So Gold Diggers of 1933 wasn’t my favorite movie that we watched in this class but I really enjoyed it for what it was…a musical. The plot was a bit sketchy and to me had a very lame conclusion. The characters that seem to both be playing each other one day are in love and get married the next. It felt like I was shortened out of an ending, I feel like there is almost a scene missing. I kind of wish they had gone further into character development and put in an extra scene or two that actually showed the switch in attitude; instead of just at the end going I think I love you, and immediately get married after like what three days.
But I can appreciate that they wanted to give the audience a happy ending, because with musicals at that time are more to lift spirits. After saying that, I found it interesting that they put "Remember My Forgotten Man” number at the end because out of all the numbers it was the most somber one, and had the most to do with the depression. I really liked the choice of it being at the end though, because I think it ends the movie on a very memorable song, and the message the song sends really hits home.
This brings me to my next point. I think they did a great job with placing the numbers where they did; it brought the movie full circle for me. Starting with “We’re in the Money” number, which ends by getting shut down then transitioning to the girls’ apartment, showing how they are struggling with the depression. Then once they start working on the production and have the two numbers in between, the love one in the park and the violin one, I think they were fun, which is where they were at in the plot line. And having the forgotten man after the happy ending was a way of saying that yeah there are happy endings but we are still in the middle of a depression, going back to reality.
So to sum up a bit, I wasn’t thrilled with the plot, but definitely enjoyed the movie because it was a musical. I really liked all the numbers, even though I have no clue what the musical within the musical was supposed to be about, it didn’t matter to me, the songs were all catchy and had nice dance sequences that were fun to watch and made me go “aw that’s cute” which is really all I want from a musical.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Baby Face ( 1933)
This was an interesting movie; especially interesting that at various parts of the movie it seemed like they were trying to send the message that if you're promiscuous you can manipulate men and have whatever you want. And I seemed to get the feeling that it wasn’t supposed to be frowned upon on the women using men like that, but the movie being more a message to guys saying that if you sleep with women in the workforce and give them power or things it will come back to haunt you.
You don’t really know what happens to the guy on the train or the one that gets her the initial job, but once she starts to sleep with the men in her office, to rise through the ranks to the top, something bad happens to the MAN after making the decision to help her for sex. They all get caught, whether it’s by the boss in the bathroom; by the fiancé in the office, by the bitter lover in the room (who both end up dead), or through wedding announcement. And they all either get fired or shot or both. To me it looks like the men are being punished not her, she doesn’t actually care until she is sent to Paris then her game plan changes.
And I know Lily changes her character a bit at the end; by not sleeping with the guys at the Paris office, marrying the last guy (Trenholm) and going back for him at the very end. This change in character can be argued could be due to a number of things for maybe she got tired of sleeping with different men, maybe she wanted a challenge, maybe she did really love him. But going along with the theory I stated above, it could also be contributed to Trenholm. He was the only one that called her on the bluff, sending her to Paris, so it could be retribution when he lives and gets the girl that he loves. Although he does get shot so that might be making up for that fact that he did give in and sleep with her, maybe making her an honest woman and for seeing through her is what saved his life.
Buts that’s another aspect I found interesting; Lily’s struggle with her conscious at the end. I truly don’t think she actually breaks characters or changes her morals until the very end when she goes back for him. I think the whole playing coy thing in Paris was just to prove a point, that she really is the queen manipulator. After being sent away to Paris she has to change her usual way of doing things, especially after going through the whole food chain at the last place, got her there in Paris. That’s why I think it was a strategic move not to be social with the men at her work in Paris because she has bigger fish to fry and this one is smarter than the others. It was her manipulating him the entire time though, with the rain and getting a ride, going to dinner and saying he was just like the others (not like the fact that she wanted him to be different but disappointed that it was so easy), and asking him to marry her (they can get a divorce but I think she just wanted the status that came with the title and that he was getting way to comfortable with the current situation and she wanted to be at the top). And all that is proved when he asks her for the money to help him. So she was just a really really good manipulator, and only at the very end develops a conscious.
So based off that I feel like this movie was making the generalization that women are heartless manipulators and men are easy superficial victims. I don’t think that’s right but it’s just something to think about I guess.
You don’t really know what happens to the guy on the train or the one that gets her the initial job, but once she starts to sleep with the men in her office, to rise through the ranks to the top, something bad happens to the MAN after making the decision to help her for sex. They all get caught, whether it’s by the boss in the bathroom; by the fiancé in the office, by the bitter lover in the room (who both end up dead), or through wedding announcement. And they all either get fired or shot or both. To me it looks like the men are being punished not her, she doesn’t actually care until she is sent to Paris then her game plan changes.
And I know Lily changes her character a bit at the end; by not sleeping with the guys at the Paris office, marrying the last guy (Trenholm) and going back for him at the very end. This change in character can be argued could be due to a number of things for maybe she got tired of sleeping with different men, maybe she wanted a challenge, maybe she did really love him. But going along with the theory I stated above, it could also be contributed to Trenholm. He was the only one that called her on the bluff, sending her to Paris, so it could be retribution when he lives and gets the girl that he loves. Although he does get shot so that might be making up for that fact that he did give in and sleep with her, maybe making her an honest woman and for seeing through her is what saved his life.
