My Own Private Idaho

My Own Private Idaho is probably one of my favorite movies in Sir Ty’s list. It tackles such a sensitive topic, which is homosexuality which was a taboo during the time period the movie released. The movie was directed by Gus Van Sant, a director whose movies always would consist of marginalized young teens. The screenplay was originally based form a novel of John Reechy, City of Night, and Shakespeare’s Henry IV, which was why Bob the Pigeon has a monologue that seemed to be from the Shakespearean era and a real life narrative from a real street hustler.

Here were are introduced to Scott Favor (Keanu Reeves) and Mike Waters (River Pheonix), both are homosexual hustlers. Scott is a privileged young man, son of the mayor, but chooses to escape the life destined for him as an act of rebellion to his dad. Mike, on the other hand, is a teen who suffers narcolepsy, which causes him to pass out or fall asleep in times of stress. Every time he gets unconscious, the are weird scene that happen, like a house falling out of the sky and shattering when it it hits the pavement, or salmon swimming on a river. Though being so different from each other, both are often paired up in the movie. Throughout the movie, both protagonists, are always travelling because of Mike’s mother whom he wishes to meet. During their travels, a very iconic scene was shown, a scene where Mike and Scott admit to each other that they love each other. It was different for Mike because it was the first time he did something sexually stressful, without suffering narcolepsy. Apparently, this whole scene was written by River Pheonix, the actor behind Mike. Eventually, they ended up in Italy because they heard that Mike’s mom flew there. In Italy, Scott falls in love with Carmela, the girl who lived in the past house of Mike’s mom. Everyone felt what Mike felt, cheated, when Scott told Mike that both were gonna get married. Again, we see Mike suffer from narcolepsy, but this that it was different. Scott was not around to be there for Mike.

During the funeral of Bob the Pigeon and Scott’s dad, this scene was a powerful scene. We see the two groups, the rich and the poor and we see Scott, all dressed well acting like he does not know those people who he spent most of his life with and not mourning for the person who was his father growing up, Bob Pigeon. All of a sudden, Mike and his group start acting crazy and kissing each other. This shows the huge difference between Scott and Mike, who in beginning of the film was seen so similar. Lastly, we see Mike in the same road as the beginning scene of the movie, passed out in the middle. Then we see people stopping for him getting his stuff and eventually getting him. We could say that it was quite unfair because, Scott if he failed in life, no matter happens, he has is riches to fall unto, but for Mike, all he had was Scott, but now Scott’s gone, Mike is gone as well.

Overall, I liked the movie but it was a sad one for me. I liked it cos seeing Keanu Reeves play a part that is so different in what roles we see him in, like Matrix and John Wick, makes him a really good actor. It was a great way for Gus Van Sant, to use his talent to be able to make this movie at the same time being a voice of taboo topics.

Futureless Things

Futureless Things is a movie that was simply too unusual for my liking. The movie starts off with the simple setting of a convenience store and a character having ordinary problems with his life. it already had enough elements for a stable flow, but the movie simply had no plans for story stability. Right when I started to understand the identity of a particular character it ends abruptly and switches to a different character with an absolutely different storyline. The sudden changes made it difficult for me to empathize with any of the characters no matter how relatable they were. I simply didn’t have the usual obligation as a viewer to invest myself to the movie. Although, I can’t deny that the movie was still able to present certain themes and concepts that were striking enough for me to take away. Considering that the only constant in the movie is the convenience store setting. I realized how the convenience store workers encounter the diversity of people every day. I think the movie emphasizes the portrayal of diversity through fantasy by making certain people or situation contain fictional elements. Though it may be powerful for some, I think this portrayal was slightly forced and not executed well. I feel like a realistic portrayal would have had a stronger impact because with the limited time per worker, people are practically forced to take the narrative and integrate it to their own experiences just to get an idea of what is happening at that particular moment. In my honest opinion, the lack of connection I had with the movie was mainly due to the quick intervals of characters change. I did gain a bit of the perspective of a convenience store worker and what they have to deal with every day, but I would not say that I was moved enough to actually remember the movie the next time I go to a convenience store.

