Disappointed with The Godfather III

**http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/TopFilms/Godfather/Godf3MaryKogel.jpg

After watching The Godfather and realizing my obsession with the film, I had to watch the II and III Godfather movies. I watched them with my mom (my dad watched part of them and fell asleep sometimes), so it was really fun to watch. I had to explain things to her, which was great because I was so excited about The Godfather.

I was throroughly disappointed with Godfather III. The content was awful. I should be happy, as a Christain, that Michael was trying to make up for all the crimes he committed and that he was trying to turn his life around by spending time with his family and with the church. However, I wasn't. I was angry. The Godfather for me is the thrill and intrigue of the crime families, not about how they want to make up for everything! I feel horrible by saying that, but it's true! Alright, well perhaps some of it was because of the acting. Sofia Coppola played Michael's daughter, Mary, and was terrible. Somebody told me that she is Francis Ford Coppola's daughter, which makes sense, sure he wants to put his daughter in film, but what about cinematic excellence and the excellence found in The Godfather? Also, I thought it was kind of ridiculous that there was a romance between Mary and Vincent, who are first cousins. (When they makeout in Vincent's kitchen my mom said to me, "Wow, did you expect that?")

The action was not as good either. It was a slower paced movie in the sense of fighting or crime that was acutally taking place. However, there were two scenes of fighting that I thought were of the standard of The Godfather. First, the scene where all of the family head's were in the meeting and the helicopter flies above the building and starts shooting with machine guns. I did not necessary enjoy that part, but it was crime worthy of The Godfather. The second crime scene was when Vincent killed the man during a parade while pretending to be a police officer on a horse.

I was paying so much attention to the content that ticked me off that I don't think I even paid attention to the other parts of film like cinematogrpahy and mise en scene. I really just think that some III parts to movies just shouldn't be made unless they are going to spend enough time and energy to make it just as good as the first.

Note: The suprise of Mary being killed at the end was a good twist. I didn't want it to happen, but that was good for the film as a whole.

Is Citizen Kane the greatest American movie ever made?

The film Citizen Kane has been claimed to be the best American film. In our textbook, The Film Experience, by Corrigan & White (2004) it says, "At the top of the AFI list is a film routinely invoked as the best American film, Citizen Kane (1941). Welles's film is by now best known for being voted the best" (p. 396). There are reasons why it should be considered the greatest film and reasons why it should not be considered the greatest film.

One of the reasons why Citizen Kane should be one of the greatest films in American history is that it was Welles's first film and he took an approach to film in a way that contrary to Hollywood, however, it was great. Corrigan & White (2004) said, "To spotlight the filmmaker Orson Welles implies that his personal perspective altered the course of movie history. To designate Citizen Kane as a masterpiece is to claim that it stands above the many more common films made in 1941, or that it highlights the specific issues informing film culture at that time, such as leaps forward in camera technology or the shift to more complex narratives" (p. 342).
One of the ways Welles did not follow Hollywood "rules" was that he used a small amount of reframing. Some of the greater scenes in the movie were because he did not reframe. An example of this is when Kane is talking with some men over a table and there are windows in the background. He walks to the window and then walks back, all while the spoken word is happening at the table. There is no reframing in this shot. The camera also did not change shots to reframe as much as a normal Hollywood film would have. An example of this is the shot that begins with Kane was young and sledding in his yard then the camera either zooms out or goes backward with a dolly to essentially reframe the scene to Kane's mother and father with Thatcher.

Another reason why Citizen Kane would be considered the greatest American film would be because of the special affects and mise en scene, especially for the time period. The film makers only had one room to
use for the film and they changed it around for the different locations they needed to use. They also used a lot of shots outside and were able to integrate that into the film. As for mise en scene, the sets were great--a viewer wouldn't even realize that only one room was used. Also, the make-up used to make Kane older and older throughout the film was an impressive part of the mise en scene.

I think part of Citizen Kane's greatness comes from the storyline following Hearst, a real life rich dominator in that time period...the mere drama that came from the movie made it great. People had a hard time finding places to view it, which made it more interesting. Knowing the controversy behind it makes it more special to watch in the present day.

