Kubrick's use of Overacting

Stanley Kubrick is one out of only a few directors who could never be subjugated to a single movement in film. He made movies in his own world and everything he touched was a unique, but signature oeuvre. While his groundbreaking cinematography and use of music has garnered much discussion both contemporaneously during his career and twenty years after his death, his casts' unique performances have also been spotlighted.




For more than forty years, critics have both lauded and heavily critiqued the performances in Kubrick's catalog. The first film to gain such attention was his third feature film Paths of Glory (1957) which starred the late Kirk Douglas. The acting in this film is quite grim and serious. People often point to the ending song in the tavern as one of the most powerful displays of acting in the 1950s. (Pointless trivia, but the actress was Kubrick's wife)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGmuICb8a7Y

This is starkly contrasted with his 1964 epic black comedy Dr. Strangelove or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb where the world was able to see the beauty of Kubrickian overacting make its glorious debut. This romp of a political comedy takes advantage of cold war fears and turns it completely on its head. The strong patriarchal power structure is completely shattered by General Jack D. Ripper who instigates the end of the world due to his sexual frustrations, and his subsequent charge of culpability onto the Russians for contaminating his precious bodily fluids. Kubrick initially had a difficult time trying to convince his actors to overact the way he wanted them to. In turn, he ended up lying to them and had them do a variety of "test" sequences. Unbeknownst the actors, Kubrick ended up using the test takes instead of the ones he told the actors he was going to use for the film. The result, ends us with some extremely wacky performances that have made a
classic impact on film.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxLe8MWdWe0

As Kubrick's filmmaking matured, his use of overacting started to become a device that had more thematic significance rather than just going for a satirical presentation of the United States government. In A Clockwork Orange (1971) every sensation is heightened. When I watch this film, I remember the immortal words from Alex about ultraviolence and how he and the droogs take psychoactive drugs in order to sharpen themselves up. This film makes me feel like I'm on a drug. I think the majority of the overacting in this film has to do with the lack of emotional maturity in these characters. They are teenagers, but they have been stripped of their innocence and have become monstrous members of a decaying society. There are several instances that hint at Alex being sexually abused by elder members of the film, which translates into his childlike stunted emotional state. Somehow the overacting works and I believe it his how Kubrick frames it, is what makes it work. Its all about subtext. In this scene the government essentially apologizes to Alex for ruining his life, while he childishly chews his food in a very over the top manner.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp6IiAOs5yg

The most controversial of Kubrickian acting is definitely in The Shining (1980). Most people are aware of the stress that was induced onto Shelly Duvall during the making of the film. Kubrick would purposely antagonize her on set in order to keep her on edge. This went way too far in several areas, as she started to lose hair because of the stress she was under. And while her acting seems rather reasonable most of the time, Jack Nicholson's acting is put on full nut mode in his film. Kubrick stated in interviews that he was interested in Nicholson's acting after seeing him in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (1975) which definitely signified an ability of Nicholson's to go over the top. This performance from him had varying responses. Spielberg for instance, was not a fan of it essentially. This is a humorous video of Spielberg telling a story about the time he told Kubrick to his face that he didn't like Nicholson's performance.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usp69QA5xHA

When Kubrick mentioned his love for James Cagney, somehow all of his choices regarding the acting direction suddenly make sense. Its about personal taste and the way Kubrick used an acting style that he found effective, and was able to enrapture other people into it is nothing short of genius. Kubrick films, as Spielberg said it best, seem to take time to blossom in people's minds. These performances are the ones that will be remembered for many generations after us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IoK9icP-EM

Samuel L. Jackson and "The Type"

One of the most controversial topics among the acting and performing community is that of an actor or actress' "type." As an actor myself, I have had a lot of experience with this phenomenon. For some reason I'm supposed to be a villain in most shows. Maybe it's because I'm naturally intimidating?... Nah.