Trainspotting

The movie presents two contrasting ways of living or “dealing” with the basic human condition. It can be seen in the beginning of the movie; Renton gives a brief overview of the movie by making a case against “choosing life”. He defines “life” with the basic context of a man living in the British Society, such as getting a job, buying a house, and starting a family. To him, living in such conditions would be an absolute pain. He described it to be some sort of monotonous routine of wanting thing after thing and firmly believes that people are basically trapped in this cycle. Renton simply didn’t want to be enslaved by the system so instead he chose “Trainspotting”. I understood the act of “Trainspotting” was Renton’s carefree yet ignorant way of living. His drug addiction did give him pleasure but at what cost? He definitely didn’t have a right mind and it also made him sort of detached from reality. The film was able to present a perspective of someone with a drug addiction in such a way that we had an idea of how they saw the world. The instances that the movie would stray away from reality and give us scenes full of fictional abnormalities. Although, Renton getting off drugs was a prevalent idea all throughout the film. Similar to any other addiction, it was definitely difficult to stop, and the constant limbo was no help either. It was also seen that Renton was not necessarily living in an ideal environment, in such a way that there were various factors clouding his judgement. He had negligent parents who didn’t really give him boundaries and his friends were all junkies like him. I was particularly intrigued by the inclusion of Tommy as one of Renton’s friends. He was the single sane character in the group, a model for contrast. However, the refreshing energy Tommy brought to the table was lost, taken even, by nobody else than Renton. It can be argued that Renton wasn’t the only reason why Tommy ended up using drugs, but his inability to comprehend his mistake did stop him from preventing Tommy’s downfall. Another interesting concept was Renton quoting “But he’s a mate, you know, so what can you do?” For this part of the movie, Begbie constantly abused the generosity of Renton and somehow pulled him back down when he was already slightly thriving in life when he was living alone. It really highlighted the reality of unconditional love and true friendship. Later on, we know Renton does put his foot down, but this is because of his realization that Begbie isn’t really his friend and not because he lost his sense of unconditional love for a mate. I think it was a good inclusion of morality in the movie especially with the twisted relationship the group of friends have with each other. For the ending of the movie, all I can say is that I did not like it. I hate how Renton gets the chance to fix his life again. I guess even after all that I still didn’t see that he deserved more of the chance to get his life together than his other friends, especially over Spud. In Renton’s defense, he did give a fraction of the money to Spud but it was still unfair in my opinion. Setting aside all the hate I have on Renton’s decision, I see that it was a good touch having an open ending because we are left with so much interpretations of what exactly Renton could do with the money. The movie was complicated, and that single word alone sums up the life of a person stuck with a life dependent on drugs.

the beach

I have always been drawn to films that involve a faraway island and mysterious communities – Lost, Missing Nine, and Castaway. I guess that is why The Beach (2000) appealed to me when I first saw it on Netflix. It also featured young Leonardo DiCaprio so I clicked right away.

When the community of travelers on the island was first introduced, I was constantly waiting for the plot twist. Were they cannibals? Was someone or something keeping them there? Was there a secret that drew them to the island, besides the huge amounts of cannabis. Even towards the end, they were a fairly normal community that wanted to keep away from the busyness of society.

However, like any kind of society, they had their slightly inhumane, but not to the point of cannibalism, traits. When Christo gets bitten by a shark, Sal, the community leader, gives him the option of travelling back to the mainland or suffering his fate on the island. She did not want those from the mainland to step foot on the island – even considering Christo’s condition and developed fear of water.

In the perfect beach resort, nothing is allowed to interrupt the pursuit of pleasure, not even dying.

Richard, The Beach (2000)

Because Christo stays, the members of the community leave him to die. Etienne, a friend of Richard, is not able to live with himself if he leaves Christo. This shows viewers that although he has only been on the island for a few weeks, he still has his humanity intact.

