Who Done It?

Personal Response:

The Thin Blue Line was a very great documentary in my opinion.  Even though I'm not too interested in documentaries, this one really caught my interest because of it's topic.  The whole idea of "who done it" really made me focus entirely on the screen and didn't lose my attention for one second.  I loved the whole set up and interviewing style of the film; it brought the audience in and let the real people of the "story" explain their side, while you got to choose who you believed.  I love mysteries, crime dramas, and murder stories, which is why I believe I was so interested in this one in particular.

When it first began, I was immediately engaged.  I was weighing the evidence in my own mind to see if I could guess "who done it."  I played along with the story, taking in facts and looking for lies, minute facial expressions, and signs that they did it.  I was so engaged that when we stopped for the first day, I went home and began to watch it again.  I watched till the end and had no qualms about watching it a second time in class and a third time on my own.

The techniques the director used were so engaging and fit each scene so well that I couldn't help but marvel at this documentary.  Even for being so old, it was very interesting, which may make me seem kind of judgmental, but it's just what I do with movies.

Summary of Critical Article:

The article I chose to summarize was "The Thin Blue Line and the Ambiguous Truth" by Lucien J. Flores.  In his article he explains that the director, Errol Morris, was very committed to keeping the film swayed towards Adam's innocence.  Flores points out that Morris brought in testimonies that both contradicted his overall goal of showing Adam's innocence, but only did so if he could spin it so they were wrong (Flores 1).  Morris also includes the same murder scene over and over again, using the interviewee's statements to show just how probable they each could be, which proved some of the statements made to be undeniably false (Flores 2).  Flores explained that by using perception as a technique, Morris made us judge each person who was interviewed and if he wanted us to agree with them, show us evidence and facts, but if he wanted to show just how wrong they were, he'd show us a scene in which we'd see the statement be utterly ridiculous (Flores 3).  By using all these things, Flores explained how Morris was able to sway audiences enough to get Adam's released, off of death row, and have David be brought to justice for the crime (Flores 4).  After such a long case, it was finally solved with just one interview from David.

Response to Critical Article:

When I first had seen the movie, nothing really seemed off to me.  I thought that it was pretty straightforward, a guessing game between to criminals, one of which had killed a cop.  I didn't see the film's bias until the second and third time I watched it, though.  I noticed that all of the interviews were swayed in Adam's favor, showing us that he couldn't have been the one to kill the cop and that it had to be David Harris.  The article by Lucien J. Flores  assured me that this was the case because Morris had included interviews solely for the purpose of bringing justice to Adam's wrongful conviction.  He included some things that contradicted his innocence, but quickly omitted or explained how they were wrong.  Flores talked about how Morris did this in such a flawless way that no one really knew what was being said until they really thought about it, which I found to be true in my case.  He made it so 3-D and created a layered, complex story of what could have happened and who had done the crime.  Flores also explained how Morris's motivation and passion for this project had driven him so far and created such a ripple within society that the case was reopened.  Soon, with the help of Morris's documentary, it was solved.


Consideration of Critic's Use of Critical Frameworks/Concepts:

The framework that this documentary used was the formalist approach.  The way they interwove testimonies, interviews, and details about the case was flawless.  They'd repeat the same scene over and over, but with different scenarios like one with David driving, one with Randall, one where David wasn't in the car, one with the lady cop in the car, one without her in the car, etc.  This showed the audience that there were many different scenarios that could've played out that night.  The way they structured this documentary was very efficient in the way they portrayed their message.  They used layering to create a deep story to keep you on your toes and thinking.  This film really pushed for Adams' innocence, showing how the case wronged him, eventually ending in his release after the film had been viewed by thousands.  They used interviews to contradict other interviews to keep you guessing and they placed them in such a way that someone would say something and then a new interview would be next to contradict what they just said.  It was flawless and at times, humorous.

