Film Review: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

     Now I'll just begin by admitting that I am not the world's biggest fan of Western films. I began watching this movie with low expectations and a fair dose of resentment. However, George Roy Hill's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid truthfully surprised me in a lot of ways. The film used sophisticated tools regarding visual and auditory aesthetics that I haven't seen used before, and co-stars Paul Newman (Butch) and Robert Redford (Sundance) gave an unflinchingly solid performance as a classic, witty best-friend duo. But looking past these well-executed aspects, I found the film as a whole to be frequently monotonous and dull.

     At about halfway in, we watch outlaws Butch and Sundance fleeing to Bolivia to escape a group of men hired to have them killed. Up to this point, I found the movie to have exceeded my expectations. Sadly, those expectations sunk to a new low when the chase scene seemed to replay over and over again. We would see the posse of killers on the horizon, and our outlaw friends would ride off on their horses. Again and again. The scene seemed almost comically long to me, and I found myself distracted and uninterested in the film. Once my interest in the plot was lost, it was not recovered, and I felt relieved when the movie finally drew to a close. Despite this disappointing lull in the final half of the story line, I want to switch gears to highlight the aspects I really enjoyed.

     The soundtrack in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was not only refreshingly original, but perfectly timed. The way the music was featured did an amazing job flattering the mood of each scene. Multiple times throughout the film, an upbeat song would play whilst the outlaw duo did something immoral or illegal- for example, robbing a train. The music would add glorious comedy to the act, making their endeavors seem joyous and exciting. I found myself growing very fond of the criminals, and even taking their side. During one train robbery, the music ceased for a moment so we could hear the roaring sound of dynamite exploding, then immediately began again as the money of the exploded safe came raining down on Butch's Hole in the Wall Gang- seen in Image I below. The clever timing of the songs were brilliant, and managed to bring a smile to my face each time.

Image I.

     The choice to begin the film in a classic sepia-tone was certainly an intriguing one, and I really enjoyed the concept. In the opening, we see a vintage, sepia film reel with the movie's credits, which draws us back to the late 1890's, indirectly informing us of the time-period. Then throughout the movie, as the men began to roam the hills of Wyoming, the film becomes full-color. This is the only movie other than Victor Fleming's The Wizard of Oz (1939) that I have seen make this aesthetic choice. Bearing in mind that this is my personal interpretation, I see this choice as a wonderful attempt to bring the audience closer to the story. By beginning with a sepia-tone, we are very clear on the setting and we get the authentic feel of the time period. But as we get involved in the plot, the full-color palette gives the film more freedom of expression, which we as audience members enjoy. In addition, the film-makers made the choice to return the final still-image of the film to sepia-tone, as we hear the hundreds of gun-shots directed at our beloved outlaws. (Image II.) In addition, I imagine the color scheme is also a tactic to essentially out-date the characters. As the setting and objects become more advanced, the outlaws find themselves "behind the times," and needing to catch up with the changing world, which ultimately drives them to Bolivia in an attempt to achieve new found success. One example of this, other than the change in color, would be the scene where the train's safe has become more high-tech, and the gang is unable to use their normal methods to rob the money, so they end up overcompensating and destroying a portion of the train with dynamite, as we saw above.

The last moment of the film, when the image goes back to sepia tone, was another example of fabulous audio usage- due to the gunshots, we knew exactly what was happening, but the image was frozen, so we were forced to fill in the blanks ourselves. The return to sepia-tone was in itself poignant as well, because it brought the movie full-circle, and audiences are able to draw themselves away from the story and feel satisfied.

Image II.

   The truth is, the ending was satisfying and many aspects of this movie were expertly executed. But unfortunately, there were also many drawn-out moments that completely removed me from the action throughout. All-in-all, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid exceeded my expectations as a Western film through its innovative usage of visual and auditory aesthetics, but failed to captivate me entirely.

Film

Butch Cassidy and the The Sundance Kid. (1969). [film] George Roy Hill.

The Wizard of Oz. (1939). [film] Victor Fleming.

Text

Barsam, Richard. Looking at Movies: With Dvd & Wam3. S.l.: Ww Norton &, 2012. Print.

Images

"Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

Film Review: "American Beauty" (1999)

              Directed by Sam Mendes, American Beauty is a classic story of an aging man yearning for the youth and freedom of his glory days. We are immediately introduced to Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey), both the protagonist and first-person omniscient narrator of the film.

“My name is Lester Burnham. This is my neighborhood; this is my street; this is my life.

I am 42 years old; in less than a year I will be dead. Of course I don't know that yet, and

in a way, I am dead already.”