Gianetti talks a lot about a performer's "type." A performer's type refers to a type of character that, according to casting directors and general public assumptions, fits that performer perfectly. This extends to a performer's hair, skin, height, weight, voice, and overall personality. I've compiled a list on Letterboxd which you can see here (make sure to click on "read notes"), but I'll mention some of them. Johnny Depp for example is often cast as the enigmatic lead (see Edward Scissorhands and Captain Jack Sparrow). Adam Sandler, especially in his early days, is almost always the lovable idiot (see Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, and Punch-Drunk Love). However, the film and actor we'll be focusing on today is Samuel L. Jackson and the cult classic Snakes On A Plane.

Adam Sandler in his idiotic, but undeniably lovable performance in Billy Madison

Samuel L. Jackson has had an incredibly lucrative film career, and is now considered to be the highest grossing actor of all time. But why is that? Well, much of that can be traced back to the fact that people LOVE Jackson's "type." I see his type as "the badass loud guy." Don't believe me, check him out in Pulp Fiction (remember, "I DOUBLE DARE YA") or The Avengers as Nick Fury, or even in Django Unchained. It's not to say that Jackson is poor in his efforts of portraying his typecast, it's quite the opposite, but it is quite impressive that he has been able to gross as much solely because he plays his type so well.

But, in Snakes On A Plane, Samuel L. takes his type to an entirely new level, soaring above even his most memorable roles. Let's take the most memorable scene from the film that reached meme levels:

Caution: Strong language ahead.

You'll see that this is not an uncommon occurrence. There's literally this compilation:

Caution: More strong language.

By now you probably see what I'm talking about. Samuel L. is able to completely embody the muscle character, and whether or not someone likes it, he does it incredibly well. Like seriously, could you imagine someone else turning that line into such a meme? I certainly couldn't.

However much I hate the typecast (and I'm sure many in Hollywood do too), it certainly has a place in cinema. Without people who can portray a type like Samuel L. does, films could seriously suffer from blandness and lack of memorability. Would we remember Happy Gilmore like we do today without Adam Sandler? Would Pirates of the Caribbean be as popular without that charm and wit of Johnny Depp? Likely not.

As much as the typecast sucks for actors, there's no doubt it is beneficial to directors in enacting their vision, and for audiences to see that vision completed.

Parasite Is Marxist, and That's Awesome

It's official! Parasite pulled off the upset against the favorite, 1917. How a foreign film ended up winning the Best Picture, many are not sure, but the politics of the film could certainly be considered as it depicts many issues that resonate with people around the world, especially in the United States.

Many Best Picture winning films use some kind of political issue to unite around, and with Parasite, it seems that class consciousness, envy, and violent revolution seem to dominate. Using the left, center, right model, Parasite can easily be classified as "left" due to its Marxist nature and progressive claim for change.

First, Parasite's Marxist nature places it firmly on the left side of this model. It seems to me that it almost directly mirrors Karl Marx's work "The Communist Manifesto," which draws stark contrast between the working class, known as the "proletariat" and the wealthy class, known as the "bourgeoise." Marx theorizes that as the gap between these two classes begins to grow, there will be more and more civil unrest, leading to an eventual violent revolution led by the proletariat. This is almost exactly what happens in Parasite.

*Spoilers Ahead*

A family quite literally living in the basement of society decides they've had enough of the life they're living, and begin to revolt against the norms that have been established, taking advantage of the bourgeoise, or the wealthy Park family who are completely numb to the entire process. Not only that, but Ki-woo experiences a phenomenon which Marx refers to as "class consciousness," or becoming aware of what class you are a part of. On the top floor of the Park household, Ki-woo questions whether or not he belongs there, initiating a literal meaning, as well as a metaphorical class meaning. After this, all hell breaks loose. A man literally walks out of a BASEMENT (he's been stuck there for years) and starts stabbing people. This is a clear, hit you over the head metaphor for the Marxist revolution, which is clearly a left-leaning attribute.

Finally, there's a progressive claim for change. The film ends on a more depressing note, with the camera shifting back down to the basement, showing a Ki-woo's melancholy frown as he knows he'll likely never see his father again due to the events at the party. While many are moved to change after hearing an inspiring message, those inspiring messages are often born out of a more somber event.

