Knoepfler, (Belated) Casablanca

Casablanca was not originally intended to be anything inspirational or spectacular. The following the film gained was not built into the movie beforehand. I really like this quality and think it brings a whole new level to watching it. The film, however, is interpreted in many different ways and is really deeply analyzed by some to have far deeper meanings than originally intended. Umberto Eco explains that the film deals with the idea of sacrifice and it's connections to war. This idea of sacrifice is seen as romantic which expands the original intention of the film, which was to be a simple romance set in Casablanca fueled by the recent Allied invasion of North Africa. Howard Koch, one of the screenwriters of the film, considers the film a sort of political allegory, comparing Rick to president FDR. FDR and Rick both initially rejected the war (FDR waiting till Pearl Harbor and Rick initially claiming his neutrality in the conflict.) Overall, I really think the film was overanalyzed and held to be something far higher than it was originally intended. I'm all for artistic interpretations of film, but I feel that early films were too superficial to be analyzed at that deep of a level.

Knoepfler, Kozaites: Andrew Meets a Friend.

Andrew, while strolling through the beautiful Loyola New Orleans campus, stumbles upon a mysterious furry creature. The two develop an intimate relationship based on their shared joy of being awesome.

Knoepfler, Minority Report

In the article "Our Post-Mortal Future", the concept of reading someone's mind before an action is questioned. Many of the stated uses of this technology presume that an intended act is still a crime despite the absence of a victim and perpetrator (yet). The article states that this redefines the term "crime" itself. If we can punish people before they commit a crime, can we award people before they do a good deed? If these precogs can predict a crime, can they predict the Precrime unit from failing to prevent the crime, thus allowing the unit to prevent the crime they were predicted not to prevent? The idea of predicting the future is very paradoxical. The main point of this article is the idea of a criminal. The freedom for this criminal to have the intention of committing a crime is what makes him accountable for his actions. Essentially, if allowed to predict crimes before they happen, the Precrime unit is unjustly persecuting the accused. Minority Report effectively explores an individual accused of a future crime and the obstacles he or she faces to realize whether or not the action was truly intended. The film brings into question future prediction, and really any time manipulation at all. Humanity is in the now, and if allowed to predict the future and judge an individual on those future actions, we lose our humanity.

Knoepfler, Social Network

I remember seeing the first preview for The Social Network a few months back. At first, I thought the movie was a joke. There was just no way that a movie about Facebook could be as good as it turned out to be, yet alone serious at all. Facebook just seemed like a part of everyday life permanently weaved into our lives. It’s not a story, it’s not a tool, it’s not a marketing Godsend, or anything. Its just Facebook. It was hard for me to take it seriously.

That being said, I went into the movie with a generally negative outlook. I didn’t think an interesting movie could be written about the founding of Facebook. What I didn’t know, however, was that the founding of Facebook was surrounded by betrayal and even treachery. The story was surprisingly awesome, and it was told very well. The method of flashback story telling accurately portrayed the loss of friendship between Zuckerberg and Saverin.

The acting in the movie was also phenomenal. I’m starting to respect Justin Timberlake a lot more than I used to. D*ck in a box bumped him down a lot in my approval ratings, but his extremely accurate portrayal of a sleazy entrepreneur in this movie. The acting in this film made it feel very realistic.

Knoepfler, Avatar

If I had to choose something or someone to be my avatar, I would choose the ever smooth, always awesome Keith Stone. Keith Stone portrays the values of chivalry and confidence, and is a master of generally being a badass, all of which I strive to one day be. Keith Stone is a gentleman and a scholar who looks at a situation and says, “No problem.” He’s a no-bullshit, problem solving, do it all manly man.

The reason I chose Keith Stone as my avatar is because I one day strive to emulate the great Keystone Light spokesperson. I want to walk up to a tree and help an old lady get her Kitty out of a tree. I wouldn’t do it for the praise or the reward, but I would do it simply for my love of always being smooth. I want to one day see a crying woman, obviously shunned by her groom-to-be, and tell her that everything is going to be all right, all while brandishing my beef jerky stick with confidence.

Not all of can be as smooth as Keith Stone. He’s one of a kind. His excellency is far out of reach for any mortal human. I strive to one day live up to the glory of Keith Stone.

Knoepfler, Wolfmen

I didn't get to watch the entirety of the original Wolfman due to streaming difficulties, but I'd like to talk about the differences between the special effects of the two movies and the impact they had on audiences at the time.

In the original from 1941, special effects were very limited. The transformation scene only shows the legs, which would be a huge shock to audiences at the time. Modern audiences look back on this and laugh due to the advances in special effects technology. The 1941 audience, however, were amazed and horrified by the transformation. In a sense, I think the older version is better. By not showing the whole body transformation and focusing only on the legs, George Waggner lets the audiences' minds imagine what is happening. Also, there are no direct scenes of violence. It's always hidden or implied. I think this could produce a far more horrifying effect than showing the transformation itself. It creates more suspense and terror of the unknown.

Fast forward to 2010: In this version of the film, the audience is exposed to every aspect of the Wolfman, including the transformation and the bloody encounters with the townsfolk. If the 1941 audience were to see this version, they would be disgusted, horrified, and might die of a heart attack in the theatre. They just weren't used to being exposed to this sort of violence and reality. That's the problem I have with films these days. Audiences are too numb to real suspense and horror. Unless excessive blood and explosions are shown, audiences lose interest. I wouldn't say that the 2010 film would be better if it stuck to the roots of not directly showing violence, but it would show a different kind of horror.

In conclusion, 2010 Wolfman: shock horror. 1941 Wolf Man: suspense horror. Two completely different ways of telling the same story. Both: awesome. I'll howl to that.

Knoepfler, Breaking the Waves

This movie would be very difficult to analyze with mise on scene due to director Lars Von Trier's Dogme '95 style of filming. The style utilizes handheld camera usage and no artificial lighting. That being said, what I can determine from this scene is that the priest is the dominant. Although he is behind the unconscious body of the main character Bess, one's eyes are drawn to the suspicious, angry emotions of the priest. Bess was returning to her ultra religious community from her first trial of her new scandalous prostitute life, and the priest has just driven off children from stoning her. Being the dominant, it is clear that he’s torn from helping the poor girl and shunning her for her whorish activities (which have a deeper meaning in the movie.) Again, due to Dogme ’95, the lighting is a little hard to pinpoint. Using the natural light of the Scottish highlands highlights the grim and bleak outlook on life that everyone from that community has. There is almost no sunshine in the whole movie, which gives it a dark and gloomy feeling that sort of predicts the outcome. The character proxemics are pretty personal, seeing as how her unconscious body is laying at the feet of the priest. This highlights his indecision to either help or leave her there on the ground.

The from this scene helps illuminate the overall message of the film: what is the correct way to be “good” and how one goes about doing so. The priest is doing what he feels to be good by following the rules of the community and shunning sinners. Bess is doing what she believes to be good by sleeping with other men to fuel her husband’s desires and to obey God by obeying her husband.