The Magic of Sunset Boulevard

The 1950 black and white film, Sunset Boulevard, directed by Billy Wilder, is a classic old-time Hollywood film that tells the story of Norma Descent. Sunset Boulevard is one of the most famous films for the reasons that it has unbelievable cinematography, unforgettable characters, and an appreciation of magic found in film.

The narrator starts this movie in a fascinating way-he’s already dead; eyes wide open and full of surprise, face down in a swimming pool. This is one of the many factors of the film that people find magical. During the film it’s hard to grasp the concept that the narrator is dead, yet he his telling this story of multiple scripts inside one main script. As an audience, we surrender to the story and believe that anything is possible, which is magic. It allows us to see the entire movie connected to the movie process. When the narrator, Joe Gillis, stumbles into the mansion of Norma Descent he is taken by surprise. Although Norma is your typical movie star who is obsessed with the idea of fame and everything that comes with being famous, her mansion is dreamlike. She has everything; she has the movies. Throughout the story, it is made clear that Norma has no limits and she will get whatever she wants because of her ego and imagination. We learn just how big her ego is early on when Joe refers to her as, “Norma Descent, you used to be big” and her response being, “ I AM big, it’s the PICTURES that got small.” 

Throughout the entire storyline, it is apparent that Norma has been brainwashed by the fame machine. Norma lives for the magic of movies. She wants to be ageless and as American’s, we expect them to be timeless. This is what Norma is struggling with the entire film because of the image that fame created in her mind. Our culture wants women to be ageless, which is impossible. But for Norma, she still see’s herself as the 17-year-old silent film actress. She’s built a world where everywhere she looks in her house, she is 17. Norma cannot understand why if she is so famous, why she can’t get any more movies. This is also Max’s fault because he is the one that writes her fan mail because she has suffered from a complete break with reality. 

Norma’s reality became the story that we the audience were watching. Her reality left her, and in a sense, it was a magical experience. Norma’s life was like a death sentence from her life of fame. The worst thing that can happen to a famous person is to not be famous anymore. At the point where she realizes Joe isn’t come back for her, she follows him outside shoots him. At the end of this scene, Max is at Norma’s side and she oh so beautifully says, “the stars are ageless, aren’t they?” Norma is not only fighting her age, but time.

Sunset Boulevard seems ageless, even if Norma Descent tragically is not. The films final minutes are the most memorable of the entire film. The crazed and deluded women is convinced to go quietly down the stairs to her awaiting car-to surrender, only by being made to think that she is experiencing her come back to the film industry. In the memorable conclusion of her grand entrance down her staircase, she believes that she is playing her most important role of her life, the role of Salome, from her very own script. As she is overwhelmed with joy, she stops to take in the moment and says the most famous line that is used in countless movies today, “I’m ready for my close up,” and she slips backward in time to her glory days- a time that has passed forever. 

Rashomon Post

Rashomon, Kurosawa

After sitting in the pouring rain under Rashomon, a commoner joins the priest and woodcutter. The priest and woodcutter looks pretty shaken up and the only worlds coming out of there mouths are “I can’t believe this; I don’t understand.” Since it is the beginning of the movie, the audience is left with a blank emotion onto what exactly they are talking about or not understanding in such a way. After a few moments the commoner sees the two and wonder the same thing as the audience (what are you all talking about)?

After words are spoken, the woodcutter tells his story on what exactly happen and all the other stories that were told. As discussed in English 281 this is no other than a murder movie or in other opinions a mystery murder. In every story that was told, all concluded that the bandit killed the samurai, but none of the stories correlated to why he was killed.

The woman played the sincere role as she told her story there were tears in her eyes and signs of unbalance in her heart. She did not exactly tell a clear story on what happen, but you could tell that she went against both men.  She insisted that she was raped and after seeing how her husband looked at her with a longing stare, she faint and accidently killed him with a dagger in her hand. In her story, she took all blame for killing the Samurai her husband, but why would she take the blame for killing a man that another said they killed.

