The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Journal #3

Of the categories given, I chose to research and go behind the scenes on the acting that occurred within the film. First off, the acting in this Western was well done for the most part and resembled the type of acting we saw in both “My Darling Clementine” and “Once Upon a Time in the West”. The three main characters portrayed within the film, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”, were Blondie the Good (Eastwood), Angel Eyes the Bad (Cleef), and Tuco the ugly (Wallach). In this film, these three characters all demonstrate different backgrounds and characteristics through their actions and emotions. I chose to talk about acting because this film wouldn’t have been nearly as effective without great acting.
To begin, in my opinion, these three actors were chosen for this film for various reasons. First, they all fit their parts almost perfectly. Starting with “the Good”, Clint Eastwood plays his part flawlessly; he meshes the attributes of a typical western hero with those of his own unique character. I would compare him to Harmonica from “Once Upon a Time in the West”. He is smart and soft-spoken yet extremely mysterious. Besides playing the so called “good guy” in this film, according to rottentomatoes.com, Eastwood has stared in numerous Westerns on other films as the tough guy/anti hero. Two of his most famous were when he played Inspector 'Dirty' Harry Callahan in “the Dirty Harry series” and the Man with No Name in Sergio Leone's “Spaghetti Westerns”. Ironically, in this Western, Eastwood’s character had no name either. Also according to rottentomatoes.com, Eastwood seems to be an extremely versatile actor. After working in acting for so many years, Eastwood has built up quit the stage presence.
The second most notable actor in the film was my personal favorite, to watch. Tuco (Wallach) or “the Ugly”, was a great character because not only was he sneaky, untrustworthy, and ugly, he provided lots of comic relief in the film. In my opinion they chose Eli Wallach to play this part and to be in this film solely because of his personality. Every time he spoke in the film it seemed to provoke laughter. He also was an extremely shifty character, which keep the audiences attention on his actions. Although I couldn’t imagine Wallaach as much of a versatile actor beyond actions or comedies, he has played a wide variety of roles in over a hundred films and TV shows. According to IMDB.com, he received an Emmy for a drama film in 1966 along with may other nominations. Wallach’s behavior on the set would indicate that he was a crazy character in real life when in fact he was described as being rather low key off the set during the films production.
Lastly we come to Angel Eyes (Cleef) or “the Bad”. Lee Van Cleef played a very tough role within the film. He played a greedy Union leader with a darker less sophisticated side. Cleef was most likely chosen for this film because of his eerie character. Even though at first we barely saw him, his face was one that you wouldn’t forget. He played a more mysterious character like Eastwood, but much more cold and ruthless. In the past, Cleef has played primarily the part of the bad guy and really didn’t seem to be that versatile of an actor. In his case he seemed more stereotyped, because throughout his career his primary movies were all Westerns. During the films production, Cleef was actually working on multiple westerns. The fact that this film only had three major characters made it essential for the acting to be superb. Without great acting no one would have been able to sit through three hours of Western.

Casablaca

Casablanca
Warner Bros. (1942)
Directed by: Michael Curtiz
Actors: Ilsa Lund Laszlo (Ingrid Bergman), Rick Blaine (Humpfrey Bogart), Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid), Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Major Henrich Strasser (Conrad Veidt), Sam (Dooley Wilson),
Sreenplay: Julius J. and Philip G. Epstein and Howard Koch
Photography and music: Turner Entertainment Co.
Producer: Hal B. Wallis
Based off of the play “Everybody Comes to Rick’s” By Murray Burnett and Joan Alison

