AFI Top 100

1. Citizen Kane 1941

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/

Here's a paper I wrote for my "History of Motion Pictures" class.

Credibility of Characters in “Citizen Kane”

While analyzing the writing of the script for “Citizen Kane”, a question is posed- what did Mankiewicz and Welles need to do to make the actions of the characters believable? Specifically, what did the writers need to do to make the audience believe that Charles Foster Kane would leave the mother of his child and the prospects of a lucrative political career for someone shrill and whiny, the likes of Susan Alexander? The reasons are found within Emily’s social status, Susan’s naiveté, and the void Kane felt which was left by a life which he had never been allowed to have.

Emily Monroe Norton’s social status made her the perfect wife for Kane. She was the personification of the decisions that Kane was expected to make. Kane was expected to marry well, have a family, and continue to live the privileged life. He was under constant public scrutiny because he was a popular public figure. The fact that he married the President’s niece, the closest a democratic society can get to royalty, made him even more of a public figure. Both social statuses combined to make the couple larger than life. Even though the honeymoon was clearly over soon after the marriage, as was evident by the fact that he spent more time at the newspaper than he did with his bride, he stayed married to her because that was what he was expected to do. (It is interesting how this continues to be an issue in society; it is one of the many points made in the film that makes the story timeless.) He could have left her as soon as he had met Susan, but that would cause a scandal which he was not prepared to manage.

Susan was naïve; she professed to be so from the moment she was introduced. The fact that she did not know who Kane was allowed him to be whoever he wanted to be. In the scrutinized life that Kane led, it was a welcome change. Jedediah said it best when he said that Kane once described her as “a cross-section of the American people.” Susan was the personification of the life that Kane was never allowed to have: live simply, exist for the sake of existing, and live your life the way that you want to live it. In Kane’s mind, this is what real people did; this is what Kane wanted to do. In going to Susan, he could escape into his own world where he was not a rich and famous man, but simply a man who was important to a woman. He was not important to her because of his money, but because he would listen to her, give her encouragement, and express the feeling that she could do whatever she wanted to do if only she wanted it enough. He could never have done this with Emily.

As a child, Kane lost the only life he knew as soon as the money came in. The fact that the film portrays “Rosebud” as his sled does not mean he longed for his sled, nor does it necessarily indicate that he longed for a simpler time in his life. What Kane longed for was a life he was only allowed to taste, never to have. Ironically, even though Kane had millions of dollars and was afforded every opportunity in the world, he longed for the values of a simpler life. Interestingly enough, however, when he made the choice to leave Emily, he did not opt to abandon his fortune and live a simple life with Susan. Instead, he drew Susan into the only world he knew- his world- and expected her to love him on his “own terms”. He hoped to buy Susan’s love, for Kane neither knew how to love nor how to receive it. He continued to spend his money, and tried to buy objects to physically fill the emotional void left by the fact that he could never have a simple life. Moreover, he built Susan a castle in which to live, in the hopes that he could treat her like one of his Venus statues. Only when Susan left and did something that was not “according to his plan” did he realize that every action he had taken in his life was narcissistic. For this, he blamed this thought: had he not been ripped away from the life he could have had, perhaps he would have been able to receive the character-building that being impoverished may have given him. Kane’s money and upbringing robbed him, not of his ability to love, but of his ability to learn how to love.
It would have been just as easy for Mankiewicz and Welles to portray Emily as the unpleasant antagonist as it would have been to portray Susan as dim-witted. They did neither, because that was not what the story was ultimately about. The antagonist in the story was not Emily or Susan; it was society. Therefore, the writers allowed the audience to believe Kane could leave Emily. At the same time, they showed that choosing Susan was not much of a change for him. The antagonist remained the same, and it was one which all of the money in the world could not allow Kane to escape, no matter which decision he made.

9. Schindler’s List 1993

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/

I have to admit that when I first saw this film it was a long time ago and I thought it was so wonderful... but the first thing that came to my mind was "It's such a wonderful movie. I don't think I'm going to be able to sit through three hours of that again, but it was wonderful." After a few years, though, there was so much about the film that I had forgotten about.For example, I had forgotten that Schindler was a philanderer. I had also forgotten that he was in it for the money from the beginning. But it's not Schindler's character that makes the story so miraculous- it's how Schindler's character evolved from philanderer to philanthropist.

The story touches the audience to the very heart and rocks them to the core. It's a story of a member of the Nazi party who becomes a jewish sympathizer and gives up his very soul and everything he has to buy their freedom. It's such a wonderful film and so inspiring. If you have lived on Mars for the last 10 years and haven't ever seen it, you should. If you have, but it has been a long time, see it again. It is an amazing story.

10. Singin’ in the Rain 1952

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045152/

11. It’s a Wonderful Life 1946

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038650/

12. Sunset Boulevard 1950

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043014/

13. The Bridge on the River Kwai 1957

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/

14. Some Like It Hot 1959

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053291/

yes... i'd be happy to review this movie.

15. Star Wars 1977

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/

16. All About Eve 1950

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042192/

17. The African Queen 1951

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043265/

18. Psycho 1960

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/

PSYCHO: A Title with Two Meanings

Upon first review of Alfred Hitchcock’s film Psycho, the audience draws the conclusion that the name of the movie refers to Norman Bates psychosis. The beauty of the film, however, lies not simply with Norman’s mental state, but within the duality of the meaning of the title. Not only is Norman Bates psychotic, but Hitchcock has made Psycho the benchmark by which all psychological thrillers would be judged in the future. He does this by both utilizing the audible conscience of two of the main characters and by using a combination of camera angles, cuts, and sound effects, which trick the viewer into believing that there is truly a horror contained within the story.

