Toy Story 3

I never, ever thought that it would be at all possible to find significant meaning in a children's movie like Toy Story 3. However, this movie somehow managed to have me on the edge of my seat and nervous for the fate of these plastic toys. If you have seen the first two, you know the background on th movies. These toys belong to Andy, a young boy who LOVES his toys. In this third film, he is going away to college and is forced to choose which toys will go and which will stay. After choosing his favorite toy Woody, the rest of the toys are misplaced in the garbage pile outside. The toys end up in a daycare center, which turns out to be a horrible place for toys. In the midst of this surprisingly funny movie, there is the presence of cultural invisibility. For the most part, it is simply a fun loving film; but if you look close enough, there are some elements that we can relate to our society.

Since all of my blogs seem to take on this doom and gloom of the government spin, I will continue with that trend here. When the toys end up in the daycare, they are so lovingly greeted by Lotsa, short for Lotsa Hugs of course. While he seems all cuddly and sweet in the beginning, we soon discover that he is actually this tyrannical figure in the daycare. He has brainwashed the other toys into believing that their owners abandoned them on purpose and convinced them to treat the new toys badly. When Buzz catches on to what is happening, he resets him to his original settings so that he will forget who his friends are and be loyal only to Lotsa. Now, most children watching this are NOT thinking that this could possibly symbolize our government and how they have somehow brainwashed us into loyalty, but if you can look past the fact that we are dealing with a fuzzy pink bear, there is some pretty obvious symbolism.

One of the parts of this movie that actually had me on the edge of my seat is when the toys are faced with being sent into a furnace at the trash dump. This, of course, is very very bad news for plastic. When the toys realize their ultimate fate, they all link hands and resolve themselves to what is about to happen. They were actually facing the reality of death and showing their loyalty to one another. With this being a kid-friendly film, the miniature alien toys rescue them with the "claaaaw", but in that moment, there was really a deeper significance of what those toys were facing.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. The visual and technical aspects were excellent. It was amazing to see how realistic the features of the characters and settings were. I also loved how they really changed everything to match the times: the cars, houses, etc. . . I would recommend this movie for anyone, children or adults.

Families in Media

In class recently, we have discussed how movies speak to the culture of their times. One thing about our culture that is always portrayed in TV and movies is the idea of families. The families that we see in movies today is very different from those of the past. This is not simply because writers and directors thought it would be fun to mix it up, they are writing for the culture we live in. The days of seeing the perfect Leave it to Beaver family on TV are long gone. It is difficult for me to think of a movie that has what would be considered a typical nuclear family as the main characters. Most of these movies are not even trying to make a point about families, but they do tell a lot about the world we live in. E.T. and A Christmas Story don't really have any specific lessons on family, but they do both portray seemingly common families.

I cannot imagine that movies like Knocked Up would have been well received in the 1950s. I recently wrote a paper on the changing demography of American families. There are almost as many children living in single parent or divorced homes than ever before. The movies and TV shows we watch are only portraying reality. Even movies directed at children, like Night at the Museum center around a divorced, single father. While this does not make the movie bad, it is interesting to see how different movies and TV are. It is obvious that writers and directors have changed the topics of the films and the lives of the characters to better relate to the audience.

Response to Social Network, Hannah

I have yet to see the Social Network, but I feel that I can imagine the basic point of the film. Hannah's blog brought up a good point; some movies may not be that great, but if you can capture an audience by showing a movie that is applicable to them, you will most likely have success. I would venture to say that 100% of people in that theater to see Social Network have, or have seen, a Facebook. While we all speak of how ridiculous they are, we still use them, and most likely on a daily basis! This movie, from the clips I have seen and the articles I've read, is a great way for us to sit back and laugh at ourselves.

Facebook has become this cultural phenomenon that has almost bridged an age gap in this country. (I never thought I would be tagging my dad on facebook!) Therefore, it makes a great topic for a film, and it doesn't necessarily have to be award winning to be successful in the eye of the viewers.

