26 October:
Maria (C1):
Hi everyone, here is my little review of a film I borrowed from Jose Luis, To kill a mockingbird, which was included in my elementary school’s film programme so I had the chance to see it when I was young (Victorian times!) and, although enjoyed it then, this time, of course, has been much better. As it is usually said, classic films never die so don't miss the opportunity to watch this film which grabs you by the throat.
To begin with, innocence and punishment are the themes of this story set in Alabama in the 1930s, the American depression era. First and foremost, the main plot deals with the situation of Boo Radley, a black man accused with no evidence of having raped a white woman; it also focuses on Atticus Finch, the determined lawyer who accepts the case and goes ahead with the trial in spite of the threats from the town’s racist citizens, who want him to give up. The secondary plot, led by Atticus Finch's children, Jem and Scout, revolves around another character, Tom Robinson (Robert Duvall), a man that children fear with no reason, a kind of bogeyman. And what happens next is something you will have to discover by yourselves.
I enjoyed the film a lot and, though all the black characters are just idealized, it is the perfect story about the “sin of killing a mokingbird”, the old proverb that Atticus explains in the film:
“Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat up people's gardens, they don't nest in corn cribs, they don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird”.
That proverb relates perfectly with the plot because it is a clear metaphor for the danger of hurting innocent people, like Boo Radley, charged without evidence, or Tom Robinson, punished without doing nothing unfair; or vulnerable people, like the kids, Jem and Scout. It is the kind of film that calls for a deep reflexion on human relationships. So, finally, to encourage you to watch it and just to end up on a funny note, according to DC comics To kill a Mockingbird is Clark Kent's (AKA Superman!) favourite movie, and you all know a man like him can't be wrong!
24 October
Hey, you can't possibly imagine how thrilled I am. You know, over the weekend I've been receiving stuff from you guys to post on this blog. And since two of them were film reviews, I've decided to set up a specific spot for them called The Screening Room. OK, I must admit that I've taken the label from the namesake CNN programme. Hope they won't sue me for this! Thank you so much for your enthusiastic response, I'm sure it will only encourage other classmates to do the same ... or will it?
Anyway, we "premiere" this brand new section with two extraordinary films (though I haven't seen the latter, I've read rave reviews) in their own right: a classic 1970s movie and a current box-office hit.
Miguel A. Herrero (C1):
How many of you have Facebook or another social network account? I suppose most of you do. But have you ever wondered how (or when) Facebook sprang up or who created it? If you have, you can find your answers in The Social Network, directed by David Fincher, starring Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake and Rooney Mara.
The main character, Mark Zuckerberg, is a smart student of Computing Studies at Harvard. Affected by the break-up with his girlfriend, he creates Facemash, an application in which the students can choose who is the ‘fittest’ girl. It is such a great success that the smartest students in Harvard, the Winklevos brothers, propose that he helps them create a Harvard directory – called the Harvard connection- in which everybody can see other students’ data. He likes this idea and decides to join in, but realizing that he can improve it, he decides to start this project with Eduardo Saverin, his best friend. The project, initially called The Facebook, starts to spread in other universities with huge success. Both friends then become allies with Sean Parker, the creator of Napster. Thanks to this association, Facebook not only reaches other continents and becomes an outstanding enterprise, but also makes the friendship between Mark and Eduardo deteriorate. We witness that in the present day Mark has been sued not only by the brothers Winklevos, but also by his former good –and only- friend, Eduardo.
The film deals with the current theme of social networks. Nowadays people are connected everyday and have lots of “friends” online. The film brilliantly juxtaposes these two realities. On the one hand, Mark’s success due to Facebook’s worldwide spread with millions of people from all continents –even Africa- connected and making new friends. On the other hand, as Facebook spreads and Marks starts making money, his troubles increase given that he lost his only friend and is sued. The more money he makes, the more problems he has, just as the motto of the film states, “you don’t get 500 million friends without also making a few enemies”.
