Stagecoach-Unforgiven-True Grit Comparison

Stagecoach and True Grit share many traits, but I believe that there are far more differences than similarities.  First of all, the role of women is different.  In Stagecoach, there is more than one woman, which brings about a conflict.  This conflict is somewhat of an "East vs. West" conflict, where Mrs. Mallory is the rich woman from the East and Mrs. Dallas is the less wealthy prostitute that's living on the edge of civilization.  Apart from this, True Grit has only one key woman as a main character, who is a young girl set out on a mission to find the man that killed her father.  She is tough, playing a larger role, and is the only woman, so there isn't that sort of conflict.  Also, Stagecoach is more "action-packed," in which many violence scenes are shown very descriptively.  For example, the Indian scene is a long scene in which the death of many of these is shown to give it more effect.  In True Grit, however, there isn't as much detail to violence.  There are a few action scenes, but these action scenes don't derive their power from the actual violence/gore itself.  Finally, Ringo Kid (Stagecoach) is the hero and his personality is pretty consistent throughout the film  He tries and tries to get with Mrs. Dallas through most of the movie, and we really don't see too much of a personality change.  Rooster Cogburn (True Grit) on the other hand changes his attitude and personality all throughout the film.  He starts as a lazy, unwilling man who might even steal Maddie's money, but ends up being a very helpful man, and becomes lifelong friends with her.

As for True Grit and Unforgiven, they have some similarities, as well as some differences.  First of all, the role of women in Unforgiven is somewhat of a victimized interpretation.  The women are mainly seen as vulnerable, such as the opening scene when the lady is getting beaten up, as well as when they throw stuff at the cowboys.  On the other hand, True Grit shows women as quite a bit stronger, such as Maddie and how she leads the plot of the story and perseveres through such a tough challenge.  As for the violence that's involved in both, there's a little more focus on violence in True Grit than there is in Unforgiven.  Unforgiven does have a good amount of violence, such as the last scene where Little Bill is killed, but it really doesn't show gore.  True Grit, on the other hand, does have more gore and what not, such as the scene in the hut when the man is shot after Rooster and Maddie smoke it out.  Unforgiven, in this case, doesn't get its power from the gore that is involved.  As for character development, I believe that Will Munny changes far more drastically than Rooster, which is a common trait of the "revisionist western."  Rooster does change from a lazy man to somewhat of a hero, but Will Munny recaptures his youth throughout the story.  At the beginning, he is a hog farmer and former "badass," but we really don't see it at all, especially in cases like when he can't get on his horse.  As we get to the end, however, he regains the youth that once was, and kills Little Bill as well as whoever else was threatening to kill him in the saloon.  These films have some similarities, as well as some differences.

Overall, I believe that True Grit is more revisionist than classic western.  There are many reasons why I believe this.  First of all, women in True Grit are shown as more of a lead role, such as Maddie taking on the challenge that sets the whole plot.  She is rarely shown as vulnerable, and rarely stirs up conflicts, such as the East vs. West conflict that is often seen in Classic Westerns.  Also, I believe that Rooster changes more than a hero would change in a classic Western.  He changes from a lazy man to a hero, and although it isn't as much change as a revisionist hero, it still sets it apart from a Classic Western hero.  Finally, there's far more focus on gore and violence in Classic Westerns.  Although I just stated that True Grit does focus in on a good amount of violence, it's not as much as a classic Western, and doesn't get its power from this violence nearly as much as a Western does, such as the Indian confrontation scene.

Film Analysis

Clip C: Silence of the Lambs

This clip is when the cops are closing in on Bill and his misdoings.  First of all, I noticed (and it told me) that crosscutting was taking place, in which it switches back and forth between two scenes and two totally different events.  In this case, it's outside and inside of his house, with him and his victim inside, and the cops outside (of the wrong house). Also, when he looks down into the hole that his victim is in, it's a high angle shot that makes her seem helpless and vulnerable.  There's also a tracking/dolly shot shortly after he notices his dog is down there with her, and the camera is tracking him from the front as he walks through the dark house.  I also noticed the costumes...the law enforcement officials are dressed formally, whereas Bill doesn't even have a shirt on.  It's a very noticeable difference. All throughout the clip, we know what the character knows, so it's restricted narration.  Had it been unrestricted, there would've been more suspense because the viewer would've known that they were going into the wrong house, but we found out along with the characters that it was the wrong house, so it remained restricted (we know what they know).  The last thing I realized was that when the man finds out it's the wrong house, the camera zooms in, which is done to show the seriousness of the situation, as it is usually done for a reason.

Clip D: Manolia

At the starting of this clip, when the man is walking into the building, a steadicam is used because it's following him, yet it still has a steady shot, and doesn't approach the unsteadiness of handheld.  Also, something that I noticed, is when he meets up with his wife and son, the 180 degree rule is very close to being broken.  The camera moves around him and his wife, but he walks around the backside of his wife to preserve his side of the frame.  A steadicam is then used throughout the clip, as it films people walking through the long corridors. There are a variety of shots in this clip, mainly long shots and medium shots.  There was also balanced composition, such as the son and the mother talking in the elevator, where everything seems to be balanced.  When they get out of the elevator and walk down the hall, you can tell that a wide-angle lens is being used because the depth of which they walk is being exaggerated.  Finally, the whole clip is a long take, as the whole clip is all one shot.  This helps push the point of continuity and shows the business of this day for all that are involved.  

