MYST Post #6: Mulholland Drive (and perhaps a tad of Blue Velvet)

I'm not usually one for "it was all a dream" plot line, and I'm not even sure if this film was utilizing this frustrating sequence. No... Mulholland Drive wasn't a movie that had a coherent, orderly plot. It truly emulated the surreal quality of a dream, and for this reason I liked the movie. There is no explanation for the several plot lines developed. Some stick, and some disappear completely after the first twenty minutes. There is no rhyme or reason as to what happens. Betty/Diane, played by Naomi Watts, is this doe-eyed, smiley blonde girl hoping to make it big in L.A. She is staying at her aunt's apartment, but what she is not ready for is the woman hiding out in her apartment. "Rita" stumbled into the apartment after having survived a car accident that took place on Mulholland Drive. This opening scene takes on a film noir quality. The limo stops, and Rita is held at gunpoint, until two cars--drag racing--crash into the limo. Rita survives, but is suffering from retrograde amnesia. She can't even remember her own name. She calls herself Rita because she saw a Rita Hayworth poster in the apartment. From this point on, the story shifts in and out of Betty/Diane and Rita's attempts at uncovering this mystery surrounding the car accident, mixing this plot with random other scenes that make no sense. About two thirds of the way through, Betty wakes up, and Diane resumes her normal life. I'd usually be annoyed with this plot "twist" but the final half hour or so makes it worthwhile. Nothing resolves; nothing makes sense at the end. Everything is still dreamlike. That is why this movie works.

I watched Blue Velvet a few weeks before I watched this movie and I think David Lynch is emerging as writer/director I really like. Both films make fun of the "everything is peachy keen, squeaky clean" lifestyles some people seem to have. The quaint, perfect suburbia is a very, very thin sheet covering a completely and utterly insane guy, Frank Booth, played by Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet. Frank Booth is so twisted, he would make Freud feel uncomfortable. Out of all the movies I've seen he ranks in the top five most twisted characters. In Mulholland Drive, there is a part where Betty is coming down the escalator at LAX, accompanied by an elderly lady who is assumed to be related in some way. This preconceived notion is completely shattered when they step outside to get a cab, and Betty says something like, "Well, I guess this is where we head our separate ways". I mean, seriously? It is absurd to become BFFs with an elderly couple on an airplane. It is just so over-the-top cheesy I want to puke. It was so sweet my teeth started aching. But this is why I get a kick out of David Lynch's work! It pokes holes in conventional things, and I'm all for that kind of thinking. 

One scene I thought was interesting was the part when Adam, played by Justin Theroux, discovers that his wife has been cheating on him. Adam, a successf
ul director, doesn't go to work like usual but comes back to his lavish Hollywood home instead. He walks in the house, and discovers his wife laying in bed with a guy (he is played by Billy Ray Cyrus...I had to pause really quickly to look up the cast list on IMDb just to make sure I wasn't mistaken). Instead of the philanderer scrambling to hide her lover before her husband walks in, she stays passively in bed. The entire scene is very dreamlike. The first bits of dialogue are not what you would expect to hear: "Now you've done it" and "Just forget you ever saw it. It's better that way" is something completely weird to be saying upon being caught. There are no frantic hysterics from the cheating wife, or raging shouts from the husband who's been wronged. No; everything is calm. The dreamlike quality continues on with the choice of neon pink paint being dumped into Lorraine's jewelry box. Now we have the hysterics. The act of ruining jewelry has caused a bigger emotional reaction than the cheating. I know it should be an intense scene, but to me, it's not. The music, the bluesy organs and tinkling piano just doesn't let the scene become intense. With the pink paint everywhere, Lorraine frantically trying to save her jewelry, and big, hulking Billy Ray to the rescue is actually very comical. That is why this film was so interesting to me...It is able to be mysterious, intense, and horrifying, while still being light, airy, and comedic.

