.  He literally can not keep up the pace of it like everyone else can.  I believe this point becomes more apparent to him when a moment later he is sitting almost half asleep in a chair and requests the song Life is Brief.  As the musician begins playing the song, a group of young people begin to slow dance; they are shot through a beaded doorway, yet another shot signifying confinement.  But this shot begs the question are these people also confined in their world as Watanabe is to his? As he begins to sing this melancholic song the camera focuses solely on him, but then it moves so that the misc en scene shows the reaction of the people around him.  They are are transfixed on this elderly man singing this melancholic song. Then the camera cuts to the woman moving back towards the musician and then to the piano, mimicking the first shot of scene but only in reverse. The song is the opposite of the opening song, the emotion of the people in the room is also contrasting. In this moment the new life that Watanabe has ventured in and his old one come crashing together.  He has now realized that he can not escape his old life by venturing so aggressively into this new one.  He will not find his personal meaning of life this way.

That point is further emphasized in the last scene in the sequence when he is sitting in this taxi with two women that he and the Novelist have just been dancing with.  There is a close up of him sitting between these two women, and he looks like he is about to be sick.  The camera pans to the woman on his left, who is fixing her makeup, and then cuts to a shot of the woman on his right counting money with him situated on her left. He then tells the taxi driver to stop because he is going to vomit.  What the shots show is that in this new life is a shallow, hollow, meaningless existence filled with fake people and he is surrounded by it.  Surrounded by all this meaninglessness, his mind and his body is rejecting it, forcing him to vomit in an alley. Of course, the vomit literally is a result of his stomach Cancer, but the night’s lifestyle has taken a toll on his body.  There is beautiful close up of his face as he emerges from the alley, his face is half hidden in darkness but his new hat is shining because of the street lights.  He looks melancholic but then gives a little smile to the Novelist.  The camera then cuts to a reaction shot of the novelist with this concerned look on his face, then back to Watanabe, then back to the Novelist. No words are spoken it is just the look that says it all, Watanabe is done pursuing some meaning this avenue of life, he will not find it here.

Ikiru is an audacious work that is independent of its literary counterpart, but it does so because of Akira Kurosawa’s brilliant ability to utilize his collaborative filmmaking skills.  The film and the novels protagonists are in search for their own personal meaning of life.   Ivan Ilych finds it only at the last moment before his death. Meanwhile, Kanji Watanabe will pursue a more aggressive path of trial and error.  His pursuance of his meaning in life initially fails when he tries to go live his life in a drastically different way.  It will not be until he meets a young woman named Toyo that he will find that there is one last thing he can do to salvage his life and that is to get a local park built for the community.  I believe the main point of both works is to pursue some meaning in life regardless of whether its through passive or aggressive ways.  Which path you take is dependent on what type of person you are.

"Boo Radley Revealed"

This is a paper I wrote in a Great Novels in Film Course I took in the Winter/Spring of 2015.  It si a sequence for the film To Kill a Mockingbird starring Gregory Peck. The sequence I chose to analyze was the reveal of Boo Radley towards the end of the film. portrayed by Robert Duvall. I have included a clip from Youtube of nearly the entire sequence.

Permeating the novel To Kill a Mockingbird and its film adaptation is the mysterious character of Boo Radley.  Even as readers and viewers of the film, we are enveloped in the mysterious identity of Boo. It is not until the end of both the book and film that he is revealed.  In the book the characters are in Jem’s bedroom, when Heck Tate has just revealed that he found Bob Ewell’s dead body at the site where Jem and Scout were attacked while walking home from the Halloween pageant. Atticus, Aunt Alexandria, Heck Tate and even Scout are surprised at this revelation. Heck Tate asks Scout to recall what happened until she remembers someone rescuing her from Mr. Ewell’s attack and points directly at Boo in the corner of the room.  This scene is significant because it is the first time we see the mysterious Boo.  All we have heard about is the imaginative children’s stories of a wild, malevolent monstrous creature. But, in actuality he is a gentle, misunderstood hero who saves two young children from a true evil monster in Bob Ewell.  The scene in the film, although slightly different, still portrays themes of innocence and loss of innocence, as well as representing the goodness that lies within humanity despite the evil in the world.