Film Analysis:

The scene that I decided to analyze was the one at the end of the documentary where all the facts come together, the story is set straight, and the murderer is revealed.  The way they cut to each person to close up their "story arc" within the documentary is done in a way that ends a story.  They all talk about the "wild ride" that they've been on and how difficult this case was.  The last scene is of a playing tape recorder.  We can see the wheels inside turning and as the scene progresses, we see different shots of the tape recorder, all while the interviewee's words are playing across the screen in a font that matches the tone of the scene.  It's one that I've seen before in T.V. shows such as Supernatural, Ghost Adventures, and Ghost Hunters, which all border on scary or mystery.  They could have displayed pictures of David or of the case on the screen, using transitions and more editing effects for the scene, but instead they went the simple route.  It was eerier, hearing him "admit" to the crime while we just heard his voice.  We didn't have much to see on screen, but it made the audience listen more and focus on what he was saying.

 

This technique made us listen, which is what I think the director was trying to do.  It gave us a break from continuously watching the action on screen and instead made us listen to the confession.  He went simple, which made a big impact on the ending of the film.

Works Cited:

Flores, L. J. (2012). "The Thin Blue Line and the Ambiguous Truth ." Student Pulse, 4(05). Retrieved from http://www.studentpulse.com/a?id=640

Once Upon A Time, I Did Not Care

Personal Response

When I heard we were going to watch a Western film, I had to physically stop myself from groaning out loud.  If there's one genre that bothers me and bores me almost to death, it's Western.  Ever since I can remember, every single Western I've watched has made me feel extremely bored, uninterested, and a little annoyed.  I know the genre is one of the biggest and most highly successful, but that really doesn't make sense to me.  Being someone who is more interested in action, you'd think I'd enjoy the gunfights and the shootouts, but I really don't.  I find them to be very stereotypical when it comes to Native Americans and demeaning when it comes to women.  All the movies are the exact same (to an extent), where the lone-wolf hero comes into town to stop bandits or evil-doers, meets a girl, falls in love, gets his job done, either becomes the sheriff and marries the girl or leaves after the job is done, and there's ALWAYS a shootout.  There are some exceptions where the main character is the villain of the story, but its essentially the same tale.  Man versus the environment, himself, and/or a whole city of people and their sheriff.

I know that this genre has put out many successful films, like Once Upon a Time in the West, and I can agree with it's standing as it is an "interesting" take on Western, but I can't find myself interested in any of it.  Give me high-budget films with many special effects, less cowboy hats.

Summary of Critical Article

In this article, Fawell's explains how Sergio Leone's technique of displaying minute details and emotions of his characters using close-ups is something of genius.  Farwell explains that Leone's ability to convey maximum through the minimum when it comes to facial expressions is what makes a scene (Farwell 140).  When you watch the film, you start to notice just how many close-ups there really are.  For example, in the scene between the little boy, Timmy, and the shooter, Frank, there are two main close-ups shown: one with the boy and one with Frank.  You see the little boy take in his family's massacre, but his face shows no emotion.  He seems confused, and like Farwell said, Leone could've had the boy let out a whimper, have a tear roll down his cheek, and he'd have the audience in the palm of his hand, but he chooses to let the boy seem confused and say nothing.  He doesn't even look sad.  When it cuts to Frank, he's sullen and says nothing.  You can see him get irritated when one of his men asks what to do with the boy, calling Frank by his own name.  It's almost like Frank was going to let the boy live, but when the boy knew his name, he couldn't.  It wasn't like Frank cared about the boy, but with just that close-up you could read so much into the scene (Farwell 139).  It's almost like reading their expressions between the lines, using their eyes as a source.  You can see all the emotion in their eyes and know exactly what they're thinking at that moment (Farwell 140).