The audible conscience is used with two characters in this film. The first, of course, is Norman Bates. At first we hear the audible conscience (“Mother”) aloud because Norman is actually speaking in her voice. He speaks in her voice loudly enough for Marion to hear it all the way down to the cabin. In retrospect, this is the only time for certain that the audience hears “Mother” out loud, because there is a third person (Marion) who hears it as well. The other times when Norman speaks in Mother’s voice, he is alone. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether he speaks out loud or if it is just in his head, as it is at the end of the film, when the viewer hears Norman’s conscience (mother’s voice), but his lips do not move. What she says to Norman at the end of the film, however, is arguably more important than the fact that her voice is in his head. She chastises him for thinking he could “get away” with murder by blaming her, thereby magnifying his psychosis in the mind of the viewer; ironically, only the mother part of Norman’s brain is sane enough to know that Norman, himself, is insane.

The second audible conscience is arguably the most brilliant piece of writing in film today. Marion’s audible conscience not only allows the viewer to understand what Marion is thinking and feeling, but makes the viewer a part of the story. When she imagines Mr. Lowry speaking to Caroline, he says, “Call me as soon as she gets in,” leading the audience to believe that he already remembers that he saw her heading out of town. It is not until one hears him speaking to Lila (in Marion’s imagination) that one realizes that he did not remember, or that maybe he did and then forgot again. The fact that her thinking is scattered not only helps to build the suspense, but makes it easier in which to relate. After all, when one is guilty, it is almost impossible to think straight. The fact that the audience can hear the voice in Marion’s head projects her guilt onto them. The viewer actually begins to feel nervous for Marion; as if to say that they were aiding and abetting the theft by not doing something to stop her. (Obviously, the audience could do no more to stop Marion than “Mother” could do to stop Norman, but that does not stop the permeating feeling of guilt.) Hitchcock takes Marion’s guilt, dumps it in the viewer’s lap, and tells them to decide for themselves what to do with it. It is sheer brilliance how he makes Marion’s audible conscience sound as if it were coming from inside the viewer’s head.

The jump cuts, camera angles, and sound effects are juxtaposed in this film to create a feeling of horror which is unparalleled. In the infamous shower scene, the viewer believes that they are seeing Marion being murdered; however, the knife never hits her skin. The logical connection is made because the sound of the cutting is in perfect sync with the knife going in a downward motion toward Marion. When Arbogast falls down the stairs and onto his back, a shrouded Norman crouches over him and the film is stopped while the knife is poised in mid-air. By doing this, Hitchcock is almost forcing the audience to draw their own conclusion. Finally, in a genius move by Hitchcock, the audience believes that Mrs. Bates is kicking and screaming when Norman takes her to the fruit cellar. Upon closer examination, we see that she is not kicking at all. We do, however see her foot hit the banister, posing the following question: Did Hitchcock do that on purpose to make her look like was struggling, or was an overlooked editing mistake that just happened to work well?

Regardless, both the effects and the audible conscience work with the viewer’s imagination to produce horror in its purest form. They construct a devilish plot which produces cinematic magic and, in every sense of the word, a masterpiece.

19. Chinatown 1974

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071315/

Here is the paper that I wrote for my Film Class on Chinatown. I also included this little commentary to go with it:

Dr. G

Well, I had never watched this film before, and to be honest, the only other Polanski films I had seen were The Pianist and Rosemary's Baby, which I am sure are the ones most people have seen. HOWEVER, I did see the tenant. Now THAT was a strange movie.

But Chinatown was like every other Polanski film; in fact- this was one of the things I said about The Tenant, and I think it stands true for all 4 movies I have seen of his:
One might be tempted to give up before the movie starts to develop any substance, but be assured that if you stick it out, it will be worthwhile. As (my boyfriend) says, with any truly good movie, you need to see it more than once to really appreciate it. I will need to watch it again. This time, I won't be so quick to change the channel.

Anyway, here it is.
Susan

Set and Costumes in “Chinatown”

Jake J Gittes, a private investigator, is asked to look into the infidelities in which Hollis Mulwray is presumed to be involved, but it turns into a farce that creates a mystery unlike any other. This is the premise of the film “Chinatown”, co-written and directed by the notorious Roman Polanski. The direction of the movie is flawless and keeps the audience wondering in what kind of catastrophe Gittes has gotten himself involved. Set in 1937, Polanski’s use of contrasting darks and lights include everything from the set to the costumes to the premise of the film itself.

It starts out innocently enough, with a man who has just been served with proof that his wife is having an affair. Although he is poor, he is an honest man. As he leaves, a very wealthy looking woman hires Gittes to find out about her own “husband.” The simple contrast between the working man and the wealthy woman is immediately discernable, by the clothes that they wear as well as the dialect which they speak- his words are mumbled, hers are distinct and annunciated. He walks around with a slump, looking defeated. The wealthy people walk tall, proud, and forcefully.

As the movie continues, the viewer is enveloped in wealthy surroundings. Every person with whom Jake comes in contact has a discernable look. As Jake walks around the riverbed with the lieutenant, the stark contrast of his white suit against a sea of blue suits makes it so he stands out in the crowd. (However, unlike in most situations where the lighter color designates the pure of heart, it is Jake who is portrayed as the conniving one.) When Jake goes to the Mulwray residence, the crisp uniforms of the help, the conspicuous space, and the expensive landscaping are a clear indication that money has never been an issue in the Mulwray family. In contrast, when Jake visits the previously mentioned client’s home, there are many mouths sitting around the small table waiting to be fed. The home is small and cramped, and the wife sports a black eye, another perfect example shown by Polanski that this family is not as fortunate.

