Blog 5: Memento

Memento is one of Christopher Nolan's greatest films , hands down. I am glad we screened this film in class due it's originality and the way it has made us think about films after watching it. Going over the screening questions especially helped me personally when trying to understand the film. 

The phone calls and voice overs that were in black and white did become an effective translation of the story's structure. Since the film's arrangement of scenes and storyline was backwards, sideways, this way, that way, etc. the b&w scenes help us retreat back to some other storyline that was a continuous scene. Also since it was visually a different look with the b&w, it was good refresh on our eyes to see something else going on in the film. If the scenes were not in b&w, the storyline would have been A LOT more confusing.

One of the most confusing things in the film was "the list". Leonard goes throughout the whole film not remembering what he previous did so we are left with asking ourselves what is true and what is not. Leonard seeks truth through what other people tell him, that he doesn't even remember. Throughout the whole film I was looking at Teddy as a bad guy and Natalie as the good girl. But towards the end of the film I began to notice that I thought wrong about each of them. Things like that made it confusing for me to process of what was actually happening and what wasn't.

The scenes in the film successfully transition from to another. At first you are lost watching the film not knowing what's going on but since the audience naturally catches on to what is going on in what order, only means the film was put together well. Since I emphasis in film with a digital media major, the organization and editing of scenes intrigued me. I took away a different outlook on how to look at films that make you think.

During the film I did my best to organize what scenes were in what order but stopped doing it because it was only confusing myself. Half way through the film I just took it as it was and began to understand the film more just by watching it. With that said, I started to realize what Leonard's purpose was in the film. I think Nolan wanted us to to be in Leonard's shoes. As the audience tries to figure out what is going on, so is Leonard. Also since the film doesn't arrange the scenes in order, we know nothing more than what Leonard does. I think that is brilliant for a film do this with the use of putting us the main characters point of view.

Out of the all the pictures, tattoos, and people, I still do not know if this picture was taken after he killed the murderer. I think that's what they said in the film but like everything else, I questioned this picture because it during the black and white scenes.

After watching this film, I wondered if Memento could take place in current time with the technology. Even though this picture may seem funny, I think Nolan intended on having a lack of technology in the film in order for things like the Polaroids, tattoos, and notes to have a bigger impact. 

Blog #4 : Clueless

Going into the screening of "Clueless", it was helpful to know that this film was in an adaptation of "Emma". It was my first time seeing both of two films and I think that benefited me so I didn't have any previous screenings of the films. With that said I can say that I enjoyed watching the film "Clueless" a lot more than "Emma". As one of the screening questions states, "Younger film reviews are sometimes ready to court favor by expressing a hip impatience.." which I think I can agree with. Personally I liked the adaptation style of "Clueless" more than the "Emma" because of the 'hip impatience'. I can't really say that I enjoyed the reading nor the screening of "Emma" just because I simply didn't have the patience for it's style. Watching "Clueless" even made the story of "Emma" stand out more to me just because I could relate to more. For example, Michael Hattaway observes that "Clueless" shows us a world where 'all styles are equal' which is exactly right. I could relate to the 90s styles in this film just because that norm still implies in today's youth. In "Clueless" we see many different styles of fashion, people, and attitudes that took place in 90s. We are exposed to the rich kids, skaters, lawyers, masculinity, and the "helpless" as Cher would put it. All of these groups were different but still tended to mingle throughout the film expressing that all styles are equal in the long run.

We could tell that this film's setting took place in Los Angeles not only did they say they were located in California, but due to the houses, clothes, people, and lifestyle. This can compare to the town of Highbury in "Emma" because we instantly can assume that settings are taken place in a popular city by the characters, wardrobe, and props used throughout different settings. Also when analyzing Lesley Stern's claim in our discussion questions, I think she is implying that throughout the different references and allusions that go in everyday life, they can be easily ruled out by any trend that is made. In the film we see that Cher and Dionne are the trend setters and even change people using their social status. For example when Tai is introduced in the film, Cher and Dionne immediately have the intention to befriend her and change her to their liking.