They also use the close-ups for more than characters, like the train coming down the tracks, guns being raised, and even close-ups starting from the middle and traveling upwards.  We sometimes see a characters hands doing something before we even see their face.  Introducing cowboys by their hats was very prominent in the film as well.  When each cowboy came into the screen, we often saw their hats before their faces, where the camera either zoomed out or panned down (Farwell 149).  Using close-ups for items that symbolize characters lets us judge who they are before we even see their face or attitude.

Response to Critical Article

In Farwell's article about Sergio Leone's close-ups was very interesting.  I noticed that there were many throughout the film, but since I was struggling to even pay attention, I didn't catch on that they were used to convey "reading between the lines using a characters minute expressions," as I put it.  When we see a character's face instead of the scene playing out in front of them, sometimes we can infer what's happening.  I like to guess when in comes to expressions, so when there's a minute smile, a flicker of the eyes, a cynical smile on their lips, I can try and guess to see what's happening.  Sometimes Western's do that and never show what's happening in the scene; they leave it and let you fill in the blanks.

Farwell mainly focused on how the close-ups were of people, but he mentioned how sometimes they were about small objects, things in people's hands, or a specific item that moved the plot forward.  I love when movies do this because you can tie the scene together and sometimes fill in dialogue that the characters aren't saying.  It gives you a chance to judge the character for yourself without dialogue ruining your idea or interpretation of who they are.  Farwell also paid a lot of attention to the symbolism each close-up had, whether it was a person or an object.

Critics Use of Critical Frameworks

The critic used a formalist framework to explain each symbol within the close-ups.  He explained
how these close shots helped convey the message of the movie and help the scene progress.  Instead of the scenes being choppy with close-ups, they actually served the purpose Leone wanted.  The close-ups allowed us into the character's space and we felt what they felt.  We could see a side of them that others couldn't because we're closer to them in the scene.  Using this framework, we could see the hidden feelings that characters hid so well, like Frank when he shoots Timmy.  You could see that he didn't exactly want to, but he felt it necessary so no one knew his name.  Through this, you can get to know a character more than others in the scene.  These shots can help show symbolism and also direct the audience's attention to what the director wants them to see.  You can see the symbol and understand what the character is going to do before they even know.  Using these close-ups you can also understand deeper meaning in the movie.

Film Analysis: Sound To Create Tension & Movement 

The scene that I chose to analyze was the beginning scene with Harmonica when the audience is first introduced to him.  You can tell there's tension in the air when they're waiting for the train; no one is talking and all you hear are sounds.  When the guy with the fly in his gun hears the train coming, the smirk on his face disappears and you know it's go-time.  The camera cuts to each member of the group, showing their reactions to the train coming.  They look sullen and stoic, and when the camera cuts again, you see everyone readying for a fight.  They ready their guns and slowly meet up again in front of the train.  When the train stops, everything is quiet (with the exception of the train's engine.)  It's a tense moment because you're waiting for anything to happen.  The train doors slide open and you see the main guy react, reaching for his gun.  When it's not him, they relax, but the constant sounds create more tension than there would be if it was just silence.  The sounds make you paranoid, like something bad is going to happen and you're going to be witness to it.  When you hear the train start up again and start to chug away, you relax along with the characters, but once you hear the harmonica, you know bad things are going to happen.  You react along with the main characters; you can see it on their faces that the harmonica song means bad news.  Sound in this whole movie was used to create suspense, especially in the first scenes.  They layer sounds to create a background, so with the minimal dialogue, you can still follow the story and understand the tension in the air.

Throughout the whole movie, his song is his theme.  Whenever he appears, his song introduces him.  You hear this tune, you know you're in trouble.  This tune is used to introduce him into each scene, and by hearing it, you can tell something horrible is going to happen and it's going to be at his hand.

This film also uses a variation of close-ups in order to symbolize things, introduce characters, and highlight specific things that are important to the scene.  When you watch their faces, you can pin point certain emotions and how they vary from scene to scene.

