PLE Blog Link

I decided to create another blog for the PLE.  I have spent some time looking at the websites before today to find all that fit my needs.  I actually have used a few of these quite a bit, as I like to keep up on things.  I don't really know what all I can post in it, as I don't want much information, but these websites have all greatly helped me in one way or another.  After having the blog in edit mode for a couple days, I have just now posted everything and its up for viewing.  I am still making minor changes though, but the information I have is what I use, as well as a few links that I just found the other day.

http://dpayne216ple.blogspot.com/

The American Wave

Post-Classical Film Making

During the 1950's and early 1960's Hollywood began to roll downhill. Many of the films being produced were not very successful, and viewers began to lose interest. During this time, the baby boomers were just starting to reach an age of independence. Their age group began to dominate the theaters, and a new level of film had to be reached. In order to adjust for the baby boomers, younger film makers were brought into revive Hollywood, in hopes that the younger generation film makers, fresh out of school, could catch an interest in the younger viewers.

New Hollywood, Post-classical film making, or also the “American New Wave” was during the mid-60's, and into the early 80's. During this time, many famous and classic movies were created, by younger directors, for younger audiences. Hired by studios, these you film makers were allowed to film just about anything they wanted, with very little control from the studio. With the young film makers now having their way with films, audiences began to see newer ideas in film not used before.

As films began to change, a new rating system was implemented. During this time things not that mot have been socially acceptable to view on screen began to allow more things that were once too inappropriate to be seen. Sex began to fill America, it it transitioned into theaters. Even though it was not actually shown in films like The Graduate, is was implied more so than ever seen before.

Through the 50's a new music genre began to erupt. Rock n Roll became increasingly popular each year, but it was not widely used until films in the 60's. This was yet another change that brought movies to have separate features included, soundtracks. Many movies features soundtracks remembered just as much as the movie itself. Themes for Star Wars, Jaws, and The Godfather, are all very famous. They are themes that I are played now by middle and high school bands. I can think of several movies that have soundtracks that I still listen to, such as Top Gun and Twister.

Another new adaption in the American Wave was taking the filming out of the studio. It costs a lot of money to build a set, especially when you can possibly find something as good or better thats already made, and in a real environment. To the studios, this was a huge gain. They were able to find locations that gave more feel to the movie, while saving a lot of money. Although out of the age I am talking about, Top Gun would not have been possible without the cameras the mounted on the different planes actually flown for the movie.

This era also produced some of the best movies ever created. Both Jaws and Star Wars, The Godfather, and many more movies were filmed that have made the top 100 movies list. Without a doubt these are some of the most widely known films ever made. Not only were the originals so famous, but in this era more films began to have sequels, with Star Wars having 6 total movies in its series. Unfortunately, not all of the films made were that great, and in the mid 70's the control of film makers had to be watched.

Im glad we had this era. Even with it being around 20 years before I was born, I still watch some of these movies every year. There is probably not a month that goes by where I don't see any reference to Star Wars, and I really am not into it like many others are. This era to me, was the dawn of many great titles. My favorite TV series M.A.S.H debuted as a movie in 1970, and it became one of the best TV shows of all time. Even though there were a few negatives, especially with the use of drugs on set, I probably have more favorite movies that came from the 70's than I do being released right now.

Prescott Film Festival

The Prescott Film Festival was definitely different from what I expected it to be. I was happy to be able to attend for the short amount of time that I could, and very much enjoyed the one film I saw. Unfortunately, I was not able to participate as much as is probably expected for this assignment, but I have my reasons.

I was unable to volunteer my assistance at the Prescott Film Festival, and frankly it is something that I would have loved to help out with. Being a full time college student, as well as working at my job full time, does not give me much free time of my own. I believe in getting my school work done, and I also intend to miss as little time from work as possible. Sadly, my days to work are the days and times I am not at school, which left me with only a few hours on Sunday to even watch one film, just to experience the film festival. Regardless, I chose to keep up with my financial situation, and instead was found working every day of the film festival.

The few hours I was able to devote, I watched the “White Knight” which to my surprise, starred Tom Seizmore. I don't know why I was so shocked to see him in the film, but I guess I have just grown the idea that big stars are found in big movies, even though they all started out somewhere, and they all aren't in ever big film coming out of Hollywood. I thought the movie was fantastic. I did get a different feel from this film, it just felt different from a typical big time movie. I cannot really think of how to describe it, but a comparison might be almost along the lines of “White Knight” being similar to “Napolean Dynamite.” My comparison is not to say that I think “White Knight” is overall as bad of a movie as “Napolean Dynamite” was, which I thought was slightly funny but mostly a joke, but to say watching the film was almost the same feel. It might have been the cinematography, or just the acting. Despite that, I still enjoyed watching the film. The story line was great, and not something I usually see in movies. I would watch it again if I had to.

