Film analyses

[Baal Hadad]

There's a website I check up on frequently that dabbles in in-depth analysis of various films, including five directed by Stanley Kubrick, my favorite director--I won't link to it since I don't know to what degree it would be "safe for work."  I personally think it would be, but I err on the side of caution--some of the conclusions this person (Rob Ager is his name if anyone wants to search for the site and see for themselves) comes to are controversial enough that he himself posts disclaimers before bringing them up.  Granted, this is only in the text that he mentions these, and anything picture-wise or video-wise comes from the films themselves, but as I said I don't know where the boundaries lie....

Anyway, I love reading his film analyses (and looking at his youtube videos of such) because not only do they give me new appreciation for films I've seen before (and some films I haven't seen yet), but they also stimulate my own thinking, and I hope to present some of this latter in this thread (rather than regurgitate what's already on his site).





Now, before I go any further, be warned that there are SPOILERS ahead--I don't know what the policy is regarding spoilers here, since this isn't a movie forum, but I know that some people dislike spoilers of films (I'm not one of them, and have never understood this, but I want to be considerate).  You've been warned....





So to start: one film in particular I've been thinking about today has been The Blair Witch Project.  I know not everyone likes that film but I'm one of the ones who did, and I'll explain why.  In the first place, the horror film genre in general is one where the lack of quality in films that seems to be rising more and more each year is painfully obvious.  As bad as it is to have films in general that aren't good quality, however, it is especially notable in films of a genre such as horror which, by its very definition, claims to be setting a certain tone that prompts a specific emotional response from audiences.

In short: horror films are all too often anything BUT horrifying.  Monsters they'll have, violence they'll have, even cheap "shock" moments they'll have, but in general they're nothing but camp which are so NOT scary that it's impossible to suspend disbelief long enough to take them seriously.

This being the case, it seems to me that good quality horror films are those that engage in psychological horrors--in other words, the horror is not assaulting your eyes, but your mind.  These films give you something to chew on long after the film is over, so that you can't simply remind yourself that it's only a movie and get on with your life.  The Blair Witch Project certainly did that for me, and until today I don't think I quite understood what that was that intrigued me enough to keep tuning in each time I saw the film on TV.  To be sure, I'd read reviews of it and knew that its horrifying effect came from the tricks that made it realistic: not only its claim to have been actual documentary footage (which extended into its advertising campaign), and subsequent use of hand-held cameras, lack of artifical lighting, scripts, censorship, character names, etc., but also the fact that we never actually see any of the horrors the student filmmakers experience but only hear things which are ambiguous, thus we never learn for certain exactly what is happening, not even at the end (which is particularly chilling).

But there's more to it than that--until today, it didn't occur to me to question a particularly obvious point: why did the film affect me on the level it was going for when I knew before I ever watched it that the whole thing was FAKE?  In other words, I didn't fall into the trap of thinking the film was as real as it was claiming to be, so why was I able to appreciate the film on its own terms and suspend my disbelief?  Here again, I now believe this has more to do with the film itself and its intended message than with me in particular as an audience member.  I think Josh says it best when he comments to Heather on why she keeps the camera on and tapes everything: "It's not quite reality."  He implies that her constant taping of everything, even if it's not part of the intended documentary (which annoys Josh and Mike) is a coping mechanism--her way of dealing with adversity by retreating into denial/fantasy by putting the camera between herself and reality.

I think this is the very thing that most people in the audience do, even if they don't acknowledge that they're doing this.

In fact, this is the closest such a film can come to breaking the fourth wall--I believe it's a commentary on the audience themselves.  They have a movie screen between them and the horrors therein, and this is how people tend to deal with the horrors of real life, by retreating into fantasy or denial, and watching things that they know (or think) aren't real.

But therein lies the trick of the true horror genre, which, while it utilizes fiction, nevertheless describes true horrors that can be found in real life (even if only metaphorically) and so such stories/films/whatever manage to actually horrify, rather than being fun campfire stories that you KNOW aren't real.

And I believe that The Blair Witch Project comes through in spades in this regard.  It doesn't take away from the scare factor to know that the whole thing was staged, and the reason is twofold: first, the real horror of the film is the students getting lost in the woods, taken away from the world they're used to and take for granted, and slowly degenerating into a more bestial state, while in constant fear of a never-seen monster (a la Lord of the Flies), and this is something that very easily COULD happen--in addition to which people in real life have disappeared without a trace, which is frightening enough without invoking the supernatural, which not everyone believes in anyway; second, I believe the filmmakers knew exactly what they were doing in their advertising campaign, and were effectively doing the same thing that Orson Welles and the Mercury Theatre on the Air did with their 1938 broadcast of The War of the Worlds--in other words, pointing out how easy it is to believe what the media tells you just because it does, even though these media can and do lie all the time.  There again lies another real-life horror that the film forces us to face in our own world.

