No COuntry for old men: JoEy ScHulMAn

Society is built upon a foundation of norms, but not all individuals adhere to said norms, some are outliers. If the actions of an individual causes pain onto another, society defines that the normal reaction for that individual would be to exhibit a state of empathy, but this is not always the case, as there are those who do not feel or exhibit the normal psychological reactions to differing scenarios (sociopaths). As individuals’ progress and experience obstacles in their lives, they become familiar with the different aspects of their mind, such as their persona, shadow, and self, ultimately achieving individuation. In Cormac McCarthy’s No Country for Old Men, the state of individuation is demonstrated by the antagonist Anton Chigurh at the onset of the novel. In Anton Chigurh’s quest for the stolen satchel of money, Chigurh remorselessly murders all those who are obstacles to attain the satchel, including competitors. Through Chigurh’s varying experiences during his expedition, Chigurh’s constant impersonal persona, sadistic shadow and sociopathic self, portray him as an individual who has attained individuation prior to the onset of the story. 

No Country for Old Men Fargo

While No Country for Old Men, the film, remains faithful to the 2005 novel, the film also shows glimpses of themes that the Coen brothers had explored in their earlier movies. The novels themes that consist of chance and a plethora of hit men are familiar territory for the Coen brothers. As seen in Fargo where hit men are hired to capture Jerry’s wife. Critics acknowledged the presence of chance to both the novel and the film. The lives of the three major characters, Bell, Moss, and Chigurh, are the result of chance, which then seals their fate. McCarthy’s Chigurh believes in a rationality that is clearly all his own, shown by his coin flips. In his mind, he must kill anyone who gets in the way of his plan. All in all the Coen brothers kept the script faithful to the book, only trimming the story where necessary and adding visual and audial effects to bring McCarthy’s story to life.

Fargo & No Country

The two Coen Brothers' films, Fargo and No Country for Old Men, are both highly acclaimed movies. Both are quite similar, with very similar plot points. They're known for their loveable, quirky characters, living happily, almost obliviously in their folksy world. One thing that is noticeable with both Coen Brothres' film, is that the action is abrupt. The violence will occur in quick, short bursts, before the movie goes back to the folksy atmosphere that it had before. Its's a dark break from the calmness that they had beforehand. But the difference is with the deliverance of the violence. In Fargo, the violence is offset by a strange, twisted kind of dark comedy. The violence is graphic, but the way the characters act so nonchalantly about death and morality, coupled with the sudden violence, creates a kind of shock value that makes the viewer kind of laugh at the whole thing, while being disturbed at the same time. In No Country for Old Men, this is not so much the case. There is little comedy to be found in it, as most of the characters are somber, world-weary men, especially Officer Ed Tom Bell. Focus is put on the message of a new, more violent world emerging while the convenience and geniality of a simpler time is long gone. Tom Bell says this or hints at something to this effect several times throughout the movie. It is a lot more somber, and most of the comedy is found in the fact that there's an emotionless killer interacting with a town full of inexperienced country folk more than anything else.

Snow and Setting in Fargo

The snowy, flat setting of Fargo is hugely beneficial to its cinematography. The snow on the ground and in the sky is often used to create a blank white canvas upon which other figures are placed. This not only means that the image becomes beautiful in color, as the frame becomes predominantly white with subtle bluish gradients, but also beautiful in composition. Many well-done exterior compositions in the film would not be possible if the setting were different.

This extreme wide shot of a car driving across the horizon is when we first meet Showalter and Grimsrud. Wide shots like this one typically put the horizon two-thirds of the way down from the top of the frame in order to follow the rule of thirds. However, the horizon here is much lower and the sky basically fills the whole frame. The camera is able to be tilted so far up for this shot because it purposefully emphasizes the snowy whiteness of the sky. Doing so shows the isolation and sparseness of rural Minnesota. Perhaps it also shows the isolation and sociopathy of Showalter and more so Grimsrud.