This film had a sort of horror quality to it. The camera was directed in a way that created suspense. For instance, during one of the random scenes, a man recounts his nightmare. When he walks outside behind the diner, the weird Big Foot thing was standing there. It startles the viewer, just as if it was a horror movie. This same technique is used with Betty and Rita when they try to solve the mystery surrounding Rita's accident. One thing I noticed that was consistent in Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive was the music. In one of the stranger scenes in Blue Velvet (they're all pretty strange, but this one is just a little bit stranger), a bluesy song is on in the background. The get-up-and-dance rhythm would normally be perceived as a weird choice to be a backdrop for darker, more sinister scenes, but it just works. In Mulholland drive, the same scene I hyperlinked above shares similar musical qualities. This weird swanky blues music seems an odd choice to be utilized during a scene when a husband discovers his wife has been cheating on him, but, like in Blue Velvet, it just works.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this movie. I think this is one of the weirder movies I've watched this semester, and some parts of the film I was completely annoyed with. Only when the movie ended did I get the chance to finally ask myself if I enjoyed it. I wouldn't say I enjoyed it, but I liked it in the sense of its utter weirdness. It was seriously like someone's crazy dream, and I think that is what is so alluring to a lot of people who've written reviews on it; many liked it, and because of the film's ability to relate to anyone because its dreamlike nature, I give it 4/4 stars.

MYST Post #5: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

I don't usually enjoy a film that is based off a stage-play, but this one I really liked. A married couple, George and Martha, played by Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, invite a younger couple over to their house one night for drinks. George is upset with Martha because she didn't tell him she had invited this couple. The guy, Nick, is new in the biology department of the university, and his wife, Honey, is very annoying and can't hold her liquor. Martha is already a bit drunk from earlier in the night, but the two couples immediately start drinking and they do not stop. This film won two Academy Awards.

So, the night continues on, filled with heated arguments and mind games. Many of the arguments are based off of Martha and George's "child". By the end of the movie, it is clear that the two couldn't have kids, and they were just making their son up. George 'gets back' at Martha by telling her their child has died in a car accident and won't be coming home for his 16th birthday. 

The reason why this film seems like an actual movie and not a play is because of the cinematography. I remember watching Death of a Salesman, based off of a stage-play, and being utterly bored. It was slow and just boring, despite the good acting. It is one thing when it is set on a stage for an audience that goes to see it, but when it is almost the same version on screen, it loses the spark a play naturally has. In Who's Afraid of virginia Woolf, there are weird angles, and in the really intense scenes, close-up shots are utilized. Here, in this film, the camera is like another character. It connects all four characters despite their contempt for each other, and it is key in conveying all of the emotion each character

evokes. 

This scene shows the camera work and awesome acting at the same time. Well, one can watch any part of this movie and understand that the acting is phenomenal. I love when Martha refers to George as "Him, it, that, there", and the camera aids in building the tension. There is some good deep space composition going on in the beginning of it with Martha and Nick sitting on the sofa and George fumbling around in the background for more alcohol. As Martha's monologue continues, the camera follows her face closely, keeping it in the frame as she paces. The camera cuts to Nick's tired face, and then Honey's confused face, back and forth between the four characters, until finally all the momentum built by the movement of the camera is resolved in the climax of George breaking a bottle of liquor in pure rage, directed towards Martha and what she was saying. 

It seemed like there was a lot of tension between the older generation and the younger generation. When Nick and Honey first arrive George talks down to Nick and calls him "kid". Honey is very juvenile in the way she says "Never mix never worry!", referring to the straight brandy she asks for (she ends up very ill later on). Martha obviously wears the pants in the relationship, and she is very unladylike when she constantly swears and argues with George while simultaneously flirting with Nick. 

Overall this movie was really interesting and very contemporary in the way it was made and the acting styles utilized. I give it 3.5/4 stars. 

