Playlist Auteurs

Being that both of them are from the same era of independent filmmaking, Spike Lee and Quentin Tarantino have many things in common when it comes to their filmmaking style. However one major thing they both share is their use of pop songs within their movies. Ever since the beginning, both directors have foregone the classic orchestra based soundtrack in order to fill their films with billboard hits. So what does this mean for their films, and filmmaking in general.

To understand this, it is important to go back in time. One of the first films that took use of this same idea was the 1973 film American Graffiti. It used an entire soundtrack based exclusively on hits of the late fifties and early sixties. This helped create the overall feel of the film and bring the viewer into the era it was based. Before this, it was fairly uncommon to use popular songs at all in film, let alone as the base for the entire soundtrack. However this began to change things, and although entirely billboard based soundtracks were still uncommon (mostly due to their cost) ,throughout the 80’s many films would use a few select songs in order to create their environment. Think Back to the Future and its Huey Lewis Soundtrack, as well as the numerous films that used Kenny Loggins songs to present their atmosphere.

But things changed in the nineties, and this moved from being a gimmick into becoming a major part of the story; the thing that many people remember best from the film. One example is the film Dazed and Confused which drew heavy inspiration from American Graffiti, including in the soundtrack, although it was 70s rock this time instead of doo-wop. But then along came Tarantino and Lee. From the beginning both directors chose to use pop songs, even in their earliest work. For Tarantino, it was “Stuck in the Middle (with you)” in Reservoir Dogs, and for Lee it was “Fight The Power” in Do The Right Thing. And this only continued throughout both of their careers. Tarantino made it commonplace in his films to use hits of the 70’s in order to create the grindhouse atmosphere in his films. On the other hand, Lee made it common to have his soundtracks created by popular artists, such as Stevie Wonder in Jungle Fever and Public Enemy in He Got Game.

So what importance does this hold? Well, through the use of popular songs in Auteur films, other directors and studios have taken note. Take for example Guardians of the Galaxy,  which had a soundtrack so good it ended up being the 19th highest selling album of the year, then in 2016 there were many soundtracks that ended up in the billboard top 200.

So both Tarantino and Lee changed the way that soundtracks are made for films, and the future is seeming to hold only more films with soundtracks like this. Studios have realized that good soundtracks can sell well and get them more money on the back end, and fans have realized they prefer hearing their favorite songs in film, as it does a good job of immediately filling in the viewer with the intended feeling. So goodbye orchestra, hello IPOD.

Two and a Half Hours: Not Long Enough

Inglorious Basterds has never been near the top of my list when it comes to Tarantino films, and i never knew why. But upon this most recent viewing of it, i believe i have come to a conclusion; it simply isn’t long enough. Now, i know that may sound crazy for a film that comes close to a 3 hour mark, but this is the truth. In order to help you understand this problem, let me divulge further.

The problem begins with the title characters, the basterds. Quite frankly, they aren’t in very much of the film. out of the entire film, we only truly see the entire group together in about two scenes, those being the beginning when they are rounded up, and the scene in which Donnie kills the German officer. Other than that, they are split up and we only get to really see a few of them at a time. Not to mention, the film goes immediately from introducing these characters to seeing them in action. We aren’t given any context as to what happens between them assembling and landing in Nazi France. This leads to these characters either being mostly forgotten throughout the story, or left out entirely. I just watched the film and i can only name about three of them honestly.

However these aren’t the only characters given unfair screen time. The “main” character of the film, Shosanna Dreyfus is given just as little screen time. She is introduced in the opening scene (which features more characters who are merely in the film for about 20 minutes, i might add), then revisited in the middle of the film, only to be brought back at the end. And at no point are we truly given any character ark for her.

But of course these characters all have it the best. There are many characters throughout the film given even worse treatment; characters who just barely make the cut of being main cast, but are quickly forgotten. Examples would be the aforementioned farmer and his family from the beginning of the film, Michael Fassbenders’ character who quickly gets killed, and Bridget Von Hammersmark whom we are introduced to in the middle of the film only to see her get killed before the final showdown.

