Love Letter to Hitchcock

“There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it”

Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980)

Heads Up: I am not a film critic. I just love films. This is by far, the least extensive review of the works of the famous filmmaker in history.

Disclaimer: I am currently editing my works so I apologize for the errors and I love it if you would help me in my proofreading by responding to my facebook account. Thank you!

Dear Sir,

I owe it all to you.

In my dreams, I created a world of my own choice. It was a replica of Salvador Dali’s incredible masterpiece known as The Persistence of Memory. Most of people’s dreams look probably peaceful and remedial. Mine was only a reflection of agony. I devised a plan that every time insomnia attacks, I close my eyes and transport my spirit and mind to the Dali world. It was effective for a couple of weeks and I slept soundly. You Sir, ruined the experience for me.

The Persistence of Memory, Salvador Dali

It started after I watched Spellbound (1945). I acknowledged some of your works that time including Psycho (1960) and Rear Window (1954) and I thought they were good but not too good for me to become a fan of yours. Ingrid Bergman starred as the female protagonist diagnosed of an illness called lovesick for obsessing over a suspected murderer. The dashing Gregory Peck played the character of John Ballantine who was to be the architect for the plot. He has a weird phobia on straight lines as if the pattern recalls a memory from a trauma. The story emphasized the importance of psychoanalysis and how it acted as an aid to a mysterious case of murder. In the events of the story, there was a succession of dream sequence that made me feel uncomfortable because it looked very familiar. Sir, it seemed as if an insane man’s nightmare was my own fantasy world. You hired Salvador Dali to design the phantom scenario from a mind of a person who suffers from guilt complex. I did not sleep normally that night. I kept on imagining Dali’s contribution to your work. The night after that, I dispatched my comfort dream. I lost a good place but you Sir, earned a fan.

Spellbound (1945)

One of your films made a good impression to me because it stood out from the rest of the ones you made. Strangers On A Train (1951) has become the highest quality of Film-noir. I thought about it once when I took a ride on a bus. I could not help it. I was thinking about that scene where two strangers are planning to exchange murders to each other. Even if you did not intentionally hired the actors who were completely opposite, it was still a great decision. Guy Haines was attractive and young while Bruno Anthony was dull and looked as if he never experienced youth. Obviously, the pretty boy was the nice one and the Bruno Anthony was Bruno Anthony. Nobody will ever forget that name. My favorite scene was the final confrontation at the circus. It weighed the right amount of action and terror that I need for the chasing scene but you made it looked small in the action-packed film North by Northwest (1959). There was a perfect shot that could have been made as the background for an alternative poster of your film. It was the picture of anxiety that leads to two probable events: One, when Anthony picks up the match from the drills and proceed to the original ending or two, he lies and the the whole thing explodes into a weaker resolution. I may had initially predicted the ending but I did not imagine how you thoroughly established it.

Strangers on A Train (1951)

That scene I was talking about.

This one too.

If there was something that I least expected from a Hitchcock movie, it was certainly the apocalyptic theme. This was presented in The Birds (1963), the first colored film of yours that I watched and it was also my least favorite. Do not get me wrong, your film Vertigo (1958) was the most influential film made in technicolor. It was the first time that the world viewed you as an artist and not just a filmmaker. The Birds Sir, was somewhat a cliffhanger but it no longer surprised me how you can deliberately arranged to show the story and not tell. I say that it was remarkable and logical. It seems like you sought a different approach in the aspect of conflict and competence. During the year of your filming and editing there was not enough access to modern technology unlike we have today so I could only imagine how the hell you commanded the birds to act and apply the principles of blocking. I find the whole movie an intricate and intelligent approach to cinematography and directing.

The Birds (1963)

Like most cinephiles, I have a strong affection towards Psycho (1960). This film is a reminder for filmmakers to never underestimate the power of cheap budgeting. What I really thought was a reward to this flawless masterpiece is the music score especially in the bathroom scene where the murder took place. It was very different from the usual thriller’s dramatic crescendo. I am not a music fan and I do not have the talent to read music but I know a good one when it is used wisely in pictures. It added the full emotional gritty feels in the overall subject of horror and it almost made the screams irrelevant. No wonder why Psycho is everyone’s favorite film for I cannot find fault in that and whose to say that there is?

Psycho (1960)

I have to thank you for introducing me to a defeatist song called Que Sera Sera. No, you did not made that song I know but you let Doris Day sing it in your movie. I overlooked the film because of her. I heard how much you loved making a remake of your own film, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956). The addition of friendly colors made the film less exciting and more delightful. It was obviously following an unswerving command from you and you were probably prouder of that one than the black and white version. I supposed it contained the same love you had in Shadow of A Doubt (1943). You were very passionate in making yourself satisfied but were you happy on making Rebecca (1940) because the Academy was thrilled about Joan Fontaine’s performance that she did not sustain enough in Suspicion (1941)? Your female characters were all beautiful and intimidating that like Doris Day, they stole the spotlight of the lead actors in To Catch A Theif (1955) and Notorious (1946). One thing that I do not like about you personally Hitch, is how you hired all these great and very pretty actors but ignored Barbara Stanwyk.