Casablanca is a very unique film in the fact that it is like no other film I have ever seen. Casablanca, produced in 1942, is based off of a solid plot mixed with a great group of actors. All the main Characters in the film had lots of lifetime experience acting together, some as many as ten films together. The four most important characters in the film are Ilsa (Ingrid Burgman), Rick (Humphrey Bogart), Victor (Paul Henreid), and Renault (Claude Rains). These four characters are the most involved in the plot and all seem to know the most information about what is happing during the film. The film takes place in North Western Africa during WWI in the city of Casablanca. Casablanca, during the film, is occupied by the French, but the Germans are coming to take it over and many are trying to get out. Consequently, the main conflict is that no one is allowed to leave without a letter of transcript or visa papers and there seem to be only two in the city. Victor Laszlo, a French convict, is unable to leave without the letters of transcript and is up for arrest. To add to the conflict, the protagonist, Rick (Bogart), used to be in love with Ilsa (Burgman) who was and is still married to Victor Laszlo. Rick’s past life in Paris haunts him throughout the movie as he fights memories with Ilsa. Rick owns an extremely profitable restaurant and is the only help for Ilsa and Laszlo, but he struggles between helping them get to safety and letting them fend for themselves.
As far as literary aspects go, the plot is extremely is extremely well structured and very realistic. All the characters fit their roles and the storyline is very believable with its connection to the War. The dialogue was very straight forward and normal for the most part although at times emotions seemed to be a tad stretched. For example the scene with Ilsa crying is a bit un-realistic and some of the disputes within the restaurant become more intense than what seems normal. In addition, some of the dialogue was very moving at times and made the viewer feel more involved in the film. As for themes, the main theme in my opinion is that love is very powerful, and friends/old friends still come first. Two symbols that reoccur in the film are the letters of transcript which represent freedom and sanctuary from the war and Sam’s music that symbolizes Rick and Ilsa’s past.
The acting in this movie was basically flawless. All the characters that spoke even one word seemed to fit their part and perform at a high level. Realistically, the cinematic aspects of the film were the root of the films success, but without great acting the film would be nothing. In my opinion, the actors made the story almost feel real. The set was also very easy because the vast majority of the film took place in Rick’s restaurant. The lighting was also very significant in the fact that if anything secret or illegal was going down, the film used low-key lighting and lots of shadow almost to the point of masking some characters identities. The film was mainly shot with a medium shot, but the most intense scenes were shot using close-up or even extreme close-up at times. High angles were used to make characters seem doomed, but most apparent in this film, Low angles stressed power. I really liked the film from its editing standpoint. They never gave the viewer too much or too little information. The transitions were mainly through dissolve. Finally the sound played a large role in the film. Diagetic sound was very commonly used and was most important in scenes of turmoil while non-diagetic sound was more often used after something was accomplished.

Journal 1 The Mist

Link to Critic Review
“The Mist”, a Stephen King based movie, is a movie you shouldn’t miss. If you haven’t seen “The Mist” it is a horror film that captures both the emotions of the characters and viewers alike. What truly sets “The Mist” apart from other horror films is its style. The director, Frank Darabont, focuses more on the interaction between terrified customers than that between customer and monster. This in turn makes the movie become much more relatable and powerful. “The Mist” also shifted from real to surreal in a matter of minutes as what seemed to be an innocent and normal town was covered in terror. When the surreal then slowly became a reality to all the characters, they were all mentally and physically challenged to survive. In the end, what seemed to be a valid resolution turned out to be a crucial mistake.
According to the Rotten Tomatoes top critic James Berardinelli, “The Mist” far exceeded his expectations and he gave it a 3.5 out of a possible 4. For the most part I am in agreement with James on his review of the film, but I have a few disagreements. First off I will start with my disagreements of his critiques. James states that the most intense scenes occur when characters actually leave the somewhat safe supermarket and venture into the mist. Although I do agree that the scenes in which characters venture out into the mist are tense I do not agree that they are more intense than some of the human to human disputes within the store. For example, after the shoppers have separated into groups and blame starts to be distributed, the store becomes less of a sanctuary for everyone. I am also willing to argue on this point because multiple people were murdered by other customers in the store as the plot thickened and the story became more of a mental game for survival. Secondly, I disagree with James’s reasoning behind the special effects. In my opinion, to the average viewer, the special effects were flawless and very realistic. Every form of monster and wound was very believable and more shocking than I can remember in any other movie I have seen. My last disagreement with this critic is that he stated that the movie told us too much about the reasoning for the mist and creatures. I disagree with this because the movie wouldn’t have been the same had there been no one to blame for the whole ordeal. Also it is my personal preference to know as much information to connect the confusion and unknowns in movies.
On the other hand, I am in complete agreement with James’s film grade of 3.5, but as stated, for a couple different reasons. First off I agree with James’s point that the movie is extremely well done from a mental aspect. All the scenes are very chilling and you can really see fear within each character. I also agree with James’s opinion on the conclusion of the film when he stated, “Using ingredients supplied by King, the director brews a potent stew that concludes with a scene tinged with the most bitter irony imaginable.”( Berardinelli). The fact that the director chose to change Stephen King’s written version of the ending for his own makes the movie that much better. It also brings a huge element of surprise and the twist leads the movie away from a more traditional/predictable ending.

