Monday, December 8, 2014

Black and Blue Film Critique


Film Critique/ Analysis #14
Michael Atkinson
Cinema 28

A Brutal Blockbuster

Originally based on a novel by Anna Quindlen, Black and Blue (1999), is a made-for-television drama about the life of Frannie Benedetto. In my recent film explorations, the topic of domestic violence has greatly perturbed me and so I decided to view a film that greatly captures the aspect of it. In this drama, Frannie comes to a boiling point with her husband, Bobby, one night after he truly beats her. It is inferred that she has dealt with small bruises, shoves, insults, taunts, for the past twelve years, but this time when he really hurts her, she decides to make a run for it with her ten year old son, Robert. She doesn't tell her son why they are leaving and why she changed her appearance until they are stuck waiting for a bus on their way to Florida.

The director of this film, Paul Shapiro, tackles many issues surrounding this topic. He touches on most of the issues, but never takes the time to go in depth with them. But even though it's subtle, the issues are still there such as Bobby's reckless driving to scare Frannie into doing what he wants, the insults about her outfits until she changes her clothes, the outward doting husband in front of family, the stalker personality that develops, and the damaging effects of being a woman on the run. I only wish that some of these themes were brought to light more since by not doing so, we don't have much character development. There is a wonderful opportunity missed for deep characterization as to why each are the way they are. Instead, Bobby comes from a wonderful mother and father who passed away early. But however, Shapiro did brilliantly create a strong main character whose fragility lies right below the surface in that of Frannie, he nailed her personality down.

At times, the story felt very contrived. And it felt very convenient that Frannie's husband was a cop which meant she couldn't go to the authorities for her troubles. But I won't criticize that too much, for I know that those instances are realistic for some. But what really made me annoyed was how wise the ten year old son was but at the same time stupidly innocent. His character was the worst consistent of them all. Robert would constantly calm down his mother when she was upset and in the next scene be starting a fight at school talking about his father. Further, he would be understanding of this situation, offering words of wisdom to his mother and then start complaining about missing his dad so much so that he would call him...thus prompting the inevitable climax.


In all, the film tackled some important issues, and showed what really does happen to brutally beaten housewives. The film even showed the violence realistically and tastefully by inferring to it and showing it where needed. The acting was believable and no one seemed to be wildly overacting, making for a convincing story. But this form of a domestic violence story was one that followed the same conventional plot of many others such as Sleeping with the Enemy (1991) and Break Up (1996).

Friday, December 5, 2014

The Theory of Everything Film Critique


Film Critique/ Analysis #13
Michael Atkinson
Cinema 28

Heartfelt, Brilliant, and Moving

In a true life story, The Theory of Everything (2014), a British film directed by James Marsh, brilliantly captures the true life story of famous theorist Stephen Hawking. Even from the very beginning of this film, we see the signs of Hawking’s uphill battle with a motor neuron disease. From there, the film only progresses into an outstanding and truly moving story of the lengths Jane Wilde, a literature student who falls in love with Hawking, will go for him. They develop a quick romantic relationship and even when she finds out about his disease, she refuses to leave his side and says she will always stay with him. Thus the two marry and even begin a family. But the story doesn’t end there - in fact, it is only beginning. As the years go on, Hawking’s condition worsens and he relies completely on Jane to dress him and even feed him. And the struggles only continue when new loves are thrown into the equation.

One might assume that this film, being primarily about Stephen Hawking, would be loaded down with him complex theories and physics jargon, but that is not the case at all. Marsh makes Hawking’s theories easy to understand by explaining them through dialogue to other characters using simple analogies, and even still those moments are rare. This film focuses more on the domestic aspect of his life and the struggles of trying to be a normal family. 

Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones star as Stephen and Jane and I swear, if neither of them win any kind of award for their performances, then I will give up all hope on film. Redmayne’s incredible acting in this film can be likened to Patty Duke’s performance in The Miracle Worker (1962). It was truly as captivating, believable, and realistic, evicting emotions in the viewer that even I was having a hard time controlling. Just down to the way he was able to train his body to tick, slouch, and curve is unbelievably amazing. 

The only gripe I can even find fault with in this film is that it moved rather quickly. And that is understandable in order to condense Stephen Hawking’s entire life into two hours. But in this necessary haste, some scenes would cut away a bit too quickly and wouldn’t stay on that picture just a moment longer. And honestly, this was what made the difference between shedding tears and not. If the camera would have just stayed on a face for just a few frames longer, I would’ve bawled but instead cutting away too quickly silenced those emotions and brought me someplace new where I could hide those feelings again. 


I’m not sure what was the most intriguing and entertaining aspect of this film, perhaps it was the cinematography or the acting or their impossible-to-resist-swooning British accents. But in all, this film was really a treat, making me believe that there is hope in good cinema even for today. 

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Toni Film Critique



Film Critique/ Analysis #12
Michael Atkinson
Cinema 28

Toni’s Trials

Jean Renoir directs an exotic film entitled Toni (1935) about an Italian immigrant moving to France. In this French film, Toni’s life seems to be moving along just find as he finds a stable place to live with landlady, Marie, and gets a stable job at the quarry. His relationship with Marie is going strong and life seems to be perfectly in balance. However, nothing can always be perfect and thus, Toni meets and falls in love with another woman, Josefa. But as the story would go, their love cannot be for they each are already with someone else. Josefa marries her brusque man, Albert, even after he rapes her. Toni knows he must save Josefa from her abusive husband and eventually helps her escape, but at the cost of his relationship and the cost of his life. 

It is clear that Renoir truly knew how to use the camera. There were some scenes in particular that were just awe-inspiring. At one point, Marie and Toni get in a fight and Marie threatens that she will kill herself. She gets in a row boat and paddles away from the shore. In this one take, we see her leave the shore in a wide shot, traveling farther into the white water and white sky. When the land disappears from the frame completely, we are left to only see her black silhouette in the black rowboat against the white backdrop. It was a shot masterfully done, leaving one holding their breath as she slowly stands up in the boat. However, even though his camerawork is up to par, some of his scenes seem to cut too quickly, leaving me feeling as if the conversation is not complete. Constantly, I wanted to know what was going to happen, but as the scene was getting good and getting somewhere in depth, he would cut away to something else, almost as if Renoir was too scared of a sentimental conversation. 

The character’s Renoir creates here weren’t as compelling as they could have been. None were too likable and much of the story felt contrived and predictable. Every conversation told exactly what was about to happen, with no subtle foreshadowing. After a while, the characters just seemed to become annoying as none changed their ideals from beginning to end.

Again, it seems that this is another film with the mentions of domestic violence. But at least in this film, Toni was able to help poor Josefa and she found the strength to kill her husband after he brutally whipped her. But Renoir did not focus much on this aspect of this story - since it was Toni’s story - but even still, Toni takes responsibility for Josefa’s actions and he becomes the one to blame. The ending does wrap together beautifully, pulling the whole story together as the film ends just as it began, with the train of new Italian immigrants entering France, none realizing what is truly in store for them in this new place. 

