Captain America: Civil War Review

Captain America: Civil War is the highly anticipated follow up to both Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Avengers: Age of Ultron. In the sense that this film builds off of the events in those films. Despite the absence of Thor and The Incredible Hulk, dubbing this film "Avengers 2.5" is appropriate considering the amount of characters this film contains and the impact that this film has on the MCU. I highly recommend re-familiarizing yourself with the events of Avengers, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and Avengers: Age of Ultron because the climactic events in those films essentially dictate the basic premise for this film. After yet again another event involving per heroes that result in a loss of innocent life, they are going to be held accountable for their actions through the Sakovia Accords. The Avengers would be giving up their sovereignty as a team and be run via Government control.

This is where the film delves into its deeper philosophical and political themes. Tony Stark who is racked by the guilt of the death of innocent people and believes that oversight is needed, while Steve Rogers is very leery of any type of institutional control because of the fall of SHIELD due to the corrupting force of Hydra that festered within it. A somewhat intellectual debate ensues and sides are drawn. This internal conflict within the Avengers is what the film hinges on when it comes to its success as a film and it indeed works.

The culmination of this conflict comes to a head in what is known as the "airport scene", which is an extremely impressive and well executed piece of action cinema. The editing is wonderfully balanced between all the different fights within this battle. Initially the Russo's utilized a rapid cutting and somewhat jarring handheld camera use in early action sequences, but abandoned those techniques for a much more polished looking action scene here. This scene is very much nirvana for comic book fans. It is quite a surreal experience to see all of these characters come together on screen. Amidst all this awesomeness I am seeing on screen I can't help but feel that these characters, while fighting, are restraining themselves. None of these characters are typically looking to seriously hurt or indeed kill one another. There are certain characters involved in the skirmish that are so powerful that I can't help but think that if they really wanted to, they could end this fight very quickly. Its this lack of gumption to push the film in a much more bold area that leaves me with a slight feeling of unfulfillment. But, that is mostly my personal subjective taste of what I wish to see in my comic book films at this point. But, having said that, the climactic fight has that boldness that I want, granted the way in which the entire scenario comes to be is problematic from a script standpoint, it is still a serious emotional event. One character is pushed to an unfamiliar emotional place and a vicious fight ensues.

The plot structure and pace is very good. For a film around two and half hours, the moves very quickly. A lot of that has to do with the amount of plot and character elements the Russo Bros put in this film. There is an abundance of characters and each character is given something to do, even the new ones introduced in the film. We get our first look at Marvel's incarnation of Spider-Man, a smart wise cracking teenager, in the mold of a young Tony Stark. They also introduce T'Challa AKA Black Panther, who is one of my favorite parts of this film. Chadwick Baseman portrays him very well. He has a weight to his character, a confidence of someone who commands your respect. His motivation for revenge is emotionally believable. Black Panther effective bulldozes his agenda through that of Cap's and Iron Man's. I can not wait for the Black Panther film.

Something also must be said for the great cast Marvel has assembled for their Cinematic Universe. The actors are able to seamlessly slip into their characters from film to film and evolve over time. Tony Stark and Steve Rogers are not the same characters they were in previous films. Stark has the look of a man with immense mental weight, who is trying desperately to do what is right because of it. Rogers tries desperately to hold onto the idealism of the world he used to know and the person he was. Its the reason he is wiling to risk everything for his friend Bucky AKA The Winter Soldier. Bucky is his one last connection to a life and world that is long gone.

One of the glaring weaknesses of the film is the villain Zemo portrayed by Daniel Bruhl. He is so underwritten that he is reduced to functioning as a contrived plot device. His main function is to set certain plot lines in motion, specifically revolving around The Winter Soldier. What is interesting is I like the aspect of the plot that he helps facilitate but I do not like the the way in which it happens. For example, the final battle is great but Zemo's facilitation of it is really contrived. Certain events literally have to happen the way they happened or else the main goal of his plan would not work. Zemo's motivation behind his actions are valid and deeply emotional, but is not fully fleshed out.