I think the importance of the film festival to the audience is mostly finding something that is not mainstream. Watching an independent film is pretty much watching a different genre, and I think people like to explore new things from time to time, especially those that are not so out in the public like most movies people view today. There is also more of an attraction to going to a theater to watch an independent film than most movies today. Watching most movies that come out today is more of a thing I do with friends to just get out of the house, but with watching a film at the festival, I got a more relaxed feeling and payed more attention to the overall atmosphere of the theater and purpose of the film. I even grabbed a drink and a bag of popcorn enrich the film experience. I think that is the idea of the film festival, to bring back that old feel of going to the movies to watch a film and enjoy the experience that wasn't so easily found many years ago. For film makers, this is also a huge step to getting their work known. Sadly, I didn't see the community so much in this festival. It seemed as if most of the people were from out of town, and honestly there were not many people at the film I attended. I am sure the festival could bring a lot to the community if they brought in more local films.

I think watching independent films is a neat experience, but it is an experience I would have to explore more. I tend to be picky with my movies, and most of my interests are towards the bigger films being released in the mainstream theaters. I am fortunate enough to have an independent film channel on my satellite tv, so I might end up watching a few more movies when I can find the time. For the most part, I think that unless the film starts to gain some recognition, I probably wont look into it too much unless I am out at another event like the Prescott Film Festival.

Quarantine and [REC]

In the spirit of Halloween I have decided to compare two "scary" movies.  Something I had not known before a couple of nights ago, was that the movie Quarantine was a remake of a Spanish film titled [REC].  With their release dates being roughly a year apart, I figured that the movies would be fairly similar, and I was indeed correct.

Considering that the movies were from two different countries, both versions were based in their respective countries.  Their overall story line was very much the same, except that [REC] was filmed with the Barcelona Fire Department, and the American version was with the Los Angeles Fire Department.  The difference in countries is almost the only difference I saw in the two movies.  I am of course more in favor of the American version, despite it being a copy of the Spanish version, mostly because I didn't have to read subtitles and get a headache from the constant chaos of people yelling in a different language.

Most American films can tend to be filled with blood and gore, so I was actually quite curious to see if the Spanish were just as bad with their films.  After watching [REC], I think the Spanish do add some nasty cosmetics, but I was not quite as disgusted as I was watching Quarantine.  Quarantine had a scene showing  a leg snapped in half with a bone showing, as well as another mans head being drilled into, where as [REC] had some very detailed bite marks.  I found the two movies to be quite similar in blood and gore, and that was something I expected to remain similar.

The story of Quarantine followed [REC] almost spot on.  There were small differences in the beginning at the Fire Houses, the one I noticed the most was the lack of "I bet you I can bang her by the end of the night," as said by one of the Firemen talking about the reporter, which was shown in Quarantine, but not [REC].  Other than that, the characters were all pretty much the same, and all of the events had only minor differences that really don't have much of change in the story or film in general.

In the first scene I knew that the two movies would be very much the same, and it stayed the same throughout both films as well.  I thought that maybe the whole zombie thing would be mostly an American story, and boy was I wrong.  For the most part, it seems that foreign made films tend to stick with the same types of stories, just located in their own countries.  I honestly didn't see any other differences between the two movies other than each being filmed in its own country.  These may have been bad movies to compare, being that the American version is just a buffed up copy of the Spanish, but I enjoyed watching them both.  It has shown me that Spanish audiences are very much similar to Americans, and that we both have an interest in similar types of films.

Scarface: A comparison between 1932 and 1983

Scarface: A comparison between 1932 and 1983

“Say hello to my little friend!” Most people know that famous line from the great Cuban drug king Tony Montana in the movie Scarface. Before doing this assignment I had no idea that the 1983 version was a remake of a 1932 version based off of a book. Having been a great fan of the first Godfather movie, I was quite excited to watch the original Scarface for this assignment. The differences between the two versions are greatly influenced by the eras in which they were released.

The 1932 version of Scarface was based in the prohibition era when Alcohol was completely banned in most states. As seen in the movie, men began selling beer illegally to gain a hefty profit. Considering the sale of alcohol was illegal, this brought attention for police agencies, both to fight and
“ignore” the illegal distribution. As Tony Comante spearheads Johnny Lovo's new empire by extorting businesses already buying from competing sellers, he pushes his way to fame and fortune, but soon pushes himself in too deep, driving a competing gang and Johnny Lovo to try and kill Tony. Considering the 1932 version replicated events from a few years before it was released by basing the story off of famous gangster Al Capone, changes were made in the 1983 version to adapt something that was more current to its time.