I do not think the plot was as strong. I craved for more action rather than love triangles among Sal, Richard, Etienne, and Francoise. The montage where Richard is banished from the community and goes crazy was a bit confusing to me, but his acting definitely made up for it. In the end, Leonardo DiCaprio’s acting skills is what drove the story and made it a classic.

However, I really did love the ending scene where Sal was forced to hold Leo at gunpoint by Thai farmers who shared their island with the community. When she pulled the triggered, no bullet was released. This is exactly what the Thai farmer had planned. He wanted to instill fear in the community that Sal was willing to do whatever it takes to keep her precious island a secret. She was willing to kill one of her own. After realizing who Sal had become, the community members fled and left the island for good.

I also could not stop thinking about the scene when Richard hissed like a monkey in order to distract the mainland trespassers, who he had given a copy of the island map to in the first place. Because of this, the Thai farmers were able to shoot and kill the trespassers. Once they were killed, in his expression, viewers could see him realize what he had become. It was a real wake up call for him that being on this island had changed him. This is in parallel to the scene where they first stepped on the island. Richard and his friends were hiding from the Thai farmers and he was telling the monkey to keep quiet.

This film had its ups and downs, but I believe it is a win for Leonardo DiCaprio’s career and a great add to his filmography. I would definitely watch this again to really take in all the elements director Danny Boyle wanted to portray to his audience.

The process it takes to beat Godzilla

I expected shin Godzilla to be the typical action film filled with destruction, explosion and everything else. It did provide me with most if not all of the elements of an action film but in my opinion, it simply lacked excitement. First of all, I found Godzilla’s mobility very limited. In the beginning of the movie he was this creature that was blindly running around which was fantastic, but he transitioned into this semi-stationary monster that had lasers destroying everything within a 100-mile radius. I understand that he was practically invincible at that point, but it would have been amazing to see him jumping over skyscrapers if extremes were being put on the table. The impending doom his nuclear elements proposed gave a bit of thrill, but I expected to see Godzilla go on a rampage and showcase his physical prowess. My personal assumptions and preference may have affected my viewing experience but in a sense, I saw that the movie focused more on finding the algorithm needed to beat Godzilla than the actual beating of Godzilla. Although, this did play a vital role in another element of the film which was the Japanese way of executing operations. The movie gave us glimpse of the intricate procedure the Japanese officials needed to follow in order to make something happen. It was fascinating to view a perspective of the government that was realistic to a certain extent. Like most movies, the constraint of time did affect the actions of the people as well. the Japanese government followed every single step required by their constitution to a point that there were some instances that a certain crisis could have been averted if they had simply acted faster. In my opinion, this element gave the movie the most character. The values of the Japanese are unlike any other and this film vividly exemplifies it. We were given glimpses of success and failure that brought out the most of each character. I saw it as a movie that focused on humanity despite having this iconic and spectacular monster right by the corner but somehow, it wasn’t a bad thing. All in all, the movie immersed me with Japanese culture and at the end of the day, reminded me to always have an open-mind with any movie.

F for a Fake that is real?

F for fake was a fascinating movie that was difficult to watch. Considering that the movie was made in 1973 watching the movie now definitely gives it a good old vintage feel. I think watching it now adds to the artistic essence that surrounds the movie. Not to mention, the constant narration being done by Orson Welles himself which practically lulls you to sleep. It was an old documentary but it was artistic and full of unique information, so what more could you ask for. One particular scene that I found quite striking was when Picasso was shown to obsess over the beautiful Oja Kodar. The famous artist would find himself mesmerized as she routinely walks past his window on her way to and from the beach. The shot made use of Picasso’s picture in black and white, instead of his actual self, which was surprisingly amazing. The photos of Picasso would differ in facial expressions to portray his different reactions. Along with the narration, it was already enough to not require any dialogue from the artist. Having a window blinds layer the photo made it really feel like he was actually peering out the window. I feel like the context of the movie fueled its plot. The ways and methods of verification was limited to its time which showed how exactly the fakers went around them. the entire movie did want to highlight how even experts were fooled by the craftsmanship done by the fakers. It was a process that had an intricate design and a well-thought out plan, exactly the same way the movie was made. we realize in the end, after Orson Welles proclamation, that even we were fooled by an act of fakery. The realism that was attached with the fake portion of the movie was simply made it difficult for us to realize that it was in fact a lie. the first hour and the 17 minutes of fakery were simply indistinguishable, a perfect analogy to the fakes and the actual works presented in the movie. A great ending that left me thinking about what is actually real, what is fake, and if we are simply fooling ourselves by being blind viewers that do not look deeper into things.

