Jordan Peele’s Us is certainly a unique take on the horror genre and many viewers and critics have even detected political and racial themes built into the story. As someone who is generally not much of a horror movie fan, I was curious how this was going to turn out based on all of the good reviews that I had heard. Regarding those political and racial themes, they were not as immediately apparent to me, but I am also someone who is not much of a metaphorical person when it comes to film. But upon closer inspection, I could see some of what people were talking about. There were two big moments that particularly stood out to me. One, was the line that went something along the lines of “We are America” when Lupita Nyong’o’s character asked her doppelganger who they were. This could be interpreted as them representing attacks and oppression on African Americans in the United States, or even more simply, the fight against these attacks and oppression by African Americans. Another aspect that becomes readily apparent is the “Hands Across America” topic which is so prevalent and makes you think even deeper about the beforementioned “We Are America” quote. They took this movement and put such a dark twist on it and used this as a metaphor for what they were doing (the doppelgangers that is). The ending of the film was quite interesting, and I imagine is quite provocative. My question is does that mean she was the doppelganger the whole time? I was quite confused by this especially after the whole dialogue of the other doppelganger just moments before. It was certainly another twist that I did not see coming, but it did raise multiple questions that harken back to multiple parts of the film.

What a bizarre movie. One day I might be able to wrap my head around what I just witnessed in Mulholland Dr., but I am honestly not that confident. I do not know what the goal of the director was, because that would probably require me to understand what actually happened in the film. Maybe the goal was to completely mess with the viewer? Maybe it was to create a movie so bizarre and strange that the viewer walks away so befuddled that nobody can help but talk constantly about it? I do not know, but what a complex movie with a plot that must be somewhere in the script, I just cannot find it. The last forty minutes especially were just a whirlwind. That being said, if one wants to look into meta elements of the film, they can look maybe into the forced casting of a particular actress against the director’s wishes? Whatever reasons there may have been, he was stuck with an actress that he did not want. Maybe the film was just trying to bring notice to Hollywood corruption and how some people are picked for roles that have nothing to do with whatever talent they may or may not possess? It does have some connections to Sunset Boulevard, which we, of course, watched earlier this semester. Most notably, there was the shot of the street sign for Sunset Boulevard at one point. There was also the Stockholm Syndrome-type relationship featured in both films, Sunset Boulevard having Joe grow attached to Norma and Mulholland Dr. having “Betty” and “Rita” have a bizarre relationship after Betty just finds Rita laying in her Aunt’s bed. Betty could have just called the cops but did not and only grew more and more attached to Rita, just as Joe grew more and more attached to Norma, even returning after he left.

As a History Major and lover of history, especially World War II, one of my favorite periods, Inglorious Basterds is an interesting film. It is at once a historical film while also being completely and utterly fictional. It does not attempt to tell history as it happened. In fact, historical correctness seems to be quite far from the mind of director Quentin Tarantino. It may take place in a historical setting, World War II, but to call this movie as part of the historical genre might be a stretch. Now, very few historical movies are particularly accurate and those that do typically stand out for this reason. The other historical movie we watched this semester, Bonnie & Clyde, had a good deal of fictional elements to it. Enough so, in fact, that multiple people depicted in the film either sued, or complained loudly, the filmmakers or their families did (specifically Balance Barrow and the family of the Texas Ranger). But at least a film like that was rooted in history and attempted, somewhat, to tell a historical story. In Inglorious Basterds, we see the Holocaust, German soldiers, and that is about where the history ends. Even the American soldiers in the film are not even remotely based in history. And, of course, Adolf Hitler and his top Lieutenants were not murdered in 1944, ending the war. Now this is not to necessarily criticize Tarantino or the film itself. This is my second time seeing the movie and I knew what to expect. It is not my favorite and I am not a particular Tarantino fan myself, but it is clear to see his style evident throughout the movie. What we see, more than anything, is a unique way of telling a story. Tarantino has no problem reminding the audience that they are watching a film, with methods such as sudden cuts, flashbacks, and the use of letters on the screen to identify characters. What separates this movie from other historical films, more than anything, is that it is not trying to be accurate. It is uniquely aware of what it is, and that is a fictional movie, and combining that with the setting makes it a creation that is only really similar to other Tarantino films.

For this week’s film, we look at the classic historical film Bonnie and Clyde. Famous and innovative for its new style, it helped usher in the next era of filmmaking, especially in the United States. The major thing that was so new about this film was its more graphic violence and much more obvious sexual overtones. This film may not be overly violent by the standards of today, but for 1967, this was a big deal. It certainly is the most graphically violent film that we have watched in class thus far. And when it comes to the sexual overtones, again, by today’s standards it is really not much. But this was groundbreaking for the time. As we discussed in class, censors placed heavy restrictions on what could even be hinted at, let alone explicitly shown. And while nothing is really shown, there is also nothing particularly left to the imagination or really any doubt about what is going on when something is going on. Compare it with, say, Sunset Boulevard, made 17 years before, it can be hard to tell what they are trying to say about Joe and Norma’s relationship, because they could not explicitly say or show anything and could barely even hint at things. This goes in line with what we know about what was going on in culture in 1967, especially compared to previous generations. The new generation was much less inclined to care about this kind of stuff and there was becoming less and less of a desire to police public morals. Obviously, this was not okay with everybody, hence why this film was groundbreaking in this regard and controversial. Between the violence and sensual nature of scenes, it was a new way of telling a story. As with moth historical films, we have to be careful about taking the story told as historical fact. After all, it is a movie meant to entertain, not a history textbook. It can tell us, though, about the time in which it is made and maybe compare it with movies on similar subjects made in another time. The narrative and point of view can also determine much about the movie, as this movie is told from Bonnie and Clyde’s perspective, naturally romanticizing and sympathizing with them. It makes it easy to forget that they were bank robbers who killed people and makes you almost root for them. A movie focusing on the police is not going to give that perception. With historical film, point of view and narrative are very important and part of why they should be taken with a certain grain of salt, accuracy-wise.