1983's version of Scarface focused more on the Cuban immigration and drug trafficking taking place in Miami, Florida. We have Tony Montana working his way up in the world one job at a time. Montana will move from murders to drug deals where he earns enough money to move away from his bosses and into his own empire, but that would only last for so long before he is gunned down in his own mansion. This remake had to go through many changes for it to appeal to the audience of its time instead of re-doing a prohibition era gangster film

The biggest difference between the two versions of Scarface is the era in which they are based. When each version was released, it reflected on events and ideas more current to its own time. In 1932 the Capone era had already past its peak while others were still rising, and in the 80's there was (and still is today) drug trafficking from Cuba into Florida. Relating these movies to their respective eras allowed for the audience relate and more so enjoy having a sense of what it might have been like to live that life. Both movies have illegal acts in them, which of course without those the movie would be completely boring and different. 1932 has the sale of illegal alcohol, where as the 83 version has illegal narcotics. Unless the 1983 version was a complete remake, it would make no sense to show a modern movie with something like beer banned. This was a necessary change to keep the story alive, and still relative to its time. Despite the difference in time and illegal activity, there were many more similarities that kept the two versions alike.

Both Tony Comante and Tony Montana had the same I want everything attitude, they had the same girl problems, and the same family issues. They both want the world, and that is something they clearly state in each version. In the 1932 version, Tony and Poppy are in his new place looking out the window to a sign that says “The World is Yours, Cooks Tours,” to which Tony says “Some day I look at that sign and I say OK, She's mine,” where in 83, Tony says, “I want whats coming to me Frank....The World, and everything in it.” Tony Montana and Tony Comante both rise up in their worlds killing whoever they have to, only to reach the top and quickly fall back down to the graves. Not only is their attitude the same, they both face similar problems.

Tony Montana has his beloved sister Gina, and Tony Comato has his beloved sister Francesca. Not so surprisingly do they both have the same fatherly and over protective mindset. The sister wants to go out and “have fun” at the club, only for Tony ruin the night by scolding her. Despite how protective he is, Tony still brings money to his family, money that his mother knows comes from no good honest job. While the sister loves Tony, the mother absolutely despises him. She constantly yells at him for the ways he earns his money, and warns Gina/Cesca about Tony and who he is. Mamma was right, in both movies Tony would ruin his sisters' life by killing the man she loves, who happens to be Tony's right hand man. Ultimately, Gina and Cesca will die when they are caught in Tony's final battle after they try to kill him on their own. What good would it be to have Tony Montana and Tony Comato die different deaths, of course they both have to go down fighting when their enemies finally catch up to them. The only difference is that the Police kill Tony Comato, and another drug lord kills Tony Montana. Both films had a very similar storyline, the only differences came from the difference in the time periods they were released.

It seems to me that the early era films had less violence in them. Not to say that there was absolutely no fighting, but the intensity of the fights that took place in early films were not nearly as great, nor as gory, as the ones we would see in later years. One of the most notable differences for me was how gory the 1983 version was. In the original movie, there were a few shoot outs that took place out of view from the camera, especially the first scene where Big Louis was killed, as you could only see the silhouette of the shooter. 1983's first murder was right up close and personal. Tony Montana stabbed his victim, and went on to go through an even more horrific drug deal gone wrong, where one of Tony's associates is cut in half by a chainsaw. Certainly each version depicts probably accurate fight scenes. I don't think people in the 1920's were being killed by chainsaws, but they certainly were being gunned down in the streets. Even with that change of fighting from 1932 to 1983, the deaths in the 1932 original were simply men being “shot” and falling down, there was no blood spraying or dramatized deaths. This is simply a change in time. People in the 80's could tolerate more gore and blood, and the technology used to show that was more developed by then. I think the violence in general has changed as the years go by. We have had movies recently that depict far worse, more brutal, and extremely gory deaths than that of being cut in half by a chainsaw. Regardless of the blood and gore, both movies followed their eras with accuracy that allowed them to become as famous as they are.

I am glad I was able to watch both of these movies. I had no idea that the 1983 version with Al Pacino was a remake of a prohibition era gangster film replicating Al Capone. I had seen the long story of Tony Montana and enjoyed watching it, but I much more prefer the older Capone and Dillinger era gang movies, especially Public Enemies. It was not until the St. Valentines Day Massacre that I caught on to the Al Capone references. I almost wish there was a more current remake of the original Scarface or at least a new movie in that same era. Hollywood is still going strong, and I am sure we will have more remakes of other great films in the future.

Works Cited

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441

http://www.auto-ordnance.com/ao-history.asp