The Searchers 1956

David Longenhagen III
10/30/2011
The Searchers
run time 119 min
English
Directed by John Ford
Released 3/13/1956

I really thought about what I should write about for how this film relates to what we talked about in class. Usually I just take the easy way out and say it uses montage. This film does use it quite well in the battle scenes, and also the journey of our heroes searching for Debbie. But I thought there was something more one can talk about. Two topics I want to discuss are Realism and discussing the Auteur theory with Ford. First off is realism, now I'm not talking about the

stereotypes of Mexicans, Native Americans, and the Heroic white man. I'm talking about the way the west was in real life. As a history student I have read many historical acts that show basically that anything goes in the west. Law is almost absent, and like in the film, groups would send killing parties and so on. Also Ford shows the homes, and insides of the homes with enough detail to show that the people live with little. For example when in the horse farmers home. John Wayne tells his supporting hero that he should stay and work there because he will have a good life. But inside the home there is no material, they have basic furniture, and clothing to the best standards of the area I presume. This shows that even the way people lived was difficult. Besides the characters the realism of the environments was I thought very well shown. Ford has streams, canyons, desserts, rocks, hills, etc.. This shows the rough living conditions people similar to our characters would have to live with. So realism was captured here I believe with the showing of living conditions, and nature. The second topic I wish to talk about is Auteur theory and how it relate to the director Ford. Well Auteur means author is French, and from what I gathered the term relates to how a director relates film to one's life. An example would be Truffaut's 400 Blows, how he bases his film off real situations he had as a child. Fords life when I did a little research shows that he is somewhat similar to the main character Ethan Edwards (John Wayne). I came to this conclusion because Ford was in the Army and later Navy. He was present at the D-Day invasion in WWII and later became an Rear Admiral. But the sailor aspect is just a part of what I'm discussing. After his services times he returned home. According to many actors and actresses he was very hard on them. He played pranks, and if a star was expecting "star treatment" they were pressed even harder. Now in the film John Wayne's character comes home late from the Civil War, and what do you know he treats every one like they are underneath him. He talks down to Martin the whole movie, but it turns out he likes him anyway. This is shown by the reading of the will. To conclude I'm just saying that the war aspect, and hardness of Ford is apparent in his character.

I saw one article that I really wanted to read and use for this project but I had some difficulties in attaining it. The article was called 'Let's Go Home, Debbie': The Matter of Blood Pollution, Combat Culture, and Cold War Hysteria in The Searchers (1956). Written by Sue Matheson, from what I could gather it had some great topics dealing with races and so on but I couldn't get the whole document which stinks. So I found A new one By Clay Steinman called The Method of The Searchers. His articles is a very in depth look at the plot of the movie and its symbolism. With the plot he tells the whole story from beginning to end, then takes a break to discuss the settings and importance of it. He talks about the interiors of the homes, different character groups, and the artistic use of nature and the

framing because of doorways or structures. He then looks at John Wayne's character and how he is a very savage guy. He uses evidence from the film when he shoots buffalo, and shoot the dead Indian in the eyes. But he also has a heart, obviously there is a love aspect about him and Martha. And the finding of Debbie is related to this. So his anger when she likes the Indians is like she betrayed him causing him to want to kill her, which he doesn't. Steinman also looks deep at the clothing, and even dialog or lack off. He says some things aren't explained fully, but at other times action speak louder than words. An example giving is when Wayne wants to kill his niece and Martin steps in front of her. The rest of the article talks about the building of tension to the climax and other aspects of the film. The article had a lot of information, and many things being discussed in-between the summary of the film. (Stienman).

Again I turn to Roger Ebert's website where his reviews of films are very interesting. In his review of The Searchers written in 2001 he says that it was the bases for STAR WARS (1977), and people at the time raved over its beauty and story. Today the feeling are the same. One aspect he talked about is racism. This is brought up because of the stereotypes of the Indians, and how Wayne's character says whatever he wants and gets away with it. Back in the 1950' the public just went along with it. He then says like Steinman that the movie was based on the book by Alan LeMay. An interesting idea portrayed by Ebert is that this film has two stories going at the same time. One is John Wayne's character is searching for Debbie, but also a love story is being told between Laurie and Martin. Ebert then tells a summary of the movie, and in his last paragraph he says that he was talking about subjects of racism and genocide, and tried to justify the two in the film. This would Have went well with Matheson's article.(Ebert).