--Lester Burnham, American Beauty

               The cinematic techniques used in this film are not hidden. Mise-en-scène is a term used in cinema essentially used to describe everything put into a scene, a strongly deliberate aspect of American Beauty. It’s obvious that each prop, costume, and camera angle is collaborating to create a desired visual aesthetic. I found the film’s gorgeous mise-en-scène to be particularly prominent in a scene that depicts a conversation between Lester and his boss. The scene is set in an office with a notably dull color palette of browns and greys- both visible in the set and the actor’s costuming. The conversation is a struggle of power. Lester has been with the company much longer, but his younger, more successful boss is reviewing his performance. It’s the camera angles utilized in this scene that I especially want to focus your attention on. When we see Lester (Image I), a wide camera shot is used, and it’s glaringly obvious how tiny he looks in the large frame. Lacking subtlety, this is a comical way to make Lester seem insignificant- as though he's drowning in his surroundings. This is starkly contrasted with the shot of his boss Brad (Image II), whom is filmed from a low angle, a tactic commonly used to make both people and objects look larger and more dominant. So even though Lester is fighting for dominance, the film technique itself clues audiences in to who really has the upper-hand in the situation. These very deliberate camera shots are effective both in setting the mood of the scene at hand, and hinting to a couple recurrent themes of the film: power and success.

Image I. Lester

Image II. Brad

              At first, audiences are swayed to pity Lester. Right of the bat, we know his life will end soon. On top of it, he lives with his unaffectionate wife Carolyn (Annette Benning) and hateful teenage daughter Jane (Thora Birch). His family, in Lester’s own words, considers him to be a “chronic loser.” Dinner table conversations fall short, and we see an apparent lack of compassion and understanding within his family. We watch Lester sit in the back of his wife’s car on his way to work one morning, falling asleep and recalling a time when he felt better than he does now- and not so sedated.

              The wall of pity we work up in the first five minutes of the film does not take long to tumble to the ground. It's definitely repulsive to watch a middle aged man pine over his daughter's best friend, but what I thought was especially poignant about American Beauty was Lester's strong yearning to not be a loser. About halway through the film, we can take a look at Lester and see a man who has become nothing more than a 40-year-old with an unstable home life, an expensive pot habit, immoral feelings for a woman less than half his age, and a deep yearning to make a change in his life. The aforementioned wall of pity breaks down piece by piece as we witness Lester alter his body both physically and mentally for the woman of his dreams, harming his family along the way. We can only assume this is because the one to whom he’s trying to appeal is not compatible with who he is. Certainly by high school’s standards, a man who smokes pot, has an entry-level job and a crush on the leader of the dance squad is fairly standard. But that’s just the problem- by societal standards, these are not the building blocks of a successful middle-aged man, but of a teenager. Throughout the film, he goes from feeling as though he’s already died to smiling in satisfaction as he realizes his life is “great,” but with what to show for it on his legitimate deathbed? To me it seems that by most people's standards, Lester would be a much greater loser at the end of the film than at the start. But this then begs the question- does it matter, so long as he was happier that way? Each viewer's sympathy for Lester's life really depends on whether they are governed more by their emotions or moral compass. If doing the wrong thing makes you happy, is it really that bad? 

              Lester’s death was not surprising- we knew it was coming. What I did not anticipate as a viewer was the lack of resolution upon the protagonist’s death. All of Lester’s wretched actions culminated into a heart-stopping climax as we hear the gun fire, and I found myself immediately craving the next result. What happened next? I suppose it makes sense- if the narrator dies, it’s the end of the story.  Although able to describe his death, he can no longer continue with the events proceeding the gunshot. But whether it makes logical sense or not, I was left entirely unsatisfied.
               To wrap things up, the plot carried tons of valuable, poignant moments concerning youth, power, success, and the impermanence of life. The movie was pleasurable to watch and was very visually beautiful. However, although making a powerful statement, the movie did not make a lasting impression on me, and left me feeling as though the story never truly came to a close. I would rate American Beauty 3/5 stars.

Works Cited

Film

American Beauty. (1999). [film] Sam Mendes.

Text

Barsam, Richard. Looking at Movies: With Dvd & Wam3. S.l.: Ww Norton &, 2012. Print.

Web/ Images

"American Beauty." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Cinema Review: Full Metal Jacket (1987)

   Full Metal Jacket, directed by Stanley Kubrick, is a gorgeous depiction of a horrifying phenomenon concerning the dehumanizing effects of the Vietnam War. The film is split into two very distinct parts: the Marine's training, then their time on duty. 

  Kubrick's employment of intentional cinematic effects is evident particularly during the training portion, as he uses symmetrical camera shots, muted colors, and harsh lighting to show stark uniformity and order- a theme that is promptly contrasted by the war's chaos in the second act.

        

     There are two very interesting topics I observed within this film that I want to bring to light- the concept of a man without fear, and the idea of a human being conditioned to enjoy killing others.

On the idea of a man without fear: 

     During training, drill instructor Gunnery Sergeant Hartman uses extremely strict, grueling tactics to get his recruitments in suitable shape for war. When the men cannot perform accordingly, Hartman humiliates the men publicly as a punishment. There is one man who recurrently seems to make mistakes named Leonard Lawrence, and Hartman cracks down especially hard on him, yelling in his face and having him periodically humiliate himself by sucking his thumb, running behind the other men with his pants around his ankles, and once, even by eating a forbidden jelly-doughnut that the Sergeant had caught him with while he watched the other men drop and do push-ups to pay for his own mistake.  Hartman conditioned the men into soldiers by instilling constant fear into their lives. If they couldn't do it right, they would be punished; if they weren't strong enough in war, they would die.

