Sunset Boulevard- Melissa Villanueva

In Sunset Boulevard (1950), a film by Billy Wilder, Joe Gillis narrates his death and how it came to be about using a flashback. He first starts out floating in the pool, then goes back six months before his death. We are shown how he is an unsuccessful screenwriter and how he unfortunately ends up at Norma’s house. The fact that Gillis is narrating his life throughout the film is ironic in the sense that he was unsuccessful in creating any movies, but was able to create one with his death using narration, flashbacks, and his own experiences with Norma.
Narration in this movie is key, not only because it tells the entire story but because it also seems that Gillis did not embellish on how Norma truly was. We know this because in the final scene after he dies, she slowly goes down the stairs, claims that she is ready for her close up, and thinks that she is really headed to the movies. This is significant because Gillis had wanted his movie to be a hit with a big movie star, and in the end it turns out that he did get one, things just did not turn out his way. It almost takes a weight off of the audience because it is known that despite his death, he did finally reach success with this movie.

The flashbacks are also an important part in the film because they give background on Gillis’s struggle in writing screenplays and how desperate he was to write one that would make the big screen. He was so determined that he even cheated on Norma (if you actually consider him to be with her) and defied his best friend Artie in order to secretly work with Betty. It is clear that Gillis is guilty about this, hence why he tells her when they are walking along Paramount Pictures at night that she needs to stay at least two feet from him. He also invites her over to the mansion to see how he is truly living to let her know that they cannot be together. Norma confuses this with Gillis wanting to stay with her and when Gillis gives her a sense of reality, she shoots him. His determination to write is what got him killed.

Lastly, Gillis’s experiences with Norma are important to this film because we get an idea of who Gillis truly was through first-hand account. It is interesting that the audience sees Gillis and also hears his narration because it helps to connect with him and hope that he can publish a screenplay and also find a way to get away from Norma. The audience sides with Gillis despite his wrongs and is angry with Norma for the way that she treats him. The narration and his role in the film make him into a real person, versus just a character or just a voice.

Gillis’s narration is essential to this movie because of the irony that it demonstrates. It is unfortunate that Norma put his life to an end, but from this loss he gained the story that he had always been hoping for.

Rashomon

In the movie Rashomon, we see how the character the Woodcutter is the root of all the lies. Throughout the movie we see the bandit, the wife, and the samurai, and the woodcutter all having different stories on what happened to the Samurai who was found dead. With all of these different stories we are left guessing on who is telling the truth.

            Deceit is the whole theme throughout this entire movie, throughout the whole movie we look at the Woodcutter and believe that he is telling the unbiased truth about what has happened to the Samurai and about his finding of the body. But we see that the woodcutters’ story often changes leading us to question if he is telling all of the truth. For example, when the woodcutter gets out of the trial he tells the commoners that the Samurai’s story was a lie and that he witnessed the rape and murder but did not want to become involved.  He then continues to tell the commoner a new story explaining that Tajomaru wanted to marry the wife but she instead wanted to free her husband and wanted them to fight for love. The woodcutter proceeds to tell the commoner that Tajomaru took the dagger with him and fled the scene.

            Then the story takes another turn, during a discussion with the priest, woodcutter and the commoner they are interrupted by the sound of a crying baby. As the commoner picks up the baby, the woodcutter reapproaches the commoner because he believes that he is stealing the baby. The commoner makes a remark to the woodcutter saying “a bandit calling another a bandit" because it has been discovered that the woodcutter had stolen the dagger from the murder scene. This comes to show that the woodcutter had been lying throughout the whole movie.

            The woodcutter showed how lying and deceit can leave you guessing what the next turn is in a movie. Without the woodcutters stories and a turning plot this movie would have not been as strong. One thing I did not like about this movie is that there are so many different characters telling lies and stories that it make the movie very hard to follow and the plot confusing. Also with the scene with the baby I thought that it was thrown into the movie and did not go along with the other things going on in this film.