Friday, November 21, 2014

My Fair Lady Film Critique


Film Critique/ Analysis #11
Michael Atkinson
Cinema 28

A Fair Film

One of the most classic and endearing tales of rags to riches is My Fair Lady (1964). Audrey Hepburn stars as Eliza Dolittle, a lower working class woman selling flowers. Her language is atrocious with horrible pronunciation and inarticulate grammar and one is barely able to even understand what she’s saying. But when a phonetics professor overhears her dramatic wallowing in the middle of town, he ridicules her language and says that he could make a lady of her if he wished. This, thus, prompts Eliza to seek out Professor Higgins and ask if he could transform her into a lady, one suitable enough to work in a flower shop and become respectable. He only then accepts her offer when he makes a bet with his friend saying that he can turn her into a lady in six months for the Embassy Ball, making everyone believe she is actually royalty. 

    The minute the characters started singing, I fell head-over-heels in love with this film. There is something, to me, about the musical element in a film that promotes life in a captivating way. Even as the characters sing out their feelings in angst, there is nothing more moving than the intrinsic melody of a song. Furthermore though, this film felt more like a stage play rather than a film one, because of the songs and melodies and two, because there were very limited close up shots and limited cutting. The main aspect of the film was the mise-en-scene as the camera swooped and panned through the scene. The rolling dolly shots brought the choreography to life, letting the viewer’s eyes travel through the scene and watch everything at once - just like a stage play. 

    However, as much as I enjoyed watching the dramatic camera movements and the in depth dancing and singing, there was much that irked me about this film. Perhaps it’s just many films from this time period, but this one in particular brought it to light best. This film sends the message that men are the dominant and better sex. In fact, there is an entire song devoted to asking why women can’t be more like men. I understand, it was to show Professor Higgins narrow-minded viewpoint of women and his opinion does actually empower Eliza to take a stand against him and leave after he’s used her and won his bet. But in the end, after the dramatic climax where Eliza sings her opinions that she is a lady, despite his protestations and his insults to her sex, she comes floundering back to him and the last thing he says to her is: “Where are my slippers?” I’m not too sure if this was supposed to be a happy ending, that despite their fall-out, the two main characters are at peace in the end, but to me, I was not satisfied. After her entire stand, he doesn’t change his ideals at all and they are exactly back where they started and she is okay with it. 

    No matter how you cut it, this film does not portray women in a good light. It shows them as objects to men, there to be used and submissive in all things. Eliza’s father even stops by, offers Higgins “five pounds” to buy her and then says, “If she’s any trouble, a few lashings with the belt never hurts.” Constantly, this film makes reference to Eliza’s devalue. She is always waiting for Higgins to strike her for her outbursts - which he never does - and she cowers as soon as he raises his voice. She even mentions how he can’t do any worse to her for she has already “had plenty of black eyes before.” This problem was never brought to light in the film, but it is more a subliminal message to show women’s objectivity to men, showing their place beneath them, showing their stubbornness, and their unwilling attitude unless they are forced to do something. It is constantly reinforcing a “woman’s place” and nothing makes me more mad than this. 

    Domestic violence against women is a real issue and it has been taken too lightly for years. We joke about it since it’s a common problem - an epidemic in parts of the world - and it is films like these that give women the impression that this is how men are supposed to be and give men the right and the power to do what they do. I love this film for all the things it does right - the music, the camerawork, the characters, the plot - but I hate this film for what it promotes. No matter what, it’s not okay.


Monday, November 17, 2014

What’s Eating Gilbert Grape Film Critique


Film Critique/ Analysis #10
Michael Atkinson
Cinema 28

A Slow Epic Journey

Lasse Hallstrom directs a classic film of epic proportions. This film is What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (1994) - it is a slow-moving film about a week in the life of Gilbert Grape. His life doesn’t seem all that interesting from afar, but looking more closely at it, you will see the struggles he really deals with. His younger brother is a bit mentally challenged - a full diagnosis was never said - but he causes trouble in the small town by climbing the water tower frequently. Aside from taking care of his brother, he has the rest of his dysfunctional family to worry about. Namely, his five hundred pound mother which is the cause of much embarrassment, his older sister who is more a mother than a sister and his younger sister who is “too cool” to be engaged in any family affairs, for fear of embarrassment. But it is not only his home life on the fritz, Gilbert is enduring his job as they try and make end’s meat competing with a new high-end grocery store. He also deals with his one grocery delivery stop to a middle-aged stay at home mom whom he has an affair with, but at the same time, falling in love with one vacationer in the town.

One could say that there is not much plot in this classic film, but what makes it so classic is that it is essentially gripping and heart-wrenching at times. The film feels more like a stream of consciousness - just a piece of an excerpt from Gilbert’s menial life. But overall, his life isn’t menial when one truly looks below the surface. This is a boy with more courage, bravery, wit, and compassion than many will see in their lifetime. It’s not his actions that are memorable, but the way he handles everything - with dignity. One would think that the family may pity themselves for the sorry state their in, but no, there is none of that. Instead, the audience doesn’t feel the need to pity them for how much they actually embrace themselves. This technique used by Hallstrom eliminates the chance for this film to become a tragedy. It is actually nothing of the sort and won’t become one even with the ending. The film even goes so far as it succeeds in making a compelling main character. Johnny Depp portrays Gilbert in the most likable way, leaving the audience to be moved with compassion for him.


As the film concludes, the audience feels bittersweet. It is neither a time for weeping, nor a time for joy. The family stands watching their house burn along with their dead mother, and one cannot but feel moved and relieved for that was the most noble thing in the end. 

Sunday, November 9, 2014

How to Marry a Millionaire Film Critique


Film Critique/ Analysis #9
Michael Atkinson
Cinema 28

We All Would Like Wealth

In a very classic Hollywood film, Jean Negulesco directs How to Marry a Millionaire (1953). In this film, three young women conspire to marry three rich men so that they won’t ever have to work another day in their life. The women decide to rely on their good-looks and charm in order to entice men into marrying them. 

The film was full of an unrealistic plot where things like that just don’t happen. Literally, as soon as the women moved into their regal apartment, an older gentleman invites them to a party where each woman finds a man who is deemed worthy of marriage for their wealth. The dialogue is supposed to be comedic and yes, at times, it was a bit funny because the poor girls were so ditzy, it was hard not to chuckle at their bumbling selves. However, most of the comedic efforts made just fell flat. It really became hard to believe exactly what was happening and oftentimes the film felt more like a stage play. For instance: one of the three women goes up to Maine to spend a weekend in a lodge with a man she would like to marry. There she is upset when she finds out the lodge is not in fact a lodge but a cabin and she makes herself so that she gives herself measles. I, for one, cannot even fathom how that is possible, and so I went along with it. Then, showing no signs or symptoms, she is supposedly supposed to be running a fever, sweating, have a rash, etc. And not one of those things is shown, she merely acts it and they talk about it - more or less, exactly like in a play on stage.