The setting for the final scene takes place in Chinatown, a run down part of Los Angeles where Asians tend to live in droves. This is where Jake learned everything he knows about being a private investigator, from the slums and the filth that covered the streets even as early as the 1930’s. Regardless of the fact that it is nighttime, the Asian spectators are out in multitude. It is very dark, a clear indication of a place that nobody in his right mind would care to see in the light of day. This was the “ghetto” of the 1930’s; it’s the place in which no lawman wants to work, which is made clear several times as Gittes refers to it as his past. It is where he received his streetwise education, and where he acquired the knowledge necessary to bring down the killers who contracted him out in the first place.

Everything about this film is well done. The costumes bring the audience into 1937, where jackets, hats, and ties were considered everyday apparel for men in the middle to upper classes. Mr. Cross walks with a cane, even though it is apparent he may not necessarily need one. Fabrics are crisp and expensive looking. Even the white sheets that the maid places on the furniture are heavily starched. Adversely, the poor man wears a sleeveless t-shirt with a napkin stuffed down the collar, an indication of a man from a poor upbringing with poor table manners. The set, even so far as to include an old-fashioned telephone and a hatbox, is perfectly thirties, with the exception of a few things that were overlooked, like Ida’s Social Security Card. (It is not only reported that the card used was in the 1970’s style, but the very first social security card was issued on December 1, 1936, and hers, less than a year old, evidently, looks worn.) Apart from that, meticulous attention was paid to every costume from Mrs. Mulwray’s sexy satin robe to the men’s suits and Florsheim shoes to the horn rimmed glasses of the records clerk.

Even with the airs that the wealthy characters put on in this film, the truth remains: there are some things that do not discriminate, such as incest and debauchery, and certainly murder. The wealthy have their share of problems as much as the poor; they just possess the means to go about it in a different manner.

20. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest 1975

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/

21. The Grapes of Wrath 1940

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032551/

22. 2001: A Space Odyssey 1968

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/

23. The Maltese Falcon 1941

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033870/

The stuff that dreams are made of....

24. Raging Bull 1980

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081398/

25. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial 1982

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083866/

26. Dr. Strangelove 1964

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/

27. Bonnie & Clyde 1967

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/

Bonnie and Clyde was not initially received well by most film critics, but the public response to the film was so overwhelming that many critics were forced to change their tune. When faced with this fact, the question is posed: What was it that made it so popular with the public? The answer is the groundbreaking format, the fact that it no longer had to follow the rules of the production code, the opportunity which it afforded its actors, and the stunning costumes.

The film itself does not follow the typical “protagonist versus antagonist” format which had been the format for so many films of that time. Rather, this film followed an “antagonist versus antagonist” format. The actual protagonists in the story were not Bonnie and Clyde, but the victims of their crimes. Bonnie’s mother and the establishment (for example: banks and big corporations) were among the victims in the film. Bonnie’s mother, however, was only offered a bit of screen time and the actress who portrayed her was not a star. Also, since the dawn of anti-establishment thinking was at hand, the public had no sympathy for the banks and big corporations. Additionally, the fact that the time period of the story was the Great Depression, where people were doing anything they could to survive, helped to promote Bonnie and Clyde’s cause. This was portrayed by the scene where Clyde goes in to rob the bank which went under just days prior to the robbery. Additionally, there were parts of the film which portrayed Bonnie and Clyde in a martyr-like light, almost demanding that the public join the side of the criminals. These scenes included the sequence with Gene Wilder and the scene in the bank where Clyde tells the man to put his money in his pocket, followed by that man being interviewed. By using these scenes, the public is almost convinced that Bonnie and Clyde are “Robin Hoods” of their time, save for the fact that they do not give any of the money away. Subsequently, since the real protagonists were not glorified, the antagonists in the film were portrayed by degrees; since the “cops” were “worse” than the “robbers”, the public sided with the lesser of the two evils.

In 1967, at the dawn of the new wave of cinema and anti-establishment train of thought, this film no longer had to follow the guidelines of the production code, which specifically stated that, “No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.” Now that this regulation was lifted, the story could be told in the way it was meant to be told. Since the public was not used to this kind of plot, it became a novel idea which the public respected.

The acting in this film afforded Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway, Gene Hackman and Gene Wilder a chance to spread their proverbial artistic wings. It became a launching pad for all of its stars and was a reinvention role for Warren Beatty. Although he had been on the Hollywood scene for a while, he had never been allowed to play the “bad” guy because of his good looks. He struggled to get this film made the way he wanted. This film offered Faye Dunaway unparalleled opportunity. Prior to this film, she was relatively unknown to the public. After this film, she went on to make such films as Chinatown, Network, and Mommie Dearest. Gene Hackman was once again paired with his Lilith costar, Beatty, and largely due to his portrayal of Buck, his career shot upwards. For Gene Wilder, a television actor, this was his first foray into film, and afterwards, he was offered the role of Leo Bloom in Mel Brooks’ The Producers, which helped to project him into stardom.

However, more than the story itself, it was the costumes which affected popular culture. In the same way that Clark Gable’s lack of an undershirt in It Happened One Night caused sales of undershirts to plummet, the sales of outfits similar to those worn in the film skyrocketed. Berets, below the knee length skirts, culottes, and roaring twenties gangster outfits came back in to style with a vengeance. Because Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty looked so glamorous in these outfits, the style shook the foundation of the fashion industry.

Eventually, film critics were forced to reevaluate their opposition to this film and recognize it as an important part of popular culture, if only for the aforementioned reasons. Regardless of how the critics felt about the film’s plot or characterizations, there was no denying that it was one of the most ground-breaking films of its time.

