Blog Feed

After watching some film analyses, I was intrigued by the idea that Deckard is a replicant. I wanted my poster to hint at the fact that he is one. When the idea was first floated, I was pretty doubtful but after watching the videos, I began to believe it. I still don’t completely believe that he was written to be a replicant but it’s fun to think about the hints that the people who made the film put in. I wanted people who believe in the theory to see the poster and think that since Deckard is on a poster with so many other replicants, he is one too. The new title could also be ironic; “retire all replicants” could mean that Deckard eventually would have to be retired, too.

I found pictures of Deckard and the replicants he is tasked to retire. I like the shot of Deckard a lot because it shows that this is not a movie about retiring, it’s about murder. There’s stress and suspense, and it’s almost always dark and raining. All this can be inferred from that one shot. It seemed like an obvious choice to make Racheal’s picture bigger since her involvement in the story is bigger. I also like that by looking at her outfit and the way she holds herself, someone could guess that she’s the femme fatale even from just one shot.

The unicorns at the bottom represent the added symbolism of unicorns in the director’s cut. While watching the video about the differences between the cuts, I learned that the original cut focuses more on the whimsical aspect of unicorns whereas the director’s cut focuses more subtly on them. Either way, unicorns represent something special and magical, similar to the replicants. Adding them to the poster makes it fun to look at after watching the movie because viewers aren’t going to know how they connect to the story until after watching.

I added the question to intrigue viewers and give a very basic summary of the plot. I like the question format because it can be answered with “find out this June” which is when the film did come out. People don’t want to read a lot of text, but they want enough to know what the film is about.

In my opinion, this movie is much more about the replicants than the blade runners. By focusing the poster on replicants, one could tell what the film is really about and theorize that Deckard is also a replicant. Both are things I wish I knew before watching.

Alana Finney Reel reading Mrs.Giknis 4/26/2022 Blade runners Real world relations.

In Blade Runner, the concept of being human or humain has been pushed to say, only humans can be and define what is human and what is humain. Understanding the separation of humans and all other species, including the man made ones, is easy in a biblical sense. Humans have made the belief that we are the highest power on earth and, for some, god gave us that power. Even if blade runner has no godly entity besides devine wealth, we know humans have some sort of biblical ideal in the humanitarian society. God made humans separate and better from animals, and they see all other life forms as some form of animal, including the replicants, which gives humans the right to treat them as such. Society deemed some things safe to do to species not human, such as killing, breeding, enslavement and entertainment. In Blade Runner they enslave their own creation for their own benefits. Even if they look, act, and feel like humans, they, to society, are stil man made objects. This also raises concern about morals and what makes a human, human. From the Encyclopedia Britannica “a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning.” is the most eligible definition of a human. Most would argue that the replicants have all of that since they are made to be exactly like a human, except stronger,.They have a psychological pattern exactly like ours. They have real emotions and were intended to be real human servants. They are also born of man, man made them, the thing that is keeping them from being defined as human is the societal construct that if it is artificial, it holds no real value. Similar to our world they have artificial and genetically modified foods and meat. Their world is around 85% artificial with humans being the only real things left. With our world today we have GMOs in order to maximize food production for the lively benefit of human consumption. GMOs are widely overtaking natural food for how easy it is to grow and maintain, and less expensive to produce and purchase. Though organic agriculture won’t disappear, it’s on a drastic decline. We also share similarities within our animals. We have, and are continuing to make genetically modified animals for human entertainment and benefit. We have created hypoallergenic animals so people allergic to their pets could have them. Now we are using CRISPR, a gene modifier, that will help breed better animals suitable for production. It will help increase meat production. It has not yet been proven to affect an animal’s way of life nor have any health risks. In similar ways we are affecting the animal kingdom which I find morally wrong especially since you have to breed this gene into existence. Society said that this is ok because these are just animals and it is benefiting us. In relation to the unicorn that has multiple meanings two of them being freedom and eternal life. In Their society and ours, humans have one thing in common: the search for freedom and longer life. The replicants want to live longer, as their makers gave them very short life spans, but seeing as they have the wants as a normal human, they both wanted to have time to experience life. They want to live as long as possible and they found it unfair, they got abandoned without any consideration. They were seen as disposable so they weren’t seen as something that needed to live long. Everyone in this world lives in a hierarchy like we have. Everyone wants to be freed from the confinements of living in a hierarchy.

Spoilers ahead

Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho is an interesting film, filled to the brim with suspense. In addition to that key theme, there are many other elements that help this film “work”. These elements can be organized into theatrical and cinematic elements.

First up is theatrical elements. This film needed its sets without them, the story wouldn’t stay true. I specifically mean the Bates motel. It’s in the perfect spot, in the middle of nowhere surrounded by a good amount of vegetation. In addition to having a bog behind it. This motel and its placement alone raise some suspicion and curiosity. It’s extremely secluded and allows for the perfect murder cover-up. It has the perfect proximity to Norman’s house which has its own treasures. Norman and “Mother’s” home included 2 important bedrooms and a cellar. One bedroom being Norman’s, gave insight to him that wasn’t revealed to the audience. While Mother’s bedroom included jumpscares, a used bed, and all her personal belongings. Lastly a creepy cellar, without the creepy cellar where else would we have had such a wonderful reveal. A debatable setting would include the city where beloved Marion was introduced. It provided a sense of relatability and establishment. Without this installment in the being, we wouldn’t be able to compare the settings and develop the conclusion that something was sketchy.