It was not the acting that made this film hard to watch. Marylyn Monroe played a perfect character, along with Betty Grable and Lauren Bacall. All three of these beautiful ladies were exceptional, playing their character extraordinarily and adding their own charm to each of the personalities. The acting was by far the best point of the film. Other than the acting, the scene cut way too quickly, feeling like nothing every got taken care of. The audience wants to see what is going to happen between certain characters but then we are ripped away and brought somewhere else to look in on a different character. Cutting the scene too early does not allow for the tension to set in and does not give us a chance to bond with the characters. 

In the end, it seems everything is solved too quickly as the three woman learn that the “marrying type” of men don’t always have money. It is a bit of an old saying but one that still holds true to today. But in all, this is a film from the 1950s, filmed during the Golden Age of Hollywood and obviously all done in a studio, never on locations. The film does have an all-star cast of beautiful icons and so, I guess we can let some of these faults slide. 

Monday, November 3, 2014

Paranoia Film Critique


Film Critique/ Analysis #8
Michael Atkinson
Cinema 28

A Film That Might Make You Paranoid

In this thriller directed by Robert Luketic, Paranoia (2013), is a film centered around a young employee who becomes a spy between two dueling companies with a shady past. Liam Hemsworth plays Adam who is the main character in this overdone plot. If you ask me, this film is nothing but a clichéd plot line from start to finish. Adam begins where he is about to make a big presentation in front of the head of this huge technology company. Well, he ends up throwing a hissy fit and getting fired, stealing his boss’ credit card in the process and spending it on an expensive night out for him and his friends. But just like in any other film, it’s not like he gets arrested or asked to pay back everything when he’s caught, no, they decide to higher him as a rat and use him to go undercover against their rival company. 

There are so many flaws within this movie, that it outshines everything the film actually did right. Starting with the characterization flaws, Adam is not even the least likable character in this film. He is a self-centered and self-righteous hothead who doesn’t even change by the time the film ends. I’m sure the only reason that the audience liked him is because he is gorgeous - at least, that’s the only reason I did. I mean, seriously, it’s Liam freaking Hemsworth...with his sculpted abs and shirtless scenes and...oh, I digress. Right, the flaws. Aside from Adam’s impersonal skills and unpleasant personality, the other two dueling company heads are complete unlikable and narcissistic characters as well. It was hard to form a bond with any of these characters and actually care about anything that happened to them. 

Moving onto the plot, it seemed like 99% of it made no sense. It was hard to follow exactly what happened as they interchanged information in the form of technical jargon that was all essentially made up by the writers. One was forced to try and follow along as they whipped out their showy cell phones and talked about plans to steal prototypes from the rival companies. Just as any other cliché plot, Adam finds out that the attractive Emma is working as a director in the rival company, so he forms a relationship with her just to get information from her and essentially steal her fingerprints so he can get this prototype. Because it all comes down to the fact that if he chooses to not help and get this prototype, they will kill his father. But everyone can rest happy because even after they run over Adam’s best friend with a car, the bad guys divulge their secrets to each other, and Adam secret plots against them all with the FBI, he wins by bringing down the two corrupt companies and even gets to keep the girl. Isn’t it wonderful? 

But with all the faults this film aside, one cannot forsake the cinematography of it and even the use of sound. The shots were impeccable and creative, using every inch of the screen with unique eye movement and style. Even the way the sound was layered and the effects used only heightened this film. However, it’s sad that those good aspects of the film get lost when the rest of it is subpar. 

Overall, it is no wonder that there was never a hype around this film. I for one just assume Paranoia to be an extreme take on the Apple verse Android debate. 

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Io Non Ho Paura Film Critique


Film Critique/ Analysis #7
Michael Atkinson
Cinema 28

A Hypnotic and Captivating Story

Gabriele Salvatores directs a mind-blowing hypnotic film entitled, Io Non Ho Paura (2004) - or translated,  I’m Not Scared. In this chilling Italian tale of childhood innocence turned upside down, a ten year old Michele is enjoying his summer break to the full. The story is set in a small town in southern Italy, where one afternoon, Michele finds a pit and when he looks inside he sees a foot sticking out from a blanket. He returns to the pit another time later, opening it to find a chained boy named Filippo. In his world of childhood innocence, Michele befriends the boy, letting him become his own secret. 

Giuseppe Cristiano, who plays Michele, does an excellent portrayal of a young boy far too curious to be scared of the situation. In his mind, he doesn’t think to tell anyone about the boy he has found and doesn’t give it much thought that perhaps the situation is odd or even illegal. Instead, relying on innocence, he chooses to help accustom Filippo to the outside world; playing with him in the fields and riding him on his bike until night falls and it’s time for Michele to go home. This film was able to capture one’s attention with the crime of keeping a boy locked up and then holding onto that attention as Michele’s innocence is slowly dissolved. As the two boys learn more about each other, Michele discovers a teapot in the pit, matching the ones in his home. In this dramatic twist, Salvatores keeps the audience’s attention by pulling them on this captivating journey about how an accidental discovery by Michele soon makes him distrust the ones he loves. Rather than just make this a regular horror film, Salvatores chooses a more difficult route by thrilling the audience rather than scare them.

Furthermore, in order to capture this eventual loss of innocence, Salvatores uses a phenomenal expression of Michele’s moral awakening using intense colors, wide-angle shots and unforgiving close-ups. Many of the shots are done exterior using the wide fields of Italy as a backdrop. The colors used in each of these shots show the warmth and beauty that comes naturally in this setting as the serenity is felt even through the screen. The wide shots show the expanse of the locations to the full making it seem like the fields just go on forever. In contrast, the characters are shown small juxtaposing to the vast background portraying the fact that their own childhood lives are menial compared to the big world that lies around them. In every shot, one can see the emotional and physical depth Salvatores used in order to make this film.


As the film progresses, it stays with Michele’s point of view the entire time, letting one learn what happens as he does. Instead of taking an objective point of view that would leave one pitying Michele, Salvatores uses him to his advantage in a brilliant way by thrusting him into the cruel and real world all in the course of one summer. This is truly one captivating tale that is impossible to ever forget, even years to come.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Les Choristes Film Critique


Film Critique/ Analysis #6
Michael Atkinson
Cinema 28

A Heart-Warmer

In a beautiful tale of difficult children and one adult who finally understands them, Christophe Barratier, brings this idea to life in Les Choristes (2004). This delightful French drama set in 1949, tells the story of a new supervisor, Clément Mathieu, at a boys boarding school, Fond de l'Étang, who relates to the boys with humor and kindness in order to win them over, much more so than the brutal punishment the headmaster uses. Mathieu decides to teach the boys to sing and he eventually unites them through the use of song.