28. Apocalypse Now 1979

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/

Assignment 2
Evaluate one of the 10 following feature films in terms of the lighting and the use of color (if applicable). It is essential that you use specific terms from the textbook (like high key or low key lighting). In addition, incorporating the terms and concepts from the web links will increase your chance for a better grade.
...
10. Apocalypse Now
These films were recognized by the magazine American Cinematographer as outstanding examples of great cinematography. In your evaluation, include a description of what effect you think that the director was trying to convey using this approach.

Prelude:
I feel compelled to write this annotation to my paper, not because it is a part of my assignment, but to bring a level of understanding to my analysis. Apocalypse Now being one of my top ten favorite films, I have seen it too many times to count. I have seen it in the light of day and in the darkness of night; I have seen it on VHS and on DVD. I was raised in the VHS generation, in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, and when I was first introduced to the DVD format in 1998 while working a four-year stint at Blockbuster, I, like many people who are set in their own ways, was hesitant to replace my entire VHS collection of 700 movies with DVD, for I did not see a noticeable difference. This was one of the films that changed my mind. For example, in the very beginning of the story when Captain Willard gets his orders, there is a civilian man in the room, Jerry, eating lunch with the captain’s superiors, presumably only there to see that the mission is communicated with utmost clarity and secrecy. Jerry (incidentally, his real name- he is the assistant director) says only one line: “Terminate with extreme prejudice.” I mention in the paper about the stark contrast of his tie. On the VHS version, it is barely noticeable and blends in rather nicely with the background colors.

Although I did have a copy of this film on DVD, I lost it a few years ago and did not replace it, so for this assignment, I had to rent a copy from my local Blockbuster, which only had a copy of the Redux version. I still have a copy of it on VHS, which was given to me in a set along with a VHS copy of every other American Film Institute’s Top 100 film. However, I felt that the only way I could give this film justice in my observation was to see it in digital. The color in the DVD is unparalleled. Therefore, when I talk about the color and the lighting in this paper, I will be referring to the color on the digital redux version. However, in keeping with the integrity of the storyline, I will leave out the deleted scenes which were put into the redux version, including but not limited to the Playboy bunny island, the French land-owners/ Willard’s cheesy love scene, the surf-board stealing incident which does NOT fit the character of Willard at all, and the scene where Kurtz reads to Willard from the magazine (which I was personally horrified by- because Kurtz is seen in broad daylight and in all of the other scenes he is this foreboding God of a man in the shadows). I believe that even though these scenes were filmed, if they did not make it past the original editing room floor, they should stay out of my paper.

Paper:

Color and Lighting in Apocalypse Now

Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now is a masterpiece that is arguably the only good thing to come out of the Vietnam War. Although a fictional story of a man sent to assassinate a rebellious commander who has isolated himself and his team, it seems so real that it brings to light the spoils of war and the hypocrisy of man. While watching, the viewer embarks on a journey through the war in Vietnam with the help of source simulation and low key lighting and true to life colors that jump off of the screen.
Coppola and his director of photography Vittorio Storaro make the story believable with the use of expressionism and small scenes that are based on actual accounts of soldiers in the war. However, the lighting gives the story the little something extra that the film needs to convince the viewer that they are watching a true account and connect them with the characters. Throughout the film, Storaro uses mostly low key lighting, casting shadows on corrupt figures, and source simulation lighting, using the sun to show light as well as heat and discomfort. At night, he uses whatever light the soldiers would realistically be able to find, whether it be stringed lights on a bridge, a fire, a spotlight circling a “hot” LZ, or the cool, clear light of a full moon. In no part of the film is this lighting more prevalent than in the ending scenes which show Colonel Kurtz in the shadows. The light shows half of his face at a time, utilizing the sun setting and shining through the window to light up the right side of his face. Interestingly enough, the lighting illuminates the part of the head which holds the right side of the brain, that is, the creative or “illogical” side of the brain, which is what Captain Willard sees. He sees an illogical man who has regarded himself as a God, a man who has connived his way into becoming a cultish leader. During the night, while Captain Willard is bound, he finally sees Colonel Kurtz’s entire face, covered in camouflage, as he looks up at him from the ground, but since it is night, the only source lighting that could be used was a fire. The next day, Captain Willard goes in to see Kurtz again, but this time, Kurtz sits in the shadows and the light hits his face without method, without pattern, yet it illuminates the left, or logical, side of the head. Willard begins to see that there is some method to Kurtz’s madness, which he stated clearly that he could not see the evening prior.
From the beginning of the film, the colors jump off of the screen. They all blend well together in a sea of browns, greens, oranges, flesh-tones, reds, and whites. These are the colors of war. Browns and greens are seen in nature and at every turn. The murky brown water only turns blue at Vinh Din Dop where Kilgore intends to surf. The reds are of the deepest shade, the color of blood; the oranges, the color of fire. The contrast of the blue sky, white clouds, and green grass against the horrific images of bombs going off, napalm wiping out tree lines, and the orange trace of bullets headed to kill is sobering and suggests a duality between good and evil which is dealt with in every place that the team docks. Even the smallest detail suggests this duality. While Willard receives his mission over lunch, the food continues along the same color scheme: the brown roast beef, the green and orange peas and carrots, the white plates, and even the shrimp as a white/orange color with green lettuce and little black eyes. However, Jerry, a civilian, wears a brilliant two-toned purple tie, drinks beer from a red and white Budweiser can and smokes Marlboro Reds, in a red and white package. The civilian world is shining with primary colors while the military world is drab and hopeless. Eventually, the starkest contrast of color comes at Colonel Kurtz’s island, against the dark backdrop of a brainwashed population clothed in rags. As the camera pans across the scene, the words “Our Motto: Apocalypse Now” are emblazoned on a stone in the brightest of white paint. This color is used in a way that it is the one thing that should grab one’s attention. It is the one thing that stands out, because it is the one thing that they believe in; the same way the red scribbling on the white paper with black letters of Kurtz’s unpublished work stands out to say “DROP THE BOMB. EXTERMINATE THEM ALL.”
Through the use of lighting and color, Coppola and Storaro make a story of a real war with fictional characters and missions come to life onscreen. Together they produce a film that is both a delight and a horror for the audience to feel, relate to, and appreciate.

29. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 1939

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031679/

30. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre 1948

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040897/

31. Annie Hall 1977

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075686/

Alvy Singer is neurotic. He is nervous and paranoid and funny and intelligent… and crazy in love with Annie Hall. In the film, the only “present tense” that exists is the tense of his narration. Told in a series of flashbacks, Annie Hall has become a comedy classic, nabbing 4 Academy Awards in 1977 and becoming the quintessential Woody Allen film. This film set the precedence for all of his films that would follow, very similar to the manner within the film where Annie becomes the benchmark for all of his future relationships.

Alvy narrates the film with wit and spirit, peppered with neuroses and humor, showing the viewer how he met and came to love Annie, as well as why she has become the one person who can understand who he is. Even though he is Jewish, a true New Yorker who hates his hometown but would never live elsewhere, overtly paranoid about and obsessed with conspiracy theories, and convinced that everyone he encounters is Anti-Semitic, he falls for a woman whose family evidently IS Anti-Semitic. Clearly, from their first meeting, though, he really likes her, as is noted by the hilarious subtitles like “I sound like FM radio,” and “I wonder what she looks like naked.” Nevertheless, this is who Alvy is; he is constantly judging everyone, holding them up to his level of intellect. Adversely, since he cannot stop thinking about sex, regardless of how ditzy, shallow, or downright boring the woman may seem to him, he has no reservations about jumping into bed with any them.

What is most notable about this film is the way in which it follows neither the classical narrative paradigm, with the plot building to climax followed by a quick resolution, nor Syd Field’s three act structure where there is a clear beginning, middle and end. Instead, it demonstrates every trait of the realistic narrative, to include the fondness for exposé and a rejection of fate or destiny, and thereby trail blazes the way for more of these films that would later become classics in their own right, like Pulp Fiction and other films.

Allen shows us his life and how it all surrounds his love of Annie. Instead of using a mounting suspense theme or a three act theme, the film is more like a sunflower. Traveling along the outsides of the petals are all of the sub-plots: Alvy growing up under a roller coaster, missing a latency period and discovering girls early, his two failed marriages, his career, the fact that he never seems to get anywhere with his therapy, his friend who calls him “Max”, the other women who Alvy dates who just never measure up to Annie; and at the end of each petal, they come back to the center- to the story of him and Annie. Annie is his center, his substance; she is not only the reason for the story, but where the seeds of the story grow. As she grows, she pulls away from Alvy, which makes him want her even more, leaving the audience with proof of the Groucho Marx philosophy Alvy talks about- the one about not wanting to be a part of a club that would accept him as a member. He feels that he is the reason for her growth, which frustrates him even more, because he now knows that he can encourage her to be a better person, yet he runs in circles trying to improve his own self.

From the first line to the last, Allen’s all-inclusive brilliant dialogue and both Keaton’s and his spectacular acting makes Annie Hall one of, if not THE, best comedies ever. It is truly one of the funniest portrayals of a man who is too intelligent for his own sake, and an obtrusive challenge to the thought of “as soon as I get what I want, I will be happy.”

La dee dah.

32. The Godfather Part II 1974

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071562/

33. High Noon 1952

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044706/

34. To Kill a Mockingbird 1962

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056592/

35. It Happened One Night 1934

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025316/

I just saw this movie the other day on TMC. What an adorable movie! Claudette Colbert does the famous scene where she lifts her skirt and reveals her leg to the man driving by to get him to stop. Apparently, she didn't want to do that scene when they started shooting the film.

Clark Gable, sporting the Rhett Butler pencil-thin 'stache, shows his vulnerable side and takes pity on the woman next to him on the train. He decides to help her out, and help her get to New York where she's trying to get to while running away from her over-protective father. But Gable's not all chivalry... he knows that there's something in it for him. Colbert's character has been reported missing by her father, and Gable's character is a journalist- so all he can think of is "exclusive". But along the way, the two begin to get to know each other and fall for each other.

It's a wonderful little story and was the first film to win the Oscar Grand Slam (Best Actress, Best Actor, Best Picture, Best Director & Best Screenplay).

Trivia from IMDB:
While shooting the scene where he undresses, Clark Gable had trouble removing his undershirt while keeping his humorous flow going and took too long. As a result the undershirt was abandoned altogether. This scene is credited as the number-one cause for not only the decrease in undershirt sales for the following two years, but the implementation of product placement in movies to come.

36. Midnight Cowboy 1969

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064665/

37. The Best Years of Our Lives 1946

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036868/

38. Double Indemnity 1944

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036775/

39. Doctor Zhivago 1965

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059113/

40. North by Northwest 1959

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053125/

41. West Side Story 1961

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055614/

42. Rear Window 1954

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047396/

43. King Kong 1933

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024216/

44. The Birth of a Nation 1915

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0004972/

45. A Streetcar Named Desire 1951

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044081/

Marlon Brando, one of the most talented actors of the twentieth century, gives a spectacular performance in his breakthrough role as the loathsome Stanley Kowalski in A Streetcar Named Desire. The character was written by Tennessee Williams as one of two main characters, but in the film version, Brando outshines Vivian Leigh as Blanche by leaps and bounds in his character development and realistic version of this poor common man who smashes things and throws his wife around like a football.