Stuck in the moment

The endless excited me because of the fact that I’m a fan of horror movies, and we were told that it was a horror movie. The story is very interesting, because of the “cult” which makes most horror movies with cult scarier and even darker. Examples of these are the Paranormal Activity movies.

The two brothers enter the locked shack

            The movie was a bit dragging for me, things were a little freaky when the magic trick was done and the test with the rope where it would seem an invisible giant held the rope and baseball up in the air. The movie got a whole lot interesting when the mystery man in beige cargo pants appeared and when Justin tries to follow him he disappears without a trace. One recurring theme in the movie escape. It was understood that the brothers were able to escape Camp Arcadia, who people not from the camp think is cult because of its secrecy. Unfortunately, the two brothers who were allowed to leave, had to come back because for Aaron that was everything they knew, that they felt out of place outside the camp. When they went back to the camp, nothing has changed from the day they left it and, it seemed that the members of Camp Arcadia did not age at all, which made the camp much shadier. The reason why I like horror movies is because it keeps you on your feet and the jump scares are too look forward to. I loved the scene when Justin saw the man he was following earlier in the movie, lifeless because he hung himself and suddenly see him again who is alive. Mise en scene is used in this scene as Justin and the man were talking while you can see the lifeless man hung on the background swaying. The concept of the movie is very nice how they’re all stuck in a loop and until the entity gets tired of playing with their lives and kills them and resets their loop. Basically, the members of the camp have no escape. I am convinced that Justin and Aaron, despite being able to escape the camp, are still stuck in the loop, a bigger one. I feel like their loop is escaping the camp somehow and eventually coming back, over and over again. Justin knows about the loop but Aaron doesn’t not until the end of the movie when Justin acknowledges that his brother has figured it out.

Baby Driver: Not Just Mindless Action

Edgar Wright is my favorite movie director of all time. I’ve loved so many of his works like Shawn of the Dead or Scott Pilgrim v.s. the World. What really sets him apart from other directors is that the way he shoots his scenes is so captivating and pleasing. His movies, though admittedly not for everyone, can still be enjoyed by a wide array of audiences while still having something bigger to digest for people who want something to think about when watching a film.

Baby Driver is Wright’s most recent filmwork and it’s a film that really accentuates everything I love about this director. It’s an action movie with some jokes sprinkled in here and there. Now, action movies usually aren’t known for their plot, and yes, this film doesn’t have an amazing revolutionary story and, admittedly, almost made me want to go to sleep at times. However, this movie tells its story in such a unique way, accentuated by Wright’s direction and writing, that it becomes much more engaging than a typical action film.

The film is about a driver nicknamed “Baby”, a young man in his late teens to early 20s, who acts as a getaway driver for heists, after being picked up by a Atlanta kingpin as a protege as a kid. Initially, Baby is a quiet and distant character. He always has earphones on because he suffers from tinnitus, which he acquired after a car accident that killed his parents. He also always wears his shades and never shows any type of emotion. Even the colors of his clothes, white hoodie with a black vest-area, make him radiate this aura of coolness. This costume is actually very important to him as a character because the shades and earphones show his tendency to drown-out the bad things he does, by distorting his vision and blocking out noise, and the black and white clothing he wears show how he has a black and white view of the world. However, over the course of the film, he evolves as a character. He starts to show emotions like remorse for the people he’s helped kill or love for the characters he’s become attached to. He starts removing his earphones and shades more often, and from black and white, his clothes start to adopt grey or become blood stained. He visually evolves throughout the course of the film, which already sets him apart from a lot of other action movie protagonists: he actually develops as a character instead of just remaining the same badass he was at the beginning of the film.