Next, we have the costumes. The play on colors helped deliver to the audience where the character stood mentally. Which could be level-headed or rebellious. The Mother’s dress and wig were also important factors. Without Mother’s clothes Norman could not bring her to life. Then you have Norman’s outfits which consisted of plain button-up shirts and straight pants. Norman and Mother’s costumes help the audience establish them as two separate characters before they are revealed to be one.

Then we have props. I specifically wanted to highlight the knife and chocolate. Not many things were consistent in this film but Mother always killed someone with a knife. The chocolate added a realistic look and amazing contrast of blood on different backgrounds.

Following, we have acting choices. I think it was a specific choice that Marian’s sister was so calm and intrigued upon finding out Norman’s “condition”. It was a choice to widen Norman’s eyes and give a full smile at the sight of his next victim, in Mother’s clothes. Last it was a choice to deliver Norman’s creepy aura subtly. This aura was conveyed subtly with posture, tone, word choice, and interests.

Now I want to dive into the cinematic choices. The black and white color of the film’s finish gave the film a vintage look. It also delivers contrasting colors or surfaces really well. The lowkey, bottom, and side lighting especially with Norman was another key factor in delivering Norman’s creepy Aura. This film uses crispy and clear cuts, it gives the film a serious and professional polish. A great addition to this film’s cinema was the long under the chin shot where Norman was being followed when he was glancing at the check-in book. Higher angle shots delivered Marian’s fear and realization of the situation well. Low angled shots on Norman, specifically the ones including his taxidermy birds in his conversation with Marion. These visual elements help deliver Alfred’s theory of suspense. One last notable feature in Psycho’s cinematic element toolbox was the non-diegetic sound and overall soundtrack. The soundtrack proved to be iconic, notably because much of the sound was then used in many films after the birth of this one. The non-diegetic music provoked auditory feelings in the audience, it intensified the emotions that we as viewers were already feeling witnessing these storylines and characters. Without the sound and just the images, Hitchcock’s emotional and suspenseful rollercoaster would still be in tack because all these elements did was heighten his initial visual.

The strength of the tools in this film’s “toolbox” is what makes it so significant. It has been argued that this film is more of a genre film than a storyline film. I agree. The suspenseful rollercoaster of Hitchocks’s choice paired with the different elements of the film created a masterpiece. A masterpiece that I enjoy for what it possesses.

Overall the tools that Alfred Hitchcock used, theatrical and cinematic helped to deliver his directorial view to the audience, in a way that would resonate with many. While being an inspiration to others.

In Ridley Scott’s 1982 Blade runner the story takes place in a claustrophobic 2019 Los Angeles. At the time of filming these large assumptions made throughout the film about the future may have seemed plausible, but how do they hold up today? To start off one of the easiest elements to pick up is the bright neon lighting scattered throughout the duration of the movie. In fact there seems to be too much lighting overwhelming the contents of the scenes themselves. If this trait wasn’t already true in Los Angeles in 1982 it definitely would hold true today. With all this light currently being emitted by today’s world, light pollution is seen throughout the country. With Blade Runner depicting no visible stars in the sky along with the consistent smoggy look, it is definitely comparable to the conditions of some cities today. The lighting in both the movie and real-world convey how people have taken one of the simpler technologies and have stretched it so far that it clashes with nature and overtakes it.

The next element, definitely the most notable having to do with the actual plot of the film is technological advancements. In Blade Runner, it is apparent that technology holds a large role in everyday life, the first being transportation. Transportation in the movie greatly overestimated what we currently use today, where they have flying cars we instead have self-driving ones. While vehicles have definitely improved since the movie was created it puts into perspective the values of people back then and now. In the current day flying cars, while they would be an amazing feat, would most likely cause more harm than good. In movies such as this they are displayed as convenient and trustworthy but with there still being issues with our modern cars how would flying cars go? As of now, there aren’t any large leaps to commercialize this effort but there would definitely be some form of vehicle in the future to further test upcoming technology.

Building off of tech the use of androids, or replicants, in the film was crucial for expansion in the movie. With their bodies being designed for handling more labor-intensive duties they would take the jobs of people, assistants of the human race. Today we rely so heavily on technological assistants to help us with everyday problems ranging from something as basic as our phones to specialized robots for specific functions. In Blade Runner, these replicants were created for a specific purpose for human usage just as any other device today or back then. The question that arises as the technology continues to evolve and take on forms to better interact with humans is, is there a line that has to be drawn? Today people are already working on robots to imitate human behavior including facial expressions and to some degree the ability to think. While the movie has heavily built itself on the idea of sentient androids would it be wrong to overwork, exploit, and use them? They’re only machines, right?

SOUNDTRACK // Redo (or make in the first place) the soundtrack for the film. Choose at least five songs that you would include. Write an explanation for each song: why would you include it, and how does the song connect to events in the film? (750 words)

Blade Runner

Something In The Way (Nirvana) - I would include this song in the soundtrack because it has a very noir feeling to it and fits the theme of Deckard fighting the replicants because they are in the way of him enjoying his life. Which also resonates with the time when his boss wanted him back but he was tired about that type of stuff and wanted to be left alone. However he didn’t really have a choice in the end. I really think this song fits a lot of the themes in Blade Runner. Personally I think it’s because a lot of the parts in this movie really are in the way of his goals and way of life.

Armed and Dangerous (Juice WORLD) - This song really belongs in the movies when the action starts turning up because all sorts of weapons are used in Blade Runner and you could really connect it to the theme of him fighting the replicants towards the end or even maybe the beginning depending on where it was placed. I think it belongs in the soundtrack because it resembles the actions of the replicants in a really unique way; they are all armed and dangerous.

