Desperately Seeking Susan 1985

David Longenhagen III
Desperately Seeking Susan
Runtime 104 min
English
Directed by Susan Seidelman
Released 03/31/1985

On topic we talked about in class sometimes was to look at films in other ways. For this film I think a good topic would be to see the film in the perspective of a feminist. The film's plot is that there are two women, each with a different life style. The main character seems to be bored with her life, and cheating husband and decides to go looking for this girl Susan because of love for her posted in the personals page of a news paper. without giving to much away, The main character goes through a transformation, and realizes she's happier doing what she wants, with people she likes. It's really a story of a woman becoming free.

Roger Ebert's review of the film was very short. He gave it only three stars and stated that the film was "so unpredictable that is a way it's predictable" Sounds confusing But I know what he means. Basically he means that the film has a lot of flip flop of characters like the main character turns into the Madonna character, and every buddy is confused who is who. That's unpredictable, but as time goes on they keep repeating the gag, making it predictable. I do not think he enjoyed the film, But he did praise, the actors, Arquette, and Madonna for a great job. (Ebert).

Susan Kings report on Seidelman's recall of the film talked briefly about making the film and characters. She discusses how the story took place in New York and at the time Madonna was not as big as today, so filming was easy. After the film her album Like A Virgin became huge so timing was perfect. Also they talked about the punk (80's style) portrayed in the film, and how it's a complete spin from what Arquette's character is used to being from a suburban family. (King).

King's article talks about the opposites of the character's lifestyles. In the film It is a drastic difference. Madonna is a drifter dressed in the crazy style s of the 80s, While her opposite played by Arquette is boring, and her life seems dull as well. It was interesting to see how they get all mixed up and Arquette becomes a new women. For Ebert he didn't really say anything much, which is shocking. I do think he is right about the characters, they are brilliant. They know how to act, and how to show emotion and this makes the movie flow nicely. His unpredictable quote is understandable, I have seen so many movies that I was expecting things to happen like them getting mixed up together. But I was interested when the film did surprise you with the girl getting amnesia and so on.

In conclusion I thought the film was interesting with its use of character, just like Ebert and King said. To me three things made this film work. One, Its young Madonna she acted great, and is very attractive. Two the characters on the hole were fantastic, and really gave the story an edge. And finally three If you're a fan of the 80's you have to dig the style, the movie in some ways is outdated however the 80's is a very popular decade that I too find very intriguing. One more aspect about the main story, I liked a lot how the main character had a metamorphoses from a boring housewife, to a wild girl about town. i thought it was a great ending, and the plot came to a good conclusion. If you a fan of the 80's get some popcorn and get ready to go back in time.



Ebert, Roger. Desperately Seeking Susan. Rogerebert.com. 03/29/1985.
King, Susan. Los Angeles Film Festival: Susan Seidelman recalls making 'Desperately Seeking Susan'. Los Angeles Times. June 19, 2010.

Beauty and the Beast 1946

David Longenhagen III
Beauty and the beast
Runtime 96 min
French
Directed by Jean Cocteau
Released 10/29/1946

This film best fits in the area of Surreal film making. Surrealist art if I can call it that is a medium that lets the artist show either expression of a topic, or they make it for fun. Much of this art may be odd to some, or possibly shocking because it is way out there compared to "normal films". Beauty and the Beast, is full of this surrealism. In Bell's world we see what would be defined as normal a world controlled by greed, and back stabbing people. Then there is the Beast's world, in his castle arms are in the walls acting as candle holders, or waiters in the case of the dinner scenes. Every object like doors, beds, and statues are alive. The beast himself is "hideous" but is the kindest character in the film. This too many would be considered weird, but I found it to be very amusing. There are many symbolism but I like the idea that normal people are the monsters, and the Beast is the most human.

My first article is from Michael Popkin's Cocteau's beauty and the Beast: The Poet as monster. It gives a brief summary of the film and focuses mainly on two subjects the ending, and the idea of beauty killing the beast. Popkin tries to relate aspects of King Kong(1933), and this film. He relates character mainly Kong and the Beats, and Bell and Kong's love interest. The main idea of this comparing and contrasting is to look at beautiful monstrous love, and that beauty kills the beast. He explains his thoughts on character changes, how it relates to real life situations, and how the film can be interpreted. (Popkin). Ebert right of the bat starts to talk about the films magical quality. mainly its trick photography and the effects used. He then jumps deep into the film, by relating it to the 1991 Disney animated film for purpose of similar story aspects. After that the director is talked about for being a poet and a surrealist, this ties right into the discussion of the castle which Ebert describes as "The Strangest put to film". The story is then summarized, and the film history is given discussing how the director needed help for he got different men to help him with outdoor and inside shots. He concludes with a very interesting comment that children would watch this and like it, but years later the adult will watch it and gain something else from it. (Ebert).