Les Choristes is a film aimed directly at your heart; it is supposed to make your heart ache and your eyes tear. However, there was a momentous amount of moments that made your blood run cold and sent a chill to your bones, but there wasn’t a time I found myself crying. There was a delightful mix of good humor amongst the angst in order to set the correct balance to the film and keep our emotions in check. 

The cinematography done by Jean-Jacques Bouhon, was stylistically done. The way the camera was held at absurd angles in shots with the boys but when the camera was on an adult, it was a pristine and clean cut to enunciate the difference between the characters. He shows their differences in even the slightest camerawork, but mostly stayed away from extreme close ups, choosing to shoot a wide shot or even a medium shot where needed. But this did not deter from the film, but more than likely, added to the feeling of being in the scene with the character. The audience could peruse the screen and really take in the depths of all the design work from the locations.

The only problem that seems to be with this film is that it is very safe. There were no enormous risks that were taken and the story is one that has been done countless times before. The characterization is the same and the audience knows exactly what to predict in the end. One can safely assume that these troubled boys turn a new leaf into kindness and compassion all because of Mathieu’s doings. They expose the monstrosity of the headmaster’s brutal punishments and make it known to the public. And above all, the boys learn how to sing. There was nothing quite unusual or any big plot twists that throw the audience for a loop. Instead, the film played the heart-warming card and stayed safely within the boundaries. 


Yet, in the end, the audience is left with a good feeling despite the fact that Mathieu does not get much of his own happy ending. One can not wonder if this comments on Hollywood films and how they always end happily. In a way, this film was trying to do that by leaving one in good spirits with a sense of hope for the characters as the credits rolled. 

Saturday, October 11, 2014

If I Stay Film Critique


Film Critique/ Analysis #5
Michael Atkinson
Cinema 28

Another Teen Flick

In another teen romance film, If I Stay (2014) directed by R.J. Cutler and Linda Cohen, tells the story of a seventeen year old girl who is stuck somewhere between life and death. After a tragic car accident that kills her family, Mia lies in a coma. But the story is told as Mia walks around watching herself and her family, not yet dead. Her family and friends can neither hear nor see Mia and as the story progresses, Mia’s condition worsens forcing her to make the choice: does she go with her family in death or does she stay here on earth?

This is the entire movie in its entirely. The rest of the film is made up of flashbacks that tell Mia’s life leading up to the car accident. We learn of her romance with a boy, her skill for the cello, her eccentric family, and her acceptance to Juilliard. But often during these flashbacks that seem to be endless, one is constantly wondering: What is happening to Mia? Our minds are stuck in the period of time currently, knowing that Mia is comatose with her condition worsening and wondering what she will chose and what will happen to her next. Yes, the flashbacks provide the light that makes one care about Mia and understand what is at stake for her, yet the flashbacks constantly bore you because you want to go back to what is happening now.

Chloe Grace Moretz is the actress who plays the seventeen year old main character and she lightens up the screen with her realistic performance - well as realistic as you can get with a person in limbo. She truly makes one feel the eerie chill of goosebumps when Mia finds out of her family’s death. She falls to the floor clutching her chest and heaving as if she really can’t breathe. This performance is enough to make your blood run cold no matter who you are or how tough you are. 

But sadly, goosebumps were all I received from this film. I was told going into it that I would need plenty of tissues but there just wasn’t enough substance or enough on the line here to really move me to tears. However, if I was a twelve year old girl - those who this film was aimed towards - perhaps I would’ve cried. It seems Hollywood loves producing these sappy teen romance stories one after the other, giving these young girls a hopeful outlook to men, thinking their life might come with a real hero as many other teen films do such as The Fault in Our Stars, Divergent, The Hunger Games and so on. In the end, I feel that there may some very disappointed teens when they finally grow up. 

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Listen to Your Heart Film Critique



Film Critique/ Analysis #4
Michael Atkinson
Cinema 28

Of Mothers, Cancer, and Being Deaf

Coming across this film by randomly scrolling through Netflix one day, I decided to watch it - and this was an hour and forty minutes of my life that I will never get back. Listen to Your Heart (2010) is an interesting film about love at first sight, being deaf, controlling mothers, striving for your dreams and cancer all rolled into one. How is it even possible for a filmmaker to make a film about so many things? Well, there is a reason filmmakers don’t. 

The audience first meets Danny - a likable, flawless, 24 year old male who wants to make music and record a demo. But when he meets Ariana, he falls in love at first sight. The problem? She’s deaf. So it seems like a good plot: a musician falling in love with a deaf girl who can’t hear his music. However, her being deaf isn’t a problem for this couple. Danny still falls in love with her, despite his friend, Roger’s, protests about how she won’t be able to give him everything in a relationship. Despite not knowing sign language, in one montage scene, Danny is fluent at it and their relationship is flourishing. However, it’s Ariana’s mother who is the problem. She is unsupportive of Ariana getting close with someone since she, in effect, controls Ariana’s life. 

Here is where the story moves away from Danny, and Ariana becomes the main character as one can tell that the director - Matt Thompson - wanted her to be all along. Ariana is the character who does the growing and changing, learning to take her life back from her mother; whereas Danny neither changes nor grows nor learns anything. He is simply a lovable and flawless main character from the beginning to the end. The plot continues to grow and twist as the scenes change rapidly, with new problems arising and new characters popping up all over the place that really have nothing to do with original plot.

But aside from the ever-changing plot line, it is also the acting that seems to be a turn off. Roger plays the stereotypical “black guy” of the film, more obsessed with looks and sports than looking beneath the surface for something more - and he has a bad habit of saying, “bro” at the end of each sentence. All of his conversations with Danny are completely overacted making it seem like it’s a scene straight from some school video on why we should say no to drugs. It seems that Danny, played by Kent Moran, is the only one with real acting ability. Even Alexia Rasmaussen, who plays Ariana, wasn’t even deaf. Maybe it’s just that I have some more knowledge on deaf culture, but having a hearing person play a deaf person is a complete insult to the deaf community. 

In an interview with Moran, a few deaf individuals asked why a hearing person played a deaf role and his response was, “The movie used to be longer and had different twists that required a hearing actress, and we thought that this role was a good challenge for an actress to show her abilities.” From that statement, the deaf community was outraged since he is stating that deaf people cannot do everything that a hearing person could do. And this contradicts everything that the message of the film was supposed to bring out.

After some more stereotypes about deaf people, Danny and Ariana’s relationship being torn apart by her mother, an interpreter violating the code of ethics, a setup date trying to sexually assault Ariana, Roger turning supportive of their relationship, Ariana wanting a cochlear implant and wanting to go to a music school, Danny holding a concert for his music, his boss being a drunk, and Ariana getting a best friend who then sneaks her out of the house, Danny finally gets cancer. It seems like all plot goes up into the air at that point and it becomes anyone’s game. And really, I still don’t even know why it’s called “Listen to Your Heart.”

