On finding money/ memory

After watching A Simple Plan, I guess everyone was discussing what would happen if they were in that situation. For one, there is a small chance of that, and you can NEVER predict how you will react or what you think you will do. I would think that the mind shuts down when you're in that kind of situation. Nonetheless, the point of these kinds of things is to get us to think and reflect on our own morals. I was actually annoyed throughout the entire movie, I just wanted to flip out on everyone there, they were all so normal in the sense that they did exactly what someone in real life would do. Again, this was probably the point of the movie.
Mr. Bennett mentioned that finding money like that in that kind of circumstance is a burden, and it truly is. I feel like if I was in that situation, I can only hope that I would actually do what I think now is the best option. I would probably take some of the money. Only as much as I think I can get away with. No one will miss 50,000 when there is another 4 million in the bag. If there was someone with me, there is always the problem of them coming back to the scene to get more money. Which means a greater possibility of getting caught or them simply having more money than me. I don't know whether I would report the plane, but I would probably have to in order to prevent the other two people from ratting everyone else out. I would then wait a couple of months or years, and finally I would invest the money into something that would produce a profit or spend it on something I need. I really can't think of what I would do with so much money, because I, as everyone else, am in danger of getting greedy and asking for a couple more thousand. I hate the things money can do and does to a person.

Quick random thing on memory. Some "professionals" once said that if you train your brain to remember your childhood and try really really hard to recall certain things and even write them down in great detail you can remember as far back as infant days. The furthest back I can remember is 1992 when my great grandfather died and I remember a bit before that when he was alive. I still remember him very faintly, not his physical being, but his general presence. There are things that seem false though, that with time I'm not sure whether they really happened, although they are confirmed by my parents.

Miscellaneous

In retrospect, my last post was pretty shitty and lacking in any insightful information, so I don't know why I got so worked up about it. There has been a lot to say, and I like writing in a blog because writing things out always gets my thoughts organized, because I can't remember my own ideas for the life of me. Whenever I take someone's order, as I walk away, I ask myself what the hell they wanted to drink.
Anyways,
On some overdue movies.
I felt like the movies we watched kept getting more recent, and honestly, held my attention a bit longer. I loved the first films because they had so many artistic and great qualities, but I feel like the films were watching now are sort of easier to view. It's not that I prefer them over the older ones, but personally I can visually see them easier. I don't know if that makes any sense.

Unforgiven was probably my favorite movie so far. I haven't watched that many Westerns but this one really hit me. I thought it was visually stunning, some of the images that I saw were so simplistic, but told so much. I really liked the overall silence of the film, how things moved sort of slowly, to parallel the Western way of living. I felt like everyone in the film was real, and they were really listening and looking at what was around them. In general, I liked the way the environment of the West made the viewer feel and how desolate it was at times. Everyone just seemed to be. No one was pursuing anything, they just were. I always feel like everyone around me is after something, myself included. It's never silence however.

Dark city was the total opposite of Unforgiven, in a visual sense I guess. Nature vs. urban darkness. I got this movie to watch on my own, and I was really taken aback by the ending. During the entire film I wasn't sure whether it was cheesy, or whether it was going to pull one of the Men In Black thing where our universe is actually in a marble in some alien's locker etc. BUt it kind of did. I was rather confused at the end of the movie. Not about the point of the movie, but whether I was really seeing the city turn towards the sun. It was pretty badass though. I'm a sucker for good science fiction movies that aren't pushing it. I loved the concept of trying to figure out the human soul and how you can't find it through our minds. I thought it was an interesting way of presenting it. Visually, it was a beautiful movie. I thought that the images were so atmospheric and powerful. I also feel like I've seen some of the things in the movie on some album covers (Ayreon- The Human Equation). I thought Memento was a more "realistic" way of asking where the human soul is or even what it is. I also thought Memento tried to have us question whether we truly know ourselves or who/what we are. Although In Dark City, the guy at the newsstand lost his memory, he still retained certain characteristics, so did Leo in Memento, but he couldn't understand whether he was a killer or not. His mind played tricks on him, because while he felt that he wasn't a killer, his mind made him forget that he really was. His mind also forced him to live everyday in the moment, which makes me question why the soul can't always do that. Also, does one come to the conclusion that there is no God or that there is no order in the universe by thinking about it, or did they really feel it. Was it an inclination first, or just cynicism? Maybe it was first a gut feeling, and then the mind sort of took over. I thought that Memento stressed the idea that we are alone in the world more than Dark City, because John's wife actually stood by him throughout the entire film whereas no one cared about Leo and used him to further their desires and needs. It was really sad how he tried to make up a story to comfort himself and that no one could help him even if they wanted to.
I also can't remember anyone's name in the movie so I googled Memento, and it said that the main character was Leonard Shelby, which I felt like wasn't his name.