1975 Film Project: Black Gold

The documentary, A Decade Under the Influence, inspired my group's 1975 film project. After watching bits of the documentary, I knew I wanted to do something with the oil crises. When I think of the 70's, the awesome music comes to mind, then all the turmoil and change. I was aware that oil was scarce in the U.S., and I also know that Russia had (and still has) a ton of it. So, I needed to come up with a story line surrounding this issue. I came up with a loose story line: Our main character, De Niro, gets involved with the oil business in the states, becomes rich, thus showing the corruption of the U.S. Government. What I needed help with was sort of an important part: How does De Niro do this? I actually asked my dad, because he is really knowledgable about all this political/social stuff of the 70's and 80's. He told me that Russia was making a whole lot of money by selling their abundant supply of oil to Europe on the black market. So, from there, David helped fill in the blanks. Here is the final story line:

OAPEC Oil crisis: Our lead man, De Niro, leaves his home country of Russia for America.  Upon arriving, De Niro is jobless, until his personal ties with Breshnev bring the opportunity to get into the oil business. They construct a plan to become rich off of the oil embargo occurring at the time.

At this time, 1973-4, Russia is selling oil--and they have a ton of it--on the black market to Europe and making tons of money. De Niro’s character sees this and he sees a lucrative business back in the states where fuel is very scarce. He sees an opportunity to make himself and his little brother/good friends incredibly rich.  But what starts out as earning money for his friends and family becomes a full-on fixation on climbing to the top of the oil business.  De Niro delves deeper and deeper into the oil business, looking for more power and more money, connecting himself with shady characters and his younger brother (Jack Nicholson) warns him of his obsession, but De Niro, now entranced by thoughts of being incredibly wealthy and powerful, ignores the warning.  Once he has almost complete control of the oil industry in America, De Niro looks for even more in Kenny (Ray Liotta) who approaches De Niro, asking for money as an investment in a drug ring.  Nicholson, upon discovering this, becomes very angry and concerned for his brother’s safety and sanity, and he attempts to dissuade De Niro from getting involved in the drug business.  Nicholson and De Niro argue until De Niro swears off his brother completely.  The U.S. gov’t finds out about the whole business, both the oil and the drugs, and De Niro is taken in. What the audience doesn’t expect is the U.S. gov’t to want to make a deal with him. So, De Niro’s character is allowed to continue his mini black market trade as long as he gives a certain cut to the U.S. government each month.  They justify the protection by saying that they are “protecting their business investments,” and they turn a blind eye to De Niro’s part in the drug business.

The end highlight’s De Niro’s assassination by the Russians because they want the U.S. money for themselves, highlighting both America and Russia’s greed.

Director: Sidney Lumet: known for Dog Day Afternoon which Pacino starred in, also won an academy award for 12 Angry Men

Cinematographer: Victor J. Kemper: worked on The Candidate in 1972 with Robert Redford, and Dog Day Afternoon with Sidney Lumet.

Actors:

Lead: Robert De Niro (we chose him because of his acting in Mean Streets)

Supporting: Jack Nicholson, Robert Duvall (both of these men are up and coming young actors who have already played some impressive roles in movies like The Godfather and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest).

The style we are going for is gritty. Oil is dirty, and the oil business back then was dirty, so we want the film to reflect this. In order to achieve this, we wanted Sidney Lumet to direct. He directed Dog Day Afternoon with Al Pacino, and that movie has a gritty, hardcore feel to it. The cinematographer will be Victor J. Kemper, who worked with Lumet on Dog Day Afternoon, so the two know each other and they work well together. Production will be done by Artists Entertainment Complex, and the distribution will be done by Warner Brothers. Warner Brothers is the ideal choice because they distributed films such as Mean Streets and Deliverance, both of which are riveting films. This will be a medium to larger scale production due to the main actors we have in it.

The genre will be a combination of crime and drama. The underground trading/selling of oil fits into the crime aspect, but the family relationships and conflicts that arise will add to the drama aspect of it.

Our film will be R rated. We don't want to sensor some of the violence/drug culture just to get access to the younger audience.