Despite certain issues, the film is very entertaining and overall very well done by the Russo Bros. They have a lot of elements in the film and are still able to keep the film relatively focused despite its size. If you are a fan of other MCU chances are you will enjoy this one as well. My rating is a 4/5 stars.

Suicide Squad Review

In my DC Comics loving heart, I loved the characters in the film. They were ripped nearly directly from the comic book themselves, particularly the origins for all the main characters form the Suicide Squad. There are certain awesome fan service elements for people like myself and for those who know a lot more than me about the source material. The Squad itself I would daresay is great, there interaction with one another and the way they work with one another very much carries the film. Also the film is very fun and entertaining in Summer Blockbuster popcorn sense. There is very few truly deeply meaningful character development moments, but when the film does decide to briefly touch on those character building moments it works very well. These moments are particularly concentrated on the characters of Harley Quinn, Deadshot, and El Diablo. Overall the film lacks true depth, but in these character the film tries to provide some, but unfortunately does not spend enough time fulling exploring it. 

The main highlight for me is seeing these characters be brought to life on the big screen and I felt that was done rather successfully through some really good acting performances. Will Smith is very good, bordering on great, in this film. This is the best performance Will Smith has given in a very long time. This is the charismatic, charming, humorous, heartfelt, and badass Will Smith that people originally fell in love with in the 90s. It was great to see him embody a character like that again. Margot Robbie is fantastic as Harley Quinn, she embodies the psychotic, sexually vibrant, unpredictable character that has been such a big part of comic book pop culture over the last 20 years or so. Her relationship with the Joker is touched on in the film and for the first time in live action form we see their sickly obsessive love for one another. Jared Leto's Joker is one of the most visually frightening versions we've seen of the Joker on the big screen. The best way I can describe him is if Tony Montana from Scarface became The Joker. His relationship with Harley is one of such psychotic psychological dependency. Unfortunately he does not get the amount of screen time that many think he would have. From what I hear a lot of his scenes were cut out of the film, which probably had to do with forming the film into a much more PG-13 friendly cut because Leto’s Joker is very dark. Viola Davis’ Amanda Waller is an icy cold, no nonsense, badass, who creates this team out of a reaction to the events in Batman v Superman. Of all the members of the Suicide Squad she is the one that I feel is truly evil.

Then there are some surprises that you didn't expect. Jay Hernandez as El Diablo has one of the most emotional and heartbreaking backstories of all the characters. Jai Courtney is good as Captain Boomerang, providing some comic relief and eccentricity to a character with a kind of ridiculous name. Joel Kinneman is good as the team leader Rick Flagg who seemingly has the most emotional investment in the mission they are on. His back and forth with Smith’s Deadshot leads to some good comedic banter as well as some confrontational moments. Personally I feel Kinneman is an underrated actor who has not found the breakout role yet in Hollywood cinema. Unfortunately Karen Fukuhara as Katana and Adewale Akinnoye-Agbaje as Killer Croc are rather underdeveloped and underutilized for there than their action scene prowess. I will say the Killer Croc makeup looks excellent. 

Here we come to negative portion of my thoughts. The plot/narrative structure is a mess. The screenplay definitely needed more than six weeks to be developed and written, because everything about the film feels insanely rushed and unpolished from a story standpoint. The plot pacing is incredible fast for a two hour film, it has very little time to breathe as a film. The film’s pace starts off fast right from the beginning and just really never lets up. As a viewer you have to strap in and hold on tight because you are in for a wild ride. The editing of the film is wildly schizophrenic at times, nearly on an Oliver Stone type level of wild. While it does create a unique stylized feeling to the film, it hampers it when it comes to cohesive storytelling. The film has a problem with balancing tones. Genre melding is a common practice in films, but the key is to know how to cohesively put those tones together and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t in this film, a lot of that is editing issues. Unfortunately the villain is one of the weakest aspects of the film, which also contribute to a weak climactic third act. Its just a very cliched, standard, and plot device type of villain. The film also relies very heavily on utilizing popular songs as music for certain scenes and while initially I didn't mind it at first because its a way for the film to actively engage the audience, there were certain points when it was unnecessary and felt excessive. That is not to say the music they use is bad, I am sure many are going to go out and buy the soundtrack.

