Shin Godzilla, directed by Hideaki Anno, does not disappoint in the 15th Anniversary remake of the film. This version of Godzilla was the frst Godzilla movie I had ever watched. Judge me all you want, but I have no intention of picking up on it unless onligated to do so. Not being much of an action movie fan – unless it’s a blockbuster in cineams – I expected the film to be a stereotypical “monster attacks city” type of scenario with numerous shots of citizens panicking and buildings being crushed. The film was able to accurately depict that along with the realistic disaster risk reaction strategies the Japanese government took in handling the Godzilla crisis.

Godzilla or Gojira is described as ‘ a creature that evolved from an ancient sea organism into a terrestrial animal that was disturbed from its deep underwater habitat by repeated hydrogen bomb testing.’ It was interesting to see how the government system and other citizens reacted to the monster attack. They utilized their knowledge in creating a strategy that would contain the crisis whils regulating people’s safety. Japan itself as a country is rather commendable in their efficiency.

The Japanese Government bans together in identifying the crisis at hand.
The film was able to reflect the culture of the Japanese, and their political structure in handling such a crisis. Even those that had minor roles did what they could to help. Like giving tea to the hardworking group of researchers trying to bring Godzilla down. It was the state of crisis that brought them together.

I was rather impressed by how fast they were able to accumulate the number of drugs they needed to sedate the dinosaur. To think that if this were to happen in the Philippines, it would be a whole different scenario. After watching the film, I couldn’t help but speculate on the idea. For some reason if this were to happen, the film version would become more of a parody than a sci-fi action, which is pretty sad to admit.

It isn’t just the action or the entertainment factor for watching the film. But the realizations that we get and how much responsibility is left to the government in a state of crisis. It also shows the number of lives affected and the cutthroat decisions that must be made in this circumstance. The hard work and effort that the common people put into to keep their nation afloat. It is a story of humanity. How the people are put to the test in the state of calamity. As the final scene pops on the screen, I was somewhat expecting Godzilla. It was a great way to kick-off/introduce me to popular Godzilla. I got a lot more from the film than I would’ve thought. I especially liked how not all the shots were of the monster destroying the city, but the people at work to handle the situation.

Orson Welles is a cinematic genius – and I’m sure I’m not the only one that’s picked up on it. After years of his films being polished or refined by the industry, Welles produced one that was completely his own.

The sequencing is impeccable and meticulously thought out. Welles experiments with different transitions and times it perfectly with the mood and narration of the film. Notice that as you go through each scene, it doesn’t follow an “and then” narrative, but rather a “Therefore” and “but” pattern. (Film, 2017) The movement of the film doesn’t circle around one plot. It incorporates several narratives as Welles illustrates his thoughts on fakery.

Oja Kodar is a famous actress who has often worked with Welles. She assisted him in the screenwriting, and takes credit for the “walking scene.” An attractive girl is walking along the street – accompanied by live music in the film’s background -as she captivates the attention of the men around her. Normal people were unknowingly turned into actors as the camera followed the movement of Oja and her frivolous skirt, and interplayed stolen shots of men gazing at her (“Girl Watching”, it was called) This scene highlights people’s blissful ignorance of the facts.

Narrated and directed by Welles himself, he claims that during the next hour everything we’ll hear is true and based on solid facts – which is ironic given that he initially addresses the audience stating: “This is a film about trickery, fraud, and lie.” In Welles’ mind, every film after Citizen Kane had mixed authorship; All had been re-edited – inducing Welles to doubt himself as a filmmaker.

F for fake’s “real subterranean purpose was a riposte to the controversy created by Pauline Kael.” Going independent was a way for him to break out of the industry’s mold, and take full authorship for his own work.

Francois Truffant

We can’t discuss a film about fakery without the popular art forger Elmyr De Hoyr. He has sold over thousands of forgeries to high ranked museums. What makes Elmyr’s works so controversial was the inability of experts themselves to distinguish an Elmyr from a genuine original. If “art is judged through opinions, and opinions are given by experts,” who can then, therefore, claim what is Art or not when the experts themselves are fooled by Elmyr. Whether or not his works were originals, Elmyr created his own kind of masterpieces – ones of forgery.