Although not very well educated, Stanley is shrewd and is always on the lookout for someone who he thinks may swindle him. Brando’s high key performance makes it so that he commands every scene he is in. His face shows contempt for Blanche the moment he carries in her trunk. He is not fooled. She has fooled many men by putting on airs but Stanley is a realist, and is not shy about letting Blanche know it, even after Stella has asked him not to do so. As Blanche walks around the house like a queen, Stanley doesn’t even acknowledge her. When she goes through the formality of saying “Please don’t get up”, he retorts “Nobody’s going to get up, so don’t get worried.” He is rude and could not care less about Blanche; for he sees her for the phony she truly is and refuses to be insincere.

Even in the most famous scene, (which would later be parodied by others like an over-drugged Elaine in Seinfeld) after he is doused in the shower by his poker buddies and runs outside to yell “Hey STELLA!!” Brando is immersed in the character of Kowalski and does not stray. However, it is not in these scenes where Brando is brash and screaming that the audience respects his character. It is in a single scene that he breaks out of character and allows his self-indulgent, delusional sister-in-law to dig herself deeper: the scene between him and Blanche where he quietly placates her delusions of being whisked away to the Caribbean by a millionaire. He sits quietly and allows Blanche to suffer in her delusion, all the while cajoling her and saying things like “We’ve both got out lives worked out!” “You’ve got a millionaire and I’ve got a baby! What a happy occasion this is!” “I think I’ll go put on my silk pajamas that I wore on my wedding night. I keep them for the best of occasions!” It is the darkest of comedic scenes and the audience almost believes him as much as Blanche does until he snaps her out of it with his derision.

Nevertheless, however loathsome Stanley’s character may be, Brando is the type of actor who commands respect so much that the audience begins to actually sympathize with this drunken wife-beater. It is in this role that Brando emerges as a superstar and obtains his iconic status, for he had only one small film prior to this and one television performance. Although Brando certainly looks the part, it is not merely his looks that make the performance magnificent. He becomes Stanley, and does it so well that it has become one of his most memorable roles ever.

46. A Clockwork Orange 1971

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066921/

47. Taxi Driver 1976

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075314/

This is a copy of the first paper I wrote for my Intro to Film class. This was the assignment:

View the first 15 minutes of a feature film. The film you select must be a live action (not animated), non-documentary film on the National Film Registry and at least 60 minutes in length. Count the number of close up shots that were employed by the director. Evaluate the general purpose of the close up shots. Do the CUs elevate the importance of things, or reveal facial expressions for example?

My paper:

The Use of Close-Up Shots in Taxi Driver (1976)

In the first fifteen minutes of the movie Taxi Driver, Martin Scorsese throws the viewer into the world of Travis Bickel. Popping pills and driving a cab out of which he needs to clean semen and blood nightly, he sees the worst and best of New York City. He encounters politicians and prostitutes, heroes and heroine addicts, yet Travis does not discriminate; he believes everyone is equally despicable. The camera enraptures the viewer, using different angles to allow the viewer to connect emotionally with our protagonist and the people he encounters. Throughout the use of many close-up and extreme close up shots, Scorsese shows the emotion in DeNiro’s face, the romanticism in Cybill Shepherd’s face, and the world of a single man in the inanimate objects that flash across the screen.

One of the first shots that the viewer sees in the film is the extreme close up of Robert DeNiro’s face, or, more importantly, his eyes. He watches these people as they go about their despicable lives. His eyes follow the citizens, back and forth. A mere moment later, the film cuts to Travis interviewing for his job. The camera stays at waist-level until Bickel cracks a joke to his soon-to-be boss about his conscience being clear. The boss tells him not to joke around, and the camera zooms in on Travis’s face, showing the seriousness of the interview which until then he may have thought was a light-hearted formality.

When first the viewer sees Cybill Shepherd as Betsy, she is a breath of fresh air. She is a symbol of purity and beauty, dressed in white, walking through the dirty city in which the audience has come to expect the worst in a matter of moments. The next scene shows her working at the “Jack Palantine for President” headquarters. She is speaking with her colleague, and as she speaks of her beloved candidate, the camera closes in on her face as she describes him. Immediately, the audience comes to realize that this woman has a deep level of respect for her candidate. Although she tries to hide it, she is enamored by his professionalism and in love with his looks. She is passionate about her cause and her position, and finds meaning in her work, and it is clearly shown in one single close-up shot of her face.

The close-up views of inanimate objects are more prominent in this film than in others, yet they have an understated quality. They could even be overlooked by the untrained eye, or seen as disposable. However, discerning audience members will recognize these shots as having more meaning than those of the actors themselves. Only in this medium of film does the audience become aware of such “disposable” objects. There are shots of the meter in the taxi clicking, the stoplights changing, the stack of papers Travis needs to complete, the wheels turning, the wet road, a cigar box of cash, a dirty apartment, and the journal in which Travis scribbles his every mundane thought. These are things that typical New Yorkers would dismiss, yet they are tangible obstacles in Travis’s life and mind, and they are thrown into the audience’s view. The viewer is shown the same ironic visions which Travis sees, like the close-up of the magazine that the lady working the counter in the movie theater is reading; it boasts a headline to help improve lovemaking, yet she treats Travis like every other loathsome creature that frequents the place. Steam comes out of the dirty street’s manhole and a single shining taxi pierces through it, foreshadowing a story of a lonesome man who would pierce through the evil surroundings in his world. Immediately after the taxi passes, the steam reappears, as if to remind the viewer that the world is engulfed in filth. The taxi represents Travis’s world, his safe haven, in which he can sit protected from the world and the rain, which he so desperately wants to “come and wash all the scum off the streets”.