In the End (Linkin Park) Ok for starters this might be one of the most inspiring songs of all time and I think for an ending song especially for Blade Runner this one fits perfectly because everything he did in the end people will just pass it by only he will really remember how important that was. Overall his story will be forgotten. This is a perfect song for the soundtrack because of how you can use it for the ending and some other sections dealing with an end of sorts’ it also kinda fits that sci-fi element a tiny bit.

Psycho (Post Malone - feat. Ty Dolla $ign) This song especially fits for Roy because the guy is a psycho living his last few weeks on Earth even though this song is kinda more upbeat there’s a certain message that personally I think fits in this movie’s soundtrack if it’s only a tiny bit however the message could be really powerful. There’s a certain feeling I get from this song. It’s one of depression and happiness, kind of a mix of the two and it works. If this was used for a tiny section with Roy at the perfect moment I feel like this would be something truly special.

Superhero (Simon Curtis) There’s alot to this song for one it is probably one of my favorite and most unheard of songs in the industry and period. It feels like something that would perfectly fit in any action scene involving good or bad. I believe it would fit perfectly with Deckard’s struggle to fight the replicants, maybe not for multiple scenes but just one or two would work perfectly if done right. Mainly because well this isn’t really an action movie but more of a psychological sci fi action drama film which however that is a mouthful it gets the point across. I really love how this song fits into the theme of action in basically every genre involving some sort of hero; it’s just something so unique.

It Wasn’t Me (Shaggy) This would be insanely funny if It wasn’t me played in the background of that strip club scene I personally feel like that fits perfectly and would be hilarious which I think to an extent Ridley Scott was going for a somewhat comedic scene because I could tell he was trying to make us laugh with the character in that scene until it switched to a action scene. I know it sounds weird me suggesting this song for a noir sci fi film but ever since I watched Blade Runner back in 2017 I could never get over the fact of how hilarious it would have been to have that song in the background not necessarily in the scene where that girl gets undressed but just the strip club when he enters it. To this day I still believe it would be insanely funny.

Roger Ebert’s 2.5/4 star review of “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” is a bit disappointing to me, and I am curious as to how the era in which this review was written had an impact on his view of the film. He starts out with an overall summary of his thoughts on the movie, stating: “the completed film is slow and disappointing.” He attributes this notion to two main factors. One being the casting of Newmann, a well established and expensive actor, as the lead role. The second being that the movie is “too cute, and never gets up the nerve, by god, to admit it’s a western.”

To the first point, Ebert claims that the money spent on Newmann compelled the studio to protect their investment by increasing the overall production value of the film, something he saw as a detriment to the pacing. What could he possibly be talking about? Surely not the extremely long chase scene between Harriman’s “super posse” (which I think is a very funny title, good job Ebert) and our two heroes!? I actually really like this scene by the way. Supposedly, the chase scene is so long because George Roy Hill wanted to make the money spent on all the shooting locations worth it by keeping much of the footage. I disagree with this point, and I find it interesting that at the time, the length of a scene would be just as indicative of a “high production value,” as things like special effects. This lengthy scene contributes wonderfully to the overall aesthetic of the movie, temporarily transitioning the movie away from its roots as a comedic “western.” (I’ll dive into the “” here later.)

From a narrative perspective, while George Roy Hill could have portrayed the terror of being chased by the “super posse” and therefore justified the rest of the film, using a much shorter scene (the first five minutes of the chase prove this), I think it is quite effective at doing something else entirely. The length of the chase, and the protagonists’ attempts to thwart the super posse is exhausting, in the best, most darkly comedic way possible. While I enjoyed every minute of that terror and exhaustion, Roger Ebert clearly did not. Ebert, in his claims about production value and whatnot, implies this exhaustion to be a byproduct of lazy filmmaking and greedy executives. He makes it very clear that he thinks the scene is a drag, bogging down the rest of the movie to a point beyond recovery. Personally, due to my enjoyment of what the scene does for the movie, I’ll subscribe to the idea of the scene being deliberate, and the product of a director with an unconventional vision.

Ebert doesn’t quite make his meaning on the second point as clear as the first, but I’d like to take a crack at what he means when he thinks the movie won’t “admit it’s a western.” In the later half of the review, he refers to the movie’s dialogue being too contemporary, affecting the believability of the movie. I think this is a misconception of the movie, and the genre as a whole. The movie, while based on real events, never seems to sell itself as a serious period piece, or as representative of the classic western genre. I think that looking at this movie as a subversion of the genre would be more accurate. This movie shifts the traditional western setting, placing western themes in a non-traditional western setting like Bolivia. Additionally, the dialogue, which Ebert attributes to the film trying to “act cutesy,” is a refreshing take on what could have truly made this movie a drag (imagine that long chase scene sans the witty dialogue). The traditional themes of good versus evil, or even anti-hero outlaws, are not present in this movie. Butch and Sundance are not strikingly good or evil, and typically, to be an anti-hero, one must be acting with intentions that are ultimately good. Butch and Sundance are in my eyes a good old pair of anti-villains, which is undoubtedly an unconventional take on the protagonist, even outside of the western genre. All of these slightly unconventional elements make the movie feel extremely aware of the western genre and its tropes, which makes Ebert’s claim that it is trying and failing to be a western misguided.

Overall, I think that Ebert didn’t give this movie a chance. It is fair enough that he didn’t enjoy the chase scene, I can get that. I personally believe it to be great, and a deliberate artistic choice, but… fair enough? You got bored which is completely subjective, and I can’t take that away from you. I don’t think I could agree to disagree with his points about the nature of the film as a failed western though, as I think that falls short of the movie’s vision as an anti-western. Of course, I could talk all day about how badly he missed the mark on this specific point, but it’s probably easier for contemporary viewers to spot the genre commentary, as traditionally themed western movies are more “a thing of the past” now than in 1969. Regardless, I review his 2.5/4 star review, with a 2/4 star review (his points were half fair, half not).