In short, the film holds a mirror to the real world, and forces us to face the horrors within, and it gets into our brains by making itself appear authentic to the last detail, not least of which is making us feel as though we are ourselves trapped in the woods along with Heather, Josh, and Mike, rather than being safe in the comfort of a movie theater, or our own homes.  But again, even knowing that the film isn't real does nothing to reassure us because it blurs the line between reality and fantasy as surely as it blurs the movie screen separating us from the horrors onscreen.  This is why the best horror films stay with you even when you know they're not real, and even when there are no more surprises (that's part of the reason I prefer spoilers--if I can't appreciate the film without coming to it completely fresh, I doubt my ability to appreciate it once I have seen it already and know what's coming).

At any rate, I hope the topic is broad enough to cover multiple films, as I don't want it to be limited to The Blair Witch Project alone (both because I've said a lot on it already and I want others to participate, and because I have so many other films I enjoy--I said already that my favorite director was Stanley Kubrick).  Any thoughts, something to add?

[Tapewolf]

For some weird reason I thought this was going to be about grain sizes, 4k scanning or how to digitally reconstruct colour from a B/W telecine using the phosphor patterns.  I'm probably the only person who thought that, so just carry on without me 

[Baal Hadad]

For some weird reason I thought this was going to be about grain sizes, 4k scanning or how to digitally reconstruct colour from a B/W telecine using the phosphor patterns.  I'm probably the only person who thought that, so just carry on without me 

Heh, sorry about that.  I don't know enough about the actual tools used in the process of making films, though part of me wishes I did (or at least had the drive to learn them), because I have some ideas of movies that I think would merit being made.

If you can't contribute to the discussion on the intent or messages of films, then I'm sorry to lose you, but that is the point of this thread....

EDIT: Okay then, sounds good.    Looking forward to it!

Anyone else?

[Tapewolf]

If you can't contribute to the discussion on the intent or messages of films, then I'm sorry to lose you, but that is the point of this thread....

I didn't mean to make it sound quite so final.  There are a couple of film I'd like to dissect in this manner - when I have more time I'll see if I can do that.

[Sunblink]

I'll have one of these whipped up in some time. I already have a film in mind.

[Baal Hadad]

Looking forward to it all! 

And for the sake of all who want to dissect films in this regard, I will hold off doing any more myself for the time being (but only for the time being--at some point I want to do some more, too!).

[GabrielsThoughts]

um...I just briefly glanced over the thread. I reject your interpretation of the Blair Witch, but appreciate that you took the time to perform a psychoanalysis of the films impact/influence on society.

[Baal Hadad]

um...I just briefly glanced over the thread. I reject your interpretation of the Blair Witch, but appreciate that you took the time to perform a psychoanalysis of the films impact/influence on society.

Thank you for being honest and for being kind in your disagreement with my interpretation. 

May I trouble you to explain your reasons for your rejection?  That is, after all, the intent of the thread--to get multiple viewpoints on the matter.

[Brunhidden]

its actually a conversation thats popped up on the chat and forum and miscelanious IM conversations- scary movies that arent scary


the prime perpetrator is the 'saw' series now, which i am actually frightened because work on the next saw movie is well underway before the current one was even released.... what is this, saw six? are they aiming for one a year?

and its not alone, other 'scary' movies featuring no horror are popping up more often, the genere should be separated from horror and given a new name- the name i heard suggested on the chat was 'gorno', a cross between gore and porno because obviously someone is getting off on it and that's just wrong. in essence that's the difference, you watch a scary movie to get scared and to feel an adrenaline rush, a gorno is seen because you get off on seeing blood, guts, and people screaming in pain.


seriously, i recall scary movies that were made scary by good acting, suspense, and allowing your brain to paint emotions that you cant actually see as anything visual would be somehow disappointing. saw on the other hand ignores the time honored method of seeing the monster or villain as little as possible, for the dark is scary because of what it hides not things hiding in the dark are scary because we say so- and instead of actual horror or even suspense instead lets you watch dental surgery or someone removing their own eye with a grapefruit spoon

although many people say it is not a true horror movie the one i point to and say 'that is awesome, why cant you be more like this movie' is the movie 'seven'. the suspense is enough to seriously threaten the bladder of an average man, any gore you see was performed when you were not there and thus holds a strong sense of mystery and dread, you had absolutely no clue when or where the bad guy would hit next as he seemed to be all powerful despite being just some guy. that was his power really, he was just some guy, not a freaky puppet and not some building-o-doom designed to turn people who enter into quivering sausage



i have one conclusion- hollywood needs a hero, a man with a blunt object and no fear, a man who knows how to break into the homes of writers and directors and beat them till they no longer spew stupid from their orifices.

someday i hope to be that hero, but until then we shall have to sit through more craptacular marvels such as meet dave, sex in the city, max payne,  the brothers solomon, and anything featuring will ferrel

[Baal Hadad]

I wholeheartedly agree.