The aspects of 70's film we are covering will include the 70's drug culture, the anti-hero (De Niro is doing bad things to get money and doing drugs, but we are still rooting for him), and that the government is seen as corrupt/evil (this is evident with the U.S. Government turning a blind eye to De Niro's black market activity as long as they get a cut of the money). This last aspect is part of the message we wish to convey. It shows that greed is not good, and this is further emphasized with De Niro's demise and eventual assassination by same hand that lifted him up to "greatness". We also want to make some sort of commentary on the drug culture. We put drugs in a bad light because they influence the falling out between De Niro and Nicholson.

I worked with the same group, Mark and David, for the 1935 film project, and both are very easygoing and open to discuss any aspect of the film we are working on. I knew I wanted to win the best movie award with the 1975 project as well, and I knew this was the group to do it with. We came up with an interesting plot historically, and the poster was fun to make. Overall, I wouldn't change anything or do anything differently within this group for this movie project.

Formal Film Study: German Film Through the Ages

My second semester formal film study consists of three very, very different German films. The first film I watched was an Italian Neo-Realist film from 1948, "Germany Year Zero" by Roberto Rossellini. I then went back in time and watched Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will". Finally, I fast forwarded to nearly present-day and viewed a 2006 Foreign Film Academy Award Winner "The Lives of Others", directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck.

Germany has had a very busy historical past, and all three films make some sort of commentary about war, government, and civilian life in one way or another. Before I connect all three of them with this idea, let me tell you about each one, because these films could not have been more different from each other.

This was a stunning film. Germany Year Zero is about a little boy living in Berlin in 1947. It is an Italian Neorealist film, but instead of being filmed in Italian streets/cities, it is shot in Berlin with Italian actors posed as German people. The boy lives in a crowded apartment with other families. Edmund must go out and find food/money for his sick father, older sister, and older brother. The father is so ill he is bed ridden, acting as an "inconvenience" for the rest of the family. He uses a lot of the rationed electricity to warm himself and make tea. The brother doesn't have a work card because he went to war but then had to go into hiding because of some duty he didn't fulfill in the war. In short, he is worthless. The older sister goes to fancy bars at night and flirts with men in order to get cigarettes to trade and/or sell. The situation is extremely dire. 

Edmund finds himself talking with his old school teacher, a Nazi sympathizer. The teacher, Mr. Enning, tells Edmund that the "weak will be sorted out" (talking about his father) and Edmund takes the advice extremely literally and makes his father overdose on medicine. Edmund goes to Enning, telling him of what he did, and Enning freaks out, calling Edmund a monster. 

The film then follows Edmund around, completely distressed, but also trying really hard to act like a kid again. He tries to join in on a game of soccer with other little boys, but is chased away. So, he plays by himself. Watching Edmund struggle to act like a kid again after acting like an adult (he tried to feign being 15 years old, but the workers knew he was only 12, in order to get a job digging graves) was really tough. Rossellini opened the film with a note to the viewer explicitly stating that the film's purpose is to show that German children need to relearn how to love life. In the end, Edmund jumps off a dilapidated  building, falling to his death. 

The Italian Neorealist style gives a chilling look into what life was like. We get a first hand look at the utter destruction left over from the war. There are many scenes of the camera just following Edmund around town. These long sequences add to the desolate feel of the both Edmund's world and Berlin. One scene in particular is chilling. Edmund is sent by Enning to sell a tape of Hitler speaking. When Edmund plays it, the camera pans to the destruction of Berlin, showing how Hitler still has an influence over it even though he is dead. 

This was not a film I enjoyed. At all. This is simply a massive, two-hour long conglomeration of Hitler, Nazi soldiers, night rallies, and speeches. There is no rhythm to the film at all. It is edited in a way that is a bit odd, and after doing some research, Hitler is said to have posed/rehearsed for some scenes, and the reason is strictly for propaganda purposes. There were close-ups on smiling faces of children, and flowers being handed to Hitler by old women. I don't think the film is fooling anyone today; only firm, brain-washed believers would have been captivated by Hitler's greatness, a greatness so falsely portrayed in the film. 

