The film Daughters of the Dust was definitely different than what I normally watch, and I don’t think I enjoyed it. I think what got to me was the length of the movie versus the amount of time shown in the movie, use of time in general, and the music.
First, the film covered what seemed like a course of one day to a week. I wasn’t really sure if there were several days covered or not. The way the film progressed, it seemed like it was recording the events of one day—the day that Yellow Mary and Viola returned to the island. There were times when I drifted because what I was watching seemed almost pointless and repetitive. I think that sounds really harsh, but I can’t think of any other way to describe it right now. The film length (about 2 hours) seemed a bit long for the amount of time shown on screen.
Second, the use of time was confusing to me. I wasn’t sure if some scenes were from the past and then some from the future. It could have been that some characters were actually from the past, but reappearing in the present, but I’m not sure. Maybe some of them did not really even exist in the family, but only to us as the audience. It was obvious, however, that the unborn child was speaking from the womb about the past, present and future.
Finally, the music was the element that tugged at me the most. It reminded me of the music in Apocalypse Now—the further you go into the depths of the jungle, the further you go insane. This movie did not make me go insane, but I felt like the film makers were definitely trying to affect the audience through the music by using the same song over and over. The audience is immersed in this culture over and over through music until they become very accustomed to it. I’m fine with the film makers trying to make this type of affect on the audience, but their choice of music annoyed me. It sounded like early 90s music mixed with mystical sounds, harps and possibly an underlying African beat. The early 90s feel didn’t do it for me—I thought of artificial plastic make-up faces, high waisted whitewashed jeans and big hair. That’s another thing! The big hair…Trula’s hair seemed to be influenced by the early 90s style—big and puffy bangs. By allowing the early 90s era to influence the film in such a way, I felt pulled out of the film because there were contradictions with what I was seeing. The film was supposed to be taking place in the late 1800s, early 1900s, right?
Okay, I totally slammed this movie, so I’ll name a one quality I did like about it. I enjoyed the way certain scenes were shot and edited. There was one time when some of the women were dancing and the movement was slowed and slightly jagged. It was a really cool effect and I really enjoyed that throughout the whole film.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Casablanca
I liked the film Casablanca, especially the plot and certain scenes. I enjoyed some parts about the characters, but some of the acting was too dramatic and some of the characters were portrayed in a way that made me a little upset. The plot was exciting. The twists and turns in the plot made the film fun to watch. For example, at first I really thought that Rick was going to run away with Ilsa, but then he didn’t. I also thought that Rick would end up arrested, but the Captain Renault got him off the hook. I did not expect Rick to allow the young husband to win at one of the gambling tables, which was a pleasant surprise.
The characters were definitely costumed correctly and there was a good use of make-up. The casting was also done very well. The people who worked at Rick’s Café Americain seemed to be picked because of character type, which was a good choice on the film-maker’s part. The bar tender that had the mustache and little bit of curl on the top of his head fit well. The large waiter with the spectacles and white hair was also portrayed well. Those are the type of men that I would envision working at a 1940s restaurant/café/music place/bar/casino type of place.
However, my issue with the characters was that Ilsa and some of the other women (the young married woman talked to Rick about money problems and getting the visa through Captain Renault) were overly dramatic by their use of voice and body positioning. I know that is how they were supposed to be, but I found it fake and annoying. The portrayal of Rick and Laszlo fed into the dramatization of Ilsa and other women because they both were the stone faced, hard men—the type of men who always know best for the women. It also seemed like their tone of voice barely fluctuated and their faces didn’t show as much expression as the women.
I know the actors were probably directed to act in a more stylized manner, however not usually a fan of that. It may perhaps be just a part of the historical period of “Classical Cinema” which may come up in a future blog.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The color in Raging Bull
In my last blog I mentioned the sequence in the middle (or maybe it just seemed like the middle) of the film that included color. I’ll call that sequence the interlude. The editing in this section caught my eye the most when watching Raging Bull.
The interlude crunches time from January 14, 1944 to March 14, 1947. About three years occur during a span of about three minutes of film time. The following will discuss the techniques that were used to make this sequence work for time and other aspects.
Ellipsis is used to show the three year span of time in three minutes. There is a rhythm shared between each scene, which makes the whole sequence feel together. The pace during the interlude is quick—it seems like each shot lasts for about five second or so. Within each scene, the editor chose quick little shots to show what was happening in a fast paced manner. However, the pace does not make it seem too fast because the scene will stay on screen for a little while. Each scene is made up of the series of short shots.