I chose this scene because of how there is no talking, just natural sounds around them.  The tension created paranoia in the audience, which had us on edge.  The camera movement was slow, especially when it panned up to reveal a characters features, which also created tension.  Many angles were used to show location of characters, where they existed in the scene, who was the main guy you focus on, and also to show placement.  The placement helped us determine who was "in charge" of the scene.

Works Cited

Criticism from: John Fawell's The Art of Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West: A Critical Appreciation. McFarland and Company, Inc., Publishers. London. (2005)

The Seventh Seal

Personal Response

     When I watched The Seventh Seal (1957), I was extremely confused.  That's actually an understatement.  I was so lost that I found myself just watching the words pop up on the screen, and not reading them.  I found it very hard to focus on anything that was happening in the scene because of this reason: it was not in English.  I know a lot of great films are not always in the same language that we all speak, but it made it hard to understand when you had to multitask between reading the words before the scene transitioned to another.  It was also very jam-packed full of biblical references, which, the majority, went way above my head.  I'm not very religious, but when they were talking about religion, I could understand a little bit of what they were saying, but when it came to symbolism, I was at a loss.
     I'd already pushed aside my judgements for the film being in black and white, but that still made it a little difficult to watch.  I did like how it was gloomy and fit the tone of the whole entire film, but like I've already made known, I enjoy symbolism in the form of vivid color.  When something is in black and white, the symbolism is constricted to references and other things that don't deal with colors.
     Overall, the film was creepy.  It was dark, gloomy, and full of "terror," which I enjoyed.  I like darker films and this one was just that.  It didn't make a whole lot of sense, but Death in the film was very prominent.  I loved the actors portrayals and the man who played Death was very good in his role.  So, all in all, this may have not been one of my favorite movies, but it still gave me a chill and definitely intrigued my "creepy" side.

Summary of Critical Article

     The article that I chose to read was "The Seventh Seal" by Peter Palmer.  He mostly explained that, "the significance of Ingmar Bergman's 'Seventh Seal' lies not in the speeches nor in the actions of the central characters but rather in the films form...the entirety of it" (Palmer 6).  Instead of focusing on the smaller details of the film, he focused on the entire work, the "big picture" (Palmer 6).  He used heavy biblical symbolism throughout, which is seen in every single character, from the Knight to the Girl at the end.  Everything he put into the film was essential to the overall picture, which was inspired/named after "The Book of Revelations" (Palmer 2).  The whole idea of cheating Death was very prominent, and even though the Knight did not, it still made the story end up where he was inspired: with the people dancing to their deaths.  When the Knight played chess with Death, it was a huge piece of symbolism, one that can be seen throughout the film, even without the board.  It's like in every scene, the Knight is making a move against Death, and his strategies are either working or being defeated (Palmer 7).

Response to Critical Article

     The author was very considerate in mentioning how the director wanted his film to be seen: in its entirety.  He wanted people to see the "big picture" and not focus solely on the minute details.  Throughout the article he addressed how each character fit into the whole story, but also their symbolism.  I loved how Palmer addressed each reference to something biblical because, since I'm not very religious, I was able to understand more clearly how things fit into the whole story and how each scene related to one another.  Palmer talked about how a couple of scenes were just dripping with symbolism and how they were used to steer the story in a particular direction, even hinting at events happening in the near future of the film.

Consideration of Critic’s Use of Critical frameworks/concepts:

     I liked how the author used history in order to explain the biblical significance of the film.  He was able to explain the crusades and how those went on back then.  He compared the crusades to the film and about how they must've felt fighting against the plague.  He used history to bring reality to the film, giving the reader a sense of "wow, this really happened."  He explained the events that went on in the film, relating them back to how it must've been in the past with the plague, death, and how it must feel waiting to die.  Seeing as this movie is very heavy with religion, I love how the author explained the symbolism a lot and how it all fit in to the story overall.