Friday, September 26, 2014

Pride and Prejudice Film Critque



Film Critique/ Analysis #3
Michael Atkinson
Cinema 28

To Find “Pride” in a Film

One of the most beloved tales of romance and aristocracy comes to life on the silver screen. Joe Wright beautifully adapted Jane Austin's famous novel into a major motion picture. Pride and Prejudice (2005) will awe and astound viewers just as the book captivated thousands. Set in the 18th century, this film centers around the Bennet’s - an upper-middle class family with five daughters who are all mostly approaching the time of marriage. The family is well off financially but also realistically seen struggling as the house is in constant turmoil and marrying into wealthy families is a main priority. In a timeless tale of romance, Elizabeth Bennet - the second eldest daughter - is a strong-willed and headstrong individual who meets an eligible bachelor, however, neither can stand the other. Mr. Darcy only finds Elizabeth “tolerable” to which Elizabeth responds that she will always “loathe him.” Yet in this romantic film, it is the audience and the eccentric Bennet family who want these two to get together more than the characters, themselves, want. 

Though the love story may be old and may have been redone countless times generation after generation, one cannot help but be moved by this tragic story of love lost and love rekindled. It is the way the director created this film that kept the audience engaged even if they have seen or heard the story a million times before. The use of dramatic mise-en-scène keeps the slow moving film visually appealing. For some moments of the film, it feels as if the story is dragging, but one never feels that for long when they notice that for the past five minutes, the scene hasn’t been cut. The camera dollies through the sets, keeping the scene moving and letting one wander about the set in the midst of the action. The minimal cutting is what will keep one’s attention by allowing the audience to develop in the scene and literally bring a moment of time to life as if one is actually there.

Keira Knightly, who plays Elizabeth, flourishes in her character by giving a new sense of reality to girls of that time period. As the stereotype goes, girls from the 18th century where supposed to be subservient, quiet in opinions, and soft spoken. However, Knightly brings a new element of ferocity showing how her character has opinions, wants a say in what happens in her future, and can more or less hold a grudge. The characterization through witty and creative dialogue shows that women then were not all that different than today. 

Furthermore, Wright also reminds one of these girls’ age in his portrayal of childhood innocence. One truly forgets how young these women actually were as they take on such challenges as marriage and building a life around their future husbands. In one particular scene, Elizabeth sits on the swing as a young child would, but ironically is not thinking about activities for enjoyment but rather contemplating life and who she will end up with. This scene brilliantly plays on the fact that even though she is surrounded by these adult responsibilities, she is still only a child.

Skillfully, Joe Wright created a film that combines the daunting visual aspect of constructing a historically accurate piece with all the economic and class divisions that are brought out in the original novel. With all of these elements combined, this is surely a piece Wright can take pride in. 

Friday, September 19, 2014

The Yellow Handkerchief Film Critque



Film Critique/Analysis #2
Michael Atkinson 
Cinema 28

A "Just There" Film

In an interesting tale of isolation and love, The Yellow Handkerchief (2010), brings three entirely different people together through their loneliness and need for comfort. Brett, Martine and Gordy find themselves drifting along on a trip to New Orleans shortly after the events of Hurricane Katrina. There is no particular reason as to why as the characters chose to go to New Orleans, or what makes them all chose to go together, the the formula for this story is simple: three strangers in a car who learn about each other through their journey. 

The film begins very quietly, and in fact, stays that way for much of it to come. The tone of the movie is overall melodramatic and soft. Dialogue is shown more through the character’s facial expressions rather than speech itself; and this proves to be a mastered art for the actors. Udayan Prasad - the film’s director - did an excellent job casting these actors. Eddie Redmayne, especially, a born and raised British actor, was able to capture the personality of an insecure and frightfully “not-all-there” Southern teen. Not once did his British accent slip in, nor did he fall out of his Southern accent. But he was able to capture the true essence of his character through his body language and honesty - fidgeting with his hands nervously, no eye contact, stuttering when on the verge of emotion, and painful awkwardness. Even the two other main actors were able to capture the realistic nature of their characters, enhancing the reality of the situation and bringing to life both of their internal struggles. The casting choice is truly what made this film a delight to watch. It was like watching an actual scene from life take place right before your eyes - no exaggeration, no perfection, just honest reality. 

Stylistically, the film felt like being on a boat, watching the same water around you for a while and just rocking and floating along until you reach your destination. It took a while for the film to get going, and one can argue that the “ball” never officially started rolling. The film was just “there” - for lack of a better word. There was no spontaneous action, no driving points of interest, and nothing really happening. Martine and Gordy - the young teens - learn about Brett’s past as he tells the story of his love found and lost through flashbacks. It is not until about two-thirds of the way into the film that they decide to take action and finally drive “somewhere” of actual significance; deciding to reunite Brett with his love - May. It is there the audience learns that May told him before he left that she would hang the yellow sail on her boat for him, should he ever return, then he would know if she still loved him. Come the happy romantic ending, one cannot help but wonder if this whole film was actually a big psychological metaphor that held greater symbolic significance under the surface. But if there was, perhaps Prasad should have made it more clear. 

Overall, The Yellow Handkerchief brings to light some heavier issues of loneliness, redemption, and love all rolled into one. This happens to be one of those rare films where a story is told with all its hurdles and issues and yet the characters are still the same as when they started. The only difference being that they have found solace in each other, rather than in themselves, as any good character arc normally has. But this is a film that leaves you with a sigh - perhaps a sigh of frustration, perhaps a sigh of relief, or even perhaps a sigh of contentment. 

Friday, September 12, 2014

The Hundred Foot Journey Film Critique



Film Critique/Analysis #1
Michael Atkinson 
Cinema 28

The Same Hundred Feet

Originally a novel Richard C. Morais, Steven Spielberg and Oprah Winfrey collaborate to bring The Hundred Foot Journey (2014) to the big screen. This is a charming film about an aspiring cook from the depths of Mumbai, India who winds up in France with his family and soon finds himself in competition with the town’s biggest restaurant.

Like many culinary films, this one tells the tale of someone who came from nothing and has an extraordinary talent that pulls him from the gutter and into the spotlight. Like many romantic comedies, this film uses the same theme about how one falls for someone out of his league but despite their differences and the jealousy in their relationship, they cannot deny their love for each other and wind up together in the end. Like many family films, this one centers around the idea that a family will go to the ends of the earth for each other because they are, well, a family. The Hundred Foot Journey may have a lot of things going for it, but one cannot help but see through its overused and clichéd themes and plot line. This film seems to be a brilliant idea on the surface - a good wholesome piece of entertainment - but underneath the film has no substance. It is like looking at a beautiful hand decorated elaborate cake and when you ask to have a piece you are told the cake is only for show and it is actually cardboard underneath. There is nothing original and nothing truly spectacular about this film that will make it stand out in our minds years to come. 