There are shots of pure plant life and growth juxtaposed with children, obviously showing the link between flourishing plant life and the flourishing Nazi youth. There are speeches, cut one right after the other, of the heads of department like the department of agriculture, or the department of highway construction. All speeches are aimed to show how Germany is thriving, growing, building....all of which happens because of Hitler. 

Everything is extremely dramatic. The night rallies are shot mysteriously, dripping with chiaroscuro technique, as if to make the viewer grow excited with anticipation. Other than a few interesting shots (all of which are made to make Hitler look grand and powerful), the film's purpose is to show the power and prestige of the Nazi party. Shot after shot of soldiers marching shows today's viewer the immense confomirty and loss of individualism during these rallies. I agree with Mr. Ebert when he says, "It is not a 'great movie' in the sense that the other films in this group are great, but it is 'great' in the reputation is has and the shadow it casts". This is a historically important film, but I don't see it as a crisp, well-edited documentary-like film, but as a brainwashed hodgepodge of scenes meant to show that power of the Nazi party. I think this is an important film to view from a historical point of view because it truly shows the power Nazism had on the German people before the breakout of World War Two.

This movie was my favorite of the three. The story takes place in 1984 East Berlin. There is an interrogator, Wiesler, who works for the Stasi. He is cold and ruthless, displaying very little emotion. In other words, he is perfect for the Stasi. During a classroom lecture, Wiesler plays a tape of an interrogation he did on a suspect. His method was to deprive the suspect of sleep to break him. One student asks, "Why keep him awake for so long? It's inhuman." And Wiesler simply puts a little blue "x" next to his name on the seating chart. This was a very important characterization scene of Wiesler. 

The other main characters are a playwright and an actress, who are boyfriend/girlfriend in the film. Dreyser, the playwright, must be careful what he writes because of the strict rules of the GDR. The Minister of East Germany has a crush on Christa, Dreyer's girlfriend, and he really wants to bust Dreyer for something, so he has the Stasi bug his apartment. Wiesler is assigned this particular case, watching/listening to everything that goes on in Dreyer's apartment. 

The film then follows Wiesler's transformation from a cutthroat rule-follower Stasi workman to a sort of guardian angel, hiding illegal activity that goes on in Dreyer's apartment. Wiesler's turning point is shown here. I loved this scene because, for me, it shows Wiesler truly believed in the good in people. He loved the state. That's why he followed the rules so closely. But, when the minister was trying to find something on Dreyer, and Wiesler's former classmate-turned-boss was trying to pressure Wiesler to find "anything", he lost faith in the state. So, in turn, he didn't want to follow their rules anymore.

Cinematically, the film was very gray, very subdued. All of the clothes were very plain; nothing was embellished. We often saw Wiesler in the same pants and jacket. The main female role, Christa, wasn't over the top beautiful. The only sophistication and emphasis we saw was geared toward the Stasi and the State. These choices were made to show the everyday life of East Berlin in 1984. The bugging of Dreyer's apartment scene here was really cool shot-wise. Every shot seemed like it was a "how to" video of bugging apartments. Everything was extremely formal and clear; it was almost eerie. The ruthlessness of the Stasi is exemplified with Frau Meineke. She watched them through her peephole bug Dreyer's apartment, and Wiesler caught her. By simply knocking on the door, threatening her daughter's spot in the university, and sending her a gift for her cooperation, the Stasi had complete control. 

I highly recommend this movie. It was a very, very well done film about a very dull, grey, dry way of life, but it exemplifies human optimism and resilience, leaving the viewer on a positive note after watching a little over two hours of heavy material.


The three films were all united by their political commentary. Germany Year Zero is revolved around the destruction in Berlin after World War Two. Hitler is still a prevalent force in this film, which is traced to Triumph of the Will. This Nazi propaganda film was obviously dripping with everything revolving around National Socialist German Worker's Party, and The Lives of Others was a look at life in East Berlin in the 80s. The way of life there was an indirect result of Germany's defeat in World War Two. All three films were very different stylistically, but each leaves you contemplating your own way of life, and how it could be very different. 