Film Analysis

     The scene that I chose to analyze was the one where Death first shows up.  Antonius Block is shown walking around the beach, seemingly preparing or busying himself to keep his mind off of the inevitable.  He knows the game will be difficult and he knows Death is coming, but he doesn't know exactly when, so it seems as though he's calming himself and steeling his nerves.  He needs to be confident in himself so that he's able to challenge Death to chess, hopefully in order to save his own life.  

     I love how playful this scene is.  You know he's scared of Death, like everyone is, yet he finds the confidence to "talk back" and be downright sassy to him.  He's so confident that he'll live, but you can still tell that he's petrified that he's going to die.  

     Usually when you're on a beach, with the waves rolling up, the cool breeze against your face, it's calm and relaxing, but with Death, it's almost the opposite.  I love how this scene contrasts itself.  You'd think a beach would be a relaxing place, but with Death there, it becomes anything but.

Works Cited


Palmer, Peter M. "The Seventh Seal." English Exchange 11.3 (1969): 2-8. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

The Seventh Seal. Dir. Ingmar Bergman. Perf. Max Von Sydow. 1957. In Class. 

Personal Response to Film

The Wizard of Oz has been a family classic in homes for many years.  Ever since it came out in 1939, people have sat down with their families to enjoy the lively tale of a young girl named Dorothy who was sent into a world of imagination and wonder.  When I was younger, I'd sit in front of my T.V. and pop the VHS into the VCR with excitement.  I'd always loved the movie when I was young, but as I grew up, the magic of the film was lost.  I moved on to more elaborate and high-budget, special effect ridden movies.  The Wizard of Oz VHS was thrown into a rummage sale and sold to another family who actually had a VCR to play it in.  I forgot all about the movie until I heard that we'd be watching it in class.  Soon, all the memories of watching it as a child flooded back to me and I couldn't help but be excited about going to Oz again.
          As we began to watch, I remembered how I'd reacted at Casablanca (1942) and how I'd said that watching a movie in black in white was almost unbearable.  I forgot that in the beginning of the movie, The Wizard of Oz was in sepia tone (black and white, but with a rose tint).  Once the movie had started, I was completely engaged, regardless of color.  I hadn't seen this movie in awhile, and by the end of it, I remembered why I loved it so much.  Just the fact that Dorothy is the one who is the "hero," instead of it being a man.  She seems like a damsel in distress in the beginning, but that changes in Oz and even after she's back at Aunty Em's farm.  She's a feminist, the first real hero of L. Frank Baum's (writer of The Wizard of Oz) time period.  I loved the message behind the film that no matter where you come from, you can change far away places for the better and the thing you were searching for in the beginning was inside of you the whole time.

Summary of Critical Article

The article titled, "Wearing the Red Shoes" really focused on how patriarchy is linked to the red shoes, the land of Oz, and how Dorothy, even though everyone thinks differently, made the wrong choice to return home.  The Rohrer's explained how each character fit into the story arch and how the underlying message about how women should follow a patriarchal society fits in the movie (1).  Dorothy, a character that is deemed to be one of the first feminists in that time period, is actually written to be someone who, after wishing to go "somewhere over the rainbow," somewhere far away that she could dream and be herself, goes to Oz, and in the true spirit of a patriarchal story, ends up going back to her old life, taking on the role of an angel in the house a.k.a. a woman who stays home and doesn't venture far from the norm (Rohrer 6).  The red slippers, something that has been referenced by many later poets and writers, mean something much different than what they seem.  They're a gift from the Good Witch after Dorothy lands a house on the feared Wicked Witch of the East, ridding her from doing any other harm to the Munchkins and the Land of Oz.  These slippers are unable to be taken off by anyone, only Dorothy, but she never removes them, and this ends up taking her back to where she started.  Like in many stories before this one, the red slippers doom her to live a life of punishment, but instead of getting her feet chopped off like Karen, Hans' character, in her story, she's condemned to go back to her old life (Rohrer 2).  In the end, they take her home and though she's happy to be there, she's in no different of a situation since she left.  Many characters throughout the story push her back to her old life in Kansas, and Dorothy goes along with it.  Characters like Professor Marvel, The Wizard, and even the Good Witch of the North; they all tell her to follow the yellow brick road...right back to where she started (Rohrer 9).