Shadow of A Doubt (1943)

The most innovative film you ever made that inveigled your younger fans is Rope (1948). I do not know what is it about one shot that girls loved it so much the same way they adored 1917 and Birdman. You really were a mastermind in adapting a play into a movie. The original script and characters were improved and became augmented on screen. While viewers were tempted to hide a secret murder you simply made cuts. The black transition scared the hell out of me because I imagined something was going to appear from those dark spaces. You did not defy science and technology Hitchcock, you played us a magic trick.

Rope (1948)

There are some films of yours that I have not seen yet because I could not steal your pellicles. I also do not have the projector and the popcorn. It must have been a nerve-racking experience to sell your art for audience to see but if you were only alive today, you would have known that everything was paid off. For others, you are an inspiration, for me you are a brilliant storyteller.

Hitchcock, gay or virgin?

You opened the world of film-noir to me. I may have not seen (or paid for) your films in person but I am sure they are a gift to someone out there who knew how to find you. I am just terribly sorry that you did not made Witness For The Prosecution (1957), Night and The City (1957) and Diabolique (1955). Those films were above-average noirs and highly competitive that I thought you directed them.

This is how I look while watching I Confess and The Trouble With Harry.

All of the other thrilling stories and films may have their own strength and approval but yours are way better than any of them combined. It is true though, what anticipates a viewer are the what ifs not the what did. You are a genius Hitchcock. Thanks for all those Dolly Zooms and the experiments that some filmmakers perfected after you.

We owe it all to you.

Sincerely,

a fan who prefers Billy Wilder than you

Billy looks like a kindergarten.

NFT: Awakening Frankenstein

Over the years, technology advances quickly like a bullet train. We see science fiction becoming a scientific fact in a blink of an eye. This is the era when we witness stories leaving off pages of century-old books to merge in with reality. But how long before we realize that not only did we electrify long-thought ideas, we also awaken a great threat.

Mary Shelley knew why she needed to introduce Frankenstein to the world, so did the first investors of NFTs. Both of them have one thing in common: greed. Mary Shelly understood that to outsmart her peers, she had to be thinking one step ahead. Thus came a new character, barely human. On the other hand, NFT stands for “non-fungible token,” something not really there. To connect the story of Frankenstein and a famous online activity today, let’s take the verity that neither of these two existed outside the vision and the mind. Still a little confused? Let’s first dive deeper into what NFTs are all about.

According to the website, Seeking Alpha, an NFT is a digital asset that is verifiable on blockchain technology. It is a unique interchange from one owner to another through heavy use of data while creating a trail of possession to whoever pays for it. For example, a piece of art is sold online for a million dollars, if someone buys it, they become a part of that digital ownership and that is all. The only difference between meriting an online investment and buying a real piece of stuff in person is that when we shut down our devices only one gets to still own something, and have it on their hands. Just like the story of Frankenstein, there’s no clear value in society to create another massive thing only to find out that it is more of a problem than a solution.

Let’s give NFTs another chance and take a look at its good fruits. First, this advancement is a big high five for artists. People can buy their original stuff and own it but it doesn’t necessarily have to be taken away from the creators. To the buyers, they get to enjoy the sense of the value of a one-of-a-kind piece and declare to the virtual arena that they’re too rich they cannot make another use of their money, well that’s mostly the case. Another great thing about NFT is mentioned by the website, Money Crashers, saying, NFT is just one huge leap to a completely paperless and more secured future of business and transaction. The blockchain allows only one clear ownership of an NFT, therefore it will never be stolen and questioned for authenticity.

Susanne Köhler, a blockchain sustainability researcher at Aalborg University in Denmark told CBS News the warnings brought by purchasing an NFT. Because this action uses blockchain, it also demands a high risk in the environmental causes. According to her, “NFTs are using blockchain platforms, so you could associate their use of the blockchain with the share of the blockchain’s environmental impacts.” A blockchain induces a huge estimated carbon footprint generated by the power plants providing that energy. A single Bitcoin transaction moreover, snatches a total of 2,292.5 kilowatt-hours of electricity, the same amount that could power a household for over three months.

In an article made by PC Mag Asia last January, they further asserted the influence of NFTs on the planet. The most electricity source of a blockchain still came from burning fossil fuels, which we know contribute carbon to our atmosphere. According to Cambridge University, a usual Bitcoin mining process yields 60% of their electricity from fossil fuels. The reason for a lot of computing power to be made is to make sure nobody else has access to breach security.

Since the debate of whether NFTs is a flop or not, there have been echoes of words saying it could survive without hampering the flow of natural resources by simply using renewable energy. In a place called El Salvador, based on an article published by Lexology, El Salvador, the first country to adopt crypto as legal tender, the government is planning on harnessing volcanic energy to power its “Bitcoin City.” More ways are developed for the benefit of renewable energy are announced each year, but due to the anti-authoritarian attributes of a blockchain, the importance of environmental concerns is mostly neglected.

Looking at the current perspective, NFTs are not the ones we need especially when the global situation gets worse every year. Global warming is an undisputed fact and we face its consequences in the hardest way possible. Shelly wrote Frankenstein to remind everyone not to jump into whatever invention comes without thinking a step ahead of its impacts on society. Taking into new technological heights is an applauded action but not every discovery is made perfect.

