Reaction Paper to Mean Streets
Mean Streets' greatest influence in American cinema was not on directors or scriptwriters (though its influence there was considerable) but rather on actors. The film has Harvey Keitel (as Charlie) at its center, whose solidity and slight dullness as an actor keeps the film from spinning off into total anarchy; but it is Robert De Niro's Johnny Boy (Charlie's wild, self-destructive friend whom he looks out for with all the obsessiveness of an older brother) that gives the film its charge. Johnny Boy dances and gyrates and leaps and spins about the edges of the film, continually threatening to take it into and out of chaos (which he finally does). De Niro's performance, which remains as hilarious and breath-taking as ever - was a revelation at the time. De Niro took naturalistic, "method" acting to new highs, and his Johnny Boy is possibly the very first performance of its kind. It's a genuine portrayal of a street punk whose charm and obnoxiousness are almost uncannily intertwined - you can't despise Johnny Boy, but you can't respect him much, either. You just have to love him. It's easy enough to imagine Charlie's frustration over this kid - De Niro's work here adds depth and veracity to Keitel's, and the two actors work so well together that some of their scenes ? like the one they have together in Taxi Driver - have an almost hallucinatory buzz to them.
Aside from its acting, the other major influence which Mean Streets had upon American film-makers was through it's use of a rock n' roll soundtrack (almost perfectly integrated with the images), and in its depiction of a new kind of screen violence. Unexpected, volatile, explosive and wholly senseless, yet, for all that, undeniably cinematic violence. The way in which Scorsese blends these two - the rock and roll and the violence - shows that he understood instinctively, better than anyone else until then, that cinema (or at least this kind of cinema, the kinetic, visceral kind) and rock n' roll are both expressions of revolutionary instincts, and that they are as inherently destructive as they are creative. This simple device - brutal outbreaks of violence combined with an upbeat soundtrack - has been taken up by both the mainstream cinema at large and by many individual `auteurs', all of whom are in Scorsese's debt - Stone and Tarantino coming at once to mind.
Film Noir, as Paul Schrader integrates in his essay ‘Notes on Film Noir,’ reflects a marked phase in the history of films denoting a peculiar style observed during that period. More specifically, Film Noir is defined by intricate qualities like tone and mood, rather than generic compositions, settings and presentation. Just as ‘genre’ categorizes films on the basis of common occurrences of iconographic elements in a certain way, ‘style’ acts as the paradox that exemplifies the generality and singularity at the same time, in Film Noir, through the notion of morality. In other words, Film Noir is a genre that exquisitely entwines theme and style, and henceforth sheds light on individual difference in perception of a common phenomenon. Pertaining
By definition justice means the quality of being just or fair. The issue then stands, is justice fair for everyone? Justice is the administration of law, the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments, "justice deferred is justice denied.” The terms of Justice is brought up in Henry David Thoreau’s writing, “Civil Disobedience.”
In 1912 Southampton, 17-year-old first-class passenger Rose DeWitt Bukater, her fiancé Cal Hockley, and her mother Ruth board the Titanic. Ruth emphasizes that Rose's marriage will resolve the DeWitt Bukaters' financial problems. Distraught over the engagement, Rose considers committing suicide by jumping from the stern; Jack Dawson, a penniless artist, convinces her not to. Discovered with Jack, Rose tells Cal that she was peering over the edge and Jack saved her from falling. Cal is indifferent, but when Rose indicates some recognition is due, he offers Jack a small amount of money. After Rose asks whether saving her life meant so little, he invites Jack to dine with them in first class the following night. Jack and Rose develop a tentative friendship, though Cal and Ruth are wary of him. Following dinner, Rose secretly joins Jack at a party in third class.
Canadian filmmaker and cinephile, Guy Maddin once said, “I do feel a bit like Dracula in Winnipeg. I’m safe, but can travel abroad and suck up all sorts of ideas from other filmmakers… Then I can come back here and hoard these tropes and cinematic devices.” Here, Maddin addresses his filmmaking saying that he takes aspects from different film styles and appropriates them into his own work. In The Saddest Music in the World (2003), Maddin uses a combination of French Surrealist filmmaking and classical American Hollywood cinema, specifically melodrama, to create his own style. In an article by William Beard, Steven Shaviro talks about Maddin’s filmmaking, and he links Surrealism and melodrama together saying, “Maddin’s films are driven by a tension between romantic excess [melodrama] on the one hand and absurdist humour [Surrealism] on the other.” In regards to The Saddest Music in the World, the relationship between Surrealism and melodrama is not one of tension, as Shaviro suggests, but one of cooperation. This paper will analyze two films by filmmakers Maddin was familiar with —Un Chien Andalou (1929) by Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dali on the Surrealist side, and All That Heaven Allows (1955) by Douglas Sirk on the melodrama side—to showcase the important elements of each, concluding with an analysis of The Saddest Music in the World in conjunction with both film styles. Ultimately, it will be shown how Guy Maddin combines French Surrealist cinema and Hollywood melodrama in The Saddest Music in the World, to create his own unique film style.