Response to Critical Article

When I thought of The Wizard of Oz, I never thought about how patriarchal it actually was.  This isn't such a big surprise though, seeing as I was very young when I first saw it and all the times after that.  It's only when I watch it now and read certain things about it like Rohrer's article.  I can see how the whole thing fits together; the shoes, the witches, The Wizard.  They all have an effect on Dorothy that sends her skipping down the yellow brick road to get right back to where she started, even though she'd been so unhappy when she'd left.  She was loved by her family, sure, but she wasn't respected, just like most women weren't at that time period.  Rohrer points out that even lovable Auntie Em was silenced by her beliefs and knowing that nothing she said could help in the scene where Gulch comes to take Toto away so he could be destroyed after what he'd done (3).
       I can see how the shoes fit in to all of this, as well.  They are red, which usually is tied together with danger, warnings, and "spilled blood" (Rohrer 3).  Rohrer also brings up many instances in which the red shoes were referenced to be something bad, often each female who wears them to be sentenced to death or sent to something worse (Rohrer 2).  The red shoes are a symbol for patriarchy, as I can tell, because of how they doom whoever wears them.  They may have been a gift, but they were a curse in disguise.
       All in all, from a child's perspective, I loved the movie.  It's a great tale about an adventure to a land of imagination and hope, with wacky characters and a very vivid landscape.  It has humor, friendship, and hope.  It's inspiring for those who don't believe they can do something because anything's possible when you put your first foot forward.  If you take that first step on that yellow brick road to get to your destination, you can find that the power and will to achieve your goal was inside you all along.

Consideration of Critic’s Use of Critical Frameworks/Concepts:

       Dorothy is known to be one of the first feminists in film, having the main role in the movie.  Even though this seemed to be true, critics, like Linda and Paige Rohrer, have acclaimed that instead of being a heroine of her own story, she follows the voice of patriarchy toward the Wizard and she does it in her symbolic red shoes (1).  These shoes have been referenced in many things, almost none of them good.  The authors point out that the shoes usually mean no good, usually symbolizing "spilled blood" or danger (3).
       The Good Witch is a voice of patriarchy too, Linda and Paige Rohrer calling her an "agent of patriarchy...guiding her towards patriarchy--and ultimately, home" (3).  She calls herself Dorothy's guidance, but she's really guiding Dorothy back to the life she had before, which wasn't a great one.  Where Dorothy came from, her voice was unheard, and she was often seen as a damsel in distress, so after this big adventure of self realization, why would she want to go back?
       Professor Marvel was the main point of patriarchy in the film, having taken advantage of Dorothy in the beginning by lying and trying to steal from her.  He later appears as the Wizard, who doesn't believe that women have the power within to help themselves, which is how Dorothy proves him wrong.  She does as he asks, but at the cost of going home to more patriarchy (4).
       When I saw this movie as a kid, none of these things came to mind when I saw the pretty red slippers on her feet.  I'd always wanted a pair, thinking them to be pretty and a symbol of strength and power, when in fact they were considered the complete opposite.  Now that I've read this article, I see how the slippers could be a symbol of patriarchy and how they did more bad than good.  The authors brought up the story of a young girl named Karen who put on the red slippers when she wasn't supposed to.  When they were on, they wouldn't come off.  She danced and danced and soon, the slippers took a toll on her.  In the end, she had someone cut them off because all they did was lead her to something bad (2).  This is not unlike Dorothy's story, who, in the end, leaves the wonderful land of Oz that had brought her so much joy to go back to her dull life poisoned with patriarchy.