Now, what I really want to talk about is how you can tell from the very start that this movie was directed by Edgar Wright. The way he shoots his scenes is so visually stunning because of how stimulating they are. Perhaps his most well-known signature in direction is linking the music being played to the actions happening on screen. As someone who is exposed to video editing, I know that this is something that is quite challenging for most filmmakers to do for a single scene, let alone multiple action scenes so I can really appreciate just how difficult many of the clips from his movies are. This signature is shown better in Baby Driver than any of his other movies.  The synching of his scenes is done everywhere from casual car-door-closing to full-blown shootouts where the guns end up becoming the instruments. Every time these scenes are shown, I go anywhere from “That’s so cute” to giving a jaw-dropped “WOW”.

This movie is so action-packed and fun to watch, that I can recommend it to anyone who wants to watch an action movie that isn’t completely mindless.

the manifesto of Mother Monster

[Bonus essay] Written by Emerson Enriquez 170819

Disclaimer: Most of this essay will *slightly* be biased towards Lady Gaga, as the author is a Little Monster. Put your paws up, baby.

Mother Monster herself

One would be hard-pressed to say that Lady Gaga is not a video vixen in her own right. Her music videos always have been niche, clad with elements of camp and original concepts. From her debut “Just Dance” where she did literally that in a post-party background, to “Marry The Night” which was a 14-minute short film expounding on her journey as a pop star, Gaga has always been one to enchant her audiences through her niche yet compelling visuals. Messages of love, heartbreak, acceptance and freedom are accentuated . She, along with the team working with her, never disappoint when it comes to music videos. When Gaga gets in front of the camera, no one quite does it like her.

Indisputably the pop anthem of the LGBT+ community, the accompanying music video of “Born This Way” stood out as a definite landmark in her career. The visual is set on a narrative about how Mother Monster gave birth to a whole new race “with no judgment, [and] no prejudice” in an intergalactic, dystopian territory. Quite literally, the video tackles a kind of species that are born a certain way, and the songstress’ lyrics exclaim how perfectly made they are despite whatever may make them seem too alien.

The entire sequence of Mother Monster’s birth uses quite graphic representations – ones more literal than metaphorical – of giving birth, coming together and contemplation. A rifle comes out of her uterus, representing the birth of “evil” and the existence of “good” came about after she pushed out one identical head after the other, creating the new race the video focuses on. Some of the special effects come off as a wee bit tacky or cliche, yet what this achieves is a simply digestible interpretation of what Gaga is trying to get across to the viewers. The direct to the point, and almost grotesque dialogues and visuals make it easier for an audience to understand the point of the video, and the song in general. Lyrically, the song is pretty straightforward with its empowering message of self love and acceptance. The seven minute video reflects this, and depending on taste, it becomes an enjoyable watch for anyone who’s been hooked on the tune.

The first second of the video depicted a unicorn within a sparkling triangular frame, and this image comes in full circle when it all concluded showing the pop diva riding away on it. From her leather bikini, to her club kid-esque Mother Monster look, and to her iconic suited up skeleton, Gaga’s versatility and creativity as an artist were embodied in the whole seven minutes. Down to the choreography, visual effects and even the dim color grading , “Born This Way” managed to encapsulate what it feels (and looks) like to be a freak outcasted for being something unconventional. Gaga was unapologetically herself, not separating herself being by exhibiting how she’s the queen of the freaks, but rather showing the viewers that she is in fact, a freak herself. There was no other way to go about it, ’cause she was born that way. The video is iconic in it’s own right. Wherever the bop is played, you can be assured that there are Little Monsters’ raising their paws up. Whether they’re in their bedrooms or on stage, it’s most probable that they’re trying to replicate the choreography in the video, following and believing in the dictums of self-love and acceptance Mother Monster taught them.

