A Matter of Postmodern

    One of the features I enjoy the most about this movie is the satirical content exhibit through the dialogue of the character. It always makes the audience laugh contemptuously at Carolyn motivational slogan, Lester’s caustic remarks, other’s character idiosyncrasies and hypocrisy.

    This is the second time viewing American Beauty and it gave me a thought about the existence of several people in the movie. Mrs. Pitt was always in her own world but still can consciously notice after being ‘awaken’. Otherwise she remains static in her own world that does not seems very happy from her grave expression and psychotic reaction during they were watching a family movie. On the other hand, the existence of family for Burham has not other significance rather than keeping everything normal as other is doing. It seems to me the whole course of the movie was a series of terrorizing the physical bond that still exist among the family member even though Lester did try to be romantic to his wife, Lester try to talk to her daughter, if it not too bogus sometime.

    Besides that, Rick is like the outsider in the neighbourhood that able to transcend the worldly event and only capture the most beautiful moments, at least to him. He is able to transcend the military culture in the family and pursue his passion about making video if not to mention the issue of legality in obtaining the money. He is able to transcend the teen age insecurity, sexual curiousity, peer pressure and to perceive his own belief which he thinks that is the truth. One of the remark that he made, “…It’s like God looking at you for a second, And if you are careful you look back”.

posted on 2005-03-03 13:13:53

    If zooming is an option in this film, I would used it in a these two scenes.

    First sequence is two guys talking amicably. Yet, one of them was fumbling the other pocket for wallets. Make a moderately fast zoom in the hand, at the same time, it will be matched cut with a two shot of these men. These will gave a magnifying effects of the original message which says the city are occupied by these swindlers, hypocrites.

    Second sequence is when the wardrobe men were repeatedly rejected by the city people. They reluctantly move their property again in looking for a place that could possibly accommodate them. As they move away from the city, from a subjective camera view, zoom out slowly from the shot of the city to give a suggestion of dejected and despair.

posted on 2005-03-03 13:20:41

     One of the interesting semi-narrated films is Breathless by Jean Luc Godard in 1960. Under the influence of the American movie making, Godard adopted the attitude of spontaneity and experimentation. In this movie, he had casually use either voice over or sound throughout the movie.

    Narration was essential in the whole movie because the plot is not sequential. One of the paradox of this movie is that some of the critic corroborate this movie as a documentary since it does not have a centralized plot as opposed to his contemporary while making a movie. It could be this fact that have made narration more essential if not necessary.

    Narration was one of the technique of the auteur to exactly express what he intend. One the possible reason he choose to use narration is because he constantly insert quotes of politicians and philosopher. Some of the Godard critic articulated that Godard is more of a politician moviemaker than an artistic moviemaker. So if this posit is correct, then he have convincingly using a more powerful form of communication to convey his political ideals, philosophy or literary to his audience. Some of the instance of the quote that he had used before are “We are dead men on leave." Lenin in Pierrout Le Fou. Also in this particular movie Breathless, there is one quote that says "It’s sad to fall asleep. It separates people. Even when you’re sleeping together, you’re all alone."

posted on 2005-03-03 13:22:06

    My first response to the question of Rosebud at the beginning of the film was it is indeed a mystery to be revealed by the end the movie. Only I am left with one chair embroidered with Rosebud which I found out that it is Kane’s childhood snow sled instead after I read a critic.

    Or if it follows the conventional logic of plot; a man’s last word could be a long-lost unrequited lover, a beloved pet that remains regret until the very last breath of Kane. Nevertheless, Citizen Kane could be distinguished from the ordinary of the mystery movie because of its cinematography, its editing, manipulation of sounds that was not conventional during its contemporary. Therefore, this fact is not very possible to be established.

    Also, investigator Thompson made his assertion at the end of the movie that he did not believed that one word could explain everything. Kane had owned all man could have want, and lost them all. Rosebud maybe something that he want or something that he lose. Anyway, a single word would not be enough to explain a man’s life. He asserted that Rosebud could be just like a jigsaw puzzle-a missing piece. I do not agree with this simply because I believed Welle was trying to convey the message from different point of views and this was a point of view of an investigator.

    Interestingly, Kane have mentioned the words twice in the movie; once was during his violent action wrecking everything in Susan’s room after she left, at one point he was momentarily absorbed looking on a glass ball and mentioned the word for the first time. One of the critic explained that the glass ball that resembled his memory of his childhood. They postulated that Kane regretted that he did not lead a simple life when he was a kid. In my opinion, Kane have success in life due to his persistency and charisma as a leader. On the other hand, he was an incorrigible man that never changes his principles at the other end. He had chosen Susan Alexander over his political life in the face of his opponent; he was working all odd to put ill-skilled Susan Alexander on stage. Those are the parody that reflected his mistakes in life in contrast with his witty remark in political campaign, his leadership in the company. He presumed that he never regretted any of these deeds. However, Susan, the woman that he was proud of rather than in love with, left him with his lonesome castle. This was the first time he regretted his deeds. It was too late and everything left with him seems ridiculously huge, meaningless and cold.

    In short, I believe the auteur intention was to portray the life of the richest man in the world with an insight into his character, love, and death. The protagonist can be the richest man in the world but he could not as poor as old person that have never love.

posted 2005-03-03 13:25:24