Here we get a good imagery of how Tai started off being very different by not fitting in style wise. Personally towards the end of the film, I forgot that Tai started off looking this way which really surprises me how they made her character change so much.

Overall I can agree that "Clueless" is more faithful to the the novel "Emma" than the film "Emma" all due to the character of Cher. Throughout both films, Cher/Emma play almost the same role as the high social class who deals with typical drama all by trying too hard to be a match maker for other people. As the film comes to an end we can kind of predict the relationship status of Cher and Josh even though we were never sure since it was there all along. But even though "Clueless" is an adaptation of "Emma", I think that a lot of chick flick films are like this as well. Since it was my first time watching this film, I felt like I was watching any typical romantic comedy, but thought it was like "Emma" only because we were on the topic of adaptations. 

Despite them being "opposites" we could easily tell towards the end of the film that Josh and Cher were going to end up together since they just naturally had an attraction towards each other. Also their relationship is a good example of how real relationships are usually the ones that are right in front of your face without even noticing it.

Blog #3: Rear Window

As the third time watching "Rear Window",  I still seem to notice different things each time. The opening scene of Rear Window, where we first are exposed to a story of some sort, later is a big part of the plot of the main character Jeff. We learn from the opening scene that Jeff is a photographer that was injured badly due to a racetrack crash he desperately wanted to photograph. We also see, that I didn't notice the first times watching, a picture with a negative coloring effect that we learn is Jeff's "girlfriend" Lisa. That opening scene pretty much tells us the story behind the whole plot before even starting the film, including introducing another character. This is one thing that Hitchcock adds to the film Rear Window is the romance between Jeff and Lisa. I think the romance added something more for the audience to engage in rather than the simple plot of Jeff looking out his rear window.

We can assume that Jeff is very dedicated to his photography work as he did mention on the phone that he really didn't need to get that photograph of the racetrack, but still did it anyways. This attitude plays out in the rest of the film as he is determined to figure out this mystery of his neighbor, Lars. At times I felt like Jeff was being too dramatic about the whole situation but I think that's what Hitchcock wanted. I think he wanted us to go against Jeff at times so we can later be surprised in the long run.

One of the sequences that uses a unique camera movements is the scenes where we see the pan movement looking out at the all neighbors. Even though this movement is not that steady, I wonder if we are suppose to be looking at Jeff's point of view during those scenes or just a third party. Since we see a lot in Jeff's point of view, at times it feels like it carries on way too long in that angle. It is a good thing that the other characters like Lisa and Stella came into this film giving the film more to work with. Besides the obsession Jeff has with the mystery across at his neighbors, these other characters bring out more of Jeff than we see. Lisa brings out his romantic side. Lisa is also some way his opposite since they have different outlooks in the beginning of the film.

One thing that some people may not notice the first time watching this film is the progress of the neighbor's song. At first the neighbor's song is very sloppy as we see him aggravated throughout the whole film. But the way I saw it is that the progress of solving the Lars mystery, is the same as the progress of the song. After Lars gets arrested, we then see that the piano player finishes song and even shares it with one of the female neighbors whose life was saved by the song. I thought it was neat how Hitchcock played the whole piano player's song into this film making it a part of the story as well as a part of the background music.

I find it hard to believe that this is the only neighbor to spot Jeff doing what he was doing considering he was peeping on everyone majority of the time. But I question if Hitchcock had this scene of Lars being the first to spot Jeff to make it more suspenseful that a neighbor finally spotted him and it just happen to be Lars on very important scene.

Every time a scene was followed by this scene, I assumed that we were looking from Jeff's point of view. Even though most of the time we were looking through a black hole to represent the lens, I was mistaken a few times there was no black hole. 

