Seconds and The Joker

Dystopias are common in a lot of movies. Many film plots involve a hero making the world a better place. Or a hero overcoming a villain creating a dystopia. This would be my idea of a modern dystopia film. However, this week I watched Frankenheimer's dystopian film Seconds and, while I do agree that it is a dystopian film, it was different from a dystopian film I would find today.
I am a massive Batman fan. As I mourn the news of Ben Affleck, I remain a fan of the Dark Knight and the Christopher Nolan film series. And my favorite film to watch is The Dark Knight. The Joker is one of, if not my favorite character of all time. My reason for this is because so much is packed into that character to make him the epitome of dystopia. He is a man with no emotions, carelessly burning the world down, he has no morals or values, and most of all is pure corruption. In The Dark Knight, The Joker takes the people of Gotham and uses them to corrupt the city. He pins the innocent and the guilty criminals against each other and in doing so creates a dystopia. Nolan uses characterization to enhance this dytopia. Unlike Frankenheimer's method.
In Seconds, a similar method is used in which a character, Arthur, is living in a normal world and becomes corrupted by wanting to continue living through surgery. When he is made a Second named Tony he feels trapped from the setting he is put in. Unlike in The Dark Knight where the dystopian world is created throughout the story, Tony is placed into a dystopia that already exists and through his characterization and experiences in this new world slowly realizes the dystopia he is living in and plots an escape. This method of creating a dystopian film is used as often in today's films but is still very effective.

Yes, Battle of the Sexes

Billy Wilder, Double Indemnity 

Last week I reviewed the film Noir Double Indemnity. I questioned whether the film gave off a battle of the sexes feel. Billy Wilder's portrayal of women was indeed a negative portrayal. Male directors of Film Noir generally portrayed women as destructive and dangerous people. Theywere careless with emotion and physically weak. That was a part of classic Film Noir. But what happens when a woman becomes the director of a Film Noir?

Ida Lupino, The Hitch Hiker 

Ida Lupino directed the 1953 Film Noir, The Hitch Hiker. As one might expect, it's the woman's turn to take a stab at men in society. In The Hitch Hiker, the three main characters are men, one of which is the murderer--unlike the female murderer in Double Indemnity. The two films contrast each other through the roles of men. Double Indemnity portrays men as capable, strong and confident. The Hitch Hiker portrays two clueless men who pick up a hitchhiker that turns out to be a psychotic and dangerous escape convict. Not to mention Lupino's husband plays a Mexican peasant in one scene. Score one for the feminists? 

After viewing the two films, both Film Noir but directed by opposite genders, I have come up with an interesting conclusion. Throughout the 1900s, there was an increasing push for gender equality and women's rights. Hollywood is one of the most influential places in America and feminists making movies was a big deal for feminists. These two films illuminate the constant battle of the sexes going on during the 1900s, all coming from the push for gender rights from feminists and the opposition from the dominant 20th century male. Not to say that this is the right answer, but gender in society could play a huge role in gender in Hollywood and in the cinema.   

'Double' Battle of the Sexes?

In general, the cinema is historic for portraying women in a negative manner. Whether it be women as the weaker sex, women as helpless and unfit for the real world, women as nothing but a sexual toy. Whatever it may be, women are usually negatively portrayed in films. In the film Double Indemnity, I have trouble deciding how the film is portraying the character of Phyllis Dietrichson.
Phyllis is originally seen as a typical housewife, when Neff comes into the house. When she begins asking Neff how she could get money from her husband's life insurance, we realize she is contemplating murder, thus the title. ("Double Indemnity" is a clause in most life insurance policies that doubles the payout, should the death be caused by certain accidental means.) Plotting murder certainly isn't the historic portrayal of a female character. She definitely isn't helpless. She does have an alluring personality. So that isn't a negative portrayal of women. But she is a murderer.
My big question that I have for this film is how they are trying to portray women. They're obviously not going for the "women are helpless" angle. Phyllis seems completely capable of plotting and carrying her plot out. If anything she seems very destructive, even increasingly destructive as the film progresses. So has Double Indemnity portrayed women negatively in a new way? That they are destructive, meddling creatures? Or is this a way of telling the viewer that women aren't helpless and very capable of doing the same things men can? Cause Neff doesn't want anything to do with it, making Phyllis the stronger sex, physically but maybe not morally. Is there a battle of the sexes in this film?
What are your thoughts? Negative portrayal, positive portrayal or, if possible, both?   

Melodrama Over Horror

This past week, I watched the classic 1931 film M. Fritz Lang had a knack for the melodramatics but many debate over whether M is a horror or a melodrama-- or a melodramatic horror. I'm here now to offer my opinion and shed some light on why I lean the way I do.