The time factor is known because the scenes in color are juxtaposed by black and white clips of Jake’s fights that included the date and location of the fight. The quick shots combined with the quick fight scenes is the editor’s use of ellipsis. The fight scenes have about two shots each usually just to show the opponent and then Jake winning. Often, the editor just used still shots, but because of the fast paced manner, they may seem like they are moving shots.
The sequence is edited in a way that makes it feel like a home movie. During the first scene the audience may get the effect that Jake is the one filming because Vickie and Joey are on shown together and then Jake joins them. The cuts do not have transitions, like a home movie. The home movie feel allowed me to relate to the characters more—it just showed happy times between the four (Jake, Vickie, Joey and his wife) of them.
The pool scene during the interlude was a good example of how cuts can take some of the action out, while the audience still knows what is going on. Vickie opens the box from Jake, takes out the hat and then the editor cut to a shot of Vickie wearing the whole outfit and modeling it for Jake.
The final scene of this sequence shows Jake and Vickie in front of a house, then entering the house. The shot cuts into a scene in the backyard with a few kids running around. There was a time lapse, but because of a match-on-action of sorts, we knew that the scene was the backyard of the house that Jake and Vickie were standing in front of during the beginning of the scene. Children being present in this scene also helped with moving forward time because none of them were infants, so it was known that a one to three years had to have passed.
Many techniques go into a sequence that passes a long period of time and I think the editor of Raging Bull accomplished the goal of letting the audience in on three years that can’t really be included in the whole film, but are still important.
To view the interlude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIIAatoyfPU&feature=related
The interlude crunches time from January 14, 1944 to March 14, 1947. About three years occur during a span of about three minutes of film time. The following will discuss the techniques that were used to make this sequence work for time and other aspects.
Ellipsis is used to show the three year span of time in three minutes. There is a rhythm shared between each scene, which makes the whole sequence feel together. The pace during the interlude is quick—it seems like each shot lasts for about five second or so. Within each scene, the editor chose quick little shots to show what was happening in a fast paced manner. However, the pace does not make it seem too fast because the scene will stay on screen for a little while. Each scene is made up of the series of short shots.
The time factor is known because the scenes in color are juxtaposed by black and white clips of Jake’s fights that included the date and location of the fight. The quick shots combined with the quick fight scenes is the editor’s use of ellipsis. The fight scenes have about two shots each usually just to show the opponent and then Jake winning. Often, the editor just used still shots, but because of the fast paced manner, they may seem like they are moving shots.
The sequence is edited in a way that makes it feel like a home movie. During the first scene the audience may get the effect that Jake is the one filming because Vickie and Joey are on shown together and then Jake joins them. The cuts do not have transitions, like a home movie. The home movie feel allowed me to relate to the characters more—it just showed happy times between the four (Jake, Vickie, Joey and his wife) of them.
The pool scene during the interlude was a good example of how cuts can take some of the action out, while the audience still knows what is going on. Vickie opens the box from Jake, takes out the hat and then the editor cut to a shot of Vickie wearing the whole outfit and modeling it for Jake.
The final scene of this sequence shows Jake and Vickie in front of a house, then entering the house. The shot cuts into a scene in the backyard with a few kids running around. There was a time lapse, but because of a match-on-action of sorts, we knew that the scene was the backyard of the house that Jake and Vickie were standing in front of during the beginning of the scene. Children being present in this scene also helped with moving forward time because none of them were infants, so it was known that a one to three years had to have passed.
Many techniques go into a sequence that passes a long period of time and I think the editor of Raging Bull accomplished the goal of letting the audience in on three years that can’t really be included in the whole film, but are still important.
To view the interlude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIIAatoyfPU&feature=related
Monday, October 27, 2008
Raging Bull
The film Raging Bull had me raging by the end. I have an on-going list of negative words that describe how I feel about Jake LaMotta. This list includes chauvinist, despicable, wicked, disgraceful, etc. Both he and his brother treated women with disrespect. They viewed their relationship with their wives as an ownership. Their wives were their property. These men had extremely demeaning ideas about what being married meant. To them it meant the wife was completely subservient, never spoke, was only good for sex, and she could never leave the home to hang out with friends. They, as the husbands, on the other hand were allowed to engage in extra-marital relationships and had the ultimate and total right to beat their wives if they even spoke to another man.