It seems that the way to appeal to the lowest common denominator is to appeal to the baser instincts--specifically, violence and sex.  Consequently filmmakers often skimp on anything that actually makes a movie worth watching (probably to save money) and ups the R- or X-rated stuff to guarantee they'll get viewers anyway, just so that they can see the sex and violence.

And ironically, this in turn leads to people complaining about sex and violence in films in general, suggesting that it contributes to active violence and unsafe sexual activity or whatever, and leads to calls for banning them from films at all.  This is baloney because films are just as much (if not more) a reflection of society as/than an influence on society--plus there are some films that, while they may have graphic violence and sex, are nevertheless good or even great films that simply require these in order to tell its specific story (two of Kubrick's films in particular come to mind in this regard).  But sex and violence should never be used as crutches to prop up a bad film.  The problem isn't that R- and X-rated films are violent or erotic--it's that they just plain stink.

Anyway, I don't mind this kind of discussion myself, so I'm allowing it, but I primarily want this thread to be about analyses of specific films, not about complaints about film trends in general--which is why I'm glad you mentioned Seven in your thread.  I haven't seen it myself, though.

[Brunhidden]

the downfall is that sex and violence get boring quite quickly, whereas good story can last generations (my FOUR year old is a starwars fan)

the flaw is that movies are not a reflection of society but rather a reflection of what a filmaker and his associated marketing firm THINK of society and what they guess will do well.

if you had ever watched the TV series 'the critic' it makes a lot more sense

[Baal Hadad]

the downfall is that sex and violence get boring quite quickly, whereas good story can last generations (my FOUR year old is a starwars fan)

the flaw is that movies are not a reflection of society but rather a reflection of what a filmaker and his associated marketing firm THINK of society and what they guess will do well.

if you had ever watched the TV series 'the critic' it makes a lot more sense

That first line sums it all up right there--that's why films that get remembered are ones with substance, not just style.

And my point in my comment about reflecting society was meant as an argument against the idea that violence and uninhibited sex are CAUSED by experiencing it in the media, which I think is baloney.

I never did watch The Critic (was probably too young to appreciate it when it was on), but maybe I'll have to look into it....

[rabid_fox]

"Alien vs. Predator" is a potent metaphor for the gender war.

[Cogidubnus]

"Alien vs. Predator" is a potent metaphor for the gender war.

Didn't the humans win that one, though?

[Brunhidden]

"Alien vs. Predator" is a potent metaphor for the gender war.

Didn't the humans win that one, though?

so the hermaphrodites win or was it the androids?

[rabid_fox]

Everybody loses.

[Baal Hadad]

"Alien vs. Predator" is a potent metaphor for the gender war.

I haven't seen that movie, so in the spirit of this thread I hope you're prepared to explain that. 

[rabid_fox]

Everyone knows its crap but rabid fans of either side never shut up about how the other one's better. Then real life (represented in the film by, ironically, humans) comes and reminds us that we've got better things to do, like pay tax and be disappointed.

[Baal Hadad]

Everyone knows its crap but rabid fans of either side never shut up about how the other one's better. Then real life (represented in the film by, ironically, humans) comes and reminds us that we've got better things to do, like pay tax and be disappointed.

Heh...sounds like the movie makes a point by being a dumb movie....

[Tezkat]

So to start: one film in particular I've been thinking about today has been The Blair Witch Project.  I know not everyone likes that film but I'm one of the ones who did, and I'll explain why.  In the first place, the horror film genre in general is one where the lack of quality in films that seems to be rising more and more each year is painfully obvious.  As bad as it is to have films in general that aren't good quality, however, it is especially notable in films of a genre such as horror which, by its very definition, claims to be setting a certain tone that prompts a specific emotional response from audiences.