Here is a shot with great use of pattern, balance and contrast which occurs after we find out wade intends to not give a real estate investment to Jerry but instead buy the property himself and give Jerry only a finder's fee. The camera is in a bird’s eye view, which is a shot often used to show death. Here, not a person but rather Jerry’s plan has died. The shot is monochromatic as everything is either white or black, which is of course only possible because of the snow. It’s an interesting composition in that the lamp posts and trees are spread in a pleasant pattern about the frame with the white of the snow creating discrete negative space.

The shot right after when Marge shoots Grimsrud shows great depth of frame. We see trees on the right in the foreground, Marge and Grimsrud mid ground, and the rest of the forest in the background. The top and bottom of the trees on the right also form distinct leading lines to Grimsrud. In fact, the trees form an arrow pointing towards him. These distinct leading lines would not exist had there been no snow. The white of the snow on the ground and in the sky help this be a successful wide shot as they quickly bring attention to that which is important.

Fargo was nominated for an oscar for best cinematography and won the oscar for best picture. Perhaps the reason for this is that the setting dramatically aided in the film’s cinematography. A snowy winter in a flat countryside created beautiful color and composition which not only made the film look better but also made it easier to understand.

Anti-Anti-Hero: Basically a Love Letter Regarding Marge Gunderson

Anti-Anti-Hero: Basically a Love Letter Regarding Marge Gunderson

In a time so full of the anti-hero, a trope to which even I have fallen prey and secretly love, it is becoming increasingly rare to see a character that is truly genuine. However, Marge Gunderson, local police chief in the Coen Brothers’ Fargo, is everything that our anti-heros are not and is still regarded as one of the best film characters of all time. The “folksy” environment often established by the Coen Brothers in many of their films is presented and applied wonderfully in this film, and in Marge especially. We first meet Marge in bed, who is woken up with news of a triple homicide and calmly proceeds to eat a quiet but content breakfast of eggs made by her husband before leaving for a crime scene with a little morning sickness. Marge exists fully outside of the world of the plot; she has a husband and a home and a child on the way. It is an uncomplicated lifestyle, but she greets it as well as those around her with authenticity. Marge is direct without being impolite, opinionated without searching for an argument, and clearly good at and committed to her job. Perhaps one of the most poignant moments of the film, preceded by the fact that we’ve just seen a main character being fed into and spewed out of a wood chipper, is Marge pulling everything into perspective in a small, straightforward speech as the film begins to conclude. She says to Grimsrud, who she watches in the rearview mirror of her squad car, “So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it.” In a film rooted so deeply in irony, it is almost refreshing to see a main character without it.

Fargo: A TextBook Coen Brothers Film

Fargo has an irresistible charm to it. The characters are sculpted in a very simple and folky way. The accents and the dialogue in this movie are just great, an instance of this is how everyone described Steve Buscemi’s character, they all described him as, “ Small funny looking guy”. I have always been a big fan of when characters have brought up something that a different character had said without any previous connection to them. I’ve noticed this motif in almost all Coen brothers’ movies.  Fargo puts a funny spin on this mess of a story that resulted in actual deaths, and it completely succeeds. I believe the characters really sold this movie for me though. The Coen brothers have always come up with great characters that are just interesting. Marge Gunderson, a pregnant, pretty much up beat women who is the sheriff of Fargo. You don’t find a goofy accented, corky, pregnant woman wielding a gun in every movie. This ends up giving the movie some atmosphere, which a lot of movies lack lately. This movie also reminds me a lot of The Big Lebowski, and Burn After Reading. Along with goofy and unique characters, these movies have similar stories of something simple as, getting mistaken for someone else, or just a love relationship, that spiral into a complicated story that ends up being very enjoyable.

Fargo and No Country For Old Men

Camilla Broccolo

Something the Coen Brother’s films have in common is the fact that they are both incredibly violent and somewhat haunting. However, one difference between these movies in the comedic relief;  which, in Fargo, there is surprisingly a lot of.  This aspect of the movie made the violence a little bit easier to digest.  However, the fact it is based on a true story makes the comedy a little more haunting and uncomfortable.  On the other hand, No Country for Old Men was chock-full of violence.  It seemed as if every scene someone dies or gushes blood.  This movie was haunting because the “bad guy” or killer, Anton, just killed people, one after the other.   I had a hard time watching the movie because almost every scene there was blood.  I also found it haunting that both of these movies revolved around money and the crazy things people will do to get money.

