Royale With Cheese

That statement that was made last class that “Just because a statement is ineffectual or doesn’t make a difference, doesn’t mean that it is meaningless.” It was either a quote or an idea from the novel “1984;” I could have written it wrong but I don’t know.

Anyway, what if you substitute “film” in place of “statement?” The other Errol Morris films we’ve watched in class have not been well known. The people who do see Morris’s movies walk out or turn off the t.v. at the end thinking, “What in the world did I just watch?” And that’s only considering they did not walk out or click the power button before the end. One of Errol Morris’s idols thought one of his films was not a film at all, but instead a slide show. I can see where that spectator was coming from, but he did not look deeper into the movies. Morris’s idol did not look under the surface of the film itself. There are so many things taking place, so many important and interesting things being said, and hardly anyone picks up on it. Those viewers only say, “That’s just weird.”

I thought that too, until certain characteristics were pointed out, and then I began to see connections everywhere. I have gone into details about the different films in previous Errol Morris blogs (Refer to the Errol Morris Category for specifics) so I will not do so again. But there are certain things that make these films into pieces of art that should not be called Documentaries; they are something else. A documentary about pet cemeteries would be all about pet cemeteries. Morris made a film about pet cemeteries that also commented on life, death, love, hate, family, companionship, betrayal, loss, and even music.

Errol Morris has taken Documentaries to a new level, and uses a genre that works for him.

It was said that Errol Morris believes it is possible to know reality, but feels that it is a very hard task to accomplish. With each one of his films that we have seen so far, it seems as though he is trying to pull off this task. He’s looking for the door through each one of his movies, the door to reality. The people of Vernon, Florida spoke about reality, but were their ideas fact or fantasy. The people themselves could be the door. Morris’s films could be the very door he is looking for. Maybe he even knows that, but will not say. But all I can say is Errol Morris is trying to get into people’s heads with each film he creates. He is trying to reach every single person he can by presenting a variety of types of situations which many different people can relate to. He is trying to push reality into viewer’s heads through the people speaking on the screen. He is Errol Morris P.I., making the life a little more real for the world.

After viewing Errol Morris’s “Vernon, Florida,” all I can really say is that it was…interesting. This goes for all of his films as well. I’m not saying they are bad at all, but just incredibly different from anything I’ve ever seen. Maybe that’s why he does not call his films documentaries.

The most significant feature that stood out the most in the film is the people. Apparently Morris had gone to Vernon, Florida to make a movie about the real-life people who cut off their body parts in order to collected more insurance money; he called the film “Nub City.” He was badly beaten for propsing the making of this film, but realized that he loved the people there. Which brought the movie “Vernon, Florida” to the rest of the country.

I think I can see what Morris saw as he entered the town that second time, fixed on creating this film. I think he saw the perfect vehicle, or vehicles should I say, that could take the words coming out of their mouths and make them into a kind of philosophy. Morris could have easily seen that the people of Vernon, Florida had been seaching for the meaning of life; they had been around the block and seen a few things that sets the world in its place. If a wealthy man were to enter the town of Vernon in an expensive suit, ready to discuss what they believe is the true meaning of life, many viewers would probably laugh at the obsurdity of it all. Those people lived in that town and believed they knew more about life and its secrets than anyone else.

How could you go wrong with filming a man who speaks about the meaning of life, while sounding like Mickey Mouse as an old man-rodent. There’s the hunter who says that hearing “Gobble, Gobbel” is the best diariah medicine in the world. And you cannot forget his pal Snake. A man who speaks about using his brain and picking up brains. There was even a man who had a possum that he was saving for an auction. These are not ordinary people, and I believe that is why Morris found them so interesting. I even found them interesting. Every one of these people had a different view on finding the door to the meaning of life; but they are all trying to head in the same direction. I think I’ll have to refer to “Chappelle’s Show” in saying that with regard to all of Morris’s films that we’ve seen so far, he “keeps it real.”

From 3-19-2007 class meeting.

With regard to “Gates Of Heaven,” I am just baffled by this issue of having red objects seen beside the owners of Bubbling Well Cemetary. The father did not have anything like this during his interviews. Every time he was on camera, his background was incrediby plain. He was really the only thing in the shot. But observing his wife and two sons’ interviews, each of them were surrounded by objects that meant something to them. Although, this is done at the cost of creating a shot that has a great deal of clutter in it. Maybe this represents their emotional baggage, they all need things in life in order to feel better about themselves.