The sequence begins with a medium close up of Sheriff Heck Tate asking scout what happened? Then the camera cuts to a mid shot of Scout standing next to Jem’s bed as she begins to tell what happened.  While she is talking there is a cut to a medium close up of Atticus with a concerned look on his face, he can not believe someone would attack children. As Atticus looks off screen, there is a cut to a full frame shot of Jem lying in bed sleeping. His taking up the whole frame prominently portrays the innocence of a sleeping child.  Then there is a cut back to a mid shot of Scout, further discussing the events, then a cut back to a medium close up of Heck Tate who is listening intently. This shot is followed by a cut back to a mid shot of Scout, but just before the next cut, she moves from center frame to the right of the frame, then cut to a medium close up of Atticus, also listening intently. The next shot is a mid shot, but she has now moved to the end of the bed and has her armed wrapped around the tall post. She says, “I saw someone carrying Jem,” which prompts a reaction shot to a medium close up shot of Heck Tate who asks who it was? This leads to a reaction shot of Scout’s response which is to mention the figure off camera.  There is now a cut to a deep focus wide shot of all the characters within the frame. Atticus is standing on the far right of the screen, Heck Tate is in the middle, his figure slightly obscured by the bed post and his body is turning toward the figure. Scout is slightly in the foreground because she is behind the bed post and her back is turned to the audience.  In the far left of the screen, farther in the background and hidden behind an open door with darkness hiding his face and most of his body, is Boo.  This shot is specifically lit in such a way that it hits each character differently, going from lighter to darker as one’s eyes move from the right to left across the frame.  It is not coincidental that Boo is obscured by darkness because of the mysterious nature of his character throughout the film.  Heck Tate moves towards the door and as he grabs it to move it there is a cut to medium close up of Boo, who, now free from the comfortable darkness, makes a slight dash to the wall with a frightened look on his face.  Then there is a cut to a deep focus medium close up of Heck Tate in the foreground and Atticus in the background. Then there is a close up of Scout with an inquisitive look on her face while the camera zooms onto her face. Then there is a cut to  a medium close up shot of Boo that zooms into a tight close up on his face which has an innocent blank look on his face. Then a reverse shot back to close up of Scout’s who begins to understand who she is looking at and begins to smile at the revelation, then a cut back to a close up of Boo’s face which seems be more relaxed now, then a cut back to a close up of Scout’s who smiles and says, “Hey Boo”. Then a cut back to a close up shot of Boo, while the orchestral score swells upon his reveal, with almost an acknowledging smile on his face.  Atticus’s voice cuts into the shot introducing Arthur Radley, which then cuts to a medium close up of Heck Tate in the foreground and Atticus in the background.  Then there is a quick cut back to a close up of Scout’s face with a surprised look on it. Then a cut to a close up of Boo’s face which is used to further emphasize what she is seeing, then a cut back to the close up of her surprised face as she blinks in disbelief at who she is looking at.  Then there is a cut to a deep focus wide shot of Atticus on the far right of the the frame, Heck Tate in the middle of the frame standing in the doorway, with Scout in the middle of the frame still standing behind the bed post with her back turned toward us.  Heck Tate leaves the room along with Atticus after him. 