However, aside from it’s lack of depth and originality, the stylistic nature of this film was aesthetically done well. The film was able to make it seem like food was a character itself. The camera panned and dipped in a way to capture the true essence of food in closeups. The eggs cracking were done in slow motion making one stop for a moment and actually see what it means to cook; even analyzing the way food is prepared that many do not take notice of. The vegetables were chopped in quick cuts heightening the skill and mastery behind a chef’s cooking. The actors were able to portray this skill in the kitchen making it seem as if they really were master chefs.

Though the concept of the film is lackluster at best, it is not until watching this film, that one truly will understand the precision behind cooking. Spielberg and Winfrey were even able to stereotypically show the vast differences in the way food is prepared in India compared to France; one being more haphazard and the other being more meticulous. However, the final theme of the film - no matter how cliché it was - was made clear: whether food is from Mumbai or France, it is the chef who has the talent to prepare it that is the true genius.

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Les Miserables Film Critique and Scene Analysis


Testing First Post:


Equality for the Miserable


Human society is capable of going through dramatic changes by the actions of few individuals. In the early 19th century, liberty, equality, and freedom are not the rights for the people of France; especially for the poor. But if the people can rise and fight for their rights then they will show that equality is only achieved when everyone is dead. 
In an enthralling story of a timeless demonstration and the survival of the human spirit, Les Miserables (2012) directed by Tom Hooper tells the story of an ex-convict hunted by a policeman whose life changes forever when he rises above his circumstances. This film is based on the 1985 Broadway production which was written based off the 19th century novel by Victor Hugo. Just as the adaptations for Les Miserables have many cause and effects, so does the story line. Because of the actions of few individuals, the lives of others are changed dramatically as they intertwine and overlap in unforgettable ways. The story is told over the course of seventeen years and with each passage of time, the human condition is changed as well. The rich only become richer and the poor only become poorer. But as the story unfolds, the characters each learn the meaning of justice, passion, sacrifice, unrequited love, and redemption. 
The journey begins in 1815 at the galleys; this is already twenty-six years after the French Revolution. There has not been much change in France as the king is once again seated on the throne. Already, there is little equality at this time. In the very first lines of the film, the prisoners shout in unison, “Look Down!” In high angle shots, the prisoners are placed below everyone else in society. In the following cut, the official, Javert, is standing at a dramatically low angle looking down at the prisoners. He has taken his place above everyone and with the sky as his background he is seen almost at the same level as God. The fast-paced montage of the scene continues for a few more seconds before it slows down. The next shot is a medium shot where the outfits of the individuals are clearly visible. Javert is wearing light blue with a white collar and the prisoner, Jean Valjean, who he stops to talk to, is wearing a dark red. This symbolizes the colors of the French flag. Since France is the dominant force in everyone’s lives at the time, the colors on them only serve to show that France has affected all of their lives. By the end of the scene, Valjean is released from the galleys; he climbs to where Javert was standing before. And in a reverse of the beginning of the scene, Valjean is seen in a straight shot and Javert is shown in a high angle shot. This was done to show that Valjean has risen above his prisoner status and is on the same level now as a citizen. In the next scene, many Dutch angles were used in a montage of Valjean’s new life on parole. The use of a hand held camera to capture these shots was a deliberate choice to show the turmoil of his life now; he cannot find work as a convicted man, he sleeps in a stable, and he is tormented by every face he meets. The shots were filmed on location in the mountains of France to accentuate the realism of the film. But as the montage ends, the screen becomes filled with many yellows and oranges of a Church. The colors show the warmth that Valjean receives from the Bishop. He meets someone who will accept him and show him that God cares for everyone and that there is a way he can be an honest man. 

In a connecting shot, Valjean rips up his prisoner badge, it flies into the sun in the sky and immediately shoots down into clouds and rain. The camera follows the paper into the city of Montreuil. The shot tells that the year is currently 1823. In very quick shots of montage, the ensemble sings “At the End of The Day.” The shots show the grime and the dirt of the city along with the disgusting poor people who litter the streets. Hooper made a conscience effort to hold nothing back, if the streets were really filthy in 1823, then he was going to make his streets filthy. Amongst the rain and filth of the city, every shot is very dark, as if it were underexposed. There are many shadows and every shot has a blue tone to it. The color expresses the sadness and depression faced by the starving poor. The police ride through the streets all wearing a dark blue uniform. As they pass the famished people, Hooper juxtaposes the rich and the poor in one simple shot. In the next verse of the song, the beggars sing, “At the end of the day, there’s another day dawning” and immediately the shot shows a beggars face lit up with the light from a break in the clouds. It provides a sense of hope for the poor that soon equality will be coming. 

One key element of this film is that it is done entirely in song as a tribute to the Broadway Production. The film is done realistically, but through song, the reality heightens and allows for expressionism. But one significant part of the singing was that it was all sung live in multiple takes. In most films, songs are dubbed over the actors. Films with actual singing live have only been done a handful of times in history. So for this film, actors were given earpieces which allowed for an on set piano of the song to play in their ear. Each song was done in multiple takes in various ways. Hooper would pick which on he liked best and then had an orchestra play to match with the action of the scene. The live singing added to the drama of the scene and each actor was able to bring their character to life. Abandoning the standard method of pre-recording was challenging but by embracing a new method only made for a more iconic and extraordinary piece of work. The song sung on the streets is immediately continued into the factory scene where all the women are lined up in rows doing the same motions of sewing. They are all wearing blue except for one girl dressed in light pink. She is the main character, Fantine, and as shown, she is remarkably different from every other girl in that factory. She stands out in her dress and in her sweet melodious voice. Through Hoopers color scheme and angles of her, he shows that she is prettier than the rest of the girls and receives attention from the foreman, thus, every other girl chooses not to like her and essentially gets her fired from her job. 

Without a job, Fantine needs to find another way to support herself and her child that she keeps at an Inn. If the poor cannot find work, they will not be able to eat, and if they cannot eat they will starve to death. There is only one choice left for Fantine where she must now sell herself to pay for her child. The scene unfolds in a dark and dismal place of the docks. Every shot is nearly black and cuts quickly. Some of the shots scarcely last a second long. Hooper needed to make his scenes as realistic as possible. So for this scene, Hooper drowned his set in 8 inches of mud, complete with real dead fish, and cold air temperature. The actors are actually shivering and have running noses due to the conditions of the set. Nothing on screen is fake; even when Fantine decides to sell her hair to get money; the actress actually gets it cut live on screen. The scene is filled with low and crooked angles, depicting an expressionist type of scene amidst realism. It creates a dream-like sequence as everything moves rapidly. As the boats hover above the people at the docks, the wooden angels stick out off the bow above their heads. An angel is usually used to represent purity, but in a scene filled with prostitutes these angels represent anything but that. They serve to contrast with where these people are in society, at the “bottom of the heap.” As Fantine degrades herself further into this new life; all of the ladies line up with Fantine at the front and a man is walked down towards her. The shot acts almost as a reverse marriage where instead of the bride meeting the groom, the groom walks up to the bride. The ladies soften their singing in unison and sound as a choir singing at a wedding. In the last line of the shot, Fantine sings, “Don’t they know they’re making love to one already dead?” This is significant for it evokes a message that she is already dead on the inside and her life now means nothing. 

