A life without dogs is not worth living

Jim and George for obvious reasons were unable to have their own children; however they did own two dogs that where most likely thought of as children to these two partners. From the opening scene where we see one dog lying dead next to Jim, to the phone call that George receives informing him that his lover Jim has died in a car crash and Georges question to the man informing him of this horrible news is if the dogs had survived or not. I don’t feel at all like George was more worried about the dogs just simply that they were as much a part of his and Jim’s family as kids of their own would be have been.  These dogs were George and Jim’s children and had they survived they could have saved George from the deep depression he fell into after Jim’s death.  For me they were used in the film to signify that after the death of Jim, George was truly alone. We learn from the opening scene how painful it is for George to awake in the morning, awake without his longtime partner beside him, awake without two dogs jumping on his bed and letting him know they want to be taken out. There was a reason these dogs were in the film and why George reflects on Jim asking him if he can take the dogs on the trip that would take his and their lives. They were used to truly drive the point across that humans cannot live alone as George had been doing after the accident. If the dogs are a symbol of a lack of interaction between others for George and what keeps him depressed, then Kenny would be the opposite, Kenny represents the fact that humans need to share their lives with others and it’s Georges interaction with Kenny that pulls him out of his depression and suicidal thoughts and onto the revelation that life goes on and is worth living.

Melancholia and the Current Phase of Cinema

 During her wedding reception Justine takes a break from the party and walks into a very pretentious appearing study with bookshelves holding open a few art books to pages of elementary looking shapes of cylinders and rectangles. Justine approaches these open art books and begins to remove them from the wall and replace them with other art books and specifically all to pages of paintings with a rather sad image.  It was clear Justine was not felling as one would expect a bride to feel on her wedding day and she replaced the images void of emotion with ones that were full of emotion, specifically sadness and despair. This however is how I view the current phase cinema is going through. Movie spectators are currently enjoying the focus group made films being put out by money hungry production companies.  They know exactly what actor or actress to put in their film not because they will give the best performances but instead for the reason that this person is “hot” right now and probably evoke a great opening week turn out by movie goers. I doubt it stops there though; they most likely have everything from the wardrobe to the script pre-tested in some control group testing facility. This practice is turning film away from an art form and into a formula, this actor, wearing these clothes, and saying these jokes will equal high revenue.  Films such as Melancholia however are working to keep film as an art alive; Von Trier almost forced us to understand his film as art with the many recurring images of artwork we see throughout his film.  I would be curious to learn how interested in revenue George Melies was when he released A Trip to the Moon; my guess would be it was the furthest thing from his mind. I still do believe there are filmmakers out there with an agenda to make art and not money and I believe it will one day again show with the film that will be released in the future. And like wise there are spectators who are getting sick of the commercialized films we see on the billboards every week and like Justine are ready to replace them with films that like Melancholia are works of art. 

Forbidden Fruit

Going on advice from Professor Glenn I have decided, for the moment, to base my paper off comparisons between “Masculine, Fèminin” and the play “Dutchmen.” Doing so using formalist film criticism. I will argue that (1) “Masculine, Fèminin is much better understood through the formalist approach for the reason that from picking a part only one a couple scenes we receive a broad understanding of this film.

(2)  The clues that Godard gives the audience to better help understand this film only appear in one particular scene, the formalist approach will dive into this and come out of with a strong understanding of the rest of the film. Trying to get the same meaning out of “Masculine, Fèminin” while using the ideological approach, through my basic understanding, would leave me to believe one would end up with a very convoluted, cloudy understanding of the same film. However looking into this one chosen scene I believe the film becomes rather clear.

(3) Godard presents us with a crude recap of “Dutchman.” How does it at all tie into the film? I will argue that this summary of “Dutchman” will give us a stronger understanding of the film. It will tie together the plot of the film along with the abrupt ending.  

(4) Mise en scene, I believe there are many things that can be said are placed on stage purposely and with every intention of providing the viewer with a symbolic meaning of the film.  

(5) When we later see Catherine eating an apple many conclusions can be made as to why this is significant, or not significant. I believe this apple however ties in the “Dutchman” scene to the film and in turn helps us better understand the ending. It now proves the reason the “Dutchman” appears in “Masculine, Fèminin” and how we can use one to help understand the other.

(6) There are many patterns in the film that are also better understood from the “Dutchman” scene, patterns that present us with many of the relations between men and women we are presented with in this film.

(7) Comparisons between “Clay” and Lula” from “Dutchman” and the male and female characters in “Masculine, Fèminin” can be made especially with both ending in the murder of the protagonist male character.

Midnight in Paris, Embracing Simplicity

   When the Lumière brothers screened “Arrival of a Train at a Station” for the first time it is said that audience members literally attempted to get out of the way of the oncoming train, which of course was on screen. Movie audiences have come a long way since that showing, and directors know it. Take for example “Gil” being transported by a mysterious old time car back into the 1920’s, no reasoning as to why this is happening is given to the viewers by Director Woody Allen. It is my thinking that Allen chooses to skip this unnecessary explanation, as movie goers of the 21^st century we have now been conditioned to understand when we are watching a film that we are in fact doing just that, watching a film. “Midnight in Paris” sticks with the thinking that less is more, fewer details allow what is taking place to just happen almost unnoticed. There is no big lead up to this scene and it is hardly mentioned aside from when it is taking place. We don’t know why it is happening but we just know it is happening. “Gil” is getting in a car and traveling back to the “Golden Age” and doing it so seamlessly that I for one never questioned it. Did I get caught up in the romanticism of Paris and actually believe this as reality? Maybe a little bit, but regardless I did simply understand that I was watching a movie. I do believe that Allen is suggesting that we embrace the illusion of Hollywood filmmaking. Making movies for an audience that can simply take what they are watching as entertainment. I have a hard time looking at this movie as something with a deeper agenda. I think Allen’s use of subtle camera work and almost religious following of “IMR” rules show what he was doing with “Midnight in Paris.”  He made a film to be understood as is and taken for what it is, a film. I have this thinking that if he wanted “Midnight in Paris” to be something more we would have known it. Although I enjoyed “Masculine, Fèminine” it was something different, it broke the rules and stretched our understanding of what a film should be. Allen was abstaining from this facet of film making and keeping it simple, simple for the reason of that’s how he wanted it interpreted.