MYST Post #4: Melancholia

This was my first Lars von Trier film, and it was very interesting to say the least. Melancholia is about impending doom, and starts off with a sort of prologue, an overture, highlighting the main events to come. The opening scene is very surreal. One of the main characters, Justine, is seen trying to crawl through branches grappling her, in another scene the marshes are sucking at her feet, and then the camera switches to a horse, then a little boy whittling a stick into a spear. Finally the viewer sees the Earth colliding with a massive planet, "Melancholia," destroying Earth completely. 

So, from the very beginning, this almost Shakespearian-like introduction (when the plot line is completely uncovered coupled with the Ophelia references) gives the viewer an uncomfortable feeling, almost a feeling of being stuck. 

This feeling of nowhere to go is immediately reinforced with the first scene after the prologue. Newlyweds Justine and Michael are in a stretch limo, and the driver is trying to turn around on a cramped gravel road in the middle of the countryside. The scene is exceptionally light-hearted after the dramatic opening scene. Michael and Justine are giggling at the incompetence of the driver as he makes a zillion-point turn, von Trier using jump cuts to emphasize the lengthy floundering of the limo driver at the same time giving it a cool French New Wave feel like in Godard's Breathless. and finally Michael offers to try his hand at turning the car around. When he fails, Justine gives it a go, in her wedding dress and all, and clearly has no idea what she is doing either, especially when she is trying to put it in gear but hits the wind shield wipers instead. This scene is crucial to the rest of the movie for creating this "stuck" feeling, having no where to go. The viewer has no idea just how dysfunctional Justine and her family is. 

The movie then proceeds to the wedding party, set in Claire's (sister of Justine) husband's chateau. Claire is upset with the newlywed's tardiness, and the movie becomes darker and darker from then on. Justine ends up not being able to go through consummating her marriage but has sex with a complete stranger her boss introduced to her that night. Perhaps she did this because of the claustrophobic feeling marriage has given her (even if only for a few hours) and wanted to spite its constitution for doing so. 

Von Trier does not place marriage in a flattering light. Again, this stuck, claustrophobic feeling is felt by the viewer, watching Justine and Michael struggle to be happy on their wedding night. Von Trier's view is also relayed through Justine and Claire's mother, Gaby. She explicitly states in a wedding speech she despises marriage. If these things don't get you to rethink getting married, then look at the collision of the two planets. They will be joined in matrimony, ultimately destroying one part and damaging the other, as paralleled with Justine and Michael. 

Another element of this film is the lack of knowledge. No one knows what the deal is with Justine. She seems pretty alright at the beginning, but then she shows her true self. It seems like she had issues because of some of her dialogue with her sister, "Justine, I don't want you to make any scenes tonight." or "I tried Claire, I really tried." The only certainty provided in the film is the doom of the Earth, and this fact is made clear only to the viewer. The characters believe that the planet will simply pass by. Also, the setting is unclear. It seems this handful of characters is cut off from the rest of society. You don't get any outside sources about Melancholia. No scientists, no media. There is no other contact with the outside world, so it seems it is just these people's own personal world about to be obliterated. 

The way this film is shot is very much like a hand held, documentary style, similar to the bits of Hurt Locker we watched in class. The camera movements are shaky, with zooming in and out. A Wagner piece plays sometimes as the soundtrack, but many times the film is eerily silent. The lack of music adds to the film's feeling of isolation from the real world. They are so far removed from society there is no background noise. There is nothing, and this gives the film a very creepy quality. 

I enjoyed this film because I discovered a new director and I plan on exploring his other works, and also because it was a weird film. Something so average as marriage--representing life, new beginnings, etc...-- is juxtaposed with something extraordinary, the end of the world, and the feeling this paradox creates is different from the typical movies nowadays. 