Clifford Erving, another fake, wrote a book about Elmyr’s life of forgery. Soon thereafter, he wrote an autobiography of Howard Hughes – which turned out to be a sham. People believed it was real, so that must have meant he was pretty good at faking it. It was only later on when Howard Hughes announced that he had never met a Clifford Erving nor had any memory of the interviews transcribed in the autobiography, that people realize Erving’s piece was a sham. Now the question here is: Was a good fake or a bad fake? “Art [after all] is a lie, a lie that makes us realize the truth.”

If you were to ask Welles’ what he thought about fakes, the entire film pretty much translates it. Welles’ demonstrates the inner working of a film as he shows cuts and pieces of the film reel, himself viewing the film, and the film crew behind the scenes. He goes beyond this theory by creating a forgery of his own using the beautiful Oja as his assistant.

Remember Oja! well, she is the key player in this deception. According to Welles, Oja turned Picasso into a “girl watcher.” The following scene was accompanied by some jazz played by Olaf (one of the characters in the film), and some tickling piano. It mixed real scenes of Oja and inserted images of Picasso. The execution was so well-done, it made the narrative even more believable – despite the factor of Picasso having no real association to Oja in the made-up story. In the narrative Welles’ created, Oja had deceived Picasso as her grandfather forged masterpieces out of his work. Interrogative of what happened, Welles’ confronts Oja of her actions and gets the truth out from her. The mood of the film then shifts as it focuses on two characters. They are both dressed in black; The camera zooms in on their faces creating an intensifying conversational piece. Oja walks away and Welles’ continues to narrate the rest of his video essay.

Like a magician, Welles had us fooled; He directed us from one subject to the next without us realizing that the entire story narrated to us was a hoax. By the end of his trick, the camera crew comes in, and the creation of his act is revealed. The lights became brighter and the other actors chimed in Welles’ direction. He did say he’d tell the truth for the hour, but alas the hour was up, and without us even keeping time. Oja was indeed her real name, and her grandfather was Hungarian however, the rest of the details in the film was manifested from imagination.

“At the very beginning, I – of all this, I did make you a promise. Remember? did promise that for one hour, I’d tell you only the truth. That hour, ladies and gentlemen, is over. For the past 17 minutes, I’ve been lying my head off. The truth, and please forgive us for it, is that we’ve been forging an art story…”

Orson Welles

I’m no film connoisseur, but it doesn’t take one to appreciate Welles’ work. Whether or not you are an avid fan of film and can break down every visual element presented, Welles will make you appreciate the narrative structure of films and its process of creation – despite plotting an illusion on us.

What can you expect from a film whose title resembles a mental illness ‘schizophrenia’?

Schizopholis is an anomalous film that composes a normalized lifestyle into a peculiar mess. I had no idea what to expect from the film, as I was two minutes into it, the only thing I could conclude was it’s unexpectedness. The film doesn’t follow the prevalent format of films we would typically see in cinemas or at home. Soderbergh plays a series of mind games with his audience as he presents to us – Schizoppolis.

Following the plot was like making your way through a maze. I found it difficult to keep up with its intertwined layers; However, it can be better understood once we divide it into a three-structure act. The first of which focuses on Fletcher Munson played by Soderbergh. It is set in a typical office setting where news of a mole breaks out. We continue to follow Fletcher into his suburban home as the film where we are introduced to his wife Betsy. The script toggled with how we commonly used the English language adding a touch of odd humor in the portrayal of Fletcher’s relationship with his wife. The plot gets twisted as we move along the film where we find out that Dr. Joffrey Korchek, also played by Soderbergh. Korchek’s character was a womanizer who had been sleeping with Fletcher’s wife. Part of the film even viewed the perspective of Betsy, the wife, in another language. It was a challenge to keep up with the film and to fully comprehend what was happening as the story unfolded. I guess you could say, it was unsettling to a point of artistry.

Schizopolis is a film you would have to watch twice to understand, which is something I wouldn’t want to do. It was interesting to have experienced watching it for the first time with a group of people. I couldn’t really pinpoint what our reactions were exactly. Some parts we’d laugh, some parts we’d awkwardly watching together, while the rest was confusion. Although it did broaden my horizon to the possibilities of film, it is not a film that I find personally enjoyable.