Alright, that being said, I really did enjoy the film. The fact that it had the above effect on me is proof that it was done well. I particularly enjoyed the slow transition in the middle of the film. It was the only time color was used in the film and everything seemed to be slowed down.
The sequence went like this:
1. Vickie with Joey
2. Vickie and Jake getting married
3. Dancing by pool
4. Joey getting married
5. Getting a house
6. Having kids
This sequence was the only time when everyone seemed truly happy. It was also the only time I felt completely at ease about the film’s happenings. Jake was not freaking out about somebody cheating on him and he was not interested in cheating on anyone. He and Vickie were in their “honeymoon stage” where marriage was relatively easy and everything was new, exciting and romantic. The use of color was important because I think it symbolized that everyone was attuned to others. The self centeredness throughout the rest of the film really keeps the whole demeaning another person idea going. The color shows that people were really paying attention to one another, rather than themselves—everything was clear. The rest of the film made me angry, but this was one redemptive sequence. I think it is important to know that even though there are these little clips of happiness within real life, it never stays—people go back to being self centered, just as Jake went back to thinking about himself and how people were out to screw him over.
However, life clips like this could be lengthened with some change. Perhaps the Bible verse at the end should have been in color rather than black and white…
Alright, that being said, I really did enjoy the film. The fact that it had the above effect on me is proof that it was done well. I particularly enjoyed the slow transition in the middle of the film. It was the only time color was used in the film and everything seemed to be slowed down.
The sequence went like this:
1. Vickie with Joey
2. Vickie and Jake getting married
3. Dancing by pool
4. Joey getting married
5. Getting a house
6. Having kids
This sequence was the only time when everyone seemed truly happy. It was also the only time I felt completely at ease about the film’s happenings. Jake was not freaking out about somebody cheating on him and he was not interested in cheating on anyone. He and Vickie were in their “honeymoon stage” where marriage was relatively easy and everything was new, exciting and romantic. The use of color was important because I think it symbolized that everyone was attuned to others. The self centeredness throughout the rest of the film really keeps the whole demeaning another person idea going. The color shows that people were really paying attention to one another, rather than themselves—everything was clear. The rest of the film made me angry, but this was one redemptive sequence. I think it is important to know that even though there are these little clips of happiness within real life, it never stays—people go back to being self centered, just as Jake went back to thinking about himself and how people were out to screw him over.
However, life clips like this could be lengthened with some change. Perhaps the Bible verse at the end should have been in color rather than black and white…
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
I believe I still had my breath during Breathless...
The film Breathless reminded me of home movies I made with my friends when I was younger. We didn’t have any editing equipment or computer programs, so we would film a scene, stop filming, and then pick up right there for the next scene. The cuts were definitely not continuous. Breathless, like my home movies, was choppy and sometimes hard to follow. Although I sometimes found my self saying, “what the heck!?!?” to a scene, the abruptness did add to the film.
The film was a little hard to follow with the abrupt cuts because sometimes the scene break didn’t make sense. It was not invisible, which is definitely what I am used to. I felt like the editors choice to make the cuts choppy made me feel out of the film, rather than immersed in it.
The choppiness added humor to the film. When Michel kills the police officer it isn’t dramatic, but rather kind of silly because it shows him shooting the guy and then cuts to another scene very quickly. There were other times when I found myself laughing because the cuts didn’t make sense or were just plain amusing.
I’m not completely sure what to think of Breathless just yet, but I do know the type of editing used made the film sometimes hard to follow, but also it contributed to humor.
Add on: I liked the casting. Jean Seberg, who played Patricia Franchini, had a great look and hair cut for her part!
The film was a little hard to follow with the abrupt cuts because sometimes the scene break didn’t make sense. It was not invisible, which is definitely what I am used to. I felt like the editors choice to make the cuts choppy made me feel out of the film, rather than immersed in it.
The choppiness added humor to the film. When Michel kills the police officer it isn’t dramatic, but rather kind of silly because it shows him shooting the guy and then cuts to another scene very quickly. There were other times when I found myself laughing because the cuts didn’t make sense or were just plain amusing.
I’m not completely sure what to think of Breathless just yet, but I do know the type of editing used made the film sometimes hard to follow, but also it contributed to humor.