Coen Brothers Films

The distinct style of the Coen brothers was very clear in the two films we watched in class. "No Country for Old Men" was filled with a constant atmosphere of death. The darkness of the film is haunting, unbearable for some, but contains rich themes addressing society and mankind. "Fargo" had moments of comic relief, but the overall mood was very similar to the one displayed in "No Country for Old Men." This dark mood is clearly a trademark of the Coen brothers, and while it turns some people away from their films, the morbidity leads to unique revelations regarding human nature. For example, Moss' numerous encounters with death demonstrate the fragility of life. Also, the fact that the protagonist Moss loses his life is a depressing view of reality. The good guy does not always come out on top in the real world. Similarly, Jerry's plan's downturn, which leads to the death of many, showcases the unpredictable nature of life. His innocent wife and father-in-law end up losing their lives because of his irrational plan and he goes to prison for the rest of his life. The person who is really impacted the most though is his son. Think about it. His mother and grandfather have died, and his dad is going to prison for being involved in their murders. This kid's whole life has changed as a result of his dad's relatively innocent plan. The Coen brothers films are iconic and valuable because of their insightful and unique perspectives on society.  

No Country For Old Men and Fargo

The first Coen Brothers film we viewed, No Country For Old Men, is very concise in indicating certain actions that are going to, or already took place, but aren't explicitly shown on screen. For instance, after Chigurh breaks down his way into the motel room where his tracker has lead him, he decides to take his socks off just before he begins searching for the money. My first assumption as to why the character did this was that he was being extra careful to not leave any traces of him being at the scene, had the cops returned at a later time. However, I then realized that this most likely wasn't his motive because there are other factors that could reveal his presence at the scene. I then began to question his motive and wonder why the directors decided to zoom-in on this particular part. Another scene that I personally found very clear in its indication of what had happened, was when Chigurh was leaving Carla Jean Moss' house. Just before he leaves, there is a scene between Chigurh and Carla Jean in which she pleads him not to kill her, knowing that that's what he has come to do. Instead of actually showing Chigurh committing the murder, the film fast forwards to him walking out of the house and checking the bottom of his shoes. This is a clear indication that he did kill Carla Jean and was now checking for any blood he may have brought with him. The second film we viewed by the Coen Brothers was Fargo. Much alike, Fargo consists of moments in which the motives and actions of specific characters are shown without actually showing the action taking place. At the very end of the film, Gaear Grimsrud is shown working in the back of the house with a chipper and all the audience sees is a mountain of blood-covered snow. As the police officer slowly approaches him, a leg being brutally destroyed in the chipper is revealed. The Coen brothers' decision to not actually show Carl being killed but only his remains being disposed of, is unique in its way to allow an audience to imagine the killing for their own. While watching this particular scene, I was interested in its ability to reveal Gaear's motive of concealing the crime he's committed, and indicate Carl's death without explicitly showing it. In my opinion, both of these Coen Brothers films stand out in their way to indicate certain actions that have already, or are going to occur, without actually showing it on screen.

No Country For Old Men / Fargo

One main similarity between No Country For Old Men and Fargo, as with most Coen Brothers Films, is the copious usage of violence in these films. Both films center around violent themes and concepts such as murder, kidnapping, gangs, etc. However, each film has a unique representation of violence. Although in each film the "bad" guy is the one committing the most violence (Javier Bardem in NCFOM, Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare in Fargo), they both depend on violence to keep the viewer interested in the film. When the first murder occurs in Fargo (Stormare kills the cop), the viewer is shocked at the scene and the murder creates a rolling effect of violence and tension throughout the remainder of the film. When Javier Bardem kills the man on the side of the highway with the pressure tank, we immediately know who the "wild card" in the film is, and Stormare is the "wild card" in Fargo. Overall, each film depends upon one or more particularly violent characters to keep the viewer paying attention to the film. All of the Coen Brothers' films that I have watched have had interesting plots and iconic scenes, sentences, and characters, but each film also uses violence at one point or another to keep the viewer interested in what is going to happen throughout the remainder of the film, which is the intention of Joel and Ethan. However, this is not totally true, as The Big Lebowski, also directed by the brothers, does not depends upon the violent character to keep the viewer into the film. As far as I can remember, The Big Lebowski did not have any particularly violent scenes, with the exception of the scene where Donny is shot.