These two articles speak much truth for the film. Stienman's approach was a very detailed explanation of the film's method. He spoke much about the use of doorways. And how they capture important scenes in them. In the class viewing I saw this. two parts that stood out was towards the end when the two heroes were running into a cave to fight the Indians. The Other was at the end when John Wayne saved Debbie and I guess decided he has to go back off into the sunset. There is a important part here that shows that he maybe wants to stay, but something calling him.

I also like the visuals. The inside of the door is pitch black, but the land is exposed to sunlight. This might be that if he stays there is an uncertainty, but he can see everything if he is outside. This brings us to another of Stienman's ideas, that the film lacks dialog(not in a bad way), So one just has to come up with these film theories on your own. Roger Ebert's article is similar to the one mentioned above, he too gives a summary of the movie. But instead of looking at many details, he talks about racism in the film. Now watching this film is class sure I can see what he is talking about. But Like any other form of art, or story I believe one must put themselves into the time period or state of mind. It is racist because at that time in history many Americans were. Now the fact that he is a former soldier of the Confederates does not mean that's the reasons he hates people, people in the north hate people too. Even when people saw this in the theaters there was this racism or should I say use of stereotypes in the media already. Cowboys are good, and Indians are bad that type of stuff was rampet, even today like toy plastic soldiers they have cowboys and Indians. But back to the film I think a point many miss is that the human mind or soul can change. In the film we see our hero come into screen full of hate towards Martin. But as the film goes on this changes slowly. At the end of the film Martin reads the will of our hero and sees that everything is left to him. This shows me relating to Stienmen's uses of actions are stronger than words that John Wayne has made a change. He is still a rough man, button the inside he probably sees that his ideas are not absolute, and that Martin is in fact family.

I thought this movie was the coolest film we have watched so far. And I am not putting the other films down, I just thought this was fresh and a new genre. I have never really watched a western before, and this movie blew me away. Sure there was racism and girls are treated differently than today but I thought it was good anyway. There was so many parts I liked and it would take forever to discuss them all. The one part that I thought was awesome was John Wayne's speech about finding Lucy. This was a mixture of feelings and all the actors in the scene were great. I think that line will always stay with me when he says "What do you want me to do draw you a picture!" Besides that the story was amazing as well. Men on a journey to find the most important thing in this world FAMILY. But there is two stories going on in this movie. Martin besides looking for Debbie is also having a love story with his woman. The title of this movie is called the Searchers, and when you get right down to the core of the film these two men were both searching for something let it be love, family, or revenge. The use of montage, realism, and Auteur make this film special. I just pray they never make a remake of it, as John Wayne says "That’ll be the day!" This movie is fantastic and I recommend it to anyone.





Ebert, Roger. The Searchers (1956). November 25, 2001. rogerebert.com

Steinman, Clay. The Method of The Searchers. Journal of the University Film Association , Vol. 28, No. 3, Special Student issue (Summer 1976), pp. 19-24

Matheson, Sue. 'Let's Go Home, Debbie': The Matter of Blood Pollution, Combat Culture, and Cold War Hysteria in The Searchers (1956). Journal of Popular Film & Television; 2011, Vol. 39 Issue 2, p50-58, 9p, 3 Black and White Photographs

Rashomon Journal

David Longenhagen III
10/11/2011
Rashomon
Japanese with English subtitles
Run Time 88 minuets
1959
Directed by Akira Kurosawa
Won the Blue Ribbon Award(1951), Golden Lion(1951), and the Italian Film Critics Award(1951).


The topic used in this film from class lectures is located in chapter three, dealing with ideograms. Now ideograms are symbols that have a meaning. As I have talked about before an example could be a picture of a eye, and a picture of water. separate they mean to see, and water. But together they might mean to cry. Now needless to say, there was very much use of symbols in Rashomon. For one there is the main gate half destroyed, the rain, the child found at the end, and even the characters. The character represent almost every aspect of Japanese culture. There is the Samurai, a woman, a thief, a farmer, a merchant, and a priest character. There is also the mentality of each character, and the idea of is their hope for the human spirit. All these symbols that are very different mash together to tell a confusing but very relevant story. The idea of human beings lying, and being trusted is a theme used in many movies. An example I can tell right of the back is John Carpenter's The Thing (1982), and its prequel which is equally as good in different ways The Thing (2011).