Berardinelli, James. "The Mist." A Film Review by James Berardinelli. 11 Feb, 2008. 27 Nov. 2007.

Long Drive analysis

I chose to add two video's because I found that the first wasn't very good as far as demonstrating aspects of filming, yet I still like the clip. So, I am going to discuss elements of film solely from the Long Drive Clip. As far as the point of view goes, this clip is neutral. This scene also combines the long shot with a medium shot and then an extreme long shot. It also touches up on a brief low angle shot when Happy is about to hit the ball and a subtle high angle shot when the ball is in the air. Also the most noticeable element of film of the clip was the speed of motion. First the speed of the ball in the air is followed and is sped up. Then, when Happy is about to hit his shot, the camera speed slows down to slow-motion. When the ball is hit the camera movement is in a crane mode. Overall this clip demonstrates many different aspects of filming.

Long Drive scene

Happy Gilmore

Fight Scene

Happy Gilmore

Happy Gilmore is a great movie which ranks among the best of comedies. It all starts off in with a hockey player named Happy Gilmore, who is played by Adam Sandler, who is chasing a fantasy to go into the NHL. Frankly, Happy was never a great hockey player and has lost most hope of becoming anything until one day, he picks up a golf club. While crushing balls at the range, a man by the name of Chubbs watches in amazement as Happy awkwardly crushes balls over 400 yards. Chubbs realizes Happy's potential at golf and begins coaching him. Happy is convinced to stay with golf and leave hockey because his Grandma is being evicted and forced to live in a nursing home because Happy doesn't have the money to keep her out. In order to get his grandmother out of the nursing home, Happy joins the PGA. Happy is a huge embarrassment on the greens but always gets there in one shot. His rude behavior and inappropriate comments almost get him kicked off the Tour. He competes in a tournament for a green jacket with a pro named Shooter who tries to cheat happy out of a win. In the end Happy wins the tournament and gets a load of cash and is able to get his Grandmother back in her evicted house.

I like Happy Gilmore for many reasons. First off, in my opinion, Happy Gilmore is the best comedy ever in a very close race with Sandler's, Billy Madison. Happy Gilmore mainly because it combines sport with comedy and being an avid golfer, the story becomes much more humorous to myself. Happy Gilmore also gets extra points because it is has some history. It has been around for nearly 12 years and is still entertaining to watch over and over again. Another reason this is a good movie is that Adam Sandler is a flawless comedian. Through Saturday night live and various other comedy movies, it is hard to go wrong with Sandler. In addition, the other acting in the movie is solid. All the other main characters are well played and perfectly fit their parts. Overall, Happy Gilmore is a great choice of movie for any movie audience.

According to the critics at rottentomatoes.com, Happy Gilmore was close to a split decision for the critics. If a critic liked the movie they seemed to love it, yet those who didn't find the movie enjoyable didn't seem to be completely against it. All of the top critics still had at least some good things to say about the movie. In Addition, various top critics think that Happy Gilmore is Sandlers best movie to date! Back in 1996, Happy Gilmore one an MTV movie award and was nominated for three others. Based on the T-Meter, Happy Gilmore received only a 56 out of 100 points. Top Critics like Roger Ebert seemed to have many doubts about the film, yet it still seemed to bring in a lot of money.