Scorsese throws the audience into Travis’s dirty world, a world with nothing to live for. The shots in the film, even in the first fifteen minutes, convey his message with absolute clarity. Regardless of whether the viewer focuses on Betsy, inanimate objects, or Travis himself, the shots show the viewer the world of a taxi driver in New York City exactly the way that Scorsese wants the audience to see it, which is truly one of the reasons that the film has been revered as a masterpiece of American cinema.

48. Jaws 1975

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073195/

49. Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs 1937

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029583/

50. Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid 1969

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064115/

51. The Philadelphia Story 1940

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032904/

52. From Here to Eternity 1953

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045793/

53. Amadeus 1984

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086879/

54. All Quiet on the Western Front 1930

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/

55. The Sound of Music 1965

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059742/

56. MAS*H 1970

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066026/

57. The Third Man 1949

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041959/

58. Fantasia 1940

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032455/

59. Rebel Without a Cause 1955

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048545/

60. Raiders of the Lost Ark 1981

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082971/

61. Vertigo 1958

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052357/

62. Tootsie 1982

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084805/

63. Stagecoach 1939

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031971/

64. Close Encounters of the Third Kind 1977

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075860/

65. The Silence of the Lambs 1991

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102926/

66. Network 1976

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/

Set in 1976, television veteran writer Paddy Chayefsky partners with old friend director Sidney Lumet, producer Howard Gottfried, cinematographer Owen Roizman, and editor Alan Heim to bring us Network, a story of what can happen when everyone becomes corrupted. Starring Peter Finch, Faye Dunaway, William Holden, and Robert Duvall[1], Network is a groundbreaking piece of cinema that is more believable today than it was then.

Howard Beale, (Finch) the nightly news anchor at Union Broadcasting Systems, has terrible ratings and is told by his boss, Max Schumacher (Holden), that he is being let go effective in two weeks. Depressed and drunk with nothing left to live for, Beale announces on the next night’s news that he plans to blow his brains out while live on the air. Not only that, but he plans to do it in one week’s time “to give the public relations people a week to promote the show.”

The sound booth could not even care less. Working methodically, placing more significance on programming than on life, they do not even hear what Beale says until after they go to commercial and it dawns on them that he neglected to mention a piece of the news. When word gets out of Beale’s little speech, Frank Hackett (Duvall), the new head of UBS, is flooded with calls complaining about the language and the insanity of the broadcast. Ready to fire Beale immediately, he realizes that he cannot buy this much publicity on his own, and the ratings are going up, so he allows him to continue.

Programming director and professional shark Diana Christensen (Dunaway) is looking for something “counter culture” and “anti-establishment” as an alternative to everyday programming. Straight from the television generation, (in Schumacher’s words, “She learned life from Bugs Bunny.”) she was hired to bring UBS out of the number four slot. She sees the stunt that Howard pulls and lobbies to give Howard Beale a new kind of variety type news show, followed by the “Mao Tse-tung” hour, where the Ecumenical Liberation Army will film themselves performing criminal acts that UBS will broadcast on the air. They turn the newscast into a variety type show; convinced they have a hit on their hands, the numbers do not lie. Ratings skyrocket. Howard is on top of the world while he descends into madness. Week by week, he becomes more delusional; UBS refuses to get him help or take him off the air. Eventually, the show becomes so tired that the executives look for the easiest way out and decide to hire the Ecumenical Liberation Army to kill Howard while on the air.

The mise-en-scene of this film is very 1970’s, complete with 70’s room sets and polyester outfits, and from the first shot the audience can tell on which person to focus: NBC, CBS, and ABC all have muted tones behind their anchors, but UBS has a half red and half ecru, a “which one of these not like others” kind of awareness. The importance of the business in which these characters are consumed stands out in the form of televisions everywhere. Shot entirely on location in a news studio, offices, and apartments, there is a reflective surface in almost every room, but Roizman’s perfectionism ensures that the audience never sees the camera. In fact, the scene where Diana is supposed to be in Hollywood is actually filmed in Long Island, and the reflective surface of the artwork shows the cars outside, an indication of the feeling of California[2]. The stage in which Howard preaches after he becomes the “angry prophet denouncing the hypocrisies of our times” has a stained glass window behind it- also an indication of sorts that Howard speaks the holy truth.

Using a combination of high-key, low-key and source lighting throughout the film, cinematographer Owen Roizman creates an atmosphere of cynicism and corruption. In fact, even Sidney Lumet remarks on Roizman’s infallible lighting, and how in the beginning of the film the lighting is largely source lighting and becomes more artificial as the movie progresses, an indication of sorts that even the camera is being manipulated and corrupted. Most notable about the lighting concepts used by Roizman can be seen whenever lovers Christensen and Schumacher are together. If it is in a public, professional setting, the colors are bright and professional, if they are alone discussing their relationship, it is dark and foreboding.

What makes this film even more unique is the use of the stationary camera. In fact, there are only a few key scenes where panning is used: the very beginning during the News Assembly while the credits roll, and at the board meeting where we finally see Ned Beatty. The latter takes place while Hackett is talking about the projected earnings that they believe the Howard Beale show will bring. It builds to a crescendo, showing the faces of all of the concerned executives while Hackett drones on about cost, deficit, and projections. Finally, it focuses in on Beatty’s face as he delivers one line, “Very good, Frank. Exemplary. Keep it up” Lumet admits in the director’s commentary that the dolly shot was used in this scene specifically to introduce Beatty’s character, Jensen, with this one line. Close up shots are used only in circumstances where the filmmakers want the audience to see nothing but what is going on in the character’s head, such as when Beale truly cracks and delivers his famous monologue including the indication that he is “mad as hell…” In the next scene, people shout it from the rooftops and from balconies. It cuts wider and wider, until you see nothing but screaming bodies in lit windows while lightning and thunder rolls across the sky. It becomes the perfect conceptualization of how one person’s madness can affect an entire nation when that nation is of the television generation, which clearly lacks the ability to think on their own.