My final thoughts on the film are I really liked these characters a lot and rather enjoyed watching the film they were in. The problem is the film they are in has a lot of glaring flaws. Flaws that I feel are there for a couple of reasons, Warner Bros. reaction to the negativity of the seriousness of Batman v Superman and somewhat meddling with David Ayer’s original idea of what he believed the film to be. Ultimately he and Warner Bros. created a film that is lighter and more entertaining than the previous films in the DCEU, but at the cost of depth of story and character. Thats not to say the film is devoid of any merit, but their is indeed some lost potential with such a richness of characters. The cast and the director keep saying they made the film for the fans and indeed it is very much a film for fans of the characters and I have to applaud them for that. I have to reiterate that even with my criticisms, I liked the film. 3.25/5 Stars

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Theatrical Cut Review

In spite of the seemingly overwhelming negative feedback the film has been getting from various places, I liked the film. As a lover of DC Comics there were moments of this film that gave me chills. There were moments that were either translated right from the comics or were homage. The film is very much fan service for people like myself. I understand how not having some type of personal connection with the material can be alienating to a viewer. Especially in a film with the issues that this film has. But, a personal attachment does not hide the fact that the film does have its flaws.

What seems to be getting somewhat universal praise even from those who hate the film, is that of Ben Affleck's portrayal of Bruce Wayne/Batman. I absolutely love this version of Batman. He is the darkest, most brutal, and psychologically tortured Batman that we have ever seen on film. What I find most interesting about this Batman and coincidentally what most people have issue with is that he is willing to kill his enemies. Although this aspect of the character has precedence in both the Comic Books and previous film incarnation, there has been established Batman's reluctance to kill. One of the major aspects of his character is that he is constantly teetering on moral ledge of whether to kill or not. What fascinates me about Affleck's version of Batman is what has occurred in his life to push him over that ledge? At what point did he reach the breaking point and what form of trauma was it? Perhaps those answers could come in later films? The motivation behind his need to take down Superman are established early, of all the abundance of plot elements in the film, this is the clearest. I wouldn't be surprised if Affleck himself either wrote or re-wrote hs character because it sticks out as being far superior writing than the rest of the film. The Batman v Superman elements are the strongest of the film in my opinion.

The opening 20-30 minutes of the film are excellent, the next two hours compile a messy film. The biggest flaw for me in the film is story/plot structure is rather a mess. The film tries to be many many things, which stretches the film too thin, despite its long runtime. It is a film that tries to be a sequel, a Superman film, a Batman film, and a setup film all in one. It both fails and succeeds at the same time. Also one must understand what they are getting going into a Zack Snyder film, his filmography is long enough to where there should be no surprises as to the weaknesses of his ability as a director.  He is not a director that would appeal to everyone, his style is rather blunt but beautiful at times. he has the ability to at times deliver such beautiful visuals that convey so much in just their appearance. Other times his visuals are so blunt and hit the viewer like a brick repeatedly. The action is some times fantastically well done, like the fight scenes with Batman and other times can be over the top and mind numbing, like in the third act.

Snyder also has a reputation for his films lacking substance and surely that argument has been made for this film. But, the film is not devoid of substance. it is there if one delves deep enough. The main issue is because the film structured in such a messy way, key themes are introduced but never fully developed. The film opens very interesting doorways into such themes as God's relationship with man but walks partially down the hall way and then moves onto another doorway. The material for a rich story is their, the signs are there, it just needs to be fully realized. Aspects of the plot feel rushed. The third act of this film is a DC comics fans dream to see on the big screen. I will admit I love the concept of the third act from a fan's perspective. But, had the lead up to it been much better written and structured, it would have been even more rewarding. Some of these underdeveloped writing issues could be remedied in the the 3 hour Ultimate Cut that will be released on Blu-ray/DVD later this year. Overall the film has both good and bad aspects. It is not a great film and it is not a terrible film. Despite its apparent flaws I still was able to find enjoyment watching it. 3.5/5 Stars

The Genesis of a Career

This was a Final Paper that I wrote for a Modern China history course I took in the Fall of 2015. For my Final Paper I needed to write about any Chinese topic.  So naturally I chose something films related. Originally this was going to an overview of Ang Lee's career, then I was just going to concentrate on his first three feature films, finally, due to tie constraints, it ended up being an overview of his early life and a brief analysis of his first feature Pushing Hands.

