F is for Fake- SEWELL, Jonathan

F is for Fake by Orson Welles is a film I would like to describe as, for a lack of a better word, challenging. Challenging in sense that there are many points in the film wherein I found it hard to believe that what Welles is telling us is even the least bit true. Challenging also if we were to think that what if everything he told us is absolutely true?

During the opening sequence Orson Welles says, “Ladies and gentleman, by way of introduction, this is a film about trickery, fraud, about lies. Tell it by the fireside or in a marketplace or in a movie, almost any story is almost certainly some kind of lie. But not this time. This is a promise. For the next hour, everything you hear from us is really true and based on solid fact.” The first 2 sentences alone tell me that something interesting will definitely happen through the duration of the film. He says the film is about lies and trickery that makes me question his following line when he says that everything from here on in is solid fact. He also says that we could “Tell it by the fireside or in a marketplace or in a movie”. When he says “it” I presume he’s talking about the lies and trickery. This is precisely what he did during the film. He’s telling the story to some people in a restaurant, and he’s telling it to us through the movie we’re watching. I definitely found this to be a brainteaser as well as misleading. 

Another quote I found very interesting through the film is this, “What we professional liars hope to serve is truth. I’m afraid the pompous word for that is “’art’”. Filmmakers are liars, creative liars. They tell us stories that are not real. Sure we come across the occasional film that is “based on actual events”, but those events, places and characters we see on screen can never be the actual events, places and characters that they aim to portray. It won’t go unsaid though that filmmakers such as Orson Welles are brilliant at what they do, and that is why they are professional liars. 

On the other hand, Orson Welles does present us with facts. The people he mentions in the film are actual people. Elmyr de Hory, Cliffor Irving and Oja Kodar, just to name a few, are or were actual people. Their stories that were told in the film were their actual stories. With that said, we can’t say that everything in this film is lie. The people I just mentioned did appear in the film.

What I guess, and I do say it only as a guess, Orson Welles wanted to make us think of what is actually true. How much of what he said was true? How much do we think we can believe is true? If my guess is correct and this was his goal, I say kudos to him. He definitely got me to think.

Inglourious Basterds – AFRICA, Miko

I have seen Inglourious Basterds about two or three times before having seen it in class. And I must say, given the intro given to the course and what I should look out for, I found some “unusual” or rather new things that I didn’t see before; a couple of stuff regarding the actors, some parts or the whole story line, and some bits and pieces of scenes.

One particular thing that I noticed was at the beginning of Chapter 2, where Lt. Aldo Raine was giving his speech/introduction to his new recruits into his group; Inglourious Basterds. That particular scene reminded me of Tyler Durden in Fight Club, in which he also played, where they were in the basement of a bar and him giving the rules of Fight Club. There are a lot of similarities from both characters that were played by the same actor. Maybe because both characters have the same peg or they are alike as persons. And I think Brad Pitt used the same strategy he used for Tyler when he played Lt. Raine. Tyler was a leader, he persuaded people with his smooth and very convincing, very straightforward personality. Likewise, Lt. Raine has the same aura, personality and characteristic as a person. I think the only difference is Brad Pitt’s role as Lt. Raine is more aged, more mature and much more calm and collected than of Tyler Durden. Plus Lt. Raine is a ranked officer during the World War compared to Tyler where he is just a streetwise, silver-tongued guy.

Another odd experience for me was when I saw the movie in class, I was shocked to see Mike Myers name in the start of the film. I couldn’t remember before that he was in the movie. Then when I saw him, he did not look like as I expected him to look like. Actually I didn’t notice him until I looked really closely. When I saw him, what I saw was a hairy-faced Austin Powers. It was kind of stuck to me that he will forever be Austin Powers. In the movie, I kind of saw this signature Austin Power smile he always does, but in a less obvious way. I don’t know if it became second nature to him to smile like that but I think that’s what gave him away for me. It’s what I saw that made me confirm to myself that it is Mike Myers. On a completely different not, Christoph Waltz was superb in his role in the movie. Though this is the first movie of him that I have seen.

On a different note, in terms of storyline/plot it was as if I was actually watching two different films within a film. I had this feeling that I was watching a Nazi hunter group kill off their prey and on the other hand a “chick flick” with a twist mixed with WWII action. It literally was like watching two different movies meeting plotlines halfway. It was two movies heading to the middle and merging to go to one ending. Speaking of the ending, the “massacre” in the cinema, one particular scene that caught my attention was when Dominic Deccoco and Antonio Margheritti busted in the balcony seats and started rifling everyone in the room, in which reminded me of Al Pacino’s famous “say hello to my little friend” scene in Scarface. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_z4IuxAqpE)

To sum things up, overall I think the plot, the actors and the overall production was superb and worth watching. 

Inglourious Basterds – SEWELL, Jonathan

The film Inglourious Basterds is one that I thoroughly enjoyed. Quentin Tarantino definitely captured me as an audience member; he is without a doubt a very clever director. Having taken a film class prior to Elements of Screen Art, I was able to appreciate the film in a way wouldn’t think I would be able to. The camera angles, the properties used in each scene such as the iconic symbols/artifacts/items used in the film added to the overall impact.

I would like to put a sizeable amount of emphasis on the iconic symbols used.

First, the pipes. The pipes in the scene where Hans Landa was conversing with Perrier LaPadite, although quite humorous, was without a doubt a phallic symbol. It carried the notion of “mine-is-bigger-so-Im-better”. At this point we see LaPadite withdraw his pipe in shame.

The other iconic symbol I found most interesting was the baseball bat. The way I see things, there is only one more thing that is more American than a Ford Mustang, and that is baseball. Baseball is America’s past time. There is nothing else that can refer to baseball other than the bat. Sure we can think of the baseball glove or a ball, but those can’t be used to kill a Nazi soldier. This brings me to my next point. Seeing a Nazi being beat over the head with something so American in that post-ambush scene signifies and emphasizes the Basterds’ power in that situation.

The next symbol of interest was Adolf Hitler’s cape in his introductory scene. Why is this interesting? One, we associate capes with superheroes; more often than not, it’s Superman. Two, Hitler considered himself and Übermensch, when translated into English means Superhuman. Nietzsche who believed that there are humans that are superior to others coined the term Übermensch. For Tarantino to wrap Hitler in that cape was clever of him. It is very nice to know that a director who tackles films involving historical events and personalities knows his material very well.

The last symbol I want to talk about is the number 3, particularly the sign of the number 3 made with the fingers. This was a game changer! I was able to watch an interview with Tarantino regarding this scene. Tarantino mentioned in an interview with MTV that he had a German woman working on set who read the script who then went to her American husband and asked him to make the symbol of 3 with his hand to prove if this was true. She was shocked to find out that it was true. Here is the link if anyone would like to see the video: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1619361/inglourious-basterds-five-things-should-know.jhtml

Overall, I thought the film was very well planned, written and thought through. It made a fan boy out of me. Just to add, Christoph Waltz’ (Hans Landa) performance was absolutely amazing! Tarantino has been a great director and this film is definitely a must watch for any of his fans. I know that I don’t get sick watching this film and I hope no one else does as well.