I'll definitely give the Blair Witch Project points for originality and execution. The marketing campaign was pretty slick, too. However, the movie left me more motion sick from all the shakey camera work than scared for three idiots wandering around in the woods.

although many people say it is not a true horror movie the one i point to and say 'that is awesome, why cant you be more like this movie' is the movie 'seven'. the suspense is enough to seriously threaten the bladder of an average man, any gore you see was performed when you were not there and thus holds a strong sense of mystery and dread, you had absolutely no clue when or where the bad guy would hit next as he seemed to be all powerful despite being just some guy. that was his power really, he was just some guy, not a freaky puppet and not some building-o-doom designed to turn people who enter into quivering sausage

Yes! Se7en was brilliant. (Seriously... anything with Kevin Spacey as the evil mastermind = win. )

I tend not to enjoy traditional "horror" movies. I'm a pretty low activator--I just can't get that worked up about the drooling scary monster hiding around the corner, and I've become fairly desensitized to gore. Heck, I'm usually rooting for the bad guys anyway. A good movie needs to engage me psychologically at a level above the reptile brain. When you play to the monkey brain the way... say... Se7en or Silence of the Lambs did, you deliver a satisfying creepiness--a visceral sense of wrongness with the world--that persists beyond the initial shock moments.

Heh...sounds like the movie makes a point by being a dumb movie....

No... actually, AvP was just pointlessly bad. That happens a lot in Hollywood. Producers think that lots of big explosions will make up for crappy acting/writing and deliver crap with a blockbuster budget.

[rabid_fox]

No... actually, AvP was just pointlessly bad. That happens a lot in Hollywood. Producers think that lots of big explosions will make up for crappy acting/writing and deliver crap with a blockbuster budget.

That's what you think, Mr. Superficial Interpretation.

[Tezkat]

That's what you think, Mr. Superficial Interpretation.

Meh. What can I say? The movie annoyed me.

Also, as a student of Mesoamerican history, I found the all the weird Aztec references particularly grating. It would have been cool if they'd just kept it as a visual theme, but the idiots had to go and reinvent the culture for the sole purpose of supporting their bizarre plot devices.

[rabid_fox]

That's probably because you're a Jew.

[Lisky]

... i found AvP to be horrible too, we've got soldiers who are using high end assault rifles, yet for some reason can't hit aliens running at the in a  straight line, and we've got predators who have absolutely know sense of hearing... combine with the fact that the pyramid they're in shifts in ways that are physically impossible... i could go on, but basically the entire movie is a supreme example of style without substance

[Baal Hadad]

Anyone have an analysis of a film they liked?

I've had one on my mind today but I'm not sure to what degree I can talk about it because of the subject matter....

[Lisky]

i'll do 1 on 28 days later in a little bit... best zombie movie ever...

[Brunhidden]

i dislike zombie movies where the zombies are not really zombies but actually live people with a disease.... its kind of 'i cant believe its not zombies' and thus takes away half the zombie like traits when you have intelligent running zombies. zombies should not run, they shouldn't have the brainpower to open a door, they shouldn't even bleed really, the zombie experience is there is a horde of shambling corpses that don't die when you shoot them

i much prefer Shaun of the dead, the zombies were actually zombies, the British make fun of British society, the idiots and assholes die early, horror/comedies done well are my favorite, and i like the ambiguity that in the end the zombies aren't destroyed or roam free but are in a controlled state.

and now i wish i saw more of the classics, i hear one of the old 'zombies in a mall' movies the mall in question is actually one nearby and im wondering how accurate it is

[Baal Hadad]

Yesterday I've been thinking about The Birth of a Nation--the movie I wasn't sure to what extent I could discuss it.  I hope that as long as I keep it clean it won't be a problem....

Anyway...I think the movie gets a worse reputation than it deserves, especially in this day and age.  At first I was actually afraid to watch it because I'd heard it portrayed blacks as racist stereotypes and the Ku Klux Klan was portrayed sympathetically (I don't know what I was afraid of, since watching it finally didn't turn me into a racist, and I would have dismissed the idea even before I watched it).

But then I'd heard that D. W. Griffith actually toned it down from the source material (Thomas Dixon, Jr.'s The Clansman), which got me curious about it.

Ultimately I decided to watch the film for myself, so I could make up my own mind about it, and I have indeed come to my own conclusions, which I'll discuss below:

First off, I think the movie needs to be discussed, reviewed, analyzed, on its own terms, based on the time period in which it was made and the intent of the director.  In other words, I don't think we need to impose 21st century political correctness on the film and judge it that way.  When I saw the film I was actually almost disappointed (maybe that's not the right word--what I mean by "disappointed" is that I was expecting something which I didn't actually see), in that I saw very little of what people have considered politically incorrect about the film.

Let me say that again: I saw very little anti-black, pro-Klan stuff in The Birth of a Nation.

