Essay Outline

As of right now, I'm on the fence about whether I'm going to use "Midnight in Paris" or "Grapes of Wrath"; I am going to use the formalist approach, and use the 2004 film "Collateral" to stand in as my outline until I figure out which film would make a better argument. I will update this blog when I have selected my in class movie.

The moment I would analyze from "Collateral" concerns the assassination of the Jazz trumpeter.

On the surface, "Collateral" is an intense thriller with some intellectual commentary intermixed. Delving deeper, it can be argued that the movie revolves around two incredibly dynamic characters, Max and Vincent. Using the Formalist approach, I would narrate the Trumpeter's assassination to show it's profound showcase of Vincent's emotions and then compare them to Max.

Paragraph 1: Background info and Leadup

Assuming the reader knows the movie intricately would be a mistake, so I need to set up the scene by giving a brief synopsis of the film leading up to my "moment", and provide sufficient context so the reader can understand my analysis by knowing where I am in the movie. This cannot be too long, for it would border on simple synopsis and not analysis. This paragraph is merely a platform for the rest of the essay's analysis.

Paragraph 2: Vincent's background and Growth thus far

In order for the reader to know just how significant this scene is for Vincent, they need something to contrast it against. This can be accomplished by describing Vincent's actions thus far in the film and analyzing them into his character. For example, his first assassination shows just how numb he is to killing. However, he is not a pathological killer, and even seems to possess morals and can intellectually justify the reasons for his work.

Paragraph 3: Vincent's identification and brief Stoicism lapse

Vincent's soft spot for Jazz music and knowledge of music history get him involved in a conversation with a Jazz club owner, Daniel. After a short while, Vincent reveals Daniel to be just another target, but proposes to quiz Daniel in exhange for his life. After Max and Daniel plead for his life, Vincent shoots Daniel in the head, and catches his face as it falls limply to the table. The next shot is VERY important: it shows Vincent's face contorting as his conscience contorts his face, filling him with guilt over the killing. This paints Vincent in a new light, showing that deep beneath his cold murderous mentality lies a respect for someone who shares his love of music.

Paragraph 4: Max's and Vincent's symbiotic relationship

Throughout the entire movie, Max and Vincent can't seem to lose each other. Through scenes like the Jazz club, the movie shows that both Max and Vincent's dynamism are fed off each other; Vincent's subconscious aruges the utility vs. morality of his killings, while Vincent's forward and confident manner gives Max the courage to do what he couldn't in the beginning of the film.

This week, the moment I wish to discuss pertains to the ending of the movie when compared to the ending of the book.

The movie ends with a not-so-subtly delivered political monologue, as opposed to Roseasharn breast feeding the dying  man. As discussed in class, the radical ending of the book could not be screened due to the conservative tendencies of the mid 20th century. This completely changes the message intended for the audience; in the book, the ending shows the family falling apart. Roseasharn's baby is still born, and she ends up giving her breast milk to a man dying of starvation. This ending serves two purposes:

1. The inherent shock value of a grown woman breast feeding a grown man would draw much attention, and make readers consider the value of this scene.

2. One such value a reader could deduce would lead them to consider the rampant desperation of the time, where times are so bad that a Mother is giving the milk intended for her child to a grown man.

This depressing, shocking ending uses brutal honesty to demonstrate the squatters' oppression and maltreatment.

The movie's ending starkly differs, with the deliverance of a marxist monologue replacing the brutal ending of the book. I would argue this definitely makes Ford an auteur, for even though the choice really wasn't his, he changed the ending to emphasize the plight of the masses and therefore give a socialist spin to the whole film. 

As for the second blog question, I think auteur theory to be the most valid argument in film studies today. Films are created by an entire group of people, yet the ideas and framework for the film stem from just a few of them. Does credit lie with the writer, for laying the foundation and creating the film in the first place? Or, does it lie with the director, who decides how the story comes alive through the camera? I love these arguments, for there is so much complex work that goes into a film that credit should be given everywhere, yet all the fame is often just funneled to the director.

I'm personally a huge fan of directors like Chis Nolan, who write/direct most of their own works. This way, the vision of the film isn't lost in the transition from the writer auteur to the director auteur, and the finished work's success value is much higher. 

Masculin, Feminin- Sex Relations

Godard has no problem breaking nearly every cinematic convention in Masculin, Feminin. He doesn't bother with attempting to immerse us in the film; in fact, he uses several abrupt devices to remind the viewer that we are watching a movie, not living a story. During a conversation between Paul and Madeline, the camera movement (or lack thereof) makes the viewer painfully aware that the scene will not use shot-reverse-shot, and the long lags in dialogue force the viewer to analyze each and every line. 

The conversation has several idiosyncrasies which drove me mad, the first being a lag in responses during the conversation. The term awkward silence doesn't even begin t address what happens here; it seems like whenever one of them speaks, the other waits about 20 seconds before responding. This makes the vieer do a few things:

1. It makes the viewer realize that Madeline does her hair and makeup about 1453 times during this one scene.

2. It makes the viewer really consider what Paul and Madeline are saying to each other.

With all of this time to contemplate the lines, the viewer starts to notice a few trends between the male and female gender which can then be reapplied to the entire film. Just briefly;

1. Women are concerned with giving their bodies to someone who will appreciate and value them, as well as American consumerism, cosmetics, etc.

2. Men like boobs. (exaggerated and sarcastic, but still a rather effective summary)

This gets revisited several times throughout the film:

1. The conversation between Catherine and Paul's friend (boobs)

2. Anytime Madeline talks about being a singer (american pop star)

3. The event with sugar cubes in the cafe (boobs)

Just this small exchange between Madeline and Paul represents several of the gender conflicts which can be traced throughout the film.

blog