Add on: I liked the casting. Jean Seberg, who played Patricia Franchini, had a great look and hair cut for her part!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Naturalistic or Theatrical: Do the Right Thing
There are so many aspects of mise en scene in Do the Right Thing that are confusing to me because of the mix of other aspects of film, like cinematography. When we broke up into small groups in class, we determined that a lot of times various scenes, sets and acting in Do the Right Thing had scenic realism, but cinematography (a lot of the camera angles) would distort it (not in a bad way, but rather very purposeful way) into being something a little different. Going from there, however, I think cinematography helped in making things seem unrealistic, but the mise en scene was a mix between naturalistic and theatrical.
The parts of Do the Right Thing that seemed to exude naturalistic mise en scene were the sets, settings, costumes, makeup and props. The location of this day is in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, which I think somebody said is known for racial tension between Italians and Black-Americans. The streets definitely seemed realistic of that time. Sal’s Pizzeria looked the part, especially with the pictures of famous Italians on the wall (which were important props to the film). The costumes and makeup were also naturalistic because they fit the time period, which was the 1980s. Mookie wore bright spandex under his shorts, Tina wore a spandex body suit when dancing in the beginning. Another part of costumes was the African pendant that Mookie and many of the other black characters wore around there neck, which were also popular during that time period. Various props, such as the boom boxes were also very naturalistic for that time period and culture.
The parts that seemed theatrical to me were the lighting and some of the acting. The lighting seemed like natural lighting, but because of hue use, it was more theatrical. Almost the whole film was shot in a goldish light, or at least a soft-light. The acting sometimes seemed stylized rather than naturalistic. For example, when the teenagers gathered around the white man on a bike after he ran over Buggin’ Out’s shoe, they all threw there hands up at the same time and shouted after they found out he grew up in Brooklyn. That was stylized. Many of the characters’ acting seemed exaggerated and sometimes they directly addressed the audience. At one point the film stood still and a few different characters stood in front of the camera and spoke as many racial slurs they could about another race.
I think the mix between naturalistic and theatrical mise en scene during Do the Right Thing was intentional by the filmmakers in order to create a tension within the viewer. Incorporating both was to create an “off” feel, perhaps. Also, the mix allows the viewer to ask questions and look further into the deeper issues of the film.
The parts of Do the Right Thing that seemed to exude naturalistic mise en scene were the sets, settings, costumes, makeup and props. The location of this day is in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, which I think somebody said is known for racial tension between Italians and Black-Americans. The streets definitely seemed realistic of that time. Sal’s Pizzeria looked the part, especially with the pictures of famous Italians on the wall (which were important props to the film). The costumes and makeup were also naturalistic because they fit the time period, which was the 1980s. Mookie wore bright spandex under his shorts, Tina wore a spandex body suit when dancing in the beginning. Another part of costumes was the African pendant that Mookie and many of the other black characters wore around there neck, which were also popular during that time period. Various props, such as the boom boxes were also very naturalistic for that time period and culture.
The parts that seemed theatrical to me were the lighting and some of the acting. The lighting seemed like natural lighting, but because of hue use, it was more theatrical. Almost the whole film was shot in a goldish light, or at least a soft-light. The acting sometimes seemed stylized rather than naturalistic. For example, when the teenagers gathered around the white man on a bike after he ran over Buggin’ Out’s shoe, they all threw there hands up at the same time and shouted after they found out he grew up in Brooklyn. That was stylized. Many of the characters’ acting seemed exaggerated and sometimes they directly addressed the audience. At one point the film stood still and a few different characters stood in front of the camera and spoke as many racial slurs they could about another race.
I think the mix between naturalistic and theatrical mise en scene during Do the Right Thing was intentional by the filmmakers in order to create a tension within the viewer. Incorporating both was to create an “off” feel, perhaps. Also, the mix allows the viewer to ask questions and look further into the deeper issues of the film.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
What is the Right Thing-- a small look at Do the Right Thing
Do the Right Thing made me feel on edge. Usually one of the goals of films with racial tension is to make people feel on edge or uncomfortable because usually that promotes thought and possible growth with that particular subject. However, I do not think it was just the racial tension that made me feel on edge. I think the filmmakers final goal was to have people feel on edge from the racial tension, but there were many things that were completely separate from racial tension that contribute to the feeling. Some of these things included music, lighting and the mundane feel (besides the fight, murder, plunder and arson in Sal’s pizzeria which all happened at the end of the movie).