Shortly after, in a quick cut rather than a fade or dissolve, the scene changes to another story line in another town. Fantine’s daughter, Cosette, is introduced. She is living a miserable existence in the inn of the Thenardier’s and their daughter, Eponine. In these brief shots, inequality is vastly displayed as Cosette is dressed in rags, doing the chores, and getting yelled at for nothing while Eponine is wearing a new winter dress and bonnet being adored by her mother who talks to her in a sweet voice. Further, as Madame Thenardier continues to scold Cosette, the dialogue is exchanged through slits in the staircase. This shows the barrier between them. Since Cosette is not really their child, they can treat her as a slave; there is no attachment that they have for her thus a wall is built between them. The scene continues into a montage of the Inn, showing how they are dishonest people robbing every man blind of their possessions. Hooper adds the comic relief element to this scene, breaking up the dramatization of the sad life of the poor. Through the various camera pans, angles, tilts, and the mixed focus of the shots, Hooper gives some expressionism into the realism of the film. He uses the expressionism to tell of the inner psychological state of the Thenardiers. In all of the close ups, the camera was about ten inches from the actors face bringing to life the scene and bringing the audience on a journey closer into their life. 

Nine years later, it is now 1832 in Paris. In another connecting scene with no cutting, the time lapse is seen as the shot goes from dark immediately to the brightness of day. After looking at dark images for half of the film, the white sky behind white stone buildings is nearly blinding. Things have taken a turn for the worse over the years as poverty has increased along with the degradation of the time period. But with this blinding light, the director has moved the attention to where he wants it; contrasting the rich and the poor. The beggars’ huddle together begging for scraps of bread; in low camera angles the subjective camera follows their eyes to the rich people who turn their faces away in disgust. The scene sweeps through the streets following a young homeless boy, Gavroche, as he tells of the heartache of the city. In many quick cuts and edits, a mob has formed around two bourgeois boys who are trying to rally the people to fight for their rights. In this scene they compare the people who are trying to fight for the rights of the poor, and the poor who are trying to steal from the rich. Through this use of juxtaposition, it shows how poverty and crime creates sin. The purpose of this scene is to get one to question authority. By the straight angles looking at the bourgeois, and then at the people, it asks why there is suffering alongside grotesque wealth. Subconsciously the director tries to show the people on the same even ground because in actuality they are all people with no differences aside from social status. 

As society has degraded, the tables have now turned; the innkeepers who were once wealthy have now become “a swarm of worms and maggots” begging and conning people out of their money. That goes the same for their prettified daughter, Eponine, who now dresses in rags, with matted hair, and does her father’s bidding. Yet, still underneath she is beautiful. The lighting surrounding her is always dark except for her face, which is always well-lit. This provides a glimpse into her world of darkness showing that she still has a light spot in her world that she can always look to. This light spot would be her unrequited love for her best friend, Marius. Most of her shots are close ups showing the horrified and submissive attitude that she has now attained. But in the busy marketplace scene, Eponine and Marius catch a quick glance of Cosette and Valjean handing money to the poor. Marius falls for the “bourgeois two-a-penny thing” which breaks Eponine’s heart further. But as Eponine still gazes at Cosette, she undeniably brings to the attention their now reversed roles when she whispers to herself, “Cosette, how can it be, we were children together, look what’s become of me.”

As many new faces are introduced in this new period of time, few individuals become the center of attention. Enjolras is the leader of the revolution who brings the people in line to start a revolution. As this new scene unfolds in the café as Enjolras tells the students of his plans, most of the shots are built of reaction shots. The character speaking is only shown for a slight second and the reaction of those around is the remainder of his line. This is to show the affect that the words have on the individuals. If he is talking of equal rights and freedom for everyone, the students are always responding to his words. The scene taking place is also made of dramatically quick cuts. Hooper most likely builds his film of quick edits because he wants to direct the attention of the audience. Unlike various stage adaptations, directors did not have control of the audience’s attention, but now in a film, Hooper is using this control to his advantage. This scene unlike many others is very warm, using yellows as the central color instead of blue. This is done to show a new world about to dawn, giving hope and security and showing that the dark of ages has passed. Again immediately following, the next scene is again blue. Here, Eponine bring Marius to Cosette. They approach each other with a wrought iron gate between them. Paralleling with Cosette speaking to Madame Thenardier through the stairs as a child, now as a grown girl, she speaks to Marius through a gate. This is to show that Cosette is fenced in; she had never truly been freed. She lives a sheltered life now under the care of Valjean, but her whole life is looking from behind a fence. Eponine had been left in the shadows as even the light on her face has gone. She is truly left in the dark as lights appear on the faces of Marius and Cosette. 

As Eponine realizes their reciprocated love for one another, she falls lower and lower in Marius’ eyes. She understands that she will never be equal to Cosette and now she is at the very bottom while Cosette “bursts like the music of angels; the light of the sun.” Marius has confided in Eponine that he is “at one with the Gods in heaven” and that he “soars through a world that new that is free.” As they walk and he says this line, Marius jumps up on a stone to heighten the idea that he is above everyone else and is one with God. He places himself level with God at this point because he has found love. Now that Eponine is lost in shadows, it starts to rain. The rain serves to enhance her despair. In little cutting of the scene, Eponine weeps to herself about “happiness that she will never know.” The scene starts out with Eponine in a full wide shot walking slowly. The shots gradually get closer and closer until they are in a close up and one can feel the emotion of her misery. The rain drops pouring down her face act as tears for her reality that he will never love her, and the idea is only in her mind. By the end of the scene, Eponine is sitting in the corner of an alley with a steep high angle shot looking down at her. It conveys the idea of how she is placed at the bottom of society and at the very bottom of Marius’ heart. 