            Overall I found that the main focus of lying and deceit in this movie made it confusing and hard to follow. 

The Gold Rush

            Due to the lack of technology audio could not yet be attached to films. Therefore movie production in the early 1900s adopted an over-exaggerated style of display. The characters had to use signs and symbols to communicate with the audience. For example, to explain to the viewers that Black Larson was a wanted man, the camera panned to a shot of a wanted flier clearly depicting Black Larson.  The movie also used quote scenes for the audience so they could see what the characters were saying when there wasn’t a lot of movement in the scene.  The clips of quotes were most often seen when there was a party going on at the bar.
            Since there wasn’t sound, the characters could not speak, body movement and facial expressions were over-exaggerated. As shown in the scene where the Lone Prospect, Black Larson, and Big Jim Mckay first meet in the cabin and they begin to wrestle with the gun. It is clearly seen by the audience that the Lone Prospect is in fear for his life, from his facial expression and exaggerated movement, as the gun is being waved in his face.  This can also be seen at the bar when Jack gives the Lone Prospect the note Georgia wrote for him.  In the next scene, the Lone Prospect reads the note and starts to run around the bar looking for Georgia.  In this scene Charlie Chaplin does a perfect job acting as if he is head over heals in love with Georgia running around franticly looking for her.  His movements and facial expressions really shows how much the Lone Prospect loves Georgia.  When he finally sees her he climbs the wall to her and begins to express his love for her with out saying anything.  Chaplin uses arm gestures, kisses Georgia’s hand over and over again, and he also grabs at his heart to show that he loves her too.   These minor details such as facial expressions are often missed or over looked in current movies.  Many movies made today use words and the voices tones to express emotions such as love or anger.  However, seen in The Gold Rush emotions can be expressed using body language. This is because people are more focused on what the actors are saying and not what they are doing.  
            With the lack of sound, Charlie Chaplin was able to avoid a movie full of dialog frames by isolating the main character away from large groups of people. Such as, when everyone was in the bar celebrating New Years Eve, the Lone Prospect was off in a cabin by himself preparing for Georgia and her friends to come visit.  The Lone Prospect also dreams about having Georgia and her friends over.  In the dream when they ask for him to make a speech rather than talking or using dialog frames he does a dance with two rolls stuck to the ends of forks.  The only time in the movie when dialog frames were used was when all the towns people were in the bar celebrating. Other than those scenes Chaplin was able to make a movie people could watch and understand without the use of current audio technology. 

Eric Shacklette

The Maltese Falcon -- Ryan Winstead

     While often symbolic of freedom, aspiration, and bravery, the falcon can be used as an antithesis to these concepts when darkly utilized.  John Huston in his film, The Maltese Falcon, uses the statuette falcon to symbolize society’s never ending greed while complicating this argument by highlighting the complexities of knowing another person’s true self.  As a result, the falcon ultimately establishes a parallel between its own nature and that of Brigid O’Shaughnessy. 

     The connection between the falcon statuette and greed is a fairly intuitive one.  That is, the monetary and cultural value of the statuette is the driving force behind the entire film, causing the murder and betrayal of multiple people.  The characters, Gutman and his minions especially, make it clear that they are not working under the premise of ethics but the attainment of money and power.  After declaring that Wilmer is like a son, Gutman then says, “Well, if you lose a son, it’s possible to get another.  There’s only one Maltese Falcon,” and thoroughly betrays Wilmer.  Huston’s critique of society is clear; society, Huston is saying, operates solely under a quest for endowment, often sacrificing human life or relationships to acquire it.  Because the falcon is never actually ascertained, we can be sure that this unhealthy greed bears no fruit.