F for Face Value

Written by Emerson Enriquez 170819

Throughout the duration of this class, I’ve gotten to expand my taste when it comes to any work of cinema. Having seen such a wide array of films, my appreciation for different genres and means of storytelling has grown. Needles to say, the selection I’ve been to exposed to in this elective was nothing similar to the slapstick comedies and mainstream rom-coms I’m used to. We’ve become accustomed to plot twist after plot twist, one grotesque fictional element following the next. Getting to view a documentary-drama such as “F for Fake” then came as some sort of surprise at first since one could assume that the events depicted would all be based on fact, with nothing about them “made up”. In short, it’s expected that a documentary should have no fake elements; yet in some almost “meta” way, that was the whole point of Welles’ work.

From the get-go, Orson Welles, the film’s narrator and director, depicts himself as an illusionist performing tricks in front of a kid. He narrates the happenings in the life of art forger extraordinaire Elmyr de Hory, whose mimeographs go on to be sold as if they were the original pieces. Clifford Irving serves as de Hory’s critic, yet he himself is convicted of some forgery as the biography he wrote about de Hory turned out to be a Howard Hughes rehash. Welles touches on the fact that the art dealers and buyers of de Hory’s works of deceit are also “fakers” to an extent; continuing to purchase the counterfeit works despite their awareness about it shows how the genuineness of a piece can be so easily pushed aside. The entire scandal about the forgeries touched on the importance of authentication (or perhaps, the lack thereof ) when it comes to artistic works.

“The pompous word for ‘lie’ is ‘art'”

The overall beauty and “looked-at-ness” of art is described to be an arbitrary thing. Welles expounds that most of the art dealers involved in promoting de Hory’s counterfeits were more concerned with how real the piece looks, rather than how real the piece actually is. This comes from their main goal which is to sell the art, and profit. Face value is the most vital, and seemingly, the only factor looked for in the pieces. Demand for artworks toppled appreciation for the authenticity of these. The film coins that the forgery de Hory practices is, in itself, is actually an artwork about the art piece he’s mimicking.

Fakeness comes either as “good” or “bad” depending on it’s quality and how believable it is. It’s an illusion. The point of illusions, of course, is to enchant a target into believing that something that isn’t there, is actually present. In the case of the documentary, it was spotlighted on the originality of Picasso’s and Matisse’s. Although, and quite unexpectedly for me, another slightly profound layer of dimension was added to Welles’ narration, this time in terms of the structure of the docu-drama itself. At the end where the whole story of Kodar, her grandfather and Picasso was demonstrated, the narrator of the whole 88-minutes admitted to lying to or deceiving the audience. At the beginning, he promised that all that will be shared for the coming hour will all be true, yet perhaps as a viewer, time wasn’t really thought about that intently that it came as a dumbfounding moment when Welles revealed that he’d been bluffing for the last 18 minutes or so about Kodar. I never would’ve expected a “plot twist” of sorts to occur in a documentary. The realness of the whole film itself then came up fore questioning as well, similarly to the decoys de Hory paints.

What the fake paintings in the film and the film itself had in common was that they were looked at with face value. Perhaps for the trained artists and viewer alike, it would’ve been possible to see through the bluffs present in both works. While the film was still a documentary, and therefore, still partially factual, it still comes off as “fictional” in some aspects. Both of the two are forms of art still. Art, as described by Welles, is a lie that makes us, or rather, directs us to see the truth. When one focuses on viewing something solely on face value, that person is hindering him or herself from grabbing the essence and authenticity of that thing. Nowadays, how important or recognized is the authenticity of certain things, “art” or not? The way I see it, things will always come off as “real” as they can when we, the viewer, simply succumbs to accepting it as such. For any one person, any “real thing” can be an illusion, and vice versa.