There will be more hypes like NFTs in the future, some even beyond the way we expect it. But consider that not every science fiction needs to become a reality. Not every invention needs to be a monster. And as for NFTs, we rather leave them to sleep, and idea— for we will never know what they’re capable of, once we tap them into existence.

The Bad and the Genius

            Something about anxiety-inducing films leave us crippling in the few moments of the final scene. Usually, we get to see the main character reaching a redemption arc, or in the case of Bad Genius, a 2017 Thai thriller and drama film, a confession. What separates this film from the others is that we don’t just see one ending of the story. We see the semi-protagonist reaching an arc, a wonderful transition that makes the ending both bad and genius.

            Directed by Nattawut Poonpiriya, Bad Genius received critical acclaim and gained successful box office hit domestically and abroad. Inspired by a true story, the film centers around a high school poor but smart girl, Lynn, who operates an exam-cheating business after learning the truth about her school overcharging student fees. Later we meet another character who will be the core interest of this review. Bank, who ironically is named after a term close to his role, is in a more pity situation than Lynn. He works at a laundry shop owned by his parents who seem to be less helpful in their financial struggle. As the story progressed, we see more of an evolution in him that almost overshadowed the main protagonist. It’s because the real bad genius, is him. And if we look closer to Bank, we see a familiar pattern that lurks similarly in the area of politics.

            We are first introduced to Bank in a wide shot of a large banner congratulating the top students. He falls short after Lynn, who is at top 1. Then we see a short clip of his face mimicking a mug shot followed by him nervously cleaning his face in the bathroom. His entrance is enthralling in a way that we don’t know exactly whether he’s a threat or an ally to Lynn. In the next scene, they are portrayed to be in unity on a national quiz, but suddenly they’re not and there’s a quick change in the relationship. They become rivals of a prestige scholarship (that has to be taken through an exam), straight from the mouth of the school principal. Which means, only one gets to have the opportunity to study abroad. Fast forward to the film, the two existing characters, Grace and Pat, children born with a silver spoon in their mouths, are also granted a scholarship abroad. The obvious difference between two pairs is that, children of poverty get to compete at the very least chances of success to earn a spot while in the opposite spectrum, their future is already realized. This kind of scenario is the norm and no one can change that. But the next part is when everything shifted, and everyone has to play with what they have best.

            Bank could have easily been out of the picture if it wasn’t because of one thing – exploitation. The scene where he learns about Pat’s planned assault to get him to do the crime is the height of the story and the subtle revelation that narrates to the idea of force labor. Holistically, we see nothing wrong with working class serving the rich. But inside the homes of these families is an unspoken truth about getting nothing from doing everything. Getting paid at a bare minimum for years of hard work little to no economic improvement while the boss gets wealthier is the modern-day slavery of our kind. We see this reality on both Bank’s and Lynn’s parents, but most poetically personified in Bank’s character, who should’ve been getting that scholarship but is hindered by a wealthy kid. Similarly, with years of labor our working class never achieves the quality of life because there is someone, more powerful, that wouldn’t let it happen. You say classic hero-villain story, I say capitalism.

            The story even blatantly shows its aftereffects when Bank, after learning the truth, uttered the line: I didn’t get beat up for nothing. Those words flip the table on our protagonist because we know Bank doesn’t want to get even. He wants to turn the story and victimized his abuser. In the same way, exploit them. His bargaining of a million with a few letters is the uprising of his character, a very beautiful arc that not even Lynn’s version can win against. Wealthy kids are depositing money to Bank’s account which I think is very clever. One thing is for sure, there is no moral found in the story. If we really understand the underlying truths about social class and our failed political system, it’s an open book to everyone to see their reflection in the character that fits them the most.

            I started this review describing the plot as anxiety-inducing and I believe that it’s not just because of the well-crafted story but also the technical aspect of it. I admire the scriptwriting whether it’s in English or in Thai, it’s mesmerizing. It gave away nothing as every scene is always followed by an element of surprise. Of course, it wouldn’t be a thriller without the chasing scene. The pacing from wide shot to close up and a switch up to distorted angle makes me feel like I’m running along with the character. You can hear my soul screaming high pitched near the part when Lynn saw the dead-end sign on the subway. What I always look forward in a thriller is the score and the crescendo which Western movies popularized, but in Bad Genius, we hear nothing of a sort. It’s because we are too distracted at the characters’ body language and facial expression that we don’t need sounds to back it up. For me, it’s very effective and not everyone can pull that off. One thing I want to disclose is that I’m a sucker for film graining which I notice quite often in the first few scenes but completely disappeared in the middle. It was clean, the mirror shots are need but I really needed a tracking shot from this film, which they didn’t provide.

            At the end, we see two characters, one eclipsing another. Lynn realizes her mistakes and decides to be a better person, accepting her fate while Bank found a purpose. While Lynn becomes the lesson of the story, Bank becomes the villain that threatens her character development. But if we look it that way, we are looking at the eyes of a corrupt person who don’t see the problem. Where are the rich people who ruined their lives? Gone. The ending narrowing down into two character makes people pick for the antagonist and ends with a “Do not cheat or else you’ll be punished” advice. But, is it really what the movie is all about?