In the end, Parasite is a left-leaning film through and through due to its Marxist message and call for change. I hope you all get a chance to see it, it was certainly deserving! I seriously commend a film to take such a risk in its message. The Marxist ideal is met with a lot of animosity in capitalist countries such as the US, so this was an incredibly brave reach by Bong Joon Ho.

One Flew East, One Flew West, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

The theme of individual freedom against constraint by a governing power runs high throughout this film. It is no coincidence that the director, Milos Forman, could relate to this power dynamic in his own life. He was born right in the middle of the Red Curtain during the height of Soviet Communist regimes. After making his highly controversial satire on Communism in "The Fireman's Ball" (1967), he quickly left his come country to evade political consequences. I feel that this film is made in the very heart of that idea.

The book is also extremely effective in communicating these left wing themes of escaping an abusive and tyrannical environment. Where the film version is very much a critique of Communist society, the novel is a critique on American governance. For instance, the book was written after Ken Kesey, the author, was tested by the government with their MK Ultra experiments with psychedelic drugs. The ploy by the CIA was to discover whether or not mind control was possible.

Not having read the novel, I can say that the film goes very deep with this idea. There is an overall critique of forcing human beings into a routine that they cannot escape without grave consequences at times. For instance, they are all forced to take undisclosed medication and they do so in a way that is evocative of communion in the Catholic Church. It has been so ritualized that it is basically an institutionalized religion.

They are also forced into group therapy sessions, but they are often coerced into divulging information they are not comfortable with sharing in a group. For instance, one patient is required to talk about sexual frustrations with his wife while the other members of the group make fun of him. Even more extreme, a young character named Billy is forced to discuss his suicide attempts in raw detail even when he noticeably prefers not to discuss something that deep and personal inside him.

More trivially, the patients aren't even allowed to listen to the radio during leisure time. The governing body of the hospital, Nurse Ratched keeps everyone tied around her finger is there is very little room for dissent. It is an authoritarian system. And the trademark distinction between left and right is always about a rebellion against the status quo and the oppressive governing bodies that keep the small people away from the freedom they deserve.

There are more symbolic things going on with the film. For instance, race and class distinction are apparent. Ratched's underlings are black and they do whatever she commands them to do in a very controlling fashion and Chief is ofcourse Native American. Probably the greatest joy of the film is watching him take control at the end and doing what Randall never could do. He has the strength to lift the sink and smash the window as the the patients cheer as he leaves them. It is so powerful.

Forrest Gump: A Nostalgic Upholder of the Status Quo

In Left-Right-Center theory the films dictated to be on the “right” end of the spectrum are films based in nostalgia, a celebration of the “better times,” and maintaining the status quo. On the Best Motion Picture list, one film that comes to mind that fits the description of a “right” spectrum film is that of Forrest Gump. In 1994 director Robert Zemeckis introduced the world to the slow-witted and loving protagonist that is Forrest Gump, a southern raised boy who through many wacky antics fights in a war, goes to college, reunites with an old flame, opens a business, and influences millions. At first glance, the concept of Forrest Gump speaks to that of a “left” or possibly “center” spectrum film with its comedic commentary on the Vietnam war, the treatment of veterans postwar, as well as its inclusion of many civil rights issues that would be prominent in the 1960s and 70s when the latter portion of the film takes place. Contrary to popular belief it will come to attention that the film is one with the “right” spectrum with a key piece of information coming in terms with the negative symbolism associated with modern issues and the usage of a flashback to view a better time in Forrest’s life. 