Both genres are strongly defined by emotion. A horror is characterized as a film that is designed to create fear in the viewer by frightening them or producing images or sounds that appear horrifying. A melodrama, which can be similar to a horror, will exaggerate characterization and put the characters into peril or dangerous situations. This danger is intended to stimulate the emotions, which can be but is not limited to fear. We see this immediately in M.

The film opens on a group of children standing in a circle. One child in the middle singing a song and pointing, similar to the game of "Duck, Duck, Goose." The child in the middle, while singing and pointing sings, "Just you wait a little while, the nasty man in black will come. With his little chopper, he will chop you up!" A woman from the balcony above yells to them to quit "singing that murder." From all of this we can tell that the children may be in some sort of danger. We aren't afraid and nothing happens to frighten us as the viewer. However, there is a feeling of suspense and worry. The film has stimulated our emotions of worry and anxiety, but the film did not come out and frighten us.

This same technique is used throughout the film to create suspense. The film hardly ever directly frightens the viewer though. This would characterize M as a melodrama.
For example, take two films today. The Saw films are horrors. Scenes from those movies are intended to inflict fear in the viewer and they show material that will directly frighten the viewer. However, Insidious and it's upcoming sequel Insidious Chapter 2 are melodramas or melodramatic horrors.


Look at the scene in this trailer for Insidious Chapter 2 starting at the 29 second mark. (0:29) The mother is put in a situation that puts her in danger and builds suspense and anxiety in the viewer's emotions. However, from what we see, nothing directly inflicts fear in the viewer. This happens in multiple scenes in this trailer. Occasionally something does scare you, so this film is more of a melodramatic horror, as opposed to one or the other.

Fritz Lang's M qualifies as a melodrama. That's my personal opinion though. I'd love to hear your opinion or your comments on mine. Though I think we can all agree that, compared to today's horror films, M is definitely not a horror.

"Sherlock Jr" Train Track Slapstick

Bradley Keaton's 1924 silent film, Sherlock Jr., is the story of young man studying to become a detective while working at a movie theater. As soon as the first scene begins you see that many props are used that center around the young man. Props and a clumsy young man usually lead to something called slapstick comedy.

Slapstick is a type of comedy that can seem somewhat outlandish because it involves the characters doing something that doesn't have a lot of common sense or is a little "out there." It can often involve props, like in the classic "pie in the face" example of slapstick. Slapstick often involves activities or actions that would never, or very, very rarely ever happen. And in turn consequences that aren't at all fitting for the previous action. For example, a train crashing into a person rarely ever happens and when it does the person is either severely injured or killed.

Sherlock Jr. encounters this runaway train example at minute fourteen (14:02) of the film. The film opens with Sherlock Jr. following a man as he crosses train tracks behind a stopped train car. On screen, you only see the tracks and the stopped train car that the two men are behind. This is on the left side of the screen. On the right, the screen is left generally empty.

Slapstick is often set up this way to allow the out-of-nowhere prop to smack the character in the face. Take the classic "pie in the face" example of slapstick. On many occasions, the pie will come flying into the characters face and will come out of nowhere from off screen. When Sherlock Jr. hides directly behind the stopped train car that we already see on screen, he leaves the right side of the screen empty. This allows the "pie" in this case the runaway train car to come out of nowhere from off screen and collide with Sherlock Jr., sandwiching him between the two train cars. This lets the viewer receive the surprise of the train car coming out of nowhere and the comedy of the character being squished. Two main qualities of slapstick.

We can't forget a third aspect of slapstick. The "where did that come from!" reaction from the character and their miraculous survival, as Sherlock Jr. just walks right along.

While slapstick can be one of the most cliche methods of comedy, it is still one of the most recognizable  and, as seen from this 1924 film, one of the oldest as well.

Introduction to CinemaNati

Dear Reader,

Welcome! You are entering a world of creativity, imagination, cinema arts and debate. This world has been created for you to study the arts of the cinema with me as we learn about the meaning of films, how they were created and why the were created. More importantly, we will discuss why films were created the way they were created and how do these films contribute to the history of film making.

I am writing to you from Cincinnati, Ohio. Thus the name, Cinema-"nati." A freshman at the University of Cincinnati, I am very interested in studying the art of film making and majoring in Electronic Media. I believe that films are used to create this whole new, creative, unique place where one's imagination can explode. Films can teach us new ideas, make us see the world we live in differently, make us laugh and make us cry. The amount of accomplishments and ideas one can achieve through film is so vast.

My two favorite genres are polar opposites. Slapstick comedy and drama films that are somewhat depressing. Slapstick comedy needs no explanation. It's funny. However, people often find it strange that I like depressing films. But those films will usually really make you feel what the characters feel, think what they think and understand what they understand. Those films are usually the most moving films and can make you really view them on a deeper level.

So let's go on that deep level. Let's experience the art of film making together. Feel free to converse and debate through commenting on various blogs. I look forward to writing to you, learning with you and hearing from you.

Happy blogging!

Your author,
Josh Sempsrott