The mother needs her kids, because in a way they are her pets. But they have moved out and started their own families, so what does she do? She buys so much stuff that she can take care of those monetary items instead. Her oldest son Phil placed trophies all around his office in order to make him feel like he has done something with his life. He needs a meaning in life, and his old trophies are used as a substitution for going out and making something for yourself. During the scene, he is hiding behind the trophies, literally; they take up all the space. Danny loves music and would rather lie in his hammock and play his guitar than do anything else. He owns a large stereo system which is incredibly loud; and he brags about its musical power.

Danny is trying to impress everyone around him, Phil is trying to impress himself, and their mother is trying to impress anyone who would come see her. Cal is the most interesting of the four because of his lack of doing the same types of things. What does he know about life that makes him so incredibly comfortable? Did he find the Meaning of Life, not the film, but the real thing? Maybe so.

But what I cannot get out of my head is what the freaking connection is between the red items that appear on screen with the people. that I cannot seem to wrap my brain around. I do not know if there is any true way of learning the true answer, unless I find the maker of all things…these things that is.

I saw “Gates Of Heaven” Thursday night, and I must admit it was a bit odd. It started out as a documentary about pet cemeteries, and then the film suddenly goes into this woman sitting in the doorway to her home, and she talks about her life. Once that is over, viewers are taken to another family who still, today, own their pet cemetery.

After we talked about that hinge scene, it made a bit more sense. I was absolutely confused on the whole matter. She just kept talking about things that did not, at the time, seem related to the overall film whatsoever. Thing strangest thing during that scene was not what she was talking about, but all of the sounds that came out of nowhere. She spoke of buying her son a car, and suddenly there was the sound of screeching brakes. Up until that point there was almost completely quiet during the woman’s monologue. After the screeching noise, more noises could be heard. For instance, more cars driving by, birds chirping, kids yelling. Where did all of that come from? There was a “No Trespassing” sign shown immediately before the woman started speaking. To me, it seems as if there would not have been anyone else around or cars driving by with a sign like that.

I was sitting there thinking that those noises had been implanted into the movie. That could have been what Errol Morris did, but I don’t know. I’m not really sure what those sudden sounds coming from around the woman were all about.

I do not know if I would go as far as saying that Beth is scolding Jo in the attic from the 1949 “Little Women.” It was an odd scene, Beth is very ghostly and seems to float toward Jo. I guess that goes along with the fact that she was dying, but she climbed up to the attic while she was in such a terrible condition. You also cannot see Jo’s face during the entire scene which was also odd. But coming back to the message Beth was trying to give Jo, she spoke to her silent sister about what was happening and told Jo not to tell their parents that Beth knew that she was going to die. I just did not see this remark as a command. I feel she was talking to her sister in a new way, an unrestrained way; people can do some crazy things right before they die.

To go to the idea of what I think is good and what I like, I’ll have to say that both the 1933 & 1994 (which, again, are the only ones I have seen) were good movies, but I did not like them very much. If I had liked the movies I would not had have such a hard time sitting through them. I just found them incredibly boring, I feel similarly about the novel, and I wanted to just turn them off at times. For some reason, I had a hard time getting through all of it. Someone in class noted the idea of a Coping Mechanism where viewers would latch onto a character they like so they can get through the film. With the 1994 version I latched onto Laurie, mainly because it was Christian Bale and he’s awesome (I recommend everyone go see “The Prestige”). He was the only thing helping me through the movie.

The movies were good though, they held fairly true to the novel and had decent acting with great portrayals of the characters. There are other factors that play a part in why they are good as well, we have discussed them in class. They are just not movies that I would want to watch again and again, or ever again for that matter. It’s kind of like when I watched Scorsese’s “Casino,” I saw the whole thing, uncut, once, and I do not really care to do it again any time soon. Great movie, but not one that I want to watch over and over again.

For the March 12 class.

I definitely try to look at the silent characters on the screen while anyone else is talking. I also try to observe the character’s surroundings for anything that might play a role in the movie as a whole. It is hard sometimes to do, because it is a habit to look at the person who is speaking. You can see inaudible people making certain faces or body movements in reaction to the speaker. I feel that when these silent people continue to act out what they think or feel from the situation, it makes the movie much more enjoyable. Everyone is separated into individual beings who can walk and talk on their own, without waiting their turn.