El Newburger

April 21, 2022

I personally did not enjoy this film. I thought it was somewhat stupid. There is an interesting plot and it is compelling in the way that you don’t know who is going to live and who is going to die; although that seems to be the only exciting part for me. The way this movie was filmed and directed irritated me, one of the biggest factors being the long chase scenes, although the cinematography is quite pretty. The length of the film composed of photos to show Butch, Sundance and Etta traveling to Bolivia was confusing. I think it’s a bit odd to have these long chase scenes which not much occurring and then tightly comprise a long period of time in photos. As the viewer I would’ve wanted to see more about their travels. We are introduced to the idea of Butch and Sundance going to Bolivia early in the film so, for lack of better words it seems idiotic to not include any information about that.

Yes this is a Western film, and it’s meant to be a tribute of western films so it must be that western films are not for me. As exciting as they come off to be, I got rather bored during this film. The first review I read was written by Roger Ebert. In his review about the film he says, “…This good movie is buried beneath millions of dollars that were spent on “production values” that wreck the show.” I one hundred percent agree with this, the producers spent $6 million on this film and getting Paul Newman which is shown, cinematically this film is beautiful but the money they spent on these factors could’ve been used much more effectively. Granted this movie made $102.3 million.

“Director George Roy Hill apparently spent a lot of money to take his company on location for these scenes, and I guess when he got back to Hollywood he couldn’t bear to edit them out of the final version. So the Super-posse chases our heroes unceasingly, until we’ve long since forgotten how well the movie started and are desperately wondering if they’ll ever get finished riding up and down those endless hills. And once bogged down, the movie never recovers.” This quote from Roger Ebert’s review perfectly sums up how I feel about this movie. Most of the budget was spent on Paul Newman and going on location and not enough time spent on editing and such.

One of the confusing parts of the film, that Ebert points out as well, is that this movie is set in 1910 and they have a much more modern dialect. Throughout the movie I kept thinking about when this movie is supposed to take place and I often forget that it was set in 1910. You’d think that since the producers and directors spent so much money on this film they would’ve moved some of it around for this movie to actually make sense. Why go through all the trouble of going on location and hiring a very expensive actor then not telling your actors so add a little tang to their accent? It can be so satisfying when actors learn the accent or dialect of a certain time or place to add to their character; for me personally it pulls me into their world even more. This movie didn’t have that, so it wasn’t as compelling.

On the other side of this I found the comedic parts of the movie quite enjoyable. When Butch and Sundance are learning Spanish and have difficulty conducting the bank tellers and townspeople during their robbery; that was amusing. The second article I read about Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid was much more in favor of this being a generally good movie. This review by Whitney Williams published by Variety in 1969 saw the film in a kiddie light. “A lighthearted treatment of a purportedly-true story of the two badmen who made Wyoming outlaw history.” Viewing this film in a more childish lens, with the share of violence is much more appealing to me. I could see myself possibly enjoying the movie as a younger individual, the comedic parts are a fun aspect to the movie and the constant need to run, loot and rob aid to make this a childish silly movie.

My final opinion of this movie is this, I wouldn’t watch it again unless I was really bored and couldn’t find anything else to watch. I don’t like it but it’s not terrible. There are pros and cons to this movie; as there are to any movie. Pros being the cinematography, the color grading, the little incorporations of comedy and the generally silly lighthearted aspect of this movie. The cons being, the extremely long chase scenes, the modern dialect used by characters who live in 1910, the use of this film’s budget and the fact that this is a western film. Overall I rate this movie two out of five stars.

Sources: Ebert, Roger. “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Movie Review (1969): Roger Ebert.” Movie Review (1969) | Roger Ebert, John Foreman, 13 Oct. 1969, https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/butch-cassidy-and-the-sundance-kid-1969 Williams, Whitney. “Film Review: ‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’ with Paul Newman, Robert Redford.” Variety, Variety, 10 Sept. 1969, https://variety.com/1969/film/reviews/butch-cassidy-and-the-sundance-kid-1200422010/

[Alternate title: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid except it’s circa 400 BCE and in the Mediterranean]

Though the two genres might appear to be worlds away, westerns and classical literature share a lot in common. The standard conventions of the western genre borrow heavily from the structures and themes of Greco-Roman writing. Though many writing and drama conventions can be traced back to classical antiquity, westerns echo and amplify them in a notable way. Both genres place emphasis on antiheroes and tragic heroes wandering through civilization while escaping their destinies. Both feature themes like community versus individual and nature versus civilization. This can easily be observed in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, which in itself, is both a western and an analysis of westerns.

The most important connection between the two classifications is their function. In ancient Greece and Rome, literature and drama reflected their mythology and beliefs. Not only that, but they expanded on them. Virgil’s The Aeneid, for instance, literally develops new myths and “history.” Aeneas, a Trojan hero, becomes the father of the Roman people. However, prior to The Aeneid, Aeneas had no documented connection with Rome. This serves to create a mythology around Rome. It is propaganda. It validates and justifies their culture and behavior, in addition to romanticizing their heritage. Westerns operate in the same way. Films of the genre build and reinforce the myth of American expansion. They cement the United States as a strong power with an important history. They emphasize vital cultural features, like that of innovation and capitalism, or the American dream. Butch Cassidy represents this in the fullest; he is constantly seeking new ways to get rich, and fast. He steals the idea to rob the train on both the departure and return. He even cites western expansion as inspiration and justification behind his plans to make money in Bolivia. In doing so, he validates American ideals. Furthermore, as outlaws, he and Sundance work as a metaphor for America’s consistent tension with authority. The country was only created as a result of the resistance against British control. A century later, the South attempted to secede, resisting against control once more. Even today, incidents like the January 6, 2021 mirror the American mythology of countering authority. Westerns illustrate this dynamic, just like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, by focusing on outlaws and their adventures.