Is cinema dying?

At Cinema’s Deathbed

It has been a momentous life for cinema since its public opening in 1895. It went through phases in history when it was almost close to dying. But movie theaters remain unshaken, making billions of dollars a year and creating stars that we love. Not until it faces a threat that nobody in the popcorn business ever expected.

Photo credits to https://fortune.com/2017/08/11/movies-summer-box-office-revenue/

The pandemic pushes cinema further on thin ice. Lockdowns are imposed across nations causing movie houses to close and settle into the mobile strategy. Enter streaming, the newest form of watching films. Instead of paying for a movie ticket, people can subscribe to applications that allow them to browse libraries of shows and films as many times as they want. With limited mobility and access to theaters, streaming platforms have swiftly taken over the culture of entertainment.

The Queen’s Gambit, Netflix

People look at the streaming trend as the new cinematic freedom which they can purely spectate in the comfort of their own beds. A study in June 2020 reveals adults much rather stream a film at home than visit a cinema. Back then, people have to wait for weeks for a release specific only in their countries, now anyone can watch simultaneously without waiting in line. It is because most streaming devices are more user-friendly and have better viewing options than theaters do. Subtitles are for one. In theaters, English is usually replaced by a foreign language in other countries. But now, this cannot be the default. Viewers can choose both English and other languages versions of the movie’s captions and audio.

Streaming may be a better alternative but on the flipped side, the loss of theaters greatly affects those who have long been in the business. Cinema producers have had to pull out some of their films to switch on streaming services. Although blockbuster films have to stay in theaters for at least 90 days before they turn into DVDs and add to online movie galleries, studios had to conform to the new strategy since the pandemic. But distributers cannot be blamed for a hasty response, shortly after claims of bankruptcy of cinema chains have been reported over the past few years.

Shiva Baby 2020

Today, there are ongoing battles surrounding the movie business. Local movie theaters are facing a hard decision of whether to save the blockbuster or their money particularly because they are not yet allowed to operate in full capacity. Streaming services, however, are roughly becoming more competitive with each other since the quarter of 2020 when Netflix added 15.8 million new subscribers and on-demand videos came to grow.

Filmmakers have varied opinions regarding this convenient way of people consuming their works. Veterans in the field such as David Lynch discouraged watching his movies from a cellular device. He deems the experience as “cheating” and it will never in a “trillion years” amount to anything like being inside a theater. Throughout the pandemic companies like Marvel Cinematic Universe delayed the Black Widow premier dates more than one year after it was originally scheduled. Despite this, the movie ended up being available exclusively first on Disney’s streaming device rather than having a theatrical release. But one’s loss is another’s gain. Newcomers working with a low budget usually get a head start on online streaming. If their films receive rave reviews, they might get into something big, since platforms like Netflix are not limited to a specific audience.

Black Widow, 2021

Recent reports suggest that there are parts of the world that are at low risk of the pandemic that could officially reopen. But it does not guarantee a total recovery to what was lost during the lockdown. What comes next with cinema would be a staggering point for the movie industry to look at especially since everyone is adapting to change and embracing more affordable options. The world is becoming less socially engaging and more isolated long before the pandemic. Consumers are prepared for less interaction and more personalized services so going to movies would take encouragement for them to participate.

Moonlight, 2016

On the bright sight, cinema has never been as free as today. It has become an outlet for positive activism and relatable content people had never experienced before. People of color are more recognized at international film festivals and inclusivity is slowly accepted. In times like this, any form of storytelling needs to be known across different cultures and beliefs.

Millennium Actress, 2001

It is easy to conclude that this might be the new era for films and filmmakers alike. With added restrictions, movie theaters will soon change and maybe, heal. But one thing needs to be done – they need to step up their game. Even after the pandemic when they decide to reopen, something has to be improved. From better ventilations to more comfortable seats, they have to rise above modernity. It is a challenge for theaters to pursue moviegoers to come back and celebrate cinema to keep it alive. After all, moving pictures is the human art of making stories immortal.

An Afternoon of Suspicion

a movie review analysis of Meshes of the Afternoon (1943)

It was a long, fuming afternoon to end her life. Must it always be when no one is watching?

Like a dwindling highway, there was nothing in her but narrow directions all pointing towards the dead end. Her shadow, fighting an urge to hold on to hope, found no redemption in the course.

Meshes of the Afternoon is a 1943 short experimental film directed by and starring wife-and-husband Maya Deren and Alexandr Hackenschmied. It was considered as the pioneering psychedelic film that rooted from the success of the Noir genre in American theaters.

Although the film shared several phantasmagorical imageries of what it was like to suffer in melancholia, some reviews talked about how suicidal thoughts obscured the suspicious mind.

Her first attempt was to dream, make up a version that contains logic, with no absurdity. Her house, pertaining to pandora’s box, was dull and spacious, occupied by the most certain things; a telephone left on a dial, knife in a loaf of bread, and, a vinyl repeating the same music to an avid listener.