The bandit told his story first, he explained how he did not intend on killing the Samurai. When it came down to it they fought and of course he won, but was surprised that the Samurai crossed swords with him 23 times. Why were there two different stories of who killed the Samurai, but both of the story tellers admitted that they both killed him. Is it that they are hiding something more in depth or what exactly is  going on?

At the end, all stories were told, but something was left out of one of the stories. The woodcutter told his story on how he seen the fight with the Samurai and the Bandit, but never mentioned what was used to kill the Samurai. When the commoner mentioned the dagger the woodcutter was kind of puzzled and tried to push past that part of the story and say he sold it in town. This film never really tells the truth, there were all lies told in each story or at least that is what we make out for it to be.

At the end of the film there was weeping coming from the back of the Rashomon. All three men seemed confused as they rushed to the back of the Rashomon. As they came upon the object that was making a weeping noise, what came upon their eyes was a baby, but where did it come from?

Calvin D. Brent Jr.

The Gold Rush

After watching movies today, it is hard to respond to a silent film such as The Gold Rush. The classic silent film, The Gold Rush, uses many important elements to engage film viewers today. Whether it is the sound mix, props, and even the great personality and work of Charlie Chaplin, the silent aspect of the film does not make it incomprehensible or a problem to watch.

In the movie Chaplin incorporates the sound mix very well. Although the film is silent, the mood of each scene is captured by the playing of the instruments and whether it is high pitched, low pitched, fast, or slow. Some of the scenes that utilize the sound mix are the storm scene and the scene that follows when the cabin is on the cliff. The sound mix captures the mood and feel of not only the scene, but also the emotion of the characters, even though there are no words spoken. There scenes that make use of this is the scene where Chaplin is going crazy in the cabin after Georgia leaves and the famous dinner roll scene. But this scene is not the same without Chaplin’s great personality. Another device Chaplin includes very well into the film is the use of props.

During each scene Chaplin skillfully integrates many of the props to make the scene become more appealing and lively. This helps the audience focus on not only the characters, but also the entire set of the scene. There are many scenes in The Gold Rush where Chaplin utilizes the use of props such as many of the cabin scenes. In the cabin scenes Chaplin uses the stove, his shoe, the dinnerware, and even the table to become more visible. Also in the second cabin after Georgia leaves and The Lone Prospector becomes ecstatic, he makes use of almost every prop in the room whether it was the bedding, the boxes, the table and even the pillow. Another scene where props are allocated is when the lone prospector and Big Jim are eating the shoe. They use every bit of the shoe, along with the stove, pots, salt, and dinnerware. All of this just shows Chaplin’s remarkable work and personality as an actor and director.

Throughout the film I thought it would be tough to read the characters, but with Chaplin’s personality, actions, and facial expressions I always knew what the lone prospector was thinking or what he would say if the film had voices. One of the many scenes when Chaplin shows his great character is the scene at the bar when he finally sees Georgia and meets back up with Big Jim. His many emotions of that one scene are clearly evident with no need for words.  Another scene that captures Chaplin’s great work is the scene of the dancing dinner rolls. This is one of the greatest scenes in history. It is so popular that many other movies throughout the years allude to this historical scene.

All three of these devices combined with Chaplin’s remarkable work and personality makes The Gold Rush a classic film. This is why we still watch it today, 85 years after its debut.

- Daniel Bowman (Group 2)

Citizen Kane Revised Post

Citizen Kane (1941)

Orson Welles created a masterful political and social commentary in his film that continues to resonate today. He builds the story of Charles Foster Kane as a cautionary tale about power, money, and material wealth paling in comparison to the human connection of love. For all his wealth and power, he died not having the ability to love and accept love in return. Welles accomplishes this in a subtle way primarily in his use of lighting in the cinematography of his work.

From the opening scene of the no trespassing sign that is dark and foreboding, whenever Kane is on screen in an authoritarian framework it is dimly lit and/or in high contrast to another character. When he is young and innocent the scene is filled with light. Just as when he is taking the reins of the newspaper he is dressed in light clothing and the shot is anything but dark. Another example is when Kane returns from his travels with his fiancé in tow, he is dressed in light clothing and once again the shot is filled with light. Yet as his power grows and he becomes more and more disenfranchised from the people who care about him, the shots become darker and more foreboding. Just as the flashbacks of painful memories are dark the opening scene of Kane’s death is shrouded in darkness.