My favorite television show right now is LOST. Everything in the show connects with everything else, it’s awesome. There will be something in the background where the people are, and there will be a word or a picture that holds some relevance to the overall show. These sort of things are really cool and I like it when I am able to catch them. Well in last nights episode (3-15-07) one of the characters, Claire, was trying to set up a trap made of netting so she could catch some birds. She’s speaking to a Korean family who were also stranded on the island. (It would be way to hard to explain the show to anyone unless they have seen it. You can go to the iTunes Music Store and they have a FREE video called “The Lost Survival Guide” that will tell you everything that has happened up until now in the show. If anyone is interested.) The Korean husband, Jin, cannot fully understand everything Claire is saying, but she asks for his fishing netting. He does not move right away, because she continues talking. Then he understands what she is trying to do and turns to leave, but as he does so he lifts up his hand and shakily points it, as if he was making the statement “Oh, I got you.” Just little things like that make me feel really good for some reason. I don’t even know why or how to explain it. It’s like that happened and I said “That’s why this show is great.”

I can remember this happening in one scene from the 1994 “Little Women.” It is when Mr. Bhaer and Meg are walking toward the March house, and Laurie and Jo are walking behind them. Those followers never say a word to break the conversation, but I saw Laurie (Christian Bale is the man by the way) making facial expressions to show his curiosity in his teacher’s talk. It also happens with Beth’s eyes while Marmee was reading the first letter from father. She looks away in the distance, probably thinking and imagining her father at war.

I guess I just love sweating the small stuff.

From the March 2 class presentations.

I had never really thought about how much movie goers react to what women do on the screen. In horror movies when a woman screams, it causes people in the theater to scream as well. The same thing happens with women crying in movies. It’s as if directors are playing with our heads. I don’t know about that, but it is kind of funny to think about.

Another thing that happens with women and movies is said to be that the woman will kill the monster in a horror movie. This made me think of a scene from an old sci-fi flick called “This Island Earth;” “Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie” made fun of it too. First of all, the show and their version of the movie was hilarious in my opinion. So then scene has this large brainy creature attacking the leading lady, her manly lover was (I think) unconscious and the white haired alien being who is helping the heroes was injured. She was the only thing standing in the creatures way, and she took it down…without even touching it. Oh, it was so funny. The woman had evaded the monster a few times and then she tripped an fell. The creature walks toward her and then trips as well, but that trip was the last one it would ever take. It just fell over and either unconscious itself or it died for no apparent reason (it has been a while since I last saw it). But I figure the woman was the reason he tripped (it was chasing her) so in a way she killed it. The womanly winning streak lives on!

I’ve been behind on my posts unfortunately because of all the work I have to do. For some reason I always get stuck with having a ton of work due in different classes all in the same week. It happens all the time. Maybe the world is conspiring against me. Anyway, the next few posts are from past dates; I have to get back in the game.

On February 28 there was a presentation of the Andrews and Chatman chapters, they spoke about adaptations and what it means to have them. Now fidelity was mentioned in the beginning of the presentation, the screenwriters staying faithful to the text. An example of doing this was where there was a beautiful woman in the novel, they tried to put one in the film as well. But not everyone might think this woman is gorgeous, so there are men watching her and basically drooling over her beauty.

I wonder if this method of adapting/portraying beauty in film is very successful. I read through my notes after our “What is good and What we like” discussion in class. This may be a good way to adapt the beauty of a character in a novel to the beauty of a actor/actress in a film. But even after someone states that a woman in the film is beautiful, not all of the viewers are going to think so.

Everyone judges someone else in their lifetime, people do it without even realizing it. Quite frankly, that is just the way things are. So, I believe that Scarlett Johansson is an incredibly beautiful woman. But a friend of mine stated that there is nothing about her that is attractive. People will judge will always judge beauty, whether its on the big screen or in a restaurant. So even with some men or women in a film saying how good someone looks as a way of backing up the fact that the character is supposed to be beautiful, it will always be disregarded by some. What it all comes down to is: who decides if the actor or actress is beautiful enough or not to portray the fictional character of a novel? Who has that power?

The fact that Mickey Mousing is used during LeRoy’s adaptation of “Little Women” leaves me asking: Why?  The novel became a monumental work of literature that still lives on today, but I feel like LeRoy takes away from that stature when he presents the film with music that follows the characters’ movements.  I’ve been told this adaptation is not very good, and I have not seen enough of the film yet to make that distinction for myself.  But we saw a little of the movie in class and observed Jo jumping over the fence twice with the music following her every move, random shots that last too long and also just regular shots in general that last too long.  I guess in the end, even though I have not seen much of the film, I feel that LeRoy’s adaptation is not up to par with the novel.