My Capstone project is based on a favorite quote of mine and how it applies to my community. This quote originated from the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”

My Capstone goal is to show how I can use Google’s free services to teach my immigrant Hispanic community to better access technology to balance their lives. I achieved this through weekly seminars with family members. My final product is a video that demonstrates the process of gathering data on the needs of my community, creating a weekly seminar, presenting it, and evaluating how it helped both them and me.

By showing others how to optimize Google’s services, I hope to reach a larger audience that wants to learn more about the power of the internet. Oftentimes we get frustrated when our family doesn’t pick up a concept that is simple to us, but we fail to understand that it wasn’t an option for them to learn. By the end of my capstone, I want the listeners to understand the value of teaching, patience, and reflection.

Final Product: https://youtu.be/Dry93jovn5s

Annotated Bibliography: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cH5up_s3GFjE-5NPXe9n3IBLHIjdTld44K_Fs4Gjw2E/edit?usp=sharing

While watching Amélie, I had a feeling that this movie was similar to another movie I had watched before. I couldn’t quite put my finger on what movie it was until the scene about what Amélie likes. It’s when I made the connection to the movie Matilda, which was released in 1998. I hadn’t realized how I didn’t connect the two earlier, they were eerily similar. I looked up the two films to see if the director of Amélie could’ve possibly taken inspiration from Matilda but didn’t find much except a Spanish article that agreed with me. I wasn’t crazy as they had many similarities to the movie posters, wacky childhood, love of sweets, a sense of justice, and happy endings. The storytelling and camera work was also super similar in that they both must be in a super niche movie category. I mention all of this because it was those characteristics that made me enjoy Amélie so much. Matilda is a staple in many of our childhoods because of how lighthearted and fun it was. I found all of that in Amélie but with a more mature plot.

Starting with the narrator in Amélie who introduces the movie to us which I thought was a smart decision. Amélie is a very eccentric character and without much context from the narrator, we wouldn’t know why she acts the way she does. An example of this would be when the narrator explained what Amélie likes. She likes dipping her hand in grain sacks, cracking creme brulee, and skipping stone. These habits could be attributed to the weird upbringing that allows her to enjoy the simplicity of life. Another example is the phone booth scene in which the narrator explains why the box is so important to Dominique. In explaining the sentiment’s meaning, the narrator makes the audience more emotional. The narrator also allows Amélie to break the fourth wall frequently which adds a whimsical element to the film. It adds a nice touch to the film and fits nicely with her personality.

Another theatrical element that made the film work was the use of black & white for flashbacks and to show “likes”. Although the film is a full-color movie, whenever introducing a character’s habits, black & white were used. Though these habits were strange and random, they added texture to the movie. There were many examples of this throughout the film like the introduction of Suzanne, Georgette, and Gina. While they don’t add much to the plot, they don’t take anything away from it. If anything it just makes everyone all the more interesting and more dimensioned. It does fit into the movie when you think about all the fourth wall breakings. The flashbacks also include a variety of aesthetically pleasing sounds like bubble wrap popping, a cat bowl on tile, and soft whispering. When listening to it on the speakers, it is a nice experience for the ears.

The last cinematic element that I hadn’t realized until the ending was the color palette of the film. It was centered around yellow, green, and red. While Amélie was made in 2001, these colors made it seem much more nostalgic yet modern. It gave the movie a homey feel and fit right in with the aesthetic of the film. If the movie had used more bold, modern coloring it wouldn’t contrast well. Can you imagine the movie with the color scheme of a movie like Edward Scissorhands? An example of how well this color scheme works is in Amélie’s clothing, she frequently uses the color red in her clothes. When draped against the yellow background, it separates her from the rest of Paris. She is different from the other people that surround her and these red dresses are what signal that. In my opinion, Amélie’s color scheme is one of the most beautiful I have seen and it’s what made Paris all the more alluring.

In my own time, I had to go back and rewatch some of the scenes in the movie because I didn’t quite understand. I realized that some things just didn’t have much meaning and were just there for fun. That is what makes Amélie so great, it is super lighthearted. The cinematic and technical elements were all carefully crafted and still stand out today in contrast to other films. The movie doesn’t seem outdated or out of place because of the way it was filmed and written. If anything it is like wine, it gets better as it ages.

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/.