She woke up in her room, watching herself failing the trial. Then she resorted to face her fears. From one angle, she was observing the man, clothed under a dark mysterious robe. At a glance, he looked lost and haunted. She followed him in a wild chase. But, for twice in the afternoon, she could not reach him, or his shadows. It was another mishap.

In the succeeding events, she persisted. But this time she was crippled, unaccomplished. Her head imitated the camera movements, inviting the perspective of the pity world she was stuck with. Or much likely since it was a dream sequence, where she could navigate the turning of the screw, she aimed for better results. Unfortunately, she was not really there.

She was on the streets, on the lazy couch, in the kitchen, on the stairs, and in the habit of meeting herself in every corner of the place.

In 1943, every American neighborhood was empty, fractured with adultery between the men of the family and Germany. She was alone, reeling through the afternoon streets. If he came back, she would not return pure to him or to the house that they built. She would be free.

But definite things were happening over again, like a Mobius strip, on a loop. No matter how she spent that afternoon, it would always end up in jeopardy. What made a short film less than 15 minutes seem longer was the obvious trail of her mistakes, and the shots that perfectly narrated them.

Frames were supposed to just tell who was significant in that period of a story. Instead of showing like that of the European surrealists, the avant-garde controlled its aspect ratio through a third eye. The intention was not to fill in illusion or to allude to a mystery. It was not about her, or the loneliness that engulfed her head. It was about you, the observer, looking at another observer.

Time was the missing element in the story. But it made sense not to emphasize it because it would be powerless, given the subplot all happening in the afternoon, with no development. As her thoughts expanded into the mirrored reality, the objects around her became ambiguous, experiencing a mental feud of whether they had appeared before or not.

Her unsteady feet weighed heavy as if something was pulling her away from reaching the stairs. But she was eager to find out what was troubling her from the beginning. With what had already been occurred, she was even more passionate to succeed. Only, she forgot that she already did it before, and she kept hitting rock-bottom.

Her dreams were dreary but not distant. She resumed with virtue only to find herself falling under a deep sleep, repeating the same action. It was cathartic because no one really remembers their dreams in the afternoon. But she was not dreaming, she was contemplating her death.

It was a long-fought resistance before the mysterious man appeared again. This time she was not chasing her, it was going after her. His purpose in the story was not entirely revealed but it served a point in slicing the plot into different interpretations.

Coming towards the bend was her husband, who provided the marital touch she needed. Her mouth moved with gratification but her eyes told nothing but fear. The frame panned to her delicate body, hinting that she had been subject to agony. The slow monochromatic theme captured the astounding chance that she might have long been buried in his memory.

Upon the last few scenes, the story got more confusing, leaning towards the discovery of a morbid betrayal. Trying to find relevant allusions that justified her actions, the man seemed to experience the dream as well. His arrival meant only one thing – the end was near.

She pulled herself up for the final stir and it led her to make a hasty decision, which completely broke the expectations of the viewer. She was found slaughtered in between the spaces of her home. It was predicted from the start, and eventually, in the end, she got what she deserved. Yet, the story remained vague.

——————

Movie can be accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSY0TA-ttMA

THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT – A Game Between Two Obsessions – a review

It’s not about sex. It’s not about sports either.

Netflix’s original limited series this year is an ode to overcoming addiction. A timeless testament of an enigmatic life spiraling out of control, The Queen’s Gambit divinely presents the battle between two obsessions; the challenging call of chess and the inevitable insistence of inebriation.

Anya Taylor-Joy plays the relentless Elizabeth Harmon orphaned by circumstance, abandoned by home. Her name made a remarkable feat to a male-dominated world of chess, but it is not the essential element that holds the story together. It is the movement of every piece on the board, and the swollen inability of getting stuck with nowhere else to go.

Harmon is no genius. She is persistent, but most of the time, she is plainly cheating. She cheated using the green pills and the grand wine to master her skill and interpret the mood of the play. After all, it’s her game, and it’s her brain that plants resilience to reap the winning bounty. It does not matter how old or how experienced her opponent is– Harmon can outsmart twice as twelve of the world’s known grandmasters of chess. For her, there is no faster guarantee to victory than complete intoxication.

Not every fight is in favor of Harmon. No books, no magazines, and no drugs can ensure her of not losing. When she lost her parents at a young age and was transferred to the orphanage, memories of tragedy still followed her through the struggle. Until she caught sight of a board game played by the janitor in the basement, Harmon found a way out of her affliction. But before that, the tranquilizers were the only getaway. Since then, it was a long, hard-fought battle inside her head. None of them made her sober.

The fair delivery of seven episodes and the succession of the scenes made it easier for anybody to understand Harmon deeper, not just a woman and a victim of reality but as a person who, like any human being, wanting to be home or at least feel at home. The Queen’s Gambit has something that most sports movies or series lack: making the sport as the background of the protagonist, not as a theme. It is common for a character with a genuine natural talent to wrestle with personal difficulties while getting that grand title. But what makes this 393 minutes of watching a unique experience to the viewers are the expectations that are granted because of the familiarity with Harmon.