On May 6th, 1994 America was shocked as its Democrat president William “Bill” Clinton, the man who was president for one year was accused of sexual assault while serving as governor of Arkansas. This shook the American political situation, giving Republicans a piece of ammunition to use against their political opposition. Two months after the accusation on July 6th, Forrest Gump debuted to the American public, a movie speaking of the “good old days” the era of Richard Nixon, the concept of playing football in college, fighting for your nation, and pursuing the American Dream. These key points are areas of opposition to the opposing forces of the film, even the woman Forrest Gump fancies, Jenny, takes up arms in protest of the Vietnam war. The character is later shown to have died while characters like Forrest who embody these concepts held dear by the base status quo of the United States seemingly live a positive life. The audience sees Forrest embodied these concepts when he gets a scholarship to go to college via playing football, he fights in Vietnam and returns home with honors after he gets injured, this is opposed by Jenny’s life where she struggles as she opposes the base status quo. 

In terms of a flashback and many forms of media, a flashback is an instance where one character in the present is recalling and reciting events from a previous time that may or may not be previously known to the audience. In the film, Tom Hank’s character, the titular Forrest Gump, is seen in numerous scenes recounting stories from his life as he waits on a park bench in a white suit with a box of chocolates. These flashbacks can be interpreted as the audience as Forrest recounting the better times he had in his life. It is clear Forrest fondly remembers these moments and feels longingly to return to many of them via his recounting of them to numerous strangers. In the latter half of the film, Forrest Gump is seen opening his shrimping business that him and Benjamin Buford “Bubba” Blue, an African-American soldier he fought alongside within Vietnam, Forrest valued his time with his friend and would recount that point in his life that he would desire to revisit. 

While Forrest Gump is tossed back and forth between the three spectrums, it stands true that key concepts of the film are maintaining the status quo of the sociopolitical agenda of 1994 as well as the concept of nostalgically looking back upon an age past with desires to revisit those times, two defining features of the “right” spectrum of film. Tom Hanks claims that the film holds no political stance, it is clear the film was made for one purpose to uphold a status quo of a more “right” spectrum society.

Mr. Holland's Opus

Mr. Holland's Opus, while featuring Academy Award winners like Richard Dreyfuss, is a film with too many realistic components to be considered anything other than realism. It tells the story of Glenn Holland, an average Joe who just wants to compose great music and live a fantastic life, who ultimately ends up living a fantastic life through the lens of a highly influential high school band teacher. The film is one of my favorites. It’s one of those classic, feel good, inspirational family dramas that really just hits the heart where it hurts. Don’t believe me? Watch the trailer, but before you do, get ready to feel empowered to coach a rag-tag small town basketball team to victory or a direct a broken high school band to do great things. The movie is not cinematic bliss. There isn’t wonderfully art-filled movement and there are not loads of aesthetically pleasing color scheme. Honestly, the art and beauty of the film hardly come from the cinematography at all. It is just an honest story. That’s the beauty of Mr. Holland’s Opus—well, that and the utterly pleasant music.

This picture of Richard Dreyfuss (depicting Glenn Holland) seems to be representative of either a deep focus shot or a full shot. This shot represents a time of achievement in the protagonist’s life. The argument could be made that this is a deep focus shot because everyone in the audience is absolutely visible—facial expressions are determinable. But, while everyone in the audience is visible, they are nowhere near the focus of the shot. It is clear that the conductor is the intended focal point. 

This photo, though… looks familiar—doesn’t it? It’s quite fun to see this shot recreated at a much later time in the protagonist’s life. It’s wonderfully artful, too. *slight spoilers ahead* In this scene, Mr. Holland is being recognized for his many achievements as an educator. The auditorium he taught and conducted in for so many years is, to his surprise, filled to the brim with students, fellow faculty members, friends, and family that have over the years been tremendously impacted by this man. This shot looks more like a full shot than when it was shown before. None of the audience members are in focus, but a much wider range of the auditorium can be seen. It represents the abounding light Mr. Holland spread in every life he ever met and had the opportunity to teach. 

The noteworthy thing about this shot is that it is taken from a high angle. The angle shows us the great work Mr. Holland must conquer in order to truly make something out of this group of students. It also could imply that Mr. Holland is about to be seriously overwhelmed by the state of this group, and the lengths he is willing to endure to ensure the success of the people in the room.