As the first film in the next stage of our course, The 400 Blows represents the departure from “Hollywood’s Golden Age,” which we have been studying, and onwards towards the next era in film making. An influential film that was part of the so-called “French New Wave” movement, The 400 Blows follows the trials and tribulations of a troubled young boy on the streets of Paris. This movie is a stark departure in many ways from what we have seen previously this semester. For one, it is our first foreign-language film, done entirely in French except for one quick scene depicting the school’s English lesson. Second, one can tell that it was largely shot on location, or at least not in a traditional studio setting on a sound stage. Third, it was just a different style of filmmaking than the traditional Hollywood, big studio, big budget film. It was made to look more lowkey and there was quite obviously a concerted effort to separate it from the bigger production films of the day. One could say that the film is more “Artsy” than what we have seen previously and more “Artsy” than what was really the norm back then. Today, independent films have their own niche in the film industry. Back then, it was not so much the case. Without the big production company backing, it would have been hard to get enough attention to make any money. Now, I do not know if this was an Independent film, but it certainly came off that way stylistically to me. And regarding it being a foreign language film, this is obviously another sign that it was a departure from Hollywood, as obviously all Hollywood films were American made and done in English. This broadens our perspective of the film industry as not just revolving around one are in southern California, but rather an international business.

Jimmy Stewart was a Hollywood icon. So was Grace Kelly. And so was Alfred Hitchcock. What viewers get in Rear Window was a collision course of their talents. I, like I presume many modern Americans, identify Stewart with his iconic role as George Bailey in the classic film It’s A Wonderful Life. Somehow, I had never seen another of his movies. So, to go from that image of him to peeping-tom and amateur sleuth Jeff was quite interesting. Once you hear his iconic drawl and not have it come out of George’s mouth, it is almost like a shock to the system. Anyway, what we get hear is a movie that overall surprised me throughout. For one, going in with high expectations because of its fame and the names littering its cast and crew, I was shocked by the fact that I was not loving it at first. But then, I realized, almost without noticing, the growing suspense building within me as I watched. I found myself surprised by how caught up I found myself in the final moments as Lisa is caught in the apartment and the neighbor goes after Jeff. As the movie concluded, I found myself thinking about how it was so well done from beginning to end. It might not be my favorite movie in the world, but I overall liked it. Through his editing, directing, and story, Hitchcock slowly builds great suspense. The viewer does not know where to look, whether it is at the murdered dog, the lonely woman we fear will kill herself, or the suspicious actions of the neighbor across the way. The viewer is unsure who to believe, Jeff or his cop friend Doyle. Was there a murder or has Jeff just lost his senses? Not only does the movie grip one with its suspense, it tells us something about voyeurism, both good and bad. It shows the good that can come from watchful neighbors and being aware of one’s surroundings. But it also serves as a warning of the dangers of peeping. Had the man actually been innocent, this movie feels a whole lot different. Overall, a very interesting take.

The film Sunset Boulevard, the work of Billy Wilder, is an interesting take on Hollywood in what we now call its “Golden Age.” Following the relationship between a young writer, struggling to keep his career afloat, and an aging and forgotten star of Hollywood’s silent films, it is both a critique of the cutthroat nature of Hollywood, as well as an insight into a peculiar relationship. A film about film making is refereed to as a “meta” film and always provides unique insights to the inner workings of Hollywood. This film specifically looks into the struggle of aging actors, especially female ones, whose careers have seemingly passed them by, and they must come to grips with their new presents. As Joe, the main character tries to explain, “there’s nothing tragic about being 50, not unless you try to be 25.” The world has cinema no longer cares for Norma Desmond and the movie is a tragic tale of her inability to cope with that, as she obviously succumbs to some sort of mental illness. No longer young, Norma’s career is done, and the film wants the audience to see the tragedy in that. If one wishes, they could look deeper into the gender dynamics of this and contemplate whether she still might have a career if she was an aging man? Or maybe she would still have one if she just would be willing to live in the present and let go of her past. The also shows the struggle of young up-and-comers such as Joe and Betty, contrasting that with the aging stars such as Norma. The audience is supposed to feel for the strugglers in Hollywood, it seems, though the average viewer might not necessarily sympathize with an actor or writer as much as they would someone more like themselves. In terms of the way MES establishes characters and themes, the setting of the movie in Norma’s run-down mansion sets the tone for the entire thing. Like her, it was once the grand star of the show, but the present has not been quite so kind.

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.