So what does this all make for? It makes for a story that seems very condensed. We end up jumping from storyline to storyline before feeling truly concise. We don’t get to know enough about the basterds, we don’t get to know enough about Shosanna, and we don’t get to know enough about Hans Landa and the rest of the Nazis.

Now, don’t get me wrong, i don’t think this is a bad film. It seems nowadays that everyone wants to try their hand at WW2 films, and Inglorious Basterds stands at the top of the heap, next to Saving Private Ryan and Schindlers List. However, it seems that it may have been a good idea to split up the story into multiple films, in the same way Tarantino took the 4-hour-11-minute Kill Bill and split it up into two films. That would have given us a chance to get more in depth with the very interesting story-lines as well as see more characterization. So, how would a 5 hour version sound?

Martin Scorsese: Bridging the Hollywood gap

Now that we have come to the end of the Scorsese era, there is no doubt that Martin Scorsese is one of the greatest directors of all time. However, you didn’t come to read about me praising all of Scorsese films and how fantastic they are; and luckily that isn’t what this is about. No, this is a look into why i believe Martin Scorsese’s films are not his greatest achievement.

The reason Martin Scorsese is and always will be seen as a great director is because of the way he makes his films. In particular, it is the extreme down-to-earth feeling of his movies (especially his early work) that created this impression in people. He has allowed directors who would never be given a chance in old Hollywood the opportunity to create what THEY want, not what they are simply told to make. And most importantly, he was a key figure in the creation of independent film.

In order to fully understand this, it is key to look at the directors who came before Scorsese. Throughout the history of film, up until the 1970’s film directors generally came from within the field, or fields closely related to film making. For instance, Alfred Hitchcock started out as a writer, who happened to be given a contract by RKO productions. Then, a director we are familiar with, Stanley Kubrick got started in the area of photography, and simply gravitated toward film. This is the way things were done, an artist would start out in another area (usually writing) and then transfer over to directing.

This all changed with Scorsese. He was one of the first american directors to simply pick up a camera and make a movie. Sure, he had gone to film school but the important fact is that he wasn’t making a film because he was contracted to do it, he was simply making a film because he wanted to. And while his first film “Who’s That Knocking at My Door” didn’t do very well commercially, he continued this same spirit on to his next films, such as “Mean Streets” and “Taxi Driver”.

Scorsese continued to make films that were able to capture the balance between stylistic and fun, by maintaining the noir look that had been so popular for so many years while also making his films fun and entertaining to watch. The best example of this is his best known film, “Goodfellas”. This film was praised by both the art loving critic community, as well as the average film goer, as both could find things they like about it. For the critics, there’s the classic tracking shot through a restaurant. For the rest of the world, there’s Joe Pesci stabbing people to death. See, there’s something for everyone.

Most importantly his approach to film led the way for future directors, in fact the next two directors we are looking into (Quentin Tarantino and Spike Lee) both began as independent directors and not only showed style in their films that was Scorsese inspired, but the simple fact that they could be given a chance as independent directors hearkens back to the fact that Scorsese did it first, and showed the world that independent filmmakers could make films just as good as Hollywood.

Kubrick Style and Scorsese View

A filmmaker’s style takes a lot into consideration. Creating a distinct look to one’s film can be changed with color, camera angles, and shot choices. But oftentimes a directors style can come out of what they choose to film. That is where Stanley Kubrick and Martin Scorsese come in. Both of these directors have a distinct eye for people, places and things. However, Stanley Kubrick puts a lot of his focus into the places, while Scorsese puts much effort into the view of things. This deserves a deeper look into some examples, and more importantly how this affects the final edit of their movies.

