Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Minus the acting, which was absolutely terrible, this was one of the best movies we watched this year in class. Going along with the whole scary theme in October, this was a true representation. Even though it was in the good 'ol black and white and was made in what seems like ages ago, Night of the Living Dead was an excellent horror film.

Although to a majority of people, especially to "men," this movie wasn't really scary but there were times when you could see and feel the suspense. What I found interesting was that it started right away too. The movi didn't need a buildup like movies nowadays seem to need. The killinh started right away and as well, the scariness and suspense. I really found myself getting that little wondering factor with a little fear every now and then where I sort of waited to see anxiously what was going to happen next and who was going to die next. As I have said in the past, any movie that keeps me wanting more has something good about it.

This movie was one of those movies that you can learn a lot from film use within the techniques this movie portrayed. The two techniques I favored the most that added a lot of quality to the move was the use of lighting and the common use of the tilt shot. Lighting is a key thing in a movie, especially in scary movies and horror films. I think George Romero did an excellent job of making sure that role in these types of films was fulfilled. As well, in many of the films we've watched this year, I haven't seen much use of what seems to be a tilt shot. As the camera shifts from either the left to the right, it bring what seems like a tilt to the overall frame. I thought that was especially neat because it makes you really focus on each picture.

In a technique sense, and maybe it was just me not catching thing, I didn't really see much use of mise en scene. I looked for it because it is one of my favorite things in film. I like to try to figure the meaning of mise en scene in a film out on my own, then hear other people's take on it, and if available, hear about the real meaning or the director's intended meaning. I think this adds special qualities to a movie and I was a little dissapointed that I didn't find much in Night of the Living Dead. Hopefully, I just majorly missed it.

Of course, with the good of a movie comes the bad, and that was surely evident in the acting put forth in this film. I know we are dealing with old time producing and acting in comparison to the high-tech stuff we are used to today, but there have been certainly better acted movies than this even before 1968. I truly don't see how the director accepted that poor excuse for acting. I don't know if these people were trying to overdo it or what, but in the end it was really "absurd."

At the end of the day, I'd say this was more of a pretty neat film than it was an excellent one. Not to say it wasn't good because it was, but it strikes me more as neat and interesting. With a basic storyline turned into an expressive one and a great ending as well as parts that made me laugh (arguments between the white guy and the black guy), Night of the Living Dead is definitely a classic of its own.

-Kevin

Bubba Hotep

Bubba Hotep – not only does it have an absurd name but it is one of the most absurd movies a person could ever see. The entertainment value on this can’t be measured nor can the depth that it actually hits. Don Coscarelli must’ve had a lot of creativity bottled away somewhere just waiting to be released in this most imaginative film.

There were so many factors in this film that were so neat. They weren’t necessarily things that kept you waiting on the edge of your seat wondering what was going to happen next, rather you expected what was going to happen but you didn’t know how it was going to come across, and usually in the end, the result was a good one. In this movie, things a normal movie would take serious and make maybe the peak or climax of the movie was knocked around in Bubba Hotep.

Another thing that was pretty interesting was that this story wasn’t your typical storyline and didn’t follow this generic format that directors seemed to follow. It was pure originality and did a good job of showing it. It does cause me to think what in the world was going through Coscarelli mind when he put this all together, but that is the beauty of it. Even more in depth, the part of the movie I found the absolute best were the random lines from each character and how in reality, they didn’t fit in at all but in this story the lines were absolutely beautiful. The characters were excellent and these lines were direct examples of parts of their personality.

Speaking of characters, two thumbs goes up for selection of the cast. The short amount of roles played in this film gave the film more of an added overall touch. The men and women did a fantastic job in accomplishing these awkward roles. They spoke, acted, and did everything in every way to ensure they were living up to the character’s role as if it were a real life figure. They really made me feel like they were real sometimes and like I was watching a live show. I tried to view Bubba Hotep from a serious standpoint and a joking standpoint just for fun. What I found odd yet interesting at the same time about this though is that I actually found myself getting into it when I kept it on the serious level. Although the movie was much in a joking manner, for a director and cast to keep me serious for some parts like it was actually happening is pretty exceptional. It was almost like reality was stepping into this thing we knew was un-realistic.