Keiko McDonald takes his article to new bounds by tackling the topic of symbols in the Rashomon film. He starts by saying nobody looks at them, and states that the meaning of the film is to examine human nature. This idea brings up his main theme of the films light and dark side of human beings. He also joined the themes and symbols, to demonstrate the way of the world at the time fragmented. Keiko then goes into a several page summary of the film, picking little pieces out to discuss his claims such as the wood cutter going into the forest. He says that the man is covered in sunlight until he enters the forest. In the forest he is only his with spots of light, he says this symbolizes the spotty aspect of mortality. The ending is also talked about for its hopeful meaning to the future.(McDonald) Roger Ebert starts his review by saying that before the film was made three assistant directors approached the main director and couldn't understand the story. The idea was that the story has no solution. Even though some did not understand the film it was a great success in Japan, and even the rest of the world. Because of its unique use of flash backs to tell stories other films have copied its routine. Ebert then gives a brief summary of the film, concluding that its strongest points are the use of emotion and visuals. He says that one of the most famous scenes in the whole movie is when the wood cutter character walks through the forest. He concludes his review by saying that the film is about self discovery and redemption.(Ebert)

These two articles go very well with my ideas of the film when i watched it in class. I thought that the story was a little confusing at first but it had a strong uses of symbols that tell a separate story from the main film. Both authors agree that the film has a massive theme of trust, and human nature, that ends with a redemption. The best scene I thought was the ending. In the ending I saw the commoner man and the woodcutter argue about being a thief. The woodcutter now appears to be guilty of stealing the woman's knife. Now the only pure character is the priest. But the woodcutter man then asked to take the child they find and raise it, since he already has 6 at home. This shows that man can change his ways for better, and captures the light and dark side that Keiko describes. This is also the redemption that both authors talk about, and there is a hope that human beings can be good, and not always evil.
After watching this film, and reading the articles, I have come up with the idea that movies are not just about story but also the little things that are shown in them. What I mean is Rashomon's movie is about people who lie about a rape, and murder. But when you look at the meaning, and symbols one finds that the movie is actually a theatrical form of a human mentality lecture. Human beings undoubtedly have a light and dark sides, but as Ebert says the film is also about self discovery. This could be seen when the woodcutter cracks and tells his story of what he saw, and he comes to the conclusion after a conflict that he is no better than the three, he is a thief. I like this idea because self discovery, like talking about the dark side of human nature is a topic many do not want to talk about in real life. This film grabs this topic, and lays it down for all to see. And it does it perfectly, but the ending gives hope to the idea that there is time to change for the better. And from what I saw and read I'm not the only one who feels this way because it is still considered a classic movie and well loved around the globe.

McDonald, Keiko I. Light and Darkness in Rashomon. Literature Film Quarterly; 1982, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p120, 10p.
Roger Ebert Rashomon (1950). rogerebert.com. May 26, 2002 2011

400 BLOWS JOURNAL

David J. Longenhagen III
10/09/11
The 400 Blows
Run Time: 99 min , and in Spain: 92 min
Language French
1959
Director: François Truffaut
Won six awards for best Director, Best Foreign Film, and also the Catholic Film Office Award, Mise-en-Scene from the Cannes Film Festival.