Martin Scorsese has made a reputation from making movies that show a profound perceptiveness of human nature through their images of toughness and violence. On the surface, one would be hard-pressed to find a story more unlike Raging Bull or Goodfellas than The Age of Innocence, which seems better suited to a Merchant-Ivory production. However, Scorsese has placed his indelible stamp on this picture, not only through the camerawork, but in the potent tension that builds between the main characters. For while blood has often been Scorsese's method, the characters, and what exists between and within them, have always been his ends.
The noir style is showcased in Sunset Boulevard with its use of visually dark and uncomfortable settings and camera work, as well as its use of the traditional film noir characters. In addition, the overall tone and themes expressed in it tightly correspond to what many film noirs addressed. What made this film unique was its harsh criticism of the film industry itself, which some of Wilder’s peers saw as biting the hand that fed him. There is frequent commentary on the superficial state of Hollywood and its indifference to suffering, which is still a topic avoided by many in the film business today. However, Sunset Blvd. set a precedent for future film noirs, and is an inspiration for those who do not quite believe what they are being shown by Hollywood.
Stone's film is extreme in every way. Extreme in its violence. Extreme in its visual imagery, flashing hyper-speed bits of reality which don't quite register in one's mind. Extreme in its sit-com presentation of an abusive family as the ordinary stuff of entertainment. Extreme in its depiction of mass-murderers revered as icons of popular culture. Extreme in the banality with which the killers approach their crime.
Although the right to privacy has been used to sway the outcome of many U.S court cases, including the famous Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade, there is still some debate over how the “right to privacy” should be viewed. For example both Judith Jarvis Thompson, and James Rachels agree that the right to privacy is indeed a right that is bestowed upon citizens, however their perception of how one is granted this right is quite different.
In today’s American society, quality education is important for one to succeed. Without proper education, a person will find it extremely difficult to apply for college, a job, or to pursue his or her dream. Typically when Americans think of education, public education is the first to come to mind. Public education has been around for centuries and is provided to most children throughout the United States. Due to this fact, public education has been the go to education source for years. Though, this trend is slowly changing with many parents deciding to home school their children instead. Many factors are the cause for this issue, but the common arguments arise from a certain few. For students, public school provides many opportunities ranging from social connections, school sports, and the exposure to teachers who are experts in their fields. But homeschooling is often superior because it offers additional time for students to participate in various extracurricular activities and community service, allows for more individual attention, personal character development, and it offers less exposure to discrimination that is received in the public school environment.
Of course I looked “justice” up in the dictionary before I started to write this paper and I didn’t find anything of interest except of course a common word in every definition, that being “fair”. This implies that justice would have something to do with being fair. I thought that if one of the things the law and legal system are about is maintaining and promoting justice and a sense of “fairness”, they might not be doing such a spiffy job. An eye for an eye is fair? No, that would be too easy, too black and white. I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those.
So if justice in considered to be fair, that would make something unjust, unfair, right? What if an innocent person was proven guilty in a court of law and spent time in jail or money to pay a fine? That would be considered just, because in the court of law he was in fact proven guilty, however it would also be unfair because the person is innocent. This is the same result in another case, the most current issue and most relative in my belief would be Affirmative Action. If justice is in fact fair, therefore not treating persons of different races or gender any different then Affirmative Action is unjust, and although I do not oppose such a policy, I still see it as unjust.
Parents have been teaching their children at home for centuries. During the 1970s, the interest in homeschooling increased. Legal advocates had lots of opposition when pressing for the legal right to educate their child at home and change compulsory school attendance. The National Education Association fought to place restrictions on home schooling. However, most of the efforts have failed. As a result, homeschooling is legal in every state.
I think there is a right to privacy. What privacy means is “the right to be left alone, or freedom from interference or intrusion” (IAPP,1). Every American citizen has the right to privacy whether it be privacy in their homes, the words in their emails, or daily activities. But not only do the American people have the right to privacy from other citizens, we also have the right to privacy from the government. If the government can keep their conversations, actions and secrets under lock and key then Americans can as well. But unfortunately, the Constitution does not explicitly say anything about “privacy” for the American people, it is left for open interpretation in multiple amendments. The main amendment that screams “privacy” is the fourth amendment.
Homeschooling is receiving instruction of education in a place other than an established school. Some parents feel if they keep their children at home, they can minimize the chance that harm can happen. Other parents feel that they know their child best and can utilize personal strengths to work on educational needs. In the past, religion was the leading cause of parents who chose home schooling, now days this does not necessarily hold true.
Have you heard the old adage, “It takes a village to raise a child?” Even in today’s busy world where villages are almost nonexistent and neighborhoods aren’t as closely knit as they once were, this saying holds true. The same principle applies to your child’s education—it takes more than a good school to educate children, just as takes more than a good home to make children well adjusted. It takes community, teachers, and it takes YOU!