War and Nature in “The Thin Red Line”

“Nature’s cruel,” says Lieutenant Colonel Tall to Captain Staros as he reassigns his subordinate to the JAGs and sends him back home, and yet The Thin Red Line seems to imply, in every shot, the opposite. It is not nature that is cruel: it is war. The Thin Red Line opens with a shot of a crocodile submerging in the waters of a Melanesian swamp and a voice-over narration by Private Train, who for a time goes AWOL to live among the Melanesian natives: “What’s this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?”  The first minutes of the film are captivated, as Private Train is, by the idealized people and flora and fauna of his surroundings: children play in the sea; birds of paradise watch from the trees; native people live in harmony with their surroundings, all accompanied by the backing of an angelic choir. This is cut short, tellingly, by the appearance of the smoking troop carrier that hosts C Company, Train’s outfit, and that has come to take him back to work — an obvious intrusion of war into paradise. Nature is cruel, says the egotistical Tall, but in the interaction of soldiers and nature we see almost only the destruction of nature. A healthy plant withers under the touch of an American soldier; Japanese and Americans alike burn and decimate the landscape of Guadalcanal; a tense battle scene takes time to focus on a bird who has been injured in the fighting. Shots of Americans struggling to cross a swamp are juxtaposed with those of the birds who watch them do it, and as C Company marches inland, tense and fully armed, they encounter a lone Solomon Islander walking the other way, an old man, alone and barely clothed but serene.

A symbolic binary develops — the Americans and Japanese, the soldiers, come to be associated with fire, what their conflict leaves behind. On the other hand, the native Solomon Islanders and the plants and animals of their home are heavily tied to water: their children swim in it, they sail upon it, and it extends also, for some Americans, to glimpses of the world beyond the war. Private Train swims and canoes with the Melanesians, but for Captain Staros, water and the sea are linked to moments of intimacy of his wife at home, and it is the flow of a river that saves Private Fife from death and allows Private Witt to save the rest of his unit.

The Thin Red Line highlights in many ways the futility and lunacy of war: on both sides, soldiers act irrationally and display moments of behavior that seems insane. A Japanese soldier meditates calmly on the ground while his comrades are routed and slaughtered; an American laughs hysterically and plays with bullet shells. One scene that seems to best exemplify this comes between battles: a C Company soldier stands on a hill, screaming in the sightlines of Japanese guns, and is not shot at. “How come they all had to die,” he yells, “and nothing happens to me?” That war is portrayed as meaningless makes the final interactions between war and nature all the more tragic. As the Americans leave Guadalcanal, we see that conflict and disease have come to the once healthy and happy communities of Solomon Islanders, and a manicured lawn with sprinklers has been set up, absurdly, as a graveyard in the middle of a jungle. “War doesn’t ennoble men. It turns them into dogs, poisons the soul,” writes Captain Staros as he flies home, and The Thin Red Line appears to agree with him. The film closes on a coconut sprouting, improbably, on the shore of the ocean — maybe for nature, it might say, there is a chance at redemption.

Big Fish

The Big Fish is a movie produced in the beginning of the 2000’s but has been quite popular ever since. It’s about a father who at times may exaggerate the truth having to do with how he grew up and who he met, but many things were actually quite truthful we find out in the end. Instead of doing a review of the movie, I want to write a brief blog post on how the movie made me feel especially during the end. The entire movie I couldn’t decide how I felt about the actors; William because he seemed so stubborn and rude to his father who is clearly very ill, and Edward who exaggerates things which I’m sure can be very irritating to hear all the time. Throughout the movie all you see is William just doubting his father time after time again which was upsetting to see because his father was dying, and if exaggerating is something that REALLY makes him happy, then let the man do it! But also, Edward.. stop exaggerating as much and stop telling the same old stories if you know it can be bothersome! Fine line to decipher who was in the wrong. But specifically in the one of the last scenes when Edward was on his death bed and William decided to stay the night, was when I decided I was a fan of both the actors, and the movie as a whole. You have two people that really care about each other bonding for the first time in what seems like the whole movie and it was really touching. Although William wasn’t a fan of the stories, he listened, and he made one up as well- to see his dad go away happy. And the final scene where you see all these “crazy” people that he had mentioned at the funeral. William didn’t think the majority of them existed, so to see his face when they each got out of the car was a site to see! But it didn’t feel like a “in your face” type thing, you kind of just smiled because you could feel the happiness all around. I really enjoyed this movie!