At this point in the story, all of the story lines from the various characters converge with the same thought that it is unknown of what tomorrow brings. Each have their own struggle boiling inside of them and it is only one day more before it all explodes. This dramatic picture that takes place cuts between every character as they share their conflict either to each other or to themselves. But throughout this entire scene, there is darkness with minimal lighting among each of the characters. As the characters in unison crescendo into the ending note the shot fades into the blinding light of day that was previously done. This is the ultimate point for the beginning of the revolution that the students have been building towards. Through speed montage, the students rally the citizens to help them build a barricade to fight against France. The revolution that is happening is perennial to every era of civilization. The oppressed want a better life and armies are created of people that have nothing to lose that will fight against those in power. To demonstrate this in the film, Hooper shows the people unite in building this barricade. The actors literally were the ones building the barricade on set. This scene was done in one take with multiple cameras and cameramen dressed in period uniforms to blend with the scene. In the few minutes that the barricade is being built, it looks like mayhem in the streets. But in reality, this shows the fact that society is a jungle with the strong taking everything and leaving everyone else to wither away. Upon the completion of the students’ barricade, the camera pans to Enjolras standing on the top with a red flag. As the cutting ceases for a moment, the hue of the shot turns red, as Enjolras sings, “Red: the blood of angry men.” This moment foreshadows what is to come by the end of the revolution. 

The scene shortly continues with dark images as night has fallen. Javert has pretended to be part of the revolution to gain information to tell the French army. When they realize he is a spy, the cameras show him at a high angle looking down upon him. Each shot of the students and Enjolras, is done in a subjective point of view and a low angle looking up. This shows the reverse equality that is being gained by the revolutionaries as they detain Javert. The first attack strikes upon the students as they were not expecting it. The only casualty in the first attack is of Eponine who jumps in front of a bullet to save Marius from being shot. As she huddles at the bottom of the barricade in a high angle shot, tending to her wound, Marius sees her. It begins to rain again as Eponine smiles through the tears on her face. The rain signifies the wretchedness of her life; it becomes a motif for Eponine’s character. The happiest point in her life was her death because she knew she was finally free of the torment, and she could enjoy her last moments in Marius’ arms. As she sings in her last breaths, the camera angle is straight forward on her, showing that she is finally equal. Valjean arrives at the barricades and asks to take care of the traitor, Javert. But instead of killing him, he rises a step ahead of him and lets him go free. All the while this scene takes place, the interaction between Valjean and Javert is done on the same straight camera angle. Valjean has shown justice and mercy to the one who has tried to arrest him for years. It places them at the same level of one another for the first time. 

The revolutionaries realize that their battle will not be won because the people of Paris have not stirred. Light has poured into this scene from the light of day, but the shadows on their faces only accentuate the grief on the inevitable. But Gavroche, sees a chance to rally them through singing their battle song. In a solo, the sound uplifts the spirit of the scene and everyone joins in song with him. Gavroche is shown singing in a low angle raising this little kid above all the revolutionaries. When Gavroche steps out in front of the barricade to collect ammunition, he is faced with the French army. Even then, his shots are comprised of low angles while the army is shown at high angles. This gives a heightened sense that this little boy has more courage, more power, and more strength than the entire French army. When they shoot an innocent boy down, he never finishes saying his line. The same was true when Eponine died. The word she never had a chance to say was “Grow” and the word Gavroche never had a chance to say was “Up.” If one combines it, it says “Grow Up;” this is something both of them never had a chance to do. They were lost in a world filled with grief and inequality and paid the price for everyone else’s sins. Enjolras tells the army before the shooting begins, “Let others rise, to take our place, until the earth is free.” This line says much about the oppression that befalls the people. It gives hope that at some point, everyone will be equal and the earth will be free. With that, inexorably, the final battle ensures and Enjolras stands before about ten army men prepared for his fate. The shots turn into the red hue that was seen before. It foreshadows the deaths about to occur. The music slows down in a powerful moment that displays the human condition in full force. Enjolras raises his red flag and is killed. For the first time, slow motion is used by Hooper as Enjolras falls out of the window still clutching his red flag. The slow music and the slow motion show that finally he is on level ground with everyone else. 

Javert walks through the bloodbath and red streets after the fighting had ceased. The army men and the revolutionaries are all on the same level at this point. One can argue that equality was now achieved as each foe is lying on the ground in the same manner. The French army man and the revolutionary have no greater social status than the other. The camera pan through the streets of the dead only serves to heighten this point being made. The next scene turns dark, nearly black as Javert has an internal quarrel with himself. He cannot go on living in “the debt of a thief.” Javert’s only solution for his problem is suicide. The camera goes to a close up of his shoes as he walks along and balances on the edge of the bridge. This shot was done previously in one of his other soliloquies. It enhances the point that he faces two options; to continue his struggle in life or end it all. In his first soliloquy he chose the first option and now he chooses the latter. In a low angle shot from under the bridge looking up at Javert, it mimics the first scene of the movie where he stood against the sky looking down at the prisoners. Except now, he looks down in misery against a black sky. The song he sings carries the same tune of Valjean’s soliloquy from the beginning of the film as well. In Valjean’s and Javert’s soliloquies they each sing about a change of heart that they have for the better. In using the same melody for their realizations, it paints the convict and the policeman on equal grounds. By reprising events, Hooper directs the audience’s attention back to where he wants it; letting the audience get inside the characters mind to their inner psychological state. 

Hooper greatly uses parallelism at the end of the movie. The characters and the songs they sing parallel their grief felt at this time. As Marius and Cosette vow their love for one another as they reprise their duet, “A Heart Full of Love” and Valjean becomes the equivalent of Eponine at this point in time. He echoes her line saying, “She was never mine to keep.” Through this symbolic parallelism, the struggles of the character overlap showing that the human condition is universal. In the last scene of the movie, Valjean waits in the convent for his imminent death. The entire scene takes place in close ups, clearly portraying the misery and wretchedness of the individual. In the quick cutting montage, surprisingly, the scene does not speed up.  Instead, the scene moves along at just a quick enough of pace for the goose bumps to set in. The idea conveyed is that any amount of people can unite together and rise above their circumstances for the better. The song that is sung is a reprise of the song used for Fantine’s death and fades into a reprise of the song, “Do You Hear the People Sing?” Valjean passes away and walks to meet all the others that died in the battle who are awaiting him on top of a newly constructed barricade. Every single shot of the characters that are standing on the top of the barricade is captured at a low angle raising them high above. These low angles shots only add to the proposal that equality is only reached at death. This scene is the only time in the movie where every shot is at full exposure. The light in the sky is beaming above the barricade and the colors are vibrant. The dark hue and the blue are replaced by warmth and smiles showing that freedom and equality have finally been achieved. 

Each character on the barricade is joyful while they sing about “the future that they bring when tomorrow comes.” In all the same low angle shots, this is the only time these wretched characters smile because they are finally free and equal to every other person standing beside them. Hooper portrays a scene about the human condition and the survival of the human spirit through these characters which give hope to those living today that eventually every human will be equal. The point being made is that unlike their uneven lives on earth, they are at last equal in death. The theme of the film is relevant to every era of society and especially relevant today. The film cannot be better summed up than when Gavroche sings the lyrics: “This is the land that fought for liberty, now when we fight, we fight for bread. Here is the thing about equality; everyone’s equal when they’re dead.”