Going back to my blog about what makes a movie great, the basic elements I wrote about were: Representation/Presentation matching up with full movie, creativity with cinematography, editing matching with plot and rest of movie, casting matching up/good acting, and excellent mise en scene. Citizen Kane had all of these elements minus the one part with the parrot freaking out on screen. However, I have a hard time labeling this film as the greatest American film ever made.

The things that would not make Citizen Kane the greatest film in American history would be based around the fact that it is not timeless. It is very much a period film.

Corrigan & White (2004) explained, "Even a masterpiece like Citizen Kane can be viewed as sharing period standards employed by other films of the early 1940s, such as comic interludes and ominous lighting techniques. However, its radical reworking of those standards through its kaleidoscopic narrative, dramatic editing, and rich pictorial compositions clearly sets it off as exceptional within this period" (p. 353).

If I had not watched the documentary before watching Citizen Kane, or if we hadn't talked about how Kane was supposed to be Hearst, then it wouldn't have been as great. Half the fun was trying to see how they were portraying Kane and knowing things like that the animals in the movie represented the zoo that Hearst had in his "kingdom" and that the power Kane had over the newspaper was a definite correlation to Hearst.

Now, about this whole Kane in relation to Hearst thing...this could be one factor that definitely makes Citizen Kane not great. If I hold to my greatness standard representation or presentation, then I think Welles and the writers of Citizen Kane can be questioned. From our discussion and from the documentary I have come to find out that the way Davies, Hearst's second wife was portrayed by the character Susan Alexander was completely wrong. Davies was actually a very funny/witty person who was fun to be around; however in Citizen Kane she is annoying and not fun to be around. If the filmmakers were trying to represent Hearst, they probably did not do this correctly. If they were trying to present Hearst, maybe they can get away with it a little more, but they might have gone a little too far removed...but who knows really? (Not me.)

From all of this, I think that Citizen Kane should be one of the greatest American films for it's time period. Meaning, each time period in film history should have a list of its greatest films and then from there a comprehensive list can be made according to film time periods. This film could be considered to those who study film because of all of the non-period like traits the cinematography has and also for the regular historic content. If a film viewer does not have somebody to tell them why it's important or why it is great or the history for them to understand the film, then it cannot be the absolute greatest film in American history. A person should be able to watch a film on its own, see the greatness first and then find out the historical content about it to further their understanding of its greatness.

Corrigan & White (2004) said, "...familiar 'greats' such as Citizen Kane do merit places on the registry. Whereas the AFI's list of the nation's cinematic classics is a useful myth of film's past constructed with present-day sentiments such as nostalgia and patriotism, the Library of Congress's registry aims to earn for film a claim to what makes the United States distinctive, as national parks or monuments might do" (p. 397). I think this quote sums up that it is a classic film--it is distinctive in American film, but a historically classic film, but perhaps not the greatest film in American history.

Citizen Kane

for picutre info see **

Citizen Kane is a film that I am extremely interested in. After watching a documentary about the film and the conflicts of Orson Wells and William Hearst I was looking for all the simliarities between Orson's character, Kane, and what I learned about Hearst in the documentary. I'm also facinated by rosebud. I want to first go over some of the parts I really liked about Citizen Kane. I loved the breakfast table sequence with Kane and his first wife, Emily. Another was the puzzle sequence with Kane's second wife, Susan. And I'll conclude by talking about rosebud.

---

The breakfast table sequence was awesome. I loved watching the change in attidue toward each other, the change of outfits and hairstyles. A span of time was shown in about 2-3 minutes of screen time. I thought the cosutmes were great here.

---

The puzzle sequence came later, which was a good pattern--it showed the quirks of each marriage. Emily and Kane talked/puzzles during breakfast. Susan and Kane talked/fought while Susan worked on puzzles. I liked the puzzle sequence again because of a longer span of time was shown in about 2-3 minutes. It was neat to see all of these puzzles half finished, almost finished or just starting.

---

Now, onto rosebud. Rosebud has me intrigued. I met somebody recently who previously has seen Citizen Kane and she said, "Yeah, tell me what you think of rosebud when you find out what it is!" She expressed that it was pointless, but the whole movie was centered around it. I found rosebud to be different than that. I think rosebud symbolizes the only time that Kane was truly happy, which was when he was a child with his family only thinking about sledding. Kane was never happy, or he at least never found a happiness that lasted. I think on his death bed he was reflecting on life (like most people do) and found that being with rosebud was the last time he had happiness.