Elizabeth Henty

Redemption and Cynicism in “Mr Smith Goes to Washington”

I found Frank Capra’s film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington fascinating. I was very quickly reminded of Mark Twain in the sense that the portrayal of the senators and the political system is heavily satirized both through characterization and the cinematography. Multiple scenes of Senators making backroom deals are full of quick cuts and montages that emphasize the pace in which these significant decisions that affect millions are made. I think the film succeeds in ways the many contemporary films that attempt to satirize important cultural/political systems fail to do. Specifically, the film does not get bogged down in its own cynicism via the character of Mr, Smith who is consistently genuine and righteous throughout the film unlike most of the other characters. Many contemporary films are just satires or see certain American systems as fundamentally irredeemable.  A severe example of this is the Todd Solondz film Happiness in which the American nuclear family is portrayed as fundamentally corrupt and absurd and irredeemably so. Similar to this, David Lynch films often expose the dark underbelly of American small-towns and institutions, also often without a sense of redemption or hope. I say all of this to emphasize what I think Mr. Smith does successfully.

The film accurately fictionalizes the corruption of Washington, that is enormously topical today, while also acknowledging that these systems can be redeemed by those with strong will, and firm commitment to public good. I would also argue that Clarissa Saunders is the central hero of the film, even though Mr. Smith is the primary vehicle, as the senator trying to “drain the swamp,” in Washington. Clarissa writes the original bill for the Boys Camp, convinces Smith to return to congress and fight for justice, and guides Smith through the process and complex rules of senate hearings in order to initiate the filibuster that allows the corruption of Washington to be exposed. I think too, the film is significantly more progressive than it may seem to modern audiences.  I was initially disappointed that  Mr. Smith’s rhetoric about supporting all American Boys seemed to only apply to white children. However, both in Smith’s speeches and the portrayal of the “boys” including in a few shots a young black boy helping produce the paper that makes Smith’s filibuster work, viewers can see the film makes an attempt to push back against 1950’s racism and anti-blackness. The standard of inclusiveness and social justice is much higher, as it should be, in 2017, but I think the film is still successful for its time in representing young black boys as apart of the America worth preserving and holding on to. A flaw to this is the lack of inclusion of women/girls in this representation of the American spirit, although this is somewhat remedied by the characterization of Clarissa as I mentioned earlier. Overall, for those reasons, I believe the film is better than most contemporary films dealing with satire as the narrative manages to avoid total hopelessness and cynicism while also embodying at least some of the ideal and inclusive practices that a better America would have.

-by Thomas McCarthy

Film review of “On the Waterfront”

Elia Kazan’s 1954 award winning film On the Waterfront, tells a story of Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) a man who puts his life on the line to stand against the corruption created by the union leader John Friendly. The film emphasizes the moral (and physical) battles that Terry must fight to bring about the destruction of the dangerous union kingpin.

The film begins with Terry working with Friendly, to prevent another worker (Joey) from testifying against Friendly in a murder case. Terry was alarmed when the other men he works with killed Joey by pushing him off a multistory building. Adding the  shock from the murder he witnessed to a fixed boxing game leading to Terry’s loss,  Terry’s trust and faith in Friendly crumbles away. Terry states in the film, “I am with me”, stating that he looks out for himself, a very similar statement to the one that was made by Casablanca’s lead character, Rich “I stick my neck out for nobody”. And much like Casablanca, the viewer observes a transformation in the characters selfish attitude, or a breaking away of the hard outer shell. Much of this attitude shift was due to Father Barry’s guidance.  As Terry struggles with self worth the father asks “how much is your soul worth if you don’t [testify against Friendly]?” This question guides Terry to stop fighting for himself and take the first step over the threshold. The fathers role in this film is to guide and aid the hero to make moral choices. But is the father really the only one that fits the criteria of Campbell’s supernatural aid? Joey’s sister, Edie, a strong willed and eager character is also seen as a moral guide, she continually convinces and guides Terry to stand up against the injustice occurring on the waterfront.