Blog Post #2: The Great Gatsby (2013)

After screening the 2013 version of "The Great Gatsby", I can say that I enjoyed this version more than the 1974 "The Great Gatsby". Both films were mainly based off of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel "The Great Gatsby” which gave us an guideline on how each film was probably going to play out which allowed us to observe closer to which version of the film adapted more from the original source. Personally I think the 2013 version adapted a lot more from the novel. If I were to say what type of adaptation was done I would probably say it was a traditional adaptation in terms from the original source of the novel. One of the biggest scenes from both films that expressed this is when Nick first met Gatsby. The 2013 version stayed true to the novel by having a similar meeting of Gatsy and Nick as the 1974 version didn't. I like to think that we watch the 1974 version prior to the 2013 one so we could point out more scenes that the 1974 version did not adapt. 

Some parts of the novel that the film translates really well is the scenes going back in forth from Gatsby to Tom's house. I observed these scenes towards the beginning of the film just how the novel describes it. While watching this part of the film, it felt like I was watching a quick and glamorous trailer for the film since the scenes jumped around with the use of the 3D effect. But I noticed later that this effect and use of jumping around really complimented how the novel was told. I think that the 2013 version had the advantage of illustrating a lot of scenes due to the use of special effects that the 1974 did not. As we discussed in class about the chronological order and psychological order, this really displayed the use of chronological order that reading a novel can't really illustrate. Overall the 2013 version really ‘spiced’ up the use of dramatics with the use of effects such as the Nick’s animated handwriting that was used throughout the film to create a great visual.

Another big thing that stuck out to me about the 2013 version is that we finally figure out where, how, and why Nick is narrating this story. I don’t recall the 1974 version really showing where, how, why Nick was narrating the story. Showing this part of the story really made the plot better creating a different view on the narration throughout the film. As far as the film relating to my faith, the obvious love affair conflicted with my faith. But since I’m sure marriages were treated a lot different back in the 1920s, the affair is a big part of the story so I guess that his shows the gratitude that a love affair has on people. 

This scene is one of the biggest adaptations scene that stood out to me as the 2013 version stayed true to the meeting scene of Nick and Gatsby.

This is a screen shot from Nick located at the doctor's office where we find out where Nick is narrating this story adding a lot to the feel of the 2013 version of this film.

Blog #1: Adaptation

Before watching the film "Adaptation", I could assume that the film was going to be about adapting a novel into a screenplay. Not only is our class based on film adaptations but also hence the title of the film gives off the impression. A lot of material is introduced early in “Adaptation” such as the plot, characters, and the conflicts that I think set the mood early for the film. The opening monologue scene immediately reveals the main character, Charlie Kaufman, speaking in first person where we can observe that he thinks to himself in a nervous manner. We can also quickly tell that Charlie goes through out this film beating himself up with social issues, poor self esteem, and writers block as he struggles to adapt the book “The Orchid Thief” into a screenplay. Not only does he struggle with all of this but he is also troubled by the fact that his twin brother, who we don’t even know if he’s actually a real person or not, who finds more success when writing screenplays. Now with all of this said, we start to observe the whole process of what a screenwriter may go through to adapt books into films. Even though this film was a little extreme at times, we could observe that Charlie first began making a great effort to create a screenplay that was true to the book. But as the film goes on, Charlie then later has to resort to changing his own material to fit the studio’s desires. This part of Charlie’s writing process could possibly explain why some real life screenplay adaptations are not so true to the book due to studio’s needs and desires. This change of writing method obviously made Charlie’s job a lot easier due to the studio's opinion along with needing to meet deadlines. Towards the end the film we get a better understanding on how to define the meaning of the word adaptation. Even though adaptation is know as the process of adapting something, I think "Adaptation" adapts the basic meaning. I came to a conclusion that everything and everyone in this film ended up somewhat adapting their own selves. Towards the end of the film, Charlie, Susan Orlean, and John Laroche all adapted majorly in some way. But as all the main characters began to adapt themselves, the overall screenplay that started the whole thing was adapted which is most important.


This is the first scene when I noticed that Charlie was adapting his ways of writing the screenplay. He never believed in attending brainstorm seminars before his twin brother (or his self conscious) convinced him too.

 

This is one of the scenes that really expressed Charlie's trouble with his self esteem. As fate threw Charlie into a perfect situation to pitch his elevator pitch to the woman he wanted to meet, Susan Orlean, he was too nervous to take advantage of the opportunity.