Westerns and classical literature also display similar structure and organization, especially Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The film echoes Greco-Roman writing in character development, themes, and literary devices. Both genres prominently feature anti-heroes and tragic heroes. In the movie, the two main characters are thieving outlaws, who eventually cause their own deaths. In major classical works, like Oedipus Rex, the audience observes as the main characters make foolish and immoral decisions that ultimately lead to their downfall. This character type is often used to explore another shared aspect: the theme of destiny. In Oedipus Rex, characters repeatedly revolt against their destiny. Oedipus tried to escape his destiny, which is to murder his father and sleep with his mother, only to find his attempts directly cause him to fulfill it. Similarly, Butch and Sundance bring about their own downfall in their mission to evade it. They are warned their time is coming to an end; their deaths are clearly imminent. Infamous for their crimes, the pair discover they are being hunted. Being caught means death. In order to avoid this outcome, Butch and Sundance run away to Bolivia. They clean up their act, thinking they can remake their destiny. However, in trying to remain good and innocent, they are forced to turn to crime again. This time, they are caught, not by their former pursuers, but by a Bolivian boy who alerts the authorities. They are surrounded, injured, and overpowered. In the end, by deciding to escape by becoming “good” in Bolivia, they caused their own downfalls.

Furthermore, a critical trait of Greco-Roman drama is irony. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid not only presents a heavy dose of irony, but also employs it in the same way as classical literature. Dramatic irony is used to underscore the tragic hero arc. In Oedipus Rex, for instance, Oedipus proudly proclaims he shall exile the man who killed his father, unknowing that it was, in fact, him. He also mocks a blind prophet, unaware that he, too, will become blind as a punishment. In the final scene of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Butch and Sundance foolishly believe they will be able to escape the Bolivian police. Hidden from their sight, the authorities continue to surround them in overwhelming numbers, all while Butch and Sundance discuss their plans for the future. The audience knows they will not survive, making the moment ironic. The use of dramatic irony furthers their arc as tragic heroes defying destiny. It demonstrates their destiny to be inevitable, just as it does in Oedipus Rex.

In the end, there are a myriad of connections between westerns and classical literature, including many unmentioned. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid proves to be an excellent study of the similarities, mimicking antiquital structure, themes, and devices. Butch Cassidy, and westerns as a whole, are so significant as they maintain a timelessness in their structure and purpose. They illustrate the connection society preserves with the past.

When watching The Royal Tenenbaums, the majority of the songs stuck out to me. They were sweet hymns that matched perfectly with the setting that was currently playing. After I had finished watching the movie, I actually looked up the soundtrack so I could add some of these songs to my playlist. I found them very fitting and I believe this is part of the reason why I loved this movie so much. Soundtrack is so important when creating a film. Not only the lyrics need to resonate with the viewers but also the tune and melody. If you think about it, a film with no music would be quite boring. Music helps move along the scenes and also can help the viewers connect to the film. I find it quite difficult to pair songs to a specific scene because all scenes are so unique and they must stick to a proper theme. The Royal Tenenbaums have a light-hearted, warm tone that goes along well with the soundtrack that was used. I believe that a few of my ideas go well with my interpretation of this film. A Day In The Life by the Beatles was something I instantly thought of when looking at this movie. Not only the album cover speaks Tenenbaum but the upbeat melody of guitar and piano really stuck out to me. This movie is about family and the upside downs of the difficult relationships within a family setting. This song has a lot going on at once, similar to the family dynamic. The events in this film are confusing and at times emotional. This song stuck out to me because it is going through the day in the life of someone in a chaotic manner. The few scenes where Margot falls in love with Richie makes me think of a complicated love song. Because that is exactly what that is, a complicated relationship. When I think about these characters I find warmth and happiness in their relationship. Although it is strange, Wes Anderson seems to still make it beautiful. And that is why I thought of the song Can’t Get it Out Of My Head by Electric Light Orchestra. This song was made in the 70’s and this movie takes me to a place somewhere in that time. The style that Margot wears is chic and expressive. It resembles something of the 70’s. “Searching for her silver light, and I can’t get it out of my head…” These lyrics remind me of Richie when he is going through a depressive episode searching for the one person that loves him. As he tries to commit suicide, the director plays an almost cheerful tone while this is going on. It reminds me of this song, bitter but hopeful, almost like Richie and Margot’s relationship. Another Beatles classic reminds me greatly of this film. Strawberry Fields Forever comes to my mind when I think about the Royal Tenenbaums. Something about the relaxation of the song that almost seems like it’s slowed down. I believe it would fit perfectly within this film because there are moments where it seems as though the world stops moving. Margot is in a rut with her relationship, Royal has become poor, Chas relives the moments with his late wife, and Richie seems upset with his current situation. Although this song is not necessarily depressing, it takes the tone down a few notches and gives you time to think and ponder the relationship of this strange family. As we take a look at the depressing side of this family, another song that draws me in is Colour My World By Chicago. This slow flute that plays in between the chorus really reminds me of the way in which these children were living their life after they became adults. Although they had a pretty reliable childhood, things seemed to change for the worse when reality hit them. This song seems to fit right in with this soundtrack because once again it is from the 70’s, much of which this movie reminds me of. Colour My World feels as though he is longing for something, or someone, a lot like most of the movie. Although much of this movie does have recurring themes of grief and loss, there is a cheerfulness that comes along with it. The Royal Tenenbaums does celebrate a happy ending. Dust In The Wind by Kansas seems to bring some kind of ending to this twisted story. When the movie ends, I can still imagine what happens, and if that is possible, that means the movie is good. I believe that this song also has a sort of “ending” to it. Something that says, this movie is over, but the story is everlasting.

