Change Your Image
jt-hix2112
Reviews
Baby Face (1933)
Quite shocking
First off, if you're planning on watching this, make sure to watch the UNCUT version (although it is very interesting to go back and then watch the scenes that were tampered with due to censorship), it makes a HUGE difference. This film is about a young woman, played by Barbara Stanwyck, who since the age of 14 has been forced into prostitution by her own father. When her father suddenly passes away, she is able to go out into the world on her own. After reading about Nietzsche's philosophies on life, she uses her sexuality to manipulate men into giving her what she wants and leaves them in ruins and desperate for her love. Throughout the movie she becomes increasingly materialistic and manipulative and the audience begins to wonder is she has any sense of morality left at all. Overall, Baby Face is a very shocking movie with blatant scenes of sexuality that most people would not expect to see in a black and white film. While no sexual acts are explicitly shown on screen, it is very obvious what is happening off camera.
I enjoyed watching this film very much and I believe most modern audiences will get at least some enjoyment out if it, especially with the films shock value. I did think while watching it that the pacing seemed a bit slow at parts, but I think that about most movies the first time is see them. Actually, I think that almost all movies I've seen made from the early 30's had some minor pacing problems or certain parts just didn't quite "flow" right. This was probably just the craft of film-making wasn't quite perfected yet – it would take just a few more years. Compare a film from 1939 and compare it with an early 30's film and I think you'll see what I mean.
Once again, I'm very glad I was able to watch the original cut; it really does make a big difference. Also any John Wayne fans will be surprised to see him in this movie before he was famous in an uncharacteristic role.
Oktyabr (1927)
Interesting, very different from Hollywood's style
October is a dramatized version of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917. If you're planning on watching this, be sure to read up on your history of the event before hand. I really wish I had brushed up on the details of the Soviet revolution before watching this. I've read that Eisenstein stretched the truth often and took lots of liberties when making this. This is understandable. He changes the truth to make the story work better for an exciting movie and also because this is a pro-Soviet film.
For those used to the Hollywood style, this can be tough to enjoy. October is filmed to like it is a documentary and we are constantly being introduced to many minor unnamed characters who are then never seen again. Its Hollywood counterpart would be a movie like The Longest Day, about the invasion of Normandy in WWII. In The Longest Day, we are also introduced to real historical figures and fictionalized minor characters, but unlike October, we really feel like we get to know them all. And movies like The Longest Day in Hollywood are not filmed like it were a documentary. I felt as if I didn't care as much for what happens to the many characters of October. However, I would probably feel much differently if I were a Bolshevik sympathizer during the time of its release.
There is some very interesting symbolism all throughout this movie. There is a scene were troops of the Provisional Government fire machine guns on a crowd of Bolshevik supporters and the draw bridges in the city are raised. First of all, the editing is very interesting – quick cuts between the machine gun's muzzle and the machine gunner creates a great effect and helps emphasize what you're seeing playing out in the scene – a crowd being mowed down by machine gun. A white horse is standing on the bridge and is shot and killed. Its body falls down into the crack of the separating parts of the bridge and is hoisted up with the one half of the bridge. It's a disturbing image – a symbol of what is happening to the Bolsheviks under the Provisional Governments rule. This is just one example of interesting symbolism throughout the film.
The Montage style takes some getting used to. I get more enjoyment out of watching a traditional drama, but the great symbolism is great to see. For what it is, it is very good and gets a 9/10. It is also good to put yourself in the shoes of audience that was intended for and the time period.
Un chien andalou (1929)
Kind of like a Rorschach Test
This is a very interesting film to watch and will not take up much time with a runtime of only 17 minutes. I view it as sort of a Rorschach test for film. Bunuel was reported to have said that the film really has no meaning. It is supposed to be just the strangest and most shocking movie ever made and it succeeds very well at this. One can of course pick it apart and try to find some meaning in it all. Now, it is pretty difficult to find a coherent message throughout, but there are some interesting themes in various scenes. For example, a character witness a woman hit by a car and expresses great sorrow, then moments later when he sees his wife, expresses great lust. The message here for me is that extreme but opposite emotions are often very similar. The movie also deals with marriage and different things that can happen to a couple (like violence or stagnation of the relationship). Another interesting scene shows a character in conflict literally in conflict with himself (as in there are two of the same person) and ends in violence. Again, in this scene, the film expresses how our emotions can flare up in an instant and there is a dark tendency in all of us to commit sinful acts. As for the infamous opening scene where a woman's eyeball is sliced open, I see this as Bunuel's way of letting the audience know early on that this is going to be like NOTHING you have seen before. Also, the intertitles that announce impossible jumps through time are quite humorous and entertaining.