Fargo: Folksy Fighting

We have watched a lot of bloody movies over the course of the semester. Almost all of the films we've watched have had some small form of conflict in them; while there were others where cameramen seemed to be constantly wiping blood of their camera lenses. Fargo was another blood bath we can add to the list. But something separates the violence from Fargo from the violence, lets say in the film Drive, or There Will be Blood. Movies like Drive and TWBB, as I like to think of it "owned" their violence. Meaning that there was sort of a set tone throughout the film that yes, these main characters are vicious and violent. And yes the violent scenes/actions are expected or warranted in some sort of way. We have seen semi-psychotic main characters in these movies; but not in Fargo.

Fargo sets a folksy, clumsy and almost innocent tone for the duration of the movie. You don't watch the first minute and expect to see two guys shooting each other repeatedly even after one of them died. It just doesn't carry that vibe to it. The (almost) Canadian accents, the passive and polite demeanor that all of the characters have, make for a movie that when violence appears, causes it to be double the amount of shocking that it would usually be. In this movie you can't help but laugh a bit when you see someone get shot. Which is weird to say, and makes you feel almost slightly evil...?

Blood

While viewing the Coen brothers films No Country for Old Men  and Fargo one element was dominant, blood. Both movies were dripping with scenes of violence and murder, and blood, lots of blood. The films had thick plots but were rather simple in nature for script, music and location. No Country for Old Men, had minimal words, long pauses between characters and left a lot of room for interpretation for the audience. Set in the old country of Texas, which is more of a desert, the scenery and backdrop were very empty and spacious. The simple surroundings made the plot more interesting considering it was a man hunt for blood, and ended up being a gruesome game of murder anyone in the way. Alike, Fargo took a turn and ended up being the same situation, but set in the cold terrain of North Dekota it gave a cool white backdrop to the dark red blood being spilled. It also had similar light music played behind the characters. Both films had very folky characters that gave a sort of humor and light heartedness to the violence taking place. No Country for Old Men had old innocent Texas folk and Fargo had goofy North Dakota accented individuals. They definitely gave a nice spin to the film and contrasted the plot. The crime taken place in the plots of these films was some of the more horrific and savage murders, which their gore was very visual to the viewers. Popping bullets in peoples skulls, axing bodies, and even wood-chipping them. It was disturbing.

Usage of Setting and Supporting Characters in Fargo

Cyrus Burris

As far as the actual plot goes in Fargo, it's for back of a better term, pretty screwed up. A fairly average seeming man wants some money, and organizes a deal to have his wife kidnapped for insurance money. Throughout the process, we meet some pretty crazy characters, see several people get murdered, and overall have a pretty crazy-old time. However, among all the crazy characters and activities, it's easy to forget about the fairly normal setting and supporting characters in the film. I believe these are just as essential to the overall quality of the film as their crazy counterparts.

This movie takes place in rural Minnesota, and you could clearly tell not only by endless fields of snow in seemingly every scene, but also by the demeanor of the people. Every single character is the most stereotypical Mid-Westerner that you would ever hear. They all seem to live their quaint normal little lives without much of a care in the world.

You go from a regular stay-at-home husband talking about his his art and some local competition to seeing Steven Buscemi getting cut up in a wood chipper. The normal passerbyers are just as important as the axe murderers.