Rear window is a great title for the movie and as a viewer or an outsider you are able to kind of get an idea of what the film would be about just by hearing the title and looking at the film cover art. But if I was given the ability to alter this movie and its title I would go with something a little more suspenseful and less obvious with that being said I would name it “My Point of view”. When it comes down to advertising I would probably give as least amount of information about the film as possible while still being able to take a slight guess about what the movie would be about. I feel like back then a lot of movies followed the same sequence and were very predictable. As a viewer I feel like I would much rather going into a movie saying “yo i dont know whats about to happen in this movie but i feel like its going to be good” instead of me walking into a movie saying “ yo this is probably going to happen but how did the director make it interesting”. The hardest part about it though is being able to find a balance as much as you want to keep the viewers guessing and assuming you also can’t have them clueless. Viewers should be able to at least know the genre and what kind of film it will be because all films are for a different audience. Cant have somebody assuming its a love story then it be action , or you cant have somebody thinking it a drama but then it’s about superheroes, it’s all about balance. I also feel like the cover art for any movie or production is just as important if not more important than the title. And like I said I’d rather have my viewers guessing and the easiest way to do that with the cover art is give them something that they could take 100 different meanings out of. At first glimpse you look at it and see oh this about to happen, then look at it again and say “ but this can happen”. Great advertisement to me is keeping everyone on their toes and you have to find a way to be able to do that through a title and a Image and that’s exactly what I tried to do with my cover art and title, hopefully you enjoy.

In my picture i tried to draw someone lookin out into their environment and see that same exact image but from one point of view you see a reallt good side of everyone and the neighborhood and from another point of view you see a sad miserable neighborhood. But sadly my drawing skills are pretty bad

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KyikeLNE7BdhTdc3nnqhtnRiFhc0TFtmx2IV9NoL0tw/edit?usp=sharing

The film “Rear Window” was released on August 4, 1964, directed by Alfred Hitchcock. It’s a story about an injured leg photographer who had to sit in a wheelchair while healing and believes that he witnessed a murder crime from his apartment. Throughout the storylines in the movie there are a couple of interesting points that I think can be connected to the real world. This includes the actions that Jeff, the main character, takes. The way he approaches watching his suspicious neighbor is questionably legal. Even though Jeff’s behavior paid off and the neighbor was arrested, the steps he made to get to that point may not have been morally correct.

First off, Jeff was bored of having to stay in the apartment until he recovers. One day he found that he could see the apartments across from him and he started to watch and look across the apartment every day as his daily routine during his recovery. There’s Miss Lonelyheart, Miss Totes, the newly married couple, songwriter, and Lars Thorwald and his wife. Everyone seems to have some things to do in the apartment that kind of connect with their jobs and seems like they have some troubles in the beginning. Lars Thorwald is a salesman, he lives with his wife across from Jeff. His wife usually just stays in bed and eats in bed. One day Jeff suddenly realizes that he hasn’t seen Mrs. Thorwald for a long time and starts to look deeper at Lars Thorwald’s apartment. Jeff had kept watching Lars Thorwald’s actions and even want to go in and search for evidence to support his thought. The actions Jeff takes leads me to think that in the real world is it legal to watch people from your house all day every day? In my opinion, if you watch or see something of other people on the street from your house then, of course, it’s legal. As well as if you watch it or accidentally see it then it’s also legal. In Jeff’s case the actions he takes, it goes a bit too far, from watching it a couple of times a day to all day even at night time. Then, I think it’s illegal in real society because it eroded the privacy of others. In the movie, it’s legal that he even get his neighbor arrested and had evidence and everything right for it which is questionable and makes this connection interesting.

Continuing on it also makes me wonder, where does it stop being just watching and becomes stalking? In Jeff’s case what he does, I think the change started once he knowest the dog was died and reminded him of the little flower garden that Mr. Thorwald was working on earlier. Jeff started looking at Lars Thorwald’s apartment and knowing his wife wasn’t in there as well as the blind was closed for a few days and there were no shadows of a person. He starts to use the camera for looking into the apartment and even took pictures of it. The moment he starts taking pictures and watching his actions 24/7 it turns to stalk instead of just watching for fun. In real society, the action of stalking is illegal, and taking pictures of it will get worst in the real world which will turn into a crime and go to jail. If they result in that situation then they might end up with a penalty of up to 5 years in jail.

More on to the legal and illegal issue another idea that I have is that was what Jeff did morally right? In the movie, Jeff’s behavior paid off and the neighbor Lar Thorwald had arrested and confirmed the crime of murder. In my opinion that helping to find the murderer and being brave enough to stand out as being a witness with evidence is really morally right. At the same time, the way he gets the evidence could be not morally right because you shouldn’t be looking and watching others on what they doing in their house and taking pictures of them. Opinion wise I think that the definition of morality and if what Jeff was right or wrong cloud be different depending on the person’s view of seeing it and thinking about it. It’s also really interesting that when we watch the movie we are also watching others’ daily life from the same point as Jeff’s views and we even view Jeff’s daily. In conclusion, Jeff’s actions of legal and illegal, as well as morally right or wrong, and the possible result difference between the movie and real society is an interesting point to think of.