The pictures are also showing the same style as the mood, giving a sense of lamentation to Harmon’s loses and guilt from her trauma and fixation with drugs and alcohol. The beigey colors naturally add up to her feelings of frustrations and openness. They also empower her red hair, which is iconic for a young American during the 60s, not to mention the soundtrack, which tops them all.

Crafted perfectly with a good performance and an exemplary script, it’s no doubt that The Queen’s Gambit deserves recognition and is one of the great series from Netflix. It’s not about a woman, and it’s not about sports, but it’s everything a person needs to understand the brilliance of Elizabeth Harmon and her passion for two opposite things that gave her the same value, and her choosing the right choice to consider her victory, something worthwhile.

Confessions of a cinephile, who has not yet been to cinema

https://youtu.be/wKiIroiCvZ0

I have a confession to make. David Lynch, forgive me for I have sinned. I call myself a lover of films but honestly, I have not yet step foot in the graceless turf of cinema.

One of my depravities is watching movies through my phone. Lynch said that I would never experience the film in a trillion years if I only gaze at it over my 5-inch long, 3-inch wide android 10 smartphone.

I regret to say that this cheap device is my only companion in my journey to the brilliant world of Andrei Tarkovsky, Jim Jarmusch, Elia Kazan, and Bily Wilder.

For months now, I thought my experience is made complete with the full volume earphones and full battery capacity in over a hundred minutes of radiation exposure.

There is something that my eyes still long for— the big screen. I admit that there are disruptions while watching movies on my phone. The messenger pop-ups, the notification bar, the sudden calls, the emails that I need to respond immediately, and of course, the annoying ads!

I am also guilty of tapping the fast forward button. Skipping a scene because it is either boring or predictable, I do that most of the time. I know that every frame is crafted and went on several takes and modifications to achieve that perfect shot, yet, I disregard the truth. I am not deserving of their passion for filmmaking.

It is also my habit to add subtitles. Some movies that are shown in theaters do not have captions with it. The sole purpose of the place is to provide a comprehensive audio-visual presentation to the audience. Because I only use an ordinary earphone, I cannot hear the characters’ whispers and mumbles.

I am also a proud fan of Hans Zimmer and Antonio Sanchez but listening to a film score through a phone is jarring and incomplete. Imagine hearing it inside the theater. The sounds of the heavy drums, intensified and soaring jazz, and pulsating synth pad vibrating from the speaker down to the bones. I realize that my ears are not yet laid.

Phones can also lie about the screen proportion of a film. Watching The Grand Budapest Hotel and watching random vines on YouTube do not make any difference to me. It is because phones are mostly 16:9 and some great movies use anamorphic widescreen as the ratio. My eyes often trick me that full screen is always the best outline in a movie. But watching movies in theatres makes one understand the significance of the aspect ratio.

There is a reason why filmmakers delayed the release of their films this year— money. Film budgeting follows a strict timeframe. I admire those who settle for streaming services regardless of financial cut-off and risks. People pay for as low as 149 pesos to watch unlimited films on Netflix, including the new releases. It is more reasonable than buying a ticket that costs four times than a month-long viewing.

But then again, all the cheap expenses will not amount to the genuine experience that only theaters can offer. I try to visualize myself sitting on a red chair with hands snatching my neighbor’s popcorns and silently gawking
as the opening credits begin.

One day, I will buy an expensive tab to a critically acclaimed film and when I enter the freezing room packed with lovers and loners, I will hug myself. That will be the moment when my sins are sanctified and my credibility as a cinephile is finally certified.

Jim Jarmusch Analogy to Sonnet 29

• 

  Jim Jarmush

(Dear loyal readers, notice that I am quite improving. That’s all because of your kind remarks. Thank you! I’m still trying to write as fair as possible. Please continue to share your thoughts about my writing to me. Hehe.)

Sonnet 29 is perhaps the most intriguing poetry that Shakespeare had ever written. It is an elaborate reflection of realism and human nature. It is where you find the Bard of Avon yearning for a more virtuous life. Likewise, there is a less known director whose works are just as important as the 29th Sonnet. In pursuit of social approval and self-satisfaction, Jim Jarmush’s remarkable filmography comes in.

Jim Jarmusch is an American filmmaker, writer, and composer known for his minimalist approach to cinema. His films are hardly emphasizing the plot or the story structure. They are always lost in progression, shifting the viewer’s attention to the characters’ growth instead of the relative scenes. There is no dimension at all. The height of the story is the arc of the protagonists and how they connect to the theme. Perhaps, Jarmusch differs from the other directors in the manner of keeping the mode of the film similar to writing poetry.

If Shakespeare was alive today, he would probably watch a Jarmusch film and would find it stodgy. He would rather see David Lynch and would conclude that Jarmusch is just another one of those flawed wannabes. Both the poet and the filmmaker would have a lot of disapproval and exceptions on one another. Yet they would be surprised to know how well an impeccable sonnet and a film with barely any story meld together.

1. Mystery Train (1989)

When, in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes,
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself and curse my fate,

• 

The main characters represent any person struggling to fit into society. Either they run away from home in search of identity or settle in town in fear of growing up. The film tries to show how one wants to portray himself in the eyes of men. The first scene is a tale of a young Japanese couple fleeing by a train to a place that accepts their western affiliation to fashion and music. The second pair of characters are both women trying to relinquish their past affairs. The last part focuses on a squad of men indiscreet of their actions. The three stories are interwoven by the gunshot, exploring different narratives and interpretations of the incident.