---

Overall I'm still trying to figure out what I think of Citizen Kane. I think I liked it, but wasn't thrilled like I was with The Godfather. The cinematography and editing definitely pulled me in as did the Orson Wells, Hearst, Kane comparison.

**instead-of-a-cigarette.com/rosebud-2/

What is film noir?

Film noir is a dark style of film that does not show pure happiness, but does come to some sort of plot resolution. It is focused around crime, twists and usually follows a character who asks questions and tries to find truth. The character may never find truth, but rather a satisfaction or a justification. There are many characteristics that are followed within film noir. The characteristics with *s are the ones that I think need to be in a film in order for it to be considered film noir.

Some of the characteristics I've gathered from the films I've seen are:

*Crime: Each film noir story involves crime and solving crime in some kind of way.

*Suspense: Suspense is a large part of film noir. Sometimes things in a film noir movie may seem to be moving kind of at a slow pace, but it really isn't...it is building suspense. There are usually one or more points where the suspense culminates and the audience feels pressure from the film. The ongoing pit it the stomach feel is incorporated throughout the film.

*Water: The use of water in many forms is vital. Some examples are:
Double Indemnity: fishbowl, rain, talk of rain
Touch of Evil: Under the bridge at the end
Brick: The stream and tunnel where Emily died--water running underneath her body and over her hand
Blade Runner: Rain the entire film

*Night sky/cloudy/dark skies: Sunshine does not find its way into film noir very much. A lot of action takes place at night. When it takes place during the day, like in the film Brick, it is usually very cloudy and gray.

Desolate: There is kind of an aspect of feeling totally alone--physically, spatially, mentally, emotionally. Some examples:
Touch of Evil: the landscape was very desolate and even though the film was in black and white, I pictured everything to be brown and dying. There was dust, bare trees, etc. Not a whole lot of people were around in the Mexican town or other places.
Brick: desolate, brown, gray, barely anyone around EVER even on school property. Use of open parking lots, open fields, etc.
Blade Runner: Even though it was in a city with crowds and crowds of people, there was a definite disconnect and isolation. The buildings were tall and towering over all of the action.

Use of the outdoors and walking transportation: A lot of action takes place outside. The character who is trying to figure out the crime does a lot of traveling and it outside a lot. The character is seen walking around-- lurking and hiding from others. It's kind of like a "fancy footwork" characteristic because they walk a lot--the stride of the character's walk is strong or strong/reserved even if they are injured. Also, the use of foot chases are important--there is a lot of running around through the jungle of open space or city streets.

*Romance: There is always a lot of romance or sexual tension... it's usually hindered by the crime or it is dark and tragic in some kind of way. I think this is a main characteristic to film noir. There was huge discussion about this in class. And I'd like to comment on that. It was said that by including this romance/sexual tension of the female character is just like saying that people are a part of film noir. I think that is completely inappropriate. The role of the female characters in film noir is much deeper. They are characters who agonize the dominant main male character--film noir would not be the same without the female character sexual romance tension aspect. I think that it is important to recognize that males have dominated film as they have dominated most aspects of society and culture. And in film noir, males dominate the genre with characters and I am guessing also directors. It is important to see the intricate role of the romance sexual tension of the female characters. The films we watched in class had sexual tensions surrounding females that could not be taken way. Sure, if the male character were taken away was well there would be no film...however, if you took the female character away, it would still be a film--and in that case, I do not think it would be film noir anymore... Yes, sex and romance are incorporated into almost every film genre, however to some genres it is impertinent. A romantic comedy would not be a romantic comedy without the sexual /romance content. I don't think film noir would be the same either.
Double Indemnity: The crime was based on the romance between Neff and Phyllis. Phyllis used romance to her advantage to get Neff to do what she wanted.
Touch of Evil: Mike and Susie just got married and Susie got wrapped into the crimes within Mike's job. Hank attempted to frame Susie for murder.
Brick: Emily was the person killed. Brendan was a previous boyfriend to Emily as were many other male characters involved in the crime/solving the crime.
Blade Runner: Rick fell in love with Rachel, one of the replicants, who quite possibly could have been the person who revealed to Rick that he was a replicant.