Yes, from today's perspective, the portrayal of blacks is embarrassing--they're all comical stereotypes--but that was typical of media portrayal of blacks in that time period, and I started the film expecting that.  Beyond such stock stereotypes there really wasn't all that much in the film that was more negative regarding its portrayal of blacks.  In fact, I think this was an improvement (such as it was) over the book, which portrayed blacks as degenerate villains.

As for the Klan, I honestly DON'T think The Birth of a Nation is pro-Klan at all--at least nowhere near as much as people seem to think it is, and nowhere near as much as the book was.  I think Griffith considered it a necessary evil, to be honest--that's the impression I got from the film.  The "necessary" part of that is troubling, but I didn't get ANY sense of the Klan as "heroes" in the film.  Their lynching of Gus in the film was completely uncalled for, as (unlike in the book) he didn't actually do anything wrong.

As far as looking at the film on its own terms, it seems clear to me that, unlike Dixon, Griffith's intent with his film was to make an antiwar, pro-union (not Union with a capital "U", as in the Northern side of the Civil War, but the union of all the United States of America) film.  In other words, I think he lamented the fact that the United States of America came so close to splitting in two, and even more so the fact that war broke out that killed so many people.  Although most of the villains in the film are Northern, and much of the film is from a pro-South perspective (not to say pro-Confederate), he portrays Abraham Lincoln as a saint and laments his assassination.

Granted, from today's perspective he was misguided in some arenas (he honestly didn't think he was a racist!), but I'm trying to look at his intent, rather than how the film has been portrayed after the fact (I don't blame the film itself for the revival of the Klan in the following decade, though I lament the latter fact).

At any rate, I think the controversial nature of the film also makes us forget what was GOOD about the film: it's the best portrayal of the Civil War on film that I have ever seen in my life: I felt like I was actually THERE in a way I never do with modern films (let's not forget that Civil War veterans were still alive when the film came out), and it's the ONLY film depiction of the postwar Reconstruction period I've ever seen, misguided though it is.  Quite honestly I would like to see more of the latter in the media since it would definitely be relevant in this day and age (federal government dominating the states militarily while pretending to be friendly to oppressed minority groups would probably strike a chord today).

So, to sum up: I think The Birth of a Nation is a film that could stand to be re-made today--not portraying blacks or the Klan the way Griffith did, but also NOT doing it in a politically correct fashion that would whitewash history.  It would take a filmmaker with greater courage and talent than I have (I'm not a filmmaker at all, lest that sentence make it look like I am) to do it, but I'd want it to show factual events alone, untainted by propaganda from any side, and thereby allow audiences to judge it for themselves.

Well, that's my assessment, and my apologies if I've violated any rule or decency--I didn't mean to.  What does everyone else think?

[GabrielsThoughts]

Back to the subject of the blair witch....I saw the sequel which was arguably better than the first...and it's still pretty bad. I don't care how much money the put into advertising. If the characters are unbelievably stupid (see Cloverfeild) and they "DIE" as a result of their lack of survival skills, the movie just sucks.

I do not go to movies to feel like a clairvoyant. although that seems to have become the case in recent years.

I do not go to movies to feel superior... I can do that from home.

I do not go to movies to feel like I'm retarded either. (see any Uwe Boll film... also frequently seen in DSINEY Television or movies, but not always... Lilo and Stitch 2 _was not_ the first sequel to Lilo and Stitch, and believe me I've seen worse from Disney)   


Seven on the other hand was a good mystery, you could watch it more than once and say it was a good movie. I was debating whether or not to see the blair witch again to post my own analysis of the film, but then decided if I was goaing to torture my self I'd watch Twilight or  the upcoming film adaptation  of Candyland (and yes I do mean the board game).the  blair witch was a good movie politically if nothing else. People always find things to analyze in works of art after the project has been completed and a good artist always finds a way to either agree with the analyzer or make it seem as if that was the theme all along. People find their own meanings in art, regardless of the genre... therefore I choose to disagree with your analysis simply because I am not you. I have my own reality, my own creations,  and my own fantasies to deal with. I don't have time to focus on the motive of a two dimensional character  who was just there to as a Screaming Mimi for a B-movie monster.

I am entitled to have my opinion, and in my opinion  "Sticks and stones" was the most enjoyable in the series.   

[Zina]

I never got how people would complain about how "stupid" characters are in horror/action films, and their 'lack of survival skills' when the majority of the time, that is how a real person might react in a situation like that. I mean, the average joe is not going to the an A+ Boy Scout. And in extreme situations, people panic and do stupid things. I would love to pretend I'd be a total badass and get away safely should, say, a crazy person entered my home or a monster attacked my city. But until that situation happens and I have less than a second to make a life-or-death decision, I'll never know what I'd do and I have no business telling other people what they should do.