Movies in the Theater vs. at Home: A Comparison

 This week's blog post will cover the topic of watching movies in the theatre vs watching movies at home.  There are both ups and downs with both of these, no matter which one you choose.  The comparison is similar to watching a sports event live at the stadium or watching it at home from an experience standpoint.  When watching a movie in the theatre, you'll get a much more exciting experience than watching a movie at home, mainly because there are many other people watching the movie at the same place, at the same time as you are, unlike at home where you would be watching it with at most a few others.  Furthermore, most of the time when you go to watch a movie at the theatre, its when a new movie has come out recently in theaters or is being premiered.  That means you most likely won't be spoiled on what happens in the film, and that you'll be experiencing it for the first time with many other moviegoers.  

However, there are a couple upsides for watching movies at home that would make it more convenient than going to the theatre.  For one, you wouldn't have to leave the comfort of your own home, you can just turn on the streaming service you want to watch the movie on (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) and watch it from your chair or couch.  You would have to pay for the streaming service, yes, but its still more convenient than having to drive to the nearest movie theater to go watch something.  Moreover, it would be less expensive to watch a movie from home as well.  You would have to pay for tickets, then on top of that if you wanted theatre food you would have to pay for that as well.  You would already have snacks at home to eat while watching the movie, and you wouldn't have to pay for them.  While there are both positives and negatives to both watching experiences, what way someone chooses to watch a movie is up to their own personal preference.

Rear Window Summary and Review

 

The film Rear Window starts out by overviewing a neighborhood and seeing what people living in the neighborhood are doing.  The camera eventually gets to LB Jefferies, the main character of the film, sitting in a wheelchair with a cast around his left leg.  He later explains while talking to a friend on the phone that he broke his leg taking pictures of a race car, when he himself was struck by a car, which caused him to break his leg.  Since Jefferies has been confined to his room since he broke his leg, he has spent most of his time watching what his neighbors have been doing, and that’s most of the scenes in this movie.  The movie is also shown from Jefferies’ perspective, either in scenes where he is shown talking to Lisa, his girlfriend, or Stella, his other friend, in his room, or from his own viewpoint when he is watching the neighbors from his window. 

Around the middle of the film, he starts observing Lars Thorwald more closely, as he becomes suspicious of him because of the most recent activities that Jefferies has seen him doing.  He was told that Lars’ wife had been put on a train to a different town by Lars himself from his friend Thomas Doyle, a lieutenant, but Jefferies thinks otherwise.  He later is convinced that Lars murdered his wife because she was no longer in her bed, and Lars had taken off the sheets and had begun going through her personal belongings.  He also convinces Lisa of this after she sees Lars with his wife’s purse and jewelry, and from her viewpoint, she doesn’t think that a woman would leave her purse and jewelry behind if she had moved away.  Jefferies ask Doyle to investigate the situation, but he doesn’t find anything that would point to a murder, and he concludes that Lars is clean.  This makes Jefferies question if watching the neighbors from the window is ethical, and Lisa convinces him that he should be glad that Lars’ wife wasn’t murdered. 

However, Lisa and Jefferies see that one of the neighbors’ dogs had been killed, and they believe it was because the dog dug into Lars’ garden because there was something there, which could be evidence of a murder.  Lisa and Stella go into Lars’ garden when Lars isn’t there while Jefferies observes the situation.  They find nothing in the garden, so Lisa breaks into Lars’ apartment to get some evidence of the murder but is caught by Lars when he gets back into the apartment.  Jefferies calls the police to bail her out, but she gets arrested for breaking into the apartment, but she does retrieve the wife’s wedding ring.  Jefferies calls Doyle about the situation and Doyle bails Lisa out, but then Lars then sees Jefferies watching him from the window, and he eventually gets into Jefferies apartment.  Lars attempts to kill Jefferies, but the police get there, and Jefferies survives.  The movie ends with Jefferies still in the wheelchair but with two broken legs, and everyone in the neighborhood having a good time.