Runaway Train, Untraceable

This is rather delayed but I think that Runaway Train had many things to talk about and I couldn't really organize my thoughts about it.
I really loved the idea that Manny and Ranken. looked similar and were essentially the same in many respects. I think this was a simple way to make a great statement. What stood out also was when Manny replied to Buck and Sarah (in a heated scene) that "we all die alone." I thought that this scene was a bit too quick and overlooked. I feel like it wasn't as slow moving-orchestrated music creeping up-thought evoking as it maybe could have been. At the same time, i think that this was the point. Manny said this so quickly and made it a fact. We didn't have time to think about what he said, and it seemed like neither did the characters, probably because they were going to die in about 4 minutes. I loved that Manny stood on top of the train cart as it descended into desctruction and responded to Ranken that he is free. Maybe some may call that scene cheesy, but I thought that it was extremely powerful. It sort of conveyed a feeling of literal and figurative freedom. Although Manny was on top of a train that was set along a particular track, he was not inside the train, he was not bound by anything. In a way, the scene reminded me of V for Vendetta, when V came out of the burning building and felt freedom. Manny was as free as it gets, he had no connections to anyone (literally, he let the train cart with Buck go) and he was finally alone in the world. I don't think my explanation did the scene any justice, but I was very moved by the scene.

On the non relevant side of things, I was forced to watch Untraceable this weekend. The movie was about a hacker who was killing people publicly. The more people visited the website where he showed the death of a victim, the faster the person died. Besides for the fact that it was a sort of Saw, and some other hacker/FBI movie combined, it was predictable. The only thing taht I thought was particularly interesting was that they showed the killer throughout the movie. I don't know how weird this is going to sound, but I did sort of see why the killer did it. He was seeking revenge, but as with SAW, I don't know whether taking someone else's life is something we should be allowed to do, even for the sake of revenge. So, I fell asleep during the last most suspensefull moments of the film, and I still knew what happened. Also, I thought that it was another commentary on how sick and cruel humans can be. It really pissed me off that the hits on the website where growing beyond exponential rates. And it pissed me off that OFCOURSE the mega computer government programers couldn't block the site somehow. These kinds of movies always underline our stupidity and cruelty. I understand that this could probably never actually happen, but if there is any small chance that it could, I think the outcome would be similar.

Midnight Cowboy

This question arose as the movie progressed. While Joe's dream is diminishing, there are plenty of opportunities in New York that can get him quick cash. I was wondering why he couldn't just work as a stripper. This may be a realistic answer to his job situation but it may not (and obviously didn't) coincide with the message of the film. I just thought a stripper wouldn't be as deviant from his original plans. And it would probably get him way more money than trying to find women for real.

On the relationship between Joe and Rizzo:
I really don't see a homosexual connotation between the two characters. Joe's ambiguous orientation may be because of what he went through with his girlfriend. From his flashbacks it appears that both he and his girlfriend were sexually assaulted. because of this, his relationship with men may in some way be altered.
I think Rizzo longs for someone to care for. His character proves to be very deep, and the disintegration of his health progresses as Joe's dreams may be evolving. Although this connection cannot be made with confidence because we do not yet know whether anything will work out for Joe. From the scenes in the apartment, Rizzo becomes a sort of mother figure for Joe, making him food, taking his shoes off when he sleeps. Maybe Rizzo does this to complete something that was lacking in his life. The daydream that he has of Florida just started off weird because Joe was running through the sand with really tight ... tights? Someone pointed out that Rizzo was not "crippled" anymore as well, but this happens in dreams. Rizzo was sort of acting as Joe's character. While Joe was the doll that attracted all the ladies, Rizzo dealt with the business. He perhaps considered himself to be the more important one in the relationship, because for one it was his daydream, and because he was the management of the hustler. He was in a way living through Joe in the sense that while Joe had the good looks, he had the swift and savvy mind that the "ladies" loved. He was the one admired in the combination because he was the go to man for anyone who wanted Joe. I think in a way Joe completed his dream of becoming loved and appreciated. Joe was a way for Rizzo to feel like that. What made this dream better for Rizzo was the fact that Joe was his friend, and wouldn't intentionally hurt him.