Finally, this shot was just too precious to not include in the blog. The picture includes Mr. and Mrs. Holland and their young son.

Johnny Got His Gun - The movie that gave me nightmares for years, even though it isn't even a horror movie

Critics like to ponder what the scariest film of all time is. They often bring up horror classics such as The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre... while also giving mention to modern films like Hereditary, which has proven to terrify even the most seasoned of horror fanatics. But I would argue that the scariest film I've ever seen isn't *technically a horror film... it is a drama. An anti war drama, to be exact.

This is Johnny Got His Gun. The name derives from the famous slogan, "Johnny get your gun" which was used during WWI to enlist soldiers for the war effort. The clever use of the past tense says it all. This soldier has answered the call of duty, and he becomes victim to a horrible reality.

The film centers around an American WWI soldier named Joe Bonham, who is struck by an artillary shell during battle. He survives... however, he also loses all four of his limbs in the explosion as well as his sight, hearing, and speech. His brain is in tact however, and the slow realization that he is stuck in his head in a body that no longer functions at all, is a horrific decent into madness and despair. All he has is his memories and dreams when he falls asleep, a state of reality that he is never able to distinguish. He has no grasp on when he is awake or asleep.

While the thought alone is extremely unsettling, the way Dalton Trumbo (who is also the author of the novel) decided to shoot the film makes this unsettling plot absolutely terrifying. This is the textbook case of the "Jaws Effect" that what you don't see, is often times scarier than what you do see. Trumbo does not subject the viewer to Joe's injuries, instead giving him a mask to wear and his body is covered by a drapery of some kind. Something about the mask and the hospital garb really make the image of Joe's mangled shell of a body an unforgettable image. 



When I was a kid, I used to have nightmares of this image. It's because of that past that I even feel uneasy about revisiting it as an adult. While its not absolute fear like it was back then, I still feel the power of this image. Its just so damn disturbing.

When you're an eight year old boy, you often find yourself immersed in a variety of soldier fantasies. I played a lot of Call of Duty and I had a lot of BB guns which resembled military rifles and would pretend to be in wars with my friends. The thought crossed my mind a few times about wanting to be a marine as an adult, but this movie killed all of those fantasies for me. It's easy to make a half baked statement in a film about war being bad, but this film, in my opinion shows the absolutely horrific effect war can have on people. It scared me into ever joining the military. This could happen to anyone.

I was first introduced to this film by a Metallica music video from their song "One" which is based on the novel. They used images from the film, and it was here that I first saw these images and I was never the same after that. I knew about the movie for years but didn't have the courage to watch the whole thing until high school... and even then those anxieties about the movie resurfaced a bit.

Another thing that really makes this film even more impactful is its use of color for the memories and dreams. You see a more innocent time leading up to Joe's tragic injury. We see his childhood and several events leading up to his involvement in the war, where he leaves his girlfriend and promises to return... a promise that never comes true, but even worse is that Joe has to live to ponder it.



This makes the nice images of the memories so much more unsettling when spliced next to the scenes of horror where the images are sure to be cemented in your mind. The opening shot is super disturbing on its own right. Its just three doctors staring down at Joe's mangled body and describing it in cold, calculated detail. The low angle puts you in Joe's perspective and its completely helpless, just like the film makes you feel during the rest of its duration.



The full film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUfBVLAY_pU&t=682s

The Exorcist III: Horror in Framing

Hello again! Going with somewhat of a theme (I have a bit of an affinity for the creepy and relatively unknown), we're going to talk about what I believe to be the most underrated horror film of all time, The Exorcist III. I urge you to watch the full film before reading the rest of this post, it truly is horrifying in a literary sense, which I believe to be the best kind of horror. Minor spoilers ahead.

Now, if you're at all familiar with the original The Exorcist, you'll know that there are not films for the light of heart (or light of stomach). These films (there are three in total, but lets forget about the the second one) focus on not only creepy dialogue and the uncomfortable subject matter of demons and possession, but it also focuses on making the audience uncomfortable visually without the use of special effects.