Even more, outside of the funny factor, the movie seemed to portray some messages in it that many could interpret in many ways. In between those funny segments, specifically when we hear “Elvis” narrating, he throws some pretty deep stuff out there about love and telling those you love that you do and life itself. There is nothing wrong with balancing serious and funny in the same movie.

This is definitely one of those movies you want to see time and time again, and while doing so, laugh at the same thing every time you see it. With a “hit-you-in-the-face attitude” full of character, the movie is one to remember.

-Kevin

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

Maybe it has just been me lately, but for the most part, I was a little dissapointed with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). I think overall it was a pretty cool and good movie, but I found myself wanting more after I watched the movie. It was almost like something was missing for me in the movie. It certainly sparked a unique interest for future directors in this are and created a great awareness in continuing this series of Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies.

I may be just too picky or it may be me just not getting used to appreciating "older time" movies, but I really can't determine what it is that kind of threw me off course with this movie and left me hanging. I liked it without a doubt, but it seemed like a few things could've given me the impression that the movie just wasn't as much and as good as it could've been. Something I didn't specifically like was once again, the character development. It seemed that everytime I got to figure out a character and/or start to see his/her development, he/she died. I know that this is a murder and horror movie, but it agravated me that everytime I fit something into the story with that character's role and progression, they were taken out of the movie by death.

I can easily find more things about the movie that were enjoyable. The best thing I found was the director's ability to give us little information about the story details (family, relatives, symbolic things) yet just enough to wonder a little about what was going on. The only part of this that I wish he would've given us more information about was of course, the characters. I think Tobe Hoope does a pretty goo job portraying the storyline without putting it all on the screen for us to see. I love when a director makes me think, especially about the story as a whole. He doesn't give too much information away in the beginning, but this raises the affect of figuring out what happens later on in the movie about different questionable things. The ability of Hooper to do this easily keeps me focused and into the movie - its surroundings and the storyline. Once again, I think Hooper executes successfully when he ties it all together towards the later part of the film. We figure out more about the family, the actions of that family, their intentions, their personalities, and especially the big question - why. All of this comes into play as we recognize what has been going on in the film the whole time. This was an excellent factor of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Tobe did start touching a thing I love to see, even though he did it towards the end of the movie. This was getting personal with the characters. We start seeing this when Sally starts to get seriously tormented by the family. To me, I only started recognizing it when they were eating dinner. The fact that he sort of waited til the end to do this in reference to the characters gave me the sense that the characters were a little under developed. We really see the family itself come through both as a group and then the individuals. We start seeing how they function, who they are, how this evil is controlling them, and even to me, I started to see inside of the the three guys.

This family murdered and murdered and murdered and one would most likely wonder why and have no sympathy for the family. I did at first until I stopped to think about it. Sure, they may have been insane and crazy, but who were they really is the true question. The family, as a whole, is a group we could easily see that had problems. The people that make up that family were much more than problems though. Leatherface was an insecure person pressured by his family to do their work of killing. He was never introduced, as it seems, to the world, morals, and the beauty of socializing and other people. Leatherface's brother was probably ADHD and needed attention. The only way of obtaining this attention was through the acceptance of his family. The only way he could obtain acceptance from his family was to do what they were doing - killing. Leatherface's dad or the cook was easily shown as a very very insecure person. He had no idea of himself and knew nothing about a true human beings worth. We easily see this through his actions and words. This ignorance of himself caused him to make others do what he wanted because he was so insecure about himself that he couldn't even commit things he desired to do. How can you not feel sorry for these people - those who aren't introduced to ways to fix personal problems. We, as a society, often have many problems, but through society, we are introduced to paths to fix those problems. This family never had that option it seems. They were always confined to that small town and confined to the one activity of killing. Does this make up for the killing that they commited? In no way, shape, or form does it do that in my opinion, but the matter of the fact is that themselves - their true selves - would most likely not be doing the things they did.

I'd say putting aside that one major dislike of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, this movie was quite a good addition and start to a major series. I think the problem with many though is that they hear the build up of the movie and expect so much more than they saw although so much was given to them already. This is most likely what happend with me.