Buts that’s another aspect I found interesting; Lily’s struggle with her conscious at the end. I truly don’t think she actually breaks characters or changes her morals until the very end when she goes back for him. I think the whole playing coy thing in Paris was just to prove a point, that she really is the queen manipulator. After being sent away to Paris she has to change her usual way of doing things, especially after going through the whole food chain at the last place, got her there in Paris. That’s why I think it was a strategic move not to be social with the men at her work in Paris because she has bigger fish to fry and this one is smarter than the others. It was her manipulating him the entire time though, with the rain and getting a ride, going to dinner and saying he was just like the others (not like the fact that she wanted him to be different but disappointed that it was so easy), and asking him to marry her (they can get a divorce but I think she just wanted the status that came with the title and that he was getting way to comfortable with the current situation and she wanted to be at the top). And all that is proved when he asks her for the money to help him. So she was just a really really good manipulator, and only at the very end develops a conscious.
So based off that I feel like this movie was making the generalization that women are heartless manipulators and men are easy superficial victims. I don’t think that’s right but it’s just something to think about I guess.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Scarface ( 1932)
I thought Scarface was really well done and really enjoyable to watch. It definitely advances in film techniques compared to the other movies we’ve watched so far. The most obvious of these advancements is definitely sound! And although silent movies have their own essence to them I would just like to state that I’m glad sound has now come into the picture, it’s easier to fallow the plot and I think it gives the characters more depth and easier to relate to. I also loved what they did with the gun and the calendar, not only was it a cool effect I also thought it was a really creative way to transition throughout time because it gave you a sense that the months had passed but also implied that the gangsters were up to no good and continuously shooting/killing.
I know this film was given a hard time because of the violence and with all the codes and for the most part I don’t mind. For instance they never show blood; they never show the killer and the victim and sometimes didn’t even show the murder altogether just the dead bodies after. For me it actually added to the mysteriousness and allure of the gangster and suspense of the death. However what kind of bothers me about them making them change the film is the overall message; I understand that they don’t want to glamorize the gangster and promote the “bad guy”. But when you look at what they show you in the beginning:
---"This picture is an indictment of gang rule in America and of the callous indifference of the government to this constantly increasing menace to our safety and our liberty. Every incident in this picture is the reproduction of an actual occurrence, and the purpose of this picture is to demand of the government: 'What are you going to do about it?' The government is your government. What are YOU going to do about it?"---
Although they say it’s asking the government to step up on the crime in the last two sentences, “the government is your government. What are YOU going to do about?”, it also suggests that we the people, the viewers should do something about the crime wave of gang rule in America. But what exactly were they supposed to do?? It’s a gang war, why would the public get involved? I suppose they could not join gangs.
And even the police made a comment:
---"Don't blame the police. They can't stop machine guns from being run back and forth across the state lines. They can't enforce laws that don't exist"---
Which I guess is supposed to be a statement that the government should be dealing with this by making laws. But I think that whole message is so unnecessary because the police ended up stopping Tony at the end. So really what needed to happen is the police needed to capture the ones that are creating the problem to begin with. And with Tony and pretty much all the other gangsters dying in this movie, it sends the message not to become a gangster because you’ll end up dying. But the message they tried to send just gave me the feeling that the public was being blamed for the existence of gangs rather than the enforcement officials, which I don’t agree with at all.
I know this film was given a hard time because of the violence and with all the codes and for the most part I don’t mind. For instance they never show blood; they never show the killer and the victim and sometimes didn’t even show the murder altogether just the dead bodies after. For me it actually added to the mysteriousness and allure of the gangster and suspense of the death. However what kind of bothers me about them making them change the film is the overall message; I understand that they don’t want to glamorize the gangster and promote the “bad guy”. But when you look at what they show you in the beginning:
---"This picture is an indictment of gang rule in America and of the callous indifference of the government to this constantly increasing menace to our safety and our liberty. Every incident in this picture is the reproduction of an actual occurrence, and the purpose of this picture is to demand of the government: 'What are you going to do about it?' The government is your government. What are YOU going to do about it?"---
Although they say it’s asking the government to step up on the crime in the last two sentences, “the government is your government. What are YOU going to do about?”, it also suggests that we the people, the viewers should do something about the crime wave of gang rule in America. But what exactly were they supposed to do?? It’s a gang war, why would the public get involved? I suppose they could not join gangs.
And even the police made a comment:
---"Don't blame the police. They can't stop machine guns from being run back and forth across the state lines. They can't enforce laws that don't exist"---
Which I guess is supposed to be a statement that the government should be dealing with this by making laws. But I think that whole message is so unnecessary because the police ended up stopping Tony at the end. So really what needed to happen is the police needed to capture the ones that are creating the problem to begin with. And with Tony and pretty much all the other gangsters dying in this movie, it sends the message not to become a gangster because you’ll end up dying. But the message they tried to send just gave me the feeling that the public was being blamed for the existence of gangs rather than the enforcement officials, which I don’t agree with at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
