English 422

The two films we watched this week were vey different. 12 Angry men had a very small setting. Only one room. It then focused dialog and and camera work in order to move the story along. The use of camera angles allowed the director to create a mood for the audience. Simply changing the height in which a scene was shot allowed the mood of the scene to change. Dialog in the film was crucial as it was the main source in which information could be shared with the audience. It also was used to show a major point in the film, the cayotic  nature of the united states judicial system. Opposite of this is Red Balloon which used little dialog but rather change in scenery to move the story along. We see the balloon and the boy going from place to place, while interacting with the environment. From this we are able to gain perspective on the life of the boy and also how people react to the balloon. Seeing how people from different scenes react to the balloon allows us to gain information to ...

12 Angry men is a courtroom drama focused on a jury of 12 men trying to agree on a decision over a murder case. Eleven of the twelve men agree at first and there is one holdout. Then men are then forced to argue over the case in an attempt to settle on a decision. The movie doesn't try to impress you visually. It is mostly shot in one room with the twelve jurors making up almost the entire cast. This allows you to focus almost entirely on the rich plot. We are constantly being fed information about the case and the jurors. Each has his own personality that is brought to the film in great detail. The review hits the nail on the head when it says " This is a film where tension comes from personality conflict, dialogue and body language, not action;". Each character is eventually opened up for examination for us in some part of the film. We get to take a look at their reasoning for their stance on the case. This adds a depth to the plot. It also allows us to relate to the ch...

In red ballon we see a small boy running around a city while a red balloon is following him around. Throughout the film we see people attempting to get rid of the balloon, popping it or taking it from the boy. Other then a good way to use the new technology of color in film, I think the ballon is there to serve a deeper meaning. In the film the balloon is just as attached to the boy as he is attached to it. It follows him around even when he sets it aside to go and do something. To me the ballon represents the boy childless. It is apart of him and he appreciates it, but at the same time he knows that it is not accepted. The film is trying to comment on the speed in which children are expected to grow up post world war. There are things that need to be done, and a continent that needs to be reborn after the events that recently occurred. Everyone tries to get rid of the ballon, or his childless, because he is expected to act older and contribute more to the society. All these people a...

The fist three films we watched gave us three different perspectives of Paris from three directors from three different countries (USA, Brazil, South Africa). The first film gave a look at Paris from the eyes of a visiting American. The second two were from citizens of Paris. Each film gave us a different vantage point but held a few common themes. The second two fils, Brazil and South Africa, being the most similar. All three films had the protagonist seeming to be outsiders to some extent. The first film showed an American attempting to explore the city. Throughout the film she was alone and struggled to make a connection with any of people of Paris. The second film, Brazil, showed a man, possibly an immigrant, who is struggling throughout. He is fired from his job, harassed by other citizens, and eventually stabbed. He appeared to be unwanted by everyone. he comes in contact with. The third film shows a woman and her daily struggle trying to make a living in the city. She by far a...

Immediately after watching these two movies I noticed that they give a very different view of Paris then the did. Where the American film gave us a perspective of an outsider looking in, I feel these two gave the view of insiders. These people actual live in Paris and we get to take a glimpse at what life is like for them. I don't want to claim that an American view from a tourist perspective is wrong, it just looks at the polished tourist parts of Paris. Looking at it from the view of someone living there gives us a view of the other side of the coin. The South African film shows us Paris through the eyes of a man, struggling to get by, in what appears to be a less then desirable part of Paris. He meets a girl who he sets out to get a cup of coffee with. Mistaking another girl for her, he ends up being stabbed by her friend and them meets his girl as she turns out to be an EMT. In this film I feel as if even though the man does live in Paris he is shown to be somewhat of an outs...

The film begins with Carol, unseen, getting up in front of a class to talk about her trip to Paris. She starts by saying she will talk about a "special day" she had in Paris. Special day makes you assume she is going to be happy or do something exciting, but that is not what you get. She is speaking French, in a way that takes me back to 8th grade French class. Her poorly pronounced French with an uneven rhythm, as if she is struggling to come up with words before they come out of her mouth, paints a perfect image of your stereotypical American traveling abroad. This is backed up when we see Carol, a middle aged women with a fanny pack, marching past a tour both to go on a "genuine  foreign adventure". At this point we can all relate to Carol to some extent. I think almost anyone who has traveled has attempted to find their own path to connect with a city. I would have to guess that relating to Carol, and all of her tourist awkwardn...