Looking first at Kubrick, it is easy to find examples of his love of space. Firstly, look back on the most memorable scenes you remember from his films, and many of them involve intricate spaces, sometimes not even including characters at all. The first major instance we saw in class would be the war room in Dr. Strangelove. In terms of a small budget film ($1.8 million) that is a fairly large set to use. However, it is a key aspect of the film, and Kubrick uses every aspect of the sets size in order to create the feeling of terror and distance the characters are feeling. However, this is one of the lesser examples when it comes to Kubrick’s repertoire, as he continued to expand on this. For example, A Clockwork Orange is much more of a visual film than being story driven, which Kubrick does through his use of sets. One obvious instance of this is the opening set, the milk bar. The film begins with the characters far in the background, with the set almost playing the key character as the camera pans toward Alex and his droogs. We continue to see this throughout the film, instances in which the characters are either playing a small role in the larger set piece, or simply giving the camera to pan throughout the set, in order to show all of its features. The opus of this is eventually seen in a film we didn’t watch in class, The Shining. The hotel set in this film was one of the largest built in its time, and Kubrick does all he can to present this to his audience, using many of the same pans while characters are walking in order to present the hotel to the audience as well as show us how massive it is, something that becomes important to the film as it goes on.

Moving on to Scorsese, his love of things becomes just as important to his films. For instance, in the film Taxi Driver there are many shots of simple things, such as the taxi meter, and the shot of the guns in the case when Travis is preparing his arsenal. These shots are interlaced throughout the entire film and do a great job at creating an intimate look into the characters in his films as well as the lives they live. Looking at the things they hold close shows us exactly the people they are. More of this was seen in After Hours in instances like the main characters computer being one of the first and last shots of the film. This is also seen with a plot point such as the bagel paper weight, an item that is seen a few times throughout the film that also helps to drive the story forward, as minimal as it may seem. This was something seen from the beginning of his career, particularly in the short film The Big Shave. Not only does the entire film take place in a small set (a bathroom), Scorsese focuses on every aspect of the bathroom from the faucets to the shot of the sink as blood drips down into it. Many shots and sequences throughout Scorsese’s career follow this style.

So what does this all mean? Well, it helps us understand the way each filmmaker tells their story. Kubrick likes to use large sets because it gives the audience a bigger picture, rather than focusing on the small things in a story, and his films are very often about the feeling they give you rather than having a dialogue and character rich plot. Scorsese on the other hand prefers to create characters and intimate story lines that stick with the audience. In closing, take a look back on the films from each director and see what you remember. Do you remember the names of the fellow droogs, or do you remember how interesting the sets were? And were you more impressed by the look of Travis’ apartment, or how well his character was created throughout the film?

Full Metal Jacket- An Episodical Event?

I have known about Full Metal Jacket for a long time. Being a Kubrick fan, i had always wanted to watch it, and yet when i did for the first time, i finished approximately a third of the movie before turning it off, never going back to watching the rest. I was content with the film i had seen and felt that while i didn’t see the rest of it, it had told me a story with a beginning, middle and end. I was not alone in this, Full Metal Jacket is a film well known for being a film divided, with distinct halves. But it wasn’t until I was in Class watching the film that i realized it wasn’t a film in halves, but it was in-fact a Serial.

Serials are something often forgotten about in our culture, but in history they played a very important part of the movie going experience. Often played before other films, a serial was a short- most often action- story. In modern day, the equivalent would be the shorts played before pixar movies. Each week, the viewers would be given a short excerpt of a longer story that would be continued the following week. The most prevalent example would be Flash Gordon, which ran through most of 1936.

So how is Full Metal Jacket a serial? Well, it plays out in three parts. The first part being boot camp, the second part being the introduction to Vietnam, and the third part being the final showdown after they get off track. The key element is the fact that each of these three can be watched without any connection to the others. As stated earlier, i had watched only the boot camp part and then turned the film off, feeling satisfied by what i had watched. This was a key part of the serial films. As it wasn’t guaranteed that the audience would be at the theater every week, the serials had to be self contained while still residing in the same story. So often times plot elements would create a beginning- middle- and end to each episode.

