In Jessica Bennett’s review of the movie “Psycho”, I believe she was successful in analyzing the Hermeneutic Code present in the film. The scene she chose to analyze due to its inclusion of a delay was one of the most memorable scenes in all film history. In it, the main character up to this point, Marion, is brutally and unexpectedly murdered. Alfred Hitchcock was a true master of suspense and thrills, making the emergence of this “blocking” delay very sudden and exciting as a result. Up until this point, the movie has had a somewhat typical plot line. Although the inclusion of partial nudity and other social stigmas made the movie rather racy for its time, as a present day viewer, the first half of the film is basically like any other. We follow Marion in her struggle to find an answer to the enigma of the film: will she and Sam, her distant lover, ever be able to live together? This initially sounds like a story of two lovers longing to be together. When a wealthy client of the bank she works for makes an exorbitant deposit of $40,000, we are given a promise of an answer to the enigma, especially when she decides to steal the money and run away to Sam. Even moments before her death, we are led to believe that Marion will return the money she stole, allowing her to live the respectable life she’s always wanted by turning herself in. As she steps in to the shower, the audience has no idea what’s to come. Suddenly a figure whose face is hidden in shadow rips back the curtain and begins stabbing her violently. With no forewarning of this gruesome event, all of the audience’s preconceived notions about how the story will end are abruptly thrown for a loop. Now our knowledge of the answer to this initial enigma is forever blocked. By killing off the main character before the movie was even half over, Hitchcock was able to make what initially seemed like a romance/drama film into a thrilling, suspenseful mystery to find a killer.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Full Metal Jacket
Right from the beginning, Ebert cites how Kubrick set up the frame of “Full Metal Jacket” similarly to “a set of short stories”, evidence of Ebert analyzing the narrative plot design. However, after stating this fact, Ebert immediately starts pointing out all of the cinematic clichés present in the film, initially dissuading the reader from wanting to watch this movie. He cites how the film starts out with a strong beginning, giving a brief synopsis of the first half of the movie taking place on Paris Island where the troops underwent training. I thought it was clever how he combined his disappointed opinion of the film at this point while describing the main points at the same time, even mentioning the actors’ real names. Ebert discusses major themes and conflicts of the film’s opening half. He mentions the struggle between the Sergeant and Gomer Pyle, while smoothly transitioning into a description of their final confrontation. Up until this point in the review, Ebert has been giving a brief overview of only a few scenes from the film itself, while mostly sticking to giving critiques on how several of Kubrick’s techniques were disappointing to him. He seems to be giving mostly negative comments, lessening the reader’s desire to see this movie. Ebert does sneak some compliments in throughout the review, but they’re always immediately followed by more criticism. For example, he states that the movie is filled with great shots, but that these great shots are usually ended with a dissatisfying or an inadequate conclusion. It seems to me like Ebert is missing the point of Kubrick’s inclusion of conflicts with no resolution; that was a major tool in his desire to leave unanswered questions for the audience to ponder. Ebert only mentions a few scenes from the second half of the film which takes place in Vietnam. It seems he feels that because the two most “memorable” characters to him, the Sergeant and Gomer Pyle, died before Vietnam was shown, there is no one to really care about or connect to in the latter half of the film. Ebert ends his review by giving several more great moments from the film, acknowledging Kubrick’s talents. But as if answering his previous remarks like objections, he then questions the originality of the film, saying that although the movie had some notable scenes, the concept of a film concerning the Vietnam War had already been done many times before. “Full Metal Jacket” was, according to Ebert, “too little and too late” to be very impressive of its own accord.
After reading this review, I was a little surprised to discover that Roger Ebert actually didn’t like the movie. Although he sounded harsh from the get-go, his writing style made me believe that he was going to qualify his earlier criticisms later in the review by citing the ingenious moments that made up for any mistakes. This initially would lead the reader to keep an open mind about the film. However, the entire review is mainly an opinion piece, with Ebert stating all the different aspects of the film which he felt were sub-par and overseen in similar movies. I would definitely be persuaded to not watch this film by Ebert’s review. Although he does not use any technical terms to describe the visual literacy of the movie, he uses many sources from other films as supporting evidence, showing that he has at least watched many films and most likely has a wide knowledge of screenplay quality. Because of this, other people would most likely trust Ebert’s review of “Full Metal Jacket” and avoid seeing the movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)