Coen Brothers Films

An interesting thing about both movies we just watched is the amount of unnecessary gruesome violence in each of them. The way they had the characters killed in each movie or disposed of was very unpredictable and original. In No country for Old Men Shager was going around killing people with an air canister. This was a very violent and inauthentic way to kill someone. Also in Fargo a guy was put into a wood chipper and was being torn into pieces. Both of these ways of killing are extremely gruesome and you don't see them in many movies. In the majority of movies either guns or explosive weapons kill the people. I think a lot of people do not like the idea of gruesome killing and violence and so most movies try and stay away from these weird killing techniques. The Coen brothers, however, completely embrace it and they must think it actually adds a cool detail to the storyline or else they wouldn't do it. I also think that the amount of killing in their movies says something about themselves and that they value violence and killing in their movies. They also always seem to have a strange psychopath in their movies. Whether it be Shager or Gaear Grimsrud both movies have this strange mindless killer who doesn't speak much. I think these two concepts make both of the movies very similar to each other and they are even somewhat of the same plot. The Coen brothers have quite an imagination and it takes them far in their film making.

Fargo and No Country For Old Men

Fargo and No Country For Old Men

            The Coen Brothers’ have directed multiples films, but some of their notable ones include Fargo and No Country For Old Men. I feel that these two films that we watched in class both had similar ideas and similar ways of making the viewers think about the film. Both films do not take place in any city type of atmosphere, and accents are very prominent, making sure the viewers know where each film is taking place and therefore help with the background of the film as well. For example, in Fargo, Jerry plans a kidnapping of his wife to get money from her father, but this is something even more unusual than it might normally be because of the location. We hear him talking with his wife in the beginning of the film and we hear how strong her accent is, making it seem both funny but also a little innocent at the same time. In No Country For Old Men, the Coen Brothers did a pretty good job of keeping almost the same plot as the book, but their choice of actors made it all the more interesting and really helped the viewers understand what the writer was trying to do. In Fargo having a pregnant police woman, not just a big bulky policeman sets the atmosphere even better and shows what kind of town/state these people are living in. Both of the films included a “chaser” and a person running from the chase. They both include money problems; Llewellyn trying to steal thousands of dollars and Jerry trying to get thousands of dollars. I think both of these movies were really well directed and I enjoyed watching them both.

No Country for Old Men and Fargo

The films No Country for Old Men and Fargo, both have main characters who share a lot in common. In No Country for Old Men, main character Llewelyn orginally has a low-key life. He enjoys his hobbies of hunting and watching TV with his wife, little did he know that he would be apart of a massive mouse-cat race. Just as Carson Wells said, he's not fit for it. The type of person he seems in the end of the film, violent and murderous, was not who he was. When Llewelyn accidentally shot the deer in the leg and didn't kill it immediately, he went after it and tried to put it out of its misery. Although he was shooting at a deer, this represented the caring Llewelyn that existed in the beginning of the film. In Fargo, main character Jerry originally has a simple life in Minnesota, full of jokes and annoying accents. Little did he know that his money situation would lead to the death of his family members and yet another mouse-cat race. In the end Jerry becomes a killer, he was the reason for the death of many people, and he is the reason why we had to see an atrocious scene of a man exploding out of a wood chipper. Jerry turned into a terrible person, and his "innocent" self was the one that created it.

Coen Brothers: Regional Accuracy and Media Adaptation

One of the most outstanding things about Coen brothers films, especially the two we watched in class, is the regional accuracy of acting. In No Country For Old Men, based in Texas, every actor in the film had a very strong accent, which accurately portrays Southern Texas. The Coen brothers also portray the South Texans as overly simple, which is not necessarily accurate, but helps to immerse the viewer in the setting, as every great film should do. In Fargo, the Minnesotan accents are spot on, and sometimes exaggerated. This way, the viewer never forgets where the movie takes place (North Dakota, actually) and the overall quality of the film is enhanced. Perfect accents along with regional symbolism and great setting (shown below) make No Country For Old Men and Fargo two great American films.

Another interesting quality of Coen brother films is their versatile media adaptability. No Country For Old Men was originally a book that was adapted by Joel and Ethan Coen into a great film. Some things were added and omitted, but overall, the film stays fairly true to the book, and adapts to the big screen brilliantly. Fargo was an original screenplay written by the Coen brothers, and is now being brought to the screen once again as a FX television series. From what I've heard, the show is very good. It's interesting that the Coen brothers make so many movies that are direct or loose adaptations of literature. Another example is the Coen brothers' film O Brother, Where Art Thou? which, interestingly enough, is loosely based on Homer's "The Odyssey."