The first few lines of the sonnet deeply connect to the characters’ feeling of longingness. It seems like there is no tomorrow and today has been the worst experience of fate. There is nothing left to do but cry in the situation of hopelessness. Most nights call for a desperate action. Some nights are just a preparation to death. When it comes, nobody will mourn for the loss of mankind, the same way nobody cares for those who are weeping alive.

2. Stranger Than Paradise (1984)

Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featured like him, like him with friends possessed

In this phenomenal black and white film of Jarmusch, the society is just a blob. The characters are exposed to isolation, setting apart their differences and driving away past the borders of their hometown. Anticipation is observed in the slowest shifts of time and frame.

These three teenagers are allowing random circumstances to happen, compromising the idea of all coming of age stories. Neither of the them are looking forward to the future. To them it is only a make believe. The lack of enthusiasm for their dreams is seen as rather trivial because of their age and dependence on each other. That is why this movie depicts the next lines of the sonnet: to have company who can sort out plans on what lies ahead.

3. Paterson (2016)

Desiring this man’s art and that man’s scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;

Paterson is deemed to be the most poetic movie of Jarmusch. Compared to his previous films, this story is having the most substance with the least conflicted plot. It is about the unending question of one’s existence and the travesty that sits upon his shoulders. Reaching for more, the main character is trapped in a world that is constructed for him. He is a poet of neglected cheers. He is absent but he is also everywhere. On the bus, down the streets, in bed beside her wife, and in every conversation of the passers by, he is transcendent.

He is also indecisive. He was waiting for a complete consent to continue living. It was simple yet absurd. Like every human being, always behind time, always doubtful, always insecure.

4. Dead Man (1995)

Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
Haply I think on thee, and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth sings hymns at heaven’s gate;

Dead Man was an attempt to synthesize a moral objection of purgatory experience. It is a delicate puzzle that flows heavily from streams of survival. Observing the cost of human suffering, the film is almost an ode to Dante’s The Divine Comedy. Shakespeare was clear in the notion of time that it is not eternal. Morning comes and dissolves the midnight fog along with the ghouls that lurk in the dark. In spite of these sufferings, there is time. There is an untouched season to regain what is lost. There is a place to recite a melodic piece.

5. Only Lovers Left Alive (2013)

  For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings
       That then I scorn to change my state with kings.

Nothing ever defines a Jarmusch film than supernatural ideals. This film catches the extending comfort of having someone to lean on. For it is only in loving that a man surely fulfills his meaning. Whatever is free, whatever is clear, whatever is willing, let it embrace all living.

Jim Jarmush is ferocious and his works remain worthy of recognition. Shakespeare would have thought the same. The poet wrote only a verse while the filmmaker conversed it into sensational moving pictures. Mirrored by tragedy and genuine light, cinema is ascending and becoming more aesthetically significant.

His films may be singularly infelicitous or not often viewed with relevance because of the lacking of enthusiasm and whit, they are still irrefutably important. For like Shakespeare said, “Have more than you show, speak less than you know.”

I’m Thinking of Ending Things : My Thoughts

I LITERALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS FILM IS ALL ABOUT SO THIS REVIEW IS ALSO THAT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND

What does everybody think most of the time? Have you looked at an empty bowl of soup and thought of the vast galaxy rotating in slow motion? Have you ever counted the seconds it took for us to end the spinning group of stars? Or the colossal space between every planet set apart to complete a perfect circular revolution around the sun? I hardly think people associate meals with something heavenly. That is what I do in the table when I am alone, but now I’m thinking of ending things.

Pressing my back on my bed, I was preparing to set the alarm for tomorrow when my phone buzzed, notifying that Netflix dropped Charlie Kaufman’s latest film after five years since his last work. Five years ago, I did not even like watching movies. Then there I was, in the future, staying up late to witness a complex and creative piece of something.

I felt a morbid familiarity with the female character and her intrusive thoughts conversing into the vacuum. She was a physicist who tried to use objectivity as a resolution to an argument. Her reliance on science was often conflicted with her hobby as a landscape artist, resisting the misinterpretations to the subject of her canvasses. The mediator between the two was the poetic resonance coming from her mournful soul. In other words, her troubled thoughts dissolved into a verse.

The protagonist wired perplexed perception on things from coveted assumptions. Her mind was like a bowl of soup, smoking with ideals at a distance but empty up close. Her laugh, distinguished by her voice, sounded clever. It was the only response to the aching nature of being human and the cursed ability to think.

When should things end? Death? Who are responsible for the killing? The movie did not end in the last part. It ended right when it started. The blizzard signalled the death of everything she believed in: time, hope, and courage. Her intention to leave was the initial part of ending things. Death was the ghost of the past and the smoking vapor of the future. The present was non existent. Where she lived at time was not relevant.