There are a lot of things that this movie does well.  For one, the decision to tell the story from Jefferies’ perspective was a very good move, as it makes sure the audience doesn’t know too much about the plot, only was Jefferies knows.  This also allows the plot to develop more slowly, which works for the type of film that this is.  The film also portrays social norms of the 50s well.  Lisa is a great example of this, as they portray women of the 50s as very good looking, and attention needing, through Lisa’s character and scenes that she is in.  There were also some flaws in the film.  I felt that the first half of the film dragged on for a while because there wasn’t much happening up until Jefferies starts investigating the murder.  There was also a scene at the end of the film where it sped up and the scene looked a little goofy.  Otherwise, I did enjoy the film, and that it was a very good film for its time, though I don’t believe it would hold up well in modern filmmaking.

Famous Shots: Elevating a Film

 

This weeks blog post will talk about famous shots in movies that make the film better or stick out in a film.  One example I can think of is from a movie I recently rewatched.  This shot is from Star Wars: Rogue One, which premiered in 2016 and was directed by Gareth Edwards.  The shot is at the end of the film, when Darth Vader is in a dark hallway of a Rebel ship, and his lightsaber is ignited.  This shot is very well executed and choreographed, as the lighting of Vader's lightsaber with the darkness of the hallway is used perfectly.  The shot also evokes a feeling of fear and terror because of what actions Vader will take shortly after this shot, giving off a "moments before disaster" feel.  I wouldn't really change the rendering of the shot, but I would make Vader a little less visible to further elevate what the shot is trying to do.

Another iconic shot that sticks with me is the team-up shot in The Avengers.  This 2012 film directed by Joss Whedon, I believe, was the first film to get a superhero team-up movie right.  This shot further elevates that, as it has all our heroes in one circle together, looking like a great team.  The shot resonates a sense of might, and increases the audience's confidence that the heroes are going to win the battle.  However, if I were to shoot it, I would make all the heroes as equally visible as possible, even if there are size differences.  Hawkeye in the shot is not as visible as all the other heroes, which could make the audience feel he is not as important as all the other Avengers, even though he plays a key role in the film. 

Dr. Caligari Film Summary/Questions

 

1. The story is about a man named Dr. Caligari and his assistant Cesare coming into town and having a presentation of sorts at the local fair.  Soon after, murders begin to occur in the town.  The story is told by a man named Francis, who tries to figure out the reason behind all the murders.

2. The story is told through Francis' perspective as he narrates the entire thing, as the camera focuses on him whenever he's on screen.  The story is told mostly in the past, with it going back to the present occasionally.

3. The film uses a lot of darker lighting, as well as keeping the information the audience gets about the plot to a minimum, in order to give the film a more scary tone, and to build suspense as the film progresses.  This gives the film a more horror film vibe.

4. The final plot twist is that Francis ends up being a patient at an insane asylum.  From how I interpret it, it seems that he was the insane one the whole time, and the film made it sound like the story he told was some type of insanity condition of some sort.

5. The twist shows how films can skew an audience's perspective of a film based on one character's point of view of the story, and then be told at the end that that character's perspective was skewed.  The twist leaves the audience's interpretation of the film up to them, as it seems like they were told the same story from two different views.

6. The sets used in this film looked like the sets of a play.  It showed that filmmakers didn't have much to work with when it came to set design or set spacing, as a lot of the shots in the film looked pretty narrow, and the special effects were nothing to write home about either.

7. The set designs imply that this film was meant to be a little more scary, a little more eerie, and that the film was to have a darker tone.  The sets also look pretty good for their time.

8. For it's time, the film itself is pretty solid, and it was interesting to see the set design of a 1920 film and how much different set designs are in movies over 100 years later.  It also paved the way for other, more modern horror films to be made.

9. Caligari gives me a similar vibe to the movie American Psycho (2000), not necessarily from a plot perspective, but from a more psychological perspective, dealing with the idea of insanity, and how much it can change the perspective of certain events based on if the audience believed if it happened or not.

10. It makes you question if these events happened or not, or if certain events happened in the story and others didn't.  By leaving the film up to the audience's interpretation, it can really change the viewpoints on the story of the film, and/or the film itself.