The Shining: Uses of Camera

The use of certain camera positions is well used in this film. Right from the start we have these great sweeping shots of the mountains, providing a general setting for the movie while the opening credits roll. One of the large reasons for people to go insane in the hotel is that it’s very cut off from civilization, and these clips show it. Another great use of them is in the hallways and the maze. When Danny is riding his bike down the hallways it is always from behind him. This happens later on in the maze too. The camera angle is behind and in front of Danny and Jack when they are in the chase. These stranger uses of camera displays scenes in a very interesting way.

There Will Be Blood: Character Similarities

This is a movie built by the characters, the main ones being Daniel and Eli. Although they are each seemingly incredibly different, they go through a lot of similar motions throughout the storyThis movie focuses on two incredibly different yet powerfully similar characters, who develop largely through each other. When the negotiations and discussions of the land and oil drilling were going on, he was presented as a respectable and well-versed man. At the end of the movie, Daniel seems to have completely left behind his earlier performance. He pushes every connection he has away in order to build his oil empire and eventually he has practically nothing left. For the most part we see Eli as this slightly awkward, devoted young man, who is very involved in his church. Sometimes though, when Eli is incredibly angry, or very involved in his preaching, he seems to somewhat lose control, it almost looks like a tantrum or fit of anger or passion. It’s a version of him that’s very different from the quiet, polite boy we’re used to.

 Both characters come a long way from who they started off as in the movie. Daniel, while presenting as a successful and composed business man, deals with people in a brute and forceful way, and by the end of the movie has almost nothing dear to him left. Eli also is viewed by many as a clam and good preacher for his church, but he does have a more passionate/angry side around some and in his church. There Will Be Blood portrays these two different characters and how they develop very interestingly.

Citizen Kane: Symbolism Through Items

At the end of the movie it’s revealed that rosebud is in fact a sled which seems to just be a meaningless artifact from his childhood. However it is actually a nostalgic item for him, from at time when he was truly happy, before he had to leave his home and family. It can be assumed that he was remembering such times when he whispered the word on his deathbed, and dropped the snow globe. The snow globe is an item he picked up after his second wife Susan left him, according to his butler. He also supposedly said rosebud then too. In this way the snow globe became another rosebud-esque item, an allusion to a happier time when he was married. Although he didn’t have the physical sled with him, he carried both items, and memories to the end, when he had nothing left from the ruin of his life. All the items in his mansion at the end, ranging from priceless to worthless, was all he had left in the end. It’s an allusion of grandeur that meant nothing. All of those items could not compare to the significance of the sled, which was destroyed along with everything else at the end. After Kane was gone it meant nothing, as delicately pointed out by reporter in the final scene.

Drive

Nicolas Winding Refn's 2011 film, Drive, is a neo-noir action film. It is a unique thriller, that blends its violence and romance into something that is rare in the action genre. Though the dialogue is minimal, and honestly somewhat lacking at times, Drive makes up for it in cinematography, style, and music. 

The camera angles found in Drive are quite unique. The shots are purposefully made asymmetrical. yet balanced at the same time. Often, when there is a group of three together in a scene, they are stacked on top of one another on one side. This is found several times throughout the movie.

There is a very surreal quality to Drive, which I haven't seen in many other action movies. Between the bright, faded and washed-out pastel colors, the persistently sunny weather, and the 80's electronic pop soundtrack, the action and the intensity of the situations the characters are in is almost downplayed. The color palette for Drive is either very soft and pastel, or very bright and vibrant. It pretty much juxtaposes much of the action and violence that goes on alongside these color schemes. It uses all the colors that you would imagine being in a commercial for California tourism, showing off the ideally relaxing and vacation-like mood you usually would associate Los Angeles with. It provides a dream-like atmosphere, even in the scenes depicting violence. The addition of its electro-pop soundtrack only adds to this effect, with the use of its synthesizers.