The moment of Boo’s reveal in the film is relatively close to what is described in the novel, with only certain details differing between the two. His appearance is different than the physically gaunt and pale man he is described as in the book.  Also, Scout’s emotional reaction is different.  In the book she tears up and walks away towards Jem’s bed. In the film, she smiles with excitement upon identifying him.  Despite these minor changes, the film still succeeds in portraying Boo in an impactful way, perhaps even more impactful than the book.  The visual and audio power of film can sometimes surpass what is in the text of the novel.  For example, the way the musical score swells and the camera cuts back and forth to a smiling Scout as she audibly identifies him for the first time creates a magical movie moment.  It is such an iconic first image of a silent, gentle, scared, individual who is a hero.  Atticus is considered the hero of the story because he stands up to racism in the deep south in defending Tom Robinson, but Boo stands up to his own enemies within himself. The scene shows how the years of isolation have taken a toll on him.  You can see his introverted demeanor affect his ability to interact with others as he stands in the corner of the room afraid.  There is also a child like innocence to him.  When he looks offscreen towards Scout, there is an innocence within his eyes that connects him to the children.  But yet, within those innocent eyes you can see how much he has been robbed of his life due to being hidden away.  Contrast his eyes with Scout’s eyes, where you can see a similar innocence, but what is also there is a spark of life and youthful promise of hopeful future.  Those traits are preserved because of the heroic actions of Boo.   

"It Has Become Quiet on the Western Front"

This was a Film Review I wrote in the Winter of 2015 for a Great Novels in Film course I took.  I had to pretend that I was watching the film in the year 2030 for its 100th Anniversary and write a review.

This year marks the 100th Anniversary of the release of All Quiet on the Western Front directed by Lewis Milestone.  Winner of two Oscars at the third Academy Awards ceremony for Best Picture and Best Director, it is the first film to accomplish such a feat.  To celebrate the centennial occasion, Universal Pictures has decided to have several special screenings of beautiful film prints in select theaters.  While there are several screenings around the country, I was fortunate enough to be invited by Universal to attend one these special screenings directly on their studio lot in Burbank, California.  Not often as a cinephile in today’s world are you able to see a beautifully restored 35mm print of a film that is a century old. Especially one with such significance as this.

The film is an adaptation of the novel All Quiet on the Western Front written by Erich Maria Remarque and published in 1929.  The film, like the book, follows the story of Paul Baumer and his fellow German soldiers in WWI.  Paul is the protagonist so the film’s events revolve around his perspective.  He and his fellow comrades begin the film as wide eyed school boys being coaxed into recruitment by their overzealous professor.  He and his classmates then go on to experience the horrors of war, not only the grueling physicality of trench warfare, but also psychological trauma of seeing your friends die.  The film depicts war in an inglorious way to show how the true victims of war are its soldiers.  If they are fortunate enough to live through the war, their experiences change everything about their character. 

While viewing old films, I find it necessary to put them within the proper context when judging their technical merit. The older a film, the more important that frame of mind is.  I find All Quiet on the Western Front to be a technical achievement considering the time in which it was made, specifically the battle sequences.  The camera work during the battle sequences is extraordinary because of how well the cinematographer, director, and editor are able to utilize camera placement and movement. At the beginning of the first battle sequence the camera is used to build suspense. The sequence begins with a dolly shot along the line of German soldiers in a trench, then a cut to a distance shot across the empty battle field, then back to the soldiers, then to more soldiers, then to quick cuts back and forth of bombs dropping, then to soldiers, and then this glorious crane shot of the enemy soldiers advancing. Then the battle begins and we as viewers are treated to a visual feast.  The editing is so fast that as a viewer you can not even blink or else you will miss a shot.  Bombs are dropping, bullets are flying, soldiers are dying at a frenetic pace comparable to modern action films. But what is being depicted at this fast pace is the chaos of war, how quickly and how easily life can end.  If we slow down and take a breath, I believe the Director is trying to ask the question, what is the purpose of this death and violence? All we can really answer as viewers is probably the same as Paul and his comrades: it’s either kill or be killed. 