Roger Ebert’s review of Rear Window starts by stating, while it is wrong to spy on others, “aren’t we always voyeurs when we go to the movies (Ebert)?” This question wraps up my opinion on the essence of the film. I couldn’t agree more with the fact that we are looking into the lives of others through someone who isn’t, “a moralist, a policeman or a do-gooder, but a man who likes to look (Ebert).” It is a fresh idea for me as I’ve never watched one of Albert Hitchcock’s films in full. The set design truly made the film, it wouldn’t have the same impact if it was filmed in a cul-de-sac or any other neighborhood. I wholeheartedly agree with Ebert on the rating of this movie for sure!

With the film’s main conflict being the murder, the way it was filmed was innovative. The style in which Jeff realizes what has happened is worded by Ebert perfectly, “What he sees, we see. What conclusions he draws, we draw (Ebert).” The limited view shot using his telephoto lens forces us to look deeper into what is happening and capture all the details. Paired along with the rain and we have a very dynamic scene.

Ebert taught me something new about the style of the film, juxtaposed shots were used to show how Jeff’s mind concluded that a murder had just happened. I looked into what this method was exactly and was fascinated with the science behind it. Associating a neutral face with an object can conclude us to different emotions. I believe this is what makes Rear Window so special, it guides us on the journey of Jeff and his mission to observe.

Another thing that I agree with is Ebert’s opinion on Grace Kelly’s character, Lisa. She is a grandiose character that caught my attention immediately. I will admit that I was bored at the beginning of the film, but Lisa immediately lightened the mood. As one of “Hitchcock’s blondes” I am rather surprised that she didn’t follow any major stereotypes. She is smart, brave, quick-witted and her beauty enthralls everybody. By far she is my favorite character and her wardrobe is just a chef’s kiss.

That isn’t to say that Jeff isn’t a good character, because that wouldn’t be true. He is a bit lackluster in comparison with Lisa. This is something I disagree with Ebert about, he tries to overcomplicate Jeff’s character. While I agree that he is just a man who watches, I don’t think he would be as impactful if he didn’t have a leg cast on. The fact that he played a pretty passive role throughout the film makes me believe that most of his personality comes from the way his scenes were shot. Especially with the scene in which Thorvald is in his apartment, what makes it so memorable and funny is the method of filming. Jeff is pretty unimaginative and seems to make his decisions with the aid of others.

Ebert does a good job of explaining how the film is different from being a surprise film. It keeps the suspense of what will happen to the trio throughout the film. Though it isn’t a modern-day suspense film in which it has multiple deep layers, it gets the job done and is a pioneer in its genre. At the beginning of the film, I didn’t quite understand what was happening. The storytelling pulled through and clarified any doubt which is what I look for in a film, a clear plot. Sometimes all you need in a film is a good plot, good actors and good filming. That recipe is sure to make a nice film that I can justify the rating it received.

One last thing I can’t ignore is the ending, I wasn’t a fan of it. Ebert didn’t mention anything about it but I would be a fool not to. It is too cookie-cutter for my taste. While it does tie up any loose ends, it just falls flat. It’s like comparing Lisa with Jeff, he doesn’t hold a mirror to her.

What Ebert does mention about the overall film is that it will be “banking in our memory.” These couldn’t be truer words for me. Even after about a month of watching the film, it remains fresh in my mind. The character of Lisa stuck with me, Grace Kelly is such an amazing actor that made the characters hers. Ebert aced his review with this film, our opinions lined up for the most part. I will look more into his films in the future, I want another Lisa character!

Citations:

Ebert, Roger. “Rear Window Movie Review & Film Summary (1954): Roger Ebert.” Movie Review & Film Summary (1954) | Roger Ebert, 20 Feb. 2000, https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-rear-window-1954.

DeGuzman, Kyle, et al. “How to Master Juxtaposition in Filmmaking.” StudioBinder, 27 Feb. 2021, https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-juxtaposition-definition/.

The current poster for the movie Psycho by Alfred Hitchcock is very much of its time. It looks like a romcom poster, not one for a horror movie. That’s why I decided to redraw a poster of it in my own vision. As for the name of the film I have less of a problem with it but I do think it has a different meaning nowadays. Also the way that Hitchcock marketed this movie was weird, the trailer by itself is absolutely bizarre and would never be done now.

To start off we would change the name from Psycho to Broken. The film is all about tension and not knowing what’s going to happen next so when the title is Psycho that kind of gives away the mystery of it from the start. I also think that the movie plays Norman Bates off as a sympathetic character so this title further shows Norman and as a sympathetic character.

For the movie poster I realized that the original poster was very basic and didn’t offer much. It was also of its time and just wasn’t very eye-catching, it also didn’t have a centerpiece or a focus point. In my rendition of it I decided to have the focus point be on the Bates as a shadow figure of mother holds Norman Bates in her hands. I wanted to include the other characters so on the side peeling off of the middle were Marion Crane, Arbogast, Lila Crane and Sam Loomis, and Norman Bates’s taxidermy Owl. I want to give off this effect of importance in this poster for these side characters because even though Lila and Sam solve the mystery, they aren’t featured in the original poster at all. I also think that the owl adds a bit more of a spooky factor to it and is a fun little thing to put on the poster. I also think that having the title at the bottom is cool because it makes them feel like they are barely being held up.

When it comes to advertising this movie I think that I would go with a different approach then Alfred Hitchcock. First the trailer would be clips from the movie not him walking around the set. It would start off by hyping up how much money was on the line. Then we would go into a mad search with a bunch of characters questioning one another all leading to Marion’s scream at the end of the trailer.