The movie started with loud and intense music. There were many different instruments in the fast paced main song, which was “Fight the Power” by Public Enemy. This music often clashed with other songs that were playing at the same time. An example of this was when Radio Raheem walked over to a group of guys who were also playing music—they had a competition of sorts to see whose boom box was louder.
Another aspect of music was the light music with horned instruments. I think it was meant to show a somewhat leveled out time, but for me, it just made things disjointed because I thought it did not fit. I knew the leveled out time wasn’t for real and that things were going to change.
The lighting throughout the whole film seemed to be slightly yellow or gold and maybe a tiny bit hazy. It seemed like soft lighting, which I usually interpret as a slower moving or calmer time, but that really wasn’t the case. Perhaps the clash of previous interpretations of lighting with the spoken word of racial tensions made me feel on edge.
Finally, the mundane feel of the film (up until the fight and events following) contributed to my unease. It seemed like a typical day, especially with Mookie waking up, going to work, engaging in typical bickering between co-workers, seeing the neighborhood and people interacting, with a few verbal disagreements every so often. However, I knew it was not supposed to be mundane.
I hope I was able to explain a little of why the music, lighting and mundane feel made me feel uneasy. I’m still trying to wrap my head around it…
The movie started with loud and intense music. There were many different instruments in the fast paced main song, which was “Fight the Power” by Public Enemy. This music often clashed with other songs that were playing at the same time. An example of this was when Radio Raheem walked over to a group of guys who were also playing music—they had a competition of sorts to see whose boom box was louder.
Another aspect of music was the light music with horned instruments. I think it was meant to show a somewhat leveled out time, but for me, it just made things disjointed because I thought it did not fit. I knew the leveled out time wasn’t for real and that things were going to change.
The lighting throughout the whole film seemed to be slightly yellow or gold and maybe a tiny bit hazy. It seemed like soft lighting, which I usually interpret as a slower moving or calmer time, but that really wasn’t the case. Perhaps the clash of previous interpretations of lighting with the spoken word of racial tensions made me feel on edge.
Finally, the mundane feel of the film (up until the fight and events following) contributed to my unease. It seemed like a typical day, especially with Mookie waking up, going to work, engaging in typical bickering between co-workers, seeing the neighborhood and people interacting, with a few verbal disagreements every so often. However, I knew it was not supposed to be mundane.
I hope I was able to explain a little of why the music, lighting and mundane feel made me feel uneasy. I’m still trying to wrap my head around it…
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Realism within The Godfather
The sets and settings in The Godfather were extremely important in contributing to both realism and scenic realism. It was definitely representing the world of New York City in the 1940s. I’ll be discussing how the sets and setting made everything seem real and what the signs of realism are within the film.
The setting for the most part was in New York City or just outside of it. From my previous knowledge of the Mafia, this seems real—I know that Mafia families had been (and probably still are) in New York City. The sets all seemed to have a very natural, believable feel to them, which made them seem more real.
For example, when Tom Hagen goes out to California to talk to Jack Woltz, the setting changed and so did the sets. The style of Jack Woltz’s house was completely different than the houses in New York City. The Corleone house was older and seemed a little colder (perhaps noting that the east is colder). Woltz’s house I think had a pool, and had more gold colored hues, showing perhaps, the warmth of California. Woltz’s house also seemed flashier than the Corleone’s house, which could correlate with California or the movie director aspect of his character. All of the small details on both the Corleone’s house and Woltz’s house were part of something bigger that spoke to the audience. If the film sets and settings are supposed to be realistic and believable but if they are not, it is hard to keep the attention of the audience.
When the setting and sets switched over to Italy, a difference was also seen there—there were open mountain ranges, walkways connecting the houses and winding up through the town. It looked very different than the nice-sized yard of the Corleone’s house or the style that Woltz’s house was crafted. It seemed like Italy.
The sets and setting contributed to realism, but some of the other signs of realism were in costumes and character dimensions. When the men of the families were doing “family business” they were always dressed in black suites and possibly had a black hat to match. The men were a dressed a little more casual when they were at home discussing things.
Michael’s character transformed the most, and that development definitely contributed to the realism. The most striking part of this for me was when he saw his father, Vito, in the hospital after the attempted assassination. Michael almost instantly changed. He decided to kill McCluskey and Sollozzo. At that point, he was in the beginning stages of family business immersion, so there were things he did during the restaurant scene with McCluskey and Sollozzo that seemed very wrong (not shooting Sollozzo twice and not dropping the gun right away). But after he experienced different things in Italy, he transformed more into a hard Mafia man.