World renown filmmaker Ang Lee was born in the town of Chaochu in Pingtung a southern area of Taiwan on October 23, 1954. Lee’s parents moved from Mainland China to Taiwan after the Chinese Nationalists were defeated in the Chinese Civil War in 1949.  He was one of four children. He grew up in a household dominated by a father  who represented the traditional Chinese patriarchal society. His father, being a headmaster of a local high school, heavily emphasized the importance of education.  It was his artistically repressed childhood that he would later make him utilize film as a form of self expression. He studied in the Provincial Tainan First Senior High School, the school where his father was the Headmaster. After failing the University entrance exam twice, much to his father’s dismay, he entered The Taiwan University of the Arts where he graduated in 1975 with a Bachelor’s degree in Theater Arts. His father had wanted him to become a professor because he deemed it as a respectable career, but Lee was drawn to drama and the arts.  After finishing a mandatory military service term in the Republic of China’s Armed Forces, he went to the United States in 1979 to study at the University of Illinois, where he completed his bachelor's degree in theater in 1980. That is where he met his future wife Jane Lin, who was pursuing a Ph.D in Microbiology. Initially he intended to pursue a career in acting, but he had difficulty speaking English at the the time, so he turned to directing.  

In 1980, he began attending the Tisch School of the Arts of New York University, where he received a Masters degree in film production in 1984. He was a classmate of future famous filmmaker Spike Lee and interestingly enough worked on the crew of his thesis film, Joe’s Bed-Stuy Barbershop: We Cut Hair.  During his time at NYU, Lee made a 16mm short film called Shades of the Lake in 1982, which won the Best Drama Award in Short Film in Taiwan. For his thesis work he made a 43-minute drama  called Fine Line, which won NYU's Wasserman Award for Outstanding Direction.  It was that thesis film that made it possible for him to sign with the famous talent agency William Morris. Unfortunately WMA found him little work and he was effectively unemployed for six years. During that time his wife was the sole financial provider for the family.  Although this arrangement put personal strain on his relationship with his wife, he did not abandon his career in film.  In 1990, Lee submitted two screenplays, Pushing Hands and The Wedding Banquet, to a competition sponsored by Taiwan's Government Information Office. The results were that they came in first and second in the competition This resulted in bringing Lee to the attention of Li-Kong Hsu, who had just become a senior manager in a major studio.  Now, with his support Lee was now able to make his feature film directorial debut with Pushing Hands.

Pushing Hands was originally released in Taiwan in 1992.  It would not be released in the United States until 1995, after which both The Wedding Banquet and Eat Drink Man Woman had become big successes. Along with those two films, they form what is known as his "Father Knows Best" trilogy. Each film deals with the conflict between the older more traditional generation and the new generation that their children live in.The story is about an elderly Chinese Tai chi Master and teacher of the martial art named Mr. Chu who emigrates from Beijing to live with his son, American daughter in-law, and grandson in a New York City suburb.  What is heavily emphasized throughout the film is that he does not fit into his new life or more specifically into the lives of his son and daughter in-law.  As the film opens Lee immediately establishes the distance between Mr. Chu and his daughter in-law, Martha.

In the opening sequence there is a visual juxtaposition of their characters by showing Mr. Chu performing his Tai Chi and Martha typing on a computer. Both are individual activities but are very different from one another.  For Mr. Chu, Tai Chi is all about inner peace and establishing stability within oneself while Martha’s writing is a stressful external activity.  One is a very natural physical activity, the other is more stationary and mechanized.  He is dressed in traditional Chinese clothing and she is dressed in modern western clothing.  When they sit down and eat across from one another there is even a great contrast in the food they eat.  He is eating a bowl overflowing with traditional Chinese food, typically meat, while she is eating a plain salad. But, what is also interesting is that while they are so different there some similarities, even though they are unaware of it. There is a particular angled camera shot of Mr. Chu working on his calligraphy while she is typing at her computer, both working on their own specific type of art.  But what is the chief culprit for the rift between them is the language barrier.  They can not communicate with one another on the most basic level.  But who is very much the mediator between the two is Mr. Chu’s son, Alex.