Now, this is extremely difficult to do, but William Peter Blatty (who also wrote the original novel) masterfully uses different shots to create discomfort in the minds of viewers, with the most apparent being the shot below:

Welcome to those who were scrolling by and stopped after seeing this creepy stuff!

Take a look at the shot. What do you think the character is saying? Is the character most likely a protagonist or an antagonist? Is this smile genuine, or is it wicked?

While I listed these questions as more of an exercise, the answers are quite obvious. In this shot, the main antagonist (the Gemini Killer) is describing specifically what he enjoys about murder, and the sadism he feels through it. The use of the extreme-close up shot is used explicitly to continue encouraging an uncomfortable and unsafe feeling. With this shot, the Gemini Killer holds a complete monopoly over the frame, and your eyes. This demonstrates the genius of Blatty's horrific camerawork (horrific meaning good, of course).

The second shot comes from the climax of the film:

Again, another shot in the film that just leaves you sitting there wondering what the heck is going on! Here, we see Damien nailed to a cross as he is ascending from below the ground, surrounded by extras who are reaching above. Just a super creepy setting. Here, Blatty utilizes the high-angle shot to (as many directors do) display the character in the shot (in this case, the tormented Damien), in a position of vulnerability. Clearly, this shot was planned ahead of time to account for the extras reaching out from below the ground. As if one needed to feel any more vulnerable, this does it and just keeps going. A masterclass in subtle horror.

The framing and specific camerashots in Blatty's The Exorcist III are perhaps the most impressive thing about the film, right next to the masterful acting job of Brad Dourif, who gives perhaps the creepiest, mot bought-in performance in all of horror next to Anthony Perkins' Norman Bates.

Again, if you haven't already, go watch The Exorcist III, especially if you are a fan of the horror genre. While I'm often cautious of sequel spawning franchises that begin with a film that never needed a sequel to begin with, the third installment of the franchise is well worth a watch for the camerawork alone.

See ya next time! We'll try not to pick something too eerie next time! :)

Bird Box

                                          

The image above is a shot from the very beginning of a movie called, "Bird Box." I would consider this picture to be a medium close up or two shot, because the camera makes us feel like we are right outside of the windshield, allowing us to see the emotion of both actresses faces. Like I mentioned above this picture was taken at the very beginning of the movie so this indicated to the viewers that one or both of these ladies will be one of the main characters. Also is foreshadows that something bad is about to happen due to the look on their faces.

This picture above is from the exact same scene as the first picture I posted. I chose this picture because the meaning behind this picture is what this whole movie is based on. This is a close up shot that shows tears falling from this ladies eyes. If you have ever seen the movie you know that she doesn't have these tears due to fear, anger, or depression, she has these tears coming down her face because she looked at "It." At this point in the movie no one knows what "It" is yet and it is decimating the population. This is a mysterious force that will force people to wear something over their eyes anytime they are outside in order to survive. 

I really love this picture from the movie because this is an intense scene.  This photo is of the same lady from the first picture (main character), with two kids. This shows that a lot has occurred during the movie in her life, because she did not have two kids at the beginning of the movie, nor was she pregnant but now she has two kids, a girl and a boy.  I think I would consider this picture to have a medium shot from a slight high ground which gives the picture a sense of levels starting from the girl in the woman arms then going down as it reaches the boy behind them. This is one of my favorite scenes in the movie because it shows determination, bravery, and courage from all three in this shot. 

This is a high-angle long shot that occurs basically at the end of the movie. This scene is nail bitting because if you've seen the movie before, at this point they have been through so much and have overcame adversity, but you can just feel that there is going to be one more incident that occurs  to stop them from getting to a safe location. If you've seen the movie before, I think this photo can essentially show how strong these three characters are and how much they love and care for one another. 

Sources/hyperlinks:

- My images are from google.com

- The Movie itself (on Netflix) 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/bird-box-reviewed-an-apocalypse-built-for-netflix