     Furthermore, Huston creates a startling comparison between Brigid and the falcon to show that Spade’s search for love is just as hopeless as Mr.Gutman’s crusade for wealth and power.  Much like the falcon, Brigid is shrouded in mystery and concealment from the beginning of the movie.  As the falcon’s location is constantly changing, so is the identity of Brigid.  Brigid attempts to appear innocent and victimized to Spade, but as the details of her situation leak out, she is forced to make concessions regarding her true person.  This process of pealing back the layers of Brigid also relates to the falcon.  Indeed, the falcon has a “black enamel” that makes it appear to be worthless, hiding an encrustation of jewels underneath.  Only by whittling away this coating can the audience understand the character of Brigid.

     By comparing Brigid to the falcon, we see that Brigid is likewise unattainable for Spade.  Indeed, the audience is left truly wondering if the falcon is real or not, additionally pondering if Brigid’s love for Spade is existent.  It is this inability to know the truth that drives Spade to turn Brigid into the police.  Huston displays the difficulty of knowing the true self of others, and the impossibility of living with the consequences of insecure trust.  With swirling ulterior motives, Spade could never truly know Brigid’s feelings, as is shown in his quotation: “I’ve no earthly reason to think I can trust you…All we’ve got is that maybe you love me and maybe I love you.”

     And thus, a dichotomy of people is formed: those who lust after uncertain power and wealth, and others who lust after chimerical love.  Both are guilty of the same crime, and both fall into the same pitfall of fixation over something that is not truly there.  Finally, Huston’s theme becomes clear: amidst all the deceit and lies, there is only one thing happiness can be derived from, the real and hard truth.  After all, the falcon is only the things “dreams are made of”.

Posted by: Ryan Winstead

Citizen Kane - Mary Walker

Due to the thematic significance of memories in Citizen Kane, this blog post will critically analyze the use of flashbacks and its effectiveness as a story-telling device in the film.

While the use of flashbacks in films was not particularly new, the quality and smoothness of their implementation into Citizen Kane was truly avant-garde.  Indeed, the flashbacks allowed the weaving of two stories into one; the primary of which taking place in the present, the secondary existing solely in the past.  The interviewing processes in which the flashbacks primarily take place create a link to this past.

Each individual flashback is subject to bias by the person reminiscing, highlighting the fragility of the past and how we analyze it.  For example, when Susan was being interviewed about her time with Kane, she describes when she walked out on him and the events leading up to that instance.  One scene shows a giant, open room where Kane and Susan are talking, which demonstrates the distance she felt was between them.  In the scene where she leaves him, she describes herself as the victim and is proud of her actions.  This exhibits the idea that each interviewee’s flashbacks are subject to bias and describe how each of them remembers Kane.

Furthermore, Welles may also be suggesting that people are only what people remember us to be, shown by the differing opinions of the interviewees and their role as the primary source of information about Kane.  In each flashback he is portrayed as a different kind of person.  As the movie progresses, the audience realizes that Kane is all of those people, depending on who he’s with.  To each person he was remembered as something different, and after he dies, he became only what those people remembered him to be.

This theme produced by the flashbacks is reinforced by the quest behind the meaning of “rosebud”.  In hopes of encapsulating the identity of Kane into his last dying word, the reporters were denying the enigmatic nature of people.  Their attempts to disregard the past as a complicated mechanism strictly conflicts with the theme of the flashbacks.  That is, the flashbacks show how complicated an individual Kane is, while the reporters want to simplify him to one word.  Welles shows that the past (and thus, a person) can be more complex through the film’s ending.

Thompson’s final words, that Rosebud is simply a puzzle piece, and not the puzzle, finalizes the significance of the flashbacks.  Hence, the viewer realizes that the flashbacks are the true gateway into Kane’s life, the true story-telling of Kane’s life, not just an instance or word.  Welles is critiquing the way that we view people, especially in retrospect.  Often times we label people based off of one thing he/she did in their life.  Christopher Columbus is known only due to his genius in exploration, but nothing is left of his humanity.  His hobbies, love interests, and favorite foods, for example, are forgotten in history.  Should the reporters found a satisfactory answer to “rosebud” Kane’s existence would have been labeled into that explanation, his humanity forgotten.