Also, in one of the scenes when Joe was walking around NYC he saw many other men dressed as cowboys. I'm not sure what this could imply. That he's not one in a million, or that anyone can dress as a cowboy and not be legitimate. This could relate in the reality of the storyline. But for the viewer, I thought it represented his loss of self. As so many people in NY are trying to establish an image for themselves, here he is thinking that his image will get him where he wants. But as he walks, he sees that anyone can dress up as a cowboy, and this will not distinguish him from any other shmuck in NY.

What I love about this movie is not only that its unique, but part of its uniqueness lies in the absence of predicting the upcoming events. There are definitely some things that can be predicted, such as the failure and/or success of Joe's dream. But for the most part, I had no idea how the characters were going to be developped, or the general storyline. I think this is what I admire most about this film, the ability to experience something unpredictable.

Citizen Kane

This is rather a brief commentary on the film and its meaning.
At first, I didn't realize what Rosebud was, I thought it was a chair, close enough I guess.
I actually appreciated that it was his sled. I thought it sort of showed how there are certain things you can't let go in life. It adds to the whole idea that you cannot really know a person. All along we thought Kane was this egotistical man (which in many ways he was), but on his death bed, he could only remember what once was. Rosebud showed that everyone would only care about this word if it was something "significant." The beauty of it was that it wasn't significant to anyone but Kane. Rosebud showed that no matter how old we get, there is still a longing for youth and innocence. Perhaps Kane wasn't such a bad man who wanted all these possessions, perhaps all this time he just wanted to turn back time to that winter on the sled. Maybe society created "Kane", and when in the end all he wanted was "Rosebud", everyone was dissappointed.

I think Rosebud was a strong commentary on isolation. Here we all were, "dissappointed" that Rosebud wasn't a code that would end the world or something, and it turned out to be a scene from his memory. Kane did lose Rosebud, and he would never get it back. Maybe it doesn't matter who took it from him, but maybe all this time he thought that material things would comfort him and in some way bring Rosebud back. Kane lived and died alone, and Rosebud was a beautiful way to show that.

AQonWF

I was talking to someone about the ending of the film and she mentioned that Paul's face should have been shown. I thought that the ending was perfect the way it was, and that showing his face would be too common and would steer away from the message.
Paul is reaching out towards a butterfly, a sign of life and beauty. Tension rises when the sniper sees him and the camera toggles between Paul and the sniper, creating a suspense where we can predict what will happen but hope that it won't. Having Paul's hand express death with its lifeless drop added to the idea that death does not have a face. In the war, the director showed faces only to illustrate how ridiculous they can look sometimes (the frenchman in the ditch). In this case, Paul's face in unnecesary in the scene. In most of the cases, his hands were doing all the work, they were the ones killing, and his mind was often elsewhere. After he returned from the ditch, he was so heartbroken about killing someone innocent and the rest of the soldiers told him that it would become second nature and it wouldn't be as personal anymore. All of this adds to the theme of dehumanization in the film. Now that his hands have become lifeless, they have allowed someone else to live. But, this is not the positive message expressed in the film. Rather, while his hands were reaching out for hope, it was all destroyed by someone who did not even know him, or want to kill him consciously.
I thought the last scene was so beautiful in its power and message. It was in so many dimensions simple but complex.
Also, the leit motif of the windows and doors. I was unsure of their exact meaning, but I think there can be many. Throughout the movie, the characters were entering and exiting. Windows and doors were ways to open up and close a scene. I looked at in in this sense: why would someone introduce an image where the scene can be seen through a square/rectangle/window/door? I thought that this was perhaps to show the contrast between the safe environment and the dangerous one. There is a scene where we see men running through rain, but we see this through a quiet room. Then, one of the soldiers comes into the room, and disturbs the peace. These doors and windows always contain the scene in some way, they bring it into a range. They encapsulate it as well as reveal it and open it. It is in some ways implying a spectator.
I'm not sure about them....

American Psycho 2

So I never saw American Psycho, but I decided to watch part 2 of it. Mistake #1.
Besides for the fact that the movie was ridiculously predictable, the acting wasn't even that great. There was not much of artistic vision, and it wasn't even entertaining. It was a very typical movie, but I kind of liked how the narration was really seperate from the actions in the film. She spoke very matter-of-fact like her actions were justified, when they really weren't. But perhaps this was to stress that she's a psycho.
I don't have much of a good opinion on it, so I guess I won't attack it.

I've been taking a sculpture class at Cooper and I've learned more in that one class than in the large portion of my early high school "career." When you try to create art you learn so much more about it then simply studying or looking at it. So during the film class, a lot of things mentioned were so similar to the way we analyze art (paintings/scupture/drawing); composition and such. Film is a form of art, I just never heard it analyzed like that in our school.