Another way this is underscored is how Susan Alexander is shown bathed in light and soft focus, appearing to be angelic. This continues until she disintegrates into alcoholism after Kane dies. Every time she is shown onscreen, her face is illuminated by soft light. As she sits beside the fireplace working on puzzles she is bathed in light, while Kane is starkly lit by a lone spotlight, otherwise surrounded by darkness. Even in the climactic scene of her escape from Xanadu the shot is bright presumably because she is taking control of her destiny and walking away from Kane. Once she exits and he destroys her room and possessions he descends into darkness once again. Charles Foster Kane leaves his world isolated in the empty dark halls of Xanadu without light and love. Welles uses lighting as a metaphor for the soullessness of power juxtapositioned against the light of love and human connections. This is very effectively expressed as the flames consume Rosebud (the sled from his childhood) and the scene fades to black only to dimly show the No trespassing sign once again. Kane’s heart was closed to human connection and therefore no light could be sustained. Orson Welles produced a stinging indictment against the horrors of greed.

Even though Kane began his career wanting to help the common man, he was unable to feel any human connection because his money and power prevented him from doing so. In the end, his possessions and power were meaningless, spread to the winds or destroyed by the incinerator. His masterpiece of Xanadu was left to crumble and be swallowed up, while his only legacy is greed and loneliness.

Group 2: Jessica Davis

The Maltese Falcon

John Huston’s The Maltese Falcon of 1941 can be noted for its innovative cinematography which is perhaps one of its most notable strengths. In addition to the engaging mystery plot and love story, the cinematography keeps the viewer engaged and emotionally connected to the viewers. The use of cinematography may seem old hat in today’s cinema but for its time the camera the techniques were relatively unparalleled. The cinematography that made the Maltese Falcon successful shares several similarities to the cinematography in Orson Well’s Citizen Kane of the same year.  The cinematographer utilized deep focus shots, interesting camera positioning, and lighting techniques to help direct the emotions of the audience.

              

 Deep focus shots in are used throughout the film and greatly contribute to the success of the story. Deep focus shots ensure that the foreground and background are in focus simultaneously. Orson Wells utilized this technique in Citizen Kane as well. By using this technique the audience has the opportunities to analyze situations on a broader scale. For example, when the leading lady comes to visit Sam for the first time, both characters are in focus, as well as the “Spade and Archer”  on the window in the background. Characters emotions and body language can be read even when they are not the central focus of a shot. This gives the viewer a greater understanding of the characters and situations. 

 

Another technique that makes this movie standout is the use of camera angles to direct emotion. Low camera angle, or shot taken from below the waist of the central character, is used several times throughout the film. Perhaps the most memorable of these low angle shots is the shot of Guttmann’s gut, when Sam comes to visit him about the Maltese Falcon. His large gut in the frame is intrusive and intimidating: paralleling his greed for wealth.  Much like Citizen Kane, low angle shots were also used to reveal the ceiling creating feelings of confinement. This technique was relatively new in the early 1940’s, and makes these movies successful. 

Even though both movies were limited to black and white movie technology, this greatly increased the effectiveness of lighting in the cinematography. Due to the limitation, viewers are forced to pay more attention to lights and darks. Like Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon uses this reality to its advantage. The black and white makes dark lighting increase in mystery and discomfort. In addition, shadows are accentuated and can become central to the film. While shadows are prominent throughout The Maltese Falcon, a great example is the shadow cast over Brigit’s face as she is taken away by the police in the final scene.  

 

The Maltese Falcon shares similar strengths with the cinematography of Orson Well’s 1941 film, Citizen Kane. Both strategically used deep focus shots, interesting camera angles, and lighting to engage the viewers on a deeper emotional level. These techniques may be taken for granted in modern films. However, The Maltese Falcon and Citizen Kane will go down in history for the cinematography that took film to a new level.