Clip E: Amadeus

First of all, I recognize the lighting.  Amadeus is being lit by a method called backlighting, in which the light is behind the subject.  In contrast, the younger man who he is talking to is being lit by frontal lighting, but it is a soft light, because the older man is breaking up some of the light that would have reached that far.  Their conversation uses a shot/reverse shot technique, in which the shot is switched back and forth between the two subjects.  When Amadeus is playing the piano, the balance is well done, with the back of the younger mans's head taking up the right side, which is balanced by the piano/organ on the left, with Amadeus in the middle.  As the opera singer walks down the stairs,  the camera zooms out to show the setting and what else is going on around her.  There is also crosscutting going on, in which two different scenes are being shown.  In this case, he is flashing back to conducting, which presents two different scenes.  This is also mental subjectivity because we can hear his thoughts-the lady singing and the crowd cheering. The music that's coming out of the piano during this scene is also diagetic, because it's what the characters are hearing, not background music.  

Clip F: Merkalo

At the starting of the clip, the camera zooms out to show the composition of the home in which the two boys live.  The camera is on a track/dolly, because it moves through the house on a track and is very steady.  The camera also pans throughout the clip, because it is moving horizontally to give the full effect of the house and move through its hallways.  A longshot is used when the kids are standing in the doorway, and when the boy walks by it goes to a medium shot, then back to a longshot when showing the characters watching the house burn.  The clip is also a long take, because it's all one scene and no editing or cutting happens.  When the camera moves outside, it has a high angle on the characters, making them seem vulnerable-and in this case they are because a house is burning!  The balance in this scene is well done, as the burning house at the top fills the frame and balances it out.

Oscar Nominated Rankings

True Grit

1. After having seen it twice, the storyline/plot gets old, but otherwise good
2. Good acting-Mattie, Laboeuf, and Rooster especially-all play different acting rolls
3. Good costumes-Mattie's dad's costume, Laboeuf's buckskin, Rooster's long coat that splits into two in the back, Labeouf's hat that's flipped up on one side, etc.

Winter's Bone

1. I liked Ree taking on the parental role-very responsible
2. Really good costumes/makeup-most of the actors looked rough, drug problems were evident
3. Character development-Ree's uncle turns out differently than I would've thought, etc.

The Social Network

1. Great acting-Mark is sophisticated, nerdy, and talks really fast
2. Lighting differs and suggests a different genre at times
3. The court cases are interesting, but get kind of boring

1. True Grit- There are many reasons why I chose this as my number 1 of the 6 Oscar nominated films. First of all, the scenery and costumes really helped. After seeing this for the first time, I was disappointed, because I expected more of a classic Western, full of violence and gunslingers. Not to say Rooster is not a gunslinger, but it wasn't what I had in mind. The second time, however, my opinion changed drastically. The costumes really fit the characters. Mattie had her father's outfit, signifying that she is grown-up and wants to remember her late father. Rooster had a more rugged looking outfit, to fit his drunk and lazy lifestyle. Laboeuf wears buckskin and a hat that's tipped up to the side to give him attitude and a cleaner look. His mustache is also very noticeable, giving Matt Damon a different look than what I usually see. Not to mention his pipe, this gives the viewer a good look at his face early on when it is first lit. Aside from costumes, I liked the wide open, classic Western scenery. The leafless trees were very different than what I'm used to, as I don't picture trees leafless unless it's winter. Them, along with the occasional snow made me think about the climate and what season it actually was. There were a few wildcard positives as well, that I can't exactly categorize. For example, in the courthouse when Rooster is first seen, the light shining onto him shows that he was in the spotlight, and doesn't give you a clear view of him at first. Finally, there were some lines that I liked that were often humorous. When in the courtroom, Rooster says things like "Well, if it ain't cocked and loaded, it don't shoot," and "I always go backwards when I'm backing up." These instantly gave me the impression that while Rooster may have been "mean," he still had a good amount of humor in him. Another line that I found funny was when Rooster missed his target in the air and Laboeuf says "I thought you were gonna say the sun was in your eyes." This gave me the idea that these two openly compete, which is sometimes comical. All of these factors have led me to believe that this is the number 1 Oscar film.