The artistry of Drive is very stylized, and it is very clear that it serves more as an independent film. It is almost unpredictable when something violent is truly about to happen, and that is due to it's relaxed nature. It is something you do not see very often, an action movie that keeps you engaged throughout.

Side by Side: Film is Extinct

Keanu Reeves' documentary "Side by Side" shows both sides of the film vs. digital argument, but the answer to which medium is superior is clear.  Digital is the future.  Before this documentary, I had no idea that it took a whole day for film to be processed and viewed.  The director could never be sure if they got the shot right until the next day, which made the process of movie-making considerably longer.  The increased time is not the main problem that film causes though.  Without being able to view the image as it is being shot, directors were forced to compensate and accept non-perfect takes.  With digital, the director is complete control of the scene and can make changes on the spot to be sure that the shot is perfect.  The main party that seems to be against this are the cinematographers.  I understand their concern, as the ease of digital film making takes power away from them and gives it to the director.  However, movies are vastly improved when the director has more control.  Additionally, visual effects in movies have taken a giant leap forward as a result of digital.  Effects during the film-era were accomplished using models and real lighting, but were much less imaginative than the digital effects being accomplished today.  James Cameron's "Avatar" is a perfect example of digital's superiority as the effects used would never have been possible on film.  Overall, it is clear that the movie industry is going through a transformation, and there are always some reluctant to change.  However, the benefits of digital clearly outweigh film so the future of movies is in digital.

Not Possible on Film

   

"Side by Side"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/movies/side-by-side-with-keanu-reeves-charts-filmmaking-advances.html

Taxi Driver ≈ Fight Club

As I watched Taxi Driver, directed by Martin Scorsese, I couldn’t help but think about the many similarities it has with Fight Club, directed by David Fincher. These films are not only similar overall like in mood and theme but are also similar in very specific details. Both films follow a main character who is a vigilante. While Tyler Durden fights consumerism, materialism, and big business corporations, Travis fights against street crime and prostitution. Both are unhappy with the status quo and successfully make a difference, although not peacefully. Both films have a love interest who leaves the main character. In Taxi Driver, Betsy leaves Travis because he watches an adult film with her as a date, and in Fight Club, Marla leaves The Narrator for reasons which would spoil the film but are also because of a fault in him. Both films have a main character who is very isolated. Both Travis and The Narrator have few good friends and are disconnected from the rest of the world. Both films have a main character who suffers from insomnia as a huge part of the story and leading to a nocturnal life. Both films have multiple montages of mindless traveling. In Taxi Driver, half the film is Travis driving around in his taxi, and Fight Club often show The Narrator flying from place to place for his job as an automobile product recall specialist. Both films have a constant voice over narration by the main character. Both Travis and The Narrator describe their thoughts and actions throughout each film. Both films have heavy film grain. Fight Club’s film grain is so great because it was filmed on a spherical rather than anamorphic lens, so the image had to be blown up, thus increasing grain. Finally, both films have a main character nearly shooting himself at the end of the film. All these similarities add up. As I was watching Taxi Driver, I almost felt as if I was rewatching Fight Club.

Leading Lines in Drive

Drive, directed Nicolas Winding Refn, is a technically proficient film. Despite suffering from boring story, dialogue, and acting, it utilizes interesting choices in font and music, excellent editing, especially during action scenes, and cinematographic elements such as frequent use of large depth of frame. One other cinematographic element used often but not always well in this film is leading lines. Leading lines are lines which guide your eye through the frame. They help a viewer quickly identify the point of interest of a shot, making them very useful for scenes with fast cuts. One film which uses leading lines very well and very often is The Incredibles, directed by Brad Bird. Since this is an animated film, each shot is scrupulously crafted and almost always contains leading lines. Drive may not utilize leading lines as much or as well as The Incredibles, but it still uses them effectively.

One example of leading lines is when the driver and Irene speak in a restaurant. The previous shot's point of interest was Irene on the right of the frame, so this is where the viewer's eye begins on the reverse shot for the driver. The shot has a very busy background and it would be easy to get lost in its clutter if not for the leading lines of the bridge against the sky. This guides the eyes of the viewer to the eyes of the driver.