Out of all the movie reviews that I read for the movie Psycho, Pure Psycho: The Art of a Midnight Masterpiece written by John M. Heath caught my attention the most. He focuses the majority of the article on breaking down the techniques used in the film that kindle an emotional reaction from the audience. He includes multiple shots to back up all his points and shows, not tells, the readers what a real cinematic masterpiece this film is. In addition, Heath pulls quotes from the director himself, Alfred Hitchcock, to tie the whole article together. The most impressive thing this article accomplishes is getting me to enjoy the film. Not as a story, but as a picture film. As a person who is not a fan of horror or thriller movies, the interpretation, and breakdown this article goes through make me want to rewatch Psycho to appreciate it for what it is.

Heath starts off strong with a quote from Hitchcock talking about the pride he takes in his film. Hitchcock goes on about the joy he feels knowing that his film, Psycho, had an effect on the audience. He enjoys that it sparks an emotional response from the audience and the fact that he was able to create that reaction through his film. Heath follows this quote with an explanation about how Hitchcock is a part of the “old school silent-era directors” that lived by the rule “Show it, don’t say it” (Heath). Anyone who has watched Psycho knows this to be true, even without previously knowing about the rule. Hitchcock is a master at keeping his audience on the edge of their seats. He is able to execute this level of suspense by not saying much and instead of showing his audience what he needs them to know. Everything, one way or another, leads the audience down to the big reveal at the end.

Something that Heath and most film reviewers can agree on, is the manipulative mastermind that Hitchcock is. In addition to his usage of “Show it, don’t say it,” he also dictates the relationship the audience has with the story. In the beginning, he pins the audience on a birds-eye-view of a city. He immediately follows this by closing in on a hotel room, peaking through the window. Heath said it best, “We feel that we’re prying, witnessing something that we shouldn’t. Yet, we can’t look away.” (Heath). Hitchcock wants his audience to feel like peeping toms. He creates this discomfort, and builds this question of Am I allowed to watch? in the mind of his audience. This allows Hitchcock to enter the minds of his viewers and push the limits with what he shows. He is able to build suspense, real the audience in, and hit them with major and unexpected events, all with the clever use of different shots.

One of the technical elements used in this film that Heath goes into is Hitchcock’s use of strong compositional lines. This specific element triggers an uneasy feeling in viewers and Hitchcock uses that to his advantage. If we remember the rules for watching Psycho, Hitchcock made the film with the intention of trapping his audience in theaters to watch this movie all the way through. Something Heath missed is the importance of the audience’s memory. Because Hitchcock wants the ability to control and impact the audience’s emotions, he needs them to sit through the whole film. This way, when he shows viewers strong compositional lines with the suggestion that they hold a deeper meaning, he needs to trigger a memory in their heads to convey this message. In the article Heath shows these examples side by side, helping readers to understand his point, but in the film, Hitchcock uses his limited runtime to do the same.

Following the theme of repetition and memory, Hitchcock loved to draw parallels between seemingly meaningless events at the beginning and the bigger events that happen later on. He hints at so many little things that some may not even notice. Thankfully Heath does a great job of breaking these small details down for us. For example, there is a weird connection between birds and women in this film. If we remember the birds-eye-view in the opening scene, and then watch the dinner scene with Norman and Marion, we as audience members can begin to understand that Hitchcock wanted us to link the two in our minds. “We learn that these three things (birds, sex, and women) are inextricably linked in the twisted mind of Norman Bates” (Heath). Why does it matter that these things are connected in Norman’s head? As we find out after the dinner scene, it’s because the story shifts to follow Norman instead of Marion. Hitchcock planned this shift all along and was clearly informing the audience about the change through the dinner scene.

It is small connections like this that start to turn wheels in my head and make me want to go back and rewatch to look out for these subtle things. Heath’s article makes me want to go back and look for more connections or small details I missed. It is this very article that makes me want to rewatch Psycho to appreciate it for what Hitchcock intended it to be. A midnight masterpiece.

I feel that instead of using the title “Rear Window”, it should instead be titled “We Need More Evidence”. I think as a whole film, it would be most properly represented by this title. Throughout the film, we have seen that Jeff is just watching people across the alley through a camera and binoculars. He is constantly looking and making these ideas in head about what happened to Mr.Thorwald’s wife after he didn’t see her in a couple days. His wife Lisa was always skeptical about believing him because Mr.Thorwald was always such a nice guy and “could never do such a thing”. As the movie progresses, we notice that there is more and more evidence that Jeff gathered to prove that Mr.Thorwald killed his wife. The film as a whole is very slowly developed but still shows significant signs of a very well driven plot with a lot of aspects that are needed in order for the film to progress. The whole time, Lisa is telling Jeff that whatever he thinks is happening with Mr and Ms.Thorwald is completely in his mind until he shows her proof. Even after the proof is shown, Lisa is still very skeptical about his findings. I chose to rename the film “We Need More Evidence” because when Lisa starts to see what Jeff is seeing and believing it, she starts to establish that she needs a closer look in order to show the police. Lisa knows that if they call the police and tell them only what Jeff is claiming to see, no one will believe him. Lisa does a tremendous job in trying to find more evidence. She digs up flowers, climbs the balcony and hangs off of it to not get caught; she finds any way possible to prove what their theory is. Including going into Mr.Thorwald’s house and looking through his things until he finds her. Because it is a suspenseful part within the film, I believe that the new title fits it perfectly without giving the viewer any insight on anything that is happening. I chose to make the cover a pair of binoculars and have the view of the window in it to have some type of knowledge without knowing the significance of the window. I feel that as a whole, the title and drawing would fit the film just as well as the original just to keep the viewer in the dark with the plot and keep them interested and wondering about why it is the way it is.