After several confrontations and challenging trials, Terry makes his way to the heart of the corruption. The final and most powerful scene of the film starts with Terry calling Friendly out of the little shack down by the docks. In this scene, Terry is again confirming his role as the hero as he steps into Campbell’s “Belly of the whale”, in which crossing the “threshold is a form of self-annihilation”(Pg77). Terry is beaten within an inch of his life. But with the strength and encouragement with both his aids (The father and Edie), Terry is raised to his feet.

The camera work utilized in the final scene, creates a connection between the viewer and the character. As beaten Terry walks past the crowd of workers, there is a shifting in lens focus as if to see through the eyes of Terry as he stumbles along the walkway. As Terry pushes through this final trial in the film, we are brought into the emotion and pain through the use of close-ups and low-angled single shots at his stumbling feet and beaten face. The clever camera angles work together to create a greater emotional response from the viewer.

“On the Waterfront” Review

Each film we have watched in this course presents a hero. In the cases of the first four films of this course, the hero has without a doubt been the protagonist. Terry Malloy, the protagonist of On the Waterfront (1954) is certainly a hero, but not necessarily the hero. Without the heroic acts of Edie Doyle and Father Barry that opened Terry’s eyes up to the wrongness and the corruption of Johnny Friendly, Terry could not have been a hero himself.

It is pretty evident from the start of the movie, that the star, Marlon Brando, who plays an ex-prize fighter, will eventually come to his wits and overtake Johnny Friendly and his goons. What is not so evident are the two characters who aid him in doing so, and this makes their heroism all the more impressive. The first is Father Barry, a priest, who has no business taking down a mob. He is the one that attempts to mobilize the “Dumb and Deaf” workers, at first privately, and then in front of Johnny Friendly himself. If it wasn’t plain enough, Father Barry is not a run of the mill priest: he smokes, drinks, and has a pretty mean hook. Similar to the priest, Edie, for all intensive purposes, should not be poking around and trying to find answers involving a mob murder. A young woman, who studies at a women’s school in the country, has more courage than all of the workers put together. Even so, she stays and tries to find out more about her brother’s death.

Terry is a product of his upbringing – all he knows is what he has seen from his brother, who learns from Johnny Friendly. That being said, it is very hard to believe that Terry is naïve enough to believe that murder is not something Johnny Friendly is capable of…perhaps he fought in one too many fights and his head just isn’t quite right. Terry only realizes what he is a part of when Edie, who is “the only good thing that ever happened to [him],” came into his life. A turning point for Terry is the moment when he has interactions with the two unlikely heroes. He begs Father Barry for advice, then follows it and confesses his role in the murder of Edie’s brother to Edie. In easily one of the best scenes in the film, Edie and Terry are in the train yard while Terry is confessing. The train horns are going off, and the viewer can’t hear anything being said, but knows exactly what is being revealed by the extreme close ups of the sheer terror on Edie’s face. Terry can see that what he has done and what he is a part of is awful, and because of it, he is going to lose the woman he loves. Father Barry and Edie inadvertently work together to help Terry come to this realization.

Sure, Terry Malloy testifies and takes down Johnny Friendly and his crew, but without the edgy priest and the courageous young woman, the prizefighter would still be on the side of the villains.

Kazan, Elia, dir. On the Waterfront. 1954. Film. 23 Feb 2014.

“Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” Film Review

“Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” Film Review

Black and white films are considered classics, but are often overlooked by viewers. If one were to present the idea of a black and white movie to a class, it is fair to assume that an audible groan would be emitted from majority of the students. Black and white movies pale in comparison to modern graphics and high-speed action movies featured in theatres today.  This was my perception, until I saw “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. The movie is a 1939 political drama that stars Jean Arthur and James Stewart. From the very beginning this movie sparked controversy, as many feared the ramifications of the negative perception of politicians. James Stewart plays Mr. Smith, a naïve man, whom fate (and corrupt politicians) name the newest Senator. Smith’s boyishly worship for the government, innocence, and passion for the Ranger Boys help him not only capture his secretary Sauder’s (Jean Arthur) heart, but the audience’s affection as well. Mr. Smith’s love for the government and for Washington is soon tarnished when he unwittingly uncovers Taylor (Edward Arnold) and his boyhood hero, Senator Paine’s (Claude Rains) plan to use the government to graft near Willets Creek. Smith’s understanding of politics, dedication, and ultimate conviction is tested when he attempts to thwart Taylor and Paine’s plan and rid the government of the corruption that sneaked its way into the House of Senators.
Although “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” lacks modern elements of film, including color and intense graphic scenes, it still captures the audiences’ attention through humor, thorough character development and an interesting storyline. The director, Frank Capra, could not use explosions or flashy images to attract audience members. Instead, the movie relies on great writing, talented actors, and interesting subject matter.

Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Dir. Frank Capra. Perf. James Stewart . Columbia Pictures, 1939. DVD.”

“The General” Review

Daniell Martinez

The General (Dir. Keaton, Bruckman, 1926) at first begins as a comical film and then leads the viewer to see beyond the unpredictable turn of events. Being a silent film in black and white, and the only sound that was available was the music that built anticipation and gave the audience clues as to what would happen next. Johnnie Gray played by Buster Keaton was not only the engineer with great capabilities although some of his attempts in certain scenes may make us think other wise, but was indeed the hero of the film. Johnnie, shown as the underdog made his country see that he is just as worthy as any other man to be a member of the army.

The title of the film, The General, serves a dual purpose, on one hand, it is the name of Gray’s beloved engine, and on the other it is used to show Gray’s attempt to prove to his General that he is capable to enlist in the army. The film begins in the time of the Civil War and Johnnie wanted to enlist but when he went to the office to do so, he was denied because he was more valuable to the south as an engineer. Unfortunately he wasn’t aware of that reasoning so he returns to see his fiancée Annabelle, played by Marion Mack, but wanted nothing to do with him because he didn’t enlist and she didn’t take his word that he was turned away. After her father becomes wounded, Annabelle boards the General but when the enemy boards the train and steals it, she is captured and held as a hostage. Johnnie sees the train being taken away and runs after it.

Given the time this film was created, there were no such things as stunt doubles nor was the technology advanced enough to produce the heart wrenching scenes. For example, Johnnie ran for long periods of time to catch the train, even when things were not working in his favor. The enemy would throw wood on the tracks, to stop him from following them but he managed to jump off a train he obtained in town and move the wood in time before his train could hit him. What is even more amazing is the way Johnnie was able to cross the lines without being noticed for a while. Johnnie’s capabilities and drive surely increased when he learned the plans of the enemy’s sneak attack and having found his beloved Annabelle held captive. After sneaking back to the south with Annabelle, they managed to steal the enemy’s train, and hurried to get back to warn the confederate army of the attack by the bridge. With such danger but comedy intertwined in the plot, one could only wonder how Keaton was able to put on such a performance

All of the stunts that Keaton performed were dangerous and could have caused him injury but he managed to do them in such a way to keep you on the edge of your seat but also maintained a comical atmosphere. Johnnie’s love for his fiancée and his engine proved not only to the captain but also the audience, that Johnnie is the hero of the film and deserved to be apart of the Confederate Army.

 

The General. Dir. Clyde Bruckman, Buster Keaton. Buster Keaton, Marion Mack, Glen Cavender, Jim Farley. 1926. DVD. Kino International. 2008

Welcome

Hi, welcome to the newly launched film discussion site of our English Department community.  If you’re logged in and you’re a member of the Film Talk group of English @ SUNY Geneseo, you can get started posting here by choosing New > Post from the ribbon at the top of your screen.