In my more recent blog entry I critically analyzed mis-en-scene in the movie Groundhog Day. I also compared cinematic art to actual content. By similarly analyzing Blade runner to Groundhog Day, and comparing some of the differences and similarities between the two films, we can more closely address the issue of content versus presentation and how the two aspects of film co-exist. The content of the two films in question are not as far out from one another as they may appear. Each addresses syfy-esk themes that create moral or ethical discourse and dilemma. Groundhog Day centers around a man who experiences the same day over and over again, his character develops as he is forced to accept and embrace his seemingly endless fate. Rick Deckard played by Harrison Ford in Blade Runner similarly experiences internal strife when dealing with half human androids who have been given the ability to feel as humans do. Ford’s character, Rickard, is a ‘Blade Runner’ who hunts down and terminates these robots. Rickard inevitably falls in love with one of these ‘replicants’ and is faced to address the morality of hunting down and killing something so close to human. I am aware that comparing these two films may seem like a stretch, but bear with me. As previously stated in my last blog, the mis-en-scene used in Groundhog Day was lost on me. The movie was clever enough but was very tame and relatable. Both the cinematography and content were entertaining but mild at best. In my mind, Blade Runner presented the themes of the film in a more provoking manner. This could probably be attributed to the futuristic setting, giving the filmmakers room to interpret and predict what might be come 2019, as the movie was shot in the early 1980’s. Not only does the setting challenge what we know to be reality, the characters (specifically replicants) are slightly disturbing themselves. The androids seem odd, some even deranged. These strange behaviors are easily misplaced as nonhuman characteristic that are unique to replicants. However, a deeper view of their behavior might offer a very different conclusion. These entities can think, feel, and have been given an entire memory to call their own. They believe they are human just as much as you and I. They equally fear death, the only difference being their predetermined four-year life span. All of their behaviors, strange as they may be, are intrinsically human, and illustrate that same actions each of us would take facing similar circumstances. I applaud Ridley Scott for taking a more adverse, thought provoking approach. Groundhog Day contains themes just as important as Blade Runner, but both movies portray these themes in different manners. Director Harold Ramis plays it safe, with his production of Groundhog Day. As a result he produces a clever film thanks to the help of Bill Murray, one that leaves its audience content, and nothing more. Scott however, presents very similar themes by much more invasive and disturbing means. Blade Runner leaves its audience with a set of ethical and moral dilemmas. It asks questions about our humanity and starts a conversation. Sources: The Blade Runner movie poster. The film © 1982, 1991 The Blade Runner Partnership Poster artwork © 1982 The Ladd Company Source: http://www.impawards.com/1982/blade_runner.html Blade Runner. Dir. Ridley Scott. Prod. Ridley Scott and Hampton Francher. By Hampton Francher and David Webb Peoples. Perf. Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, and Sean Young. Warner Bros., 1982. DVD. Barsam, Richard Meran., and Dave Monahan. Looking at Movies: An Introduction to Film. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010. Print. Fourth Edition. Groundhog Day. Dir. Harold Ramis. Perf. Bill Murray. Colombia Pictures Co., 1993. DVD. Ripley, Noah R. "Groundhog Day; It's Pretty Ok." Review. Weblog post.Http://noahripley.weebly.com/. Weebly.com, 07 May 2014. Web. 26 May 2014. Groundhog Day staring Bill Murray had all of the things a good movie should. It was entertaining, funny romantic, and somewhat moving. The characters developed throughout the film, the plot was original and it even ends on a pleasing note. It just works. I walked away happy and content after experiencing a movie I wouldn't mind watching again. There was nothing too unsettling about this film and in that sense director Herald Ramis has thoroughly done his job right? The directors use of mis-en-scene goes unappreciated while being appreciated, and somehow this is exactly what he was going for? Mis-en-scene is essentially the scene, but for film it can mean so much more. Mis-en-scene is everything that goes into a shot, that is the camera angle, staging, lighting, backdrop, and even sound. If there is one thing I've learned its that an incredible amount of meaning can be attached to any cinematic event of your choosing, even if it was never intended.To the general population Groundhog Day was a good movie, maybe even great. But to the cinema community, the