Psycho

Of the many times I've seen Psycho, there hasn't been once where I didn't recognize something new, realize something was there for a reason (mise en scene), or learn something new about some aspect of the movie. Psycho is one of those played out movies but it never seems to get old. I always try to wonder what is going to happen next in the movie and within the storyline. It is true that many times you can learn from the old, and as always, with Psycho, that is true.

There really are no parts to Psycho that I truly dislike. I'd say the only thing I dislike about Psycho is seeing it so many times. Psycho portrays one of Alfred Hitchcock's best. For me, this is true for many reasons. This movie demonstrates the use of film technique and element to get a point across better than many many movies I've seen and over every movie we have seen in class this year. The lighting, the focus, the shots, the mise en scene, the angles, the editing - all of them Hitchcock used in such a perfect way to produce such an excellent movie. What I found the most interesting was his use of lighting in this film. I have noticed it every time I watch Psycho. I am a big fan of lighting use in a film because it is so neat how the lighting can have such an effect on the movie and the picture being brought to the viewer's eye.

Once again, Hitchcock hits on the nail with the choosing of his actors. Between this movie and Frenzy, I would venture to say these had to be some of the best actors and actresses of their time. They were outstanding. An actor/actress can easily remember a role and the script but to portray the character with emotion and with personality takes work, and it is truly evident they went to this level. Not only that, but the emotions they display only create for a better environment within the storyline and the movie all together.

The storyline is hard to label as horrible too. It is so neat how predictable yet unpredictable the storyline is in Psycho. One mintue you think you know what's going on and the next, you are lost. Hitchcock does an excellent job making sure the storyline does not get off base and stays in a form that the viewer can understand. What is neat, though, is the fact that while he does keep the storyline at a point where a viewer can understand, there is so much more to be discovered about it and the symbolic meanings of the many mise en scences. This makes the viewer have to be focused and to keep a viewer focused in a movie is a key thing.

For a movie that keeps me interested time after time, I'd have to give Psycho two thumbs up yet again. Hitchcock never ceases to fail in anything he produces. I'd love to see something different from him though.

-Kevin

Frenzy

When we first started watching Frenzy, I was hoping for a different side from Alfred Hitchcock and a different type of movie, and even though I didn't get this necessarily, I did get a pretty good yet another suspensful movie in a different style but with the same theme. I really was hoping for a different perspective from Hitchcock, and while this wasn't the case, he surely didn't do a bad job.

It is really hard to put forth ideas that make Hitchcock sound like anything close to mediocre. There was a part of the movie that I found like this though and that was the end. As I have stated in previous blogs, I think beginnings and ends of movies are pivotal parts, and I think that directors sometimes overlook that fact. In no way am I saying that Hitchcock did this, but I am saying that Hitchcock, in my opinion, did not produce a good ending and could have easily come up with an alternative and better result. This, on a big outlook, was the only thing I had a big problem with.

Another thing that is hard to deny is that Hitchcock does not use good technique and good film elements to include in his film. Not only does he keep storylines that, although in the same contex (mystery, murder, suspense), are different and exciting each time you watch a new movie. Some would think that Psycho would cover everything there is about these types of subjects, but that is certainly not the case. This movie is proof of that. The storyline of this was thrilling and unclear yet interesting and was definitely a different type of story. He followed it well and used all of the techniques he does so perfectly producing an excellent product.

There is something I truly loved within in what I'm guessing was Hitchcock's decision and that is the actors that stared in this movie. I don't think there could have been better people choosen that could have portrayed the actual characters as well as they did. They were excellent. Each of them did a great job of keeping the personality intact with the storyline and each represented something that was key to the movie being the fully developed movie it was.

With the exception of the end, I really did enjoy this movie. It depicted a great storyline with a great cast and an excellent director. Hitchcock comes out on top again with Frenzy as I'd almost venture to say Frenzy could compare in rank to Psycho.

-Kevin

Garden State

I don't think there has ever been a movie that has confused me yet entertained me at the same level as much as Garden State did. There are things I am still questioning and confused about and as well, there are things I still laugh about and enjoy when I think of the movie. Once again, as was the case when watching Buffalo '66, I found Garden State to be an interestingly random movie as well as a movie that is perfect to get involved in - both the storyline, characters, and the movie as a whole.

I have found that in a lot of movies where the character writes, directs, and acts, it seems to be a very well developed movie. I also find it to be more puzzling to the viewer too. I know both of these have been the case for me. This though makes the movie more interesting - to have to really pay attention to know all of what is going on. In the past two movies we have watched where the character writes, directs, and acts, there has been that personal story put into play both mentally and physically through the script and the acting. That, in my opinion, is certainly what keeps the movie at its best.

There were a few unique things I truly enjoyed about this movie. One of those was the way Braff really didn't follow a set guideline, nor did he follow a story like pattern. Sure, things weren''t neccesairily in some sequential, story form, but the the things that lead up to him realizing what his life and he is all about easily form the basis of the story, without telling the story in some strict form. It's like it doesn't follow some consistent beat or tone but you know what the tone and beat is. Another thing I liked was the way Braff portrayed the characters in the film. He didn't totally form them but for a reason, I think. It seems like he wanted to keep us totally focused by always wanting to know more about each character because in some way, shape, or form, we easily could relate to one or more of those characters and what they were going through. Therefore, by us knowing more, we really started to develop them ourselves, while comparing them to us. This movie overall seemed to be a rare movie of this day and age. You usually don't see these types of movie with quality come out; you only see and hear about the "Hollywood" stuff.

When we were told to watch for similarities between Buffalo '66 and Garden State, I was hoping we weren't going to watch some cheesy movie about some guy finding his way in life or something. While we watched about a guy trying to figure out what was going wrong and ways to fix it, it wasn't the normal get on with things way; it showed a much more in depth focus on the individual and his association with the society and the life he is trying to figure out. This creates for a more appealing storyline and movie in itself.

As always, I was confused on quite a few things. One of those was the need for receiving his mother's jewlery piece at the end. I know his mother's funeral sparked him coming back to realization of life, but I didn't quite get the segment with that. As well, I am still confused on the very beginning scene - Andrew Largeman (Zach Braff) sitting in an airplane that seemed to be going down. I only took it as a reference to his life going down, but in the end, the whole thing just confused me again. I can only see it as the scene in the beginning meaning his life was going down and now at the end, by him not being on the plane, his life is finally at a steady pace and in the shape he wants it to be and knows it should be.

I was quite impressed by Garden State. It was quite a different type of movie but in a very good way. Combining realization of life with dry humor, stupid antics, and craziness surely made this film one to remember.

-Kevin