That was my third experience of witnessing a traumatizing story that confused me from start to finish. It was horrid and uniquely wonderful because it showed how films should interpret a book, claiming a version separate from the novel. That was when I forced myself to admit that I understand a treacherous and deceitful adaptation. Maybe because of the bowl of soup staring at my dissapointed face. Maybe it was the spirit that went into my body when I enhaled the smell of fish and tomatoes.

I finished the movie. I gave it five stars. I loved it. I wished I have not seen it. The first experience with a Kaufman film was the best. The second was a discovery and the third, a testimony.

Just like the disturbing idea of space and soup, reality is also obscure. This review did not make sense to me, so are Kaufman’s films. If I can shoot myself straight into the universe and not return, I will. I am going to leave the planet just like the protagonist searching for her true home. But all these plans are worthless. I cannot escape my place. I cannot look at the soup without thinking of the unknown stars waiting for me.

I am never getting a chance to end things. I just think. That is how I suffer. That is how I survive.

Introducing Barbara Stanwyck : Film Injustices Series

My only problem is finding a way to play my fortieth fallen female in a different way from my thirty-ninth. – Barbara Stanwyck

https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1008728

I am a firm believer that once an actor won an Academy Award, he does not have to prove anything. On the contrary, there are great actors who never won the golden trophy regardless of how perfect their performances are. One of them is Barbara Stanwyck, the lady that brought fire and invented range to the history of film.

Born as Ruby Stevens, the young artist risked her youth to pursue a career in Hollywood. At the age of 15, she started working as a chorus girl and danced her way through the blinding lights of entertainment. Her ealiest notable performance was in the Broadway play The Noose in 1926 where she gained the screen name for herself. That part was only the beginning of what was yet to become a portal for her to work with famous filmmakers including Frank Capra, Cecil DeMille and Billy Wilder.

I had the pleasure to watch a third of her filmography for about three months and though some of her movies are weak regarding on the production and blockbuster, her charisma and endearing personality are worthy of applause. It surprised me to know why an actor so versatile and so pure to her characters never won an Academy Award. Let us take a good look on Barbara Stanwyck’s amazing revelations on her movies and how she escalated from one genre to another with the same passion and influence.

1. Double Indemnity (1944) (Noir) directed by Billy Wilder

Barbara Stanwyck (left) with Fred McMurray (right)

This cult classic that strictly defined Noir was of great significance to Stanwyk’s career. Doubted to play the lead character, she was convinced by Wilder to take a chance on Phyllis Dietrichson, the leading edge for every female fatale in movies. She earned an Academy Award Nomination for her outstanding performance but was defeated by Ingrid Bergman in Gaslight (Bummer).

2. The Furies (1950) (Western) directed by Anthony Mann

Barbara Stanwyck as Vance Jeffords

If there was a western film that strongly focuses on the female character and less cursing, more horses then this would be it. Stanwyk played the unrelenting daughter of a rich tyrannical rancher played by Walter Huston. She was in her early forties when she made this film but anyone would not think that she was older than that. She could trick an audience into believing that she was twice as young as she really was with bangs, curls and riffles that clung to her arms.

3. The Lady Eve (1941) (Comedy) Directed by Prestun Surges

Henry Fonda (left) with Barbara Stanwyck (right)

This film was one of Stanwyk’s successful marketing pursuit and was regarded as culturally important by the Library of Congress in preservation. Not only that she played the marvelous and likable character named Jean Harrington, who lured men to her satisfaction but she also radiated a feminist cost to the appeal of the movie.

4. Stella Dallas (1937) (Drama) Directed by King Vidor

People may think that Stanwyck triumphed in comedy but she was even astounding in drama. In this movie, she received her first Academy Award Nomination for the titular role of a mother who sacrificed her happiness for her ungrateful daughter. Truly that last scene was the gem of the movie! She definitely proved that she could do anything.

5. The Miracle Woman (1931) (Pre Code) Directed by Frank Capra

Stanwyck made a good impression during pre code cinema on playing the lead role in Baby Face, the most famous film when one wants to talk about pre code movies. Aside from that, she also made her second collaboration with Frank Capra in The Miracle Woman. She portrayed the role of a preacher’s daughter who took his father’s legacy to burn down hypocrisy in religious upheaval. The young actor thrilled the audience during the first scenes of the movie. She was one of the prime members who diversified women shown in films before the Hays Code was enacted.

Although Barbara Stanwyck never won an Academy Award despite four nominations, she still proved that she was timeless and no award could define what she was capable to do. She conquered television shows and won three Emmy awards showing that she was not only made for theater but she was also built for home entertainment.

In 1982, she recieved an honorary award from the Academy to which she blatantly implied how it took decades for her talent to be recognized by the members of the film institute. It does not really matter how she was ignored for so long, what remains is her lagacy. She was attributed as one of the kindest and earnest actors off screen, known for treating her crew as members of her family.

If it was not for Stanwyk, we would not see William Holden’s progression as an actor and Marilyn Monroe’s induced skill in acting. She was the perfect image of classic Hollywood female sensation. Her bright and cheering words never made her wrong. She was the greatest force in the history of cinema.

Some classic films are legitimately cold and confusing but with Barbara Stanwyck in them, there is ignition. As told by her in Baby Face, she is the ball of fire.