Another technical achievement that I find impressive about the film is the sound.  The film originally came out in the early years of talkie cinema. The Silent Era was not quite dead yet  in the early 1930s, but the wave of the future was the talkie.  It was painstakingly difficult just to properly incorporate dialogue into a film let alone the elaborate sound effects that were used in All Quiet on the Western Front.  During the action sequence previously mentioned, the sound plays a crucial role in tandem with the camera work to create the warfare atmosphere.  The sound effects of the bombs, bullet fire, and men screaming, are layered in a manner that must have been technically difficult to achieve.  What it accomplishes is reinforcing the visual chaos of war with the auditory chaos of war.  As viewers we are placed into the fray of battle because we both see and hear what the protagonist does.  So we are able to better understand the toll that the war is taking on his person.

The acting is also significant in the film because at the time a big studio would use a big star to sell their film to an audience, especially a film this big and expensive.  But, in this case the main protagonist, Paul Baumer, is portrayed by Lew Ayres, an unknown and essentially unproven actor at the time. Despite his relative newness to film acting, he gives an exceptional performance.  There is a particular brief moment in a hospital where he is being wheeled away and he begins to scream frantically about not dying. It’s slightly theatrical, but I feel that works for the scene because when someone expresses great fear, they are not in control of their emotions. Another scene where he is next to a dying soldier and frantically pleads for him to die is similar in that it shows the psychological effect that his experiences are having on him.  He no longer has the ability to process clearly what the war is doing to him; the only reaction is uncontrolled, incessant babbling. It’s is almost as if his brain can no longer function on a normal level.  His ability to process thoughts in a coherent manner is lost because of all the trauma he is going through.  A main message to be taken from this scene is that the chaos of war has destroyed a once young, fertile mind.

As with many book to screen adaptations throughout the history of film certain artistic license was taken when translating All Quiet on the Western Front to screen.  A most notable omission from the book is the internal monologue of Paul. This monologue was filled with beautiful poetic and philosophical language to depict his tattered thoughts.  Although it works extremely well in the book, it would have been difficult to use in the film. A heavy use of internal monologue narration would have perhaps alienated the audience at the time. But, there are several instances within the film where Paul’s internal monologue is externalized effectively. One such instance is when Paul is addressing a group of young school boys who are expecting to hear great tales of the glory of battle and how honorable it is to fight for their country.  Instead, Paul externalizes his pain and anguish about the war in a powerful speech.  He sees the same same wide eyed Naiveté that was in the faces of his fellow schoolmates and can not stand that the same lies are being told to them.  These lies have doomed his generation to death and despair and he feels they need to hear the harsh truth.  His anti-war sentiment receives harsh backlash from the young minds who have been fed nothing but propaganda about the war.  The scene is important because it shows the contrast between the reality and fantasy of war.  It also emphasizes a theme of stolen youth that appears throughout the film.  Paul and his fellow schoolmates youthful lives were stolen by not only the war but the war fervor that took over the citizens of Germany prompting them to send their men into war.

The anti-war sentiment that is contained in the heart of the novel is also contained in this scene.  The lasting legacy of the film is its ability to portray the timeless themes like chaotic warfare, corruption and sacrifice of youth, physical and mental toll of warfare, and ultimately an antiwar sentiment.  This film along and the novel should be viewed in tandem because they are both important in their specific media format.  The film should be appreciated for its technical feats as well as its bold storytelling.  Films of its nature have been duplicated several times over the years, but I think we owe it to ourselves as film fans, cinephiles, film buffs, film enthusiasts, or whatever adjective you use to describe your love for movies, to preserve the legacy of this film.  It is our responsibility to keep the legacy of classic film intact.  

"Foreign Correspondent"

This was paper I wrote about Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 film "Foreign Correspondent" in an Alfred Hitchcock course I took in the Fall of 2013.  In this paper I discussed how Hitchcock was able to make a pro Allies film within a spy-thriller film.