3.5/4 stars

MYST Post #3: Apocalypse Now

After watching The Deer Hunter, I discussed it with my dad, and he really recommended Apocalypse Now. Both movies revolve around the Vietnam War and the physical and mental struggles that people went through. I also thought it would be a good movie to watch because we had just discussed Marlon Brando with his New York school based acting and Dennis Hopper in class, and both of these actors are in the movie.

I thought it was a nice coincidence. 

My attention was captured from the very first scene. From the sounds of helicopters fading in and out coupled with the close-up shots of the helicopters' blades passing through the frame, to The Door's "The End" playing while napalm burns in a Vietnamese forrest, I knew I was in for an interesting film. (This opening scene was part of the Best Music Moments in Film on Shortlist and I agree completely.)

One of the recurring themes throughout the movie was the sad attempt to normalize the situation in Vietnam. General Kilgor, played by Robert Duvall, demands one of the soldiers from southern California to go surfing during combat. The general is adamant that he surfs, all the while bombs are exploding all around them and bullets are whizzing by. (I also liked the cowboy hat Kilgor wore--a nice connection to Dr. Strangelove)

One of the interesting things Coppola does in the film is juxtapose images/actions of complete savagery and killing with images/actions of compassion, sweetness, and innocence. For example, the boat carrying Captain Willard up the river into Cambodia to find a rouge colonel, Kurtz, stops a vietnamese boat to search it. It is the protocol, but Willard is upset they are stopping because that was not part of the mission. Lance goes on the boat to search it, and he obviously can't handle it. He starts violently rummaging through the barrels of rice and other goods, and one of the young soldiers has a machine gun turret constantly aimed at the Vietnamese people, creating a very tense situation. Lance is shouting incomprehensible words to himself, and all of a sudden one of the Vietnamese women runs to the back, and the young soldier opens fire, shooting everything and everyone. Lance goes to the back of the boat to try to see whatever the woman was running to protect, fully prepared to find ammunition and other weapons for the Vietcong. Instead, he finds a Yellow Labrador puppy. A puppy. All of the savage, violent killing for a puppy, the epitome of innocence. These splices do a very good job in emphasizing the absurdity of the war. 

Going into the movie, I had no idea it was based on the book Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. Kurtz, in both forms of media, was once a respected, brilliant, successful person. In the book, he was in the Ivory business, and in the film, he was a colonel. Both Kurtzs are said to have gone insane, breaking off from normalized society, conquering natives with savagery. The movie also shares the book's river theme. Instead of going down the river through the Congo, the river in Vietnam is the setting. The narrator also telling the story as it has already happened is shared amongst the film and book. 

The similarities between the book and film bothered me in one way. I feel the book shows the absolute domination of a people, and in this case, the Africans during the colonization/ivory business in Africa. The movie, on the other hand, shares some of this, but this wasn't its main purpose. The film, in my opinion, had a lot of anti-war sentiments, not just for America, but world-wide. This is where the similarities fall short between the book and movie. This is bothersome because the book and movie didn't share the same purpose, but they had the same story. Maybe I would've felt differently if I hadn't read the book this year in my lit class, but my opinion was already tainted going into the movie. 

The cinematic elements used in the film were very cool. As the film went on, the scenes and shots got darker with more contrast, and the few scenes with Kurtz exemplify this perfectly. His whole face would be obscured by shadow, only parts of it being illuminated by red light, giving him the creepy, powerful aura Coppola was going for. As I mentioned earlier, there was a lot of juxtapositions of contradicting images, disorienting the viewer. I also noticed some good use of some dutch angles, like when Willard and Lance go out to get some of those "damned mangoes" and they are walking through a thick part of a forest when a tiger all of sudden jumps out and seriously frightens them. The dutch angle was perfect for this scene because it reflects the absurdity of the situation; both men were expecting people, the Vietcong, to stalk them, not a tiger. 

This was a really cool movie that connected with a lot of class related topics this year for me, which made it special because I felt I had a basis for critiquing it. Overall, I give it 4 out of 5 stars.