directors, screenwriters, and higher educating theater teachers its a cinematic miracle. Why? Mis-en-scene is what makes a movie great, and they tell me Groundhog Day is full of it. So would this film have been so much worse had they left out some of that visual embellishment? No one goes to the movies looking for that one great backdrop that somehow reflects the internal struggle of the dynamic character, unless to stroke their own ego because they were the only one to identify it. Undoubtedly there are fundamental tools used by directors and screenwriters that do convey or even reflect the situations the characters are placed in, but is that anything to write home about? Certain situations demand certain shot techniques, scenery, and style. These are important to the overall quality of the movie no more, and I would suggest less than, the actual content. Why are we overstating something that most people only recognize subconsciously? And yes, I understand that's the point. The reason I am asking these questions is because I am completely at a loss as to what makes a good movie. How do The Avengers and Moonrise Kingdom compare cinematically? or Groundhog Day for that matter. All successful in their own right. How much of that is big budget cgi, and how much is mis-en-scene? Work Cited: "CATEGORIES." The Black List Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2014. Barsam, Richard, and Dave Monahan. Looking at Movies; An Indroduction to Film. 4th edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2010. Print. Groundhog Day. Dir. Harold Ramis. Perf. Bill Murray. 1993. DVD. Oh Brother, Where Art Thou, Is a 1930’s (great depression) view of Homer’s The Odyssey. This 2000 film recreates the Greek Tragedy through protagonist Everett McGill, as Odysseus himself. McGill similarly faces his own trials while seeking to be reunited with his wife and children. Along with the pronounce Odysseus references, the filmmakers used more subtle cinematography and music to temper the characters relations with Odysseus. My focus is on one of the less obvious, but still very relevant Odyssey references. Throughout the movie the relentless Sheriff Cooley played by Daniel Von Bargen has chased Everett through Mississippi. Cooley seems to have some unjustified vendetta against Everett, and his two comrades Pete Hogwallop and Delmar O’Donnell. Sheriff Cooley seems to go above and beyond the call of duty in his quest to bring Everett and the boys to what he sees as justice. I found a strong correlation between Sheriff Cooley and Poseidon, in the two stories. In The Odyssey, Poseidon, the God of the Sea, is angry with Odysseus because he has mocked, Polyphemos his Cyclops son, played in the movie as Big Dan Teague, or Big Dan T, or Big Dan. Poseidon curses Odysseus to a long and tragic journey, similar to the sheriff’s relentless pursuit of Everett. What stood out even more was the use of cinematography, in all of the shots with Sheriff Cooley. The first two shots were of the Sheriff and the search party cornering Everett and company in a barn late at night, the only lighting was that of their torches. Cooley’s voice enters before he does, and as he walks into view the fire is reflected in his black frame glasses. The next sheriff Cooley scene similarly utilizes his fire filled frames, and deep godly voice as a means of symbolism. After watching these scenes it is unmistakable that these scenes are meant to symbolize something. I viewed the fire in his eyes, and deep voice as a reference to Poseidon. The flooding of the Mississippi valley could have also been meant to reference the sea god taking vengeance upon Everett. In the beginning of the movie, after Pete and Delmar have been washed of their sins, they pick up a hitchhiker named Tommy Johnson, played by Chris Thomas King, who has sold his sole to the devil so we could play the guitar. Pete inquires to what the devil looks like, to which Tommy say, “He's white. As white as you folks. With empty eyes and a big, hollow voice. He travelled around with a mean old hound, that's right.” I interpreted Tommy’s depiction, as a reference to Sheriff Cooley’s character. The sheriff’s empty eyes being his black glasses, and the Sheriff uses a hound throughout his search for Everett. While the references to Poseidon are subtle at best, the symbolism is unmistakably important to the movie. If not as Poseidon then possible, as one of the other Greek gods Odysseus meets during his travels. References: Homer, Robert Fagles, and Bernard Knox. The Odyssey. New York: Viking, 1996. Print. "O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2/10) Movie CLIP - We're in a Tight Spot! (2000) HD." YouTube. YouTube, 27 May 2011. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. "Sheriff Cooley." Villains Wiki. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. "Warner Bros. Reimagines THE ODYSSEY in Space as Potential Franchise."Collider. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. |