Hitchcock’s 1940 film “Foreign Correspondent” was nominated for Best Picture at the 13th Annual Academy Awards along with his film “Rebecca”.  The film takes place during the time right before Great Britain is about to declare war on Germany at the outset of WWII.  It contains a pro Allies message, but is told through method of  Hitchcock spy thriller.  It is also used as a message to the countries outside Europe that are neutral, specifically the United States, to rally to the Allies‘ side against the Axis Powers. 

As an American viewer you are aware of the war right from the beginning of the film.  The first scene of the film begin with the head of an American newspaper receiving a message from one of its foreign correspondents in Europe.  The message directly mentions the war in Europe.  He is frustrated with the lack of information that it contained, he decides he wants a reporter to go there and discover information, specifically someone one with an objective perspective.  The viewers’ introduction to the main protagonist shows, John Jones, is that of the everyman. Having John Jones being portrayed as the everyman it gives the viewers someone whom they can relate to. In this case probably an American viewership putting themselves in his shoes of the American protagonist at the outbreak of WWII. 

There are two scenes in the film that I believe are directed towards the viewers of the time to support the Allied cause.  The first is the scene that I find to be the most memorable, it is the scene where Mr. Van Meer is confined to a bed and Mr. Fisher is trying to get him to say what clause twenty-seven is.  But, Van Meer comes to the realization that Fisher is working with the enemy and delivers a powerful monologue saying, “I see now. There's no help. No help for the whole poor suffering world. Oh! You cry peace, Fisher. Peace. And there was no peace. Only war and death. You're... You're a liar, Fisher. A cruel, cruel liar. You can do what you want with me. That's not important. But you'll never conquer them, Fisher. Little people everywhere who give crumbs to birds. Lie to them, drive them, whip them, force them into war. When the beasts like you will devour each other, then the world will belong to the little people.” It seems to be a message to those who think war is avoidable but the reality is that war and death is inevitable. He also says that regardless of what they do to him, they will never conquer them. The ‘Them” I believe he is referring to is the Allied nations.  He describes them as little people who give crumbs to birds, they will be sent into war. The little people he refers to will ultimately live on while the beasts will kill each other off. A powerful message of good vs evil from Van Meer to the viewers. 

The second scene is the very last scene of the the film where Jones is giving a radio message to America while London is being bombed.  He forgoes fleeing to a bomb shelter to deliver a message to the American people saying,  “Keep those lights burning, cover them with steel, ring them with guns, build a canopy of battleships and bombing planes around them. Hello, America, hang on to your lights: they're the only lights left in the world!” It is a message to the United States to get involved in the war.  Hitchcock is using Jones‘ speech as a way to convey Britain’s message for help from the United States by appealing to the film viewers.  At the time the film was made the U.S. was neutral, even though history shows they were sending supplies to Great Britain, they would technically remain neutral until the attack on Pearl harbor in 1941. Coincidentally Hitchcock was working on “Saboteur” during that attack, another anti-nazi film.

While “Foreign Correspondent” can be viewed as a pro Allies propaganda film, it is also contains elements of a Hitchcock spy thriller.  Similar to the thrillers that preceded it and those that would come after it, “Foreign Correspondent’ contains a leading man who starts as an ordinary everyman, who then gets involved in events that are much larger than himself.  Along the way he develops a romantic relationship with a leading woman, in this case Laraine Day portraying Carol Fisher. Their relationship begins as an antagonistic one when Jones dismisses her father’s peace organization because it is made up of well meaning amateurs who can not go up against pro war organization members.  She takes particular offense to his remarks and proceeds to chide him in her speech.  But, I found it interesting that while giving her speech she seemed to become flustered by his notes and the way he gazed at her from the crowd. It seems that his forward romantic advances towards her caught her off guard. 