I believe Alex Chu represents the generation that still has one foot in the old Chinese traditional world and the other placed in the modern western world.  As result a result of this duplicity, their is conflict created within him.  He wants to create a life for his family but still wants to be loyal to his father.  Despite recognizing how difficult it is for his father to acclimate to his new surroundings, he feels obligated as an only son to take care of his father.  This loyalty to his father creates a conflict with his wife because she feels like her father in-law is more of a burden than she can handle. Granted, I think the source of most of her stress and frustration is her inability to write, but it is exacerbated by the presence of Mr. Chu.  There are two sequence in the film that I think best displays Alex’s frustration with his situation.  At one point Mr. Chu goes for a walk alone with Martha’s blessing and gets lost which forces Alex to drive around all night frantically looking for him.  He arrives home late without having found his father and proceeds to get into a fight with Martha that results in her going to bed alone and he just having an emotional meltdown trashing the dining area and kitchen in a angered rage before he proceeds to leave the house again.  This emotion and this anger is at himself for not being able to take care of his father and make his wife.  His emotional strain is further emphasized when he returns home drunk, while away his father was returned home by the police.  His wife and father hoist him up to an upstairs bathroom, where in a frustrated drunken rage he bangs his head against the wall.  Yet again his emotional struggle between his loyalty to his father and wife has manifested itself into self harm.  

In the very next sequence there is a particular reveal that I found interesting. Alex decides to inform his father that he is going to send him to a home for the elderly when he notices his father has a picture of his deceased wife in his pocket.  This prompts a conversation where his father reveals to us as the audience that his wife was killed as a result of persecution during the Cultural Revolution.  The Cultural Revolution was a social and political movement that took place in China from 1966 until 1976. Set into motion by Mao Zedong, its goals were to preserve 'true' Communist ideology through getting rid of anything to do capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society.  Tai Chi being ties to traditional Chinese society made Mr. Chu and his family subjugated to persecution. Mr. Chu admits that while they could not harm him because of his training, they could hurt his training.  The main point is that he only had the strength and ability to protect his son and not his wife and it is a regret and pain he has had to live with for years.  The reason why I feel this is significant to mention is because it is a prime example of Mr. Chu’s life impacting his son. How can his son send him away after a conversation like that? this reinforces the idea tat his son will always feel like he is obligated to take care of his father, unless of course that obligation is somehow removed, which it is.

Alex’s next move is done with the best intentions but it has adverse effects. Earlier in the film Mr. Chu had met widowed elderly Chinese woman named Mrs. Chen at the local Chinese Community Center, where he was teaching Tai Chi.  Through a series of comedic circumstances he ended developing an affection for her, even gifting her a piece of calligraphy.  So his son devises a plan along with the woman’s daughter to pair them up in a romantic sense through a family picnic outing.  But what ends up happening is that Mr Chu and Mrs. Chen see through their ruse and  have a long discussion about what it means to be old.  A chief theme explored through their conversation is just how much autonomy they have lost living with their children.  Mrs. Chen going as far as admitting how useless she feels and how much of a burden she must be on her daughter, making her believe that her daughter doesn't want her around.  It is an interesting look at how one feels when they reach an age where they come to the realization that their lives now depend on their children and just how frighteningly powerless they feel. Especially coming from a generation and a culture that was very much about pride and individual strength.  What Mr. Chu decides to do is take back his autonomy and leave his son’s home and leaving a note relinquishing him of any responsibility of him.  This will lift the burden he believes he is applying to his son. He wants his son to solely focus on his family.  In a way Mr Chu is again assuming the role as protective father by saving his son, like he did during the Cultural Revolution, by relieving him of his internal anguish.

"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