*Smoke/Cigarettes/Cigars: Smoking is always a part of film noir. The characters smoke cigarettes or cigars, smoke curls up around characters faces. Extra smoke on the scene is used. Smoke is huge. Smoke adds to the mysteriousness of these films.
Double Indemnity: The main characters smoke. Keyes always asks Neff for a match.
Touch of Evil: Hank smokes large cigars nonstop. Mike smokes and so do the other characters.
Brick: Characters smoke. Laura's cigarettes were an important prop to the film.
Blade Runner: Many characters smoke. Laura smokes while Rick does the replicant test on her.
Smoke or steam is everywhere on the streets and it comes from everywhere.

Social Blcoking/Silhouettes/Shadows: Social blocking can be seen the way people are positioned in certain scenes (this is seen a lot in Brick). Shadows go along with the dark/night aspect, but shadows of men with hats are important, or just shadows and use of light versus dark in general are important.Silhouettes are also important.
Touch of Evil had a beautiful shot of the silhouette of the person in a window looking at Susie. The silhouette was there, then they turned on a flashlight.
Brick used silhouettes when Tug killed Tode.

Brick

**for picture information see below

Everyone in class already knows that I absolutely loved the film Brick. I’ve been really enjoying the film noir style and Brick was a modern interpretation of what this style is. What I liked about Brick was the storyline, the fighting, use of water, and the mise en scene.

The storyline kept me intrigued the entire time. It was basically a mystery about a girl who was involved in a high school drug ring and was murdered. The main character, Brendan, was trying to figure out who murdered her. The spoken words were very crisp and not exactly high school-like. This also brings up another factor—the characters were all high schoolers, but everything seemed a little big, crisp and complicated beyond the high school I know. I liked that part of it.

There was a fair amount of fighting in the film, but it was effective. One particular sequence sticks out in my mind where Brendan was being chased by somebody who worked for Pin (I think). I really enjoyed the foot chase because normally films include car chases, but a genuine foot chase is equally as exciting. In the sequence, Brendan took his shoes off to not make as much noise, and then he waited around a corner, tripped the guy chasing him and the guy went flying in into a pole head first. It was very graphic, but very intriguing as well.

The use of water was another aspect that I enjoyed. Of course everyone in class knows that I’m obsessed with the water part of film noir and that I think it is extremely important to the style. Emily, the teen who was murdered was first found face down in a stream of water. There are several times when we are taken back to that same spot and the water is flowing there every time. I think it is an important part of the film because all of the action is based around this murder that took place by water.

The mise en scene was another portion of the film that caught my attention. The following will list the parts of mise en scene that I found to be really important to the film experience over all. There was a good use of props. For example, the cigarettes (the ones with the small green arrow) that Laura smoked were contextualized props that changed meaning throughout the film. First the cigarette was just a cigarette on the ground, but then it became more significant when Brendan realized they belonged to Laura. Blocking was very important for this film and a part where it was highly prevalent was the sequence that took place when Pin, Tug, Brendan and Tode were by the stream where Emily was murdered. Blocking was used in the beginning of the sequence to show Tode and Pin on opposite sides, then Brendan and Tug away from them a bit to sort of make a triangle, showing the connection between all of them. And at the end of the sequence after Tug shot Dode, blocking was used as the stood looking at the body. That particular sequence is also a good example for the use of lighting and shadowing in the whole film. The lighting was dull (as if the sky were cloudy) and seemingly natural in most scenes. In that sequence, Tug, Pin, Brendan and Tode were outside in the light, with the contrasting dark of the tunnel. When Tug shot Tode, we suddenly had the view from inside the tunnel and Tug, Pin and Brendan were silhouettes from that view. The entire film worked with the use of light and dark, which was very enjoyable to watch.

Overall I thoroughly enjoyed Brick especially the storyline, the fighting, use of water, and the mise en scene. All of these aspects worked together to produce an excellent film.

Note: The day after I watched Brick I went running outside—the sky was cloudy gray (just like the film), I was in a city setting with lots of concrete, but not a lot of people (like the film) and I went running past a tunnel thing that had water flowing through it (just like the film). It was pretty neat, but a little creepy too.