-Kevin

Rear Window

For another Alfred Hitchcock movie, Rear Window, I'd have to say I was quite unimpressed, but at the same time I think that at some points, he had some of the best parts of a film from him out of all of the movies I have seen from him. I still haven't figured Hitchcock out completely; it is almost like there is just a key thing missing from me trying to figure out what his total point in all of his movies were. That is the one thing I hate about film - sometimes not being able to compare how I took and interpreted the movie to what the author created the movie in reference to. This seems to be a recurring theme for me in Hitchcock movies.

I think my dissapointment of a lot of the movie stemed from the beginning. I found the beginning to be very "out there" and boring. Rear Window's whole beginning segment is something I really wouldn't had thought to be Hitchcock's work if I hadn't known he directed this film. I didn't see much film technique being used and this hurt the help I rely on to figure out what is going on in the film. It took me until the time he actually decides to do something about this mysterious murder he saw to actually get into the movie and deeply interested. Before that, I was not into the movie, but I tried to be which caused for an even more interest in how the second half of the movie would play out. This second half was where I saw some of Hitchcock's best work (out of what I have seen) to me. There were a few times where I had that thought of how neat he did that or how cool that came across to me, and in return, these parts offered me a more sense of connection with the movie.

The factor that gave me the most dissapointment of the film was the choosing of the cast. This is something I have praised Alfred Hitchcock in all of the movies we have watched that were directed by him. I'd easily say this was not as good as his past choosings. I truly only enjoyed two characters - Lisa, his girlfriend and the woman whose dog was killed. What killed me the most was seeing all of the characters in the movie, specifically the ones who lived in all the sections of the apartments, that were just there. Although there for a reason, I would've loved to see more of the characters in Rear Window either more developed or played by a person who could've done that through their own script and acting. While we got to see many people's lives through the "rear window," we never truly got to see them.

This movie, though, does continue Hitchcock's use of the auteur theory, which briefly suggests that a true film director will have moments, themes, and certain things, all three of which mean something and add to the movie, in every film he/she makes that build up to the end where the voyeur, the viewer is able to see what is happening or has happened behind closed doors. This gives this auteur, the author, a chance to philosphically use his ideas in different ways to produce differnet movies in the same themes and contex. Hitchcock, of course, does this so brilliantly, especially with the three movies we have seen. We see why he does the things he does or for me at many times, I recognize his consistency in doing certain things and attempt to find the meaning of it. This point is evident in Hitchcock's movies because we eventually see what those many little things he put in the movie are all about.

There was something I truly did like about the movie, especially in the second half. That was the way the apartments were portrayed and we could see all of the happenings, lives, and cultures of each apartment. I think that is a really neat effect. While with that, I would've loved to see more development of those apartments, without that, it gave me more of a free mind to create my own. While creating a more developed personality of the people we saw from Jeff's eyes, it allowed me to apply the apartments within the windows to Jeff's own life but also to my life at the same time. Jeff is just like me sitting from behind those windows looking in to others. How did this portraying of all of these apartments relate to life in general, both for Jeff and me? For Jeff, it is perfectly clear. All of the windows that he looks into deal with relationship and romance - something that is lacking in his life with his girlfriend, Lisa. Lisa and he usually cannot seem to connect anymore and are having problems keeping up their relationship. As Jeff looks on, he sees so many different aspects of relationship and romantic life that give him a view of what can happen in his relationship if he decides to actually make it a true relationship. This is what we see from each window:

• lonely woman - Jeff sees what it is like to experience loneliness, sort of like what he is going through right now, but in this woman's perspective, it is not because she is not able as she tries and never seems to succeed.
• singles dating - Jeff sees what it is like to be able to casually date and be able to find someone a person might connect with.
• marriage gone sour - Jeff sees how marriage can go to the wrong direction and what that turn might do to him and his wife

These are a few examples of windows Jeff focuses on that let him learn about something that he realizes is a must in his life - love within a relationship, specifically with Lisa, his girlfriend. He finally comes to grip with the fact that Lisa is the one for him and that even though they might go through some of the things the people he looks on do, he can make it through with her.

So, with all of the detailed things going on in Rear Window, it was hard for me to get into the beginning. I think the problem with me though, was the fact that it was so un-varied in scenes; the shots were all taken basically from Jeff's apartment. I see the need for it to keep the movie on a basis from Jeff's perspective, but it just seemed like there was so much missing from the movie by doing this.

-Kevin