The very first film I would watch is also one of the greatest British movies ever made. Lindsay Anderson's 1973 mammoth allegory "O Lucky Man!" is a masterly blend of the funny, the lewd, the depressing and the surreal. What's even more amazing is that this immensely ambitious work is only the director's third feature film, the others being the appreciated 1963 film starring a young Richard Harris entitled "This Sporting Life, and the other, more prolific title being the subversive, anti authoritarian classic "If...."(1967). "O Lucky Man!" shares the director and star of the latter, Malcolm McDowell. "If...." was McDowell's feature film debut, in a starring role no less, proving a compelling anti hero, perfectly suiting the expectations of its context; late 1960s, when conventional practises were beginning to be rejected, and the hippie notion surged. Before "O Lucky Man!", McDowell had truly become a star, thanks to his iconic performance in Stanley Kubrick's disturbing and highly influential "A Clockwork Orange." Despite his fantastic performances in these previously mentioned films, McDowell in "O Lucky Man" gives a truly layered, nuanced, and puissant performance, perhaps because the original idea for the film was conceived by McDowell from his own experiences as a coffee salesman.
The first scene of the film is in silent/black and white, with McDowell revealed a south american who steals a coffee bean from a plantation and has his arms cut off. It's definitely something else. The entertainingly haphazard plot begins as everyman Mick Travis (McDowell) is working at a coffee company. He is assigned to sell coffee door to door in parts of northern Britain. He fails to sell more than a few bags. It is then when he begins his ody...
... middle of paper ...
...of the cinematic medium. It offers a multitudinous array of biting social satire, incredibly ambitious in its scope, targeting many of the issues that were most prevalent at this time. Like "If....", this is scathing, diverse social witticism and lampoonery of the upmost care and intelligence.
One of the many triumphs of Anderson's film is the performance of McDowell. He truly is a diversely talented actor; playing a despicable villain two years prior to this film, and then playing such a morally flawed, but innocent and wide eyed everyman; a breath of fresh air amongst a consumerist, capitalist western world and its flagitious populus Anderson so vividly comments on. A further admirable feat is its coherence as a singular work. At two minutes shy of three hours, Anderson crafts a tale that never bores in the slightest, one that only a born filmmaker could provide.
In his essay, “It’s Just a Movie: A Teaching Essay for Introductory Media Classes”, Greg M. Smith argues that analyzing a film does not ruin, but enhances a movie-viewing experience; he supports his argument with supporting evidence. He addresses the careful planning required for movies. Messages are not meant to be telegrams. Audiences read into movies to understand basic plotlines. Viewers should examine works rather than society’s explanations. Each piece contributes to Smith’s argument, movies are worth scrutinizing.
Blazing Saddles, a Mel Brooks film, is a perfect example of satire. The main object of the movie is to make fun of the western genre of films. Mel Brooks is notorious for his satires of many different films and film genres, and Blazing Saddles follows true to form. Many of the film’s ideas and problems are common in most westerns, although Mel Brooks has added a twist. In addition, the movie pokes fun at a more modern theme, racism.
Braff himself has a warm, easy-to-watch screen presence. He can say nothing during the lull in a conversation, while the camera remains focused on his face, and it feels right. Portman and Sarsgaard are also genuine, each wonderfully relaxed in their roles. Production design is superb: details in every scene are arranged well, and the photography, by Lawrence Sher, is - like the story and the acting – unpretentious, never distracting, tricky or cute. This film never seems to manipulate us; instead it engages us, arouses our curiosity and amusement, bids us gently to care about Andrew and Sam and even Mark, leaving us entertained in the best sense. This movie is as confident, as secure in itself, as comforting, as a well worn pair of house slippers or your favorite reading chair. A splendid film. Grade: A- (09/04)
Neill, Alex. “Empathy and (Film) Fiction.” Philosophy of film and motion pictures : an anthology. Ed. Noel Carrol and Jinhee Choi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. 247-259. Print.
In conclusion, by using the production elements of both allusion and symbolism; director Tim Burton has created the film in such a manner by making deliberate choices in order to invite a certain response. The film is constructed and given greater depth through the allusion to elements from other genres and ridicules the suburbia’s materialism and lack of imagination, which in turn enhances the invited response.
The films Young Frankenstein and One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest can be viewed as a critical analysis of society’s issues and dysfunctions in the form of satire and parody using humor. While Young Frankenstein, Mel Brooks cinematic version of the gothic novel, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, uses parody in the form of Horatian satire, which is achieved through gentle ridicule and using a tone that is indulgent, tolerant, amused and witty. The film One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the adaptation of the Ken Kesey novel, uses a form of satire called Juvenalian satire which is demonstrated in the form of attacks on vice and error with contempt and indignation. Horatian satire will produce a humor response from the reader instead of anger or indignation as Juvenalian satire. Juvenalian satire, in its realism and its harshness, is in strong contrast to Horatian satire (Kent and Drury).
Film not only portrays the surface level issues in a depicted society, but it also sheds light into the unconscious problems and social structures in a particular community. In the United States, in the 1700’s and 1800’s, privilege belonged to white people only. Later on the hierarchy of opportunity shifted, giving a select few the benefits of mobility, sexual preference, and economic superiority, and instead of the divide consisting of only black and white, it stratified even further into light and dark. The films Imitation of Life, Guess Who’s Coming t...
Introduction," from Braudy, Leo and Cohen, Marshall, eds. Film Theory and Criticism 5th. ed. (New York : Oxford University Press,1999)
One could easily dismiss movies as superficial, unnecessarily violent spectacles, although such a viewpoint is distressingly pessimistic and myopic. In a given year, several films are released which have long-lasting effects on large numbers of individuals. These pictures speak
The only real way to truly understand a story is to understand all aspects of a story and their meanings. The same goes for movies, as they are all just stories being acted out. In Thomas Foster's book, “How to Read Literature Like a Professor”, Foster explains in detail the numerous ingredients of a story. He discusses almost everything that can be found in any given piece of literature. The devices discussed in Foster's book can be found in most movies as well, including in Quentin Tarantino’s cult classic, “Pulp Fiction”. This movie is a complicated tale that follows numerous characters involved in intertwining stories. Tarantino utilizes many devices to make “Pulp Fiction” into an excellent film. In this essay, I will demonstrate how several literary devices described in Foster's book are put to use in Tarantino’s film, “Pulp Fiction”, including quests, archetypes, food, and violence.
Wollen, Peter. Signs and Meaning in the Cinema. London: Secker and Warburg in association with the British Film Institute, 1972.
Lacey, N. (2005). Film Language. Introduction to film (pp. 16-22). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stanley, Robert H. The Movie Idiom: Film as a Popular Art Form. Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc. 2011. Print
When a critic examines the silent films of Charles Chaplin a question that arises is whether the comedy he portrayed is a mockery of political and current issues, or a means to bring laughter to viewers. Silent films generated different emotions and thoughts since a spectator was simply watching actions rather than hearing an explanation through words. Information was cleverly construed this way and however the critic analyzed the information presented was an individual responsibility. In fact, Charles Chaplin once said, "..it is not the reality that matters in a film but what the imagination can make of if," to a young critic.[1]
...n able to reach otherwise. With unlimited possibilities and the creative minds in the world, the film industry is likely to consider seeing drastic changes. Like the world has in the past, peoples’ likes and dislikes will change with the ever-changing technological world. What we enjoy as a society in 2005 is likely to be considered as bland as we consider the black and white silent films, in the years to come.