**www.tinyways.com/2006/10/05/post-fix-brick/
free-movie-wallpapers.net/b/Brick/Brick.php

Blade Runner

I strongly disliked watching Blade Runner. I thought the acting was good, the characterization was good, but I just did not like the movie as a whole. There is a definite reason for this. It was too science fiction for me.

The whole sci-fi factor covers it all. First, I do not like sci-fi movies. I do not enjoy the space or futuristic films with the genetic mutants and flying cars. I don’t buy it. I enjoy watching naturalistic mise-en-scene films that include realism versus something fake and made up. I laughed when the screen told me the film was taking place in 2019 because that’s only nine years from now and what was shown on screen is nothing even close to what things are like. There were human replicants. Humans and replicants were living on other planets. Roy, a replicant, had white hair (or just really really really blonde hair), which it seems like most sci-fi movies do have somebody with white or another strange color of hair. The buildings and city were designed in a way that reminded me of other futuristic films. Also, there were flying cars and other digital effects. I understand the film was made in the 80s, but really, 30-40 years would produce flying cars and mutant humans?

I know. The movie makers were probably trying to make it a sci-fi film, however, I was viewing this film comparing it to the other film noir movies that I’ve seen (Double Indemnity, Touch of Evil, and Brick). I saw that Blade Runner had similar characteristics to the other film noir movies—use of smoke, darkness, night, rain, shadows, etc. The character’s used the word “pal” when speaking to each other which reminds me of something that would be said in Touch of Evil or western movies. It is hard to put Blade Runner in the same category as films I’ve enjoyed/appreciated.

I guess I do appreciate Blade Runner’s use of film noir characteristics, but even there I was disappointed in some aspects. I never knew if it was day or night because it was always dark, but there were always people around. There was no distinction between day and night, which through off my sense of time. Also, it rained quite a bit during the film. And there was steam or smoke in many of the scenes. It seemed like when the movie makers decided they would use dark, water/rain and smoke/steam in the film, they went a little overboard with it.



Side note: Another thing that bothered me was Deckard’s vision/dream of the running white unicorn. It seemed to serve the same purpose as the water buffalo, explicit pictures and clouded skies in the remake of Psycho…nothing.

Touch of Evil

Touch of Evil is a film that I might not have completely enjoyed, but I appreciated. I think I was frustrated with certain parts of the plot, which hindered the way I view the film. However, there were many qualities that I liked and appreciated. The following will briefly explain what I didn’t like followed by what I liked.

I was mostly angry at character stupidity. I wondered why characters didn’t use common sense or realize things that I realized. Susie was a stupid character the way she followed Pancho around when he said to follow him. Mike was stupid that he didn’t do his research on the hotel where he was having his wife stay. And Hank annoyed me so much—the way he looked, how he smoked his cigars and how he didn’t do the in depth research and analyzing that is required of detective-types.

After voicing my frustration, I do want to say that I was pleased with some parts of the film. As much as I thought Susie was stupid, I was pleased how she was portrayed as a woman. She certainly had the classical film look for a woman character; however, she was a lot more aggressive than the classical women. She gets in other character’s faces and her voice doesn’t sound pleasing at all times during the film. In the beginning her tone of voice definitely goes deeper even to the point of cracking a little at times. I’m not sure what spoke louder though—her stupidity or non-classical nature.

I was pleased with the framing throughout the film. My favorite framing scene was in the beginning when Susie was in a hotel room and a light started to shine on her. As the camera moved to the light source the audience sees a window with a silhouette of a man and then the flashlight shines right in the middle of the window. Susie is framed within the other window, but breaks the frame when she turns out the light and then throws the light bulb across the way (which I might add is uncharacteristic of classically portrayed women).

I also enjoyed the fact that Susie, played by Janet Leigh, was also Marion in Psycho. The manager of the hotel where Susie stays in Touch of Evil reminded me of Norman Bates from Psycho because of their skittish nature around beautiful women, such as the characters Janet Leigh plays. It was a fun connection to make.

My final appreciation of this film occurred during the first few minutes. The entire first few minutes was filmed in one shot. I was impressed by the fluid movement of the camera as it followed a car and a couple (Mike and Susie) until the explosion of the car. Overall the things that impressed me about the film seem to be greater than the things that annoyed me.