The film makes people reflect on the usefulness of social networks. Hence, it is clear that they have not only advantages, but mainly disadvantages, which are depicted through Mark’s life. Mark spends hours and hours sitting in front of the computer so he has no real life. He’s lost his only friend because of Facebook and all the friends he makes and all the parties he goes to are simply a result of his position. These consequences can also be applied to Facebook users. If you spend many hours logged on to it and making Facebook friends, you will become a Mark Zuckerberg and lose the opportunity of making real friends. Social networks like Facebook might be useful just in the right measure but not if you become addicted, which is not so odd given that there are lots of them, as you can see on this link.
I strongly recommend you to watch this film because it offers an interesting view on how one of the best-known companies was created. As it usually happens, building such a huge company brings money, but associated with it many other problems arise. To end this long review, I would like to praise the figure of Mark Zuckerberg, who, despite the problems that Facebook caused him, is at 20 one of the youngest millionaires and his company, Facebook, is worth $25 million.
P.S. This is the trailer in case I have persuaded you to watch the film. You should give it a try, it is worth watching.
Luis Rodriguez (C1):
I’ve just seen The Godfather again. I think I’ve seen it at least seven times. And, as it happened before, I’m still fascinated by Marlon Brando’s hoarse voice, the beginning of the film (‘America has made me rich’, but actually America hasn’t made me happy'), the light (Gordon Willis’s photography is outstanding), etc.
Scriptwriters say that you can know if a film is good or not in the first ten minutes. Probably The Godfather is one of the best examples of this theory. In just five minutes (the first scene), the title’s character is completely described, and so are the Mafia’s rules. So, at the very beginning, it is clearly stated that the Mafia is a family with its own rules you can’t challenge, that the Mafia is not a firm with bills, invoices and VAT, but it works through its owns mechanisms based on friendship, loyalty and favours.
I know very few people who don’t like The Godfather. Well, the reason is too obvious: it’s a superb film. But, before Jose Luis tells me that ‘to write that stuff, it’s better not to write anything’, I’ll do my best and run myself into the ground. Maybe one of the clues in The Godfather is the key aspect of a masterpiece: the possibility of finding several levels of significance, so that everybody can enjoy the film. I’ll try to explain my arguments. It is easy to take the adventure of several gangs fighting and shooting. But, at the same time, The Godfather is an intelligent visual essay about power fights and strategy games. Besides, it shows a world inside another world: the Sicilian way of life incorporated into the totally different American society (and how it achieves to reproduce itself there). It also reflects the change of the times, the fight against two cultures, etc.
However, beneath that surface, there is a classical scheme of acceptance of your own destiny, of your own fate, which reminds you of Shakespeare’s plays. Michael is Vito Corleone’s only son, a man with an American name who was separated from the Family’s business due to Vito’s decisions. Nonetheless, the circumstances (tragically wrapped with a spiral of death and murders) oblige him to accept Don’s role. All the spectators can watch the change from his initial innocence towards the recognition of his own fate, his own journey to Hell. And the impossibility of running away from it. Well, probably everyone suffers this journey to Hell, but I’m sure that –at the same time– we enjoy seeing how Michael gradually becomes a member of the Mafia.
Coppola’s rhythm is tense in some scenes but always gripping. Gordon Willis’s photography is still analysed in the Academies of Visual Studies. Nino Rota’s soundtrack is probably one of the most recognizable musical scores in cinema history. All the characters are extraordinarily played by one of the best cast of actors in the 70s (James Caan, Robert Duvall…). Al Pacino plays Michael Corleone in a way that can be defined as soft and, at the same time, disturbing. But we must recognize it: The Godfather wouldn’t be the same film without Marlon Brando. His jaw, his cheeks, his hoarse voice, his soft movements, his way of staring at their enemies, of crying in the presence of one of his sons’ dead body ... all of these features lead to one of the best performances ever seen on a screen.
Therefore, I strongly recommend The Godfather if you haven't seen it yet. As Vito Corleone said, ‘It’s an offer you can't refuse. Please don’t take that as something personal. It’s just business’.
No comments:
Post a Comment