2. Winter’s Bone: Winter’s Bone was a very good film, in my eyes, but didn’t have the scenery that True Grit had. That is the only negative I have against it, and obviously it wasn’t supposed to have much wide open scenery, like True Grit. As far as the positives, the list is endless. For character development, I liked Ree stepping up and taking the parental role in times of need. Her mother was incapable, and obviously, her father is on the loose. She is very responsible and takes care of her siblings when they most need her. Also, her uncle developed quite a bit throughout the film. From what I saw, he was a man in the starting that was unwilling to help Ree, but in the end, he’s the one that saved her. I love the feeling of family in this aspect, knowing that someone is always going to be there to help you. As far as costumes go, I thought they were great. Everything looked ragged, for lack of a better term, which kind of fit the lifestyle of most of these people that lived in this community. Aside from the actual costumes themselves, the hairstyles and faces of many fit the idea of the community. Dolly, for example, looks like the kind of woman that you would see on “Faces of Meth”- a study of meth addicts, before and after. So overall, the looks and costumes are very realistic. As for lighting, the insides of houses are generally dark to help display the low lifestyle. Later on in the film, Ree is inside of a cattle ranch and the lighting behind her gets extra bright, the light from outside. This kind of makes the scene seem like a dream, in my mind. Overall, all of these factors put together give me reason to rank this as my number 2 Oscar film.

3. The Social Network: I ranked this film number 3 because despite the many positives, I was often bored. For example, the lawsuits were visited way too often, I think they could’ve condensed them into fewer scenes. Other than this, I liked the film. I especially liked the acting in general, but more specifically, Mark. He is a smart, sophisticated nerd who talks very fast, and I believe the acting of this part would be pretty tough. His expressionless face is also a difficult thing to duplicate, but Jesse Eisenberg acted this with perfection. Aside from this, I liked how the lighting would differ, often giving the orientation of a horror movie. For example, in the restrooms of many places, I felt as though it was part of a “Saw” Movie, with the dark light up against the tiles of a bathroom. Also, the candles lighting the dark restaurants/clubs during the movie suggest this idea of a horror movie. Like stated earlier, the only negative to this film was the trials. I often thought they could’ve been put into fewer scenes for less repetitiveness. I guess I’m picky, but that’s just how I saw it.

4. The King’s Speech: I ranked this film number 4 because I couldn’t relate a whole lot to the content. It was very new to me, the style, story, everything about it, so there wasn’t much to compare it to. Other than this, I thought it was great. The acting was superb, Colin Firth did an excellent job acting King George VI, and his “stammer,” as he would call it, was very well acted. He was so natural in acting nervous and unable to talk. His frustration didn’t look like an act either, as he would often yell and swear to release this anger. I thought the costumes were very fitting as well. The 3-piece suits, which are still very existent today, were almost everywhere. To my knowledge, they are an older look, to fit the time period. Also, the Queen’s outfits were very relevant. Her hats were always interesting and always complemented or matched her outfit very well, and they always caught my eye. I also liked some of the lines that showed some of the King’s frustration. The one that I remember is when he snapped at Logue and shouted “Because I have a voice!” This shows how strong of a character he was and how he was able to overcome his fears. Finally, the setting in this was also intriguing. The long corridors showed royalty, as well as the big stage and the long staircases. Overall, I liked this movie, but it wasn’t comparable to anything I know, and I’m not all that interested in the genre, which is why I ranked it 4.

5. Inception: I ranked this film number five, because in my mind, it is so overrated. I like Leonardo DiCaprio and his ability to take on a serious role such as this one, planting an idea into somebody’s head. I also liked the costumes that were involved in many of the dreams. From classy to dressed for outdoors, these costumes seem to fit the setting perfectly. I definitely liked the snow dream where the characters are dressed in the arctic gear, it just reminded me of many things and movies that I can relate to. Finally, I liked how the lighting in each dream was different, signifying a fresh start. Those were about the only positives that came out of this film. I think the idea was there, and I liked the storyline of the film until they entered tier 3. It just started to get too overwhelming, and then to come to school and hear everyone raving about it. It just didn’t do it for me. I like the twisted movies like this, but not ones like this, where there is a multi-tiered dream. Maybe if I see it a second time, but my first impression was negative.

6. Toy Story 3: I ranked this number 6 mainly because of its genre. As a kid, I loved the first and second Toy Stories, but I’m just not that age anymore. I thought the dialogue was sometimes amusing, if I was putting myself in a kid’s shoes. I still like some kids movies, such as The Incredibles, but this wasn’t my cup of tea. I liked the feeling of the classic kid’s movies (Toy Story 1, 2, etc.) because I can always remember watching them and enjoying them. I just can’t relate at this age, and I find it depressing that Andy has gone off to college. Should he have taken his toys with them? Or should they have stayed home where they are? I don’t know, but I overall didn’t enjoy this movie nearly as much as the others.

My First Movie Review

BRAINSTORMING

• interesting
• unpredictable
• adventurous
• dreary
• twisted
• eventful
• suspenseful
• conflicting ideas
• weird
• crazy
• confusing
• contradictory
• questionable
• psychological
• cruel

REVIEW OF SHUTTER ISLAND
Shutter Island is an interesting film in which the viewer has a hard time of predicting what's to come.  It is very deceptive, and at times feels out of sorts, leaving the viewer confused.  This crazy display of cruel, contradictory ideas all combine to display a film of psychological wonders.  Many may become very questionable of the film, while others will come to love it, as it makes sense more and more as you view it. It can be very deceptive, as at first it feels like a normal story, with a few detectives trying to solve a mystery of a runaway prisoner.  This soon changes and becomes more intense, especially towards the end.