The shot where the driver is walking through this hallway ready to smash some hands is another use of leading lines, which are in this case created by the light bulbs on the wall. They point to the back of the driver's head and create a good point of interest.

One last example of good use of leading lines is this shot of Shannon in the car shop. Leading lines are very important in this shot because his face is the darkest part of the frame. The leading lines created by the conduit and change in paint color lead the eye away from the brighter bottom of his shirt and right side of the frame to his eyes.

Not every use of leading lines in this film is a good one. In this shot of Bernie in the car shop, leading lines made by the hanging florescent light fixtures lead the eye to an incorrect point of interest, his neck, when the correct point of interest is his eyes. Whether or not a viewer notices it precisely, being lead to a character's neck rather than their eyes is distracting and is an error in cinematography. This problem could have been easily mitigated by pedestaling the camera the slightest bit higher or changing the blocking so that Bernie is standing a little bit further away from the camera. Drive is a great film, but it is not flawless.

Drive - the easiest and hardest role of all time

In the movie Drive, we meet quite a remarkably calm yet badass character. While we all know he's the most handsome man alive, it still isn't exactly clear to me why he's so praised for his work in this movie. First off, Ryan Gosling doesn't actually DO anything the entire time. He hardly even says anything at that. Since he isn't the one actually driving the cars (I assume he doesn't do his own stunts), i'm not exactly impressed with his skill of keeping a straight face for 2 hours. This was a role that literally anyone could have done - but at the same time - impossible for anyone else to do well. I'd even go as far to call him the male Kristen Stewart for his lack of... anything. Because I know Gosling is actually a  good actor, I consider this a waste of good talent, but good use of a pretty face. Despite how easy it would have been to physically accomplish, I couldn't imagine any other actor fulfilling this role the way it was. As much as I liked this movie, it could have used some more dialogue, or at least facial expression at least when the girl wasn't around. The "sexual tension" was a sensible use of silence, but just because he's Ryan Gosling that doesn't mean everyone deserves that treatment.

Drive

Drive was a great movie, but what clearly made Drive the movie that it is, was one actor. Ryan Gosling. The effort and dedication he put into his character, Driver, was remarkable. Before the film was made, Ryan made sure that he was going to ace this opportunity. He built the gray car that he drives on his own, disassembled it and then built it right back up from the ground. He worked out perfected his characters figure. And of course, his great acting. His character who is very distant and quiet from others, made the movie. He is very calm and collected during the film, while being in complete control of his situation and coming up on top. He kills everyone in his path that set him up and that are threatening Irene and her son. Also seen in Taxi Driver was the theme of doing whatever the character thinks is necessary to protect a woman that he cares about. The similarity in theme, also link together the two characters, Travis from Taxi Driver and Driver from Drive. Both of the characters are very reserved and keep to themselves, but work hard to achieve a greater goal. Travis perfects his physique and obtains the weapons he believes are 'necessary' to save the young woman from the whorehouse. While, Driver, who is already very much in shape, just strategizes to keep himself and Irene alive. All in all, Drive was a stupendous film with a great cast, especially Ryan Gosling, and can be related to Taxi Driver by theme and character personalities.

Joeman's mo fweckin extra credit blog

The Driver, played by Ryan Gosling, is a “strong silent type” similar to the characters we have seen Clint Eastwood, Robert DeNiro, and Alain Delon play. The Driver gets himself involved in a dangerous situation which he ultimately takes control of through the dogged conviction he displays once he decides to take action due to Irene. The story itself is told with simple efficiency, leaving the character development to take a backseat to the presentation of the film. Drive is treading in the same waters of many action films before it and it is clearly a purposeful choice. As much as Refn has made something evocative from a directorial standpoint, I think that Gosling’s performance is an equally gratifying and important addition. The Driver may belong to an archetype we have seen before, but like in many of his previous appearances in film, Gosling makes his version stand out. His knack for conveying his emotions through silence is not only impressive but is also mesmerizing to behold. Gone is the hard masculinity one expects to find with this type of role.