In class so far I have learned about montage, and too get a feeling who the movie is for by looking at it from different angles (ex. a feminist, or a child). Montage which is simply many shots put together to tell a story, feeling, or idea in a shorter amount of time. However there is more to montage than just that attribute. From the reading I have understood that different images can be put together to form new meaning, such as Eisenstein's views on ideograms. This film was put together using many montages following the life of young Antoine Doinel. I thought every sequence was done well, the children walking around town just filmed would have been very boring, but Truffaut montaged them together making for a more condensed and interesting viewing. These parts that stood out to me were the puppet show, the theft of the typewriter, and also ending with Antoine running to the beach. The puppet show was important to me for many reasons First it combined The two friends talking about taking a typewriter, a groups of children, and the play which I believe is little red Riding Hood. This scene is based on the ideas of ideograms. The children are a symbol of innocence. The boys conspiring to pursue in theft, is a transformation. I researched the Little Red Riding Hood story, and the part when the North man saves Miss Hood is described as being a rebirth, basically when the man kills the wolf Hood transformers from a person who believes everything to a person who is somewhat more cautious. What the real meaning is, is irrelevant what matters is that the main theme is rebirth. In this scene Antoine goes from being a child to deciding to be a bigger thief, an idea which changes his life in the end. The ending scene was also very well done showing Antoine running. The running shots with the background moving with him was awesome. And when he finally reaches the beach (which he talks about the whole movie) was a big step for him. He reached a new start, his parents don't want him, he is misunderstood by everyone but his friend. And he runs to possible start fresh. Explaining ideas and themes could go on for hundreds of pages, these are just examples to relate the film to what I have understood in class.
The first article I found was by Dennis Turner who wrote Made in the U.S.A.: The American Child in Truffaut's 400 Blows. The Journal article was brilliant. It was a mixture of talking about the film, the director, his views, critics views, and also how his characters relate to those scene in America, or the American Cinema. It starts by discussing the reasons for Truffaut making the film. From what I read the story was based on events of his own life, like his character he was pushed from one place to another. In today's terms his childhood was garbage, and because of this he felt "more at home with children than adults"( Turner, pg 2). The whole film was about French Realism (Turner, pg2). Now every so many pages there are sections were critics talk about the film and they praise its story, and camera work. an example is one that says that "his childhood is alive" (Turner, pg 3). Again the idea of his realism is pushed into our brains again and again. But from pages four to the end the article talks about the ending of the film. The article says that the ending was related to the Balzac book he was reading in class. And that basically the story revolves around the battle between a natural man and society. (Turner, pg 4-6). But the ending was made the way it was for several reasons mainly to show the main character running not away but towards the future. Also It is described that the ending doesn't solve any problems with the character because his freedom is to be shown in later. this only means that 400 Blows is in fact the first of a series of films. With three sequels the characters saga goes on (Turner, pgs 7, 2). The articles main subject is however the American views in the film. Mainly the idea of moving away from society, the article gives historical examples like men moving west, and also film examples of rebel characters in movies like James Dean.
The second article I read was from Roger Ebert. The whole article on his website praises the hell out of the film, and its director for his good storytelling. He goes into depth talking about the misunderstood main character and his hardships after he is labeled a liar by his teacher. The whole review is basically a summary of the main plot with some facts inserted like how Truffaut died in 1984 on a brain tumor. And how some scenes like when Antoine steals a picture outside the theater was actually based of something Truffaut did in real life. The best part of the review is in the beginning when he says one line describing the ending scene saying that the main character at the beach is actually a symbol for being at a point where he is stuck between the past and the future. And I feel that that sums up the movie's ending nicely. (Ebert).
Both Articles do a fine job discussing the main stories plot, and praising the Director for a job well done. But If I have to choose a aspect to talk about based on the film, I want to talk about the ending. At first I thought the ending was dull, but after watching the ending scenes two times I have come to grasp the idea that this movie isn't just a drama but rather has a deeper meaning. A misunderstood boy against the world, running his whole life based on what he told the psychologist and from what we've seen in the film. He runs to escape life in a sense, and what does he reach, a body of water, he's cornered by nature. Roger Ebert describes this scene as the character being stuck at a point between the past and future. And I agree with this statement. The main character is at a major turning point. Behind him is his one friend, the Country which now owns him, and his parents that don't want him. To his future is a body of water probably symbolizing the great unknown, that the future could hold any outcome. And that is where the movie ends. Turner's views are looking at this as a battle between a natural child, and society, and again this is a true and a well backed augment. Throughout the whole film he is always caught, at the wrong time, this happens to many people but with this character his life just snowballs into something he no longer has control over until the ending scene. The battle between him and society comes to a standstill in this films end, and were left wondering what now. Turner also discusses in his article the use of realism. And by watching this film I would never want to live in France. His movie shows the viewer a life filled with betrayal, no trust, greed, and hate. It is true that the world is the same today, but personally I don't like dramas, because of that. But the fact is when you take these characters such as the teacher, and mother who treat this young man like a villain, one must think what if it was me? And for that the French realism is most excellently executed in this film.

In conclusion with the movie, and two articles I have read I have no other opinion than I like this movie. I do not usually like movies like this, I'm usually a ALIEN, or TERMINATOR type of guy. But this movie is good because there is more to the story than we see. The Director's life is a great inspiration for the film, and many scenes are based on his childhood. The movie is a movie made with adult themes, but made with children which to some might be odd, but it is still a good film. When dealing with montage, and the subjects in the book, the film is a masterpiece. The camera work is awesome, filled with different shot that portray a idea, and in its completion a feeling. I do not know if I'm right about the whole puppet show hypothesis stated above but it made a lot of sense to me. My final views are just its a good movie, great story with a deep meaning, and uses many techniques mentioned by Eisenstein in his first three chapters. I really recommend this film because every time you watch it you see something new.

Turner, Dennis. Made in the U.S.A.: The American Child in Truffaut's 400 Blows.
Literature Film Quarterly; 1984, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p75, 11p.

Ebert, Roger. The 400 Blows (1959). http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990808/REVIEWS08/908080301/1023. Rogerebert.com, 2011.