Revolutionary Road

Revolutionary Road, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslett, is set in the 1950s in Connecticut. The film highlights the lives of a young couple, Frank and April. They appear to have the perfect lives from the outside. Frank has a job in New York City and April stays at home with their two children. However, as we get to know more about the characters, we can see the inner stuggles occuring within, and between, the couple. April wants to be an actress and Frank feels stuck in his mundane job. The couple gets a crazy idea to pack up everything and move to Paris. Frank had been there during WW2 and loved it. Frank and April feel that this will get them out of the rut they seem to have fallen into. Unfortunately, their plans fall through. April finds out she is pregnant. Frank feels that this is a sign that they should not go, although April is willing to "take care of things". We watch as this couple slowly, and quite painfully, falls apart. Several scenes are shot showing the couple yelling at each other and telling the other person they hate each other and want a divorce. However, one morning, things seem different. April is downstairs making breakfast for Frank while he is getting ready for work. On screen, it seems as if things are back to normal. As a viewer, though, we have been given clues that something more is going on. While Frank is at work that day, April tries to use an at home abortion kit. After bring rushed to the hospital, April dies of blood loss. Throughout this film, we see the toll that monotony can take on those that are plagued by it. Mendes does a wonderful job of almost making us fear falling into the same rut by watching what happens to Frank and April.

Aside from this movie keeping me pacing in my living room and turning out utterly depressing, Sam Mendes does an excellent job directing this movie and portraying the feelings of his characters. Living in the post-war era, many felt like they had made it through hell and back and wanted to really live life. When the real world sets in, many settled into office jobs and the comfortable suburban life. Frank and April were a prime example of this struggle between wanting a comfortable life and still having the need for adventure. The following scene is one of the best scenes in the movie. So many things happen in this scene both explicitly and implicitly that clue us in to the emotions of these characters.

At this point as you noticed, April is pregnant and Frank has decided they do not need to go to France. April has become extremely bitter. You can see in her face that she is miserable and does not mind showing it. There are several techniques Mendes uses just in this short clip that allow the viewer to come to terms with what is happening. The set up of the dinner table allows for the camera to view in with a tight shot of the key characters in this scene. Perhaps the best example is toward the end of the clip. The camera is closely focused on April. While she is being yelled at and everything around her is chaotic, she is calmly smoking a cigarette. She appears to be numb to the world around her, which seems to be the case the last half of the movie.

Mendes use of sound is wonderful in the movie. In certain scenes he would put a continuous sound in the background that made you feel like you should have been watching an action flick. I literally found myself pacing with April. It made me feel nervous, which I think is what Mendes wanted. The characters were feeling a sensation of restlessness and so was I. There was also a pretty good mise-en-scene in this movie. The scenes would either be dark and romantic when Frank and April were out somewhere or everything would be bright and perfect when they were at home. The home and the belongings in it were typical of what you would have seen in a typical 1950s home.

While the fate of these characters was most likely to the extreme of what chasing your dreams can do, I do believe this film is a good example of what happens to so many of us. We have all of these dreams, but before we know it, we have taken the comfortable route and see no way of getting out of it.

Teenage Paparrazo

The opening film for the Sidewalk Film Festival was Adrian Grenier's Teenage Paparazzo. First, I absolutely loved this film. It was funny, it was thought provoking, and very raw feeling. This documentary followed the story of Austin, a young boy who was working in the world of the paparazzi. Adrian had noticed Austin before, but thought that he was just a young fan; that was until he was blinded by several flash photos in a row. He quickly latched on to Austin and was fascinated by him. He began thinking about the larger idea of the paparazzi and their seeming obsession with celebrities. In the show Entourage, Adrian plays someone who is very famous and cannot go anywhere without being noticed. From the fame of this show, Adrian began getting the same attention his character does. He wanted to follow Austin in his paparazzi world to try and better understand their point of view. Austin agrees to allow Adrian to follow him, and at one point, Adrian even get behind the camera and took some shots of Brook Shields. By the end of the documentary, Austin decides being a paparazzi is not for him. After having to watch the footage with his mother, they both realized how being out all night and living among the celebrity world had turned Austin into someone he did not want to be.

I do not even know where to start with analyzing this film. It was a loaded piece of work as far as themes and implied meanings. For this blog however, I am choosing the topic that really stuck out to me, and had me thinking when the film was over. In this country in particular, there is a certain fascination with celebrity culture. Watching what these paparazzi go through night after night just to get a picture made me wonder why anyone would EVER want to do that? They get trampled over, yelled at, and sometimes they are physically harmed by celebrities or publicists. Austin would drop whatever he was doing if he got a lead on where a celebrity was headed. I just could not understand what would drive anyone to want to lead a life so close to stardom, yet get no recognition and no glamor. However, I had to stop myself and think. Sure, I am not going out on the streets on New York and LA and scouting out GaGa, but I am willing to spend $4-$7 just to read about her life. At least the paparazzi make money scoping out celebrities!

