Knife in the Water (1962)

My second Polanski film, and it wasn’t my choice. But I’m glad it was my second one. A few years ago I watched my first Polanski film, Chinatown (1974), opting for some quality Jack Nicholson time instead of studying for the next day’s Algebra 2 & Trig test. (Surprisingly I got an A on that test; what does that say?) 

Ohio State’s Film Studies major requirements include a Senior Seminar. After finally finishing up my undergraduate thesis on the women in Robert Altman’s 1970s film, I wanted a somewhat relaxing final semester and take classes I enjoyed. But then I saw it, this semester’s Senior Seminar: The Cinema of Roman Polanski. 

Really? I just finished writing a thesis on the New Hollywood maverick I found to be the most consistently feministic and now I have to take a course on perhaps one of the darkest directors of the period? Needless to say I was not excited. But hey, it’ll add to my knowledge of the period.

After the first few assigned readings and the introduction to the course, I knew I was not going to be a Polanski fan. We will see what the rest of the semester brings, but for now, I sort of enjoyed Knife in the Water (1962). 

The reason I enjoyed it though had more to do with the mise-en-scene than anything else. In contrast to the film’s psychological, the setting was so peaceful and relaxing that I wanted to jump in the screen and hop on board with them! (That is until they start arguing and I realize who I am with.) 

Other than that, the film seemed more interested in proving one’s masculinity to another more than anything else. And that’s something I could really care less about. The wife hardly talks but when she does, it can be interesting. I remember something along the lines of, “You want to stay up and study but your roommates want to turn out the lights.” Having seen her husband call her a whore, you’d think she wouldn’t have been a serious student.

But overall I didn’t think the film was terrible, but it wasn’t my favorite. 6/10

Advertisements

Scorsese’s Depiction of the Stratton Oakmont Office in “The Wolf of Wall Street” (2013)

One of the things that struck me when I was rewatching The Wolf of Wall Street was Scorsese’s depiction of the Stratton Oakmont office. While it seemed a disorienting the first time around, this time I took more note of what formally made it so off-putting. Of obvious notice is the use of the wide-angle lens. While (if I remember correctly) Scorsese uses wide-angle lenses quite frequently throughout the film, it is so painfully obvious and persistent here because of Jordan’s central position in the frame. Wide-angle lenses are used with the intention to distort the image being shown; here the lens specifically distorts the image of Jordan’s unsophisticated Felliniesque world, so much so that I’m sure Fellini would be begging for Jordan to stop. The distortion in the lens is just one of the many things that tell us that we should not believe this drugged-up stock company owner.

There seems to be a drastic difference in Mark Hanna’s office and Jordan Belfort’s office. The distance from the floor to the ceiling is noticeably much higher in Hanna’s office when Wall Street virgin Jordan joins the business. Not yet tainted by Wall Street, Belfort’s first day is the only moment in the film where we can somewhat relate to Belfort, as he tells us that he “can only imagine what a douchebag” the guy who makes over one million a year must be. Once Jordan has Stratton Oakmont, however, that is what he has become, or even worse. However, unlike his previous workplace, Jordan’s company’s floor is tight from top to bottom. This tightness visually dictates that Jordan is no longer “normal,” so to speak, like he was in the beginning of the film. Perhaps he sees that he has dominated the world but, in my opinion, it reads as confining and oppressive. He minimizes Belfort’s importance and, in conjunction with the wide-angle lens, pushes at the fact that Jordan is an unreliable narrator. The behind the shoulder shots depict Belfort essentially at the same height as his employees; there is not towering, higher appearance of Jordan to suggest he is any better than his employees. In fact, at one point in the beginning of the film, there is an extreme long shot from other end of the office that barely makes Jordan noticeable. Therefore, Scorsese has the ulitmate control of how he wants to depict Belfort, and it’s not a positive one. Just these few things immediately slash the critique that this film glamourizes Belfort’s lifestyle.

While watching The Wolf of Wall Street I made a connection to the famous 1960 film, The Apartment. The repeated, distorted shots behind Jordan as he pep talks his employees reminded me very much of Wilder’s shot in The Apartment of the office floor where C.C. Baxter works. In relation to The Wolf of Wall Street, I think Scorsese intends to compare Jordan, not to C.C. Baxter, but to the likewise despicable head of the company, Jeff D. Sheldrake, who promotes C.C. Baxter in exchange for the use of Baxter’s apartment to sleep with Fran Kubelik. Both heads of the companies in these films are corrupt and thoughtless. However I think it is important to stress the fact that Jordan’s floor is much smaller and condensed, deemphasizing his power, credibility, and appeal.

An Update!

Hello everyone!

The last time I posted on here it was the beginning of the semester! It will be finals week after Thanksgiving so wow how time flies!

With that being said, I have all of December off so I am planning on posting quite a few posts on here. I think along with film posts I’ll also post about any film events I go to, so last night I heard the Criterion President and one of the Producers speak and saw a 35mm screening of City Lights; so things like that I’ll share :)

Thanks for sticking around! I’m hoping to really pick this up soon. I took Intro to Film this semester so I have an even better grasp and foundation and feel much more confident about myself.

Thanks!

Miranda

20130726-195522.jpg

A few weeks ago I wrote a review on The Searchers for the film I co-run Moviefellas. I began with my first encounter of The Searchers, which was when I was in Disney World at the young age of about 6 or 7. I just got back from Disney a few days ago and while I was there I rode The Great Movie Ride. While in line I decided to take a picture of the shot that I recalled. Here it is!

The Pixar Theory

This is crazy but it makes sense!

Jon Negroni

pixar theory

Every Pixar movie is connected. I explain how, and possibly why.

Before we go further, I should let you know that The Pixar Theory is now a published book. Since writing this blog post in 2013, I’ve been working on completing the unified theory in what I hope you find to be a compelling and even more persuasive essay. Or not. It’s cool either way.

You can check out the book here. Or keep reading below to read the original theory. Just keep in mind that a lot of what you’re about to read has been vastly improved over the last few years.

Back to the theory!

In 2012, I watched a video on Cracked.com that introduced the idea (at least to me) that all of the Pixar movies actually exist within the same universe. Since then, I’ve obsessed over this concept, working to complete what I call The Pixar Theory

View original post 4,657 more words