I think these two authors or critics hit the nail on the head for this film. Popkin is right that when watching the film I do enjoy and sympathize with the Beast but at the end I was kind of disappointed at what happens to him. Like King Kong splattering on the street of New York, the Beast is dead then comes back as an imitation of her love from the beginning of the film. Then they jump Million Dollar Man style into eternity. So I do agree that beauty does kills the beast. Ebert's article was brilliant. The best part was the last line which I mentioned in the above paragraph. Children will watch this and find it fun, weird, or scary. But as an adult one will watch it and try and get a higher message out of it. Like example would be if I was small I would be like "oh Bell saved the Beast and they lived happily ever after", however as an adult I see this film and say to myself the Beast is the good guy, and the real monsters are the normal human beings like Bell's sisters.

I honestly enjoyed this film very much. I thought it was going to be a boring film with a guy in a suit. But I was wrong. It is a movie that is for all purposes a fairy tale showing how an individual shouldn't be judged by how they look but by what's on the inside. This idea is one of the best in the world because it is as true as night and day. There are no real monsters in the world by humans themselves. Being made after World War II, I'm sure the director had these ideas in mind. Many of my colleagues didn't like the ending but I think it went well with the ladder idea. The Beast and Bells past love switch appearance. The Beast who was kind turns into a man, while the man transforms into a evil character who wants to kill for Bell causing his soul to turn into the internal beast . The idea is difficult for me to describe but in short Avenant becomes on the inside, what people think of when they see the beast. All the evil is not external but internal. All in all this film is very interesting and I recommend it.

Ebert, Roger. Beauty and the Beast (1946). December 26, 1999
Popkin, Michael. Cocteau's Beauty & the Beast: The Poet as Monster.
Literature/Film Quarterly 10. 2 (1982): 100-109.

Rear Window 1954

David Longenhagen III
Rear window
Runtime 112 min
English
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Released 08/01/1954

Everything we have talked about in class was in Rear Window. There was montage, ideograms, and music to combing with the film to break the fourth wall. The film made one think that the setting was boring, the main character breaks his leg and is confined to his apartment. He too gets so board that he begins watching his neighbors. This to me realistic, who goes outside or looks out a window and doesn't see what their neighbors are doing? Montages give the story is transition from day to day, ideograms can be seen all over, each other apartment has a unique person living in them that represents something about human nature. The fourth wall was broken because when the main character and his friends tried to solve the mystery the music combined with the footage made you not witness suspense but fell it. And the very act that this movie made you feel makes it a masterpiece.

The article I found was by Michael Wilmington called Rear Window Still Looks Great. In it he discusses how the film has been re-mastered and it is still one of the greatest suspense films. He then goes into a summary of the film and then takes a look at the characters. He also talks about the setting which simple is mostly the main characters apartment. He called the film a dazzling cinematic style, and went on to discuss the main theme that there are perils to curiosity. (Wilmington). Ebert like always gives a very detailed account of the film. He basically praises it very highly. And talks about such film subjects such as the Kuleshov experiment. He concludes by diving into what makes this film a success, not just by having a great cast, but by the feeling it gives. Danger, suspense, and being a thriller are the tools at work and by the end of the film, Ebert refers to them in his final line as an equivalent to foreplay. (Ebert).

Suspense, and great acting are the key features in this film. I never saw this film before class, and i was blown away. The main character watches all the characters, and one suspects something's going to happen. It never does, until later in the movie when you hear a scream. This turns into a roller coaster ride that doesn't stop. It is epic in the way that it builds up the emotion. One scene when the main character's love interest is in the antagonist house snooping around and you see the man come home I was almost jumping out of my seat "get out!" I had fun because the suspense and sense of danger really was impressed on the viewer.

What can I say that hasn't already? I enjoyed this film so much that I got it after class. Because of the viewing I really like Hitchcock's work and will pursue his other works. This film like I said makes you want to yell at the screen. Like the main character your stuck sitting and can't do anything but look, and that idea works wonders. I highly recommend this film. Also They made a current film called Disturbia(2007), which is a modern remake. I suggest checking this film out too for some kicks.

Ebert, Roger. Rear Window (1954). February 20, 2000.
Wilmington, Michael. Rear Window Still Looks Great. Chicago Tribune [Chicago, Ill] 25 Feb 2000