For what it is, I give this movie a 10/10. Most probably won't "get it" (honestly, no one can really say that they "get it"), but if you want to watch something that will really make you think and is extremely bizarre and out of left field, give this a watch.
The Birth of a Nation (1915)
Disturbing yet entertaining
This is one of the most controversial movies I have ever seen. There's a lot of hype over it as being extremely racist and boy did it deliver in that regard. Really the best way to look at this film is to view it as how some people thought of the Civil War and Reconstruction in the early 20th century. Many people bash DW Griffith for being a racist, yet I've heard he was shocked that so many people were offended by his film. I prefer not to be quite as hard on him – he's a product of the times. Yeah he's a racist, but a lot of people were that way. He wasn't trying to be offensive. Woodrow Wilson, a progressive reformer, loved this movie. Go figure, it's just the way America was. That doesn't make it right or make this film not racist, it's just a good look at how people thought.
That being said, the movie was entertaining. The battle scenes and ending (once you get past the shocking fact that the KKK is the heroic force) was exciting to watch and I especially enjoyed the portrayal of Lincoln's assassination, it was very dramatic. The story is quite complex for 1915 and the film should be commended for this. Seeing the KKK portrayed in a positive light is quite hard to stomach. Both images of the Klan and the way black Americans are presented are disturbing for a modern audience. At times it is so ridiculous and offensive, it's just funny.
Watch this for its historical impact on cinema, its interesting story, its shock value (for the modern audience), or for its look into American society in 1915.
Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922)
Great creepy atmosphere – Left me wanting more though
As most people know, this is Murnau's version of Dracula. To try and dodge copyright laws, he changed all of the character's names from Bram Stoker's book and fiddled with the story. The end result is a very creepy, atmospheric film – the performance of Max Schrek gives us the most disturbing portrayal of the Dracula character, one that is quite different from the suave and charming Dracula of Bela Lugosi. I've seen this movie twice now, and both times I was a little let down. Like I said, the atmosphere is great, but the story itself just left me feeling like there should have been more to it. The beginning really got me interested, but slowed down for me when Orlock leaves Transylvania. Don't get me wrong, there are some great scenes after that, such as when Orlock reveals himself on the boat or when Hutter gets a ride in a very creepy carriage, but the story or maybe the pacing just doesn't quite do if for me. The ending especially is a big let down, I was expecting something much more.
Like I said, I have seen this movie twice. The first time I saw it, it was a horrible transfer with no tinting and an awful score that did not match the creepiness of the film at all. For my second viewing, I saw the Kino version, a great improvement. The transfer was beautiful, all the scenes were tinted, and the soundtrack was said to be the original score. I believe that my first viewing of Nosferatu has ruined it for me. Do not watch the version that gives the characters their original book names, it's horrible. Make sure you get the Kino version, you'll have a much better experience. Go into this with no expectations and it will probably turn out better for you than it did for me.
I give this 7/10, the eeriness of it made up a lot for my disappointment in the story. I guess you could say I respect it more than I like watching it.
The Beast of Yucca Flats (1961)
Pretty bad – maybe good for a few laughs with some friends maybe
This might be the worst movie I've ever seen. Some people may categorize it under the "So bad, it's good/funny" type, but that might be pushing it. It's just ridiculous and a perfect example of how a movie should not be made. As Mystery Science Theater 3000 put it, Francis solves the problems of audio synchronization by simply not even trying. Whenever a character is talking, they are usually turning their heads, another character is shown, they are shot from far away, or the characters heads are not shown at all. And it's just plain BORING. It's a 50 minute film that just drags and drags.
There are of course a few funny aspects about it. The whole audio synchronization business, or lack there of, is funny to talk about later. And the narration DOES fall into the category of "so bad it's funny." The narration, in a very serious tone, tries to sound intelligent and relate the crazy story to modern society, but it just ends up wacky and funny.
So, maybe this is good for a couple of laughs with friends. I might one day show it to my friends just to show them that, yes, a movie CAN be this bad. Or watch it with the boys from Mystery Science Theater 3000.