The end of the first segment is rather obvious, as it is seen through a major change in setting. The second part however, is a little less obvious. Although i believe this to be the part when Cowboy is put in charge of the platoon. This creates a cliffhanger for the audience, as they wonder how well Cowboy will do in this new role. If this were a serial, this cliffhanger would get audiences to come back the following week to see what happens next. This then leads into the third and final part, which is the final showdown. However this isn’t the key aspect of the final part. The key aspect of this part is the ending, or rather lack of one. The film doesn’t come to a climax as we have grown to expect from films, it instead chooses to simply draw to a close. This leaves the feeling that the story could continue, just as the serials did.

So why did Kubrick choose to film in this way? Well, it is the best way to film a war movies. For those who have actually seen combat, they know that there isn’t really an end or a beginning, especially when it came to Vietnam. Most often soldiers are dropped in at a random point during the war, and then pulled out at just as random of a point. Time simply passes, with only chapters to organize memories, rather than defined beginnings and endings. And so it might be the fact that Full Metal Jacket is organized like a serial that makes it one of the best war films of all time.

Dr Strangelove; or how we learned to stop making good parody films

Last week i was given the opportunity to watch Dr Strangelove, an interesting and humorous film which parodies the tasks and duties of the American military. However, this is a film of a bygone era. In current day, even the mention of the word parody can make anyone cringe as images of the mid-2000s Scary Movie craze fly through their mind. But things weren’t always this way, in fact there was a time in which the parody film was something both audiences and critics loved. So what happened? In an attempt to answer that question, it is worth taking a look at a few eras of film in order to find when and why parody has lost its grace.

1960s/1970s

To many people, myself included, the 1960s and 1970s were the best time for parody films. Arguably beginning with Dr. Strangelove, parody films began making their way into the cinemas, all of which rode a line very close to the films they were parodying. The best of these films came from the director Mel Brooks. Taking the world of comedy by storm, Mel Brooks directed film after film throughout the 1970’s, each with the same flavor of humor. As mentioned, the way Mr. Brooks found success was in taking films that followed very closely to the films he parodied, while exaggerating and tweaking small things in order to find jokes in these situations, as seen heavily in Blazing Saddles. The other main place to find parody in the 1970’s was from the group known as Monty Python. In-fact the crowning achievement of this era, is a film called Brazil (ignoring the fact that the film was actually made in the mid 80’s). Brazil was written and directed by one of the main members of Monty Python, Terry Gilliam. This film takes a look at life overall, lightly parodying everything to a point that the film needs multiple viewings to notice all of the jokes. For those who haven’t seen the film, i highly recommend it.

1980s/90s

Bringing us into the next era, we enter into the “Commericalization” of the genre. Soon enough, more and more directors were taking their chances with parody. Now this was not necessarily a bad thing. Although there was slight dilution of the genre, we still got some great movies out of the era. Some such films were Airplane, Naked Gun, Austin Powers and the Star Wars parody Spaceballs. These were all great films, with a lot of effort put in from both the writer and the director. But due to this commericalization, the films needed to be a little less subtle about their jokes, as to not go over the heads of some audience members. Few films were able to overcome this in the later part of this generation, notably the films of Mike Judge like Office Space and Idiocracy. Both of these films reclaim the subtlety of the previous era, while still making a film most audiences can enjoy.

2000s

This all brings us to today, an era started by one single film: Scary Movie. This one film began an entire era of parody all by using one simple technique, which was to make extremely obvious jokes that nearly any audience, including children, could understand without any trouble. Throughout this entire era, film after film came out trying to capitalize on the success, and quite frankly none of them are even worth mentioning. So what went wrong?

The Truth is, classic parody films make the audiences feel smart. We like the films because their jokes aren’t just thrown in our face, but rather they make us think and find the jokes. As audience members, we like some difficulty. We like jokes that take a second for us to understand because it provides us with a challenge. And the fact of the matter is that these modern parody films just don’t provide us with any challenge. The jokes aren’t hidden at all, and while they might be good for a chuckle, they wont make us think in the same way that jokes from great parody films do. Luckily, these films are coming less and less frequently, while great parody films slowly make a comeback (i.e. Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Cabin in the Woods). So maybe there’s a chance we will get some more greats in the next few years.