There are many things that factor into realism, but for me the most prominent things were the set and settings and then the customs and character development of Michael.
The setting for the most part was in New York City or just outside of it. From my previous knowledge of the Mafia, this seems real—I know that Mafia families had been (and probably still are) in New York City. The sets all seemed to have a very natural, believable feel to them, which made them seem more real.
For example, when Tom Hagen goes out to California to talk to Jack Woltz, the setting changed and so did the sets. The style of Jack Woltz’s house was completely different than the houses in New York City. The Corleone house was older and seemed a little colder (perhaps noting that the east is colder). Woltz’s house I think had a pool, and had more gold colored hues, showing perhaps, the warmth of California. Woltz’s house also seemed flashier than the Corleone’s house, which could correlate with California or the movie director aspect of his character. All of the small details on both the Corleone’s house and Woltz’s house were part of something bigger that spoke to the audience. If the film sets and settings are supposed to be realistic and believable but if they are not, it is hard to keep the attention of the audience.
When the setting and sets switched over to Italy, a difference was also seen there—there were open mountain ranges, walkways connecting the houses and winding up through the town. It looked very different than the nice-sized yard of the Corleone’s house or the style that Woltz’s house was crafted. It seemed like Italy.
The sets and setting contributed to realism, but some of the other signs of realism were in costumes and character dimensions. When the men of the families were doing “family business” they were always dressed in black suites and possibly had a black hat to match. The men were a dressed a little more casual when they were at home discussing things.
Michael’s character transformed the most, and that development definitely contributed to the realism. The most striking part of this for me was when he saw his father, Vito, in the hospital after the attempted assassination. Michael almost instantly changed. He decided to kill McCluskey and Sollozzo. At that point, he was in the beginning stages of family business immersion, so there were things he did during the restaurant scene with McCluskey and Sollozzo that seemed very wrong (not shooting Sollozzo twice and not dropping the gun right away). But after he experienced different things in Italy, he transformed more into a hard Mafia man.
There are many things that factor into realism, but for me the most prominent things were the set and settings and then the customs and character development of Michael.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The Godfather: I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse...
****see below for picture info.
I loved The Godfather. This film had my attention the whole way through. There were many things I liked about it, which included different camera shots (especially the beating up of and murder of Carlo, as morbid as that is), character types and character development. Most of all, I was intrigued by the thought of being a part of a Mafia family. I felt like I was included in the Corleone family and I was definitely “rooting” for them, even though they were full of crime, corruption that affected the larger community of New York.One of the main reasons why I felt like part of the family was because of point-of-view. As a whole, the film took the Corleone family’s point-of-view. This gives partial reason as to why I was on their side. If the film had been taking place from one of the over five family’s point of view I would probably be rooting for them.
Other than point-of-view, I was mystified by how these Mafia families work. They are a business as well as a family. The shocking horse head scene in the beginning did not defer me from the family, but rather it drew me in—I was thinking, wow, I don’t want to be on this family’s bad side! I realized that the Corleone family takes care of their own. This concept was also seen throughout Connie’s issue of being beaten and Sonny wanted to protect/get vengeance for her.
Perhaps the shock value of the scenes also drew me to the family. Maybe the more shocking action (crime/murder) a family member would do for other members of the family made me feel a deeper connection. When Michael killed Sollozzo and McCluskey it was shocking, but also built the bond between Michael and his father, which created a stronger bond with me and the family.
My bond and loyalty to the Corleone’s built stronger as Michael’s character developed into a more family man. See, Michael’s character seemed to be like me (and other members of the audience). I liked the family, but was not really sure about the whole Mafia thing, but by the end, like Michael, I was completely submerged. It was as if Michael’s journey was also my journey, as a member of the audience.
Note: I do not want to be a part of the Mafia; I just really enjoyed The Godfather.
****The pictures are of Michael and me. It kind of represents how I felt like Michael--my journey with the Corleone family.... I found Michael's photo at: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v446/goawaydick/brians%2520stuff/Al-Pacino---The-Godfather-Photograp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://andrewdoesmovies.blogspot.com/2008/06/godfather-michaels-transition.html&h=381&w=300&sz=48&hl=en&start=1&usg=__g80c_jCKOGoQMq6sKKO8QQ8ypPc=&tbnid=mAg2K3Z5MmTrPM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3DThe%2BGodfather-%2BMichael%2BVito%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