In typical Hitchcock fashion the main antagonist is someone who is wealthy.  A respectable person in society is someone that would be least expected to be a villainous Nazi spy.  His public persona is a facade for him to be able to mask his malevolent dealings.  Van Meer even calls him out as cruel liar because he talks about peace but in actuality he wants war.  The antagonists in Hitchcock’s thriller films seem to all be powerful wealthy public figures who fool the masses.  Van Meer calls Fisher his friend when in actuality he is his enemy. i also find it interesting in the end Fisher ends up as hero in sacrificing himself to put less weight on the wing they were latching onto.  But I think as a viewer you have to ask was he doing it unselfishly or did he just not want to be caught and humiliated by being put on trial? Hitchcock enjoys creating those questions in the viewers’ mind.

It would not be a Hitchcock thriller without its moments of suspense.  There are several sequences of suspense in the film.  One such sequence is that at the windmill where jones discovers than Van Meer is really alive and his assassination was staged.  As Hitchcock did so well throughout his career he uses the art of editing to create suspense. During the scene it cuts back and forth from the kidnappers tending to a drugged up Van Meer to Jones hiding from them. From time to time Van Meer will look up at a spot Jones is hiding but when the camera moves there Jones is not there.  There is a wonderful birds eye view shot of Jones hanging on the outside of the windmill that gives the viewers a good look at the dangerous position he is in.  

Another scene that contains suspense is the scene atop the Cathedral tower when a bodyguard named Rowley, portrayed by Edmund Gwenn,  hired by Fisher is really a hit man who is suppose to get rid of Jones.  As viewers we know what his intentions are but jones does not.  During the scene the Rowley glances towards the elevator to see if everyone leaves and makes sure to keep Jones occupied near the ledge. When he moves in to push Jones off, the camera angle is that directly facing the viewers as if he was walking right at them and pushing them off the ledge. That was a great sequence where Hitchcock played with the viewers by using a point of view camera shot.  What is also great is that all we see is man’s body fall but we do not know who until the next scene. For a brief moment the viewers could possibly think that Jones is dead. Yet another way Hitchcock plays with the audiences emotions.

I must also comment on the final climactic event of the film and that is the plane crash scene.  i though it was absolutely brilliant how Hitchcock was able to capture the chaos of a plane crash landing in the ocean. What I failed to mention before is that while he uses editing to create suspense he also uses the score very effectively in those scenes.  But in this scene he decides to not use any score but let the sounds of the scene speak for itself.  The only time a score comes in is at the end of the sequence, specifically when it swells up with Fisher sacrificing himself. It is remarkable to look at the entire sequence and realize that it was done on a studio set.  The sound effects, the water, the wind, everything was placed into the scene perfectly to capture the fear of the moment.  There is also a sense  of unpredictability for the viewers. The chaos of the moment can lead to one or perhaps all the characters dying. 

      

For as serious a subject that the film deals with, Hitchcock lightens the mood with humorous dialogue throughout.  Most of the humor comes from secondary characters like Stebbins who sarcastically remarks about his jitters due to alcohol consumption. Or Ffolliott, portrayed by the great George Sanders, who comes up with some of the best humorous lines.  The humorous lines come so quick that they are easy to miss and contain that dry sense of British humor.  For example there is the scene right after Rowley has attempted to kill Jones and Ffolliott is revealed to have an inclination as to what is going on.  His dialogue is so matter of fact, the way he humorously states all the facts he knows including that war will be declared tomorrow weather permitting as if it were a sports game I find funny.

“Foreign Correspondent” successfully blends pro Allied propaganda and Hitchcockian thriller into one film.  Through his artistry as a film maker Hitchcock was able to deliver a propaganda message through one of his films, something he would also do In “Saboteur”.  i think that one of the big questions is was how affective was his propaganda message. As I said earlier that the U.S. would not officially enter WWII until late 1941 and a western front would not be established until D-Day, June 6, 1941. Of course having the U.S. enter the war was a big game changing moment. But I guess one of the questions that are probably pondered by Historians even today is what would have happened if the U.S. entered the war earlier than they did? Would a film like “Foreign Correspondent” even have been made? I for one am happy that it did because we get yet another solid Hitchcock film that can be viewed today and it actually holds up very well.