     This sentiment is why a specific quote from the movie struck me with such interest. "The Marine Corps does not want robots. The Marine Corps wants killers. The Marine Corps wants indestructible men, men without fear." The objective of the harsh training was to create these strong, idealistic men void of fear. But in order to achieve this, Hartman had to quite literally scare them into this behavior. Why is it that this was such a successful tactic when supposedly these men weren't afraid of anything?

     The character that we most closely follow throughout the story is Private J.T. "Joker" Davis, who becomes a journalist who documents the war upon graduation from boot camp. Joker, whist in training, is assigned to help Leonard Lawrence learn the ropes after he proves himself brave to their drill instructor. Joker is very caring and patient with Lawrence, and we witness a budding friendship among them. Upon Private Lawrence's jelly doughnut mishap, every man in their sleeping quarters team up to whip Lawrence with weapons created with a towel and bar of soap. Joker is the last to step up to hit Lawrence with his weapon, and after brief hesitation, hits Lawrence multiple times as the victim screams with pain. Even though Joker doesn't want to hurt this man he's grown to know, he is afraid of the consequences if he is to show emotion instead of strength and dominance, and ultimately conforms to his fellow recruits' behavior. Joker is quite literally afraid to show fear, as this is a characteristic Marines are not allowed to have. But this just begs the question- are the men truly void of fear, or are they merely conditioned to feel shamed for exhibiting it?

   

On the idea of a man conditioned to enjoy killing:

     There are several shocking examples within Full Metal Jacket of men slaughtering other humans-- mainly in war, but a couple outside of it as well. The first murder we see is when Private Lawrence goes mad with fury and shoots both Hartman and himself with his rifle- a scene which concludes the training portion of the movie. It's with this scene that we realize the full extent of what the men have been taught. They're meant to take lives, and they're experts at it- even praised for it.

     The interesting thing about the way this movie is filmed is that we barely see the recruits' personalities at all during the first 45 minutes; the training is meant to scoop out the men's personalities and replace them with hardened bloodthirst. However, once the men emerge, we see many colorful, varied personalities from each of the recruits that we already know by name. The men form close bonds to the others they work beside, and we as an audience are brought to laughter several times through their playful conversations. This draws a stark contrast to the first portion, and reminds us that these men really aren't robots, they're human beings just like the rest of us. However, there's one thing they now all share in common- their main priority was killing.

       In my opinion, there were three scenes were vile beyond the rest. And these three moments were acts of blatant disrespect for human life in which the men seemed to thoroughly enjoy the act of killing. The first was when one man had kept the body of a killed Vietnamese soldier and propped him up in a chair to taunt him, the second was when another man squatted in a helicopter on his way to a site and shot a machine gun at farm workers uninvolved with the war, and the third was when Joker's team had finally captured the sniper- who had turned out to be a woman- and the general consensus (besides Joker) was to leave her on the floor to suffer in pain until death because she didn't have value to them. These moments are utterly repulsive, and nearly brought me to tears as I considered the disgusting reality that human beings can be taught to only value the mind, bodies, and lives of people whom they know are allies.

     I had assumed the dehumanization of man through war was mainly seen in the way the men were raised to all fit one form, and that their individual personalities and backgrounds didn't matter. But upon watching Full Metal Jacket, I can see where I was very wrong. The dehumanization of man is the repulsive concept that men can be trained to forget or deny that other human beings who are not "on their side" lack any human qualities, thereby treating their gruesome death as a thrilling game.

Works Cited

Film

Full Metal Jacket. (1987). [film] Norfolk, England: Stanley Kubrick.

Text

Barsam, Richard. Looking at Movies: With Dvd & Wam3. S.l.: Ww Norton &, 2012. Print.

Images

"Full Metal Jacket Movie Stills and Photos." MovieStillsDB.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2014.

Web

"Full Metal Jacket." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2014.

     About me:

     According to Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, each person has a completely different set of learning styles that allow them to interact with the world differently. These different intelligences are as follows:

Visual/Spatial- learn by seeing
Bodily/Kinesthetic- learn by doing
Musical- learn by hearing
Interpersonal- sense of self
Intrapersonal- social
Linguistic- focus on words
Logical/Mathematical- focus on logic

 I was obsessed with his work seven years ago when I was in middle school and just recently decided to take an online quiz again to see if my "intelligences" had remained the same over the years. I found a modified version of the quiz that also included a naturalist intelligence- which I thought was charming- so I took it! My results were a strong mix of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and naturalist. A tree-hugger with a solid sense of self who loves to be around other people-- duh.

Want to know yours?
Take the quiz!

To find out more about Howard Gardner, check out his wiki.