True Heart Susie (1919)
Great Film - Technical Aspects
I'm relatively new to silent movies and I must say that I enjoyed watching True Heart Susie, and I am not the biggest romance story fan. I'm taking a film class and this is the film that was shown for DW Griffith. From the earlier silent films we've seen thus far, it is amazing to see the standard techniques of film-making develop. I know that this is not the first Griffith film to utilize what will become the standard methods of making a film, but it is the first one that has been shown so far in the class.
I immediately noticed how Griffith seemed to legitimize film as its own art form. In this movie, he is not just filming the actors. There is great thought put into how the shots are composed. Multiple angles are used to film a scene and there is many more cuts and close ups. Though this is a great improvement over films of the earlier teens and before that, editing has not quite been mastered. There are many obvious jump cuts and the flow between some of the shots in a few scenes is off. Another interesting aspect to the editing of this film that is not in practice today really is covering up of the frame to show just one character of the shot. There is a scene where the Susie and William are in a soda shop and we see both of them sitting at the bar, then half of the frame is blacked out to show just one of them, then the other, and then the cover is lifted to reveal them both once again. Panning the camera is not yet utilized, but there is one good tracking shot that really stood out. Not only is much of the cinematography and composition of the shots improved, but the story is also more complex than earlier films and the emotions of the characters come across to the audience very well. One of my favorite shots of the film is a close up of Susie's face when she finds out that William is going to marry Bennita. The emotions in the scene play out excellently and is as good if not better than most of the films made today.
If you are interested in finding out what early silent films were like and you enjoy a dramatic romance story with a little comedy thrown in, this film is defiantly for you. And there is also some good moral messages about marriage some people today should listen too. I know I will be watching more of D.W. Griffith's films in the future. I am especially excited about his epics.
Hypocrites (1915)
Interesting Symbolism
I enjoyed watching this film, it really makes you use your brain and think about what it is trying to tell you. It is nice to see a movie that expresses the need for values and morals in an immoral world. Through some very interesting symbolism, this film serves as a message to society that without Truth, we are quite lost and the path to Truth is steep and rocky. If you're not put off by this being a silent film, I recommend it.
(SPOILERS FOLLOW)
Hypocrites is about two parallel church congregations, one from medieval times and the other set in the early 20th century. Each character in one church has a counterpart from the other church, all played by the same actors. The story revolves around Gabriel, a monk in medieval times and a pastor in "modern" day. We see the modern Gabriel preaching in church about hypocrisy and it is clear most in the church do not approve of Gabriel's message. We see a well dressed man who obviously funds the church tell his fellow well dressed church goers to get rid of Gabriel. Gabriel is then shown as not having much hope for his congregation; he knows that they do not take his words seriously.
An interesting dream like sequence then follows, which is presented to the viewer with a green tint. We see the congregation walking down a wide path through the woods. Gabriel begins to lead them up a steep and rocky both up a hillside and only two women follow him. Everyone else either disregards this narrow road or believes it to be too challenging. Even the two women who follow Gabriel, one who seems to be very eager in following Gabriel and the other who seems to be a lost soul, give up or stray off the path. When Gabriel reaches the top of the hill, we see that he is chasing "Truth," represented by a ghostly image of a naked woman.
We are then introduced to the medieval congregation, with all the same characters. Gabriel, now in possession of Truth, is building a statue to show people Truth. When he unveils the statue, the congregation is horrified to find out that Truth is the figure of a nude woman and cannot accept the "nakedness of Truth." Some are angered by this image, some laugh, and only a few see the beauty of Truth (remember the two women who followed Gabriel in the dreamlike sequence?). Gabriel is then chased and murdered by the angry mob. When the mob returns to the statue, it begins to disappear and this frightens the congregation. We also see the two women dressed in black, mourning the death of Gabriel. This scene is clearly a symbol of Christ's crucifixion. Gabriel brings his people Truth, and they reject him and kill him.
We next see what is perhaps the ghost of Gabriel being taken by Truth to the different people of the modern day congregation. Some of these people appear to be doing good for their community, but Truth holds up a mirror and Gabriel is able to see their true, devious motives or how they suffer without Truth. Gabriel is saddened by what he sees in Truth's mirror. We then see that the contemporary Gabriel has passed away in his sleep, perhaps out of despair. He has tried to show people Truth, but they are either angered by him, ignore him, or think the path to Truth is too hard.