Kozaites: Social Network Review

David Fincher proved once again his superb skills as a film maker with this year’s ‘The Social Network’. Assisted by Aaron Sorkin’s script loosely based on the founding of the internet website Facebook and its sordid upbringing. At the center of the story is the morally ambiguous and socially awkward Mark Zuckerberg, who through the course of the film gains billions at the cost of friendship. At the end of the movie his stark loneliness accompanied by The Beatles song ‘Baby You’re a Rich Man’ is chilling and leaves you sympathizing with the tragic figure.
The method of story telling within the movie was extremely effective, concerning the flashback and non-linear narrative. Though despite this employment it is interesting to note that the film begins at the earliest part in the story (the breakup scene) and ends at the latest part of the story (final day of legal arbitration). The contrast of these two scenes also shows how Facebook has changed human interaction; in the world before Facebook you would go out for a beer with your friend, in the world with Facebook people hide behind computer screens.
Another strong suit in this movie was the strong acting from the relatively young cast. The fast paced dialogue in the first scene between Rooney Mara and Jesse Eisenberg, Justin Timberlake’s portrayal of paranoid and smarmy Sean Parker, as well as Andrew Garfield’s overall intensity all showcase the talents of these fine young performers.

Catch-22

I tried to read the book a long time ago, but never could actually finish it. Recently, I saw this movie was on instant play on Netflix, so I decided to watch it. Catch-22 is defined in this movie as the armies tricky way of keeping its pilots in the war. A pilot can leave the military if he is crazy. If the pilot claims he is crazy, then he has the grant to leave the war. The catch is that the soldier would be considered sane if he did not want to fly, yet insane if he does consider to fly. Therefore, he cannot leave the military because the moment he decides not to fly the plane any more he is sane.
There are famous actors in this movie. Alan Arkin plays the protagonist who sees the backwardness in the military and cannot get out of the catch. Arkin is the only character who sees the insanity in the war, but he has to bare insanity due to the troubles of war. Young Martin Sheen plays a fellow pilot. Jon Voight plays some sort of high officer who tries to capitalize on the resources found in America's base in Italy. Orson Welles plays a high ranking general who visits the base and has no real compassion for anything or anyone. There is even a small role for the beautiful voiced Art Garfunkel in the movie. I would consider Alan Arkin, Martin Sheen, and Jon Voight professional actors. Since this is a dark humour movie, the acting can be a bit goofy and unrealistic at times. The attitudes given about war in this movie is horrifying; a plane crashes in one scene and the two actors (Jon Voight and Martin Balsmin) do not even look at the incident. Generals raise the ante for air bombings, keeping the soldiers in Italy for an uncertain amount of time due to his ability to raise the number at any time. Even though the humor is dark, it still rubs at me in a strange way. The humor is just different because the movie is 40 years old, but I enjoyed it anyway.
The editing in this movie is psychologically stimulating. Scenes could be dreams, or scenes could be reality. The movie plays with reality in its style of editing. After Arkin gets a sheet metal in his leg, the movie switches to his subconscious. He is trying to help someone else who has hurt his leg, but then it cuts to his sexual drive. He is trying to swim to the nurse that is helping him with his leg. He is stuck out at war with no one to be intimate with. The only real intimacy is the intense conversations that the soldiers have with each other. There is a scene where it is cut from Alan Arkin trying to caress a girl to him in the middle of a strategic meeting.
The movie is purposely edited to leave the viewer out in the dark, questioning what is real. There is no guiding story line, just scenes of what is happening. Catch-22 is one of those movies that you have to watch twice or even three times to pick up on the subtleties. I have watch it twice now and feel like i have a some-what good understanding of it.

Villavicencio-Life as We Know It

Although finding a decent romantic-comedy is a rarity in itself, Life as We Know It(2010) could easily be one of the worst movies I have yet to force myself through.  

At first, the movie had a seemingly promising cast, Katherine Heigl taking her usual role as an impeccably groomed control freak and Josh Duhamel once again playing the pretty—occasionally bad—boy. The movies plot, however, should have been a enormous red flag: Despite mutual hatred, two people are forced into a life together when shared friends die in a car crash and leave them in custody of the two people’s goddaughter. Any love story that’s forced by two other deaths is strange to begin with, but as the movie reaches its 40^h minute, the annoyance of a constantly crying baby and unrelenting bickering between the two characters makes for an extremely irritating 2 hours.

In reference to acting, I have always felt that Heigl only knows how to play one type of character. Although not a Greys Anatomy fan, I enjoyed her performance in Knocked Up. When 27 dresses and Killers were released however, doubts arose, as her static character grew more irritating then cute, likeable, or even relatable.  Although towards the end of this movie she is supposed to warm up to fact that she is now a full time mother, the hour and half leading up to this revelation is far more annoying then convincing. She doesn’t have the motherly quality you would think someone casted for this film might. Also, as you’d probably expect romance and comedy in a romantic comedy, this film is devoid of them. The romance between Heigl and Duhamel isn’t believable, thus leaving no room for comedy either. I guess I would have to blame both Heigl’s inability to transform, as well as Director Greg Berlanty to cast.

As for editing, I believe the shots were too long and drawn out, a factor that leaves audience restless and inattentive. Because the movie is intended to be a romantic comedy, which most often is slathered in predictability, there was no room for creating suspense, unless a baby far from diaper or bathroom about to have a bowel movement is something you’d call suspenseful. I will however give credit to the director for allowing shots of the baby, obviously not a trained actor, to seem quite realistic. The baby’s expressions are not forced and no digital editing was used.

Overall, I wouldn’t recommend the film, (or actors and director for that matter), unless you are a fan of drawn out (un)romantic comedies.

Life as We Know It

Slan- Closer

"Closer" is a remarkable film. The acting in this film is real. The acting makes this film blossom. When their emotions changed my emotions changed. I could feel the heartache and pain in each scene. I could feel the love and passion. Over all it was a never-ending circle of love, happiness, and sadness. At the end, everything was not as it seemed to be.

I believe the strongest actor in this film was Clive Owen (Larry). He was the bastard you loved to hate. Larry emotions were raw and real. Owen did not hold anything back. He was manipulative, not as much as Alice, but he's second in line for manipulation category. Own really brought Larry to life. He knew how to get under everyone's skin and hit the right nerves. Larry was the one who was blunt and honest.

I think you can see his manipulation skills in effect in the Dan confronts Larry scene in Larry's office. The scene goes back in forth with the two like an argument for the first few minutes of the scene. The lighting in the room is dim and unnatural. There is a bright light that can be seen as the camera goes back in forth between their arguing. One is above Larry's head and the other one to the side of Dan's head. I feel like it's the lightbulb that pops up when you have a great idea. Larry is above his head speaks that his ideas about the situation are better.

The framing in the film is loose. You can tell each character has some bit of room for moving during the arguing. You can see both sides of the room when the camera jumps to each character as they make a point in their arguing. It gives them the freedom to move around to scream and shout if they need to.

The proximity of the characters is social. You can tell by how far they are from each other. The distance is kept social because even though it is about women it is business. At this distance it doesn't seem like a personal conflict between two people but it is. Dan basically makes an appointment with Larry to plead for Anna and Larry treats it like a social meeting by staying at his desk throughout the arguing.

McCay: Closer Blog on Acting

Which Actor emerges as the strongest character in Closer (remember, actor applies to both male and female)? Choose a frame of that actor (post it on the blog,) and do a mise en scene analysis of the frame to support your claim. You must analyze three elements of mise en scene in your blog.