This film explored the relationship between the celebrity world and the "real" world; these paparazzi do what they do because they are feeding the appetite of people like you and me who cannot help but wonder just what is it like to be famous. Austin's parents were willing to allow him to be on the streets in the middle of the night to get that perfect shot. HE was willing to go. Why? He confesses in the film that he desperately wants to be a part of that world. There is one scene where Austin is outside of a bar that Adrian is about to go into. He gets right up to the front door, almost inside the doorway, but is forced to turn around and sadly walks back to his circle of paparazzi. I think this is often how many people feel about their place in that glamorous world we read about. We are so close to it, we can see it, but we will never really be a part of it.

While this film showed the separation of these two worlds, it also showed a very human and real side of the celebrities. Most of them just want to be respected by the paparazzi. In fact, as many paparazzi stated, the stars need the paps. They want exposure, they get exposure. The way this documentary was done also helped to nurture this side of the celebs to come out. As most documentaries, it cut from scenes to interviews constantly. Some of the stars were filmed in their (or one of their) homes or someplace other than a studio. The raw footage gave a very personal touch to the film.

There were a lot of visual elements that spoke sometimes more than the words. At the beginning of the film, there was a cut to a mural on a wall with several people taking photos. These seemingly still life images would then come to life and look like monsters, obviously portraying the paparazzi. The final ending of the film was expressed in a technique rather than words. Austin tells Adrian that if he really wanted to be his friend, he would turn the cameras off instead of continuing to film. Adrian motions to the cameras and several tiny frames appear and then the screen is blank. Although we do not hear Adrian tell Austin that is what he wants, we can infer from the cut that that is how their story ends.

This film explored both the positive and negative effects the careers of the paprazzi can have on celebrities and on themselves. By the end of the film, I feel that there was a genuine respect between Adrian and the paps. He had tried to understand their world, which for many of them, is all they want. They want to be respected just as the celebrities do. The debate of the private vs public lives of those in Hollywood will probably never be settled, but I think this film did a great job exposing both and letting the viewer draw their own opinions.

Shutter Island

Shutter Island starring Leonardo DiCaprio is a film that explores the idea of a government body or other institution and the power they can have over people. Teddy, an government official, and his partner Chuck are sent to Shutter Island, a prison for mentally ill patients, to investigate the escape of a criminal. A storm prevents Chuck and Teddy from being able to leave the island when they feel it was necessary. The two are forced to remain on the island, which leads to a series of events that further confuses the finale of the movie. The viewer is given hints during the movie that there is something more going on that just an investigation. It is difficult to tell if the people who are running the prison are on the side of the investigators or if there is something more going on.

The director uses scenes that are unclear to the viewer if they are real or not to give clues that the ending may be open ended. Some scenes involve ghost figures, or clips that seem like they cannot be real in the context of what we had just seen before it began. Some scenes, like the one in the prison cell with the man that Teddy apparently knows, are more obvious clues. However, the clips following suck you right back in to what you thought the original plot was. There is another scene with the inmate Rachel. She explains to Teddy what is really happening on the island. Around that same time, we also discover that Teddy's wife had drowned his four children in a lake. At this point, you feel as if you have the movie figured out. However, as the film progresses, the director manages to change your mind over and over.

The lighting in the movie is very dark. This gives the film a very dark and mysterious feel. The storm that traps them on the island is another method the director uses to set the mood and tone for the film.

Along with leaving me utterly confused, this movie really struck me in regards to the way that we as humans are so easily manipulated by authority. In Shutter Island, Teddy is given "headache medicine" that confuses him and allows the prison employees to convince him that what they are telling him is true. While our government is not giving out medicine that manipulates us to do what they want, we do tend to fall in line with whatever they say is correct. This applies not only government, but all of they other "they say" traps we fall into. Anything from dieting to where we live is usually based on what we have been told works and works best. In my opinion, the director of this movie purposely left it open ended, number one for entertainment, but also so that we would dwell on the deeper meaning that he had placed in the film.