Editor Alan Heim does a fantastic job with editing. Chayefsky’s script is perhaps too much story to tell, but he edits them together to pose the union of the two stories in one. The Ecumenical Liberation Army’s meeting about the television contract is the in the same vain as the network’s meetings, save for the gunshot that brings everyone back on point. The movement of the story is slow and methodical at first but becomes quick as time progresses, the quickest especially toward the end of the film when life becomes more urgent. The perfect segue between scenes is shown right towards the end where the executives plot the killing of Howard Beale, and in the very next scene, not wasting any time, the act occurs.

Interestingly enough, the only music in the entire film is the opening of the “variety” type news show; there is no other soundtrack. Elliot Lawrence, largely an awards show music composer, has only this one piece in which to shine. However, a soundtrack is hardly necessary. The sound in this film is the sound of either brilliant dialogue or thoughtful silence; it is not necessary to “muck it up” with mindless elevator music. This is extremely rare to see in films, especially today. Yet, before the regular news show begins, the ticker sound effect is going on before the news, which was a very popular introduction to the news in the 1970’s. The conformity combines with the ingenuity so seamlessly that it is hardly recognized. Most notable about the sound is the sound of the shots that kill Beale. They sound like a gunshot; but in another way, it sounds like a snippet of white noise. This is ingenious, not to mention completely appropriate, since it is followed by the silence that one would normally hear following white noise: the click of the television being turned off or the channel changing, which comes seconds later as 1970’s commercials fill the airwaves. It is a brilliant piece of sound editing.

The acting, too, is dazzling on all sides. Network is the winner of three acting Oscars, awarded to Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch, and Beatrice Straight, with two other nominations for William Holden and Ned Beatty. Dunaway’s character has zero vulnerability; she is so cold that she cannot stop thinking about work even while having sex. Peter Finch is still the only person to have won a posthumous Oscar and it was for this film that he achieved it. We see him delve into madness, but interestingly, he seems to be the only one with any scruples, and therefore, he must be destroyed. Beatrice Straight had a total five minutes and forty seconds of airtime[3], but in five of those minutes, she delivers such an incredible performance that she, without doubt, deserves the award. Ned Beatty is the studio executive who uses Beale to get his point across: that there is no sense of individuality in the world. He knows that the only way to get the point across is to play into Beale’s madness, and uses the same words from Howard’s delusion to deliver his message. The lighting gives Beatty an essence of a halo, and it is clear to see how someone as vulnerable as Howard can mistake him for a messiah. Even Walter Cronkite’s daughter, Kathy, the “Patty Hearst” like character, delivers her one line with unparalleled zeal.

Most interesting in the entire movie is the fact that the corporation does not want individuals. Beatty tells Beale to preach his gospel: that every life is worthless, the single voice is not valuable, and conformity is necessary. Chayefsky made sure that, even though his script was leftist and cynical, it was peppered with comedy so that the audience would not feel preached at.
Roger Ebert described this film as “flawed[4]”; but upon further examination, perhaps it is not so much the film that is flawed but Ebert’s perception of it. In a film filled with such political views and symbolism, it is difficult to understand it all at first glance, as it is with many great films. In other highly political films like “The Manchurian Candidate” and “All The President’s Men” (also made in 1976) the message is not only how it is important to speak out and do what you believe is right, it is a lot clearer. Network takes on a different theme, and it takes a certain school of thought to relate to it. This school of thought is that you are not an individual. You are merely a nameless, faceless, number in the crowd. Perhaps that is the one thing that is flawed about it- it is depressing to hear that your life is worthless. It sounds cynical and sad, but what is arguably sadder than that is the fact that (based on the issues that were prevalent in the 1970’s) the world has hardly advanced politically in the last thirty years. In one of Diana’s lines, she says “…the Arabs have decided to jack up the price of oil another 20%... uh, the CIA has been caught opening Senator Humphrey's mail... there's a civil war in Angola... another one in Beirut…[5]” With gas prices at three dollars a gallon, there does not seem to be any room for argument on the first point; if someone thinks that the CIA does not open up people’s mail, all they need to do is read the Patriot Act carefully (except in today’s hi-tech world, it is voice mails that are being targeted[6]), and there are civil wars going on all over the Middle East. In this film, the people turn to “the tube” for guidance. They turn to a modern-day “prophet”, no matter how mad he may be. Still, if this country was this devoid of individuality, spiritualism and leadership after Vietnam and Watergate, imagine how it is today with all of the high-tech gadgets, detachment from others and distrust in the government, and the war that is going on.

All in all, while arguably cynical and farfetched for its time, the film has become a voice of a generation and a favorite with many critics. The American Film Institute has place this film on at least two of its “100 Years, 100 Best” series: it placed number sixty-six on the 100 Greatest Films of all time and number nineteen for the AFI’s 100 Most Memorable Quotes, (“I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”) It won the Oscar (beating out Rocky) for Best Original Screenplay, and caused quite a stir with journalists of its time, declaring it inaccurate and absurd. It is definitely a movie worth watching, if only for the performances, novelty factor, and to see how long it takes for the farfetchedness and absurdity to become reality.

[1] Full Cast and Crew Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/fullcredits

[2] Director’s Commentary in the 30th Anniversary edition DVD

[3] Amount of time Beatrice Straight was on film http://dick.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/trivia

[4] Roger Ebert: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19760101/REVIEWS/601010305/1023

[5] Quote: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/quotes

[6] Patriot Act: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html